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- 13]

ubZ fnYyh, ekpZ 24—ekpZ 30] 2013] 'kfuokj@pS=k 3—pS=k 9] 1935

No. 13]

NEW DELHI, MARCH 24—MARCH 30, 2013, SATURDAY/CHAITRA 3—CHAITRA 9, 1935

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

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

Hkkx II—[k.M 3—mi&[k.M (ii)

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

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

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

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

x`g ea=kky;

(bZ- ih- foHkkx)

ubZ fnYyh] 21 ekpZ] 2013

dk-vk- 717-— 'k=kq laifÙk vf/fu;e] 1968 dh /kjk 3

}kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, dsUæh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk

Jhefr ds- ds- lsB] v/h{kd] Hkkjrh; 'k=kq laifÙk vfHkj{kd dk;kZy;]

eqEcbZ }kjk fu;qDr djrh gS A Hkkjr ds fy, 'k=kq laifÙk lHkhj{kd

lgk;d ds :i esa eqEcbZ 'k=kq laifÙk vfHkj{kd dk;kZy; esa eqEcbZ]

01&10&2012 ls izHkko ds lkFk eqEcbZ ;k tc rd og 'kqYd gSa] tks

Hkh igys gks tkrh gS

¹la- 37@51@2009&bZ-ih-º

,l- ds- vgwtk] voj lfpo

1134 GI/2013

(2193)

MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS

(ENEMY PROPERTY SECTION)

New Delhi, the 21st March, 2013

S.O. 717.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

Section 3 of the Enemy Property Act, 1968 the Central

Government hereby appoints Smt. K. K. Seth,

Superintendent in office of Custodian of Enemy Property,

Mumbai as Assistant Custodian of Enemy Property for

India, Mumbai in office of Custodian of Enemy Property,

Mumbai, with effect from 1-10-2012 or until she assumes

duty, whichever is earlier.

[ No. 37/51/2009-EP]

S. K. AHUJA, Under Secy.

2194

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2013/CHAITRA 9, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 26 ekpZ] 2013

dk-vk- 718-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk (la?k ds 'kkldh;

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

(4) ds vuqlj.k esa] x`g ea=kky; ds fuEufy[kr dk;kZy; esa fgUnh

dk dk;Zlk/d Kku j[kus okys deZpkfj;ksa dh la[;k 80% ls

vf/d gks tkus ds iQyLo:i ,rn~}kjk vf/lwfpr djrh gS %

dk;kZy;] egkfujh{kd]

jktLFkku lsDVj]

dsUnzh; fjtoZ iqfyl cy]

t;iqj (jktLFkku) & 302023

¹la- 12017@1@2012&fgUnhº

vo/s'k dqekj feJ] funs'kd (jktHkk"kk)

New Delhi, the 26th March, 2013

S.O. 718 .—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10

of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purpose of the

Union) Rules, 1976 the Central Government hereby notifies

the following office of the Ministry of Home Affairs

wherein the percentage of staff having working knowledge

of Hindi has gone above 80% :

Office of the Inspector General,

Rajasthan Sector,

CRPF Jaipur (Rajasthan)- 302023

[No. 12017/1/2012-Hindi]

AVADHESH KUMAR MISHRA, Director (OL)

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

(dk£ed vkSj izf'k{k.k foHkkx)

ubZ fnYyh] 18 ekpZ] 2013

dk- vk- 719-—dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk n.M izfØ;k lafgrk]

1973 (1974 dk vf/fu;e la- 2) dh /kjk 24 dh mi&/kjk (8)

}kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk

(lhchvkbZ) }kjk fnYyh mPp U;k;ky;] fnYyh esa vkjlh- ,lh2

2005 ,0002] ,lh&1 (Msfuy ekeyk) esa 2011 dh fjV isfVlu

(vijk/)] 1351 esa rFkk blls lac} rFkk bl ?kVuk ls mRiUu vU;

ekeyksa esa mifLFkr gksus ds fy, Jh fl¼kFkZ ywFkjk] ,fM'kuy

lkWfyflVj tujy vkWiQ bafM;k dks dsUnzh; vUos"k.k C;wjks ds fo'ks"k

yksd vfHk;kstd ds :i esa fu;qDr djrh gS A

¹iQk- la- 225@62@2012&,ohMh&II º

jktho tSu] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC

GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training)

New Delhi, the 18th March, 2013

S. O. 719.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (8) of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal

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

Government hereby appoints Shri Sidharth Luthra,

Additional Solicitor General of India as Special Public

Prosecutor for appearing in Writ Petition (Crl.) 1351 of

2011 in RC AC2 2005 A0002, AC-1 (Denel Case) instituted

by the Delhi Special Police Establishment (C.B.I.) in the

Delhi High Court at Delhi and other matters connected

therewith and incidental thereto.

[F. No. 225/62/2012-AVD-II]

RAJIV JAIN, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 20 ekpZ] 2013

dk- vk- 720-—dsanzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl

LFkkiuk vf/fu;e] 1946 (1946 dk vf/fu;e la- 25) dh /kjk

6 ds lkFk ifBr /kjk 5 dh mi&/kjk (1) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk

iz;ksx djrs gq, mÙkjk[kaM jkT; ljdkj] x`g vuqHkkx&1] nsgjknwu ds

fnukad 25 iQjojh] 2013] ds vf/lwpuk la[;k

587@XX(1)&2013&9(14)2012] ds }kjk izkIr lgefr ls iqfyl

Fkkuk du[ky gfj}kj] mÙkjk[kaM esa Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk] 1860

(1860 dk vf/fu;e la[;k 45) ds v/hu /kjk 365 ds rgr

iathÑr ekeyk vijk/ la[;k 234@2012 esa rFkk mi;qZDr mfYyf[kr

vijk/ ds laca/ esa ;k mlls lac¼ iz;klksa] nq"izsj.kkvksa rFkk "kM~;a=kksa

rFkk mlh laO;ogkj esa fd, x, ;k mUgha rF;ksa ls mRiUu dksbZ vU;

vijk/@vijk/ksa dk vUos"k.k djus ds fy, fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl

LFkkiuk ds lnL;ksa dh 'kfDr;ksa vkSj {ks=kkf/dkj dk foLrkj lEiw.kZ

mÙkjk[kaM jkT; ds laca/ esa djrh gS A

¹iQk- la- 228@59@2012&,ohMh&IIº

jktho tSu] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 20th March, 2013

S.O. 720.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (1) of Section 5 read with Section 6 of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No. 25

of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the

State Government of Uttarakhand, Home Section-1,

Dehradun vide Notification No. 587/XX(1)-2013-9(14) 2012

dated 25th February, 2013, hereby extends the powers

and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police

Establishment to the whole of the State of Uttarakhand,

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 30] 2013@pS=k 9] 1935

2195

for investigation of Case Crime No. 234/2012 under Section

365 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860)

registered at Police Station Kankhal Haridwar, Uttarakhand,

and attempts, abtments and conspiracy in relation to or in

connection with the above mentioned offences and any

other offence or offences committed in course of the same

transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/59/2012-AVD-II]

RAJIV JAIN, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 21 ekpZ] 2013

dk- vk- 721-—dsanzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl

LFkkiuk vf/fu;e] 1946 (1946 dk vf/fu;e la- 25) dh /kjk

6 ds lkFk ifBr /kjk 5 dh mi&/kjk (1) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk

iz;ksx djrs gq, vle jkT; ljdkj] jktuSfrd (,) foHkkx] fnliqj

dh fnukad 06 iQjojh] 2013 ds vf/lwpuk la- ih,y,

276@2008@135 }kjk izkIr lgefr ls vFkkZr~ %µ

Øe

ekeyk

fof/ dh /kjk

iqfyl LVs'ku

la-

dk uke

(1) (2)

(3)

(4)

08@2012

Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk] 1860

iqfyl LVs'ku

(1860 dk vf/fu;e la-

jksxeksaxoh

45) ds v/hu /kjk 379

(dkchZ&

rFkk 429 lifBr oU; tho

,aXyksax)

(laj{k.k)vf/fu;e] 1972

(1972 dh vf/fu;e la-

53) dh /kjk 51 (1)

lifBr vkEtZ vf/fu;e]

1959 (1959 dh vf/&

fu;e la 54) dh /kjk 25

(1) (,) rFkk 27

128@2012

oU; thou (laj{k.k)vf/&

>kdykckank

fu;e] 1972 (1972 dh

iqfyl LVs'ku

vf/fu;e la- 53) dh /kjk

51(1) lifBr Hkkjrh; naM

lafgrk] 1860 (1860 dk

vf/fu;e la- 45) dh /kjk

379 dks vkEtZ vf/fu;e]

1959 (1959 dk vf/fu;e

la- 54) dh /kjk 25 (1)

(,) dks tksM+dj

43@2012

Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk] 1860

iqfyl LVs'ku

(1860 dk vf/fu;e la-

cksjikFkj

45) ds v/hu /kjk 379

rFkk 429 lifBr oU; tho

(laj{k.k) vf/fu;e] 1972

(1972 dh vf/fu;e la-

53) dh /kjk 51 (1)

lifBr vkEtZ vf/fu;e]

1959 (1959 dh vf/&

fu;e la 54) dh /kjk 27

(2)

ftyk] dkchZ ,aXyksax] ukxkao rFkk xksyk?kkV (vle) esa xsaMsa

ds f'kdkj ds lac/ esa rFkk mlls lac¼ iz;kl] nq"izsj.k rFkk "kM~;a=k

rFkk mlh laO;ogkj ds Øe esa ;k mUgha rF;ksa ls mRiUu dksbZ vU;

vijk/ ;k vijk/ksa dk vUos"k.k djus ds fy, fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl

LFkkiuk ds lnL;ksa dh 'kfDr;ksa vkSj {ks=kkf/dkj dk foLrkj lEiw.kZ

vle jkT; esa djrh gS A

¹iQk- la- 228@10@2013&,ohMh&IIº

jktho tSu] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 21st March, 2013

S.O. 721.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (1) of Section 5 read with Section 6 of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No. 25

of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the

State Government of Assam, Political (A) Department,

Dispur vide Notification No. PLA. 276/2008/135 dated 6th

February, 2013, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction

of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment

to the whole of the State of Assam for investigation of

offences viz :—

Sl.

Case

Sections Laws

Name of

No.

Police

Station

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

08/2012

Under sections 379

Police

and 429 of the Indian

Station

Penal Code, 1860 (Act

Rongmo-

No. 45 of 1860) read

ngwe

with Section 51 (1)

(Karbi-

Wild Life (Protection)

Anglong).

Act, 1972 (Act No. 53

of 1972) read with

sections 25 (1) (a) and

27 of the Arms Act,

1959 (Act No. 54 of

1959)

128/2012

Sections 51 (1) Wild

Police

Life (Protection) Act,

Station

1972 (Act No. 53 of

Jakhalab-

1972) read with section

andha

379 of the Indian Penal

(1) (2)

(3)

(4)

2196

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2013/CHAITRA 9, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Code, 1860 (Act No. 45

of 1860) added Section

25 (1) (a) of the Arms

Act, 1959 (Act No. 54

of 1959)

43/2012

Under sections 429

Police

and 379 of the Indian

Station

Penal Code, 1860 (Act

Borpathar

No. 45 of 1860) read

with Section 51 (1) of

the Wild Life (Protec-

tion) Act, 1972 (Act

No. 53of 1972) read

with Sections 27 (2) of the

Arms Act, 1959

(Act No. 54 of

1959)

relating to Rhion poaching in the Districts of Karbi-

Anglong, Nagaon and Golaghat (Assam) and attempts,

abetments and conspiracies in relation to or in connection

with the above mentioned offences and any other offence

or offences committed in course of the same transaction

or arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/10/2013-AVD-II]

RAJIV JAIN, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 22 ekpZ] 2013

dk- vk- 722-—dsanzh; ljdkj naM lafgrk] 1973 (1974)

dk vf/fu;e la[;k&2 dh /kjk 24 dh mi&/kjk (8) }kjk iznÙk

'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk }kjk

fo'ks"k U;k;k/h'k] ds- v- C;wjks ds xkft;kckn mÙkj izns'k esa ekeys

esa iqujh{k.kksa] fjfotuksa ;k mDr ekeyksa ls mRiUu vU; ekeyksa esa

fof/ }kjk LFkkfir iqujh{k.k vFkok vihy laca/h ekeys]

,uvkj,p,e ekeyksa vFkkZr~ vkjlh 220 2012 bZ 0001 lhchvkbZ

bZvks;w&IV ubZ fnYyh] vkjlh 220 2012 bZ 0002 lhchvkbZ bZvks;w&IV

ubZ fnYyh] vkjlh 220 2012 bZ 0003 lhchvkbZ bZvks;w&IV ubZ

fnYyh] vkjlh 1 (,) 2012@ ,llh;w V/,llh&II/lhchvkbZ ubZ

fnYyh] vkjlh 2 (,) 2012@ ,llh;w V/,llh&II/lhchvkbZ ubZ

fnYyh] vkjlh 3 (,) 2012@ ,llh;w V/,llh&II/lhchvkbZ ubZ

fnYyh] vkjlh 4 (,) 2012@ ,llh;w V/,llh&II/lhchvkbZ ubZ

fnYyh] vkjlh 052 2012 ,l 0001@lhchvkbZ/,lvkbZlh&III/ubZ

fnYyh] vkjlh 1@2012@lhchvkbZ/,llhch@y[kumQ]

vkjlh@Mh,lVh@2012@,@0001@lhchvkbZ/,lVh,iQ ubZ fnYyh]

vkjlh@Mh,lVh@2012@,@0002@lhchvkbZ/,lVh,iQ ubZ fnYyh]

vkjlh@Mh,lVh@2012@,@0003@lhchvkbZ/,lVh,iQ ubZ fnYyh]

vkjlh@Mh,lVh@2012@,@0004@lhchvkbZ/,lVh,iQ ubZ fnYyh]

vkjlh@Mh,lVh@2012@,@0006@lhchvkbZ/,lVh,iQ ubZ fnYyh]

vkjlh@Mh,lVh@2012@,@0007@lhchvkbZ/,lVh,iQ ubZ fnYyh]

vkjlh@Mh,lVh@2012@,@0008@lhchvkbZ/,lVh,iQ ubZ fnYyh]

vkjlh@Mh,lVh@2012@,@0009@lhchvkbZ/,lVh,iQ ubZ fnYyh]

vkjlh@Mh,lVh@2012@,@00010@lhchvkbZ/,lVh,iQ ubZ fnYyh ls

lacaf/r ekeyksa ds vfHk;kstu dk lapkyu djus ds fy, Jh oh-ds-

'kekZ] odhy dks fo'ks"k yksd vfHk;kstd ds :i esa fu;qDr djrh

gS A

¹iQk- la- 225@5@2013&,ohMh&IIº

jktho tSu] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 22nd March, 2013

S.O. 722.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (8) of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal

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

hereby appoints Shri V. K. Sharma, Advocate as Special

Public Prosecutor for conducting prosecution of NRHM

group of cases viz. , RC 220 2012 E0001 CBI EOU-IV New

Delhi, RC 220 2012 E0002 CBI EOU-IV New Delhi, RC 220 2012

E0003 CBI EOU-IV New Delhi, RC 1 (A) 2012 /SCU V/SC-II/CBI

New Delhi RC 2 (A)/2012/SCU V/SC-II CBI New Delhi, RC 3

(A)/2012/SCU V/SC-II New Delhi, RC 4 (A)/2012/SCU V/SC-II

CBI New Delhi, RC 052 2012 S0001/CBI/SIC-III New Delhi,

RC 1/2012/CBI/SCB/Lucknow, RC/DST/2012/A/0001/CBI/STF

New Delhi, RC/DST/2012/A/0002/CBI/STF New Delhi,

RC/DST/2012/A/0003/CBI/STF New Delhi, RC / DST/2012/

A/0004/CBI/STF New Delhi, RC /DST 12012 /A/ 0006/ CBI/

STF New Delhi, RC /DST / 2012 / A/ 0007/ CBI/ STF New Delhi,

RC /DST/2012/A/0008/ CBI/ STF New Delhi, RC /DST / New

Delhi, RC/DST /2012/ A/ 0009/ CBI/STF New Delhi, RC /DST /

2012/A/00010/CBI/STF New Delhi in the court of Special Judge,

CBI Cases Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh instituted by Delhi Special

Police Establishment and appeals, revisions or others matters

arising out of the said cases in revisional or appellate courts

established by law.

[F. No. 225/5/2013-AVD-II]

RAJIV JAIN, Under Secy.

foÙk ea=kky;

(foÙkh; lsok,a foHkkx)

ubZ fnYyh] 20 ekpZ] 2013

dk- vk- 723-—cSaddkjh fofu;eu vf/fu;e] 1949 (1949

dk 10 dh /kjk 53 }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs

gq,] dsUnz ljdkj] Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad dh fliQkfj'k ij] ,rn~}kjk]

?kks"k.kk djrh gS fd mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 10 dh

mi&/kjk (1) ds [k.M (x) ds mi&[kaM (i) ds mica/ iatkc

uS'kuy cSad ij ykxw ugha gksaxs] tgka rd mudk laca/ Jh ds- vkj-

dkeFk cSad ds vè;{k ,oa izca/ funs'kd ds ih,uch esVykbiQ

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 30] 2013@pS=k 9] 1935

2197

ba';ksjsUl daiuh fy- (ih,e,yvkbZlh) ds cksMZ esa ukfer fd,

tkus ls gS A

¹iQk- la- 13@1@2011&chvks&Iº

fot; eYgks=kk] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Financial Services)

New Delhi, the 20th March, 2013

S. O. 723 .—In exercise of the powers conferred by

Section 53 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949),

the Central Government of India, on the recommendations

of the Reserve Bank of India, hereby declares that the

provisions of sub-clause (i) of clause (c) of sub-section

(1) of Section 10 of the said Act shall not apply to Punjab

National Bank in so far as it relates to the nomination of

Shri K. R. Kamath, Chairman & Managing Director of the

Bank as a Director on the Board of PNB Metlife India

Insurance Company Ltd. (PMLIC).

[ F. No. 13/1/2011-BO-I]

VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 20 ekpZ] 2013

dk- vk- 724-—cSaddkjh fofu;eu vf/fu;e] 1949 (1949

dk 10) dh /kjk 53 }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,]

dsUæh; ljdkj] Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad dh fliQkfj'k ij] ,rn~}kjk]

?kks"k.kk djrh gS fd mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 10 dh

mi&/kjk (1) ds [k.M (x) ds mi[kaM (i) ds mica/ iatkc

uS'kuy cSad ij ykxw ugha gksaxs] tgka rd mudk laca/ Jh ds- vkj-

dkeFk cSad ds vè;{k ,oa izca/ funs'kd dks 20 fnlEcj] 2012 ls

nks o"kZ dh vfrfjDr vof/ ds fy, ;k orZeku in ij muds cus

jgus rd ;k vxys vkns'kksa ds gksus rd] tks Hkh igys gks] Hkkjrh;

fu;kZr Í.k xkajVh fuxe fy- (bZlhthlh)ds cksMZ esa funs'kd ds :i

esa ukfer djus ls gS A

¹iQk- la- 13@1@2011&chvks&Iº

fot; eYgks=kk] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 20th March, 2013

S. O. 724 .—In exercise of the powers conferred by

Section 53 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949),

the Central Government of India, on the recommendations

of the Reserve Bank of India, hereby declares that the

provisions of sub-section (i) of clause (c) of sub-section

(1) of Section 10 of the said Act shall not apply to the

Punjab National Bank in so far as it relates to the

nomination of Shri K. R. Kamath, Chairman & Managing

Director of the Bank as a Director on the Board of Export

Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. (ECGC) for

further period of two years from 20th December 2012 or till

his continuation in the present capacity or until further

orders, whichever event occours the earliest.

[ F. No. 13/1/2011-BO-I]

VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.

jktLo foHkkx

(dsUæh; izR;{k dj cksMZ)

ubZ fnYyh] 20 ekpZ] 2013

dk- vk-725-—loZlk/kj.k dh tkudkjh ds fy, ,rn~}kjk

;g vf/lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd dsUnz ljdkj }kjk vk;dj

fu;ekoyh] 1962 (mDr fu;ekoyh) ds fu;e 5x vkSj 5?k ds

lkFk ifBr vk;dj vf/fu;e] 1961 (mDr vf/fu;e) dh /kjk

35 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds [kaM (ii) ds iz;kstukFkZ 1&4&2011 ls

laxBu us'kuy ,xzh&iQwMl ck;ksVsDuksykWth baLVhV~;wV] eksgkyh dks

fuEufyf[kr 'krks± ds v/hu oSKkfud vuqla/ku esa yxs oxZ dh

Js.kh esa vuqeksfnr fd;k x;k gS] vFkkZr~ %µ

(i)

vuqeksfnr ^oSKkfud vuqla/ku laxBu* dk eq[; mís';

oSKkfud vuqla/ku djuk gksxk _

(ii)

vuqeksfnr laxBu oSKkfud vuqla/ku dk;Zdyki Lo;a

djsxk A

(iii)

vuqeksfnr laxBu oSKkfud vuqla/ku ds fy, blds }kjk

izkIr jkf'k ds laca/ esa vyx [kkrk cgh j[ksxk] ftleas

vuqla/ku djus ds fy, iz;qDr jkf'k n'kkZbZ xbZ gks mDr

vf/fu;e dh /kjk 288 dh mi&/kjk (2) ds Li"Vhdj.k

esa ;Fkk ifjHkkf"kr fdlh ys[kkdkj ls viuh [kkrk&cgh

dh ys[kk&ijh{kk djk,xk vkSj mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk

139 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds varxZr vk; fooj.kh izLrqr

djus dh fu;r frfFk rd ,sls ys[kkdkj }kjk fof/or

lR;kfir ,oa gLrk{kfjr ys[kk ijh{kk fjiksVZ] ekeys esa

{ks=kkf/dkj j[kus okys vk;dj vk;qDr vFkok vk;dj

funs'kd dks izLrqr djsxk _

(iv)

vuqeksfnr laxBu izkIr nku vkSj oSKkfud vuqla/ku ds

fy, iz;qDr jkf'k dk vyx fooj.k j[ksxk vkSj mi;qZDr

ys[kk ijh{kk fjiksVZ ds lkFk ys[kk ijh{kd }kjk fof/or

lR;kfir ,sls fooj.k dh izfr izLrqr djsxk A

2- dsanz ljdkj ;g vuqeksnu okil ys ysxh ;fn vuqeksfnr

laxBu %µ

(d)

iSjkxzkiQ 1 ds mi&iSjkxzkiQ (iii) esa mfYyf[kr vyx

ys[kk cgh j[kus esa vliQy jgrk gS_ vFkok

2198

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2013/CHAITRA 9, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

([k)

iSjkxzkiQ 1 ds mi&iSjkxzkiQ (iii) esa mfYyf[kr vyx

ys[kk&ijh{kk fjiksVZ izLrqr djus esa vliQy jgrk gS_

vFkok

(x)

iSjkxzkiQ 1 ds mi&iSjkxzkiQ (iv) esa mfYyf[kr oSKkfud

vuqla/ku ds fy, izkIr ,oa iz;qDr nku dk viuk fooj.k

izLrqr djus esa vliQy jgrk gS_ vFkok

(?k)

viuk vuqla/ku dk;Z djuk can dj nsxk vFkok blds

vuqla/ku dk;Z dks Bhd ugha ik;k tk,xk_ vFkok

(Ä)

mDr fu;ekoyh ds fu;e 5x vkSj 5?k ds lkFk ifBr

mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 35 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds [kaM

(ii) ds izko/kuksa ds vuq:i ugha gksxk vkSj mudk ikyu

ugha djsxk A

(p)

;fn bldk eq[; mís'; oSKkfud vuqla/ku djuk ugha

jg tkrk gS A

¹vf/lwpuk la- 2@2013@iQk- la- 203@16@2012@vk-d-fu-IIº

Ípk jLrksxh] voj lfpo

(Department of Revenue)

(Central Board of Direct Taxes)

New Delhi, the 20th March, 2013

S. O.725.—It is hereby notified for general

information that the organization National Agri-Foods

Biotechnology Institute, MOHALI has been approved by

the Central Government for the purpose of clause (ii) of

sub-section (1) of section 35 of the Income-tax Act, 1961

(said Act), read with Rules 5C and 5D of the Income-tax

Rules, 1962 (said Rules), from 1-04-2011 and onwards in

the category of “Scientific Research Association "

engaged in research activities subject to the following

conditions, namely:—

(i)

The sole objective of the approved 'scientific

research association' shall be to undertake

scientific research;

(ii)

The approved organization shall carry out

scientific research activity by itself;

(iii)

The approved organization shall maintain

separate books of accounts in respect of the sums

received by it for scientific research, reflect

therein the amounts used for carrying out

research, get such books audited by an

accountant as defined in the explanation to sub-

section (2) of section 288 of the said Act and

furnish the report of such audit duly signed and

verified by such accountant to the Commissioner

of Income-tax or the Director of Income-tax

having jurisdiction over the case, by the due date

of furnishing the return of income under sub-

section (1) of section 139 of the said Act;

(iv)

The approved organization shall maintain a

separate statement of donations received and

amounts applied for scientific research and a copy

of such statement duly certified by the auditor

shall accompany the report of audit referred to

above.

2. The Central Government shall withdraw the

approval if the approved organization :—

(a)

fails to maintain separate books of accounts

referred to in sub-paragraph (iii) of paragraph 1;

(b)

fails to furnish its audit report referred to in sub-

paragraph (iii) of paragraph 1; or

(c)

fails to furnish its statement of the donations

received and sums applied for scientific research

referred to in sub-paragraph (iv) of paragraph 1;

(d)

ceases to carry on its research activities or its

research activities are not found to be genuine;

(e)

ceases to conform to and comply with the

provisions of clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of

section 35 of the said Act read with rules 5C and

5D of the said Rules.

(f)

if its sole objective does not remain undertaking

scientific research.

[Notification No. 2/2013/ F. No. 203/16/2012/ITA-II]

RICHA RASTOGI, Under Secy.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 30] 2013@pS=k 9] 1935

2199

dsaæh; mRikn 'kqYd vk;qDr dk dk;kZy;] csaxywj&II

vk;qDrky;

csaxywj] 21 ekpZ] 2013

la- 01@2012&13

dk-vk- 726-—lhek&'kqYd vf/fu;e] 1962 dh /kjk

152 ds [kaM (d) ds v/hu Hkkjr ljdkj] foÙk ea=kky;] jktLo

foHkkx] ubZ fnYyh ds fnukad 1 tqykbZ 1994 dh vf/lwpuk

la 33@94&lh- 'kq- (,u-Vh-) vkSj foÙk ea=kky;] jktLo foHkkx]

Hkkjr ljdkj] ubZ fnYyh n~okjk fnukafdr 25&10&2001 ds

vf/lwpuk la 122@2004&lh- 'kq- (,u-Vh-)esa ;Fkk la'kksf/r ds

tfj, eSa] v'kksd] vk;qDr] dsanzh; mRikn 'kqYd csaxywj&II vk;qDrky;]

csaxywj] çnÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk ç;ksx djrs gq,] dukZVd ds rqedewj

ftyk esa fLFkr losZ la- 14] 15] 438] ukbw# xk¡o] xkSMxsjs gkscyh]

fljk rkywd dks lhek&'kqYd vf/fu;e] 1962 dh /kjk 9 ds

v/hu 100% fu;kZrksueq[k ,dd (bZ-vks-;w-) dks LFkkfir djus dh

lhfer mís'; ds fy, HkkaMkxkj LVs'ku ,rnn~okjk ?kksf"kr djrk gw¡aA

¹lh-la- IV@16@68@2012&bZ-vks-;w-] csa&IIº

v'kksd] vk;qDr

OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL

EXCISE, BANGALORE-II COMMISSIONERATE

Bangalore, the 21st March, 2013

No. 01/2012-13

S.O. 726 .—In exercise of the powers delegated

to the undersigned under Section 9 of the Customs Act,

1962 read with notification No. 33/1994-Cus. (N.T.) dated

1-7-1994 as amended by notification No. 122/2004-Cus.(NT)

dated 25-10-2001 issued by the Ministry of Finance,

Department of Revenue, Government of India, New Delhi,

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

Ashok, Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore-II

Commisssionerate, Bangalore, hereby declare Survey

No. 14, 15, 438 of Naduru Village, Gowdagere Hobli, Sira

Taluk, falling under district of Tumkur in the state of

Karnataka, as warehousing station under Section 9 of the

Customs Act, 1962 for the limited purpose of setting up of

a 100% EOU.

[C. No. IV/16/68/2012-EOU, BG-II]

ASHOK, Commissioner

ubZ fnYyh] 25 ekpZ] 2013

dk-vk- 727-—#X.k vkS|ksfxd daiuh (fo'ks"k mica/)

vf/fu;e] 1985 dh /kjk 6 dh mi&/kjk (2) ds lkFk ifBr

/kjk 5 dh mi&/kjk (1) vkSj (2) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx

djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk] dydÙkk mPp U;k;ky; ds

lsokfuo`Ùk U;k;k/h'k] U;k;ewfrZ Jh egkjkt flUgk dks in dk

dk;ZHkkj xzg.k djus dh rkjh[k ls muds 65 o"kZ dh vk;q izkIr dj

ysus rd vFkok ,,vkbZ,iQvkj ds lekiu rd vFkok vxys

vkns'kksa rd] buesa ls tks Hkh igys gks] vkS|ksfxd vkSj foÙkh;

iqufuZekZ.k vihyh; izkf/dj.k (,,vkbZ,iQvkj) esa 90]000 #i,

(fu;r) ds osrueku esa vè;{k ds :i esa fu;qDr djrh gS A

¹iQk- la- 20@2@2002&vkbZ,iQ&II ([k.M&III)º

vrh'k ¯lg] funs'kd

New Delhi, the 25th March, 2013

S.O. 727 .—In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (1) and (2) of Section 5 read with sub-section

(2) of Section 6 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special

Provisions) Act, 1985, the Central Government hereby

appoints Justice Shri Maharaj Sinha, Retd. Judge High

Court of Calcutta to the post of Chairman, Appellate

Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction

(AAIFR) in the pay scale of Rs.90,000 (fixed) w.e.f. the

date of assumption of the charge of the post till he attains

the age of 65 years or till abolition of AAIFR until further

orders, whichever is the earliest.

[F. No. 20/2/2002-IF-II (Vol.-III)]

ATEESH SINGH, Director

ukxj foekuu ea=kky;

(,,vkbZ vuqHkkx)

ubZ fnYyh] 8 ekpZ] 2013

dk-vk-728-—Hkkjrh; foekuiRru izkf/dj.k ds

vf/fu;e] 1994 (1994 dh la[;k 55) dh /kjk 3 ds rgr iznRr

'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsanzh; ljdkj ,rn}kjk Jh vfuy

JhokLro] la;qDr lfpo] ukxj foekuu ea=kky; dks Jh vkyksd

flUgk] la;qDr lfpo ds LFkku ij Hkkjrh; foekuiRru izkf/dj.k

ds cksMZ esa va'kdkfyd lnL; ds :i esa rRdky izHkko ls fu;qDr

djrh gS A

¹la- ,oh- 24015@005@94&ohch(,,vkbZº

lS;n bejku vgen] voj lfpo

2200

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2013/CHAITRA 9, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF CIVIL AVIATION

(AAI Section)

New Delhi, the 8th March, 2013

S.O. 728 .— In exercise of the powers conferred

under Section 3 of the Airports Authority of India Act,

1994 (No.55 of 1994), the Central Government hereby ap-

points Shri Anil Srivastava, Joint Secretary, Ministry of

Civil Aviation, as part-time Member on the Board of Air-

ports authority of India vice Shri Alok Sinha, Joint Secre-

tary with immediate effect.

[No. AV. 24015/005/94-VB(AAI)]

SYED IMRAN AHMED, Under Secy.

fons'k ea=kky;

(lh-ih-oh- izHkkx)

ubZ fnYyh] 20 ekpZ] 2013

dk-vk- 729-—jktuf;d vkSj dksalyh; vkWiQhlj ('kiFk

vkSj iQhl) ds vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 41) dh /kjk 2 ds

[kaM (d) ds vuqlj.k esa] dsaæ ljdkj ,rn~}kjk Jh 'kkgcqn~nhu

[kku] lgk;d rFkk Jh xksfoUn 'kj.k xqIrk] futh lgk;d dks

20&3&2013 ls Hkkjr ds iz/ku dksaly] tkathckj esa lgk;d dksalqyj

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

¹la- Vh- 4330@01@2006º

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

MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

(C. P. V. DIVISION)

New Delhi, the 20th March, 2013

S.O. 729.— 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 Shabuddin Khan, Assistant and

Shri Govind Sharan Gupta PA to CG in Consulate General

of India Zanzibar, to perform the duties of

Assistant Consular Officers with effect from 20th

March, 2013.

[No. T. 4330/01/2006]

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

okf.kT; vkSj m|ksx ea=kky;

(okf.kT; foHkkx)

ubZ fnYyh] 12 ekpZ] 2013

dk-vk- 730 -—dsUnzh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk (la?k ds 'kkldh;

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

(4) ds vuqlj.k esa okf.kT; foHkkx ds varxZr vkus okys dkWiQh

cksMZ ds fuEufyf[kr mi dk;kZy;ksa dks vf/lwfpr djrh gS] ftuds

80% ls vf/d deZpkjho`an us fgUnh dk dk;Z lk/d Kku izkIr dj

fy;k gS %&

dsUnzh; dkWiQh vuqla/ku laLFkku] lhvkj,l] fpdexywj

ftyk] dukZVd jkT; A

la;qDr funs'kd (foLrj.k) dk dk;kZy;] dkWiQh cksMZ]

gklu] dukZVd jkT; A

mi funs'kd (foLrj.k) dk dk;kZy;] dkWiQh cksMZ] gklu]

dukZVd jkT; A

ofj"B laidZ vf/dkjh dk dk;kZy;] dkWiQh cksMZ] eqfMxsjs]

dukZVd jkT; A

laidZ vf/dkjh dk dk;kZy;] dkWiQh cksMZ] vkYnwj]

fpdexywj] dukZVd jkT; A

dfu"B laidZ vf/dkjh dk dk;kZy;] dkWiQh cksMZ] lkxj]

dukZVd jkT; A

¹la- bZ&11013@1@2008&fgUnhº

Jherh nsodh] funs'kd (jk-Hkk-)

MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY

(Department of Commerce)

New Delhi, the 12th March, 2013

S.O. 730 .—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10

of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purpose of the

Union) Rules, 1976 the Central Government hereby notifies

the following Sub office of Coffee Board under

Department of Commerce, whereof more than 80% staff

have acquired working knowledge of Hindi :—

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 30] 2013@pS=k 9] 1935

2201

Central Coffee Research Institute, CRS, Distt.

Chikmaglur, Karnataka state.

Office of Joint Director (Extension), Coffee Board,

Haasan, Karnataka state.

Office of Deputy Director (Extension), Coffee

Board, Haasan, Karnataka state.

Office of Senior Liaison Officer, Coffee Board,

Mudigere, Karnataka state.

Office of Liaison Officer, Coffee Board, Aldur,

Chikmaglur, Karnataka state.

Office of Junior Liaison Officer, Coffee Board,

Saagar, Karnataka state.

[No. E- 11013/1/2008-Hindi]

Smt. DEVKI, Director (O.L.)

ubZ fnYyh] 21 ekpZ] 2013

dk-vk- 731-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] fu;kZr (DokfyVh fu;a=k.k

vkSj fujh{k.k) fu;e] 1964 ds fu;e 12 ds mi&fu;e (2) ds

lkFk ifBr fu;kZr (DokfyVh fu;a=k.k vkSj fujh{k.k) vf/fu;e]

1963(1963 dk 22) dh /kjk 7 dh mi&/kjk (1) }kjk iznÙk

'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] eSllZ FkSjkI;wfVDl dsfedy fjlpZ

dkiksZjs'ku] 151] lsDVj ,] tksu ch] ekUps'oj baMLVªh;y bLVsV]

Hkqous'oj &751 010 dks bl vf/lwpuk ds izdk'ku dh rkjh[k ls

rhu o"kZ dh vof/ ds fy,] okf.kT; ea=kky; dh vf/lwpuk

la[;kad dk-vk- 3975 rkjh[k 20 fnlEcj] 1965 ds lkFk mikc¼

vuqlwph esa fofufnZ"V [kfut vkSj v;Ld] lewg &I vFkkZr~ ykSg

v;Ld vkSj eSaxuht v;Ld(eSaxuht Mk;DlkbM dks NksM+dj)dks

fuEufyf[kr 'krksZa ds vè;/hu mDr [kfutksa vkSj v;Ldksa ds fu;kZr

ls iwoZ Hkwous'oj esa fujh{k.k djus ds fy, vfHkdj.k ds :i esa

ekU;rk iznku djrh gS] vFkkZr %&

(i) eSllZ FkSjkI;wfVDl dsfedy fjlpZ dkiksaZjs'ku] 151]

lsDVj ,] tksu ch] ekUps'oj baMLVªh;y bLVsV] Hkqous'oj& 751 010

[kfut vkSj v;Ld lewg&I (fujh{k.k) ds fu;kZr fu;e] 1965 ds

fu;e 4 ds v/hu fujh{k.k ds fØ;kUo;u ds fy, muds }kjk

vuqlfjr i¼fr dh ijh{kk djus ds fy,] bl fufeÙk fu;kZr

fujh{k.k ifj"kn~ }kjk ukefunsZf'kr vf/dkfj;ksa dks i;kZIr lqfo/k,a

nsxk_ vkSj

(ii) eSllZ FkSjkI;wfVDl dsfedy fjlpZ dkiksaZjs'ku] 151]

lsDVj ,] tksu ch] ekUps'oj baMLVªh;y bLVsV] Hkqous'oj& 751 010

bl vf/lwpuk ds v/hu vius d`R;ksa ds vuqikyu esa ,sls funs'kksa

}kjk vkc¼ gksaxs] tks funs'kd (fujh{k.k vkSj DokfyVh fu;a=k.k)

}kjk le;≤ ij fyf[kr esa fn, tk,a A

¹iQk-la- 4@13@2012& fu;kZr fujh{k.k º

,- ds- f=kikBh] la;qDr lfpo

New Delhi, the 21st March, 2013

S.O. 731.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Export (Quality Control

and Inspection) Act, 1963 (22 of 1963), read with sub-rule

(2) of rule 12 of the Export (Quality Control and Inspection)

Rules, 1964, the Central Government hereby recognizes,

M/s Therapeutics Chemical Research Corporation located

at 151, Sec A, Zone B, Mancheswar Industrial Estate,

Bhubaneswar - 751 010, for a period of three years from

the date of publication of this notification, as an agency

for the inspection of Minerals and Ores Group-I, namely,

Iron are and Manganese Ore (excluding Manganese

Dioxide) as an agency, specified in the Schedule annexed

to notification of the Government of India in the Ministry

of Commerce number S.O. 3975, dated the 20th December,

1965, prior to export of said minerals and ores at

Bhubaneswar, subject to the following conditions,

namely: -

(i) M/s. Therapeutics Chemical Research

Corporation, 151, Sec A, Zone B, Mancheswar Industrial

Estate, Bhubaneswar - 751 010, shall give adequate facilities

to the officers nominated by the Export Inspection Council

in this behalf to examine the method of inspection followed

by them in carrying out the inspection under rule 4 of the

Export of Minerals and Ores - Group I (Inspection) Rules,

1965; and

(ii) M/s. Therapeutics Chemical Research

Corporation, 151, Sec A, Zone B, Mancheswar Industrial

Estate, Bhubaneswar - 751 010, in the performance of their

function under this notification shall be bound by such

directions as the Director (Inspection and Quality Control)

may give in writing from time to time.

[F. No. 4/13/2012- Export Inspection]

A. K. TRIPATHY, Jt. Secy.

2202

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2013/CHAITRA 9, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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

(miHkksDrk ekeys foHkkx)

(Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks)

ubZ fnYyh] 12 ekpZ] 2013

dk-vk- 732 -—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e] 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mi&fu;e (1) ds [kaM ([k) ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud

C;wjks ,rn~}kjk vf/lwfpr djrk gS fd ftu Hkkjrh; ekudksa dh la'kks/u dk fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gS og LFkkfir gks x, gSa %&

vuqlwph

Øe

la'kksf/r Hkkjrh; ekud dh

la'kks/u la[;k vkSj o"kZ

la'kks/u ykxw gksus dh

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

frfFk

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

vkbZ ,l 14184 % 1994 dhVuk'kd&dkjVki

la'kks/u la[;k 2

31 ekpZ] 2013

gkbMªksDyksjkbM th-µ fof'kf"V

o"kZ 2013

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

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

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

¹lanHkZ ,iQ,Mh @th&128º

MkW- vkj- ds- ctkt] oSKkfud ^,iQ* ,oa izeq[k ([kkn~; ,oa d`f"k)

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department of Consumer Affairs)

(BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS)

New Delhi, the 12th March, 2013

S.O. 732 .—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 to the Indian Standards, particulars of which are given

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

SCHEDULE

Sl. No.

No. and Year of the

No. and year of the

Date of which the Amend-

Indian Standards

Amendment

ment shall have effect

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

1. IS 14184 : 1994 Pesticide -Cartap

Amendment No. 2

31 March, 2013

Hydrochloride G— Specification

Year 2013

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 30] 2013@pS=k 9] 1935

2203

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, Kolkatta, Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also

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

Nagpur, Patna, Pune, Thiruvananthapuram.

[ Ref. FAD /G-128]

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

ubZ fnYyh] 15 ekpZ] 2013

dk-vk- 733-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e] 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mi&fu;e (1) ds [kaM ([k) ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud

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

vuqlwph

Øe

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

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

la'kks/u ykxw gksus dh

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

frfFk

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

vkbZ ,l 302&1 % 2008 dh la'kks/u

2 ekpZ] 2013

15&03&2013

la[;k 2

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

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

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

¹lanHkZ bZVh 32 @Vh&2º

vkj- lh- eSF;w ] oSKkfud ^,iQ* ,oa izeq[k (fo|qr rduhdh)

New Delhi, the 15th March, 2013

S.O. 733 .—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 to the Indian Standards, particulars of which are

given in the Schedule hereto annexed has been issued :

SCHEDULE

Sl. No.

No. and Year of the

No. and year of the

Date from which the Amend-

Indian Standards

Amendment

ment shall have effect

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

IS 302-1 : 2008 Safety of household

2 March, 2013

15-3- 2013

and similar electrical appliances, Part 1:

General requirements (Sixth Revision)

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

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

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

Patna, Pune and Thiruvananthapuram.

[ Ref. ET 32/T-2]

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

2204

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2013/CHAITRA 9, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 15 ekpZ] 2013

dk-vk- 734-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks (izek.ku) fofu;e] 1988 ds fofu;e 4 ds mi fofu;e (5) ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud

C;wjks ,rn~}kjk vf/lwfpr djrk gS fd ftuds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gaS] oQks ykblsal iznku fd, x, gSa %µ

vuqlwph

Øe

ykblsal

LohÑr djus

ykblsal/kjh dk

Hkkjrh;

Hkk- ek-

Hkkx vuq

o"kZ

la-

la[;k

dh frfFk o"kZ

uke o irk

ekud dk

la[;k

ekg

'kh"kZd

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7) (8) (9)

3915670

01&02&2013

fuydaB VsªMlZ

lkiQ BUMs ikuh ds

1710

—

1989

vfVdk (lkmFk)]

fy, mQèoZ VckZbu

usg:uxj esu jksM]

fefJr vkSj vJh;

/jrh osV czht ds lkeus]

izokg iaiksa dh fof'kf"V

jktdksV]

xqtjkr&360002

3915771

01&02&2013

iQkYdu iEil izk-fy-

d`f"k vkSj tyiw£r ds

9079

—

2002

loZ ua- 39@4]

fy, lkiQ vkSj BaMs

okoMh bUMLVªh;y ,jh;k]

ikuh ds fctyh ds

gksVy fd"uk ikdZ ds ihNs]

eksukslsV iEi

okoMh]

ftyk jktdksV

xqtjkr&360004

3917270

06&02&2013

t; vacs TosylZ

Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ

1417

—

1999

Vkoj pkSd ds ikl]

feJ/k,a

xka/h jksM]

vkHkw"k.k@f'kYidkjh

rkyqdk dqrh;kuk]

'kq¼rk ,oa eqgjkadu

ftyk iksjcanj]

xqtjkr &362650

3917371

6&2&2013

Fkse csosjsthl

iSdstcan is;ty

14543

—

— 2004

xkao nqxkZiqj]

(iSdstcan izkÑfrd

rkyqdk ekaMoh]

feujy ty ds

ftyk dPN]

vykok)

xqtjkr &370465

3917472

06&02&2013

ds- vkj- TosylZ

Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ

1417

—

1999

'kksi ua- 23]

feJ/k,a

Jh euh Iyktk]

vkHkw"k.k@f'kYidkjh

dkyqHkk jksM]

'kq¼rk ,oa eqgjkadu

dykukyk]

ftyk Hkkouxj]

xqtjkr &364001

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 30] 2013@pS=k 9] 1935

2205

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7) (8) (9)

3917573

07&02&2013

ok?ks'ojh TosylZ

Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ

1417

—

1999

tqukokl]

feJ/krq,a

jkekuh uxj]

vkHkw"k.k@f'kYidkjh

u[k=kkuk]

'kq¼rk ,oa eqgjkadu

ftyk dPN]

xqtjkr &370615

3917674

07&02&2013

}kjdk/h'k TosylZ

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ

1417

1999

Jh 'kksihax lsUVj]

feJ/krq,a ds

pdyk pksd] ckcjk]

vkHkw"k.k@f'kYidkjh

ftyk vejsyh]

'kq¼rk ,oa eqgjkadu

xqtjkr

3917977

8&2&2012

}kjds'k csojsthl

iSdstcan is;ty

14543

& 2004

losZ uEcj 582]

(iSdstcan izkÑfrd

IykWV ua- 81 ls 84]

feujy ty ds

xkao ojkoyk

vykok)

rkyqdk vks[kkeaMy]

ftyk tkeuxj]

xqtjkr &361335

3920158

15&02&2013

uojRu TosylZ

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ

1417

1999

esu cktkj /ksjkth]

feJ/krq,a ds

ftyk jktdksV]

vkHkw"k.k@f'kYidkjh

xqtjkr 360410

'kq¼rk ,oa eqgjkadu

10-

3920259

15&02&2013

t; }kjdk/h'k TosylZ

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ

1417

1999

'kksi ua- 4]

feJ/krqvksa ds

2&17] xqaMkokMh]

vkHkw"k.k@f'kYidkjh

fd"uk vsikVZesUV]

'kq¼rk ,oa eqgjkadu

jktdksV] xqtjkr& 360001

11-

3920057

18&02&2013

Hkkjr iEi bUMLVªht

fueTtuh; iEi lsV

8034

2002

1] ,sVykl bUMLVªh;y vsLVsV

IyksV ua- 33]

ekbdzks iQkbZu 'k?kaVh ds lkeus]

gksVy fd"uk ikdZ ds lkeus]

jk"Vªh; jktekxZ 8 & ch]

xksaMy jksM] jktdksV]

xqtjkr &360002

12-

3920663

18&02&2013

ikFkZ vsUVjizkbZt

fueTtuh; iEi lsV

8034

2002

xksYMu bUMLVªh;y ,jh;k 2]

jksyj csjhax ds ihNs]

gksVy fdz"uk ikdZ ds lkeus]

jsyos Øksflax] xksaMy jksM]

jktdksV] xqtjkr &360002

2206

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2013/CHAITRA 9, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7) (8) (9)

13-

3920764

18&02&2013

'kho iEil

fueTtuh; iEi lsV

8034

2002

ehjk m/ksx]

IykWV ua- 65]

vkth ds ikl]

th- vkb- Mh- lh- jhax jksM]

jktdksV] xqtjkr &360003

14-

3920865

19&02&2013

/eZ TosylZ

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ

1417

1999

esu cktkj]

feJ/krq,a ds

ih- vks- jkij]

vkHkw"k.k@f'kYidkjh

ftyk dPN]

'kq¼rk ,oa eqgjkadu

xqtjkr &370165

15-

3921867

21&02&2013

ijiQsDV IykLVhd bUMLVªht

ty vkiwfrZ gsrq mPp

4984

1995

jk"Vªh; jktekxZ 8 & ch]

?kuRo ikWyhbFkkbyhu

LihMosy eksVksl ds ikl]

ikbi

juqtk/ke dks&vksijsVho lkslk;Vh]

vkuanij] xkao uokxke

ftyk jktdksV]

xqtjkr &360003

16-

3922465

22&02&2013

jkf/dk TosylZ

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ

1417

1999

esu cktkj]

feJ/krq,a ds

tkiQjkckn jksM]

vkHkw"k.k@f'kYidkjh

[kkaHkk] ftyk vejsyh]

'kq¼rk ,oa eqgjkadu

xqtjkr &365650

17-

3922566

22&02&2013

rqytk TosylZ

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ

1417

1999

lsUVªy cSad jksM]

feJ/krq,a ds

esu cktkj] tketks/iqj]

vkHkw"k.k@f'kYidkjh

ftyk tkeuxj]

'kq¼rk ,oa eqgjkadu

xqtjkr &360530

18-

3922667

22&02&2013

foUlj iEil

[kqys dq,a ds fy,

14220

1994

losZ ua- 172@2] IykWV ua-&21]

fueTt; iEilsV

o:u esVy ØkÝV]

gksVy fdz"uk ikdZ ds lkeus]

jk"Vªh; jktekxZ 8 & ch]

xksaMy jksM]

dksBkjh;k&jktdksV]

jktdksV] xqtjkr &360002

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 30] 2013@pS=k 9] 1935

2207

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7) (8) (9)

19-

3922768

22&02&2013

foUlj iEil

fueTtuh; iEilsV

8034

2002

losZ ua- 172@2] IykWV ua-&21]

o#u esVy ØkÝV]

gksVy fdz"uk ikdZ ds lkeus]

jk"Vªh; jktekxZ 8 & ch]

xksaMy jksM]

dksBkjh;k&jktdksV]

jktdksV] xqtjkr &360002

20-

3922869

22&02&2013

okVjÝyks ikb¯ix flLVe

rIr vkSj vrIr is;ty

15778

2007

losZ ua- 137@1]

forj.k O;oLFkk ds fy,

IykWV ua-&7 vkSj 10]

Dyksjhud`r ikWyhfouk;y

ikMoyk]

DyksjkbM (lhihohlh)

rkyqdk dksVMk lkaxuh]

ikbi

ftyk jktdksV]

xqtjkr& 360002

21-

3923063

25&02&2013

jhyhiQ iEi bUMLVªht

fueTtuh; iEi lsV

8034

2002

lkseukFk bUMLVªh;y ,fj;k ]

IykWV ua- 15] losZ ua- 224]

f'ko pksd] fdz"uk ikdZ ds lkeus]

dksBkjh;k jsyos Øksflax ds ikl]

xksaMy gkbos]

dksBkjh;k] jktdksV]

xqtjkr &360005

22-

3923669

27&2&2013

ekek izksMDVl

iSdstcan is;ty

14543

& 2004

ek:fr ,LVsV IykWV ua- 9

(iSdstcan izkÑfrd

iVsy Nk=kky ds lkeus]

feujy ty ds

tks/ij fjoj] tks/ij]

vykok)

ftyk jktdksV]

xqtjkr &363641

23-

3923770

27&02&2013

ijlksre y[kkelh ,.M d-

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ

1417

1999

xaxk cktkj]

feJ/krq,a ]

vatkj]

vkHkw"k.k@f'kYidkjh

ftyk dPN]

'kq¼rk ,oa eqgjkadu

xqtjkr& 370110

24-

3923871

27&02&2013

lksuh izseth xksfoanth

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ

1417

1999

gksLihVy jksM]

feJ/krq,a ]

fot; uxj]

vkHkw"k.k@f'kYidkjh

Hkqt]

'kq¼rk ,oa eqgjkadu

ftyk dPN]

xqtjkr& 370001

¹la- dsUnzh; izek.ku foHkkx@ 13%11º

,e- jk/kÑ"uk] oSKkfud ^,iQ* ,oa izeq[k

2208

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2013/CHAITRA 9, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 15th March, 2013

S.O. 734 .—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of the Regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certificate)

Regulations 1988, the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars of which are given

below in the following schedule :—

SCHEDULE

Sl.

