रजिस्ट्री संण् डीण् एलण् ;एनद्ध 04/0007/2003—05 REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05 प्राध्किार से प्रकाशित
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
साप्ताहिक
WEEKLY
सं. 03] नई दिल्ली, जनवरी 11, 2015—जनवरी 17, 2015, शनिवार/पौष 21—पौष 27, 1936
No. 03] NEW DELHI, JANUARY 11, 2015—JANUARY 17, 2015, SATURDAY/PAUSA 21—PAUSA 27, 1936
इस भाग में भिन्न पृष्ठ संख्या दी जाती है जिससे कि यह पृथक संकलन के रूप में रखा जा सके
Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation
भाग II—खंड 3—उप-ख्ांड ;iiद्ध
PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)
भारत सरकार के मंत्राालयों ;रक्षा मंत्राालय को छोड़करद्ध द्वारा जारी किए गए सांविध्कि आदेश और अध्सिूचनाएं
Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India
(Other than the Ministry of Defence)
कार्मिक, लोक शिकायत तथा पेंशन मंत्राालय
MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC
GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS
;कार्मिक और प्रशिक्षण विभागद्ध
(Department of Personnel and Training)
नई दिल्ली, 26 दिसम्बर, 2014
New Delhi, the 26th December, 2014
का.आ. 104.—केन्द्र सरकार एतद्द्वारा दंड प्रक्रिया संहिता, 1973 ;1974 का अध्निियम सं. 2द्ध की धरा 24 की उप-धरा ;8द्ध द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए रांची स्थित झारखंड उच्च न्यायालय में दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना ;सीबीआईद्ध द्वारा जांच किए जा रहे मामलों अथवा उनसे उत्पन्न अन्य मामलों में अभियोजन, अपीलों और पुनरीक्षणों का संचालन करने लिए श्री कैलाश प्रसाद देव, अध्विक्ता को दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना ;केन्द्रीय अन्वेषण ब्यूरोद्ध का विशेष लोक अभियोजक नियुक्त करती है ।
S.O. 104.—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 Kailash Prasad Deo, Advocate as Special Public Prosecutor of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (Central Bureau of Investigation) in the Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi for conducting the prosecution, appeals, revisions or other matters arising out of the cases investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment (CBI).
[पफा. सं. 225/49/2014-ए.वी.डी.-II]
[F. No. 225/49/2014.AVD.II]
RAJIV JAIN, Under Secy.
राजीव जैन, अवर सचिव
72 GI/2015
(221)222 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 17, 2015/PAUSA 27, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
नई दिल्ली, 8 जनवरी, 2015
(Department of Financial Services)
का.आ. 105.—केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्द्वारा दंड प्रक्रिया संहिता, 1973 ;1974 का अध्निियम सं. 2द्ध की धरा 24 की उप-धरा ;8द्ध
द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना ;केन्द्रीय अन्वेषण ब्यूरोद्ध द्वारा संस्थापित आरसी 11;एद्ध/2012/सीबीआई,
एसीबी चेन्नई तथा इससे सम्ब( एवं उसी संव्यवहार के अन्य मामलों से उत्पन्न अपीलों/पुनरीक्षणों में चेन्नई स्थित माननीय उच्च न्यायालय,
मद्रास में उपस्थित होने के लिए श्री परमजीत सिंह पटवालिया, भारत
के अतिरिक्त सालिसिटर जनरल को विशेष लोक अभियोजक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है।
[पफा. सं. 225/28/2014-ए.वी.डी.-II] राजीव जैन, अवर सचिव
New Delhi, the 8th January, 2015
S.O. 105.—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 Paramjit Singh Patwalia, Additional
Solicitor General of India as Special Public Prosecutor for
appearing in CBI Case No. RC 11(A)/2012, CBI, ACB,
Chennai before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras at
Chennai on behalf of (CBI) Delhi Special Police
Establishment and appeals/revisions or other matters
connected therewith and incidental thereto.
[F. No. 225/28/2014.AVD.II]
RAJIV JAIN, Under Secy.
New Delhi, the 31st December, 2014
S.O. 106.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 9 of The Banking
Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings)
Act, 1970/1980 read with sub-clause (1) of clause 3 and
sub-clause (1) of clause 8 of The Nationalized Banks
(Management and Miscellanceous Provisions) Scheme,
1970/1980, the Central Government, hereby appoints Shri
R. Koteeswaran (DoB : 10.06.1956), Executive Director, Bank
of India as Managing Director & Chief Executive Officer,
Indian Overseas Bank from the date of assumption of
charge of the post up to the age of superannuation or
until further orders, whichever is earlier.
[F. No. 4/4/2013.BO-I (ii)]
VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 31 दिसम्बर, 2014
का.आ. 107.—राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक ;प्रबंध् एवं प्रकीर्ण उपबंधद्ध स्कीम, 1970/1980 के खंड 3 के उप-खंड ;1द्ध और खंड 8 के उप-खंड ;1द्ध के साथ पठित बैंककारी कंपनी ;उपक्रमों का अर्जन एवं अंतरणद्ध अध्निियम, 1970/1980 की धरा 9 की उप-धरा ;3द्ध के खंड ;कद्ध द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, पंजाब एंड सिंध् बैंक के कार्यपालक निदेशक श्री किशोर कुमार सांसी ;जन्म तिथि ः 19.08.1957द्ध को 01.01.2015 को अथवा उसके बाद उनके द्वारा पदभार ग्रहण करने की तारीख से अध्विर्षिता की आयु प्राप्त कर लेने तक अथवा अगले आदेशों तक, जो भी पहले हो, विजया बैंक के प्रबंध् निदेशक एवं मुख्य कार्यपालक अध्किारी के रूप में नियुक्त करती हैै ।
वित्त मंत्राालय
[पफा. सं. 4/4/2013-बीओ-I (ii)] ;वित्तीय सेवाएं विभागद्ध
नई दिल्ली, 31 दिसम्बर, 2014
का.आ. 106.—राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक ;प्रबंध् एवं प्रकीर्ण उपबंध्द्ध स्कीम, 1970/1980 के खंड 3 के उप-खंड ;1द्ध और खंड 8 के उप-खंड ;1द्ध के साथ पठित बैंककारी कंपनी ;उपक्रमों का अर्जन
एवं अंतरणद्ध अध्निियम, 1970/1980 की धरा 9 की उप-धरा ;3द्ध
के खंड ;कद्ध द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, बैंक ऑपफ इंडिया के कार्यपालक निदेशक
श्री आर. कोटिश्वरन ;जन्म तिथि : 10.06.1956द्ध को उनके द्वारा पदभार ग्रहण करने की तारीख से अध्विर्षिता की आयु प्राप्त कर लेने
तक अथवा अगले आदेशों तक, जो भी पहले हो, इण्डियन ओवरसीज बैंक के प्रबंध् निदेशक एवं मुख्य कार्यपालक अध्किारी के रूप में नियुक्त करती हैै ।
[पफा. सं. 4/4/2013-बीओ-I (ii)]
विजय मल्होत्राा, अवर सचिव
विजय मल्होत्राा, अवर सचिव
New Delhi, the 31st December, 2014
S.O. 107.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 9 of The Banking
Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings)
Act, 1970/1980 read with sub-clause (1) of clause 3 and
sub-clause (1) of clause 8 of The Nationalized Banks
(Management and Miscellanceous Provisions) Scheme,
1970/1980, the Central Government, hereby appoints
Shri Kishore Kumar Sansi (DoB : 19.08.1957), Executive
Director, Punjab & Sind Bank as Managing Director &
CEO, Vijaya Bank from the date of assumption of charge
of the post on or after 01.01.2015 up to the age of
superannuation or until further orders, whichever is earlier.
[F. No. 4/4/2013-BO-I (ii)]
VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.
[भाग IIख्ांड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 17, 2015/पौष 27, 1936 223नई दिल्ली, 31 दिसम्बर, 2014
का.आ. 108.—राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक ;प्रबंध् एवं प्रकीर्ण उपबंध्द्ध
स्कीम, 1970/1980 के खंड 3 के उप-खंड ;1द्ध और खंड 8 के
उप-खंड ;1द्ध के साथ पठित बैंककारी कंपनी ;उपक्रमों का अर्जन
एवं अंतरणद्ध अध्निियम, 1970/1980 की धरा 9 की उप-धरा ;3द्ध
के खंड ;कद्ध द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय
सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, बैंक ऑपफ बड़ौदा के कार्यपालक निदेशक श्री पी.
श्रीनिवास ;जन्म तिथि : 10.06.1956द्ध को उनके द्वारा पदभार ग्रहण
करने की तारीख से अध्विर्षिता की आयु प्राप्त कर लेने तक अथवा
अगले आदेशों तक, जो भी पहले हो, युनाइटेड बैंक ऑपफ इंडिया के
प्रबंध् निदेशक एवं मुख्य कार्यपालक अध्किारी के रूप में नियुक्त
करती हैै ।
[पफा. सं. 4/4/2013-बीओ-I (iii)]
विजय मल्होत्राा, अवर सचिव
New Delhi, the 31st December, 2014
S.O. 108.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 9 of The Banking
Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings)
Act, 1970/1980 read with sub-clause (1) of clause 3 and
sub-clause (1) of clause 8 of The Nationalized Banks
(Management and Miscellanceous Provisions) Scheme,
1970/1980, the Central Government, hereby appoints
Shri P. Srinivas (DoB : 10.06.1956), Executive Director, Bank
of Baroda as Managing Director and Chief Executive
Officer, United Bank of India from the date of assumption
of charge of the post up to the age of superannuation or
until further orders, whichever is earlier.
[F. No. 4/4/2013-BO-I (iii)]
VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 31 दिसम्बर, 2014
का.आ. 109.—राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक ;प्रबंध् एवं प्रकीर्ण उपबंधद्ध
स्कीम, 1970/1980 के खंड 3 के उप-खंड ;1द्ध और खंड 8 के
उप-खंड ;1द्ध के साथ पठित बैंककारी कंपनी ;उपक्रमों का अर्जन
एवं अंतरणद्ध अध्निियम, 1970/1980 की धरा 9 की उप-धरा ;3द्ध
के खंड ;कद्ध द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय
सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑपफ इंडिया के कार्यपालक निदेशक
श्री अनिमेष चौहान ;जन्म तिथि : 30.06.1957द्ध को उनके द्वारा
पदभार ग्रहण करने की तारीख से अध्विर्षिता की आयु प्राप्त कर लेने तक अथवा अगले आदेशों तक, जो भी पहले हो, ओरियंटल बैंक
ऑपफ कामर्स के प्रबंध् निदेशक एवं मुख्य कार्यपालक अध्किारी के
रूप में नियुक्त करती हैै ।
[पफा. सं. 4/4/2013-बीओ-I(iv)]
विजय मल्होत्राा, अवर सचिव
New Delhi, the 31st December, 2014
S.O. 109.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 9 of The Banking
Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings)
Act, 1970/1980 read with sub-clause (1) of clause 3 and
sub-clause (1) of clause 8 of The Nationalized Banks
(Management and Miscellanceous Provisions) Scheme,
1970/1980, the Central Government, hereby appoints
Shri Animesh Chauhan (DoB : 30.06.1957), Executive
Director, Central Bank of India as Managing Director and
Chief Executive Officer, Oriental Bank of Commerce from
the date of assumption of charge of the post up to the age
of superannuation or until further orders, whichever is
earlier.
[F. No. 4/4/2013-BO-I (iv)]
VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 7 जनवरी, 2015
का.आ. 110.—निक्षेप बीमा और प्रत्यय गारंटी निगम
अधिनियम, 1961 ;1961 का 47द्ध की धरा 6 की उप-धरा 2 के
खंड ;iiद्ध के साथ पठित धरा 6 की उप-धरा ;1द्ध के खंड ;घद्ध
द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार, भारतीय
रिशर्व बैंक के परामर्श से, एतद्द्वारा, श्री एच. एन. प्रसाद को उनकी
अध्सिूचना की तारीख से तीन वर्ष की अवध् िके लिए अथवा अगले
आदेशों तक, जो भी पहले हो, निक्षेप बीमा और प्रत्यय गारंटी निगम
;डीआईसीजीसीद्ध के निदेशक मंडल में अंशकालिक गैर-सरकारी
निदेशक नामित करती है।
[पफा. सं. 6/13/2012-बीओ-I/एपफटीएस-71393]
विजय मल्होत्राा, अवर सचिव
New Delhi, the 7th January, 2015
S.O. 110.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 6 read with clause224 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 17, 2015/PAUSA 27, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] (ii) of sub-section 2 of Section 6 of the Deposit Insurance
and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of 1961),
the Central Government, in consultation with Reserve Bank
of India, hereby nominates Shri H. N. Prasad as Part Time
Non-Official Director on the Board of Directors of Deposit (Maldives) to perform the Consular services as Assistant
Consular Officer with effect from 30th December, 2014.
[No. T. 4330/01/2014]
PRAKASH CHAND, Dy. Secy. (Consular)
नागर विमानन मंत्राालय
Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation (DICGC), for
a period of three years from the date of his notification, or
;एएआई अनुभागद्ध
until further orders, whichever is earlier.
[F. No. 6/13/2012-BO-I/FTS-71393]
VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 8 जनवरी, 2015
का.आ. 112.—केन्द्र सरकार भारतीय विमानपत्तन प्राधिकरण
अध्निियम, 1994 ;1994 का 55द्ध में प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते
हुए, एतद्द्वारा श्री आर. के. श्रीवास्तव, आईएएस ;जेएच : 84द्ध को
विदेश मंत्राालय
तत्काल आमेलन आधर पर दिनांक 2 जनवरी, 2015 की अपराह्न
से ` 80,000—125,000 के वेतनमान में पांच वर्ष की अवध्ि
;सीपीवी विभागद्ध
नई दिल्ली, 30 दिसम्बर, 2014
का.आ. 111.—राजनयिक और कौंसुलर ऑपिफसर ;शपथ
और पफीसद्ध के अध्निियम, 1948 ;1948 का 41द्ध की धरा 2 के
खंड ;कद्ध के अनुसरण में केन्द्र सरकार एतद्द्वारा श्री बी. के. सिंह,
सहायक, तथा श्री ए. एम. प्रसाद, सहायक, को 30 दिसम्बर 2014 से अथवा उनकी अध्विर्षिता, अथवा अगले आदेशों तक, जो भी पहले
हो, भारतीय विमानपत्तन प्राध्किरण के अध्यक्ष के रूप में नियुक्त
करती है।
[सं. एवी.-24011/1/2014-एएआई]
के. वी. उन्नीकृष्णन, अवर सचिव
MINISTRY OF CIVIL AVIATION
भारत के उच्चायोग, माले में कौंसुलर सेवाओं के लिए सहायक
(AAI Section)
कोंसुलर अध्किारी प्राध्किृत करती है।
[सं. टी.-4330/1/2014]
प्रकाश चन्द, उप सचिव ;कौंसुलरद्ध New Delhi, the 8th January, 2015
S.O. 112.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
Section 3 of the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994 MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS (No. 55 of 1994), the Central Government hereby appoint
Shri R. K. Srivastava, IAS (JH : 84) as Chairman, Airports
(CPV Division)
New Delhi, the 30th December, 2014
S.O. 111.—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 authorises Shri B.K.Singh, Assistant and Shri A.
M. Prasad, Assistant, in High Commission of India, Male Authority of India on immediate absorption basis, with
effect from afternoon of 2nd January, 2015 in the pay scale
of Rs. 80,000—1,25,000 for a period of five years or till the
date of his superannuation, or until further orders,
whichever is the earliest.
[No. AV. 24011/1/2014-AAI]
K. V. UNNIKRISHNAN, Under Secy.
[भाग IIख्ांड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 17, 2015/पौष 27, 1936 225उपभोक्ता मामले, खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय
(उपभोक्ता मामले विभाग)
भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो
नई दिल्ली, 15 दिसम्बर, 2014
का.आ. 113.—भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम, 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम (1) के खंड (ख) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गये हैं।
अनुसूची
क्र. स्थापित भारतीय मानक (कों) की संख्या स्थापित तिथि भारतीय मानक (कों) जो कि रद्द होने की तिथि सं. वर्ष और शीर्षक
रद्द होने हैं, अगर है, की संख्या वर्ष और शीर्षक
(1) (2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
1. आई एस/आई एस ओ 834-1 : 1999 15 दिसंबर, 2014 आई एस 3809 : 1979 15 दिसंबर, 2014 अग्नि-प्रतिरोधिता परीक्षण-भवन निर्माण के घटक भाग 1 सामान्य अपेक्षाएं
2. आई एस/आई एस ओ 834-4 : 2000 15 दिसंबर, 2014 आई एस 3809 : 1979 15 दिसंबर, 2014
(पहला पुनरीक्षण)
अग्नि-प्रतिरोधिता परीक्षण-भवन निर्माण के घटक भाग 4 भार वहनीय उध्र्वाध्र पृथक्कारी घटकों की विषिष्टि अपेक्षाएं
3. आई एस/आई एस ओ 834-5 : 2000 15 दिसंबर, 2014 आई एस 3809 : 1979 15 दिसंबर, 2014
(पहला पुनरीक्षण)
अग्नि-प्रतिरोधिता परीक्षण-भवन निर्माण के घटक भाग 5 भार वहनीय क्षैतिज पृथक्कारी घटकों की विषिष्टि अपेक्षाएं
4. आई एस 1757 (भाग 1) : 2014/आई एस ओ 15 दिसंबर, 2014 आई एस 1757 : 1988 15 दिसंबर, 2014 148-1 : 2009 धात्विक सामग्री-चार्पी पेन्डूलम (दूसरा पुनरीक्षण) सघटट् भाग 1 परीक्षण पद्धति (तीसरा पुनरीक्षण)
5. आई एस 4651 (भाग 4) : 2014 बंदरगाह और 15 दिसंबर, 2014 आई एस 4651 (भाग 4) : 1989 15 दिसंबर, 2014 पतन की योजना और रूप-रीति संहिता भाग 4 (दूसरा पुनरीक्षण) सामान्य रूप रेखा के लिए विचार (तीसरा पुनरीक्षण)
6. आई एस 4721 : 2014 सतही/जमीन के नीचे के 15 दिसंबर, 2014 आई एस 4721 : 2000 15 दिसंबर, 2014
(पहला पुनरीक्षण)
हाइड्रोइलैक्ट्रिक पावर स्टेषनों की जल निकासी और निर्जलीकरण हेतु रीति संहिता (दूसरा पुनरीक्षण)
7. आई एस 5334 : 2014 वेल्ड के चुम्बकीय कण द्वारा 15 दिसंबर, 2014 आई एस 5334 : 2003 15 दिसंबर, 2014 दोष निकालने हेतु-रीति संहिता (तीसरा पुनरीक्षण)
(दूसरा पुनरीक्षण)
8. आई एस 5522 : 2014 बर्तनों के लिए स्टेनलेस 15 दिसंबर, 2014 आई एस 5522 रू 1992 15 दिसंबर, 2014 इस्पात चदरे और पत्तियां-विषिष्टि (दूसरा पुनरीक्षण) (तीसरा पुनरीक्षण)
9. आई एस 6934 : 2014 उच्च ऑगी अधिप्रवाह 15 दिसंबर, 2014 आई एस 6934 रू 1998 15 दिसंबर, 2014 और ऑरिफिस उत्प्लावों की हाइड्रोलिक डिजाइन (पहला पुनरीक्षण) के लिए सिफारिषें (दूसरा पुनरीक्षण)226 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 17, 2015/PAUSA 27, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] (1) (2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
10. आई एस 10052 (भाग 1/अनुभाग 1 ) : 2014 15 दिसंबर, 2014 आई एस 10052 15 दिसंबर, 2014
(भाग 1/खंड 1) : 1999
सीआईएसपीआर 16.1.2010 रेडियो व्यवधान एवं प्रतिरक्षा मापन उपकरण एवं पद्धतियां-विषिष्टि (पहला पुनरीक्षण) भाग 1 रेडियो व्यवधान एवं प्रतिरक्षा मापन उपकरण अनुभाग 2 मापन उपकरण (दूसरा पुनरीक्षण)
11. आई एस 10635 : 2014 बांधों में फ्रीबोर्ड अपेक्षाएँ- 15 दिसंबर, 2014 आई एस 10635 : 1993 15 दिसंबर, 2014 मार्गदर्षी सिद्धांत (दूसरा पुनरीक्षण)
(पहला पुनरीक्षण)
12. आई एस 12588 : 2014 स्वचल वाहन-तेल और 15 दिसंबर, 2014 आई एस 12588 : 1988 15 दिसंबर, 2014 वायु की सहायता वाले दाब गेज-विषिष्टि (पहला पुनरीक्षण)
13. आई एस 12884 : 2014 स्वचल वाहन-ब्रेक प्रणाली, 15 दिसंबर, 2014 आई एस 12884 : 1990 15 दिसंबर, 2014 व्हील सिलेंडरों के लिए रबड़ के बूट-कार्यकारिता अपेक्षाएं (पहला पुनरीक्षण)
14. आई एस/आई एस ओ/टी एस 13278 : 2011 नैनों 15 दिसंबर, 2014 NA NA प्रद्योगिकी-प्रेरणिक युग्मित प्लाज्मा मास स्पेक्ट्रोमीट्री के प्रयोग से कार्बन नैनोटयूबों के नमूनों में तात्विक अषुद्धि ज्ञात करना
15. आई एस 16275 : 2014/आई एस ओ/ 15 दिसंबर, 2014 NA NA टी आर 24578 : 2012 हाइड्रोमीटरी-ध्वनिक डाप्लर प्रोफाइलर-खुले चौनल में प्रवाह माप की विधि और अनुप्रयोग
16. आई एस 16278 (भाग 1) : 2014/ 15 दिसंबर, 2014 NA NA आई एस ओ 15011-1 : 2009 वेल्डिंग एवं सम्बद्ध प्रक्रियाओं में स्वास्थ्य तथा सुरक्षा-फयूम एवं गैसों की सैम्पलिंग के लिए प्रयोगषाला पद्धति भाग 1 अर्क वेल्डिंग तथा विष्लेषण के लिए फयूम के एककीकरण के दौरान फयूम उत्सर्जन दर ज्ञात करना
17. आई एस 16282 : 2014/आई ई सी 61930 : 1998 15 दिसंबर, 2014 NA NA फाइबर ऑप्टिक चित्रमय प्रतीकविधया
18. आई एस 16283 : 2014/आई ई सी 61931 : 1998 15 दिसंबर, 2014 NA NA फाइबर ऑप्टिक-शब्दावली
19. आई एस 16285 : 2014/आई ई सी 61745 : 1998 15 दिसंबर, 2014 NA NA प्रकाषिक तंतु ज्यामिति परीक्षण सेट के अंषाकन के लिये एंड-फेस छवि विष्लेषण प्रक्रिया
20. आई एस/आई ई सी 61400-24 : 2010 वायु 15 दिसंबर, 2014 NA NA टरबाइन भाग 24 तड़ित से सुरक्षा
इस भारतीय मानक की प्रतियां भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो, मानक भवन, 9, बहादुरषाह जफर मार्ग, नई दिल्ली 110 002 क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों : नई दिल्ली, कोलकता, चंडीगढ़, चेन्नई, मुम्बई, तथा शाखा कार्यालयों : अहमदाबाद, बंगलौर, भोपाल, भुवनेष्वर, कोयम्बतूर,[भाग IIख्ांड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 17, 2015/पौष 27, 1936 227 गुवाहाटी, हैदराबाद, जयपुर, नागपुर, पटना, पूणे तथा कोचि में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं। भारतीय मानकों को http://www.standardsbis.in द्वारा इंटरनैट पर खरीदा जा सकता है।
[संदर्भ पीयूबी/जीएन 1 : 3]
कला एम. वारियर, निदेशक (विदेशी भाषा एवं प्रकाशन)
MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
(Department of Consumer Affairs)
(BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS)
New Delhi, the 15th December, 2014
S.O. 113.—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 Indian Standards, particulars of which are given in the second column of Schedule hereto annexed has been established on the date indicated against it in third column. The particulars of the standards, if any, which are given in the fourth column shall also remain in force concurrently till they are cancelled on the date indicated against them in the fifth column.
