Subject NOT available

click here for IIIF manifest

REGISTERED No. D. 222

The Gazette of India

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

No. 41] NEW DELHI, SATURDAY, OCTOBER 14, 1967/ASVINA 22, 1889

Separate paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed

as a separate compilation.

NOTICE

The undermentioned Gazettes of India Extraordinary were published up to 30th September,

1967 :—

Subject

No. and Date

Issued by

Issue

No.

Central Board of Direct

S.O. 3408, dated 19th Sep-

451

Taxes.

tember, 1967.

The Income-tax (Determina- tion of Export Profits) (No. 2) Rules, 1967.

S.O. 3409, dated 20th Sep- Ministry of Education.

452

tember, 1967.

The International Copy-right (Second Amendment) Order, 1967.

Ministry of Commerce.

S.O. 341 1, dated 20th Sep-

453

tember, 1967.

Quality Control and pre-ship- ment inspection of small tools and hand tools.

S.O. 3412, dated 20th Sep-

Do.

tember, 1967.

The Export of Small Tools and Hand Tools (Quality Control and Inspection) Rules, 1967.

Do.

S.O. 3413, dated 20th Sep-

tember, 1967-

Recognition of Inspection Agen- cies for quality control and inspection of small tools and hand tools for purpose of ex- port.

( 3759 )

REGISTERED No. D. 222

The Gazette of India

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

No 41] NEW DELHI, SATURDAY, OCTOBER 14, 1967/ASVINA 22, 1889

Separate paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed

as a separate compilation.

NOTICE

The undermentioned Gazettes of India Extraordinary were published up to 30th September,

1967 :—

Issued by

Subject

No. and Date

Issue

No.

Central Board of Direct

S.O. 3408, dated 19th Sep-

451

Taxes.

tember, 1967.

The Income-tax (Determina- tion of Export Profits) (No. 2) Rules, 1967.

S.O. 3409, dated 20th Sep- Ministry of Education.

452

tember, 1967.

The International Copy-right (Second Amendment) Order, 1967.

Ministry of Commerce.

S.O. 3411, dated 20th Sep-

453

tember, 1967.

Quality Control and pre-shp- ment inspection of small tools and hand tools.

S.O. 3412, dated 20th Sep-

Do.

tember, 1967.

The Export of Small Tools and Hand Tools (Quality Control and Inspection) Rules, 1967.

Do.

S.O, 3413, dated 20th Sep-

tember, 1967.

Recognition of Inspection Agen- cies for quality control and inspection of small tools and hand tools for purpose of ex- port.

(3759)

No. aid Date

Issued by

Subject IS8UC Mo.

M'nistry of Commerce

S.O. 3414, dated 20th Sep-

tember, 1967.

Recognition of the Indian Stand* ards Institution Certificati on Mark with respect to small tools and hand tools.

Further amendments to the Ex-

Do.

S.O. 3415, dated 20th Sep-

454

ports (Control) Order, 1962.

tember, 1967.

Ministry of Petroleum

455

and Chemicals.

S.O. 3416, dated 20th Sep- tember, 1967.

The Drugs Prices (Display and Control) Third Amendment Order, 1967,

Ministry of Commerce

S.O. 3417, datcd-2ist Sep-

456

tember, 1967.

Direction that the East India Jute and Hess'an Exchange Limited, Calcutta to suspend entering into forward contracts in jute goods, other than (i) transfer- able specific delivery contracts aid (ii) noil-transferable speci- fic delivery contracts for a further period of seven days with effect on and from the 22nd September, 1967.

Cabinet Secretariat.

S.O. 3418, dated 21st Sep-

457

tember, 1967.

Amendment in the Government of India (Allocation of Busi- ness) Rules, 1961.

S.O. 3419, dated 22nd Sep- Min'stry of Finance.

458

tember, 1967

Declaration that the areas shown in the schedule therein to be "urban areas".

S.O. 3420, dated 23rd Sep-

Approval of the film as speci- 459

Ministry of Informa- [ tion and Broadcasting.

tember, 1967.

fied therein.

Ministry of Finance.

460 S.O. 3482, dated 25th Sep- tember, 1967.

Notifying 'the Maharashtra Co- operative Housing Finance So- ciety Limited, Bomb"y.

461

Allotment of symbols to the S.O. 3483' dated 26th Sep-

tember, 1967.

Election Commission 1 India.

parties.

462

Ministry of Food, Ag-

S.O. 3484, dated 27th Sep-

tember, 1907.

Amendment to S. R. 0. 2989 dated 13th September, 1957.

riculture, Community Development and Co- operation.

Ministry of Commerce,

S.O. 3485, dated 27th Sep-

l'urther Amendment to the Ex - 463

tember, 1967.

ports (Control) Order, 1962.

S.O. 3486, dated 28th Sep- Election Commission,

464

India.

tember, 1967.

Afn endments in notification No. 508/UP/67, dated n th January, 1967-

465 S.O. 3487, dated 28th Sep- tember, 1967.

Ministry of Labour, Em- Appointment of Shri Kamla ployment and Rehabilita- Sahai as the presiding officer tion. of the Additional Labour

Court Dhanbad.

S.O. 348K, dated 28th Sep-

Do. Appointment of Shri Kamla tember, 1967.

Sahr as the presiding officet* of the Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad.

i"c. 3(ii)] T HI GAZETTE OF INDIA: OCTOHER H, 19G7/ASVINA 22, 1889 376I

No.

Isiue

and Date Issued by

Subject

No.

28th Sep- Ministry of Commerce,

S.O. 3489, dated

466

tember, 1967.

Direction that the East India Jure and Hessian Exchange Limited, Calcutta, to suspend entering into forward con- tracts :n iute goods, other than (i) transferable specific delivery contracts and (ii) non-transferable specific de- livery contracts for a further period of seven days with effect on and from the 29th September, 1967.

467

30th Sep- Klection Commission,

S.O. 3490, dated tembcr, 1967.

t India.

Bye--icction of the Madras South Parliamentary Constituency in the State of Madras.

30th Sep- Do.

S.O. 34911 dated

Appointment of dates for th tembcr, 1967.

above bye-election (S.O. 3490*

30th Sep- Do.

Fixation of hours for the above S.O. 3492, dated

tcmber, 1967.

bye-election (S.O. 3490).

Copies of the Gazettes Extraordinary mentioned above will be supplied on Indent to the Manager of Publications, Civil Lines, Delhi. Indents should be •ubmitted so as to reach the Manager -within ten days of the date of issue of these Gazettes.

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (il)

Statutory orders and notifications issued by tbe Ministries of the Govern-

ment of India (other than the Ministry of Defence) and by Central

Authorities (other than the Administration of Union Territories).

ELECTION COMMISSION, INDIA

New Delhi, the 26th September 1967

S.O 3602.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 13A of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (43 of 1950), the, Election,Com- mission, in consultation with the Government of Andhra Pradesh hereby nomi- nates Shri G. D. Qureshi as the Chief Electoral Officer for the State of Andhra

Pradesh with effect from the date he takes over charge and until further orders vice Shri N. K. Seth.

[No. 154/1/67.]

ORDERS

New Delhi, the 14th September 1967

S.O. 3603.—The Commission's Order No. AP-HP/3 6/67 a n, dated the 16th August, 1967, published in the Gazette of India, Part II, section 3(ii), dated the 26th August, 1967, is hereby cancelled,

[No. AP-HP/36/67.]

New Delhi, the 20th September 1967

S.O. 3604—Whereas the Election Commission is satisfied that Shri Ram Rachya Ram of Village Kalupur, P.O. Newarl, District Gaya (Bihar), a contesting candidate for elction to the House of the People from Gaya constituency, has failed to lodge an account of his election expenses within the time and in the manner required by the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and the Rules made thereunder;

And whereas the said candidate, even after due notice has not given any reason or explanation for the failure;

Now therefore, In pursuance of section 10A of the said Act, the Election Com- mission' hereby declares the said Shri Ram Rachya Ram to be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, a member of either House of Parliament or of the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of a State for a period of three years from the date of this order.

[No. BR-HP/43/67Q4).]

S.O- 3605-—Whereas the Election Commission is satisfied that Shri Ishwar Chau- dhary of Mohall Manpur Malahtoli, P.O. Buniadganj, Gaya District, a contesting candidate for election to the House of the People from Gaya constituency, has failed to lodge an account of his election expenses within the time and in the manner required by the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and the Rules made thereunder;

And whereas the. said candidate, even, after due notice has not given any reason or explanation for the failure;

Now therefore, in pursuance of section 10A of the said Act, the Election Com- mission' hereby declares the said Shri Ishwar Chaudhary to be disqualified for being chosen as. and for being, a member of cither House of Parliament or of the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of a State for a period of three years from the date of this order.

fBR-HP/43/67 05).]

New Delhi, the 22nd September 1967

S.O 3606.—Whereas the Election Commission is satisfied that Shri J. Subra- maniam of Door No. 6/64, Marakkattai Omalur Taluk, Salem District, a contesting candidate for election to the House of the People from 15-Metmr Parliamentary constituency, has failed to lodge an account of his election expenses within the time and in the manner required by the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and the Rules made thereunder;

And whereas after considering the representation made by the said candidate, the Election Commission is further satisfied that he has no good reason or justifi- cation for the failure;

Now therefore, in pursuance of section 10A of the said Act, the Election Com- mission hereby declares, the said Shri J. Subramaniam to be disqualified for being chosen as and for being a member of either House of Parliament or of the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of a State for a period of three years from the date ol this order.

[No. MD/HP/15/67(1)J

Sic. 3(ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 1967/ASVINA 22, 1889 3763

S.O. 3607.—Whereas the Election Commission is satisfied that Shri K. M. Chandrakesavan of Karuppur Post, Salem Junction, Madras State a contesting candidate for election to the House of the People from 15-Mettur Parliamentary constituency, has failed to lodge an account of his election expenses in the manner required by Representation of the People Act, 1951, and the Rules, made there- under;

And whereas the said candidate, even after due notice has not given any reason or explanation for the failure;

Now, therefore, in pursuance of section 10A of the said Act, the Election Com- mission hereby declares the said Shri K. M, Chandrakesavan to be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, a member of either House of Parliament or ef the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of a State for a period of three years from the date of this order.

[No. MD-HP/15y67(2).]

New Delhi, the 25th September 1967

S.O. 3608.—Whereas the Election Commission is satisfied that Shri Bhimrao "Sambhaji Bhagat a contesting candidate for election to the House of the People from Wardha constituency, has failed to lodge an account of his election expenses within the time and in the manner required by the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and the Rules made thereunder;

And whereas, after considering the representation made by the said candidate, the Election Commission is further satisfied that he has no good reason or justifi- cation for the failure;

Now, therefore, in pursuance of section 10A of the said Act, the Election Com- mission hereby declares the said Shri Bhimrao Sambhaji Bhagat to be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, a member of either House of Parliament or of the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of a State for a period of three vears from the date of this order.

[No. MT-HP/25/67.]

New Delhi, the 26th September 1967

S.O. 3609.—Whereas the Election Commission is satisfied that Shri Uma Shan- kar Jha of Village Mishrapur, P.O. Kumaitha, Bhagalpur (Bihar), a contesting candidate for election to the House of the People from Bhagalpur constituency, has failed to lodge an account of his election expenses within the time and in the manner required by the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and the Rules made thereunder;

And whereas, after considering the representation made by the said candidate, the Election Commission is further satisfied that he has no good reason or justifi- cation for the failure;

Now, therefore, in pursuance of section 10A of the said Act, the Election Com- mission hereby declares the said Shri Uma Shankar Jha to be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, a member of either House of Parliament or of the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of a State for a period of three years from the date of this order.

[No. BR-HP/28/67(17).]

New Delhi, the 21th September 1967

SO. 3610.—Whereas the Election Commission Is satisfied that Shri Chunduru Venkata Satyanarayana, First Beat Post, Tenali, a contesting candidate for •election to the House of the People from 16-Guntur constituency, has failed to lodge an account of his election expenses required by the Representation cA the People Act, 1931, and the Rules made thereunder;

And whereas the said candidate, even after due notice. ha" not given any reason or explanation lor the failure;

Now, therefore, in pursuance of section 10A of the said Act, the Election •Commission hereby declares the said Shri Chunduru Venkata Satyanarayana to be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, a member of either Hous& •of Parliament or of the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of a State. for a period of three years from the date of this order.

£No. AP-HP/lfl/67.]

New Delhi, the 28th September 1967

S.O. 3611—-Whereas the Election Commission is satisfied that Shri Annabathuia, Apparao, Koratam Post, (via) Therlam, a contesting candidate for election to the House of the People from 3-Bobbili constituency, has failed to lodge an ac- count of his election expenses in the manner required by the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and the Rules made thereunder;

And whereas the said candidate, even after due notice, has not given any reason or explanation for the failure;

Now, therefore, in pursuance of section 10A of the said Act, the Election Com- mission hereby declares the said Shri Annabathuia Apparao to be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, a member of either House of Parliament or of thf Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of a State for a period of three yeans from the date of this order.

[No. AP-HP/3/67.J

New Delhi, the 29th September 1967

S-O. 3612.—Whereas the Election Commission is; satisfied that Shri Chhitariya a contesting candidate for election to the House of the People from Morena constituency, has failed to lodge an account of his election expenses as required by the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and the Rules made thereunder;

And whereas the said candidate, even after due notice has not given any reason or explanation for the failure;

Now, therefore, in pursuance of section 10A of the said Act, the Election Commission hereby declares the said Shri Chhitariya to be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, a member of either House of Parliament or of the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of a State for a period of three years from the date of this order.

[No. MF-HP/1/67.]

S.O. 3613.—Whereas the Election Commission is satisfied that Shri Abul Hameed, 5-3-8S1, Nlzamsahi, Hyderabad, a contestinR candidate tor election to the Andhra Pradesh House of the People from 26-Kurnool constituency, has failed to lodge an account of his election expenses in the manner required by the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and the Rules made thereunder;

And whereas the said candidate, even after due notice, has not given any reason or explanation for the failure;

Now, therefore, in pursuance of section 10A of the said Act, the Election Commission hereby declares the said Shri Abdul Hameed to be disqualified fqtf being chosen as, and for being, a member of either House of Parliament or Of the Legislative Assemby or Legislative Council of a State for a period of thre" years from the date of thii order.

[No. AP-HP/26/6T.)

By order,

K. S. RAJAGOPALAN, Seer.

ERRATUM

The date of two orders of the Election Commission, India, published as SO- N SEC. S(ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER ¹⁴, ¹⁹⁶⁷/ASVINA ²², ¹⁸⁸⁹ 37*5

MINISTRY OF LAW,

(Legislative Department)

JVeu; Delhi, the 30th September 1967

S-O. 3614-—In pursuance of clause (2j of article 324 of the Constitution, the President is pleased to appoint Shri S. P. Sen Varma as the Chief Election Com- missioner with effect from the forenoon of the 1st October, 1967.

[No. F. 4 (13) (I)/67-Elec]

S.O 3615—-In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (5) qf article 324 of the Constitution, the President is pleased to make the following rules for regulat- ing the conditions of service and tenure of office of .Shri S. P. Sen Varma, Chief Election Commissioner: —

1- The said Chief Election Commissioner shall hold office for a term of five .years from the 1st October, 1967.

2- The said Chief "Election Commissioner shall, except during any period of leave, be paid a salary of three thousand live hundred rupees per month.

3. The cdnditions of service of the said Chief Election Commissioner as respects leave of absence, leave salary, travelling allowances and all other matter* shall be regulated by the same rules as are applicable to a Secretary to the Gov- ernment of India who is a member of the Indian Administrative Service.

[No, F. 4(13)(II)/67-Elec.]'

G. R. BAL, Jt. Secy.

MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS

New Delhi, the 29th September 1967

S.O. 3616.—In exercise of the powers conferred, by the proviso to Article 389 of the Constitution, the President hereby makes the following rules further to amend the Manipur Employees (Revision of Pay.) Rules, 1966.

1- These rules may be culled the Manipur Employees (Revision of Pay) Amendment Rules, 1967

2.' In Schedule to the Manlpur Employees i(Revision, of Pay) Amendment Rules, 19GG-

(1) Under the heading 'Public Works Department' in column 2 against item No- 28 the words "Jugali (Electric)" shall be deleted.

[No. 1/16/65-HMT.]

V. P- MALHOTRA, Dy. Secy.

New Delhi, the 30th September 1967

S.O, 3617-—In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-rule (1) of Rule 113 of the Defence of India Rules, 1962, the Central Government hereby makes the following further amendment in the Notification of the Government of India 1" the Ministry of Home Affairs No- GS-R. 518, dated the 22nd March 1963, relatinl to the appointment of a Compensation Tribunal for the State of Madras, namely;—

In the said Notification, for Item 1 and the entries relating thereto, the following shall be substituted, namely:—

"1- Shri N- S. Ramaswaml, Principal Judce, City Civil Court, Madras, and"

[No. F. 43/34/97-Poll.I(B) ]

N. VITTAL, Under Sety.

CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES

INCOME-TAX

New Delhi, the 25th September 1967

SO 3619.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 126 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), the Central Board of Direct Taxes hereby delete the following Serial Nos. and the entries there against from the Schedule annexed to, its Notifi- cation S.K-O. 1214 (No 44-Income-tax), dated the 1st July, 1952 :—

2A, 3B, 4, S, 6, 7, 16, 17, 22, 23f 24, 45, 71, 74A; 74B; 74C and 77.

[No. 9 /F No. 55/129/67-IT(A2).]

S.O. 3C20.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 126 of the Income-

tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), t he Central Board of Direct Taxes hereby makes the following addition to the Schedule annexed to its Notification No. 1 (F. No. E5/233/ 63-IT) dated the 18th/ May, 1964:

After S. No. 2& in the said Schedule, the following S. Nos. shall be added:

I

6

3

4

5

Inspecting Appellate

29.

Incom:-tax Officer, B- Ward, Pal- ghat.

Commis- sioner of In- come-tax, Kerala, Ernakulam.

Employees of the Southern Railway who arc under the audit control of the Divisional Accounts Officer, Olavakkot, Pfllghat Dis- trict, Kerala State.

Assistant Commission- er of Income tax, Calicut Range, Cali- cut,

Assistant Commission- er of Income tax Trichur Range Tri- chur,

30.

Inspecting

, Assistant

1st Income Tax Officer, Vdlorc.

Commis- sioner of In- come-tax, Madras-1.

Employees of the Arcot Mis- sion of the Reformed Church in America, Vellore, North Arcot Diitrict stationed anywhere in the taxable territories.

Appellate Assistant Commission- er of Income tax, who has been invest- ed with powers to ; hear oppeals • against the [ decisions of the Income- ¹ tax Officer referred to • in column 3.

Commission- er of Income tax, who has been appoint- ed to perform the functions of Inspecting Aastt, Com- missioner oi Income-tax in respect of Income-tax Officer re- ferred to in column 3,

"EC. 3(ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 1967/ASVINA 22, 1889 37

I

2

3

5

6

4

Inspecting Appellate

3 1-

Military employees under the audit con rol of Controller of Military Accounts, Southern Command, Poona.

Commis- sioner of Income-tax, Poona.

Incom;-tax O f f i c e r, S a 1 a r ies and Re- f u n d s, Poona.

Assistant Commis- sioner of Incom;-tax, P.R. I, Poona.

Assistant Commis- sioner of Income-tax, P.R. II, Poona.

-Do-

-Do-

-Do-

-Do-

32-

Employees whether civil or Mil tary who are members of or attached to the Military Accounts Deparimcnt and are under the audit control of ihc Field Control- ler of Military Accounts Officers and Clearing House, Poona.

: -Do-

-Do-

-Do-

33-

Income-tax Officer, 'A' W a r d, Poona.

Person^ (excluding ihose who fall under S. No. 34) not res'dent in the taxable territories and not assessed through statutory agents any part of whose income is deriv- ed from horse racing.

Income-tax -Do-

-Do-

-Do-

34-

Officer, Genera] Headquar- ters, station- ed at Poona.

(i) Defence Services Employees under the audit control of the Con- troller of Defence Accounts (Officers), Poona and or the Con- troller of Defence Accounts (O'hcr Ranks), Secunderabad excluding (a) Employees, whether Civil or Military, who are members of or are attached to the Military Accounts Department and (b) Employees who arc partners m a firm in the taxable terntor es or who have income from business carried on in the taxable terri- tories.

-Do-

-Do-

-Do-

- D i- i(ii") Persons rcs:dcnt outside the taxable territories who at the lime of departure from the taxable territories were Defence Services employees under the audit control of the Controller of Defence Accounts (Officers), Poona (or previously T'.cld Con'roller of Military Accounts, Poona) or the control- ler of Defence Accounts (Other Ranks), Secunderabad and who .are not under the audit control of any other Audit Officer in the taxable territories in respect of accounting periods during wh;ch they were Defence Service emp- loyees in Indian payment.

-Do-

-Do-

-Do-

(iii) Persons being widows or dependents of Defence Services employees, jn the payment¹ of the Controller of Defence Accounts (Officers), Poona (or previously Field Controller of Military Accounts, Poona) or the Control- ler of Defence Accounts (Other Ranks), Secunderabad.

6 I

2

4

5

3

35-

Income-tax Officer, Dgboi.

Appellate Assistant Commis- sioner of

I Income-tax,

Commission- er of Incomc- tHX, Assam, Nagaland, Manipur & Tripura, Shrllong.

Covenanted and other employees 'of the Burmah Oil Company India (Trading) Lmited working in Northern and Eastern India other than those stationed in Calcutta, having headquarters at Digboi.

Inspecting Assistant Comm's- sioner of Income-tax,' Shillong Range, Shillong.

Gauhati Range, Gauhati.

-Do-

-Do-

-Do-

-Do-

36- Covenanted and o'her employees of the Burmah Oil Company (India Concessions) Limited working in Northern and Eastern India other than those stationed in Calcutta, having headquarters at Digboi.

37.

Income-'ax Officer, D-Ward, Guntur.

Employees and pensioners of the United Lulhian Church MiEsion who are resident in Andhra Pradesh State.

Inspccting Assis'ant Commis- sipner of Tncume-tax, Guntur.

Commissio- ner of In- come-tax, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad-

Appellate Assistant" Commis- sioner of Income-lux, Nellore.

-Do- 38. Employees and pensioners of the Canadian Baptist Mission who are resident in Andhra Pradesh State.

Appellate Assistant Comnr's- sioner of

Income-lax Officer, U-Ward Circle I, Kakinada.

Inspecting Assis'ant Commis- sioner of Income-tax,] Vijayawada.

] Income-tax, Kakinada.

-Do-

39. Employees of the Ueccan Airways Ltd., Secundcrabad stationed anywhere in the taxable territo- ries.

Income-tax • Officer, B-Ward, Salary- Circle, Hyderabad.

•Inspecting Ass:s ant Commis- sioner of Income-tax Range-1, Hyderabad.

Appellate Assistant Commis- sioner of Income-tax C-Range, Hyderabad.

40. Government servants under the audit of the Deputy Accountant General, Posts and Telegraphs,! Nagpur.

2nd Income Tax Officer, Salary Circle, Nagpur.

Appellate Assisant Commis- sioner of Income-lax, 'A' Range, Nagpur.

Inspecting Ass;s1ant Commis- sioner of Income-tax, Nagpur Range, Nagpur.

Commis- sioner of Income-tax,. Madhya Pradesh, Nagpur and Bhandara, Nagpur.

41-

Employees of the Central and Western Railway excepr those under the audit control of ihe Deputy Accountant General, Commerce, Works and Miscel- laneous, Calcutta (Previously called Deputy Accountant Gene- ral, Industries and Supply, Cal- cutta), working.

(a) at the headquarters and in the Bombay Division (C. Rly).

Income-tax

Officer,

S. B. I.,

Bombay

Commis- sioner of Incorne- tax> City I, Bombay.

Inspecting Assistant Commis- sioner of Income-tax, P-Range, Bombay.

Appellate Assistant Commis- sioner of Income-tax, P-Range, Bombay.

-Do-

-Do-

-Do-

-Do-

(b) at the headquarters and in the Bombay Divigion (W. Rly.)

I

²

3

4

5

6

CO in the Jhansi Division (C. Rly.i

Income-lax Officer, ]hansi

Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P.I, Lucknow.'

Inspeciing Assistant Curnmissien- er of Income-tax, A Range, Kanpur.

Appellate Assistant Commission- er of Income-tax, Range III, Kanpur.

(d) in the Ajmrt, Jaipur and Kota D.visions of W. Rly.

Commissioner of income-tax, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

Income-fax Officer, Salary Circle I, Jaipur,

Appellate Assisfunt C(.'mm:ss:on- er of Income-tax, B-Range, Jaipur.

Inspecting Assistant Commission- er of Income-tax, J" pur Range, Jaipur.

(0 in the Bhaviagar, Division (W.Rly.j

Commissioner o.f Income-tax, Gujarat I; Ahmed abad.

Income-tax Officer, Circle II, Ward C, Bhavnagar

Inspecting Ass slant Commission- er of Income-tax) Bhavnagar Range, Bhavnagar.

Appellate Ass' slant Commission- er of Income-lax, Bhavnagar Range, Bhavnagar.

Commissi oner 0 i

(f) in ihe Rajkot Division (W. Rly..)

Income-tax Gujarat I, Ahmcdabad,

Tncome-tax Officer, Circle II, Ward D, Kajkot.

Appella'e Assistant Commission- er of Income-'ax, Rajkot Range, Rajkot.

Inspecting Assistant Commission- er of Income-tax Rajkot Range, Rajkc.

(s) in the Baroda Division . (W. Rly).

Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujrat II, Ahemdabad

Income-tax Officer, Circle II, Ward E, Baroda

Inspecting! Assistant Commission- er of Income-tax, Baroda Range, Baroda

Appellate Assistant Commission- er of Income-tax, Baroda Range, Baroda

00 in the Jabalpur Division (C. Rly.)

Income-tax Officer, 11 Ward, Jabalpur.

Commissioner of Income-tax. Madhya Pradesh, Nagpur fit Bhandara, Nagpur

Apppellate AsSjBtant Commission- er of Income-tax, 'A' Range, Jabalpur

Inspecting Assistant Commission- er of Income-tax, Jabalpur Range, Jabalpur

Do.

Do.

Do.

(i) in the Nagpur Division (C. Rly.)

2nd Income- tax Officer Salary Circle, Nagpur.

0)

Commissioa- erof

Income-tax, Poon".

Income-tax Officer, C-Ward, Jalgdon.

in the Bhusawal Division of C. Rly. and residing within the territorial jurisdiction of Commi'"ion- er of Income-tax, Poona.

Inspeciing Assistant CommiBiion- erof Income-ttx, A. R., Akola.

Appellate Assisiant Commission- er of Income-tax, Jalgaon Range, Jalgaon.

I

6

4

5

3

00 in the Secunderabad

Income-tax Officer, D-Ward, Sholapur.

Commiason- cr of Income-¹, ax, Poona.

Inspecting Assistant Commission- er of Income-taxj P.R. II, Poona.

Appellate Assistant Commission- er of Income-tax, Sholapur Range, Sholapur.

and Sholapur Divisions of South Central Railway and residing within the territorial Jurisdiction of Commis- sioner of Income-tax, Poona.

[No. 10 (F. No. 35/l^e/67-IT(A-n).]

New Delhi, the 30th September 1967

S.O- 3621.—In exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (1) of section 121 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), the Central Board of Direct Taxes hereby makes the following amendments to the Schedule appended to Its Notifi- cation No. 20 (F. No. 55/-/62-LT.), dated the 30th April, 1963 published as S.O. 1298 on pages 1454-1457 of the Gazette of India Part II, Section 3 Sub-section (ii), dated the 11th May, 1963 _as amended from time to time :—

SEC, 3(li)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14. 1967/ASVINA 22, 1889

MINISTRY OF COMMERCE

New Delhi, the 4th October 1967

S.O. 3623.—The Central Government, having considered in consultation with the Forward Markets Commission the application for renewal of recognition made under section 5 of the Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1952 (74 of 1952) by the Mahesh Beopar Bhandar Company Ltd., phuri and being satisfied' that it would be in the interest of the trade and also in the public interest so to do, hereby grants, in exercise of the powers conferred by section 6 of the said Act, recognition to the said Company for a, further period of three years from the 6th November, 1967 upto the 5th November, 1970 (both days inclusive) in respect of forward contracts in kapas.

2. The recognition hereby granted is subject to the condition that the said Company shall comply with such directions as may from time to time be given by the Forward Markets Commission.

[No. 34(ll)-Com.Genl7FMC/G7.J

M. L. GUPTA, Under Secy.

(Office of the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports)

ORDER

Calcutta, the 1st September 1967

(Offlte of the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports)

ORDER

New Delhi, the 29th September 1967

S.O. 3626.—Mrs. Albert Bodwish, Ellangowan House, Mussorie was granted Customs Clearance Permit No. P/CC/2357424, dated 31st March, 1967 for Rs. 1,645 for import of car spare, parts- She has applied for duplicate copy of the Custom • Clearance Permit on the ground that the original Custom Clearance Permit has been lost or misplaced- It is further stated that the original Custom Clearance Permit was not registered with the Customs House and not utilised. In -support of thid contention, she has filed an affidavit. I am satisfied that the original Custom Clearance Permit No. P/CC/2.X57424, dated 31st March, 1967 has been lost or misplaced and direct that a duplicate Custom Clearance Permit should be .issued to the applicant. The original Custom Clearance Permit is cancelled.

[No. 4/A-96/68-B7/L-rV/Adhoc/706.]

P. C. NANDA/

Dy. Chief Controller ol Imports and Exports.

MINISTRY OF STIEL, MINES AND MBTALS

(Department of Minee and Metals) New Delhi, the 3rd October 1967

S.O. 8827.—Whereas in pursuance of the notification of the Government of "India in the late Ministry of Steel, Mines and Fuel (Department of Mines and :ruel) No. S.O. 702, dated-the 18th March, 1900, under section 9 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957), the Cen- tral Government has acquired 998'80 acres of land in village Balanda, Dera and ChaMtapara in the district of Dhenkanal;

And whereas Shri Baji Nayak son of late Shri Kathi Nayak and Shri Ghane Behra son of Shri Baira Behra of Village Balanda P.O. and P.S. Dera Colliery District Dhenkana] (Orissa), the interested persons have under section 13 of the Bald, Act, preferred their claims for compensation for acquisition of their land measuring 1'72 acres which forms part of land so acquired before the Competent Authority;

And, whereas, the amount of compensation offered by the Competent Authority has been accepted by the said claimants under protest and there is a dispute as -*q the sufficiency of the amount of compensation offered;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of sec- tion 14 of the said Acl the Central Government hereby constitutes a Tribunal consisting of Shri P. K. Choudhary, Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, part-time Tribunal, for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation payable of these claimants.

[No. C2-31 U)/67.]

New Delhi, tht 4th October 1967

S.O. 38JH.—Whereas in pursuance of the notification of the Government of India in the late Ministry of Steel, Mines and Fuel (Department of Mines and Fuel) No. S.O. 2839, dated the 15th December, 1959, under section 9 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957), the Central Government has acquired lands measuring 83'75 acres In the villages Bhukbhuki and Government Forest and the rights to mine, quarry, bore, dig and search for, win, work and carry away minerals in the land measuring 10-75 acres in the vil- lages Bhukbhuki and Government Forest in the Disrtict of Sirguja.

And whereas Shri Khuman Singh M/O. Shri Dalpat Singh of village Bhukbhuki, •Tahsil Manindragarh, Distt. Surguja (MP), the interested person, has under sec- tion 13 of the said Act, preferred his claim for compensation for acquisition of his land. 28 acres which form part of land so acquired to the competent authority;

And whereas the compensation offered by the Competent authority has been accepted by him only under protest and there is a dispute as to the sufficiency -of the amount of compensation offered;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of -section 14 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby constitutes a Tribunal •consisting of Shri Padmakant Choudhary, Additional Judicial Commissioner,, Ranchi, part-time Tribunal for the purpose of determining the amount of com- pensation payable to Shri Khuman Singh.

[No. C2-22(15)/6S.] M. S. K. RAMASWAMI, Dy. Secy.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY PLANNING

(Department of Health)

ORDERS

New Delhi, the 29th September 1967

S.O. S629.—Whereas the Governmtnt of India in the late Ministry of Health has, by Notification No. 16-19/59-MI, dated the 1st April, 19<5O made in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 14 .of the Indian Medical Council A ~-t, 19fiG (101! of 1956) recognised the medical qualification M.D- granted by the University of California for the purposes of the said Act;

New. therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to sub- jection (1) of section 14 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956) the Central Government hereby specifies the period of two years with effect from the date of this order or so long as Dr Barry Stefen Dorfman who possesses -the said qualification, continues to work with the American Peace Corps, Hyderabad Regional Office, Hyderabad to which he is attached for the time being for the purpu^es of teaching, research or charitable work, whichever is shorter, as the period to which the medical practise of the said Dr. Barry Stefen Dorfman shall "bp limiied.

[No. F. 19-4n/67-MPT-] S.O. 3630.—Whereas the Government of India in the late Ministry of Health has. by Notification No 10-8/6H-MI (MPT), dated the 4th June, H>fi4. made . in . exercisj of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section !•*- of the Indian Medical Council Act. 1956 (102 of 1956), recognised the medical qualification "M-D. (Texas University, USA)" for the purposes of the said Act;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to sub-sec- tion (1) of section 14 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1966 (102 of 19B8) the Central Government hereby specifies the period commencing from the date of issue of this Order to the 31st December, 1967, or so long as Dr. Whitcher Jr. John Page who possesses the said qualifications, continues to work with the American Peace Corps, Bangalore Regional Office, Bangalore to which he is attached for the time being for the purposes of teaching, research or charitable work, whichever is shorter as the period to which the medical practice of the said Dr. Whitcher Jr. John Page shall be limited.

[No- F. 19-33/67-MPT]

L. K. MURTHY, Under Secy.

MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT AND SHIPPING

(Transport Win*)

MERCHANT SHIPPING

New Delhi, the 28th September 1967

S.O. 3"31.—In pursuance of rule 5 of the Indian Merchant Shipping (Seamen's Employment Office, Calcutta) Rules, 1954, the Central Government hereby estab- lishes a Seamen's Employment Board (Foreign-going) at the port of Calcutta for a period of two years with effect from the date of issue of this notification and .appoints the following persons to be members therof, namely:—

")

1. The Director General of Shipping. 2. Th". Deputy Director General of Slipping, incharge of Seamen's Em- | Members ployment Office, Calcutta.

^representing | Government. 3. The Labour Commissioner. West Bengal, Calcutta. 4. The Director, National Employment Service, West Bengal, Calcuttt. J 3. The Ditector, Seamen's Kmploymenr Office, West Bengal, Calcutta

")

^representing Shpowncrs.

J ") I Members {-represent ng

Seamen 6. CaptanA.B. McSweency. 7- Shri P.I.D. Barty Members 8. Shri N. Lat f 9. Shri R.N. Ghosal 10. Shri K. Raghavan 11. Shri A jit Chakravarty 12. Shri Bijoy Mukherjee 13. Shri K.P. Roy. 14. Shri N.C. Bharadwaj 15. Shri Bikas Majumdar

j

2. The Director General of Shipping shall be the Chairman of the Board The Deputy Director of Shipping incharge of Seamen's Employment Office, Calcutta shall be the Vice-Chairman of the Board. The Director, Seamen's Employment Office, Calcutta shall be the Secretary of the Board,

[No. 15-MT(4)/67,J

K. V. SANKARAN, Dy. Secy.

MINISTRY OF WORKS, HOUSING AND SUPPLY

(Oeptt. of Works and Housing)

New Delhi, the 3(Hh September 19B7

S.O. 8632.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Public- Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1958 (32 of 1958), the Central Government hereby makes the following amendment in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Works and Housing No. S.O. 2036 dated 9th July 1965, namely:

In the Table below the said notification for [he entries in column 1 against serial No. 2, the following shall be substituted, namely :

S. No, 2. Administrative and Chief Accounts Officer, Security Paper Mill Project, Hoshangabad.

[No. F. 21012(8)/67-Pol.J

V. P. AGNIHOTRI, Dy. Secy.

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

New Delhi, the 30th September 1967

S.O. 36S3.~In pursuance of the Provisions of sub-aection 4 of Section 22 of the Delhi Development Act, 1957, the Delhi Development Authority has replaced at the disposal of the Central Government the land described in the Schedule below for placing it at the disposal of the Land & Development Officer, Ministry of Works Housing and Urban Development, Government of India, New Delhi for further transfer to Plndi Gheb Khalsa Middle, School, Doriwallan, Delhi.

SCHEDULE

Piece of land measuring 1406 sq. yds. bearing Khasra Nos, 54/27, 55/27, 56/27,. 57/27, 5B/27, 66/27 and 68/27 situated in Bagh Raoji Estate.

The above piece of land is bounded as follows :—

NORTH: Gall. SOUTH: Gali. EAST: Road Doriwallan & Plot No. 69. WEST : Plot No. 53 and Plot No. 65 staff quarter.

[No. L2(56)61.)

M. L. MONGIA, Secy. Delhi Development Authority,

DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATIONS

(P. & T. Board)

New Delhi, the 28th September 1907

S.O. 3634.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 9 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 (6 of 1898) the Central Government hereby makes the following rules further to amend the Indian Post Office Rules, 1933, namely:

1. These rules may be called the Indian Post Office (Tenth Amendment) Rules, 1D67.

2. In sub-rule (2) of rule 30, for the words "bona fide subscribers" the words "bona fide subscribers who have paid their subscriptions" shall be substituted..

[No. 0/8/67-Ct]

New Delhi, the 4th October 1967

S.O. 3635—In exercise of the powers conferred by section 21 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 (6 of 1898), the Central Government hereby makes the fol- lowing rules further to amend the Indian Post Office Rules, 1933, namely :

1. These rules may be called the Indian Post Office (Eleventh Amendment) Rules, 1987.

2. In rule 183 of the Indian Post Office Rules, 1033, in clause (a), for the words "on service of the Government of India", the words "on Government service" shall be substituted.

[No. 10/4/67-CI.]

DALJINDER SINGH,

Director Postal Technical.

OFFICE OF THE COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE

MADHYA PRADESH AND VIDARBHA

CORRIGENDUM

CENTRAL EXCISE

NagjniT, the 27th September 1967.

S.O. 3636.—For the letters and figure "A. R. 6" appearing against Rule 96ZD(2) In column No. 3 of the Table subjoined to this Collectorate Notification No. 6/ 1967-C. Ex., dated the 14th August, 1967, read "A. R. 10".

[No. 7/1967.]

VIPIN MANEKLAL,

Collector.

THE MADRAS CENTRAL EXCISE, COLLECTORATE, MADRAS

CORRIGENDUM

Madras, the 27th September 1967

S.O. 3637—In column No. 2 against S.No. 5 of the Table appended to thia Collectorate Notification/Central Excises C. No. V(16B)3/3/G7-CXIL, dated 14th August, 1967, for the letters and figure "A.R. 6", read "A.R. 10".

[C. No. V(16B)3/3/67-CXn.]

S. VENKATARAMAN. Collector.

OFFICE OF THE COLLECTOE OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI

CENTRAL EXCISES

Delhi, the 3rd October 1967

8.O. W3U.—The following correction shall be made in this Collectorate Notifica-

tion No. 6/67 (Central Excises), namely: —

In column 4 against the powers of Superintendent and Assistant Collector

under Central Excise Rule 96ZD(2), for the letters and figure "A.R.6",

read "A.R. 10".

B. PRASAD,

Collector of Central Excise, Delhi.

[No. 7/67.]

MCNISTEY OF FINANCE

t

(Department of EcoBomle Affairs)

New Delhi, the 29th September 1967

S.O. 3

BAKTONO DEPABTMBNT

\ jmnTTTTBt

AJJETS

Rs.

Rs.

s

5,w,o

Note* .

.

i5=92j33P<"

o Otpitnl Pul Up . .

Rapee Coin

o

Small Coto

80iOOiOCMX)0

3,25

ReierTB Fond

S

BilU Purchased and Discounted 1—

• i - i *' ^pinnltnul rin^ll* /T^np Tmn

i3i^xw".ooo

(a) latent!

OpondoAt) Fnod

(") External

(c) Government Trettaty Bills .

Bdance* Held Abro"j*

Ntfiooal Agrindlunl Credit (StabiHtttion) Fund

2S*"VXV"0

I >

23J97,44"ooo

171,10,72,000

N"iowllndn"ii"l Credit (Long Term Operations!

3^

Fuod

. "

Lotus and Advances to 1—

(f) Central GoTOiuucm

(tf) State GoTenmena & .

18,78,50500"

LIABILITIES

ASSETS

Rs.

R5.

I (JJa

Loans tta Adnmun to .—

Deposits i~

(0 Sctaecfa^ed C o a m a aU B " da t

(H) State Co-opesative BanJaft . , i

'ai Govenuooot

81,10,000

162,18,19^00

(Cf) Otben

2,35>3O/"O

(0 Central Government

88,15,38,000

Loans, Advance* and Investments &omNatJcoal Agricul-

tural Credit (Long Term Opeiatkst) Ftmdt—

o

9,78^6^00

(a) L o an and Advances to :—

(tf) State Governments

(0 State GoTemmentt -

• 13,30,79^)00

N

(u) State Co-opetmtive Bank*

i4,iM7^oo

(m) Central Land Mortgage Bank*

(ft) Banks

(ft) Ionttment in Central Land Mortgage Bank Debenture*

7,3O,8(V)oo

o

Loan* and Advance* from National Agricultural Credit

(0 Schednled Commercifll Bania . .

Losns and Adroice* to State Cb-opetative Banks

(tf) Scheduled State Co-operative B*nts

8,54,523ooo

Loam, Advances and Inrenmena fnsnNatiaoal Indnitrial

("•) Non-SdbednKd State Co-operative Banks

Credit (Long Term Operation) Fundi—

5,81^6,000

73,70^>00

20,10,000

ftp) Other Banki

(a) Loan* and Advances to the Devdopment Bank

5,24,15,000

sp g (d) Other*

264,84,93,000

(t) Inveatment in bonds/debenture* inoed by the

Development Bank . . ..

Other Aateo

. . .

32,38^1^000

BHi Payable

O t hs LtabQitiea

32,49,82,000

38,11,16:^00

847)78J70JOOO

Rupees

Rupees

847J78"7P.OOO

*lndudei Cash and Short-teim Securitie*.

i **Exctudrng iavestments from the National Agricultural Credit (Long Term Operations) Fond and the Nstioaal Industrial Credit (Long Term Operations) Fund.

i @Hxdnding Loans and Advances from the National Agricultural Credit (Long Term Operations) Fund, bat including temporary overdrafts to State Governments.

tlarfndeiRs. N IL advanced to scheduled commercial bank* against usance bills under section i7(4Xc) of the Reserve Bank of India A ct

s ttEsduding Loans and Advances from the National Agricultural Credit (Long Term Operations) Fund and the National Agricultural Credit (Stabfli.

satkn) Fond,

Dated the 27th Jay jf September, 1967,

to

An Aeooaot pursuant to the Reserve Bank of lodk Act, 19J4,for(be weak aodod tba 22od day of September 1967.

inn Dvunmn

I? 1 liiMimM

ASSETS

R I.

Rs.

Rs.

Rs.

15,92,23^000

G o ld Coin and Bullion 1—

Ncrtes held in the Banking Dcpaiticeiit.

a

115,89^000

^ o ( j c5 IQ C w c o l f l u on • • .

(a) Held in Indw

(b) Held outside I n du

2897,08^0,000

2913^1,13,000

Total Notes toned .

Fotc%a Securities . . ..

o

T O T AL . Rupee Coin . . ..

282,31,25,000

80,78,2^000

2549,9i,59POO

Government of I n dk Rupee S e c a r i t ks

rnft"mai Bin* of E i c h s n ge and

other commetcUl paper

|

2913,01,13,000

T O T AL A S S E TS

TOTtl. LlABtUTTBI

2913,01,13,000

Dated the 27th day of September 1967.

B. N. ADAKKAE,

Dy. GowwBor.

[No. F.3t3>BG/67-]

I*.

S.O. 1640.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 53 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949), the Central Government, on the recommendation of the Reserve Bank of India, hereby declares that the provisions of section 9 at the said Act shall not apply to the Eastern Bank Ltd., Calcutta in regpect of the House Property known as 'Runneymede' held by it at No. 1 Boat Club, I, Avenue, Mowbrays Garden, Raja Annamalipuram (Adyar), Madras-28 till the 16th September, 1969.

[No. F- 15(19)-BC/67.J

New Delhi, the 3rd October 1967

S.O. S941—In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 53 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949), the Central Government, On the recommendation of the Reserve Bank of India, hereby declares that the provisions of Section 9 of the said Act shall not apply to the Bank of Behar Ltd., Patna, in respect of the undernoted Immovable properties held by it, till the 5th October, 1969.

1. Piece of land with a House Bearing No. 52/18 in Mohal Collectonwmj

Shakkarpati in Kanpur City.

2. Piece of land measuring 5 Bighaa 4 Biswas 17 Biswanst comprising of (I) Plot No. }040 measuring 2 Bighas 2 Biswas In Mohal Dalip Singh on£. \ .B i g h tU B l s wa ln M o h al Pragdutta, and (il) Plot No. 250 measuring 2 Bighas 1 Biswa 17 Biswansi ln Mohal Pragdutta all situated in village Naubasta at Hamirpore Road, District Kanpur along with 19 quarters boundary wall and garden, etc-

[No, F. 13(18)-BC/B7.I

V. SWAMINATHAN, Under Secy.

(Department of Revenue & Insurance)

INCOME-TAX

New Delhi, the 23rd September 1967

[No. 106 F. No. 16/39/67-IT(AI).]

S.O. 36".—It is hereby notified for general information that the institutlnn mentioned below has been approved by the Indian Council erf Medfcll R e s eX the "prescribed authority", for the purposes of clauae (ii) of sub-section (1> of flection 35 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961). section (ij ol

INSTITUTION

THE TUBERCULOSIS ASSOCIATION OP INDIA, NEW DELHI

[No. 107/F. No. 10/"/68-IT(AI).I

8.O. S644.—It is hereby notified for general information that the institution mentioned below has been approved by the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, the "prescribed authority" as an institution engaged in research in Social Science for the purposes of clause (iii) of sub-section (1) of section 85 of the Income-tax Act, 1881 (43 of 1961).

INSTITUTION

SRI AUROBINDO SOCIETY, PONDICHERBY-2.

[No. 108/F. No. 10/28/67-lT(AI).]

J. C. KALHA, Dy. Secy.

(Department of Rerenue and Insurance)

INCOME-TAX

New Delhi, the 26th September 1967

S-O. 3845-—Under the provisions of the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 4 ottbt Taxation Laws (Extension to Union Territories) Regulation, 1963 (3 of 1963), fche Central Government hereby determines that any reference to an officer, autho- rity, tribunal or court mentioned in column 2 of the Table below in any law in force in the Union Territory and corresponding to the Income-tax Act, 1SHJ1 (43 Of 1861), shall be construed as a reference to an officer, authority, tribunal or court mentioned in column 3 thereof:

SI. No.

Designation of the corresponding authority under the Indian Income- tax Act, 1961.

Designation of ihe authority under 'French Law

2.

1.

3-

1,

Counsit De Contentieux

Appellate Assistant Commissioner Administratif

of Income-Lax.

1 Appellate Tribunal

)• High Court*

Counseid,! Etat

J Supreme Court*

•for questions of Uvr only.

[No. 110/F. No- 22/0/86-IT(A-II)J

WASIQ ALI KHAN, Dy. Secy

MINISTRY OF LABOUR, EMPLOYMENT AND REHABILITATION (Department of Labour and Employment) New Delhi, the 26th September 1967

S.O. 8646.—In pursuance of section 17 of the Industrie Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the following award of the Indus- trial Tribunal, Jabalpur, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Mica Mines of Messrs Eastern Manganese and Minerals Limited, Post Office Domchanch, District Hazarlbagh and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on the 20th September, 1987.

JBEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR. New Delhi, the 6th September 1967

"PRESENT :

Shri G. C Agarwala—Presiding Officer.

REFERENCE NO. 63 OF_1966_JPHANBAD_TRIBUNALJ___

REFERENCE NO-~ CGIT/LC(R)(86)/67 (JABALPUH TRIBUMAL)

In the matter of an Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to Mica Mines of Messrs- Eastern Manganese and Minerals Limited, Post Office Domchanch District Hazaribagh and their workmen. ' APPEARANCES :

For employers—Shri Gtrdhar Gopal, Labour Welfare Officer. For workmen—None.

.INDUSTRY: Mica Mine- DISTRICT: Hazaribagh (Bihar)

AWARD

<1) Whether the retrenchment of the following workmen by the Mica Mines of Messrs Eastern Manganese and Mineral Limited, Post Office Dom- each°wa? Stifled'?⁸²¹⁸¹' gh W l th ⁶ f f e Ct f r°m t he d a t es n o t ed a*a I n st

l g e s^ S h rf D' K' P a t h a k' M i n l nS Asstt., Mahua U-C & DWKS Mine—13th October,

SEC. 3(ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: OCTOBER 14, I967/ASVINA 22, J889 3783

(14) Shri Phulo Hazam, Shotflrer, Veloria U.C & DWKS Mine—13th October, 1065.

(15) Shri Ramchit Singh, Veloria U.C. & DWKS Mine—13th October, I960. (16) Shri Mahavir Singh, Gunman, G.L.U-C- & DWKS Mine—21st October, 1985, (17) Shri P. N. Dubey, Mining Asstt., G.L.U-C & DWKS Mine—21st October, 1965-

(18) S..ri Ruknl Gopin, Water Carrier, G-L.U-C. & DWKS Mine—21st October.

1065

(19) Shri Bishan Chasa, Shotflrer, G-L.U-C. & DWKS Mine—21st October, 1065.

1965.

(20) Shri Kokil Barhi, Skilled Worker, G.L-U.C & DWKS Mine~21st October, 1965.

(2) If not, to what relief are they entitled?

The p oceedlngs remained pending before the Dhanbad Tribunal till transferred -to this Tribunal by Notification No. 8/25/67-LRII dated April 25, 1907-

Neither party filed any written statement of claim either before the Dhanbad Tribunal or this Tribunal. Repeated notices were sent but neither party appeared and ultimately the employers have today appeared and have filed a compromise petition, terms of which are reproduced in the annexure- It is signed by the General Secretary of the Union and the representative of the management. The compromise petition appears to be a bona fide settlement of the dispute. Ii relates to retrench- ment, of 20 workmen of the Mine. By the terms of settlement it appears that the Union has agreed to accept the legality of the retrenchment and legal dues have been paid by the management to the workmen concerned- An award is, therefore, recorded in terms of compromise settlement.

(Sd) G. C AOAHWALA,

Presiding Officer, 6-9-1967..

ANNEXURE

Before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur.

Camp: Dhanbad.

Case: Eastern Manganese & Minerals Ltd

V".

Their workmen represented by the Abhrak Mazdur Union,

Letter No- CGIT/LC(R) (86)/87 dated 14th August, 1967.

Sir,

In the above case we most humbly submit that subsequent to the Conciliation proceedings and submission of report to the Government the workers concerned agreed to retrenchment with the consent of the Union and accordingly all the legal dues were paid to them by the Management.

Now there is no complaint existing against the Management to this context. We, therefore, pray that the above case be disposed of as settled,

Representative of the workmen. Representative of the Management-

Sd/- HARISH CHANDRA MISRA, Genl- Secy. 5/9/67- (Sd.) Illegible.

Abhrak Mazdur Union, P.O. Jhumritelaiya- For Eastern Manganese & Minerals. Dlstt- Hazaribagh- Ltd-, P.O. Domchanch, Dlstt. Hazaribagh. Dated: 5th September, 1967.

Part of Award

(Sd.) G. C. AQAHWALA,

Presiding Officer. Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Jabalpur. 6-9-1967. [No. 20/9/63-LRL]

New Delhi, the 28th September 1967

S.O. S647.—In pursuance of section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 194 7), the Central Government hereby publishes the following award of the Industrial Tribunal, Jabolpur, in the industrial dispute between the employers In relation to the Pakher Bauxite Mine of Messrs- Aluminium Corporation of India Limited, Poat Office Lohardaga, District Ranchi and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on the 21st September, 1967.

BEFORE "SHE CENTRAL, GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT, JABALPUR.

New Delhi, the 12th September 1967

PRESENT :

Shri G. C. Agarwala—Presiding Officer.

REFERENCE NO- 27 OF 1965 (DHAMBAP TRIBUNAL) REFERENCE NO. CGIT/LC(R) (78)/67 (JABALPUR TRIBUNAL)'

PARTIM:

Employers in relation to the Pakher Bauxite Mine of Messrs Aluminium Corporation of India Limited, Post Office Lohardaga, District Ranchi (Bihar)

Vs.

Their Workmen, represented through Ranchi District Bauxite and China Clay Mines Employees' Union, P.O. Lohardaga, Distt. Ranchi.

APFIARANCMJ :

For employers—Sri D. Prakash, Authorised representative. For workmen—Sri A- P. Pande, Joint Secretary, Ranchi District Bauxite &

China Clay Mines Employees' Union, P.O. Lohardaga, Distt. Ranchi. INDUSTRY:Bauxite Mine- DISTRICT: Ranchi (Bihar).

AWARD By Notification No. 24/6/65-LR-I dated 19th February 1965, the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, referred the following matter of dispute to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad, for adjudication: —

Matter of Dispute

Whether the action of the management of the Pakher Bauxite Mine of Messrs Aluminium Corporation of India Limited, Post Office Lohardaga In dismissing Shri S. K. Jabooruddin a piece-rated workman Is justified? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled?

The proceedings remained pending before the Dhanbad Tribunal from 8th March 19C5 till transferred to this Tribunal by Notification No- 8/25/67-LRII dated April 25, 1867.

After issue of usual notices on the first date ml preliminary hearing on 22nd June 19fl7 certain issues were framed which need not be reproduced as after evid- ence was concluded on the whole case on 17th August 15)67 and arguments were heard it has transpired that the dispute is not an industrial dispute which could confer jurisdiction to this Tribunal to adjudicate.

The facts are that Sri S. K. Jabooruddin was a piece-rated workman and was a sort of leader of workers in thp mine. He was charge-sheeted on 1st August 1964 for having assaulted Sri L. M Singh, Geologist on 30th July 1964. After his expla- nation was considered a domestic enquiry was held and he was ultimately dismissed on receipt of the finding of the Enquiry Officer by means of an order dated !5th November 1964 to be effective from 11th November 1964. After the cause of action had arisen and before he was dismissed It appears that he transferred his allegiance to the sponsoring Union, the Raichi District Bauxite and China Clay Mines Emp- loyees' Union, PO- Lohardafia, District Ranchi. As admitted bv the own witness of workman, Sri Mahabir Ram Verma (W.W.I) Joboorudln applied and became member of the Union on 29th October 19R4- The counterfoil recepit for payment subscrlotion is Ex. W/1-A in the Counterfoil Receipt Book ExW/1- The Register of Membership (Ex.W/2) which is maintained separately for each mine records the name of Jabooruddin at SI. 13- A perusal of this register would show thnt this Union started operating for the first time fro-n 18th October, 1064 and enlisted membershin of 121 workers between the months of October, and November. 1964. Before th^t, the Union had no connection wl+h this mine. As a matter of fact, Sri Mahabir Ham Verma, Vice Secretary (W.W-1) admitted that Jaboorudin was

SEC. 3(ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 1967/ASVINA 22, 1889 378 $.

member of another union, Chota Nagpur Bauxite Union, till June or July, 1964 but he stated that he resigned from that union and approached the sponsoilng Union for membership- Jabuorudin workman concerned (W-W.2), however, did not state that he resigned membership of Chota Nagpur Bauxite Union in June or July, 1964- All that he stated was that he and a few others had been approaching this sponsor- Ing union since June 1964 but was advised by the Secretary tnat when more persons become agreeable then they would be enlisted- It follows, therefore, that the acti- vities of this Union commenced only from October, 11)64 and before that it had no connection with the mine. The question for determination, therefore, is whether a union which had no connection with the employers at the time of the cause of actien and the workman concerned was not a member of that union at that time, could the subsequent action of the workman becoming member of the Union and the Union becoming representative by enlistment of a sufficient number of work- men, the dispute can validJy be espoused by xi so as to become an industrial dispute. It will be a question of Aw what shall be the material time namely the time when cause of action arose or at the time of punishment. In order that a dispute could be sponsored by a Union In respect of an individual workman, the material time is that when the act has happened. It has to be proved that the wcrkman con- cerned was a member of the said Union on the material date- Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Workmen of Dimakuchl Tea Estate Vs- Management of Dimakuchl Tea Estate, reported in 1958 (I) LLJ p. 500 prescribed two tests and one of them was that the person regarding whom the dispute is raised must be one in whose employment, non-employment, terms of employment or conditions of labour, the parties to the dispute must have a direct and subsisting Interest- When a workman was not a member of their Union they could not obviously have a sub- sisting interest when the cause of action a~os

(Sd) G. C. AGARWALA,

Presiding Officer, 12-9-1967. [No. 24/8/IW-LR1.7

8.O. 3648.—In pursuance of section ]7 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947). the Central Government herebv publishes thf following award of the Industrial Tribunal. Jabaipur, In the matt°r of an application under Section 33-A. of the said Act filed bv Shri Rambilas Sincrh, B- No. 3819, an Underground Checker of Messrs Indian CnmiPr rnrnrt'-ation Ltd., which was received by thft Central Government on the 20th September, 1967.

BETORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNTVPHNTT P>mTTRTFTAL TRIBUNAT^-CUM-LABOUR, COURT, JABALPURl

Camp at Ghatsila

Dated August 29, 1967

PRESENT:

Sri G. C. Agarwala—Presiding Officer.

COMPLAINT_ No. 2 or 1967 (DHANBAD TRIBUNAL)

COMPLAINT NO- CGIT/LC(A)(24)/67 (JABALPUH TBIBUHAL)

U /s 33-A I-D. A CT

PARTIES :

Ram Biles Slnrh, B. No. 3819, Underground Checker, c /o Mossboni Mines Labour Union, P.O. Mosabonl Mines (Singhbhum), Bihar—Complalnartf-

Versus

M/s. Indian Copper Corporation Ltd., P.O- Mosabonl Mines, District Singh- bhum, Bihar—Opp. Party.

APPEARANCES :

For the Complainant—Shrl H. B. Singh, General Secretary, Mosabonl Mines

Labour Union, P.O. Mosabonl Mines (Singhbhum).

For the Opposite Party—Sri K. C- Goel, Legal Adviser of the Company.

INDUSTRY: Copper Mine. DIBTRICT: Slnghbhum (Bihar). ORDER/AWARD

This is an application of one Sri Rambilas Singh as Underground Checker employed with the Opposite Party, M/s. IndJan Copper Corporation Ltd-, complain- ing that during the pendency of two references of Industrial Disputes, Nek- 4 of ;1985 and 79/65, he has been issued a warning chit and therefore punished which was contravention of Section 33 IP- Act- This application was filed before the Centml Government Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad, as the references in question were pending before the said Tribunal, These references alongwith all cases arising therefrom either under Section 33-A or 33 were transferred to this Tribunal by Notification No. 8/25/67-LRII, dated 25th April, 1967- When the case came up for preliminary hearing on 22nd June, 1967 it was discovered that the complumant's punishment were merely a warning chit and the complainant's representative was required to satisfy me how this is covered by Section 33 either under Sub-section (1) or under Sub-section (2). The management wanted the determination of the question whether the complainant is a concerned workman or not in the t-bove stated references. Since this question had been debated in a large number of cases, after hearing arguments at length, a general order covering all cases was passed on 25th July, 1967 and is Annexure A to this Order/Award. Before further hearing commenced in the case, the parties, however, compromised and filed a compromise petition, Annexure "B", covering settlement regarding this case and many other cases. Since the management has agreed to withdraw the warning chit the application has not been pressed and becomes lnfructuous. It is, there- fore, rejected Let copy of the order be sent to the appropriate Government as required under Section 33-A, I.D. Act.

(Sd.) G- C AGAHWALA,

Presiding Officer.

29-8-1967-

PART I

Order passed in all cases of Indian Copper Corporation Ltd- P-O- Mosabonl Minei

ORDER

After the pronouncement of Hctn'ble Supreme Court in Tata Iron and Steel Company Vs- Singh (D.R.) reported in 1985-II-LLJ p 122 and decided on March IB, 1965, the employers in most cases, whether opposing an application under Section 33-A of I.D. Act or themselves applying fcT approval under Section 33(2)(b) I.D- Act have solicited decision of the Tribunal on the preliminary question whether the workman applying uader Section 33-A or punished for whom approva] Is sought, was or was not "concerned wcirkman" In the pending reference of Industrial Dispute. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above referred case has been rather wrongly interpreted. That was a case decided when the position of law was not settled and somewhat inconsistent views had bsen taken by different High Courts on the point- The leading case of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the subject namely, New Indian Motors (P) Ltd. Vs. Morris (K.TO (19G0/I-LLJ p 551) had probably not seen the light of the day or had not gained sufficient publicity when the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad overruled the contention of the employers that the Tribunal should deter- mine the preliminary question whether the employee, D. R. Singh, was or was not concerned with four other references periling before the Tribunal- The view taken by the Tribunal was that such a contention could not be raised by the employers and if he thought that Section 33 did not apply he should withdraw the application and take the consequences. On that view, the Tribunal refused to entertain the plea and proceeded to deal with the merits of the application. The Hon'ble Supreme Court disapproved of! this logic of the Tribunal on the ground that when inconsistent views had been taken by different High Court* such a stand taken by the Tribunal was illogical and unsatisfactory. The Hon'ble

SEC. 3(ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 1967/ASVINA 22, 1889 3787

Supreme Court clearly re-affirmed the broader gonstructlon of the words "workman concerned in such dispute as decided in two earlier decisions namely, New India Motors Private Limited Vs. Morris (K.T.) (1960-I-LLJ p. 551) and Digwadib Colliery Vs. Ramjl Singh (1964-II-LLJ p. 143). Now that a broader construction has been unequivocally enunciated and reaffirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there is no justification left for employers now to solicit the advice from Tribunal while making applications under Section 33(2) (b)- It Is of course open to them to oppose an application under Section 33-A elf n workman on that ground that he was not a concerned workman in the reference urider Section 10 ID. Act- But to ask the Tribunal to determine this point when the position of law Is clearly stated and well settled, would really tantamount to rendering an advice on a question which is rather a mixed questidn of law and fact The circumstances of Tata Iron and Steel Co- case on the authority of which the employers seek the direction of the Tribunal no more exist now an,d they were different when the said case was decided and observations were made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court-

Since, however, the question has been debated, it Is necessary to analyse and to state the law as propounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. For the first time, the question came to be considered by the Hon ble Court in New India Motors case ;(supr.a) where their Lordships .examined the construction of the words "workman concerned In such dispute" from different stand points. The importance of the definition of industrial dispute as prescribed in Section. 2(k) was first examined and emphasised. It was then pointed out under Section 18(3) of the Act, an award binds not only parties to the dispute but all employees in the establishment- The object of enacting Section 33 was also referred in this connec- tion. .Lastly, even as a matter ol construction pure and simple their Lordships found no justification for assuming that the workman concerned in such dispute must be workmen directly or indirectly coneevnt."|1 In the said dispute- The ob- serOation on the following passage which may be called a dictum on the point is pertinent :—

"In dealing with the question as to which wr/rkmen can be said to be con- cerned ir) an Industrial Dispute we have to benr in mind the essential cnmjitioh for th? raising o£ an Industrial Dispute itr.ell, and if an I.llustriul Dispute can be raised only by a group of -.vn -kmen acting on their own or through their Union, then it would be difficult to resist the conclusion that all these who sponsored the dispute nre concerned Ir: It- As we¹ have already pointed out, this construction is harmonious with the definition prescribed by Section 2(s) and with the provisions contained in Section IT of the Act- Therefore, we are not prepared to hol,d that the expression "workmen concerned in snch dispute" can be limited only to such of the workmen who arc directly concerned with the dispute in question. In our opinion, that expression includes all w.;:•:•.men on whose behalf of the dispute has been raise-1 as well as those who would be bound by the award which may be made In the said Hispute '*

In the last paragraph their Lordships approved of the construction placed by I tie Labour Appellate Tribunal in Eastern Plywood Manufacturing Company Ltd- Vs- Eastern Plywood Manufacturing Workers' Union (19G2-I-LLJ (528). A few rulings of other High Courts were also referred, out of which the case of Andhra Scientific Company Ltd,, Vs. Seshagiri Rao (A) (by Andhra Scientific Company Employees Union (1959-II-LLJ. 717) appears to be a misprint as this case does rot at all deal with the question. Actually another case Sri Rama SuRars arjQ ] ndustries VV. Industrial Tribunal and two others reported at page 712 of the Fame volume and immediately proceeding the Andhra Scientific Company Ltd. case in the same volume deals with this question nnd the Antdhra High Court st pace 71G preferred the broader intarpretation following the Newton Studios Ltd. Vs. Ethirajulu (T-R. 1 and others (1958-I-LLJ p. 63) which also discussed this nuestion and nrLopted the broa.der construction. In doinc so guidance was taken from observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Automobile Product cf India Vs. Rukmajibala (19S55-I-LL.T p. 34G) regarding 1he oble-t for which Section 33 of the I.D. Act was enacted. The narrow view adopted by the Bombay High Court In New Jahangir Vakil Mills Ltd-, Sharavagar V. N. L. Vyas and ethers HPSB-II-LLJ 573) was expressly rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court both in New India Motors case as also in Tata Iron and Steel Co- c?se It would be intei-iVJna to state, that the Bombay High Court also considpte;! ihe efTect of Section 18 of the I D. Act, but held that tho award or settlement would not bind the whole body of the workmen who sponsored the dispute but only such of the workmen who are affected and are working in the same department The three concerned workmen in that case belonged to ringframe Department while the-

references concerned certain other workmen of the bleaching department- This distinction drawn by the Bombay High Court apparently was not approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court while rejecting the narrower view. It follows, there- fore, that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the law that all workmen who will be bound by the reference under Section 10 of I.D. Act would be the person concerned in the dispute The other two cases of the Hon'ble Supreme •Court which are usually referred for a different interpretation are Upper Ganges Valley Electric Supply Co. Ltd- Moradabad Vs- Srlvastava (G.S.) reported in 1963 (I) LLJ p. 237 and Dlgwadih Colliery Vs. Ramjl Singh (1964-II-LL.J p 143). In the former case _while considering the question of pendency of certain appeals "before the L-A-T. their Lordships found that only one appeal was pending which related to the grant of annual Increment to a workman M- K. Varshney. It was casually observtji that the same was an individual dispute in respect of one emplovee and so the present respondent could not be said to be concerned with that dispute. Full facts about that appeal were not available to the Hon'ble Court and it was not known whether the dispute regarding Varshney had or hud not been espctused by any Union. It was also not known whether the employee concerned Srivastava had any connection of nexus through any Union so as to be concerned In the reference regarding Varshney. The observation of the Hon'ble Court, therefore, is not to be interprrtc ri literally for any guidance- The Diswadih case is only an authcrlty on the point that a workman when he flies an application under Section 33-A has to establish that he was concerned in the dispute under reference- The complainant in that case had made no averment about the nature of the said disput? and had not indicated how he was concerned in the dispute under reference. On the other hand, the company had shown that the reference was on behalf of the charprasis and watchmen of the collieries for overtime wages and the complainant was a clerk in grade IIL With this manifest dis- tinction it was for the complainant to have established how he was concerned in that reference- He could have proved it by showing that the dispute under •reference regarding Chaprasis and watchmen was sponsored bv the Union of which he was a member and was thus concerned with the Industrial Dispute or that he was one of the workmen who had raised the Industrial Dispute. In the absence of any such information, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that complainant under Section 33-A cannot succeed on the presumption that the reference &f the pending Industrial Dispute must necessarily have had a nexus with the complainant. It may bs noticed that in the Tata Iron and Steel Co- case the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed at p. 123 "In this latter case, the Court considered the conflicting judicial decisions rendered by the different High Courts and has approved of the broader construction of the words "workmen concerned to puch dispute-". The word "letter" is presumably a slip for "former" as the Hon'ble Court had considered the conflicting judicial decisions in New India Motors case and had approved t-f the broader construction. The broader construction, therefore, remains reaffirmed in Tata Iron and Steel Cotapany case-

After the Tata Iron and Steel Co. case the Patna High Court had occasion to consider the rulings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as also one other ruling of that very Court in New India Sugar Mills Ltd., case which Is not yet reported in Labour Law Journal but has been so done by Mines and Factories Journal in the issue of April, 1967 at page 494. The Patna High Court adopted the broader construction and found a common clue as nexus between the reference and the workmen against whom approval was sought under Section 33(2)(b) inasmuch as there was an allegation of victimisation in both cases and the sponsoring "Union was the same. Such an approach was not indicated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in fact may be impossible for an employer to anticipate what would "be the averment of the workman against whom an approval is sought en- in fact whether he would at all be represented by the same Union or any Union- To my mind, answer to the question while determining whether a workman is con- cerned or not in the Industrial Dispute under reference rests on the principal consideration whether the said workman was or was not a party directly or indirectly through the Union is sponsoring the Industrial Dispute under reference. In an application under Section rs3-A, he has to establish the fact himself and in an application for approval under Section 33(2) (b) it should already be known to the employer in the ordinary course whether the workman against whom approval is sought was or was not concerned in sponsoring the Industrial Dispute under reference. If he was, he is a con- cerned workman, whatever may have been the nature of the Industrial Dispute under reference, as an award in that reference would bind him also along with the other workmen. But if he wa

SKC, 3(lill THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 1967/ASVINA 22, 1889 3789

Union than the workman who applies under Section 33-A at against whom an approval is sought under Section 33(2) (b). In the latter case, he may not bo " member of any Union and or if at all may be a member of a different Union. In such a case,, he cannot be called to be workman concerned in the dispute. In this connection, it is pertinent to notice the amendment now made as Section 2-A which has been added by Act XV of 1965- Under this newly addedJ section, dismissal discharge, or retrenchment or termination of service of an individual workman shall now be deemed to be an Industrial Dispute not with standing that no other workman or any Union of workmen in a party to the dispute- With the amended law a workman in his individual capacity can now raise a dispute about the termination of his service without the recourse of having help from other workmen ot the Union. If such a case results in a reference, obviously in such a reference another workman against whom an approval is sought by the employer under Section 33(2)(b) would not be a conceerned workman in the reference as the imposition of the term "Industrial Dispute" in Section 2-A is merely flctitional and national- It is, therefore, easy to demarcate class of cases in which a particular -workman would be a concerned workman or would not be so during the pending of a reference under Section 10. This is what I conceive to be th" state of law as enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

(Sd) G- C- AGARWALA,

Presiding Officer.

25-7-1967.

PART II

(True Copy)

Memorandum of Settlement between the Management of Indian Copper Corpora-

tion Ltd., and their workmen of Mosaboni Mines represented by the Mosaboni

Mines Labour Union, in respect of the Industrial Disputes pending adjudication

before the Industrial Trlbunal-cum-Labour Court (Central) at Jabalpur.

Names of Parties

Representing the Management

Representing by Workmen

1 Mr. H. B. Singh Arsi.

1- Mr. T- C. W- H. Blay, Ag. M.S.

2. Mr K. Ramamotorthi, L.O.

General Secretary, M.ML.U- 2. Mr. S. K. Das, Asstt. Secretary, MM-L.U. 3. Mr. S. N. Aditya, Asstt. Secy, M-M.L.U.

Short Recital of the case:

Whereas in) its letters No MMLU/|103/MS/64, dated 3rd October, 1964 and No. MMLU/G-34(CO)/64.3, dated 8th November, 1964 the Mosaboni Mines Labour Union raised Industrial Disputes for reinstatement of Sri Bhupati Sen (Badge No- 5998) and for supply of free¹ electricity and fuel to Sri U. C Patnaik (Badge No- 1706) respectively.

And whereas these disputes were referred by the Government oi India in the Ministry of Labour, Employment and Rehabilitation to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal for adpudication.

And whereas during the pendency of the aforesaid references before the In- Viustrial Tribunal, various applications u/s 33(2) (b) and u/s 33(3) (h) of the Industrial Disputes Act have been made by the Management and complaints u/s 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act have been made by certain workmen,

And whereas- the aforesaid two References are pending as! No. 72 of 1967 and No. 82 of 1967 before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labotur Court (Central) at Jabalpur and the cases under Sections 33 and 33-A ID. Act are also pending before the same Tribunal and numbered as detailed in the Schedules 'A' and *W annexed hereto-

And whereas the Parties hereto, with a view to rreate better understanding, promote healthy Industrial Relations and maintain Industrial peace, after repeated ^dlsaujSirions have arrived at an amicable settlement on this Friday, the 4th of August 1967 an the following terms and conditions .—

Terms 0/ settlement:

duty. The intervening absence from the date of Sri Bhupati Sen's dismissal till the date of his resuming duty under this settlement shall be treated as special leave with loss of all benefits' Sri Bhupati Sen's wages shall be tha same as he was getting at the time of his dismissal-

2. In respect of the cases u/s 33-A I.D. Act, it is agreed as follows :—

(i) Case No. 15 of 1967—The complaint of Sri Abdul Haqua Knan (B. No. 461/E) shall not be pressed before the Tribunal.

(ii) Case No. 16 of 1967—Sri Ganguli Singh (B- No. 5055/WW) shall be allowed one day off for 7th June, 1965 but this shall not form a pre- cedent.

(iii) Case No. 17 otf 1967—The complaint of Sri Jitrai Mahali (B No. 5221) shall not be pressed before the Tribunal,

(iv) Case No. fc3 of 1967—Sri J. N. Bhattacharjee (B. No. 1400/E) shall be given a special Increment of 42 Paise with effect from 1st August, 1967- (v) Case No. 19 of 1967—Sri S. B. Barua (B- No. 5724) shall be paid Acting Allowance for 18 days, i.e. from 22nd February, 1965 to 25th February. 1965 and from 1st March, 1965 to 14th March, 1965

(vi) Case No. 20 of 1967—The ccVnplaint of Sri M. M. Pati (B. No. 6236) shall not be pressed before the Tribunal.

(vii) Case No. 21 of 1967—Sri Periappa Naidu (B. No- 7336) shall be allowed leave for the year 1965-

(viii) Case No. 23 of 1967—Sri R. Ramswamy (B. No. 3429) shall be allowed leave for the year 1965-

(ix) Case No 24 of 1967—The Warning Chit No. 24003 issued to Sri Ram Bilas Singh (B. No. 3819) fcfr absence without leave for 2 days i e. 18th and 19th of November, 1966, shall be cancelled.

(i) Case No. 18 of 1967—Management's application for approval of dismissal of Sri Mosu (B. No. 1228) shall not be opposed before the Tribunal- However, the dismissal shall not be considered as a bar against his seeking fresh employment.

(ii) Case No. 20 of 1967—Sri Muchi Ram (B. No 7582) shall be re-employed m his Lormer designation (sweeper) by 14th September, iy67 in the usual w"y-

(iii) Case No. 27 of 1967—Sri Dhananjoy Pator (B. No. 5619; shall be re- emplctFed m his former designation (Mucker) by 14th October 1967 in the usual way.

'

(iv) Case No. 31 of 1967 ~1 Sri Muneswar (B. No- 6495) shall be rev

raw "" lv ° iS ^m P,¹^e d^i?l,h is f o r m er designation (Trammer) Case No. 47 of 1967 J by 14th October, 1967 in the usual way.

(v) Case No. 39 of 1967—The Management's application for approval of

th^Tr-h n°f! Sw St MU?£ (£' N°' ^{5 9 7 4}) s h a^ n ot be cppded before the Tribunal. However, the dismissal shall not be considered as a bar agamst his seeking fresh employment, and he may apply to the Mines Superintendent for consideration of his re-employment

(vi) Case No. 40 of 1967—Sri Bhuban Narayan Deo (B No 7981) shall be

£ S e " 7& & SfWa?gnatiOn (Timber ^ o o r ) ^ ! ^ ^!

(vii) Case No. 45 of 1967—The Management's application for approval of the

o f p r e i S r e ^ ^ T r ^ n^ *?*** ""* (B' *<- ⁷⁹⁸⁹> sha¹¹ ^ (ViiI) m^h^nk^F^^^T¹¹¹ F ⁴ d a ys ™*e*a™ ^sued to Sri Ram 1966 to 5 A ifiMif°E absfnce. without leave from 21st March, lor the same^aU Jand & ' ** S et a S l de b Ut t he toal W a r n i ng i s s u ed (ix) Case NQ- 49 of 1907—Sri Abdul Karim (B- No. 4664) shall be re-employed way.'^{8 6}r a t s' -l a t i on (Mucker) by 14th October, 1967 in t™ s u aL (x) Case No. 54 of 1967—Sri Naiki Hoe (B. No. 7722) shall be re-emnloved Se usual^way^^'¹^⁰¹¹ ( T i m b er M a z d o o r) by 14th October if/eTin

S E C, S ( i i )] • T HE G A Z E T T E . OF I N D IA : O C T O B ER 1 4, 1 9 & 7 / A S V I NA 2 2, 1 8 89 3 7 91

(,xl) Case No. 57 of 1907—Sri Parmanand Ghasi (B. No. 1311) shall be re- employed in his former designation (Sweeper) by 14th September, 1967 in the usual way.

(xil) Case Nn. 72 of 10G7—Sri Lai. Mohpn Singh (B. No. 2237) shall be re- emploved in .his former designation (Blaster Helper) by 14th October, I!!f57 in the usual way.

(xlli) Caso No- 76 of 19G7—Punishmant of 4 days suspension issued to Sri Sheo Prasad Singh (B- No 1768) for absence without leave in the year 1966 shall, be set aside b\A the final warning Issued fur the same shall stand,

(xiv) Case No. 78 of 1967—Sri Phul Chand Pator (B. No. 770) shall be re- emplfyed in his former designation (M Mazdoor) by 14th October, 1067 In the usual way.

(xv) Case No- 82 of 19G7—Sr) Basudeo Pstor (B. No. 802:11 shall be re- employed in his former designation (U/G Fitter Helper) by 14th Sep- tember, 1967 in the usual way-

(xvi) Case No- 84 of ,1967—The Management's application for the approval cE the dismissal of Sri Amulya liana (B- No. 4916) shall not be eppqsed before the Tribunal, The dismisal however, shall not be a bar sgainst his re-cmployment and Sri Rana may apply to the Mines Superintendent for consideration of his re-employment.

4. The parties could not agree on any settlement In respect of the main Reference No. 82 of 1967, ease u/s 33-A ID- Act No. 22 of 1967 and the cases u/s 33 I.D. Act, No, 24 of 1967, No. 59 of 1967, No. 60 of 1967, No, 61 of 1967, No. 62 of 1967. No. 68 of 18fi7 and No. 69 of 1967 which remain unsettled to be decided by the Tribunal.

5- All other applications u/s 33 I.D. Act pending before the Tribunal and not settled hereto before shall not be opposed or contested before the Tribunal and shall be decided in favour of the Management.

6. Both the parties shall jointly apply to the Industrial Tribunal-cwm-Labour Court (C), Jabalpur, to take this settlement on record and dispose of the cases settled herein in terms of his compromise.

1. Representing the Management:

(Sd.) T. C. W. H. BLAY. (Sd,) K. RAMAMOOHTHI,

2. Representing the Union:

(Sd.) H. B. SINGH ARSU.

(Sd.) S. N. ADITYA. (Sd.) S. K. DAS.

Dated 4th August, 1967- Mosabonl Mines, Witnesses:

1. (Sd.) M. N. SAHAI.

2. (Sd.) MOBARAK AHMED.

List of Cases under Sec. 33(z)(b)

SCHEDULE 'A'

Case No.

Date of application

Name of the workmen

SI. No.

CGIT/LC i8)/67 19V67 >, Z0V67 j. 211/67 C22V67 (23)/67 (24)167 (25)/67 U6)/67

25/1465 1/3/65 15/3/65 24/4/65 29/4/65 30/4/65 27/4/<55 27/5/65 10/6/65

Mosu, No. 1228, Car Driver. Lasso Majhi, No. 2429, R/Checker Mushiram, No. 7582 M/Sweepcr. Suren Purty, No. 8070, S/Checker. Rajendra Singh, No. 5799, Sepoy M.K.K. Nair, No. 7856, R/Checker. Amia Naik, No. 1367, Cr. Mazdur. Guha Bah. Chettry, No. 8131, M/R. Bldeshi Brened, No. 1769, M/Sweeper.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 S 9

Case No.

Name of the workmen

Date of

application

SI. No.

10 il 12 13 14 15 16

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

12/6/65 6/7/65 6/1/65 28865 4/9/65 5/10/65 15/10/65 15/10/65 16/10/65 23/10/65 30/10/65 13/12/65 30/12/65 8/1/66 18/1/66 31/1/66 8/3/66 29/3/66 6/4/66 7/4/66 30/5/66 3O/5/66 6/6/66 11/6/66 15/6/66 23/6/66 9/9/66 25/6/66 7/7/66 26/7/66 30/8/66 21/9/66 21/9/66 21/9/66 20/9/66 24/9/66 27/9/66 5/10/66 17/10/66 18/10/66 12/11/66 12/11/66 19/11/66 26/11/66 3/12/66 29/12/66

Dhanjoy Pator, No. 5619, Mucker. Bhatla Majhi, No. 910, M/Mazdur. Ghasiram Naik, No. 7272, Trammer. Bidooram Sardar, No. 4507 Muneswar, No. 6495, Trammer. Kalu, No. 7513, M/Swccper. Tila, No. 5772, F/Swceper. Man Bah. Gurung, No. 5770, Sepoy. Muneswar, No. 6595, Trammer. Bom Bah. Tamang, No. 7708, Mucker. Haripada Karmakar, No. 5178. Md. Abbas, No. 2382, Bi/Helper. Sk. Munu, No. 5974, Mucker. Bhuban Narayan Deo, No. 7981. Pratima, No, 5716, F/Sweepcr. Bhuban Bah. Thappa, No. 5719, Sepoy. Bibhiaan, No. 7529, M/Swecpcr. Baldeb, No. 5101, M/Swecper. Shib Shankar Nair, No. 7989, Mucker. Ram Bilas Singh, No. 3819 Muneswar, No. 6495, Trammer. Bhola Karmakftr, No. 20IJ, Mucker. Abdul Karim, No. 4664, Mucker. Jogcndra Prasad, No. 734, M/Mazdur. Balbir Singh, No. 7810, Mucker. Magan Pator, No. 2482, H/Mazdur. Md. Burhan, No. 4644, Trammer. Naiki Hoe, No. 7722, T/Mazdur. Haripada Pator, No. 3204, Mucker. Prem Bah. Tamang, No. 4620, Mucker, Parmanand Ghaei, No. 1811, M/Swceper. Sudhan Sharma, No. 359, Blacksmith. Abdul Manan, No. E67, F.G. Mazdur. Nasiruddin Khan, No. 872, F.G. Mazdur. Dhananjoy Singh, No. 5062, Sepoy. S, Moni, No. 7458, Mucker. Bishwanath Pator, No. 3790, H/Mazdur. Dhircn Pator, No. 5624, Trammer. Parsuram Singh, No. 4786, T/Mazdur. Kharga Bah. Lama, No. 3447, M/R. Sadhoo Singh, No. 133, Engg. Dcptt. Kamal Singh, No. 503, Rigger. Khetra Mohan Pator, No. 2217, Mucker. Ashit Kumar Mahato, No. 3768, M/Mazdur. Lai Mohan Singh, No. 2237, Blaster Hr. Dulu, No. 1868, M/Sweeper. Garjaman Lama, No. 3522, Mucker. R. Chattu Kutty, No. 3082, Mucker. Sheo Prasad Singh, No. 1768, S/Inspector. Manglu Pator, No. 4853, T/MeTdur, Fulchand Pator, No. 770, M/Mazdur. Padam Majhi, No, 5932, P/Mazdur. Abinash Pator, No. 3568, Mucker. Singrai Hoe, No. 5432, Round Checker. Baaudeo Pator, No. 8023, U/G.F/Hr. Amulya Rana, No. 4916, T/Mazdur. Min Bah. Neor, No. 7493, M/R. Bimbadhar Dhir, No. 5852, T/Mazdur. N. K. Colombo, No. 3111, Trammer. Md. Burhan, No. 4644, Trammer. Gopc Bah. Chettry, No. 2096, Mucker. Lai Bah. Chettry, No. 20371 Mucker. Raghunath, No. 1874, M/Sweeper. Rajendra Kaibartha, No. 3022, Muckmr. Chure Pun, No. 5072, Sepoy. Dagam Singh Ghalc, No. 7695, Sepoy.

29/12/66

29/12/66

31/12/66

30/12/66

9/1/67

n/i/67

11/1/67

U/1/67

4/2/67

13/2/67

13/2/67

16/2/67

20/2/67

20/2/67

21/2/67

22/2/67

20/2/67

21/2/67

20/2/67

20/2/67

CGIT/LC 27)/67 28)/67 " 295/67 " 30J/67 3i)/"7 (33J/67 (33)/67 " C34)/67 (35)>7 (36)/67 (37)/67 (38V67 C39)/67 f40)/67 (4i)/67 (42) /67 (43)/67 (44)/<57 (45V67 )S" U6)/67 C47)/67 48J/67 49)/67 5o)/67 5i)/67 52J/67 53)/67 54)/67 55)/67 $" 56)167 57)/67 (59)/67 60^/67 6i)/67 62)/67 63)/67 64)/67 65)/67 66)/67 67)/67 68V67 „ 69V67 „ 7°)/67 70/67 (72)/67 „ 73)/67 74)/67 75)/67 76)/67 77/67 78V67 79)/67 80 /67 81 /67 82 /67 (84 167 (85V67 (86)/67 (87 I67 (88 /67 (89 /67 „ (90 /67 (90 /67 (91 1*7 (92)/67 (93)/67

29 30 3i 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 33 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 5*4 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75

SI.          Case No.            Date of                  Nanpe of the workmen
No.                           application
   76 CGIT/LC  (94)767         21/9/66          Sripat) Patftr, No.  1697, Hanunerman.
   77             (95)/67      22/2/67          Nara Hoc, No.  5673, P.F.  Helper.
   78            (96)/67       22/2/67          Nuruddin  Mian, No. 2920, Blatter.
   79            (971/67       22/2/67          Chet Bah, Chcttry5 No. 3796, Mucker.
   80            (981767       22/2/67          Sanghi Bodra, No. 6332, Tramer.
   81             (991/67      20/2/67          Chflmba  Singh Lama, No. 8066, Balaster.
   82             (100I/67     23/2/67          Damd  Khan, No. 6005, Mucker.
   "3      „      doii/67      23/2/67          Sakal Bah. DaHec, No. 6070, Mucker.
   84      „      rioai/67     23/2/67          Bhuban Pator, No. 2431, Mucker.
   85             (103I/67     23/2/67          Keshab  Majhi, No. 4181, Mucker.
   •86            (104I/67     23/2/67          Ram MajW, No. 4796, M/Sardar.
   *7             600/67       23/2/67          Lai Bah. Chettry, No. 8438, Mucker.
   S8             (1061/67     23/2/67          Bikram  Murmoo, No. 7871, Mucker.
   39      „      (107I767     23/2/67          Ram  Chandra  Girl, No.  ^ 4 8.  M/R..
   90            ,      154  W     25/4/67           Kashim  Khan,  No,  8056,  Trammer.
  137      „       181 /67    3/5/67            Hari Ram Beldar, No.  8498, Mucker.
  138      "       182 I67    3/5/67            Ladu  Hoe, No.  3646,  Mucker.
  139              183 /67    3/5/67            Chandra! Majhi,  No. 7951, Mucker.
  140      „       1845/67     3/5/67            Srinath  Majhi,  No.  2669, T/Mazdur.
  141              i85)/67     3/5/67            Paneha  Keahram,  No.  4715, Muckei.

SI.           Case No.          Date  of                    Name  of  the  workmen
No.                           application
  142 CGIT/LC  ri86V67         3/5/67            Jitu  Mahali,  No.  5812,  Mucker.
  143             (187V67     .W67               Kandey  Hoc, No.  4619,  Mucker,
  144             ri88)/67    3/5/67             Ratan  Sabar,  No.  7977,  Trammer.
  145             ('189V67    3/5/67             Dukhu  Mukhi, No.  8640,  M/Sweeper.
  146      „      (IQ0V67     3/5/67             Ashram, No.  5170,  M/Swcepcr.
  147             (191V67     3/      193J/67    5/5/67            Rentra  Majhi,  No.  7246,  Trammer.
  150      „      I94V<57     5/5/67            Bhali, No.  7524,  M/Sweeper.
  151      „       19O/67     6/5/67            Narendra  Benera, No.  7619,  M/Swecpcr.
  152             i96)/67     5/5/67            Haradhan  Barik,  No. 7067,  Trammer.
  153             i97)/67     5/5/67            Padam  Ch. Naik, No.  1814,  M/Sweeper.
  J54             198V67      5/5/67            Sidia  Bhoipai,  No.  2975,  Trammer.
 J55      „       i99)/67     5/5/67            Rattan  Sagar, No.  8642,  M/Sweeper.
 156              200)/67     5/5/67            Kartik,  No.  8660,  M/Swecper.
 J57      „       (2O2)/67   24/5/67            Som Bah.  Lama,  No. 3291, Mucker.
 i "8      „     (2031/67    24/5/67            Makardhaj  Chettry,  No.  5820,  H/Mazdur,
 *59      „       f2O4)/67   24/5/67            Ismailuddin,  No.  4655,  Trammer.
 160      „       f2O5)/67   24/5/67            Tek  Bah,  Gurung,  No.  4753,  Mucker.
 161             (206)/67    24/5/67            Kharga  Bah.  Chcttry,  No.  7S70,  Mucker.
 162      „      (2O7)/fi7   24/5/67            Kripa  Singh  Lama,  No.  8021, Mucker.
 163      3,     (2o8)/67   24/5/67             Rana  Bah.  Chettry,  No.  4559,  Trammer.
 164             (209V67     24/5/67            Padam  Bah.  Thakurl,  No. 4780,  Mucker.
 165             (2IO)/67    24/5/67            Lai  Bah,  Chettry,  No,  4724,  Mucker.
 166             (2115/67    24/5/67            Him  Bah.  Chcttry,  No,  6113,  Mucker.
 167             (212V67      3/5/67             Sukra  Mahakur,  No.  819,  M/Mazdur.

List of cases under Sec. 33(J4)

SCHEDULE 'B'

Case Number

Name of the workmen

Date of application

SI. No.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8

9 10

CGIT/LC(i5)/67 16V67 " I7)/67 i8)/67 " J9)/67 „ 2O)/67 2i)/67 „ 22V67 (23)/67 (24)/67

13/10/65 19/11/65 15/11/65 4/1/66 10/2/66 10/2/66 22/2/66 6/12/66 22/2/66

Abdul Haque Khan, No. 461, Fitter. Ganguli Singh, No. 5055, Sepoy. Jitrai Mahah, No. 5221, P/F Helper. J.N. Bhattacharjee, No. 1400, S/Chedkcr. S. B. Barua, No. 5724, Clerk. M. M. Pati, No. 6236, Asstt. Sampler. Periappa Naidu, No. 7336, H/Mazdur. S. N. Aditya, No. 1908, Asstt. Tracer, R. Ramaswamy, No. 3429, Electrician. Ram Bilas Singh, No. 3819, U/G. Checker.

Sd/- Illegible. Sd/- lUegible. Sd/- Illegible.

General Secretary,

Mosabcni Mines Labour Union.

[No. 24/31/67-LBL]

S.O. 3649.—In pursuance of section 17 o± the Industrial Disputes Act, 1&47 (14

of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the following award of the Industrial Tribunal, Jabalpur, in the matter of an application under section 33-A of the said Act filed by Sri Abdul Haque Khan, B. No. 461/E, Fitter Grade I of M/s. Indian Copper Corporation, which was received by the Central Government on the 20th September, 1967.

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

CAMP AT GHATSILA

Dated August 29, 1967

PRESENT:

Sri G. C. Agarwala, Presiding Officer.

COMPLAINT NO. 15/65 (DIIANBAD TRIBPNAL) COMPLAINT NO. CGIT/LC(A) (15)/67 (JABALPUR TRIBUNAL) (Under Section 33-A I,D. Act.)

(In the matter of two references Nos. 4/65 & 79/65 of Dhanbad Tribunal and 72/67 and 82/67 of this Tribunal).

PARTIES:

Abdul Haque Khan, B. No. 461/E,

Fitter Grade I, C/o Mosaboni Mines Labour Union, P.O. Mosaboni Mines, Dist. Singhbhum, Bihar,—Complainant.

Vs.

M/s. Indian Copper Corporation Ltd.,

P.O. Mosaboni Minee, Dist. Singhbhum, Bihar,—Opp. Party.

APPEARANCES :

For the Complainant—Sri H. B. Singh Arsi, General Secretary, Mosaboni Mines Labour Union, P.O. Mosaboni (Singhbhum).

For the Opp. Party—Sri K. C. Goel, Legal Adviser of the company.

INDUSTRY: Copper Mine. DISTRICT: Singhbhum (Bihar).

ORDER/AWARD

Sri Abdul Haque Khan, Fitter Grade I, employed with the opposite party, M/s- Indian Copper Corporation Ltd-, filed an application under Sec. 33-A.I.D. Act before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad complaining that the opposite party committed a breach of Sec. 33 I.D, Act inasmuch as they changed the service conditions of the complainant and denied payment of the daily allowance It may be mentioned that there were two references of indus- trial disputes pending before the said Tribunal which were Nos. 4/65 & 79/65 of the said Tribunal. These references alongwith all cases arising there from either under Sec. 33-A or 33(2) (Jo) I.D. Act were transferred to this Tribunal by Notification No. 8/25/67-LRII dated 25th April 1967.

"When the hearing was commenced before this Tribunal, on the reply filed by the opposite party, certain issues were framed at preliminary hearing on 23rd June 1967 One of the questions raised by the opposite party was the determina- tion of the question whether the complainant was a concerned workman in the said references. After hearing arguments, this question was determined in a general way as it affected other cases also and is part I of this Order/Award It 5 unnecessary to reproduce the issues as the parties have compromised the dis- mito and have filed a compromise petition covering this case along with a num- Cn! nttfejcases This Is part U of this Order/Award. Under the terms of Sua settlement the' complainant has not pressed the dispute There is, therefore, nTmerit in the complaint and the application is rejected. Since the order amounts to an award let copies be sent to appropriate Government.

(Sd.) G. C. AOAHWALA,

Presiding Officer,

29-8-67.