Licence

Grant Date

Name and

Title of the

IS No.

Part Sec.

Year

No.

Address of

Standard

the Party

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7) (8)

(9)

01.

3915670

01-02-2013

M/s Nilkanth Traders

Specification for

1710

0 0

1989

Atika (South),

Pumps -Vertical

Nehrunagar Main Road,

Turbine Mixed and

Opposite Dharti Weigh

Axial Flow, for

Bridge, Rajkot,

Clear Cold Water

Gujarat-360002

02.

3915771

01-02-2013

M/s Falcon Pumps Pvt. Ltd.

Etectric Monoset

9079

0 0

2002

Survey No. 39/4,

Pumps for Clear,

Vavdi Industrial Area,

Cold Water for

Behind Hotel Krishna Park,

Agricultural and

At Vavdi,

Water Supply

District : Rajkot,

Purposes —

Gujarat-360004

Specification

03.

3917270

06-02-2013

M/s Jay Ambe Jewellers

Gold and Gold

1417

0 0

1999

Near Tower Chowk,

Alloys, Jewellery/

Gandhi Road,

Artefacts—Fineness

Taluka Kutiyana,

and Marking —

District : Porbandar,

Specification

Gujarat-362650

04.

3917371

06-02-2013

M/s Thaim Beverages.

Packaged Drinking

14543

0 0

2004

Village Durgapur,

Water (other than

Mandvi,

Packaged Natural

District : Kachchh,

Mineral Water) -

Gujarat-370465

Specification

05.

3917472

06-02-2013

M/s K. R. Jewellers

Gold and Gold

1417

0 0

1999

Shop No. 2/3,

Alloys, Jewellery/

Shri Mani Plaza,

Artefacts—Fineness

Kalubha Road,

and Marking

Kalanala,

Specification

District : Bhavnagar

Gujarat-364001

06.

3917573

07-02-2013

M/s Vagheshvari Jewellers

Gold and Gold

1417

0 0

1999

Junavas,

Alloys, Jewellery/

Ramani Nagar,

Artefacts—Fineness

Nakhatrana,

and Marking

District : Kachchh,

Specification

Gujarat-370615

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 30] 2013@pS=k 9] 1935

2209

07.

3917674

07-02-2013

M/s Dwarkesh Jewellers

Gold and Gold

1417

0 0

1999

Shree Shopping Centre,

Alloys, Jewellery/

Chakla Chowk,

Artefacts—Fineness

Babra,

and Marking —

District : Amreli,

Specification

Gujarat

08.

3917977

08-02-2013

M/s Dwarkesh Beverages.

Packaged Drinking

14543

0 0

2004

Survey No. 582,

Water (other than

Plot No. 81 to 84,

Packaged Natural

Village Varavala,

Mineral Water) -

Taluka Okhamandal,

Specification

Okhamandal,

District : Jamnagar,

Gujarat-361335

09.

3920158

15-02-2013

M/s Navratna Jewellers

Gold and Gold

1417

0 0

1999

Main Road,

Alloys, Jewellery/

Dhoraji,

Artefacts—Fineness

District : Rajkot,

and Marking—

Gujarat-360410

Specification

10.

3920259

15-02-2013

M/s Jay Dwarksdhid

Gold and Gold

1417

0 0

1999

Jewellers

Alloys, Jewellery/

Shop No. 4, 2-17,

Artefacts—Fineness

Gundawali,

and Marking

Krishna Appartment,

Specification

District : Rajkot,

Gujarat-360001

11.

3920057

18-02-2013

M/s Bharat Pump

Submersible

8034

0 0

2002

Industries,

Pumpsets -

1, Atlas Industrial Estate,

Specification

Plot No. 33,

Opposite Micro Fine

Shaghnti, Opposite

Hotel Krishna Park,

National Highway 8-B,

Gondal Road,

Rajkot,

Gujarat-360002

12.

3920663

18-02-2013

M/s Parth Enterprise

Submersible

8034

0 0

2002

Golden Industrial Area-2,

Pumpsets -

Behind Roler Bearing,

Specification

Opposite Hotel Krishna

Park, Railway Crossing,

Gondal Road,

Rajkot,

Gujarat-360002

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7) (8)

(9)

2210

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2013/CHAITRA 9, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

13.

3920764

18-02-2013

M/s Shiv Pumps

Submersible

8034

0 0

2002

Meera Udhyog,

Pumpsets -

Plot No. 65,

Specification

Near Aji,

GIDC Ring Road,

Rajkot,

Gujarat-360003

14.

3920865

19-02-2013

M/s Dharam Jewellers

Gold and Gold

1417

0 0

1999

Main Bazar,

Alloys, Jewellery/

P. O. Rapar,

Artefacts—Fineness

District : Kachchh,

and Marking —

Gujarat-370165

Specification

15.

3921867

21-02-2013

M/s Perfect Plastic

Specification for

4984

3 0

1995

Industries,

high density

National Highway 8-B,

polyethylene pipes

Near Speedwell Motors,

for potable water

Ranujadham Co-operative

supplies

Society, Anandpar,

Village Navagar,

District : Rajkot,

Gujarat-360003

16.

3922465

22-02-2013

M/s Radhika Jewellers

Gold and Gold

1417

0 0

1999

Main Bazar,

Alloys, Jewellery/

Jafrabad Road,

Artefacts—Fineness

Khambha,

and Marking —

District : Amreli,

Specification

Gujarat-365650

17.

3922566

22-02-2013

M/s Tulja Jewellers

Gold and Gold

1417

0 0

1999

Central Bank Road,

Alloys, Jewellery/

Main Bazar,

Artefacts—Fineness

Jamjodhpur,

and Marking-

District : Jamnagar

Specification

Gujarat-360530

18.

3922667

22-02-2013

M/s Winsor Pumps

Openwell

14220

0 0

1994

Survey No. 172/2,

Submersible

Plot No. 21,

Pumpsets -

Varun Metal Craft,

Specification

Opposite Hotel Krishna

Park, National

Highway 8-B,

Gondal Road,

Kothariya-Rajkot,

Rajkot, Gujarat-360002

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7) (8)

(9)

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 30] 2013@pS=k 9] 1935

2211

19.

3922768

22-02-2013

M/s Winsor Pumps

Submersible

8034

0 0

2002

Survey No. 172/2,

Pumpsets -

Plot No. 21,

Specification

Varun Metal Craft,

Opposite Hotel Krishna

Park,

National Highway 8-B,

Gondal Road,

Kothariya-Rajkot,

Rajkot, Gujarat-360002

20.

3922869

22-02-2013

M/s Waterflo Piping

Chlorinated PVC

15778

0 0

2007

System

Pipes For Potable

Survey No. 137/1,

Hot and Cold

Plot no. 7 & 10,

Water Distribution

Padavla,

Supplies

Taluka Kotda Sangani,

District : Rajkot,

Gujarat-360002

21.

3923063

25-02-2013

M/s Relief Pump Industries,

Submersible

8034

0 0

2002

Somnath Industrial Area,

Pumpsets -

Plot No. 15,

Specification

Survey No. 224,

Shiv Chowk,

Opposite Krishna Park,

Near Kothariya Railway

Crossing,

Gondal Highway,

Kothariya Rajkot,

Gujarat-360005

22.

3923669

27-02-2013

M/s Mama Products

Packaged Drinking

14543

0 0

2004

Maruti Estate,

Water (other than

Plot No. 9,

Packaged Natural

Opposite Patel Chhatra-

Mineral Water) -

laya, Jodhpar River,

Specification

Jodhpar,

District : Rajkot

Gujarat-363641

23.

3923770

27-02-2013

M/s Parshottam

Gold and Gold

1417

0 0

1999

Lakhamshi & Co.

Alloys, Jewellery/

Ganga Bazar,

Artefacts—Fineness

Anjar,

and Marking—

District : Kachchh,

Specification

Gujarat-370110

24.

3923871

27-02-2013

M/s Soni Premji

Gold and Gold

1417

0 0

1999

Govindji

Alloys, Jewellery/

Hospital Road,

Artefacts—Fineness

Vijaynagar, Bhuj,

and Marking —

District : Kachchh,

Specification

Gujarat-370001

[No. CMD/13 : 11 ]

M. RADHAKRISHNA, Scientist ‘F’ & Head

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7) (8)

(9)

2212

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2013/CHAITRA 9, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 15 ekpZ] 2013

dk-vk-735-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks (izek.ku) fofu;e] 1988 ds fofu;e 4 ds mifofu;e 5 ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks

,rn~}kjk vf/lwfpr djrk gS fd ftuds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa dks ykblsal jí fd, x, gSa %

vuqlwph

Ø-

ykblsal la[;k ykblsal/kjh dk uke

ykblsal ds vUrxZr oLrq@izØe

jíhdj.k frfFk

la-

,oa irk

lEc¼ Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZd

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

3869689 eSllZ vkse lkbZ csojst~l

iSdstcan is;ty

22 iQjojh] 2013

guqekuth eafnj ds ikl]

(iSdstcan izkÑfrd

th vkbZ Mh lh I ds lkeus]

feujy ty ds vykok)

xqMkyk]

rkyqdk flgksj]

ftyk Hkkouxj]

xqtjkr&364240

¹la- dsUæh; izek.ku foHkkx@13%11º

,e- jk/kÑ"uk] oSKkfud ^,iQ* ,oa izeq[k

New Delhi, the 15th March, 2013

S.O. 735 .—In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of the Regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification)

Regulations, 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant licences particulars of which are given

below have cancelled/suspended with effect from the date indicated against each :

SCHEDULE

Sl. No.

Licences

Name and Address of the

Article/Process with relevant Indian

Date of

No.

Licensee

Standards covered by the licence

Cancellation

CM/L-

cancelled/suspended

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

3869689

Om Sai Beverages

Packaged Drinking

22-02-2013

Near Hanumanji Temple,

Water (other than

Opp. GIDC-I, Gudala,

Packaged Natural

Taluka Sihor,

Mineral Water)-

Distt : Bhavnagar,

Specification

Gujarat -364240

[No. CMD/13:11]

M. RADHAKRISHNA, Scientist ‘F’ & Head

ubZ fnYyh] 18 ekpZ] 2013

dk-vk- 736-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e] 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mi&fu;e (1) ds [kaM ([k) ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud

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

vuqlwph

Øe la- LFkkfir Hkkjrh; ekudksa dh

u;s Hkkjrh; ekud }kjk

LFkkfir frfFk

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

vfrØfer Hkkjrh; ekud

vFkok ekudksa] ;fn dksbZ gks]

dh la[;k vkSj o"kZ

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

vkbZ,l 1448 ¹ih % 8º % 2012@vkbZ ,l vks@

dqN ugha

fnlEcj] 2012

4262%1993 isVªksfy;e ,oa blds mRiknksa dh

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 30] 2013@pS=k 9] 1935

2213

ijh{k.k i¼fr;k¡ ¹ih % 8º dkcZfud vof'k"V

Kkr djukµjSElckWVe i¼fr

(nwljk iqujh{k.k)

vkbZ,l 1448 ¹ih % 10@oxZ 1º % 2012@

dqN ugha

fnlEcj] 2012

vkbZ ,l vks@3015 % 1992 isVªksfy;e ,oa

blds mRiknksa dh ijh{k.k i¼fr;k¡ ¹ih % 10º

DykmM ikWbZV ,oa iksvj ikWbZV vuqHkkx 1

DykmM ikWbZV Kkr djuk (nwljk iqujh{k.k)

vkbZ,l 1448 ¹ih % 21º % 2012@vkbZ ,l

dqN ugha

fnlEcj] 2012

vks@2719%2002 isVªksfy;e ,oa blds mRiknksa

dh ijh{k.k i¼fr;k¡ ¹ih % 21º Toyu ¯cnq

Kkr djuk µ isUldh&ekVhZUl DyksTM di

i¼fr (rhljk iqujh{k.k)

vkbZ,l 1448 ¹ih % 39º % 2012@vkbZ ,l

dqN ugha

fnlEcj] 2012

vks@3007% 1999 isVªksfy;e ,oa blds

mRiknksa dh ijh{k.k i¼fr;k¡ ¹ih % 39º

ok"i nkc Kkr djuk µjhM i¼fr

(nwljk iqujh{k.k)

vkbZ,l 1448 ¹ih % 9º % 2013@vkbZ ,l

dqN ugha

tuojh] 2013

vks@5165%1998 isVªksfy;e ,oa blds mRiknksa

dh ijh{k.k i¼fr;k¡ ¹ih % 9º Mhty bZa/u

dh izToyu xq.krk Kkr djuk µlhVsu

batu i¼fr (igyk iqujh{k.k)

vkbZ,l 1448 ¹ih % 10@oxZ 2º % 2013@vkbZ

dqN ugha

tuojh] 2013

,l vks@3016%1994 isVªksfy;e ,oa blds

mRiknksa dh ijh{k.k i¼fr;k¡ ¹ih % 10º

DykmM ikWbaZV ,oa iksvj ikWbZaV vuqHkkx 2

iksvj ikWbZV Kkr djuk (nwljk iqujh{k.k)

vkbZ,l 1448 ¹ih % 27º % 2013@vkbZ ,l

dqN ugha

tuojh] 2013

vks@5164%2005 isVªksfy;e ,oa blds mRiknksa

dh ijh{k.k i¼fr;k¡ ¹ih % 27º eksVj bZ/u

dk viLiQksVd vfHky{k.k Kkr djukµ

vuqla/ku i¼fr (igyk iqujh{k.k)

vkbZ,l 1448 ¹ih % 30º% 2013@vkbZ ,l

dqN ugha

tuojh] 2013

vks@3735%1999 isVªksfy;e ,oa blds mRiknksa

dh ijh{k.k i¼fr;k¡ ¹ih % 30º dPpk

isVªksfy;e ,oa bZa/u rsy µ ryNV Kkr

djuk µ fu"d"kZ.k i¼fr (nwljk iqujh{k.k)

vkbZ,l 9316 ¹Hkkx 5º% 2013@vkbZ ,l

dqN ugha

tuojh] 2013

vks@123% 2001 jcM+ ySVsd~l dh ijh{k.k

i¼fr;ka Hkkx 5 uewus ysuk ¹vkj ,y % 5º

(nwljk iqujh{k.k)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

2214

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2013/CHAITRA 9, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

10-

vkbZ,l 14794 % 2013@vkbZ ,l vks@

dqN ugha

tuojh] 2013

2302% 2005 vkblksC;wVhu&vkblksizhu

jcM+ (vkbZ vkbZ vkj) µewY;kadu izfØ;k,a

(igyk iqujh{k.k)

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

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

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

¹lanHkZ ihlhMhth@7 (xtV)º

MkW- (Jhefr) fot; efyd] oSKkfud ^,iQ* ,oa izeq[k

(isVªksfy;e] dks;yk ,oa laca¼ mRikn foHkkx)

New Delhi, the 18th March, 2013

S.O. 736.—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 Standard, particulars of which are given in the

Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated :

SCHEDULE

Sl. No.

No. and Year of the Indian

No. and Year of the

Date of Established

Standards Established

Indian Standards, if

any, Superseded by the

New Indian Standard

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

IS 1448 [P: 8] : 2012/ISO 4262 : 1993

Dec., 2012

Methods of Test for Petroleum and its

Products [P :8] Determination of Carbon

Residue — Ramsbottom Method

(Second Revision)

IS 1448 [P: 10/Sec 1] : 2012/ISO 3015 :

Dec., 2012

1992 Methods of Test for Petroleum and

its Products [P: 10] Cloud Point and Pour

Point Section 1 Determination of Cloud

Point (Second Revision)

IS 1448 [Part 21] : 2012/ISO 2719 : 2002

Dec., 2012

Methods of Test for Petroleum and its

Products [P: 21] Determination of Flash

Point —Pensky-Martens Closed Cup

Method (Third Revision)

IS 1448 [P:39] : 2012/ISO 3007 : 1999

Dec., 2012

Methods of Test for Petroleum and its

Products [P :39] Determination of

Vapour Pressure - Reid Method

(Second Revision)

IS 1448 [P: 9] : 2013/ISO 5165 : 1998

Dec., 2013

Methods of Test for Petroleum and its

Products [P : 9] Determination of the

Ignition Quality of Diesel Fuels-Cetane

Engine Method (First Revision)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 30] 2013@pS=k 9] 1935

2215

IS 1448 [P: 10/Sec 1] : 2013/ISO 3016 :

Jan ., 2013

1994 Methods of Test for Petroleum and

its Products [P : 10] Cloud Point and Pour

Point Section 2 Determination of Pour

Point (Second Revision)

IS 1448 [P : 27] : 2013/ISO 5164 : 2005

Jan ., 2013

Methods of Test for Petroleum and its

Products [P : 27] Determination of Knock

Characteristies of Motor fules-Research

Method (First Revision)

IS 1448 [P : 30] : 2013/ISO 3735 : 1999

Jan ., 2013

Methods of Test for Petroleum and its

Products [P : 30] Crude Petroleum and

Fuel Oils-Determination of Sediment-

Extraction Method (Second Revision)

IS 9316 [P : 5] : 2013/ISO 123 : 2001

Jan ., 2013

Methods of Test for Rubber Latex Part 5

Drawing of Samples [RL:5]

(Second Revision)

10.

IS 14794 : 2013/ISO 2302 : 2005

Jan ., 2013

Isobutene-Isoprene Rubber (IIR) —

Evaluation Procedures

(First Revision)

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

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

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

Nagpur, Patna, Pune, Thiruvananthapuram.

[Ref. PCD/G-7(Gazette)]

Dr. (Mrs.) VIJAY MALIK, Scientist ‘F’ & Head

(Petroleum, Coal &Related Products Department)

ubZ fnYyh] 18 ekpZ] 2013

dk-vk-737-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e] 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mi&fu;e (1) ds [kaM ([k) ds vuqlj.k esa

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

vuqlwph

Øe la- la'kksf/r Hkkjrh; ekud dh

la'kks/u dh la[;k

la'kks/u ykxw gksus

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

vkSj frfFk

dh frfFk

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

vkbZ ,l 5325%1989 oLrqvksa ds ifjogu

la'kks/u la[;k 1]

rRdky izHkko ls

ds fy, ckDl iSysVksa dh ijh{k.k i}fr;ka

ekpZ] 2013

(igyk iqujh{k.k)

vkbZ ,l 7276%1989 oLrqvksa ds ifjogu

la'kks/u la[;k 2]

rRdky izHkko ls

ds fy, O;; u gksus okys lkekU; iz;kstu

ekpZ] 2013

ds ÝySV iSysV&fof'k"V

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

2216

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2013/CHAITRA 9, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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

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

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

¹lanHkZ Vh bZ Mh@th&16º

ih- lh- tks'kh] oSKkfud ^,iQ* ,oa izeq[k (Vh bZ Mh)

New Delhi, the 18th March, 2013

S.O. 737 .—In pursuance of clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rules 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987, the

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

Schedule hereto annexed have been issued :

SCHEDULE

Sl.No.

No. year and title of the

No. and year of the

Date from which

Indian Standards

Amendment

the Amendment

shall have effect

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

IS 5325:1989 Box Pallets for through

Amendment No. 1

With immediate

transit of goods — Methods of test

March, 2013

effect

IS 7276:1989 Non-expendable general

Amendment No. 2

With immediate

purpose flat pallets for through transit

March, 2013

effect

of goods — Specification

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

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

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

Nagpur, Patna, Pune, Parwanoo, Dehradun, Thiruvananthapuram.

[Ref TED /G-16]

P. C. JOSHI, Scientist ‘F’ & Head (Transport Engg.)

ubZ fnYyh] 19 ekpZ] 2013

dk-vk- 738-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e] 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mi&fu;e (1) ds [kaM ([k) ds vuqlj.k esa

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

x, gSa %µ

vuqlwph

Øe la- la'kksf/r Hkkjrh; ekud dh

la'kks/u dh la[;k

la'kks/u ykxw gksus

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

vkSj o"kZ

dh frfFk

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

vkbZ ,l 1825%1983 ,Y;wfefu;e feJ /krq

la'kks/u la[;k 3]

30] vizSy 2013

nw/ ds fMCcs & fof'kf"V (nwljk iqujh{k.k)

o"kZ 2012

vkbZ ,l 14433%2007 f'k'kq nqX/ ds oSdfYid

la'kks/u la[;k 3]

30] vizSy 2013

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

o"kZ

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 30] 2013@pS=k 9] 1935

2217

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

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

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

¹lanHkZ % ,iQ,Mh@th&128º

dqekj vfuy] oSKkfud ^,iQ* ,oa izeq[k ([kk| ,oa Ñf"k)

New Delhi, the 19th March, 2013

S.O. 738 .—In pursuance of clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rules 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987, the

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

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

SCHEDULE

Sl.No.

No. and Year of the

Date on which

Indian Standards

Amendment

the Amendment

shall have effect

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

IS 1825:1983 Specification for Aluminum

Amendment No. 3

30 April, 2013

Alloy Milks Cans (Second Revision)

Year 2012

IS 14433:2007 Infant milk substitute-

Amendment No. 3

30 April, 2013

Specification (First Revision)

Year 2012

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

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

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

Nagpur, Patna, Pune, Thiruvananthapuram.

[Ref FAD /G-128]

KUMAR ANIL, Scientist ‘F’ & Head (Food & Agri.)

ubZ fnYyh] 21 ekpZ] 2013

dk-vk-739-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks (izek.ku) fofu;e] 1988 ds fu;e 4 ds mi&fu;e (5) ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks

,rn~}kjk vf/lwfpr djrk gS fd ftu ykblsalksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gaS] os LohÑr dj fn, x, gSa %µ

vuqlwph

Øe

ykblsal

LohÑr djus

ykblsal/kjh dk

Hkkjrh;

Hkk- ek-

Hkkx vuq

o"kZ

la-

la[;k

dh frfFk

uke o irk

ekud dk

la[;k

o"kZ@ekg

'kh"kZd

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7) (8) (9)

3865883

03&09&2012

eSllZ pksdlh panwyky

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ

1417

1999

thojktHkkbZ]

/krqvksa ds vkHkw"k.kksa

Lokehukjk;.k eafnj ds ikl]

f'kYidkjh 'kq¼rk

MCY;w uacj 8&1662]

,oa eqgjkadu

HkkolkjokM]

ufM;kM&387001

2218

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2013/CHAITRA 9, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

3868081

03&09&2012

eSllZ vikj baMLVªht

bykLVksej balwysfVM

14494

& 1998

(;wfuÝySDl dscy)]

ÝySfDlcy dscYl

158&162]

iQkj ;wj bu ekbZUl

th vkbZMh lh] vacjxkWo

cylkn&396171

3866380

04&09&2012

eSllZ fo'kk[kk bjhxs'ku

;w ih oh lh ikbZi

13592

& 1992

izk- fyfeVsM]

iQkj lk;y rFkk

Cykd uacj 792]

osLV fMLpktZ

eksfud baMLVªh ds ikl]

flLVe bulkbZM

ljliqj jksM]

fc¯YMx buDyw¯Mx

xkWo eksrh cks;u]

oSafVys'ku rFkk

rk. dyksy] xka/huxj&382721

jsuokVj flLVe

3866077

04&09&2012

eSllZ ,dok lkÝV fcojst]

iSdstcan is;ty

14543

& 2004

IykV uacj 4@ch] jkes'oj

(vnj nSu iSdsTM

vikVZeSaV ds ikl] vkuan

uspqjy feujy okVj)

fpdksnjk jksM]

x.ks'k :ikiqjk ds ikl]

vkuan 388001

3872375

05&09&2012

eSllZ fouksnpanzk vkbZl

iSdstcan is;ty

14543

& 2004

iQSDVjh]

(vnj nSu iSdsTM

iQrsgiqjk jksM] dSuky

uspqjy feujy okVj)

pksdMh] [kj[kMh]

iknjkoMksnjk

3869285

06&09&2012

eSllZ tgku LVhy fyfeVsM]

dkcZu LVhy dkLV

2830

& 2012

IykV uacj 1515]

fcySV buxksVl] fcySV

th vkbZ Mh lh]

Cywel rFkk LyScl

dsjkyk] ckoyk]

iQkj fj jks¯yx baV~

vgenkckn 382220

LVhy iQkj tujy

LVdpjy ijil

3867988

07&09&2012

eSllZ Hkxokunkl toSylZ

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ

1417

1999

<ksyhdqbZ uxj dqvka jksM]

/krqvksa ds vkHkw"k.kksa

'kkghokykuh [kMdh]

f'kYidkjh 'kq¼rk

isVykM]

,oa eqgjkadu

gkml uacj 399@1]

okMZ uacj 6] vkuan

3870270

10&09&2012

eSllZ izxfr ,xzks baMLVªht]

ikoj Fkzs'klZ]

9020

2002

9] fouk;d iQysV]

lsÝVh

[ksjkyw jksM]

fjDok;jeSaVl

foluxj] esglkuk

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7) (8) (9)

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 30] 2013@pS=k 9] 1935

2219

3868586

11&09&2012

eSllZ xksdqy iQwM rFkk

iSdstcan is;ty

14543

& 2004

fcojst]

(vnj nSu iSdsTM

vfrfFk xksdqy]

uspqjy feujy okVj)

xksrk Økl jksM]

xksrk pksdMh]

,l th gkbos xksrk]

vgenkckn 380061

10-

3868687

11&09&2012

eSllZ ;'k jcj baMLVªht]

,fe¯Vx ikbZIl

13488

& 2008

losZ uacj 25]

flLVe

,V csrkyh] bMj]

lkcjkdkaVk

11-

3871878

11&09&2012

eSllZ dkafryky pquhyky

,DlIyksflo

60079

2007

rFkk lUl ,iykb¯ll

,VeklfiQ;lZ

izk- fyfeVsM]

ikVZ&1] bD;wieSaV

48@493] tokgj jksM]

izksVSD'ku ckbZ

m|ksxuxj] m/uk]

iQyseizqiQ

lwjr 394210

,udyksllZ ^^Mh**

12-

3869184

12&09&2012

eSllZ xzsV okbZV

ih oh lh

694

& 1990

bySfDVªdYl ikz- fy-

balwysfVM dscy

ih uacj ,l uacj@32@

2@ih2] 35@2] 36@1]

38@ih] 39@2]

,u ,p &8]

xkao xqaMyko

oylkn

13-

3870674

12&09&2012

eSllZ izeq[k fcojst

iSdstcan is;ty

14543

& 2004

cSad vkiQ cM+ksnk ds ikl

(vnj nSu iSdsTM

,V rFkk ih vks mpy]

uspqjy feujy okVj)

fMfLVªDV rkih]

lwjr&394375

14-

3871272

17&09&2012

eSllZ Jh ckykth ToSylZ]

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ

1417

1999

,] 8 flYoj dkEiySDl]

/krqvksa ds vkHkw"k.kksa

oh ih jksM] /kschokM]

f'kYidkjh 'kq¼rk

oylkn&396001

,oa eqgjkadu

15-

3870876

17&09&2012

eSllZ ,u ,l toSylZ]

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ

1417

1999

5] 6] dey dkEiySDl]

/krqvksa ds vkHkw"k.kksa

ljnkj LVsfM;e ldZy ds

f'kYidkjh 'kq¼rk

ikl] lh th jksM] uojaxiqjk]

,oa eqgjkadu

vgenkckn&380009

16-

3870977

17&09&2012

eSllZ jkf/dk ToSylZ]

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ

1417

1999

tSu ikB'kkyk ds lkeus]

/krqvksa ds vkHkw"k.kksa

LVs'ku jksM

f'kYidkjh 'kq¼rk

esglkuk&384001

,oa eqgjkadu

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7) (8) (9)

2220

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2013/CHAITRA 9, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

17-

3871070

17&09&2012

eSllZ n xksYM ekdZ]

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ

1417

1999

4@5] ikfVnkj ftu

/krqvksa ds vkHkw"k.kksa

dkEiySDl] LVs'ku jksM]

f'kYidkjh 'kq¼rk

ih vks ckjMksyh]

,oa eqgjkadu

fM- lwjr&394206

18-

3871171

18&09&2012

eSllZ vYVªk fofu;j izksMDV~l]

oqMu Ýy'k Mksj

2202

1999

Cykd uacj 491]

'kVlZ (lkfyM dksj

,V rktikj xk¡o]

VkbZi)% ikVZ 1

rk- izkafrt]

IykbZoqM iQsl

fM- lkcjdkaVk 382305

iSuyl

19-

3871373

18&09&2012

eSllZ vYVªk fofu;j izksMDVl]

Cykd cksMZ

1659

2004

Cykd uacj 491]

,V rktikj xk¡o]

rk- izkafrt]

fM- lkcjdkaVk 382305

20-

3871777

18&09&2012

eSllZ egkohj lce£lcYl

eksVlZ iQkj

9283

1995

izk- fy-] losZ uacj 287]

lce£lcy

oSLVªu isVªksy iEi ds

iEilSV

lkeus] dkyhdqM]

[ksMk gkbos] <ksydk]

[ksM+k&387810

21-

3870775

18&09&2012

eSllZ xq:Ñik vkVZ toSyjh]

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ

1417

1999

rkjokMh ikMks okMZ uacj 3]

/krqvksa ds vkHkw"k.kksa

gkml uacj 6]

f'kYidkjh 'kq¼rk

3@6 ih ,u ch LVs'ku jksM

,oa eqgjkadu

ds ikl] vkxsdne jksM]

isVykM] fM- vkuan

3871979

18&09&2012

eSllZ , ,e LVhy]

dkcZu LVhy dkLV

2830

& 2012

IykV uacj 4]

fcySV buxksVl] fcySV

Cykd uacj 382]

Cywel rFkk LyScl

pkaxksnj baMfLVª;y ,LVsV]

iQkj fj&jks¯yx baV~

f=kosnh ekcZy ysu]

LVhy iQkj tujy

lj[kst ckoyk gkbos

LVdpjy ijil

pkaxksnj

vgenkckn 382213

23-

3872072

18&09&2012

eSllZ Jh cgqpj baMLVªht

iEil & fjtSujsfVo

8472

1998

41@,@1] mfe;k ,LVsV]

vkSj Dyh;j]

,u ,p uacj 8]

dksYM okVj

jf[k;ky] vgenkckn

24-

3874682

25&09&2012

eSllZ Jh gfj baMLVªht

lce£lcy

8034

2002

ch@12] eaxye ,LVsV]

iEilSV

vksedkj Øk¯lx jksM]

eSedks] ujksMk]

vgenkckn 380025

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7) (8) (9)

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 30] 2013@pS=k 9] 1935

2221

25-

3875179

25&09&2012

eSllZ ghjkack baMLVªht fyfeVsM]

MSYVkeSFkfju ,iQ

14411

1996

;wfuV&3]

IykV uacj 1503@1]

th vkbZ Mh lh iQsl III

okih oylkn&396195

26-

3872981

25&09&2012

eSllZ eksrh xksYM]

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ

1417

1999

51] vydkiqjh vkjdMs]

/krqvksa ds vkHkw"k.kksa

oSyde gksVy ds lkeus]

f'kYidkjh 'kq¼rk

vkj lh nr jksM]

,oa eqgjkadu

oMksnjk&390007

27-

3874076

25&09&2012

eSllZ Hkw feujy]

iSdstcan is;ty

14543

& 2004

547] lSaVªy tsy jksM]

(vnj nSu iSdstM

lqHkk"k czht] lkcjerh]

uspqjy feujy okVj)

vgenkckn&380027

28-

3874177

25&09&2012

eSllZ Jh y{eh oqM baMLVªht]

eSfju IykbZoqM

710

& 2010

Cykd uacj 119@120]

mtsfM;k jksM]

lyriqj pksdMh ds ikl]

,V ekfg;ky] rk rkyksM]

fMfLVªDV lkcjdkaVk&383215

29-

3874278

26&09&2012

eSllZ eSd oSy VSDlVkbZy

lce£lcyl

8034

2002

baMLVªht]

iEilSV

2] ,ykbZM baMfLVª;y ,LVsV]

ukjk;.k os czht ds ikl

vfuy LVªkp jksM]

vgenkckn&380025

30-

3873276

26&09&2012

eSllZ dY;k.k toSylZ lkyse

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ

1417

1999

izk- fyfeVsM] 732&1]

/krqvksa ds vkHkw"k.kksa

pknkokM iqfyl LVs'ku ds

f'kYidkjh 'kq¼rk

lkeus] vackokMh]

,oa eqgjkadu

vgenkckn&380006

31-

3873377

26&09&2012

eSllZ efu"k rFkk dEiuh]

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ

1417

1999

'kkWi uacj 4]5]10 fl}kFkZ

/krqvksa ds vkHkw"k.kksa

dkEiySDl] dkyst jksM]

f'kYidkjh 'kq¼rk

ih vks isVykM]

,oa eqgjkadu

fM- vkuan&388450

32-

3873478

26&09&2012

eSllZ xyksfjuk toSylZ]

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ

1417

1999

309] bLdksu vkjdMs]

/krqvksa ds vkHkw"k.kksa

Lokxr Økl jksM ds ikl]

f'kYidkjh 'kq¼rk

lh th jksM]

,oa eqgjkadu

vgenkckn&380009

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7) (8) (9)

2222

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2013/CHAITRA 9, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

33-

3873579

26&09&2012

eSllZ pksdlh lkxjeky

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ

1417

1999

izrkipan] 120@19@126

/krqvksa ds vkHkw"k.kksa

ef.kyky ukFkkHkkbZ uh pky]

f'kYidkjh 'kq¼rk

ijekuan iVsy uh pky]

,oa eqgjkadu

iksiVkokM ds ikl]

jktiqj xkserhiqj]

vgenkckn&380021

34-

3874397

27&09&2012

eSllZ y{eh toSylZ]

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ

1417

1999

17@18@19] th ,iQ ,fiQy

/krqvksa ds vkHkw"k.kksa

Vkoj] yacs guqeku jksM]

f'kYidkjh 'kq¼rk

ojkNk]

,oa eqgjkadu

lwjr&395006

35-

3874985

27&09&2012

eSllZ lkjFkh ,xzks dSe]

DyksjikbZfjiQkl

8944

1978

1306@5] iQsl&4

beyfliQkb,cy

th vkbZ Mh lh] ujksMk

dalaVªsV

vgenkckn&382330

36-

3875078

27&09&2012

eSllZ 'kkyhekj IykfLVd

yks MSyflVh

2508

1984

baMLVªht] IykV uacj 1812]

ikyfFkyhu

th vkbZ Mh lh] gyksy]

fiQYe

iapegy&389350

37-

3875987

27&09&2012

eSllZ ijiQSDV dscYl]

ih oh lh

694

1990

IykV uacj 50]

balwysfVM

uokxke m|ksx uxj]

dscy

,u ,p uacj 8]

dkejst pkj jLrk]

dkejst lwjr

38-

3875381

27&09&2012

eSllZ fo'kkV cksV¯yx]

iSdstcan is;ty

14543

& 2004

159@, vk'kZokZ

(vnj nSu iSdstM

baMfLVª;y ikdZ]

uspqjy feujy okVj)

liQkjh dkEiySDl]

HkSLVu] lwjr&395023

39-

3875482

28&09&2012

eSllZ lkbZ gLrh fcojstl]

iSdstcan is;ty

14543

& 2004

IykV uacj lh@12@,]

(vnj nSu iSdstM

ty/kjk lkslkbVh]

uspqjy feujy okVj)

,V xk¡o fllks/jk (x.ks'k)]

rk uolkjh&396463

40-

3881679

28&09&2012

eSllZ lkjFkh ,aVjizkbZl]

iSdstcan is;ty

14543

& 2004

36] ;equk uxj]

(vnj nSu iSdstM

eksek;h ds ikl]

uspqjy feujy okVj)

ekrk eafnj] vatuk

iQkeZ] lwjr&395010

¹la- lh ,e Mh@13%11º

MkW- ,l- ,y- ikydj] oSKkfud ^,iQ* ,oa izeq[k

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7) (8) (9)

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 30] 2013@pS=k 9] 1935

2223

New Delhi, the 21st March, 2013

S.O. 739.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of the Regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification)

Regulations 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars of which are given in

the following schedule :—

SCHEDULE

Sl.

Licence

Grant Date

Name and

Title of the

IS No.

Part Sec.

Year

No.

Address of

Standard

the Party

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7) (8)

(9)

01.

3865883

03-09-2012

M/s Choksi Chandulal

Gold and gold

1417

0 0

1999

Jivrajbhai, Near Swamina-

Alloys, Jewellery/

rayan Temple, WNo. 8-1662,

Artefacts-Fineness

Bhavsarwad, Nadiad. 387001 and marking

02.

3868081

03-09-2012

M/s APAR Industries Ltd.

Elastomer insultated 14494

0 0

1998

(Unit: Uniflex Cables)

flexible cables for

158-162, G I D C, umbergaon, use in mines

Valsad -396171

(Combined revision

of IS: 691 and IS: 1026)

03.

3866380

04-09-2012

M/s Sishakha Irrigation

UPVC Pipes for soil 13592

0 0

1992

Pvt. LTd. Block No. 792,

and waste discharge

NR. Monic Industry,

systems inside

Sabaspur Raod, Village

buildings including

Moti Bhoyan, Taluka: Kalol

ventilation and rain-

Gandhinagar -382721

water system

04.

3866077

04-09-2012

M/s Aqua Soft Beverages

Packaged Drinking

14543

0 0

2004

Plot No. 4/B, Near Ramesh-

Water (other than

war appartment, Anand

Packaged Natural

Chikodara Road, Near

Mineral Water) -

Ganesh Rupa Pura

Anand-388001

05.

3872375

05-09-2012

M/s Vinodchandra Ice

Packaged Drinking

14543

0 0

2004

Factory Fatehpura Road,

Water (other than

Canal Chokdi, Karkhadi,

Packaged Natural

Padra. Vadodara

Mineral Water) -

06.

3869285

06-09-2012

M/s Jahaan Steel Limited

Carbon Steel cast

2830

0 0

2012

Plot No. 1515, G. I.D.C.

billet ingots, billets,

Kerala, Bavla Ahmedabad-

blooms and slabs for

382220

re-rolling into steel for

general structural

purposes

07.

3867988

07-09-2012

M/s Bhagvandas Jewellers

Gold and Gold

1417

0 0

1999

Dholikui Nagar Kua Road,

Alloys, Jewellery/

Shahiwalani Khadki, Petlad

Artefacts—Fineness

Dist Anand House No. 399/1

and Marking

Ward No 6. Anand

2224

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2013/CHAITRA 9, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

08.

3870270

10-09-2012

M/s Pragati Agro Industries

Power threshers-

9020

0 0

2002

9, Vinayak Flat, Kheralu Road Safety Requirements

Visnagar, Mahesana-

384315 Gujarat

09.

3868586

11-09-2012

M/s Gokul Food and

Packaged drinking

14543

0 0

2004

Beverages Atithi Gokul,

water (other than

Gota Cross Road, Gota

packaged natural

Chokdi, S. G. Highway.

mineral water)

Gota. Ahmedabad -380061

10.

3868687

11-09-2012

M/s Yash Rubber Industires Emitting pipes system 13488

0 0

2008

Survey No. 25, At Bhetali,

Idar, Sabarkantha

11.

3871878

11-09-2012

M/s Kantilal chunilal and

Explosive atmospheres 60079

1 0

2007

Sons Appliances Pvt LTd.

part 1 equipment

48/49 3, Jawahar Road

protection by flameproof

Udhyognagar, Udhna

encloures “D”

Surat-394210

12.

3869184

12-09-2012

M/s Great White Electricals

PVC Insulated

694

0 0

1990

Pvt. Ltd. P.No. S. No. 32/2

Cables

P2, 35/2, 36/1,38/P, 39/2,

NH-8 Village-Gundlav

Valsad

13.

3870674

12-09-2012

M/s Pramukh Beverages

Packaged drinking

14543

0 0

2004

Near Bank of Baroda, At &

water (othr than

PO Uchhal DistTapi Surat

packaged natural

Uchhal -394375

mineral water)

14.

3871272

17-09-2012

M/s Shree Balaji Jewellers

Gold and Gold

1417

0 0

1999

A, 8 Silver Complex V. P.

Alloys, Jewellery/

Road, Dhobiwad Valsad.

Artefacts—Fineness

396001

and Marking

15.

3870876

17-09-2012

M/s N.S. Jewels

Gold and Gold

1417

3 0

1999

5,6, K amal Complex, Near

Alloys, Jewellery/

Sardar Stadium Circle, C.G.

Artefacts—Fineness

Road, Navrangpura,

and Marking

Ahmedabad-380009

16.

3870977

17-09-2012

M/s Radhika Jewellers

Gold and Gold

1417

0 0

1999

Opposite Jain Pathshala

Alloys, Jewellery/

Station Road, Mehsana-

Artefacts—Fineness

384001,

and Marking

17.

3871070

17-09-2012

M/s The Gold Mark

Gold and Gold

1417

0 0

1999

4/5 Patidar, Jin Complex,

Alloys, Jewellery/

Station Road,

Artefacts—Fineness

PO Bardoli, Dist

and Marking

Surat-394206

18.

3871171

18-09-2012

M/s Ultra Veneer Products

Wooden flush door 2202

1 0

1999

Block No. 491, At. Tajpar

shutters (solid core

Village, Ta Prantij, Dist

type): part 1 plywood

Sabarkantha

face panels

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7) (8)

(9)

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 30] 2013@pS=k 9] 1935

2225

19.

3871373

18-09-2012

M/s. Ultra Veneer

Block boards

1659

- -

2004

Block No. 491, AT

Tajpur

Village, TA : Prantij,

Dist, Sabarkantha- 382305

20.

3871777

18-09-2012

M/s. Mahavir Submersibles

Motors for sub-

9283

- -

1995

Pvt. Ltd. Survey No. 287,

mersible pumpsets

Opp: Western Petrol Pump,

Kalikund, Kheda Highway,

Dholka. Kheda-387810

21.

3870775

18-09-2012

M/s. Gurukrupa Art Jewellery Gold and gold alloys 1417

- -

1999

Tarwadi Pado Ward No. 3,

jewellery/artefacts-

House No. 6, 3/6 Near PNB

fineness and marking

Station Road, Aage Kadam

Road, Petlad Dist. Anand

22.

3871979

18-09-2012

M/s. A.M. Steel

Carbon Steel cast

2830

- -

2012

Plot No. 4 , Block No. 382,

billet ingots, billets,

Changodar Ind. Estate,

blooms and slabs for

Trivedi Marble Lane,

re-rolling into steel for

Sarkhej Bawla, Highway

general structural

Changodar, Ahmedabad-

purposes

382213

23.

3872072

18-09-2012

M/s. Shree Bahuchar

Pumps- regenera-

8472

- -

1998

Industries, 41/A/1,

tive of clear, cold

Umiya Estate, N. H.

water-

No. 8, Rakhial,

Ahmedabad

24.

3874682

25-09-2012

M/s. Shree Hari Industries

Submersible

8034

- -

2002

B/12, Manglum Estate,

pumpsets

Omkar Crossing Rod,

Memco, Naroda.

Ahmedabad-380025

25.

3875179

25-09-2012

M/s.Heranba Industries

Deltamethrin f-

14411

- -

1996

Ltd., Unit-3 Plot No.

1503/1, GIDC, Phase III,

Vapi Valsad-396195

26.

3872981

25-09-2012

M/s. Moti Gold

Gold and gold alloys, 1417

- -

1999

51, Alkapuri Arcede,

jewellery/artefacts-

Opp Welcome Hotel R.C.

fineness and marking

Dutt Road, Vadodara.

390007

27.

3874076

25-09-2012

M/s. Bhoo Mineral

Packaged drinking

14543

- -

2004

547, Central Jail Road,

water (other than

Subhash Bridge, Sabarmati

packaged natural

Ahmedabad-380027

mineral water)

28.

3874177

25-09-2012

M/s. Shree Laxmi Wood

Marine plywood

710

- -

2010

Industries Block No.

119/120 Ujediya Road, Near

Salatpur Chowkadi At

Mahiyal, TA: Talod,

Dist: Sabarkantha,

383215

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7) (8)

(9)

2226

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2013/CHAITRA 9, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

29.

3874278

26-09-2012

M/s. Mac-Well Textile

Submersible Pumpsets 8034

- -

2002

Industries

2, Allied Ind. Estate, NR

Narayan Way Bridge, Anil

Starch Road,

Ahmedabad-380025

30.

3873276

26-09-2012

M/s. Kalyan Jewellers Salem Gold and gold

1417

- -

1999

Pvt. Ltd. 732,-1, Opp

alloys, jewellery/

Chadawad Police Station,

artefacts fineness

Ambawadi, Ahmedabad-

and marking

380006

31.

3873377

26-09-2012

M/s. Manish & Co.

Gold and gold

1417

- -

1999

Shop No. 4, 5,10,

alloys, jewellery/

Siddharth Complex,

artefacts fineness

College Road,

and marking

PO: Petlad, Dist. :

Anand-388450

32.

3973478

26-09-2012

M/s. Glorina Jewels

Gold and gold

1417

- -

1999

309, Iscon Arcade,

alloys, jewellery/

Near Swagat Cross Road,

artefacts fineness

C.G. Road, Ahmedabad-

and marking

380009

33.

3873579

26-09-2012

M/s. Choksi Sagarmal

Gold and gold

1417

- -

1999

Partapchand

alloys, jewellery/

120/19/126, Manilal

artefacts fineness

Nathabhai Ni Chawl,

and making

Parmanand Patel Ni Chawal

Near Popatyavad, Rajpur-

Gomtipur, Ahmedabad-38 0021

34.

3874379

27-09-2012

M/s. Laxmi Jewellers

Gold and gold

1417

- -

1999

17/18/19, G.F. Affiel Tower,

alloys, jewellery/

Lambe Hanuman Road,

artefacts fineness

Varachha, Surat-395006

and marking

35.

3874985

27-09-2012

M/s. Sarathi Agro Chem

Chlorpyrifos

8944

- -

1978

1306/5, Phase-4 G.I.D.C.

emulsifiable

Naroda,

concentrates

Ahmedabad-382330

36.

3875078

27-09-2012

M/s. Shalimar Plastic

Low density

2508

- -

1984

Industries Plot No. 1812,

polyethylene films

GIDC Halol,

Panchamahal, Halol-389350

37.

3875987

27-09-2012

M/s. Perfect Cables

PVC Insulated

694

- -

1990

Plot No. 50, Navagam

Cables

Udyognagar, N.H. No.

8, Kamrej Char Rasta,

Kamrej, Surat

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7) (8)

(9)

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 30] 2013@pS=k 9] 1935

2227

38.

3875381

27-09-2012

M/s. Vishat Bottling

Packed drinking

14543

— —

2004

159/A, Ashirwad

water (other than

Industrial

packaged natural

Park, Safari Complex

mineral water)

Bhesten, Surat-395023

39.

3875482

27-09-2012

M/s. Sai Hasti Beverages

Packed drinking

14543

— —

2004

Plot No. C/12/A

water (other than

Jaldhara SOC, AT Village

packaged natural

Sisodra (Ganesh), TA:

mineral water)

Navsari-396463

40.