SCHEDULE
Sl. No. & Year of the Indian Standards Date of No. & Year of the Indian Date of No. Established Establishment Standard to be cancelled, cancellation
if any
(1) (2)
(3) (4)
(5)
1 IS /ISO 834.1 : 1999 Fire-Resistance 15 December, 2014 IS 3809 : 1979 15 December, 2014 Tests-Elements of Building Construction Part 1 General Requirements
2 IS/ISO 834.4 : 2000 Fire-Resistance 15 December, 2014 IS 3809 : 1979 15 December, 2014 Tests-Elements of Building Construction (First Revision) Part 4 Specific Requirements for Load Bearing Vertical Separating Elements
3 IS/ISO 834.5 : 2000 Fire-Resistance 15 December, 2014 IS 3809 : 1979 15 December, 2014 Tests-Elements of Building Construction (First Revision) Part 5 Specific Requirements for Load Bearing Horizontal Separating Elements
4 IS 1757 (Part 1) : 2014/ISO 148.1 : 2009 15 December, 2014 IS 1757 : 1988 15 December, 2014 Metallic Materials . Charpy Pendulum (Second Revision) Impact Test Part 1 Test Method (Third Revision)
5 IS 4651 (Part 4) : 2014 Planning and 15 December, 2014 IS 4651 (Part 4) : 1989 15 December, 2014
(Second Revision)
Design of Ports and Harbours-Code of Practice Part 4 General Design Considerations (Third Revision)
6 IS 4721 : 2014 Code of Practice for 15 December, 2014 IS 4721 : 2000 15 December, 2014
(First Revision)
Drainage and Dewatering of Surface/ Underground Hydroelectric Power Stations (Second Revision)
7 IS 5334 : 2014 Magnetic Particle Flaw 15 December, 2014 IS 5334 : 2003 15 December, 2014 Detection of Welds-Code of Practice (Second Revison) (Third Revision)228 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 17, 2015/PAUSA 27, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] (1) (2)
(3) (4)
(5)
8 IS 5522 : 2014 Stainless Steel Sheets and 15 December, 2014 IS 5522 : 1992 15 December, 2014 Strips for Utensils-Specification (Second Revision) (Third Revision
9 IS 6934 : 2014 Hydraulic Design of High 15 December, 2014 IS 6934 : 1998 15 December, 2014
(First Revision)
Ogee Overflow and Orifice Spillways- Recommendations (Second Revision)
10 IS 10052 (Part1/Sec 1) : 2014/CISPR 15 December, 2014 IS 10052 (Part 1/Sec 1) : 1999 15 December, 2014 16.1.1 : 2010 Radio Disturbance and (First Revision) Immunity Measuring Apparatus and Methods.Specification Part 1 Radio Disturbance and Immunity Measuring Apparatus Section 1 Measuring Apparatus (Second Revision)
11 IS 10635 : 2014 Freeboard Requirement 15 December, 2014 IS 10635 : 1993 15 December, 2014 in Dams - Guidelines (Second Revision)
(First Revision)
12 IS 12588 : 2014 Automotive Vehicles-Oil 15 December, 2014 IS 12588 : 1988 15 December, 2014 and Air Assisted Pressure Gauges- Specification (First Revision)
13 IS 12884 : 2014 Automotive Vehicles- 15 December, 2014 IS 12884 : 1990 15 December, 2014 Braking Systems, Rubber Boots for Brake Wheel Cylinders-Performance Requirements (First Revision)
14 IS/ISO/TS 13278 : 2011 15 December, 2014 NA NA Nanotechnologies-Determination of Elemental Impurities in Samples of Carbon Nanotubes Using Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry
15 IS 16275 : 2014/ISO/TR 24578 : 2012 15 December, 2014 NA NA Hydrometry.Acoustic Doppler Profiler- Method and Application for Measurement of Flow in Open Channels
16 IS 16278 (Part.1) : 2014/ 15 December, 2014 NA NA ISO 15011.1 : 2009 Health and Safety in Welding and Allied Processes. Laboratory Method for Sampling Fumes and Gases Part 1 Determination of Fume Emission Rate During Arc Welding and Collection of Fumes for Analysis
17 IS 16282 : 2014/IEC 61930 : 1998 Fibre 15 December, 2014 NA NA Optic Graphical Symbology
18 IS16283 : 2014/IEC 61931 : 1998 Fibre 15 December, 2014 NA NA Optic.Terminology
19 IS 16285 : 2014/IEC 61745 : 1998 End. 15 December, 2014 NA NA Face Image Analysis Procedure for the Calibration of Optical Fibre Geometry Test Sets
20 IS/IEC 61400-24 : 2010 Wind Turbines 15 December, 2014 NA NA Part 24 Lightning Protection[भाग IIख्ांड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 17, 2015/पौष 27, 1936 229 Copies of these standards are available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi –110002 and Regional Offices : Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also Branch Offices: Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Nagpur, Patna, Pune, Kochi.
Date : 15.12.2014
[Ref : PUB/GN.1:3]
KALA M. VARIAR, Director (Foreign Languages & Publication)
नई दिल्ली, 30 दिसंबर, 2014
का.आ. 114.—भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम 1987 के नियम 7 के उप-नियम (1) के खंड (ख) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि नीचे अनुसूची में दिये गये मानक (कों) में संषोधन किया गया/किये गये हैं।
अनुसूची
क्रम संषोधित भारतीय मानक (कों) की संख्या, संषोधन की संख्या काँलम (3) के संषोधन की काँलम (3) में दर्षाये गए संख्या वर्ष और शीर्षक और तिथि प्रतिस्थापन तिथि अनुसार वह जिस तिथि
तक मानक बिना संषोधन के था लागू रहेगी
1. आई एस 1759 : 1986 (दूसरा पुनरीक्षण) संषोधन संख्या 2 30 दिसंबर, 2014 30 जून, 2015 अक्टूबर 2014
2. आई एस 3196 (भाग 2) (पांचवा पुनरीक्षण) संषोधन संख्या 2 30 दिसंबर, 2014 30 जून, 2015 नवंबर 2014
3. आई एस 12615 : 2011 (दूसरा पुनरीक्षण) संषोधन संख्या 1 30 दिसंबर, 2014 30 जून, 2015 नवंबर 2014
4. आई एस 14106 : 1996 संषोधन संख्या 6 30 दिसंबर, 2014 30 जून, 2015 नवंबर 2014
5. आई एस 16098 (भाग 2) : 2013 संषोधन संख्या 1 30 दिसंबर, 2014 30 मार्च, 2015 नवंबर 2014
इस भारतीय मानक की प्रतियॉं भारतीय मानक ब्यूरों, मानक भवन, 9, बहादुरषाह जफर मार्ग, नई दिल्ली 110002 क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों : नई दिल्ली, कोलकता, चण्डीगढ़, चेन्नई, मुम्बई, तथा शाखा कार्यालयों : अहमदाबाद, बंगलौर, भोपाल, भुवनेष्वर, कोयम्बतूर, गुवाहाटी, हैदराबाद, जयपुर, नागपुर, पटना, पूणे तथा कोचि में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं। भारतीय मानकों को http://www.standardsbis.in द्वारा इंटरनैट पर खरीदा जा सकता है।
[संदर्भ पीयूबी/जीएन 2 : 2] कला एम. वारियर, निदेशक (विदेशी भाषा एवं प्रकाशन)
New Delhi, the 30th December, 2014
S.O. 114.—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 ê that amendments to the Indian Standards, particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been issued :
SCHEDULE
Sl. No. and year of the Indian Standards No. and year of Date of Establishment Date till which the Standard No.
the amendment of the Amendment without amendment as
at column (3) mentioned at Column (3)
shall remain in force
(1) (2)
(3) (4)
(5)
1 IS 1759 : 1986 Specification for Powrahs Amendment No. 2 30 December, 2014 30 June, 2015 October 2014
(Second Revision)230 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 17, 2015/PAUSA 27, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] (1) (2)
(3) (4)
(5)
2 IS 3196 (Part 2) : 2006 Welded Low Amendment No. 1 30 December, 2014 30 June, 2015 Carbon Steel Cylinders Exceeding November 2014 5 Litre Water Capacity for Low Pressure Liquefiable Gases Part 2 Cylinders for Liquifiable Non-Toxic Gases Other than LPG.Specification (Fifth Revision)
3 IS 12615 : 2011 Energy Efficient Amendment No. 1 30 December, 2014 30 June, 2015 Induction Motors-Three Phase November 2014 Squirrel Cage (Second Revision)
4 IS 14106 : 1996 Direct Action Amendment No. 6 30 December, 2014 30 June, 2015 Handpumps-Specification November 2014
5 IS 16098 (Part 2) : 2013 Structured. Amendment No. 1 30 December, 2014 30 March, 2015 Wall Plastics Piping Systems for Non. November 2014 Pressure Drainage and Sewerage. Specification Part 2 Pipes and Fittings with Non-Smooth External Surface, Type B
Copy of these Standards are available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi.110 002 and Regional Offices:New Delhi, Kolcatta Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also Branch Offices: Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Nagpur, Patna, Pune, Kochi.On line purchase of Indian standard can be made at :http://www.standardsbis.in.
[Ref : PUB/GN 2:2]
KALA M. VARIAR, Director (Foreign Languages & Publication)
(खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण विभाग)
नई दिल्ली, 6 जनवरी, 2015
का.आ. 115.—केन्द्रीय सरकार राजभाषा (संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग) नियम, 1976 के नियम 10 के उप-नियम (4) के अनुसरण में उपभोक्ता मामले, खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय (खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण विभाग) के प्रशासनिक नियंत्राणाधीन सैंट्रल रेलसाइड वेअरहाऊस कंपनी लिमिटेड के निम्नलिखित कार्यालय, जिसके 80 प्रतिशत से अधिक कर्मचारीवृन्द ने हिन्दी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है, को राजपत्र में अधिसूचित करती है :-
सैंट्रल रेलसाइड वेअरहाऊस कंपनी लिमिटेड,
(भारत सरकार का उद्यम-मिनी रत्न)
भूतल, प्रगति मैदान मेट्रो स्टेशन बिल्डिंग,
नई दिल्ली-110001
[सं. ई-11011/1/2008-हिन्दी]
प्रशांत त्रिवेदी, संयुक्त सचिव
(Department of Food and Public Distribution)
New Delhi, the 6th January, 2015
S.O. 115.—In pursuance of Sub.rule (4) of rule 10 of the Official Language (Use for Official Purpose of the Union) Rules, 1976 the Central government hereby notifies the following office of Central Railside Warehouse Company Limited[भाग IIख्ांड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 17, 2015/पौष 27, 1936 231 under the administrative control of the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution (Deptt. of Food & Public Distribution), where of more than 80% of staff have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi.
Central Railside Warehouse Company Limited, (A Government of India Enterprise.Mini Ratna), Ground Floor, Pragati Maidan Metro Station Building, New Delhi.110001.
[No. E.11011/1/2008-Hindi]
PRASHANT TRIVEDI, Jt. Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 12 जनवरी, 2015
का.आ. 116.—भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम (1) के खंड (ख) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि नीचे अनुसूची में दिये गये मानक (को) में संषोधन किया गया/किये गये हैं।
अनुसूची
क्रम संषोधित भारतीय मानक (कों) की संख्या, संषोधन की संख्या कॉलम (3) के संषोधन कॉलम (3) में दर्षाये गए
संख्या वर्ष और शीर्षक और तिथि की प्रतिस्थापन तिथि अनुसार वह जिस तिथि
तक मानक बिना संषोधन
के था लागू रहेगी
1 2 3 4 5
1. आई एस 294 : 1979 (दूसरा पुनरीक्षण) संषोधन संख्या 2 12 जनवरी, 2015 12 जनवरी, 2015
फरवरी 2014
2. आई एस 853 : 1964 (Revised) संषोधन संख्या 1 12 जनवरी, 2015 12 जनवरी, 2015
दिसंबर 2013
3. आई एस 1114 : 1964 (Revised) संषोधन संख्या 2 12 जनवरी, 2015 12 जनवरी, 2015
फरवरी 2014
4. आई एस 2760 : 1980 (पहला पुनरीक्षण) संषोधन संख्या 3 12 जनवरी, 2015 12 जनवरी, 2015
नवंबर 2014
5. आई एस 3029 : 1964 संषोधन संख्या 2 12 जनवरी, 2015 12 जनवरी, 2015
दिसंबर 2013
6. आई एस 3177 : 1999 (दूसरा पुनरीक्षण) संषोधन संख्या 3 12 जनवरी, 2015 12 जनवरी, 2015
नवंबर 2014
7. आई एस 4326 : 2013 (तीसरा पुनरीक्षण) संषोधन संख्या 1 12 जनवरी, 2015 12 जनवरी, 2015
नवंबर 2014
8. आई एस 4401 : 2006 (चौथा पुनरीक्षण) संषोधन संख्या 1 12 जनवरी, 2015 12 जनवरी, 2015
नवंबर 2014
9. आई एस 5182 (भाग 2) : 2001 संषोधन संख्या 1 12 जनवरी, 2015 12 जनवरी, 2015
(पहला पुनरीक्षण) नवंबर 2014
10. आई एस 7202 : 1974 संषोधन संख्या 1 12 जनवरी, 2015 12 जनवरी, 2015
नवंबर 2014
11. आई एस 12171 : 2013 संषोधन संख्या 1 12 जनवरी, 2015 12 जनवरी, 2015
(दूसरा पुनरीक्षण) अक्टूबर 2014
232 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 17, 2015/PAUSA 27, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1 2
3 4 5
12. आई एस 12866 : 1989 संषोधन संख्या 2 12 जनवरी, 2015 12 जनवरी, 2015
सितम्बर 2014
13. आई एस 14287 : 1995 संषोधन संख्या 2 12 जनवरी, 2015 12 जनवरी, 2015
नवंबर 2014
14. आई एस 14766 : 2000 संषोधन संख्या 1 12 जनवरी, 2015 12 जनवरी, 2015
अप्रैल 2014
15. आई एस 15524 : 2004 संषोधन संख्या 1 12 जनवरी, 2015 12 जनवरी, 2015
नवंबर 2014
16. आई एस 15851 : 2009 संषोधन संख्या 2 12 जनवरी, 2015 12 जनवरी, 2015
अक्टूबर 2014
17. आई एस 15852 : 2009 संषोधन संख्या 2 12 जनवरी, 2015 12 जनवरी, 2015
अक्टूबर 2014
18. आई एस 15853 : 2009 संषोधन संख्या 2 12 जनवरी, 2015 12 जनवरी, 2015
अक्टूबर 2014
इस भारतीय मानक की प्रतियॉं भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो, मानक भवन, 9, बहादुरषाह जफर मार्ग, नई दिल्ली 110002 क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों : नई दिल्ली, कोलकता, चण्डीगढ़, चेन्नई, मुम्बई, तथा शाखा कार्यालयों : अहमदाबाद, बंगलौर, भोपाल, भुवनेष्वर, कोयम्बतूर, गुवाहाटी, हैदराबाद, जयपुर, पटना, पूणे तथा कोचि में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं। भारतीय मानकों को http://www.standardsbis.in द्वारा इंटरनैट पर खरीदा जा सकता है।
दिनांक : 12 जनवरी, 2015
[संदर्भ पीयूबी/जीएन 1 : 4] कला एम. वारियर, निदेशक (विदेशी भाषा एवं प्रकाशन)
New Delhi, the 12th January, 2015
S.O. 116.—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 ê that amendments to the Indian Standards, particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been issued :
SCHEDULE
Sl. No. and year of the Indian Standards No. and year of Date of Establishment Date till which the Stamdard No.
the amendment of the Amendment without amendment as
at column (3) mentioned at Column (3)
shall remain in force
(1) (2)
(3) (4)
(5)
1 IS 294 : 1979 Specification for Amendment No. 2 12 January, 2015 12 January, 2015
Superphosphate (Second Revision) February 2014
2 IS 853 : 1964 Specification for Bone. Amendment No. 1 12 January, 2015 12 January, 2015
Meal, Raw (Revised) December 2013
3 IS 1114 : 1964 Specification for
Ammonium Chloride, Fertilizer Grade Amendment No. 2 12 January, 2015 12 January, 2015
(Revised)
February 2014
[भाग IIख्ांड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 17, 2015/पौष 27, 1936 233(1) (2)
(3) (4)
(5)
4 IS 2760 : 1980 Specification for Amendment No. 3 12 January, 2015 12 January, 2015
Steel Chain Slings (First Revision) November 2014
5 IS 3029 : 1964 Specification for Amendment No. 2 12 January, 2015 12 January, 2015
Castorseed Cake for Fertilizer Purposes December 2013
6 IS 3177 : 1999 Code of Practice for Amendment No. 3
Electric Overhead Travelling Cranes November 2014 12 January, 2015 12 January, 2015
and Gantry Cranes Other Than Steel
Work Cranes (Second Revision)
7 IS 4326 : 2013 Earthquake Resistant Amendment No. 1 12 January, 2015 12 January, 2015
Design and Construction of Buildings. November 2014
Code of Practice (Third Revision)
8 IS 4401 : 2006 Textiles.Twisted Amendment No. 1 12 January, 2015 12 January, 2015
Nylon Fish.Net Twines . Specification November 2014
(Fourth Revision)
9 IS 5182 (Part 2) : 2001 Methods for Amendment No. 1 12 January, 2015 12 January, 2015
Measurement of Air Pollution Part 2 November 2014
Sulphur Dioxide (First Revision)
10 IS 7202 : 1974 Specification for Amendment No. 1 12 January, 2015 12 January, 2015
Inspection Gauges for Checking Threads November 2014
of Gas Cylinder Valves for Use with
Breathing Apparatus
11 IS 12171 : 2013 Cotton Bales. Amendment No. 1 12 January, 2015 12 January, 2015
Specification (Second Revision) October 2014
12 IS 12866 : 1989 Plastic Translucent Amendment No. 2 12 January, 2015 12 January, 2015
Sheets Made From Thermo.Setting September 2014
Polyster Resin (Glassfibre Reinforced).
Specification
13 IS 14287 : 1995Textiles . Polypropylene Amendment No. 2 12 January, 2015 12 January, 2015
Multifilament Netting Twines. November 2014
Specification
14 IS 14766 : 2000 Aggregate Size Amendment No. 1 12 January, 2015 12 January, 2015
Distribution and Water Stability of Soil April 2014
Aggregates.Method of Determination
15 IS 15524 : 2004 Automotive Vehicles. Amendment No. 1 12 January, 2015 12 January, 2015
Retreading of Tyres by the Pre.Cured November 2014
Process.Specification
16 IS 15851 : 2009 Textiles.Polyester Amendment No. 2 12 January, 2015 12 January, 2015
Cotton Blended Woven Saris for October 2014
Uniforms
17 IS 15852 : 2009 Textiles.Polyester Amendment No. 2 12 January, 2015 12 January, 2015
Blended Woven Shirting for Uniforms October 2014
18 IS 15853 : 2009 Textiles . Polyester Amendments No. 2 12 January, 2015 12 January, 2015
Blended Woven Suiting for Uniforms October 2014
Copy of these Standards are available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi.110 002 and Regional Offices:New Delhi, Kolcatta Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also Branch234 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 17, 2015/PAUSA 27, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Offices: Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Nagpur, Patna, Pune, Kochi.On line purchase of Indian standard can be made at :http://www.standardsbis.in.
Date : 12 January, 2015
[Ref. : PUB/GN.1:4]
KALA M. VARIAR, Director (Foreign Languages & Publication)
नई दिल्ली, 12 जनवरी, 2015
का.आ. 117.—भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ;प्रमाणनद्ध विनियम 1988 के नियम 4 के उपनियम ;5द्ध के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्द्वारा अध्सिूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए है, वे स्वीकृत कर दिए गए हैं :--
अनुसूची
क्रं. लाइसेंस स्वीकृत करने लाइसेंसधरी का नाम व पता भारतीय मानक का शीर्ष भा मा भाग अनु. वर्ष सं. संख्या की तिथि वर्ष/
संख्या
माह
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9
1. 2894784 01.07.2014 मैक टैक मशीनरी सबमर्सिबल पम्पसैट 8034 - - 2002 प्लाट नं. 371, रोड़ नं. 8, जी आई डी सी, काठवाड़ा, अहमदाबाद-382430
2. 2897891 01.07.2014 श्री निलोसकर पम्पस ओपनवैल सबमर्सिबल 14200 - - 1994 263 तथा 264, शुभ इंडस्ट्रियल एस्टेट, पम्पसैट सी एल विद्यालय के पास, काठवाडा सिंगरवा रोड, अहमदाबाद-382430
3. 2893984 02.07.2014 जेनसन केबलस इंडिया प्रा. लिमिटेड वैलडिंग केबल 9857 - - 1990 सर्वे नंण् 16, प्लाट नं. 16ए एंड बी अहमदाबाद मेहसाना हाइवे, गॉव चोंछारडा, ता कडी डिस्ट्रिक्ट मेहसाना
4. 2894178 02.07.2014 पवन पम्प सबमर्सिबल पम्पसैट 8034 - - 2002 275/ए, पफैस-1, जी आई डी सी, नरोडा, अहमदाबाद-382430
5. 2894885 03.07.2014 कैप्टन इंडस्ट्रीज मोटर्स पफार सबमर्सिबल 9283 - - 2013 गठामन पाटिया के पास अहमदाबाद हाइवे, पम्पसैट पालनपुर, बनसकांठा-385001
6. 2894986 03.07.2014 सागर एंटरप्राईस सबमर्सिबल पम्पसैट 8034 - - 2002 25, पंचरत्ना एस्टेट, पफोर्ज तथा बलोयर के पीछे, नरोडा रोड़, अहमदाबाद-380025
7. 2894077 04.07.2014 एसार स्टील इंडिया लिमिटेड स्पायरल वैलडिड पाईपस 5504 - - 1997 27 के एम, सूरत हजिरा रोड़, सूरत-394270
8. 2896081 07.07.2014 एस एच के पालिमर्स इंडस्ट्रीज हाई डैंसिटी पालीथलीन 4984 - - 1995 प्लाट नंण् 111/ए, मयूर डायकैम लिमिटेड पाईपस पफार पोटेबल वाटर के सामने पफेस-II, जी आई डी सी एस्टेट, सपलाईस अहमदाबाद-382445[भाग IIख्ांड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 17, 2015/पौष 27, 1936 235 1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9
9. 2896384 07.07.2014 वसानी पालीमर्स प्रा. लिमिटेड अनप्लास्टिसाजड पी वी सी 12818 - - 2010 सर्वे नं. 488/पी तथा 519/पी स्क्रीन तथा कैसिंग पाईप जी आई डी सी एस्टेट, पफार बोर/टयूबवैल साबरकांठा, तालोड-383215
10. 2896889 08.07.2014 मैक टैक मशीनरी ओपनवैल सबमर्सिबल 14220 - - 1994 प्लाट नं. 371, पम्पसैट रोड़ नं. 8, जी आई डी सी, काठवाडा, अहमदाबाद-382430
11. 2896182 08.07.2014 हितेष इंडस्ट्रीज ओपनवैल सबमर्सिबल 14220 - - 1994 27, 28-ए, रवि इंडस्ट्रियल एस्टेट, पम्पसैट अजित मिलस के पीछे, मनियार ट्रेलर के सामने रखियाल, अहमदाबाद-380023
12. 2896990 11.07.2014 पदमनी ज्वैलर्स
स्वर्ण तथा स्वर्ण धतुओं 1417 - - 1999 कानया शाला रोड़, आभूषणों शिल्पकारी देवगथ बारिया, दोहाद-389380 शुदता एवं मुहरांकन
13. 2897083 11.07.2014 न्यू शहरावाला ज्वैलर्स स्वर्ण तथा स्वर्ण धतुओं 1417 - - 1999 सर्कल बाजार देवगड़ बारिया, आभूषणों शिल्पकारी डिस्ट्रिक्ट, दोहाद-389380 शु(ता एवं मुहरांकन
14. 2902555 14.07.2014 जय भारत मैटकास्ट प्रा. लिमिटेड कार्बन स्टीन कास्ट बिलेट 2830 - - 2012 201, दीप अपार्टमैंट, दूसरी मंजिल इनगोटस, बिलेट, ब्लूमस वापी सिलवासा रोड़, तथा स्लेबस पफार रि-रोलिंग चार रस्ता, वलसाद-396195 इंटू स्टील पफार जनरल
स्टकचरर्ल परपस
15. 2898893 17.07.2014 शोभालाल ज्वैलर्स स्वर्ण तथा स्वर्ण धतुओं 1417 - - 1999 कृष्णा शेरी, कारोलिया पोल, आभूषणों शिल्पकारी एम जी रोड़, वडोदरा-380001 शु(ता एवं मुहरांकन
16. 2899491 17.07.2014 मित्तल सैक्शन लिमिटेड ;यूनिट-IIद्ध स्टील पफार जनरल 2062 - - 2011 14, 23-चांगोदर इंडस्ट्रियल एस्टेट, स्टकचर्ल परपस चांगोदर, ता सानंद-382213
17. 2900551 21.07.2014 ब्राइट सोलर प्रा. लिमिटेड सबमर्सिबल पम्पसैट 8034 - - 2002 प्लाट नं. 474, 475, रोड नं. 12 काठवाडा, जी आई डी सी, ओढव, अहमदाबाद-382430
18. 2901553 24.07.2014 इलैक्ट्रोथर्म सोलर लिमिटेड सोलर पफलैट प्लेट 12933 1 - 2003 प्लाट नं. 414/1, कलैक्टर जी आई डी सी पफेस-II, वटवा, अहमदाबाद-382445
[सं. सी एम डी 13ः11]
डॉ. एस. एल. पालकर, वैज्ञानिक 'एपफ' एवं प्रमुख236 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 17, 2015/PAUSA 27, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 12th January, 2015
S.O. 117.—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 & Address of the party Title of the Standard IS No. Part Sec Year No. No.