PAHTT I

Order passed in all case of Indian Copper Corporation Ltd-,

P.O. Mosaboni Mines

ORDER

After the pronouncement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tata Iron & Steel Company Vs. Singh (D.R.) reported in 1965-II-L.LJ p. 122 and decided on March 19, 1965, the employers in most cases, whether opposing an application under Section 33-A of I.D. Act or themselves applying for approval under Section 33(2) (b) I.D. Act have solicited decision of the Tribunal on the preliminary question whether the workman applying under Section 33-A or published for whom approval is sought, was or was not "concerned workman" in the pend- ing reference of industrial dispute. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above referred case has been rather wrongly interpreted. That was a case decided when the position of law was not settled and somewhat inconsistent views had been taken by different High Courts on the point. The leading case of the Hon'ble Supreme court on the subject namely, New Indian Motors (P) Ltd. Vs. Morris (K-T.) (1960/I-LLJ, p. 551) has probably not seen the light of the day or had not gained sufficient publicity when the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad overruled the contention of the employers that the Tribunal should determine the preliminary question whether the employee, D. R. Singh, was or was not concerned with four other references pending before the Tribunal. The view taken by the Tribunal was that such a conten- tion could not be raised by the employer and if he thought that Section 3-3 did not apply he should withdraw the application and take the consequences. On that view, the Tribunal refused to entertain the plea and proceeded to deal with the merits of the application. The Hon'ble Supreme Court disapproved of this. logic of the Tribunal on the ground that when inconsistent views had been taken by different High Courts such a stand taken by the Tribunal was illogical and unsatisfactory. The Hon'ble Supreme Court clearly re-afflrmed the broader construction of the words "workman concerned in such dispute as decided in two earlier decisions namely, New India Motors Private Limited Vs. Morris (K.T.) (1960-I-LLJ/p.651) and Digwadih Colliery Vs. Ramji Singh (1964-II-LLJ p. 143). Now that a broader construction has been unequivocally enunciated and reaffirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there is no justification left for employers now to solicit the advice from Tribunal while making applications: under Section 33(2) (b). It is of course,open to them to oppose an application under Section 33-A of a workman on the ground that he was not a concerned workman in the reference under Section 10 I.D. Act. But to ask the Tribunal to determine this point when the position of law is clearly stated and well set- tled, would really tentamount to rendering an advice on a question which is rather a mixed question of law and fact. The circumstances of Tata Iron & Steel Co. case on the authoritlty of which the employers seek the direction of the Tribunal no more exist now and they were different when the said case was decided and observations were made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

Since, however, the question has been debated, it is necessary to analyse and to state the law as propounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. For the first time, the question came to be considered by the Hon'ble Court in New India Motors case (supra) where their lordships examined the construction of the words "workman concerned in such dispute" from different stand points. The Importance of the definition of industrial dispute as prescribed in Section 2(k) was first examined and emphasised. It was then pointed out under Section 18(3) of the Act, an award binds not only parties to the dispute but all employees- in the establishment. The object of enacting Section 33 was also referred in this connection. Lastly, even as a matter of construction pure and simple their Lord- ships found no justification for assuming that the workman concerned in such dispute must be workmen directly or immediately concerned In the said dispute. The observation op the following passage which may be called a dictum on the point Is pertinent:—

"In dealing with the question as to which workmen can be said to be concerned in an industrial dispute we have to bear in mind the essen- tial condition for the raising of an industrial dispute itself, arid if an industrial dispute can be raised only by a group Of workrrien acting on their own or through their union, then it would be' difficult to resist the conclusion that all those who sponsor- ed the dinpute are concerned in it. A" we have already pointed out, this construction la harmonious with the definition prescribed by

Sec. S(ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 1967/ASVINA 22, 1889 3797

S. 2(s) and with the provisions contained in S. 18 of the Act. There- fore, we are not prepared to hold that the expression "workmen concerned in such dispute can be limited only to such of the work- men who are directly concerned with the dispute in question. In our opinion, that expression includes all workmen on whose behalf the dispute has been raised as well as those who would be bound by the award which may be made in the said dispute."

words "workmen concerned in such dispute". The word "latter" is presumably a slip for "former" as the Hon'ble Court had considered the conflicting judicial de- cisions in New India Motors case and had approved of the broader construction. The broader construction, therefore, remains reaffirmed in Tain Iron & Steel Com- pany case,

After the Tata Iron & Steel Co. case the Patna High Court had occasion to consider the rulings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as also one other ruling of that very court in New India Sugar Mills Ltd. case which is not yet reported in Labour Law Journal but has been so done by Mines and Factories Journal in the issue of April, 1967 at page 494, The Patna High Court adopted the broader con- struction and found a common clue as nexus between the reference and the work- man against whom approval was sought under Section 33(2) (b) inasmuch as there was an allegation of victimisation in both cases and the sponsoring union was the same. Such an approach was not indicated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in fact may be impossible for an employer to anticipate what would be the averment of the workman against whom an approval is sought or in fact whether he would at all be represented by the same union or any union. To my mind, answer to the question while determining whether a workman is con- cerned or not in the industrial dispute under reference rests on the principal con- sideration whether the said workman was or was not a party directly or indi- rectly through the Union in sponsoring the industrial dispute under reference. In an application under Section 33-A, he has to establish the fact himself and in an application for approval under Section 33(2) (b) it should already be known to the employer in the ordinary course whether the workman against whom approval is sought was or was not concerned in sponsoring the industrial dispute under reference. If he was, he is a concerned workman, whatever may have been the nature of the industrial dispute under reference as an award in that reference would bind him also along with the other workmen. But if he was not in any way connected in the sponsoring of the dispute either through the Union or collectively with other workmen who espoused the industrial dispute, he would not be a concerned workman. Such a position can eas^y be envisaged when there are more than one unions. The sponsoring union of an industrial dispute under reference may be a different union than the workman who applies under Section 33-A or against whom an approval is sought under Section 33(2) (b). In the latter case, he may not be a member of any union and or If at all may be a member of a different union. In such a case, he cannot be called to be workman concerned in the dispute. In this connection, it is pertinent to notice the amendment now made as Section 2-A which has been added by Act XV of 1985- Under this newly added section, dismissal, discharge, or retrenchment or termination of service of an individual •workman shall now be deemed to be an industrial dispute notwithstanding that no other workman nor any union of work- men is a party to the dispute. With the amended law a workman in his indivi- dual capacity can now raise a dispute about the termination of his service with- out the recourse of having help from other workmen or the union. If such a cage results in a reference, obviously in such a reference another workman against whom an approval is sought by the employer under Section 33 (2) (b) would not be a concerned workman in the reference as the imposition of the term "indus- trial dispute" in Section 2A is merely flctitional and notional. It Is, therefore, easy to demarcate class of cases in which a particular workman would be a con- cerned workman or would not be so during the pendency of a reference under Section 10. This is what I conceive to be the state of law as enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

(Sd.) G, C. AGARWALA,

Presiding Officer.

25-7-67.

PART II

(True Copy)

Memorandum of Settlement between the Management of Indian Copper Corporation

Ltd-, and their workmen of Mosaboni Mines represented by the Mosaboni

Mines Labour Union, in respect of the Industrial Disputes pending adjudication

before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court (Central) at JabalpuT.

Names of Parties

Representing the Management Representing b^ workmen

1. Mr. T. C. W. H. Blay, Ag. M.S- 1. Mr. H. B. Singh Arsl, General

Secretary, M.M-L-U-

2. Mr. K- Ramamoorthl—LO. 2. Mr. S. K- Das, Aflstt. Secretary,

M.M.L.U.

3. Mr. S- N. Aditya, Asstt. Secre-

tary, M.ML.U.

SEC. 3(ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: OCTOBER 14, 1967/ASVINA 22, 1889 3799

Short Recital of the case:

Whereas In its letters No. MMLU/103/MS/64 dated, 3rd October 1964 and No. MMLU/G-3A(CO)/64-3 dated 8th November 1964 the Mcsaboni Mines Labour Union raised Industrial Disputes lor reinstatement of Sri Bhupati Sen (Badge TNTo. 5998) and for supply of free electricity and fuel to Sri U. C. Patnaik (Badge No. 1706) respectively-

And whereas these disputes were referred by the Government of India in the Ministry of Labour, Employment and Rehabilitation to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal for adjudication.

And whereas during the pendency of the aforesaid references before the Indus- trial Tribunal, various applications u/s 33(2) (b) and u/s 33(3) (b) of the Indus- trial Disputes Act have been made hy the Management and complaints u/s 33A •of the Industrial Disputes Act have been made by certain workmen.

And whereas the aforesaid two References arc pending as No. 72 of 1967 and No. 82 of 1967 before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court (Central) at Jabalpur and the cases under Sections 33 and 33A I-D. Act are also pending before the same Tribunal and numbered as detailed In the Schedules 'A' and 'B' annexed hereto.

And whereas the Parties hereto, with a view to create better understanding, promote healthy Industrial Relations and maintain Industrial peace, after repeated discussions have arrived at an amicable settlement on this Friday, the 4th of August 1967 on the following terms and conditions:—

Terms of settlement'.

1. In the main Reference case No, 72 of 1967, It is agreed that Sri Bhupati Sen shall be reinstated as a special case and is allowed one month's time to resume duty. The intervening absence from the date of Sri Bhupati Sen's dismissal till the date of his resuming duty under this settlement shall be treated as special leave with loss of all benefits. Sri Bhupati Sen's wages shall be the same as he •was getting at the time of his dismissal.

2- In respect of the cases u/s 33A ID. Act, it is agreed as follows:—

(i) Case No. 15 of 1967—The complaint of Sri Abdul Haque Khan (B. No. 461 /E) shall not be pressed before the Tribunal.

(ii) Case No. 16 of 1.967—Sri Ganguli Singh (B. No. 5055/WW) shall be allowed one day oil for 7th June 1065 but this shall not form a precedent,

(iii) Case No. 17 of 1967—The complaint of Sri Jitrat Mahali (B. No. 5221) shall not be pressed before the Tribunal.

^vi) Case No. 20 of 1967—The complaint of Sri M. M. Pati (B. No. 6236) shall not be pressed before the Tribunal-

'(vili) Case No. 23 of 1967—Sri R. Ramswamy (B. No. 3429) shall be allowed leave lor the year 1965.

(Ix) Case No. 24 of 1967—The Warning chit No- 24003 issued to Sri Ram Bilas Singh (B. No- 3819) for absence without leave for 2 days, i.e. 18th and 19th of November 1966, shall be cancelled.

3. In respect of the cases u/s 33(2)(b) and 33(3)(b) of the I.D. Act it is agreed as follows:—

(I) Case No. 18 of 1967—Management's application for approval of dismis- sal of Sri Mosu (B- No. 1228) shall not be opposed before the Tri- bunal. However, the dismissal shall not be considered as a bar against his seeking fresh employment.

(ii) Case No. 20 of 1967—Sri Muchi Ram (B. No. 7582) shall be re-employed In hia former designation (sweeper) by 14th September 1£M}7 in the usual way.

(ill) Case No. 27 of 1967—Sri Dhananjoy Pator (B. No. 5619) shall be re- employed in his former designation (Mucker) by 14th October 196T in the usual way-

(iv) Case No. 31 of 1967—Sri Muneswar (B. No. 6495) shall be re-employed, in his former designation (Trammer) by 14th October 1967 In t he usual way.

Case No. 35 of 1967—Sri Muneswar (B. No, 6495) shall be re-employed in his former designation (Trammer) by 14th October 1967 in the usual way.

Case No. 47 of 1967—Sri Muneswar (B- No. G495) shall be re-employed in his former designation (Trammer) by 14th October 1967 in the usual way-

(v) Case No. 39 of 19S7—The Management's application for approval of the dismissal of Sri Sk. Munu (B. No. 5974) shall not be opposed before the Tribunal. However, the dismissal shall not be considered as a bar against his seeking fresh employment and he may apply to> the Mines Superintendent for consideration of his re-employment.

(vi) Case No. 40 of 1967—Sri Bhuban Narayan Deo (B- No- 7981) shall be re- employed in his former designation (Tlmbar Mazdoor) by 14th October 1967 in the usual way.

(vii) Case No- 45 of 1967—The Management's application for approval of the action taken against Sri Shib Shankar Nair (B. No- 7989) shall n ot be opposed before the Tribunal-

(viii) Case No. 46 of 1967—Punishment of 4 days suspension issued to Sri Ham Billash Singh (B. No. 3819) for absence without leave from 21st Match 1966 to 3rd April 1966 shall be set aside but the final warning issued for the same shall stand.

(ix) Case No. 49 of 1967—Sri Abdul Karim (B. No. 4664) shall be re-employed in his former designation (Mucker) by 14th October 1967 in the usual way.

(x) Case No. 54 of 1967—Sri Naikt Hoe (B. No. 7722) shall be re-employed in his former designation (Timber Mazdoor) by 14th October 1967 in the usual way.

(ix) Case No. 57 of 1967—Sri Parmanand Ghasi (B. No. 1811) shall Le re- employed in his former designation (Sweeper) by 14th September 1967 in the usual" way.

(xil) Case No. 72 of 1967—Sri Lai Mohan Singh (B- No. 2237) shall be re- employed in his former designation (Blaster Helper) by 14th October 1967 in the usual way-

(xill) Case No. 76 of 1967—Punishment of 4 days suspension Issued to Sri Sheo Prasad Singh (B- No- 1768) for absence without leave In the year 1966 shall be set aside but the final warning issued for the same shall stand.

(xiv) Case No. 78 of 1967—Sri Phul Chand Pator (B. No. 770) shall be r e- employed in his former designation (M. Mazdoor) by 14th October 1967 in the usual way.

(xv) Case No- 82 of 1967—Sri Basudeo Pator (B. No. 8023) shall be re-employ- ed in his former designation (U/G Fitter Helper) by 14th October 1967 in the usual way.

(xvl) Case No. 84 of 1967—The Management's application for the approval of the dismissal of Sri Amulya Rana (B- No- 4918) shall not be- opposed before the Tribunal. The dismissal however, shall not be a bar against his re-employment and Sri Rana may apply to the Mines Superintendent for consideration of his re-employment.

4. Th" parties could not agree on any settlement in respect of the main Refer- ence No- 82 of 1967, case u/s 33A I.D. Act No. 22 of 1967 and the cases u/s.-SS I.D. Act, No. 24 of 1987, No. 59 of 1967, No. 60 of 1067, No. 61 of 19ft7, No. 6Z qf 1987, No. 68 of 1967 and No. 69 of 1967 which remain unsettled to be decided by tfle Tribunal.

§. All other applications u/s 33 ID. Act pending before the Tribunal and not

nettled hereto before jhall not be opposed or contested before the Tribunal and

shall be decided In favour of the Management.

SEC. S(ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 1967/ASVINA 22, 1889 380I

6. Both the parties shall jointly apply to the Industrial Trlbunal-cum-Labour Court (C), Jabalpur, to take this settlement on record and dispose of the cases settled herein in terms of this compromise-

1. Representing the Management.

Sd-/- T- C. W. H. BLAY.

Sd-/- K- RAMAMOORTHI.

2. Representing the Union-

Sd-/- H. B- SINOM ABSI.

Sd./- S. N- ADITYA- Sd./- S. K. DAS.

Dated: 4th August 1967. Mosaboni Mines.

Witnesses

1. Sd/- M. N. Sahal 2. Sd/- Mobarak Ahmed,

List of Cases under Sec. S3 (a) (b)

SCHEDULE 'A'

Case No.

Name of the workman

SI. No.

Date of application

1 2

CGIT/LC(i8)/67 (i9)/67 " (2o)/67

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

21 22

"

JJ

JJ

JJ

25/1/65 1/3/65 15/3/65 24/4/65 29/4/65 30/4/6*; 27/4/65 27/5/^5 10/6/65 12/6/65 6/7/65 6/7/65 28/8/65 4/9/65 5/10/65 15/10/65 15/10/65 16/10/65 23/10/65 30/10/65 13/12/65 30/12/65 8/1/66 18/1/66 31/1/66 8/3/66 29/3/66 6/4/66 7/4/66 30/5/66 30/5/66 6/6/66 11/6/66 15/6/66 23/6/66 9/9/66 25/6/66 7/7'/66 ZS/H66 • jO/8/6fe

Mosu, No. 1228, Car Driver. Lasso Majhi, No. 2429, R/Chcckcr. Muchiram, No. 7582, M/Sweeper. Surcn Purty, No. 8070, S/Checker. Rajcndra Singh, No. 5799, Sepov. M. K. K, Nair, No. 7856, R/Checker. Amia Naik, No. 1367, Cr. Mazdur. Guha Bah, Chcttry, No, 8131, M/R. Bidcshi Brencd, No. 1769, M/Swccper, Dhananjoy Pator, No. 5619, Mucker. Bhatla Majhi, No. 910, M/Mazdur. Ghasiram Naik, No. 7272> Trammer^ Bidooram Sardar, No, 4507. Muneswar, No. 6495, Trammer. Kalu, No. 7513, M/Swceper, Tila, No. 5772, F/Sweeper. Man Bah. Guruns, No. 5770, Sepoy. Muneswar, No. 6595, Trammer. Bom Bah. Tamang, No. 7708, Mucker.- Haripada Karmakar, No. S178. Md, Abbas, No. 2382, Bl/Helper. Sk. Munu, No. 5974, Mucker. Bhuban Narayan Deo, No. 7981, Pratima, No. 57*6, F/Swecper. Bhuban Bah. Thappa, No. 5719, Sepoy, Bibhisan, No. 7529, M/Swceper. Baldeb, No. 5101, M/Sweeper. Shib Shankar Nair, No. 7989, Mucker.. Ram Bilas Singh, No. 3819. Muneswar, No. 6495, Trammer. Bhola Karmakar, No, 2915,? Mucker. Abdul Karim, No. 4664, Mucker. Jogcndra Prasad, No. 734, M/Mazdur, Balbir Singh, No. 7810, Mucker. Magan Pator, No. 2482, H/Mazdur. Md. Burhan, No. 4644, Trammer. Naiki Hoc, No. 7722,|T/Mazaur. Haripada Pater, No. ,3204, Mucker. Prem Bah. Tamarjg,. No. 4620, Mucker. Permariand Ghasi, No. i8ii,JfM/SWeepet.

>?

" (22)/67 (23V67 (24)/67 (25V67 (26)/67 i>7)/67 (2SV67 (29)/67 (lo)/67 C31V67 (32V67 (33)/67 C34)"7 (¹35)/67 (3"/67 (37)/S7 (38V67 (39)/67 „ (40)/67 (4i)/"7 (42)/67 (43)/67 „ C44V67 C45J/67 (4")/67 (47)/"7 C48)/67 9)167 QV67 i)/67 a>/67 3)/*7 4)/67 5)/,"7 s5/67 75/67

23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

s.  •      Case No.              D ite  of           Name  of the workmen.
No.                            application
   41  CGIT/LCfS9)/67         21/9/66          Sudhan  Sliarvna,  N o. 359, Blacksmith.
   42            (601/67     21/9/tifi         Abdul  Mamn,  No.  S67,  F.  G.  Mazdur.
   43            orj/67      21/g/^i           Nasiruddin  Khan,  No. 872, F.  G.  Mazdur.
   44            (62)/67     20/9/66           Dhananjoy  Singh]  No.  5062,  Sepoy.
   45            f 63)/67    24/9 '6 5         S.  Moni,  No.  7458,  Mucker.
   46            (6;J/67     3 7/9/6 b         Bishwanath  Pator,  No.  3790,  H/Muzdur.
   47            (6j)/67      5/10/66          Dhircn  lJalor,  No.  5624,  Trammer.
   48            f65)/67      17/10/66         Parsuram   Singh,  No.  4786,    T/Mazdnr.
   49            1671/67      18/ro/C.j        Khargj  Bah,  Lama,  No.  3147^ M/R.
   50      ,,    i , S S ) / i i7 12/11/(16    Sadhoo  Singh,  No.  133,  Engg.  Deplt.
   51            (691/67      12/11/66         Kamal  Singh,  No,  503,  Rigger.
   52            (7JJ/67      19/11/66         Khetra  Mohan  Pator,  No.  2217,  Mucker.
   53            (7O/67      26/11/66          Ashir  Kumar  Mahato,  No.  3768,  M/Mazdur.
   54     „      (72)/67     3/12/66           Lai  Mohan  Singh,  No.  2237,  Balastcr  Ilr.
   55     "      ' 73V&7     29  112/66        Dulu,  No.  1868,  M/Sweeper.
   56      ,,    (741/67     29/12/66          Garjaman  Lama,  No.  3522,  Mucker.
   57            (751/67     29/12/66          R.  Chatm  Kutty,  No.  3082,  Mucker.
   5**           (76J/&7     31/12/66          Sheo  Prasad  Sinsh,  No.  1768,  S/Inspector,
   5y            (77)/67     io/12/fifi        Mangla  Pator,  No.  4853,  T/Mazdur.
   60            (7^1/67     9/1/67            I'ulchand  Pator,  No.  770,  M/Mazdur.
   <>i           (79)/67     II/1/67           Padam  Majhi,  No.  5932,  P/Mazdur.
   62            (801/67      Ti/T/67          Abina.sh  Pator,  No.  3568,  Mucker.
   63     „      (8U/67      n/1/67            Singrai  Hoe,  No.  ^432,  Round  Checker.
   64            C82V67      4/2/67            Hasudeo  Patot,  No."  S023,  U/G.  F/Hr.
   65            CS4V67      13/2/67           Amulya  Rana,  No.  4916,  T/Mazdur.
   66            CS5V67       I3/2/67 Min  Rah. Ncor.  No. 7493, M/R.
   67            rS6)/67     T6/2/67           Bimbadhar  Dhir,  No.  5852,  T/Mazdur.
  63             (87)/67     20/2/67           N.  K.  Colombo,  No.  31 n,  Trammer.
  69             (88J/67     20/2/67           Md.  Burh,in,  No.  4644,  Trammer.
  70             (i?9)/67    21/2/67           Cope  Bah.  Chcttry,  No,  20y6,  Mucker.
  7i             C9^)/67     22/2/67           I^al  Bah.  Chettry,  No.  2037,  Mucker.
  72             fQo)/67     20/2/67           Raghunath,  No.  1874,  M/Swecper.
  73             C9iV67      21/2/67           Rajcndra  Kaibartha,  No.  3022,  Mucker.
  74             (92)/67     20/2/67           Chure  Ptm, No.  5072,  Sepoy.
  75             (931/67 •   20/2/67           Dagam  Singh  Ghale,  No.  7695,  Sepoy.
  76             (94)/67     21/9/66           Sripati  Patar,  No.  1697, Hammerman.
  77             (95)/67     22/2/67           Nnra  Hoe, No.  5673,  P.  F.  Helper.
  78             W6)/67      22/2/67           Nmuddin  Mian,  No.  2920,  Blaster.
  79             (97)/67     22/2/67           Chet  Bah.  Chettry,  No,  3796,  Mucker.
  So             (9S)/67     22/2/67           Sanghi  Bodra,  No.  6332,  Trammer.
  81             (99)/67     20/2/67           Chamba  Singh  Lama,  No.  8066,  Blaster.
  S3             (TOO)/67    23/2/67           D:irtid  Khan,  No.  6005,  Mucker.
  S3             (101V67     23/2/67           Sakal  Bah.  Darjce,  No.  6070,  Mucker.
   84            (rO2)/67    23/2/67           Bhuban  Pator,  No. 2431, Mucker.
  "S             flO3)/67    23/2/67           Kcshab  Majhi  No. 4183, Mucker.
  86      ,,     (1041/67    23/2/67           Ram  Majhi,  No.  4796,  M/Sardar.
  87             (ios)/67    23/2/67           Lai  Bah.  Chellry,  No.  8438,  Mucker.
  8c!            (io(SV67    23/2/67           Bikram  Murmoo,  No.  7871,  Mucker.
  89             (iO7)/67    23/2/67           Ram  Chandra  Giri,  No.  5448, M/R.
  90             (io8)/67     23/2/67          Lakhinder  Majhi,  No.  5879,  Mucker.
  91      „      (iO9)/67    23/2/67           Puncy  Darjce,  No.  4R33,  Trammer.
  92             (no)/67     28/2/67           Makar  Bah.  Lama,  No.  4842,  M /R.
  93             (iuj/67     28/2/67           Lakhan  Lai  Ncor,  No.  7342,  M/R.
  94             (112)167    25/2/67           Lai  Bah.  Tamang,  No.  3533,  M/R.
  95             (II3V67     25/2/67           Bhakta  Bah. Sonar,  No. 4338, M/R.
  96             Cll4)/67    25/2/67           Krishna  Bah.  Sriita,  No.  4740,  Mucker.
  97             (1X5/67     25/2/67           Lai  Bah.  Tamang,  No,  7935,  Mucker.
  98             Cu6)/67     25/2/67           Sher  Bah.  Chettry,  No.  3597,  M/R.
  99    :  „     (117  /67   25/2/67           Padam Bah. Chettry, No. 4047, M/R.
 loo      "]      II8/67     25/2/67           Padam  Bah. Lama,  No.  2944, M/R.
 IOI      „  |    119  /67   27/2/67           Sora  Bah.  Thappa,  No.  2813,  Mucker.
 102      „  1    120 /6?    27/2/67           Prem  Bah.  Neor,  No.  3605,  Mucker.
 103      u  1    "I  167    27/2/67           Prem  Bah.  Chettry,  No.  2609,  Mucker.
 104      „  1    122  !

SEO. 3(ii)]  THE GAZETTE  OV INDIA :  OCTOBER  14, 1967/ASVINA  22, 1889  3803.
Case No.
Name of the workmen
Date of application
s. No.
106 107 108 109 no m
112 113 1 14 "5 116 1 17
CGIT/LC(i24)/67 (1255/67 fia6)/67 (i27)/67 (128C/67 C i29)/67 Cl30)/67 i3i)/67 l32)/67 >,  I33J/67 "  I34J/67 "  *35)/<>7
2^/2/67 28/2/67 28/2/67 28/2/67 28/2/67 28/2/67 28/2/67 28/2/67 28/2/67 28/2/67 28/2/67 28/2/67
Salkhan  Hansda,  No. 8477,  Mucker. Talak  Bah. Chettiv,  No.  7862j  Muckci. Dhanu  Hansda,  ^fo. 2896,  T/Maz. Kharga  Bah.  Thappa,  No. 4844,  Mucker. Ananda  Sardar,  No.  2948,  T/MazduT\ Padam  Bah. Lama,  No. 7065,  T/Mazdur. Nar  Bah. Darjee,  No, 4867,  Trammer. Surbir  Chcttry,  N °. 5598,  Trammer. Thiraj  UPadhya,  No. 4803,  Trammer. Hari  Giri, No. 2636,  Mucker. Bil  Bali.  Chettry,  No. 4474,  Mucker. Chabilal  Neor,  No, 4373,  Trammer.
118 119 1 20 121 122 123
124 125 126
                           28/2/67          Dhir   Singh,  No. 5154, U/G. Sweeper.
                           28/2 67          Kushnu  Majhi,  No. 5894,  Mucker.
                           28/2/67          Birkha  Bah.  Thappa,  No, 4991, M/R. •
                           27/2/67           Iomailuddin,  No,  2702,  Mucker.
                           27/2/67          Kama  Bah. M°eor,  No. 2012,  Mucker.
                           27/2/67          Aswini  Kr. Adhikari  No.  2323,  Mucker.
                           27/2/67          Ratna  Bali.  Chettry,  No. 2257,  B/Hr.
                           27/2/67          Thakram  Darjce,  No. 2951, J/Mazdur.
                           28/2/67          Ram  Bah. Chettry,  No, 3009,  Mucker,
127                        28/2/67          Dasmat  Majhi,  No. 2643,  T/Mazdur.
128                        28/2/67          Netra  Bah. Thappa,  No.  8033,  Mucker.
129                        28/2/67           Bhim  Bah. Upadhya,  No. 8064,  Mucker.
130             l48)/67    6/3/67           R.  Rajee,  No. 6230,  Lorry  Driver.
I3I      "     Ci49)/67    6/3/67            C.  Debdas,  No. 3258,  Shaft  Mazdur.
132      "     (i50)/67    10/3/67           Sashi  Bhuean  Bhakat,  No. 5205,  H/Mazdur_
133      „     (i5i)/67    6/3/67            C. Debdas, No. 3258, Shaft  Mazdur.
T34     „      (i52)/67 21/4/67 Girish,  No.  1884, M/Sweepcr.
135      "     (T53)/67    25/4/67           Tajuddin  Mia, No. 5488,  Trammer.
136      JJ    C154V67     25/4/67          Kashim  Khan,  No.  8056,  Trammer.
137      „     C181V67     3/5/67           Hari  Ram Bcldar,  No. 8498,  Mucker.
138      „     (1825/67    3/5/67           Ladu  Hoe, No. 3646,  Mucker.
139      „     (183V67     3/5/67           Chandrai  Majhi,  No. 7951, Mucker.
140      „     (i84)/67    3/5/67            Srinath  Majhi,  No. 2669,  T/M&zdur.
141            U85)/67     3/5/67            Pancha  Keshram,  No. 4715,  Mucker.
142      „     (i86)/67    3/5/67           Jitu  Mahali,  No.  5812, Mucker.
143            (187V67     3/5/67            Kandey  Hoe, No. 4619, Mucker.
144            (188V67     3/5/67            Ratan  Sabar,  No. 7977,  Trammer.
145            (i89)/67    3/5/67            Dukhu  Mukhi,  N o.  8640,    M/Sweeper_

Ashram,  No. 5170,  M/Swccpcr. Suren  Fator  No. 7719, M/Mazdur. Bhagabatia,  No. 5116, M/Swecper. Rentra  Majhi,  No. 7246,  Trammer. Bhali,  No. 7524,  M/Swceper. Narendra  Benera,  No. 7619,  M/Swecper. Haradhan  Barik,  No.  7067,  Trammer. Padam  Ch. Naik,  No. 1814, M/Sweeperr Sidia  Bhoipai,  No. 2975,  Trammer. Rattan  Sagar,  No, 86^2, M/Sweeper, Kartik,  No.  8660,  M/Sweepcr. Som  Bah. Lama,  No. 3291,  Mucker.
3/5/67 3/5/67 6/5/67 5/5/67 5/5/67 6/5/67 5/5/67 5/5/67 5/5/67 5/5/67 5/5/67 24/5/67
158 159 160 161 1 62
I 63*? 164 i 6" *" J
Makardhaj  Chettry,  No. 5820,  H/Mazdur. Ismailuddin,  No.  4655,  Trammer. Tek  Bah. Gurung,  No. 4753,  Mucker. Kharga  Bah. Chettry,  No. 7870,  Mucker, Kripa  Singh  Lama,  No. 8021,  Mucker. Rana  Bah. Chettry,  No. 4559,  Trammer. Padam  Bah. Thafcuri,  No. 4780,  Mucker. Lai  Bah. Chettty,  No  4724,  Mucker. Him  Bah. Chettry,  No. 6113,  Mucker. Sukra  Mahakur,  No.  819,  M/Maidur.
24/5/67 24/5/67 24/5/67 24/5/67 24/5/67 24/5/67 24/5/67 24/5/67 24/5/67 3/5767

3&H THE  GAZETTE  OF  INDIA:  OCTOBER  14, 1967/ASVINA  82,  1M9  [PA{{^{{FOOTNOTE *}}}}T  B-
List  of  C
SCHEDULE  fB'
Owe Number
Name of the workmen.
SI. No.
Date of application
CGIT/LC(i5)/67 (I6J/67 (17V67 "  U8V67 (i9)/67 „  rao)/67
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
(22)/67 (23V67 ,,E  (24)/67
13/10/65 13/10/65 19/11/65 15/11/65 4/1/66 10/2/66 10/2/66 22/2/66 6/12/66 22/2/66
Abdul Haque Khan, No.  461, Fitter.' Ganguli Singh, No. 5055,  Sepoy. Jitrai Mahali, No. 5221, P/F Helper. J. N. Bhattacharjee, No.  1400, S/Checker. S. B. Barua, No. 5724, Clerk. M- N. Patl,No. 6236, Asst. Sampler. Periappa Naidu, No. 7336, R/Mazdur. B. N. Aditya, N°. 1908, Asst. Tracer. S. Ramaswamy, No, 3429,  Electrician. Ram Bilas  Singh, No. 3819,  U/G. Checker.
•Sd/-Illegible
Sd/-Illegible Sd/-IUegible
General  Secretary, Moaaboni  Mines  Labour  Union.
[No.  24/30/67-LR.I.]
S.O.  S650.—In  pursuance  of  section  17  of  the  Industrial  Disputes  Act.  1947 (14.  of  1947),  the  Central  Government  hereby  publishes  the  following  award  of -the  Industrial  Tribunal,  Calcutta  In  the  industrial  dispute  between  the  em- ployers  in  relation  to  the  (1)  Calcutta  Dock  Labour  Board  (2)  The  Master •Stevedores  Association  (3)  The  Calcutta  Stevedores  Association,  Calcutta  and -their  workmen  which  was  received  by  the  Central  Government  on  26th September,  1967.
'
CENTRAL  GOVERNMENT  INDUSTRIAL  TRIBUNAL,  CALCUTTA.
REFERENCE  NO.  124  op  1966-
PARTIES :
Employers  in  relation  to (i)  Calcutta  Dock  Labour  Board,  Calcutta, (ii)  The  Master  Stevedores  Association,  Calcutta,
(iii)  The  Stevedores  Association,  Calcutta.
AND Their  Workmen.
PRESENT :
Shri  S.  K.  Sen.—Presiding  Officer.
APPEARANCES: On  behalf  of  Employers—Shri  N-  K.  Mukherjee,  Advocate  for  Calcutta  Dock
Labour  Board. Shri  S.  S.  Aiyar  for  Master  Stevedores  Association.
Shri  B.  C  Chatterjee  for  Calcutta  Stevedores  Association.
On  behalf  of  Workmen.—Shri  D.  L.  Sen  Gupta,  Advocate.
STATE;  West  Bengal.
INDUSTRY :  Dock
AWABD
 
By  Order  No.  28(136)36-LRIV  dated  29th  September,  1966  the  Central Government  referred  for  adjudication  an  industrial  dispute  between  the  em- ployers  in  relation  to  (1)  Calcutta  Dock  Labour,  Calcutta  (2)  The  Master Stevedores  Association,  Calcutta  and  (3)  The  Calcutta  Stevedores  Association

SEC. B(ii)]  THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER  14, 1967/ASVINA  22, 1889  38Q5
Calcutta  and  their  workmen  In  respect  of  the  matters  specified  in  the  following schedule:
1. Whether  the  demand  for  reinstatement  of  the  following  ex-workmen  is
justified,  and if  so, to  what  relief,  if  any,  are  they  entitled:—
(1)  Shrl  Ahad  Khan,  Hatch  Foreman. (2)  Shri  Jitendra  Nath  Das,  Tally  Clerk. (3)  Shri  Siddique  Khan,  Winchman. (4)  Shri  Noor  Mohammad,  Khamali-II. (6)  Shri  Mohammed  Ismail,  Sardar  Supervisor. (6)  Shri  Aftab  Alam,  Upper  Division  Clerk, (7)  Sk.  Babu,  Winchman.
2.  Whether  the  existing  wages  of  monthly  workers  include  an  element  of wages  in  respect  of  the  weekly  days  of  rest?  If  not,  to  what  relief, if  any,  are  they  entitled?
3.  Whether  the  demand  for  mooring  allowance  for  winchmcn  in  addition to  their  present  emoluments  is  justified  ?  If  so,  to  what  relief  are they  entitled?
4.  Whether  slicemen  and  chamachias  should  be  booked  for  any  other  type of  work?  If  so,  what  should  be  the  procedure  and  conditions  for such  booking?
Preliminary  Objections
 
2.  On  behalf  of  the  Dock  labour  Board  and  the  Stevedores  Associations  cer- tain  preliminary  objections  have  been  urged.  The  associations  have  urged  that they  are  not  employers  of  the  workmen  within  the  meaning  of  the  Industrial Disputes  Act  or  under  the  Calcutta  Dock  Workers  (Regulation  of  Employment)" Schemes  ]956  and  1957  and  therefore  the  reference  is  without  jurisdiction.  The Dock  Labour  Board  has  also  urged  that  it  is  a  statutory  body  set  up  with  a  view to  ensure  the  regularity  of  employment  of  dock  workers,  working  under  the Calcutta  Dock  Workers  (Regulation  of  Employment)  Schemes,  1956  and  1957,  In respect  of  registered  and  listed  workers  respectively;  and  though  payment  of wages  to  the  reserve  pool  workers  and  other  daily  rated  workers  are  made  from the  office  of  the  Dock  Labour  Board,  the  funds  are  obtained  from  the  various Stevedoring  Firms  who  employ  the  labour,  and  the  expenses  of  the  Dock  Labour Board  itseif  are  met  by  a  levy  on  such  employers;  and  thus  it  cannot  be  said that  the  Dock  Labour  Board  is  carrying  on  any  industry  within  the  meaning  of the  Industrial  Disputes  Act,  far  less  an  industry  for  profit  and  that  in  the  circum- stances  it  cannot  be  a  party  to  an  industrial  dispute.  Both  the  Dock  Labour  Board and  the  Associations  of  Stevedores  have  relied  on a  Division  Bench  Ruling  of  Patna High  Court,  1963 I  LL.T 76, Sarat  Chatterjee  and  Company  Pvt.  Ltd.,  and  others vs- Central  Government  Industrial  Tribunal,  Dhanbad.  In  that  case,  in  the  order of  Reference,  ten  Stevedores  firms  of  Calcutta  were  named  as  employers,  and  the dispute  referred  concerned  the  claim  of  the  monthly  workmen  for  scales  of  pay and  for  bonus.  The  learned  Bench  analysed  the  provisions  of  the  Dock  Workers (Regulation  of  Employment)  Scheme  1956  and  came  to  conclusion  that  the  claim of  the  monthly  workers  for  scales  of  pay  and  for  bonus  must  be  decided  finally by  the  Statutory  body,  namely,  the  Dock  Labour  Board,  and  that  the  workers are  not  competent  to  raise  an  industrial  dispute  in  view  of  the  provisions  of  the Dock  Workers  (Regulation  of  Employment)  Act,  1948  and  the  Dock  Workers (Regulation  of  Employment)  Scheme,  1956.  Their  Lordships  observed  that  under clause  4]  of  the  Dock  Workers  (Regulation  of  Employment)Scheme  1958,  it  Is mandatory  that  rates  of  wages,  allowances,  etc.,  and  other  conditions  of  service shall  be  such  as  may  be  prescribed  by  the  Board  of  each  category  of  workers from  time  to  time,  and  it  is  an  implied  condition  of  the  contract  between  the registered  dock  workers  and  registered  employers  that  they  shall  be  such  as may be  prescribed  by  the  Board  from  time  to  time;  that  the  terms  and  conditions  are not  subject  to  variation  by  an  express  contract  to  the  contrary  between  the parties,  and  therefore  there  can  be  no  industrial  dispute  between  the  registered dock  employers  and  the  registered  monthly  workmen  as to  scales  of  pay  or  bonus. This  is  a  decision  in  respect  of  a  dispute  which  arose  jn  Calcutta  between  the monthly  rated  dock  workers  and  the  registered  Stevedore  firms  at  Calcutta;  as the  dispute  was  before  the  Central  Government  Industrial  Tribunal  at  Dhanbad, the  writ  had  to be  fUed  before  the  Patna  High  Court.  It  has  therefore  been  urged that  the  decision  Is  res-judicata  as  between  the  registered  employers,  i.e-,  the

38o6 THE  GAZETTE  OF INDIA :  OCTOBER  M,  19G7/ASVINA 22, 1889  [PART II—
Stevedore  firms  and  the  monthly  workmen  employers  by  them.  I  am  however unable  to  accept  the  argument  as  to  res-judivata,  because  in  the  present  relerence1 the  parties  are  not  limited  to  the  10  specific  firms  which  were  parties  in  the- reference  case  before  the  phanbad  tribunal.  All  t^Je  Stevedore  firms  which  are members  of  the  two  associations  as  well  a^  the  Dock  Labour  Board  are  now named  as  employers,  and  the  workmen  eit;o  include  not  only  the  monthly  work- men  under  those  10  firms  but  all  the  Reserve  Pool  workers  and  other  daily  rated workers  registered  under  the  1&56 Scheme  and  the  workmen  listed  under  the 1957  Scheme.  The  parties  not  being  Identical  the  principle  of  res-judicate  dees, not  apply;  neither  is  the  decision  of  Patna-  High  Court  binding  on  the  sitting in  Calcutta.  But  the  reasons  given  by  the  Patna  High  Court  in  the  case  menlioneS above  are  certainly  entitled  to  respectful  consideration.
3.  The  main  reason  given  by  the  Patna  High  Court  for  coming  to  the  conclu- sion  that  there  could  be  no  industrial  dispute  between  the  registered  monthly workers  and  the  registered  employers,  has  already  been  indicated.  The  Dock Workers  (Regulation  of  Employment)  Scheme,  1956,  contains  a  clause  which  sug- gests  that  there  may  bo  industrial  disputes  referred  to  adjudication,  viz.  Clause 8,  sub-clause  (o),  which  is  In  the  following  terms:
"The  Board  in  meeting  shall  be  responsible  for  dealing  with  all  matters of  policy  and  in  particular  m a y-

SEC. 3(ii)]  THE  GAZETTE  OF INDIA : OCTOBER  14, 1967/ASVINA 22, 1889  3807
industrial  dispute  in  that  behalf.  Subsequent  to  the  amendment  of the  Act  the  employees  can  raise  the  same  dispute  before  the  Certi- fying  Officer  or  before  the  Appellate  Tribunal  and  may  in  pioper case  apply  for  its  modification  under  Sec.  16(2)  of  the  Act."
But  the  Supreme  Court  even  after  making  the  observation  quoted  by  th~  Patna High  Court,  went  on  to  make  the  general  observation  that  if  an  irncstrial dispute  arises  in  respect  of  Standing  Orders  certified  under  the  Industrial  Employ- ment  Standing  Orders  Act  and  it  is  referred  to  the  tribunal  by  the  apTi.ro*1  iat? Government,  the  tribunal  has  jurisdiction  to  deal  with  it  on  merits.  It  ivould appear  that  this  obeservation  covers  the  cases  arising  both  after  and  before  the amendment  of  Industrial  Employment  Standing  Orders  Act,  1946.
4.  It  is  no  doubt  true  that  the  Dock  Labour  Board  is  a  S+atutory  Be-;  with full  powers  in  the  matter  of  enlisting  and  fixing  the  wages  and  allowsn ";:•:  and other  terms  of  service  of  the  dock  workers,  and  that  out  of  15  membci  j  r-  are representatives  of  labour  appointed  by  the  Government  from  the  various  v
Date  of  removal or  discharge
Date of Release
Name
Date  of  arrest
under  D.I.
Rule
————,             '                       18-4-65              22-4-66                  18-9-65
 Ahad  Khan,  HarchforemanJitendra  Nath  Das,  Tally  clerk 18-8-65 6-5-66            4-11-65
 Sidd:que  Khan,  Winchman                10-9-65             17-12-65              Allowed  ".<>  join.
 Noor  Mohammad,  Khamali                  14-9-65               6-5-66                 15-1-66
 Mahammad  Ismail,  Sirdar
       Supervisor                         15-9-65                1-5-66                 18-1-66
 Aftab  Alam, Upper  Division  clerk      10-9-65              19-1-66                  10-1-66
 Sk. Babu,  WinchmSn                      10-9-65             12-10-65              Allowed  to  join


SEC. 3(ii)]  THE  GAZETTE  OF  INDIA :  OCTOBER  14,  1967/ASVINA  22,  1889 3809
It  will  be  noticed  from  the  above  list  that  two  of  the  seven  workmen,  namely Siddique  Khan  and  Sk.  Babu  were  allowed  to  resume  duties  when  they  were released  from  detention.  Their  names  had  not  boen  removed  from  the  register because  they  returned  and  prayed  iov  being  permitted  to  join  before  the  Ad- ministrative  body  had  decided  to  take  then'  names  off  the  register  for  conti- nued  absence.  The  periods  of  their  detention  w,ere  comparatively  short.  In  the case  ot  other  men  the  orders  oi'  discharge  cr  removal  from  the  list  or  register were  passed  after  absence  for  3  months  or  more.  There  was  no  proceeding drawn  up  for  the  purpose  of  discharge  or  removal,  but  the  Chairman  of  the Administrative  body  passed  orders  more  or  less  in  the  terms  used  in  the  case of  Ahad  Khan,  vide  Ext  IB: —
"Whereas  Shri  Abdul  Ahad  Khan,  Hatchforeman,  Booking  No.  184,  has been  absent  from  his  work  since  18th  April  1965  being  detained under  the  Defence  of  India  Rules,  Shri  Abdul  Ahad  Khan  is  hereby informed,  that,  in  the  circumstances,  his  name  stands  removed  from the  register  of  the  Board  on  account  of  his  continued  absence  and inability  to  work."
 