3881679

28-09-2012

M/s. Sarathi Enterprise

Packed drinking

14543

— —

2004

36, Yamuna Nagar, Near

water (other than

Momayi, Mata Mamdir,

packaged natural

Anjana Farm, Surat- 395010

mineral water)

[No. CMD/13 : 11 ]

Dr. S.L. PALKAR, Scientist‘F’& Head

ubZ fnYyh] 21 ekpZ] 2013

dk-vk- 740 -—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks (izek.ku) fofu;e] 1988 ds fofu;e 5 ds mi&fofu;e 6 ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud

C;wjks ,rn~}kjk vf/lwfpr djrk gS fd fuEu fooj.k okys ykblsalksa dks muds vkxs n'kkZ;h xbZ rkjh[k ls jn~n@LFkfxr dj fn;k x;k gS %—

vuqlwph

Ø-

ykblsal la[;k ykblsal/kjh dk uke

ykblsal ds vUrxZr oLrq@izØe

jn~n djus dh frfFk

la-

o irk

lEc¼ Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZd

3782879 eSllZ okVjiQkslZ iEil]

vkbZ ,l 8034% 2002

22&9 &2012

7 osnkar izHkk ,LVsV] fdj.k eksVj dEikmaM lce£lcy iEilSV

ds ihNs] lj[kst lkuan jksM] vgenkckn&

382210

¹la- lh,eMh@13%13º

MkW- ,l- ,y- ikydj] oSKkfud ^,iQ* ,oa izeq[k

New Delhi, the 21st March, 2013

S.O. 740 .—In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of the Regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification)

Regulations, 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies that the licences particulars of which are given

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

SCHEDULE

Sl. No.

Licences

Name and Address of the

Article/Process with relevant Indian

Date of

No.

Licensee

Standards covered by the licence

Cancellation

CM/L-

cancelled

3782879

M/s. Waterforce Pumps

IS 8034 : 2002

11-09-2012

7, Vedant Prabha Estate, Behind Kiran Submersible

Motor Compund, Sarkhej- Sanand

Pumpsets

Road, Distt: Ahmedabad -382210

[No. CMD/13:13]

Dr. S. L. PALKAR, Scientist ‘F’ & Head

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7) (8)

(9)

2228

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2013/CHAITRA 9, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 21 ekpZ] 2013

dk-vk- 741-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks (izek.ku) fu;e] 1988 ds fu;e 4 ds mi&fu;e (5) ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks

,rn~}kjk vf/lwfpr djrk gS fd ftu Ykkblsalksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gaS] os LohÑr dj fn, x, gaS %µ

vuqlwph

Øe

ykblsal

LohÑr djus

ykblsal/kjh dk

Hkkjrh;

Hkk- ek-

Hkkx vuq

o"kZ

la-

la[;k

dh frfFk

uke o irk

ekud dk

la[;k

o"kZ@ekg

'kh"kZd

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7) (8) (9)

3874783

01&10&2012

eSllZ [kksfM;kj ,xzks baMLVªht]

ikoj Fkzs'klZ lsÝVh

9020

& 2002

3ch] jktsUnzk baMfLVª;y ,LVsV]

fjdok;jeSaVl

[ksjkyw jksM] esglkuk]

foluxj&384315

3874884

01&10&2012

eSllZ 'kfDRk ToSylZ

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ

1417

& 1999

drkjxke losZ ua- 54] Cyksd ua-

/krqvksa ds vkHkw"k.kksa

183] oqQcsjuxj&1]

f'kYidkjh 'kq¼rk

drkjxke njoktk cgkj] drkjxke

,oa eqgjkadu

ftyk lwjr&395004

3875280

03&10&2012

eSllZ mek iksyhelZ]

gkbZ MSaflVh ifkyfFkyhu4984

& 1995

IyksV ua- 8] f=kHkksou ,LVsV] ek#fr

ikbZil iQkj ikZsVscy okVj

os&czht ds lkeus th-vkbZ- Mh-lh- jksM

lIykbZl

ua- 8] dBokMk vgenkckn&

382430 xqtjkr

3876989

05&10&2012

eSllZ lsok baMLVªht

lce£lcy iEilSV

8034

& 2002

2] vkse ,LVsV] ,l-ch-vkbZ cSad

ds ihNs] Ñ".kk xksiky ,LVsV ds

lkeus] ujksMk jksM

vgenkckn&380025

3878084

05&10&2012

eSllZ ls,Dl] IykV uacj

,DlIyksflo

vkbZ ,l@ 1

2007

1801@9] pkSFkk isQl]

,VekslfiQ;lZ ikVZ 1

vkbZ bZ lh

thvkbZMhlh] foB~By

bD;wieSaV izkVSD'ku

60079

m|ksxuxj] vkuan&388121

ck; ÝyseizqiQ

,udyksllZ ¶Mh¸

3878387

10&10&2012

eSllZ uodkj fcYMlZ fyfeVsM]

izhdkLV dkaØhV ikbi 458

& 2003

xk¡o la/kuk] Cykd lh ds uacj

(fon rFkk fonkmV

1160 rFkk 1161 ,] ekrj [ksMk

jsfuiQkslZeSaV)

3878488

10&10&2012

eSllZ lsok baMLVªht

vksiuoSy lce£lcy

14220

& 1994

2] vkse ,LVsV] ,l-ch-vkbZ caSd

iEilSV

ds ihNs] Ñ".kk xksiky ,LVsV]

ujksMk jksM

vgenkckn&380025

3877183

10&10&2012

eSllZ th,e iwQM rFkk fcojst]

iSdstcan is;ty

14543

& 2004

IykV uacj 45@3 oj[kokyk ikVhZ

(vnj nSu iSdsTM

IykV ds ikl] , ih ,e lh ekdsZV

uspqjy feujy okVj)

ds lkeus] fo'kkyk ldZy] okluk

lj[kst jksM] vgenkckn&380055

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 30] 2013@pS=k 9] 1935

2229

3877284

10&10&2012

eSllZ fcUnqd{kh TosylZ]

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ

1417

1999

11@6@795 lh ih dkyst ds ihNs]

/krqvksa ds vkHkw"k.kksa

Hkxr¯lg dh izfrek ds ikl]

f'kYidkjh 'kq¼rk

vk.kan 388001

,oa eqgjkadu

10-

3877385

10&10&2012

eSllZ v{kj ToSylZ]

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ

1417

1999

8@1126&01] leMh pdyk

/krqvksa ds vkHkw"k.kksa

ds ikl HkkolkjokM] uMh;kn

f'kYidkjh 'kq¼rk

ftyk% [ksMk

,oa eqgjkadu

11-

3877991

11&10&2012

eSllZ jks;y ToSylZ

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ

1417

& 1999

'kksi ua- 47 xzkmUM Ýyksj jpuk

/krqvksa ds vkHkw"k.kksa

psEcj] cjksMk fizLVst ds ikl

f'kYidkjh 'kq¼rk

ojkNk] jksM ftyk% lwjr

,oa eqgjkadu

12-

3882782

11&10&2012

eSllZ Jh fuyksldj baMLVªht

vksiuoSy lce£loy 14220

& 1994

,& 10] izdk'k baMfLVª;y ,lVsV

iEilSV

jhVkuxj ds lkeus oL=kky jksM]

vejkbZokMh vgenkckn 380026

13-

3878589

12&10&2012

eSllZ ;qfud fcojsftl]

iSdstcan is;ty

14543

2004

,&6, xqykc okVhdk VsukesUV] jktho

(vanj nSu iSds tM

Vkoj ds ihNs raUMkytk jksM]

uspqjy feujy okVj)

vks ih jksM] oMkSnjk

14-

3879187

12&10&2012

eSllZ nkjkfld gSYFk ds;j bal]

iSdstcan is;ty

14543

2004

224& lgtkuan ,lVsV] ,V xkWo

(vanj nSu iSds tM

lj[kst] ,V rk

uspqjy feujy okVj)

vgenkckn 382210

15-

3879288

15&10&2012

eSllZ lksukegksj

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ

1417

& 1999

34@2013] lksuh ckl]

/krqvksa ds vkHkw"k.kksa

pksDlh ctkj] Mhlk

f'kYidkjh 'kq¼rk

ftyk% cukldkaBk

,oa eqgjkadu

385535

16-

3879389

15&10&2012

eSllZ lquhy oqQekj euhyky pksDlh

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ

14220

& 1999

oksMZ ua 10] Hkkolkj okM] ukViqj cSad /krqvksa ds vkHkw"k.kksa

ds ikl] uMh;kn

f'kYidkjh 'kq¼rk

ftyk% [ksMk 387001

,oa eqgjkadu

17-

3880071

15&10&2012

uspj izksMDVl 46] ukyank ,lVsV

vksiuoSy lce£lcy 14220

1994

fxjukj LDwQVj dEikmaM] ljnkj

iEilSV

iVsy ¯jx jksM loZQy ds ikl]

vks<o] vgenkckn 382415

18-

3880172

17&10&2012

eSllZ y'k ,Dok ,y ,y ih]

iSdstcan is;ty

14543

2004

losZ uacj 60] fiiksMh ,u ,p

(vnj nSu iSosQtM

uacj 8] ljnkj Msjh ds ikl]

uspqjy feujy okVj)

fgEeruxj] lkcjdkaVk 383006

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7) (8)

(9)

2230

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2013/CHAITRA 9, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

19-

3880475

17&10&2012

eSllZ ts eSp baMLVªht

Lohfpl iQkj MkseSfLVd 3854

& 1997

25] lkosQt ,lVsV]

,aM flfeyj ijil

jkenso elkyk ds lkeus] pkaxksnj

eksjS; vgenkckn

20-

3880980

22&10&2012

eSllZ ;ksxs'koqQekj ,UM cz/lZ

Lo.kZ RkFkk Lo.kZ /krqvksa 1417

& 1999

v'kksd LraHk ds ikl] pksDlh

ds vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh

ctkj] Vkoj ctkj

'kq¼rk ,oa eqgjkadu

ftyk% vk.kan 388001

21-

3881578

22&10&2012

eSllZ v{kj bLikr fy-

gkbZ LVSªFk fMiQkjeM

1786

& 2008

xk¡o vkSj iksLV ckolkj] Cyksd

LVhy cklZ rFkk ok;jl

ua- 158@62] thbZch lcLVs'ku

iQkj dkaØhV jsfuiQksleSaV

ds ikl] fudksMk pksdMh] lMklu

/ulqjk jksM] r- fgEeruxj]

ftyk% lkcjdkaBk 383001

22-

3882277

22&10&2012

eSllZ fouk;d iksyhikbZIl izk- fy-

gkbZ MSaflVh ikyfFkyhu 4984

& 1995

losaZ ua- 589]590@2] vgeknkckn

ikbZi iQkj iksVscy okVj

gjlksy gkbos]isVªksyiaiuh ikls]

liykbZl

gjlksy] rk- ryksn lkcjdkaBk

xqtjkr

ftyk% lkcjdkaBk

23-

3882883

22&10&2012

eSllZ fd'ku ,xzks baMLVªht

ikoj Fkz'klZ] lsiQVh

9020

& 2002

mukok xatcktkj ds lkeus]

fjDok;jeSaVl

xk¡o mukok] esglkuk

24-

3882984

22&10&2012

eSllZ , lkt ,xzhds;j izk- fy-

MSYVkeSFkfju ;w ,y oh 15227

& 2002

ds&1&16@21&22] th vkbZ Mh lh

,lVsV] nkcksbZ cMksnjk 391110

25-

3883077

22&10&2012

eSllZ , lkt ,xzhds;j izk- fy-

MSYVkeSFkfju ,iQ

14411

& 1996

ds&1&16@21&22] th vkbZ Mh lh

,lVsV] nkcksbZ cMksnjk 391110

26-

3886588

22&10&2012

eSllZ ek#rh fcojthl]

iSdstcan is;ty

14543

& 2004

IyksV ua 169@170] eku ljksoj

(vnj nSu iSdstM

lkslk;Vh] fnUMksyh rkykc ds ikl

uspqjy feujy okVj)

,V fnUMksyh] lqjr 385010

27-

3883582

30&10&2012

eSllZ osyxzks iEi

lce£lcy iEilSV

8034

& 2002

lh&6] eaxye ,LVsV] Mh&dksyhuh

ds ikl] iQksxZ ,UM Cyks;j daikmUM

ds ihNs] ujksMk jksM

ftyk% vgenkckn 380025

28-

3883986

30&10&2012

eSllZ /kuh TosylZ

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /krqvksa 1417

& 1999

5] xzkmUM Ýyksj] vksisjk gkml]

ds vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh

ehuh ctkj] cjkNk jksM

'kq¼rk ,oa eqgkjkadu

xqtjkr ftyk% lqjr&395006

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7) (8)

(9)

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 30] 2013@pS=k 9] 1935

2231

New Delhi, the 21st March, 2013

S.O. 741 .—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of the Regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification)

Regulations 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars of which are given in

the following schedule :—

SCHEDULE

Sl.

Licences

Grant Date

Name and

Title of the

IS No.

Part Sec.

Year

No.

Address of

Standard

the Party

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7) (8)

(9)

3874783

01-10-2012

M/s. Khodiyar Agro Industries Power threshers

9020

& &

2002

3-B, Rajendra Industrial

-safety

Estate, Kheralu Road

requirments

Mahesana Visnagar 384315

3874884

01-10-2012

M/s. Shakti Jewellers

Gold and gold

1417

& &

1999

Katargam Survey, No. 54,

Alloys, Jewellery/

Block No. 183, Kubernagar-1 Artefacts-Fineness

Katargam Darwaja Bhahar,

marking

Katargam. Katargam Surat.

395 004

3875280

03-10-2012

M/s. Uma Ploymers

High density

4984

& &

1995

Plot No. 8, Tribhovan

ployethylene pipes

Estate, Opp Maruti Weigh

for potable water

Bridge, GIDC Road No.8

supplies

Kathwada Ahmedabad

382430

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7) (8)

(9)

29-

3884079

30&10&2012

eSllZ nqxkZ iEi

eksVlZ iQkj lce£lcy 9283

1995

04 Jh jke ,lVsV] ukuk

iEilSV

fpyksMk ujksMk

vgenkckn 382330

30-

3884180

30&10&2012

eSllZ MSe TosylZ

Lo.kZ RkFkk Lo.kZ /krqvksa 1417

1999

,e 26&27] jaxhyk ikoZQ

ds vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh

xksMnksM fpyksMk] vkBok

ftyk% lwjr&395007

31-

3884382

31&10&2012

eSllZ Jh ukdksMk okVj lIyk;lZ]

iSdstcn is;ty (vnj 14543 &

2004

Cyksd ua 220] IyksV ua 61]62

nSu iSdstM uspqjy

Dohd ba.M ,LVsV]

feujy okVj)

xk¡o eklek] rkyqdk] vkyikM]

lqjr 394540

32-

3884685

31&10&2012

eSllZ fjySDl baMLVªht

iSdstcan is;ty (vnj 14543 &

2004

6 gkFkh ¯lg dEikmaM] flfVtu

nSu iSdstM uspqjy

os czht ds ihNs] pkanksyk rykc]

feujy okVj)

nkuhfyeMk vgenkckn

33-

3889493

31&10&2012

eSllZ xqtjkr daVsuj fyfeVsM]

Mªel yktZ] fiQDl ,aMl 17831 &

1993

IykV uacj 488] cM+ksnk lkoyh]

ikVZ 1% xzsM , Mªel

gkbos] xk¡o VqaMo rk

lkoyh fMcMksnjk

¹la- lh,eMh@13%11º

MkW- ,l- ,y- ikydj] oSKkfud ^,iQ* ,oa izeq[k

2232

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2013/CHAITRA 9, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

3876989

05-10-2012

M/s. Seva Industries

Submersible

8034

& &

2002

2, Om Estate, B/H SBI Bank,

Pumpsets

Opp: Krushna Gopal Estate,

Naroda Road, Ahmedabad

380025

3878084

05-10-2012

M/s. Saiex

Explosive Atmosphers IS/1E

1 -

2007

Plot No. 1801/9, 4th Phase,

part 1 eqipment

GIDE, Vithal Udyognager

Protection by flame- 60079

Anand 388121

proof enclosures “d”

3878387

10-10-2012

M/s. Navkar Builders Ltd.

Precast concrete pipes 458

- -

2003

Village Sandhana, Block

(with and without

C.K. No-1160& 1161A,

reinforcement)

Matar, Kheda

3878488

10-10-2012

M/s. Seva Industries

Openwell submersible 14220

- -

1994

2, Om Estate, B/H S.B. I

pumpsets

Bank Opp. Krushna Gopal

Estate, Naroda Road,

Ahmedabad 380025

3877183

10-10-2012

M/s. GM Food & Beverage

Packaged drinking

14543

- -

2004

Plot No. 45/3, Near

water ( other than

Varakhwala Party Plot, Opp:

packaged natural

APMC Market, Vishala

mineral water)

Circle, Vasana- Sarkhej Road

Ahmedabad-380025

3877284

10-10-2012

M/s. Bindukshi Jewellers

Gold and gold

1417

- -

1999

11/6/795, Behind C P

Alloys, Jewellery/

College, Near Bhagatsingh

Artefacts-Fineness

Statue. Anand 388001

and marking

10.

3877385

10-10-2012

M/s. Akshar Jewellers

Gold and gold

1417

- -

1999

8/1126-1, Near Samdi

Alloys, Jewellery/

Chakla, Bhasarwad Nadiad.

Artefacts-Fineness

Kheda, 387001

and marking

11.

3877991

11-10-2012

M/s. Royal Jewellers

Gold and gold

1417

- -

1999

Shop No. 47 Ground Floor,

Alloys, Jewellery/

Rachna Chamber, Near Baroda, Artefacts-Fineness

Pristage, Varachha Road

and marking

Surat

12.

3882782

11-10-2012

M/s. Shree Niloskar Indust-

Openwell submersible 14220

- -

1994

ries A-10, Prakash Industrial

pumpsets

Estate, opp: Ritanagar,

Vastral Road, Amraiwadi,

Ahmedabad- 380026

13.

3878589

12-10-2012

M/s Unique Beverages

Packaged Drinking

14543

- -

2004

A-6, Gulab Vatika Tenament

Water (other than

B/HRajvee Tower, Tandalja

Packaged Natural

Raod, O.P. Road, At Village

Mineral Water) -

Vadodara

14.

3879187

12-10-2012

M/s Darasik Health-Care Inc. Packaged Drinking

14543

- -

2004

224-Sahajanand Estate At

Water (other than

Village- Sarkhej,

Packaged Natural

At Tal-Ahmedabad-382210

Mineral Water) -

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7) (8)

(9)

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 30] 2013@pS=k 9] 1935

2233

15.

3879288

15-10-2012

M/s. Sona Mahor

Gold and Gold

1417

- -

1999

34/2013 Soni Vaas, Choksy

Alloys, Jewellery/

Bazar, Deesa Banas Kantha

Artefacts—Fineness

385535

and marking

16.

3879389

15-10-2012

M/s. Sunil Kumar Manilal

Gold and Gold

1417

- -

1999

Choksi Ward No. 10 Bhav-

Alloys, Jewellery/

sar Vad. Near Natpur Bank,

Artefacts—Fineness

Nadiyad- 387001

and marking

17.

3880071

15-10-2012

M/s. Nature Products

Openwell submersible 14220

- -

1994

46, Nalanda Estate,

pumpsets

Girnar Scooter Compound

Near Sardar Patel Ringroad

Circle, Odhav, Ahmedabad

382415

18.

3880172

17-10-2012

M/s. Lush Aqua Llp

Packaged drinking

14543

- -

2004

Survey No. 69, Piplodi,

water (other than

N.H.No. 8, NR. Sardar

packaged natural

Dairy, Himatnagar ,

mineral water)

Sabarkantha 383006

19.

3880475

17-10-2012

M/s. J. Match Industries

Switches for domestic 3854

- -

1007

25, Saket Estate,

and similar purposes

Opp Ramdev Masala,

Changodar Moraiya

Ahmedabad- 382213

20.

3880980

22-10-2012

M/s. Yogesh Kumar Brothers Gold and gold

1417

- -

1999

Near Ashok Stambh, Choksi

Alloys, Jewellery/

Bazar, Tower Bazar, Anand-

Artefacts-Fineness

388001

and marking

21.

3881578

22-10-2012

M/s. Akshar Ispat Ltd.

High Strength deformed 1786

- -

2008

AT& PO: Bavsar, Block

steel bars and wires

No. 158/62, Nr. GEB

for concrete

Substation, Nikoda Chokdi

reinforcement

Ranasan Dhansura Road,

Tal: Himatnagar,

Sabarkantha- 383001

22.

3882277

22-10-2012

M/s. Vinayak Polypipes Pvt. High density

4984

- -

1995

Ltd., Survey No. 589, 590/2,

ployethylene pipes

Ahmedabad-Harsol

for potable

Highway, Near Petrol Pump,

water supplies

Harsol, Ta: Talod, Sabarkantha

23.

3882883

22-10-2012

M/s. Kishan Agro Industries Power threshers-

9020

- -

2002

1/650/12, Opp. Unava

safety requirements

Ganjbajar, Village-Unava,

Mahesana

24.

3882984

22-10-2012

M/s. A Saj Agricare Pvt. Ltd. Deltamethrin ulv-

15227

- -

2002

K-1- 16/21-22, GIDC Estate,

Dabhoi, Vadodara- 391110

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7) (8)

(9)

2234

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2013/CHAITRA 9, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

25.

3883077

22-10-2012

M/s. A Saj Agricare Pvt. Ltd. Deltamethrin ulv-

14411

- -

1996

K-1 16/21-22, GIDC Estate,

Vadodara Dabhoi 391110

26.

3886588

22-10-2012

M/s. Maruti Beverages

Packaged drinking

14543

- -

2004

Plot No. 169,170 Man

water (other than

Sarovar Society,

packaged natural

Nr. Dindoli Talav, AT,

mineral water)-

Dindoli, Dist:

Surat- 395010

27.

3883582

30-10-2012

M/s. Welgro Pump

Submersible Pumpsets 8034

- -

2002

C-6 Mangalam Estate,

Near D-Colony,

B/H Forge & Blower

Compound,Naroda Raod

Ahmedabad- 380025

28.

3883986

30-10-2012

M/s. Dhani Jewellers

Gold and gold

1417

- -

1999

5, Ground Floor, Opera

alloys, jewellery/

House, Mini Bazar, Varachha artefacts

Road, Surat- 395006

29.

3884079

30-10-2012

M/s. Durga Pump

Motors for submersi- 9283

- -

1995

4, Shree Ram Estste,

ble pumpsets

Nana Chiloda, Naroda.

Ahmedabad- 382330

30.

3884180

30-10-2012

M/s. Diam Jewellers

Gold and gold

1417

- -

1999

M 26-27, Rangila Park

alloys, jewellery/

Ghod Dod Road, Athwa,

artefacts-fineness

Surat- 395007

and marking

31.

3884382

31-10-2012

M/s. Shri Nakoda Water:

Packaged drinking

14543

- -

2004

Suppliers.

water (other than

Block No. 220, Plot No. 61, 62

packaged natural

Quick Ind. Estate. Village

mineral water

Masma.

Surat Masma- 394540

32.

3884685

31-10-2012

M/s. Relex Industries

Packaged drinking

14543

- -

2004

6 Hathisinh Compound,

water (other than

B/H. Citizen Weigh Bridge,

packaged natural

Chandola Talav, Danilimda

mineral water

Ahmedabad.

33.

3889493

31-10-2012

M/s. Gujarat Containers Ltd. Drums, large, fixed

1783

1 -

1993

Plot No. 488, Baroda-

ends —part 1: grade

Savli Highway, Village

adrums

Tundav, Taluka Savli

Dist Baroda

[No. CMD/13:11]

Dr. S. L. PALKAR, Scientist ‘F’ & Head

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7) (8)

(9)

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 30] 2013@pS=k 9] 1934

2235

ubZ fnYyh] 21 ekpZ] 2013

dk-vk- 742 -— Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks (izek.ku) fofu;e] 1988 ds fu;e 4 ds mifu;e (5) ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud

C;wjks ,rn~}kjk vf/lwfpr djrk gS fd ftu ykblsalksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa] os&LohÑr dj fn, x, gSa %—

vuqlwph

Øe

ykblsal

LohÑr djus

ykblsal/kjh dk

Hkkjrh;

Hkk- ek-

Hkkx vuq

o"kZ

la-

la[;k

dh frfFk o"kZ@

uke o irk

ekud dk

la[;k

ekg

'kh"kZd

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7) (8) (9)

3884483

02&11&2012

eSllZ vkj Mh xksYMu ToSYklZ

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /krqvksa

1417

1999

izk- fy- ,&12] t; vk'kkiqjh

ds vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh

lkslkbVh] rstsUæk lkslkbVh xsV

'kq¼rk ,oa eqgjkadu

ds ikl] [kksfM;kj uxj jksM]

oj}k jksM] lwjr&395006

3884584

02&11&2012

eSllZ flYoj iSysl izk- fy-]

pkanh rFkk pkanh /krqvksa

2112

2003

16 ejfM;k IykTkk] ,lksfl;s'ku ds vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh

isVªksy iEi] lh th jksM]

'kq¼rk ,oa eqgjkadu

vgenkckn

3884887

05&11&2012

eSllZ jkf/dk ToSylZ]

Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ

1417

1999

624] tpkgj jksM] [kaHkkr]

/krqvksa ds

vkuan&388620

vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh

'kq¼rk ,oa eqgjkadu

3884988

05&11&2012

eSllZ jkf/dk ToSylZ]

pkanh rFkk pkanh /krqvksa

2112

2003

624] tokgj jksM] [kaHkkr]

ds vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh

vkuan&388620

'kq¼rk ,oa eqgjkadu

3885081

05&11&2012

eSllZ pkeqaMk fcojst]

iSdstcan is;ty (vnj

14543

2004

IykV uacj 9] Jh 'kfDr

nSu iSdstM uspqjy

baMfLVª;y ,LVsV] baMks

feujy okVj)

teZu VwYl ds ihNs] iQsl 4]

th vkbZ Mh lh oVok]

vgenkckn&382445

3885586

05&11&2012

eSllZ 'kkg ,yk¡;l fyfeVsM]

gkbZ LVªsaFk fMiQkeM LVhy

1786

2008

'kkg baMfLVª;y ,LVsV] CykWd

ckjl rFkk ok;jl iQkj

uacj 2221@2222 lksyk dyksy

dakØhV jsfuiQkslZeSaV

jksM] lkarst rk dyksy]

xka/huxj&382721

3886790

07&11&2012

eSllZ Økmu ysfeusVl

MSdksjsfVo FkeksZlS¯Vx

2046

1995

izk- fyfeVsM] losZ uacj 419@1]

¯lFkSfVd jsflu ckafMM

419@1@1] 419@2] 419@4]

ysfeusfVM 'khVl

419@7 o 497 jk/s

baMfLVª;y ,LVsV]

pkaxksnj] vgenkckn&382213

2236

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2013/CHAITRA 9, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

3887186

09&11&2012

eSllZ VSDuks baMLVªht

eksVlZ iQkj lce£lcy

9283

1995

fyfeVsM] IykV uacj 5002

iEilSV

baMksteZu Vwy :e ds ikl]

iQsl 4] th vkbZ Mh lh] oVok]

vgenkckn&382445

3888188

09&11&2012

eSllZ ,e vkbZ Vh vk;ju

dkcZu LVhy dkLV

2830

2012

LVhy izk- fy-] e;wj dkyksuh]

fcySV buxksVl] Cywel

ehBkdyh vaMj czht ds ikl]

rFkk LyScl iQkj

vgenkckn&380009

fjjks¯yx baVw LVhy iQkj

tujy LVdpjyZ ijil

10-

3888289

09&11&2012

eSllZ fdjyksldj cznlZ fy]

lce£lcy iEilSV

8034

2002

CykWd 254@1] pkjksMh] xkao

lkuan] vgenkckn&382170

11-

3888390

09&11&2012

eSllZ uhydaB fcojsftl]

iSdstcan is;ty (vnj

14543

2004

losZ uacj 388@2@1@1] fl¼h

nSu iSdstM uspqjy

eksVlZ ds ikl] dqedqe ikVhZ

feujy okVj)

ds lkeus] fu.kZ;uxj u;k

okMst] v[kckjuxj]

vgenkckn&380013

12-

3886487

09&11&2012

eSllZ Jh tueaxy ToSylZ]

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /krqvksa

1417

1999

xqefnokM Øk¯lx]

ds vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh

vkuan&380001

'kq¼rk ,oa eqgjkadu

13-

3889796

12&11&2012

eSllZ vkj ch baftfu;¯jx

lce£lcy iEilSV

8034

2002

oDlZ] 14] vfHk"ksd ,LVsV]

vksedkj pkj jLrk ds ikl]

ujksMk jksM] vgenkckn

14-

3888491

12&11&2012

eSllZ nhi dscy baMLVªht]

ih oh lh balwysfVM

694

1990

23 ,] xksVs'oj ,LVsV]

dscy

jsyos vksoj czht] xksVk]

vgenkckn&380081

15-

3889190

12&11&2012

eSllZ Ñ".kk ,DokI;ksj

iSdst can is;ty (vnj

14543

2004

izk- fy-] lh@1] 'kadj iVsy

nSu iSdstM uspqjy

,LVsV] eatwlj] rk lkoyh fM

feujy okVj)

cM+ksnk&391775

16-

3889291

14&11&2012

eSllZ veh okVj]

iSdst can is;ty (vnj

14543

2004

IykV uacj 1011]

nSu iSdstM uspqjy

th vkbZ Mh lh]

feujy okVj)

rk <ksydk] vgenkckn&

387810

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7) (8) (9)

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 30] 2013@pS=k 9] 1934

2237

17-

3891682

14&11&2012

eSllZ vFkZ izksMDV~l

fluFkSfVd iQqM dyj

5346

1994

IykV uacj 5017] es?kef.k

izhijs'ku rFkk feDlpjl

pksdMh ds ikl] th

vkbZ Mh lh] vadys'oj]

Hkk:p &393002

18-

3892280

19&11&2012

eSllZ , vks ,e rFkk dEiuh]

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /krqvksa

1417

1999

th 6] f'kokfyd oSLVªu xzhu

ds vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh

,osU;w] ,y ih lkokuh jksM]

'kq¼rk ,oa eqgjkadu

lwjr] vMktu&395009

19-

3891884

21&11&2012

eSllZ iky fcojst]

iSdstcan is;ty (vnj

14543

2004

losZ ua- 411 <qaxjh] iQkfy;k

nSu iSdstM uspqjy

(dksfyokM)] okih]

feujy okVj)

lwjr&396191

20-

3892078

23&11&2012

eSllZ uohpanzk ghjkpan ekyth

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /krqvksa

1417

1999

ToSylZ] 10@1383] igyh eafty]

ds vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh

vkj Mh xYlZ Ldwy ds ikl]

'kq¼rk ,oa eqgjkadu

vulw;k ekxZ] lwjr]

xksikyiqjk

21-

3892179

23&11&2012

eSllZ f'ko 'kfDr ToSylZ]

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /krqvksa

1417

1999

deyk usg# jksM] oylkn]

ds vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh

enuokM xqtjkr& 396001

'kq¼rk ,oa eqgjkadu

22-

3892985

26&11&2012

eSllZ fouk;d ikWyhikbZil

vuiyfLVlkbZtM ih oh

4985

2000

izk- fy-] losZ uacj 589]

lh ikbZil iQkj iksVscy

590@2] vgenkckn gjlksy

okVj lIykbZl

gkbos] isVªksy iEi ds ikl]

'kq¼rk ,oa eqgjkadu

gjlksy] rk rkyksM]

lkcjdkaBk&383305

23-

3891783

26&11&2012

eSllZ tSV iQkbcj iEi

bZjhxs'ku bD;wieSaV&

14151

2008

rFkk bD;wieSaV izk- fy-]

Lizh¯ydyj ikbZi ikVZ 2

;wfuV 11] CykWd uacj 658]

Dohd diyM

,V Hkwnjiqjk] ekfgt] [ksMk

ikyhFkyhu ikbZi

24-

3892583

27&11&2012

eSllZ xuscks bafM;k izk- fyfeVsM]

50 yhVj dsisflVh

13386

1992

IykV uacj 1302&1306] th

iQk;j ,Dl¯Vxp'j]

vkbZ Mh lh baMfLVª;y

edSfudy iQkse VkbZi

,LVsV] paikusj jksM] iapegy

gyksy&389350

25-

3901255

27&11&2012

eSllZ ,ch,e okVj]

iSdstcan is;ty(vnj

14543

2004

Cykd uacj ch@3@8] iqfur

nSu iSdstM uspqjy

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7) (8) (9)

2238

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2013/CHAITRA 9, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7) (8) (9)

,LVsV] oYyHkuxj ds lkeus]

feujy okVj)

xkWo vks<o]

vgenkckn&382415

26-

3894991

27&11&2012

eSllZ g~;we ikbZi baMLVªht]

izhdkLV dkaØhV ikbZi

458

2003

vYykniqjk] fp¯yx IykaV ds

fon rFkk fonkmV

lkeus] lu[ksMk jksM] cksMsyh

jsfuiQkslZeSaV)

oMksnjk&391135

¹la- lh ,e Mh@ 13%11º

MkW- ,l- ,y- ikydj] oSKkfud ^,iQ* ,oa izeq[k

New Delhi, the 21st March, 2013

S.O. 742 .—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of the regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification)

Regulations 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars of which are given in

the following schedule:

SCHEDULE

Sl. No.

Licences

Grant Date

Name and Address of the party Title of the Standard

IS No.

Part

Sec

Ye a r

No.

3884483

02-11-2012

M/s R D Golden Jewels Pvt

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

1999

Ltd. A-12, Jay Ashapuri

Jewellery/artefacts-

Society, NR. Tejendra Society

fineness and marking

gate, Khodiyar Nagar Road,

Varachha Road, Surat-395006

3884584

02-11-2012

M/s Silver Palace Pvt Ltd.

Silver and Silver alloys, 2112

2003

16, Mardia Plaza, NR.

Jewellery/artefacts-

Associated Petrol Pump,

fineness and marking

C G Road, Ahmedabad

3884887

05-11-2012

M/s Radhika Jewellers

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

1999

624, Jawhar Road, Khambhat

Jewellery/artefacts-

Anand-388620

fineness and marking

3884988

05-11-2012

M/s Radhika Jewellers

Silver and Silver alloys, 2112

2003

624, Jawhar Road, Khambhat

Jewellery/artefacts-

Anand Gujarat-388620

fineness and marking

3885081

05-11-2012

M/s Chamunda Beverages

Packaged drinking

14543

2004

Plot No. 9, Shree Shakti

water (other than

Industrial Estate Behind

packaged natural

Indo German Tools,

mineral water)

Phase-4, GIDC Vatva.

Ahmadabad-382445

3885586

05-11-2012

M/s Shah Alloys Limited

High strength deformed 1786

2008

Shah Industrial Estate,

steel bars and wires for

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 30] 2013@pS=k 9] 1934

2239

Block No. 2221/2222 Sola

concrete reinforcement

Kalol Road, Santej Ta: Kalol,

Gandhi Nagar Santej-382721

3886790

07-11-2012

M/s Crown Laminates Pvt Ltd.

Decorative thermosetting 2046

1995

Survey 419/1, 419/1/1, 419/2,

synthetic resin bonded

419/4, 419/7 & 497 Radhe

laminated sheets-

Industrial Estate, Changodar

Ahmadabad-382213

3887186

09-11-2012

M/s Techno Industries Ltd.

Motors for submersibe 9283

1995

Plot No. 5002, Near Indogerman pumpsets-

Tool Room, Phase-IV, G. I.D.C.

Vatva, Ahmadabad-382445

3888188

09-11-2012

M/s Mit Iron & steel Pvt Ltd.

Carbon steel cast

2830

2012

Mayur Colony, NR. Mithakhali

billet ingots, billets,

Under Bridge,

blooms and slabs for

Ahmadabad-380009

re-rolling into steel

for general structural

purposes

10.

3888289

09-11-2012

M/s Kirloskar Brothers Ltd.

Submersible pumpsets- 8034

2002

Block 254/1, Charodi,

Village Sanand

Ahmadabad-382170

11.

3888390

09-11-2012

M/s Nilkanth Beverages

Packaged drinking

14543

2004

Serve No 388/2/1/1, Near

water (other than

Siddhi Motors, Opp.

packaged natural

Kumkum Party Plot,

mineral water)

Nirnaynagar Nava Vadaj,

Akhabaranagar

Ahmadabad-380013

12.

3886487

09-11-2012

M/s Shree Janmangal

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

1999

Jewellers Gumdivad

jewellery/artefacts-

Crossing, Anand-380001

fineness and marking-

13.

3889796

12-11-2012

M/s R B Engineering Works

submersibe pumpsets- 8034

2002

14, Abhishek Estate Near

Omkar Char Rasta,

Naroda Road.

Ahmadabad-380025

14.

3888491

12-11-2012

M/s Deep Cable Industries

PVC Insulated Cables

694

1990

23-A, Goteshwar Estate,

NR. Railway Over Bridge,

Gota, Ahmadabad-380081

Ahmadabad

15.

3889190

12-11-2012

M/s Krishna Aquapure Pvt

Packaged drinking

14543

2004

Ltd. C/1.Shankar Patel Estate,

water (other than

Manjusar, Ta Savli,

packaged) natural

Dist Baroda-391775

mineral water)

2240

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2013/CHAITRA 9, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

16.

3889291

14-11-2012

M/s Ami Water

Packaged drinking

14543

2004

Plot No. 1011, GIDC,

water (other than

Dholka, Tal: Dholka,

packaged) natural

Dist: Ahmadabad-387810

mineral water)

17.

3891682

14-11-2012

M/s Arth Products Plot No

Synthetic food colour

5346

1994

5017, Near

preparations and

Megmani Chowkdi,

mixtures

G..I. D.C. Ankleshwar.

Bharuch-393002

18.

3892280

19-11-2012

M/s Aom & Co

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

1999

G - 6, Shivalik Western

jewellery/artefacts-

Green Avenue, L P Savani

fineness and marking-

Road, Surat Adajan-395009

19.

3891884

21-11-2012

M/s Pal Beverges,

Packaged drinking

14543

2004

Survey No. 411, Dungri

water (other than

Falia, (Kokiwad), Dungri,

packaged natural

Vapi. Surat-396191

mineral water)

20.

3892078

23-11-2012

M/s Navinchandra Hirachand

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

1999

Malji Jewellers,

jewellery/artefacts-

10/1383, Ist Floor, Near R D

fineness and marking-

Girls School, Ansuya Marg

Surat Gopalpura

21.

3892179

23-11-2012

M/s Shiv Shakti Jewellers

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

1999

Kamla Nehru Road

jewellery/artefacts-

Valsad, Madanwad-396001

fineness and marking-

22.

3891985

26-11-2012

M/s Vinayak Polypipes

Unplasticized PVC

4985

2000

Pvt. Ltd. Survey No. 589,

Pipes for potable water

590/2, Ahmedabad-Harsol

supplies-

Highway, Near Petrol Pump,

Harsol, Tal: Talod.

Sabarkantha-383305

23.

3891783

26-11-2012

M/s Jet Fibre pumps &

Irrigation equipment

14151

2008

Equipments Pvt. Ltd.

sprinkler pipes-part 2:

Unit-II, Block No. 658,

quick coupled

At-Bhudarpura, Mahij, Kheda

polyethylene pipes

24.

3892583

27-11-2012

M/s Gunnebo India

50 litre capacity fire

13386

1992

Private Limited

extinguisher, mechanical

Gunnebo India Limited

form type

Plot No. 1302-1306, GIDC

Industrial Estate,

Champaner Road,

Panchamahal Halol-389350

25.

3901255

27-11-2012

M/s ABM Water,

Packaged drinking

14543

2004

Block No. B/3/B, Punit

water (other than

Estate, Opp: Vallabh

packaged natural

Nagar, Vill. Odhav,

mineral water)-

Ahmedabad-382415

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 30] 2013@pS=k 9] 1934

2241

26.

3894991

27-11-2012

M/s Giriraj Hume Pipe

Precast concrete pipes 458

2003

Industries, Alhadpura,

(with and without

Opp: Chiling Plant,

reinforcement)

Sankheda Road,

Bodeli, Vadodara-391135

[No. CMD/13:11]

Dr. S. L. PALKAR, Scientist‘F’ & Head

ubZ fnYyh] 21 ekpZ] 2013

dk-vk- 743 -— Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks (izek.ku) fofu;e 1988 ds fofu;e] (5) ds mifofu;e (6) ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh;

ekud C;wjks ,rn~}kjk vf/lwfpr djrk gS fd fuEu fooj.k okys ykblsalksa dks muds vkxs n'kkZ;h xbZ rkjh[k ls jn~n@LFkfxr dj fn;k x;k

gS % —

vuqlwph

Øe la[;k

ykblsal la[;k

ykblsal/kjh dk uke o irk

ykblsal ds varxZr oLrq@izde lEc¼

jn~n djus dh rkjh[k

lh,e@,y&

Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZd

3722962

eSllZ foey ,dok]

vkbZ ,l 14543% 2004

21&11&2012

foey Msjh fyfeVsM]

iSdstcan is;ty (vnj nSu iSdsTM

ikykoklkuk Økl jksM]

uspqjy feujy okVj)

esglkuk&384002

7687808

eSllZ inekuanh ,aVjizkbZfll

vkbZ ,l 14609% 1999

21&11&2012

IykV uacj 1402] iQsl 3]

MªkbZ dSfedy ikmMj iQkj iQkb¯Vx

th vkbZ Mh lh] okih]

, ch lh] Dykl iQk;lZ

oylkn&396195

¹la- lh ,e Mh@13%13º

MkW- ,l- ,y- ikydj] oSKkfud ^,iQ* ,oa izeq[k

New Delhi, the 21st March, 2013

S.O. 743 .—In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of the regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification)

Regulations, 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies that the licences particulars of which are given below

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

SCHEDULE

Sl.

Licences No.

Name & address of the Licensee

Article/Process with relevant

Date of Cancellation

No.

CM/L-

Indian Standards covered by

the licence cancelled

3722962

M/s Vimal Aqua Vimal Dairy Ltd.

IS 14543 : 2004

21-11-2012

Palavasana Cross Road

Packaged drinking water (other

Distt : Mahesana-384002

than packaged natural mineral

water)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7) (8) (9)

2242

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2013/CHAITRA 9, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

7687808

M/s Padmanandi Enterprises

IS 14609 : 1999

21-11-2012

Plot No. 1402, Phase III, GIDC,

Dry chemical powder for fighting

Vapi, Distt: Valsad-396195

a, b, c, class fires

[No. CMD/13 :13]

Dr. S. L. PALKAR, Scientist‘F’ & Head

ubZ fnYyh] 21 ekpZ] 2013

dk-vk- 744 -— Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks (izek.ku) fofu;e] 1988 ds fu;e 4 ds mifu;e (5) ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud

C;wjks ,rn~}kjk vf/lwfpr djrk gS fd ftu ykblsalksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gaS] os LohÑr dj fn, x, gSa %—

vuqlwph

Øe

ykblsal

LohÑr djus

ykblsal/kjh dk

Hkkjrh;

Hkk- ek-

Hkkx vuq

o"kZ

la-

la[;k

dh frfFk o"kZ@

uke o irk

ekud dk

la[;k

ekg

'kh"kZd

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7) (8) (9)

3895892

03&12&2012

eSllZ fo'oukFk iEil izk-

lce£lcy iEilSV

8034

2002

fyfeVsM] IykV uacj 1401@1]

dsjkyk] th vkbZ Mh lh] ,V

,u ,p uacj 8] ckoyk ds ikl]

vgenkckn&382220

3894789

05&12&2012

eSllZ , t ToSylZ]

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /krqvksa

1417

1999

5@180@1] nkcxjokM] uolkjh

ds vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh

'kq¼rk ,oa eqgjkadu

3894890

05&12&2012

eSllZ lgtkuan gSYFk bul]

iSdstcan is;ty (vnj

14543

2004

IykV uacj 1289] Cykd uacj

nSu iSdsTM uspqjy

133] ih vks pkafn;ky] rk

feujy okVj)

nlØk;] vgenkckn&382433

3902964

06&12&2012

eSllZ M;wckaM izksMDVl baMLVªht

,MgSflo iQkj ;wl fon

15477

2004

izk- fy] Cykd uacj 119@120]

fljkfed VkbZy RkFkk

losZ uacj 94@103@2] 'kSM

eklSfdl

uacj , rFkk ch] ueZnk ikbi

daikmaM] egknso eafnj ds

lkeus lkrst oMlj jksM]

rk dyksy] xka/huxj&382721

3896793

07&12&2012

eSllZ tkudh iEil]

lce£lcy iEilSV

8034

2002

7] dqekj baMfLVª;y ,LVsV]

'kk;ksuk ,LVsV ds ikl] Ñ".kk

dkEiySDl ds lkFk esa] ujksMk

jksM] vgenkckn

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 30] 2013@pS=k 9] 1934

2243

3896692

12&12&2012

eSllZ J¼k fcojsftl]

iSdstcan is;ty (vnj

14543

2004

IykV uacj 97] 98] Øq.kky

nSu iSdsTM uspqjy

baMfLVª;y ,LVsV] HkkFksuk 4]

feujy okVj)

vatuk] lwjr&394210

3906770

12&12&2012

eSllZ gjfeyki jks'kuh fyfeVsM]

VaxLVu fiQykeSaV tujy

418

2004

IykV uacj 5] gfjvkse

l£ol bySfDVªd ySEil

baMfLVª;y ,LVsV] xkao VqaMy]

ih vkbZ ts jksM] rk ufM;kM]

fM [ksMk&387230

3899803

14&12&2012

eSllZ ds bZ lh baVjus'kuy

Økl¯ydM iksyfFkyhu

7098

1985

fyfeVsM (dscy fMfotu)

balwysfVM ih oh lh 'khFkM

IykV uacj 803 ls 805 rFkk

dscYl

828 ls 830] xkao lkeyk;k]

rk lkoyh] oMksnjk&391520

3899294

18&12&2012

eSllZ iQse ToSylZ izk fyfeVsM]

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /krqvksa ds

1417

1999

igyh eafty] Cykd ts]

vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh 'kq¼rk

eksufMy fjVsy ikdZ] jktiFk

,oa eqgjkadu

Dyc ds ikl] ,l th gkbos]

vgenkckn&380015

10-

3899395

18&12&2012

eSllZ vkj ds tSel]

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /krqvksa ds

1417

1999

;w& 12] lkjxke 'kkW¯ix lSaVj]

vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh 'kq¼rk

vkbZ ,u th okl;k cSad ds ikl] ,oa eqgjkadu

ikjys iok,aV] lwjr]

mejk&395007

11-

3899601

20&12&2012

eSllZ Lrqfr ikbZi izk- fyfeVsM]

vuIykfLVlkbZTM ih oh lh

12818

2010

Cykd uacj 433] rstiqj vksjku LØhu rFkk ds¯lx ikbZi iQkj

jksM] xkao izkafrt]

cksj@V~;wcoSy

lkcjkdkaVk&383205

12-

3899904

20&12&2012

eSllZ ghjk iUuk ToSylZ]

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /krqvksa ds

1417

1999

;w th&7 ls 10] XySej 'kkW¯ix

vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh 'kq¼rk

lSaVj] :ikyh ugj ds ikl]

,oa eqgjkadu

Hkkrkj jksM] lwjr

13-

3900253

20&12&2012

eSllZ Jh Hkokuh ToSylZ]

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /krqvksa ds

1417

1999

233] Hkkxquxj lkslkbVh] ykacs

vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh 'kq¼rk

guqeku jksM] ojkNk jksM]

,oa eqgjkadu

lwjr

14-

3900859

24&12&2012

eSllZ Lrqfr ikbZi izk- fyfeVsM]

vuIykfLVlkbZTM ih oh

4985

2000

Cykd uacj] 433] rstiqj vksjku

lh iQkj iksVscy okVj

jksM] xkao izkafrt]

lIykbZl

lkcjdkaVk&383205

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7) (8)

(9)

2244

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2013/CHAITRA 9, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

15-

3900960

24&12&2012

eSllZ , ,e vkbZ ToSylZ

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /krqvksa ds

1417

1999

pksdlh cktkj flVh] losZ

vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh 'kq¼rk

uacj 6227&28&29 vkuan]

,oa eqgjkadu

mejsB

16-

3901053

24&12&2012

eSllZ n;kjke fcztHkq[kunkl

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /krqvksa ds

1417

1999

pksdlh] 61849] eksVk cktkj]

vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh 'kq¼rk

uolkjh

,oa eqgjkadu

17-

3901356

27&12&2012

eSllZ ,e ,u ToSylZ]

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /krqvksa ds

1417

1999

311] lgtkuan dkEiySDl]

vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh 'kq¼rk

ihiyk 'ksjh] ekgh/kiqjk]

,oa eqgjkadu

lwjr&395003

18-

3901457

27&12&2012

eSllZ fluSjth eYVhdSe

iksfy,ywfefu;e

15573

2005

izk fy] 599&600 ch]

DyksjkbM

xkWo nw/okMk] rk iknjk]

fM oMksnk & 391450

19-

3901558

27&12&2012

eSllZ 'kSjyh ToSylZ]

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /krqvksa

1417

1999

;w th&10&12] vVykaVk

ds vkkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh

Vkoj] xqyckbZ Vsdjk]

'kq¼rk ,oa eqgjkadu

badykc lkslkbVh ds ikl]

iapoVh] vgenkckn

20-

3901659

27&12&2012

eSllZ gSih tSel rFkk ToSylZ]

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /krqvksa

1417

1999

'kkWi uacj] 1] 2] igyh

ds vkkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh

eafty] lkjsyk 'kkW¯ix lSaVj]

'kq¼rk ,oa eqgjkadu

xksM MksM jksM] lwjr&395007

21-

3901760

28&12&2012

eSllZ pksdlh jes'kpaæ v'kksd] Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /krqvksa

1417

1999

oqQekj rFkk dEiuh] gkÅl uacj ds vkkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh

1190] ukViqj cSad ds ikl]

'kq¼rk ,oa eqgjkadu

pksdlh cktkj] HkoljokM]

[ksMk] ufM;kM& 387001

22-

3904867

28&12&2012

eSllZ ghjkack baMLVªht fyfeVsM]

ykacMk lkbZgkyksFkzhu MCY;w

14510

1997

okih ;wfuV&3] IykV uacj

1503@1] iQsl III, ;wfuV 3]

th vkbZ Mh lh] okih]

oylkn&396195

¹la- lh ,e Mh@13%11º

MkW- ,l- ,y- ikydj] oSKkfud ^,iQ* ,oa izeq[k

New Delhi, the 21st March, 2013

S.O. 744 .—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of the regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification)

Regulations, 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars of which are given in

the following schedule:

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7) (8)

(9)

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 30] 2013@pS=k 9] 1934

2245

SCHEDULE

Sl. No.