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9
1. 2894784 01.07.2014 Mech Tech Machinery Submersible pumpsets 8034 — — 2002 Plot No. 371, Road No. 8, GIDC, Kathwada, Ahmedabad.382430
2. 2897891 01.07.2014 Shree Niloskar Pumps Openwell submersible 14220 — — 1994 263 & 264, Shubh Indl Estate pumpsets Near C. L. Vidhyalay Kathwada.Singerya Road, Kathwada, Ahmedabad.382430
3. 2893984 02.07.2014 Jainson Cables India Pvt. Ltd., Welding cables 9857 — — 1990 Survey No. 16, Plot No. 16A & B Ahmedabad Mehsana Highway Village Chandarda, Ta Kadi, Distt. Mehsana
4. 2894178 02.07.2014 Pavan Pump Submersible pumpsets 8034 — — 2002 275/A, Phase.1, GIDC Naroda, Ahmedabad.382430
5. 2894885 03.07.2014 Captain Industries Motors for submersible 9283 — — 2013 Near Gathaman Patiya pumpsets Ahmedabad Highway Palanpur, Banas Kantha.385001
6. 2894986 03.07.2014 Sagar Enterprises Submersible pumpsets 8034 — — 2002 25, Pancharatna Estate B/H, Forge & Blower Naroda Raod, Ahmedabad.380025
7. 2894077 04.07.2014 Essar Steel India Ltd., Spiral welded pipes 5504 — — 1997 27KM, Surat.Hazira Road, Surat.394270
8. 2896081 07.07.2014 SHK Polymers Industries High density 4984 — — 1995 Plot No. 111/A, polyethylene pipes Opp. Mayur Dyechem Ltd., for potable water Phase.II, GIDC Estate, Vata, supplies Ahmedabad.382445
9. 2896384 07.07.2014 Vasani Polymers Pvt. Ltd., Unplasticized pvc 12818 — — 2010 Survey No. 488/P & 519/P screen and casing GIDC Estate, Sabarkantha, pipes for bore/ Talod.383215 tubewell
10. 2896889 08.07.2014 Mech Tech Machinery Openwell submersible 14220 — — 1994 Plot No. 371, Road No. 8, GIDC, pumpsets Kathwada, Ahmedabad.382430[भाग IIख्ांड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 17, 2015/पौष 27, 1936 237 1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9
11. 2896182 08.07.2014 Hitesh Industries Openwell submersible 14220 — — 1994 27. 28.A, Ravi Industrial Estate pumpsets Behind Ajit Mills Opp. Maniyar Trailor Rakhial, Ahmedabad-380023
12. 2896990 11.07.2014 Padmini Jewellers Gold and gold alloys, 1417 — — 1999 Kanya Shala Road, Jewellery/artefacts- Devgath Baria, Dohad-389380 fineness and marking
13. 2897083 11.07.2014 New Shaherawala Jewellers Gold and gold alloys, 1417 — — 1999 Circle Bazar Devgadh jewellery/artefacts- Baria Dist. Dahod-389380 fineness and marking
14. 2902555 14.07.2014 Jay Bharat Metcast Pvt. Ltd., Carbon steel cast billet 2830 — — 2012 201, Deep Apartment, ingots, billets, blooms 2nd Floor Vapi.Silvassa Road, and slabs for re-rolling Char Rasta Vapi Valsad-396195 into steel for general
structural purposes
15. 2898893 17.07.2014 Shobhalal Jewellers Gold and gold alloys, 1417 — — 1999 Krishna Sheri, Karoliya Pole, jewellery/artefacts- M. G. Road, Vadodara-380001 fineness and marking
16. 2899491 17.07.2014 Mittal Section Limited (Unit.II) Steel for general 2062 — — 2011 14, 23.Changodar Ind. Estate, Structural purposes Changodar, Taluka Sanand-382213
17. 2900551 21.07.2014 Bright Solar Pvt. Ltd. Submersible pumpsets 8034 — — 2002 Plot No. 474, 475, Road No. 12 Kathwada GIDC Kathwada Odhav, Ahmedabad-382430
18. 2901553 24.07.2014 Electrotherm Solar Ltd., Solar flat plate 12933 1 — 2003 Plot No. 414/1, GIDC Phase.II collector Vatva, Ahmedabad-382445
[No. CMD/ 13:11]
Dr. S. L. PALKAR, Scientist- 'F' & Head
नई दिल्ली, 12 जनवरी, 2015
का.आ. 118.—भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ;प्रमाणनद्ध विनियम 1988 के विनियम ;5द्ध के उप-विनियम ;6द्ध के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्द्वारा अध्सिूचित करता है कि निम्न विवरण वाले लाइसेंसों को उनके आगे दर्शायी गई तारीख से रद्द/स्थगित कर दिया गया है :--
अनुसूची
क्रं. लाइसेंस लाइसेंसधरी का नाम व पता लाइसेंस के अंतर्गत वस्तु/प्रक्रम सम्ब( रद्द करने की तिथि सं. संख्या
भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक
सीएम/एल
1. 3638569 सोनी दाक्सेश कुमार जयेंद्रभाई स्वर्ण तथा स्वर्ण धतुओं के आभूषणों शिल्पकारी 18.07.2014 211 के. टी. प्लाजा, रतनपोल, शु(ता एवं मुहरांकन आई एस 1417 : 1999 पफुव्वारा गांध्ी रोड के सामने अहमदाबाद-380001
2. 3856680 रोमा इलैक्ट्रिकल्स 60, रघुवीर एस्टेट, पी वी सी इंसूलेटिड केबल आई एस 694 : 1990 18.07.2014 रूद्राक्ष काम्पलैक्स, शंकर शॉपिंग सैंटर के सामने, जी आई डी सी ओढव, अहमदाबाद-382415
[सं. सी एम डी 13ः13]
डॉ. एस. एल. पालकर, वैज्ञानिक 'एपफ' एवं प्रमुख238 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 17, 2015/PAUSA 27, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 12th January, 2015
S.O. 118.—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 Name & Address of the Licensee Article/Process with relevant Date of Cancellation No. No. CM/L
Indian Standards covered by the licence cancelled
1. 3638569 Soni Daxesh Kumar Jayendrabhai Gold and gold alloys, jewellery/ 18.07.2014 211, K. T. Plaza, Ratanpole, Opp Fuwara artefacts-fineness and marking Gandhi Road, Distt. Ahmadabad-380001 IS 1417 : 1999
2. 3856680 Roma Electrials 60, Raghuvir Estate, PVC Insulated Cables 22.07.2014 NR. Rudraksh Complex, IS 694 : 1990 Opp Shankar Shopping Center, G.I.D.C. Odhav, Ahmadabad-382415
[No. CMD/13 : 13]
Dr. S. L. PALKAR, Scientist 'F' & Head
नई दिल्ली, 12 जनवरी, 2015
का.आ. 119.—भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ;प्रमाणनद्ध विनियम 1988 के नियम 4 के उप-नियम ;5द्ध के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्द्वारा अध्सिूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए है, वे स्वीकृत कर दिए गए हैं :--
अनुसूची
क्रं. लाइसेंस स्वीकृत करने लाइसेंसधरी का नाम व पता भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक भा मा भाग अनु. वर्ष सं. संख्या की तिथि वर्ष/
संख्या
माह
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9
1. 2903961 04.08.2014 पोलीकैब वायर्स प्रा. लिमिटेड कांडयूटस पफार इलैक्ट्रिकल 9537 3 - 1983 यूनिट-VI, प्लाट नं. 79/1-3, 80/1-2 इनस्टालेशन बासका उजेटी रोड, बासका पंचमहल-389352
2. 2904054 04.08.2014 पोलीकैब वायर्स प्रा. लिमिटेड पिफटिंग पफार रिजिड नान 3419 - - 1998 यूनिट-VI, प्लाट नं. 79/1-3, 80/1-2 मैटैलिक कांडयूटस बासका उजेटी रोड, बासका पंचमहल-389352
3. 2903456 07.08.2014 दीपकभाई अर्मतभाई सोनी ;गडवालाद्ध स्वर्ण तथा स्वर्ण धतुओं के 1417 - - 1999 3, अंकुर चैम्बर्स, डाक्टर गिरध्र पटेल मार्ग, आभूषणों शिल्पकारी शु(ता पालनपुर बनसकांटा-385001 एवं मुहरांकन
4. 2904458 08.08.2014 प्रगना पम्प इंडस्ट्रीज ओपनवैल सबमर्सिबल 14220 - - 1994 प्लाट नं. 4, गेट नं. 1, भाईजीबा इंडस्ट्रियल पम्पसैट एस्टेट, अनिल स्टार्च रोड़, नरोड रोड़, अहमदाबाद-380025
5. 2904559 11.08.2014 प्रगना पम्प इंडस्ट्रीज सबमर्सिबल पम्पसैट 8034 - - 2002 प्लाट नं. 4, गेट नं. 1, भाईजीबा इंडस्ट्रियल एस्टेट, अनिल स्टार्च रोड़, नरोड रोड़, अहमदाबाद-380025[भाग IIख्ांड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 17, 2015/पौष 27, 1936 239 1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9
6. 2903557 11.08.2014 रौनक लैमिनैक्स प्रा. लिमिटेड डैकोरेटिव थर्मोसैटिंग 2046 - - 1995 सर्वे नं. 757/1, एट : गॉव पिठाई काठलाल, सिनथैटिक रेसिन बोंडिड खेडा-387630 लैमिनेटिड शीटस
7. 2912558 14.08.2014 यूनाटेड पफोसपफोरस लिमिटेड पैस्टिसाईड-बायपफैनथरिन 15939 - - 2011 प्लाट नं. 310/2, जी आई डी सी एस्टेट वैटेबल पाउडर भारूच, अंकलेश्वर-393002
8. 2904660 14.08.2014 पी. एम. ज्वैलर्स, स्वर्ण तथा स्वर्ण धतुओं के 1417 - - 1999 303, इसकान आरकडे, सी जी रोड़, आभूषणों शिल्पकारी शु(ता नवरंगपुरा, अहमदाबाद-380009 एवं मुहरांकन
9. 2905561 14.08.2014 जय भारत मैटकास्ट प्रा. लिमिटेड हाई स्ट्रैंथ डिपफामर्ड स्टील 1786 - - 2008 सर्वे नं. 57/2, गॉव मोराई, वाया वापी, बार्स तथा वायरस पफार ता पारडी वलसाद-396195 कांक्रीट रेनिपफोर्समैंट
10. 2906260 19.08.2014 सुवर्णकला प्रा. लिमिटेड स्वर्ण तथा स्वर्ण धतुओं के 1417 - - 1999 शोप नं. 2, जी एपफ तथा 102 एपफ एपफ, आभूषणों शिल्पकारी शु(ता विनस अमाडियस, जोध्पुर क्रास रोड़, एवं मुहरांकन सेटेलाइट, अहमदाबाद-380015
11. 2907363 22.08.2014 श्री सद्गुरू ज्वैलर्स स्वर्ण तथा स्वर्ण धतुओं के 1417 - - 1999 यू-1 रोस प्लाजा, स्टेशन रोड, आभूषणों शिल्पकारी शु(ता बारडोली, सूरत-394610 एवं मुहरांकन
12. 2907464 22.08.2014 पटेल अंबालाल सोमनाथ सरकार ज्वैलर्स स्वर्ण तथा स्वर्ण धतुओं 1417 - - 1999 25/1, लिंबू पोल, रतन पोल, के आभूषणों शिल्पकारी अहमदाबाद-380001 शु(ता एवं मुहरांकन
13. 2907767 22.08.2014 महालक्ष्मी ज्वैलर्स बी-1 साध्ना टावर्स, स्वर्ण तथा स्वर्ण धतुओं 1417 - - 1999 सरदार हास्पिटल के सामने, स्टेशन रोड़, के आभूषणों शिल्पकारी बारडोली, सूरत-394602 शु(ता एवं मुहरांकन
14. 2907868 22.08.2014 गायत्राी ज्वैलर्स
स्वर्ण तथा स्वर्ण धतुओं 1417 - - 1999 5/4/86, 102 नागिनदास चैम्बर्स, के आभूषणों शिल्पकारी बैंक आपफ इंडिया के सामने स्टेशन, शु(ता एवं मुहरांकन आनंद-388001
15. 2907969 22.08.2014 बी. एस. ज्वैलर्स
स्वर्ण तथा स्वर्ण धतुओं 1417 - - 1999 जी एपफ-3 रोनक प्लाजा, के आभूषणों शिल्पकारी तुलसीधम चार रस्ता के पास, शु(ता एवं मुहरांकन मंजलपुऱ, वडोदरा-390011
16. 2909569 26.08.2014 एम. के. इंडस्ट्रीज पी वी सी इंसूलेटिड केबल 694 - - 1990 12, नवाब इंडस्ट्रियल एस्टेट, जी डी हाई स्कूल रोड़, हीरा वाडी, नरोडा, अहमदाबाद-382345
17. 2908365 27.08.2014 जलाराम स्पन पाईप तथा सिमेंट आर्टिकल प्रीकास्ट कांकरिट पाईपस 458 - - 2003 वक्र्स एट आजेरी, जी एच बोडेली, ;विद तथा विदाउट ता सांखेडा, वडोदरा-391135 रेनिपफोर्समैंटद्ध
[सं. सी एम डी 13ः11]
डॉ. एस. एल. पालकर, वैज्ञानिक 'एपफ' एवं प्रमुख240 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 17, 2015/PAUSA 27, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 12th January, 2015
S.O. 119.—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 & Address of the party Title of the Standard IS No. Part Sec Year No. No.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. 2903961 04.08.2014 Polycab Wires Pvt. Ltd., Conduits for electrical 9537 3 — 1983 Unit.VI, Plot No. 79/1-3, 80/1-2 Baska installations Ujeti Road, Baska, Panchamahal-389352
2. 2904054 04.08.2014 Polycab Wires Pvt. Ltd., Fittings for rigid non- 3419 — — 1998 Unit.VI, Plot No. 79/1-3, 80/1-2 Baska metallic conduits Ujeti Road, Baska, Panchamahal-389352
3. 2903456 07.08.2014 Dipakbhai Amrutbhai Gold and gold alloys, 1417 — — 1999 Soni (Gadhwala) 3, Ankur Chambers, jewellery/artefacts- Dr. Girdhar Patel Marg, Plalanpur, fineness and marking Banas Kantha-385001
4. 2904458 08.08.2014 Pragna Pum Industries Openwell submersible 14220 — — 1994 Plot No. 4, Gate No. 1, Bhaijibha Ind. pumpsets Estate, Anil Starch Road Naroda Road, Ahmedabad-380025
5. 2904559 11.08.2014 Pragna Pump Industries Submersible pumpsets 8034 — — 2002 Plot No. 4, Gate No. 1 Bhaijibha Ind. Estate, Anil Starch Road Naroda Road, Ahmedabad-380025
6. 2903557 11.08.2014 Ronak Laminex Pvt. Ltd., Decorative thermosetting 2046 — — 1995 Survey No. 757/1, At : Village : Pithai synthetic resin bonded Kathlal, Kheda-387630 laminated sheets
7. 2912558 14.08.2014 United Phosphorus Limited Pesticide.bifenthrin 15939 — — 2011 Plot No. 3101/2, GIDC Estate wettable powder Bharuch, Ankleshwar-393002
8. 2904660 14.08.2014 P. M. Jewellers Gold and gold alloys, 1417 — — 1999 303, ISCON Arcade, C. G. Road, jewellery/artefacts- Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 fineness and marking
9. 2905561 14.08.2014 Jay Bharat Metcast Pvt. Ltd., High strength deformed 1786 — — 2008 Survey No. 57/2, Village : Morai steel bars and wires for Via.Vapi, Tal : Pardi, Valsad-396195 concrete reinforcement
10. 2906260 19.08.2014 Suvarnakala Pvt. Ltd., Gold and gold alloys, 1417 — — 1999 Shop No. 2. G. F. & 102 F. F., Vinus jewellery/artefacts- Amadeus, Jodhpur Cross Road, fineness and marking Satellite, Ahmedabad-380015
11. 2907363 22.08.2014 Shree Sadguru Jewellers Gold and gold alloys, 1417 — — 1999 U.1 Rose Plaza, Station Road, jewellery/artefacts- Bardoli, Surat-394610 fineness and marking[भाग IIख्ांड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 17, 2015/पौष 27, 1936 241 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
12. 2907464 22.08.2014 Patel Ambalal Somnath Gold and gold alloys, 1417 — — 1999 Sarkar Jewellers 25/1, Limbu Pole, jewellery/artefacts. Ratan Pole, Ahmedabad-380001 fineness and marking
13. 2907767 22.08.2014 Mahalaxmi Jewellers Gold and gold alloys, 1417 — — 1999 B.1 Sadhna Towers Opp Sardar jewellery/artefacts. Hospital, Station Road, fineness and marking Bardoli Surat-394602
14. 2907868 22.08.2014 Gayatri Jewellers Gold and gold alloys, 1417 — — 1999 5/4/86, 102 Nagindas Chambers, jewellery/artefacts. Opp Bank of India Station, fineness and marking Anand-388001
15. 2907969 22.08.2014 B. S. Jewellers Gold and gold alloys, 1417 — — 1999
jewellery/artefacts.
G. F.-3 Ronak Plaza, Near Tulsidham Char Rasta, fineness and marking Manjalpur, Vadodara-390011
16. 2909569 26.08.2014 M. K. Industries PVC Insulated Cables 694 — — 1990 12, Nawab Indl. Estate G. D. High School Road Hirawadi, Naroda, Ahmedabad-382345
17. 2908365 27.08.2014 Jalaram Spun Pipe & Cement Artical Precast concrete pipes 458 — — 2003 Works At Ajari, GH Bodeli, (with and without TA Sankheda, Vadodara, reinforcement)
Bodeli-391135
[No. CMD/ 13:11]
Dr. S. L. PALKAR, Scientist-'F' & Head
नई दिल्ली, 12 जनवरी, 2015
का.आ. 120.—भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ;प्रमाणनद्ध विनियम 1988 के विनियम ;5द्ध के उप-विनियम ;6द्ध के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्द्वारा अध्सिूचित करता है कि निम्न विवरण वाले लाइसेंसों को उनके आगे दर्शायी गई तारीख से रद्द/स्थगित कर दिया गया है :--
अनुसूची
क्रं. लाइसेंस लाइसेंसधरी का नाम व पता लाइसेंस के अंतर्गत वस्तु/प्रक्रम सम्ब( रद्द करने की तिथि सं. संख्या
भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक
सीएम/एल
1 2 3
4
5
1. 3683675 मैसर्स एकवैश हैल्थकेयर इन कार्पोरेशन पैकेजबंद पेयजल 07.08.2014 सर्वे नं. 138, एन एच 8 ए, कल्याणगाड, ;अदर दैन पैकेजड नेचुरल मिनरल वाटरद्ध ता बाबला अहमदाबाद-382240 आई एस 14543-2004
2. 2833764 मैसर्स शिवगंगा मिनरल वाटर पैकेजबंद पेयजल 19.08.2014 101, लक्ष्मी निवास, सी एन जी पम्प के सामने, ;अदर दैन पैकेजड नेचुरल मिनरल वाटरद्ध वासता देवडी रोड़, कटटरगाम, सूरत-395004 आई एस 14543-2004
3. 3783679 मैसर्स हाई टैक रबर इंडस्ट्रीज आटोमोटिव विहीकल-टयूबस पफार 21.08.2014 प्लाट नं. 3110, जी आई डी सी, न्यूमैटिक टायर्स आई एस 13098 : 1991 सारीगाम, ता उमरगाम, वलसाद-396155
4. 3662162 मैसर्स श्री गणेश इंजिनियरिंग कम्पनी मोटर्स पफार सबमर्सिबल पम्पसैट 27.08.2014 सी-1/275 पफेस-1, जी आई डी सी नरोडा, आई एस 9283 : 1995 अहमदाबाद-382330242 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 17, 2015/PAUSA 27, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 1 2 3
4
5
5. 3884079 मैसर्स दुर्गा पम्प मोटर्स पफार सबमर्सिबल पम्पसैट 27.08.2014 04, श्री राम एस्टेट, नाना चिलोडा, नरोडा, आई एस 9283 : :1995 अहमदाबाद-382330
6. 2809060 मैसर्स सरखेज स्टील इंडस्ट्रीज प्राण् लिमिटेड स्टील पफार जनरल स्टकचरल परमस 28.08.2014 सरखेज सानंद क्रास रोड़, आई एस 2062 : 2011 श्रीजी वे ब्रीज के सामने, एन एच रोड़ नं. 8सी, सरखेज अहमदाबाद-382210
[सं. सी एम डी 13ः13]
डॉ. एस. एल. पालकर, वैज्ञानिक 'एपफ' एवं प्रमुख
New Delhi, the 12th January, 2015
S.O. 120.—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 Name & Address of the Licensee Article/Process with relevant Date of Cancellation No. No. CM/L
Indian Standards covered by the licence cancelled
1. 3683675 M/s. Aquash Healthcare in Corporation Packaged drinking water (other 07.08.2014 Survey No. 138 N. H. 8 A, Kalyanghad, than packaged natural mineral TA Bavla, Kalyanghad Water IS 14543 : 2004 Distt. Ahmedabad-382240
2. 2833764 M/s. Shivganga Mineral Water Packaged drinking water (other 19.08.2014 101, Laxmi Nivas, Opp CNG Pump. than packaged natural mineral Vasta Devdi Road, Katargam. Water IS 14543 : 2004 Surat-395004
3. 3783679 M/s. HI-TEC Rubber Industries Automotive vehicles-tubes for 21.08.2014 Plot No. 3110, G.I.D.C., Sarigam, pneumatic tyres- Tal Umargam, Sarigam IS 13098 : 1991 Distt. Valsad-396155
4. 3662162 M/s. Shree Ganesh Engineering Co. Motors for submersible 27.08.2014 C.1/275 Phase.1, G.I.D.C. Naroda, pumpsets- Ahmedabad-382330 IS 9283 : 1995
5. 3884079 M/s. Durga Pump Motors for submersible 27.08.2014 04, Shree Ram Estate, Nana Chiloda, purposes Naroda, Ahmedabad-382330 IS 9283 : 1995
6. 2809060 M/s. Sarkhej Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd., Steel for general Structural 28.08.2014 Sarkhej.Sanand Cross Road, Opp. Shreeji purposes Weigh Bridge, N. H. Road No. 8C, IS 2062 : 2011 Sarkhej, Ahmedabad-382210
[No. CMD/13 : 13]
Dr. S. L. PALKAR, Scientist 'F' & Head[भाग IIख्ांड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 17, 2015/पौष 27, 1936 243 कोयला मंत्रालय
नई दिल्ली, 13 जनवरी, 2015
का.आ. 121.—केन्द्रीय सरकार को यह प्रतीत होता है कि इससे उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में से कोयला अभिप्राप्त होने की संभावना है ।
उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि के क्षेत्र में अंतर्विष्ट करने वाला रेखांक संख्यांक ईसीएल/आरजीओएम/जीएम(आई/सी)/ एसयूआरवी/एलएसीक्यू/14-15/41, तारीख 26 सितम्बर, 2014 का निरीक्षण निदेशक तकनीकी (प्रचालन), ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड, संकतोड़िया, डाकघर दिशेरगढ़, जिला बर्द्ववान, पश्चिमी बंगाल-713 333 या मुख्य महा प्रबंधक (गवेषणा प्रभाग), केन्द्रीय खनन योजना और डिजाइन संस्थान लिमिटेड, गोंदवाना प्लेस, कांके रोड, राँची के कार्यालय में या उपायुक्त, जिला गोड्डा (झारखंड) के कार्यालय में या कोयला नियंत्रक, 1, काउंसिल हाउस स्ट्रीट, कोलकाता-700001 के कार्यालय में किया जा सकता है;
अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, कोयला धारक क्षेत्र (अर्जन और विकास) अधिनियम, 1957 (1957 का 20) की धारा 4 की उप- धारा (1) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में कोयले का पूर्वेक्षण करने के अपने आषय की सूचना देती है।
उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध कोई व्यक्ति-
(i) उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 4 की उप-धारा (3) के अधीन की गई कार्रवाई से हुई क्षति या संभावित क्षति अधिनियम की धारा 6 के अधीन किसी नुकसानी के लिए प्रतिकर का दावा कर सकेगा ; या
(ii) उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 13 की उप-धारा (1) के अधीन समाप्त हो गई पूर्वेक्षण अनुज्ञप्तियों के संबंध में या उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 13 की उप-धारा (4) के अधीन समाप्त हो गए खनन पट्टे के लिए प्रतिकर का दावा कर सकेगा और उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 13 की उप धारा (1) के खंड (i) से खंड (iv) में विनिर्दिष्ट मदों के संबंध में उपगत व्यय को दर्षित करने के लिए उक्त भूमि से संबंधित सभी मानचित्रों, चार्टों और अन्य दस्तावेजों को,
इस अधिसूचना के राजपत्र में प्रकाषन की तारीख से नब्बे दिन के भीतर निदेशक(प्रचालन), ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड, संकतोड़िया, डाकघर दिशेरगढ़, जिला बर्द्ववान-713 333, पश्चिमी बंगाल के कार्यालय में परिदत्त कर सकेगा ।
अनुसूची
ललमटिया कोल खनन ब्लॉक (चरण-X)
जिला-गोड्डा, झारखंड
(रेखांक संख्यांक ईसीएल/आरजीओएम/जीएम(आई/सी)/ एसयूआरवी/ एलएसीक्यू/ 14-15/41, तारीख 26 सितम्बर, 2014 )
क्र. मौजा/ थाना ग्राम जिला क्षेत्र क्षेत्र टिप्पणियां
सं. ग्राम संख्या हेक्टेयर एकड़
में में
(लगभग) (लगभग)
1. डकैता ललमटिया 44 गोड्डा 13.79 34.05 भाग
कुल क्षेत्र : 13.79 34.05
कोयला धारक क्षेत्र (अर्जन और विकास ) अधिनियम, 1957 की धारा 4 की उप-धारा(1) के अधीन द्वारा ललमटिया कोयला खनन ब्लॉक (चरण-X) के अंतर्गत अधिसूचित किए जाने वाले क्षेत्र का सीमा वर्णन ।
क1-क2 यह रेखा मौजा डकैता संख्या 44 एवं मौजा लोहणिडया संख्या 45 की पूर्वी सांझा मौजा सीमा पर स्थित बिन्दु 'क1' से शुरू होकर मौजा डकैता की खसरा संख्या 227, 226, 233 और 235 की उत्तरी सीमा एवं खसरा संख्या 235 की पश्चिमी एवं उत्तरी सीमा से गुजरती हुई पुनः खसरा संख्या 451 की उत्तरी सीमा से होते हुए मौजा डकैता संख्या 44 के खसरा संख्या 451 के उत्तर-पश्चिमी कोने पर स्थित बिन्दु 'क2' पर मिलती है ।
क2-क3 यह रेखा मौजा डकैता संख्या 44 के खसरा संख्या 451 के उत्तर-पश्चिमी कोने पर स्थित 'क2' बिन्दु से शुरू होकर मौजा डकैता संख्या 44 के खसरा संख्या 451 के पश्चिमी सीमा, खसरा संख्या 453 एवं 454 के उत्तरी सीमा तथा खसरा संख्या 454, 455, 522, 528, 520, 519, 518, 517, 516 एवं 531 की पश्चिमी सीमा से गुजरती हुई मौजा डकैता संख्या 44 के खसरा संख्या 531 के दक्षिण-पश्चिमी कोने पर स्थित बिन्दु 'क3' पर मिलती है ।
क3-क4 यह रेखा मौजा डकैता संख्या 44 के खसरा संख्या 531 के दक्षिण-पश्चिमी कोने पर स्थित 'क3' बिन्दु से शुरू होकर खसरा संख्या 531 और 532 की दक्षिणी सीमा से गुजरती हुई मौजा डकैता संख्या 44 के खसरा संख्या 532 के दक्षिण सीमा पर स्थित बिन्दु 'क4' पर मिलती है ।
क4-क5 यह रेखा मौजा डकैता संख्या 44 के खसरा संख्या 532 की दक्षिणी सीमा पर स्थित 'क4' बिन्दु से शुरू होकर खसरा संख्या 534 के पश्चिमी सीमा एवं खसरा संख्या 619 की उत्तरी सीमा से गुजरते हुए मौजा डकैता संख्या 44 के खसरा संख्या 619 के दक्षिण-पश्चिमी कोने पर स्थित बिन्दु 'क5' पर मिलती है ।
244 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 17, 2015/PAUSA 27, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]क5-क6 यह रेखा मौजा डकैता संख्या 44 के खसरा संख्या 619 के उत्तर-पश्चिमी कोने पर स्थित 'क5' बिन्दु से शुरू होकर खसरा संख्या 619,622 एवं 623 की पश्चिमी सीमा से गुजरते हुए मौजा डकैता संख्या 44 के खसरा संख्या 623 के दक्षिण-पश्चिमी कोने पर स्थित बिन्दु 'क6' पर मिलती है ।
क6-क7 यह रेखा मौजा डकैता संख्या 44 के खसरा संख्या 623 के दक्षिण-पश्चिमी कोने पर स्थित 'क6' बिन्दु से शुरू होकर खसरा संख्या 624 की उत्तरी सीमा से गुजरते हुए मौजा डकैता संख्या 44 के खसरा संख्या 624 की उत्तर-पश्चिमी सीमा पर स्थित बिन्दु 'क7' पर मिलती है ।
क7-क8 यह रेखा मौजा डकैता संख्या 44 के खसरा संख्या 624 की उत्तर-पश्चिमी सीमा पर स्थित 'क7' बिन्दु से शुरू होकर मौजा डकैता संख्या 44 एवं मौजा ललमटिया संख्या 43 की सांझा सीमा तथा मौजा डकैता संख्या 44 के खसरा संख्या 624 की पश्चिमी सीमा से गुजरते हुए मौजा डकैता संख्या 44 एवं मौजा ललमटिया संख्या 43 की सांझा सीमा पर स्थित मौजा डकैता संख्या 44 के खसरा संख्या 624 की दक्षिण-पश्चिमी सीमा पर स्थित बिन्दु 'क8' पर मिलती है ।
क8-क9 यह रेखा, मौजा डकैता संख्या 44 और मौजा ललमटिया संख्या 43 की सांझा मौजा सीमा पर, मौजा डकैता संख्या 44 के खसरा संख्या 624 की दक्षिण-पश्चिमी सीमा पर स्थित 'क8' बिन्दु से शुरू होकर मौजा डकैता संख्या 44 के खसरा संख्या 624 के दक्षिणी सीमा से गुजरते हुए मौजा डकैता संख्या 44 की सीमा पर स्थित खसरा संख्या 624 के दक्षिण-पूर्वी कोने पर स्थित बिन्दु 'क9' पर मिलती है ।
The plan bearing number ECL/RGOM/GM(I/C)/ SURV/LACQ/14.15/41, dated the 26th September,2014 containing of the areas of land described in the said Schedule may be inspected at the office of the Director Technical (Operation), Eastern Coalfields Limited, Sanctoria, P.O. Dishergarh, District. Burdwan, West Bengal- 713 333 or at the office of the Chief General Manager(Exploration Division), Central Mine Planning and Design Institute Limited, Gondwana Place, Kanke Road, Ranchi or at the office of the Deputy Commissioner, District Godda (Jharkhand), or at the office of the Coal Controller, 1, Council House Street, Kolkata – 700 001;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub.section (1) of section 4 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957), (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the Central Government hereby gives notice of its intention to prospect for coal from the land described in the said Schedule.