Shri  D.  L.  Sen  Gupta  on  behalf  of  the  Calcutta  Dock  Workers  Union  has  urged that  such  order  of  removal  or  discharge  without  giving  an  opportunity  to  the workman  concerned  to  explain  his  absence  was  illegal  and  cannot  be  sustained. The  Dock  Labour  Board  in  their  written  statement  has  said  that  the  work  of the  Board  suffered  due  to  the  long  absence  of  the  workmen  concerned,  and  as the  absence  due  to  detention  was  likely  to  be  for  an  indefinite  length  the  Board after  obtaining  legal  advice  removed  their  names  from  the  list  or  the  register  or passed  orders  for  discharge.  It  may  be  mentioned  that  the  Board  at  a  meeting held  on  13th  December  1965  decided  that  in  such  cases  the  Board  should  remove the  name  of  the  workman  concerned  from  the  respective  register  or  list  after waiting  for  a  reasonable  period,  and  ratified  the  order  of  Chairman  of  the Administrative  body  removing  the  names  of  two  of  the  men  from  the  register before  the  date  of  the  meeting,  viz.  Ahad  Khan  and  Jitendra  Nath  Das.  Sri D.  L.  Sen  Gupta  has  urged  that  the  Chairman  of  the  Administrative  Body  was not  competent  to  remove  the  name  of  any  workman  from  the  register  or  the list  in  the  summary  manner  in  which  it  was  done  and  in  this  connection  he  has referred  to  clause  45  subclause  (b)  of  the  1956  Scheme  and  clause  14,  subclause (b)  of  the  1957  Scheme  both  of  which  provide  that  if  any  action  is  taken  under the  clause  the  person  shall  be  given  an  opportunity  to  show  cause  why  the  pro- posed  action  should  not  be  taken  against  him.  Sri  N.  K.  Mukherjee  appearing for  the  Dock  Labour  Board  has  urged  that  clause  45  subclause  (6)  of  the  1956 Scheme  and  clause  14  sub-clause  (6)  of  1957  scheme  apply  in  the  case  of  mis- conduct  but  in  the  present  case  there  was  no  misconduct  against  the  Dock  Labour Board  or  the  Registered  employers  committed  by  the  workmen  concerned,  but it  was  a  case  where  the  workmen  had  been  detained  under  the  D.I.  Rules  for a  indefinite  period  and  were  unable  to  discharge  their  duties  as  registered  or listed  workmen  or  as  a  clerk  of  the  Board,  and  there  was  a  failure  of  the  con- tract  of  service,  and  therefore  after  a  reasonable  period  the  Board  was  entitled to  treat  these  workmen  as  having  abandoned  their  services.  In  this  connectiqn Sri  Mukherjee  has  referred  to  two  Supreme  Court  decisions,  1957  I  LLJ  226 (Burn  &  Co.  v  their  employees)  and  1958  I  LLJ  260  (Indian  Iron  end  Steel  Co. Ltd.  v  their  workmen).  In  the  first  of  these  cases,  the  Supreme  Court  dealt  with the  case  of  one  Ashimananda  Banerjee  who  had  been  detained  under  the  Defence of  India  Rules  and  released  after  about  3  months;  the  company  without  drawing up  any  chargesheet  or  holding  any  enquiry  terminated  his  service.  The  Supreme Court  held  that  the  termination  of  service  even  without  a  domestic  enquiry  was in  order,  as  it  was  difficult  to  see  what  purpose  would  be  served  by  a  formal charge  and  what  conceivable  answer  could  be  given  by  the  workman  concerned, the  misconduct  urged  being  continued  absence  for  more  than  10  days  without leave.  In  the  second  case  where  a  number  of  workmen  were  arrested  by  the Police  and  detained  in  jail  for  several  months,  their  discharge  without  any  formal chargeslieet  or  enquiry  was  held  to  be  in  order  in  accordance  with  a  provision Of  the  Standing  orders  of  the  company  under  which  any  person  absent  for  over 14  days  without  leave  was  liable  to  be  discharged  from  service.  In  a  subsequent case  however  relating  to  some  workmen  of  Calcutta  Dock  Labour  Board,  the Supreme  Court  has  taken  a  different  view,  viz.  1965  II  LLJ  112,  Calcutta  pock Labour  Board  v  Jafar  Imam.  Jafar  Imam  and  some  others  had  been  detained  under the  Preventive  Detention  Act  Tand  kept' under  detention  for  several  months-  After they  had  been  released  the  Dock  Labour  Board  commenced  disciplinary  proceedings against  them  and  notices  were, served  on  them  to  show  cause  why  their  services .  should,  not  be  terminated  on  14  days'  notice  in  terms  of  clause  36(2) (d)  of  the Calcutta  Dock  WorKSfe  ^Rfcgtilstton  0* EswJoyijjen^  Sebeme  1951,  corre.sjjondi|ig

3 8 l O_  JTHZ  GAZETTE  OF INDIA :  OCTOBER  .4, 1967/ASVINA  ffl.  i a 89  rPARr  t I_
^otfces^af $ £ %* J&™  h^Teen S a i n i^  ^ - ^ 7^ maintenance  of  public  orde™  Thewm-lmJ?  £  ! f or  a c tS  Pre "diclal  to  the
jw  honnj?,,"*!?"?'  c0,r^sponding  to clause  45 of the 1950 scheme,  and was there- "w  2  ,  ^  :  .i,  Cia U £e  6  of  t he  s c h e me  to  g i ve  reasonable  apportunlty  to show  cause;  but  the  orders  against  0  of  the  workmen  concerned  in  issue  No  1 harl  been  passed  on  the  authority  of  the  earlier  Supreme  Court  decisions,  namely, .burn  & Co, v.  their  employees  an;-I Indian  Iron  and  Stool  C-i. v.  their  workmen which  eases  were  not  considered  in  1965 II  LLJ  112, as  the  Supreme  Court  had to  deal  with  the  validity  of  the  disciplinary  action  taken  under  the  terms  of  the appropriate  clause  of  the  scheme.  But  the  principle  laid  down  by  the  Supreme Court  in  Calcutta  Dock  Labour  Board  v.  Jafar  Imam.  1965 II  LLJ  112,  namely that  after  aritizen  has  suffered  loss  o'  liberty  after  being  validlly  detained  his detention  order  should  not  be  utilised  for  depriving  the  citizen  of  his  livelihood, must  be  deemed  to  hold  good  in  the  present  case.  In  Burn  &  Co.'s  case  and Indian  Iron  and  Steel  Co.'s case  the  Supreme  Court-  had  to  deal  with  the sum- mary  orders  of  discharge  for  termination  of  service  in  the  light  of  provisions under  the  Standing  Orders  that  service  of  a  workman  could  be  terminated  for 14  davs  continuous  absence  or  that  continuous  absence  for  10  days  or  more  cons- tituted  a  misconduct  for  which  there  could  be  an  order  of  dismissal.  It  does  not appear  that  the  Dock  Labour  Board  has  any  such  provision  that  for  absence  for a  certain  period  involving  unavailability  for  work,  a  workman  may be  removed from  the appropriate  register  or list  or may be  served  with  an  order  of  discharge. Clause  1Kb) provides  that  the  Administrative  body  may remove  from  any regis- ter  or  record  the  name  of  any  registered  worker,  but  this  has  to  be  done  either at  his  own  request  or  m  accordance  with  the  provision  of  the  Schema.  In  the present  case  the removals  were  not at the request  of  workmen  concerned,  There- lore  the  Administrative  body  could  remove  them  only  in  accordance  with  the scheme  and  the  scheme  contains  no  other  provisions  for  removal  except  the procedure  in  clause  45 for  registered  workers  and  clause  14 for  listed  workers It  has  already  been  stated  that  the  schemes  do  not  contain  any  provision  that for  absence  for  a  period  a  workman  may  be  removed  from  the  register  or  list. In  paragraph  5  of  the written  statement,  the  Dock  Labour  Board  stated  that  the work  of  the  Board  suffered  due  to  the  onttaued  absence  of  the ^n  drtai^H and  so  the  Board  removed  their  names.  Shri  Sen  Gupta  has  challenged  this
mmsmMmm
Hfnre,  it  must  be  ^W Jhat  the  removal  from  the  l ^ J \^  D o ck  L^ o ur
entitled  to  be  put  back  in  their  respective  places.
ft A, regards Slddi^ue Khan andI g  ^ ^ ^ l ^ ^ f A ^ V^
 
^ ^ ^ s ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^l fl  a clRim for ba

SEC. 3(ii)]  THE  GAZETTE  OF INDIA:  OCTOBER  14, 1967/ASVINA 22, 1889  38  u
wages  for  the  period  that  the  men  had  been  kept  out  of  work  because  of  the wrong  order  of  discharge  or  removal  from  the  list  made  by  the  Administrative office,  and  approved  by  thd  Board.  But  the  issue  as  framed  does  not  cover  the case  of  back  wages  or  emoluments  in  the  case  of  a  workman  in  respect  of  whom no  question  of  reinstatement  arises.  The  ftsue  reads,  "whether  the  demand  for reinstatement  of  tbe  following  workmen  is  justified  arid  if  so  to  what  rel'ef  if any.  they  are  entitled".  If  there  is  no  question  of  reinstatement  because  "there was  no  discharge  or  removal  from  the  list,  tbe  question  of  relief  also  does  not apply.  Moreover,  for  the  period  during  which  they  were  kept  under  detention, certainlj  tne  workmen  are  not  entitled  to  any  remuneration.  Siddique  Khan and  Sk.  Babu  were  permitted  to  join  as  soon  as  they  came  back  after  being released.  Hence  in  their  case,  even  apart  from  the  terms  of  reference,  the  ques- tion  of  back  wages  cannot  arise  at  all.  In  the  case  of  other  registered' and  listed workmen  whose  names  were  removed,  they  are  all  daily  rated  workers,  and their  wastes  together  with  the  appropriate  percentage  as  levy  are  realised'from the  registered  iirms  of  employers  when  the  workers  are  booked  for  any  job. Since  their  release,  the  4  registered  or  listed  workmen  concerned,  namely  Ahad Khan,  Jitendra  Nath  pas,  Noor  Mohammad  and  Mohd.  Ismail  have  been  assigned to  no  job  on  the  requisition  of  any  registered  or  listed  employers  and  accordingly no  wages  for  them  have  been  realised.  Further,  the  action  of  the  Dock  Labour Board  in  removing  their  names  must  be  considered  bqnafide, because  they  were absent  for  a  long  time  and  the  period  of  their  detention  was  indefinite  and  the • Board  had  obtained  legal  advice  which  was  prima  fane  based  on  the  earlier Supreme  Court  Rulings,  viz..  Burn  Co.'s  case  and  Indian  Iron  and  Steel  Co.'s case.  I  find  no  substance  in  the  suggestion  that  the  Board  did  not  like  the  Dock Workers'  Union,  and  removed  the  men  as  they  were  members  of  that  union.  In the  circumstances,  I  do  not  think  that  the  Board  should  be  burdened  with  wages which  these  men  might  have  earned  during  the  period  of  non  employment.  They should  be  taken  back  on  the  list  or  register  within  a  month  from  the  date  of publication  of  the  award,  but  they  should  be  treated  as  on  leave  without  pay for  the  period  for  which  they  were  not  assigned  to  any  job,  whether  because  of detention  or  because  of  the  order  of  removal  of  their  names.  Though  the  case of  Aftab  Alam  who  was  a  clerk  employed  by  the  Dock  Labour  Board  is  some- what  different,  I  do  not  think  that  any  distinction  should  be  made  between  his case  and  the  case  of  the  others.  He  should  also  be  treated  as  on  leave  without pay  for  the  period  of  his  non  employment  including  the  period  of  detention  in jail.
Issue  No. 2
10.  The  wages  of  monthly  workers  as  well  as  of  daily  rated  workers  have  been fixed  by  the  Board  from  time  to  time.  The  previous  rates  of  monthly  and  daily rated  workers  are  quoted  in  paragraph  258  of  the  Report  of  the  Dock  Workers (Regulation  of  Employment)  Enquiry  Committee  1955,  from  which  an  extract has  been  given  in  the  written  statement  of  the  union.  It  appears  that  in  1953 when  the  workmen  were  registered  for  the  first  time  the  Dock  Labour  Board accepted  the  prevailing  rates  of  wages  and  dearness  allowance  as  paid  to  the different  categories  of  daily  rated  workmen,  and  fixed  monthly  wages  on  an ad  hoc  bi-is.  The  rates  of  daily  wages  and  of  monthly  wages  were  then  as follows:—
(j)  Reserved  pool
Category                           Basic per        Dearness Allowance         Total.
                                     shift.              per  shift.
Sirdar                 Day           5-0-0                3-4-0                   &-4-0
                       Night        5-13-0                3-4-0                   9-1-0
Mate                   Day           3-0-0                3-4-0                   r-4-0
                       Night        3-9-0                 3-4-0                  6-13-0
Khamal:s  I & II       Day          2-8-0                 3-4-0                  5-12-0
                        Night       2-15-0                3-4-0                   6-3-0
Khamalis  11 & TH      Day          2-1-0                 3-4-0                    5-5-0
                        Night       2-7-0                 3-4-0                  5-11-0
Rolias I & II           Day          I-9-O                3-4-0                   4-13.0
                        Night       T-I5-0                 3-4-0                   5-3-0
Rolia?  I ll            Day          1-8-0                 3-4-0                 4-12-0
                        Night       1-12-0                 3-4-0                   5-0-0


38i2 THE  GAZETTE  OF  INDIA :  OCTOBER  14,  1967/ASVINA  22,  1889  [PART  I I-
Category                       Basic  per              Dcarness allowance           Total
                                 shift.                     per  shift
Winchman                Day          2-8-0'                 3-4-0                  •5-12-0
                        Night        3-8-0                  3-4-0                  6-I2-O
Deck  F'orcman          Day          B-o-o                  3-4-0                  TI-4-O-
                        Night        5-0-0                  3-4-0                 T2-4-O
Hatch  Foreman          Day          5-0-0                  3-4-0                   8-4-0-
                        Night        6-0-0                  3-4-0                  9-4-0

(")  Monthly  Workers
Category-
Basic Pay
Dearness  Allowance
Total
155/- 135/- 125/' 125/- 115/- 115/- 113/- 110/- 110/-
IOo/- 80/- 70/- 70/- 60/- 6o/- 58/- 55/- 55/- 80/-
55/- 55/- 55/- 55/- 55/- 55/- 55/- 55/- 55/- 55/-
215/-  (inclusive  of  DA) 160/-  (inclusive  of  DA)
135/- 215/- 160/- Sirdar Mate Kamaha  I Kamulia  II Kamalia  III Kamalia  IV Rolia  I Rolia  II Rolia  III Winchman Deck  Foreman Hatch  Foreman
 
It  is  clear  from  the  above  list  that  the  wages  of  monthly  workers  of  diilerent categories  were  not  fixed  by  multiplying  the  daily  rate  by  the  identical  number of  days-  In  the  case  of  the  Sirdar  the  basic  monthly  wage  was  only  20  times the  daily  rate  of  the  Sirdar  (day-shift)  whereas  in  the  case  of  the  Rc-lia  the  basic wage  fixed  was  more  than  30 times  the  basic  daily  wage.  This  anomaly  is  partially reduced  by  the  fact  that  the  dearness  allowance  for  all  these  categories  was the  same,  namely  Rs.  3/4/-  for  the  daily  rated  workers  and  Rs.  55/-  for  the monthly  rated  workers.  But  even  taking  the  total  remuneration  into  considera- tion  the  monthly  wages  for  the  Sirdar  was  the  equivalent  to  19  days'  total  wages o£  a  Sirdar  in  the  day  shift,  whereas  in  the  case  of  Rolia  it  was  equivalent  to  24 days'  total  wages.  It  may  be  mentioned  that  in  1953 when  the  scheme  came  into operation  for  registered  workers,  each  registered  worker  was  given  a  guarantee of  minimum  of  VI  days'  wages,  but  the  actual  number  of  days  for  which  the different  categories  of  workers  were  booked  varied  widely  and  it  appears  that the  monthly  wages  were  fixed  with  an  eye  on  the  number  of  days'  booking  that a  worker  of  a  particular  category  might  normally  expect  in  a  month.  For  the daily  rated  workmen  the  guarantee  was  raised  to  a  minimum  of  18  days  wages with  effect  from  October  1956  and  a  minimum  of  21  days  with  effect  from October  1957-  Both  the.  daily  rates  and  the  monthly  rates  were  revised  upwards from  time  to  time-  Thus  the  element  of  dearness  allowance  shown  In  the  rates quoted  above  was  merged  with  the  basic  wages  by  a  resolution  of  the  Board adopted  in  October  1H63-  But  an  additional  dearness  allowance  following  the lead  of  the  Central  Government  was  given,  the  additional  dearness  allowance being  increased  from  time  to  time  in  the  footsteps  of  the  Central  Government. Further,  the  payment  of  attendance  money  for  a  day  on  which  no  .10b  could  be provided  which  was  Re,  1/-  was  raised  to  Ks,  1.50,  and  with  effect  from  1st  May 1965  the'dally  rated  workers  were  given  the  privilege  of  weekly  off  days  with pay  i e  they  were  to  receive  their  daily  wages  for  the  weekly  off  day  in  addi- tion  to  guaranteed  minimum  wages  for  21  days  work.  The  4  classes  of  Khamalis and  3  classes  of  Rolias  were  reduced  to  one  category  of  Khamalis  and  one  cate- gory  of  Rolias,  with  effect  from  1966.  Further,  on  the  recommendation  of  the- Central  Wage  Board  for  Port  & Dock  Workers  each  worker  got  an  interim  relief of  Rs  11 80  per  month.  The  existing  rates  of  the  Reserve  pool  workers  who  are

Src. 3(ii)J  THE GAZETTE  OF INDIA:  OCTOBER  H, 1967/ASVINA  22,  1889 3813
daily  rated  and of  monthly  rated  workers  cf  the different  categories  are shown below: —
Existing  rates  of Reserve  Pool  Workers
Category
Rates of wages
A. D. A.
(per  month)
Interim Re- lief (Per  month)
(Daily")
Day
Total  wage with 21  days at  day rate  4-offdays & 5  attendan- ces.
Afternoon/
Night
9-06 6.Si 6, iy 5 19
8.2s 6.25 5-75 4 . K1 S.7S I T . 25 N.2S
110.00 90.00 90.00 70,00 90.00 TIO.OO 110,00
T i . 80 11.So 11.Bo 11. So 11.80 11.Bo 11.80
12.25 9.25
Sardar Mate Khamalias Rolias Winehman Deck Foreman Hatch  Foreman
335-55 265-55 253.05 209,55 253-05 410.55 335.55
Existing  rates  of Monthly  Workers
Category
Rates  of wages A. D. A.
Tcttl
Interim Re- lief
110.00 90.00 90 .00 70.00 90.00 no.00 110.00
210.00 170.00 160.00 143 00 170.00 275.00 215.00
331.80 271.80 261.80 224.80 271.8a 196.80 336.80 Sardar Male Khamalias RoUias Winehman Deck  Foreman Hatch  Foreman
11-80 11.80 11.80 11.80 11.80 11.80 11.80
By  a comparision  of the two tables  it is clear  that  at present  the monthly pay
of  a  Sirdar  and of  a  Deck:  Foreman  is  less  than  the total  wages  which  a  Sirdar and  a  Deck  Foreman  respectively  of  the  Reserve  pool  gets  on  the  basis  21 guaranteed  days'  wages,  4 off  days  wages  and attendance  allowance  for 5 days. The  pay of the monthly  worker  of the other  categories  namely,  Mate,  Khamalia,. Rclia,  Winrhman  and  Hatch  Foreman  is  more  than  the  total  wages,  of  these categories  of  workers  in the Reserve  Pool  with  21 guaranteed  days'  wages,  4 off days  wages  and 5  days  with  attendance  allowance.  In  the case  of  the  Sirdar the  basic  pay of  the monthly  worker  comes  to  between  25 and  26 days'  dally wages.  For a mate  the basic  pay of the monthly  worker  is approximatc'y  27 days wages at the daily  rate; for Khamalis  it is equal to nearly  28 days  and for the Rolia it  is nearly  equal  to 30 days  basic  wages.  For the Deck  Foreman  and the Hatch Foreman  the bRsie  pay is equivalent  to about  24J and 26 days  basic  wages  respec- tively.  Thus,  as in the beginning  the monthly  pay fixed  ii nni, a uniform  multiple of  the daily  rate;  clause  42(6)  of the 1956 scheme  provides  that  a  worker  on  the monthly  register  shall  draw  wages  on a  calculated  daily  time  rate  basis  for the days  for which  he is entitled  to payment  but is not allotted  any work.  This  rule is  not  happily  worded;  for  a  worker  on the monthly  register  will  in  any case draw  his monthly  pay whether  or not he has work  on every  day of the month. The  rule  is  apparently  intended  for  calculating  the month'y  pay with  reference to  the  daily  wage  rate.  Clause  29(2) (c)  provides  that  normally  a  monthly worker  shall  not be employed  for more  than  6 shifts  in a week,  i.e., normally he s|ioulr!  be employed  for  H shifts  or  G days  in a  week  with  one  shift  per day. Therefore  during  a  month  oxcept  for 4 weekly  off  days  hr may be employed for 26  days  and he  should  therefore  receive  wages  for  26  days  whether  or not he has  worked  for  every  one of the 26 days.  In  addition,  although  the scheme did not  provide  it, the Reserve  Pool  workers  are being  given  wages  for 4 weekly oil' days,  in addition  to the wages  for 21 days  guaranteed  days, and attendance  allow- ance  for the remaining  days  of the month,  The Reserve  Pool  workers  may have work  for 26 shifts,  sometimes  more,  in a  month,  in which  case  they  earn  more than  30 days'  wages  in a month.  So the monthly  workers  are also  entitled  to  the' pay  for the weekly  off days.

3814 THE  CAZETTE  OF INDIA :  OCTOBER  14,  1967/ASVINA  22, 1889  [PART  II-
11.  It  has  already  been  shown  that  the  present  monthly  basic  pay  is  equi- valent  to  24  to  nearly  30  days  wages  at  the  day  rate;  the  additional  dearnesa allij-v? ace  and  the  interim  relief  which  are  paid  on  a  monthly  basis  are  common to  buih  categories  of  workmen.  It  is  therefore  not  possible  to  return  the  same ansv  v-r  in  respect  of  different  categories  of  monthly  workers  to  the  question whether  or  not  their  monthly  pay  includes  the  pay  for  the  weekly  off  days-  In some  cases  it  does  but  in  some  cases  it  does  not  and  the  workmen  are,  therefore, entitled  to  have  their  wages  brought  upto  the  required  level,  i-e-,  the  basic  pay in  each  case  should  be  calculated  on  the  basis  of  30  days  at  the  day  shift  wage rate  (20  days  for  work  and  4  days  for  weekly  off  days)."
12.  On  behalf  of  the  Dock  Labour  Board  and  the  Associations  It  has  been urged  that  the  monthly  rated  workers  enjoy  certain  additional  benefits  which werr  ';, ken  into  consideration  in  fixing  their  monthly  pay;  the  monthly  workers have  guaranteed  employment  at  the  monthly  rate  throughout  the  month  whereas no  such  guaranLeed  employment  throughout  the  month  is  assured  to  ihc  Reserve Pool  workers;  and  the  Reserve  Pool  workers  have  to  attend  at  the  Cal]  Stand daily  for  obtaining  their  assignment  for  the  day  whereas  the  monthly  paid  wor- kers  are  sent  direct  to  their  place  of  work  by  employers.  They  are  a]so  not  re- quired  to  work  in  the  night  shift.  There  is  no  doubt  that  the  monthly  paid workers  enjoy  the  advantage  that  they  do  not  have  to  go  daily  to  the  Call  stand to  get  their  assignment  or  work  in  the  night  shift.  But  as  regards  the  other point,  in  view  of  the  adoption  of  21  days  guarantee  and  payment  for  4  oil  days and  the  attendance  allowance  for  the  remaining  days,  it  is  no  longer  true  that the  Reserve  pool  workers  have  no  guaranteed  employment  throughout  the  month. They  are  now  assured  pay  for  practically  the  whole  of  the  month  whether there  is  enough  work  or  not.  It  has  also  been  urged  on  behalf  of  the  associa- tions  that  with  the  additional  dearness  allowance  and  the  interim  relief,  the workmen  of  these  categories  are  highly  paid,  and  it  is  not  necessary  that  their wages  should  be  further  increased.  It  is  true  that  these  categories  of  workmen are  fairly  highly  paid;  in  their  case  the  interim  relief  recommended  by  the Central  Wage  Board  for  Port  &  Dock  Workers  w-as  hardly  necessary;  but  the fixation  of  pay  for  the  monthly  worker  for  the  whole  month  including  the  weekly off  days  is  a  matter  of  principle,  and  since  the  wages  of  the  Reserve  Pool  workers have  been  fixed  as  indicated  before,  by  the  order  of  the  Dock  Labour  Board,  it  is necessary  that  the  pay  of  the  monthly  workers  should  be  brought  upto  the  re- quired  leve1  HO as  to  be  equivalent  to  30  days'  wages  per  month  and  thus  include the  element  of  pay  for  the  weekly  holidays.  I  therefore  hold  that  the  workers of  these  categories  are  entitled  to  the  following  pay  and  that  they  should  ber paid at  that  rate  from  the  1st  of  the  month  following  the  publication  of  the  award;
Basic  pay
Category
Total
A.D.A.
Interim relief
11.80
no
247.50
Sirdar Mate
90
11. Ro
1K7.JO
90
11.80
172.jo
Khamaiia
369-30 289  30 274.30
70
11.80
T44-3O
Rollia
226.10
11.Ro
Winchman
172.50
11 .So
Deck]5Foreman
274.30 459.30 36q.30
11.80
Hetch  Foreman
90 no no
337-50 247.50
The  fixation  has  been  made  on  the  basis  of  the  day-shift  wajie  rates-  The monthly  workers  are  also  liable  to  worjc  in  the  afternoon  shift,  though  not  in  the night  shift;  in  view  of  the  advantages  they  enjoy,  it  Is  proper  that  the  monthly pay  should  be  fixed  on  the  basis  of.  the  day-shift  rate  of  wages.
Issue  No.  3

She. 3(ii)]  THE GAZETTE  OF INDIA:  OCTOBER  14, 1967/ASVINA  22,  1B89 3815
not  prclduce  any  reliable  documentary  evidence  to  show  that  the  winchmcti  at Bombay  are  being  paid  such  a  mooring  allowance-  The  mooring  allowance  has been  claimed  on  two  grounds;  firstly,  because  the  workman  undergoes  some  risk when  travelling  by  dlnghee  from  the  shore  to  the  ship  at  mooring  and  back  again and  secondly,  because  the  winchman  has  tot  work  more  carefully  when  the  ship  is at  mooting  so  that  the-  goods  may  be  unloaded  into  a  liKhter  which  may  be  in  an unsteady  condition  owing  to the  current  or  the  waves  of  the  river  as  compared  with working  when  the  ship  is  at  a  berth,  when  the  unloading  has  to  be  done  en  the •shore.  As  regards  the  risk  involved,  however,  it  is  incurred  not  only  the  winchmen but  by  all  the  gang  men  who  have  to  do  the  work  of  loading  and  unloading  when the  ship  is  at  mooring.  There  may  be  1100  or  1200  workmen  working  in  the  ships at  mooring  on  any  particular  day  and  of  them  150  or  200  may  be  winchmen  as the  evidence  has  shown.  The  dinghees  are  supplied  by  the  Registered  Employers and  are  also  paid  for  by  the  Registered  Employers.  It  has  not  been  stated  that there  has  been  any  case  of  fatal  accident  when  the  workmen  are  crossing  over  by •dinghee.  In  the  circumstances,  this  is  no  ground  for  holding  that  winchmen  incur any  particular  risk.  As  regards  the  second  reason  given,  it  appears  from  the evidence  of  MW 1-N.  K.  Ghose,  an  Assistant  Administrative  Officer  of  Dock  Labour Board  that  among  the  gang  workers  there  is  a  category  a£  worker  known  as Signalman,  and  he  gives  signal  for  the  movement  of  the  derrick  operated  by  the winchmen,,  and  therefore  it  does  not  require  more  concentrated  attention  on  the part  of  the  winchmen  when  they  have  to  unload  into  a  lighter  than  when  they have  to  unload  on  the  shore-  I  must  agree  that  in  view  of  the  winchman's  work being  guided  by  a  signal  man,  the  argument  that  it  requires  more  concentrated attention  for  unloading  goods  into  a  lighter  becomes  untenable-  The  practice  at Bombay  has  been  urged  by  Sri  Sen  Gupta-  I  have  already  mentioned  that  the practice  at  Bombay  has  not  been  legally  proved.  Even  assuming  that  there  is  a system  of  a  mooring  allowance  at  Bombay  for  winchmen,  the  conditions  at  Bombay are  different,  Firstly,  at  Bombay  the  ships  are  moored  at  Sea  and  not  in  a  river as  in  Calcutta,  and  secondly,  at  Bombay  the  Dock  Labour  workers  work  under  the incentive  piecerate  scheme  like  the  shore  labour  while  at  Calcutta,  dock  labour refused  to  work  under  the  Incentive  piecerate  scheme,  preferring  the  time  rated system  under  which  they  earn  more.  If  the  dock  labour  at  Calcutta  are  not  willing to  accept  the  system  of  incentive  piecerate  under  which  the  Bombay  dock  labour work,  they  cannot  also  claim  the  advantage  of  any  additional  allowance  that  the Bombay  dock  labour  may  get  for  particular  types  of  work.  I  hold  therefore  that the  demand  for  a  mooring  allowance  for  winchmen  is  not  justified.
Issue  Wo. 4
 
14.  Slicemen  and  chamchias  are  sub-categories  of  salt  workers  which  is  one  of the  categories  into  which  listed  dock  workers  have  been  classified.  The  schedule to  the  unregistered  Dock  Workers  (Regulation  of  Employment)  Scheme,  1957 mentions  3  categories,  (i)  Chipping  and  painting  workers,  (il)  Salt  workers  and Stitchers  and  baggers  and  (iii)  Workers  employed  in  vessels  for  coal  stevedoring and  coal  bunkering.  These  3  classes  have  been  divided  into  G categories  under clause  9A(2)  of  the  scheme,  viz-  (a)  Chipping  workers,  (b)  Painting  workers, (c)  Baggers,  (d)  Stitchers,  (e)  Salt  workers  (f)  Workers  employed  on  vessels  for coal  stevedoring  and  coal  bunkering  work-  Salt  when  booked  in  bulk  tends  to form  rock  like  lumps-  The  work  of-  slicemen  is  to  break  the  chunks  of  salt  in  salt ships  with  crowbars.  The  work  of  chamachias  is  to  shovel  the  broken  salt  into baskets.  They  are  not  always  salt  ships  requiring  unloading  at  Calcutta  port. According  to  the  evidence  of  MW  1,  in  one: month  there  may  be  no  salt  ship  at  all whereas  In  another  month,  there  may  be  4 or  5 salt  ships.  In  the  written  statement of  the  Calcutta  Dock  Labour  Board,  it  has  been  stated  that  during  September, OcLober  and  November  1966  there  were  only  2  salt  ships  per  month  In  which  the salt  workers  could  be  employed,  and  that  if  Slicemen  and  Chamachias  werr  to  be booked  on  salt  ships  only  their  services  could  be  utilised  only  for  11  or  12  days per  month  although  there  is  a  guarantee  for  paying  a  minimum  of  18  days  wages to  all  listed  workers  including  slicemen  and  chamachias.  There  is  a  provision in  both  the  schemes  that  workmen  listed  in  one  category  may  be  put  to  work  in any  other  category-  Clause  12(4) (b)  of  the  1957  Scheme  provides  that  a  listed workers  is  under  the  obligation  to  accept  any  employment  whether  in  the  category of  sub-category  in  which  he  has  been  listed  or  in  any  other  category  or  sub-category for  which  he  is  considered  suitable  by  the  Administrative  body.  There  is  a  similar provision  for  registered  workers  in  clause  37(4)(b)  of  the  1956  scheme-  Though slicemen  and  chamachias  are  sub-categories  of  salt  workers  and  though  salt workers,  stichers  and  baggers  were  originally  under  the  same  class  according  to

3816  1HE  GAZETTE OF IN1J1A : OCTOBER  14, 1967/ASViNA 22, 1889  [PART  I I-
tchedule,  the  daily  rates  of  pay  fixed  by  the  Board  are  not  equal.  The  Tatea  of pay  are  as  follows: —
Day
Afternoon/Night
Bagger
4-75
5,-
Sliccman
5-75
6,-
Chamachia
5  12
5-37
The  glicemen  and  chamachias  according  to  the  present  practice  are  booked  for work  in  salt  ships  first,  then  in  food  ships  as  baggers  if  there  is  no  work  in  salt ships,  and  lastly,!  In  bulk  cargo  ships  carrying  fertiliser  and  sulphur.  The chamachias  and  sllcemen  generally  object  to  work  in  food  ships  as  baggers; particularly  they  object  to  work  at  the  lower  rate  of  pay  for  baggers-  Their  claim is  that  they  should  be  booked  for  work  first  in  salt  ships,  and  if  salt  ship  U  not available  then  in  fertiliser  and  sulphur  ships,  and  only  lastly  in  food  ships  provided that  while  working  as  baggers  they  are  paid  wages  applicable  to  their  own sub-category.
15  Regarding  salt  workers,  baggers  and  stitchers,  there  was  an  agreement, Ext  G  on  9-3-1965  between  the  Master  Stevedore  Association  and  the  Calcutta Stevedores  Association  representing  the  employers  and  the  National  Union  of Dockers  and  Dock  Mazdoor  Union  representing  the  workmen-  Under  the  terms of  the  agreement,  subject  to  the  implementation  of  the  incentive  tonnage  scheme framed  by  the  Ministry  of  Labour  and  Employment,  Government  of  India,  the  Board might  pay  a  listed  salt  workers,  stitchers  or  baggers  a  minimum  guarantee  wages appropriate  to  his  category  in  the  manner  prescribed  in  the  incentive  tonnage scheme  for  a  minimum  of  18  days  in  a  month  subject  to  certain  conditions.  Under the  incentive  tonnage  scheme,  salt  workers  booked  as  baggers  were  to  be  paid  a minimum  daily  wage  of  Rs  4.75  equivalent  to  the  daily  wage  of  a  bagger,  but according  to  the  quantity  of  foodgrains  unloaded  the  total  earnings  per  gang  would be  calculated  and  wages  of  individual  bagger  derived  therefrom,  the  rates  being as  follows :
Rate for Metric ton-
Total  earning.
Stage
65  paise
Upto  100 tons.
A
75  paisc
Above  100 tons but upto  150 tons.
B
S5  paise
For all quantities aboue  150 to us.
C
 
The  rate  table  was  processed  at  the  level  of  daily  wage  of  Rs.  4-75  on  an  8  hour shift  i.e.  by  landing  upto  100  tons  the  gang  members  would  earn  the  daily  wage ot  Rs.  4.75,  but  the  earning  of  the  gang  members  would  increase  ior  landing  above 100  tons-  It  was  however  suggested  to  MW 1  that  this  incentive  tonnage  scheme for  foddgrains  did  not  prove  satisfactory  in  actual  working,  and  in  cross  examination MW  1 was  challenged  to  produce  statements  showing  the  earning  of  baggers  under the  incentive  piecerate  scheme;  no  such  statement  was  produced,  but  that  is  no reason  for  holding  that  there  is  no  such  scheme-  Though  by  working  under  the incentive  piecerate  scheme  for  foodgrains  the  earning  of  a  sliceman  and  chamachia may  rise  above  the  rate  fdr  their  own  sub-category,  the  sliceman  and  chamachias are  not  willing  to  be  bound  by  the  agreement  any  longer;  and  on  their  behalf,  the Dock  Workers  Union  gave  notice  ol  termination  of  the  agreement,  vide  Ext.  11  on 24-.ci-19ttt)-  It  lias  been  suRgested  on  behalf  of  the  associations  that  the  notice  is not  a  valid  notice  of  termination  under  Sec-  19  of  the  Industrial  Disputes  Act,  as the  Dock  Workers  Union  was  not  a  party  to  the  agreement-  But  the  agreement was  made  in  the  course  of  conciliation  proceedings  before  the  R.L.C.,  Central, Calcutta,  and  therefore  under  Sec.  18(3)  the  settlement  was  binding  on  all  the workmen.  Under  the  previous  Dock  Labour  Board  constituted  in  19G2  there  was nd  representative  of  the  Dock  Workers  Union  among  the  5  labour  representatives, because  the  Dock  Workers  Union  did  not  then  have  sufficient  membership.  But  the Dock  Workers  Union  acquired  a  substantial  membership  during  1965-CG  and  in  the present  Dock  Labour  "Board  reconstituted  in  April,  1907  the  Dock  Workers  Union has  obtained  2  representatives  out  of  5  labour  representatives-  It  was  the  Dock Woirkers  Union  which  brought  about  a  strike  among  the  dock  workers  from  24th September  1066  It  was  partly  to  settle  the  strike  that  the  Chairman  of  the  Dock Labour  Board  agreed  to  refer  several  demands  raised  by  the  Dock  Workers  Union

SEC. 8(li)}  THE  GAZETTE  OF  INDIA  :  OCTOBER  14,  1967/ASVINA  22,  188U  3 8 1 /'
to  adjudication.  The  notice  of  termination  of  the  agreement  was  given  on  24th  May 1966 i.e.  more  than  2 months  before  the  strike-  Reference  to  adjudication  v/as  made within  a  few  days  thereafter  i.e.  on  29-9-1966  Since  the  agreement  was  binding on  all  the  workers,  and  a  considerable  body  of  workers  including  the  salt  workers have  now  become  members  of  another  union,  the  Dock  Workers  Union,  I  must  hcdd that  Dock  Workers  Union  even  though  not  a  party  to  the  agreement,  Ext.  G,  are entitled  to  give  notice  of  termination  thereof.  Accordingly,  the  n<_'tice  is  valid  and . the  agreement  is  no  longer  binding.  As  regards  the  first  question  of  the  issue, nameliy  whether  slicemen  or  chamachias  should  be  booked  for  any  other  work, it  is  not  denied  even  by  the  union  that  the  answer  should  be  in  affirmative.  The- union  does  not  want  that  the  slicemen  and  chamachias  should  not  be  booked  for any  other  type  of  work  They  want  firstly,  that  when  there  is  no  work  in  s^lt  ships they  should  be  booked  in  sulpher  ships  and  fertilizer  ships  where  the  work  is somewhat  similar  to  that  of  salt  ships,  and  only  thereafter  in  food  ships,  and secondly,  that  when  working  as  baggers  in  foodships  they  should  be  given  their own  sub-category  rate  of  pay.  It  is  admitted  on  behalf  of  the  Dock  Labour  Board that  in  respect  of  registered  workers,  when  a  worker  of  a  category  with  a  high  dally rate  of  wages  is  booked  for  work  In  any  other  category  with  a  lower  rate  of  wages, he  is  permitted  to  draw  the  rate  of  wages  of  his  own  category.  Shri  Mukerjee on  behalf  of  Dock  Labour  Board  has  stated  that  there  is  a  distinction  between the  scheme  of  the  registered  workers  and  listed  workers,  and  that  listed  workers are  not  entitled  to  the  privileges  of  the  registered  workers.  I  do  not  however think  that  there  should  be  any  such  discrimination  in  the  matter  of  payment  to workers  of  a  category  booked  to  work  in  another  category  where  the  daily  rate of  wage  is  lower.  The  schemes  themselves  only  provide  that  a  workman  of  a particular  category  may  be  booked  to  work  in  another  category  or  sub- category.  The  schemes  are  silent  as  to  the  rate  of  wages  which  shall  be payable  to  such  workmen  deputed  to  work  in  any  other  category.  The  practice as  regards  the  registered  dock  workers  being  admitted,  I  think  that  the  same should  be. followed  and  the  claim  of  slicemen  and  chamachias  conceded,  with  the proviso  that  if  the  incentive  piecerate  scheme  ia  applied  to  the  bagging  of  food- grains,  the  processing  at  the  level  of  daily  rate  of  Rs.  4-75  for  8  hours  shift  will continue  but  if  the  wages  worked  out  lor  a  particular  shift  come  to  a  figure lower  than  the  wage  rate  of  slicemen  and  chamachias,  the  slicemen  and  chama- chias  should  be  paid  at  the  wage  rate  applicable  to- their  sub-categories.
16-  My  AWARD  therefore  is  as  follows: —
(1)  There  is  no  dispute  regarding  No.  3-Siddique  Khan  and  No.  7-Sk.  Babu. So  far  as  5 remaining  workmen  are  concerned,  namely  (1)  Ahad  Khan,  (2)  Jitendra Nath  Das,  (41  Noor  Mohammad,  (5)  Mohd.  Ismail  and  (6)  Aftab  Alam,  the  orders removing  their  names  from  the  register  or  the  list  and  the  order  of  discharge passed  in  respect  of  the  clerk  employed  in  the  Dock  Labour  Board  are  set  aside  and it  is  ordered  that  these  men  be  reinstated  in  their  respective  places  within  one month  from  the  date  of  the  publication  of  the  award.  These  men  will  be  treated as  'on  leave  without  pay'  but  without  any  break  in  the  continuity  of  their  servicfe during  the  period  of  detention  and  from  the  date  of  removal  order  to  the  date  of reinstatement
(2)  The  existing  wages  of  monthly  workers  include  an  element  of  wages  in respect  of  the  weekly  days  of  rest  in  some  cases,  but  not  in  all  cases.  Accordingly, the  existing  wages  of  the  monthly  workers  are  revised  as  follows  with  effect  from the  first  of  the  calendar  month  next  following  the  publication  of  the  award: —
Inlerim  Re-
Category
Bas;c pay.
A.  D.  A.
To:al
lef.
RS.
RS,
Rs.
ITO 90
Sirdar Mate Khamnlia Rollia Winchman Deck  Foreman Hatch  Foreman
247.50 187-50 172-50 144.30 17^-50 337.50 '247.50
90 70 90 no no
3^9-30 289  30 274•30 226  10 274-30 459-30 369-30
Rs. 11.80 11.So 11  80 II.So IT.80 II.Mo it  So
(3)  The  demand  for  mooring  allowance  for  winchmen  in  addition  to  their present  emoluments  is  not  justified  and  the  demand  is  rejected.

^ 8 l8  THE  GAZETTE  OF INDIA : OCTOBER  14, 1967/ASVINA  22, 1889  [PART  I I-
(4)  Sllcemen  and  Chamachias  will  be  booked  for  other  types  of  work,  but  when no  work  In  salt  ship  is  available  they  should  be  booked  first  to  the  Sulphur  shipa and  Fertilizer  Ships  If  available,  and  thereafter  as  baggers  In  food  ships,  but  while working  as  baggers  they  will  be  entitled  to  draw  the  wage  scale  attached  to  their own  sub-categories,  subject  to  the  proviso  that  when  baggers  work  under  an  incen- tive  piece-rate  scheme,  the  slicemen  and  chamachias  will  share  in  the  higher earnings  only  after  the  average  earning  per  bagger  haa  risen  above  their  respective sub-category  wages-
(Sd.)  S.  K,  SEN,
Dated,  Vsth September  1967-
Presiding  Officer. [No.  28/136/60-LRIV.]
S.O.  3651.—In  pursuance  of  section  17  of  the  Industrial  Disputes  Act,  1947  (14 of  1947),  the  Central  Government  hereby  publishes  the  following  award  of  the Industrial  Tribunal,  Calcutta  in  the  industrial  dispute  between  the  employers  in relation  to  Messrs  C-  Laurie  and  Company,  Calcutta  and  their  workmen  which  was received  by  the  Central  Government  on  23rd  September,  1967.
CENTRAL  GOVERNMENT  INDUSTRIAL  TRIBUNAL,  CALCUTTA
REFERENCE  NO-  152  OF  1966
PARTIES :
Employers  In  relation  to  Messrs  C.  Laurie  &  Company,  Calcutta,
AND
Their  workmen
PRESENT:
Shri  S.  K.  Sen,  Presiding  Officer
APPEARANCES :
On  behalf  of  Employers—Shri  P.  K.  Sen  Gupta. On  behalf  of  Workmen—Shri  H  L.  Roy.
STATE:  West  Bengal
INDUSTRY:  Dock  &  Port-
AWARD
By  Order  No.  28(116)/66-LRIV  dated  25th  November  I960,  the  Central  Govern- ment  referred  for  adjudication  an  industrial  dispute  between  the  employers  in  rela- tion  to  Messrs  C- Laurie  &  Company,  Calcutta  and  their  workmen  in  respect  of  the matter  specified  In  the  following  schedule:
"Whether,  having  regard  to  the  nature  of  the  duties  performed  by  them,  the watchmen  (annexure  A)  employed  by  Messrs  C.  Laurie  and  Company, Calcutta  are  entitled  to  Interim  relief  and  D.  A.  recommended  by  the Central  Wage  Board  for  Port  &  Dock  Workers  at- Major  Ports  and,  if so,  from  what  date?
ANNEXURE  "A"
1.  Sri  Surab  Khan 2.  Sri  Lai  Bahadur  Newar 3.  Sri  Narayan  Das. 4-  Sri  Jit  Bahadur  Gurung. 5.  Sri  Prem  Bahadur 6.  Sri  Purna  Bahadur  Dwarjee 7-  Sri  Bhim  Bahadur  Newar 8-  Sri  Dil  Bahadur  Chatri 9.  Sri  Jamurali  Hossain
 
10.  Sri  Gorakh  Singh 11.  Sri  S-  B-  Ran a 12.  Sri  R.  N-  Prodhan 13.  Sri  Bal  Bahadur  Rana 14.  Sri  Kharka  Bahadur 15-  Sri  Nar  Bahadur  Tamang 16.  Sri  Tara  Singh 17-  Sri  Ram  Bahadur  Newar 18.  Sri  Satya  Seal 19-  Sri  Lai  Bahadur  Lama 20.  Sri  Dal  Bahadur  Semor

SEC. 3(il)]  THE  GAZETTE  OF INDIA :" OCTOBER  14, 1967/ASVINA  22, 1889 38i$r.
21.  Sri  Dil  Bahadur  Iimoo 22.  Sri  Pabitra  Karmakar 23.  Sri  Nani  Gopal  Paul 24.  Sri  Ramani  R.  Das 25.  Sri  Til  Pros ad 26.  Sri  Moti  Singh 27.  Sri  Md.  Jewat  Khan 28.  Sri  Momtaz  Khan 123.  Sri  Dal  Bahadur  Newar 30.  Sri  Ramna  Das 31.  Sri  Md.  Yakub :J.2.  Sri  Kama  B-  Gurung 33.  Sri  Gouranga  Dey 34.  Sri  Amulya  Poddar 35.  Sri  Ranjlt  Mistry 36-  Sri  Jotirmoy  Roy
2.  The  36  watchmen  on  the  roll  of  Messrs  C.  Laurie  and  Company,  Calcutta are  represented  by  the  Shipping  Employees  Union.  According  to  the  case  of union  the  watchmen  are  supplied  to  shipping  companies  for  guarding  the  cargo and  other  property  on  board  the  ship  during  the  process  of  loading  and  unload- ing  and  they  are  also  deputed  sometimes  to  keep  watch  on  the  Port  Commis- sio'ners'  cargo  godowns  and  yards.  The  union  claims  that  the  watchmen  are dock  workers  and  arc  entitled  to  the  benefit  of  the  two  Interim  reliefs  and  the dcamess  allowance  recommended  by  the  Central  Wage  Board  for  Port  and  Dock Workers  They  have  claimed  thai  an  award  be  made  directing  the  management to  pay  DA  at  the  rate  of  Rs.  7.50  with  effect  from  1st  October,  1064,  the  first interim  relief  of  Rs.  7,80  with  effect  from  1st  February,  1965  and  the  second interim  relief  of  Rs.  4  with  effect  from  1st  August,  1966.
3  The  management  has  opposed  the  claim,  asserting  that  the  watchmen  are not  dock  workers  and  that  in  any  case  it  has  not  been  specifically  set  out  by  the CenUal  Wage  Board  for  Port  and  Dock  workers  that  the  waUhmen  employed in  the  Port  area  are  entitled  to  rhe  benefit  of  the  interim  recommendations  and that  in  the  circumstances  the  relief  sought  cannot  be  granted  to  Lhe  watchmen. The  employers  in  the  written  statement  has  also  raised  the  point  that  the reference  is  not  maintainable  as  the  reference  does  not  cover  all  the  watchmen employed  in  the  port  area.
4  As  regards  the  last  objection,  it  may  be  mentioned  atonce  that  a  general reference  including  watchmen  and  several  other  categories  of  workers  was  made by  the  Central  Government  being  Reference  No,  149-  of  196G.  Even  apart  from the  general  reference  a  reference  limited  to  the  watchmen  employed  by  a  parti- cular  firm  is  also  maintainable.  There  is.  therefore,  no  substance  in  this objection.
5  As  regards  the  question  whether  the  watchmen  are  or  are  not  dock  workers as  denned  In  sec  20b)  of  the  Dock  Workers  (Regulation;  of  Employment)  Act, 1948  both  sides  have  referred  to  the  award  made  lay  Shn  G.  Palit  m  Reference case'No  27  of  1959  of  the  Central  Government  Industrial  Tribunal,  Dhanbad,  m which  the  daily  rate  of  wages  and  the  claim  for  uniform,  paid  holidays,  leave with  pay,  etc.  were  adjudicated,  In  paragraph  5  of  his  award  Shn  Palit observed  that  these  watchmen  could  well  be  said  to  be  dock  workers  as  under- stood  under  the  Act.  But  under  Issue  No.  5  Sri  Palit.  expressed  the  opinion  that the  watchmen  are  not  dock  worker  observing  that  the  dock  workers  stood,  on  a different  footing,  and  merely  became  watchmen  and  the  dock  workers  work  in the  same  place  it  cannot  be  accepted  that  their  conditions  of  service  must  be similar.
6.  It  Is  however  not  necessary  to  resolve  the  apparent  discrepancy  or  to  decide flnallv  the  question  whether  or  not  watchmen  are  dock  workers  within  the  mean- ing  of  Sec  2(b)  of  the  Dock  Workers  (Regulation  of  Employment)  Act  1948 The  Government  notification  apnointing  the  Central  Wage  Board,  for  Port  and Dock  Workers  comprises  not  merely  dock  workers  as  defined  in  the  Dork
 
"employees  engaged  by  listed  employers".  Messrs  C.  Laurie  &  Company  are

382Q  THE  GAZETTE  OF INDIA : OCTOBER  14, 1967/ASVINA  22, 1889  [PART  II,
admittedly  listed  employers  and  the  watchmen  are  employees  engaged  by  them. They  are  supplied  to  different  shipping  companies  for  work  as  watchmen  or darwans  but  they  are  paid  according  to  the  number  of  shifts  worked  by  Messrs C.  Laurie  &  Company.  Messrs  C.  Laurie  &  Company  also  are  liable  to  supply 2  sets  of  uniforms  per  year  to  these  watchmen  and  to  give  3  paid  holidays  and 15 days'  leave  with  pay  on  condition  that  the  workmen  had  done  240  shifts  within a  calendar  year.  It  is  clear,  therefore,  that  the  watchmen  are  employees  of Messrs  C.  Laurie  &  Company  and  therefore  they  come  under  clause  D  of  the Appendix  to  the  Government  Resolution  mentioned  above.  They  are  therefore entitled  to  the  benefits  of  the  interim  recommendations.
7.  Next,  there  is  the  question  of  date  when  the  management  should  be  asked to  give  effect  to  the  recommendations.  The  Wage  Board  recommended  that  the dearness  allowance  of  Rs.  7.50  should  be  payable  from  1st  October,  1964  to employees  who  are  being  paid  consolidated  wages,  as  the  watchmen  are  being paid;  according  to  Shri  Palit's  award  the  daily  wage  rate  is  a  consolidated  rate consisting  of  basic  pay  and  dearness  allowance.  The  Central  Wage  Board  also recommended  that  the  interim  relief  should  be  payable  from  1st  February,  1965. By  the  second  interim  recommendation  Rs.  4  was  recommended  to  be  paid  from 1st  August,  H6tf.  The  recommendation  is  not  however  immediately  binding  on the  employers.  Government  in  their  resolution  requested  the  concerned  em- ployers  to  implement  the  same  as  early  as  possible  and  not  from  the  date  recom- mended  by  the  Wage  Board,  Shri  H.  L.  Roy .appearing  for  the  union  has  pointed out  that  the  watchmen  filed  an  application  before  their  employers  for  giving effect  to  the  first  interim  rcommendation  of  the  Wage  Board,  by  a  joint  petition dated  22nd  July,  1965'  vide  Ext.  1.  He  has  also  urged  that  some  other  firms employing  watchmen  on  similar  terms  have  already  started  paying  the  interim relief  and  dearness  allowance  to  their  watchmen.  He  has  therefore  urged  that the  amount  should  be  made  payable  from  the  original  dates  recommended  by the  Wage  Board.  But  giving  a  retrospective  effect  of  nearly  3  years  in  the  case of  dearness  allowance  and  over  2  years  in  the  case  of  interim  relief  would  cast a  heavy  burden  on  the  employers.  Shri  P.  K.  Sen  Gupta  for  the  employers  has urged  that  if  the  relief  is  granted  to  the  watchmen  at  all,  it  should  be  made payable  from  the  date  of  the  award.  Considering  the  conflicting  claims,  I  thinE it  wouM  be  equitable  to  give  effect  to  the  interim  recommendations  i.e.  make the  award  effective  with  effect  from  1st  April,  1967  i.e.  the  first  date  of  the present  financial  year.
8.  My  award  there Core  is  that  the  watchmen  named  in  the  Annexure  A  of  the •Schedule  and  employed  by  Messrs  C.  Laurie  and  Company,  Calcutta,  are  entitled to  th  interim  relief  of  Rs.  11.80  and  dearness  allowance  of  Rs.  7.50  recommended by  the  Central  Wage  Board  and  that  the  employers  must  pay  the  same  with effect  from  1st  April,  1967.
Dated  19th  September,  1967.
fSd.)  S.  K, SFN, Presiding  Officer. [No.  28/116/66-LRJ.V-] S.O.  3632.—In  pursuance  of  section  17  of  the  Industrial  Disputes  Act,  1&47 (14  of  1947)  the  Central  Government  hereby  publishes  the  following  award  oX the  Industrial  Tribunal,  Calcutta  in  +he  industrial  dispute  between  the  employers in  relation  to  (1)  Masters  Stevedores  Association  and  their  members  (2)  Calcutta Stevedores  Association,  and  the'r  members  (3)  Messrs  C,  Laurie  and  Company, Calcutta  (4)  Messrs  H.  D.  Mukherjee  and  Comoany,  Private  Limited  and  their workmen  which  was  received  by  the  Central  Government  on  23rd  September, 1987.
CENTRAL  GOVERNMENT  INDUSTRIAL  TRIBUNAL,  CALCUTTA
REFERENCE  NO.  149  OF  1966
PARTIES  :
Employers  in  relation  to  :
1.  Master  Stevedores  Association  and  their  members. 2.  Calcutta  Stevedores  Association  and  their  members. 3.  Messrs  C.  Laurie  &  Company,  Calcutta. 4.  Messrs  H.  D.  Mukherjee  &  Company,  Pvt.  Ltd,
AND
Their  workmen.
PRESEKTT:
Shri  S.  K.  Sen—Presiding  Officer.