Licences

Grant Date

Name & Address of the party

Title of the Standard

IS No.

Part

Sec. Ye a r

No.

3895892

03-12-2012

M/s. Vishwanath Pumps Pvt.

Submersible pumpsets

8034

2002

Ltd. Plot No. 1401/1, Kerala

G..I.D.C. At. N.H. No. 8,

Near Bavala,

Ahmedabad-382220

3894789

05-12-2012

M/s. A J Jewellers

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

1999

5/180/1, Dabgarwad

Jewellery/artefacts-

Navsari

fineness and marking

3894890

05-12-2012

M/s. Sahjanand health inc

Packaged drinking

14543

2004

Plot No. 1289, Block No. 133,

water(other than

PO Chandiyal, TA Daskroi,

packaged nutural

Ahmedabad-382433

mineral water)

3902964

06-12-2012

M/s. Dubond Products Ind.

Adhesives for use

15477

2004

Pvt. Ltd. Block No 119/120,

with ceramic tiles

Survey No. 94/103/2, Shed

and mosaics

No. A & B, Narmada Pipe

Compound, Opp. Mahadev

Mandir, Santej Vadsar Road,

Taluka Kalol, Gandhi Nagar,

Santej -382721

3896793

07-12-2012

M/s. Janki Pumps

Submersible pumpsets 8034

2002

7, Kumar Industrial Estate,

Near Shayona Estate, B/S

Krishna Complex, Naroda

Road, Ahmadabad

3896692

12-12-2012

M/s. Shraddha Beverages

Packaged drinking

14543

2004

Plot No. 97, 98 Krunal

water (other than

Industrial Estate, Bhathena-4

packaged natural

Anjana Surat-394210

mineral water)

3906770

12-12-2012

M/s. Harmilap Roshni Limited

Tungsten filament

418

2004

Plot No. 5, Hariom Industrial

general service

Estate, Village: Tundel PIJ

electric lamps

Road, TA: Nadiad, Dist:

Kheda -387230

3899803

14-12-2012

M/s. KEC International Ltd.

Crosslinked polyethy- 7098

1985

(Cable Division)

lene insulated PVC

Plot No. 803 to 805 and 828

sheathed cables

to 830, Village : Samlaya Tal

Savli.Vadodara-391520

3899294

18-12-2012

M/s. Fame Jeweles Pvt.Ltd.

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

1999

First Floor, Block-J,

Jewellery/artefacts-

Mondeal Retail Park Near

fineness and marking

Rajpath Club, S G Highway

Ahmedabad -380015

2246

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2013/CHAITRA 9, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

10.

3899395

18-12-2012

M/s. R K Gems

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

1999

U- 12, Sargam Shopping

Jewellery/artefacts-

Centre Near Ing Vasya Bank,

fineness and marking

Parle Point, Surat,

Umra -395007

11.

3899601

20-12-2012

M/s.. Stuti Pipes Pvt. Ltd.

Unplasticized PVC

12818

2010

Block No. 433, Tajpur Oran

screen and casing

Road, Vill. Prantij, Sabarkantha,

pipes for bore/

Prantij- 383205

tubewell

12.

3899904

20-12-2012

M/s Heera Panna Jewellers

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

1999

UG-7 to 10 Glamour Shopping

jewellery/artefacts-

Centre Near Rupali Naher

fineness and marking

Bhatar Road, Surat

13.

3900253

20-12-2012

M/s. Shree Bhavani Jeweller

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

1999

233, Bhagunagar Society

jewellery/artefacts-

Lambe Hanuman Road,

fineness and marking

Varachha Road, Surat

14.

3900859

24-12-2012

M/s. Stuti Pipes Pvt. Ltd.

Unplasticized PVC

4985

2000

Block No. 433, Tajpur Oran

pipes for potable

Road, SabarkanthaVillage &

water supplies-

Tal. Prantij- 383205

15.

3900960

24-12-2012

M/s. Ami Jewellers Choksi

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

1999

Bazar City Survey No.

jewellery/artefacts-

6227-28-29 Anand Umreth

fineness and marking

16.

3901053

24-12-2012

M/s. Dayaram Bridge Bhukhan- Gold and gold alloys,

1417

1999

das choksi 61849, mota Bazar,

jewellery/artefacts-

Navsari

fineness and marking

17.

3901356

27-12-2012

M/s. M N Jewels

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

1999

311, Sahjanand complex

jewellery/artefacts-

Pipla Sheri Mahidharpura

fineness and marking

Surat-395003

18.

3901457

27-12-2012

M/s. Synergy Multichem Pvt.

Polyaluminium chloride 15573

2005

Ltd. 599-600 B, Village:

Dudhwada, Taluka Padra,

Dist. Baroda-391450

19.

3901558

27-12-2012

M/s. Sherly Jewels

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

1999

UG-10-12, Atlanta Tower

jewellery/artefacts-

Gulbai Tekra, Near Inqalab

fineness and marking

Society Panchvati, Ahmedabad

20.

3901659

27-12-2012

M/s. Happy Gems and jewellers Gold and gold alloys,

1417

1999

Shop No. 1, 2 First Floor

jewellery/artefacts-

Sarela Shopping Centre

fineness and marking

Ghod-Dod Road, Surat-395007

21.

3901760

28-12-2012

M/s. Choksi Rameshchandra

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

1999

Ashok Kumar & Co., H. No.

jewellery/artefacts-

1190, Near Natpur Bank,

fineness and marking

Choksi Bazar,

Bhavsarvad Kheda, Nadiad-

387001

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 30] 2013@pS=k 9] 1934

2247

22.

3904867

28-12-2012

M/s. Heranba Industries Ltd.

Lambda-cyhalothrin

14510

1997

Vapi Unit -3 Plot No, 1503/1

wp - FAD

Phase III, Unit 3 G.I.D.C.

Vapi Valsad 396195

[No. CMD/13 :11]

Dr. S. L . PALKAR, Scientist ‘F’ & Head

ubZ fnYyh] 21 ekpZ] 2013

dk-vk- 745 -— Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks (izek.ku) fofu;e] 1988 ds fofu;e (5) ds mifofu;e (6) ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh;

ekud C;wjks ,rn~}kjk vf/lwfpr djrk gS fd fuEu fooj.k okys ykblsalksa dks muds vkxs n'kkZ;h xbZ rkjh[k ls jn~n@LFkfxr dj fn;k x;k

gS % —

vuqlwph

Øe la[;k

ykblsal la[;k

ykblsal/kjh dk uke o irk

ykblsal ds varxZr oLrq@izde lEc¼

jn~n djus dh rkjh[k

lh,e@,y&

Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZd

3695177

eSllZ vk'khek fcojsftl]

vkbZ ,l 14543% 2004

20&12&2012

losZ uacj 9801] jk/k ckx

iSdstcan is;ty (vnj nSu iSdsTM

,V rFkk ih rkjkiqj] fM

uspqjy feujy okVj)

vkuan] rk rkjkiqj] fM

vkuan&388180

¹la- lh ,e Mh@13%13º

MkW- ,l- ,y- ikydj] oSKkfud ^,iQ* ,oa izeq[k

New Delhi, the 21st March, 2013

S.O. 745 .—In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of the regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards

(Certification) Regulations 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies that the licences particular of which are

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

SCHEDULE

Sl.

Licences No.

Name & address of the Licensee

Article/Process with relevant

Date of Cancellation

No.

CM/L-

Indian Standards covered by

the licence cancelled

3695177

M/s AAshima Beverages

IS 14543 : 2004

20-12-2012

Survey No. 9801, Radha Baug.

Packaged drinking water (other

At and P Tarapur, Distt.

than packaged natural mineral

Ananad-388180

water)-

[No. CMD/13 :13]

Dr. S. L. PALKAR, Scientist ‘F’ & Head

2248

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2013/CHAITRA 9, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

dks;yk ea=kky;

ubZ fnYyh] 25 ekpZ] 2013

dk-vk- 746 -—dsUnzh; ljdkj us dks;yk /kjd {ks=k (vtZu vkSj fodkl) vf/fu;e] 1957 (1957 dk 20)s (ftls blesa blds

i'pkr~ mDr vf/fu;e dgk x;k gS) dh /kjk 7 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds v/hu tkjh Hkkjr ljdkj ds dks;yk ea=kky; dh vf/lwpuk la[;k

dk-vk- 1849] rkjh[k 31 ebZ] 2012 }kjk tks Hkkjr ds jkti=k] Hkkx&II] [k.M&3] mi&[k.M (ii)] rkjh[k 2 twu] 2012 esa izdkf'kr dh xbZ

Fkh] ml vf/lwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa fofu£n"V mDr {ks=k esa 161-549 gsDVj (yxHkx) ;k 399-18 ,dM+ (yxHkx) eki okyh Hkwfe esa vkSj

ml ij ds Hkw&lrg vf/dkjksa dk vtZu djus ds vius vk'k; dh lwpuk nh Fkh _

vkSj l{ke izkf/dkjh us mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 8 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dks viuh fjiksVZ ns nh gS _

vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj dks] iwoksZDr fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus ds i'pkr~ vkSj eè; izns'k ljdkj ls iqu% ijke'kZ djus ds i'pkr~ ;g

lek/ku gks x;k gS fd blls layXu vuqlwph esa o£.kr 161-549 gsDVs;j (yxHkx) ;k 399-18 ,dM+ (yxHkx) eki okyh Hkwfe ds Hkw&lrg

;k mQij ds vf/dkj vftZr fd, tkus pkfg, A

vr%] vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 9 dh mi&/kjk (1) n~okjk iznÙk 'kfDr;kas dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] ;g ?kks"k.kk

djrh gS fd blls layXu vuqlwph esa o£.kr mDr Hkwfe ds lrg ;k mQij ds vf/dkj ds :i esa 161-549 gsDVs;j (yxHkx) ;k 399-18

,dM+ (yxHkx) eki okyh Hkwfe v£tr dh tkrh gS A

bl vf/lwpuk ds vUrxZr vkus okys {ks=k ds js[kkad la[;k ,lbZlh,y@ch,lih@th,e(ih,yth)@Hkwfe@433] rkjh[k 12 vDrwcj]

2012 dk fujh{k.k dysDVj] ftyk mefj;k (eè; izns'k) ds dk;kZy; esa ;k dks;yk fu;a=kd] 1] dkamfly gkml LVªhV] dksydkrk&700001

ds dk;kZy; esa ;k lkmFk bZLVuZ dksyiQhYM~l fyfeVsM] (jktLo vuqHkkx)] lhir jksM] fcykliqj &495006(NRrhlx<+) ds dk;kZy; esa fd;k

tk ldrk gS A

vuqlwph

foU/;k fMfiyfjax CykWd&II] tksfgyk {ks=k

ftyk&mefj;k (eè; izns'k)

(js[kkad la[;k ,lbZlh,y@ch,lih@th,e(ih,yth)@Hkwfe@433] rkjh[k 12 vDrwcj] 2012)

Hkw &lrg vf/dkj %

Øe

xzke dk

iVokjh

tujy

rglhy

ftyk

{ks=k (gsDVj

fVIi.k

la- uke

gYdk

uEcj

esa)

uEcj

MxMkSvk

102

290

cka/ox<+

mefj;k

92-035

Hkkx

egqjk

577

cka/ox<+

mefj;k

69-514

Hkkx

dqy {ks=k % 161-549 gsDVj (yxHkx)

;k 399-18 ,dM+ (yxHkx)

1- xzke&MxMkSvk (Hkkx) esa v£tr fd, tkus okys IykWV la[;k%

186 (Hkkx)] 187 (Hkkx)] 188] 189] 190] (Hkkx)] 191] 192 (Hkkx)] 194 (Hkkx)] 203 (Hkkx)] 290 (Hkkx)] 320 ls 325]

326(Hkkx)] 327(Hkkx)] 328] 329(Hkkx)] 330 ls 332] 333(Hkkx)] 336(Hkkx)] 337(Hkkx)] 341 ls 349] 350 (Hkkx)] 351 ls 353]

354(Hkkx)] 355] 356] 357(Hkkx)A

2- xzke&egqjk (Hkkx) esa v£tr fd, tkus okys IykWV la[;k%

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 30] 2013@pS=k 9] 1935

2249

200(Hkkx)] 201(Hkkx)] 245(Hkkx)] 247(Hkkx)] 248(Hkkx)] 251 ls 269] 270(Hkkx)- 271 ls 273] 274(Hkkx)] 280(Hkkx)]

306(Hkkx)] 307 ls 314] 315(Hkkx)] 319] 320] 322] 323] 324(Hkkx)] 325] 326(Hkkx] 327 ls 330] 331(Hkkx)] 334 (Hkkx)A

lhek o.kZu%µ

d&[k

js[kk] xzke MxMkSvk esa ^^d** fcUnq ls vkjEHk gksrh gS vkSj IykWV la[;k&194] 192] 203 ls xqtjrh gqbZ vkSj fcUnq ^^[k** ij

feyrh gS A

[k&x

js[kk] xzke MxMkSvk ds IykWV la[;k 203] 187] 186] 326] 327] 329] 336 ls gksdj IykV la[;k 329 ds mRrjh] IykV la[;k

330 dh if'peh lhek vkSj IykV la[;k 333] 337 ls gksdj IykV la[;k 341] 342] 343 dh if'peh lhek ls gksrh tkrh

gS vkSj fcUnq ^^x** ij feyrh gS A

x&?k

js[kk] xzke MxMkSvk&egqjk ds Hkkxr% lfEefyr lhek ls gksdj fiQj xzke egqjk esa izos'k djrh gS vkSj IykV la[;k 252] 251

dh if'peh lhek vkSj IykWV la[;k 248] 247 ls gksdj IykV la[;k 255] fiQj 201 dh mRrjh lhe ls gksrh gqbZ tkrh gS vkSj

fcUnq ^^?k** ij feyrh gS A

?k&Ä

js[kk] xzke egqjk esa IykWV la[;k 201] 257 dh iwohZ lhek] IykWV la[;k 200] IykV la[;k 315 ls gksdj IykV la[;k 314]

319] 320] 322] 325 dh mRrjh vkSj iwohZ lhek vkSj IykV la[;k 326 ls gksdj IykV la[;k 327 dh iwohZ lhek ,oa IykV

la[;k 334 ls gksrh gqbZ tkrh gS vkSj fcUnq ^^Ä** ij feyrh gS A

Ä&p

js[kk] xzke egqjk ds IykWV la[;k 334] 330 dh nf{k.kh lhek] IykWV la[;k 331] 324 ls gksdj IykV la[;k 324 ds Hkkxr%

if'peh] IykV la[;k 306 dh iwohZ lhek vkSj IykV la[;k 306] 200] 280] ls gksdj IykV la[;k 266 dh if'peh vkSj

nf{k.kh] IykV la[;k 267] 268] 269] 270] 274 ds nf{k.kh lhek ls xqtjrh gqbZ xzke MxMkSvk esa izos'k djrh gsS vkSj IykV

la[;k 350] 354] 357 ls gksrh gqbZ tkrh gS vkSj fcUnq ^^p** ij feyrh gS A

p&d

js[kk] xzke MxMkSvk ds IykWV la[;k 357 ds Hkkxr% nf{k.kh lhek vkSj IykV la[;k 357] 329] 357 ls gksdj IykV la[;k

325] 323] 320 ds nf{k.kh lhek] IykWV la[;k 290] 190] 192 ls xqtjrh gS vkSj vkjafHkd fcUnq ^^d** ij feyrh gS A

¹iQk- la- 43015@04@2010&ihvkjvkbZMCY;w&Iº

oh- ,l- jk.kk] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF COAL

New Delhi, the 25th March, 2013

S.O. 746 .— Whereas by notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal number S.O. 1849, dated

the 31st May, 2012, issued under sub-section (1) of section 7 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act,

1957 (20 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and published in the Gazette of India, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section

(ii), dated the 2nd June, 2012, the Central Government gave notice of its intention to acquire the land measuring 161.549

hectares (approximately) or 399.18 acres (approximately) as Surface Rights in or over the said land specified in the Schedule

appended to that notification;

And whereas the competent authority in pursuance of section 8 of the said Act has made his report to the Central

Government;

And whereas, the Central Government after considering the aforesaid report and after consulting the Government

of Madhya Pradesh, is satisfied that the lands measuring 161.549 hectares (approximately) or 399.18 acres (approximately)

as Surface Rights in or over the said land described in the Schedule appended hereto, should be acquired.

Now therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section (1) of section 9 of the said Act, the Central

Government hereby declares that the land measuring 161.549 hectares (approximately) or 399.18 acres (approximately) as

Surface Rights in or over the said land described in the Schedule annexed hereto are hereby acquired.

The plan bearing number SECL/BSP/GM(PLG)/LAND/433, dated the 12th October, 2012 of the area covered by

this notification may be inspected in the office of the Collector, District Umaria (Madhya Pradesh) or in the office of the Coal

Controller, 1, Council House Street, Kolkata - 700001 or in the office of the South Eastern Coalfield Limited (Revenue

Section), Seepat Road, Bilaspur-495006 (Chhattisgarh).

2250

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2013/CHAITRA 9, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

SCHEDULE

Vindhya Depillaring Block-II, Johilla Area

District - Umaria (Madhya Pradesh)

[Plan bearing number SECL/BSP/GM(PLG)/LAND/ 433, dated the 12th October, 2012]

Surface Rights:

Sl.

Name of

Patwari halka

General

Tahsil

District

Area in

Remarks

No.

Village

number

hectares

Dagdauwa

102

290

Bandhogarh Umaria

92.035

Part

Mahura

577

Bandhogarh Umaria

69.514

Part

Total Area : 161.549 hectares (approximately)

or 399.18 acres (approximately)

1. Plot numbers to be acquired in village Dagdauwa (Part) :

186(P), 187(P), 188, 189, 190(P), 191, 192(P), 194(P), 203(P), 290(P), 320 to 325, 326(P), 327(P), 328, 329(P), 330 to 332,

333(P), 336(P), 337(P), 341 to 349, 350(P), 351 to 353, 354(P), 355, 356, 357(P).

2. Plot numbers to be acquired in village Mahura (Part) :

200(P), 201 (P), 245(P), 247(P), 248(P), 251 to 269, 270(P), 271 to 273, 274(P), 280(P), 306(P), 307 to 314, 315(P), 319,

320, 322, 323, 324(P), 325, 326(P), 327 to 330, 331 (P), 334(P).

Boundary description:

A-B

Line starts from point 'A' in village Dagdauwa and passes through plot number 194, 192, 203 and meets at point 'B',

B-C

Line passes in village Dagdauwa through plot number 203, 187, 186, 326, 327, 329, 336, along partly northern

boundary of plot number 329, western boundary of plot number 330, through 333, 337, western boundary of plot

number 341, 342, 343 and meets at point 'C',

C-D

Line passes in village Dagdauwa along partly common boundary of villages Dagdauwa- Mahura then enter in

village Mahura and passes along western boundary of plot number 252, 251, through 248, 247, northern boundary

of plot number 255, through 201 and meets at point 'D'.

D-E

Line passes in village Mahura along eastern boundary of plot number 201, 257, through 200, 315, northern and

eastern boundary of plot number 314, 319, 320, 322, 325, through 326, eastern boundary of plot number 327,

through 334 and meets at point 'E'.

E-F

Line passes in village Mahura along southern boundary of plot number 334, 330, through 331, 324, partly western

boundary of plot number 324, eastern boundary of plot number 306, through 306, 200, 280, western and southern

boundary of plot number 266, southern boundary of plot number 267, 268, 269, 270, 274 then enter in village

Dagdauwa and passes through 350, 354, 357 and meets at point 'F'.

F-A

Line passes in village Dagdauwa along partly southern boundary of plot number 357, through 357, 329, 357, along

southern boundary of plot number 325, 323, 320, through 290, 190, 192 and meets at starting point ‘A’.

[F. No. 43015/04/2010-PRIW-I]

V. S. RANA, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 26 ekpZ] 2013

dk-vk- 747 -—dsUnzh; ljdkj dks ;g izrhr gksrk gS fd blls mikc¼ vuqlwph esa of.kZr Hkwfe esa dks;yk vfHkizkIr fd;s tkus

dh laHkkouk gS _

mDr vuqlwph esa o£.kr Hkwfe ds varxZr vkus okys {ks=k ds C;kSjs js[kkad la[;k ,lbZlh,y@ch,lih@lhth,e (ih,yth)@Hkwfe@435]

rkjh[k 12 uoEcj] 2012 dk fujh{k.k dyDVj] dksjck (NRrhlx<+) ds dk;kZy; esa ;k dks;yk fu;a=kd] 1] dkmafly gkml LVªhV]

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 30] 2013@pS=k 9] 1935

2251

dksydkrk&700001 ds dk;kZy; esa ;k lkmFk bZLVuZ dksyiQhYM~l fyfeVsM] (jktLo vuqHkkx)] lhir jksM] fcykliqj &495006 (NRrhlx<+)

ds dk;kZy; esa fd;k tk ldrk gS A

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

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

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

mDr vuqlwph esa of.kZr Hkwfe esa fgrc¼ dksbZ O;fDr—

(i) vf/fu;e dh /kjk 6 ds v/hu fdlh {kfr ;k mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 4 dh mi&/kjk (3) ds v/hu dh xbZ fdlh dkjZokbZ

ls gksus okyh {kfr dh laHkkouk ds fy, izfrdj dk nkok dj ldsxk _ vFkok

(ii) vf/fu;e dh /kjk 13 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds v/hu lekIr gks xbZ iwosZ{k.k vuqKfIr;ksa ds laca/ esa ;k vf/fu;e dh /kjk 13

dh mi&/kjk (4) ds v/hu lekIr gks x, [kuu iV~Vs ds fy, izfrdj dk nkok dj ldsxk vkSj mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 13 dh

mi&/kjk (1) ds [k.M (i) ls [kaM (iv) esa fofufnZ"V enksa ds laca/ esa mixr O;; dks minf'kZr djus ds fy, Hkwfe ls lacaf/r

lHkh eku&fp=kksa] pkVksZa vkSj vU; nLrkostksa dks ifjnRr djsxk A

bl vf/lwpuk ds jkti=k esa izdk'ku dh rkjh[k ls uCcs fnu ds Hkhrj] Hkkjlk/d vf/dkjh ;k foHkkxkè;{k (jktLo) lkmFk bZLVuZ

dksyiQhYM~l fyfeVsM] lhir jksM] fcykliqj &495006(NRrhlx<+) dks Hkstasxs A

vuqlwph

cxnsok dksy CykWd

dksjck {ks=k] ftyk&dksjck (NRrhlx<+)

¹js[kkad la[;k µ,lbZlh,y@ch,lih@lhth,e(ih,yth)@Hkwfe@435] rkjh[k 12 uoEcj] 2012º

Øe

xzke

iVokjh

rglhy

ftyk

{ks=k

fVIi.k

la-

uEcj

gYdk

gsDVj esa

,dM+ esa

la[;k

y[kuiqj

ikSM+h mijksM+k

dksjck

38-992

96-350

Hkkx

fot;iqj

dV?kksjk

dksjck

136-908

338-299

Hkkx

tokyh

dV?kksjk

dksjck

4-379

10-820

Hkkx

vHk;iqj

dV?kksjk

dksjck

19-150

47-320

Hkkx

fla?kkyh

dV?kksjk

dksjck

5-281

13-049

Hkkx

dqy %µ 204-710 gsDVj (yxHkx) ;k 505-84 ,dM+ (yxHkx)

lhek o.kZu %

d&[k

js[kk xzke fot;iqj vkSj y[kuiqj ds lfEefyr lhek esa fcUnq ^^d** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke y[kuiqj ds nf{k.kh Hkkx ls

xqtjrh gqbZ xzke fot;iqj vkSj y[kuiqj ds lfEefyr lhek esa fcUnq ^^[k** ij feyrh gS A

[k&x

js[kk xzke fot;iqj ds iwohZ Hkkx ls xqtjrh gqbZ xzke vHk;iqj esa izos'k djrh gS vkSj xzke vHk;iqj ds if'peh Hkkx ls xqtjrh gqbZ

xzke vHk;iqj vkSj fla?kkyh ds lfEefyr lhek esa fcUnq ^^x** ij feyrh gSA

x&?k

js[kk xzke fla?kkyh ds mRrjh Hkkx ls xqtjrh gqbZ xzke fla?kkyh vkSj tokyh ds lfEefyr lhek esa ^?k* fcUnq ij feyrh gSA

?k&d

js[kk xzke tokyh ds mRrjh Hkkx vkSj xzke fot;iqj ds if'peh Hkkx ls xqtjrh gqbZ vkjafHkd fcUnq ^^d** ij feyrh gSA

¹iQk- la- 43015@32@2012&ihvkjvkbZMCY;w-&Iº

oh- ,l- jk.kk] voj lfpo

2252

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2013/CHAITRA 9, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 26th March, 2013

S.O. 747 .— Whereas it appears to the Central Government that coal is likely to be obtained from the land in the

locality described in the Schedule annexed hereto;

And, whereas, the plan bearing number SECL/BSP/ CGM (PLG)/ LAND/ 435, dated the 12th November, 2012

containing details of the area of land described in the said Schedule may be inspected at the office of the C.ollector, District-

Korba (Chhattisgarh) or at the office of the Coal Controller, 1, Council House Street, Kolkata-700001 or at the office of the

South Eastern Coalfields Limited (Revenue Section), Seepat Road, Bilaspur -495006 (Chhattisgarh).

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Coal Bearing Areas

(Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957), (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the Central Government

hereby gives notice of its intention to prospect for coal in land described in the aforesaid Schedule.

Any persons interested in the land described in the above mentioned Schedule may—

(i) claim compensation under section 6 of the said Act for any damage caused or likely to be caused by any action

taken under sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the said Act; or

(ii) claim compensation under sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the said Act in respect of prospecting license

ceasing to have effect or under sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the Act for mining lease ceasing to have effect and

deliver all maps, charts and other documents relating to the aforesaid land to show the expenditure incurred in

respect of items specified in clauses (i) to (iv) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the said Act,

To the Officer-In-Charge or Head of the Department (Revenue), South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road, Bilaspur-

495006 (Chhattishgarh) within a period of ninety days from the date of publication of this notification.

SCHEDULE

Bagdewa Coal Block

Korba Area, District- Korba (Chhattisgarh)

[Plan bearing number SECL/BSP/CGM (PLG)/LAND/435, dated the 12th November, 2012]

Sl.

Name of

Village

Patwari

Tahsil

District

Area in

Remarks

No.

Village

no.

halka

hectares

acres

no.

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

Lakhanpur

Pondi

Korba

38.992

96.350

Part

Uprora

Bijaypur

Katghora

Korba

136.908

338.299

Part

Jawali

Katghora

Korba

4.379

10.820

Part

Abhaipur

Katghora

Korba

19.150

47.320

Part

Singhali

Katghora

Korba

5.281

13.049

Part

Total :

204.710 hectares (approximately)

or 505.84 acres (approximately)

Boundary description:

A-B

Line starts from point 'A' on the common boundary of villages Bijaypur-Lakhanpur and passes through southern

part of village Lakhanpur and meets at point "B" on the common boundary of villages Bijaypur-Lakhanpur.

B-C

Line passes through eastern part of village Bijaypur then enter in village Abhaipur and passes through western

part of village Abhaipur and meets at point "C" on the common boundary of villages Abhaipur-Singhali.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 30] 2013@pS=k 9] 1935

2253

C-D

Line passes through northern part of village Singhali and meets at point "D" on the common boundary of villages

Singhali-Jawali.

D-A

Line passes through northern part of village Jawali, western part of village Bjjaypur and meets at starting point

"A".

[F. No. 43015/32/2012-PRIW-I]

V. S. RANA, Under Secy.

vkns'k

ubZ fnYyh] 28 ekpZ] 2012

dk-vk- 748 -—dks;yk /kjd {ks=k (vtZu vkSj fodkl) vf/fu;e] 1957 (1957 dk 20) (ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr

vf/fu;e dgk x;k gS) dh /kjk 9 dh mi/kjk (1) ds v/hu tkjh Hkkjr ljdkj ds dks;yk ea=kky; dh vf/lwpuk la[;kad dk-vk- 2920

rkjh[k 20 flrEcj] 2012 tks Hkkjr ds vlk/kj.k jkti=k ds Hkkx&II] [k.M&3] mi&[k.M (ii) rkjh[k 17 fnlEcj] 2012 esa izdkf'kr gksus

ij mDr vf/lwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa of.kZr Hkwfe (ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr Hkwfe dgk x;k gS) esa vkSj Hkwfe ds fo"k; esa lHkh vf/dkj]

mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 10 dh mi/kjk (1) ds v/hu] lHkh foYyaxeksa ls eqDr gksdj] vkR;kafrd :i ls dsUnzh; ljdkj esa fufgr gks x, gSa_

vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj dk lek/ku gks x;k gS fd egkunh dksyiQhYM~l fyfeVsM] lEcyiqj (vksfM'kk) (ftls blesa blds i'pkr~

mDr ljdkjh daiuh dgk x;k gS) ,sls fuca/uksa vkSj 'krks± dks ftUgs dsUnzh; ljdkj bl fufeÙk vf/jksfir djuk mfpr le>s] vuqikyu djus

ds fy, jtkean gS]

vr%] vc] mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 11 dh mi&/kjk (1) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] ;g funs'k nsrh gS fd bl

izdkj fufgr mDr Hkwfe vkSj ml ij ds lHkh vf/dkj] rkjh[k 17 fnlEcj] 2012 ls dsUnzh; ljdkj esa bl izdkj fufgr cus jgus ds ctk,]

fuEufyf[kr fuca/uksa vkSj 'krks± ds v/hu jgrs gq,] ljdkjh daiuh esa fufgr gks tk,axs] vFkkZr~ %µ

1- ljdkjh daiuh] mDr vf/fu;e ds mica/kas ds v/hu ;Fkk vo/kfjr izfrdj] C;kt] uqdlkuh vkSj ln`'k dh ckcr fd, x,

lank;ksa dh dsUnzh; ljdkj dks izfriwfrZ djsxh _

2- ljdkjh daiuh n~okjk 'krZ (1) ds v/hu] dsUnzh; ljdkj dks lans; jdeksa dk vo/kj.k djus ds iz;kstuksa ds fy, mDr

vf/lwpuk dh /kjk 14 ds v/hu ,d vf/dj.k dk xBu fd;k tk,xk rFkk ,sls fdlh vf/dj.k vkSj ,sls vf/dj.k dh lgk;rk djus ds

fy, fu;qDr O;fDr;ksa ds laca/ esa mixr lHkh O;;] ljdkjh daiuh }kjk ogu fd, tk,axs vkSj blh izdkj mDr Hkwfe esa fufgr ;k ml ij

ds vf/dkjksa ds fy, ;k muds laca/ esa vihy vkfn lHkh fof/d dk;Zokfg;ksa dh ckcr mixr] lHkh O;; Hkh] ljdkjh daiuh }kjk ogu fd,

tk,axs_

3- ljdkjh daiuh] dsUnzh; ljdkj ;k mlds in/kfj;ksa dh] ,sls fdlh vU; O;; ds laca/ esa] {kfriwfrZ djsxh] bl izdkj fufgr mDr

Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds vf/dkjksa ds ckjs esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ;k mlds in/kfj;ksa }kjk rFkk muds fo#¼ fdUgha dk;Zokfg;ksa ds laca/ esa vko';d

gks _

4- ljdkjh daiuh dks] dsUnzh; ljdkj ds iwoZ vuqeksnu ds fcuk] mDr Hkwfe vkSj Hkwfe esa ;k mlds mQij bl izdkj fufgr vf/dkj

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

5- ljdkjh daiuh] ,sls funs'kksa ;k 'krks± dk] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj }kjk] tc dHkh vko';d gks] mDr Hkwfe ds fof'k"V {ks=kksa ds fy,

fn, tk,a ;k vf/jksfir dh tk,a ikyu djsxh A

¹iQk- la- 43015@31@2009&ihvkjvkbZMCY;w&Iº

oh- ,l- jk.kk] voj lfpo

ORDER

New Delhi, the 28th March, 2013

S.O. 748 .—Whereas on publication of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal,

number S.O. 2920(E), dated the 20th September, 2012 in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii),

dated the 17th December, 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), the land and all rights in and over the land

described in the Schedule appended to the said notification (hereinafter referred to as the said land) vested absolutely in the

Central Government free from all encumbrances under sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the said Act; .

2254

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2013/CHAITRA 9, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

And whereas, the Central Government is satisfied that the Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, Sambalpur (Odisha)

(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 land and all rights in and over the said land so vested, shall with effect from the

17th December, 2012, instead of continuing to so vest in the Central Government, 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 said 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 and over the said land, 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 rights in and over the said land so vested;

(4) the Government company shall have no power to transfer the said land and the rights in and over the said land

so vested 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. 43015/31/2009-PRIW-I]

V. S. RANA, Under Secy.

isVªksfy;e vkSj izkd`frd xSl ea=kky;

ubZ fnYyh] 19 ekpZ] 2013

dk-vk- 749 -—dsUnzh; ljdkj isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbu (Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/dkj dk vtZu) vf/fu;e] 1962

(1962 dk 50) dh /kjk 2 ds [k.M (d) ds vuqlj.k esa uhps nh xbZ vuqlwph ds LrEHk (2) esa mfYyf[kr O;fDr dks mDr vuqlwph ds

LrEHk (3) esa dh rRLFkkuh izfof"V esa mfYyf[kr {ks=k ds ckcr mDr vf/fu;e ds v/hu l{ke izkf/dkjh ds d`R;ksa dk ikyu djus ds fy,

izkf/Ñr djrh gS] vFkkZr~%µ

vuqlwph

Øekad

izkf/dkjh dk uke vkSj irk

U;k;kf;d {ks=k ds fy,

la-

Jh- Jhdkar 'kjn iQkMds] mi ftyk vf/dkjh]

eYykoje&Hkksiky&HkhyokM+k&fot;iqj uspqjy

xSl ikbiykbu ifj;kstuk

th-,l-ih-,y- bafM;k Vªkaldks fyfeVsM

egkjk"Vª ds fy,

49] LoIuf'kYi uxjh] jkts'ojh ikdZ]

LVsV cSad vkWiQ =kkoudksj ds cxy esa]

csyrjksMh jksM] cslk] ukxiqj&440034 (egkjk"Vª)

2- ;g vf/lwpuk tkjh gksus dh rkjh[k ls ykxw gksxh A

¹iQk- la- ,y& 14014@39@2011&th ihº

vf[kys'k dqekj] voj lfpo

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 30] 2013@pS=k 9] 1935

2255

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

New Delhi, the 19th March, 2013

S.O. 749 .— 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.

Name and Address of the Authority

Area of Jurisdiction

No.

Sri Shrikant Sharad Phadke, Dy. Collector

Mallavaram - Bhopal- Bhilwara - Vijaipur

Natural Gas Pipeline Project

GSPL India Transco Limited,

For the State of Maharashtra

49, Swapnashilp Nagri, Rajeshwari Park,

Beside State Bank of Travancore,

Beltarodi Road, Besa, Nagpur - 440 034 (Maharashtra).

2. This notification will be effective from the date of its issue.

[F.No. L-14014/39/2011-GP]

AKHILESH KUMAR, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 20 ekpZ] 2013

dk-vk- 750 -—dsUnzh; ljdkj us isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbu (Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/dkj dk vtZu) vf/fu;e]

1962 (1962 dk 50) (ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr vf/fu;e dgk x;k gS) dh /kjk 3 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds v/hu tkjh Hkkjr ljdkj

ds isVªksfy;e vkSj izkÑfrd xSl ea=kky; dh vf/lwpuk dk- vk- 698(v) rkjh[k 28 ekpZ] 2012 }kjk ml vf/lwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph

esa fofu£n"V NÙkhlx<+ jkT; dh rglhy % fcykbZx<+] ftyk % jk;iqj dh Hkwfe esa] ikjknhi&lEcyiqj&jk;iqj&jk¡ph ikbiykbu ifj;kstuk ds

dk;kZUo;u ds fy, bafM;u vkW;y dkWiksjs'ku fyfeVsM }kjk mM+hlk jkT; esa ikjknhi ls jk;iqj (NÙkhlx<+) ,oa jk¡ph (>kj[k.M) rd

isVªksfy;e mRiknksa ds ifjogu ds fy, ikbiykbu fcNkus gsrq mi;ksx ds vf/dkj dk vtZu djus ds vius vk'k; dh ?kks"k.kk dh Fkh A

vkSj mDr vf/lwpuk dh izfr;k¡ lHkh lacaf/r Hkw&Lokeh dks rkjh[k 10 tqykbZ] 2012 dks miyC/ djk nh xbZ Fkh A

vkSj mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 6 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds v/hu l{ke izkf/dkjh us dsUnzh; ljdkj dks fjiksVZ nh gS A

vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj us mDr fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus ds i'pkr~ bl vf/lwpuk ls mikc¼ vuqlwph esa fofu£n"V Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds

vf/dkj v£tr djus dk fofu'p; fd;k gS A

vr%] vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 6 dh mi&/kjk (1) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, ;g ?kks"k.kk djrh

gS fd bl vf/lwpuk ls mikc¼ vuqlwph esa fofu£n"V Hkwfe esa ikbiykbu fcNkus ds mi;ksx dk vf/dkj v£tr fd;k tkrk gS A

vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj] mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 6 dh mi&/kjk (4) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] ;g funsZ'k nsrh gS] fd

mDr Hkwfe esa mi;ksx dk vf/dkj bl ?kks"k.kk ds izdk'ku dh rkjh[k ls dsUnzh; ljdkj esa fufgr gksus ds ctk,] lHkh foYyaxeksa ls eqDr gks

dj bafM;u vkW;y dkWiksjs'ku fyfeVsM esa fufgr gksxk A

vuqlwph

rglhy % fcykbZx<+

ftyk % jk;iqj

jkT; % NÙkhlx<+

Øe xzke dk uke

[kljk la-

{ks=kiQy

la-

gsDVs;j

,;j

oxS ehVj

(1) (2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

pkjHkkaBk

66/2,67,68

¹iQk- la- vkj&25011@27@2010&vks vkj&Iº

iou dqekj] voj lfpo

2256

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2013/CHAITRA 9, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 20th March, 2013

S.O. 750 .—Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas

number No.S.O. 698(E) dated 28th March 2012 issued under sub- section (1) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals

Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act,1962 (50 of 1962) the Central Government declared its intention to

acquire the right of user in the land in Tehsil- Bilaigarh, District- Raipur, in Chhattisgarh, State, specified in the schedule

appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation of Petroleum products from Paradip

(Orissa) to Raipur (Chhattisgarh) and Ranchi (Jharkhand) by Indian Oil Corporation Limited;

And whereas, copies of the said notification were made available to the public on 10th July 2012.

And whereas, the Competent Authority has under sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the said Act, submitted his report

to the Central Government.

And whereas, the Central Government has after considering the said report, decided to acquire the right of user in

the land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification.

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the said Act, the Central

Government hereby declares that the right of user in the said land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification

is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline.

And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (4) of Section 6 of the said Act, Central Government

hereby directs the right of user in the said land shall instead of vesting in the Central Government, vest on date of

publication of this declaration, in Indian Oil Corporation Limited, free from all encumbrances.

SCHEDULE

Tehsil : Bilaigarh

Distt. : Raipur

State : Chhattisgarh

Sl.

Name of Village

Khasra No.

Area

No.

Hectare

Are

Sq. mtr

(1) (2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

Charbhatha

66/2,67,68

[F.No. R-25011/27/2010-OR-I]

PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 26 ekpZ] 2013

dk-vk- 751 -—dsUnzh; ljdkj us isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbu (Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/dkj dk vtZu) vf/fu;e]

1962 (1962 dk 50) (ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr vf/fu;e dgk x;k gS) dh /kjk 3 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds v/hu tkjh Hkkjr ljdkj

ds isVªksfy;e vkSj izkÑfrd xSl ea=kky; dh vf/lwpuk dk- vk- 695(v) rkjh[k 30 ekpZ 2012 }kjk ml vf/lwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa

fofu£n"V NÙkhlx<+ jkT; dh rglhy % dksjck] ftyk % dksjck dh Hkwfe esa] ikjknhi&lEcyiqj&jk;iqj&jk¡ph ikbiykbu ifj;kstuk ds

dk;kZUo;u ds fy, bafM;u vkW;y dkWiksjs'ku fyfeVsM }kjk mM+hlk jkT; esa ikjknhi ls jk;iqj (NÙkhlx<+) ,oa jk¡ph (>kj[k.M) rd

isVªksfy;e mRiknksa ds ifjogu ds fy, ikbiykbu fcNkus gsrq mi;ksx ds vf/dkj dk vtZu djus dh ?kks"k.kk dh Fkh A

vkSj mDr vf/lwpuk dh izfr;k¡ lHkh lacaf/r Hkw&Lokeh dks rkjh[k 4 vxLr 2012 dks miyC/ djk nh xbZ Fkh A

vkSj mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 6 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds v/hu l{ke izkf/dkjh us dsUnzh; ljdkj dks fjiksVZ nh gS A

vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj us mDr fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus ds i'pkr~ bl vf/lwpuk ls mikc¼ vuqlwph esa fofu£n"V Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds

vf/dkj v£tr djus dk fofu'p; fd;k gS A

vr%] vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 6 dh mi&/kjk (1) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, ;g ?kks"k.kk djrh

gS fd bl vf/lwpuk ls mikc¼ vuqlwph esa fofu£n"V Hkwfe esa ikbiykbu fcNkus ds mi;ksx dk vf/dkj v£tr fd;k tkrk gS A

vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj] mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 6 dh mi&/kjk (4) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] ;g funsZ'k nsrh gS] fd

mDr Hkwfe esa mi;ksx dk vf/dkj bl ?kks"k.kk ds izdk'ku dh rkjh[k ls dsUnzh; ljdkj esa fufgr gksus ds ctk,] lHkh foYyaxeksa ls eqDr gks

dj bafM;u vkW;y dkWiksjs'ku fyfeVsM esa fufgr gksxk A

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 30] 2013@pS=k 9] 1935

2257

vuqlwph

rglhy % dksjck

ftyk % dksjck

jkT; % NÙkhlx<+

Øe xkao dk uke

[kljk la-

{ks=kiQy

la-

gsDVs;j

,;j oxZ ehVj

(1) (2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

jksxcgjh

343

344/10

344/8

342

344/2,344/4

440

iaMjhikuh

157/42

157/40

114

157/11

113/3

113/2

113/1

157/33

.0l

157/8

157/16

157/32

111

115/1

32/1

592

93/2

34/1

24/2, 24/3

37/1

36/2

36/1

36/4

16/6,39

16/5, 40

42/2

43/1

43/2

44/1

44/2

45/2

45/1

585

50,51

2258

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2013/CHAITRA 9, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

iaMjhikuh

69/1

69/2

67,73

64,65

dq:Mhg

851/1

851/2

854

857

858

888

889

890

887/1

887/3

887/2

891/5

840/1

700

701/1

701/2

701/3

701/4

701/5

701/6

702

699

698/1

708

707

709/1

709/4

724/1[k, 681,

721,717/1

680/1, 718/2,

08 .

720/1

679/2

678/1

677

629

628

(1) (2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 30] 2013@pS=k 9] 1935

2259

620/3

631

626

616,617/1

614,615

612, 613

620/2, 622/3,

617/2

618

02 .

619

620/1

621

591

688/7

688/5

590/3

590/4

590/1

589/2[k

589/1[k

589/1x

589/1d

582/1

581/1

580/2

581/2

575

576

574

573/1

570

565

567

562/2

566/2

(1) (2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

2260

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2013/CHAITRA 9, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

561/2

283

301

559

304

307/1

308

309,310,311

312/1

312/2

306

313

314

330

329

327

04.

326

320/2

322/1

322/3

320/4

377

379/3

376

379/4

379/6

379/1

380/1

371

372

363/2

368

363/1

364

417/3

417/4

417/1

423

424,425,426

(1) (2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 30] 2013@pS=k 9] 1935

2261

dqdjhpksyh

80/1-81

120/2

120/9

120/4

120/8

120/3

120/1

122/5

122/3

122/4

122/6

116/2 ?k

125/1

125/4

125/5

125/2

125/3

.126/1

128/1d/3

.00'

128/1[k/l

127, 128/2

¹iQk- la- vkj&25011@42@2010&vks vkj &I]

iou dqekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 26th March, 2013

S.O. 751 .—Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas

number S.O. No. 695(E) dated 30th March, 2012 issued under sub- section (1) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals

Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act,1962 (50 of 1962) the Central Government declared its intention to

acquire the right of user in the land in Tehsil- Korba, District- Korba, in Chhattisgarh, State, specified in the schedule

appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation of Petroleum products from Paradip

(Orissa) to Raipur (Chhattisgarh) and Ranchi (Jharkhand) by Indian Oil Corporation Limited;

And whereas, copies of the said notification were made available to the public on 4th August, 2012.

And whereas, the Competent Authority has under sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the said Act, submitted his

report to the Central Government;

And whereas, the Central Government has after considering the said report, decided to acquire the right of user in

the land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the said Act, the Central

Government hereby declares that the right of user in the said land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification

is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline;

And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (4) of Section 6 of the said Act, Central Government

hereby directs the right of user in the said land shall instead of vesting in the Central Government, vest on date of

publication of this declaration, in Indian Oil Corporation Limited, free from all encumbrances.

(1) (2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

2262

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2013/CHAITRA 9, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

SCHEDULE

Tehsil : Korba

District. : Korba

State : Chhattisgarh

Sl.

Name of Village

Khasra No.

Area

No.

Hectare

Are

Sq. mtr.

(1) (2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

Rogbahari

343

344/10

344/8

342

344/2,344/4

440

Pandaripani

157/42

157/40

114

157/11

113/3

113/2

113/1

157/33

.0l

157/8

157/16

157/32

111

115/1

32/1

592

93/2

34/1

24/2, 24/3

37/1

36/2

36/1

36/4

16/6,39

16/5, 40

42/2

43/1

43/2

44/1

44/2

45/2

45/1

585

50,51

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 30] 2013@pS=k 9] 1935

2263

Pandaripani

69/1

69/2

67,73

64,65

Kurudih

851/1

851/2

854

857

858

888

889

890

887/1

887/3

887/2

891/5

840/1

'07

700

08 .

701/1

701/2

701/3

701/4

701/5

701/6

702

699

698/1

708

707

709/1

709/4

724/1khha, 681,

721,717/1

680/1, 718/2,

08 .

720/1

679/2

678/1

677

(1) (2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

2264

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2013/CHAITRA 9, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Kurudih

629

628

620/3

631

626

616,617/1

614,615

612, 613

620/2, 622/3,

'03

617/2

618

02 .

619

620/1

621

591

688/7

688/5

590/3

590/4

590/1

589/2kha

589/1kha

589/1ga

589/1ka

582/1

581/1

580/2

581/2

575

576

574

573/1

570

565

567

562/2

566/2

561/2

(1) (2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 30] 2013@pS=k 9] 1935

2265

283

301

559

304

307/1

308

309, 310, 311

312/1

312/2

306

313

314

330

329

327

04.