Any person interested in the land described in the
afore 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 thereof ; or
(ii) claim compensation under sub-section (1) of section 13 of the Act in respect of prospecting licence 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 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 office of the Director Technical (Operation), Eastern Coalfields Limited, Sanctoria, P.O. Dishergarh, District. Burdwan, West Bengal-713 333 within a period of ninety days from the date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette.
SCHEDULE
क9-क1 यह रेखा मौजा डकैता संख्या 44 की सीमा पर स्थित खसरा संख्या 624 के दक्षिण-पूर्वी कोने पर स्थित 'क9' बिन्दु से शुरू होकर मौजा डकैता संख्या 44 एवं मौजा लोहणिडया संख्या 45 की पूर्वी सांझा सीमा से गुजरती हुई, मौजा डकैता संख्या 44 एवं मौजा लोहणिडया संख्या 45 की पूर्वी सांझा सीमा पर स्थित बिन्दु 'क1' पर मिलती है ।
[फा. सं. 43015/14/2014-पीआरआईडब्ल्यू-I]
दोमिनिक डुंगडुंग, अवर सचिव Lalmatia Coal Mining Block (Phase – X)
District – Godda, Jharkhand
( plan bearing number ECL/RGOM/GM(I/c)/SURV/ LACQ/14-15/41, dated the 26th September,2014)
MINISTRY OF COAL
New Delhi, the 13th January, 2015
S.O. 121.—Whereas it appears to the Central Government that coal is likely to be obtained from the land
mentioned in the Schedule annexed hereto.
Sl. Mouza/ Thana Village District Area in Area in Remarks No. Village Number Hectares Acres
approxi. approxi mately mately
1. Dakaita Lalmatia 44 Godda 13.79 34.05 Part
Total Area 13.79 34.05[भाग IIख्ांड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 17, 2015/पौष 27, 1936 245 Boundary description of the area falling in Lalmatia Coal Mining Block (Phase – X), to be notified under sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957.
A1 – A2 Line starts from point no. A1 situated on eastern common mouza boundary of Dakaita no. 44 and Lohandia no. 45, passes along northern boundary of plot no. 227,226,233 and 235 of mouza Dakaita, western and northern boundary of plot No. 235, again passes along northern boundary of plot No. 451 and meets at point no. A2 situated at north western corner of plot no. 451 of mouza Dakaita no. 44.
A2 – A3 Line starts from point no. A2 situated on north western corner of plot No. 451 of mouza Dakaita no. 44, passes along western boundary of plot No. 451 of mouza Dakaita no. 44,northern boundary of plot No. 453 and 454, western boundary of plot No. 454,455, 522, 528, 520, 519,518,517,516 and 531and meets at point no. A3 situated at south-western corner of plot No. 531 of mouza Dakaita no. 44.
A3 – A4 Line starts from point no. A3 situated at south- western corner of plot no.531 of mouza Dakaita no. 44, passes along southern boundary of plot no. 531 and 532 and meets at point no. A4 situated at southern boundary of plot No. 532 of mouza Dakaita No. 44.
A4 – A5 Line starts from point no. A4 situated at southern boundary of plot no.532 of mouza Dakaita no. 44, passes along western boundary of plot no. 534, northern boundary of plot no.619 and meets at point no. A5 situated at north-western corner of plot No. 619 of mouza Dakaita No. 44.
A5 – A6 Line starts from point no. A5 situated at north- western corner of plot No. 619 of mouza Dakaita No. 44, passes along western boundary of plot no. 619,622 and 623 and meets at point no. A6 situated at south-western corner of plot No. 623 of mouza Dakaita No. 44.
A6 – A7 Line starts from point no. A6 situated at south- western corner of plot No. 623 of mouza Dakaita No. 44, passes along northern boundary of plot No. 624 and meets at point No. A7 situated on north-western boundary of plot No. 624 of mouza Dakaita No. 44.
A7 – A8 Line starts from point no. A7 situated on north- western boundary of plot No. 624 of mouza Dakaita no. 44, passes along common mouza boundary of Lalmatia No. 43 and Dakaita no. 44 and western boundary of plot no. 624 and meets at point no. A8 situated south-western boundary of plot No. 624 of mouza Dakaita No. 44, on common mouza boundary of mouza Dakaita no. 44 and Lalmatia no. 43.
A8 – A9 Line starts from point no. A8 situated south- western boundary of plot No. 624 of mouza Dakaita No. 44, on common mouza boundary of mouza Dakaita No. 44 and Lalmatia No. 43, passes along southern boundary of plot No. 624 of mouza dakaita No. 44 and meets at point No. A9 situated at south-eastern corner of plot No. 624 on mouza boundary of Dakaita No. 44.
A9 – A1 Line starts from point No. A9 situated at south- eastern corner of plot No. 624 on mouza boundary of Dakaita No. 44, passes along eastern common mouza boundary of Dakaita No. 44 and Lohandia No. 45 and meets at point No. A1 situated on eastern common mouza boundary of Dakaita No. 44 and Lohandia No. 45.
[ F.No. 43015/14/2014.PRIW.I]
DOMINIC DUNGDUNG, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 15 जनवरी, 2015
का.आ. 122.—केन्द्रीय सरकार को यह प्रतीत होता है कि, इससे उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित परिक्षेत्र की भूमि से कोयला अभिप्राप्त किए जाने की संभावना है;
और, उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि के क्षेत्र के अंतर्गत आने वाले रेखांक संख्या सी- 1(ई)।।।/जीआर/909-1014, तारीख 1 अक्टूबर, 2014 का निरीक्षण, वेस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड (राजस्व विभाग), कोल इस्टेट, सिविल लाईन्स, नागपुर-440001 (महाराष्ट्र) या मुख्य महाप्रबंधक (खोज प्रभाग), केन्द्रीय खान योजना एवं डिजाइन संस्थान, गोंडवाना प्लेस, कांके रोड, रांची-834001 या कोयला निंयत्रक, 1, काउंसिल हाउस स्ट्रीट, कोलकाता-700 001 के कार्यालय में या जिला कलेक्टर, छिन्दवाड़ा (मध्य प्रदेष) के कार्यालय में किया जा सकता है;
अतः अब केन्द्रीय सरकार, कोयला धारक क्षेत्र (अर्जन और विकास) अधिनियम, 1957 (1957 का 20) (जिसे इसमें इसके पष्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 4 की उपधारा (1) द्वारा शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णिंत भूमि से कोयले का पूर्वेक्षण करने के अपने आषय की सूचना देती है;
उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध कोई व्यक्ति -
(i) उक्त अधिसूचना की धारा 4 की उप-धारा (3) के अधीन की गयी किसी कार्यवाही से हुई या होने वाली246 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 17, 2015/PAUSA 27, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] संभावित किसी क्षति के लिए अधिनियम की धारा 6 के अधीन प्रतिकर का दावा कर सकेगा; अथवा
(ii) उक्त अधिनियम की धारा (13) की उप-धारा (1) के अधीन पूर्वेक्षण अनुज्ञप्तियों के प्रभावहीन होने या उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 13 की उप-धारा (4) के अधीन खनन पट्टे प्रभावहीन होने के संबंध में प्रतिकर का दावा कर सकेगा और उसे उक्त अधिनयम की धारा 13 की उपधारा (1) के खंड (i) से खंड (iv) में विनिर्दिष्ट मदों की बाबत् उपगत व्यय को उपदर्षित करने के लिए पूर्वोक्त भूमि से संबंधित सभी मानचित्रों, चार्टों और अन्य दस्तावेजों को परिदत्त कर सकेगा,
इस अधिसूचना के राजपत्र में प्रकाषन की तारीख से नब्बे दिन के भीतर, क्षेत्रीय महाप्रबंधक, वेस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड, पेंच क्षेत्र, पोस्ट ऑफिस परासिया, तहसील परासिया, जिला छिन्दवाड़ा (मध्य प्रदेष) या महाप्रबंधक (भूमि और राजस्व), वेस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड, भूमि और राजस्व विभाग, कोल ईस्टेट, सिविल लाईन्स, नागपुर- 440 001 (महाराष्ट्र) को भेजेंगे ।
अनुसूची
छिन्दा ओपनकास्ट माईन
पेंच क्षेत्र
जिला छिन्दवाड़ा (मध्य प्रदेष)
[रेखांक संख्या सी- 1(ई)।।।/जीआर/909-1014, तारीख 1 अक्टूबर, 2014]
क्र. ग्राम का पटवारी तहसील जिला क्षेत्र टिप्पणियां
सं. नाम सर्किल (हेक्टर
संख्या में)
भाग 1भ 1. सेठिया 24 परासिया छिन्दवाड़ा 1.894 भाग
भाग 1म 2. सेठिया 24 परासिया छिन्दवाड़ा 2.039 भाग
3. छिन्दा 23 परासिया छिन्दवाड़ा 29.621 भाग
कुल क्षेत्र : 33.554 हेक्टर (लगभग)
या 82.91 एकड़ (लगभग)
ग्राम सेठिया की सीमा क्षेत्र के अन्दर आने वाले प्लाट संख्यांकः
251/1, 251/2 (सरकारी), 256/1- 256/2.
ग्राम छिन्दा की सीमा क्षेत्र के अन्दर आने वाले प्लाट संख्यांक :
63 (सरकारी), 67, 68, 69/1- 69/2- 69/3- 69/4- 69/5- 69/6- 69/7- 69/8- 69/9- 69/10, 70 (सरकारी सड़क) 71/1- 71/2- 71/3- 71/4- 71/5- 71/6- 71/7, 72, 73/1- 73/2- 73/3- 73/4- 73/5- 73/6- 73/7, 74, 75, 76, 77, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99/1- 99/2, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104/1- 104/2, 105, 106, 107/1- 107/2- 107/3, 108, 109, 110, 111 (सरकारी), 112, 113/1- 113/2- 113/3- 113/4- 113/5- 113/6- 113/7- 113/8, 114/1, 114/3, 114/4, 115/1, 115/2, 115/3, 115/4, 115/5.
सीमा वर्णन (भाग 1भ) :
ड.-च-छ-ड.ः रेखा ग्राम सेठिया में बिन्दु 'ड.'से आरंभ होती है और बिन्दु 'च', 'छ' के पास से गुजरती हुई आरंभिक बिन्दु 'ड.' पर मिलती है ।
सीमा वर्णन (भाग 1म)ः
क - ख : रेखा ग्राम छिन्दा में बिन्दु 'क' से आरंभ होती है और ग्राम छिन्दा और ग्राम सेठिया की सम्मिलित ग्राम सीमा पर बिन्दु 'ख' पर मिलती है ।
ख - ग : रेखा ग्राम सेठिया से होकर गुजरती है और ग्राम सेठिया और ग्राम छिन्दा की सम्मिलित ग्राम सीमा पर बिन्दु 'ग' पर मिलती है ।
ग-घ-क : रेखा ग्राम छिन्दा में बिन्दु 'घ' के पास से होकर गुजरती है और आरंभिक बिन्दु 'क' पर मिलती है ।
[फा. सं. 43015/16/2014-पीआरआईडब्ल्यू-I]
दोमिनिक डुंगडुंग, अवर सचिव
New Delhi, the 15th January, 2015
S.O. 122.—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 C.1(E)III/ GR/909.1014, dated the 1st October, 2014 of the area described in the said Schedule may be inspected at the office of the Western Coalfields Limited (Revenue Department), Coal Estate, Civil Lines, Nagpur– 440 001 (Maharashtra) or at the office of the Chief General Manager (Exploration Division), Central Mine Planning and Design Institute, Gondwana Place, Kanke Road, Ranchi – 834 001 or at the office of the Coal Controller, 1, Council House Street, Kolkata – 700 001 or at the office of the District Collector, Chhindwara (Madhya Pradesh);
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957), (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the Central Government hereby gives notice of its intention to prospect for coal from lands described in the said Schedule ;
Any persons interested in the land described in the said Schedules may —
(i) claim compensation under section 6 of the said Act for any damage caused or likely to be[भाग IIख्ांड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 17, 2015/पौष 27, 1936 247 caused by any action taken under sub-section (3) of Section 4 thereof ; 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 said Act for mining lease ceasing to have effect and deliver all maps, charts and other documents relating to the aforesaid lands 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 Office of the Area General Manager, Western Coalfields Limited, Pench Area, Post Office Parasia, Tahsil Parasia, District Chhindwara (Madhya Pradesh) or General Manager (Land and Revenue), Western Coalfields Limited, Land and Revenue Department, Coal Estate, Civil Lines, Nagpur – 440 001 (Maharashtra) within a period of ninety days from the date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette.
Boundary description (1 X) :
E-F-G-E : Line starts from Point 'E' in village Sethia and passes near Point 'F'-'G' and meets at starting Point 'E'.
Boundary description (1 Y) :
A – B : Line start from Point 'A' in village Chhinda and meets at Point 'B' on common village boundary of villages Chhinda and Sethia.
B – C : Line passes through village Sethia and meets at Point 'C' on common village boundary of villages Sethia and Chhinda.
C.D.A : Line passes through village Chhinda and passes nearby Point 'D' and Meets at starting Point 'A'.
[ F.No. 43015/16/2014-PRIW-I ]
DOMINIC DUNGDUNG, Under Secy.
आदेश
SCHEDULE
CHHINDA OPENCAST MINE
PENCH AREA
DISTRICT CHHINDWARA (MADHYA PRADESH)
[ Plan Bearing number C.1(E)III/GR/909-1014, dated the 1st October, 2014]
Sl. Name of Patwari Tahsil District Area (in Remarks
No. Village Circle hectares)
number
Part 1. SETHIA 24 Parasia Chhindwara 1.894 Part
1X
Part 2. SETHIA 24 Parasia Chhindwara 2.039 Part
1Y
3. CHHINDA 23 Parasia Chhindwara 29.621 Part
Total area : 33.554 hectares (approximately)
or 82.91 acres (approximately)
Plot numbers within Boundary in village Sethia :
251/1, 251/2 (Government), 256/1- 256/2.
Plot number within Boundary in village Chhinda:
63 (Government), 67, 68, 69/1- 69/2- 69/3- 69/4- 69/5-69/6- 69/7- 69/8- 69/9- 69/10, 70 (Government Road) 71/1- 71/2- 71/3- 71/4- 71/5- 71/6- 71/7, 72, 73/1- 73/2- 73/3- 73/4- 73/5- 73/6- 73/7, 74, 75, 76, 77, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99/1- 99/2, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104/1- 104/2, 105, 106, 107/1- 107/2- 107/3, 108, 109, 110, 111 (Government), 112, 113/1- 113/2- 113/3- 113/4- 113/5- 113/6- 113/7- 113/8, 114/1, 114/3, 114/4, 115/1, 115/2, 115/3, 115/4, 115/5.
नई दिल्ली, 16 जनवरी, 2015
का.आ. 123.—कोयला धारक क्षेत्र (अर्जन और विकास) अधिनियम, 1957 (1957 का 20) (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है) की धारा 9 की उप-धारा (1) के अधीन जारी की गई भारत सरकार के कोयला मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्यांक का. आ. 1443, तारीख 6 मई, 2014, जो भारत के राजपत्र, भाग II, खंड 3, उप-खंड (।ं।ं), तारीख 17 मई, 2014 मेंं प्रकाशित होेने पर, उक्त अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में
वर्णित भूमि और भूमि में या उस पर के भू-सतह अधिकार (जिसे
इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त भूमि कहा गया है) उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 10 की उपधारा (ं1) के अधीन, सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त होकर, आत्यांतिक रूप से केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित हो गए थे;
और, केन्द्रीय सरकार को यह समाधान हो गया है कि साउथ
ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड, सीपत रोड, डाकघर संख्या 60,
जिला- बिलासपुर-495006 (छत्तीसगढ़) (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त सरकारी कम्पनी कहा गया है), ऐसे निबंधनों और शर्तों का
जो केन्द्रीय सरकार इस निमित्त अधिरोपित करना उचित समझे, अनुपालन करने के लिये तैयार है;
अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 11 की उपधारा (1) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, यह निदेश
देती है कि इस प्रकार निहित उक्त 102.181 हेक्टर (लगभग) या
252.49 एकड़ (लगभग) भूमि और उस पर के भू-सतह अधिकार, तारीख 17 मई, 2014 से केन्द्रीय सरकार में इस प्रकार निहित बने रहने की बजाय, निम्नलिखित निबंधनों और शर्ताें के अधीन रहते हुए, उक्त सरकारी कम्पनी में निहित हो जाएंगे, अर्थात्ः-248 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 17, 2015/PAUSA 27, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 1. उक्त सरकारी कम्पनी, उक्त अधिनियम के उपबंधों के
अधीन यथा अवधारित प्रतिकर, ब्याज, नुकसान और वैसी ही मदों
की बाबत् किए गए सभी संदायों की केन्द्रीय सरकार को प्रतिपूर्ति
करेगी;
2. उक्त सरकारी कम्पनी द्वारा शर्त (1) के अधीन, केन्द्रीय
सरकार को संदेय रकमों का अवधारण करने के प्रयोजन के लिये
उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 14 के अधीन एक अधिकरण का गठन
किया जाएगा तथा ऐसे किसी अधिकरण और ऐसे अधिकरण की
सहायता करने के लिये नियुक्त व्यक्तियों के संबंधों में उपगत सभी व्यय, उक्त कम्पनी द्वारा वहन किये जायेंगे और इसी प्रकार निहित
उक्त भूमि में या उस पर के अधिकार के लिये या उसके संबंध
में जैसे अपील आदि सभी विधिक कार्यवाहियों की बाबत उपगत,
सभी व्यय भी, इसी प्रकार उक्त सरकारी कम्पनी द्वारा वहन किये जाएंगे;
3. उक्त सरकारी कम्पनी, केन्द्रीय सरकार या उसके
पदधारियों की, ऐसे किसी अन्य व्यय के संबंध में, क्षतिपूर्ति करेगी
जो इस प्रकार निहित उक्त भूमि में या उस पर के अधिकारों के
बारे में, केन्द्रीय सरकार या उसके पदधारियों द्वारा या उनके विरूद्ध किन्हीं कार्यवाहियों के संबंध में आवश्यक हो ;
4. उक्त सरकारी कम्पनी को, केन्द्रीय सरकार के पूर्व अनुमोदन
के बिना, उक्त भूमि और भूमि में या उसके ऊपर इस प्रकार निहित अधिकार को किसी अन्य व्यक्ति को अंतरित करने की शक्ति नहीं
होगी ; और
5. उक्त सरकारी कम्पनी, ऐसे निदेशों और शर्ताें का, जो
केन्द्रीय सरकार द्वारा, जब कभी आवश्यक हो, उक्त भूमि के विशिष्ट क्षेत्रों के लिये दिए जाएं या अधिरोपित की जाए, पालन
करेगी।
[फा.सं. 43015/05/2011-पीआरआईडब्ल्यू-I]
दोमिनिक डुंगडुंग, अवर सचिव land) vested absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances under sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the said Act.