SEC. 3(ii)]  THE  GAZETTE  OF INDIA : OCTOBER  14, 1967/ASVINA  22, 1889  3821
APPEARANCES :
On  behalf  of  Employers.—Shri  S,  S,  Aiyar  for  Master  Stevedores  Asso- ciation. Steri  B.  C-  Chatterjee  for  Calcutta  Stevedores  Association.
On  behalf  a}- Workmen,—Shri  P.  K.  Ganguly  for  National  Union  of  Water- front  Workers. Shri  H.  L. Hoy for  Shipping  Employees  Union. Shri  A.  Azad,  Calcutta  Dock  Workers  Union.
STATE :  West  Bengal
INDUSTRY :  Port  & Dock
AWARD
By  Order  No.  28(119)/66-LRIV,  dated  19th  November,  1966.  the  Central Government  referred  for  adjudication  an  industrial  dispute  between  the  em- ployers  in  relation  to  (1)  Master  Stevedores  Association  and  their  members, <2)  Calcutta  Stevedores  Association  and  their  members,  (3)  Messrs  C.  Laurie  & Company,  Calcutta,  (4)  Messrs  H.  D.  Mukherji  and  Company  Private  Limited, Calcutta,  and  their  workmen  in  respect  of  the  matter  specified  in  the  following schedule :
"Whether  the  following  categories  of  workers  under  the.  employment  of different  stevedores  or  listed  employers  are  entitled  to  get  the interim  relief  and  dearness  allowance  as  recommended  by  the Central  Wage  Board  for  Port  and  Dock  Workers.  If  so,  from  what date?
(i)  Supervisors, (ii)  Assistant  Supervisors, (iii)  Attendance  clerks. (iv)  Table  staff  (such  as  ships  clerks.  Boat  Inspectors,  Sorting  Clerks, Measurement  Clerks,  Plan-makers).
(v)  Riggers, (vi)  Cleaning  workers, (vii)  Marksmen, (viii)  Carpenters,
(ix)  Gear  workers. (x)  Watchmen. (xi)  Indoor  staff  (such  as  office  clerks,  peons,  drivers  etc.,  attached  to office  of  stevedors  or  listed  employers).
2.  On  behalf  of  workmen  the  National  Union  of  Waterfront  Workers  mention- •ed  in  the  order  of  reference  filed  a  written  statement.  In  addition,  the  Shipping Employees  Union  and  the  Calcutta  Dock  Workers  Union  were  permitted  to  file written  statements  on  their  application  for  being  added  as  parties  and  they  were permitted  to  represent  the  workers  alongwith  National  Union  of  Waterfront wcrV-rs  at  the  time  r>f  hearing.  On  behalf  of  employers,  the  Master  Stevedores Ass-x^ti^n  and  th"  Calcutta  Stevedores  Association  filed  separate  written  state- ments.  Other  emnlovers  mentioned  in  the  order  of  reference  did  not  file  sepa- rate  -vri'ten  statpmp-t  although  Messrs  C.  Laurie  and  Company,  Calcutta  was  re- presented  by  Sri  P  K  Sen  Gupta  on  some  of  the  dates  of  hearing.  To  decide  the •question  whether  or  not  the  different  categories  of  workmen  are  entitled  to  re?- ceive  the  interim  relief  and  dearness  allowance  as  recommended  by  the  Central Wage  Board  for  Port  and  Dock  Workers,  it  is  necessary  that  the  work  done  by the  different  categories  of  workers  should  be  set  out.  A  description  of  work  by workmen  of  different  categories  has  been  given  by  the  National  Union  of  Water- front  Workers  in  paragraph  8  of  its  written  statement.  This  description  has been  eeneraUy  accepted  as  correct  by  both  the  associations  of  employers  and  is therefore  set  out  here:
M(B)  That  the  nature  of  work  performed  by  the  different  categories  of workmen  as. appearing  in  the  schedule  referred  to  above  are  shortly described  as  under: —
0)  Supervisors.—They  work  on  board  the  ships  acting  on  behalf  of  their respective  employers  to  supervise  the  entire  stevedoring  process connected  with  the  ship.

3822  THE GAZETTE  OF INDIA : OCTOBER  14, 1967/ASVINA  22, 18fl9  [PART  I I-
(11)  Asstt  Supervisors.—The  job  of  Supervisors  being  very  responsible, intensive  and  extensive,  they  are  required  to  be  assisted  " by  able- helpers  In  the  persons  of  Asstt.  Supervisors.
(iii)  Attendance  clerks.—The  attendance  of  workers  of  different  categories who  assemble  on  board  the  ships  in  every  shift  or  otherwise,  are maintained  and  recorded  by  the  Attendance  clerks-
Civ)  Table  Staff,—Handling  of  cargo  requires  elaborate  operative  and paper  work  in  order  to  facilitate  loading  unloading  and  mcvemen! of  such  farfio,  and  for  the  purpose  a  set  of  staff  commodity  known as  "Table  Staff"  are  employed.  This  broad  category  known  ag "Table  Staff1'  lnclud.es  many  sub-categories  some  of  whom  have  been mentioned  in  the  schedule  referred  to  above  as  "Ship's  clerks", "Boat  Inspectors",  etc.
(v)  Riggers,—-Loading  and  unloading  of  cargo  from  and  to  quay  line  or overside  are  usually  done  by  cranes  and  derricks.  These  derricks are  required  to  be  adjusted  from  time  to  time  for  operation  depend- ing  on  the  lifting  and  discharge  points  of  cargo  being  handled  at  a time.  The  riggers  are  engaged  for  handling  derricks  for  the  pur- pose  of  such  adjustments.
(vi)  Cleaning  workers.—After  the  unloading  of  ships,  they  are  required  to be  cleaned  and  prepared  for  the  next  process  of  loading.  The workers  employed  in  this  context  are  known  as  "Cleaning  Workers". (vil)  Marksmen,—-Marking  of  cargoes  is  on  important  and  essential  aspect of  loading,  unloading,  movement  and  storage  of  cargoes.  The workers  employed  for  the  purpose  Of marking  are  known  as  "Marks- men".
(vlii)  Carpenters.—In  the  process  of  stevedoring  work,  cases,  wooden  or otherwise,  carrying  cargoes  get  damaged.  To  repair  such  damaged cases  and  thereby  to  maintain  the  unhindered  movement  of  cargoes, carpenters  are  employed.  (Carpenters  also  take  off  and  refix  parti- tions  in  the  holds).
(Ix)  Gear  Workers.—Loading  and  unloading  of  ships  are  done  with  ihe help  Of  implements  known  as  Ships'  gears.  Workmen  handling  such gears  are  known  as  gear  workers,
(x)  Watchmen.—The  cargoes  carried  by  ships  are  very  valuable.  In  order to  watch  such  cargoes  so  that  the  work  of  loading,  unloading,  move- ment  and  storage  of  cargoes  can  be  carried  on  unhindered,  watch- men  are  employed.
(xi)  Indoor  Staff.—The  staff  of  stevedoring  firms  can  be  broadly  divided into  two  classes—indoor  and  outdoor.  Indoor  staff  also  contribute directly  to  stevedoring  work  by  performing  the  various  office  work involved  in  the  process  of  loading,  unloading,  movement  and  storage of  cargoes.  The  category  known  as  Indoor  staff  includes  many  sub- categories  some  of  whom  have  been  mentioned  in  the  schedule  re- ferred  to  above  as  office  clerks,  peons,  etc.
3.  All  the  unions  have  urged  that  the  workmen  mentioned  in  clauses  (i)  ta (x)  are  dock  workers  and  are  therefore  entitled  tn  the  benefit  of  the  Interim relief  and  deames
 
4.  On  behalf  of  the  associations  it  has  been  urged  that  the  definition  of  the term  'dock  workers'  in  the  Dock  Workers  (Regulation  of.  Employment)  Act. 1948, is  somewhat  vague  and  therefore  the  associations  made  a reference  to  the  Central Government  for  clarifying  the  point  as  to  what  categories  of  workers  would  come under  the  term  'dock  worker':  but  the  Government  In  their  reply  did  not  give  a clear  definition  bv  categories  but  only  referred  back  to  the  definition  of  the  term in  the  Dock  Workers  (Regulation  of  Employment)  Act,  1948; and  in  the  absence

Sic. 3(ii)l  THE  GAZETTE  OF  INDIA :  OCTOBER  14,  1967/ASV1NA  22,  1889 3823
of  clear  instructions  from  the  Central  Government  as  to  who  should  be  classified as  dock  workers,  the  members  of  the  associations  could  not  implement  the  recom- mendations  of  the  Wage  Board.  According  to  the  associations,  the  term  'dock worker'  should  only  apply  to  persons  brought  under  the  decasualisation  and  list- ing  schemes  formulated  by  the  Central  Government  for  the  Port  of  Ca'cutta  i.e., it  can  apply  only  to  the  registered  workers  under  the  Dock  Workers  (Regulation of  Employment)  Scheme,  1956  and  the  listed  workers  in  the  unregistered  Dock Workers  (Regulation  of  Employment)  Scheme,  19ii7,  and  other  ancillary  workers like  those  mentioned  in  the  order  of  reference  cannot  be  considered  as  dock workers  and  therefore  they  are  not  entitled  to  the  benefit  of  the  intcrm  relief  and deafness  allowance  recommended  by  the  Central  Wage  Board  for  Port  and  Dock workers.  Further,  according  to  the  associations,, in  respect  of  certain  categories of  workers  e.g.,  t^tble  staff,  supervisors,  asstt  supervisors,  attendance  clerks,  etc. disputes  raised  by  them  had  been  settled  by  awards  of  the  Industrial  Tribunals and  the  awards  are  still  in  force  and  have  not  been  terminated  by  notice  under Section  19(2)  of  the  Industrial  Disputes  Act,  and  therefore  there  could  be  no  dis- pute  raised  relating  to  these  categories.  Finally,  according  to  the  associations many  of  these  categories  of  workers  e.g.  table  staff,  riggers,  cleaning  workers, watchmen,  carpenters,  gear  workers  and  marksmen  are  engaged  through  contrac- tors  either  on  a  consolidated  rate  or  at  agreed  daily  wages  payable  by  the  con- cerned  contractor,  and  the  stevedore  firms  or  listed  firms  do  not  maintain  re- gisters  for  recording  their  attendance  as  they  are  not  employees  of  the  firms,  and therefore  there  cannot  be  any  order  for  implementing  the  recommendations  of  the Centra]  Wage  Board  in  relation  to  them.
5.  The  first  point  for  consideration  therefore  is  whether  the  workmen  of  the different  categories  are  included  in  the  class  to  which  the  interim  recommenda- tions  of  the  Central  Wage  Board  have  been  extended.  With  reference  to  the categories  of  employees  mentioned  in  the  Appendix  of  the  Government  Order,  Ext. 2.  Category  A  comprises  employees  of  major  Port  authorities;  category  B,  compri- sing  dock  workers  as  defined  under  Dock  Workers  (Regulation  of  Employment) Act,  1948,  is  divided  into  5  sub-cotcgories.  Sub-categorios  1  and  2  relate  to  re- gistered  and  listed  dock  workers  under  the  schemes  of  1956  and  1957.  The  work- men  concerned  do  not  come  under  those  sub-categories.  Sub-categories  3  and  4 relate  to  employees  in  other  ports  Sub-category  5  deals  with  similar  categories of  employees  as  in  item  1  and  2  whether  they  are  covered  under  the  scheme  or not.  Now  categories  of  employees  as  in  items  1 and  2  are  as  follows; —
Item  1,—Registered  Dock  Workers;  (a)  Dock  Foreman  (b)  Hatch  foreman, (c)  Winchman  (d)  Sirdar  (c)  Mate,  (f)  Stevedore  Mazdoor,  (g) Rigger  (h)  Tally  clerk.
Item  2.—listed  dock  workers: (i)  Chipping  and  Painting  workers, (ii)  Salt  workers,  stitchers  and  baggers. (Hi)  Workers  employed  under  vessels  for  coal  stevedoring  and  coal  bun- kering  work.
The  workmen  concerned  in  this  reference  include  only  one  category  coming within  the  above  categories  namely  (v)  Riggers.  The  reference  is  to  riggers  who have  not  been  registered  under  the  1956  scheme;  riggers  who  have  been  so  regis- tered  have  already  got  the  benefits  of  the  interim  recommendations  by  the  Central Wage  Board  for  Port  and  Dock  Workers.  PW  7-Abdul  Gaffar  employed  under Messrs  K.  B,  Gorsia  is  such  a  rigger  not  registered  ley  the  Dock  Labour  Board. His  evidence  is  that  he  is  a  casual  worker  paid  at  the  rate  of  Rs.  21 50  for  the morning  shift  and  at  the  rate  of  Rs.  3  for  the  afternoon  and  night  shifts,  He  has no  deamess  allowance;  he  get"! his  pay  from  a  Serang  under  the  Gorsia  Company and  it  is  from  the  Serang  that  he  gets  his  order  for  duty  for  the  day  when  there  is any  work.  He  could  not  say  whether  the  Serang  is  engaged  on  a  contract  basis by  Messrs  K.  B.  Gorsia.  His  evidence  tends  to  support  the  c^im  in  the  written statement  of  employers  associations  that  some  categories  of  workers  like  riggers are  engaged  under  a  contract  system  bv  the  Stevedoring  firms  and  arc  not  em- ploved  direct  by  the  firms.  But  in  anv  case  riegers  are  workmen  falling  within Category  B(5)  and  so  they  are  entitled  to  the  benefits  of  the  interim  recommen- dations  of  the  Central  Wage  Board,
6.  Category  C  comprises  employees  engaged  by  the  Dock  Labour  Board  and their  administrative  bodies.  Category  D  comprises  employees  engaged  by  listed employers.  Shri  P.  K  Ganguly  has  urged  that  this  class  must  include,  apart  from dork  workers  falling  in  one  of  the  other  clauses,  the  indoor  staff  consisting  of  the office  clerks,  peons,  drivers,  etc.  mentioned  In  clause  (xi)  of  the  reference  ord"r.

3824  T HE  GAZETTE  OF INDIA:  OCTOBER  14, 19G7/ASVINA  22, lfi
Shri  Aiyar  on  behalf  of  the  Master  Stevedores  Association  has  urged  that  the employees  engaged  by  listed  employers  must  mean  the  employees  covered  by listed  dock  workers  scheme  i.e.,  unregistered  Dock  Workers  (Regulation  of  Em- ployment)  Scheme,  1957  which,  as  stated  before,  mentions  three  class  of  dock workers,  namely,  chipping  and  painting  workers,  salt  workers,  stitchers  and baggers  and  workers  employed  m  coal  stevedoring  and  bunkering.  Shri  P.  K. Ganguly  has  however  urged  that  such  listed  dock  workers  are  already  included in  Category  B(2)  and  there  is  no  reason  why  they  should  be  included  again  in category  D.  He  has  urged  that  the  clerical  staff  engaged  under  the  Port  Com- missioners  are  entitled  to  the  benefit  of  the  interim  recommendation  as  they  come in  Category  A  and  the  clerical  staff  of  the  Dock  Labour  Board  are  entitled  to  the benefit  of  the  interim  recommendation  because  they  come  in  Category  C,  and there  is  no  reason  why  the  clerical  staff  engaged  in  the  office  of  listed  employers should  not  get  the  benefit.  Shri  Aiyar  has  urged  if  the  Category  D  was  meant to  include  the  office  staff,  the  Wage  Board  would  have- mentioned  that  clearly, and  there  is  no  reason  why  the  office  staff  of  the  registered  employers  should have  been  left  out.  It  appears  to  be  true  that  as  the  categories  are  described  in the  appendix  to  the  Government  order,  Ext.  2,  there  is  no  category  or  sub-c"te- gory  in  which  the  office  staff  of  registered  empoyers  may  come,  unless  the  term listed  employers"  is  understood  in  a  wide  sense  to  include  both  registered  ansl listed  employers.  This  however  docs  not  appear  to  be  permissible,  as  the  Wage Board  must  be  deemed  conversant  with  the  difference  between  repstfrcd  em- ployers  and  listed  employers  i.e.,  between  the  1956  scheme  and  1957  scheme  for the  Regulation  of  employment  for  the  dock  workers.  It  must  therefore  be  held that  office  staff  of  registered  employers  are  not  entitled  to  the  benefit  of  the  in- terim  recommendation  of  the  Central  Wage  Board.  But  I  think  that  tne  term "employaes  ensaged  by  listed  employers"  should  be  understood  to  Include  the office  staff  of  the  listed  employers  and  therefore  the  indoor  stall'  mentioned  in clause  (xi)  of  the  reference  order  are  entitled  to  the  benefit  of  the  interini  recom- mendations.  An  indoor  clerk  of  Messrs  A.  C.  Roy  and  Co.,  was  examined  as  a witness  for  the  union,  viz.  PW  2  Kanailal  Mazumdar.  He  is  a  monthly  paid clerk  and  he  deposed  that  Supervisors  and  office  clerks  of  the  head  office  of  the firm  are  on  the  same  scales  of  pay,  and  both  of  them  get  a  flat  dearness  allowance of  Rs.  125  per  month.  It  appears  from  the  evidence  of  PW  1-A.  Jamardan,  a monthly  paid  supervisor  under  M/s.  A.  C.  Roy  and  Co.,  that  the  dearness  al7ow- ance  was  settled  by  a  recent  agreement  between  employers  and  the  unions.  In the  circumstances,  the  supervisors  and  the  office  clerks  who  are  drawing  such dearness  allowance  under  the  recent  agreement  between  the  employers  and  them- selves  are  not  entitled  to  any  further  dearness  allowance  under  the  appendix  to the  Government  Order.  Ext.  2, but  they  are  entitled  to the  interim  relief  of  Rs.  7:80 plus  Rs.  4.
7.  As  regards  workmen  other  than  those  coming  within  clause  (v)  and  clause (xi)  it  has  been  argued  by  the  unions  that  they  fal1  in  Category  E(5)  of  the interim  recommendation-  The  Sub-category  was  originally  described  as  follows: "Employees  who  come  within  the  definition  of  'dock  workers'  under  the  Dock Workers  (Regulation  of  Employment)  Act,  1948".  This  description  was  later amended  by  the  Central  Wage  Board  and  the  Government  by  resolution  No.  WB- 21<36)/65  dated  3rd  August,  1965,  accepted  the  amendment.  The  amenacd  des- cription  is  as  follows:
"Persons  mainly  employed  in  a  'dock'  as  defined  in  para  2(3)  of  the  Dork Workers  (Safety,  Health  and  Welfare)  Scheme,  1961  made  by  the Central  Government  in  exercise  of  the  powers  conferred  by  Sec- tion  4(1)  of  the  Dock  Workers  (Regulation  of  Employment)  Act, 1948."
The  definition  of  dock  in  2(3)  of  the  aforesaid  scheme  is  as  follows:—
"2,—Definitions.—  (3)  "Dock"  means  any  dock,  wharf  or  quay  and  shall  in- clude  any  warehouse  or  store  place  belonging  to  owners,  trustcrs  or conservators  of,  and  situated  in  or  in  the  vicinity  of,  the- dock-  wharf or  quay  and  any  railway  line  or  siding  on  or  used  in  connection with  the  dock,  wharf  or  quay  but  not  forming  part  of  a  State railway;"
 
Now  so  far  as  the  workers  are  employed  directly  under  Registered  or  listed employers,  Category  E(5)  does  not  cover  them,  for  the  category  relates  to  work- ers  who  are  not  emoloyed  by  Port  Authorities.  Dork  Labour  Boards.  Administra- tive  Bodies,  Listed  Employers  and  Registered  Emnlovers  Such  workers  as  come within  one  of  the  sub-categories  (1)  to  (5)  of  Category  E  but  are  employed  under

• S K C.  3 ( i i )]  T HE  G A Z E T TE  OF  I N D I A:  O C T O B ER  1 4,  1 % 7 / A S V I NA  2 2,  1 8 89  3 8 25
contractors  or  mnlisted  firms  would  be  covered  by  Category  E.  It  may  be  doubt- ed  whether  the  Central  Wages  Board  has  acted  within  its  jurisdiction  in  includ- ing  a  sub-category  of  "persons  mainly  employed  in  a  dock"  if  such  persons  are not  dock  workers  as  defined  by  the  Dock  Workers  (Regulation  of  Employment) Act,  1948,  for  suth  persons  do  not  fail  within  the  original  terms  of  reference  of the  Wage  Board.  Be  that  as  it  may,  in  so  far  as  the  workers  mentioned  in clauses  (1)—(iv)  and  (vi)—(x)  of  the  Reference  Order  are  employed  under  the listed  employers  who  are  members  of  the  two  associations,  they  must  be  deemed to  come  in  category  D.  Reference  has  already  been  made  to  the  description  of the  workmen  of  different  categories.  Supervisors  and  Asstt.  Supervisors  work mainly  in  ships;  so  do  the  attendance  clerks  and  most  of  the  table  stail:  the cleaning  workers  also  work  in  the  ships  because  their  duty  is  to  sweep  and  clean the  holds  from  time  to  time.  The  marksmen  work  sometimes  in  the  sheds  of  the Fort  Commissioners  arid  sometimes  on  board  the  ship.  The  carpenters  wort  on board  the  ships-  The  gear  workers  carry  the  gear  from  the  godown  of  th^  llrm to  the  dock  for  use  of  the  stevedoring  mazdoors  for  loading  and  unloading. Their  work  is  partly  in  the  dock  and  partly  in  the  godown.  The  watchmen work  sometimes  in  the  ships  and  sometimes  in  the  ware  houses  in  the  port  area. All  of  them  are  employed  by  the  listed  employers.  They  must  be  held  entitled to  the  benefits  of  interim  recommendation  of  the  Central  Wage  Board  for  Port and  Dock  Workers,  subject  to  the  proviso  that  where  they  are  already  drawing dearness  allowance  under  a  scale  fixed  by  agreement  with  the  employers,  they are  not  entitled  to  the  dcarness  allowance  recommended  by  the  Central  Wage Board,  and  subject  to  the  further  proviso  that  "where  they  are  employed  under contractors  and  not  direct  under  the  listed  firms,  they  must  seek  to  obtain  inter- im  relief  from  contractors  under  whom  they  are  directly  employed;  the  listed firms  cannot  be  made  directly  liable  until  the  law  is  amended  to  provide  that persons  employed  under  a  contractor  engaged  by  a  firm  shall  be  deemed  to  be employed  by  the  firm  itself.
8.  As  regard's  the  defence  of  the  associations  that  some  of  the  demands  of  the workmen  are  covered  by  awards  still  in  force,  the  only  awards  which  have  been produced  before  the  tribunal  are  the  awards  of  the  Central  Government  Indus- trial  Tribunal,  Uhanbad.  in  Reference  No.  27  of  1959  and  the  awards  of  Central Government  Industrial,  Tribunal,  Calcutta  in  Reference  No.  27  of  1964  and  Refer- ence  No.  18  of  1965.  In  reference  case  No.  27  of  ln59,  claims  of  watchmen  only for  fixing  of  the  daily  rate  and  certain  other  benefits  were  in  question.  The Presiding  Officor,  G.  Palit,  fixed  Rs.  3/8/-  as  the  daily  rate  per  shift,  the  rate being  a  consolidated  wage  consisting  of  basic  pay  plus  dearness  allowance.  He also  granted  certain  other  benefits;  e.g.  uniforms,  washing  allowance  of  - / 6 /-  per month  and  3 paid  holidays  in  a  year.  This  award  cannot  stand  in  the  way  of  the •claim  by  the  watchmen  for  the  interim  relief  and  dearness  allowance.  Refer- ence  No.  27  of  1965  concerned  the  claim  by  certain  table  staff  to  permanent service,  The  award  -was  made  on  the  basis  of  an  agreement,  the  employer  firm having  agreed  to  treat  the  men  as  permanent  employees,  his  award  is  quite irrelevant  in  connection  with  the  present  dispute.  Reference  No.  18  of  1965  was concerned  with  the  claim  of  some  Report  writers  and  supervisors  of  Messrs Sarat  Chatterjee  &  Co.  P.  Ltd.  for  permanent  service  and  certain  benefits  in  res- pect  of  scale  of  pay,  dearness  allowance,  etc,  This  case  also  resulted  in  an agreed  award  by  which  the  report  writers  were  divided  into  3  categories  and taken  into  permanent  service  and  report  writers  of  the  category  A  were  called supervisors-eum-report  writers  and  were  awarded  a  daily  wage  per  shift  Rs.  9 plus  a  dearness  allowance  of  Rs.  55  per  month,  Rs,  5  per  month  as  travelling allowance  and  Rs.  10  per  month  as  medical  benefit.  This  award  -was  made  on 1st  November  1965.  It  has  been  urged  by  Shri  Aiyar  that  the  first  recommenda- tion  of  the  Central  Wage  Board  for  Port  and  Dock  Workers  had  already  been accepted  by  Government  by  the  order  dated  6th  May,  1965  and  that  therefore the  categories  of  workers  who  were  concerned  in  Reference  case  No.  18  of  1965 before  the  Central  Government  Industrial  Tribunal.  Calcutta  cannot  claim  the Interim  relief.  It  should  be  pointed  out  however  that  reference  in  that  particular "ase  had  been  made  on  2nd  April,  1965,  before  the  date  of  the  Government resolution.  Ext.  2  accepting  the  interim  recommendation  of  the  Central  Wage Board.  A. perusal  of  the  award  in  the  case  shows  that  the  parties  did  not  take into  consideration  the  imnact  of  the  interim  recommendation  by  the  Central "Wage  Board.  I  must  hold,  therefore  that  this  award  also  cannot  come  In  the "way  of  the  claim  by  the  workmen  of  the  particular  category  to  the  interim  relief, but  those  workmen  are  not  entitled  to  the  D.A.  recommended  by  the  Central Wage  Board  in  view  of  the  D.A.  they  obtained  by  the  award.
 
9.  It  appears  from  the  evidence  of  PW  3-Ramachal  Dubey.,  Peon  employed under  M/s-  Naresh  Nath  IXfukherjee  that  his  firm  has  given  the  employees  the

3S26  THE  GAZETTE  OF INDIA;  OCTOBER  11, 1967/ASVINA  22, 1889  [PART  I I-
beneflt  of  the  interim  relief  and  clearness  allowance  as  recommended  by  the  Cen- tral  Wage  Board.  Most  of  the  other  firms  have  not  given  that  relief  and  they must  be  hold  liable  to  do  so  except  when  the  workmen  of  a  particular  category are  employed  under  a  contractor.  Shri  B.  C.  Chatteo-jee  appearing  for  the Calcutta  Stevedores  Association  has  pointed  out  apart  from  PW  7-Md.  Abdul GafFar,  a  Rigger,  several  other  workmen  admitted  clearly  or  by  implication  that they  were  employed  under  contractors.  Thus  PW  8-Augustin  £akra,  a  carpenter under  M/s.  K.  B,  Gorsia  stated  that  he  took  his  orders  and  payments  from  one Chamari  Mistri  and  not  direct  from  the  company.  PW  9-Abdul  Aziz  who  claimed to  be  a  cleaning  mazdoor  under  M/s.  Sarat  Chattcrjee  &  Co.  admitted  that  there is  a  sirdar  from  whom  he  receives  payment,  PW  10-Md.  Suleman  a  marksman under  M/s.  Santosh  Banerjee  &  Co.  admitted  that  he  received  payment  from  a contractor:  that  the  company  assigns  the  work  to  the  contractor  and  the  contrac- tor  pay  the  marksman.  PW-11  Kisun  Prasad  Yadav  is  a  gearman  under  Messrs A.  C.  Roy  and  Company,  It  was  decided  in  Reference  case  No.  139  of  I960  that the  employer  of  the  gearmen  is  the  contractor,  Ashu  Sirdar,  and  not  Messrs  A. C.  Roy  &  Company.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  listed  firms  or  stevedoring firms  are  getting  some  of  the  ancillary  work  done  through  contractors  and  the workmen  employed  by  the  contractors  ce.nnol  be  considered  as  direct  employees of  the  listed  firms  or  stevedoring  firms.  In  such  case  as  the  contractors  have  not been  made  parties  in  the  present  reference,  finding  that  workmen  are  entitled  to the  benefits  of  the  interim  recommendation  will  not  bo  L Hiding  on  the  contrac tors  concerned,  but  it  would  save  future  disputes  if  the  firms  employing  the  con- tractors  were  to  arrange  with  the  contractors  to  give  the  benefit  of  the  interim- recommendations  to  their  workmen,  revising  if  necessary  the  rates  paid  to  the contractors.
10.  There  remains  the  question  of  fixing  the  date  from  which  the  interim  re- commendation  of  the  Wage  Board  should  be  made  applicable.  It  was  recom- mended  by  the  Wage  Board  that  interim  relief  of  Rs.  7.80  should  be  paid  with effect  from  1st  February  1965;  that  employees  who  are  being  paid  consolidated wages  should  be  paid  a  minimum  dearness  allowance  of  Rs.  7.50  per  month  with effect  from  1st  October  1964.  In  the  case  of  daily  paid  workers  the  daily  rato  of interim  relief  should  be  l/26th  of  the  monthly  amount  mentioned  where  the worker  is  not  paid  wages  for  any  weekly  day  of  rest  or  T/30th  where  the  worker Is  paid  for  weekly  days  of  rest.  The  second  interim  relief  of  Rs.  4  ner  month was  recommended  to be  given  with  effect  from  1st  August  I9fi6.  Shi'i  P.  K.  Ganguly for  the  unions  has  urged  that  the  allowances  should  be  made  payable  from  the dates  originally  recommended  by  the  Wage  Board.  Shri  Aiyar  and  Sri  Chalterjee have  however  contended  that  that  would  put  a  heavy  burden  on  the  empJoyers and  that  the  dispute  by  the  National  Union  of  Water  front  Workers  was  raised long  after  the  Government  resolution  adopting  the  first  interim  recommendation of  the  Wage  Board  had  been  published  and  that  the  relief  should  be  given,  if  ai all,  only  from  the  date  of  the  award.  It  should  be  pointed  out  that  the  Govern- ment  resolution  adopting-  the  interim  recommendation  of  the  Central'  Wage- Board  did  not  contain  any. mandatory  directive  on  the  employers  to  adopt  the recommendations,  The  Government  merely  requested  the  concerned  employers to  implement  the  same  as  early  as  possible  vidcv  copy  of  the  Resolution  WB- 2lO3)/65,  dated  27th  April,  ir'65.  It  is  not  necessary  therefore  that  effect should  be  given  to  the  recommendations  from  the  date  originally  proposed  by- the  Central  Wage  Board.  It  would  be  sufficient  in  the  interest  of  jusiicc-  Ur make  the  award  applicable  from  the  1st  of  April  1967  i.e.  the  beginning  of  the financial  year  next  after  the  date  of  the  order  of  reference,
 
11.  My  award,  therefore,  is  that  the  workmen  of  the  categories  meniioned  in clauses  (i)  to  (x)  of  the  reference  order  are  Entitled  to  the  interim  relief  of Rs.  11-80  per  month,  and  the  workmen  mentioned  in  clause  (xi)  attached  to  the office  of  listed  employers  are  also  entitled  to  such  interim  relief  but  not  the Indoor  staff  attached  to  office  of  registered  firms  of  stevedors  who  are  not  also listed  employers.  In  the  case  of  workmen  of  categories  like  Supervisors,  office- clerks,  etc.  who  are  being  paid  dearness  allowance  by  agreement  with  the- employers,  and  workmen  like  report  writers  whose  D.A.  was  settled  by  an award  in  1&65,  they  shall  not  be  entitled  to  the  dearness  allowance  under  Ihe interim  recommendation  of  the  Central  Wage  Board.  Other  workmen  shall  be entitled  to  the  dearness  allowance  at  the  rate  of  Rs.  7 50  per  month.  Where  any category  of  workers  are  not  employed  direct  under  the  listed  employers  but under  contractors  having  contract  under  such  employers,  such  employer  shall not  be  liable  to  pay  the  interim  relief  and  the  dearness  allowance.  Tt  is  recom- mended  that  they  should  try  to  ensure  that  the  contractors  under-  I^m.  gfve  to

. SEC. S(ii)]  THE  GAZEITE  OF INDIA:  OCTOBER  II,  1067/ASVINA  22, 1889  3827
the  workers  the  interim  relief  and  clearness  allowance  at  the  scale  at  which  they are  entitled.  The  interim  relief  and  dearness  allowance  under  this  award  shall be  paid  to  the  different  categories  of  workers  with  effect  from  1st  April,  1967. Where  the  workers  are  daily  rated,  the  interim  relief  per  day  will  be  l/26th'  of the  amount  fixed  by  the  Central  Wage  Board  unless  the  workmen  of  the  parilcu- lai  category  enjoys  paid  weekly  holidays,  in  which  case  the  amount  shall'  be l/30th  of  the  amount  fixed  by  the  Central  Wage  Board.
(Sd.)  S.  K-  SEN, Dated,  19th  September,  1967-
Presiding  Oilicer,
[No.  2B/119/G6-LRIV.]
New  Delhi,  the  4th  October  1967
S.O.  3653.—In  pursuance  of  section  17  of  the  Industrial  Disputes  Act,  1947  (14 of  1947),  the  Central  Government  hereby  publishes  the  following  award  of  the Industrial  Tribunal,  Jabapur,  in  the  industrial  dispute  between  the  employers  in relation  to  the  management  of  Mosaboni  Mines  of  Indian  Copper  Corporation Limited  and  their  workmen,  which  was  received  by  the  Central  Government  on the  28th  September,  1967.
BEFORE  THE  CENTRAL  GOVERNMENT  INDUSTRIAL  TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR  COURT,  "JABALPUR.
CAMP  AT  DHANBAD.
Dated  September  7,  1967.
-PRESENT:
Sri  G.  C.  Agarwala.—Presiding  Officer.
REFERENCE  NO,  79  OF  1965  (DHANEAD  TRIBUNAL)
REFERENCE  NO.  CGIT/LC(R)  (82)/67  (JABALPUR  TRIBUNAL).
PAKTIES;
Employers  in  relation  to  Mosaboni  Mines  of  Indian  Copper  Corporation Limited,  P.O.  Ghatsila,  District  Singhbhum  (Bihar).
Vs.
Their  Workmen  through  Mosaboni  Mines  Labour  Union,  P.O.  Mosaboni, District,  Singhbhum-
."APPEARANCES:
For  employers.—Sri  K.  C.  Goel,  Legal  Officer,  of  the  employers.
For  workmen.—S/Sri  Chotelal  Ji  Vyas,  Vice  President  and  H-  B.  Singh, "Arsi'1,  General  Secretary,  Mosaboni  Mines  Labour  Union.
AWARD.
By  Notification  No.  24/27 /K5-LRI  dated  6th  May,  1565,  the  Ministry  of  Labour  , and  Employment,  Government  of  India,  referred  the  following  matter  of  dispute to  the  Centra1  Government  Industrial  Tribunal,  Dhanbad,  under  Section  10  I.D. Act  for  adjudication  from  where  the  case  was  transferred  to  this  Tribunal  dv JNotiflcation  No.  8/25/67-LRII  dated  April  25,  19G7;
Matter  of  dispute
Whether  the  management  of  Mosaboni  Mines  of  Indian  Copper  Corporaiion Limited,  (P.O. Ghatsila,  District  Singhbhum)  is  justified  in  not  gram- ing  facilities  of  free  supply  of  electricity  and  fuel  to  Shri  U.  C. Patnaik,  Assistant  Draftsman?  If  not,  to  what  relief  is  the  workman entitled?
The  proceedings  remained  pending  before  the  said  Tribunal  till  transferred  to this  Tribunal.

3828 THE  GAZETTE  OF INDIA : OCTOTiER  14, 19G7/ASVINA 22, 1889  [HART 11-
The  parties  filed  their  pleadings  before  the  Dhanbad  Tribunal,  Preliminary- hearing  was  rendered  at  amp  Allahabad  on  16th  June,  1967,  when  the  two  follow- ing  additional  Issues  were  framed; —
Addl.  Issues
(1)  Is  the  dispute  not  an  industrial  dispute? (2)  Whether  by  conditions  of  service  on  promotion  and  by  reason  of  Award. dated  31st  January,  1957,  Shri  U.  C.  Patnaik  is  not  entitled  to  free- electricity  and  firewood?
Hearing  was  commenced  and  evidence  recorded  at  camp  Ghatsila  rather Moubhandar  and  Mosobani  on  29th  and  31st  September,  1967.  The  Union  examlnr ed  three  witnesses  S/Sri  U.  C.  Patnaik  (W.W.  1),  Anil  Biswash  (W.W.  2)  who was  discharged  having  been  found  unnecessary  and  S,  K.  Das  (W.W.  3 >.  The employers  examined  one  witness  Sri  S-  N.  Banerji  (EW.  1),  Certain  documents were  also  filed  and  proved  by  the  parties-  Arguments  were-heard  on  6th  Septem- ber,  1967,  at  Dhanbad.
The  dispute  which  has  been  sponsored  by  Mosaboni  Mines  Labour  Union  is, short  and  simple.  Sri  U.  C.  Patnaik,  the  workman  concerned,  to  be  hereinafter called  Patnaik  joined  the  Company  a.s  a  Survey  Boy  in  the  Mosobani  Mine  of  the Company  in  1949 and  was  promoted  as  Assistant  Tracer  on  1st  January,  1962.  He was  subsequently  promoted  as  Draftsman  on  1st  April,  1962.  He  was  not  getting free  electricity  and  fuel  before  his  promotion  as  Assistant  Draftsman.  The management  before  promoting  him  as  Asstt.  Draftsman  obtained  an  undertaking from  him  that  he  wou'd  not  claim  free  fuel  or  electricity.  This  was  presumably considered  necessary  because  two  other  Draftsmen  S/Sri  P.  B.  Lohar  and  Anil- Biswas  were  getting  free  electricity  and  fue]  which  according  to  the  management was  a  part  of  the  conditions  of  their  service.  Another  person  Sri  H.  B.  Senapati was  similarly  promoted  as  Sri  Patnaik  and  he  was  also  not  given  free  electricity and  fuel.  He  is,  however,  no  more  In  the  service  Of  the  Company  having  resijm- ed.  In  1956,  the  Union  raised  a  number  of  demands  as  a  result  of  which  Special Tribunal  was  constituted  at  Calcutta  and  an  award  was  recorded  in  LD-  5  of 1956.  A  copy  of  this  award  Is  Ex.  R.  3-  This  award  was  published  on  a  settle- ment  arrived  at  during  the  reference.  One  of  the  demands  covered  by  the  refer- ence  was  that  not  the  quarters  should  be  electrified  and  the  settlement  was  that the  company  would,  electrify  quarters  and  supply  electricity  against payment  from  the  employees  which  shall  form  part  cf  phased programme.  On  the  basis  of  this  settlement  award  after  discussion  with  the Union  on  2nd  May,  1959,  the  Company  prepared  a  scheme  for  electrification  of quarters  (Ex.  E.  2).  Sri  Patnaik  applied  for  electricity  as  would  appear  from his  application  dated  31st  December,  1960.  He  has  thus  been  getting  electricity on  payment.  After  promotion  he  began  claiming  free  electricity  and  iuel  on  the ground  that  other  Draftsmen  P.  B.  T^ohar  and  Anil  BlsWas  had  teen  getting  the same.  His  contention  was  that  this  was  a  facility  which  goes  with  the  post  and therefore  on  promotion  and  confirmation  he  is  also  entitled  to  this  privilege.  The Company,  on  the  other  hand,  contended  that  free  electricity  and  fuel  was  not  a privilege  attached  to  any  particular  post  or  category  of  posts  but  varied  In  the discretion  of  the  Company.  Some  were  given  this  facility  as  a  part  of  their  con- ditions  of  service  and  that  could  not  be  changed  after  the  award.  Subsequent  to the  award  the  company  has  not  given  free  electricity  or  fuel  to  any  employee.  It was  a'so  challenged  on  behalf  of  the  management  that  the  dispute  was  not  an industrial  dispute  and  the  Tribunal  has  no  jurisdiction,
FINDINGS
Isave  No.  I
The  plan  is  clearly  untenable.  On  behalf  of  the  Union,  Sri  S-  K.  Das,  Asstt,r Secretary  was  examined  as  W.W.  3.  He  produced  the  Membership  Register.  Out of  about  5,000 workers  in  the  Mine  nearly  4,700  are  members  of  this  Union.  There is  no  other  Union  in  the  Mine.  Obviously,  the  Union  is  a  representative  Union of  the  workers.  Sri  Patnaik  is  a  member  of  this  Union  at  least  from  1962.  His application  form  (Ex.  W/l)  is  dated  10th  July,  1962-  A  number  of  coun- terfoil  receipts  have  also  been  filed  and  are  Exts.  W'2  to  W/l7.  These  show  that he  had  been  paying  subscription.  An  extract  of  the  Membership  Register  is Ex.  W/18  which  would  show  that  he  had  been  paying  subscription.  Having  been . oroved  that  Sri  Patnaik  was  a  member  of  the  Union  at  the  relevant  time  and  the Union  is  a  representative  of  workers,  the  dispute  is  an  industrial  dispute  and  this Tribunal  has  juridlction.

Sic.  3(ii)J  1HE  GAZETTE  OI-  INDIA:  OCTOBER  14.  19G7/ASVJNA  22,  1889  3 8 29
Issue  No. 3
The  short  question  under  controversy  is  whether  the facility  of  free  light and luel  was  attached  to the post  or went  with  the person-  The claim  of Sri Fatnalk tor  free  electricity  and fuel  is  rather  misconceived.  Admittedly,  he was  not getting  free  electricity  and fuel  before  promotion-  By the mere  fact  of his  pro- motion  he cannot  claim  this  facility  as a  matter  of  right  on the anology  that the other  Draftsmen  Biswas  and Lohra,  had  been  getting  free  electricity  and  fuel. That  was because  from  the very  beginning  they  were  getting  free  electricity and fuel  as a  part  of  terms  of  their  service  conditions.  This  has been  stated  so  by Sri  S. N. Banerji  (E.W.  1)  Chief  Surveyor  and Head  of the Survey  Department since  1960  who  had occasions  to go through  service  records  of these  persons.  Sri Biswas  was formerly  a  clerk,  then  became  a  Tracer  and was next  promoted as Asstt-  Draftsman.  He was  getting  free  electricity  and fuel  since  the time  he  was a  clerk.  According  to Sri Banerji,  after  the award  of 1956  two  persons  were  pro- moted  as Aastt,  Draftsmen  S/Sri  Patnaik  and Senapatl  and since  they  were not getting  free  electricity  and fuel,  they  were  not given  this  advantage.  No Assis- tant  Draftsman  was given  free  electricity  and fuel  appointed  after  the award.  It is  evident  that  the concession  of free  electricity  and fuel  was not a  benefit  going with  the post.  There  is no  circumstance  to  indicate  that  this  was a  privilege attached  to  the post.  Before  promotion  both  S/Sri  Senapati  and Patnaik had been  informed  by an order  of the management  dated  2nd May,  1962,  (Ex.  E/2) that  they  would  not be entitled  to the facilities  of free  housing,  light  and fuel. The  Chief  Surveyor,  Sri Banerji,  informed  the contents  of this  letter  to both  these persons  who  signed  on Ex.  E /l a  letter  sent  by him in reply.  Sri Patnaik  stated that  his signature  was obtained  under  coercion  and that  he was threatened  that he  would  not be confirmed  until  he signed  the same.  It is unnecessary  to go into the  question  whether  he signed  this  "etter  under  coercion  or otherwise.  The rule of  estoppel  or acquiescence  has no application  in  industrial  adjudication-  Conse- quently,  if  it was a  benefit  attached  to the post  even  though  he had agreed to forego  the benefit  on promotion  he would  not be deprived  of the same  and  tho management  could  not impose  it as a condition  precedent  for his promotion.  The relevant  fact  to be determined  is whether  this  was  a  benefit  going  with  the post. The  evidence  and circumstances,  however,  point  to the conclusion  that  the benefit of  free  electricity  was extended  by the management  to  some  of it's employees on  discretion  and was  not a  benefit  attached  to the post  of Asstt.  Draftsman  hi the  Survey  Department-  They  had not  been  extending  this  benefit  after  the award.  Considerations  of  social  justice  do not arise  in the case.  No invidious discrimination  has been  resorted  to  by  the  Company  and they  are  proceeding Central  Government  on the 3rd October,  1867.  ,
Decision
The  result  is that  the issue  under  reference  is answered  in negative,  Sri U.  C. Patnaik  is not entitled  to free  supply  of electricity  and fuel  and-he  is not entitieu to  any relief  No order  as to costs.
(Sd.)  G,  C.  ACGARWALA,
Presiding  Officer. 7-9-1967.
[No.  24/27/65-LRL]
SO.  3G54.—In  pursuance  of section  17 of the Industrial  Disputes  Act,  1947  (14 of 1947),  thn Central  Government  hereby  publishes  the following  award  of the Indus- trial  Tribunal,  Calcutta  in the industrial  dispute  between  the employers  in relation to the  Punjab  National  Bank  Limited  and their  workmen  which  was  received  by the Central  Government  on the 3rd October,  1967
CENTRAL  GOVERNMENT  .INDUSTRIAL  TRIBUNAL,  CALCUTTA.
REFERENCE  NO.  37  OP  1967.
PARTIES:
Employers  in  relation  to the Punjab  National  Bank  Limited,
AND
Their  workmen.
PRESENT:
Shri  S. K. Sen.—Presiding  Officer.
APPEARANCES •
On  behalf  of Employes.—Shri  A.  Roy  Choudhury,  Staff  Officer. Ov  behalf  of  Workmen.—Shri  S- N-  Banerjee,  Genl.  Secretary,  Punjab
National  Bank  Sramik  Union.