326

320/2

322/1

322/3

320/4

377

379/3

376

379/4

379/6

379/1

380/1

371

372

363/2

368

363/1

364

417/3

417/4

417/1

423

424,425,426

Kukricholi

80/1-81

(1) (2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

2266

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2013/CHAITRA 9, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Kukricholi

120/2

120/9

120/4

120/8

120/3

120/1

122/5

122/3

122/4

122/6

116/2 ghha

125/1

125/4

125/5

125/2

125/3

126/1

128/1ka/3

128/1khha/l

127, 128/2

[F. No. R-25011/42/2010-OR-I]

PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 26 ekpZ] 2013

dk-vk- 752 -—dsUnzh; ljdkj dks ,slk izrhr gksrk gS dh yksd fgr esa ;g vko';d gS fd gfYn;k&cjkSuh isVªksfy;e mRikn

ikbiykbu ds fdmy unh] ftyk y[khljk;] jkT; fcgkj ds ekSt+k t;uxj vkSj flygV esa] ikbiykbu ds j[kj[kko ds fy, bafM;u vkW;y

dkWiksjs'ku fyfeVsM n~okjk ,d ikbiykbu ,p-Mh-Mh- n~okjk fcNkbZ tkuh pkfg, _

vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj dks mDr ikbiykbu fcNkus ds iz;kstu ds fy, vko';d izrhr gksrk gS fd Hkwfe esa] ftlds Hkhrj mDr

ikbiykbu fcNkbZ tkus dk izLrko gS vkSj tks bl vf/lwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa o£.kr gS] mi;ksx ds vf/dkj dk vtZu fd;k tk, _

vr%] vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbUl (Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/dkj dk vtZu) vf/fu;e] 1962 (1962

dk 50) dh /kjk 3 dh mi&/kjk (1) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] mDr Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/dkj dk vtZu djus ds vius

vk'k; dh ?kks"k.k djrh gS _

dksbZ O;fDr] tks mDr vuqlwph esa o£.kr Hkwfe esa fgrc¼ gS] ml rkjh[k ls ftldks] Hkkjr ds jkti=k esa ;Fkk izdkf'kr bl

vf/lwpuk dh izfr;ka lk/kj.k turk dks miyC/ djk nh tkrh gS] bDdhl fnu ds Hkhrj] Hkwfe ds Hkhrj ikbiykbu fcNk, tkus ds fy,

mi;ksx ds vf/dkj ds vtZu ds fy,] Jh vfuy dqekj] mi izcU/d (r- ls-) o l{ke izkf/dkjh (fcgkj)] bafM;u vkW;y dkWiksjs'ku

fyfeVsM] cjkSuh dkuiqj ikbiykbu] iks- vk- cjkSuh vkW;y fjiQkbujh] ftyk csxwljk; & 851114 (fcgkj) dks fyf[kr :i esa vk{ksi Hkst

ldsxk A

(1) (2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 30] 2013@pS=k 9] 1935

2267

vuqlwph

ftyk % y[khljk;

jkT; % fcgkj

ekStk@xzke losZ@Cykd la- (IykWV la-)

lx&Mho- la-

{ks=kiQy

gsDVs;j

,;j oxZ ehVj

(1) (2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

t;uxj 1515

(Fkkuk la- 1517

124) 1518

1528

1527@1526

1525

1524

1584

1521

1522

1529

1376

1856

flygV 35

(Fkkuk la- 37

86) 29

177

¹iQk- la- vkj&25011@1@2013&vksvkj&I]

iou dqekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 26th March, 2013

S.O. 752 .—Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that a

pipeline should be laid by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited in the Kiul river in the state of Bihar, District Lakhisarai,

Mouja-Jainagar/ Silhat by Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD) method for "Haldia-Barauni-Kanpur product Pipeline" for

the transportation of Petroleum Product;

And, whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline, it is necessary

to acquire the right of user in the land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid, and which is described in the

Schedule annexed to this notification;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals

Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its

intention to acquire the right of user therein;

Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may, within twenty one days from the date

on which the copies of the notification issued under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the said Act, as published in the

Gazette of India are made available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein

2268

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2013/CHAITRA 9, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

for laying of the pipeline under the land, to Shri Anil Kumar, Deputy Manager (TS) & Competent Authority (Bihar), Indian

Oil Corporation Limited (Pipelines Division), Barauni Kanpur Pipeline, P.O, Barauni Refinery, District: Begusarai - 851114

(Bihar).

SCHEDULE

Distt : Lakhisarai

State : Bihar

Mouja/ Survey/Block No.

Sub-Div-No.

Area

Village

Hectare

Are

Sq. Mtr

(1) (2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

Jaynagar (Thana 1515

No. 124) 1517

1518

1528

1527/1526

1525

1524

1584

1521

1522

1529

1376

1856

Silhat (Thana 35

(Thana No. 86) 37

177

[F.No. R-25011/1/2013-OR-I]

PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 26 ekpZ] 2013

dk-vk- 753 -—dsUnzh; ljdkj us isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbu (Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/dkj dk vtZu) vf/fu;e]

1962 (1962 dk 50) (ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr vf/fu;e dgk x;k gS) dh /kjk 3 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds v/hu tkjh Hkkjr ljdkj

ds isVªksfy;e vkSj izkÑfrd xSl ea=kky; dh vf/lwpuk dk- vk- 696(v) rkjh[k 30 ekpZ 2012 }kjk ml vf/lwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa

fofu£n"V NÙkhlx<+ jkT; dh rglhy % cluk] ftyk % egkleaqn dh Hkwfe esa] ikjknhi&lEcyiqj&jk;iqj&jk¡ph ikbiykbu ifj;kstuk ds

dk;kZUo;u ds fy, bafM;u vkW;y dkWiksjs'ku fyfeVsM }kjk mM+hlk jkT; esa ikjknhi ls jk;iqj (NÙkhlx<+) ,oa jk¡ph (>kj[k.M) rd

isVªksfy;e mRiknksa ds ifjogu ds fy, ikbiykbu fcNkus gsrq mi;ksx ds vf/dkj dk vtZu djus dh ?kks"k.kk dh Fkh A

vkSj mDr vf/lwpuk dh izfr;k¡ lHkh lacaf/r Hkw&Lokeh dks rkjh[k 6 vxLr 2012 dks miyC/ djk nh xbZ Fkh A

vkSj mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 6 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds v/hu l{ke izf/dkjh us dsUnzh; ljdkj dks fjiksVZ nh gS A

vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj us] mDr fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus ds i'pkr~ bl vf/lwpuk ls mikc¼ vuqlwph esa fofu£n"V Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds

vf/dkj v£tr djus dk fofu'p; fd;k gS A

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 30] 2013@pS=k 9] 1935

2269

vr%] vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 6 dh mi&/kjk (1) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, ;g ?kks"k.kk djrh

gS fd bl vf/lwpuk ls mikc} vuqlwph esa fofu£n"V Hkwfe esa ikbiykbu fcNkus ds mi;ksx dk vf/dkj v£tr fd;k tkrk gS A

vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj] mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 6 dh mi&/kjk (4) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] ;g funsZ'k nsrh gS] fd

mDr Hkwfe esa mi;ksx dk vf/dkj bl ?kks"k.kk ds izdk'ku dh rkjh[k ls dsUnzh; ljdkj esa fufgr gksus ds ctk,] lHkh foYyaxeksa ls eqDr gks

dj bafM;u vkW;y dkWiksjs'ku fyfeVsM esa fufgr gksxk A

vuqlwph

rglhy % cluk

ftyk % egkleaqn

jkT; % NÙkhlx<+

Øe xkao dk uke

[kljk la-

{ks=kiQy

la-

gsDVs;j

,;j oxZ ehVj

(1) (2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

yksgkjikyh

146/1

es<+kikyh

464

¹iQk- la- vkj&25011@19@2010&vks vkj &I]

iou dqekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 26th March, 2013

S.O. 753 .—Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas

number S.O. 696(E) dated 30th March 2012 issued under sub section (1) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals

Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act,1962 (50 of 1962) the Central Government declared its intention to

acquire the right of user in the land in Tehsil- Basna, District- Mahasamund, in Chhattisgarh, State, specified in the

schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation of Petroleum products

from Paradip (Orissa) to Raipur (Chhattisgarh) and Ranchi (Jharkhand) by Indian Oil Corporation Limited;

And whereas, copies of the said notification were made available to the public on 6th August, 2012

And whereas, the Competent Authority has under sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the said Act, submitted his

report to the Central Government;

And whereas, the Central Government has after considering the said report, decided to acquire the right of user in

the land specified in the Sched ule appended to this notification;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the said Act, the Central

Government hereby declares that the right of user in the said land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification

is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline;

And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (4) of Section 6 of the said Act, Central

Government hereby directs the right of user in the said land shall instead of vesting in the Central Government, vest on

date of publication of this declaration, in Indian Oil Corporation Limited, free from all encumbrances.

2270

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2013/CHAITRA 9, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

SCHEDULE

Tehsil : Basna

Distt. : Mahasamund

State : Chhattisgarh

Sl.

Name of Village

Khasra No.

Area

No.

Hectare

Are

Sq. mtr

(1) (2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

Loharpali

146/1

Medhapali

464

[F.No. R-25011/19/2010-OR-I]

PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 26 ekpZ] 2013

dk-vk- 754 -—dsUnzh; ljdkj us isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbu (Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/dkj dk vtZu) vf/fu;e]

1962 (1962 dk 50) (ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr vf/fu;e dgk x;k gS) dh /kjk 3 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds v/hu tkjh Hkkjr ljdkj

ds isVªksfy;e vkSj izkÑfrd xSl ea=kky; dh vf/lwpuk dk- vk- 699(v) rkjh[k 28 ekpZ 2012 }kjk ml vf/lwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa

fofu£n"V NÙkhlx<+ jkT; dh rglhy % fiFkkSjk] ftyk % egkleaqn dh Hkwfe esa] ikjknhi&lEcyiqj&jk;iqj&jk¡ph ikbiykbu ifj;kstuk ds

dk;kZUo;u ds fy, bafM;u vkW;y dkWiksjs'ku fyfeVsM }kjk mM+hlk jkT; esa ikjknhi ls jk;iqj (NÙkhlx<+) ,oa jk¡ph (>kj[k.M) rd

isVªksfy;e mRiknksa ds ifjogu ds fy, ikbiykbu fcNkus gsrq mi;ksx ds vf/dkj dk vtZu djus ds vius vk'k; dh ?kks"k.kk dh Fkh A

vkSj mDr vf/lwpuk dh izfr;k¡ lHkh lacaf/r Hkw&Lokeh dks rkjh[k 6 vxLr] 2012 dks miyC/ djk nh xbZ Fkh A

vkSj mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 6 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds v/hu l{ke izf/dkjh us dsUnzh; ljdkj dks viuh fjiksVZ ns nh gS A

vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj us mDr fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus ds i'pkr~ bl vf/lwpuk ls mikc} vuqlwph esa fofu£n"V Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds

vf/dkj v£tr djus dk fofu'p; fd;k gS A

vr%] vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 6 dh mi&/kjk (1) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, ;g ?kks"k.kk djrh

gS fd bl vf/lwpuk ls mikc} vuqlwph esa fofu£n"V Hkwfe esa ikbiykbu fcNkus ds mi;ksx dk vf/dkj v£tr fd;k tkrk gS A

vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj] mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 6 dh mi&/kjk (4) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] ;g funsZ'k nsrh gS] fd

mDr Hkwfe esa mi;ksx dk vf/dkj bl ?kks"k.kk ds izdk'ku dh rkjh[k ls dsUnzh; ljdkj esa fufgr gksus ds ctk,] lHkh foYyaxeksa ls eqDr

gksdj bafM;u vkW;y dkWiksjs'ku fyfeVsM esa fufgr gksxk A

vuqlwph

rglhy % fiFkkSjk

ftyk % egkleaqn

jkT; % NÙkhlx<+

Øe xkao dk uke

[kljk la-

{ks=kiQy

la-

gsDVs;j

,;j oxZ ehVj

(1) (2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

[kSj[kqVk

1140

xksikyiqj

974

891

972

¹iQk- la- vkj&25011@23@2010&vks vkj&I]

iou dqekj] voj lfpo

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 30] 2013@pS=k 9] 1935

2271

New Delhi, the 26th March, 2013

S.O. 754 .—Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas

number S.O.No. 699(E) dated 28th March, 2012 issued under sub section (1) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals

Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act,1962 (50 of 1962) the Central Government declared its intention to

acquire the right of user in the land in Tehsil- Pithora, District- Mahasamund, in Chhattisgarh, State, specified in the

schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation of Petroleum products from

Paradip (Orissa) to Raipur (Chhattisgarh) and Ranchi (Jharkhand) by Indian Oil Corporation Limited;

And whereas, copies of the said notification were made available to the public on 6th August, 2012.

And whereas, the Competent Authority has under sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the said Act, submitted his report

to the Central Government.

And whereas, the Central Government has after considering the said report, decided to acquire the right of user in

the land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification.

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the said Act, the Central

Government hereby declares that the right of user in the said land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification

is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline.

And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (4) of Section 6 of the said Act, Central Government

hereby directs the right of user in the said land shall instead of vesting in the Central Government, vest on date of

publication of this declaration, in Indian Oil Corporation Limited, free from all encumbrances.

SCHEDULE

Tehsil :Pithora

Distt. : Mahasamund

State : Chhattisgarh

Sl.

Name of Village

Khasra No.

Area

No.

Hectare

Are

Sq. mtr

(1)

(2)

(3) (4)

(5)

(6)

Khairkhuta

1140 00

Gopalpur

974 00 34 24

891 00 35 81

972 00 02 66

[F. No. R-25011/23/2010-OR-I]

PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 26 ekpZ] 2013

dk-vk- 755 -—dsUnzh; ljdkj us isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbu (Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/dkj dk vtZu) vf/fu;e]

1962 (1962 dk 50) (ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr vf/fu;e dgk x;k gS dh /kjk 3 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds v/hu tkjh Hkkjr ljdkj

ds isVªksfy;e vkSj izkÑfrd xSl ea=kky; dh vf/lwpuk dk- vk- 697(v) rkjh[k 30 ekpZ] 2012 }kjk ml vf/lwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph

esa fofu£n"V NÙkhlx<+ jkT; dh rglhy % djryk] ftyk % dksjck dh Hkwfe esa] ikjknhi&lEcyiqj&jk;iqj&jk¡ph ikbiykbu ifj;kstuk ds

dk;kZUo;u ds fy, bafM;u vkW;y dkWiksjs'ku fyfeVsM }kjk mM+hlk jkT; esa ikjknhi ls jk;iqj (NÙkhlx<+) ,oa jk¡ph (>kj[k.M) rd

isVªksfy;e mRiknksa ds ifjogu ds fy, ikbiykbu fcNkus gsrq mi;ksx ds vf/dkj dk vtZu djus ds vius vk'k; dh ?kks"k.kk dh Fkh A

2272

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2013/CHAITRA 9, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

vkSj mDr vf/lwpuk dh izfr;k¡ lHkh lacaf/r Hkw&Lokeh dks rkjh[k 4 vxLr] 2012 dks miyC/ djk nh xbZ Fkh A

vkSj mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 6 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds v/hu l{ke izf/dkjh us dsUnzh; ljdkj dks viuh fjiksVZ nh gS A

vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj us] mDr fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus ds i'pkr~ bl vf/lwpuk ls mikc} vuqlwph esa fofu£n"V Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds

vf/dkj v£tr djus dk fofu'p; fd;k gS A

vr%] vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 6 dh mi&/kjk (1) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, ;g ?kks"k.kk djrh

gS fd bl vf/lwpuk ls mikc} vuqlwph esa fofu£n"V Hkwfe esa ikbiykbu fcNkus ds mi;ksx dk vf/dkj v£tr fd;k tkrk gS A

vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj] mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 6 dh mi&/kjk (4) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] ;g funsZ'k nsrh gS] fd

mDr Hkwfe esa mi;ksx dk vf/dkj bl ?kks"k.kk ds izdk'ku dh rkjh[k ls dsUnzh; ljdkj esa fufgr gksus ds ctk,] lHkh foYyaxeksa ls eqDr gks

dj bafM;u vkW;y dkWiksjs'ku fyfeVsM esa fufgr gksxk A

vuqlwph

rglhy % djryk

ftyk % dksjck

jkT; % NÙkhlx<+

Øe xkao dk uke

[kljk la-

{ks=kiQy

la-

gsDVs;j

,;j

oxZ ehVj

(1) (2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

?kkVknqokjh

379

[iQk- la- vkj-25011/40/2010-vks vkj-I]

Ikou oqQekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 26th March, 2013

S.O. 755 .—Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas

number S.O.No. 697(E) dated 30th March, 2012 issued under sub section (1) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals

Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act,1962 (50 of 1962) the Central Government declared its intention to

acquire the right of user in the land in Tehsil- Kartala, , District- Korba , in Chhattisgarh, State, specified in the schedule

appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation of Petroleum products from Paradip

(Orissa) to Raipur (Chhattisgarh) and Ranchi (Jharkhand) by Indian Oil Corporation Limited;

And whereas, copies of the said notification were made available to the public on 4th August, 2012.

And whereas, the Competent Authority has under sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the said Act, submitted his report

to the Central Government.

And whereas, the Central Government has after considering the said report, decided to acquire the right of user in

the land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification.

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the said Act, the Central

Government hereby declares that the right of user in the said land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification

is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline.

And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (4) of Section 6 of the said Act, Central Government

hereby directs the right of user in the said land shall instead of vesting in the Central Government, vest on date of

publication of this declaration, in Indian Oil Corporation Limited, free from all encumbrances.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 30] 2013@pS=k 9] 1935

2273

SCHEDULE

Tehsil : Kartala

Distt. : Raipur

State : Chhattisgarh

Sl.

Name of Village

Khasra No.

Area

No.

Hectare

Are

Sq. mtr

(1)

(2)

(3) (4) (5) (6)

Ghataduwari

379 00 02 94

[F.No. R-25011/40/2010-OR-I]

PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 26 ekpZ] 2013

dk-vk- 756 -—dsUnzh; ljdkj us isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbu (Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/dkj dk vtZu) vf/fu;e]

1962 (1962 dk 50) (ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr vf/fu;e dgk x;k gS dh /kjk 3 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds v/hu tkjh Hkkjr ljdkj

ds isVªksfy;e vkSj izkÑfrd xSl ea=kky; dh vf/lwpuk dk- vk- 701(v) rkjh[k 28 ekpZ 2012 }kjk ml vf/lwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa

fofu£n"V NÙkhlx<+ jkT; dh rglhy % egkleqan] ftyk % egkleqan] dh Hkwfe esa] ikjknhi&lEcyiqj&jk;iqj&jk¡ph ikbiykbu ifj;kstuk ds

dk;kZUo;u ds fy, bafM;u vkW;y dkWiksjs'ku fyfeVsM }kjk mM+hlk jkT; esa ikjknhi ls jk;iqj (NÙkhlx<+) ,oa jk¡ph (>kj[k.M) rd

isVªksfy;e mRiknksa ds ifjogu ds fy, ikbiykbu fcNkus gsrq mi;ksx ds vf/dkj dk vtZu djus dh ?kks"k.kk dh Fkh A

vkSj mDr vf/lwpuk dh izfr;k¡ lHkh lacaf/r Hkw&Lokeh dks rkjh[k 8 flrEcj] 2012 dks miyC/ djk nh xbZ Fkh A

vkSj mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 6 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds v/hu l{ke izf/dkjh us dsUnzh; ljdkj dks viuh fjiksVZ nh gS A

vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj us mDr fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus ds i'pkr~ bl vf/lwpuk ls mic¼ vuqlwph esa fofu£n"V Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds

vf/dkj v£tr djus dk fofu'p; fd;k gS A

vr%] vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 6 dh mi&/kjk (1) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, ;g ?kks"k.kk djrh

gS fd bl vf/lwpuk ls mikc} vuqlwph esa fofu£n"V Hkwfe esa ikbiykbu fcNkus ds mi;ksx dk vf/dkj v£tr fd;k tkrk gS A

vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj] mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 6 dh mi&/kjk (4) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] ;g funsZ'k nsrh gS] fd

mDr Hkwfe esa mi;ksx dk vf/dkj bl ?kks"k.kk ds izdk'ku dh rkjh[k ls dsUnzh; ljdkj esa fufgr gksus ds ctk,] lHkh foYyaxeksa ls eqDr gks

dj bafM;u vkW;y dkWiksjs'ku fyfeVsM esa fufgr gksxk A

vuqlwph

rglhy % egkleaqn

ftyk % egkleaqn

jkT; % NÙkhlx<+

Øe xzke dk uke

[kljk la-

{ks=kiQy

la-

gsDVs;j

,;j

oxZ ehVj

(1) (2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

iqQyokjh

fijnk

217

[iQk- la- vkj-25011/25/2010-vks vkj-I]

Ikou oqQekj] voj lfpo

2274

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2013/CHAITRA 9, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 26th March, 2013

S.O. 756 .—Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas

number S.O.No. 701(E) dated 28th March 2012 issued under sub section (1) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals

Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act,1962 (50 of 1962) the Central Government declared its intention to

acquire the right of user in the land in Tehsil- Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund, in Chhattisgarh, State, specified in the

schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation of Petroleum products from

Paradip (Orissa) to Raipur (Chhattisgarh) and Ranchi (Jharkhand) by Indian Oil Corporation Limited;

And whereas, copies of the said notification were made available to the public on 8th September, 2012.

And whereas, the Competent Authority has under sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the said Act, submitted his report

to the Central Government.

And whereas, the Central Government has after considering the said report, decided to acquire the right of user in

the land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification.

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Act, the Central

Government hereby declares that the right of user in the said land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification

is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline.

And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (4) of Section 6 of the said Act, Central Government

hereby directs the right of user in the said land shall instead of vesting in the Central Government, vest on date of

publication of this declaration, in Indian Oil Corporation Limited, free from all encumbrances.

SCHEDULE

Tehsil : Mahasamund

Distt. : Mahasamund

State : Chhattisgarh

Sl.

Name of Village

Khasra No.

Area

No.

Hectare

Are

Sq. mtr

(1)

(2)

(3) (4)

(5)

(6)

Phulwari

67 00

Pirda

217 00

[F. No. R-25011/25/2010-OR-I]

PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 30] 2013@pS=k 9] 1935

2275

Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=kky;

ubZ fnYyh] 2 tuojh] 2013

dk-vk- 757 -—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947

(1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUæh; ljdkj lh-ih-

MCY;w- Mh- ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh; vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k la- 1] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 222@2011) dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUæh; ljdkj dks 02&01&2013 dks izkIr

gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y& 42012@11@2003&vkbZ vkj(lh,e&IIº

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 2nd January, 2013

S.O. 757 .—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947 ), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 222/

2011) of the Central Government Indus. Tribunal No. 1,

New Delhi as shown in the industrial dispute between the

management of Central Public Work Department, and their

workman, received by the Central Government on 02-01-2013

[ No. L-42012/11/2003-IR(CM-II]

B. M. PATNAIK, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R. K. YADAV : PRESIDING

OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL No. 1 KARKARDOOMA COURT

COMPLEX DELHI

(I.D. No. 222/2011)

The General Secretary,

All India CPWD (MRM)

Karamchari Sangathan (Regd.),

No.4823, Gali No.13,

Balbir Nagar Extension,

Shahdara, Delhi - 110032 .......... Workman

VERSUS

The Director General of Works,

CPWD, Nirman Bhawan,

New Delhi. ........Management

AWARD

Contract labours were engaged by M/s Swastik

Enterprises (in short the contractor) to perform the job

undertaken by them from Centra1 Public Works Department

(in short the management). The contract labour, so engaged

by the contractor, used to operate DG sets. Since the

management used to obtain services of the contractor to

maintain buildings and plants, contract labours filed a writ

petition before the High Court of Delhi, for regularization

of their services with the management. While disposing

the writ petition, the High Court commanded that contract

labours shall not be substituted with other contract workers

in the event when contract job is assigned to a new

contractor and in case of contract with contractor comes

to an end, contract may be renewed and in case renewal of

contract is not possible, then endeavour should be made

to impress upon the new contractor to continue with the

contract workers. The High Court also commanded the

appropriate Government to take steps as to whether contract

labour system in the establishment of the management

needs to be abolished or not. However precedent in Steel

Authority of India [2001 (7) S.C.C. 1] took away the sanctity

of above directions.

2. Shri Satpal and Shri Babu Lal were engaged by

the contractor to operate DG sets installed at CCRAS

Janakpuri, New Delhi. Their services were dispensed with

by the contractor on 02-03-2001. They claimed reinstatement

in service with the management, placing reliance on

directions issued by the High Court of Delhi. Since their

demand was not conceded to, they approached the All

India CPWD (MRM) Karamchari Sangathan (in short the

union) for redressal of their grievances. The union raised

an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer. The

management contested the claim and as such conciliation

proceedings ended into a failure. On consideration of the

failure report, submitted by the Conciliation Officer, the

appropriate Government referred the dispute to Central

Government Industrial Tribunal No.II, New Delhi, for

adjudication, vide order No.L-42012/11/2003-IR(CM-II),

New Delhi, dated 23-02-2000 with following terms:

“Whether demand of All India CPWD (MRM)

Karamchari Sangathan for reinstatement/absorption and

regularization of Satpal and Shri Babu Lal, Generator

Operator in CPWD is legal and justified? If yes, to what

relief they are entitled to?’’

3. Claim statement was filed by Shri Satpal and Shri

Babu Lal pleading that they were working as Generator

Operators with effect from January’ 95 and June’ 95

respectively. Minimum wages were paid to them, as

prescribed by the appropriate authority from time to time.

They put in more than 240 days service in each year, since

the dates of their respective engagements. Work performed

by them is of perennial nature and incidental to the activities

of the management They approached the High Court of

Delhi vide CWP No.358 of 2001 for abolition of contract

labour in the establishment of the management as well as

for absorption of their services. The High Court passed

order dated 26.05.2000, with following directions:

“a. The services of these contract workers shall not

be substituted with other contract workers, ie. if the

respondent requires to employ contract workers in the jobs

assigned to these contract workers, then they will not

replace the present contract workers with fresh contract

workers.

b. In case the contract with a particular contractor

who has engaged these petitioners/contract workers,

2276

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2013/CHAITRA 9, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

comes to an end the said contract may be renewed and if

that is not possible and the contract is given to some other

contractor endeavour should be made to continue these

contract workers with the new contractor.

c. If the decision is taken to abolish the contract

labour in particular job/work/process in any of the offices/

establishments of CPWD (as per the terms of reference

contained in Resolution dated 30-03-2000), as per the

judgement of Supreme Court in Air India Statutory

Corporation (supra) such contract workers would be entitled

to claim the benefits in terms of aforesaid judgement."

4. Claimants present that the directions issued by

the High Court were not appealed against by the

management, hence it became final. Appropriate

Government constituted a Central Advisory Contract Labour

Board, which advised the Government to abolish contract

labour in various processes/jobs/operations in the

establishment of the management Appropriate Government

issued notification on 31-07-2002, on the strength of which

contract labour has been abolished in various processes/

operation /jobs in the establishment of the management.

5. They project that they were performing their

duties as generator operators with the management. Despite

specific directions of the High Court of Delhi to the effect

that their services shall not be substituted with other

contract workers, their services were terminated by the

management with effect from 2-3-2001. No disciplinary

proceedings were ever initiated against them. No notice or

pay in lieu thereof and retrenchment compensation was

paid to them in pursuance of provisions of Section 25-F of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act).

Provisions of section 25-G and 25-H of the Act were also

violated. They claim that their services may be reinstated

with continuity and full back wages. They further claim

that their services may be regularized with the management.

6. Demurral was made by the management

pleading that the claimants admit in their claim that they

were engaged by the contractor. Their claim is not

maintainable since they were not engaged by the

management. Furthermore, in view of precedent handed

down by the Apex Court in Uma Devi [2006 (4) S.C.C. 1]

casual contract workers have no right to be regularized in

service, who were engaged without following prescribed

procedure of recruitment. It has further been ruled that if

an incumbent is engaged on casual basis, his appointment

would come to an end by afflux of time when contract

expires. Mere fact that temporary or casual employee has

continued in services for time beyond the contract of his

appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in

service.

7. The management pleads that since no

relationship of employer and employee exists between the

parties present claim is not maintainable, since the

contractor has not been arrayed as a party to the dispute.

Maintenance work at CCRAS Janakpuri was given on

contract to various contractors form time to time. The

contractor had to carry out operation and maintenance of

work, on job basis. He was required to engage labour for

execution of job work. Contractor was at liberty to employ

suitable staff and get his employees engaged as per his

requirement. Since claimants were not engaged by the

management, their claim is unfounded. The management

denies that the work awarded to the contractor was of

perennial nature. The management undertakes projects of

different departments and those departments submit

estimates for undertaking maintenance work. After sanction

of estimates for maintenance work by the departments,

they deposit necessary funds with the management for a

particular year to carry out maintenance work. The

department is free to discontinue to deposit funds for

maintenance work at any time and to stop getting

maintenance work done from the management. Accordingly,

work assigned to the contractor by the management

depends upon availability of work.

8. Directions issued by the High Court, in its order

dated 26-05-2003, were clarified by the High Court in its

order dated 01-03-2002. It was made clear therein that in

view of the precedent handed down by the Apex Court in

Steel Authority of India (supra) directions issued by the

High Court on 26-05-2000 would not be applicable. The

management denied that the contract labour system was

abolished by the appropriate Government in respect of

work performed by the claimants. It has been asserted that

services of the claimants were dispensed with by the

contractor and not by the management. Claim put forward,

to the effect that the management was supposed to give

one months notice or pay in lieu thereof and retrenchment

compensation, is unfounded. No.obligation accrued on

the management to comply with Section 25-F, -25- G and

25-H of the Act. Claim put forward is liable to be dismissed,

being devoid of merits.

9. Vide order No. Z-22019/6/2007-IR(CII), New

Delhi dated 20-03-2011, the appropriate Government

transferred the case to this Tribunal for adjudication.

10. Claimants have examined themselves in

support of their claim. Shri Satpal Singh Saharan, Executive

Engineer (Electrical), was examined on behalf of the

management. No other witness was examined by either of

the parties.

11. Arguments were heard at the bar. Shri Satish

Kumar Sharma, authorized representative, advanced

arguments on behalf of the claimant union. Shri Sanjay

Aggarwal, authorised representative, presented facts on

behalf of the management. I have given my careful

considerations to the arguments advanced at the bar and

cautiously perused the record. My findings on issues

involved in the controversy are as follows:

12. Shri Satpal projects in his affidavit EX.WW1/

A that he was working with the management since January

1985. He highlights that he was employed by the Executive

Engineer. According to him, he has been in continuous

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 30] 2013@pS=k 9] 1935

2277

service of the management. Though he was shown in the

services of the contractor, yet the contractor used to change

after every six months. His work was being assigned and

supervised by the management. During the course of his

cross examination, he concedes that a sum of Rs. 6000.00

was paid to him on the strength of wage settlement dated

2-11-2001 by M/s. Swastik Enterprises. He also admits that

M/s. Swastik Enterprises made that payment to him since

he was its employee. He further concedes that he never

marked his attendance with the management.

13. Shri Babu Lal swears similar facts in his affidavit

EX.WW2/A, as detailed by Shri Satpal Singh. However,

during the course of cross examination, he concedes that

he was an employee of M/s. Swastik Enterprises. He made

a candid admission that his wages were paid by

M/s. Swastik Enterprises. He came to know that he was

never employed by the management.

14. Shri Satpal Singh Saharan, Executive Engineer,

unfolds that Shri Satpal and Shri Babu Lal were never

engaged by the management. Copies of log book, which

are Ex.WW1/6 to Ex.WW1/20 and Ex..WW2/6 to Ex.WW2/

39, are copies of log book maintained by the contractor.

Visitor's pass were also issued in favour of the employees

of the contractor. Claimants were not employees of the

management and they filed false claim.

15. Out of facts unfolded by Shri Satpal, Babu Lal

and Shri Satpal Singh Saharan, it came over the record that

the management had outsourced the work relating to

maintenance of building and plant in respect of deposit

work, when such contracts were obtained by them from

various Government departments on yearly basis. The

management awarded work of maintenance of DG sets to

M/s Swastik Enterprises, who used to pay wages to their

employees. Shri Satpal and Babu Lal raised a dispute against

Swastik Enterprises when less wages than minimum wages,

as notified by appropriate Government, were paid to them.

Wage settlement dated 02-11-2001 was entered into and

M/s. Swastik Enterprises paid a sum ot Rs.6000.00 to Shri

Satpal Singh and Babu Lal. Therefore, out of these facts,. it

is evident that the claimants were engaged by M/s. Swastik

Enterprises. Their wages were paid by the contractor, who

was their paymaster. It is crystal clear that relationship of

employer and employee never existed between the

claimants and the management.

16. Whether the claimants, who were employees

of the Contractor, can maintain a dispute against the

management? For an answer to this proposition, the

Tribunal has to take note of the law contained in Section 10

of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act,

1970 (in short the Contract Labour Act), which makes

provision for prohibition of employment of contract labour.

For sake of convenience provisions of Section 10 of the

Contract Labour Act are reproduced thus:

“10. Prohibition of employment of contract

labour :—

(1)

Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act,

the appropriate Government may, after

consultation with the Central Board or, as the case

may be, a State Board, prohibit, by notification in

the Official Gazette, employment of, contract

labour in any process, operation or other work in

any establishment.

(2)

Before issuing any notification under sub-section

(1) in relation to an establishment, the appropriate

Government shall have regard to the conditions

of work and benefits provided for the contract

labour in that establishment and other relevant

factors, such as -

(a)

whether the process, operation or other work

is incidental to, or necessary for the industry,

trade, business, manufacture or occupation

that is carried on in the establishment,

(b)

whether it is of perennial nature, that is to say,

it is of sufficient duration having regard to the

nature of industry, trade, business,

manufacture or occupation carried on in that

establishment;

(c)

whether it is done ordinarily through regular

workmen in that establishment or an

establishment similar thereto;

(d)

whether it is sufficient to employ considerable

number of whole-time workmen.

Explanation— If a question arises whether any

process or operation or other work is of perennial nature,

the decision of the appropriate Government thereon shall

be final.”

17. As emerge out of the provisions of sub-section

(1) of Section 10 of the Contract Labour Act, the appropriate

Government may, by notification in the official gazette,

prohibit employment of contract labour in any process,

operation or other work in any establishment. When

employment of contract labour is prohibited, by issuance

of a notification in official gazette by the appropriate

Government, what would be the status of the contract

labour employed in the establishment? Such a question

arose before the Apex Court in Steel Authority of India Ltd.

(supra). The Apex Court ruled therein that there cannot be

automatic absorption of contract labour by principal

employer on issuance of notification by the appropriate

Government on abolition of contract labour system, under

sub section (1) of Section 10 of the Contract Labour Act. It

would be expedient to reproduce the law laid by the Apex

Court, which is extracted thus:

“......they fall in three classes: (1) where contract labour is

engaged in or in connection with the work of an

establishment and employment of contract labour is

prohibited either because the industrial adjudicator/court

ordered abolition of contract labour or because the

2278

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2013/CHAITRA 9, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

appropriate Goverment issued notification under section

10(1) of the CLRA Act, no automatic absorption of contract

labour working in the establishment was ordered, (2) where

contract was found to be a sham and nominal, rather a

camouflage, in which case the -contract labour working in

the establishment of the principal employer were held, in

fact and in reality, the employees of the principal employer

himself. Indeed such cases do not relate to the abolition of

contract labour but present instances wherein the court

pierce the veil and declared the correct position as a fact at

the stage after employment of contract labour stood

prohibited, (3) where in discharge of a statutory obligation

of maintaining a canteen in an establishment the principal

employer availed the services of the contractor, the courts

have held that the contract labour would indeed be

employees of the principal employer”.

18. The Court ruled that neither section 10 of the

Contract Labour Act nor any other provision in that Act,

whether expressly or by necessary implication, provides

for automatic absorption of contract labour on issuance of

a notification by the appropriate Government under sub

section (1) of section 10, prohibiting employment of

contract labour, in any process, operation or other work in

any establishment. Consequently the principal employer

cannot be required to order for absorption of the contract

labour working in the establishment concerned. It was

further ruled therein that in Saraspur Mills case (1974 (3)

SCC 66), the workman engaged for working in the canteen

run by the Cooperative Society for the appellant were the

employees of the appellant mills. In Basti Sugar Mills (AIR

1964 S.C. 355) a canteen was run in the factory by the

Cooperative Society and as such the workers working in

the canteen were held to be employees of the establishment.

The Apex Court ruled that these cases fall in class (3)

mentioned above. Judgment in Hussainbhai (1978 Lab. I.C.

1264) was cansidered by the Apex Court in the said

precedent and it was ruled therein that the said precedent

falls in class (2), referred above. The Apex Court concluded

that on issuance of prohibitive notification under section

10 of the Contract Labour Act prohibiting employment of

contract labour or otherwise, in an industrial dispute

brought before it by any contract labour in regard to

conditions of service, the Industrial Adjudicator will have

to consider the question whether the contractor has been

interposed either on the ground of having undertaken to

produce any given result for the establishment or for supply

of contract labour for work of the establishment under a

genuine contract or is a mere ruse/camouflage to evade

compliance of various beneficial legislation so as to deprive

the workers of the benefit thereunder. If the contract is

found to be not genuine but a mere camouflage, the so

called contract labour will have to be treated as employees

of the principal employer who shall be directed to regularize

the services of the contract labour in the establishment

concerned, subject to the conditions as may be specified

by it for that purpose.

19. As annonced by the Apex court, on issuance

of a prohibitive notification, prohibiting employment of

contract labour or otherwise in any industrial dispute

brought before it by the contract labour in regard to

conditions of his service, the industrial adjudicator will

have to consider the question whether the contractor has

been interposed either on the ground of having undertaken

to produce any given result in the establishment or for

supply of the contract labour for the work of the

establishment under a genuine contract or it is a mere ruse/

camouflage to evade compliance of beneficial legislation

so as to deprive the workers of the benefits therein. Thus it

was ruled that a contract labour can raise a dispute before

the industrial adjudicator in regard to his conditions of

service and in case the contract is found to be not genuine

but a mere camouflage, the so called contract labour will

have to be treated as employees of the principal employer.

Also see Standard Vacuum Refining Co. of India Ltd. (1960

(II) LLJ. 233), which was referred with approval in Steel

Authority of India.

20. In Shivnandan Sharma (1955 (1) LLJ 688), the

respondent Bank entrusted its Cash Department under a

contract to the Treasures who appointed Cashiers,

including the appellant Head Cashier. The question before

the Apex Court was: was the appellant an employee of the

Bank? On construction of the agreement entered into the

Bank and the Treasure, the Court laid down:

”If a master employs a servant and authorizes him

to employ a number of persons to do a particular job and to

guarantee their fidelity and efficiency for a cash

consideration, the employees thus appointed by the servant

would be equally with the employer, servant of the master.”

In the above precedent the Apex Court for the

first time laid down the crucial test of supervision and control

for determining the relationship of employer and employee.

21. In Hussainbhai (supra) the petitioner, who was

manufacturing ropes, entrusted the work to a contractor

who engaged his own workers. When, after some time, the

workers were not engaged, they raised an industrial dispute

that they were denied employment by the petitioner. On

reference of that dispute, the labour court passed an award

against the petitioner. When matter reached the Apex Court,

on examination of various factors and applying the effective

control test, it was held that though there was no direct

relationship between the petitioner and the workers yet on

lifting the veil and looking at the conspectus of factors

governing employment, the naked truth, though drapped

in different perfect paper arrangement, was that the real

employer was the petitioner, not the immediate contractor.

The Apex Court stated law in following words:

"Where a worker or group of workers labours to

produce goods or services and these goods or services

are for the business of another, that other is, in fact, the,

employer. He has economic control over the workers'

subsistence, skill, and continued employment. If he, for

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 30] 2013@pS=k 9] 1935

2279

any reason, chokes off, the worker is virtually, laid off. The

presence of intermediate contractor with whom alone the

workers have immediate or direct relationship ex-contractus

is of no consequence when, on lifting the veil or looking at

the consepectus of the factors governing employment, we

discern the naked truth, though draped in different perfect

paper arrangement, that the real employer is the

management, not the immediate contractor***. If the

livelihood of the workmen substantially depends on labour

rendered to produce goods and services for the benefit

and, satisfaction of an enterprise, the absence of direct

relationship or the presence of dubious intermediaries or

the make-believe trappings of detachment from the

management cannot snap the real-life bond. The story may

vary but the inference defies ingenuity. The liability cannot

be shaken off. Of course, if there is total dissociation in

fact between the disowning management and the aggrieved

workmen, the employment is, in substance and real-life

terms, by another. The management's adventitious

connections cannot ripen into real employment.”

As noted above, this precedent does not present an

illustration of abolition of contract labour but an instance

where the Court pierced the veil and declared the correct

position to the effect that the contract labours were

employees of the principal employer and not of the

contractor.

22. In Steel Authority of India (supra) it has been

ruled that the term "contract labour" is a species of workman.

A workman may be hired: (1) in an establishment by the

principal employer or by his agent with or without the

knowledge of the principal employer, or (2) in connection

with the work of an establishment by the principal employer

through a contractor or by a contractor with or without the

knowledge of principal employer. Where a workman is hired

in or in connection with the work of an establishment by

the principal employer through a contractor, he merely acts

as an agent so there will be master and servant relationship

between the principal employer and the workman. But

when a workman is hired in or in connection with the work

of an establishment by a contractor, either because he has

undertaken to produce a given result for the establishment

or because he supplies workmen for any work of the

establishment, a question might arise whether the

contractor is a mere camouflage as in Hussainbhai's case

(supra) and in Indian Petrochemicals Corporation case [1999

(6) S.C.C. 439] etc.; if the answer is in affirmative, the

workman will be in fact an employee of the principal

employer, but if the answer is in the negative, the workman

will be a contract labour.

In view of the legal proposition, referred above, it

is concluded that the claimants can maintain this dispute

against the management since they agitate that the contract

agreement between the management and the Contractor is

sham and nominal.

23. Whether any directions for deeming the

contract labour as having become the employees of the

principal employer can be issued, when the contractor or

the principal employer had violated the provisions of the

Contract labour Act? To find an answer, provisions of that

Act are to be examined. The Contract Labour Act regulates

conditions of workers in contract labour system and

provides for its abolition by the appropriate Government

as provided by section 10 of that Act. In regard to regulatory

measures section 7 requires the principal employer to get

itself registered, while section 12 obliges every contractor

to obtain a licence, under the provisions of that Act.

Section 9 places an embargo on the principal employer of

an establishment from employing contactor labour in the

establishment, when either it is not registered or its

registration has been revoked. Section 12 of the Contract

Labour Act imposes a liability on a contractor not to

undertake or execute any work through contract labour

except under and in accordance with a licence. Sections

23,24 and 25 make contraventions of the provisions of that

Act or Rules made thereunder penal. In Dena Nath (1992

Lab. I.C. 75) the Apex Court considered the question,

whether non-compliance of the provisions of sections 7

and 12 by the principal employer and the contractor

respectively would make the contract labour employed by

the principal employer as the employee of the latter. It was

ruled that only consequence of non-compliance either by

the principal employer of section 7 or by the contractor in

complying the provisions of section 12 is that they are

liable for prosecution under the said Act. But the employees

employed through the contractor cannot be deemed to be

the employees of the principal employer.

24.In the Steel Authority of India (supra) the Apex

Court laid emphasis‘‘...... the consequence of violation

of Sections 7 and 12 of the CLRA Act is explicitly provided

in Sections 23 and 25 of the CLRA Act it is not for High

courts or this Court to read in some unspecified remedy

in Section 10 or substitute for pennal consequences

specified in Sections 23 and 25 a different sequel, be if

absorption of contract labour in the establisment of

principal employer or a lesser or harsher punishment. Such

an interpretation of the provisions of the statute will be far

beyond the principle of ironing out the creases and the

scope of interpretative legislation and as such, clearly

impermissible”. The above authoritative pronouncements

make it clear that on violations of theprovisions of the

Contract Labour Act or Rules made thereunder, the contract

labour could not be deemed to have become the employee

of the principal employer.

25. Whether this Tribunal has power to order for

abolition of contract labour system in the establishment of

the management? For an answer, legal dicta is to be

considered. Before enactment of the Contract Labour Act,

the industrial adjudicator, in appropriate cases, used to

issue directions to the establishment concerned to abolish

or modify system of contract labour. Reference can be made

2280

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2013/CHAITRA 9, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

to precedents in United Salt Works and Industries Ltd.

[1962 (I) LLJ. 131], Shibu Metal Works [1966 (I) LLJ. 717],

National Iron & Steel Co.[1967 (II) LLJ. 23] and Ghatge and

Patil (Transport) Pvt. Ltd. [1968 (I) LLJ. 566]. The National

Commission on Labour (1966) in para 29.11 of its report,

enumerated those factors, on which abolition of contract

labour was ordered, thus:

‘‘29.11. Judicial awards have discouraged the practice

of employment of contract abour, particularly when the

work is (i) perennial and must go on from day to day; (ii)

incidental and necessary for the work of the factory; (iii)

sufficient to employ a considerable number of whole time

workmen; and (iv) being done in most concerns through

regular workmen. These awards also came out against the

system of 'middlemen'.’’

26. After Contract Labour Act was brought on statute

book, the Apex examined jurisdiction of the industrial

adjudicator to issue directions to the establishment to

abolish contract labour in Vegoils Private Ltd. [1971 (2)

S.C.C. 724] and ruled that it would be proper that the

question, whether the contract labour in the appellant

industry was to be abolished or not, be left to be dealt with

by the appropriate Government under the provisions of

that Act, if it becomes necessary. The observations made

by the Court are extracted thus:

“The appropriate Government when taking action

under Section 10 will have an overall picture of the

industries carrying on similar activities and decide whether

contact labour is to be abolished in respect of any of the

activities of that industry, Therefore, it is reasonable to

conclude that the jurisdiction_to decide about the abolition

of contract labour, or to put it differently, to prohibit the

employment of contract labour, is now to be done in

accordance with Section 10. Therefore, it is proper that the

question whether the contract labour regarding loading

and unloading in the industry of the appellant is to be

abolished or not, is left to be dealt with by the appropriate

Government under the Act, if it becomes necessary. On

this ground, we are of the opinion that the direction of the

Industrial Tribunal in this regard will have to be set

aside.***. The legality of the direction given by the

Industrial Tribunal abolishing contract labour in respect of

loading and unloading from May 1, 1971, can also be

considered from another point of view. The Central Act, as

mentioned earlier, had come into force on February 10, 1971.

Under Section 10 of the said Act the jurisdiction to decide

matters connected with prohibition of contract labour is

now vested in the appropriate Government. Therefore, with

effect from February 10, 1971, it is only the appropriate

Government that can prohibit contract labour by following

the procedure and in accordance with the provisions of

the Central Act. The Industrial Tribunal, in the

circumstances, will have no jurisdiction, through its award

dated November 20, 1970, to give a direction in that respect

which becomes, enforceable after the date of the coming

into force of the Central Act. In any event, such a direction

contained in the award cannot be enforceable from a date

when abolition of contract labour can only be done by the

appropriate Government in accordance with the provisions

of the Central Act”.

27. In Gujrat Electricity Board [1995 (5) S.C.C. 27] the

same view was taken by the Apex Court holdings that the

authority to abolish the contract labour vests in the

appropriate Government and not in any court including

the industrial adjudicator. it would be apposite to reproduce

the observation of the court thus:

“53. Our conclusions and answers to the questions

raised are, therefore, as follows:

(i) In view of the provisions of Section 10 of the Act,

it is only the appropriate Government which has

the authority to abolish genuine labour contract in

accordance with the provisions of the said Section.

No Court including the industrial adjudicator has

jurisdiction to do so.

(ii) If the contract is sham or not genuine, the workmen

of the so-called contractor can raise an industrial

dispute for declaring that they were always the

employees of the principal employer and for

claiming the appropriate service conditions. When

such dispute is raised, it is not a dispute for

abolition of the labour contract and hence the

provisions of Section 10 of the Act will not bar

either the raising or the adjudication of the dispute.

When such dispute is raised, the industrial

adjudicator has to decide whether the contract is

sham or genuine. It is only if the adjudicator comes

to the conclusion that the contract is sham, that he

will have jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute. If,

however, he comes to the conclusion that the

contract is genuine, he may refer the workmen to

the appropriate Government for abolition of the

contract labour under Section 10 of the Act and

keep the dispute pending. However, he can do so

if the dispute is espoused by the direct workmen

of the principal employer. If the workmen of the

principal employer have not espoused the dispute,

the adjudicator, after coming to the conclusion that

the contract is genuine, has to reject the reference,

the dispute being not an industrial dispute within

the meaning of Section 2 (k) of the ID Act. He will

not be competent to give any relief to the workmen

of the erstwhile contractor even if the labour

contract is abolished by the appropriate

Government under Section 10 of the Act.

(iii) If the labour contract is genuine a composite

industrial dispute can still be raised for abolition of

the contract labour and their absorption. However,

the dispute, will have to be raised invariably by the

direct employees of the principal employer. The

industrial adjudicator, after receipt of the reference

of such dispute will have first to direct the workmen

to approach the appropriate Government for

abolition of the contract labour under Section 10

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 30] 2013@pS=k 9] 1935

2281

of the Act and keep the reference pending. If

pursuant to such reference, the contract labour is

abolished by the appropriate Government, the

industrial adjudicator will have to give opportunity

to the parties to place the necessary material before

him to decide whether the workmen of the erstwhile

contractor should be directed to be absorbed by

the principal employer, how many of them and on

what terms. If, however, the contract labour is not

abolished, the industrial adjudicator has to reject

the reference.

(iv) Even after the contract labour system is abolished,

the direct employees of the principal employer can

raise an industrial dispute for absorption of the

ex-contractor's workmen and the adjudicator on the

material placed before him can decide as to who

and how many of the workmen should be absorbed

and on what terms”.

28. In Steel Authority of India (supra) the Apex

Court had referred the precedents in Vegoils case (supra)

and Gujarat Electricity Board (supra) with approval. Thus

it emerges that power to abolish contract labour system

vests with the appropriate Government, under section 10

of the Contract Labour Act, and not with any court including

the industrial adjudicator. This Tribunal has not been

saddled with any responsibility to abolish contract labour

in an establishment, on parameters enacted in sub-section

(2) of Section 10 of the Contract Labour Act.

29. Now I would turn to the facts of the present

controversy. It is not a case where an employee of a

contractor, employed in a statutory canteen, has invoked

the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. This matter, as projected

by the claimants, is left to be approached on the proposition

as to whether contract agreement entered into between the

management and the Contractor was sham and nominal.

Unfortunately, either of the parties had not produced the

contract agreement before this Tribunal. Under these

circumstances, the Tribunal cannot examine the written

instrument entered into between the management and the

contractor. However, it would be ascertained as to whether

the claimants could produce evidence to the effect that

financial, supervisory, administrative and disciplinary

control were exercised over them by the management.

30. As conceded by them, their wages were being

paid by the contractor. Wage settlement, which Ex.WW.1/4

makes it clear that Shri Babu Lal and Shri Satpal were paid

a sum of Rs.6000.00 by M/s Swastik Enterprises, who had

paid less wages than the minimum wages, notified by the

appropriate Government. This payment was made in

presence of Executive Engineer (Electrical), Electric Division

XVII, of the management. Consequently, it emerging over

the record that financial control on the claimants was being

exercised by the contractor and not by the management.