And whereas the Central Government is satisfied that the South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road, Post Box No. 60, District Bilaspur-495006 (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 power conferred by sub-section (1) of section 11 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby direct that the land measuring 102.181 hectares (approximately) or 252.49 acres (approximately) and the surface rights in or over the said lands so vested shall with effect from the 17th May, 2014 instead of continuing to so vest in the Central Government shall vest in the Government Company subject to the following terms and conditions namely:.
1. The Government Company shall reimburse to the Central Government all payments made in respect of compensation, interest, damages and the like as determined under the provisions of the said Act;
2. A Tribunal shall be constituted under section 14 of the said Act for the purpose of determining the amounts payable to the Central Government by the Government Company under conditions (1) and all expenditure incurred in connection with any such tribunal and persons appointed to assist the tribunal shall be borne by the Government Company and similarly, all expenditure incurred in respect of all legal proceedings like appeals etc. for or in connection with the rights in or over the said lands so vesting shall also be borne by the Government Company;
ORDER
New Delhi, the 16th January, 2015
S.O. 123.—Whereas on the publication of the
notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of
Coal number S.O. 1443, dated the 6th May, 2014 published
in the Gazette of India, Part – II, Section – 3, Sub-section
(ii), dated the 17th May, 2014 issued under Sub-section (i)
of Section 9 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and
Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957) (hereinafter referred
to as the said Act), the lands and the surface rights in or
over the said land described in the Schedule appended to
the said notification (hereinafter referred to as the said 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 or over the said lands so vesting;
4. The Government Company shall have no power to transfer the said lands to any other persons without the previous approval of the Central Government; and
5. The Government Company shall abide by such direction and conditions as may be given or imposed by the Central Government for particular areas of the said lands as and when necessary.
[F. No. 43015/ 05/ 2011 – PRIW-I]
DOMINIC DUNGDUNG, Under Secy.
[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 17, 2015/पौष 27, 1936 249Je vkSj jkstxkj ea=ky;
vkns'k
नई दिल्ली, 9 जनवरी, 2015
का.आ. 124.—जबकि एफसीआई के प्रबंधन से संबंधित नियोक्ताओं तथा उसके कर्मकारों के मध्य औद्योगिक विवाद दिनांक 26.10.2004 के समसंख्यक आदेश द्वारा न्यायनिर्णयन हेतु केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण-सह-श्रम न्यायालय संख्या 1, नई दिल्ली को भेजा गया था।
और जबकि संबंधित पक्षों ने सरकार को इस मामले को न्यायनिर्णयन हेतु राष्ट्रीय न्यायाधिकरण को भेजने के प्रतिवेदन दिए क्योंकि इस विवाद में शामिल मामला विभिन्न राज्यों में स्थापित एफसीआई के डिपों से संबंधित है।
और जबकि माननीय दिल्ली उच्च न्यायालय ने रिट याचिका संख्या 3792/2004 में सरकार को इस विवाद को राष्ट्रीय औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण में भेजने तथा विचारार्थ विषयों को संशोधित करने का निदेश दिया है।
और जबकि केन्द्रीय सरकार ने औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 7ख द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए एक राष्ट्रीय औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण गठित किया जिसका मुख्यालय मुम्बई में रखा गया और न्यायमूर्ति श्री घनश्याम दास, तत्कालीन पीठासीन अधिकारी, सीजीआईटी संख्या 1, मुम्बई को इसके पीठासीन अधिकारी के रूप में नियुक्त किया और उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 10 की उप-धारा (1क) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए उक्त औद्योगिक विवाद को दिनांक 10.11.2005 के आदेश द्वारा निम्नलिखित संशोधित विचारार्थ विषयों के साथ न्यायनिर्णयन हेतु उपरोक्त राष्ट्रीय औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण को सौंपा गया :-
और जबकि न्यायमूर्ति श्री गौरी शंकर सर्राफ ने दिनांक 07.09.2012 को पंचाट जारी करके संदर्भ संख्या एनटीबी-1/2005 के अंतर्गत मामले को निपटाया;
और जबकि भारतीय खाद्य निगम (एफसीआई) के प्रबंधन ने रिट याचिका संख्या 2013 की 10823 दायर करके एनआईटी, मुम्बई के दिनांक 07.09.2012 के पंचाट को माननीय उच्च न्यायालय बाम्बे के समक्ष चुनौती दी;
और जबकि माननीय उच्च न्यायालय, बाम्बे ने रिट याचिका संख्या 2013 की 10823 में दिनांक 22.04.2014 के अपने आदेष द्वारा दिनांक 22.04.2014 संदर्भ संख्या एनटीबी-1/2005 को पलट दिया तथा राष्ट्रीय औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण, मुम्बई को रिट याचिका संख्या 2013 की 10823 में माननीय उच्च न्यायालय के दिनांक 22.04.2014 के आदेश में उल्लेख के प्रकाश में विषय निर्धारित करने का निदेष दिया;
और जबकि न्यायमूर्ति श्री गौरी शंकर सर्राफ ने अपनी सेवानिवृत्ति पर उक्त राष्ट्रीय औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण का पदभार छोड़ दिया;
अतः अब एक राष्ट्रीय औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण की स्थापना की जाती है जिसका मुख्यालय मुम्बई में होगा और जिसके पीठासीन अधिकारी सीजीआईटी-सह-श्रम न्यायालय सं. 1, मुम्बई के पीठासीन अधिकारी, सत्यपूत मेहरोत्रा होंगे तथा उपर्युक्त विवाद को न्याय-निर्णयन के लिए राष्ट्रीय औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण को इस निर्देष के साथ संदर्भित किया जाता है कि न्यायमूर्ति श्री सत्यपूत मेहरोत्रा इस मामले में रिट याचिका संख्या 2013 की 10823 में माननीय उच्च न्यायालय, बाम्बे के दिनांक 22.04.2014 के आदेश में दिए गए निदेशों के अनुसार आगे कार्रवाई करेंगे तथा तदनुसार इस मामले को निपटाएंगे।
[सं. एल-22012/359/2003-आईआर (सी-II)]
मो. जाहिद शरीफ, अनुभाग अधिकारी
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
ORDER
"क्या दिनांक 01.07.2002 के परिपत्र नोटिस तथा दिनांक 19.01.2004 के परिपत्र संख्या 1 एवं 2 द्वारा भारतीय खाद्य निगम द्वारा 6½ तथा 8 घण्टों के मध्य समयोपरि कार्य के लिए अपने खाद्य रख-रखाव कामगारों के समयोपरि वेतन की दरों को सामान्य वेतन दरों के 1.25 गुणा से 1.1 गुणा कम करने तथा इसके अतिरिक्त संबंधित राज्यों के दुकान एवं प्रतिष्ठान अधिनियम के अनुसार 8 घण्टों से अधिक कार्य के लिए 1.1 गुणा कम करना वैधानिक एवं न्यायोचित है? यदि नहीं, तो कर्मकार कितनी राहत के पात्र हैं?"
और जबकि न्यायमूर्ति श्री घनश्याम दास ने दिनांक 06.02.2006 को उक्त राष्ट्रीय औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण का पदभार छोड़ दिया;
और जबकि केन्द्र सरकार ने दिनांक 03.01.2011 के आदेश द्वारा राष्ट्रीय न्यायाधिकरण को पुनर्गठित किया तथा न्यायमूर्ति श्री गौरी शंकर सर्राफ को इसका पीठासीन अधिकारी नियुक्त किया;
New Delhi, the 9th January, 2015
S.O. 124.—Whereas an industrial dispute between employers in relation to Management of FCI and their workmen was referred for adjudication to Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.1, New Delhi vide order of even number dated 26.10.2004.
And whereas the parties concerned made representations to the Government for referring the matter for adjudication to National Tribunal as the issue involved in the dispute pertains to depots of FCI located at various States;
And whereas the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P. No. 3792/2004 has given a direction to the Government250 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 17, 2015/PAUSA 27, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] to refer the dispute to a National Industrial Tribunal and to modify the terms of reference.
And whereas the Central Government, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 7 B of the I.D. Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), constituted a National Industrial Tribunal with the Head Quarters at Mumbai and appointed Justice Shri Ghanshyam Dass, the then Presiding Officer, CGIT No.1, Mumbai as its Presiding Officer, and in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1 A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, referred the said Industrial Dispute to the said National Tribunal for adjudication with following revised / modified terms of reference vide order dated 10.11.2005:-
"Whether the action of the Food Corporation of India in reducing the rates of Overtime wages of its food handling workers from 1.25 times to 1.1 times of the normal rates of wages for overtime work between 6 ½ and 8 hours and further from as per the Shops & Establishment Act of the respective states to 1.1 times for work beyond 8 hours, both by Circular Notice dated 1.7.2002 and Circular Nos. 1 & 2 both dated 19.1.2004 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled?"
And whereas Justice Shri Ghanshyam Dass relinquished the charge of the said National Industrial Tribunal on 06.02.2006;
And whereas Central Government vide order dated 03.01.2011 reconstituted the National Tribunal and appointed Justice Shri Gauri Shanker Sarraf as its Presiding Officer;
And whereas Justice Gauri Shanker Sarraf disposed of the dispute under Reference No. NTB-1/2005 by way of Award dated 7th September, 2012;
And whereas the Management of Food Corporation of India (FCI) challenged the Award dated 07.09.2012 of NIT, Mumbai before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay by filing Writ Petition No. 10823 of 2013;
And whereas the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay vide their order dated 22.04.2014 in Writ Petition No. 10823 of 2013 set aside the award dated 22.04.2014 in Ref. No NTB-1/2005 and directed the National Industrial Tribunal, Mumbai to decide the reference in the light of what is stated in the order dated 22.04.2014 of the Hon'ble High Court in Writ Petition No. 10823 of 2013;
And whereas Justice Gauri Shanker Sarraf relinquished the charge of the said National Industrial Tribunal on his retirement;
Now, therefore, a National Industrial Tribunal is constituted with Headquarters at Mumbai with Justice Shri Satya Poot Mehrotra, Presiding Officer of CGIT-cum- Labour Court No.1, Mumbai as its Presiding Officer and the above said dispute is referred to the said National Industrial Tribunal for adjudication with a direction that Justice Shri Satya Poot Mehrotra shall proceed in the matter as per the directions given by the Hon,ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay vide order dated 22.04.2014 in Writ Petition No. 10823 of 2013 and dispose of the same accordingly.
[No. L-22012/359/2003-IR(C-II)]
Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer
vkns'k
नई दिल्ली, 14 जनवरी, 2015
का.आ. 125.—जबकि केन्द्रीय सरकार का मत है कि बजाज इलैक्ट्रिकल्स लिमिटेड के प्रबंधन और उनके कामगारों के बीच औद्योगिक विवाद विद्यमान है :
तथा जबकि गुजरात के माननीय उच्च न्यायालय, अहमदाबाद ने विविध सिविल आवेदन सं. 1943/2003 तथा विविध सिविल आवेदन सं. 1711/2003 में निदेष दिया कि औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 के उपबंधों के अंतर्गत मामले पर विचार किया जाए और उपयुक्त निर्णय लिया जाए;
तथा जबकि एक से अधिक राज्य में स्थित बजाज इलैक्ट्रिकल्स लिमिटेड के स्थापनों के इससे संबद्ध अथवा प्रभावित होने की संभावना है;
तथा जबकि केन्द्रीय सरकार का मत है कि उक्त विवाद का
न्याय-निर्णयन राष्ट्रीय न्यायाधिकरण द्वारा किया जाए;
तथा जबकि केन्द्रीय सरकार ने औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947(1997 का 14) की धारा 7ख द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए श्रम मंत्रालय के दिनांक 06.09.2004 के आदेष सं. एल-42012/144/2004-आईआर(सी-II) के माध्यम से राष्ट्रीय औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण गठित किया जिसका मुख्यालय मुम्बई में रखा गया तथा न्यायाधीष एस. सी. पाण्डे को इसका पीठासीन अधिकारी नियुक्त किया तथा उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 10 की उप-धारा(1क) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए उक्त औद्योगिक विवाद को न्याय निर्णयन हेतु उक्त राष्ट्रीय औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण को भेज दिया;
तथा जबकि न्यायाधीष श्री एस. सी. पाण्डे ने 8.9.2004 को उपर्युक्त राष्ट्रीय औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण का पदभार त्याग दिया;
तथा जबकि केन्द्रीय सरकार ने दिनांक 10.11.2005 के आदेष के माध्यम से राष्ट्रीय न्यायाधिकरण का पुनर्गठन किया तथा न्यायाधीष श्री घनष्याम दास को इसका पीठासीन अधिकारी नियुक्त किया;
तथा जबकि न्यायाधीष श्री घनष्याम दास ने 06.02.2006 को उक्त राष्ट्रीय औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण का पदभार छोड़ दिया;
[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 17, 2015/पौष 27, 1936 251तथा जबकि केन्द्रीय सरकार ने दिनांक 3.1.2011 के आदेष के माध्यम से राष्ट्रीय न्यायाधिकरण का पुनर्गठन किया तथा न्यायाधीष श्री गौरी शंकर सर्राफ को इसका पीठासीन अधिकारी नियुक्त किया;
तथा जबकि न्यायाधीष श्री गौरी शंकर सर्राफ ने दिनांक 20.09.2011 को निर्णय देकर विवाद का निपटान किया तथा न्यायाधीष श्री गौरी शंकर सर्राफ ने 30.06.2013 को अपनी सेवानिवृत्ति पर उक्त राष्ट्रीय औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण का पदभार छोड़ दिया;
तथा जबकि मैसर्स बजाज इलैक्ट्रिकल्स लिमिटेड और उनके कामगारों के बीच मौजूदा विवादों के संदर्भ में अनुमोदन संबंधी आवेदनों और षिकायतों का निपटान करने के लिए राष्ट्रीय औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण गठित किया जाना अपेक्षित है;
अतः, इसलिए एक राष्ट्रीय औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण की स्थापना की जाती है जिसका मुख्यालय मुंबई में होगा और जिसके पीठासीन अधिकारी सीजीआईटी संख्या 1, मुंबई के पीठासीन अधिकारी न्यायाधीष श्री सत्यपूत मेहरोत्रा होंगे तथा उपर्युक्त विवाद को न्याय निर्णयन के लिए उक्त राष्ट्रीय औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण को इस निदेष के साथ भेजा जाता है कि न्यायाधीष श्री सत्यपूत महरोत्रा मामले में कार्यवाही करेंगे तथा तदनुसार इसका निपटान करेंगे।
[सं. एल-42012/144/2004-आईआर (सी-II)]
जोहन टोपनो, अवर सचिव dated 6.9.2004 with Headquarters at Mumbai and appointed Justice Shri S.C. Pandey as its Presiding Officer and in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1A) of Section 10 of the said Act, referred the said Industrial Dispute to the said National Industrial Tribunal for adjudication;
And whereas Justice Shri S.C. Pandey relinquished charge of the above National Industrial Tribunal on 8.9.2004;
And whereas Central Government vide order dated 10.11.2005 reconstituted the National Tribunal and appointed Justice Shri Ghanshyam Dass as its Presiding Officer;
And whereas Justice Shri Ghanshyam Dass relinquished the charge of the said National Industrial Tribunal on 06.02.2006;
And whereas Central Government vide order dated 3.1.2011 reconstituted the National Tribunal and appointed Justice Shri Gauri Shanker Sarraf as its Presiding Officer;
And whereas Justice Shri Gauri Shanker Sarraf disposed of the dispute by way of Award dated 20.9.2011 and Shri Gauri Shanker Sarraf relinquished the charge of the said National Industrial Tribunal on his retirement on 30.06.2013;
And whereas the National Industrial Tribunal is required to be constituted to deal with the Approval Applications and complaints in reference disputes exists between M/s. Bajaj Electricals Limited and their workmen;
ORDER
New Delhi, the 14th January, 2015
S.O. 125.—Whereas the Central Govt. is of the opinion that an industrial dispute exists between the management of Bajaj Electricals Limited and their workmen :
And whereas the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Misc. Civil Application No.1943/2003 in Misc. Civil Application No.1711/2003 gave a direction to consider the matter under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and take appropriate decision;
And whereas the establishments of Bajaj Electricals Limited situated in more than one State are likely to be interested in, or affected;
And whereas the Central Government is of the opinion that the said dispute should be adjudicated by a National Tribunal;
And whereas the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 7 B of the I.D. Act, 1947 (14 of 1997) constituted a National Industrial Tribunal vide Ministry of Labour Order No.L-42012/144/2004-IR(C-II) Now therefore, a National Industrial Tribunal is constituted with Headquarters at Mumbai with Justice Shri Satya Poot Mehrotra, Presiding Officer of CGIT No.1, Mumbai as its Presiding Officer and the above said dispute is referred to the above said National Industrial Tribunal for adjudication with a direction that Justice Shri Satya Poot Mehrotra shall proceed in the matter and dispose of the same accordingly.
[No. L-42012/144/2004-IR(C-II)]
JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
vkns'k
नई दिल्ली, 14 जनवरी, 2015
का.आ. 126.—जबकि केन्द्रीय सरकार का मत है कि बजाज इलैक्ट्रिकल्स के प्रबंधन और उनके कामगारों के बीच औद्योगिक विवाद विद्यमान हैः
तथा जबकि औद्योगिक विवाद में राष्ट्रीय महत्व का प्रसंग निहित है तथा ऐसी प्र—ति का भी है कि इससे संबद्ध अथवा प्रभावित होने की संभावना है;
252 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 17, 2015/PAUSA 27, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]तथा जबकि केन्द्रीय सरकार ने औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1997 का 14) की धारा 7ख द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए श्रम मंत्रालय के दिनांक 08.05.1997 के आदेष सं. एल-51016/01/1996-आईआर (आईएमपी-II) के माध्यम से राष्ट्रीय औद्योगिक न्यायाधीकरण गठित किया जिसका मुख्यालय मुम्बई में रखा गया तथा न्यायाधीष आर. एस. वर्मा को इसका पीठासीन अधिकारी नियुक्त किया तथा उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 10 की उप-धारा (1क) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए उक्त औद्योगिक विवाद को न्याय निर्णयन हेतु उक्त राष्ट्रीय औद्योगिक न्यायाधीकरण को भेज दिया;
तथा जबकि इसके परिणामस्वरूप केन्द्रीय सरकार ने राष्ट्रीय न्यायाधीकरण का पुनर्गठन किया और न्यायाधीष श्री जस्टिस एस. सी. पाण्डे, सेवानिवृत्त उच्च न्यायालय जज, मध्य प्रदेष को इसका पीठासीन अधिकारी नियुक्त किया;
तथा जबकि न्यायाधीष श्री जस्टिस एस. सी. पाण्डे ने दिनांक 20 फरवरी, 2004 को निर्णय देकर विवाद का निपटान किया तथा श्री एस. सी. पाण्डे ने अपनी सेवानिवृत्ति पर उक्त राष्ट्रीय औद्योगिक न्यायाधीकरण का पदभार छोड़ दिया;
तथा जबकि मैसर्स बजाज इलैक्ट्रिकल्स लिमिटेड और उनके कामगारों के बीच मौजूदा विवाद के संदर्भ में अनुमोदन के आवेदनों और षिकायतों का निपटान करने के लिए राष्ट्रीय औद्योगिक न्यायाधीकरण गठित किया जाना अपेक्षित है।
अतः, अब एक राष्ट्रीय औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण की स्थापना की जाती है जिसका मुख्यालय मुंबई में होगा और जिसके पीठासीन अधिकारी सीजीआईटी- सह-श्रम न्यायालय संख्या 1 के पीठासीन अधिकारी न्यायमूर्ति श्री सत्यपूत मेहरोत्रा होगें तथा उपर्युक्त विवाद को न्याय निर्णयन के लिए उक्त राष्ट्रीय औद्योगिक न्यायाधीकरण को भेजा जाता है कि जस्टिस श्री सत्यपूत महरोत्रा मामले में कार्यवाही करेंगे तथा तदनुसार इसका निपटान करेंगे।
[सं. एल-51016/01/96-आईआर (आईएमपी-II) (ख्ांड फाईल)]
वयाईला रूंगसुंग, उप सचिव (14 of 1997) constituted a National Industrial Tribunal vide Ministry of Labour Order No. L—51016/01/1996-IR(IMP- II) dated 08.05.1997 with Headquarters at Mumbai and appointed Justice R. S. Vermaas its Presiding Officer and in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-Section (1A) of Section 10 of the said Act, referred the said Industrial Dispute to the said National Industrial Tribunal for adjudication;
And whereas consequently, the Central Government reconstituted the National Tribunal and appointed Justice Shri Justice S. C. Pandey, retired High Court Judge, Madhya Pradesh, as its Presiding Officer;
And whereas Justice Shri Justice S. C. Pandey disposed off the dispute by way of Award dated 20th February, 2004 and Shri S. C. Pandey relinquished the charge of the said National Industrial Tribunal on his retirement;
And whereas the National Industrial Tribunal is required to be constituted to deal with the Approval Applications and complaints in reference disputes exists between M/s. Bajaj Electricals Limited and their workmen;
Now, therefore, a National Industrial Tribunal is constituted with Headquarters at Mumbai with Justice Shri Satya Poot Mehrotra, Presiding Officer of CGIT-cum- Labour court No.1, Mumbai as its Presiding Officer and the above said dispute is referred to the said National Industrial Tribunal for adjudication with a direction that Justice Shri Satya Poot Mehrotra shall proceed in the matter and dispose of the same accordingly.
[No. L-51016/01/96-IR (IMP-II) (Part File)]
VAYAILA RUNGSUNG, Dy. Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 9 जनवरी, 2015
का.आ. 127.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार भारत संचार निगम लिमिटेड और दूसरों के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, चेन्नई के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 10/2013द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 08/01/2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
ORDER
New Delhi, the 14th January, 2015
S.O. 126.—Whereas the Central Govt. is of the
opinion that an industrial dispute existed between the management of Bajaj Electricals and their workmen:
And whereas the industrial dispute involves question of national importance and also is of such nature that are likely to be interested in or affected;
And whereas the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 7 B of the I.D. Act, 1947 [सं. एल-40012/26/2012-आईआर ;डीयूद्ध]
पी. के. वेणुगोपाल, डेस्क अध्किारी
New Delhi, the 9th January, 2015
S.O. 127.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 10/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 17, 2015/पौष 27, 1936 253 management of the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & Others, and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 08/01/2015.
[No. L-40012/26/2012-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer and R. Kartick w.e.f. 06.05.2012 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled?"
ANNEXURE
2. On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has numbered it as ID 10/2013 and issued notice to both sides. Both parties have entered appearance through their counsel and filed Claim and Counter Statements respectively.
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR
COURT, CHENNAI
Wednesday, the 17th December, 2014
Present : K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI,
Presiding Officer
Though the reference pertains to two workmen viz. Sathish Kumar and Karthik. Karthik is said to have waived his claim. The Claim Statement is filed only by Sathish Kumar. 3. The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the petitioner in brief are these:
Industrial Dispute No. 10/2013
(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), between the Management of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and another and their workman)
BETWEEN :
Sri G. D. Sathish Kumar : 1st Party/Petitioner
AND
1. The Executive Engineer (E) : 2nd Party/1st Respondent
BSNL Electrical Division-II, Block-3/D3, RGMTTC GST Road, Meenambakkam Chennai-600027
2. M/s. Air Cool Engineers : 2nd Party/2nd Respondent
(Contractor), No. 24, Deivanayagam Street, Nungambakkam Chennai-600034
Appearance :
For the 1st Party/Petitioner : M/s. S. Anbalagan,
Advocates
For the 2nd Party/ : M/s. P. Arulmudi, 1st Management Advocates
For the 2nd Party/ : M/s. N. Nithianandam, 2nd Management Advocates
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No. L-40012/26/2012-IR (DU) dated 23.01.2013 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is :
"Whether the action of the management of BSNL and their Contractor M/s. Aircool Engineers in terminating the services of Sri G.D. Sathish Kumar The petitioner has completed ITI Course in AC Mechanic Trade. The First Respondent has several telephone exchanges, administrative offices and AC plants for its smooth functioning. It is engaged in telecommunication services, internal telephone lines, cables, maintenance of telephone services, etc. The First Respondent has AC Package Units in Cuddalore at six centres. The maintenance of those AC Package Units were given to Contractors periodically by the First Respondent. The petitioner was engaged by the First Respondent for maintenance works in AC Plant at Cuddalore Main Exchange through a Contractor, in the year 2006. The petitioner was continuously in the above unit under various Contractors. Though the Contractors have changed, the petitioner continued to work. The petitioner is to maintain the temperature of the AC unit at a particular level, check the temperature every one hour and is to rectify problems if any, that arise in the circuits and is also to change the fan leaf etc. for the smooth functioning of the unit. Thus the employment of the petitioner is perennial in nature. The entire service of the petitioner was controlled by the Sub-Divisional Engineer or other Officers of the First Respondent. They used to instruct the petitioner regarding the work to be done. They used to recommend action against the Contract Workers if they committed any misconduct. The Second Respondent was the successful bidder in the e-tender process floated for selecting maintainer of AC Plants coming under the jurisdiction of the First Respondent. He was allowed contract for two years for the period from January 2012. The petitioner was given duty at Cuddalore Main Branch. He had to work for 12 hours but he was not paid any overtime allowance. The Second Respondent has refused to pay minimum wages as per law also. When the petitioner started demanding minimum wages the Second Respondent started issuing salary in cash after getting signature in blank vouchers. On 05.06.2012 the Second Respondent has informed the petitioner that he has been terminated from service. The petitioner has learnt that the contract has been awarded to the Second Respondent without verifying whether the Second Respondent is having a valid license. Since the work performed by the petitioner is perennial in nature and the engagement is against the254 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 17, 2015/PAUSA 27, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] provisions of CLRA Act, the contract between the First and Second Respondent is sham and bogus and the petitioner's termination is illegal and unjustified. An order may be passed holding that the contract between the Respondents is sham and bogus and directing the First Respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with back wages and other attendant benefits.