3830  THE  GAZETTE  OF  INDIA:  OCTOBER  M,  I9H7/ASVINA  22,  1889  [PART  I I-
STATE:  West  Bengal.
INDUSTRY:  Banking.
AWAKD
By  Order  No.  51/22/67-LRII  dated  20th  May,  1967,  the  Central  Government referred  for  adjudication  an  industrial  dispute  between  the  employers  in  relation to  the  Punjab  National  Bank  Limited  and  their  Workmen  in  respect  of  the  matter specified  in  the  following  schedule:
"Whether  the  management  of  the  Punjab  National  Bank  Limited,  Calcutta was  justified  in  promoting  Shri  S.  K.  Raghubanshi  as  'Teller'  wiih effect  from  the  29th  December,  1965 in  supersession  of  Shri  P.K.  Gho"al If,  not,  to  what  relief  is  Shri  P.  K.  Ghosal  entitled?"
2.  "The  Punjab  National  Bank  Limited  Introduced  the  system  of  Tellers  at  the Bhowanipore  branch  of  their  bank  in  1964.  The  duty  of  a  teller  is  described  in Appendix  B  of  the  settlement  between  the  bank  managements  and  their  workmen dated  19th  October,  1966,  as  passing  and  cash  payment  of  cheques  upto  and  in- cluding  Rs.  1,000.  A  teller's  special  allowance  for  A  class  bank  was  iricreast-d 1 to  Rs.  27  per  month  according  to  the  aforesaid  agreement.  The  revised  special allowance  was  to  come  into  force  from  1st  July  1966-  Under  the  Desai  award the  special  allowance  of  a  teller  was  Rs.  10  per  month  for  all  classes  of  banks; that  was  the  rate  of  allowance  from  14th  October  1965 to  30th  June,  1966.
3.  With  effect  from  14th  October,  1965  there  was  a  vacancy  in  one  of  thhe  two posts  of  tellers  at  the  Bhowanipore  branch  of  the  Punjab  Nantional  Bank  and  the management  invited  applications  from  certain  persons  considered  qualified  lor  the post  Four  persons  to  whom  the  communication  was  issued  applied  for  the  post, namely  P.  K.  Ghosal,  Ram  Dayal  Singh,  S.  K.  Raghubanshi  and  P.  R.'  Banerjee. P.  C-  Mukherjee  who  was  previously  selected  as  a  leave  reservist  for  the  post  of  a teller  officiated  in  the  vacant  teller's  post  from  14th  October,  1965  to  17th  October, 1965  Then  Ram  Dayal  Singh  officiated  in  the  vacant  post  from  18th  October,  1965 to  28th  October,  1965-  Thereafter  P.  C-  Mukherjee  again  officiated  from  27th October,  1965  to  28th  December,  1965.  With  effected  from  29th  December,  1965 the  manager  appointed  S.  K.  Raghubanshi  substantively  to  the  post  of  the  teller, subject  to  the  approval  of  the  Assistant  Genl.  Manager.  In  the  meantime  P.  K. Gho&al,  P.  C-  Mukherjee  and  B-  P.  Das  Modak  field  representations  asserting  their superior  claims  to  the  post.  The  Assistant  General  Manager  did  not  consider  the selection  of  S.  K.  Raghubanshi  as  proper  and  in  accordance  with  rules,  but  he did  not  pass  any  order  setting  aside  the  selection  and  appointing  somebody  else as  teller  in  the  post;  he  referred  the  matter  to  the  Headofflce  at  New  Delhi,  In the  meantime  P.  K.  Ghosal  had  already  raised  a  dispute  before  the  A.L.C.,  Central Calcutta  and  there  being  no  amicable  settlement  before  the  A.L.C.,  Central,  this reference  was  made  on  29th  May,  1967.
4  According  to  the  case  of  the  union  (the  Punjab  National  Bank  Shramik Union)  on  behalf  of the  clerk,  P.K.  Ghosal, in  terms  of the Asstt.  General  Manager's Circular  No.  120  of  28th  May,  1965  and  the  Staff  Deoartment  Circular  No.  561 dated  3rd  March  1965,  P.  K-  Ghosal  was  entitled  to  obtain  the  promotion  to  the' post  of  the  teller;  for  though  he  and  S.  K.  Rakhubanshi  both  had  11  priority marks  P.  K.  Ghosal  had  more  experience  as  ledger  clerk  and  a  greater  length of  service  than  S-  K-  Raghubanshi-  According  to  the  union,  therefore,  the  selec- tion  cf  S,  K,  Rakhubanshi  on  a  permanent  basis  for  the  post  of  the  teller  is  vitiated by  irregularity  and  favouritism  and  is  liable  to  be  set  aside-  On  behalf  of  P.  K. Ghosal  it  has  been  claimed  that  he  is  entitled  to  be  appointed  as  the  permanent teller  in  place  of  S.  K.  Raghubanshi  and  that  he  is  entitled  to  receive  the  teller's allowance  with  effect  from  14th  October,  1965.
5  According  to  the  written  statement  of  the  management,  there  was  no irregularity  or  favouritism  in  appointing  Sri  S.  K.  Rnghubanshi  to  the  permanent iob  of  a  teller.  Both  S.  K.  Raghubanshi  and  P.  K.  Ghosal  had  the  same  priority mark  according  to  the  Staff  department  Circular  No.  S61  of  3rd  March  1964  (11 marks  each)  and  both  had  less  than  2  years'  experience  as  ledger  keeper,  but S  K,  Raghubanshi  had  worked  for  3  months  as  a  member  of  a  temporary  teller training  team,  and  therefore  he  was  considered  more  suitable  for  appointment to  the  permanent  post  of  a  teller,
 
6  Ext.  B  is  the  copy  of  Circular  No.  120  dated  28th  May  1965  relating  to  the mode  of  appointment  of  tellers.  By  this  circular  the  previous  instructions  relating to  the  mode  of  appointment  of  tellers  was  superseded,  and  the  selection  of  tellers was  to  be made  as follows—"Selection  of  clerks  as  tellers  to  be  made  on  the  basis of priority  marks  determined  with  reference  to  the  length  of  service  and  educational •qualifications  as  prescribed  in  Staff  department  Circular  No-  561  dated  3rd  March

"iEC. 3(ii)]  THE  GAZETTE  OF INDIA:  OCIOBER  H.  19fi7/ASVINA- 22, 1889  383!
1964,  subject  however  to  the  condition  that  they  should  have  at  least  2  years' experience  as  ledger  keeper.  If  however  suitabne  persons  with  the  requisite qualifications  are  not  available,  those  with  the  longest  experience  as  ledger  keeper should  be  given  preference".  Some  of  the  letters  between  the  manager,  Bhowani- !pore  branch  and  the  Assistant  General  Manager,  Eastern  Circle,  Calcutta,  relating to  the  appointment  oL  the  teller,  have  been  produced  before  the  tribunal  and exhibited,  Ext.  L  is  the  earliest  of  tiiese  letters,  being  dated  24th  March  19b6. Therein  the  Assistant  General  Manager  pointed  out  that  Shri  Raghubanshi's  ex- perience  as  ledger  keeper  was  not  more  than  6  months  when  he  was  selected  as a  teller,  whereas  certain  other  persons  had  been  previously  approved  by  the Assistant  General  Manager  for  work  as  regular  tellers  and  leave  reserve  tellers. The  A.G.M.  therefore  asked  the  manager  to  ascertain  who  was  the  most  deserving candidate-  Ext,  K  Is  letter  from  the  Manager,  Bhowanipore  Branch  to  the  Assistant General  Manager;  it  is  dated  5th  July  1966.  Therein  the  Branch  Manager  stated that  as  S-  K.  Raghubanshi  was  allowed  to  officiate  as  teller  prior  to  the  issue  of •Circular  No.  120  of  28th  May  1966.  the  Branch  Manager  came  to  the  conclusion that  the  Circular  was  not  applicable  to  him  and  therefore  the  branch  manager gave  him  the  first  preference,  but  if  it  was  held  that  Circular  No.  120  was  appli- cable  even  to  him  then  Sri  P,  K.  Ghosal  was  entitled  to  selection  as  teller.  Ex1. H/l  is  the  next  letter  dated  15th  July,  1966,  from  the  Manager,  to  the  Assistant General  Manager.  Therein  the  Manager  again  asked  for  approval  to  the  appoint- ment  of  S-  K-  Raghubanshi  as  teller,  but  observed  that  if  the  Assistant  General Manager  did  not  consider  S-  K-  Rafihubanshi  as  having  superior  claim,  he  might approve  of  appointment  of  P.  K.  Ghosal  as  teller.  The  branch  manager  in  another letter  dated  16th  September,  1966,  (Ext.  H)  gave  details  about  the  educational qua'iflcations  and  experience  of  several  clerks  enclosing  a  chart  showing  that P.  K.  Ghosal  was  the  seniormost  clerk  with  the  highest  priority  mark,  but  he still  pleaded  that  Shri  Raghubanshi's  appointment  as  permanent  teller  might  be • confirmed,  as  many  months  had  elapsed  Since  Sri  Raghubanshi  had  been  allowed to  work  on  a  permanent  basis.  The  A.G.M.  however  did  not  take  the  responsi- bility  of  making  a  final  decision  himself  but  reported  the  fact  to  the  Headoffice at  New  Delhi  for  decision  vide  the  letter  Ext.  1  dated  13th  February  1987.  In I his  letter  the  Assistant  General  Manager  also  mentioned  that  P.  K.  Ghosal  had laken  the  dispute  to  the  A.L.C,  Central,  Calcutta,  The  Delhi  office  gave  its  reply by  way  of  an  endorsement  to  a  letter  written  to  the  A.L.C-  Central  Calcutta  vide Ext,  J.  Therein  the  Delhi  office  expressed  the  opinion  that  B. P.  Das  Modak  appear- ed  to  be  entitled  to  the  permanent  post  of  the  teller  on  a  strict  interpretation  of the  rules  and  Circulars  and  that  the  Assistant  General  Manager  might  explain that  position  to  the  A.L.C,  Central,  Calcutta.
7. Ultimately  therefore  it  appears  that  the  top  management  itself  was  convinced that  the  appointment  of  S,  K.  Raghubanshi  had  not  been  made  in  accordance  with rules.  According  to  the  Staff  Department  Circular  No.  561  dated  3rd  March  1965, which  is  based  on  an  agreement  between  the  management  and  the  unions,  an employee  coming  highest  in  the  priority  list  and  not  assessed  'below  average'  is entitled  to  be  promoted  when  a  vacancy  occurs;  and  in  case  of  equality  of  priority marks  an  employee  with  the  greater  length  of  service  shall  be  considered  senior. If  this  rule  is  strictly  applied,  P  K.  Ghosal  is  entitled  to  the  appointment  to  the Dermanent  post  of  a  teller.  On  the  other  hand,  according  to  the  office  Circular No  120  of  2Rth  May,  1966,  in  the  matter  of  selection  of  tellers  a  condition  was "imposed  that  the  candidate  should  have  at  least  2  years'  experience  as  ledger "keeper  and  if  a  suitable  person  with  requisite  experience  was  not  available  a  clerk with  the  longest  experience  as  ledger  keeper  should  be  given  preference.  B. P.  Das Modak  has  the  longest  experience  I.e.  over  4 years  as  ledger  keeper  but  his  priority mark  is  7  as  against  11 which  is  the  rating  of  both  P.  K-  Ghosal  and  S.  K-  Raghu- "banshi  It  appears  that  the  Delhi  Headoffice's  view  that  B.  P.  Das  Modak  is  en- litled  under  the  Circular  to  be  appointed  permanently  as  a  teller  is  based  on  the Tact  that  he  has  the  longest  experience  as  ledger  keeper.
 
8  Whether  the  permanent  post  should  go  ultimately  to  P-  K-  Ghosal  or  to B  P  Das  Modak,  it  is  clear  that  S.  K.  Raghubanshi's  selection  was  not  in  accord- ance  with  rules  and  therefore  he  was  not  approved  by  the  Assistant  General Manager  or  by  the  Delhi  office.  It  must  be  held  that  the  selection  of  Shn  Raghu- banshi  was  bad  because  of  irregularity  and  favouritism  as  alleged  by  the  union and  therefore  the  selectoin  of  S. K.  Raghubanshi  to  the  -permanent  post  of  a  teller must be  set  aside,  t he  prayer  of  the  union  is that  P. K,  Ghosal  should he  appointed bv  the  tribunal  to  the  post  of  the  teller  on  a  permanent  basis  and  given  the  teller s •allowance with  effect  from  14th  October,  1965 when  the post fell  vacant  on a  perma- nent  basis  On  this  point  it  has  been  urged  by  Sri  A,  Roy  Choudhury  on  behalf of  the  management  that  it  is  not  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  tribunal  to  make  a selection  for  promotion;  that  the  tribunal  can  at  most  sav  that  a  particular  promo- tion  Is' bad  because  of  malaflde  or  Irregularity  or  any  other  defect(  but  must  leave

3832  THE  GAZETTE  OF INDIA :  OCTOBER  14, 19G7/ASVINA  22, 1889  (PART  IT-
it  to  the  management  to  make  the  selection  in  accordance  with  the  rules  after  con- sidering  the  case  of  a 1 suitable  candidates.  In  this  connection  Sri  Roy  Choudhury has referred  to the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court,  1966 I  IIJ  402, Brooke Bond  India Private  Limited  and  their  workmen.  The  Supreme  Court  observed  as  follows, "Generally  speaking  promotion  is  a  management's  function;  but  it  may  be  recog- nised  that  there  may  be  occasions  when  a  tribunal  may  have  to  interfere  with  pro- motions  made  by  the  management  when  persons  superseded  has  been  ao  siiperst-d- od  on  account  of  malafide  or  victimisation;  even  so,  after  a  finding  of  a  malaflde  or victimisation,  it  is  not  the  function  of  the  tribunal  to  consider  the  merits  of  various employees  itself  and  then  decide  whom  to  promote;  if  any  industrial  tribunal  de- cides  that  promotions  have  been  made  which  are  unjustified  the  appropriate  course for  It  Is  to  set  aside  the  promotions  and  aslt  the  management  to  consider  the  case of  superseded  employees  and  decide  for  itself  whom  to  promote".  The  law  M  aid down  by  the  Supreme  Court  must  of  course  bo followed  and  therefore  I  must  leave it  to  the  management  to  select  a  suitable  person  for  the  post  of  the  teller  on  a  per- manent  basis  from  among  the  superseded  candidates  who  are  qualified  for  the  post.
9.  As  regards  the  claim  for  the  allowance,  In  view  of  the  decision  that  the  ques^ tion  of  promotion  must  be  left  to  the  management,  there  is no  occasion  to  make  any order  for  payment  of  any  allowance  as teller.  It  may  be  mentioned  here  that  untii 28th  December,  1965,  officiating  arrangements  continued  and  persons  ae ected  as leave  reservist  for  the  post  of  teller  were  appointed  to  offlcnte  pending  the  selec- tion  of  somebody  on  a  permanent  basis.  It  is  only  from  29th  December,  1905  that S,  K.  Raghubanshi  was  appointed  on  a  permanent  basis.  In  any  cage,  therefore, there  could  be  no  claim  to  the  allowance  of  the  teller  before  29th  December,  1905.
10.  My  award,  therefore,  is  that  the  management  of  the  Punjab  National  Bank Limited,  Calcutta,  was  not  justified  in  promotion  Shri  S.  K.  Raghubanshi  as  'tel  ef with  effect  from  29th  December,  1965  in  supersession  of  Sri  P.  K.  Ghosal.  Accor- dingly,  I  set  aside  the  promotion  made  by  the  branch  Manager,  Bhowanipore  of Sri  S.  It.  Raghubanshi  to  the  post  of  'teller'  on  a  permanent  footing  with  effect from  29th  December,  1965,  which  promotion  hns  not  been  confirmed  by  tha  Assis- tant  General  Manager  or  by  any  other  superior  authority  as  required  undev  rules, and  I  direct  that  the  case  of  Sri  P.  K.  Ghosal  and  other  suitable  candidates  be  con- sidered  for  appointment  to  the  post  of  'teller'  on  a  permanent  basis.
Sd./-  S-  K.  SEN,
Dated,  26th  September,  1967
Presiding  Officer - [No.  51/22/67/LRIll. 1
New  Delhi,  the  5th  October  1967
S.O.  3655.—In  pursuance  of  section  17  of  the  Industrial  Disputes  Act,  1947 (14  of  1947)  the  Central  Government  hereby  publishes  the  following  award  of the  Industrial  Tribunal,  Calcutta,  in  the  Industrial  Dispute  between  the  employers- in  relation  to  the  Chipping  and  Painting  Contractors,  Calcutta,  and  their  workmen which  was  received  by.the  Central  Government  on  30th  September,  1907.
CENTRAL  GOVERNMENT  INDUSTRIAL  TRIBUNAL,  CALCUTTA
REFERENCE  No-  146  OF  1966
PARTIES :
Employers  in  relation  to  the  Chipping  and  Painting  Contractors
Ass Their  Workmen.
PHHSENT1
Shri  S.  K.  Sen—Presiding  Officer.
APPEARANCES:
On  behalf  of  Contractors—Shri  S.  K-  Bhanja  Choudhury,  Advocate.
t  L  ,.  * ™  ,  / S h ri  P.  Sen  for  Dock  Ma-door  Union
On  behalf  of  Workmen— ^ S n ri  w  A,  A z ad  for  Calcutta  Dock  Workers  Union.
STATK:  West  Bengal-
INDUSTHT:  Port  and  Dock.
AWARD
 
Bv  Order  No-  28/54/66-LRIV,  dated  3rd  August,  1966.  the  Central  Government referred  for  adjudication  an  industrial  dispute  between  the  Chipping  and  Painting

SF.I:. 3(ii)l  THE  GAZETTE  OF INDIA:  OCTOBER  14, 1967/ASVINA  22, 1889  383^
Contractors,  Calcutta,  and  their  workmen  in  respect  of  the  matter  specified  In  the following  schedule :
"Whether  the  demand  for  payment  of  Profit  Sharing  Bonus  on  behalf  of the  listed  Chipping  and  Painting  workers  employed  at  Calcutta  Port  is justified  and  if  so  at  what  rate  and  from  what  date  should  the  same be  paid?
2.  The  reference  order  mentioned  51  chipping  and  painting  contractors  listed' by  the  Dock  Labour  Board  under  sub-clauses  2  and  3  of  Clause  8  of  the  Calcutta un-registered  Dock  Workers  (Regulation  of  Employment)  Scheme,  1957.  Many of  these  listed  employers  did  not  however  appear  before  the  Tribunal  in  bpite  of issue  of  notices  by  registered  post  on  several  occasions.  By  correspondence  with the  Calcutta  Dock  Labour  Board  It  was  ascertained,  vide  Calcutta  Dock  Labour Board's  letter  No.  DL,B/8/<50(89)/373,  dated  10th  April,  1907,  that  out  of  the  51 listed  employers  of  Chipping  and  Painting  workers  the  name  of  Messrs  J.  Mukherjee &.  Company  Pvt-  Ltd  (No-  21  of  the  Reference  Order)  has  bsen  removed  from the  list  and  that  out  of  the  remaining  50  employers  only  27  employers  have  under- taken  any  chipping  and  painting  work  on  ships  in  the  course  of  the  last  three years,  The  remaining  23  employers  did  not  undertake  any  chipping  and  painting work  on  ships  visiting  Calcutta  port  during  the  last  3  years  although  their  names still  remain  In  the  list  of  employers  of  Chipping  and  Painting  Workers-  23  of  the listed  firms  are  members  of  the  Calcutta  Chipping,  Painting  and  Ship's  Labour Contractors'  Association,  and  that  Association  only  being  authorised  by  their constituents  have  contested  the  case.  According  to  the  evidence  of  MW  1—Sri Nllsndu  Haldar,  Secretary  of  the  Association,  6  firms  have  ceased  to  do  business in  chipping  and  painting  of  ships,  They  are  mentioned  in  Ext.  E,  a  list  compiled by  the  witness,  being  M/s,  J.  N.  Mukheriee  &  Co.  referred  to  above,  and  also Messrs  Balallal  Mookerjse  &  Co-  P.  Ltd.  (No.  4  of  the  Reference  Order).  Messrs- G.  Ewan  &  Co.  (No,  47  of  the  Reference  Order),  Messrs.  Sen  Mookeriee  &  Co.  P. Ltd  (No  34. of  the  Reference  Order),  Messrs.  IC.  Lull  &  Co.  Jr.  (No.  18  oT  the Messrs  Balailal  Mookerjee  &  Co.  P.  Ltd.  (No.  4  of  the  Reference  Order),  Messrs.
? " • '.  ' i .n  to  MW  L  t h r ee  e t h er  firms  l i s t ed  in  ^ xt  E ^l  h av  =  a l t o g e t h er  c l o s ed
down.  Two  of  them  however,  namely  Messrs,  Abdul  Halim  & Co-  and  M/s-  Nadam &  Co.  ave  not  included  in  the  Reference  Order;  th?y  were  -Frrmved  at  their  ^^vn request  before  the  Reference  Order  was  made.  But  the  third  one,  Messrs,  Imdad Ali  &  Co.  is  No.  6 of  the  Reference  Order.  The  partners  of  Messrs.  Imdad  Ali  & Co.  have  according  to  MW-1  gone  to  Pakistan  as  the  prospect  of  business  in  this line  Is  better  there.  Out  of  the  remaining  44  firms,  according  to  MW  1  only 22  did  any  chipping  and  painting  business  on  ships  visiting  Calcutta  Port  in the  course  of  the  last  few  years.
 
3-  The  firms  who  are  doing  business  have  left  the  contest  to  the  Association as  already  stated.  The  Association  has  raised  several  preliminary  objections,  viz., that  registered  and  listed  dock  workers  are  outside  the  scope  of  the  Payment 01  Bonus  Act;  that  tbe-e  is  no  relationship  as  employer  and  employee  between the  chipping  and  painting  contractors  and  the  listed  workers  hirsd  by  them  Irr-m the  Dock  Labour  Board  for  the  purpose  of  chipping  and  painting  jobs;  that  the Dock  Labour  Board  is  in  the  position  of  the  employer  of  the  listed  labour  and not  having  been  made  a  party  to  ths  reference,  the  reference  is  incompetent". that  the  Dock  Labour  Board  is  the  final  authority  to  decide  all  claims  us  to  wage increase,  bonus,  etc,  ard  a  reference  to  adjudication  of  such  demand  by  the workars  is  without  jurisdiction;  and  that  the  reference  order  is  also  bad  as  it does  not  mention  the  period  for  which  the  profit  bonus  has  been  demanded  by the  workers.  On  the  merits,  the  Associations  case  is  that  after  the  chipping ana  painting  workers  were  taken  o.ver  bv  the  Dock  Labour  Board  the  workers have  shown  a  spirit  of  Indiscipline  and  their  .output  has  become  a  fraction  of  the output  which  the  employers  could  obtain  from  the  workers  when  the  workers were  employed  direct  by  the  contractors;  and  this  fact  was  recognised  by  the Single  Member  Committee,  the  Balani  Committee  which  recommended  working under  an  Incentive  piecerate  scheme  and  the  Manning-cum-bonus  scheme  but  the workers  refused  to  Implement  the  scheme  and  Insisted  on  work  at  time  rate,  and put  in  not  more  than  3  hours  work  in  any  shift,  with  the  result  that  th"  quality and  output  c

-1834  T HE  GA/E'1TK  t>F 1\D1A : OCTOBER  V1- lattf/ASVINA  22, 1880  |P\KI II-
4.  In  the  reference  order  the  Dock  Mazdoor  Union  and  the  Natural  Union of  Dockers,  new  known  as  National  Union  of  Waterfront  Workers,  ara  mentioned as  representing  the  workman.  The  Dock  Mazdoor  Union  filed  a  written  statement And the  case  has  been  conducted  on  behalf  of  the  workmen  mainly  by  the  General Secretary  of  the  Dock  Mazdoor  Union,  Sri  P.  Sen.  The  National  Union  of  Dockers or  Waterfront  Workers  did  not  file  any  written  statement  although  Shri  P.  K. Ganguly,  ,Tt.  Secretary  of  that  Union,  deposed  as  a  witness  for  the  Unions.  The Calcutta  Dock  Workers  Union  applied  to  be  added  as  a  party  and  Was  permitted to  file  a  written  statement  and  to  appear  at  the  hearing  on  behalf  of  the  workers. According  to  Dock  Mazdoor  Union  the  chipping  and  painting  workers  earn  n  pet r income  In  Calcutta  and  the  income  of  similar  workers  at  Bombay  is  nearly double  of  what  such  workers  are  getting  in  Calcutta,  and  further  the  Chipping and  Painting  Contractors  at  Bombay  have  by  an  agreement  entered  into  with  the workmen  adopted  a  scheme  for  paying  bonus  to  the  chipping  and  painting  workers; and  therefore  there  is  no  reason  -why  tha  chipping  and  painting  eonirartors  at Calcutta  should  not  pay  a  similar  bonus.  According  to  the  Union,  the  business of  chipping  and  painting  contractors  does  not  require  much  capital  investment and  the  contractors  have  been  making  Jarge  profits  and  they  are  well  able  to pay  a  bonus  as! the  chipping  and  painting  contractors  are  doing  at  Bombay.  The claim  has  been  laid  at  5 months'  wages  for  each  worker  from  19R4  *o  the  present date.  The  Calcutta  Dock  Workers  Union  in  its  written  statement  has  stated  that the  Union  has  been  agitating  for  the  grant  of  bonus  to  chipping  and  painting workers  from  1964, but  neither  the  employers  nor  the  Calcutta  Dock  Labour  Board have  so  far  conceded  this  demand  of  the  workman,  although  not  only  registered dock  workers  but  other  categories  of  listed  workers  like  stichers,  baggers  and salt  workers  are  getting  a  bonus  under  an  agreement  with  the  employers  dated 13th  September,  1965.  This  Union  has  claimed  bonus  equal  to  H months'  pay or  20  per  cent  of  the  annual  remuneration  for  the  years  1964-65  and  1965-66.

SEC. 3(ii)l  T HE  GAZETTE  OF  INDIA  :  OCTOBER  14.  1%7/ASVINA  '22,  18R9 3835^
that  our  general  formula  would  be  inapplicable;  so  also  any  nytem of  minimum  and  maximum  bonus.  We  i^commend  further  that  the bonus  pool  system  for  stevedore  labour  in  Bombay  should  also  be applied  at  other  ports,  including  Calcutta,  subject  to  such  modifica- tions  as  local  conditions  may  require.  In  the  even  of  disagreement the  matter  should  be  referred  to  arbitration  or  adjudication."
The  Calcutta  Dock  Workers  Union  in  its  written  statement  referred  to  a  .scheme between  the  employers  represented  by  the  Master  Stevedores  Association  and thy  Calcutta  Stevedores  Association  and  the  workmen  represented  by  the  Na- tional  Union  of  Dock  Workers  and  Dock  Mazdoor  Union  on  30th  September  1&65, by  which  the  stevedore  labour  and  certain  ca1egori".s  of  listed  workers  are  being paid  bonus  under  a  scheme  similar  to  that  adopted  at  Bombay.  A  copy  of  that agreement  has  not  been  produced  before  the  tribunal,  but  the  unions  have  pro- duced  a  copy  of  the  minutes  of  the  Dock  Labour  Board  of  the  meeting  held  on 29th  August,  1967.  Item  No.  1  of  the  agenda  refers  to  the  question  of  payment of  bonus  for  the  yeur  1966-67  and  1967-68.  It  was  decided  that  bonus  be  paid to  the  registered  workers  both  monthly  and  reserve  pool  and  the  listed  baggers, stitchers  and  salt  workers  for  the  year  1966-fJ7  at  the  rate  of  30  paise  per  dead- weight  ton  and  [or  the  year  1967-68  at  the  rate  ot  31  paise  per  deadweight  ton handled  during  the  respective  years,  and  the  distribution  be  mijdc  in  the  manner  as for  the  year  1964-65  and  1965-66  under  the  scheme  agreed  between  the  employers associations  and  the  unions.  The  unions  have  also  referred  to  Ext,  4  which  is  a copy  of  the  memorandum  of  settlement  between  the  Chipping  and  Painting  emp- loyers'  Association,  B°mbay  and  the  employees  represented  by  the  Secretary  of the  Transport  and  Dock  Workers  Union,  Bombay  dated  25th  August  1965,  by which  the  association  agreed  to  pay  bonus  to  the  chipping  arid  paintaing  workersi for  the  year  1964-65.  By  the  terms  of  the  settlement  each  listed  chipping  and painting  worker  was  to  be  paid  bonus  at  32  paise  per  man-day  attended  and worked  by  him,  provided  that  if  n  worker  has  worked  for  2  or  3  shifts  .1 day, it  should  be  counted  as  one  man-day,  and  workers  who  have  worked  and  pttend- ed  for  less  than  50  days  in  a  year  shall  not  be  eligible  for  any  bonus  for  that year.  On  behalf  of  the  union,  therefore,  it  has  been  urged  that,  chipping  ;md painting  workers  in  Calcutta  are  entitled  to  such  a  bonus  and  that  the  matter is  one  which  may  be  referred  to  adjudication..
6.  It  should  be  pointed  out  however  that  what  the  unions  have  claimed  is  a profit  bonus  and  the  order  of  reference  also  mentions  profit  bonus  or  profit sharing  bonus.  What  was  agreed  to  be  paid  at  Bombay  to  the  stevedore  labour at  so  many  paise  per  ton  of  cargo  handled,  and  what  has  also  been  agreed  to  be paid  at  Calcutta  to  the  stevedore  labour  i.e.,  registered  dock  workers,  tnd  to baggers,  stitchers  and  salt  workers,  at  so  many  paise  per  ton  is  a  sort  of  pro- duction  bonus  and  not  profit  bonus;  from  profit  bonus,  whatever  observation  the Bonus  Commission  might  have  made  in  the  report,  the  Bonus  Act  has  definitely excluded  the  registered  and  listed  dock  workers.  In  this  connection,  I  may  refer to  a  decision  of  Maharashtra  High  Court,  Bhuleswar  Swadeshi  Mart  v,  Its workmen,  1966  II  LLJ  764,  that  demand  for  bonus  under  the  Act  is  not  main- tainable  as  the  Mart  employees  less  than  20  men,  and  that  once  an  Act  has  been passed  about  a  certain  matter,  no  other  law  will  apply  unless  expressly  saved by  the  Act.  I  must  hold  therefore  that  the  claim  for  profit  bonus  as  made  by the  unions  must  fail  and  the  question  referred  being  whether  the  demand  for payment  oi'  profit  sharing  bonus  is  justified,  the  tribunal  cannot  consider  whether a  production  bonus,  as  the  case  of  stevedore  labour,  or  an  attendance  bonus  as in  the  case  of  chipping  and  paintaing  workers  ut  Bombay  may  justifiably  be claimed  by  the  chipping  and  paintaing  workers  in  Calcutta.  In  this  connection, reference  may  be  made  to  a  decision  of  thp  Supreme  Court  in  l^fil  II  LLJ  614, Tocklal  Experimental  Station  and  its  workmen.  Therein  the  Supreme  Court laid  down  that  calim  for  profit  bonus  canot  be  validly  made  unless  the  specific year  for  which  it  is  claimed  is  indicated  and  it  is  urged  that  there  is  available- surplus  in  the  hands  of  the  employers  during, thar  year;  and  further  that  where a  claim  for  profit  bonus  was  made  and  the  industrial  tribual  proceeded  to  grant a  puja  bonus  on  the  ground  that  similar  scientific  stations  were  granting  a  Puja bonus  to  their  workers,  the  award  was  set  aside.  It  is  clear  that  where  the  ques- tion  referred  to the  tribunal  is  one  kinds  of  bonus,  tha  tribunal  cannot,  consider  the claim,  for  any  other  kind  of  bonus.

-3836  THE  GAZETTE  uy  IXDIA  :  OCrOHKK  ]-I,  I'JJ/'/ASVINA  22,  188!)  [PART  I I-
a  profit  sharing  bonus  by  the  chipping  and  painting  workers.  The  fundamental idea  of  profit  bonus  is  that  a  claim  for  profit  bonus  arises  when  it  is  found  that for  the  relevant  year  the  employer  has  made  a  profit  and  that  after  allowing  for prior  charges  there  remains  available  surplus  in  his  hand  a  portion  of  which may  be  distributed  as  bonus  to  his  employees.  Unless  the  workers  are  his  emp- loyees,  i.e.,  unless  there  is  the  relationship  of  employer  and  employee  in  the particular  business  the  claim  for  profit  bonus  cannot  be  raised.  The  contractors' associdiion  pointed  out  in  paragraph  9  of  iis  written  statement  that  according  to the  scheme  the  contractors  are  merely  hirers  of  labour  from  the  Dock  Labour Board;  they  submit  requisitions  to  the  Board  for  this  type  of  labour  when  they .have  a  contract  requiring  such  labour,  and  the  Board  supplies  the  labour  on  a daily  hire  basis  subject  to  the  deposit  of  the  wages  and  the  payment  of  a  levy and  the  payment  of  wages  to  the  workers  is  made  by  the  Dock  Labour  Board and  not  by  the  contractors;  that  the  contractors  have  no  control  over  the  workers but  may  only  complain  against  the  workers  to  the  Personnel  Officer  or  Labour Officer  of  the  Dock  Labour  Board  that  the  contractors  have  no  right  of  recruit- ment  and  no  right  of  terminating  the  services- of  the  workers  or  imposing  any other  penalty  by  way  of  discipline,  and  that  the  power  of  fixing"  wages,  allow- ances  and  other  conditions  of  service  lies  with  the  Calcutta  Dock  Labour  Board, It  must  be  conceded  that  there  is  no  employer  and  employee  relationship  bet- ween  the  chipping  and  paintaing  contractors  and  the  chipping  and  paintaing workers  listed  under  the  1957  scheme.  It  is  no  doubt  true  that  the  Bonus  Com- mission  made  an  observation  that  the  circumstance  of  employment  from  a  pool is  not  a  good  argument  against  giving  a  bonus.  But  so  far  as  profit  bonus  is  con- cerned,  the  Bonus  Commission  itself  recommended  that  profit  bonus  should  be paid  unitwise  and  not  industrywise,  and  the  scheme  of  the  payment  of  bonus  Act Is  that  the  payment  of  bonus  is  umtwiso  i.e.,  made  to  the  employees  of  a  particu- lar  unit  or  establishment  or  firm  out  of  the  available  surplus  of  the  particular year  of  that  unit  or  firm.  Accordingly,  the  above  observation  of  the  Bonus  Com- mission  relating  to  stevedore  labour  does  not  appear  to  be  acceptable,  so  far  as profit  bonus  is  concerned.  There  could  be  calim  for  production  bonus  or  attend- ance  bonus  but  no  such  claim  has  been  made  or  referred  for  adjudication.
8.  Clause  12(2)  of  the  1957  Scheme  provides  that  a  listed  dock  worker  in the  pool  who  is  available  for  work  shall  be  deemed  to  be  in  the  employment  of the  Board.  It  is  on  the  basis  of  this  clause  that  the  contractors'  association  has urged  that  the  Dock  Labour  Board  is  the  real  employer  and  should  have  been  made a  party  and  in  the  absence  of  Dock  Labour  Board  as  a  party  the  reference  to  ad- judication  Is  not  maintainable.  On  behalf  of  the  unions  it  has  been  urged  that there  is  no  reference  at  all  in  the  Dock  Workers  (Regulation  of  Employment Scheme,  1957  to  the  question  of  bonus,  and  as  regards  wages  and  other  condi- tions  01  service  the  Dock  Labour  Board  was  given  that  power  by  adding  sub- clause  (g)  to  clause  4  in  October  1964,  and  before  that  wages  and  other  condi- tions  of  service  had  to  be  settled  by  the  contractors'  firms  by  agreement  with  the workers  or  otherwise.  It  has  also  been  pointed  out  that  whereas  in  respect  of registered  workers,  the  1956  scheme  contains  a  clause,  (clause  41)  expressly providing  that  the  rates  of  wages,  allowances,  etc.  as  may  be  prescribed  by  the Board  from  time  to  time  shall  be  a  condition  of  service  of  the  registered  dock workers,  there  is  no  corresponding  clause  in  the  1957  scheme  for  listed  workers and  that  the  matter  has  got  to  be  fixed  by  negotiation  between  the  contractors and  the  listed  workers;  and  that  even  in  1963  after  the  listing  which  was  done in  1962,  there  was  such  an  agreement  between  the  employers  and  the  workers by  which  the  rate  of  wages  was  enhanced.  But  clause  4(g)  must  now  be  given effect  to,  and  any  agreement  as  to  wages  or  other  condition  of  service  requires the  approval  of  the  Dock  Labour  Board  which  is  the  ultimate  authoritv  even  in respect  of  listed  workers.  In  view  of  the  fact  that  the  Dock  Labour  Board  has. the  power  to  consider  whether  an  agreement  between  the  contractors  firm  and the  workers  should  be  enforced  or  not  and  in  view  of  the  provisions  of  clause 12(21  of  the  1S57  scheme,  I  accept  the  contention  of  Sri  Bhanja  Choudhury  that the  Dock  Labour  Board  should  have  been  added  as  a  party  in  the  reference  case, as  the  Dock  Labour  Board  would  not  be  legally  bound  to  fiive  effect  to  nn  award to  which  the  Board  was  not  a  party,  although  in  practice  the  Board  may  not raise  any  such  objection.
9.  The  next  objection  by  Sri  Bhanja  Choudhury  that  the  tribunal  has  no jurisdiction  at  all  and  that  the  Dock  Labour  Board  is  the  ultimate  authority, rests  on  a  decision  of  the  Patna  High  Court,  namely,  1F63, LLJ  76,  Sarat  Chatter- iee  &  Co.  Pvt.  Limited  and  the  Central  Government  Industrial  Tribunal, Dhanbad.  In  that  case  the  question  referred  to  the  tribunal  was  the  validity of  the  demand  of  some  monthly  registered  dock  workers  for  fixation  of  scales of  pay  and  for  bonus,  The  Pattia  High  Court  held  that  the  Dock  Labour  Board.

Tine. 3(ii)j  THE  GAZETTE  OF  INDIA :  OCTOBER  14.  1967/ASVINA  22,  1889  3837
is  a  Statutory  Body  competent  to  determine  and  describe  wages  allowance*  nnri other  conditions  of  service  of  Dock  Workers  under  clause  Iff)'and  Tn  view  of clause  41  of  the  scheme,  the  wages,  allowances  and  other  conditions  of  service a3  prescribed  by  the  Board  become  implied  conditions  of  the  Contract  of  S ee between  the  registered  dock  workers  and  the  registered  employers  and  in  the circumstances  there  is  no  scope  for  reference  of  any  claim  as  to  wages  or  bonu^ lo  an  industrial  tribunal.  There  is  no  decision  of  Supreme  Court  finally  decidt Iw  T ? "e S tr  BS  ro.  ^ . ^ er  or  not  the  Patna  High  Court  took  the  correct view.  There  is  reason  to  think  that  the  Patna  High  Court  took  an  unduly  limited view  of  sub-clause  (o)  of  clause  8  which  contemplates  reference  of  disputes  to adjudication.  Apart  from  that  point  there  is  the  significant  difference  between the  two  schemes  that  the  scheme  relating  to  listed  workers  does  not  have  cny provision  similar  to  that  contained  in  clause  41  of  the  scheme  relating  to  regis- tered  workers.  It  was  on  clause  41  that  the  Patna  High  Court  largely  rested  its decision.  There  being  no  such  provision  in  the  1957  scheme  relating  to  listed workers,  I  must  hold  that  reference  of  a  demand  by  listed  workers  1o  adjudication cannot  be  considered  incompetent.
10.  The  last  objection  urged  by  Sri  Bharija  Choudhury  is  that  as  in  the  refer- ence  order  there  is  no  mention  of  the  period  for  which  the  profit  sharing  bonus is  to  be  assessed,  the  reference  must  be  considered  vague  and  incompetent.  For this  view  Shri  Bhanja  Choudhury  has  relied  on  the  decision  of  the  Supreme Court,  Tocklal  Experimental  Station  and  its  workmen,  to  which  reference  has been  made  before.  The  Supreme  Court  held  that  a  claim  for  profit  bonus  cannot validly  be  made  unless  a  specific  year  for  which  the  claim  is  made  is  indicated, In  Tocklal  Experimental  Station  case  the  claim  was  made  in  general  terms  and not  for  any  particular  year.  Although  the  present  reference  order  does  not mention  the  period  for  which  the  profit  sharing  bonus  has  been  demanded  by the  workers,  the  Dock  Mazdoor  Union  has  stated  clearly  that  it  claims  bonus for  1964  and  subsequent  years  and  the  Calcutta  Dock  Workers  Union  has  claimed bonus  for  two  years  namely  1964-65  and  1965-66.  It  appeurs  that  the  account- ing  year  of  many  of  the  Chipping  and  Painting  Contractors'  firms  runs  from  1st July  to  30th  June  of  the  next  calendar  year,  and  therefore  it  may  be  held  that  the claim  has  been  made  for  the  two  years  namely  1st  July  1964  to  30th  June  1965 and  1st  July  19B5  to  30th  June,  1966.  In  the  circumstances,  I  do  not  consider that  the  non-mention  of  the  period  in  the  reference  order  would  by  itself  make the  reference  bad.
11.  But  in  view  of  the  fact  that  Sec.  32  of  the  Payment  of  Bonus  Act,  1965 makes  the  Act  inapplicable  to  the  listed  chipping  and  painting  workers,  and  in -view  of  the  conditions  of  service  of  the  listed  chipping  and  painting  workers.  I hold  that  a  claim  for  profit  sharing  bonus  is  not  maintainable.  In  view  of  the  fact hhat  no  claim  has  been  made  for  any  other  kind  of  bonus  like  production  bonus  or attendance  bonus  and  in  view  of  the  fact  that  the  Calcutta  Dock  Labour Board  has  not  been  made  a  party,  I  cannot  al?o  award  any  production  or  atten- dance  bonus  to  the  listed  chipping  and  painting  workers.  Before  disposing  of  the reference  case  however  I  would  like  to  add  certain  observations.
12.  MWl-Nilendu  Haldar  stated  in  his  deposition  that  since  the  Dock  Labour Board  took  over  control  of  the  chipping  and  painting  workers,  due  to  the  absence of  employer-employee  relationship,  the  work  of  the  chipping  and  painting  workers ^deteriorated  to  a  great  extent  as  compared  with  the  work  which  was  done  before the  Dock  Labour  Board  took  over;  that  at  present  the  job  allotted  to  a  gang  of • chipping  and  painting  workers  is  somehow  completed  by  them  in  2  or  3  hours and  then  the  workers  go  away  and  most  probably  engage  themselves  in  outside work,  which  they  are  not  supposed  to  do:  that  there  is  no  minimum  norm  for any  category  of  work;  but  unless  a  job  is  allotted  to  a  gang  of  worker  practically no  work  is  done,  and  the  quantum  of  work  has  to  be  allotted  with  the  consent  of the  workmen  because  the  workmen  refuse  to  accept  a  quantum  of  work  that could  not  be  finished  by  them  within  3  hours.  The  Balani  Committee  report recommended  adoption  of  the  incentive  piecerate  scheme,  but  the  workers  of  the chipping  and  painting  pool  refused  to  work  under  the  scheme.  The  Deputy Chairman  of  the  Dock  Labour  Board  induced  some  volunteer  workers  to  try  the incentive  piecerate  scheme  and  it  was  found  that  the  income  of  the  individual chipping  and  painting  worker  by  working  the  scheme  would  roughly  be  doubled, but  even  then  the  general  body  of  chipping  and  painting  workers  refused  to  adopt the  scheme.  The  wage  rate  for  a  shift  of  8 hours  was  previously  Rs.  2/14/-  for the  day  shift  and  Rs.  3/9/-  for  the  afternoon  and  night  shifts.  By  an  agreement which  took  place  in  1963  before  the  Balani  Committee  was  appointed,  a  certain minimum  norm  was  agreed  to  and  the  contractors  agreed  to  increase  the  rate to  Rs  3/6/-  for  the  day  shift  and  Rs.  3/14/-  for  the  afternoon  arid  night  shifts.