31. Ex.WW1/3 is a letter written by Shri Satpal

and Babu Lal to the Executive Engineer (Electrical) Electrical

Division XVII, CPWD, wherein it has been mentioned that

their services were dispensed with by the contractor on

02.03.2001. It has further been written therein that the

contractor kept logbook with him and turned them out of

the work premises. It has also been stipulated that order

passed by the High Court of Delhi was shown to the

contractor but he failed to abide by it. Now it would be

seen whether it was the Contractor who exercised his

control or supervision on the claimants? Factors of such

control and supervision were described in various

precedents. which would be noted herein under. In

Chintaman Rao [1958 (II) LLJ 252] the Apex Court ruled

that the concept of employment involves three ingredients:

(1) employer, (2) employee, and (3) the contract of

employment. The employer is one who employs, that is,

one who engages the services of other persons. The

employee is one who works for another for hire. The

employment is the contract of service between the employer

and employee where under the employee agrees to serve

the employer subject to his control and supervision. In

Food Corporation of India [1985 (II) LLJ 4] Justice Desai,

speaking for the Apex Court, announced that a contract of

employment “discloses a relationship of command and

obedience between them”. Where a Contractor employs a

workman to do the work which he contracted with a third

person to accomplish, the workman of the Contractor would

not without something more become the workman of third

person.

32. In Dharangadhara Chemical Works Limited

[1957 (1) LLJ 477], the Apex Court ruled that test of

“supervision and control may be taken as the prima facie

test for determining the relationship of employment”. It

was further laid that existence of the right in the master to

supervise and control the work to be done by the servant,

not only matter of directing that work the servant is to do

but also the manner in which he shall do his work is the

prima facie test for determining the existence of master and

servant relationship. It was suggested that correct method

of approach, would be to consider whether having regard

to the nature of work there was due control and supervision

by the employer. The greater amount of direct control

exercised over the person rendering the services by the

person contracting for them, the stronger the ground for

holding it to be a contract of service. The control and

supervision test was reaffirmed by the Apex Court in

Chintaman Rao (supra), wherein it was ruled that "worker"

was a person employed by the management and there must

be contract of service and a relationship of master and

servant between them. In Shankar Balaji Waje [1962 (1) LLJ

119], the Apex Court clarified that "control of the

management. which is a necessary element of the

relationship of master and servant is not directed towards

providing or dictating the nature of the article to be

produced or the work to be done. but refers to the other

incidents having a bearing on the process of work the

person carries out in the execution of the work. The manner

of work is to be distinguished from the type of work to be

performed. In V.P.Gopala Rao [1970 (11) LLJ 59], the Apex

Court said that it is the question of fact in each case whether

2282

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2013/CHAITRA 9, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

the relationship of master and servant exists between the

management and the workman and there is no abstract a

priori test of the work control required for establishing the

contract of service. It was laid therein that for holding that

the persons employed in the factory were workers within

the meaning of sub-section (1) of Section (2) of the Factories

Act, 1948, it is to be considered that the fact that the

workman had to work in the factory implied certain amount

of supervision by the management and the nature and extent

of control varied in different industries and that when the

operation was of a simple nature, the control could be

exercised at the end of the day by the method of rejecting

the bidis which did not come up to the proper standard. It

is, therefore, not surprising that in recent years, the control

test, as traditionally formulated, has not been treated as an

exclusive test. In Silver Jubilee Tailoring House [1973 (11)

LLJ 495] the Apex Court ordained that "It is in its appilcation

to skilled and particularly professional work that control

test in its traditional form has really broken down. It has

been said that in interpreting "control" as meaning the

power to direct how the servant should do the work, the

court has been applying the concept suited to a past age".

33. During the last three decades emphasis in the

field has shifted and no longer rests so strongly upon the

question of control. Control is obviously an important factor

and in many cases it may still be the decisive factor, but it

would be wrong to say that in every case it is a decisive

factor. In Shining Tailors (1983 (11) LLJ 143), the Apex Court

held that the piece rated workers working for a big tailoring

establishment were workmen for the establishment. It was

observed therein that the "right of removal of the workman

or not to give work as an element of control and

supervision" which was amply satisfied to announce that

those piece rated workers were the workmen for the

establishment. The Court concluded that the proposition

that "piece rate" itself indicates relationship of independent

contract, is not correct. A servant, who has full liberty to

attend to his work according to his pleasure and not

according to orders of his master, is an independent

contractor. A gold smith engaged to finish jewels within a

given time and when it was open to such goldsmith to

finish jewels within the given time or earlier and engage

themselves or others of their own were held to be

independent contractors, in K.Keswa Reddiar (1957 (1) LLJ

645). In the like manner a goldsmith who undertook the

manufacture of ornaments like other goldsmith which he

was asked to manufacture and was entitled to receive

remuneration which would depend upon the nature of the

work done, was held to be not under the order or control of

the proprietor of the concern for whom he was doing the

work, in Achuta Achar (1968(1) LLJ 500). An agreement for

selling milk on commission was held to be a contract for

service and not a contract of service, in Abad Dairy Doodh

Vitran Kendra Sanchalak Mandal, Ahmedabad (1989

Lab.I.C.1770). The Tiny Deposit Agents employed in

deposit mobilization activity of the bank have been held

to be falling within the definition of the workman and not

an independent contractor in the precedent in the

Management of Indian Bank (1990 (1) LLJ 50).

34. As emerge out, element of control or

supervision of employer in respect of detail of work would

be an identifying mark of the servant. Where an employer

retains the power, not only of directing what work is to be

done but also of controlling the manner of doing the work,

these factors would be determinative of his status as of a

master. His control is not directed towards providing or

dictating the nature of work to be done but refers to other

incidents having a bearing on the process of work the

person carries out in the execution of the work. Control

test postulates a combination of managerial and technical

functions.

35. Contents of Ex.WW1/3 makes it clear that it

was the contractor who exercised administatve, supervisory

and disciplinary control on the claimants. It was the

contractor who controlled the manner of doing work of the

claimants. He issued directions in respect of the nature of

work to be performed by them. He not only supervised

their work but retained administrative and disciplinary

control over them.Thus, it is evident that it was the

contractor who was exercising all control over the claimants

and contract agreement cannot be termed as sham and

bogus.

36. It was the contractor, viz. the employer of the

claimants, who had terminated their services. Contractor

has not been arrayed as a party to the dispute. Services of

the claimants were dispensed with by the contractor and

not by the management. Since relationship of employer

and employee never existed between the parties, claimants

have no claim against the management. As such, this

Tribunal does not find any justification in according

indulgence to the claimants. Their claim has no merits. Same

is, therefore, discarded, An award is passed in favour of

the management and against the claimants. It be sent to

the appropriate Government for publication.

Dated. 30-11-2012

Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 2 tuojh] 2013

dk-vk- 758 -—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947

(1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUæh; ljdkj vkbZ-

vkj-lh-,l- ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh; vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky; u- 1] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV (vkbZ Mh la[;k

252@2011) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUæh; ljdkj dks

02&01&2013 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y& 42012@216@2005&vkbZ vkj(lh,e&IIº

ch-,e-iVuk;d] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 2nd January, 2013

S.O. 758.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947 ), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 252/

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 30] 2013@pS=k 9] 1935

2283

2011) of the Central Government Indus. Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. 1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure

in the industrial dispute between the management Indian

Red Cross Society, of and their workman, received by the

Central Government on 02-01-2013.

[ No. L-42012/216/2005-IR(CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR R.K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

NO.1, KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX,

DELHI.

I.D.No. 252/2011

Sh.Sarna Ram S/o Sh.Bhim Sen,

R/o 2-D, Flat/Quarter Red Cross Quarters,

Kaka Nagar, New Delhi. .........Workman

Versus

The Secretary,

Indian Red Cross Society,

1, Red Cross Road,

New Delhi .......... Management

AWARD

A part time sweeper was appointed by Indian Red

Cross Society (hereinafter referred to as the Society) to

carry out sweeping job in its premises. The part time

sweeper worked with the Society for a considerable period

of 35 years. When the said sweeper became old and inform,

his engagement was discontinued. The sweeper raised a

demand for reinstatement in service. Since the Society

did not pay any heed to his demand, he raised an industrial

dispute before the Conciliation Officer. His claim was

contested by the Society and as such conciliation

proceedings failed. On consideration of failure report,

submitted by the Conciliation Officer, the appropriate

Government referred the dispute to the Central Government

Industrial Tribunal No. 2, New Delhi, for adjudication,

vide order No. L-42012/216/2005-IR (CM-II), New Delhi,

dated 08-08-2006, with following terms:

“Whether the action of the management of Indian

Red Cross Society in terminating the services of Shri Sarna

Ram with effect from 21-11-2000 is legal and justified? If

not, to what relief the workman is entitled?

2. Claim statement was filed by the sweeper, namely,

Shri Sarna Ram, pleading that he was appointed as sweeper

by the Society in November, 1965. He was put on probation

for a period of 6 months. Since nothing was heard from the

Society, hence his services were deemed to have been

confirmed after completion of a period of 12 months. He

worked hard and never gave a chance of complaint to his

superiors. His salary was increased to Rs.1500.00 per month

in 1992 and later on it was increased to Rs.3300.00 per

month. Though he was full time employee, yet a nominal

amount of Rs.300.00 only was paid to him. Balance portion

of salary was retained projecting that it was transmitted to

his Provident Fund, which he would get at the time of his

retirement.

3. The claimant unfolds that he worked with the.

Society till June, 2001 . Overtime work was also taken from

him. He requested the Society to regularize his services.

False assurance was given by the Society in that regard.

When he reached to resume his duty on 21-11-2000, he

was not allowed to enter the premises. His services were

discontinued abruptly, without giving any notice or pay in

lieu thereof. Retrenchment compensation was not paid

and action of the Society was violative of the provisions

of section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(in short

the Act). On 01-12-2002, he came to know that a junior was

retained by the Society while his services were terminated.

He projects that action of the Society in termination of his

services is illegal and unwarranted. He claims

reinstatement in service with continuity and other

consequential benefits ..

4. Claim was demurred by the Society that the

claimant was a part time sweeper, who used to render

services for half an hour every day. He was not a regular

employee. No regular work was available for him to work

during remaining portion of the day. When he became

very old and infirm, which condition incapacitated him to

carry out his duties, his services were discontinued. The

Society projects that as a part time sweeper, he used to get

Rs. 400.00 per month as his wages. He was never appointed

in regular capacity. There was no question of increase in

his wages in 1992 or thereafter. Claim put forward, to the

effect that his services were regularized, is false. There

was no question of giving any assurance to him for

regularisation of his services. Since the claimant had

become old and infirm, his services were disengaged. The

Society projects that provisions of Section 25-F of the Act

did not come into play. It has been prayed that claim put

forward by Shri Sarna Ram may be dismissed, being devoid

of merits.

5. Vide order No.Z-22019/6/2007-IR(CM-II),

New Delhi dated 30-03-2011, the case was transferred by

the appropriate’ Government to this Tribunal for

adjudication.

6. Claimant tendered his affidavit as evidence, on

23-12-2011. Thereafter, he , never appeared before this

Tribunal to undergo rigors of cross examination. On

31-08-2012, authorized representative of the Society

informed the Tribunal that the claimant had left for his

heavenly abode. Under these circumstances, no

opportunity could be given to the Society to purify

2284

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2013/CHAITRA 9, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

contents of his affidavit by an ordeal of cross examination.

7. Notices were issued to the legal representatives

of the claimant to join the proceedings. Those notices

were received back undelivered with the report ‘left’. Thus

legal representatives of deceased claimant could not come

forward to prosecute the claim.

8. Affidavit dated 23-12-2011, tendered as evidence

by the deceased claimant, was perused. In that affidavit,

he unfolds that he was appointed as a sweeper in

Novermber 1965 at a montly salary of Rs. 40.00. It has

been detailed that he served the Society continously,

without any chance of complaint to his superior. He was

governed by rules and regulation of the Society, which he

never violated. He declares that claim made by him in his

replication dated 23-02-2005 is correct. On record, no such

document is found. As projected above, the reference was

received by the Tribunal for adjudication on 08-08-2006.

Claims statement bears the date of 23-12-2011. On that

very date, the claimant filed his affidavit as evidence. Other

than this claim statement, a photocopy of claim statement

purported to have been filed before the Conciliation Officer,

is found over the record. Thus, it is evident that the affidavit

of the claimant, filed as evidence, lacks on counts such as

when his services were disengaged, giving notice for

termination or pay in lieu thereof and facts relating to non-

payment of retrenchment compensation. This affidavit

dated 23-12-2011, tendered as evidence, leads the Tribunal

nowhere, assuming, though not admitting, that it can be

read in evidence. Even then, no evidence is there to

establish that the services of the deceased claimant were

retrenched in violation of provisions of Section 25-F of

the Act.

9. When affidavit of the claimant, tendered as

evidence, is discarded, in that situation, there is a complete

vacuum of evidence to record a finding that service of the

claimant were retrenched by the Society. Retrenchment

has been defined in Section 2(oo) of the Act. The definition

of the term retrenchment is extracted thus:

“(00) “retrenchment” means the termination by the

employer of the services of a workman for any reason

whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by

way of disciplinary action, but does not include-

(a) voluntary retirement of the workman; or

(b) retirement of the workman on reaching the age

of superannuation if the contract of employment between

the employer and the workman concerned contains a

stipulation in that behalf; or

(bb) termination of the services of the workman as a

result of the non-renewal of the contract of employment

between the employer and the workman concerned on its

expiry or of such contract being terminated under a

stipulation in that behalf contained therein; or

of continued ill-health”.

10. Definition of retrenchment is very wide and in

two parts. The first part is exhaustive, which lays down

that retrenchment means the termination of the service of

a workman by the employer “for any reason whatsoever”

otherwise then as a punishment inflicted by way of

disciplinary action. Thus main part of the definition itself

excludes the termination of service, as a measure of

punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action from

the ambit of retrenchment. The second part further excludes

(i) voluntary retirement of the workman, or (ii) retirement

of workman on reaching the age of superannuation, or (iii)

termination of the service of a workman as a result of non-

renewal of contract of employment, or (iv) termination of

contract of employment in terms of a stipulation contained

in the contract of employment in that behalf, or (v)

termination of service on the ground continued ill health

of the workman. Reference can be made to the precedents

in Avon Services (Production Agencies) (Pvt.) Ltd. [1979

(I) LLJ 1] and Mahabir [1979 (II) LLJ 363]”.

11. The Society projects that services of the claimant

were disengaged when be became incapacitated to discharge

his duties, due to his old age. Old age makes a person weak,

inform, and incapable of performing even normal pursuits of life.

He frequently suffers from illness also. In such a state of affairs,

his capacity to work is also affected. Therefore, it was for the

claimant to establish” that he was competent to perform his

duties. On this count too, there is a vacuum of evidence. For

desideratum of evidence, this Tribunal is constrained to record

facts to the effect that discengagement of services of the claimant

does not amount to retrenchment. Onus lies on the claimant

to establish that his services were retrenched and that

too in violation of the provisions of the Act. This onus

was not discharged at all. Resultantly, facts cannot be

recorded in favour of the deceased claimant.

12. In view of the foregoing reasons, it cannot be

concluded that services of the claimant were retrenched

by the Society and action of retrenchment was unjustified

and illegal. For want of evidence, this Tribunal is unable

to conclude facts in favour of the deceased claimant. No

relief can be accorded to him. An award is, accordingly,

passed in favour of the Society and against the deceased

claimant. It be sent to the appropriate Government for

publication.

Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

Dated: 14-12-2012

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 30] 2013@pS=k 9] 1935

2285

ubZ fnYyh] 11tuojh] 2013

dk-vk- 759 -—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUæh; ljdkj lh-ih-MCY;w-

Mh- ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ua- 1] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV (vkbZ Mh

la[;k 281@2011) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUæh; ljdkj dks

11&01&2013 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y& 42012@310@2003&vkbZ vkj(lh,e&II)º

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 11th January, 2013

S.O. 759.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947 ), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 281/

2011) of the Central Government Indus. Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. 1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure,

in the Industrial dispute between the management of

Central Public Works Department, and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 11-01-2013.

[ No. L-42012/310/2003-IR (CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R. K. YADAV PRESIDING OFFICER

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT NO. 1,

KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI

I. D. No. 281/2011

The National President,

All India CPWD (MRM)

Karamchari Sangathan (Regd.),

No. 4823, Gali No.13,

Balbir Nagar Extension,

Shahdara, Delhi - 110032.

.... Workman

Versus

1. The Director General of Works,

Central Public Wroks Department,

Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi.

2. The Executive Engineer,

CPWD, ITPO,

Electrical Division,

I.P. Bhavan, New Delhi.

.....Management

AWARD

M/s. Jagadamba Electrical Works (in short the

Contractor) took contract of lift and electrical operations

work from Central Public Works Department (in short the

management) in December , 2000. The contractor employed

Shri Ram Ashrey to operate the lift at CGHS Dispensary.

Laxmi Nagar, Delhi, Shri Ram Ashrey used to maintain log

book, which was inspected by the Junior Engineer of the

management from time to time. On 18-12-2001, Shri Ram

Ashrey left for his native village, after getting his full and

final payment from the contractor. On his return from his

native village, he raised a demand on the management for

reinstatement in service. Since his demand was not

conceded to, he raised an industrial dispute before the

Conciliation Officer. Management contested his claim and

as such conciliation proceedings ended into failure. On

consideration of the failure report, submitted by the

Conciliation Officer, the appropriate Government referred

the dispute to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

No. II, New Delhi, for adjudication, vide order No. L-42012/

310/2003-IR(CM-II), New Delhi, dated 23-08-2004, with the

following terms:

‘‘Whether the contract between the management of

CPWD and their contractor is sham and whether the

demand of All India CPWD (MRM) Karamchari Sangathan

for regularization/absorption of Shri Ram Ashrey, S/o Shri

Munni Lal, in the establishment of CPWD is legal and

justified. If yes, to what relief he is entitled?

2. Vide order No. L-42012/31/2003-IR(CM-II), New

Delhi, dated 17-01-2005, the appropriate Government issued

a corrigendum and substituted terms of reference as under:

‘‘Whether contract between the management of

Central Public Works Department and their contractor is

sham and whether the demand of All India CPWD(MRM)

Karamchari Sangathan for reinstatement/regularization/

absorption of Shri Ram Ashrey, S/o Shri Munni Lal, Lift

Operator (worked at CGHS Dispensary, Laxmi Nagar) in

the establishment of CPWD is legal and justified. If yes, to

what relief he is entitled?”

3. Claim statement was filed by Shri Ram Ashrey

pleading therein that he was working as lift operator with

the management, through a contractor since 15-1-2000.

He worked for more than 240 days in each calendar year.

No seniority list of the employees in the establishment of

the management was maintained. He was performing

duties of operation and maintenance of lifts, which duties

are performed by regular lift operators. He rendered

continuous service with the management, despite the fact

that the contractor used to change after every six months.

Though there was change of contractor, but his services

remained continuous with the management, which fact

shows that the contract agreement was sham and bogus.

It was a smoke screen with a view to defeat provisions of

beneficial labour legislation. Work of lift operator is directly

connected with day to day work of the management in its

electrical division. His work was never supervised by the

contractor. Management enjoyed disciplinary authority

over him. His services were illegally terminated on

27-05-202. He presents that mandatory provisions of

2286

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2013/CHAITRA 9, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(in short

the Act) were not ‘complied with. Management also

violated provisions of Section 25G and 25H of the Act. He

claims reinstatement in service of the management with

continuity and full back wages.

4. Claim was demurred by the management pleading

that there was no relationship of employer and employee

between the parties. Claimant was never employed by the

management. His wages were never paid by the

management. Work relating to operation and maintenance

of lifts was awarded to the contractor, who engaged the

claimant. Management projects that when a worker opts

to repeat at the very site at which work has been awarded

to a new contractor, in such a situation the new contractor

is at liberty to employ him. His employment by different

contractors would have no bar over the matter. Contractor

had control and supervision over the work and conduct

of the claimant. Management was not at all connected

with the affairs of the contractor. Hence, it is not in a

position to comment as to when his services were

dispensed with by the contractor. Management had not

violated provisions of the Act. Contract entered into

between the management and the contractor is genuine.

Claim put forward by the claimant is not maintainable.

His claim may be dismissed, pleads the management.

5. Vide order No. Z -22D.19/6/2007/1R(C-II) New

Delhi, dated 30-03-2011, the appropriate Government

transferred the case to this Tribunal for adjudication.

6. Claimant had examined himself (WW1), Shri Shanti

Swaroop Ojha (WW2) and Shri Jai Ram, Assistant Engineer,

(WW3) in support of his claim. Shri Lakhbir Singh,

Executive Engineer, entered the witness box to testify facts

on behalf of the management.

7. Arguments heard at the bar. Shri Sunil Kumar,

authorized representative, advanced arguments on behalf

of the claimant. Shri S.S. Khan, assisted by Ms. Benani

Banerjee, Office superintendent presented facts on behalf

of the management. Parties filed their written submission

too. I have given my careful considerations to the

arguments advanced at the bar and cautiously perused

the record. My findings on issues involved in the

controversy are as follows:-

8. In his affidavit Ex.WW1/A, tendered as evidence,

claimant swears that he , worked as a lift operator with the

management since December 2000 to 18-05-2002. He was

engaged by the management through a contractor. He has

been discharging his duties to the satisfaction of the

management. Though on paper, he was shown to be an

employee of the contractor, however, he was working

under direct control and supervision of the officials of the

management. He worked under several contractors, who

used to change after every six months but his duties and

service conditions remained the same. He has been in

continuous service of the management since the date of

his engagement. At the time of his initial appointment, he

was interviewed by the Executive Engineer and on being

found suitable, he was accepted in employment. Contractor

was a mere name lender. Officers of the management

exercised disciplinary authority over him. Appropriate

Government had abolished contract system in the

establishment of the management. He rendered continuous

service of 240 days in every calendar year, including 12

months preceding date of his termination.

9. When subjected to rigors of cross examination,

claimant concedes that no appointment letter was issued

in his favour by the management. He makes further

admission that no advertisement was issued by the

management to employ lift operators. He admits that he

was engaged on the job by a contractor to work as lift

operator. He had to make a candid admission to the effect

that his wages were paid by the contractor. He also

concedes that he was having no qualification when he

was engaged in the job of lift operator. He also admits that

there was no document in his possession to show that his

attendance was marked with the management or the Junior

Engineer ever granted leave to him. It is also not disputed

by him that wages and privileges available to the

employees of the management were not granted to him.

10. Shri Shanti Saroop Ojha had unfolded that he is

the owner of M/s. Jgadamba Electrical Works. He had

taken contract from the management in Dcember 2000 to

carry out lift and electrical operations. He engaged the

claimant to discharge his obligation in respect of the

contract, which is Ex.WW2/1. He used to control and

supervise work of the claimant. He used to pay wages to

the claimant. He explains that on 18-12-2001, Shri Ram

Ashrey left the job and went to his native village.

11. Shri Jai Ram, Assistant Engineer, unfolds that he

has checked the log book of the contractor with a view to

inspect his work. His signatures appear in the log book

According to him, contractor used to control and

supervise work of the claimant. He had inspected the log

book only with a view to ascertain as to whether work

performed by the contractor was in accordance with the

terms and conditions of the contract, entered

into between him and the management.

12. Shri Lakhbir Singh, Executive Engineer, unfolds

in his affidavit, Ex. MW1/A, tendered as evidence, that

the claimant was engaged as lift operator by the contractor.

He was working under direct control and supervision of

the contractor. His wages were being paid by the contractor.

Records relating to salary vouchers, may be in possession

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 30] 2013@pS=k 9] 1935

2287

of the contractor. During the course of cross examination,

he projects that the agreement, entered into between the

management and the contractor, was for the period

3-09-2000 to 02-09-2001. The contractor was under an

obligation to provide one person at the lift located at CGHS

dispensary, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi. As per attendance record

Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/145, two persons were deployed

by the contractor to work in two different shifts. Work

was again awarded to the contractor from 14-12-2001 to

13-12-2002. To discharge his contractual obligation,

contractor has engaged the claimant for the subsequent

period also. He unfolds that contract work awarded to the

contractor was not prohibited by the appropriate

Government.

13. When facts unfolded by the claimant, Shri Shanti

Saroop Ohja, contractor, Shri Jai Raman, Assistant Engineer

and Shri Lakhbir Singh, Executive Engineer, are

appreciated, it came to light that the claimant was engaged

by the contractor. Claimant was employed at the lift located

at CGHS Dispensary, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi, by the contractor

to carry out work awarded to him. Contractor used to make

payment of wages to the claimant. Claimant used to mark

his attendance in a register kept by the contractor, which

was periodically checked by Shri Jain Raman with a view

to ascertain as to whether work performed by the contractor

was in accordance with the contract. Work and conduct

of the claimant was being supervised by the contractor. The

contractor used to sanction leave in favour of the claimant.

14. As admitted by the claimant, he was engaged by

the contractor. He concedes that his wages were paid by

the contactor. No evidence was adduced by him to the

effect that contractor was an agent of the management.

Documents which are Ex.WW1/1to Ex.WW1/18 nowhere

bring it over record that the c laimant was an employee of

the management. On the other hand, above documents

project that he was an employee of the contractor.

Consequently, it is clear that the claimant was employed

by the contractor to carry out work awarded to him by the

management. It is established by cogent evidence that

relationship of employer and employee existed between

the claimant and the contractor. The contractor made

payment of wages to the claimant. Relationship of

employer and employee never existed between the claimant

and the management.

15. Whether the claimant, who was an employee of

the Contractor, can proposition, the Tribunal has to take

note of the law contained in Section10 of the Contract

Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (in short the

Contract Labour Act), which makes provision for

prohibition of employment of contract labour. For sake of

convenience provisions of Section 10 of the Contract

Labour Act are reproduced thus:

“10. Prohibition of employment of contract labour:-

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act,

the appropriate Government may, after consultation with

the Central Board or, as the case may be, a State Board,

prohibit, by notification in the Official Gazette, employment

of contract labour in any process, operation or other work

in any establishment.

(2) Before issuing any notification under sub-

section (1) in relation to an establishment, the appropriate

Government shall have regard to the conditions of work

and benefits provided for the contract labour in that

establishment and other relevant factors, such as :-

(a) whether the process, operation or other work is

incidental to, or necessary for the industry, trade, business,

manufacture or occupation that is carried on in the

establishment,

(b) whether it is of perennial nature, that is to say, it

is of sufficient duration having regard to the nature of

industry, trade, business, manufacture or occupation

carried on in that establishment;

workmen in that establishment or an establishment similar

thereto;

(d) whether it is sufficient to employ considerable

number of whole- time workmen.

Explanation - If a question arises whether any

process or operation or other work is of perennial nature,

the decision of the appropriate Government thereon shall

be final.”

16. As emerge out of the provisions of sub-section

(1) of Section 10 of the Contract Labour Act, the appropriate

Government may, by notification in the official gazette,

prohibit employment of contract labour in any process,

operation or other work in any establishment. When

employment of contract labour is prohibited, by issuance

of a notificaiton in official gazette by the appropriate

Government, what would be the status of the contract

labour employed in the establishment? Such a question

arose before the Apex Court in Steel Authority of India

Ltd. (supra). The Apex Court ruled therein that there cannot

be automatic absorption of contract labour by principal

employer on issuance of notification by the appropriate

Government on abolition of contract labour system, under

sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Contract Labour Act.

It would be expedient to reproduce the laid by the Apex

Court, which is extracted thus:

“ ..... they fall in three classes: (1) where contract

labour is engaged in or in connection with the work

of an establishment and employment of contract

2288

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2013/CHAITRA 9, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

labour is prohibited either because the industrial

adjudicator/court ordered abolition of contract

labour or because the appropriate Government

issued notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA

Act, no automatic absorption of contract labour

working in the establishment was ordered, (2) where

contract was found to be a sham and nominal, rather

a camouflage, in which case the contract labour

working in the establishment of the principal

employer were held, in fact and in reality, the

employees of the principal employer himself. Indeed

such cases do not relate to the abolition of contract

labour but present instances wherein the court pierce

the veil and declared the correct position as a fact at

the stage after employment of contract labour stood

prohibited, (3) where in discharge of a statutory

obligation of maintaining a canteen in an

establishment the principal employer availed the

services of the contractor, the courts have held that

the contract labour would indeed be employees of

the principal employer”.

17. The Court ruled that neither Section 10 of the

Contract Labour Act nor any other provision in that Act,

whether expressly or by necessary implication, provides

for automatic absorption of contract labour on issuance

of a notification by the appropriate Government under

sub section (1) of Section 10, prohibiting employment of

contract labour, in any process, operation or other work in

any establishment. Consequently the principal employer

cannot be required to order for absorption of the contract

labour working in the establishment concerned. It was

further ruled therein that in Saraspur Mills case [1974 (3)

SCC 66], the workman engaged for working in the canteen

run by the Cooperative Society for the appellant were the

employees of the appellant mills. In Basti Sugar Mills .

(AIR 1964 S.C. 355) a canteen was run in the factory

by the Cooperative Society and as such the workers

working in the canteen were held to be employees of the

establishment the Apex Court ruled that these cases fall

in class (3) mentioned above. Judgment in Hussainbhai

(1978 Lab. I.C. 1264) was considered by the Apex Court in

the said precedent and it was ruled therein that the said

precedent falls in class (2), referred above. The Apex Court

concluded that on issuance of prohibitive notification

under Section 10 of the Contract Labour Act prohibiting

employment of contract labour or otherwise, in an

industrial dispute brought before it by any contract labour

in regard to conditions of service, the Industrial

Adjudicator will have to consider the question whether

the contractor has been interposed either on the ground

of having undertaken to produce any given result for the

establishment or for supply of contract labour for work of

the establishment under a genuine contract or is a mere

ruse/camouflage to evade compliance of various beneficial

legislation so as to deprive the workers of the benefit

thereunder. If the contract is found to be not genuine but

a mere camouflage, the so called contract labour will have

to be treated as employees of the principal employer who

shall be directed to regularize the services of the contract

labour in the establishment concerned, subject to the

conditions as may be specified by it for that purpose.

17. As announced by the Apex Court, on issuance

of a prohibitive notification, prohibiting employment of

contract labour or otherwise in any industrial dispute

brought before it by the contract labour in regard to

conditions of his service, the industrial adjudicator will

have to consider the question whether the contractor has

been interposed either on the ground of having

undertaken to produce any given result in the

establishment or for supply of the contract labour for the

work of the establishment under a genuine contract or it is

a mere ruse/camouflage to evade compliance of beneficial

legislation so as to deprive the workers of the benefits

therein. Thus it was ruled that a contract labour can raise

a dispute before the industrial adjudicator in regard to his

conditions of service and in case the contract is found to

be not genuine but a mere camouflage, the so called

contract labour will have to be treated as employees of

the principal employer. Also see Standard Vacuum Refining

Co. of India Ltd. [1960 (II) LLJ. 233], which was referred

with approval in Steel Authority of India.

18. In Shivnandan Sharma [1955 (1) LLJ 688], the

respondent Bank entrusted its Cash Department under a

contract to the Treasures who appointed cashiers,

including the appellant Head Cashier. The question before

the Apex Court was: was the appellant an employee of the

Bank? On construction of the agreement entered into the

Bank and the Treasure, the Court laid down:

“If a master employs a servant and authorizes him

to employ a number of persons to do a particular job

and to guarantee their fidelity and efficiency for a

cash consideration, the employees thus appointed

by the servant would be equally with the employer,

servant of the master.”

In the above precedent the Apex Court for the first

time laid down the crucial test of supervision and control

for determining the relationship of employer and employee.

19. In Hussainbhai (supra) the petitioner, who was

manufacturing ropes, entrusted the work to a contractor

who engaged his own workers, When, after some time,

the workers were not engaged, they raised an industrial

dispute that they were denied employment by the

petitioner. On reference of that dispute, the labour court

passed an award against the petitioner. When matter

reached the Apex Court, on examination of various factors

and applying the effective control test, it was held that

though there was no direct relationship between the

petitioner and the workers yet on lifting the veil and looking

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 30] 2013@pS=k 9] 1935

2289

at the conspectus of factors governing employment, the

naked truth, though drapped in different perfect paper

arrangement, was that the real employer was the petitioner,

not the immediate contractor. The Apex Court stated law

in following words:

“Where a worker or group of workers labours to

produce goods or services and these goods or

services are for the business of another, that other

is, in fact, the employer, He has economic control

over the workers’ subsistence, skill, and continued

employment. If he, for any reason, chokes off, the

worker is, virtually, laid off. The presence of

intermediate contractor with whom alone the workers

have immediate or direct relationship ex-contractu

is of no consequence when, on lifting the veil or

looking at the conspectus of factors governing

employment, we discern the naked truth, though

draped in different perfect paper arrangement, that

the real employer is the management, not the

immediate contractor***. If the livelihood of the

workmen substantially depends on labour rendered

to produce goods and services for the benefit and

satisfaction of an enterprise, the absence of direct

relationship or the presence of dubious

intermediaries or the make-believe trappings of

detachment from the management cannot snap the

real-life bond, The story may vary but the inference

defies ingenuity. The liability cannot be shaken off,

Of course, if there is total dissociation in fact between

the disowning management and the aggrieved

workmen, the employment is, in substance and real-

life terms, by another. The management’s

adventitious connections cannot ripen into real

employment.”

As noted above, this precedent does not present an

illustration of abolition of contract labour but an instance

where the Court pierced the veil and declared the correct

position to the effect that the contract labours were

employees of the principal employer and not of the

contractor.

20. In Steel Authority of India (supra) it has been

ruled that the term “contract labour” is a species of

workman. A workman may be hired : (1) in an establishment

by the principal employer or by his agent with or without

the knowledge of the principal employer, or (2) in

connection with the work of an establishment by the

principal employer through a contractor or by a contractor

with or without the knowledge of principal employer.

Where a workman is hired in or in connection with the

work of an establishment by the principal employer through

a contractor, he merely acts as an agent so there will be

master and servant relationship between the principal

employer and the workman. But when a workman is hired

in or in connection with the work of an establishment by a

contractor, either because he has undertaken to produce a

given result for the establishment or because he supplies

workmen for any work of the establishment, a question

might arise whether the contractor is a mere camouflage

as in Hussainbhai’s case (supra) and in Indian

Petrochemicals Corporation case (1999 (6) S.C.C. 439) etc.;

if the answer is in affirmative, the workman will be in fact

an employee of the principal employer, but if the answer is

in the negative, the workman will be a contract labour.

In view of the legal proposition, referred above, it is

concluded that the claimant can maintain this dispute

against the management since he agitates that the contract

agreement between the management and the contractor is

sham and nominal.

21. Whether any directions for deeming the contract

labour as having become the employees of the principal

employer can be issued, when the contractor or the

principal employer had violated the provisions of the

Contract Labour Act? To find an answer, provisions of

that Act are to be examined. The Contract Labour Act

regulates conditions of workers in contract labour system

and provides for its abolition by the appropriate

Government as provided by section 10 of that Act. In regard

to regulatory measures Section 7 requires the principal

employer to get itself registered, while section 12 obliges

every contractor to obtain a licence, under the provisions

of that Act. Section 9 places an embargo on the principal

employer of an establishment from employing contactor

labour in the establishment, when either it is not registered

or its registration has been revoked. Section 12 of the

Contract Labour Act imposes a liability on a contractor

not to undertake or execute any work through contract

labour except under and in accordance with a licence.

Sections 23, 24 and 25 make contraventions of the

provisions of that Act or Rules made thereunder penal. In

Dena Nath (1992 Lab. I.C. 75) the Apex Court considered

the question, whether non-compliance of the provisions

of Sections 7 and 12 by the principal employer and the

contractor respectively would make the contract labour

employed by the principal employer as the employee of

the latter. It was ruled at only consequence of non-

compliance either by-the principal employer of Section 7

or by the contractor in complying the provisions of Section

12 is that they are liable for prosecution under the said

Act. But the employees employed through the contractor

cannot be deemed to be the employees of the principal

employer.

22. In the Steel Authority of India (supra) the Apex

Court laid emphasis “ ....... the consequence of violation

of Section 7 and 12 of the CLRA Act is explicitly provided

in Section 23 and 25 of the CLRA Act, it is not for the High

Courts or this Court to read in some unspecified remedy in

Section 10 or substitute for penal consequences specified

in Sections 23 and 25 a different sequel, be if absorption of

2290

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2013/CHAITRA 9, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

contract labour in the establishment of principal employer

or a lesser or harsher punishment. Such an interpretation

of the provisions of the statute will be far beyond the

principle of ironing out the creases and the scope of

interpretative legislation and as such, clearly

impermissible”. The above authoritative pronouncements

make it clear that on violations of the provisions of the

Contract Labour Act or Rules made thereunder, the

contract labour could not be deemed to have become the

employee of the principal employer.

23. Whether this Tribunal has power to order for

abolition of contract labour system in the establishment

of the management? For an answer, legal dicta is to be

considered. Before enactment of the Contract Labour Act,

the industrial adjudicator, in appropriate cases, used to

issue directions to the establishment concerned to abolish

or modify system of contract labour. Reference can be

made to precedents in United Salt Works and Industries

Ltd.[1962 (I) LLJ. 131], Shibu Metal Works (1966 (I) LLJ.

717), National Iron & Steel Co.[1967 (II) LLJ. 23] and Ghatge

and Patil (Transport) Pvt. Ltd. [1968 (I) LLJ. 566]. The

National Commission on Labour (1966) in para 29.11 of its

report, enumerated those factors, on which abolition of

contract labour was ordered, thus:

“29.11. Judicial awards have discouraged the

practice of employment of contract labour,

particularly when the work is (i) perennial and must

go on from day to day; (ii) incidental and necessary

for the work of the factory; (iii) sufficient to employ

a considerable number of whole time workmen; and

(iv) being done in most concerns through regular

workmen. These awards also came out against the

system of ‘middlemen’.”

24. After Contract Labour Act was brought on

statute book, the Apex examined jurisdiction of the

industrial adjudicator to issue directions to the

establishment to abolish contract labour in Vegoils Private

Ltd. [1971 (2) S.C.C. 724] and ruled that it would be: proper

that the question, whether the contract labour in the

appellant industry was to be abolished or not, be left to be

dealt with by the appropriate Government under the

provisions of that Act, if it becomes necessary. The

observations made by the Court are extracted thus:

“The appropriate Government when taking action

under Section 10 will have an overall picture of the

industries carrying on similar activities and decide

whether contact labour is to be abolished in respect

of any of the activities of that industry. Therefore, it

is reasonable to conclude that the jurisdiction to

decide about the abolition of contract labour, or to

put it differently, to prohibit the employment of

contract labour, is now to be done in accordance

with Section 10. Therefore, it is proper that the

question whether the contract labour regarding

loading and unloading in the industry of the

appellant is to be abolished or not, is left to be dealt

with by the appropriate Government under the Act,

if it becomes necessary. On this ground, we are of

the opinion that the direction of the Industrial

Tribunal in this regard will have to be set aside.***.

The legality of the direction given by the Industrial

Tribunal abolishing contract labour in respect of

loading and unloading from May 1, 1971, can also

be considered from another point of view. The

Central Act, as mentioned earlier, had come into force

on February 10, 1971. Under Section 10 of the said

Act the jurisdiction to decide matters connected with

prohibition of contract labour is now vested in the

appropriate Government. Therefore, with effect from

February 10, 1971, it is only the appropriate

Government that can prohibit contract labour by

following the procedure and in accordance with the

provisions of the Central Act. The Industrial Tribunal,

in the circumstances, will have no jurisdiction,

through its award dated November 20, 1970, to give

a direction in that respect which becomes,

enforceable after the date of the coming into force

of the Central Act. In any event, such a direction

contained in the award cannot be enforceable from

a date when abolition of contract labour can only be

done by the appropriate Government in accordance

with the provisions of the Central Act”.

25. In Gujarat Electricity Board [1995 (5) S.C.C. 27]

the same view was taken by the Apex Court holdings that

the authority to abolish the contract labour vests in the

appropriate Government and not in any court including

the industrial adjudicator. It would be apposite to

reproduce the observation of the court thus:

“53. Our conclusions and answers to the questions

raised are, therefore, as follows:

(i) In view of the provisions of Section 10 of the

Act, it is only the appropriate Government which

has the authority to abolish genuine labour contract

in accordance with the provisions of the said

Section. No Court including the industrial

adjudicator has jurisdiction to do so.

(ii) If the contract is sham or not genuine, the

workmen of the so-called contractor can raise an

industrial dispute for declaring that they were always

the employees of the principal employer and for

claiming the appropriate service conditions. When

such dispute is raised, it is not a dispute for abolition

of the labour contract and hence the provisions of

Section 10 of the Act will not bar either the raising or

the adjudication of the dispute. When such dispute

is raised, the industrial adjudicator has to decide

whether the contract is sham or genuine. It is only if

the adjudicator comes to the conclusion that the

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 30] 2013@pS=k 9] 1935

2291

contract is sham, that he will have jurisdiction to

adjudicate the dispute. If, however, he comes to the

conclusion that the contract is genuine, he may refer

the workmen to the appropriate Government for

abolition of the contract labour under Section 10 of

the Act and keep the dispute pending. However, he

can do so if the dispute is espoused by the direct

workmen of the principal employer. If the workmen

of the principal employer have not espoused the

dispute, the adjudicator, after coming to the

conclusion that the contract is genuine, has to reject

the reference, the dispute being not an industrial

dispute within the meaning of Section 2 (k) of the ID

Act. He will not be competent to give any relief to

the workmen of the erstwhile contractor even if the

labour contract is abolished by the appropriate

Government under Section 10 of the Act.

(iii) If the labour contract is genuine a composite

industrial dispute can still be raised for abolition of

the contract labour and their absorption. However,

the dispute, will have to be raised invariably by the

direct employees of the principal employer. The

industrial adjudicator, after receipt of the reference

of such dispute will have first to direct the workmen

to approach the appropriate Government for

abolition of the contract labour under Section 10 of

the Act and keep the reference pending. If pursuant

to such reference, the contract labour is abolished

by the appropriate Government, the industrial

adjudicator will have to give opportunity to the

parties to place the necessary material before him to

decide whether the workmen of the erstwhile

contractor should be directed to be absorbed by

the principal employer, how many of them and on

what terms. If, however, the contract labour is not

abolished, the industrial adjudicator has to reject

the reference.

(iv) Even after the contract labour system is

abolished, the direct employees of the principal

employer can raise an industrial dispute for

absorption of the ex-contractor’s workmen and the

adjudicator on the material placed before him can

decide as to who and how many of the workmen

should be absorbed and on what terms”.

26. In Steel Authority of India (supra) the Apex Court

had referred the precedents in Vegoils case (supra) and

Gujarat Electricity Board (supra) with approval. Thus it

emerges that power to abolish contract labour system

vests with the appropriate Government, under section 10

of the Contract Labour Act, and not with any court

including the industrial adjudicator. This Tribunal has not

been saddled with any responsibility to abolish contract

labour in an establishment, on parameters enacted in sub-

section (2) of section 10 of the Contract Labour Act.

27. Now I would turn to the facts of the present

controversy. It is not a case where an employee of a

contractor, employed in a statutory canteen, has invoked

the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. This matter, as projected

by the claimant, is left to be approached on the proposition

as to whether contract agreement entered into between

the management and the contractor was sham and nominal.

As conceded by the claimant during the course of his

cross examination, he was engaged by the contractor. He

also admits therein that the contractor used to pay his

wages. Claimant presents that his signatures appear on

ExWW2/M1. When contents of this document are

perused, it emerged over the record that the claimant moved

an application before the contractor with a view to tender

his resignation. He made a request therein that his

accounts may be settled. Therefore, this document clinches

the fact to this issue that the contractor used to exercise

not only supervisor control but administrative as well as

disciplinary control over the claimant. Shri Ojha gives

reaffirmation to this effect when he testified that he

exercised supervision and control on the work and

conduct of the claimant. He details that he used to instruct

the claimant relating to his work. He had sanctioned leaves

in favour of the claimant as and when he asked for leaves.

Shri Jai Ram presents that Log book Ex.WW1/W18 were

checked by him only with a view to ascertain as to whether

the contractor was performing work in consonance with

the terms and conditions of his contract. Therefore, it is

crystal clear that it was the contractor who exercised

administrative, financial, supervisory and disciplinary

control over the claimant.

28. Contract entered into between the contractor

and the management has been placed over the record as

Ex.WW1/M1. Clause 19(b) of Ex.WW1/M1 highlights that

an obligation was cast on the contractor to pay wages to

his employee, which shall be not less than fair wages as

defined by the management. Clause 36 of the above

document details that the contractor shall provide

superintendence over his employees during execution of

the work. It was also made obligatory on him to issue

attendance card and wage slip to his employees. He was

saddled with responsibility to mark attendance of his

employees and to issue wage card to them, employment

card was also to be issued by him to his employees. On

termination of service of an employee, he was required to

issue service certificate. Right was retained by the

management to make enquiries with a view to ascertain

and enforce due and proper observance of fair wage clause

by the contractor. These facts make it clear that the contract

agreement Ex.WW1/M1 was not entered into between the

management and the contractor with a view to evade

provisions of beneficial labour legislation. No efforts were

made by the management to execute these documents as

perfect paper arrangement, with an idea of depriving

contract labour from his rights and privileges. Documents

2292

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2013/CHAITRA 9, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

executed between the contractor and the management is

found to be legal and genuine. No evidence worth name

was brought over the record by the claimant to establish

that the contract agreement was sham. Under these

circumstances, it is apparent that this Tribunal cannot grant

indulgence to the claimant and declare him to be an

employee of the management.

29. Out of facts detailed above it stood established

that the claimant has not been able to pin point that the

contract entered into between the management and the

contractor was sham and bogus. No evidence was brought

over the record to show that the said contract was a perfect

paper arrangement. There is a complete vacuum of

evidence to show that the contract was entered into with

a view to evade labour legislations. No eyebrow could be

raised about legality and genuineness of the contract,

entered into between the management and the contractor.

Hence, it cannot be concluded that the contract was ruse.

No circumstances are there to announce that the claimant

is deemed to be an employee of the management. Services

of the claimant were done away by the contractor, under

these circumstances the management was not under an

obligation to comply with the provisions of section 25-F,

25-G and 25-H of the Act. There is no case in favour of the

claimant to seek reinstatement in the services of the

management. His claim is liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, his claim is discarded. An award is passed in

favour of the management and against the claimant. It be

sent to the appropriate Government for publication.

Dated: 18-12-2012

DR. R.K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 ekpZ] 2013

dk-vk- 760 -—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd]

fodkl cSad vkWiQ bafM;k (vkbZ Mh ch vkbZ ) ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼

fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ubZ

fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 197@2011) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]

tks dsUæh; ljdkj dks 01&03&2013 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&12011@37@2008&vkbZ vkj(ch&II)º

'kh'k jke] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 1st March, 2013

S.O. 760.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947 ), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 197/

2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/

Labour Court No. 1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure,

in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of Industrial Development Bank of

India (IDBI) and their workman, which was received by

the Central Government on 01-03-2013.

[ No. L-12011/37/2008-IR (B-II)]

SHEESH RAM, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R. K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL NO. 1, KARKARDOOMA COURTS

COMPLEX, DELHI

I. D. No. 197/2011

The General Secretary,

IDBI Staff Association,

IDBI, IRCS Building,

1, Red Cross Road,

New Delhi - 110001

.... Workman

Versus

The Deputy General Manager,

Industrial Development Bank of India (IDBI),

1, Red Cross Road, Post Bag No. 231,

New Delhi-110001

.....Management

AWARD

Industrial Development Bank of India Staff

Association (hereinafter mentioned as the Association)

raised demands for filling of vacanies in workmen cadre

numbering around 800, recruitment of adequate number

of Class III and IV staff in commercial bank segment,

abolition of contract system of labour, outsourcing of

regular jobs and promotion of eligible Class IV staff to the

cadre of Class III employees. Since these demands were

not conceded to the Association decided to sit on a

dharna. With those objectives in mind, members of the

Association applied to the Industrial Development Bank

of India (in short the Bank) for grant of casual/ordinary

leaves to participate in the agitation. The Bank decided to

grant extraordinary leave without pay and allowances not

counting for increment. The Association claimed action

of the Bank as violative of Industrial Development Bank

of India Staff Rules 2004 (in short the Rules). Since the

claim was brushed aside by the Bank, the Association

raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer.

The Bank contested the claim and as such, conciliation

proceedings ended into a failure. On consideration of failure

report, submitted by the Conciliation Officer, appropriate

Government referred the dispute to Central Government

Industrial Tribunal No. 2, New Delhi, for adjudication,

vide order No. L-12011/37/2008-IR(B-II), New Delhi dated

19-06-2008 with following terms:

‘‘Whether the action of the management of IDBI,

New Delhi in not granting the casual/ordinary leave to the

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 30] 2013@pS=k 9] 1935

2293

Executive Committee members of Industrial Bank of India

Staff Association (Regd.) New Delhi for sitting in dhrana

and to the members of staff for participating in relay dharna

programme in batches and granting them extraordinary

leave without pay and allowances not counting for

increments, is just, fair and legal? If not, to what relief the

Executive Committee members of the staff who participated

in relay dharna programme are entitled to?

2. Claim statement was filed by the Association

pleading therein that a call for agitation was given by it to

press for the demands on the Bank, which are detailed as

follows:

(i) Filling of vacancies in the workmen cadre

numbering around 800.

(ii) Recruitment of adequate number of Class III and

IV staff in commercial bank segment.

(iii) Abolition of contract system of labour and

outsourcing of regular jobs.

(iv) Promotion of eligible Class IV staff to the cadre

of Class III.