4. The First Respondent has filed Counter Statement contending as follows:
own from 05.06.2012 without informing the Second Respondent. The work done by the petitioner is not perennial in nature. It is incorrect to state that the petitioner was made to work for 12 hours and was not paid overtime allowance. So also the averment that he was not paid minimum wages also is not correct. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief.
6. The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence of WW1 and MW1 and documents marked as Ext. W1 to Ext. W13 and Ext. M1 and Ext. M2.
7. The points for consideration are:
(i) Whether the action of the Respondents in terminating the service of the petitioner is legal and justified?
(ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated in
the service of the First Respondent?
The Points
Maintenance of AC Package units of the First Respondent were entrusted to various Contractors from time to time. The First Respondent has never engaged the petitioner directly. There was no employer-employee relationship between the petitioner and the First Respondent. The petitioner had worked under various Contractors from time to time. The Contractor had been engaging skilled person exclusively for repair of the AC Package Units. The claim of the petitioner that he was rectifying the problems of the unit is not correct. Being the principal employer the First Respondent can only ensure that the petitioner was drawing not less than minimum wages fixed by the Central Labour Authority for contractual workers from time to time. The job of the petitioner was to switch off and switch on the Package AC units which is not skilled in nature. At present the comprehensive maintenance of Package ÄC units is entrusted to the Second Respondent. The performance of the petitioner is known to the Contractor only. The contention that the contract has been awarded to the Second Respondent without verifying whether he has valid license is denied. Since the petitioner was only contract labour under different Contractors from time to time, the question of reinstatement of the petitioner by the First Respondent does not arise. He is not entitled to any relief.
5. The Second Respondent has filed Counter Statement contending as follows:
The First Respondent is having seven TR AC Package units for various telephone exchanges under ESD, Cuddalore Apart from the regular work force, the First Respondent engages private contractors for executing the work in the AC Package Units. The Contractors in turn engage contract workers for the work. The First Respondent was in the practice of awarding contract periodically for a specified period. The Second Respondent was awarded the contract for a period from 17.01.2011 to 16.12.2013 for comprehensive maintenance of 7 TR Package units for various telephone exchanges for ESD, Cuddalore. The Second Respondent is having valid license under CLRA Act. The contract workers engaged by the Second Respondent are paid wages as fixed under Minimum Wages Act. The petitioner was engaged as contract worker by the Second Respondent for the execution of the work. He was working as an unskilled worker. He stopped reporting for duty on his 8. According to the petitioner he has worked for the First Respondent under different Contractors for the maintenance work of Air-Condition Plants at Cuddalore. According to him though the Contractors have changed periodically, he was working continuously under the First Respondent. His work was to maintain the temperature of the AC unit at a particular level, check the temperature every one hour, rectify problems if any and maintain the unit. According to him, though salary was paid by the Contractors, he was controlled by the Sub-Divisional Engineer, Cuddalore or other Officers of the Respondent. They were giving instructions to him as to what is to be done. They were recommending action to be taken against the contract workers if they committed any misconduct. The Second Respondent who was awarded the contract for the period from January 2012 to December 2013 has given him duty at Cuddalore alongwith the second petitioner whose name was waived from the Claim Statement on his request. Though, duty was round the clock only two persons were allotted in the unit of Cuddalore and the petitioner was forced to work 12 hours a day even without any overtime allowance. According to the petitioner the work done by him was perennial in nature. The Second Respondent is said to have threatened him when he demanded minimum wages. He is said to have informed the petitioner on 05.06.2012 that he has been terminated from service. According to the petitioner his engagement was against the provisions of CLRA Act also. He has contended that the contract between the First and Second Respondent is sham and bogus and the action of the First and Second Respondent in terminating his service is illegal and unjustified. He is seeking an order to reinstate him in service with back wages and other benefits.
9. The case that is advanced by First Respondent is that there was never employer-employee relationship[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 17, 2015/पौष 27, 1936 255 between the petitioner and the First Respondent. The Second Respondent also has stated in the Counter Statement that he has engaged the petitioner for work, he being the Contractor for two years for the maintenance of AC Package Units at Cuddalore and other six centres.
10. The petitioner has given evidence as WW1 asserting his case that he started to work with the First Respondent through a Contractor in the year 2006 and that he was throughout working for the First Respondent even though the Contractors changed periodically during this time.
11. It could be seen from the Counter Statement filed by the First Respondent that the case of the petitioner that he was working for the First Respondent throughout from 2006 is not denied. The only case is that it was as engaged by the Contractor he was working and there was no employer-employee relationship between them.
12. During his examination the Second Respondent has admitted that the petitioner was employed by him at the time of execution of the contract between him and the First Respondent itself. He has further admitted that the petitioner was working with the previous contractor also for the First Respondent. He has also admitted that there was issue between him and the petitioner in the matter of minimum wages and it was brought before the Regional Labour Commissioner. He was asked to pay difference in wages, overtime wages and compensation. According to him he has filed appeal against this order and he has obtained a stay of the execution of the order also. The case of the petitioner is that the Second Respondent has been threatening him in this respect and ultimately he was not allowed to continue in the work.
13. In support of his contention that the contract between the First and Second Respondents is bogus, one argument that is advanced by the counsel for the petitioner is that the Second Respondent has no license under CLRA Act to enter into the contract. The Second Respondent has produced Ext.M1 said to be the certificate of registration under the CLRA Act. It is pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner that this document will not show that the Second Respondent has got necessary license. According to him, in the absence of license produced by the Second Respondent, Ext.M2 the contract between the First and Second Respondent for maintenance of the seven AC units of the First Respondent is to be treated as sham and nominal. The counsel has referred to the decision of the Karnataka High Court in FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA LORRY WORKERS UNION VS. FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA reported in 1987 1 LLJ 407 and also decision of the Gujarat High Court in FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA EMPLOYEES UNION VS. FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA AND OTHERS reported in 1990 1 GLR 384 where it was held that a worker who works for a principal employer to whom the provisions of the CLRA Act are attracted is to be treated as the worker of the employer unless the establishment has secured a certificate of registration and it had employed contract labour through a licensed Contractor. However, these decisions are against the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in this respect. In the decisions in NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CORPORATION AND OTHERS VS. BADRI SINGH THAKUR AND OTHERS reported in 2009 1 LLJ 198 and MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI VS. SHRAMIK SANGH AND OTHERS reported in 2002 2 LLJ 544 it has been laid down that the conclusion that the contract was sham or it was only a camouflage cannot be arrived at as a matter of law for non-compliance of the provisions of CLRA Act but a finding must be recorded based on evidence particularly when disputed, by a industrial adjudicator. So the argument that the contract between the First and Second Respondents is sham and nominal in the absence of license for the Second Respondent is not available for the petitioner.
14. Irrespective of whether registration certificate was obtained by the principal employer under CLRA Act or whether license was obtained by the Contract under the said Act, based on evidence, it is to be decided whether the contract is sham and nominal. One aspect that has been pointed out by the counsel on behalf of the petitioner is that the work done by the petitioner is perennial in nature. On going through the counter statement of the Respondents, it could be seen that there is not even a contention for the Respondents that the work is not perennial in nature. The duty of the petitioner and such others engaged for the First Respondent was maintenance of AC Package Units. Of course, there is a contention for the Respondents that the petitioner was not doing any skilled work but he was only switching of and switching on the AC units. According to the Respondents, maintenance used to be done by some other person. At the same time though the petitioner has contended in the Claim Statement itself that he has completed ITI in AC Mechanic trade, this is not specifically denied in the Counter Statements. Even assuming that the petitioner was not doing any maintenance work it is very much clear that the work was perennial in nature. Unless the AC units are working non-stop the First Respondent would not be able to provided uninterrupted service of telecommunications. The petitioner has alleged in the Claim Statement that even though the units are to function round the clock only two persons including him were engaged at Cuddalore and he was forced to work 12 hours a day even without any overtime allowance. It is very much clear from the admission of MW1 itself that the petitioner had been working 12 hours a day. He has stated during his cross-examination that apart from the usual 8 hours the workers will be working four hours overtime also. This admission by the Second Respondent makes it clear that the AC units were working round the clock and256 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 17, 2015/PAUSA 27, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] the petitioner and his co-worker had to work continuously for 24 hours. It is clear from this that the work done by the petitioner was perennial in nature.
different Contractors. Since the contract between the First and Second Respondent is found to be camouflage the petitioner is to be treated as a worker directly employed by the First Respondent. He seems to have been turned out of work for no valid reason. So he is entitled to be reinstated in service by the First Respondent. However, the petitioner would not be entitled to any back wages.
18. In view of my discussion above, the First Respondent is directed to reinstate the petitioner in service within a month.
An award is passed accordingly.
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner : WW1, Sri G. D. Sathish
Kumar
For the 2nd Party/Management : MW1, Sri K. Veera
Documents Marked:
On the petitioner's side
15. Now the question to be considered is who was controlling and supervising the petitioner and who was supervising him. It could be seen from the very averment in the claim Statement that wages used to be paid to him by the Contractor. Himself and others have proceeded against the Second Respondent for not paying minimum wages. However, there is sufficient evidence to show that the control of the petitioner was by the First Respondent itself. As already stated the petitioner had been working with the First Respondent irrespective of the change in contract and change in the Contractors. The petitioner has started to work with the First Respondent in the year 2006. Even though different Contractors came and left, he continued to work for the First Respondent until he was prevented from work by the Second Respondent. This would show that the engagement of the petitioner was in fact not on the basis of the contract but he was accepted by the First Respondent throughout as a worker, whoever was the Contractor. In Ext.W6 the reply given by the First Respondent under the Right to Information Act, the First Respondent has stated that though only 15 workers are engaged and so contract need not be covered under the Provident Fund and ESI Acts, they are taking care of the above benefits in respect of the persons engaged. This would show that the First Respondent was directly taking care of the affairs of those who were engaged.
16. The Second Respondent has stated during his cross- examination that there were 10 workers at Cuddalore under him and the petitioner was employed as AC Operator. He had claimed that the petitioner was working under his instruction. However he was the Contractor for four other units also. He also stated that there was no need for day- to-day instructions for the workers since their duty was only to switch on and switch of the AC units. At the same time he admitted that the security staff of the First Respondent, the Junior Engineer and the Assistant Engineer of the unit will be checking whether the workers were reaching in time at the place of work. This would show that whatever control required was exercised by the Officers of the First Respondent and not the Second Respondent. It could be seen that in spite of the perennial nature of the work the First Respondent was executing contract with different persons as a camouflage only to deny the deserving benefits to the petitioners and others of his kind. It is very much clear from the evidence that unless the AC units are made to work continuously the First Respondent would not be able to function. This very perennial nature of the work would show that the contracts were meant only as camouflage.
17. The petitioner had worked with the First Respondent continuously from the year 2006 though nominally under Ex.No. Date Description
Ex.W1 04.03.2010 Service certificate issued to the
petitioner
Ex.W2 01.04.2010 Difference of wages –
comparative statement
Ex.W3 12.05.2010 Letter by BSNL
Ex.W4 23.06.2011 Application filed under RTI
Ex.W5 04.07.2011 Circular by the Ministry of
Labour
Ex.W6 10.08.2011 Reply given under RTI
Ex.W7 22.05.2012 Strike Notice given by the
Union
Ex.W8 22.05.2012 Telegram sent to various
authorities
Ex.W9 06.06.2012 Letter by the petitioner to the 1st Respondent about sudden removal
Ex.W10 18.06.2012 Minutes of the proceedings of
the Labour Officer
Ex.W11 04.09.2012 Conciliation failure report
Ex.W12 05.11.2012 Application under Minimum
Wages Act by Union
Ex.W13 09.10.2013 Letter by the Department of
BSNL[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 17, 2015/पौष 27, 1936 257
On the Management's side
Ex.No. Date Description
Ex.M1 07.07.2011 Certificate of Registration for CLRA Act 1970 issued to the 2nd Respondent
AND
The Executive Manager : 2nd Party/Respondent Filaure Auroshilpam No. VM-214-Auroville Villupuram
Appearance :
Ex.M2 07.12.2011 Agreement entered into between the 1st Respondent
and the 2nd Respondent
नई दिल्ली, 9 जनवरी, 2015
For the 1st Party/ : M/s. Ramapriya Gopalakrishnan, Petitioner Advocate
For the 2nd Party/ : M/s. Subhang Nair & Prahalad Management Bhat, Advocates
AWARD
का.आ. 128.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार पिफलौरे औरोशिल्पं, विल्लुपुरम के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, चेन्नई के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 48/2013द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 08/01/2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल-42011/09/2013-आईआर ;डीयूद्ध]
पी. के. वेणुगोपाल, डेस्क अध्किारी
New Delhi, the 9th January, 2015
S.O. 128.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 48/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of the Filaure Auroshilpam, Villupuram and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 08/01/2015.
[No. L-42011/09/2013-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No. L-42011/09/2013-IR (DU) dated 12.04.2013 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is:
"Whether the following demands made by the group of workmen employed in Filaure Auroshilpam, a unit under Auroville Foundation are legal and justified? (i) Minimum guarantee wages of Rs. 8,000/- per month and conversion of piece rate wages to time rate wages (ii) Dearness Allowance from 01.01.2011 and (iii) House Rent Allowance of Rs. 3,000/-. To what relief the concerned workmen are entitled?"
2. On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has numbered it as ID 48/2013 and issued notices to both sides. Both sides have entered appearance through their counsel and filed Claim and Counter Statement respectively. The petitioner has filed rejoinder in answer to the Counter Statement.
3. The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the petitioner in brief are these:
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR
COURT, CHENNAI
Tuesday, the 16th December, 2014
Present : K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 48/2013
(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), between the Management of Filaure Auroshilpam and their workman)
BETWEEN :
Sri A. Segaran & Other : 1st Party/Petitioner Filaure Auroshilpam Employees
The petitioners are workmen of Filaure Auroshilpam, the Respondent establishment. The Respondent is engaged in the business of manufacture and export of readymade garments. It has been engaged in the business for the last 30 years. The unit of the Respondent is located in the industrial zone in Auroville Township in Villupuram District. The industry of the Respondent is predominantly export oriented. The garments manufactured in the industry are exported to the United Kingdom, Germany, France and other foreign countries. They are sold in a boutique in Auroville also. The Respondent industry makes profit of several crores of rupees every month. There are 46 regular workers in the factory. the petitioners are working in the Tailoring Unit of the concern. They have been working in the units for period ranging from 8 to 31 years. They are involved in the work of stitching different types of garments. They work for 6 days a week with work hours from 0830 AM to 0500 PM. The258 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 17, 2015/PAUSA 27, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Respondent unit. The unit of the Respondent was started in 1970. It was registered as a Trust in 1991. It joined Employees Provident Fund in the year 1991. ESI clinic was opened in the locality in the year 2005 and the Respondent had obtained registration immediately bringing all its employees under this scheme. Prior to this, the Respondent had been providing medical treatment to all employees free of cost at Auroville centre. Medical leave was provided to the employees even before the ESI scheme came into force. The unit was profitable upto 2011. While running on profit the Respondent had, in addition to the statutory bonus, paid ex-gratia bonus amounting to more than 20% of the wages to all employees with more than 10 years of service. Prevailing economic situation in Germany where the only export customer of the Respondent is based had made it difficult for the Indian businessmen including Respondent to remain competitive. In spite of this wage increase was given to the employees in 2005. The Respondent had notified wage increase of 10% as in the previous year. However, the petitioners have demanded increase of 15% in the wages. They have gone on a lightning strike from 12.04.2012. They even tried to intimidate the employees who continued to work. During the conciliation proceedings, petitioners 6 to 11 resigned from the Company and accepted settlement. The settlement binds all the workmen who are parties to the dispute. The allegation of discrimination in wage rates are baseless. Piece rate system among the workers of the tailoring unit is required for several reasons. This will provide encouragement of higher production. Since rate per unit is fixed, it is easy to prepare estimates and budgets. Piece rate system is beneficial to both the employees as well as the employer. Piece rate could not be applied to other employees such as cutters, checkers, packers, office staff, etc. Piece rate system is widely employed by Garment Production Units in India as a standard for tailoring as it maximizes efficiency and helps maintain the industry's effectiveness in the competitive global market The other garment units in the area also employ piece rate system for tailoring. All the tailors in the Respondent's unit are paid in excess of minimum wages for tailoring as directed by Government of Tamil Nadu. The contention that the tailors including the petitioners are discriminated and exploited is not correct. The petitioners are not entitled to the relief claimed.
Management has been treating the petitioners in a discriminatory manner in the matter of pay and benefits. While other workmen engaged in the factory are paid on time rate basis, the workmen in the Tailoring unit alone are paid on a piece rate basis. They are not paid allowances such as House Rent Allowance, Dearness Allowance, etc. Other statutory benefits also were denied to them. They were given the benefit of Provident Fund only from 1991. ESI coverage started only in the year 2005. The petitioners had requested the Respondent to pay them wages on time rate basis. But the Respondent did not oblige. On 12.06.2012 the petitioners raised demands such as fixation of Basic Pay @ Rs. 8,000/- per month, payment of Dearness Allowance, abolition of the piece rate method and payment on time rate basis, payment of 30 days a month, payment of full wages for the period of layoff, payment of House Rent Allowance of Rs. 3,000/- per month, City Allowance @ Rs. 100/- per month, Rs. 3000/- per annum as LTC and Rs., 5,000/- per annum as education allowance and Identity Card and proper wage receipts. On 08.11.2012 they raised additional demands of annual increment of 8% of basic pay, traveling allowance of Rs. 1,500/- per month. Medical allowance of Rs. 2,000/- per month, washing allowance of Rs. 1000/- per month, attendance register allowance of Rs. 500/-, one day of casual leave for every 15 days, death relief of Rs. 5,00,000/-, provision of three sets of uniform annually and payment of Rs. 4,000/- per month as Interim Relief. The conciliation proceedings ended in failure and the matter has been referred to this Tribunal on the basis of the failure report sent by the Labour Commissioner. The wages of other workmen in the Respondent Industry range between Rs. 19,000/- and Rs. 22,000/- a month. The gross wage of the petitioners range between Rs. 7,000/- and Rs. 12,000/-. The piece rate system of payment to the petitioners was violative of the law. It is implemented by the Management in an arbitrary manner. The work target is unilaterally fixed by the Management without ascertaining from the workmen whether it is feasible for them to meet the target. Because of the piece rate system adopted by the Management, the petitioners receive a low amount only every month. Prices of essential commodities have increased year after year. The purpose of Dearness Allowance is to neutralize the rise in the cost of living. The benefit should be given to persons such as the petitioners who are drawing low wages. The petitioners are entitled to Time Rate Wages and Dearness Allowance. They are also entitled to House Rent Allowance. An order may be passed accordingly.
5. In the rejoinder filed the petitioners have denied the averments in the Counter Statement and had reiterated their case in the Claim Statement.
4. The Respondent has filed Counter Statement contending as follows:
6. The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence of WW1, WW2 and MW1 and documents marked as Ext.W1 to Ext.W76 and Ext.M1 to Ext.M18.
7. The points for consideration are:
(i) Whether the demands made by the petitioners are Six of the petitioners have resigned from the respondent's establishment. So claim cannot be brought on their behalf. The person who is representing the petitioners is not competent to do so. The Auroville Foundation has no direct control over the activities of the
legal and justified?
[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 17, 2015/पौष 27, 1936 259(ii) What if any are the reliefs to which the petitioners
are entitled?
The Points
8. Though there are eleven petitioners in the ID, only the first three petitioners are now proceeding with the dispute. The other petitioners have settled the dispute with the Respondent Management.
9. All the petitioners are working as Tailors in the Respondent Establishment which is at Auroville in Villupuram District. The first petitioner is said to have joined the respondent institution in 1998, the second petitioner in 1982 and the third petitioner in 1992. These three petitioners and the other petitioners have raised demands including minimum guarantee wage @ Rs. 8,000/-, conversion of piece rate wage to time rate wage, dearness allowance from 01.01.2011 and HRA @ Rs. 3,000/- per month. Some of the petitioners other than the first three petitioners have settled their dispute with the Respondent during the conciliation proceedings and others subsequently. So the first three petitioners only remain in the array for contesting the matter.
10. The payment of wages at the respondent's institution is on piece rate basis so far as the tailors including the petitioners are concerned. According to the petitioners they are discriminated by providing piece rate wages while the other employees in the establishment are paid on time rate basis. It is also alleged that they are not paid dearness allowance, HRA, etc. The payment on piece rate basis is said to be unilaterally fixed by the Management without ascertaining from the workmen whether it is feasible for them to meet the target. The target for the tailors is said to be fixed without any regard to the well- being of the workmen and without considering their age. It is alleged by the petitioners that the work load fixed for them is so high and it is impossible for them to complete the entire work load and earn the stipulated daily wage every day. Against this it is contended by the Respondent that wage at piece rate has been fixed after a scientific assessment. It is further stated that piece rate system will provide encouragement for higher production by rewarding efficient workers in a suitable way. It is further stated that it is easy to prepare quotations, estimates and budgets at piece rate system. It is also pointed out by the Respondent that the piece rate system will be beneficial to both the employer and the employee. It is claimed by the Respondent that the wage paid at the respondent institution is much more than what is fixed as minimum wages by Govt. of Tamil Nadu and the wages paid generally in the industry and particularly in the establishment nearby in the area. There is also a contention for the Respondent that business has slackened since export customers for which it was mainly dependent has reduced to one thereby reducing the business and income of the establishment.
11. Is the wages that is payable to the petitioners at such a low rate, far lesser than what is prevalent in the area and in the industry? On behalf of the petitioners the one who is acting as the representative has been examined. However, it has come out in evidence that he is an outsider to the industry and does not know anything about the same. The other person who has given evidence is the second petitioner. In the affidavit filed by him, he has reiterated the case in the Claim Statement. He has stated in the affidavit that the target fixed by the Respondent used to vary depending upon the type of garment to be stitched and at the beginning of each day, himself and other workmen in the tailoring unit used to be informed about the target for the day or the work load for the day. He has further stated that the work load fixed was so high that it was impossible for them to complete the entire work load and earn the entire stipulated daily wage each day. According to him, because of the piece rate system adopted by the Management the actual wages paid to him each month used to be very low.
12. Against the evidence on behalf of the petitioners there is the evidence of MW1, the executive of the Respondent. He has stated that piece rate system is more beneficial to both employer and employee and this is recognized by a majority of the employees of the Respondent also. He has further stated that piece rate system cannot be applied to employee whose work is not of a repetitive nature and output of the workers is beyond their control. He has stated that this cannot be made applicable to the other employees of the establishment such as pattern makers, cutters, checkers, packers, office staff, watchmen, etc. According to him, rate for each piece of new item used to be set by having tailors stitch the new item under the supervision and timed by the member of the Management. On this basis it was decided how many pieces can be stitched in a day allowing time for lunch, snacks and breaks. Piece rate was then set on the basis that a reasonable number produced in a day will earn the employee the determined daily wage they receive for leave days. In the process feed-back from the tailors was taken into account also.