3838  THE* GAZETTE  OF INDIA:  OCTOHER  14, I967/ASVINA  22, 1839  [PART  II-
The  Dock  Labour  Board  did  not  ratify  the  agreement  as  the  agreement  had  been made  with  an  unrecognised  union,  the  West  Bengal  Dock  Workers'  Union;  and the  workmen  refused  to  work  upto  the  norm  mentioned  in  the  agreement  and took  up  a  threatening  attitude,  and  the  employers  had  to  pay  the  increased wages  even  though  the  workmen  did  not  work  upto  the  norm  agreed.  Since  that date,  the  workers  are  in  addition  getting  the  benefit  of  the  interim  relief  and the  Dearness  allowance  recommended  by  the  Central  Wage  Board  for  Port  and Dock  workers.  Shri  Nilendu  Haldar  also  stated  that  as  the  result  of  the  attitude taken  up  by  he  workmen,  more  men  have  to  be  allotted  to  a  particular  job  at present,  e.g., before  the  Dock  .Labour  Board  took  charge  two  workers  working  one shift  completed  chipping  and  painting  one  coat  of  one  outside  plate  of  a  ship  i.e. a  plate  with  an  approximate  area  of  150  So.  ft.  but  now  4  or  more  men  have  to be  deputed  to  do  the  same  work.  The  quality  of  work  has  also  deteriorated  and as a  result  the  contractors  firms  are  loosing the  work  ol  most  ot the  foreign  shipping lines  which  prefer  to  have  their  work  done  at  Chalnu,  in  East  Pakistan  or  else- ' where.
13.  The  Balani  Report,  a  copy  of  which  is  Ext.  A,  supports  most  of  these  state- ments.  Paragraph  63  of  Chapter  V  of  his  report  is  as  follows:—
"63.  Almost  all  the  employers  are  unanimous  in  their  view  that  after  the implementation  of  the  Scheme  the  employer—employee  relationship has  disappeared  and  the  discipline  is  at  the  lowest  ebb.  The  workers have  formed  the  habit  of  knocking  off  within  two  hours  after  coming to  work  and  pay  no  heed  to  the  orders  of  the  representatives  of  emp- loyers.  Both  the  quality  and  the  quantity  of  work  have  deteriorated."
In  paragraph  67  Sri  Balani  quoted  observations  of  Ship's  officers  of  two  foreign ships.  One  officer  was  not  satisfied  with  the  rate  of  progress  of  the  work  and quality  of  work  done  at  Calcutta  and  stated  that  he  would  prefer  to  have  the work  done  at  Chalna  Port  which  is  in  Pakistan  where  plenty  of  labour  is  avail- able  and  where  better  quality  of  work  is  done.  Another  Ship's  officer  observed that  the  progress  of  work  in  Calcutta  has  been  very  unsatisfactory  and  that  the worker;,  come  for  work  at  7  a.m.,  start  work  at  8  a.m.  and  by  10  a.m.  they  go away;  that  the  employers'  men  cannot  do  anything,  and  if  they  insist  on  the labour  to  do  job  properly,  the  supervisor  is  immediately  abused,  threatened  or assaulted.  Sri  Balani  recommended  that  sub-clause  2  of  clause  12  of  Calcutta  un- registered  Dock  Workers  (Regulation  of  Employment)  Scheme  should  be  deleted and  that  an  Administrative  Body  of  chipping  and  painting  employers  should  be set  up  and  should  control  the  chipping  and  painting  workers  as  is  done  in  Bom- bay.  This  has  however  not  been  done  at  Calcutta  yet.  Sri  Balani  also  recom- mended  that  provision  should  be  made  for  grant  of  attendance  allowance  and minimum  guaranteed  wage.  At  the  time  when  Sri  Balani  reported  there  was already  a  minimum  guarantee  for  12  days'  minimum  wages.  Thereafter  an attendance  allowance  at  the  rate  of  Rs.  1.50  was  introduced  for  every  day  on which  a  listed  worker  attended  but  could  not  be  offered  any  work.  Sri  Balani also  recommended  that  the  Manning  piece-rate  cum  incentive  bonus  scheme  men- tioned  in  Appendix  VI  of  the  report  should  be  introduced.  It  has  already  been mentioned  how  the  attempt  to  implement  the  scheme  failed,  even  though  the Deputy  Chairman  of  the  Dock  Labour  Board  with  some  volunteer  workers showed  that  the  earnings  of  workmen  would  substantially  increase  by  working under  the  scheme.  It  would  appear  that  the  workers  preferred  to  work  for  2  or 3  hours  and  then  go  elsewhere  for  outside  work.  Very  recently  by  agreeing  to pay  an  amount  of  Re.  1  per  shift  over  and  above  the  amount  which  would  be earned  under  the  Manning  piece-rate  cum  incentive  bonus  scheme  and  by  agreeing to  increase  the  minimum  guarantee  from  12  days  to  18  days  per  month  the  listed contractors  have  induced  the  listed  chipping  and  paintaing  workers  to  agree  to working  that  scheme,  vide  the  memorandum  of  settlement.  Ext,  8  dated  Hth August,  1967.  By  this  agreement,  the  contractors  have  also  agreed  to  grant  leave with  oay  to  chipping  and  painting  workers,  viz-,  privilege  leave  at  l/12th  of  the period  spent  on  duty,  casual  leave  for  5 days  in  a  year  and  sick  leave  for  7 clays  in a  year.  At  the  meeting  of  the  Dock  Labour  Board  dated  29th  August,  1967  this agreement  of  14th  August,  1967  is  referred  to,  and  it  is  mentioned  that  the Ministry  of  Labour  and  Employment  has  approved  of  the  scheme  by, a  letter  'lated 27th  August,  1967.  The  Dock  Labour  Board  adopted  a  resolution  that  the  scheme under  the  agreement  duly  approved  by  the  Ministry  be  implemented  with  effect from  11th  September,  1DB7.  Under  this  scheme  if  it  is  honestly  worked  the earning  of  the  workmen  will  be  double  or  more  than  double  of  the  daily  shift  rate and  further  under  the  scheme  they  will  be  receiving  Re.  1  practically  as  attend- Hnce  bonus  for  each  day  of-work  over  and  above  tha  earning  under  the  Manning" Piece-rate  cum  ineentive  bonus  scheme.

SEC. 3(ii)]  THE  GAZETTE  OF INDIA:  OCTOBER  14. 1907/ASVfXA  22,  1N89  3839 AND

3840  T HE  GAZETTE  OF INDIA :  OCTOBER  14, 1967/ASVINA  22, 1889  (PART  I I-
PRESENT
Shri  Nandagiri  Venkata  Rao,  Presiding  Officer.
APPEARANCES
For  the  Employers—Shri  P.  B. Mondal,  Secretary  to  the  Agent. Fchr the  Workmen—Shri  Lalit  Burman,  Secretary,  Bihar  Koyla  Mazdoor Sabha.
STATE :  Bihar.
INDUSTRY :  Ccal.
Dhanbad,  dated  the  19th  September,  1967.
AWARD
The  Central  Government,  being  of  opinion  that  an  industrial  dispute  exists between  the  employers  in  relation  to  the  Mondal's  Bilbera  Colliery,  P O  Katras- garh,  Dist.  Dhanbad  and  their  workmen  by  its  ordr-r  No.  2/75/65-LRTT,  Hated 26th  August,  1965, referred  to  the  Central  Government  Industrial  Tribunal.  Dhan- bad,  under  section  1C1) (d)  of  the  Industrial  Disputes  Act,  1"47,  for  adjudication the  dispute  in  respect  of  the  matters  specified  in  the  schedule  annexed  thereto. The  schedule  is  extracted  below :
"SCHEDULE
Whether  the  management  of  the  Mondal's  Bilbera  Colliery  was  justified in  refusing  employment  to  the  workmen  mentioned  below,  from  the 23rd  Auril  1965  to  the  8th  May  1965  and  with  effect  from  the  13th May  1965?  If  not,  to  what  relief  are  the  workmen  entitled?
(1)  Dasrath  Chamar,  Wagon  Loader. (2)  Haricharan  Beldar,  Shale  Picker."
2.  The  Central  Government  Industrial  Tribunal,  Dhanbad,  registpred  the reference  as  reference  No.  131  of  1965  on  its  file.  The  workmen  filpd  their statement  of  demands.  While  it  was  pending  before  the  Central  Government Industrial  Tribunal.  Dhanbad,  the  proceeding  was  transferred  to  this  Tribunal, by  the  Central  Government  by  its  order  No.  8/25767-LRII,  dated  8th  M^v.  1P67, under  section  33(B)(1)  of  the  Industrial  Disputes  Act,  1947.  Consequently,  the. reference  is  renumbered  on  the  file  of  this  Tribunal  as  referenct  No.  64  of  1967. The  employers  also  filed  their  statement  of  demands.
3.  The  affected  workmen,  Dasrath  Chamar  a  wagon  loader  and  Hari  Charan Beldar,  a  shale  nicker  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  the  affected  workmen)  were in  the'employ  of  the  emplovers  colHerv.  The  case  of  the  workmen  is  th^t  the affected  workmen  were  rendered  idle  by  verbal  order  on  and  from  23rd  April, 1965  tri  8th  May.  1965  aid  a°ain  from  13th  Mav,  1965.  uo-to-dpte  with  the malafide  intention  of  get+ing  rid  of  the  affected  workmen  without  paving  them compensation  and  outstanding  dues.  In  the  statement  filed  by  them  the  pmnioyers had  not  denied  that  the  affected  workmen  were  rendered  idle  from  ?^rd  Anril, 1965  to  8th  Mav.  1965  and  again  from  ]3th  Mav.  1P65  up-to-date.  ^heir  stand is  that  the  affected  workmen  were  offered  respectively  alternate  jobs  of  crop mazdoor  and  packing  job  in  May,  1965  and  the  affected  workmen  re*u?ed  them, that  +he  alternate  iobs  offered  would  not  have  affpcted  their  wagps  ^"d  other conditions  of  service  and  that  the  affected  workmen  have  joined  some  other! collierv.  The  workmen  were  renresented  by  Shri  Lalit  Burman  q"erptary, Bihar  Kovla  Mazdoor  Sabha  and  the  employers  bv  Shri  P.  B.  Mondal  Rpcr^tary to  thp  Aeent  of  the  emnloyers  colliery.  No  exhibits  are  marked  for  snv  party. On  behalf  of  the  workmen  a  witness  is  examined  and  Shri  Mondal  made  a  state- ment  that  he  had  no  witness  to  examine.
 
4.  WW1  is  the  Secretary.  Bihar  Koyla  Mazdoor  Sabha  since  ]p>63.  He  has deposed  that  the  two  affected  workmen  were  rendered  idle  from  23rd  A-nr:l.  1965 to  8th  May.  1965  and  again  from  13th  May,  1965  up-to-date.  Nothing  is  elicited in  the  cross'  examination  to  damage  the  case  set  un  by  the  workmen.  WW1  has categorically  stated  that  to  the  best  of  his  information  the  two  affected  workmen are  still  idle  and  that  he  has  no  information  that  either  of  the  two  is  working elsewhere.  There  is  no  rebuttal  evidence.  As  I  have  already  stated,  +r.f  om^loy- ers  hav>=  not  denied  that  the  two  affected  workmen  were  rendered  idle  from 23rd  April.  1965  to  8th  Mav,  1965  and  pgain  from  13th  Mav,  1965  n-.-to-^ate. Their  only  plea  was  that  they  offered  alternate  jobs  but  the  affected  -''orkmen declined  to  accent  them.  There  is  no  material  brought  on  record  to  substantiate the  plea  taken  by  the  employers.  There  is  not  even  oral  evidence  to  that  effect. On  the  contrary  there  is  positive  evidence  on  behalf  of  the  worVm^n  ^H  the employers  did  not  provide  any  alternative  jobs  to  the  affected  workmen  and  that

SEC. 3(ii)]  THE  GAZETTE  OF  INDIA  :  OCTOBER  14,  1967/ASVINA  22,  1889 3841
they  are  not  employed  anywhere.  On  this  material  I  hold  that  the  management of  Mondal's  Bilbera  Colliery  was  not  justified  in  refusing  employment  to  the affected  workmen,  Dasrath  Chamar,  wagon  loader  and  Hari  Charan  Beldar, Shale  Picker,  from  23rd  April,  1965 to  8th  May,  1965 and  again  with  effect  from 13th  May, 1965 up-to-date  and, consequently,  I  direct  that  the  two  affected  work- men  be  paid  their  wages  and  other  emoluments  for  the  period  from  23rd  April, 1965 to  8th May, 1965 and  again  from  13th May, 1965, till  the  date  of  their  actual reinstatement  as  though  their  services  were  continuous  and  never  interrupted. Considering  circumstances  of  the  case  no  order  is  passed  as  to  costs.  The  award is  made  accordingly  and  submitted  undpr  section  15  of  the  Industrial  Disputes Act,  1947.
(Sd.)  N  VENKATA  RAO, Presiding  Officer. Central  Govt.  Addl.  Indl. Tribunal,  Dhanbad.
APPENDIX  I
BEFORE  THE  CENTRAL  GOVERNMENT  ADDITIONAL  INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL  AT  DHANBAD
REFERENCE  NO.  64  OF  1967
Forties:
Employers in relation to the  Mondal's Bilbera  Colliery  P.O. Katrasgrah, Dist. Dhanbad
A ND
Their  Workmen.
List  of  Documents Admitted  in  Evidence for the Employers
Proved by
Whether  admitted
Description of documents &
Distinguishing
Date of admission
or  proved
date
mark or numVer
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
N il
List  of  Documents  Admitted  in  Evidence  for  the  Workmen
Di?'_ ;r  • line;  mark
Proved  by
Whether  culmiued or  proved
.-K  1 l.TlbC"
Date  of
• -dtn'ssior
Description  <>f document; Ik rb/e
Nil ^:.l
Mil
N il
Mil
(Sd.)  >I.  YE  .KATA  PAO,
Pre^H-'ng  PfT'cer,
Centra!  G< ve.T.mei t  Ai"i3nk"i:'l  IrV.i' trial
Tribunal,  Dhcnbad.
/'PPEND1X  II
BEFORE  T HE  CENTRAL  GOVERNMENT  ADDITIONAL  INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL  AT  DHAN3AD
REFERENCE  N O.  64  OF  1967
Pcrtiss:
Hmplr'cr.  in ~i' :':-,,ito!h'  .vim I';'  iVlbeti Cil'Ie v, !\ O. Kitra?p;in,  O:1.*. "Jlnabad
AND
Their  Wo'kmcri,
List  of  Witnesses  Examined  on  behalf  of  the  Employers
No. of the  witness
Name  of the  witness
Date of examination
Nil
Nil
 
Nil

3842  1 HE GAZETTE  OF INDIA : OCTOBER  14,  1967/ASVINA 22, 1889  [PART  H—
List of Witnesses Examined on behalf of the Workmen
Date  01 examination No.  of the  witness Name 0" the  witness
22-S-67
L.-iit  Bur  nan
(Sd.) N. \  BNKATA RAO
Presiding  Officer, Central  Government  Additional  Industrial  Tribunal, Dhanbad: [No.  2/75/65-LRII.J
S.O.  3657.—In  pursuance  of  section  17 of  the Industrial  Disputes  Act, 1947  (14 of  1947),  the Central  Government  hereby  publishes  the following  award  of the Additional  Industrial  Tribunal,  Dhanbad,  in  the industrial  dispute  between  the employers  in  relation  to  the Lachhami  Colliery  Limited,  Post  Office  Patherdih, District  Dhanbad  and their  workmen,  which  was received  by the Central  Govern- ment  on the  23rd  September, 1967.
BEFORE  THE CENTRAL  GOVERNMENT  ADDITIONAL  INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL  AT DHANBAD
In  the matter  of a  reference  under  section  10(1) (d) of the Industrial Dis- putes  Act,  1947.
REFERLNCE  NO. 84  OF 1967.
PARTIES :
Employers  in  relation  to the Lachhami  Colliery  Limited,  P.O. Patherdih, District  Dhanbad.
AND
Their  Workmen,
PRESENT:
Shri  Nandagiri  Venkata  Rao—Presiding  Officer.
APPEARANCES:
For  the  Employers.—Shri  J.  B.  Sar-kar,  Loading  Supervisor. For  the  Workmen.—Shri  Prasanta  Burman,  Secretary,  Khan  Mazdoor Congress.
STATE:  Bihar.
INDUSTRY:  Coal.
Dhanbad, dated  the 18th  Septernber 1967
AWARD
The  Central  Government,  being  of  opinion  that  an  industrial  dispute  exists between  the employers  in relation  to the Lachhami  Colliery  Limited,  P.O.  Pather- dih,  Distt.  Dhanbad  and their  workmen  by its order  No. 2/118/65-LRII  dated, the 16th  November,  1965  referred  to the Central  Government  Industrial  Tribunal, Dhanbad  under  Section  10(1) (d)  of Va  Industrial  Disputes  Act, 1947 for  adjudi- cation  the dispute  in  respect  of the matters  specified  in the schedule  annexed thereto.  The schedule  is  extracted  below;
"SCHEDU LE Whether  the  management  of  Lachhami  Colliery,  P-O. Patherdin,  District Dhanbad  were  justified  in  not  admitting  on  duty  Shri  Awadhesh Mishra,  Office  Peon  and Shri  Harinandan  Singh,  Fireman,  on  their return  from  one month's  sanctioned  leave  with  effect  from  the 5th January,  1965 ?,  If  not, to  what  relief  are the workmen  entitled ?
 
2.  The  Central  Government  Industrial  Tribunal,  Dhanbad  registered the reference  as reference  No.  186 of  1965 on its file.  The workmen  filed  their  state- ment  of  demands.  While  it  was pending  before  the Central  Government  Indus- trial  Tribunal,  Dhanbad  the proceeding  was transferred  to  this  Tribunal,  by the

SEC. 3(ii)]  THE GAZETTE  OF INDIA :  OCTOBER  14, 1967/ASVINA  22,  1889 3843
Central  Government  by  its  order  No.  8/25/67-LRII,  dated  8th  May,  1967,  under Section  33(B)(1)  of  the  Industrial  Disputes  Act,  1947.  Consequently,  the  refer- ence  is  renumbered  on  the  file  of  this  Tribunal  as  reference  No.  84  of  1967.  The employers  did  not  file  their  statement  of  demands.
3.  The  employers  refused  to  admit  on  .-Tatr  the  affected  workmen,  Awdhesh Mishra,  (Mice  Peon  and  xlsi'irsandan  Singh,  fireman  (hereinafter  referred  to  as the  affected  workmen)  on  tneir  return  tr.-n  sanctioned  leave  with  ettect  from 5th  February,  1965.  The  case  of  the  workmen  is  that  the  affected  workmen  were sanctioned  leave  for  one  month  from  5th  Januarjr,  1965 to  4th  February,  1965,  and when  they  reported  to  duty  on  5th  i'ebruaiy,  1965,  the  employers  reiuseel  to aTow  them  to  resume  duty  arbitrarily  and  without  assigning  any  reason.  The date  of  reference  is  16th  November,  1965-  and  in  spite  of  haying  such  a  long  time at  the-:-  _Lisyos?il  the  e-nployerj  £\d  not  choose  even  to  file  ihe:r  statement  of demands.  On  14th  September.  1:.S7,  the  vurlanen  were  represented  by  Shri Prasanta  Burman,  Secretary,  Khan  Mazdocr  Congress  and  the  employers  by  Shri J.  B.  Sarkau,  Loading  Supervisor.  On  behr. 1 wi  the  employers  an  application  was submitted  to  adjourn  tho  ca.-:e  L-t.'iir.g  thru  they  wanted  time  to  produce  docu- ments.  As  the  employers  had  not  filed  their  statement  of  demands  denying  the case  oi  the  workmen  nor  did  the  workmen  ca led  upon  the  employers  to  produce any  documents,  the  question  of  producing  documents  by  the  employers  did  not arire.  Co.icequently,  the  adjournment  sought  for  was  refused.  On  behalf  of  the workmen  a  witness  is  examined  and  Shri  J.  B.  Sarkar  representing  the  employers der'ined  to  cross  examine  him.  He  also  made  a  statement  that  he  had  no  witness to  examine.
4.  Harinandan  Singh,  fireman,  one  of  the  two  affected  workmen  examined himself  as  WW1.  He  deposed  that  he  and  the  other  affected  workman  proceed- ed  on  sanctioned  leave  of  one  month  and  when  both  of  them  reported  to  duty  on the  schedule  date  the  employers  declined  to  a&mt  them,  saying  that  they  had  no work  to  provide.  According  to  his  evidence  both  the  workmen  were  old  em- ployees  having  put  in  service  of  13 years.  It  also  appears  from  the  failure  report of  the  Conciliation  Officer  that  in  spite  of  rxotiee  and  adjournments  the  employers did  not  choose  to  appear  before  the  Conciliation  Officer  and  contest  the  case  set up  before  him  by  the  union.  On  this  material  I  hold  that  the  management  of Lachhami  Colliery  Limited,  P.O.  Patherdih,  Distt.  Dhanbad  were  not  justified  in not  admitting  on  duty  the  affected  workmen,  Awdhesh  Mishra,  Office  Peon  and Harinandan  Singh,  Fireman  on  {heir  return  from  one  month's  sanctioned  leave with  effect  from  the  5th  February,  1965  and,  consequently,  I  direct  that  they  be paid  their  wages  and  other  emoluments  with  effect  from  5th  February,  1965,  till the  date  of  their  actual  reinstatement  as  though  their  services  were  continuous and  never  interrupted.  Considering  circumstances  of  the  case  no  order  is  passed as  to  costs.  The  award  is  made  accordingly  and  submitted  under  Section  15 of the  Industrial  Disputes  Act,  1947.
Sd./-  N.  VENKATA  RAO,
Presiding  Officer,
Central  Government  Additional  Industrial  Tribunal,
Dhanbad-
APPENDIX  I
BEFORE  T HE CENTRAL  GOVERNMENT  ADDITIONAL  INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL  AT  DHANBAD
RErau-.NCE N o.  84  CF  1067
PARTIES:
Emplc  vers in re! 11 K ,1 10 the Lachhami  Colliery  Ltd.,  P.O.  Patherdih,  Distt.  Dhanbad.
AND
Their  Wori ..-?,.
List  of Documents Admitted  in Evidence for  the Employers
Proved by Distinguishing  murk or  number
Da'e  nf
acirr'i1 •••on
Whether  admitted or  proved
Description of document & date
N il
Nil
Nil
Nil
 
Nil

3844  T HE  GAZETTE  OF INDIA :  OCTOBER  14, 1967/ASVINA  22, 1889  [PART I I-
List  of Documents admitted  in evidence for  the Workmen
Distinguishing  mark or  number
Date  of
ad -nission
Whether  admitted or  proved
Proved by Description of document & daie
Nil
Nil
Ni1
Nil
Nil
(Sd.i  N.  VENKATA  RAO, Presiding  Officer,
O ; i : nl  .ri •:;:  timent  Additional  Industrial  Tribunal,  Dhanbad*
APPENDIX  II
BEFORE THE C3NTRAL  GOVERNMENT  ADDITIONAL  TRIBUNAL  AT DHANBAD
REFERENCE  N O.  84  OF  1967
PARTIES  :
Employers in relation to the  Lachhami  Colliery  Limited,  P.O. Patherdih,  Distt.
Dhanbad.
AND
•j-!,e;,.  Worknien.
List  of  Witnesses examined for the  Employers
Name of the  witness
Date of examination No. of  Witness
Nil
Nil
Nil
List  of  Witnesses examined for  the Workmen
-J.NO.  i),'  w'wiess
Name of the  witness
Date of examination
Harinandan  Singh
14-9-67 W Wi
(Sd.'j  N. VENKATA  RAO,
Presiding  Officer,
Central  Government  Additional  Industrial
Tribunal,  Dhanbad
[No.  2/118/65-LRIL]
S.O.  3658.—In  pursuance  of  section  17  of  the  Industrial  Disputes  Act,  1947  (14 of  1947),  the  Central  Government  hereby  pubishes  the  following  award  of  th§ Additional  Industrial  Tribunal,  Dhanbad,  in  the  industrial  dispute  between  the employers  in  relation  to  the  B.  Roy's  Ramkanali  Colliery,  Post  Office  Katrasgarh, District  Dhanbad  and  their  workmen,  which  was  received  by  the  Central  Govern- ment  on  the  23rd  September,  1967.

SEC. 3(ii)]  THE  GAZETTE  OF INDIA : OCTOBER  14, 1967/ASVINA  ^2, 1889  3845
BEFORE  THE  CENTRAL  GOVERNMENT  ADDITIONAL  INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL  AT  DHANBAD.
In  the  matter  of  a  reference  under  Section  10(1) (d)  of  the  Industrial  Dis- putes  Act,  1947.
REFERENCE  NO.  76  OP  1967
PARTIES:
Employers  in  relation  to  the  B.  Roy's  Ramkanali  Colliery,  P.O.  Katrasgarh, District  Dhanbad.
AND
Their  Workmen.
PKESBNT:
Shri  Nandagiri  Venkata  Rao—-Presiding  Officer.
APPEARANCES:
For  the  Employers.—None.
For  the  Workmen.—Shri  N.  Laik,  Advocate.
STATE.:  Bihar.
INDUSTRY:  Coal.
Dhanbad,  dated,  the  13th.  September  1967
AWARD
The  Central  Government,  being  of  opinion  that  an  industrial  dispute  exists between  the  ernp'oyers  in  relation  to  the  B. Roy's  Ramkanali  Co'liery.  PO  Katras- garh,  District  Dhanbad  and  their  workmen  by  its  order  No.  2/102/65-LRII,  dated 20th  October,  1965, referred  to  the  Central  Government  Industrial  Tribunal,  Dhan- bad  under  section  10(1) (d)  of  the  Industrial  Disputes  Act,  1947  for  adiucMcation the  dispute  in  respect  of  the  matters  specified  in  the  schedule  annexed  thereto. The  schedule  is  extracted  below:
"SCHEDULE
Whether  the  management  of  B.  Roy's  Ramkanali  Colliery,  P.O-  Katras- garh.  District  Dhanbad  terminated  the  services  of  Shri  Biswanath Viswakarma,  Line  Mazdoor,  with  effect  from  the  15th  July,  1965, without  any  justification?  If  so,  to  what  relief  is  the  •workman entitled?"
2. The  Central  Government  Industrial  Tribunal,  Dhanbad  registered  the  refer- ence  as  reference  No.  170  of  1965  on  its  file.  The  employers  fi'ed  their  statement of  demands.  While  it  was  pending  before  the  Central  Government  Industrial TriVnT-^-1  Dhinbad  the  proceeding  was  transferred  to  th;s  Tribunal,  bv  t>>e  Cen- tral  Government  by  its  order  No.  8/25/67-LRII,  dated  8th  May,  1967, under  Section 3'3(B)(1)  of  the  Industrial  Disputes  Act,  1947.  Consequently,  the  reference  is renumbered  on  the  file  of  this  Tribunal  as  reference  No. 76 of  1967.  The  workmen did  not  file  their  statement  of  demand?.
3.  The  case  was  fixed  for  hearing  on  4th  September,  1967.  But  on  2nd  Sep- tember.  1367.  the  affected  workman  appeared  in  person  and  filed  a  compromise memo  stating  that  the  disoute  between  him  enri  tb"  emoiorir^  "-as  emicnbly settled  to  his  entire  satisfaction  and  that  there  remained  no  more  disoute  to  be enquired  into.  The  memo  was  duly  verified  and  the  affectei  workman  was identified  by  Shri  N.  Laik,  Advocate.  As  there  is  no  jr?rp  impute  >ft  "or enquiry the  reference  is  closed  and  the  award  is  made  rnd  submitted  accordingly  under Section  15 of  the  Industrial  Disputes  Act,  1947.  The  copy  of  the  compromise  memo is  annexed  herewith  and  made  part  of  the  award.
Sd./-  N.  VENKATA  RAO,
Presiding  Officer,
Central  Government  Additional  Industrial  Tribunal,
 
Dhanbad-

3846  THE  GAZETTE  OF INDIA r OCTOBER  14, 1967/ASVINA  22,  1889  [PART  I I-
BKFOBE  THE  PRESIDING  OFFICER,  CENTRAL  GOVERNMENT  ADDITIONAL INDUSTRIAL  TRIBUNAL,  DHANBAD.
A.  T.  REFERENCE  NO.  76  or  1967
Employers  in  relation  to  the  B-  Roy's  Ramkanali  Colliery
AND Their  Workmen.
The  humble  petition  on  behalf  of  the  employers  above-named  and  Sri  Biswa Nath  Blswakarma  the  workman  concerned.
Most  respectfully  sheweth:—
d)  That  I  Sri  Biswanath  Biswakarrna  the  workman  concerned  wa  not  the member  ot  th=  Colliery  Ma^door  San^.h  cm  "r  beloic  15th  July, 1&65.
(2)  That  I  Sri  Biswanath  Bi.swakarma  worked  in  B. Roy's  Ramkanali  Colliery for  a  few  days  in  the  month  of  January,  1965, and  thereafter  of  my  own  accord towards  the  end  of  January,  1965 I  left  the  service.
(3)  That  I  Sri  Biswanath  Biswakarma  by  an  application  to the Regional  Labour Commissioner  (C)  Dhanbad  duly  supported  by  an  affidavit  dated  18th  October, 1965,  has  stated  the  correct  slate  of  affairs.
(4)  That  neither  on  the  date  of  present  reference  i.e., on  20th  October,  1965, nor  on  subsequent  date  there  exist  any  dispute  between  the  parties  which  needs adjudication.
(5)  That  all  alleged  existing  or  apprehended  dispute  has been  amicably  settled between  myself  and  my  employers.
(6)  That  I  Sri  Biswanath  Biswakarma  do  not  want  to  prosecute  the  present Teference  nor  has  authorised  any  body  or  person  to  do the  same  on my behalf.
It  ia  therefore  humbly  prayed  that  the  above  compromise  may  kindly  be  re- corded  and  an  Award  passed  In  terms  thereof.
For  Employers, Sd./-  BISWANATH BISWAKAKMA,
Workman  concerned.
Sd./-  Illegible,
Manage!,
Ramkanali  Colliery.
Explained  the  above  and  signed  in  my  presence.
W l t n e S B :-
Sd./-  Illegible, Advocate  for  the  Workman
2-9-1067
[No.  2/102/05-LRIL]
S.O-  3659  Jn  pursuance  of  section  17  of  the  Industrial  Disputes  Act,  1947 (14 of  1947),  the  Central  Government  hereby  publishes  the  following  award  of  the Industrial  Tribunal,  Calcutta,  in  the  industrial  dispute  between  the  employers  in relation  to  the  Sarpi  Kajora  Colliery,  Post  Offlce  Ukhra.  District  Burdvm  and their  workmen  which  was  received  by  the  Central  Government  on  the  23rd September, 1967.
CENTRAL  GOVERNMENT  INDUSTRIAL  TRIBUNAL,  CALCUTTA
REFERENCE  NO.  1  OF  1967
PARTIES:
Employers  In  rr-latiin  to  the  Sarpi  Kajora  Colliery
AND
Their  Workmen
PRESENT:
Shri  S.  K-  Sen, Presiding  Officer.

SEC. 3(ii)]  THE  GAZETTE  OF  INDIA :  OCTOBER  14,  1967/ASVINA  22,  1889 3847
APPEARANCES :
On  behalf  of  Employers—Shri  K.  P.  Mukherjee,  Advocate. On'behalf  of  Workmen—Shri  K.  C-  Mittra,  Advocate.
STATE:  West  Bengal
INDUSTRY:  Coal  Mines.
AWARD
By  Older  No.  6/86/66-LRH,  dated  26th  December,  1966, the  Central  Government referred  for  adjudication  an  industrial  dispute  between  the  employers  in  relation to  the  Sarpi  Kajora  Colliery,  P.O.  Ukhra,  Dist-  Burdwan  and  their  workmen  in respect  of  the  matter  specified  in  ihe  folio~.ving  schedule:
"Whether  the  action  of  the  management  of  Sarpi  Kajora  Colliery  in  suspend- ing  Sarvashri  Dilram  Harijan  and  Jagdish  Harijan,  Loaders  with effect  from  the  7*h  August,  1966  and  their  subsequent  dismissal  with effect  from  the  21th  August,  1966  was  justified.  If  not,  to  what  relief are  these  workmen  entitled?"
2.  Bath  the  workmen  concerned,  Dilram  Harijan  and  Jagdish  Harijan  were underground  loaders  employed  at  Sarpi  Kajora  colliery.  The  charge  against  them was  that  01  5th  August.  1956  when  they  were  on  duty  in  the  first  shift  they  were found  sleeoing  at  about  11-30  A.M. by  the  side  of  the  track  instead  of  doing  their duty-  Both  the  workmen  were  chargesheeted  on  6th  August  1966,  as  the  workmen did  not  accspt  the  copies  of  the  chargesheets  when  delivered  by  hand,  copies  were sent  by  registered  post  on  7th  August  1966  along  with  a  letter  from  the  Manager suspending  them  with  eflfect  from  that  date  (7th  August  1966).  Acknowledgement of  servic?  of  the  letter  and  the  copy  of  the  chargesheet  was  received  in  each  case. Thereafter  enquiry  notices  were  issued  on  11th  August  1966  fixing  14th  August 1966  for  enquiry.  The  enquiry  was  held  by  the  Labour  Welfare  Officer,  I.P.  Singh, on  14th  August  1966-  Both  the  workmen  were  present  at  the  enquiry.  On  the basis  of  the  finding  made  by  the  enquiring  officer  at  the  enquiry,  both  the  workmen were  ultimately  dismissed  with  effect  from  24th  August  1966.  The  union  in  its written  statement  alleged  that  both  the  workmen  were  active  members  of  the branch  of  the  Colliery  Mazdoor  Union  which  was  not  recognised  by  the  manage- ment;  and  that  the  management  wanted  to  get  rid  of  them  and  so  served  false chargesheet  on  them  and  that  at  the  enquiry  the  workmen  were  not  allowed  the opportunity  to  cross  examine  the  company's  witnesses  and  to  produce  evidence  in their  defence.
3-  At  the  hearing  the  workmen  have  not  appeared  although  on  behalf  of  the union  Sn  K.  C.  Mitra,  Advocate  appeared  and  cross-examined  the  witness  ex- amined  for  the  management  and  represented  the  case  of  the  union.  There  is however  no  material  to  support  the  allegation  which  was  made  in  the  union's - written  statement  that  Dilram  Harijan  and  Jagdish  Harijan  were  active  members of  the  branch  of  the  Colliery  Mazdoor  Union  at  the  colliery.  As  regards  the  truth of  the  charge  of  sleeping  on  dutv,  this  was  proved  at  the  domestic  enquiry- On  a  perusal  of  the  records  of  the  domestic  enquiry  it  appears  that  there  was evidence  iustifying  the  finding  that  the  charge  had  been  proved.  It  is  also  not correct  that  the  chargesheeted  workmen  had  no  opportunity  to  defend  themselves, because  one  witness  Baijnath  Rabidas  was  examined  as  a  defence  witness.  As regards  opportunity  to  cross  examine  the  management's  witnesses,  the  enquiring officer  has  stated  before  the  tribunal  that  the  accused  were  asked  to  cross  examine the  witnesses  but  they  refused  to  do  so-
4.  The  manager  on  receiving  the  report  of  the  enquiring  officer  obtained  ap- proval  of  the  agent  to  the  dismissal  order.  Thus  the  order  of  dismissal  passed  in the  case  cannot  be  successfully  challenged  by  the  union.
5-  Mv  award  therefore  is  that  the  action  of  the  management  in  suspending Dilram  Harijan  and  Jagdish  Harijan  from  7th  August  1966  and  dismissing  them with  effect  from  24th  August,  1966  was  justified  and  the  workmen  are  not  entitled to  any  relief-
(Sd.)  S.  K.  SEN,
Dated, 20th  September,  1967-
Presiding  Officer. [No.  6/86/66-LRTI.] New  Delhi,  the  28th  September  1967
S.O.  3660-—In  pursuance  of  section  17  of  the  Industrial  Disputes  Act.  1947  (14 of  19*7V  the  Central  Government  hereby  publishes  the  following  award  of  the Industrial  Tribunal,  Calcutta,  in  the  industrial  dispute  between  the  employers  in relation  to  the  Sarpi  Kaiora  Colliery,  Post  Office  Ukhra,  District  Burdwan  and their  "'orkmen.  which  was  received  by  the  Central  Government  on  the  26th September,  1967.

3848 THE  GAZETTE  OK INDIA:  OCTOBER  14, 1%7/ASVlNA  22,  IP89  [I'AKT  I I-
CENTRAL  GOVERNMENT  INDUSTRIAL,  TRIBUNAL,  CALCUTTA
REFERENCE  NO.  18  or  1967
PAKTIES :
Employers  in  relation  to  the  Sarpi  Kajora  Colliery AM
Theii-  Workmen.
PRESENT :
Shri  S.  K.  Sen,  Presiding  Officer.
APPEARANCES:
On  behalf  o/  Employers—Shri  K.  P.  Mukherjee.  Advocate.
On  behalf  of  Workmen—Shri  K-  C  Mittra,  Advocate.
STATF. :  West  Bengal
INDUSTRY:  Coal  Mines.
AWARD
Bj  Order  No.  6/97/66-LRII,  dated  18th  February,  1967,  the  Central  Government referred  r-">r  adjudication  an  industiial  dispute  between  the  employers  In  relation to  the  Sarpi  Kajora  Colliery,  P-O.  Ukhra,  Dist-  Burdwan  and  their  workmen  in respect,  of  the  matter  specified  In  the  following  schedule:
"Whether  the  dismissal  of  Shri  Balchand  Harljan,  Loader  of  Sarpi  Kajora Colliery  with  effect  from  the  21st  August,  1966  was  an  act  of  victimisa- tion  for  trade  union  activities?  If  so.  to  what  relief  is  he  entitled?
2  Bale-hand  Harijan  was  an  underground  loader  employed  at  Sarpi  Kajora Colliery.  AccordlnR  to  the  management,  he  was  concerned  in  a  riot  which  took nlnce  nt  the  colliery  on  21st  June,  196(5;  in  the  course  of  the  riot  the  colliery p r e m ie  were  damaged  and  two  cbaprasis,  namely  Nada  Kr.  Singh  and  Rarndeo Singh  were  seriously  assaulted.  The  management  started  a  police  case  over  this incident  naming  17  persons  including  both  workmen  and  outsiders  as  ™ncerned in  the  riot,  and  the  police  took  up  the  case  under  Sec  148,  379  and  307  I P.C  and the  accused  arrested  were  produced  from  time  to  time  before  the  Sub-divisiona, MagiotraV  Asansol-  On  30th  July  1966  the  manager  drew  up  chargesheet  against BalchandHarijan  for  being  concerned  in  such  riot.  A  copy  of  the  chargesheet  was s"nt  bv  registered  post  and  acknowledgement  of  service  was  received.  The  notice of  enq'mr/  w=is  issued  on  11th  August  I960  and  acknowledgement  of  service  of  the nntiffe  of  enauirv  was  also  received  In  due  course.  Thereafter  on  19tn  Aut^ust VofiRthP  labour  Welfare  Officer  I  P.  Sin?h,  held  the  enquiry.  At  the  enquiry
'{  The  union  did  not  fil^  the  written  statement  in  time  on  the  issue  of  notire >  ' L H t am  and  a  warning  letter  was  issued  on  the  union  that  unless  it  filed
, h ? ™ S™  o 0™ ,d  SM noi .meat.  The  ™ui r i"  Mrr,  "™  e"™,-ed  as  a !5"™  tot V  manasement  anrt  wa. duly  cross  eiarrane

Sec, 3(ii)]  THE GAZETTE  OF INDIA : OCTOBER  14, 1967/ASVINA  22,  1889 3849
colliery  on  21st  June  1066.  The  ordersheet  shows  that  Balchand  Harijan  was produced  under  arrest  on  15th July  1966; on  behalf  of  Balchand  and  several  other accused  a  bail  petition  was  moved  on  22nd  July  1966 and  the  Magistrate  by  an order  dated  23th  July  1966 allowed  the  ball  petition.  The  order  dated  8th  August 196B  shows  that  all  the  17  accused  were  on  ball.  The  enquiry  was  held  on 19th August  1966-  It  is not therefore  correct  that  on the eve of  the enquiry  the manage- ment  caused  Balchand  Hariian  to  be  arrested  by  the  police  in  orrler  to  prevent his  appearance  at  the  enquiry.  The  acknowledgement  receipt  in  connection  with the  Kprvice  of  the  chargesheet  by  registered  post  and  the  service  of  notice  of enquiry  by  registered  post  both  bear  the  signature  of  Balchand  Hariian  in  Hindi- The  T-iaiJ  order  had  been  passed  on  28th  July  196B in  respect  of  Balchand  Harljan and  other  accused,  and  after  the  ch^rsesheet  hnd  been  drawn  up  by  the  mrmjge- ment  on  30th  July,  196fi  Bilchand  was on  bail-  There  was  nothing  therefore  to prevent  his  appearance  at  the  enuiry.  The  union,  therefore,  cannot  complain th
C,  My  award,  therefore,  is  that  the  dismissal  of  Balchanrt  Havijan,  Loader  of Sarpi  Kajorn  Col'ipry  with  effect  from  21st Autmst,  1906 ivm -not F.V. act of  virtimi- satior1  for  his trade  union  activities  ynd  therefore  the  woikmnn  i,s  not  entl'V-i  to any  -fliel.
(Sd.)  S.  K.  SEN.
Dat
Presiding  Officer.
[No.  fi/97/66-LHIL]
S.O  3fifil  — In  pursnane?  ot  section  IV of  the  Industrial  Disputes  Act. 1947 (14 of  1947),  the  Central  Government  hereby  publishes  the  following  award  of  the Additional  Industrial  Tribunal,  Dhanbad,  in  the  industrial  dispute  between  the employers  in  relation  to  the Ena  Colliery  of  Messrs  North  West  Coal  Company Limited.  Post  Office  Dh=msar,  District  Dbarl-nd  and  their  workmen,  which  was received  by  the  Central  Government  on  the  25th  September,  1967.
BEFORE  THE CENTRAL  GOVERNMENT  ADDITIONAL  INDUSTRIAL  TRIBUNAL AT  DHANBAD
Jn  the  matter  of  a  reference  under  section  10(l)(d)  of  the  Industrial  Disputes Act, 1947.
REFERENCE  NO.  37  or  1987
PARTIES :
Employers  in  re]alion  to  the Enn  Colliery  of  Messrs  North  West  Coal  Company Limited,  Post  Office  Dhansar.  Distt.  Dhanbad.
AND
Their  Workmen
PRESENT :
Shri  Nandagiri  Venkata  Rao, Presiding  Officer.
ArrEARAWtfs
For  the  Employers'-  Shri  R.  S.  Mukherjee,  Advocate
For  iV  Workmen :  Shri  Shanker  Eose,  Secretary,  Colliery  Mazdoor  Sangh.
STATK:  Bihar
INDUSTRY:  Coal
Dhanbad,  dated  the J  1th  September  1967
20th  Bhadra, 1089.
AWARD
 
The  Central  Government,  being  of  opinion  that  an  industrial  dispute  exists between  the  employers  in  relation  to  the  Ena  Colliery  of  Messrs  North  West  Coal Company  Limited,  Post  Office  Dha^ssr,  Distt.  Dhanbad  and  their  workmen,  by its order  No  2/44/65-LRII,  dated  6th May, 1965 referred  to  the  Central  Government Industrial  Tribunal,  Dbanbad  under  section  10(l)(d)  of. the  Industrial  Disputes Act,

3850 THE  GAZETTE  OF INDIA:  OCTOBER  14, 1967/ASVINA 22, 1889  [PAHT  I I-
1947 for  adjudication  the  dispute  in  respect  of  the  matters  specified  in  the  schedule annexed  thereto.  The  schedule  is  extracted  below:
"SCHEDULE
'Whether  the  dismissal,  with  effect  from  the  22nd  December,  1964,  01  Shri Ismile  Mian.  No.  5  Pit,  by  the  management  of  the  Ena  Colliery  of Messrs  North  West  Coal  Company  Limited,  was  justified?  If  not,  to what  relief  is  the  workman  entitled?'
2.  The  Cantrai  Government  industrial  Tribunal.  Eliajibad,  icgiotored  the  refer- ence  as  reXerencj  Wu.  73  cr'  1  63  ^o  its  file.  The  employers  filed  their  statement of  demands.  While  it  was  pending  before  the  Central  Government  Industrial Tribunal,  iJhcnbad  the  proceeding  was  tr?nferred  to  this  Tribunal,  by  the  Cen- tral  Government  by  its  order  No.  8/25/t>7-ERlI,  dated  Cch1  May,  1&6V  under Sec  33  (B)  (1)  of  tlis  Industrial  Disputes  Act,  1947.  Consequently,  the  refer- ence  is  renumborad  on  the  file  of  this  Tribunal  as  referenep  i\To.  &7 of  1G67.  On behalf  of  the  workmen  also  statement  of  demands  is  filed.
3  Ismile  Mian  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  the  affected  workmen)  was  a  m.'ner in  No  5  Pit  of  the  employers  colliery.  On  14th  July,  1964  the  affected  workman was  on  duty  in  2nd  shift  at  the  pit  along  with  other  miners.  At  about  6 P.M.  he and  othe-  miners  left  their  work  and  came  out  of  the  pit.  They  returned  to  the work  about  two  hours  later.  The  employers  served  a  chargssheet  to  the  affected workman  alleging  misconduct  on  his  part  ar.d  the  affected  workman  submitted his  reply.  A  departmental  enquiry  was  conducted  and  on  finding  the  affected workman' guilty  of  the  charge,  the  employers  dismissed  him  from  service  through thier  letter  dated  22nd  December,  1964.  The  case  of  the  workmen  is  that  the affected  workman  did  not  leave  underground  working  place  with  a  view  to deserting  work  but  he  did  so  to  make  a  complaint  about  the  large  quantity  of water  accumulated  at  the  working  faces  and  unbearable  heat  generated  in  the pit  It  is  further  stated  that  the  departmental  enquiry  conducted  by  the  employ- ers' was  neither  proper  nor  was  the  affected  workman  given  sufficient  opportunity to  defend  himself  and  that  the  dismissal  of  the  affected  workman  was  most  arbi- trary  and  unjust.  It  is  also  stated  that  the  affected  workman  was  working  at the  colliery  since  a  long  time  with  a  spotless  record  of  service,  that  although several  minors  had  temporarily  left  their  duties  along  with  the  affected  work- man  the  employers  picked  up  only  the  affected  workman  and  awarded  him  the maximum  punishment  and  that  the  employers  were  actuated  by  extraneous considerations  and  malafide  motive  in  doing  so.  The  stand  taken  by  the  employ- ers  is  that  in  the  departmental  enquiry  the  misconduct  mentioned  m  the  charge, namely,  that  the  affected  workman  had  abandoned  his  work  without  permission and  instigated  others  to  do  so.  was  satisfactorily  established,  that  during  the enauiry  the  affected  workman  was  given  full  opportunities  to  defend  himself and  cross  examine  the  prosecution  witnesses,  that  for  similar  misconduct  com- mitted  on  the  same  date  another  miner,  Fatehali  Mia  was  also  dismissed  after the  charge  against  him  was  established  in  the  departmental  enquiry  and  that  the dismissal  of  the  affected  workman  was  justified  and  was  based  on  provpa  mis- conduct.
 
i  The  workmen  were  represented  hv  Shri  Shankar  Bose,  Secretary,  Colliery Mazdoor  Sangh  and  the  employers  by  Shri  S.  S.  Mukberjee,  Advocate.  By  con- sent  of  the  workmen  Exts.  Ml  to  M4  were  marked  for  the  employers  and  by consent  of  the  employers  Exts.  Wl  and  W2  were  marked  for  the  workmen  The workmen  and  emDloyers  examined  a  witness  each.  It  is  not  m  dispute  that  on 14th  July  1964  during  the  second  shift  the  affected  workman  and  a  few  others left  their  work  underground,  came  out  of  the  pit  and  went  back  to  their  work after  abouT  two  hourf.  According  to  the  employers  the  affected  workman  left lis  work  without  permission  and  for  no  valid  reason  and  instigated  others  to do  so^and  thus  caused  stoppage  of  work  for  two  hours  while  thecontention  of the  workmen  is  that  the  affected  workman  came  out  of  the  pit  with  the  bonafade intention  of  complaining  to  the  authority  about  the  accumulation  of  water  and ^bearable  heaf  in  the  pit.  The  whole  case  hinges  upon  the  validity  and  suffi- ciencv  of  the  departmental  enquiry  conducted  by  the  employers  The  charge-

SBC. 3(..i)]  THE GAZET1E  OF INDIA :  OCTOBER  14, 1967/ASVINA  2Z,  1889 3851
.1 - • 01 v/oi'K  for  about  two hours.  Ext. M2 is  the  enquiry  proceeding, inclusive  of  the  statements  of  C.  L.  Mathur,  Overman,  No.  5  Pit,  Aloke  Dey, Munshi  Imamali,  Mining  Sirdar,  Ajij  Mia,  Miner  for  prosecution  and  of  the affected  workman  and  another  miner  Fatehali  Mia-  Each  of  the  statements  of the  prosecution  witnesses  shows  that  the  affected  workman  was  present  during the  enquiry,  he  was  given  an  opportunity  to  cross-examine  the  witness  and  he declined  to  do  so.  The  affected  workman  also  refused  to  produce  his  defence witnesses.  Ext.  M3  is  the  enquiry  report,  in  which  the  enquiry  officer  has  given a  finding  that  the  affected  workman  was  guilty  of  the  charge  and  stated  that  he was  guiity  of  misconduct  of  serious  nature  and  that,  as  such,  punishment  may be  awarded  to  him  accordingly.  The  chargesheet,  Ext.  Ml  shows  that  on  the recommendation  of  the  Manager,  the  Director  approved  dismissal  of  the  affected workman.  Ext.  M4 is  the  dismissal  order.  It  must  be  remembered  that  Exts. Ml to M4  are  admitted  by  the  workmen.  It  is  neither  alleged  nor  shown  how  the deuarliTiciitaJ  enquiry  was  against  principles  of  natural  justice  or  that  the  affect- ed  workman  was  not  given  an  opportunity  to  defend  himself.  It  is  not  even shown  how  the  finding  of  the  Enquiry  Officer  is  purverse.  It  is  settled  law that  the  Tribunal  cannot  go  into  ihe  departmental  enquiry  a?,  th-.>  appellate authority,  enter  into  appreciation  ol  evidence  and  substitute  it:;  COT. conclusion for  <;-.e  one  oC '.he  Enquiry  OiFecr.  Undir  pora  27(13".  of  the  r?rtified  standing orders  of  the  employers  colliery  leaving  work  without  permission  i?. a  misconduct an-';  ch:j em.-ioyee .euiltv  of  it  mav  r-p  cns-N-n
5.  In  the  result,  I  find  that  the  dismissal  with  effect  from  22nd  December, 1964  of  the  affected  workman.  Shri  Tsrnie  Mian,  Miner,  No.  5 Pit,  by  the  manage- ment  of  the  Ena  Colliery  of  M/s.  North  West  Coal  Co.  Ltd.,  was  justified  and, as  such,  the  affected  workman  is  not  entitled  to  any  relief.  The  award  is  made accordingly  and  submitted  under  Section  15  of  the  Industrial  Disputes  Act,  1947.
(Sd.)  N-  VENKATA  RAO,
Presiding  Officer, Central  Government  Additional Industrial  Tribunal,  Dhanbad.
APPENDIX  I
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT ADDITIONAL  INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL AT DHANB .D
REFERENCE  NO.  37  OF  1967
PARTTES:  Employers  in relation to  the Ena Colliery  of  Messf  Nfr>r;h West  Coal Company Limited,  Post  Office  Dhansar,  Dist.  Dhanbad.
AND
The'r Workmen.
IJ^t of rfocHmczfs ad;niifcJ in evidence for c  nphyen
Proved  by
Whether
Description  of  documents  and date Date  oi adtr;ssuvn admitted i>r  pr^/veu
Distinguish- ing mark  or number
..
ia-7-67
Original chargesheet with  reply Original  proceedings  cf  the  depart-
Ext.  M  1 Ext.  M  2
Do.
Admitted Do.
mental  enquiry.
Report of the Enquiry  Officer  dt.
Ext.  M  3
Do.
Do.
4-9-64
lixt.  M  4 Office  copy of the letter  of dismissal.
Do.
Do.