3. Since those demands were to be pursued, the

Association arranged a dharna in such manner that the

work of the Bank should not suffer. Members of the

Association applied to the Bank for grant of casual/

ordinary leave to participate in the agitation. However,

they were shocked to note that the Bank decided to grant

extraodinary leave without pay and allowances not

counting for increment, to the employees who participated

in the dharna. The Association protested in that matter

and status as under:

a. In so far as the dharna programme observed on

November 19, 2007, only 5% of the employees

participated in the programme without causing any

dislocation to the normal work or functioning of

the office.

b. In respect of the five day relay dharna programme

observed from December 10-14, 2007, only 8-10

employees participated in the dharna on any given

day which did not hamper the normal working or

functioning of the office.

c. Also, as a responsible trade union conscious of

its rights and duties, drafting of employees for the

dharna was done in such a manner that no

dislocation is caused to the normal working of

functioning of the office by ensuring that no

section/department is left unattended in any of

those days.

d. The percentage of employees who participated in

the dharna programme did not exceed the

percentage of employees who are on leave on an

average on any given day.

e. No notice was served by the Bank either prior to

or during the dharna period regarding the Bank’s

decision to invoke ‘‘No Work - No Pay’’ and grant

of extraodinary leave without pay and allowances

not counting for increment.

f. Leave applied for by the employees concerned has

neither been rejected by the Bank nor assigned

any reason for not granting the leave as applied

for by the employees.

g. That the decision of the Bank is in gross violation

of the provisions contained in Clause 91(1) of IDBI

Staff Rules, 2004 in terms of which extraodinary

leave may be granted to an employee by the

competent authority when no ordinary leave is due

to him and when having regard to his length of

service, sick or special leave is not considered

jusitfied by the Competent Authority.

4. The Association claims that the dharna arranged

by it remained peaceful without affecting normal

functioning of the Bank. Decision of the Bank to regularize

absence of the employees by grant of extraodinay leave

without pay and allowances not counting for increment is

malafide. Such decision was taken to scuttle and curtail

genuine trade union activites. It affronts principles of

collective bargaining. Claim has been made that the Bank

be called upon to review its decision and grant ordinary

casual leaves to the members, who participated in the

dharna.

5. Claim was demurred by the Bank pleading that the

reference made by the Government was entirely

misconceived and untenable in law and on facts. Demand

raised by the Association was motivated and frivolous.

The Bank had not infringed any statutory or contractual

right available to the members of the Association. The

Association has no locus standi to raise the dispute since

it is neither the representative body nor collective

bargaining agent for all employess of the Bank. There are

around 2600 workmen employees in the Bank, while the

Association represents only about 39 employees. All India

Industrial Development Bank employees Association and

Industrial Development Bank Workers Union are unions

operating in the establishment of the Bank. The

Association opted not to join the aforsaid association or

the union when decision was taken to raise the dispute.

The agitation staged by the Association disrupted

business and operations of the Bank. Members of the

Association intentionally refused to work, abandoned

work stations and failed to report for duty and disrupted

business operations. If such cases are tolerated, it will

embolden the erring employees, leading to complete

anarchy and blatant violation of norms of work. No case

was there in favour of the Association. Dharna organized

by the Association amunted to illegal and unjustified strike.

However, the Bank adopted a lenient and considerate view

2294

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2013/CHAITRA 9, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

and decided to deduct only proportionate wages on the

basis of ‘‘No work- No Pay’’ principle in case of employees

who went on dharna. Claim statement deserves dismissal

being devoid of merits, pleads the Bank.

6. Vide order No. Z-22019/6/207-IR(C-II), New Delhi

dated 30-03-2011, case was transferred to this Tribunal for

adjudication by the appropriate Government.

7. On receipt of the case by transfer, notice was

sent to the Association by registered post on 19-07-2011

calling upon its General Secretary to put in his appearance

on 09-08-2011. Another notice was sent by registered post

on 22-09-2011 calling upon the General Secretary of the

Association to put in his appearance on 27-10-2011. In the

same manner, notice was sent by registered post on

02-05-2012 calling upon the General Secretary of the

Association to put in his appearance on 31-5-2012. These

postal articles were sent to the Association at its office

located at IDBI , IRCS Building, 1, Red Cross Road, New

Delhi, the address provided by the appropriate Government

in the order of reference. Neither postal articles were

received back nor it came to light that the postal services

remained affected during the period referred above.

Therefore, every assumption lies in favour of the fact that

despite service of the aforesaid notices, the Association

opted not to put in its appearance before the Tribunal.

Not to talk of putting in appearance before this Tribunal,

none appeared on behalf of the Association before Central

Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2, New Delhi, from 25-

05-2009 till the case was transferred to this Tribunal for

adjudication, as referred above. Thus, it is evident that

the Association had abandoned the proceedings for good.

Consequently, this Tribunal proceeded under rule 22 of

Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules 1957, vide its order

dated 21-08-2012.

8. The Bank tendered affidavit of Shri Narender

Kumar as evidence. Since none came forward on behalf of

the Association, no opportunity could be accorded to it

to purify contents of the affidavit by an ordeal of cross

examination.

9. Arguments were heard at the bar. None came

forward on behalf of the Association to advance arguments.

Shri Shaunak Sharma, authorised representative, detailed

facts on behalf of the Bank. 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 :—

10. Shri Narender Kumar swears in his affidavit dated

31-05-2012 to the effect that the Association cannot compel

the Bank to pay wages to its members for the period when

they did not contribute to the Bank at all. It was appalling

to observe that during dharna on 19-11-2007 and December

10-14, 2007, most of the employees of Class III and IV did

not perform their duties. Work assigned to them remained

seriously affected and it jeopardized efficiency of the Bank

in general and New Delhi Branch Office in particular. Earlier

in August 2006, the Bank had issued a wage cut notice on

‘No Work- No Pay’ principle. Same notice was issued in

November 2007. The Bank had abundantly cautioned the

employees about consequences of participating in such

dharna, which invariably affects functioning of the branch.

In spite of it, the Association resorted to dharna during

10-14 December, 2007. The Bank circulated vide its circular

dated 07-01-2008 that proportionate wage cut on ‘No Work-

No Pay’ principle would be made, which was justified and

well within its jurisdiction. Copy of the circulars dated

02-08-2006 and 7-1-2008 are Ex. DW1/1 and Ex. DW1/2

respectively.

11. Rule 36(2) of the Rules constrains an employee

not to absent himself from duties without leave, except in

circumstances beyond his control, for which he must tender

satisfactory explanation. In case an employee absents

himself from duties and fails to tender satisfactory

explanation, he shall be liable to disciplinary measures, as

deemed fit by the Competent Authority.

12. There exists multiple unions representing

workmen employees of the Bank, amongst them two

unions, namely, All India Industrial Development Bank

Employees Association and IDBI Workers Union have

sole right to negotiate with the Bank regarding workmen

related issues. The Association is affiliated to Industrial

Bank of India Employees Association. When the

Association called for dharna programme on November

19, 2007 and December 10-14-2007, it had not given any

notice of dharna. The Bank was totally unaware of the

fact. During dharna members of the Association resorted

to slogan shouting, hurling abuses against the top

executives and deliberately resorted to cessation of work

amounting to illegal and unjustified strike. The Bank is a

public utility service under section 22 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act). The Association

resorted to deliberate cessation of work, which was

detrimental to the interest of the Bank. However, lenient

view was taken when the Bank decided to deduct only

proportionate wage on the basis of ‘‘No Work- No Pay”

principle.

13. In order to appreciate above facts, philosophy

of tool of collective bargaining is to be taken note of. By

this process of collective bargaining, the labour settle their

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 30] 2013@pS=k 9] 1935

2295

dispute with their employer. In that process, the labour

resort to strike also to press their demands. Right to strike

is a labour’s ultimate weapon which has emerged as an

inherent right of every worker. It is an element which is the

very essence of the principle of collective bargaining. In

its struggle between capital and labour, weapon of strike,

available to labour, it often used by the labour. There is no

doubt that strike is a recognized mode of agitation to press

home the demand of the workers in the process of collective

bargaining. Though right to go on strike is not raised to

the high pedestal of fundamental right under the

Constitution yet it has been recognized as mode of redress

for resolving grievance of the workers.

14. The Act, does not purport to take away right to

strike. Such right has been impliedly recognized by the

Act. However, the Act prohibits strike in certain

circumstances. Section 10(3), 10A(4A) prohibits

continuance of strike while section 22 and 23 of the Act

prohibits commencement of strike. Thus, this legal right

is circumscribed by the statutory provisions of the Act.

Cumulative reading of Section 22 and 23 of the Act makes

it clear that strike woul be illegal if :

(1) It is in breach of contract of employment

(2) Concern is a public utility concern and :

(i) notice required by section 22(1) of the Act

has not been given, or

(ii) it commences during the period of operation

of settlement or award in respect of matters

governed by that settlement or award, or

(3) it commences

(i) during the pendancy of conciliation

proceedings

before the Conciliation Officer

or a Board

(ii) within 7 days from the conclusion of the said

proceeding, or

(4) it commences during pendancy of

(i) adjudication proceedings before the Labour

Court, IndustrialTribunal, National Tribunal,

(ii) within two months after conclusion of such

proceedings, or

(iii) during pendancy of arbitration proceedings

before the Arbitrator

(iv) within two months after conclusion of such

proceedings where notification under sub-

section 3(A) of section 10-A has been issued

15. Burden to prove that the strike was resorted to in

breach of contract of employment and that the concern is

a public utility concern is on the employer. When a person

is employed in a public utility concern, section 22 of the

Act enjoins upon the person proposing to go on strike to

comply with the following requirements:

a. Notice of the intention to go on strike should

be in prescribed manner as required by sub-

section (4) of section 22 of the Act. Rule 71 of

the Rules requires that notice shall be in Form

b. Before date of strike, notice should have been

given within six weeks.

c. Period of 14 days must have elapsed from the

date of notice to the date of strike.

d. Date specified in the notice must have expired

on the day of strike.

16. As deposed by Shri Narender Kumar, the Bank is

a public utility concern. No notice was given by the

Association to go on strike on 19-11-1997 as well as

10-14 December, 1997. Therefore, dharna programmes of

the Association were in contravention of provisions of

section 22 of the Act. Dharna was not at all legal and

violative of provisions of section 24 of the Act. Thus, it is

evident that the dharna scheduled by the Association was

illegal. There was no right available to the members of the

Association to resort to that dharna.

17. Members of the Association absented

themselves from duties with a view to resort to dharna.

They submitted leave applications, which applications

were considered illegal by the Bank and extraodinary leave

without pay and allowances not counting for increment

were granted. It is evident that the Bank was within its

rights when it decided to deduct proportionate wages on

the basis on ‘‘No Work-No Pay” principles. No illegality

in the act of the Bank has been established. Members of

the Association, who participated in relay dharna

programmes, are not entitled for grant of casual leaves for

19-11-1997 and 10-14th December, 1997. Their claim in that

regard is unfounded. Cosequently, claim put forward by

the Association is discarded. An award is passed in favour

of the Bank and against the Association. It be sent to the

appropriate Government for publication.

Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

Dated : 19-02-2013

2296

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2013/CHAITRA 9, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 4 ekpZ] 2013

dk-vk- 761 -—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUæh; ljdkj ,e- lh- ,y-

ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky; Hkqous'oj ds iapkV (vkbZ Mh la[;k 7@2009)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUæh; ljdkj dks 04&03&2013 dks

izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y& 22012@253@2007&vkbZ vkj(lh,e&IIº

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 4th March, 2013

S.O. 761.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947 ), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 7/2009)

of the Central Government Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure, in the

industrial dispute between the management of Mahanadi

Coalfields Limited, and their workmen, received by the

Central Government on 04-03-2013

[ No. L-22012/253/2007-IR(CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

BHUBANESWAR

PRESENT : Shri J. Srivastava,

Presiding Officer, C.G.LT.-cum-Labour

Court, Bhubaneswar.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 7 /2009

Date of Passing Award - 23rd January, 2013

Between :

1. The General Manager, Hingula Area,

Talcher, Mahanadi Coalfields Limited,

PO. N.S. Nagar, Bharatpur,

Augul.

2. The Project Manager, Hingula Area,

Talcher, Mahanadi Coalfields Limited,

PO. N.S. Nagar, Bharatpur,

Augul.

... 1st Party-Managements.

(And)

The Secretary, Talcher Coal Mines Employees

Union, Po. South Balanda, Talcher,

Augul. ... 2nd Party-Union.

Appearances :

Sri Sritam Das, For the 1st Party-

Dy. Manager (Pers.) Management No. 1 and 2.

None. For the 2nd Party-Union.

AWARD

This reference has been sent to this Tribunal by the

Government of India in the Ministry of Labour for

adjudication of an industrial dispute existing between the

employers in relation to the management of Mahanadi

Coalfields Limited, and their workmen exercising powers

under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 vide letter

No. L-22012/253/2007-IR (CM-II), dated 17-02-2009 in

respect of the following matter.

‘‘Whether the action of the management of MCL,

Hingula Area in not conducting medical board for

years together thereby affecting the privilege of

bonafide medical unfit case to get employment benefit

to their family members is legal and justified? To what

relief are the workmen is entitled’’?

2. The 2nd party-Union in its statement of claim has

alleged that as per decisions of NWVAs, the workers

having more than two years service left, if found unfit on

medical ground, can avail of the benefit of getting

appointment of their dependants in MCL in their place.

But the 1st Party-Management has not been taking any

timely action to hold medical boards for determining unfit

cases of the affected persons. As a result, a good number

of workers are being deprived of availing of such facilities

or privilege. The 2nd party-Union has been pressing hard

time and again to the 1st Party-Management to hold such

Medical Boards at least twice a year, but the Management

is considering these cases at his will. Sometimes such

Medical Board is held once in three years and sometimes

once in a year. This irregular practice is causing loss to

the eligible workers by way of losing their jobs due to ill

health and also by not getting their dependants employed

in their place. On not acceding to the request of the 2nd

Party-Union by the Management, the former filed the

dispute before the conciliation authorities, but on failure

of the conciliation proceedings, the matter was referred to

this Tribunal for adjudication.

3. The 1st Party-Management has replied in its

written statement that the employees who are less than 58

years of age and are suffering from cancer leading to

permanent disability, leprosy complicating with

deformities, paralysis of permanent nature, heart attack,

total blindness of both eyes and kidney failure and are

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 30] 2013@pS=k 9] 1935

2297

found medically unfit by the Apex Medical Board of the

company to perform their normal duties, can get employment

to one of their dependants in their place. It has been denied

that no timely action is being taken by the Management of

Hingula Area of MCL in this regard. The area-wise status

of employment of the dependants of medically unfit

employees of Kalinga area, now named as Hingula area

from 2006 to 2010 is given in Annexure-A of the written

statement. In Chapter - IX with heading "Social Security"

of National Coal Wage Agreement-VIII it has been clearly

mentioned that the provisions for providing employment

to dependants of the employees who are declared

medically unfit will be operative till a revised scheme is

jointly prepared keeping in view the various verdict of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Hence the demand of the 2nd

Party-Union for holding of Medical Boards at least two

times in a year is unjust and unacceptable being devoid of

merit.

4. On the pleadings of the parties following issues

were framed.

ISSUES

1. Whether the action of the Management of MCL,

Hingula Area in not conducting medical board for

years together thereby affecting the privilege of bona

fide medical unfit case to get employment benefit to

their family members is legal and justified ?

2. To what relief the workmen are entitled ?

5. After settlement of issues the 2nd Party-Union

was directed to adduce its evidence on the date next fixed,

but the 2nd Party-Union chose to remain absent on several

dates thereafter as a result of which no evidence was

adduced by the 2nd Party-Union.

6. The 1st Party-Management has filed sworn

affidavit of Shri Ajit Kumar Parija, Senior Manager

(Personnel), Hingula O.C.P., Hingula Area supporting the

case of the 1st Party-Management. It also filed certain

documents, but those were not proved in evidence and

exhibited.

FINDINGS

ISSUE NO.1

7. The 2nd Party-Union has not filed or adduced any

evidence in support of its contention that the 1st Party-

Management has not been conducting Medical Board for

years together thereby affecting the privilege of bona fide

medically unfit employees to get employment benefit to

their family members. On the other hand the 1st Party-

Management has alleged that it has been conducting

Medical Board for medically unfit cases of its employees

regularly as per Agreement. It has filed Annexure-A with

its written statement in which area-wise break up of

employment given to the dependants of the medically unfit

employees of Hingula Area from the year 2006 to 2010 has

been shown. In Para-4 of its written statement the 1st Party-

Management has stated that medical examination of an

employee is done by the company doctors at the time of

joining and each employee has to undergo periodical

medical examination at every five year's interval till he attains

the age of 45 years and after that the medical examination is

conducted at every three years till the employee attains

the age of 60 years. These allegations fixed support from

the averments made in the sworn affidavit of Shri Ajit Kumar

Parija, Senior Manager (Personnel), Hingula OCP, Hingula

Area. No evidence to discard the averments made in the

affidavit is on record. Hence there is no reason to disbelieve

the averments made in the affidavit of Shri Parija. The

2nd Party-Union has neither referred to nor filed any

agreement or rule or regulation providing for holding of

Medical Boards twice in a year for medically examining

cases of unfit employees. Therefore the alleged action of

the management of MCL, Hingula Area in not conducting

Medical Board for years together can neither be put in

question nor can be held true. Therefore this issue is

decided against the 2nd Party-Union.

ISSUE NO. 2

8. Since the 2nd Party-Union has miserbly failed to

prove or even make out a case for holding that the

Management of MCL, Hingula Area has not conducted

medical board for years together so as to deny the privilege

of getting employment to the family members of medically

unfit employees in their place, the workmen are not

entitled to any relief.

9. Reference is answered accordingly.

JITENDRA SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 4 ekpZ] 2013

dk-vk- 762 -—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUæh; ljdkj ,e- lh- ,y-

ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV (vkbZ Mh la[;k 19@2010) dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUæh; ljdkj dks 4&03&2013 dks izkIr

gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y& 22012@14@2010&vkbZ vkj(lh,e&II)º

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 4th March, 2013

S. O. 762 .—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947 ), the Central

2298

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2013/CHAITRA 9, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 19/2010)

of the Central Government Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure, in the

industrial dispute between the management of Hingula

Area of MCL, and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 4-03-2013.

[ No. L-22012/14/2010-IR(CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, 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. 19/2010

Date of' Passing Award - 31st January, 2013

Between :

The Chief General Manager,

Hingula Area of MCL,

P.O. N. S.Nagar, Talcher,

Angul.

... 1st Party-Management

(And)

The Divisional Secretary,

INMOSSA, MCL Zone,

At. Central Colony, Sector-16,

Block - 6, PO. Balanda,

Angul.

... 2nd Party-Union

Appearances :

Shri Sritam Das, For the 1st Party-

Dy. Manager (Pers.) Management.

Shri S. D. Choudhury, For the 2nd Party-

Divisional Secretary Union.

AWARD

The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour

has referred an industrial dispute existing between the

employers in relation to the management of Hingula Area

of MCL and their workman in exercise of the powers

conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section

(2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

vide their letter No. L-22012/14/2010-IR (CM-II), dated

28-10-2010 in respect of the following matter :—

Whether INMOSS Association is entitled to raise

industrial dispute in respect of their members who

are drawing more than Rs. 1,600 p.m. as Supervisory

staff? If yes, whether the 26 points of charter of

demands submitted by the Association dated

27-09-2008, as per provisions of the I.D. Act is legal

and justified on the disputes which are deemed as

industrial disputes as per provisions of the I.D. Act

and do not fall within the prerogative of the employer

is legal and or justified? To what relief is the

concerned association entitled?

2. The 2nd Party-Union has submitted its claim

statement in the shape of charter of demands seeking an

advisory from this Tribunal for redressal by the

Management. The charter of demands, which was given to

the management has raised certain issues before the

management with points of justification underneath. It will

be needless to recite all those issues/demands herein as

most of the demands/issues raised, do not strictly come

within the definition of an "industrial dispute".

3. The 1st Party-Management filed its written

statement dealing with point by point demands of the

2nd Party-Union. But it has raised a preliminary objection

that all the members of the INMOSSA are drawing wages

more than the stipulated wages under the Act and their

jobs are of supervisory nature. Therefore they are not

covered under the definition of ‘‘workmen’’ as per Section

2( s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. It has requested the

Tribunal to reject the claim of the 2nd Party-Union.

4. Considering the pleadings of the parties following

issues were framed.

ISSUES

1. Whether the INMOSS Association is entitled to

raise industrial dispute in respect of their members

who are drawing more than Rs. 1,600 p.m. as

Supervisory staff ?

2. If yes, whether the 26 points of charter of demand

submitted by the Association dated 27-9-2008, as

per provisions of the I.D. Act is legal and justified on

the disputes which are deemed as industrial disputes

as per provisions of the I.D. Act and do not fall within

the prerogative of the employer is legal and/or

justified?

3. To what relief is the concerned association entitled

to?

5. The 2nd Party-Union has declined to adduce any

oral evidence, whereas the 1st Party-Management has

produced sworn affidavit of Shri Ajit Kumar Parija,

Senior Manager (Personnel) Hingula OCP, Hingula Area of

MCL in evidence, but no cross-examination was done on

behalf of the 2nd Party-Union as the authorized

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 30] 2013@pS=k 9] 1935

2299

representative of the 2nd Party-Union did not turn up on

the date fIxed for cross-examination of the management

witness.

ISSUE NO. 1

6. The 1st Party-Management has raised an

objection that members of the INMOSSA, being placed in

supervisory cadre and getting more than the stipulated

wages under the Industrial Disputes Act, do not come with

the definition of the workman. Hence the Act does not

apply to them.But the objection of the 1st Party-

Management is not sustainable in view of the fact and

law that the workman getting wages upto Rs. 10,000 per

month and being in supervisory cadre is covered under

the definition of the workmen as per clause (s) of Section

(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The 1st Party-

Management has not disclosed as to who of the members

of INMOSSA is/are getting salary of more than Rs. 10,000

per month. As such the INMOSS Association is entitled

to raise industrial disputes in respect of their members

covered under the definition of ‘‘workman’’ under the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Issue no. 1 is thus decided

in the affirmative and against the 1st Party- Management.

ISSUE NO. 2

7. The 26 points of charter of demand submitted by

the 2nd Party-Union before the Management has to be

seen vis-a-vis the point-wise reply given by the 1st Party-

Management in its written statement.

8. On casting an eye on the charter of demands put

forward by the 2nd Party-Union it seems that most of them

are likened to be fulfilled in a model way of working. It is

not clear as to whether these demands are cast as a matter

of right on the Management and the Management is

obliged to fulfil them. The reply submitted by the

Management shows that most of the demands are in

process of being fulfilled or at the stage of consideration

before some other authority. It also transpires that most

of the grievances of the Association/2nd Party-Union have

been redressed from time to time, details of which have

been given in the written statement. Some of the demands

are related to safety measures and norms which are guided

by statutory regulations and controlled by the Director

General of Mines Safety. The demands are also of

generalized nature and not specific. The 2nd Party-Union

has not cited or submitted any such regulation or statutory

provision under which their demands are needed to be

fulfilled by the management and if not fulfilled they can be

redressed and enforced under law. The demands may be

justified in a model state of affairs, but they are to be guided

and regulated by some regulatory norms and also within

limited sources vested in the Management. Therefore all

these demands do not constitute an industrial dispute and

cannot be legally enforced barring a few, for fulfillment of

which the Management is striving at its level.

It can therefore be deduced from the facts of the case that

the demands raised fall within the prerogative of the

Management and it is up to it to resolve these demands

within their authority and power considering its financial

and administrative competence. The specific instance

wherever has been raised in the charter of demand that has

been looked into by the Management and necessary steps

have been taken to fulfil that. It was the duty and

responsibility as well as the onus of the 2nd Party-Union

to prove that the demands raised do fall within their right

and the Management is obliged to fulfil them as per rules

and regulations. It is to be recalled here that the ‘‘Works

Committees’’ are formed in an industrial establishment

where hundred or more workmen are engaged with equal

number of representatives of employer and employees to

look after the welfare measures of the workmen and also to

promote measures for securing and preserving amity and

good relation between the employer and workmen and to

that end, to comment upon matters of their common interest

or concern and endeavour to compose any material

difference or opinion in respect of such matters.

9. In view of all these considerations the demands

raised by the 2nd Party-Union cannot be legally justified

and even constitute an industrial dispute. This issue is

accordingly decided against the 2nd Party-Union.

ISSUE NO. 3

10. In view of the findings recorded above the

concerned Association/Union is not entitled to any

relief.

11. Reference is answered accordingly.

JITENDRA SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 4 ekpZ] 2013

dk-vk- 763 -—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUæh; ljdkj bZ- lh- ,y- ds

izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/

esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@

Je U;k;ky;] vlulksy ds iapkV (vkbZ Mh la[;k 15@2005) dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUæh; ljdkj dks 4&03&2013 dks izkIr

gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y& 22012@200@2004&vkbZ vkj (lh,e&II)º

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 4th March, 2013

S.O. 763 .—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947 ), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 15/2005)

of the Central Government Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour

2300

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2013/CHAITRA 9, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of M/s Eastern Coalfields

Limited, and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 04-03-2013

[ No. L-22012/200/2004-IR(CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT, ASANSOL

PRESENT : Sri Jayanta Kumar Sen, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. 15 OF 2005

PARTIES : The management of Belbad Colliery,

M/s. ECL, Burdwan (WB)

Vs.

The Asstt. Secy., CMSI, Raniganj (WB)

REPRESENTATIVES :

For the management : None

For the union (Workman) : None

INDUSTRY: COAL

STATE: WEST BENGAL

Dated - 29-01-13

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 Order No. L-22012/

200/2004-I.R.(CM-II) dated 23-03-2005 has been pleased

to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this

Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

‘‘Whether the action of the management of Belbad

Colliery under Kunustoria Area of M/s. Eastern

Coalfields Limited in regularizing S/Sh. Utpal

Banerjee and 7 others(list enclosed) in Clerical

Grade in which they have been deployed is legal

and justified? If not, what relief the workmen

concerned are entitled to and from which date?’’

Having received the Order of Letter No. L-22012/

200/2004-I.R.(CM-II) dated 23-03-2005 of the above said

reference from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour,

New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a reference case

No. 15 of 2005 was registered on 12-04-2005 and

accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue

notices through the registered post to the parties concerned

directing them to appear in the court on the date fixed and

to file their written statements along with the relevant

documents and a list of witnesses in support of their claims.

In pursuance of the said order notices by the registered

post were sent to the parties concerned.

On perusal of the case record, it has been found

that a petition dated 27-01-2011 has been filed on behalf of

the workman praying therein for passing a ‘‘No Dispute

Award’’ as the workmen are no more interested to proceed

with the case. As such, the case is closed and accordingly

an order of "No Dispute Award" 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] 4 ekpZ] 2013

dk-vk- 764 -—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUæh; ljdkj MCY;w- lh-

,y- ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k] tcyiqj ds iapkV (vkbZ Mh la[;k 114@07) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUæh; ljdkj dks 04&03&2013 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y& 22012@277@2007&vkbZ vkj (lh,e&II)º

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 4th March, 2013

S.O. 764.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947 ), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 114/07)

of the Central Government Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of Western Coalfields

Limited, and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 04-03-2013.

[ No. L-22012/277/2007-IR(CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/114/07

PRESIDING OFFICER : SHRI MOHD. SHAKIR HASAN

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 30] 2013@pS=k 9] 1935

2301

General Secretary,

Sanyukta Koyla Mazdoor Sangh (AITUC),

CRO Camp, eklehra,

Distt. Chhindwara Workman/Union

Versus

Chief General Manager,

Western Coalfields Ltd.,

Kanhan Area, PO Dungaria,

Chhindwara Management

AWARD

Passed on this 14th day of February 2013

1. As per letter dated 20-11-07 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal as per

Notification No.L-22012/277/2007-IR(CM-II). The dispute

under reference relates to :

‘‘Whether the action of the management of

WCL in dismissing Shri Attarlal S/o Shri Jhanaklal

w.e.f. 25-9-06 is legal and justified? If not, to what

relief is the workman entitled?’’

2. After receipt of reference, notice was issued to the

parties. Samyukta Colliery Mazdoor Sangh representing

the workman submitted statement of claim at page 3 of

record. The brief case of the 1st party workman is he was

working as Trammer, Token No. 3401 at Ambara colliery.

He was appointed on 1st January 1987. He was

continuously working since his appointment. For 15-16

years he was working as Trammer. The IInd Party

management issued charge sheet no. 1567 on 24-10-05.

That the 1st party workman had given intimation about his

absence from duty to the management. A letter was given

to workman for the departmental enquiry. The Ist party

workman was present in the enquiry proceeding except on

one occasion. He was granted permission to be represented

by the co-worker in the domestic enquiry. The Ist party

workman had produced document of his fitness. The

documents were admitted by the IInd party management.

That the enquiry intiated against the workman was bogus

as it was initiated towards unauthorized absence on

3-2-2006. The management was satisfied about his absence

from duty of the earlier period. Workman is dismissed from

service for his absence from duty in the past is illegal. The

Enquiry Officer has signed report on 26-3-05 whereas the

copy served on the ist party is of 26-3-2006. On above

grounds, the 1st party workman prays for setting aside

order of dismissal and reinstatement with back wages.

3. Management filed Written Statement at page 20

to 24. The management denied all material contention of

the Ist party workman. That WCL is owned by Govt. of

India having Hqr. at Nagpur. The employees are provided

free accommodation and other facilities including

free medical treatment. There is a central hospital for

employees working in Pench and Kanhan Area at Burkui

near Junnardeo. Workman is given sick leave till he is

declared medically fit. Serious cases are referred to

specialized hospital at metro cities and entire expenses are

incurred by the company. Workman in this case was

working as Trammer in Bhavani Incline of Ambara Colliery.

The IInd party has shown working days of Ist party as

28 days in the year 2003 and details of the fitness during

the period 2001 to 2003 . The documents were produced in

enquiry and collectively marked as Annexure M-3. After

conducting enquiry, the charges against workman are

proved the enquiry papers were placed before Competent

Authority after satisfaction that enquiry was conducted

according to law and principles of natural justice

showcause notice was issued to 1st party on 23-6-2006.

The workman not submitted satisfactory explanation

therefore service of Ist party workman was terminated

vide order No. 1802 dated 25-9-06. The management

submitted that the enquiry was conducted as per rules

following principles of natural justice. Charges of

unauthorized absence from duty are proved by the evidence

in domestic enquiry. The punishment is not

disproportionate. There is no merit in the reference.

4. Considering pleadings between the parties, the

points which arise for my consideration and determination

are as under. My findings are recorded against each of

them for the reasons as below:-

(i) Whether the action of Dismissal of Ist Party

the management of WCL workman is illegal and

in dismissing Shri Attarlal punishment is dispro-

S/o Shri Jhanaklal w.e.f portionate

25-9-06 is legal and

justified?

(ii) If not, to what relief is Ist party workman is

the workman entitled?’’ entitled to reinstate-

ment with 20 % back

wages.

REASONS

5. The legality of the dismissal of 1st party workman

Shri Attarlal s/o Jhanaklal w.e.f. 25-9-06 is in dispute. The

management contents that the charges of unauthorized

absence of the workman are proved from the evidence in

domestic enquiry. The enquiry was conducted as per rules

following principles of natural justice. The document M-1

to M-6 produced by the management are in respect of

notices issued about absence of workman from duty, charge

sheet and enquiry proceedings, attendance chart, fitness

certificate.

6. The Ist party workman not adduced evidence. The

case is proceeded exparte against him on 4-4-2012.

2302

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2013/CHAITRA 9, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

7. IInd party management filed affidavit of its

witness Shri Satish Kumar Dubey. The witness was not

cross-examined on behalf of workman. Evidence of witness

Satish Kumar Dubey is consistent with pleadings in the

Written Statement that the employees working in the coal

mine are provided treatment in Burkui Hospital. As per

Standing Orders, if employees fell sick he has to report the

colliery doctor who issue the sick certificate. The workman

is granted silk certificate till he joined duty. In para-5 of his

affidavit, the working days of Ist party workman are shown.

He had worked 28 days in the year 2003 and 39 days in the

yeat 2004. The date of hearing of the enquiry proceeding

are stated in Para-6. In para-8 the dates of fitness of Ist

party workman during the year 2001 to 2003 are given. The

Disciplinary proceedings were initiated on 24-10-2005.

Enquiry was conducted following principles of natural

justice.

8. The Ist party workman has not adduced any

evidence that he was denied any opportunity in enquiry.

The documents produced on record are considered. The

workman was granted fitness certificate till the year 2004.

Therefore said period cannot be said unauthorized

absence.

9. The chargesheet Annexure M -1 issued to the 1st

partyworkman referred his absence from duty from 16-9-05

till the service of charge sheet was misconduct as per

standing order Clause 26.30. Workman has not specifically

denied his absence from duty during the said period. The

absence from duty of workman has been established from

the evidence in enquiry proceeding. The finding doesnot

call for interference. 1st party workman is proceeded exparte.

Counsel for IInd party management submitted that the

workman working as Trammer was habitual absentee. His

attendance was poor and therefore the dismissal of 1st

party workman doesnot call for interference.

10. Copy of standing order of WCL is made available

to me. Standing order Clause 26.30 deals with absence

from duty without sanctioned leave or sufficient cause or

overstaying beyond ten days after sanctioned leave. Under

Clause 27.1 of the standing order, different punishments

are provided-

(a) Warning, reprimand, censure,

(b) Fine,

exceeding ten days

(d) Stoppage of increment without cumulative effect

(e) Stoppage of increment with cumulative effect

(f) Demotion to a lower stage or a lower grade in time

scale

(g) Removal/discharge from service

(h)

Dismissal from service

11. The Competent Authority has not discussed why

only punishment of dismissal was imposed on the workman

for his absence from duty. Since 16-9-05 till the service of

charge sheet i.e. 24-10-05. The period of unauthorized

absence from duty is very short. The punishment of

dismissal of workman for said absence cannot be said

justified. It is shockingly disproportionate and requires

interference.

12. The question arises what other punishment

should be imposed. The documents produced on record

shows that the workman was suffering from illness during

the year 2001 to 2004 repeatedly his attendance was very

less. It appears that the workman remained absent because

of similar reasons but after he recovers from illness and is

fit for his duties, the order of dismissal cannot be sustained.

It deserves to be set aside. Considering the past illness of

workman, he remained absent for long period, in my

considered view, 20 % back wages would be appropriate.

The denial of 80 % back wages itself would be sufficient

punishment for his absence from duty. For above reasons,

I record my finding on Point No.1 as Dismissal of 1st party

workman is illegal and punishment is disproportionate. I

hold, in the result, I pass the following award-

‘‘ The reference is partly allowed. Dismissal order

dated 25-9-06 of workman is set aside. The workman

is reinstated with 20 % back wages.’’

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 4 ekpZ] 2013

dk-vk- 765-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUæh; ljdkj ,l- bZ- lh-

,y- ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k] tcyiqj ds iapkV (vkbZ Mh la[;k 302@99) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUæh; ljdkj dks 04&03&2013 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y& 22012@241@1999&vkbZ vkj (lh,e&IIº

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 4th March, 2013

S.O. 765 .—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947 ), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 302/

1999) of the Central Government Indus. Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the

industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of SECL and their workman, received by the

Central Government on 04-03-2013

[ No. L-22012/241/1999-IR(CM-II]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 30] 2013@pS=k 9] 1935

2303

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT,

JABAL PUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/302/99

PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI MOHD. SHAKIR HASAN

Working President,

Madhya Pradesh Koyla Shramik Sangh (CITU),

Vill & PO Bankimogra,

Distt. Korba

Korba (MP)

....Workman/Union

Versus

The Sub Area Manager,

SECL, Manikpur colliery,

Distt. Korba (MP)

....Management

AWARD

Passed on this 13th day of February, 2013

1. Present reference is received vide letter dated

8-9-99 from Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New

Delhi as per Notification No. L-22012/241/99/IR(CM-II). The

dispute under reference is whether the action of the

Manikpur Colliery of south Eastern Coalfields Ltd., Distt.

Korba (MP) in not accepting the date of birth of Shri

A.Lighori, Sr. Dumper as 5-3-98 is justified ? If not, to what

relief is the workman entitled?

2. After notice, the Union through President

submitted his Statement of claim. The brief case of the

workman is that his date of birth is 5-3-38. However

management retired him treating his date of birth as

31-1-36. As such retirement of workman was premature. In

the Identity Card issued to workman for the post of Dumper,

the date of birth is mentioned as 5-3-1938. The employer

would have treated the said date of birth for his retirement.

The workman has submitted his Transfer Certificate of

St.Joseph Primary School in which his date of birth was

recorded as 5-3-38. He has also submitted affidavit. One

IOD slip was also produced by the workman in support of

his date of birth. The birth certificate was supplied by the

applicant on 31-10-1995.

3. The department issued a document dated 17-7-87

wherein his service particulars were provided. The date of

birth of workman was shown as 31-1-36. There was a column

of employees protest in case the entries of document were

erroneous. The applicant had submitted objection wherein

date of birth was 5-3-38 but the management did not decided

it wherein workman was retired premature. He further

submitted that the date of birth was recorded in Identity

Card. That Instruction No. 76 is not implemented by the

management. His date of birth is not accepted. That he

retired maturely. His retirement on the basis of date of birth

as 31-1-1936 is unjustified. That workman was entitled to

work till the date of normal superannuation by treating his

date of birth as 5-3-1938.

4. The management opposed the claim of the

workman/Union by filing Written Statement dated

4-12-2003. There was no merit in the case raised by the

Union. Management denied that the workman was wrongly

retired on 31-1-36. According to the management, on

completion of 60 years, the workman was retired as per the

date of birth recorded in Service Sheet. The Service Sheets

are maintained as per the provisions of Mines Act. The

contention of the union that the date of birth of workman

was 5-3-38 is denied. The service excerpts was provided to

the workman wherein date of birth was recorded as

31-1-1936. He had requested for its correction that it was

1938 submitting School Leaving Certificate. The dispute

was referred after Failure of Conciliation. The management

further submits that the date of birth of workman was

recorded in Service Book on the basis of certificate produced

by the workman at the time of his initial appointment. The

certificate was issued by George "D" souza HSFS Vicar

General Diocese of Amravati issued on 9th Sept., 1957. The

management prayed for rejection of the reference.

5. Rejoinder is filed by workman restating that his

date of birth is 5-3-38 which was wrongly written as

31-1-36. As per the date of birth of the applicant i.e. 5-3-38,

he would have been retired on 5-3-1998. The workman had

categorically mentioned in Form "C" that his date of birth

was 5-3-38. The management violated the provisions of

Instruction No. 76.

6. Considering the pleadings between the parties and

facts of the case, the points which arise for my

consideration and determination are as under. My findings

are recorded against each of them for the reasons as below:-

(i) whether the action of the

In negative

Manikpur Colliery of south

Eastern Coalfields Ltd., Distt.

Korba (MP) in not accepting

the date of birth of Shri A.Lighori,

Sr. Dumper as 5-3-98 is illegal ?

2304

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2013/CHAITRA 9, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(ii) If so, relief to the workman

Workman is not

entitled to any relief.

From the pleadings between the parties, the dispute

is about the date of birth of workman. As per the

management date of birth of workman Laghori was recorded

in Service Record as 31-1-1936. The workman claims that

his date of birth recorded in School Certificate is 5-3-38.

Workman filed affidavit of evidence (13/4). He has stated

on oath that his date of birth recorded in the School Leaving

Certificate is 5-3-38. He has produced certain documents

referred in his affidavit. In Identity Card, School leaving

Certificate, his date of birth was recorded as 5-3-38. He had

received excerpts of his service. He had submitted objection

on 17-7-87 claiming that his date of birth was

5-3-38.

7 . Workman in his cross-examination says that he

received education upto 7th standard. In 1956 he appeared

Board Exam of 7th standard. He received education in

St Joseph School. He was appointed as workman on

10-3-67 in NCDC as Driver. His service register was prepared

in NCDC as Driver. His service register was prepared in

NCDC. Document M-l is not the said register. Its contents

are incorrect. It doesnot appear as thump impression. In

his further cross-examination, workman says that he had

produced Driving Licence at the time of his initial

appointment. He don't know whether his age was written

on Driving Licence or not. In his further cross-examination,

workman says while writing service register, he told his

date of birth as 31-1-1936. He submits that he dont know

whether his Form B was prepared or not. He received service

excerpts in the year 1987. He objected for his date of birth.

After his objection, the dispute of his date of birth was not

referred to Age Determination committee. That in 1995, he

appeared before ADC but his grievance was not considered.

He denied that the documents produced by him were of his

brother. He has produced transfer certificate before ADC.

He was not given intimation of the ADC report.

8. The management filed affidavit of evidence of Shri

A.S.Adhikari , his evidence is in record that date of birth of

the workman was 31-1-36 as per the Form "B". The dispute

was referred to ADC but the claim of workman about his

date of birth was not accepted. In his cross-examination,

management's witness in his cross-examination says that

the workman had raised objection about the date of birth.

The question was referred to ADC having 2 doctors

including CMO. He was unable to tell whether the workman

was examined by the doctors.

9. The documents produced by the management.

Copy of Form B finds date of birth of workman recorded as

31-1-36 (Annexure M-1). Annexure M-4 is copy of

Instruction No. 76. Clause A(ii) related to Non-Matriculation

but educated provides that in the case of appointments

who have persued studies in a recognized educational

institution, the date of birth recorded in the School Leaving

Certificate shall be treated as correct date of birth and the

same will not be altered under any circumstances.

10. Workman/Union are contending that above

Instruction has been violated by the management by not

accepting date of birth recorded in School Certificate.

Workman produced zerox copies of Identity Card, School

leaving Certificate, Transfer Certificate. In these documents,

date of birth is recorded as 5-3-38 whereas in Form B , date

of birth of workman is recorded as 31-1-36. The zerox copy

of service particulars is produced on record. However

workman has not examined concerned witness from the

School who had taken entries of his date of birth at the time

of admission in the school. Merely production of zerox

copy cannot be said as the proof of date of birth of workman

to be 5-3-38.

11. In present case, Shri Shashi, Advocate submits

that alteration in the date of birth of workman cannot be

allowed at the fague end of his service. In support of his

argument, reliance is placed in the case of Union of India

Vrs. Harnam Singh reported in (1993)2 Supreme Court Cases

162. Your Lord of the Apex Court dealing with alteration of

date of birth and question of retirement upheld that

alteration sought in 1991 by respondent 35 years after his

induction into the service in 1956 during which period he

had several occasions to see the service book but raised

no objection regarding his date of birth, held, cannot be

allowed in view of unexplained and inordinate delay."

12. Next reliance placed on G.M.Bharat Coking Coal

Ltd. Vrs. Shib Kumar Dushad and others reported in AIR

2001 SC Page-72. Your Lordship dealing with the correction

of date or birth in service record long after joining service,

particularly when employee is on verge of retirement cannot

be accepted. Interim order issued by Court in such cases

has chain reaction in as much as it mars chances of

promotion of juniors."

13. I have carefully gone through the facts and issues

held in this case. The facts of the present case are not

comparable as after excerpts of the service record is served

on the workman in 1987, he had taken objection contending

that his date of birth was 5-3-38. The said objection was

not decided till the retirement of the workman i.e. 30-1-96.

The said question was referred to Age Determination

Committee and the order was passed by ADC on 29-2-96

subsequent to the retirement of workman. The claim of

workman Lighori at Sl.No. 13 was not accepted by ADC as

it was not found within purview of clause 1 of Instruction

No. 76. The said finding of ADC cannot be said valid.

Clause-2 of Instruction No. 76 relates to the workman

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 30] 2013@pS=k 9] 1935

2305

receiving education of non-matriculation. The workman in

present case had received education upto7th standard. I

am inclined to accept date of birth claimed by workman as

any witness who recorded his date of birth at the time of

admission is not examined. Merely production of zerox copy

of transfer certificate cannot prove his date of birth. I have

carefully gone through the documents. In Annexure M-1,

the place of residence of the workman is shown as Nagpur

City, Arch Bishap's House whereas zerox copies of the

School Leaving Certificate produced by applicant (14/3)

shows that workman received education in St. Joseph

Primary School, Paraghat. It is zerox copy of the duplicate

obtained in the year 1995. The evidence of workman is

silent how he received education at Paraghat when he was

resident of Nagpur. For reasons discussed above, claim of

the workman cannot be accepted. Therefore I record my

finding on the Pont No.1 in negative. In Point No.2, workman

is not entitled to any relief as prayed.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 4 ekpZ] 2013

dk-vk- 766 -—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,iQ- lh- vkbZ-

ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] y[kumQ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 27@2007)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 4&3&2013 dks izkIr

gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&22012@219@2006&vkbZ vkj (lh,e&II)º

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 4th March, 2013

S.O. 766.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 27/2007)

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, which was

received by the Central Government on 4-03-2013.

[No. L-22012/219/2006-IR (CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

LUCKNOW

PRESENT

Dr. MANJU NIGAM, PRESIDING OFFICER

I. D. No 27/2007

L-22012/219/2006-IR(CM-II) dated 3-7-2007

BETWEEN

The State Secretary,

Bhartiya Khadya Nigam Karmchari Sangh,

DC/3V, Vibhuti Khand

Gomti Nagar, Lucknow

AND

The Sr. Regional Manager

Food Corporation of India

DC/3V Vibhuti Khand

Gomti Nagar, Lucknow

AWARD

1. By order No. L-22012/219 /2006-IR (CM-II) dated

3-07-2007, 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 State Secretary, Bhartiya

Khadya Nigam Karmchari Sangh, DC/3V, Vibhuti Khand,

Gomti Nagar, Lucknow and the Sr. Regional Manager, Food

Corporation of India, DC/3V, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar,

Lucknow for adjudication.

2. The reference under adjudication is:

"WHETHER THE ACTION OF THE MANAGEMENT OF

FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA IN NOT GRANTING

SENIORITY NOS. BETWEEN 1665 (S/SRI RAJENDRA)

AND 1666 (AYODHYA PRASAD SHUKLA) TO THE

WORKMEN NAMELY S/SRI BEHARI LAL, PARSU RAM,

LAXMI NARAIN AND MOOL CHAND IN THE

SENIORITY LIST AS ON 31-12-1985 AND SUBSEQUENT

NON-GRANT OF SELECTION GRADE TO THEM FROM

01-12-1989 IS LEGAL AND JUSTIFIED? IF NOT, TO WHAT

RELIEF ARE THE WORKMEN ENTITLED?"

3. The case of the workmen is that all the four

workmen were sponsored by Employment Exchange along

with other in Jhansi and similarly in whole of UP Region of

Food Corporation of India during 1977. The interview of

the workmen was held on 18-8-1977 in Jhansi alongwith

other candidates. That the Employment Exchange, Jhansi

2306

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2013/CHAITRA 9, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

sent two lists of candidates who were interviewed and

successful candidates were selected by a committee of

four officers. The similar process was done in other District

Offices in UP region of Food Corporation of India. The

union stated that the names of workmen are in the regional

seniority list of watchman/messenger/shifter /safaiwala of

Food Corporation of India, UP region as on 31-12-1985 as

Behari Lal (SC) 1801, Parsu Ram (SC) 1803, Laxmi Narain

(SC) 1805 and Mool Chand (SC) 1808 all the above workmen

were interviewed on 18-8-1977. The above mentioned

workmen was selected in the interview held on 18-8-1977

and appointed as watchman vide offer of appointment

letter dated 25-8-1977 and 26-8-1977 (paper no. 6/1 to 6/4)

The workman union stated that the opposite party no. 1

published a consolidated regional seniority list

of watchmen/messenger/shifter/safaiwala of Food

Corporation of India UP region as on 31-12-1985 treating

all the employees of various Cadres as one cadre. It is

further stated that the seniority has been taken from the

date of selection but in the case of workmen date of selection

has not been mentioned with malafide intention. It is well

settled that the seniority is to be fixed from the date of

selection. The workmen at seniority no. 1665 Sri Rajendra

Prasad was selected on 25-7-1977 workman at seniority

number 1666 Sri Ayodhya Prasad Shukla was selected on

18-8-1977. While the applicants workman were selected on

18-5-1977. As such their names ought to have been between

seniority no. 1665 and 1666 instead of 1801. Sri Beharilal

1803 Sri Parsu ram, Sri Laxmi Narayan 1805 Sri Mool Chand.

The rule in FCI to grant selection grade is to those who

have completed 12 years of service in one grade. The

workmen were appointed in the year 1977 as such they

were entitled for selection grade w.e.f. 01-12-1989.

Accordingly the workman union has prayed that Hon'ble

Tribunal to direct the management of Food Corporation of

India to grant seniority number to the workmen in between

1605, Sri Rajendra Singh and 1666, Sri Ayodhya Prasad

deleting the names of the workmen at 1801, 1803, 1805 and

1808 alongwith all consequential benefits of service from

1-12-1989 along with his Juniors.

4. The opposite party filed its written statement,

denying the claim of the workman; wherein it has been

submitted that the workmen was appointed as adhoc class

IV employees in the year 1977 in their respective districts

as per norms, system and procedure of the department.

The selection process was conducted through out UP in

Food Corporation of India and seniority has been reckoned

from the date of selection except in above named workmen

which is violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

It is stated that seniority list of watchman, shifter/safaiwala

and Mess (D) has been published as combined list. The

date of joining of the workmen mentioned in the list as

1-1-1978 and the seniority of the workmen will be count

since then. The appointment letter has been issued in

favour of the workmen and other class IV employees vide

order dated 5-5-1978 (paper No. 10/5). The workmen

were regularly appointed on their post on 1-1-1978 as

mentioned order dated 5-5-1978 and seniority in was

maintained by the management since the date of their regular

appointment. In the seniority list dated 31-12-1985, the date

of joining of the applicant's workman was mentioned as 1-

1-1978 and management has maintained their seniority as

per norms and regulation of the Food Corporation of India.

The management has further stated that seniority is to be

fixed from the date of selection for the regularly appointed

employees not for the adhoc appointed employees. The

workmen were regularly appointed from, 1-1-1978 as per

order dated 5-5-1978. It is further stated that the selection

of Sri Rajendra and Sri Ayodhya Prasad is 18-7-1977 and

25-8-1977 respectively and they were placed at sl.no.1665

and 1666. The date of selection of the applicants on adhoc

basis is 19/21-11-1977 and they have been placed at sl.no.