13. The counsel for the petitioner has argued that it is necessary in the modern society that wage is fixed in such a manner that a person should be able to meet his daily requirements and to have some amount of comfort also. The counsel has referred to the decision of the Apex Court in EXPRESS NEWSPAPER PRIVATE LTD AND ANOTHER VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS AND OTHER CASES reported in AIR 1958 SC 578 (1) in this respect. In this the Apex Court has classified wages into three broad categories viz. the living wage, the fair wage and the minimum wage. A living wage should be sufficient to meet the normal needs of the average employee, regarded as a human being in a civilized society. The Apex Court has also held that while fixing the wages the capacity of the260 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 17, 2015/PAUSA 27, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] industry to pay is one of the essential circumstances to be taken into consideration except in cases of bear subsistence or minimum wage where the employer is bound to pay the same irrespective of such capacity. The capacity of the industry is to be considered on an industry-cum- region basis after taking a fair cross-section of the industry. While measuring the capacity of the industry the elasticity of the demand for the product, the possibility of tightening of the organization so that the industry could pay higher wages without difficulty and the possibility of increasing the efficiency of the lowest paid workers resulting in increase in production also should be taken into account. Thus it could be seen from the above decision that aspects from the point of the employee as well as the employer are to be taken into account while deciding what is the amount that is payable as wages with which an employee can live with some reasonable degree of comfort.
14. It has been pointed out by the counsel for the Respondent that fixing of wages at piece rate is not something unknown in employer-employee relationship and has been accepted in several establishments. He has pointed out that in the tailoring industry this has especially been accepted because of the nature of work. He has referred to the decision in SILVER JUBILEE TAILORING HOUSE AND OTHERS VS. CHIEF INSPECTOR OF SHOPS AND ESTABLISHMENTS AND ANOTHER reported in 1974 3 SCC 498 in this respect in which the system was referred to with approval.
15. Payment of wages at piece rate system cannot be frowned upon as one not acceptable compared to time rate system. This certainly has advantages from the point of view of the employer as well as the employee. If this system is adopted a worker who is enthusiastic and is willing to put in more effort will be able to earn more wages than in time rate system. He will be able to earn more than his fellow workers. In this way piece rate system acts as an incentive to the workers to give more from their part to the industry and at the same time more for themselves. This becomes beneficial to the employer also since he is able to produce more and do more business. The objection raised on behalf of the petitioners against the piece rate system certainly could not be approved in view of the advantages rather than disadvantages for the system. It has been pointed by the counsel for the petitioner that at piece rate system a person will have to work without rest to earn the wages fixed for him. In fact in piece rate system it is for the worker to decide what is the turnover of work to be.
16. Certainly, the rate fixed for each piece should be sufficient. It should be done in such a manner that the worker is getting sufficient wages for the work done. So also it should be in accordance with the price the employer would be getting for each piece. Even though the petitioners have claimed in the Claim Statement that the rate fixed for each piece is not in proper manner, the petitioners have not cared to give the details of the rates. What are the particular items stitched or what is the rate for each such items are not given by the petitioners. There is only a general statement that the rate is not fixed in a proper manner and the employees are forced to work more because of this. In the absence of proof of the rates fixed for each item or any proof of the rate fixed in the industry in the area for such items for the purpose of comparison the evidence given in this respect is insufficient to discard piece rate system which was in vogue for a long time.
17. When the available materials are taken into account it could be seen that the wages paid by the Respondent is not low when compared to the payment made to such workers in other establishments of the kind that have accepted time rate system. The petitioners themselves did not bring much evidence for the purpose of comparison. One of the document produced by them is Ext.W53, the wage bill of a tailor of another similar establishment in the area. As seen from this, this worker is seen paid Rs. 8,372/ - for the month of December, 2011. There is also Ext.W57, the wage slip for the month of August 2012, the total of which comes to Rs. 10,130/- including Rs. 736/- paid for overtime work. The Respondent has produced Ex.M1, the wage slip for September 2012 in respect of a tailor of "Rangoli", another Auroville establishment which shows that he was paid Rs. 10,551/- including Rs. 1,226/- for overtime work. Ext.M2 is the wage slip of the first petitioner for the month of October 2012 which shows that he has received Rs. 10,927/- as wages in this month. Ext.M3 to Ext.M5 are the registers of wages for the months of March 2012 and March 2013 respectively. In March 2011 the first petitioner has earned more than Rs. 10,900/- as wages. In the next two years almost this much is the earning for the month. The third petitioner also has earned this much during the period. However, the wage earned by the second petitioner seems to be much lower. He has earned a little above Rs 6,000/- in March 2011 and less than Rs. 6,000/- in March 2012. However in March 2013, his earnings is more than Rs. 7,000/-. The third petitioner has earned more than Rs. 11,000/- in March 2013.The other tailors other than the second petitioner also maintain almost a consistent rate ranging between about Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 11,000/- Thus it could be seen that the earnings so far as the tailors are concerned is almost the same, but for the difference except in the case of second petitioner, when compared with the earnings from the establishment that has adopted time rate system. So piece rate system could not be treated as faulty when compared to time rate system. So there is no need to discard this system.
18. Ext.M3 to M5 would show the wages for the other workers who are paid at time rate basis also. The counsel for the petitioner has been trying to compare the wages paid to these employees with the wages paid to the tailors including the petitioners. However, it could be seen from[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 17, 2015/पौष 27, 1936 261 the registers that those workers who are getting more amount are pattern maker, checking master, export manager, etc. who would necessarily be in a higher position than that of the tailors so their wages could not be compared with that of the petitioners. The petitioners were not able to make out a case to discard piece rate system.
19. Another demand on the part of the petitioners is that they should be allowed dearness allowance on the amount received by them. It has been argued on behalf of the Respondent that though payment to the petitioners is not made bifurcating salary, dearness allowance, etc. they are paid taking into account these aspects also. He has referred to the wages received by the workers in other establishments in the area and has pointed out that even on time rate basis they are receiving only lesser wages than what is paid by the Respondent. He has also referred to the GO of the Tamil Nadu Govt. fixing wages for the workers in tailoring industry. As seen from this the wages payable at Zone-B including municipalities is Rs. 2,137 for Grade-I and Rs. 2,033 for Grade-II. There is also provision for payment of Rs. 3.8 as dearness allowance for each point. Even if calculated on the basis of this, the wages paid to the petitioners could not be said to be low, though not very high. So it is to be taken that the amount that is now received by the petitioners is fixed taking into account cost of living as well.
20. The next demand is for House Rent Allowance. It has been admitted by the counsel for the petitioners that none of the labour legislations provide for payment of House rent Allowance. According to the counsel even in the absence of any such law it is prevalent in the industrial world to pay house rent allowance to the workers. In the absence of any evidence regarding such payment to other workers of similar establishments in the area it will not be proper to allow House Rent Allowance.
21. Apart from the above, the Respondent seems to be running in bad times at present. The account sheet of the years 2009 to October 2014 were produced by the Respondent. During the earlier years business seems to have been running to Rs. 2.00 crores. However, because of recession business had dwindled. In the year 2013 annual business has reduced to Rs. 94.00 lakhs. During 2014 upto the date on which documents were produced business is for Rs. 25.00 lakhs only. During his examination MW1 has even got a case that the establishment is already closed since it was not able to get any orders from the customers abroad. What the Supreme Court has stated in the decision referred to earlier is that the financial position of the employer also has to be taken into account while fixing the wages and other amenities. Certainly, the present financial position of the Respondent does not call for a wage increase.
22. The amount that the petitioners are now receiving in all probability will satisfy the definition given by the Supreme Court regarding fair wage in the sense that it is more than the minimum wage though it could not be termed the living wage which comes under the definition of the wage which is sufficient to allow the petitioners to live in some comfort. Certainly, it is not that the amount received by them will enable them to meet all their requirements above their basic necessicities. However, the time at which the petitioners have raised the dispute does not seem to be the proper one. In the present situation the Respondent could not be said to be an institution which is fairing well. It could be seen from the records produced by the Respondent during sunny days the Respondent have been considerate of the employees and had been giving them bonus at much more than the statutory rate. They seem to have been making yearly wage revisions also. In 2010 there was a wage revision of 15%. In 2011 and 2012 it was 10% and in 2013 it was 13%. Ex-gratia bonus payments of more than 20% of wages were made to those employees of more than 10 years service.
23. The counsel for the Respondent has pointed out that all other petitioners other than petitioners one, two and three have accepted settlement. He has stated that the Respondent is ready to offer the same terms of settlement to the above petitioners as well.
24. It has been argued by the counsel for the Respondent that the Memorandum of Settlement marked as Ext.M9 signed with other petitioners is binding on the petitioners also in view of Section-18(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act. On the other hand it has been argued by the counsel for the petitioner that it is individual settlement and is not by recognized union and therefore Section-18(3) has no application to the case. This sub-section states that a settlement arrived in the course of conciliation proceedings under the Act or an arbitration award in a case where notification has been issued under Sub-Section 3(a) of Section-10(a) or an award of a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, shall be binding on all the parties to the industrial dispute and all other parties summoned to appear in the proceedings as parties to the dispute. The counsel for the Respondent has referred to the decision NATIONAL ENGINEEREING INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS reported in 2000 1 SCC 371 in this respect. It has been held by the Apex Court in this that Sub-Sections (1) and (3) of Section-18 divide settlements into two categories viz. (i) those arrived at outside the conciliation proceedings and (ii) those arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings and a settlement which belongs to the first category has limited application and merely binds the parties to the agreement but the settlement belonging to the second category has an extended application since it is binding on all parties to the industrial dispute, to all others who are summoned to appear in the conciliation proceedings and to all persons employed in the establishment or part of the establishment as the case may be to which the dispute related on the262 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 17, 2015/PAUSA 27, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Documents Marked:
date of the dispute and to all others who joined the establishment thereafter.
On the petitioner's side
25. Though it has been stated by the counsel for the petitioner that the settlement has been entered into by the concerned petitioners directly and not through the Union and therefore Section-18(3) of the Act will not be applicable to the present case, I do not find any distinction made in the Section whether the party is the Union or the individual workman concerned. The section merely states that if the settlement has been arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings under the Act, the same shall be binding on all the parties to the dispute and even on all other parties summoned to appear in the proceedings as parties to the dispute unless they were summoned without proper cause. However, Section-18(3) of the Act is not relevant or applicable in the present case for the reason that the settlement entered into by petitioners 6 to 11 seems to be on some other issue they have raised subsequently, as could be seen from Ext.M9. It could be seen from this that the concerned petitioners had wanted to resign from the establishment and they have raised dispute claiming resignation compensation. It was on the basis of such dispute raised by them the settlement was entered into by the Respondent and each of the petitioners 6 to 11 individually. What is fixed by the settlement is the compensation payable on account of the resignation of the concerned petitioners. The issues raised in the present dispute were not considered in the conciliation for the purpose of arriving at Ext. M9 settlement. So in any case there is no question of the said settlement becoming binding on other petitioners. 26. However, in view of Ext. M9 settlement entered into by the Respondent and petitioners 6 to 11 and subsequent settlement entered into by the Respondent with petitioners 4 and 5 the dispute has been practically nonest. Out of the 11 petitioners who have raised the dispute only 3 now remains. All others have withdrawn from the dispute raised by them and had entered into settlement with the Respondent. This fact also weighs very much against the case of petitioners 1 to 3 who alone are those now contesting the case. 27. In view of my discussion above I find that the petitioners are not entitled to any relief. The reference is answered against them.
An award is passed accordingly.
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Ex.No. Date Description
Ex.W1 June 1998 Wage slip of K. Pavadai
Ex.W2 August 1999 Wage slip of K. Pavadai
Ex.W3 May 2000 Wage slip of K. Pavadai
Ex.W4 August 2001 Wage slip of K. Pavadai
Ex.W5 January 2002 Wage slip of K. Pavadai
Ex.W6 Sept. 2003 Wage slip of K. Pavadai
Ex.W7 June 2005 Wage slip of K. Pavadai
Ex.W8 Oct. 2005 Wage slip of K. Segaran
Ex.W9 2005 ESI Cards of the petitioners
Ex.W10 Feb. 2006 Wage slip of K. Pavadai
Ex.W11 June 2008 Wage slip of K. Pavadai
Ex.W12 June 2009 Wage slip of K. Pavadai
Ex.W13 June 2010 Wage slip of K. Pavadai
Ex.W14 30.11.2010 Letter of appointment issued
by Vimkar Contractors Works
Pvt. Ltd.
Ex.W15 Feb. 2011 Wage slip of K. Krishnamurthy
Ex.W16 Feb. 2011 Wage slip of S. Veerappan
Ex.W17 May 2011 Wage slip of K. Pavadai
Ex.W18 Aug. 2011 Wage slip of A. Segaran
Ex.W19 March 2012 Wage slip of M. Selvam
Ex.W20 March 2012 Wage slip of N. Munuswamy
Ex.W21 March 2012 Wage slip of S. Manjini
Ex.W22 March 2012 Wage slip of P. Velmurugan
Ex.W23 March 2012 Wage slip of A. Periyasamy
Ex.W24 March 2012 Wage slip of G. Munusamy
Ex.W25 March 2012 Wage slip of V. Dhandapani
Ex.W26 12.06.2012 Authorization in Form F given
by the petitioners to Mr. K.
Mohandass
Witnesses Examined:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner : WW1, Sri K. Mohandas
WW1, Sri K. Pavadai
For the 2nd Party/Management : MW1, Sri Michael Tait Ex.W27 12.06.2012 Petition given to the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Puducherry
Ex.W28 29.08.2012 Petition submitted by the petitioners to the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Puducherry[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 17, 2015/पौष 27, 1936 263 Ex.W29 12.09.2012 Letter of the petitioners to the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Puducherry
Ex.W30 Oct. 2012 Wage slip of A. Segaran
Ex.W31 08.11.2012 Additional petition submitted by the petitioners to the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Puducherry
Ex.W32 17.01.2013 Failure report issued by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Puducherry
Ex.W33 Feb. 2013 Wage slip of A. Segaran
Ex.W34 12.04.2013 Òrder of reference issued by
the Government of India
Ex.W35 April 2013 Wage slip of R. Pandian, worker of Godrej Consumer Products, Puducherry
Ex.W36 Sept. 2013 Wage slip of K. Pavadai
Ex.W37 Sept. 2013 Wage slip of A. Segaran
Ex.W38 06.11.2013 Letter sent by A. Segaran, K. Pavadai and K. Krishnamurthy to the Respondent Management under registered post acknowledgement due
Ex.W39 14.11.2013 Returned envelope containing
the aforesaid letter
Ex.W40 Nov. 2008 Wage slip of K. Pavadai
Ex.W41 March 2002 Wage slip of K. Pavadai
Ex.W42 June 2002 Wage slip of K. Pavadai
Ex.W43 July 2004 Wage slip of K. Pavadai
Ex.W44 16.07.2005 College fee receipt of P. Padmanabhan, Son of A. Pavadai
Ex.W45 Oct. 2006 Wage slip of K. Pavadai
Ex.W46 May 2007 Wage slip of K. Pavadai
Ex.W47 Feb. 2009 Wage slip of K. Pavadai
Ex.W48 April 2009 Wage slip of K. Pavadai
Ex.W49 Aug. 2009 Wage slip of K. Pavadai
Ex.W50 09.10.2009 Fee details of K. Chitra, daughter of K. Krishnamurthy
Ex.W51 Nov. 2009 Wage slip of K. Pavadai
Ex.W52 11.10.2011 Electricity bill of K. Krishnamurthy (in the name of his wife, K. Padma) for August 2011
Ex.W53 Dec. 2011 Wage bill of S. Chandrasekhar
of Rangoli, Auroshilpam
Ex.W54 10.05.2012 Electricity bill of K. Krishnamurthy (in the name of his wife, K. Padma) for March 2012
Ex.W55 12.06.2012 Electricity bill of K. Krishnamurthy (in the name of his wife, K. Padma) for April 2012
Ex.W56 29.06.2012 College for receipt of P.
Partheepan, S/o A. Pavadai
Ex.W57 Aug 2012 Wage bill of S. Chandrasekar
of Rangoli, Auroshilpam
Ex.W58 Sep. 2012 Wage bill of S. Chandrasekar
of Rangoli, Auroshilpam
Ex.W59 14.02.2013 Water bill of A. Segaran
Ex.W60 16.04.2013 Water bill of K. Krishnamurthy (in the name of his wife, K. Padma) for the period from Oct.-Dec. 2012
Ex.W61 29.05.2013 Electricity bill of K. Krishnamurthy (in the name of his wife, K. Padma) for March 2013
Ex.W62 19.06.2013 Experience certificate issued by Agaram Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. to P. Elumalai
Ex.W63 18.07.2013 Fee details of K. Chitra, daughter of K. Krishnamurthy
Ex.W64 14.08.2013 Electricity bill of A. Segaran
Ex.W65 Aug. 2013 Wage bill of Jagathapraban, a worker of P.L. Haulwel Trailors Ltd., Puducherry
Ex.W66 02.09.2013 Water bill of K. Krishnamurthy (in the name of his wife, K. Padam) for January to June 2013
Ex.W67 18.09.2013 Electricity bill of A. Segaran
Ex.W68 19.11.2013 Cooking gas bill of K.
Krishnamurthy
Ex.W69 04.12.2013 Cooking gas bill of K.
Krishnamurthy
Ex.W70 09.12.2013 Rice bill of A. P avadai
Ex.W71 10.12.2013 Grocery bill of A. Pavadai
Ex.W72 13.12.2013 Cooking gas bill of A. Segaran264 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 17, 2015/PAUSA 27, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Ex.W73 27.12.2013 Cooking gas bill of A. Segaran
Ex.W74 27.12.2013 Grocery bill of A. Segaran
Ex.W75 08.11.2013 Industrial Dispute raised by the petitioners against the alleged closure
Ex.W76 11.02.2014 Rejoinder statement filed by the petitioners in the said Industrial Dispute
Ex.M13 12.11.2013 Letter addressed to the Respondent by the 5th Petitioner relinquishing claims
Ex.M14 10.12.2004 Revision of Minimum wages for employment in Tailoring Industry
Ex.M15 22.11.2012 Memorandum of Settlement under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
On the Management's side
Ex.No. Date Description
Ex.M1 Sept. 2012 Wage details of an employee in Rangoli Auroshilpam, Auroville
Ex.M2 Oct. 2012 Wage details of Mr. A. Segaran for the month of October, 2012
Ex.M3 March 2011 Register of wages for the
month of March 2011
Ex.M4 March 2012 Register of wages for the
month of March 2012
Ex.M5 March 2013 Register of wages for the
month of March 2013
Ex.M6 14.01.2005 Details of bonus payments
made during Pongal in 2005
Ex.M7 05.11.2010 Details of half-yearly bonus payments made during 13.11.2012 Deepavali and Pongal for the year 2010-12
Ex.M8 01.04.2010 Details of export sales transactions of Filaure Auroshilpam
Ex.M9 22.11.2012 Memoranda of Settlement under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes, Act, 1947
Ex.M10 31.10.2013 Letter addressed by the Respondent to Mr. V. Dhandapani offering the final settlement as per the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Ex.M16 31.10.2013 Intimation of closure of "Filaure" and Statement of Reasons for closure
Ex.M17 12.11.2013 Letter addressed to the Respondent by the 4th Petitioner relinquishing claims
Ex.M18 12.11.2013 Letter addressed to the Respondent by the 5th Petitioner relinquishing claims
नई दिल्ली, 9 जनवरी, 2015
का.आ. 129.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार भारत संचार निगम लिमिटेड और दूसरों के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, चेन्नई के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 30/2013द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 08/01/2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल-40011/30/2012-आईआर ;डीयूद्ध]
पी. के. वेणुगोपाल, डेस्क अध्किारी
New Delhi, the 9th January, 2015
S.O. 129.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 30/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & Others, and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 08/01/2015.
[No. L-40011/30/2012-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
Ex.M11 31.10.2013 Letter addressed by the Respondent to Mr. M. Selvam offering the final settlement as per the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR
COURT, CHENNAI
Wednesday, the 17th December, 2014
Ex.M12 12.11.2013 Letter addressed to the Respondent by the 4th Petitioner relinquishing claims Present : K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 17, 2015/पौष 27, 1936 265
Industrial Dispute No. 30/2013
(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), between the Management of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and another and their workman)
BETWEEN :
The District Secretary : 1st Party/Petitioner Tamil Manil Telecom Contract Union Labour Union C/o Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Cuddalore
AND
1. The Executive Engineer (E) : 2nd Party/1st Respondent
BSNL Electrical Division-II, Block-3/D3 RGMTTC GST Road, Meenambakkam Chennai-600027
2. M/s Air Cool Engineers : 2nd Party/2nd Respondent
(Contractor) No. 24, Deivanayagam Street, Nungambakkam Chennai-600034
Appearance :
For the 1st Party/Petitioner : M/s. S. Anbalagan,
Advocates
For the 2nd Party/ : M/s. P. Srinivasan,
1st Management Advocates
For the 2nd Party/ : M/s. N. Nithianandam,
2nd Management Advocates
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No. L-40011/30/2012-IR(DU) dated 28.02.2013 referred the following Industrial Dispute
to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is :
"Whether the action of the management of BSNL and their Contractor, M/s. Air Cool Engineers in terminating the service of Sri C. Ramanathan w.e.f. 05.09.2012 is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?"
The Petitioner Union is espousing the cause of the workman, Sri C. Ramanathan employed under the Respondents. Ramanathan, the concerned workman has joined the First Respondent as Lineman/Helper on 16.07.2003. He has Diploma in ITI Electrician Trade. The First Respondent has numerous Telephone Exchanges, Administrative Offices and AC Plants for its smooth functioning. The maintenance of AC Package Units were given to Contractors periodically by the First Respondent. Initially the First Respondent had engaged Ramanathan, the concerned workman directly for doing pillar work, cable laying, data entry, etc. He was later engaged by the First Respondent through the Contractor by name Cooltech Contractors for maintenance work in the AC Plant of the 1st Respondent at Virudhachalam. The concerned workman was working continuously in the above unit under various Contractors. Though the Contractors changed periodically, the concerned workman continued to work under the First Respondent. He was to maintain the temperature of AC unit, check the temperature every one hour and rectify in case of any problem. The employment was perennial in nature. Till his termination, the concerned workman had rendered unblemished service to the satisfaction of the First Respondent. The Second Respondent was awarded the contract for two years from January 2012 to January 2013. The concerned workman was given duty at Virudhachalam plant. Though the duty was to be for 8 hours only, the concerned workman was forced to work 12 hours continuously and yet overtime allowance was not paid. If any other workman was absent he had to continue his work for 24 hours or even till the reliever came. The Second Respondent has refused to pay minimum wages as per law. Earlier the Second Respondent used to deposit the wages in the bank account of the workman. When he demanded minimum wages he started paying salary in cash after getting signature in blank vouchers. On 03.09.2012 the Second Respondent called the concerned workman and informed him that he has been terminated from service. When he went for work on the next day, the Sub-Divisional Engineer informed that he has been substituted by another person. Since the work performed by the concerned workman was perennial in nature and the engagement was against the provisions of CLRA Act and the contract between the First and Second Respondent being sham and bogus, the termination is illegal and unjustified. An award may be passed holding that the contract is sham and bogus, that the action of the Management and Contractor in terminating the services of the workman is illegal and unjustified and consequently directing the First Respondent to reinstate the workman in service with backwages and all other attendant benefits.
2. On receipt of Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has numbered it as ID 30/2013 and issued notices to both sides. Both sides have entered appearance through their counsel and filed Claim and Counter Statement respectively.
4. The Second Respondent has filed Counter Statement contending as follows:
3. The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the petitioner in brief are these:
The concerned workman is a contractual worker working under various Contractors from time to time.
266 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 17, 2015/PAUSA 27, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]The Contractor had been engaging skilled person to repair AC Package Units. The claim of the workman that he was rectifying the problems is not correct. There was no employer-employee relationship between the workman and the First Respondent. The job of the workman was switching off and switching on the AC Package Units which does not require any skill. The First Respondent did not engage the workman directly. Being the principal employer the First Respondent can only ensure that the workman is drawing not less than minimum wages as fixed by the Central Labour Authority for contractual workers from time to time. It is incorrect to state that the Second Respondent to whom the contract was awarded has no valid license. The petitioner is not entitled any relief against the First Respondent.
5. The Second Respondent has filed Counter Statement contending as below:
The First Respondent engages private contractors for executing the work in its seven AC Package Units and the Contractor in turn engages contract workers in accordance with the provisions of CLRA Act. The Second Respondent was awarded the work by contract dated 07.12.2011 for a period of two years. The Second Respondent is having valid license under the CLRA Act. The contract workers engaged by the Second Respondent are paid wages as fixed under the Minimum Wages Act and given other benefits also. The concerned worker was engaged as a contract worker alongwith other workers for execution of the work. He was working as an unskilled worker. He stopped reporting from duty from 05.09.2012 without informing the Second Respondent. The nature of work of the concerned workman was not perennial as alleged in the Claim Statement. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief.
6. The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence of WW1 and MWs 1 and 2 and documents marked as Ext.W1 to Ext.W11 and Ext.M1 to Ext.M3.
7. The point for consideration is:
Whether the concerned workman is entitled to be reinstated in the service of the First Respondent?
Contractors, the worker was controlled by the Sub- Divisional Engineer or other Officers of the Respondent. They were giving instructions to him as to what is to be done. They were recommending action to be taken against the contract workers if they committed any misconduct. The Second Respondent who was awarded the contract for the period from January 2012 to December 2013 has given him duty at Viruddachalam. Though, duty was round the clock only two persons were allotted in the unit of Viruddachalam and the concerned worker was forced to work 12 hours a day even without any overtime allowance. According to the petitioner the work done by Ramanathan, the workman was perennial in nature. The Second Respondent is said to have threatened him when he demanded minimum wages. He is said to have informed Ramanathan on 03.09.2012 that he has been terminated from service. According to the petitioner the engagement was against the provisions of CLRA Act also. The petitioner has contended that the contract between the First and Second Respondent is sham and bogus and the action of the First and Second Respondent in terminating the service of Ramanathan is illegal and unjustified. He is seeking an order to reinstate him in service with back wages and other benefits.
9. The case that is advanced by the First Respondent is that there was never employer-employee relationship between Ramanathan and the First Respondent. The Second Respondent also has stated in the Counter Statement that he has engaged the concerned workman for work, he being the Contractor for two years, for the maintenance of AC Package Units at Cuddalore and other six centres.
10. The Union Secretary has given evidence as WW1 asserting that the concerned workman started to work with the First Respondent through a Contractor in the year 2006 and that he was throughout working for the First Respondent even though the Contractors changed periodically during this time. The concerned workman has also given evidence as WW2, asserting the case in the petition.
The Point
8. According to the petitioner Ramanathan, the concerned workman has worked for the First Respondent under different Contractors for the maintenance work of Air-Condition Plants at Viruddachalam. According to him though the Contractors have changed periodically, he was working continuously under the First Respondent. His work was to maintain the temperature of the AC unit at a particular level, check the temperature every one hour, rectify problems if any and maintain the unit. According to the petitioner, even though salary was paid by the 10. It could be seen from the Counter Statement filed by the First Respondent that the case of the petitioner that Ramanathan was working for the First Respondent throughout from 2006 is not denied. The only case is that it was as engaged by the Contractors he was working and there was no employer-employee relationship between them.
11. During his examination the Second Respondent has admitted that there was issue between him and the workman in the matter of minimum wages and it was brought before the Regional Labour Commissioner. He was asked to pay difference in wages, overtime wages and compensation. According to him he has filed appeal against this order and he has obtained a stay of the[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 17, 2015/पौष 27, 1936 267 execution of the order also. The case of the workman is that the Second Respondent has been threatening him in this respect and ultimately he was not allowed to continue in the work.
work is not perennial in nature. The duty of the concerned workman and such others engaged for the First Respondent was the maintenance of AC Package Units. Of course, there is a contention for the Respondents that the petitioner was not doing any skilled work but he was only switching of and switching on the AC units. According to the Respondents, maintenance used to be done by some other person. At the same time though the petitioner has contended in the Claim Statement itself that he has completed ITI in AC Mechanic trade, this is not specifically denied in the Counter Statements. Even assuming that the petitioner was not doing any maintenance work it is very much clear that the work was perennial in nature. Unless the AC units are working non-stop the First Respondent would not be able to provide uninterrupted service of telecommunications. The petitioner has alleged in the Claim Statement that even though the units are to function round the clock only two persons including the concerned workman were engaged at Viruddachalam and he was forced to work 12 hours a day even without any overtime allowance. It is very much clear from the admission of MW1 itself that the petitioner had been working 12 hours a day. He has stated during his cross-examination that apart from the usual 8 hours the workers will be working four hours overtime also. This admission by the Second Respondent makes it clear that the AC units were working round the clock and the concerned workman and his co- worker had to work continuously for 24 hours. It is clear from this that the work done by the petitioner was perennial in nature.
12. In support of his contention that the contract between the First and Second Respondents is bogus, one argument that is advanced by the counsel for the petitioner is that the Second Respondent has no license under CLRA Act to enter into the contract. The Second Respondent has produced Ext.M1 said to be the certificate of registration under the CLRA Act. It is pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner that this document will not show that the Second Respondent has got necessary license. According to him, in the absence of license produced by the Second Respondent, Ext.M2 the contract between the First and Second Respondent for maintenance of the seven AC units of the First Respondent is to be treated as sham and nominal. The counsel has referred to the decision of the Karnataka High Court in FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA LORRY WORKERS UNION VS. FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA reported in 1987 1 LLJ 407 and also decision of the Gujarat High Court in FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA EMPLOYEES UNION VS. FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA AND OTHERS reported in 1990 1 GLR 384 where it was held that a worker who works for a principal employer to whom the provisions of the CLRA Act are attracted is to be treated as the worker of the employer unless the establishment has secured a certificate of registration and it had employed contract labour through a licensed Contractor. However, these decisions are against the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in this respect. In the decisions in NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CORPORATION AND OTHERS VS. BADRI SINGH THAKUR AND OTHERS reported in 2009 1 LLJ 198 and MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI VS. SHRAMIK SANGH AND OTHERS reported in 2002 2 LLJ 544 it has been laid down that the conclusion that the contract was sham or it was only a camouflage cannot be arrived at as a matter of law for non-compliance of the provisions of CLRA Act but a finding must be recorded based on evidence, particularly when disputed by an industrial adjudicator. So the argument that the contract between the First and Second Respondents is sham and nominal in the absence of license for the Second Respondent is not available for the petitioner.
14. Now the question to be considered is who was controlling and supervising the workman and who was paying him. It could be seen from the very averment in the claim Statement that wages used to be paid to him by the Contractor. Himself and others have proceeded against the Second Respondent for not paying minimum wages. However, there is sufficient evidence to show that the control of the workman was by the First Respondent itself. As already stated the concerned workman had been working with the First Respondent irrespective of the change in contract and change in the Contractors. He has started to work with the First Respondent in the year 2006. Even though different Contractors came and left, he continued to work for the First Respondent until he was prevented from work by the Second Respondent. This would show that the engagement of the workman was in fact not on the basis of the contract but he was accepted by the First Respondent throughout as a worker, whoever was the Contractor. In Ext.W6 the reply given by the First Respondent under the Right to Information Act, the First Respondent has stated that though only 15 workers are engaged and so contract need not be covered under the Provident Fund and ESI Acts, they are taking care of the above benefits in respect of the persons engaged. This 13. Irrespective of whether registration certificate was obtained by the principal employer under CLRA Act or whether license was obtained by the Contract under the said Act, based on evidence, it is to be decided whether the contract is sham and nominal. One aspect that has been pointed out by the counsel on behalf of the petitioner is that the work done by the concerned workman is perennial in nature. On going through the counter statement of the Respondents, it could be seen that there is not even a contention for the Respondents that the268 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 17, 2015/PAUSA 27, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] would show that the First Respondent was directly taking care of the affairs of those who were engaged.
15. The Second Respondent has stated during his cross- examination that there were 10 workers at Cuddalore under him and the concerned workman was employed as AC Operator. He had claimed that the workman was working under his instruction. However he was the Contractor for four other units also. He also stated that there was no need for day-to-day instructions for the workers since their duty was only to switch on and switch of the AC units. This would show that he is not exercising any control over the workman. This would also show that whatever control required was exercised by the Officers of the First Respondent and not the Second Respondent. It could be seen that in spite of the perennial nature of the work the First Respondent was executing contract with different persons as a camouflage only to deny the deserving benefits to the concerned workman and others of his kind. It is very much clear from the evidence that unless the AC units are made to work continuously the First Respondent would not be able to function. This very perennial nature of the work would show that the contracts were meant only as camouflage.
Ex.W2 12.05.2010 Letter of the First Respondent adopting the notification dated 20.05.2009
Ex.W3 26.04.2012 Reply given by the First
Respondent
Ex.W4 03.10.2012 Reply filed by BSNL before Asstt. Commissioner of Labour
Ex.W5 05.11.2012 Application filed by Minimum
Wages Act by the Union
Ex.W6 22.05.2012 Strike Notice issued by the
Union
Ex.W7 29.05.2012 Letter by Asstt. Commissioner of Labour to the First Respondent
Ex.W8 03.12.2012 Failure report
Ex.W9 20.11.2009 Service Certificate issued by
the First Respondent
Ex.W10 - Attendance Register
Ex.W11 - Bank Statement of the
petitioner
On the Management's side
16. The concerned workman had worked with the First Respondent continuously from the year 2006 though nominally under different Contractors. Since the contract between the First and Second Respondent is found to be camouflage the concerned workman is to be treated as a worker directly employed by the First Respondent. He seems to have been turned out of work for no valid reason so he is entitled to be reinstated in service by the First Respondent. However, he would not be entitled to any back wages.
17. In view of my discussion above, the First Respondent is directed to reinstate Ramanathan, the concerned workman in service within a month.
An award is passed accordingly.
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer Ex.No. Date Description
Ex.M1 07.07.2011 Certificate of registration for CLRA Act 1970 issued to the 2nd Respondent
Ex.M2 29.09.2011 Tender notification issued by
the 1st Respondent
Ex.M3 07.12.2011 Agreement entered into between the 1st Respondent and the 2nd Respondent.
नई दिल्ली, 12 जनवरी, 2015
Witnesses Examined:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner : WW1, Sri S. Anandhan
WW2, Sri C. Ramanathan
For the 2nd Party/Management : MW1, Sri K. Veera का.आ. 130.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार डिपफेन्स इंस्टिट्यूट ऑपफ बायो-एनर्जी, हल्दवानी के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय-1, चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 94/2014द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 12/01/2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
Documents Marked:
[सं. एल-14012/18/2014-आईआर ;डीयूद्ध] On the petitioner's side
Ex.No. Date Description
Ex.W1 20.05.2009 Notification issued by Central Government regarding revision of minimum rates of wages
पी. के. वेणुगोपाल, डेस्क अध्किारी
New Delhi, the 12th January, 2015
S.O. 130.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 17, 2015/पौष 27, 1936 269 Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 94/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-1, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of the Defence Institute of Bio-Energy, Haldwani, and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 12/01/2015.
[No. L-14012/18/2014-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer नई दिल्ली, 12 जनवरी, 2015
का.आ. 131.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार भारत संचार निगम लिमिटेड, पफरीदाबाद के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय-1, चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 118/2013द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 12/01/2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
ANNEXURE
[सं. एल-40011/53/2013-आईआर ;डीयूद्ध]
पी. के. वेणुगोपाल, डेस्क अध्किारी BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT-1, CHANDIGARH.
New Delhi, the 12th January, 2015
Case No I.D 94/2014
Shri Siwn Singh Routela C/O Diwan singh Routela son of Shri Pratap Singh Routela, Resident of Village Chharayat, P.O. Manpur North Haldwani, Nainital.
...Workman
Versus
1. The Director,
Defence Institute of Bio-Energy, Haldwani.
...Respondent S.O. 131.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 118/ 2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court-1, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Faridabad and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 12/01/2015.
[No. L-40011/53/2013-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer Appearances :
For the workman : None
ANNEXURE
For the management : Shri Umesh Chander Joshi
AWARD
Passed on 18.12.2014
BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,
PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR
COURT-I, CHANDIGARH
Central Govt. vide notification No.L-14012/18/2014 (IR(DU), dated 04.07.2014 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
Case No. ID 118 of 2013 . Reference
No. L-40011/53/2013/IR(DU)dated 29.10.2013
"Whether the action of the management of M/s. Milan Thapa Security Agency over the issue of alleged illegal termination of services of Shri Siwn Singh Routela w.e.f. 1.06.2013 is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman are entitled to?" Shri Shiv Kumar son of Shri Amilala C/o Shri Hoob Lal Yadav, General Secretary Mercantile Employees Association , 530-Near Prem Public School, Dayal Nagar PO Amar Nagar, Faridabad-121007 (Haryana). ...Workman
Versus
2. On receipt of the reference, the notices were issued to the parties. None has put up appearance on behalf of the workman nor any claim statement has been filed by him. The representative of the management is present. Already many opportunities have been given to the workman but none has put up appearance. In views of the above, this Tribunal has no option otherwise then to return the reference for non-prosecution. Accordingly, the reference is returned as such.
1. The General Manager,
BSNL, Telephone Exchange, Sector-15-A, Faridabad. ...Respondent
Appearances :
Chandigarh. 18.12.2014
S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer For the Workman : None
For the Management : None270 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 17, 2015/PAUSA 27, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
Passed On:-30.12.2014
Government of India Ministry of Labour vide notification No. L-40011/53/2013/IR(DU)dated 29.10.2013 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Faridabad and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 12/01/2015.
[No. L-40011/60/2013-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
Term of Reference:
BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,
PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR
COURT-I, CHANDIGARH
"Whether the action of the management of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. ( BSNL), Faridabad, Haryana in terminating the services of Shri Amar Singh son of Shri Shiv Kumar son of Amilala, ex-peon w.e.f. 06- 04-2012 is legal and justified? To what relief the workman is entitled to and from what date?" Case No. ID 117 of 2013 . Reference No. L-40011/60/2013/IR(DU)dated 28.10.2013 Shri Amar Singh son of Shri Bhule Ram C/o Shri Hoob Lal Yadav, General Secretary Mercantile Employees Association , 530-Near Prem Public School, Dayal Nagar PO Amar Nagar, Faridabad-121007 (Haryana). ...Workman
Versus
2. Case repeatedly called. Despite repeated opportunities, none appeared for the workman nor any claim statement has been filed. The case was received from the Ministry of Labour in the month of October 2013. From the very first date, neither workman nor any of his representatives appeared. A letter dated 4.12.2013 addressed to the Ministry of Labour has been received from the workman for transferring his case from CGIT-I, Chandigarh to CGIT-II, Delhi. Since then neither workman appeared nor any claim statement has been filed by him. In the circumstances no purpose would be served in keeping the case pending with this court. In view of the above, the present reference is returned for want of prosecution.
1. The General Manager,
BSNL, Telephone Exchange, Sector-15-A, Faridabad. ...Respondent
Appearances :
3. Reference is answered accordingly.
Chandigarh. 30.12.2014
For the Workman : None
For the Management : None
AWARD
S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 12 जनवरी, 2015
Passed On:-30.12.2014
Government of India Ministry of Labour vide notification No. L-40011/60/2013/IR(DU) dated 28.10.2013 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
Term of Reference:
का.आ. 132.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार भारत संचार निगम लिमिटेड, पफरीदाबाद के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय-1, चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 117/2013द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 12/01/2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल-40011/60/2013-आईआर ;डीयूद्ध]
पी. के. वेणुगोपाल, डेस्क अध्किारी
New Delhi, the 12th January, 2015
S.O. 132.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 117/ 2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court-1, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure "Whether the action of the management of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. ( BSNL), Faridabad, Haryana in terminating the services of Shri Amar Singh son of Shri Bhule Ram, ex-guard w.e.f. 01-09-2002 is legal and justified? To what relief the workman is entitled to and from what date?"
2. Case repeatedly called. Despite repeated opportunities, none appeared for the workman nor any claim statement has been filed. The case was received from the Ministry of Labour in the month of October 2013. From the very first date, neither workman nor any of his representatives appeared. A letter dated 4.12.2013 addressed to the Ministry of Labour has been received[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 17, 2015/पौष 27, 1936 271 from the workman for transferring his case from CGIT-I, Chandigarh to CGIT-II, Delhi. Since then neither workman appeared nor any claim statement has been filed by him. In the circumstances no purpose would be served in keeping the case pending with this court. In view of the above, the present reference is returned for want of prosecution.
AND
The General Secretary, Central Fisheries Research Employees Association, Kausalyaganga, Bhubaneswar 2nd Party-Union.
Appearances :
3. Reference is answered accordingly.
Chandigarh. 30.12.2014
S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer 1. Shri P. K. Sethy For the 1st Party Asst. Administrative Officer Management
2. Shri S. C. Khuntia For the 2nd Party- Union
AWARD
नई दिल्ली, 12 जनवरी, 2015
का.आ. 133.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मीठे पानी में एक्वाकल्चर, भुवनेश्वर के केन्द्रीय संस्थान के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, भुवनेश्वर के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 9/2009द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 12/01/2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल-42011/4/2006-आईआर ;डीयूद्ध]
पी. के. वेणुगोपाल, डेस्क अध्किारी
New Delhi, the 12th January, 2015
S.O. 133.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 9/2009) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of the Central Institute of Freshwater Aquaculture, Bhubaneswar and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 12/01/2015.
[No. L-42011/4/2006-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour & Employment has referred the present dispute existing between the employers in relation to the Management of The Director, Central Institute of Freshwater Aquaculture,Bhubaneswar and their workman represented through the General Secretary, Central Fisheries Research Association,Bhubaneswar in exercise of the powers conferred under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub- section 2(A) of section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 vide their Letter No. L-41011/4/2006-IR(DU), dated 16.11.2007 to this Tribunal for adjudication pursuant to orders of the Hon'ble High Court of Odisha in writ petition No. 8101/2007. The dispute as referred to has been mentioned under the schedule of the order of reference which is quoted below.
"Whether the demand of the Central Fisheries Research Employees Association for allotment of a room for carrying out their union activities, from the management of Central Institute of Freshwater Aquaculture, is legal and justified? If yes, to what relief the workmen are entitled to"
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT
BHUBANESWAR
Present : Shri PRADEEP KUMAR, Presiding Officer,
C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 9/2009
L-42011/4/2006 -IR(DU), dated 13.02.2009
Date of Passing Award – 22nd day of December, 2014 2. Before going into the merits of the case, it is pertinent to interpret the schedule of reference. The matter is to answer the legality and justification of the demand of the Central Fisheries Research Employees Association (in short "CFREA") for allotment of a room in their favour by the Management of Central Institute of Freshwater Aquaculture (CIFA) to undertake their union activities. It appears that the parties have pleaded not in accordance with the terms of reference and this tribunal cannot go beyond the terms of reference. This Tribunal enjoys the jurisdiction to matters of industrial disputes only which is coming under the definition of Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (In short "the Act"). Section 2(k) of the Act defines as follows.
Between :
The Director, Central Institute of Freshwater Aquaculture, Kausalyaganga, Bhubaneswar-2 1st Party-Management "Industrial Dispsute" means any dispute or difference between employers and employers, or between employers and workmen, or between workmen and workmen, which is connected with the employment or non-employment or the terms of272 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 17, 2015/PAUSA 27, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Between :
employment, or with the conditions of labour, of any persons.
3. The above referred dispute for non-allotment of a room in favour of the 2nd party union to carry out their union activities is not connected with the employment or non-employment, or the terms of employment, or with the conditions of labour, of any persons. Since, the dispute doesnot satisfy the conditions laid down in Section 2(k) of the Act, the same cannot be treated as an industrial dispute.
The Sub-Divisional Officer, Telecom, BSNL, Salepur, Odisha 1st Party-Management.
And
Shri Vikash Chandra Mohapatra, S/o-Laxmidhar Mohapatra, Village-Arei, PO-Samitanga, Via-Kishan Nagar, Salepur, Odisha 2nd Party-Workman.
Appearances :
4. Accordingly, the dispute cannot be adjudicated as this Tribunal lacks jurisdiction. Hence, the matter is returned back to the Ministry unanswered.
PRADEEP KUMAR, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 12 जनवरी, 2015
1. Shri Mahendranath Pradhan For the 1st Party SDE(Legal) Management
2. Shri Vikash Chandra For the 2nd Party Mohapatra Workman
AWARD
का.आ. 134.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार भारत संचार निगम लिमिटेड, ओडिशा के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, भुवनेश्वर के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 11/2010द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 12/01/2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल-40012/92/2009-आईआर ;डीयूद्ध]
पी. के. वेणुगोपाल, डेस्क अध्किारी
New Delhi, the 12th January, 2015
S.O. 134.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 11/2010) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Odisha and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 12/01/2015.
[No. L-40012/92/2009-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour & Employment has referred the present dispute existing between the employers in relation to the Management of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Telecom, BSNL, Salepur, Odisha, and their workman Shri Vikash Chandra Mohapatra in exercise of the powers conferred under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) vide their Letter No. L-40012/92/2009 -IR(DU), dated 31.05.2010 to this Tribunal for adjudication. The dispute as referred to has been mentioned under the schedule of the letter of reference which is quoted below.
"Whether the action of the management of Sub- Divisional Officer, BSNL, Salepur, in terminating the services of Shri Vikas Ch. Mohapatra w.e.f. April 2009 is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?"
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT
BHUBANESWAR
Present : Shri PRADEEP KUMAR, Presiding Officer,
C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 11/2010
L-40012/92/2009 -IR(DU), dated 31.05.2010
Date of Passing Award – 11th Day of December, 2014 2. The 2nd party woekman (herein after referred to as "the 2nd party") through his statement of claim and rejoinder has stated that he was initially engaged by the SDO, BSNL, Salepur w.e.f. 02.07.1995 as helper. There, he was doing various works relating to erection of electric poles, digging of cable trench, duties of night watchman and OFC cable repairing under a lineman with a monthly remuneration of Rs. 500/- to Rs. 600/-. The name of the 2nd party finds place in the list of workers at Seriel No. 162 in general list and seriel No. 3 of Salepur Sub-Division vide letter No. E-6(13) part/2001-2002/5 dated 12.07.2001 containing the subject "information regarding engagement of Casual Mazdoor in your Sub-Division".
3. As per the directions of the SDO(Telecom), Salepur, the 2nd party obtained experience certificates from the telecom officials under whom he was working as a helper.
[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 17, 2015/पौष 27, 1936 273FINDINGS
Issue No. 1
The experience certificates shows the duties performed by the 2nd party like NTC, Cable Work, load pile erection and watchman. He worked continuously since 1995 till 01.04.2009 and has completed more than 240 days of continuous duty in each calendar year with effect from the year 1998 to 2010. The 1st party terminated the services of the 2nd party without following the principles of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (herein after referred to as "the Act") and engaged a new workman in his place namely Shri Bijay Kumar Kandi. The 2nd party also strongly objected the written statement filed by the 1st party citing the reasons inter alia the same is signed and verified by an unauthorized person. Accordingly, the 2nd party prayed for his reinstatement with full back wages.
4. The 1st Party Management (herein after referred to as "the 1st party") on the other hand in his written statement has denied all the facts stated in the statement of claim of the 2nd party. The 1st party has contended that there is no record available with them that the 2nd party was ever an workman employed under them. The 1st party also denied of having any record with them about the letter No. E- 6(13)part/2001-02/5 dated 12.07.2001 which is alleged to have been issued to them by the Area Manager Telecom(city), Cuttack-cum-Chairman of the Committee. Rather the 1st party has complained that the 2nd party has provided such document to the 1st party which is a forged one. The 1st party also filed certain documents alongwith his written statement.
8. It is very much clear from the statements made by the 2nd party about his engagement with the 1st party as a helper are true as per the evidence adduced and documents proved. The 2nd party being a casual mazdoor/helper under the 1st party, his name found place in the list of casual mazdoors prepared by the 1st party for the consideration of his candidature for his regular employment under the management. The documents proved by the 2nd party are very much lying with the 1st party as the 1st party has produced those documents alongwith his written statement. Moreover, it is quite unfortunate on the part of the 1st party to deny the letter No. E-6(13)part /2001-02/5 dated 12.07.2001 issued to him by the Asst. Manager, Telecom (city), Cuttack. Hence, the statements made by the 1st party seems to be misleading and disbelievable.
9. On the other hand, the 2nd party proved his case through the documents filed by him as well as the evidences adduced on its behalf. But, the 2nd party failed to prove the fact of his engagement with the 1st party for more than 240 days in the calendar year preceding the date of his termination from services. However, since the 2nd party was engaged under the 1st party as a helper/ casual mazdoor, the outright termination of services of the 2nd party by 1st party without following the principles enumerated in the Act is illegal and unjustified.
Issue No. 2
5. The 1st party also denied the genuineness of the experience certificates issued to the 2nd party and made it clear that the 2nd party has never been issued with any experience certificate. Moreover, no official of the telecom department has ever signed any such experience certificate.
6. On perusal of the record, the following issues were framed.
a. Whether the action of the management of Sub- Divisional Officer, BSNL, Salepur in terminating the services of Shri Vikar, Ch. Mohapatra w.e.f. April, 2009 is legal and justified?
b. If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?
7. The 1st party has examined two witnesses on its behalf and proved no documents. The 2nd party also examined two witnesses and proved 06 (six) documents in support of its case. I have heard oral arguments from the side of both the parties. I have also perused the written notes of arguments submitted by the parties.
10. In view of the above facts, the 1st party is directed to restore the previous engagement of the 2nd party. Since, the 2nd party has not extended any service to the 1st party with effect from the date of his termination from services, the 1st party is further directed to pay the 2nd party 25% of the wages from the date of his disengagement till the date of restoration of services of the 2nd party within a period of three months from the date of publication of award in the Gazette of India failing which the 1st party shall pay simple interest @ 12% per annum against the wages applicable to him. The 1st party is further directed to consider the candidature of the 2nd party in case of any regular vacancy suitable to the 2nd party arises in future.
11. The reference is answered accordingly in favour of the 2nd party workman.
PRADEEP KUMAR, Presiding Officer
Printed by the Manager, Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi.110064 and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.