1801, 1803, 1805 and 1808 in the seniority list dated

31-12-1985 on the basis of their regular appointment

on 1-1-1978 as per order dated 5-5-1978. The workmen have

been properly placed in the seniority list as per norms and

rules of the Food Corporation of India. The management of

FCI stated that as per rules the workmen have already

granted selection grade vide this office order No. Estt.1

(Selection Grade)/Cat.IV Vol.II/03/681 dated 22/7.4-8-2004.

As such the claim statement is liable to be rejected and

workmen are not entitled to any relief whatsoever.

5. The workman union has filed its rejoinder on

10-12-2008; wherein he has not brought any new fact apart

from reiterating the averments already made by him in his

statement of claim. On 12-12-2008 an application C-12 for

summoning the documents was filed by the workman and

16-01-2009 was fixed for objection & disposal. On

6-4-2009 the opposite party filed application and filed certain

documents through application C-13 . Opposite party has

not mentioned any thing regarding documents not

submitted by them as required by application C-12 and

next date was fixed 1-5-2009. On 1-5-2009 Hon'ble Tribunal

ordered the workman union to file an affidavit by

13-7-2009. On 13-7-2009 workman union sought time to file

the affidavit then 3-8-2009 was fixed. On 3-8-2009 workman

union filed affidavit C-14 and 7-9-2009 was fixed. On

7-9-2009 Hon'ble Tribunal ordered to the representative of

the management to file the documents if available and

12-10-2009 was fixed for workmen evidence. On 12-10-2009

the management representative filed application C-15

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 30] 2013@pS=k 9] 1935

2307

alongwith four documents and 30-11-2009 was fixed. On

30-11-2009 for workman evidence Hon'ble Presiding Officer

on leave hence case was fixed on 15-2-2010. Thereafter

15-2-2010, 26-4-2010, 18-5-2010, 9-7-2010, 24-9-2010,

23-9-2010, 19-10-2010, 7-12-2010, 17-1-2011, 15-2-2011,

4-4-2011, 18-4-2011, 26-5-2011, 22-7-2011, was fixed for

workman evidence. But when the evidence was not filed

by workman 16-9-2012 was fixed for opposite party

evidence. On 16-9-2011 an endorsement was made by FCl

management that evidence has already been filed earlier

and further there, is no requirement on behalf of

management. Consequently 3-1-2012 was fixed for

argument. 3-1-2012, 23-1-2012 was fixed. The date an

authority of Wakeel Ahmad Khan was filed on behalf of

opposite party and time was sought for argument

26-4-2012 was fixed. Thereafter 21-6-2012, 13-8-2012,

8-10-2012 and 5-12-2012 were fixed but none turned up

from either side to argue. Even workman union has not

turned up to put forward its case. Consequently the case

was reserved for award considering the long pendency of

the case and reluctance of the workman to pursue the case.

6. It is the case of workmen that they have appointed

through following the procedure. Their names were

sponsored through Employment Exchange. They were

interviewed and they were selected through selection

committee and they joined services on 25-8-1977 &

26-8-1977. It is the rule of FCI that employee gets selection

grade after completion of 12 years in a grade but hence

they should have given selection grade in the year

1-12-1989. Beside that Sri Ayodhya Prasad and Sri Rajandra

Singh were selection 25-7-77 and 18-7-1977 and were place

in seniority no. 1665 & 1666.

7. It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality

of order the burden lies upon him to prove illegality of the

order and if no evidence is produced, the party invoking

jurisdiction of the court must fail. In the present case burden

was on the workman to set out the grounds to challenge

that not providing the benefit of selection grade w. e. f.

1-12-1989 was illegal. It was the case of the workman that

he was entitled for selection grade since 01-12-1989 but

not filed any oral or documentary evidence. Neither the

workman appeared in the witness box nor filed evidence in

support of his case. This claim has been denied by the

management; therefore, it was for the workman to lead

evidence to show that he was entitled for selection grade

and since 01-12-1989 and for placement of seniority in

between 1665 and 1666.

8. In 2008 (118) FLR 1164 M/s Uptron Powertronics

Employees Union, Ghaziabad through its Secretary vs.

Presiding Officer, Labour Court (II), Ghaziabad & others,

Hon'ble High Court relied upon the law settled by the Apex

Court in 1979 (39) FLR 70 (SC) Shanker Chakravarti vs.

Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd., 1979 (39) FLR 70 (SC) V.K. Raj

Industries vs. Labour Court and Others, 1984 (49) FLR 38

Airtech Private Limited vs. State of U.P. and others and

1996 (74) FLR 2004 (Alld.) Meritech India Ltd. vs State of

U.P. and others; wherein it was observed by the Apex Court:

‘‘that in absence of any evidence led by or on behalf

of the workman the reference is bound to be answered by

the Court against the workman. In such a situation it is not

necessary for the employers to lead any evidence at all.

The obligation to lead evidence to establish an allegation

made by a party is on the party making the allegation. The

test would, who would fail if no evidence is led.’’

9. In the present case the workmen has stated that he

was entitled for selection grade but has not produced any

document and evidence in support of his case.

10. Mere pleadings are no substitute for proof. Initial

burden of establishing the fact for selection grade is upon

the workman which he failed to discharge. There is no

reliable material for recording findings that the workmen

were entitled for seletion gtade since 01-12-1989.

11. Accordingly, the reference is adjudicated against

the workmen.

12. Award as above.

LUCKNOW 24-1-2013

Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 4 ekpZ] 2013

dk-vk- 767 -—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,iQ- lh- vkbZ-

ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k] caxyksj ds iapkV (vkbZMh la[;k 24@2005) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 4&3&2013 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&22012@341@2004&vkbZ vkj (lh,e&II)º

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 4th March, 2013

S.O. 767 .—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 24/2005)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum-Labour

2308

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2013/CHAITRA 9, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Court , Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the

Industrial Dispute between the management of F C I,

and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 4-3-2013.

[No. L-22012/341/2004-IR (CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

BANGALORE

DATED :

15th February 2013

PRESENT :

Shri S. N. NAVALGUND

Presiding Officer

C. R. No. 24/2005

I Party

Smt. N G Jayalakshmi,

W/o Late G Narayanappa,

No. 21, Koti Nelamangala,

Bangalore District.

II Party

The Senior Regional Manager,

Food Corporation of India, Reg. office,

No. 10, East End Main Road,

4th T Block, Jayanagar,

Bangalore - 560 041

Appearances

I Party

Shri V S Naik, Advocate

II Party :

Shri K S Bheemaiah, Advocate

AWARD

1.The Central Government by exercising the powers

conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) of Sub-section

(2A) of the Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

has referred this dispute vide Order No. L-22012/341/2004-

IR(CM-II) dated 13-5-2005 for adjudication on the following

schedule :

SCHEDULE

‘‘Whether the action of the management of Food

Corporation of India in prematurely retiring Smt. N. G

Jayalakshmi, Dusting Operator, Whitefield FSD w.e.f.

8-7-2003 is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief

she is entitled to and from which date?’’

2. After receipt of the reference while registering it in

C R 24/2005 when notices were issued to both the sides

they entered appearance through their respective advocate

and claim statement of the I Party came to be filed on

9-11-2005 and the II Party counter statement on 19-4-2006.

After completion of the pleadings on behalf of the II Party

in order to substantiate the impugned action while filing

the affidavit of Sh. B K Vasanth, Ex. Manager (General)

examining him on oath as MW 1 got exhibited

1. Order dated 28-1-1982

2. Order dated 30-9-1992

3. Order dated 06-5-1994

4. Order dated 12-6-1997

5. Order dated 19-9-1997

6. Order dated 05-12-2001

7. Order dated 07-5-2003

8. Order dated 08-7-2003

as Ex M-1 to Ex M-8 respectively. Since he was unable

to offer himself for cross-examination later on giving up his

evidence while filing the affidavit of Sh. Rama Subbaiah,

Area Manager examined him on oath as MW 2 and in

addition to Ex M-1 to Ex M-8 that were marked in the

evidence of Sh. B. K. Vasanth four documents got exhibited

1. FCI Staff Regulations, 1971

2. Ministry of Home Affairs copy dated 15-10-1977

3. Copy of D O Letter dated 8-1-1985

4. Review Committee Report

as Ex M-9 to Ex M-12 respectively. Interalia, the I

party workman while filing her affidavit examined herself

on oath as WW 1 and did not produce any documentary

evidence.

3. With the above pleadings oral and documentary

evidence of both the sides the arguments addressed for

them were heard.

4. Since the II Party prematurely retired the I Party

workman invoking the provisions of its staff regulation

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 30] 2013@pS=k 9] 1935

2309

22(2) for habitually remaining unauthorised absent it has

to be seen whether the same is justified.

5. There is no dispute the I Party workman having

served 27 years but it is denied that her service was

unblemished contending that from the date of appointment

to 11-8-2001 since she had remained absent for 1586 days,

she was placed under suspension from 30-8-2002 to

13-3-2003 and on scrutiny of the records since it was

noticed that she was very much irregular and caused total

dislocation of work at QC branch of FSB, Whitefield and

her immediate superior submitted number of complaints to

Area Manager, DO, Bangalore and the said act on the part

of the I Party workman was in contravention of regulations

31, 32 and sub-regulations 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 16, 18, 19, 20, 22,

30, 32 and 38 of Regulation of 32A of FCI Staff Regulation

Act, 1971, Memos were issued by the Disciplinary Authority

on various occasions and there was no improvement in the

approach of the I Party workmen on the allotted duties she

was punished on several occasions for unauthorised

absence and lack of devotion to duty as under :

a. Awarded penalty of censure vide order No.VIG/

320/81 dated 28-1-1982.

b. Stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect

from 1985 vide Order No. VIG/320/81 dated 17-7-1987.

c. Awarded penalty of censure vide order No. VIG/

V&S/1/96 dated 30-9-1992.

d. Awarded penalty of reduction of pay by 5 stages

for five years vide order No. V&S/4(8)/93 dated

6-5-1994.

e. Recorded warning vide order No. V&S/1/96.

f. Stoppage of two increments without cumulative

effect from 1-1-2002 to 1-1-2003 vide order No. V&S/

62/NGJ-DM-WFD/01 dated 5-2-2001.

g. Reduction of pay to the minimum of the time scale.

Suspension period of 30-8-2002 to 13-3-2003 treated

as 'Not on duty' vide order No. V&S/6/2/NGJ/DO/

FSD/WFD/2003 dated 7-5-2003.

6. It is further stated that it was a fact as stated in the

claim statement that Head Quarter of the Charged official

during her suspension period was changed from Whitefield

to Bellary as per orders of SRM, FCI, RO, Bangalore and

later as per court's direction the said order was modified by

order dated 7-10-2002 cancelling the change of Head

Quarters from Whitefield to Bellary and the suspension

was revoked and all entitled dues had been paid to her. It is

further contented that a review committee was constituted

as per provisions contained in the Regulation 22 of FCI

Staff Regulation, 1971 and as per the instructions stipulated

in the DO Letter No. 2(1 )78/EI dated 8-1-1985 enclosing

the ministry reference to review the performance of CAT IV

officials who had attained the age of 50/55 years for the

quarter ending 31-12-2002 and 31-3-2003 and the said review

committee in its meeting held at Regional Office, Bangalore

on 19-5-2003 while reviewing the overall performance of

I Party who had attained the age of 50 years as on

31-3-2003 came to the conclusion that retiring her is in

public interest and in the interest of the corporation and

accordingly CA, SRM, FCI, Bangalore under powers vested

in Regulation 22(2) of FCI Staff Regulation, 1971 issued pre

mature retirement order to her from the FCI with immediate

effect vide office order No. 14(5)/CAT IV/03 dated 8-7-2003.

Thus the impugned action of the management is

substantiated.

The documentary evidence produced at Ex. M-1 to

Ex. M-7 do suggest as contended in the counter statement

on seven occasions the I Party workman being either

censored or imposed with punishment for unauthorized

absence. Added to this the documentary evidence

produced at Ex. M-12 do suggest that the review committee

.constituted as per the provisions of Rule 22 of the service

condition and the DO Letter No. 2(1)78/EI dated 8-1-1985

taking into account the previous punishments imposed on

the I Party workman opined she is unfit to continue in the

service based on which the impugned order copy of which

is produced at Ex. M-8 has been passed by the Senior

Regional Manager on 8-7-2003. Therefore, absolutely I find

no reason to say the action of the management of Food

Corporation of India in prematurely retiring Smt. N. G.

Jayalakshmi, Dusting Operator, Whitefield FSD w.e.f.

8-7-2003 being not legal or justified. Accordingly, while

coming to the conclusion the impugned action of the II

Party being legal and justified? I pass the following order:

ORDER

The reference is rejected holding the action of the

management of FCI acs legal and justified and that I Party

workman is not entitled for any relief.

S. N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer

2310

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2013/CHAITRA 9, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 4 ekpZ] 2013

dk-vk- 768 -—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ch- lh- lh-

,y- ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vlulksy ds iapkV (vkbZMh la[;k

48@1996) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 4&3&2013

dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&22012@431@1994&vkbZ vkj (lh&II)º

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 4th March, 2013

S.O. 768.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 48/1996)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum-Labour

Court , Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial

Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of BCCL and their workman, which was

received by the Central Government on 4-03-2013.

[No. L-22012/431/1994-IR (C-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

ASANSOL

PRESENT : SRI JAYANTA KUMAR SEN, Presiding Officer

Reference No. 48 of 1996

PARTIES : The management of Bhojudih Coal Washery,

M/s. BCCL, Purulia (WB)

Vs.

The Gen. Secy., CWWU(INTUC), Dhanbad

(Jharkhand)

Representatives :

For the management :

None

For the union (Workman) :

None

INDUSTRY : COAL

STATE : WEST BENGAL

Dated - 29-1-2013

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 Order No. L-22012/

431/94-IR(C-II) dated 18-12-96 has been pleased to refer

the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

‘‘Whether the action of the management of M/s.

B.C.C.Ltd. in not regularizing the services of contract

workers working in Slurry and Transport Middling is

legal and justified? If not, what relief the workmen

concerned are entitled to?’’

Having received the Order of Letter No. L-22012/

431/94-1.R.(C-II) dated 18-12-96 of the above said reference

from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for

adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 48 of 1996

was registered on 26-12-96 and accordingly an order to

that effect was passed to issue notices through the

registered post to the parties concerned directing them to

appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their written

statements along with the relevant documents and a list of

witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of the

said order notices by the registered post were sent to the

parties concerned.

On perusal of the case record, it has been found that

the workman is neither appearing nor taking any step since

December, 2005. It seems that the workmen is now no more

interested to proceed with the case further. The case is

also too old - 1996. As such, the case is closed and

accordingly an order of ‘‘No Dispute Award’’ is hereby

passed.

JAYANTA KUMAR SEN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 4 ekpZ] 2013

dk-vk- 769 -—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,l- bZ- lh-

,y- ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (vkbZMh la[;k

85@2005) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 4&3&2013

dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&22012@270@2004&vkbZ vkj (lh,e&II)º

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 30] 2013@pS=k 9] 1935

2311

New Delhi, the 4th March, 2013

S.O. 769.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 85/2005)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum-Labour

Court , Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial

Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of SECL and their workman, which was

received by the Central Government on 4-03-2013.

[No. L-22012/270/2004-IR (CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/85/2005

PRESIDING OFFICER : MOHD. SHAKIR HASAN

Shri.B. N. Singh,

Sr. Vice President,

Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Congress (INTUC),

Resi. Babuline, Main Post Rajnagar Colliery,

M.P ...Workman

Versus

Chief General Manager,

Hasdeo Area of SECL,

PO South Jhagrakhand Chhattisgarh ...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 15th day of February, 2013

1. Present reference is received under letter dated

22-8-2005 from Government of India, Ministry of Labour,

New Delhi. The reference as per Notification No. L-22012/

270/2004-IR (CM-II) is referred under Section 10 of ID.Act.

The dispute under reference is:

‘‘Whether the action in not promoting Shri Shiv

Prasad, S/o Shri Ram Pratap, Telephone Lineman

Category IV (Surface) to Sr. Line Man (T&S)

Grade-D by Chief General Manager, Hasdeo of SECL

is legal? If so what relief the workman is entitled?’’

2. After service of notice, workman submitted

Statement of Claim at page-5 to 5.3. The case of the Party

No.1/workman is that he was initially appointed at South

Jhimar Colliery vide order dated 6-6-95, he was promoted

as Lineman Category IV then transferred to Kurja Sub Area.

Since then 1st Party workman was working as Telephone

Lineman in Category IV . Since 1995, he had not received

promotions as per Cadre Scheme of Telecom. He has

completed one year training and is entitled for promotion

to the post of Line Helper Category II (Surface) on

completion of 3 years service as Sr. Line Man Grade -‘‘D’’.

It is further submitted that he is entitled to promotion for

the said post, in 1997. As per letter dated 22-2-98, Personal

Manager Hasdeo Area called details of the persons eligible

for promotion by DPC. The 1st party/workman was not

given intimation, he was not given promotional benefits,

no DPC meeting was called after 22-2-98. That as per the

provisions of Coal Wage Agreement order No. 2136 dated

19-1-2003 issued by Personal Manager Kurja Sub Area.

Workman is getting SLU as Grade "D". That Para-19 of the

Coal Wage Agreement provides that 4 promotions shall be

given to every workman. 1st party workman had submitted

his grievances through RKKMS(INTUC) Union but

5 meetings were held in the matter. 1st party did not get

promotion as per the coal agreement. On above grounds,

he prays for benefit of promotion to the post of Senior

Lineman Grade-IV(Surface).

3. Management filed Written Statement at page 6/1

to 6/6. The claim of workman is denied. The reference order

is vague. There is no mention from which date workman

has claimed the promotional benefits to Line Man Grade IV.

The services of the employees of IInd Party are governed

by NCWA, standing orders. The National Coal Wage

Agreement provides for job nomenclature, cadre scheme

formulated for each category of employee. The promotional

channel of telecom personnel lineman category to Asstt.

Supervisor (line) is provided in Annexure XIII-6. That

there is no provision in Cadre Scheme for a time bound

promotion. The promotion depends on the basis of

vacancy, sanctioned posts and administrative requirements.

Workman eligible for promotion as per the Cadre Scheme

cannot demand for promotion as a matter of right. 1st party

workman was initially appointed as General Mazdoor

Category I in South Jhimar Colliery. He was promoted to

Category II and Category IV. Thereafter he was transferred

to Kurja Sub Area of Hasdeo Area. That no DPC was

conducted for promotion of employees for the post of

Sr. Lineman Grade "D" for vacancies of said post. The

workman is trying to interpret the cadre scheme to suit his

object. The cadre scheme applicable to workman provided

by management is self explanatory. Several disputes were

raised by different Unions, discretion had taken place in

the meeting at different levels of the colliery. On above

2312

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2013/CHAITRA 9, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

contentions IInd party management prays for rejection of

the claim of Ist party workman.

4. Considering pleadings between the parties, the

points which arise for my consideration and determination

are as under. My findings are recorded against each of

them for the reasons as below :-

(i) Whether the action in not

In negative

promoting Shri Shiv Prasad,

S/o Shri Ram Pratap,Telephone

Lineman Category IV (Surface)

to Sr. Line Man (T&S) Grade-D

by Chief General Manager, Hasdeo

of SECL is legal

(ii) If so, what order as to

Demand of 1st party/

compensation/relief ?’’

workman is rejected

REASONS

5. In present reference, 1st party workman has raised

grievance that IInd party management has not granted him

promotion to the post of Sr. Line Man Grade D is illegal.

However the workman has not adduced any evidence. The

pleadings in statement of claim of 1st party workman finds

reference that the Coal Wage Agreement-6 in Para-l 9 states

that atleast 4 promotion shall be given to every workman

while in service. The said contentions of the workman is

not supported by the documents on record. NCW A in that

regard is not produced by the workman. As per IInd party

management, the cadre promotions are provided. Document

M-l at Page 6/7 is a copy of Cadre Scheme. Clause b(iii)

finds reference of Lineman Category Promotion provided

in Annexure XIII-6. The affidavit of evidence filed by

management's witness Arun Kumar Shrivastava gone

unchallenged. The management's witness was not cross-

examined by workman. In para-6 of the affidavit of his

evidence, the witness stated that workman was appointed

as General Mazdoor Cat-I, he was given promotion to Cat-

II, Cat-IV, thereafter no DPC was conducted for promotion

of the employees to the post of Sr. Lineman. The evidence

remained unchallenged. I find no reasons to discard his

evidence. From the reasons stated above, I donot find

substance in the grievance of workman raised in the

dispute. Therefore I record my finding in Point No.1 as

negative. In the result demand of workman for promotion

to Lineman Gr.D is rejected. The reference is disposed.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 ekpZ] 2013

dk-vk- 770 -—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ch- lh-

lh- ,y- ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k] 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 10@2000) dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 4&3&2013 dks izkIr

gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&20012@374@1997&vkbZ vkj (lh&I)º

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 5th March, 2013

S.O. 770 .—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 10 of

2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum-

Labour Court No.1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure,

in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in

relation to the management of M/s.BCCL and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 4-03-2013.

[No. L-20012/374/1997-IR (C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.1), DHANBAD

IN THE MATTER OF A REFERENCE U/s l0 (l) (D) (2A)

OF I.D. ACT, 1947.

Ref. No. 10 of 2000

Employers in relation to the management of Katras Area of

M/s. B. C.C.L.

AND

Their workmen

Present:- Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding officer

Appearances :

For the Employers :

Sri U.N.Lal, Advocate

For the Workman :

None

State : Jharkhand

Industry : COAL

Dated - 12-2-2013

AWARD

By Order No.L-20012/374/97-IR (C-I), dt.20-12-99, the

Central Government in the Ministry of labour has, in exercise

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 30] 2013@pS=k 9] 1935

2313

of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1)

and sub -section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for

adjudication to this Tribunal:

^^D;k jk"Vªh; dksfy;jh etnwj la?k dh ekax fd Jh y{eh

fo'odekZ ,oa lwph esa fn, x;s vU; 7 deZdkj dks mi;qDr oxZ esa

rFkk mi;qDr osru ,oa vU; ykHk nsrs gq, ch-lh-lh-,y-] drjkl

{ks=k ds izca/ra=k }kjk fu;fer fd;k tk,] mfpr ,oa U;k; laxr

gS \ ;fn gka rks deZdkj fdl jkgr ds ik=k gS rFkk fdl rkjh[k

ls \**

After receipt of the reference, both parties filed their

claim statements, documents and rejoinder. Thereafter the

case is fixed for evidence. But neither the workman nor the

Union produced any witness and the case lingered since

long. In the premises of the case it is felt that there is no

dispute between the parties. Hence no dispute award is

passed. Communicate to the Ministry.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 ekpZ] 2013

dk-vk- 771 -—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ch- lh-

lh- ,y- ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k&1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 66@98) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 4&3&2013 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&20012@631@1997&vkbZ vkj (lh&I)º

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 5th March, 2013

S.O. 771 .—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 66 of

98) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum-

Labour Court No.1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure,

in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of M/s. BCCL and their workman,

which was received by the Central Government on

4-03-2013.

[No. L-20012/631/1997-IR (C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.1), DHANBAD

IN THE MATTER OF A REFERENCE U/s 10(1)

(D) (2A) OF I.D. ACT, 1947.

Ref. No. 66 of 1998

Employers in relation to the management of

Ghanoodih Colliery of M/s. B. C.C.L.

AND

Their workmen

Present :- Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers. :

None

For the workman.:

Sri Shanti Gopal Pal,

Concerned workman

State :-

Jharkhand

Industry: Coal

Dated.12 -2-2013

AWARD

By Order No.L-20012/631/1997-IR (C-I), dt.14/08/1998,

the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in

exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of

sub-section (1) and sub -section (2A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following

disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

‘‘ Whether the demand of the Union that Sri Shanti

Gopal Pal EP Electrician Gr. C. of Ghanoodih Colliery

be placed as Grade -C staff is legal & justified ? If

not, to what relief the workman is entitled ?’’

2. The case is received from the Ministry of Labour

on 1-09-1998. After notice both parties appeared, the

workman/Union files their written statement on 15-2-1999.

The claim of the workman is that he is to be promoted in

due time, but the management without considering his case

of promotion, promoted his junior to higher category post.

The workman in support of his claim exhibited certain

documents and examine himself in the case. The

management cross examined him. But from the side of

management none examined nor they filed documents and

even did not argue the case.

3. Perused the claim statement and documents filed

by the workman.The management no where stated that the

workman was not suitable for promotion or that he is not

due for promotion nor controverted the claim of the

workman. Rather in the counter of the employer it is

submitted in paragraph-2 that, they regularised the workman

in category "D" on 1/2-11-1983 and in the subsequent

paragraph -3 the employer submitted that the workman has

been regularised in category "D" from 22-4-88.

4. The question is when the workman was regularised

in the post of category "D" on 1/2-11-1983 why he will be

again regularised in the said post from 22.4.1988. No reason

was assigned by the management.

2314

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2013/CHAITRA 9, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

5. In the opinion of the Tribunal since there is no

adverse remark against the workman, he is to be regularised

in next higher category on 22-4-1988 as category "C"

workman not as category "D".

6. Accordingly the demand of the union that Sri

Shanti Gopal pal EP Electrician Gr.C be placed as Grade C

staff is legal & justified.

7. Hence the workman be given promotion to the

post of Grade "C" on 22-4-88 and he be given all the benefits

which is accrued in the said post as 22-4-1988.

This is my award.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 ekpZ] 2013

dk-vk- 772 -—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ch- lh-

lh- ,y- ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k&1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 42@08) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 4&3&2013 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&20012@66@2008&vkbZ vkj (lh,e&I)º

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 5th March, 2013

S.O. 772 .—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 42 of

2008) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum-

Labour Court No.1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure,

in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of M/s. BCCL and their workman,

which was received by the Central Government on

4-03-2013.

[No. L-20012/66/2008-IR (CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.1), DHANBAD.

IN THE MATTER OF A REFERENCE U/S 10(1) (D) (2A)

OF I.D. ACT, 1947.

Ref. No. 42 0f 2008

Employers in relation to the management of Mudidih (W)

Colliery of M/s. B. C. C. L.

AND

Their workmen.

Present:- Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers : Sri D.K.Verma, Advocate

For the workman. : None.

State : Jharkhand

Industry: Coal

Dated : 12- 2-2013

AWARD

By Order No.L-20012/66/2008-IR (CM-I), dt.22/09/

2008, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour

has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of

sub-section (1) and sub -section (2A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following

disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

‘‘Whether the action of the management of Mudidih

(W) Colliery of M/s BCCL in not providing

dependent employment to Sri Jhunu Beldar S/o Late

Sadasia Beldar, Screening Mazdoor under the

provision of NCWA is justified and legal? (ii) To what

relief is the dependent son of the concerned workman

entitled ?’’

After receipt of the reference, both parties filed their

claim statements, documents and rejoinder. Thereafter the

case is fixed for evidence. But neither the workman nor the

Union produced any witness and the case lingered since

long. In the premises of the case it is felt that there is no

dispute between the parties. Hence no dispute award is

passed. Communicate to the Ministry.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 ekpZ] 2013

dk-vk- 773-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj mÙkj jsyos ds

izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/

esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k] dkuiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 185@99) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 5&3&2013 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&41012@35@99&vkbZ vkj (ch&I)º

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 5th March, 2013

S.O. 773 .—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 185/99)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum-Labour

Court , Kanpur, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial

Dispute between the management of Norhern Railway

and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 5-03-2013.

[No. L-41012/35/99-IR (B-I)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 30] 2013@pS=k 9] 1935

2315

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI RAM PARKASH, HJS, PRESIDING

OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 185/99

Between

Sri Rajender Son of Sri Chhedi,

No.2, resident of 465 (CPC) Railway Colony,

Mall Godam, Kanpur.

And

The Sr. Divisional Medical Officer,

Northern Railway,

Loco Hospital,

Kanpur.

AWARD

1. Central Govt, MoL, New Delhi, vide notification

No. L-41012/35/99-IR (B-1) dated 05-07-99, has referred the

following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal—

2. Whether the action of the management of

Northern Railway in terminating the services of Sri

Rajender with effect from 07-06-97 is justified? If not

what relief the workman is entitled for?

3. Brief facts of the case are-

4. It is claimed by the workman that he was

appointed at the post of Safai worker on 29-12-88 on

permanent basis. In the year 1993 the wife of the claimant

became the victim of serious illness. The claimant remained

busy in connection of her treatment during the period

28-11-94 to 28-3-95 by remaining absent from the services

of the railways. Claimant has also made aware to the office

about the illness of his wife. It is important to note over

here that it is the own case of the claimant that for want of

sanctioned leave he remained busy in the treatment of her

ailing wife for the period mentioned above. It is further

pleaded by the claimant that 07-05-95 he appeared in the

office along with medical certificate dated 06-05-95, of his

wife and requested to permit him to resume his duties, but

instead of allowing him to resume his duties, the railway

administration asked the claimant to receive the charge

sheet. and give reply of the same. It is further claimed that

the administration has issued charge sheet on 23-03-95,

wherein the claimant was shown to have remained on

unauthorized absence from 28-11-94 to 28-03-95 and after

serving the charge sheet on him he was allowed to

resume duties with effect from 06-06-95. He replied the

charge sheet on 10-5-95 and also enclosed therewith

medical certificate regarding illness of his wife and by

explaining the circumstances he requested that the charge

sheet be set aside. Vide order dated 30-07-95 one Sri A. K.

Datta ADMO was appointed as enquiry officer. It is further

stated that again his wife became victim of serious illness

he remained busy in the treatment of his wife during the

period 26-2-96 to 10-03-97 at Unnao under Doctor SL

Chowdhary. The claimant appeared in the office along with

medical certificate and requested for his duties but he was

refused to join his duties on the pretext that the enquiry

officer has completed exparte inquiry in his absence and

inquiry report has been submitted before the disciplinary

authority and only after the disposal of the same any action

in his case is possible. It is also claimed that inquiry officer

has conducted and completed the inquiry behind the back

of the claimant and without any information as a result of

the same he was prevented with an opportunity to make;

effective defense. It is also alleged that during the period

he remained busy in connection with the treatment of his

ailing wife, inquiry officer completed the inquiry during

that period. It is also claimed that the fact that the claimant

is remained busy in connection with the treatment of

his ailing wife and is absent from duty from 27-12-95 was

well within the notice of the inquiry officer. He was held

guilty for unauthorized absent from duty by the inquiry

officer for the period 28-11-95 to 28-3-96 and on the basis

of finding of the enquiry officer; his services were removed

by the disciplinary authority with effect from 07-06-97.

Inquiry report is not on the basis of allegation of the

chargesheet, therefore, inquiry report is perverse. In this

way it is claimed by the claimant that the entire enquiry

held by the inquiry officer is against the principles of natural

justice and is liable to be set aside.

5. On the basis of above it has been prayed that the

dismissal order dated 07-06-97 be set aside and he be

directed to be reinstated in the service of the railway with

continuity of service and full back wages.

6. On the other hand the claim of the claimant has

been contested by the opposite party wherein the claim of

the claimant has been challenged on a number of grounds.

It is stated that the claimant remained absent during the

period 28-11-94 to 28-03-95 unauthorizedly. It is denied that

the claimant ever presented himself in the office of the

opposite party on 07-05-95 along with medical certificate.

It is admitted by the opposite party that the claimant

appeared for duty on 08-5-95 and since he remained

continuously absent from his duty with effect from

28-11-94, therefore, he was issued charge sheet dated

28.03.95 and was sent at his quarter allotted by the railway

administration through registered post as well as the same

was got received by the workman on 08-05-95. Opposite

party has denied the fact that the claimant was allowed to

resume his duties on 05-06-95. On the basis of his written

request the claimant was allowed his duties under orders

dated 4-06-95 of the competent authority. It is stated that

since the workman, remained absent from his duty without

any prior information or prior approval of sanctioned

leave, therefore, under the compelling circumstances the

2316

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2013/CHAITRA 9, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

opposite party had to issue major penalty charge sheet in

form SF-5, and ADMO, Kanpur, was appointed inquiry

officer. It is totally denied by the management that the

claimant had ever applied in writing requesting to allow

him to resume duty along with medical certificate.

Delinquent employee had never submitted any medical

certificate dated 10-3-97. Inquiry officer vide his letters dated

29-05-95, 16-10-95, 10-3-96 and 31-5-96 had directed the

workman to appear before the inquiry and cooperate with

the inquiry, but he failed. It is stated by the opposite party

that had at all the wife of the workman was ill, the workman

was free to get treatment from the railway hospital but this

has not been done by the workman which clearly reflects

that the workman deliberately remained on unauthorized

absent from his duty and to cover up his guilt he cooked

up a false story which is not acceptable under any

circumstances. It is also claimed by the opposite party

that the workman was fully aware about the fact that the

inquiry is pending against him but he deliberately did not

appear in the inquiry. It is denied that he was not given

any opportunity of defense by the inquiry officer. The

inquiry officer has rightly opined that the charges stands

proved against the workman and has rightly submitted

his finding, to the disciplinary authority. There is no

illegality in the order of punishment which has been passed

on the basis of proved misconduct against the workman

by the disciplinary authority. He was found habitual of

remaining absent from duty without any information or

prior approval of sanctioned leave. There is no breach of

rules of natural justice and no perversity in the report of

inquiry submitted by the inquiry officer.

7. Therefore, it has been prayed that the workman is

not entitled for any relief and his claim is liable to be

rejected.

8. Workman has also filed rejoinder wherein nothing

new has been alleged except what has been stated in the

statement of claim.

9. It is pertinent to mention here that one Smt Rani,

purported to be the wife of the claimant moved an

application supported with affidavit on 12-05-2000. She

has informed the tribunal that her husband the present

workman died on 25-03-2000, therefore, she should be

allowed to become a party to the present dispute, the said

application was allowed by the tribunal vide order dated

25-03-2000.

10. Workman vide list dated 16-08-03 has filed

charge sheet dated 28-3-95 in original, inquiry report in

original, order of punishment dated 07-6-97 and appellate

order dated 04-06-98.

11.Vide list of document dated 12-4-01 workman has

filed 9 documents, like copy of charge sheet, reply to the

charge sheet, medical certificate, copy of application for

permitting to resume duty, copy of application dt.10-3-97

to the same effect, copy of removal order dated 07-6-97

inquiry report, copy of appeal and copy of appellate order

passed by the appellate authority.

12. In para 2 of the statement of claim the workman

has clearly admitted the fact that he remained absent from

duty during the period 28-11-94 to 28-3-95 as no leave was

sanctioned in his favor. The workman in his entire claim

statement has no where whispered even a single word that

he at any point of time had applied for leave on any ground.

Therefore, when he never applied for leave before the

authorities of the opposite party, it would mean that the

allegation of charge sheet is admitted to him.

13. Although in the instant case a preliminary issue

regarding fairness of the inquiry was framed and arguments

of the parties were heard.

14. After a careful perusal of the file the tribunal

came at a conclusion that it would be absolutely futile

exercise if preliminary is decided first because the inquiry

held by the enquiry officer is going to be held to be legal

just and fair.

15. The opposite party has also filed 28 documents

vide list dated 14-10-04, which are related with the inquiry.

16. I have heard the arguments of the parties at

length and have perused the entire file.

17. In Para 2 of the statement of claim the workman

has clearly admitted the fact that he remained absent from

duty during the period 28-11-94 to 28-3-95 as no leave was

sanctioned in his favor. The workman in his entire claim

statement has no where whispered even a single word that

he at any point of time had applied for leave on any ground.

Therefore, when he never applied for leave before the

authorities of the opposite party, it would mean that the

allegation of charge sheet is admitted to him.

18. It is the case of the workman that the inquiry

was held exparte by the inquiry officer behind his back

knowing the fact that the workman is not present on duty

and is busy in the treatment of his ailing wife. He was not

afforded adequate opportunity for his effective defense.

Rules of natural justice had been flouted by the inquiry

officer during the conduct of inquiry. Enquiry report,

punishment order. as well as appellate order being

passed without application of proper mind is liable to be

set aside.

19. On the contrary it is the case of the opposite

party that the workman was given every reasonable

opportunity to participate and cooperate with the inquiry

but he deliberately did not appear before the inquiry and if

at all his wife was ill he should have taken her in the railway

hospital for treatment. Having not been done so, the theory

of illness of his wife is not acceptable and he tried to cook

a false story to cover up his guilt. The inquiry officer has

taken all reasonable steps to inform the workman to

participate and cooperate with the inquiry but he failed.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 30] 2013@pS=k 9] 1935

2317

20. Having given anxious consideration to the facts

and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the

inquiry officer has not committed any breach of rules of

natural justice in the conduct of inquiry against the

workman. Moreover the charge stands proved from the

own statement of the workman made in Para 2 of the

statement of claim where the workman has clearly admitted

the fact that he remained absent from duty during the

period 28-11-94 to 28-3-95 as no leave was sanctoned in

his favor. The workman in his entire claim statement has no

where whispered even a single word that he at any point of

time had applied for leave on any ground. Therefore, when

he never applied for leave before the authorities of the

opposite party, it would mean that the allegation of

charge sheet is admitted to him.

21. I also find that the case of the workman is not

acceptable particularly when he was a railway employee

and was having opportunity to get treatment of his ailing

wife from the railway hospital why he did not avail that

facility available to him. I find force in the contention of the

management that to cover up his absence without any

sanctioned leave he cooked up a false story of the illness

of his wife and he knowingly and willingly the fact that

inquiry is pending against him did not participate in the

inquiry.

22. Therefore, under these circumstances, the

allegation of the workman that the inquiry officer has

conducted exparte inquiry behind his back is not

acceptable because the inquiry officer has taken all the

reasonable steps to inform the workman regarding the

progress of the inquiry and directed him to appear and

participate in the inquiry. The management has also filed

documentary evidence which is paper no. 18/32 envelop in

original

which

was

sent

the

workman

through registered post with AID but was received un

served.

23. Having considered the overall aspect of the

matter and legal position, I am of the confirm view that the

inquiry held against the workman does not suffers from

infirmity and is found in consonance with the principles

of natural justice. I have given full opportunity to the

parties on the point of quantum of punishment. None was

present on behalf of deceased workman, nor his authorized

representative and nor his widow to argue the case. Even

thereafter I have considered the facts. and circumstances

of the case on the point of punishment. Also considering

the conduct of the workman, punishment awarded to him

by the disciplinary authority cannot be held to be excessive

having regard to the gravity of the charges. Punishment

fully commensurate with the gravity of the charges and I

do not find that there is any place to interfere with the

punishment awarded to the delinquent employee.

24. Therefore, it is held that there is neither any

illegality in the conduct of inquiry nor any perversity in

the report of the inquiry officer, Punishment awarded

commensurate with the gravity of charges as such do not

require any interference at the hands of the tribunal.

25. Action of the opposite party in removing the

workman from service with effect from 07-06-97 is legal and

justified. Workman is not entitled for any relief.

26. Reference is answered accordingly against the

workman and in favor of the management.

Date. 4-02-2013

RAM PARKASH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 8 ekpZ] 2013

dk-vk- 774 -—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ch lh lh ,y

ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (vkbZ Mh la[;k 184@1997) dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08&03&2013 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@268@1996&vkbZ vkj (lh&I)º

,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 8th March, 2013

S.O. 774.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 184/

1997) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad, as shown in the Annexure

in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of M/s. BCCL and their workman,

which was received by the Central Government on

08-3-2013.

[No. L-20012/268/1996-IR (C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 1), DHANBAD

IN THE MATTER OF A REFERENCE U/s 10(1) (D) (2A)

OF I.D.ACT, 1947.

Ref. No. 184 of 1997

Employers in relation to the management of Dugda

Coal Washery of M/s B.C.C.L.

AND.

Their workmen.

Present :- Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances :

For the Employers. : None

For the workman. : Sri U. P. Sinha, Advocate

State : Jharkhand. Industry : Coal.

Dated. 18-02-2013

AWARD

By Order No.L-20012/ 268 /96-IR (C-I), dt.28/10/1997,

the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in

exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-

2318

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2013/CHAITRA 9, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following

disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

‘‘Whether the action of the management of Dugda

coal washery of M/s BCCL in dismissing the Services

of Shri Ram Singh w.e.f. 29-12-1994 is justified? If

not, to what relief is the concerned workman

entitled?’’

2. Both parties are noticed. They submitted their

claim statements. This is a case of dismissal, Preliminary

enquiry held. Both management and workman each

examined witness. On behalf of the management number of

documents are exhibited. This Tribunal after considering

the evidence adduced by the parties, perusing the

documents observed that the domestic enquiry was not

fair and proper and concluded that without fair and proper

domestic enquiry, the management dismissed the workman.

Against that order, the management did not approach the

higher forum for setting a side that order, which attains

finality.

3. During argument in the main case, the

management counsel or its officer did not appears and

the workman has also died in the meantime. This court

perused the evidence of the parties. The workman also

tried prior to trial and on his behalf another co-worker was

examined. But on behalf of the management the witness

submitted that, he did not know that the workman was a

heart patient or not. He even unable to say, what particular

misconduct was done by the workman.

4. The MW-l Sri Ram Ekbal Singh was suggested

that the workman was dismissed for his involvement in

Union activities only but that was neither denied or

accepted by the MW-l. who only expresses his ignorance.

5. This being the situation it can not be said that the

dismissal was proper. Mere marking of certain documents

without supporting the same by reliable oral evidence and

without the proof of gross illegality of the workman in his

work place dismissal of the same is not accepted.

Hence the dismissal of the workman is not fair &

proper. Since the workman has died in the meantime, he be

given his dues and death benefits. During the period of

dismissal he be given 50% of back wages.

This is my award.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 8 ekpZ] 2013

dk-vk- 775-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ch lh lh ,y

ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (vkbZ Mh la[;k 75@2002) dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 8&3&2013 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@97@2002&vkbZ vkj (lh&I)º

,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 8th March, 2013

S.O. 775 .—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 75/2002)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad, as shown in the Annexure

in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of M/s. BCCL and their workman,

which was received by the Central Government on

8-3-2013.

[No. L-20012/97/2002-IR (C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 1), DHANBAD

IN THE MATTER OF A REFERENCE U/S 10(1) (D) (2A)

OF I.D.ACT, 1947

Ref. No. 75 of 2002

Employers in relation to the management of E.J Area of

M/s .B. C.C.L.

AND

Their workmen

Present:- Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances :

For the Employers. : Sri U.N.Lal Advocate

For the workman. : Sri N.G. Arun, Rep.

State : Jharkhand Industry : Coal

Dated.18-2-12013

AWARD

By Order No.L-20012/97/2002-IR (C-I), dt.

17-07 -2002, the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause

(d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following

disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal :

SCHEDULE

^^D;k jk-dks-e- la?k dks Hkk-dks-dks-fy- bZ-ts- {ks=k ds izca/ ra=k

ls ekax fd deZdkj Jh 'kadj cuthZ dks vfrfjDr jkstxkj vftZr

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 30] 2013@pS=k 9] 1935

2319

djus ds miy{k esa vfxze osruo`f} iznku dh tk, mfpr ,oa U;k;

laxr gS \ ;fn gka rks deZdkj fdl jkgr ds ik=k gS rFkk fdl

rkjh[k ls \**

2. After receipt of the reference by the Ministry on

2-8-2002 , the parties are noticed. The Sponsoring Union

filed their written statement and claim on 18-12-2002 .This

Tribunal perused the Written statement, document and

evidence of the both side. The Short point involved in this

case, whether the workman is entitled to get an extra

increment after he has achieved extra qualification of

computer course.

3. The case of the management is that the workman

before achieving the computer degree has not obtained

the permission from competent authority. On the other

hand the workman submitted that he after taking

permission from competent authority completed his

computer course through distance education and

submitted his certificate for getting his advance increment.

But the appropriate authority did not comply his requests.

4. On behalf of the workman and the management

one witness each examined and workman produced nine

document i.e W-1 to W-9. W-1 filed by the workman shows

that he has applied for permission for study. W-2 is the

order of permission to continue study by workman. W-3 is

the letter that the institution where the workman completed

his study is a competent university. W-4 to

W-6 mark sheets of the concerned workman namely Sri

Shanker Banerjee issued by the institution. W-7 is the

certificate of pass of the workman. Though the

management's document show that, recommendation was

made for grant of increment and that has been refused on

flimsy grounds that permission was not granted by

competent authority. But when the permission was sought

by the workman, that could have been refused or forwarded

to competent authority for permission. But allowing staff

to prosecute his study and after he completed the study

came out successful, the management ought not refuse

him the benefits.

5. Therefore the workman is entitled to get the

advance increment from the date he passed the computer

and completed the computer course.

The reference answered in positive in favour of the

workman and he is to get an advance increment as prayed

for.

Accordingly the demand of the workman Sri Shanker

Banerjee is legal and justified to grant an advance

increment for achieving extra qualification.

This is my award.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 8 ekpZ] 2013

dk-vk- 776-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ch- lh- lh-

,y- ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k ua- 1 /uckn ds iapkV (vkbZ Mh la[;k 129@1991) dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 8&3&2013 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@290@1990&vkbZ vkj (lh&I)º

,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 8th March, 2013

S.O. 776.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 129/

1991) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad, as shown in the Annexure

in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of M/s. BCCL and their workman,

which was received by the Central Government on

8-3-2013.

[No. L-20012/290/1990-IR (C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 1), DHANBAD

IN THE MATTER OF A REFERENCE U/S 10(1) (D) (2A)

OF I.D.ACT. 1947.

Ref. No. 129 of 1991

Employers in relation to the management of

M/s .B.C.C.L. Koyla Bhawan, Dhanbad.

AND

Their workmen.

Present:- Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances :

For the Employers. : Sri D. K. Verma, Advocate

For the workman. : None

State : Jharkhand.

Industry : Coal.

Dated.18-2-2013

AWARD

By order No.L-20012/290/90-IR (C-I), dt.13-11-91, the

Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in

exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-

section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following

disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal :

S C H E D U L E

‘‘Whether the demand of Union for reinstatement

of following workmen with full back wages by

the management of M/S BCCL, Koyla Nagar

Dhanbad is Justified? If so, to what relief the workmen

are entitled and from what date?’’

(1) Shri Ram Surat Singh, S/o Shri Basu Kumar Singh

Vill . Chandpur Bhalonia,

2320

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2013/CHAITRA 9, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

P.O Bacita Distt. Aurangabad.

(2) Shri Rajbali Singh, S/o Shri Bal Swaroop Singh

Vill-Pauti, P.O-Delia, via-Nabinagar,

Dist-Aurangabad.

After receipt of the reference parties are noticed,

they filed their claim statement, rejoinder and document

from the side of workman one of the workman examined,

cross examined, discharged. Management did not adduce

any oral evidence. But later seen either party lost interest

in prosecuting the case. Lost interest also. Hence it is felt

there is not dispute between the parties Hence No Dispute

award is passed and communicate to the Ministry.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 8 ekpZ] 2013

dk-vk- 777-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ch- lh- lh-

,y- ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k ua- 1 /uckn ds iapkV (f'kdk;r uEcj 1@2011 arising

out of Ref. No. 104/2000 /kjk 33 , ds varxZr) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 8&3&2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20013@2@2013&vkbZ vkj (lh&II)º

,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 8th March, 2013

S.O. 777.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

No. 1, Dhanbad (filed under Section 33-A in the matter of

Complaint No. 1 of 2011 arising out of Ref. No. 104/2000)

as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute

between the employers in relation to the management of

M/s. BCCL and their workman, which was received by

the Central Government on 8-3-2013.

[No. L-20013/2/2013-IR (C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 1), DHANBAD

In the matter of a Complaint U/s 33-A of the

ID. Act, 1947

Complaint No.1 of 2011

(Arising out of Ref. 104/2000)

Sri Premchand Kustore, Regional Hospital

P.O. Kustore

P.S. Kenduadih, Dhanbad ......Complainant

C.M.O

Regional Hospital

Kustore Area , M/S BCCL

P.O- Kustore

Dist - Dhanbad ....Opposite party

Present :- Shri R. K. Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearance :

For Complainant :- None

For Opp. Party,: Sri D.K.Verma, Advocate

Industry: Hospital ( Coal)

Dated 13-2-2013

AWARD

Present complaint filed by the workman against the

management. Since the management, during the pendency

of the dispute changed the service conditions of the

workman. But during the pendency of the dispute the

workman withdraw the complaint with the leave of the Court

since long. Hence there is no dispute between the parties.

Hence no dispute award is passed in this case.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 12 ekpZ] 2013

dk-vk- 778 -—jk"Vªifr] dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky;] dksydkrk ds ihBklhu vf/dkjh ds

fjDr in gsrq ¯yd vf/dkjh ds :i esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky; la% 1 eqacbZ ds ihBklhu vf/dkjh]

Jh xkSjh 'kadj ljkZiQ ds dk;Zdky dks 27&2&2013 ls 30&6&2013

rd dh vof/ vFkok fu;fer in/kjd dh fu;qfDr gksus rd

vFkok vxys vkns'kksa rd] buesa ls tks Hkh igys gks] rc rd ds

c<+krs gSa A

¹la- ,&11016@3@2009&lh ,y ,l&IIº

,l- ds- ¯lg] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 12th March, 2013

S.O. 778 .—The President is pleased to extend the

additional charge of the post of Presiding Officer of the

CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Kolkata to Justice Shri G. .S.

Sarraf, Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court No.1,

Mumbai for the period from 27-2.2013 to 30-6-2013 or till

the post is filled on regular basis or until further orders

whichever is the earliest.

[No. A-11016/3/2009-CLS-II]

S. K. SINGH, Under Secy.

Printed by the Manager, Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064

and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.