3852  T HE  GAZETTE  OF  INDIA  :  OCTOBER  14,  I967/ASVINA  22,  1889  [PART  I I-
List  of Documents admitted  in Evidence  For  workmen
Description  of  documents  and  date
Whether Proved  by
Date  of admission
Distinguish - ing mark  or number
admitted or proved.
Ext.  W  1 Copy  of letter  dt.  15-2-65  by  Shri 12-7-67 Admitted
S.  Das  Gupta,  Secretary,  Colliery Mazdoor  Sangh  to  the  Conciliation Officer  (C),  Dhanbad.
Ext.  W  2
Do.
Do.
Copy  of letter  dt. 5-4-65 by Shri A.S. Gupta,  Conciliation  Officer  (C), Dhanbad to the Chief Labour Commis- sioner.  New  Delhi.
csd.)
fSd.)  N.  VENKATA  RAO, Presiding  Officer,
Central  Government  Additional Industrial  Tribunal  Bt  Dhftnbad.
APPENDIX  II BEFORE  THE CENTRA*1,  GOVERNMF.NT  ADDITIONAL  INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL  AT DHANBAD
PARTIES :
REFERENCE No.  37 OF 19*7
Employers  in relation  to the Ena Colliery  of Messrs  North  West  Coal  Company Limited,  Post  Office  Dhansar,  Dist.  Dhanbad.
AND
Their  Workmen.
List  of Witness Examined for the  Employers
No.  of  witness
Name  of witnesB
Dare  of  examination
MW  1
24-7-19(17
B.  K.  Sinha.
List of Witness Examined for the Workmen
No.  of  witness
Date  of  exnmination Name  of  witness
WW  1
24-7-1967.
Ismile  Miun
S''/  N.  VANKATA RAO,
Prcsidinp  Officer,
Central  'Govt.  Aildilionnl  Industriul  Tribunal
Bt  Dlifinhad
[No.  2/44/65-LRII. I
New  Delhi,  the  5th  October 19G7
 
S-O-  3682.—In  pursuance  of  section  17  of  the  Industrial  Disputes  Act,  1947  (14 of  1947).  the  Central  Government  hereby  publishes  the  following  award  of  the Additional  Industrial  Tribunal,  Dhanbad,  in  the  industrial  dispute  between  the employers  In  relation  to  the  Mondal's  Bllbera  Colliery,  Post  Office  Katrasgarh, District  Dhanbad  and  their  workmen,  which  was  received  by  the  Central  Govern- mpiit  on  the  27th  September,  1907-

SEC. 3(ii)l  THE  GAZETTE  OF  INDIA:  OCTOBER  14,  19G7/ASVINA  22,  1889 3"53
BEFORE  THE  CENTRAL  GOVERNMENT  ADDITIONAL  INDUSTRIAL  TRIBUNAL AT  DHANBAD
In  the  matter  of  a  reference  under  section  10(l)(d)  of  the  Industrial  Disputes Act,  1947.
REFERENCE  NO.  67  OF  1967
PAKTIKN •
Employers  in  relation  to  the  Mondal's  Bilbera  Colliery,  P-O.  Katrasgarh,  Dist.
Dhanbad.
AND
Their  Workmen
PRESENT:
Shri  Nandagiri  Venkata  Rao.  Presiding  Officer.
APPEARANCES .
For  the  Employers:  Shri  K.  N.  Mondal,  Clerk. For  the  Workmen:  Shri  Lalit  Burman,  Secretary,  Bihar  Koyla  Mazdoor  Sabha.
STATE:  Bihar
INDUSTRY;  CoaL
Dhanbad,  dated  the  20th  September,  1967. 29th  Bhadra,  1889-
AWARD
The  Central  Government,  being  of  opinion  that  an  industrial  dispute  exists between  the  employers  in  relation  to  the  Mondal's  Bilbera  Colliery,  P.O.  Katrasgarh, Dist-  Dhanbad  and  their  workmen  by  its  order  No.  2/81/85-LRII  dated  2nd September  19fiS  referred  to  the  Central  Government  Industrial  Tribunal,  Dhanbad under  section  10(l)(d)  of  the  Industrial  Disputes  Act,  1947  for  adjudication  the dispute  in  respect  of  the  matters  specified  in  the  schedule  annexed  thereto.  The schedule  is  extracted  below:
"SCHEDULE
Whether  the  management  of  Mondal's  BUbera  Colliery  refused  employment to  Shri  Burhan  Singh  Onsetter,  with  effect  from  the  10th  March,  198f> without  any  justification?  Ii  so.  to  what  relief  is  the  workman  en- titled?"
2,  The  Central  Government  Industrial  Tribunal,  Dhanbad  registered  the  refer- ence  as  reference  No-  13ft  of  1965 on  its  file.  The  workmen  filed  their  statement  of demands,  While  it  was  pending  before  the  Central  Gnvernment  Industrial  Tri- bunal.  Dhanbad  the  proceeding  waa  transferred  to  this  Tribunal,  by  the  Central Government  by  its  order  No.  8/25/67-LRII,  dated  8th  May.  ln67  under  section 33'BVl)  of  the  Industrial  Disnutps  Act,  1947-  Consequently  the  reference  is  re- numbered  on  the  file  of  this  Tribunal  as  reference  No-  57  of  1967.  The  employers also  filed  their  statement  of  demands.
3.  The  management  closed  the  working  of  the  colliery  of  the  employers  with effect  from  23rd  November  1364  laying  of  the  workmen  and  it  resumed  work  with effect  from  1 flth  March  19fiF>.  These  facts  are  not  in  dispute.  Thn  case  of  the workman  i=  that  Burhnn  Si^cb  (h'^einTfl^r  r1so  venrvted  1o  dutv  alone  with  others,  on  inth  March  1915,  but  the  manscem-nt of  the  o"iclovers  did  net  allow  him  to  work  without  assigning  any  reason-  The stand  taken  bv  the  employers  is  tVnt  from  23rd  November  1964  till  28th  April  1<)85 the  nM'er'tpii  workman  remained  absent  from  the  colHerv.  -ind  on  thit  account,  a chareeshr-r-T  dn+ed  0+h  Mav  1"P5  WPS issr'-d  to  him,  that  he  refused  to  accept  the chargeshcet  when  personally  cle'ivered  to  him  and,  as  such,  it  was  despatched  by registered  A/D  and  was  returned  undelivered,  that  ag?dn  the  ehargesheet  was  sent to  his  home  address  with  a  covering  letter  dated  27th  May  19R5.  that  he  received t he  clTai'tip'-'heet  b ut  d i^  nr.t  submit.  :mv  e x p l a n a t i on  1 Vin 1  -i^a''i  >i  ' " " er  — n  .<-p]it to  him  on  29th  May  1PR5 informing  him  1he  dale  of  "nauirv  as  7th  July  1PR5. that he  att<=nd"d  the  departmental  ennuirv,  th;it  on  4+h  Januiry  lnflfi  n  letter  was received  from  him  that  he  had  ioined  the  Bokaro  Steel  Project;  that  he  has  with- drawn  his  rjrovldent  fund  and  that  under  the  nbove  circumstances  he  is  not  entitled to  any  relief.
 
4-  Whon  the  case  was  taken  up  for  enauiry  af+w  notice  to  parties  on  17th August  19R7,  the  workmen  were  represented  by  Pv>ri  T.alit  Burman,  Secretary. Bihar  Knvli  Mazdoor  SabM  Ti  spite  of  waiiiriK  till  'T-fO  P M  no  nne  annonred  on behalf  of  the  employers,  although  they  were  served  with  notice  of  the  hearing  on

3854  THE  GAZETTE  OF INDIA : OCTOBER  14, 1%7/ASVINA  22, 1889  [PART I I-
21st  July,  1967.  Thus,  the  case  was  proceeded  with  in accordance  with  Ru"e  22  of the  Industrial  Disputes  (Central)  Hules,  1957 as though  the  employers  were  present or  duly  represented.  On behalf  of the workmen  a  witness  was  examined  and Exts.  Wl to W12  were  marked.  Arguments  were  heard  and award  was  reserved. At  that  stage  Shri  K- N. Mondal,  a clerk  of the employers  colliery  appeared.  He did  not seek  to cross  examine  the witness  and made  a  statement  that  he had no witness  to examine  and  no arguments  to address.
on  7 th  J u l y,  1 9 65  at  9 . 00  A . M.  T he  w o r k m en  s t a t ed  t h at  t h e re  w as  no  ' • n e v xv  a nd
S ^ a ^ r a e ^ d V - . -^  Icco^gVand  submitted under Sec. 15 of the Industrial  Disputes  Act,  1947

tec.  *(ii)j  THE  GA'/.fiTTE  Of  INDIA :  OCTOBER  11, 1967/ASVINA  2,2, 1889  3855
APPENDIX  T
BEFORE  THE  CENTRAL  GOVERNMENT  ADDITIONAL  INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL  AT  DHANBAD
REFERENCE  N O.  67  OF  1967
P/IFTIES  :
Employers in rclationto the Mondal'3 Bilbera Colliery, P.O. Katrasgarh, Dist. Dhanbad.
AND
Their  Workmen.
List  of  Documents admitted  in  evidence for Employers
Description  of document & date
Proved  by
Dt.  of  ad- mission
Whether proved  or admitted
Distinguish- ing mark  or number
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
List  of Documents admitted in evidence for workmen
Description  of document  & date
Provcd by
Whether admitted  or
Dt.  of  ad- mission
E istinguish- ing mark  or number
proved
Ext.  Wi
Wi
17-8-67 Proved
Letter dt. 24-3-65 from  General Secre- tary,  B.K.M.S.  to  Conciliation  Offi- cer (C), Dhanbad,  I.
-do- Ext.  Wa
-do-
-do-
Letter dt. 4-5-65 from Burhan Sinj?h to Manager, Mondal's Bilbcra Colliery.
-do- E:itt.  W3
-do-
A/D.  card  addressed  to  Manager,
-do-
Letter  dt.  27-5-55  from  Manager  to
Ext. W4
-do-
-do-
-do-
BurhMi  Singh.
-Jo-
Original  letter  dt,  27-5-65 from  Mana-
-do- Ext. W5
-do-
ger to Burhan  Singh.
-do- Eict. W6
-do-
Letter  dt,  3-6-65  from  Burhan  Singh -do-
to  Manager.
Est.  W7
-do-
-do- -do-  (original)
-do-
-do-
-do-
Hrt.  W8
Postal envelope with A/D.  card.
-do-
Eitt. W9
-do-
-do- Letter  dt.  29-6-65  from  Agent  to -do-
Burhan  Singh.
Ett.  Wio
-do-  (original)
-do-
-do-
-do-
I!.Kt.  Wn Letter  dt.  30-7-65  from  Agent  to
-do-
-do-
-do-
Burhan  Singh.
firt.  W12
-do-  (original)
-do-
-do-
-do-
Sd/-  N.  VENKATA  RAO,
 
Preaiding  Officer' Central  Govt. Additional  Industrial  Tribunal at  Dhrnbad

3856  THE  GAZETTE  OF  INDIA :  OCTOBER  14.  1967/ASVINA  22,  1839  [PART  I I-
APPENDIX  II
BEFORE THE CENTRAL  GOVERNMENT  ADDITIONAL  INDUSTRIAL  TRIBUNAL
AT  DHANBAD. REFERENCE  N O.  67  OF  1967
PARTIES  :
Employers in  relation to the Mondal's Bilbcra Colliery^ P.O. Katrasgarh, Dist. Dhanbad.
AND Their  Workmen.
List  of witnesses examined on behalf of the employers
No.  of witness
Name  of the  witness
Date  of  examination
Nil
N.I
Nil
List  of witnesses examined on behalf of the workmen
No.  of witness
Name  of the  witness
Date  of  examination
W Wi
Shri Lalit  Burman
T7-8-1967
S d /-  N.  VENKATA RAO,
Presiding  Officer,
Central  Government  Additional  Industrial  Tribunal
at  Dhanbad.
[No.  2/81/6S-LRH.] S.O.  3663.—In  pursuance  of  section  17  of  Ihe  Industrial  Disputes  Act,  1947  (14 of  1947),  the  Central  Government  hereby  publishes  the  following  award  of  the Additional  Industrial  Tribunal,  Dhanbad,  in  the  Industrial  dispute  between  the employers  in  relation  to  the  Ena  Colliery  of  Messrs  North  West  Coal  Company Limited,  Post  Office  Dhansar,  District  Dhanbad  and  their  workmen  which  was received  by  the  Central  Government  on  the  27th  September,  1967.
BEFORE  THE  CENTRAL  GOVERNMENT  ADDITIONAL  INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL  AT  DHANBAD
In  the  matter  of  a  reference  under  section  10(1)  (d)  of  the  Industrial  Disputes Act,  1947.
REFERENCE  NO.  59  OF  1967
PARTIES:
I
Employers  in  relation  to  the  Ena  Colliery  of  Messrs  North  West  Coal  Com- pany  Limited,  P.O.  Dhansar,  Dist.  Dhanbad.
AND
Their  Workmen.
PRESENT:
Shri  Nandagiri  Venkata.  Rao,  Presiding  Officer.
APPEARANCES:
STATE:  Bihar.
For  the  Employ ers—Shri  S.  S.  Mukhcrjee,  Advocate. For  the  Workmen-—Shri  Shanker  Bose,  Secretary,  Colliery  Mazdoor  Sangh. INDUSTRY:  Coal.
Dhanbad,  dated  the  lath  September  1967 '27th  Bhadra,  1889
AWARD
 
The  Central  Government,  being  of  opinion  that  an  industrial  dispute  exists  bet- ween  the  employers  in  relation  to  the  Ena  Colliery  of  Messrs  North  West  Coal Company  Limited  (P.O.  Dhanaar,  District  Dhanbad)  and  their  workmen,  by  its order  No.  2/23/65/LRII  dated  Oth  August,  1PG5 referred  to  the  Central  Government

SEC. 3(ii)]  THE  GAZETTE  OF INDIA:  OCTOBER  14, 1%7/ASVINA  22, 1889  3857
Industrial  Tribunal,  Dhanbad  under  section  10(1)  (d)  of  the  Industrial  Disputes Act,  1947 for  adjudication  the  dispute  in  respect  of  the  matters  specified  in  the  sche- dule  annexed  thereto.  The  schedule  is  extracted  below:
"SCHEDULE
'(1)  Whether  the  action  of  the  management  of  the  Ena  Colliery  of  M/s. North  West  Coal  Company  Limited  in  terminating  the  service  of  Shri Ali  Hussaln,  Pump  Khalasi,  with  effect  from  the  17th  October,  1964 was  legal  and  justified?
(2)  If  not,  to  what  relief  is  the  workman  entitled  ?'
2.  The  Central  Government  Industrial  Tribunal,  Dhanbad  registered  the  refer- ence  as  reference  No.  125  of  1965  on  its  file.  The  employers  filed  their  statement of  demands.  While  it  was  pending  before  the  Central  Government  Industrial  Tri- bunal,  Dhanbad  the  proceeding  was  transferred  to  this  Tribunal,  by  the  Central Government  by  its  order  No.  8/25/67-LRII  dated  8th  May  1967  under  section 33(BJ(1)  of  the  Industrial  Disputes  Act,  1947.  Consequently,  the  reference  is renumbered  on  the  file  of  this  Tribunal  as  reference  No.  59  of  1967.  Statement  of demands  on  behalf  of  the  workmen  also  is  received.
3.  The  service  of  the  affected  workman,  Ali  Hussain  (hereinafter  referred to  as  the  affected  workman)  was  terminated  with  effect  from  17th  October,  1964- The  case  of  the  workman  is  that  the  affected  workman  has  been  working  as  a Pump  Khalasi  continuously  since  1960  in  the  permanent  cadre  of  the  colliery of  the  employers,  that  during  the  quarter  ending  December,  1961  he  had  put in  continuous  service  of  more  than  six  months  and,  as  such,  became  a  permanent employee  in  terms  of  the  service  conditions  applicable  to  the  workmen  of  the colliery  and  that  his  discharge  without  notice  or  without  being  shown  any reason  whatsoever  was  in  contravention  of  the  provisions  of  the  standing  orders and  was,  therefore,  illegal  and  unfair  labour  practice.  The  employers  denied that  the  affected  workman  was  a  permanent  Pump  Khalasiin  the  colliery.  It is  stated  that  he  was  a  Badli  worker,  that  since  his  appointment  on  21st February,  1981  he  worked  in  different  capacities,  such  as,  a  bailing  mazdoor, line  mazdoor,  pump  khalasi  etc.,  as  and  when  necessity  arose,  that  his  service was  not  continuous  even  in  the  above  different  jobs,  that  he  worked  inter- mitantly  in  different  capacities  from  21st  February,  1961  to  19th  May,  1H62  and thereafter  absented  for  more  than  a  year,  that  he  rejoined  on  3rd  July,  1963 and  worked  upto  28th  July,  1963  and  again  left  his  appointment,  that  during this  period  also  he  worked  in  different  capacities  with  occasional  breaks,  that he  joined  the  colliery  again  on  10th  May,  1964  and  worked  tin  16th  October,  1964 with  breaks  in  different  jobs,  that  the  management  did  not  find  it  necessary to  continue  his  service  and,  as  such,  no*  badli  work  was  allotted  to  him  from 17th  October,  1964  and  that  the  action  of  the  management  was  legal  and  justified.
 
4.  The  workmen  were  represented  by  Shri  Shanker  Bose,  Secretary,  Collierj Mazdoor  Sangh, and  the  employers  by  Shri  S-  S  Mukherjee,  Advocate.  Thn workmen  examined  a  witness  and  by  consent  of  the  employers  Exts.  Wl  and W2  were  marked  for  them-  On  behalf  of  the  employers  also  a  witness  1B examined  and  by  consent  of  the  workmen  Exts-  Ml (a),  Ml(b),  Ml(c),  Ml(d), M2(a),  M2(b),  and  M3  are  marked.  The  case  of  the  workmen  was  that  the affected  workman  has  been  working  as  a  pump  khalasi  in  the  permanent  cadre from  I960.  But  the  affected  workman,  who  examined  himself  as  WWl,  does not  even  say  that  he  worked  in  a  permanent  cadre.  He  simply  deposed  that after  joining  snrvir^  in  1961  he  worked  for  a  year  as  a  bailing  mazdoor  and then  as  a  pump  khalasi.  So,  his  case  that  he  worked  from  1960  as  a  Pump Khalasi  is  negatived  by  his  own  evidence.  Admittedly,  he  has  no  appointment letter  addressPd  by  the  General  Secretary,  Colliery  Mazdoor  Sangh  to  the fund  receipt  for  the  year  ending  1963  and  Ext.  W2  is  the  office  copy  of  the letter  addressed  by  the  General  Secretary,  Colliery  Mazdoor  Sangh  to  the Conciliation  Officer  (Ci.  Dhanbad,  raising  the  industrial  dispute  on  his  behalf by  themselves  through  the  letter  do  not  prove  anything.  It  is  not  shown  how the  provident  fund  receipt  for  the  year  ending  1963,  Ext.  Wl  can  give  rise  to the  inference  that  thp  affected  workman  was  in  the  permanent  cadre-  My attention  is  drawn  to  para  25  of  the  Coal  Mines  Provident  Fund  Scheme  which deals  with  the  class  of  employees  required  to  join  the  fund-  It  simply  says that  every  employee  in  a  coal  mine  to  which  the  Scheme  applies,  other  than  an excluded  employee,  shall  be  required  to  ioin  the  fund  and  become  member immediately  after  the  end  of  the  auarter  following  any  quarter  after  the  30th September,  1948,  in  which  he  qualified  for  n  bonus  under  sub-naragranh  (b)  of paragraph  4  or  sub paragraph  (c)  of  paragraph  5  of  the  Coal  Mines  Bonus Scheme,  Paragraph1?  4  and  5  of  the  Coal  Min^s  Bonus  Scheme  also  do  not

3858  THE GAZETTE  OF INDIA : OCTOBER  14, 1967/ASVINA  22, 1689  [PART I I-
speak  that  only  employees  of  the  permanet  cadre  are  qualified  to  join  the  Fund or  become  a  member  thereof-  In  paragraph  3  of  their  statement  of  demands the  workmen  have  stated  that  the  affected  workman  has  put  In  continuous service  of  more  than  six  months  during  the  Quarter  Ending  December,  1961 and,  as  such,  became  a  permanent  employee  in  terms  of  the  service  conditions applicable  to  the  workmen  of  the  Ena  Colliery.  No  standing  order  or  any other  service  condition  is brought  to mv notice  to show that  by having  put in a con- tinuous  service  of  more  than  six months  a  badli  worker  can become  a  permanent employee.  The  certified  standing  orders  of  thfe  Colliery  are  Ext.  M3.  As  per standing  order  under  l(g"),  a  "permanent"  employee  is  one  who  Is  appointed for  an  unlimited  period  or  who  has  satisfactorily  put  in  6  months'  continued service  in  a  permanent  rjost  as  a  "probationer".  Under  clause  (h)  of  the standing  order  a  "probationer"  is  one  who  is  provisionally  employed  to  All  a permanent  vacancy.  But,  as  I  have  already  pointed  out,  r.o  appointment  order of  the  affected  workman  is  produced  or  shown  in  any  other  manner  that  the affected  workman  was  appointed  as  a  "probationer".  Ext  M2  are  Badli Registers,  Ext. M2(a) register  shows  that  the  affected  workman  worked  in  place of  one  Mental  from  21st February,  1961 to  11th April,  1961, in  place  of  Sambhu from  22nd  May,  1961 to  30th  May,  1961, in  place  of  Sambhu  Banerjee  from 10th  July,  1961 to  17th July,  1961, in  place  ot  Basu  Banerjee  from  22nd  January, 1962 to  26* h  March,  1962 and in  place  of  Janki  Ram  from  2nd  July,  1963  fo 20th  September,  1903.  The  register,  Ext,  M2(b)  shows  that  he  worked  in  place of  Janki  from  22nd  May,  1P64 to  27th  May,  1964, in  place  of  Naimuddin  from 4th  June,  1964 to  15th June,  1964, In  place  of  Hussaln  Mia from  17th August, 1964 to  24th  August,  1984, in  place  of  Boudi  from  17th  August.  1964 to  20th  August, 1964,  in  place  of  Hari  Das  from  20th  August,  1964 to  28th  August,  1964 and In place  of  Tarkeshwar  from  3rd  September,  1964  to  17th  October,  1964.  Almost all  these  entries  bear  thumb  impressions,  presumably,  of  the  affected  workman. Further,  theso  Exts.  are  marked  bv  consent  of  the  workmen  and,  as  such,  are admitted  by  them.  From  these  cntnes  the  only  inference  possible  is  that  21st February,  1981 to  17th  October,  1964 the  affected  workmen  worked  in  place  of other  workmen  and,  as  such,  only  in  tho  capacity  of  a  badli  workman  and not as  a  "probationer"  or  a  "permanent"  employee.  The service  of  a  badli  workman can  be  terminated  at  any  time  when  the  employers  do  not  require  him  any more.  The  term  "badli"  or  "substitute"  is  defined  in  clause  (i)  of  standing order  No.  1  of  the  certified  standing  orders  of  the  employers  colliery  as  one who  is  appointed  in  the  post  of  a  permanent  employee  or  probationer  who  is temporarily  absent.  Tn  Sakhilt  Starch  and  Chemicals  Vs.  State  of  Punjab [1992  (II)  L.L..T.P.  2691 it  Is  held  that  "badli"  wormen  have  not  right  to  claim that  they  should  be made  permanent.  The same  view  is  expressed  In  Girdharilal Lalji  Ehai  Vs,  Nagrashna  [1994  CII)  L.L.J.  2351.  Thus,  it  cannot  be  skid  that termination  of  service  of  the  affected  workman  was  not  legal  or  justified.
5-  T,  therefore,  hold  that  the  action  of  the  management  of  the  Ena  Colliery of  M/s.  North  West  Coal  Co  Ltd-,  in  te-rmlnatini?  the  service  of  the  affected workman,  Shri  All  Hussain,  Pumo  Khalasi.  with  effect  from  17th  October,  1964 was  le
(Sd-)  N.  VENKATA  RAO, Presiding  Officer. Central  Govt.  Additional  Industrial Tribunal  at  Dhanbad,
APPENDIX  I
B  EFOR E  1 HE  CENTRAL  GOVERNMENT  ADDITIONAL  INDUSTRIAL  TRIBUN
AT  DHANBAD
REFBRENCE  NO.  59  OF  1967
PARTIES  :  Employe  in relation  to the Ena Colliery of Messri  North  West  Coal  Company  Limited, P.O.  Dhansar,  Dist.  Dhanbad.
AND
Their  Workmen.
List  of Documents admitted in evidence for the employers
Description of document & date
-Proved by
Date of ad- mission  '
Whether proved or admitted
Bonus  ReEiBters for the years  1961,1962,
Admitted
^ 14-8-67
1963 and  1964.
Badli Registers from 3-1-61 to 31-12-63
-do-
-do-
•- Distinguish- ing  mark or number Ext, Mi(a) to Bxt. M iW Ext. Mafe1) to Ext. M2(b) Ext. M3
and from  1-1-64 to 28-12-64. Copy of the certified standing order.
-do-
-dc-
 
• -

SEC. 3(ii)]  THE  GAZETTE  OF  INDIA  :  OCTOBER  14,  1967/ASVINA  22,  1889  3859
List of documents admittedin  evidence for  the workmen
Description  of  document  & date
Proved  by
Date of admission
Distinguish- ing work or  No.
Whether admitted or  proved
Provident  fund  receipt  for  the  year
Admitted.
14-8-64
Ext.  Wi
ending  12/63.
Letter  dt.g-n-iStyaddressed  to  the  Con- -d
-do-
Ext. W2  :
ciliation Omcer(C), Dhanbad.
Sd/-  N. VENKATA  RAO>
Presiding  Officer, Central  Govt.  Additional  Industrial  Tribunal  at  Dhanbad.
APPENDIX  II
BEFORE  fHE  CENTRAL  GOVERNMENT  ADDITIONAL  INDUSTRIAL  TRIBUNAL AT  DHANDAD
REFERENCE  N O.  59  OF  1967
PARTIES  :
E tnploy era in relation to the Ena Colliery of Messrs North West Coal Company  Limited, P.O.  Dhansar,  Dist.  Dhanbad.
AND
Their  Workmen
Lin  of  witnesses examined for  the employers
Name of the  witness
No.  of  witness
Date  of  examination
MW 1
Sakaldip  Singh
14-8-67
List  of witnesses examined for  the workmen
No.  cf witness
Name  of the  witness
Date of  examination
WW 1
All Hussain
14-8-67
Sd/-  N.  VENKATA  RAO, Presiding  Officer, Central Govt. Additional Industrial Tribunal,  at  Dhanbad
[No.  2/23/65-LRIL]
BALWANT  SINGH,  Under  Secy.

3"6o THE  GAZETTE  OF  INDIA:  OCTOBER  14,  I967/ASVINA  22,  1889  [FAIT  I I-
(Department  of  Labour  and  Employment)
New  Delhi,  the  29th  September  1967
8.O.  3684.—Whereas  the  resignation  of  Shrl  M  G.  Shlrhatti,  Provident  Fund Inspector  for  the  whole  of  the  State  of  Maharashtra  was  accepted  with  effect from  31st  July,  1967;
Now,  therefore,  in  exercise  of  the  powers  conferred  by  sub-section  (1)  of section  13  of  the  Employees'  Provident  Funds  Act,  1952  (19  of  1952),  the  Central Government  hereby  makes  the  following  amendment  in  the  Notification  of  the Government  of  India  in  the  late  Ministry  of  Labour  and  Employment  No-  S-O.  1704, dated  the  29th  May,  1962,  namely :—
In  the  said  Notification,  for  the  words  Sarvashri  V- K.  Gupte  and  M-  G-  Shirhatti to  be  Inspectors''  the  words  "Shri  V  K.  Gupte  to  be  an  Inspector"  shall  be substituted.
2.  This  Notification  shall  be  deemed  to  have  come  into  force  on  the  31st  July, 1967.
[No.  20(65)/64-PF-L]
S-O.  3665.—Whereas  it  appears  to  the  Central  Government  that  the  employer and  the  majority  of  the  employees  in  relation  to  the  establishment  known  as Messrs.  K.  J.  Somaiya  Polytechnic  Vidyanagar  Vidya  Vihar,  Bombay-77  have agreed  that  the  provisions  of  the  Employees'  Provident  Funds  Act,  1952  (19  of 1952),  should  be  made  applicable  to  the  said  establishment;
Now,  therefore,  In  exercise  of  the  powers  conferred  by  sub-section  (4)  of  section 1  of  the  said  Act,  the  Central  Government  hereby  applies  the  provisions  of  the said  Act  to  the  said  establishment;
This  Notification  shall  be  deemed  to  have  come  into  force  on  the  1st  dav  of November,  1966-
[No.  8(29)/67-PF-IL]
S.O.  3666.—Whereaa  It  appears  to  the  Central  Government  that  the  employer and  the  majority  of  the  employees  in  relation  to  the  establishment  known  as Messrs.  Thambi  Transport  (Private)  Limited,  No-  4-B, Salai  Street,  Salem-1,  Madras Mate,  have  agreed  that  the  provisions  of  the  Employees'  Provident  Funds  Act  1952 (19  of  1952),  should  be  made  applicable  to  the  said  establishment;
Now,  therefore,  In  exercise  of  the  powers  conferred  by  sub-section  (4)  o£ section  i  of  the  said  Act,  the  Central  Government  hereby  applies  the  provisions of  the  said  Act  to  the  said  establishment. Octobe3  u>fl7flCation  S h aU  be  d e e m ed  to  h a ve  c o me  into  force  on  the  1st  day  of
[No.  8/(121)/67[PF-H.]
essrs"  B e l l's  Asbestos  and  Engineering  (India)  Private A

SEC. 3(ii)]  THE  GAZETTE  OF  INDIA  :  OCTOBER  14,  1967/ASV1NA  22,  1889 3861
the  time  being  payable  to  the  employees  of  the  said  establishment  who would  have  become  members  under  the  said  Scheme  but  for  this  exemp- tion;
(b)  the  said  employer  shall  invest  the  provident  fund  contributions  in  Central Government  securities  within  thirty  days  of  the  close  of  the  month to  whirh  the  contributions  relate.
THE  SCHEDULE
1.  The  employer  shall  submit  such  returns  to  the  Regional  Provident  Fund Commissioner  as  the  Central  Government  may,  from  time  to  time,  prescribe.
2.  The  employer  shall  furnish  to  each  employee  an  annual  statement  of  account or  Pass  Book-
Si  All  expenses  involved  in  the  administration  of  the  fund  including  the  main- tenance  of  accounts,  submission  of  accounts  and  returns,  transfer  of  accumula- tions,  payment  of  inspection  charges  etc,  shall  be  borne  by  the  employer.

3862  THE  GAZETTE  OF  INDIA :  OCTOBER  14,  1967/ASVlNA  22,  1889  [PART  l l-
(Department  of  Rehabilitation)
(Office  of  the  Chief  Settlement  Commissioner)
New  Delhi,  the  27th  September  1967
S.O-  3669—In  exercise  of  the  powers  conferred  by  Sub-section  (1)  &f  Section  3 of  the  Displaced  Persons  (Compensation  and  Rehabilitation)  Act,  1954,  (No.  44  of 1954),  the  Central  Government  hereby  appoints  Shri  D.  S  Faujdar,  Accounts Officer  (Junior)  in  the  OfH.ce  of  the  Regional  Settlement  Commissioner,  U.F., Lucknow  as  Assistant  Settlement  Officer  for  the  purpose  of  performing  the  functions assigned  to  such  officers  by  or  under  the  said  Act  with  effect  from  the  date  he took  over  charge  of  his  post
[No.  4(3JAGZ/67.]
A-  G.  VASWANI,
Settlement  Commissioner  (A)  and  Ex-Offlcio  Under  Secy-
(Office  of  the  Regional  Settlement  Commissioner)
New  Delhi,  the  28th.  September  1967
S.O,  3670.—In  exercise  of  the  powers  vested  in  me  under  sub-section  (2)  of Section  24  of  the  Administration  of  Evacuee  Property  Act,  1950  (Act  XXXI  of 1950)  I,  R.  B.  Mathur,  Regional  Settlement  Commlssioner-cum-Custorian  of  Evacuee Property,  New  Delhi,  hereby  delegate  to  Shri  Radha  Krishna,  Deputy  Custodian in  my  Office  the  powers  of  Custodian  for  the  purpose  of  discharging  the  duties Imposed  on  the  Custodian  by  or  under  the  said  Act  with  effect  from  the  afternoon of  the  27th  July,  1967
[No.  F.  28(51)/Admn./RSCD/57  ]
R.  B.  MATHUR,
Regional  Settlement  Commissioner-cum-Custodian.
MINISTRY  OF  RAILWAYS
(Railway  Board)
New  Delhi,  the  4th  October  1967
S.O.  3671.—In  exercise  of  the  powers  conferred  by  clauses  (f)  and  (g)  of sub-section  (1)  of  section  47  of  the  Indian  Railways  Act,  1890  (9  of  1890),  the Central  Government  hereby  makes  with  effort  from  15th  November  1967  the following  amendment  to  the  rules  published  with  the  notification  of  the  Govern- ment  of India  in  the  Ministry  of  Railways  (Railway  Board)  No.  TC. 111/3036/58/ Notification  dated  the  28th  August,  1958,  as  subsequently  amended,  namely:
In  the  'I.  RULES  FOR  WAREHOUSING  AND  RETAINING  OF  GOODS'  in rule  1 'Wharfage  on  goods,  luggage  and  parcels',  in  column  2  of  the  Table,  under the  heading  'Luggage  and  Parcels  Traffic,  for  the  figure  and  words  '48  hours from  midnight  of  date  of  arrival  of  luggage  or  parcel,'  the  following  figure  and words  shall  be  substituted,  namely; —
"48  hours  from  the  midnight  of  the  day  on  which  the  luggage  or  parcel is  made  available  for  delivery."
LNo.  TC/EP/204/84.]
C.  S.  PARAMESWARAN,  Secy.

(Department  of  Industrial  Development)
(Indian  Standards Institution)
New  Delhi,  the  igth  September  1967
S.O.  307a  S.D.  In pursuance  of sub-regulation  (1) of Regulation  8 of the Indian  Standards  Institution  (Certification  Marks'  Regulations, 19^5,  as  subsequently  amended, the Indian  Standards  Institution  hereby  notifies  that  sixtyfive  licences,  particulars  of which  are given  in  the  Schedule hereto annexed,  have  been  renewed.
5
THE  SCHEDUI E
>• is p*
Name ond Address  of the
Article /Process
.  Period of From
Licensee
Covered by the Licence
Validity To
Relevant Indian  Standard Licence No and  date
SI. No.
pi O
(5)
(4)
(7)
(3)
( 2)
(6)
"
Lallubhai  Amichand  Pvt Ltd., 48/50 Wrought  aluminium  and alu-
1-9-67 31-P-68
2 > 1
Kansara  Chawl, Bombay-2.
minium alloy utensils
CM/L-I3 3.9-I956
IS:2l-i959  Specification  for  wrought aluminium  and  aluminium  alloys  for utensils  (second  revision)
2
1-9-67 3r-8-68
CM/L-I4 3.9-I956
q b The  Metal  Rolling  Works  Pvt Ltd., 104,  Sion-Matunga  Estate,  Sion, Bombay-22.
Wrought  aluminium  and alu- minium  alloy  sheets,  strips and circles
IS:2i-T959  SpecificLtion  for  wrought aluminium  and  aluminium  alloys  for utensils (second revision*.)
Sodium  thiosulphate  photo- 18:246-1964  Specification  for  sodium 16-8-67 15-8-58
3
graphic grade
CM/L-I36 3-8-1959
Liberty  Chemical  Works,  Nagardas Road, Mogra  West, Andheri  (East) Bombay.
thiosulphate  photographic  grade (revised).
15-8-6S
DDT  dustirg powders
16-3.67
I S : 5 6 4 - I C 6I  Specification  for  DDT
4
CM/L-200 15-6-1960
dusting powders (revised**.
c/> Bharat  Pulverising  Mills  Pvf.  Ltd., 589,  Thiruvottiyur  High  Road, .Madras-TQ
I5-S-58
Naphthalene, grade 1
16-F-67
IS 1539-1965  Specification  for naphtha-
5
CM/L-208 29-7-1960
lene  (raised).
> Bengal  Chemical  &  Pharmaceutical Works Ltd., 6, Ganefh  Chunder A\enue, Calcut a.
JO
Cassava (India), 21 Gour Laha  Street
3I-P-68
Tea-chest metal  fittings
1-9-67
IS-10-1964  Specification  for  plvwood 6
Calcutta-6
tea-chesi.s  (second tension)
DO
1-9-67 31-8-6S
Tea-chest plywood panels ISuo-1964  Specification  for  plywood CM/L-212 25-8-1960 CM/L-213 25-3-1960
tea-chests (second revision) Plywood  Alfrs.  Co-operative  Society Ltd.,  11/3A,  Canal  Circular  Road, Calcutta
16-8-67
Endrin emulsifiable  concentrates
15-2-68
18:1310-1958  Specification  for  endrin 8
8
emulsifiable  concentrates CM/L-332 108-1961
Tata  Fisen  Industries  Ltd.,  Union Bank  Building,  Dalai  Street,  Fort, Bombay-1.
w
 
CO

(6)
(7)
(5)
(2) (3)
(4)
( I)
i  IS.-1310.1958  Specification  for endrin
Endrin emulsifiable  concentrates
15-8-68 Mysore  Insecticides  Co. Pvt.  Ltd-,
9
H
emulsifiable  concentrates CM/L-440  16-3.67 31-7-1962
18  Vaidyanatha  Mudali  Street, Tondiarpet, Madras-21 having their office  at 31-A North  Beach  Road, Madras-1.
w O >
10
:6-8-57 15-8-68
Nw CM/L-441  i 31-7-1962
Three-phase induction motors  18:325-1961  Specification  for  three- with  class 'A' insulation up  phase  induction  motors  (second re- to 10 HP  vision)
Engineering  Products  Ltd., Jogesh- wari  Estate,  Ghodbunder  Road, Jogeshwari, Bombay-60.
H H- W O
(i) IS:434  (Part)  I-1964  Specification for rubber insulated cables with copper Victor Cables Corpn. 802 Joshi Road
II
1-9-67 31.8-68
—-  conductors  (revised) CxM/L-449 24-8-1962
ij t—t
Type  Voltage  Conductor  (ii) IS-.434  (Part IIj-1964 Karol Bagh, New Delhi having their Office at Sadar Bazar, Delhi.
Z
Grade  Specification  for  rub- •  —-—•—  her  insulated  cables
2>
(a)  VIR Cables for Fixed  Wiring  with  aluminium  con- (i)  TRS (tough  250/440V  W  ductors (revised.)
rubber sheathed)
(ii)  Braided and  250/440  J
o
compounded  and  [  Copper
650/1  1  or
P
100V  >• alumi-
(iii)  Weatherproof  250/440  j  niurn
and  J 650/1100V  J
(b) VIR Flexible Cords (iv)  Twisted twin  250/440V  Copper and braided  onlv
12
31-7-68
1-8-67
Tea-chest metal fittings
IS: 10-1964  Specification  for  plywood
I I > CM/L-503 24-/1-1963
tea-chests  (second revision) B.D. Khaitan& Co. 29 Colootola Street Calcutta  having  their  office  at 5 Clive  Row,  Calcutta.
^°
15-8-68 Bharat  Pulverising  Mills  Pvt.  Ltd., Parathion emulsifiable  concen- IS :2I29-I96z  Specification for parathion 16-8-67
13
trates
emulsifiable  eoncentrates CM/L-563 18-7-1963
Chakala,  Andheri  Kurla  Road, Bombay-69  having  their  office  at Sayani  Road,  Bombay-28
1-9-67 31-8-68
CM/L-568 8-S-1963
18:1507-1966  Specification  for  copper oxychloride  water  dispersible  powder concentrates  (first revision)
Copper oxychloride water dis- persible  powder  concentra- tes
% •-* Tata  Fison  Industries  Ltd. Pandit Motilal  Nehru  Road,  Jamuna Kinara, Agra having their  office at Union Bank Building, Dalai Street, Fort,  Bombav-i.
 
K— 1

x^uiiLui  .LHiuib  >.  ^.  .  ti- >.  .1310-1958  Specification  for  endri11
t r a t es
emulsifiable  concentrates
^una Kinara
OS
...ice  at  Union -&, ualal  Street,  Fort,
. ,_L  'Carbon  & Ribbon  Mfg.  '.
IS:i222:i957  Specification  for  ink duplicating,  ail  weather,  black  for
Ink,  duplicating  all  weather, black for rotary type machine
rotary type machines
K w c ^0.  Ltd, Plot  No. 66A, Industrial Area, Faridabad Township, having their  office  at  N-75  Bombay  Life Bldg. Connaught  Circus, New Delhi
Sanganeria 'Co. Pvt. Ltd. 9 Jagmohan  '. Structural steel (standard  quali-
Ji-7-6S
Mullick Lane, Calcutta
ty)
18:226-1962  Specification  for  structural steel  (standard  quality  {third  re- vision)
S3
IS 11977-1962 Specification for structural
Structural  steel  (ordinary
Sanganeria  Co. Pvt  Ltd.,  9  Jagmohan
31-7-68
J-67
steel (ordinary quality).
quality)
o
Mullick Lane, Calcutta.
IS 1226-1962 Specification for  structural
Structural  steel  (tsandard
Ludhiana  Steel  Rolling  Mills  Miller-
1-8-67 31-7-68
19
V,
quality).
29-6-i>.. r CM/L-726 29-6-1964
ganj  Ludhiana.
steel  (standard  quality)  (third revision)
e
Structural  steel  (ordinary IS :I977-I963 Specification for structural 20
Ludhiana  Steel Rolling Mills, Millerganj
31-7-68
1-8-67
quality).
steel (ordinary  quality) Ludhiana.
Domestic  pressure  cookers 18:7346-1966  Specification  for  domestic International  Engineering  Service,
21
1-8-67 31-7-68
(pressed)  4,5,6,8  and  12 pressure cookers (revised).
54 Agra Road, Bhandup, Bombay-78.
CM/L-727 29-6-1964 CM/L-739 10-7-1964
H O
1 I1*TP^  can3fitv
W
Endrine  emulsifiable  con- 18:1310-1958  Specification  for  endrin 22
15-8-68
16-8-67
centrates.
emulsifiable  concentrates  .
CM/L-742 21-7-1964
Croplife  Chemicals  Pvt.  Ltd.,  32 Foreshore  Road,  Sibpore,  Howrah having  their  office  at  2  Sooterkin Street,  Calcutta-13
Dieldrin  emulsifiable  concen- IS:iO54-i962  Specification  for  dieldrin 16-8-67 15-8-68 Croplife  Chemicals  Pvt.  Ltd.,  32
CM/L-743
emulsifiable  concentrates  (re-
trates.
21-7-1964.
wed).
Foreshore  Road,  Sibpore,  Howrah having  their  office  at  2  Sooterkin Street,  Calcutta-13.
Porcelain ismulated  for  over-
16-8-67 15-8-68
24
18:731-1963  Specification  for  procelain insulators  for  overhead  power lines CM/L-744 23-7-1964
I >
head power lines (11 kV, pin type)
(3 • 3 kV and above) (revised).
Bengal  Potteries  Ltd.,  3  Pagaladanga Roadj  Calcutta  having  their  Regis- tered  office  at  45  Tangra  Road, Calcutta-15.
Lloyd  Bitumen  Products  Pvt.  Ltd.,
GO
Hot  applied  sealing  com-
15-8-68
16-8-67
CM/L-745
•25
1 Taratola Road, Calcutta-16.
24-7-1964
00 
IS-1834-1961  Specification  for  hot applied  sealing  compounds  for joints  in  concrete.
pounds  for  joints  in con- crete, grade 'B'  (jet  feul resistant).
Radio  &  Electricals  Mfg  Co  Ltd., Water meters  (domestic type)
1-9-67 31-8-68
26
Mysore Road, Bangalore-18.
CM/L-747 28-7-1964
dry-dial  type,  15  mm., 20 mm and 25 mm sizes.
IS 1779/1965  Specification for  water meters  (domestic  type)  (secon revised).
 
1

w
00 OS O\
(7)
(6)
( I)
( 2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
BHC  emulsifiable  concen-  I S * * *^  g S SK  feg?
27
31-8-68  Ankar  Industries,  Jessore  Road,  P.O.
1-9-67
M CM/L-750 30-7-1964
Madhyamgram,  24  Parganas  (W. Bengal).
a > 28
16-8-67 15-8-68  Hindusthan  Twvfords  Ltd., Bahadur-
CM/L-753 4-8-1964
garh, Distt. Rohtak.
siphonictvpe) vitreous china.  (valveless  siphoruc  type)  {.second
*  "
revision).
N W H H W
Vitreous  sanitary  appliances
29
15-8-68  Hindusthan  Twyfords  Ltd.,  Bahadur-
16-8-67
O
consisting of
garh, Distt. Rohtak.
CM/L-754 4-8-1964
18:2556-1963  Specification  for  vitre- ous sanitary appliances  (vitreous).
>•
(1)  Squatting  pans,  long pan  pattern, size 450 mm, 630 mm,  580 mm  and  680 mm;
(2)  Squatting  pans,  Orissa
o n
pattern,  size  630  x  45° mm.  580  x  440  mm;
H O bs w >s
(3)  Wash basins, flat back, siz< 4<;o >c 300 mm, 550  x 40a  mm  and  630  x  45° mm;
^*
(4)  Sinks, laboratory size 400 X
X  250  x  150 mm;
(5)  Urinals  (bowls  flat
*J
back);  '
">
(6)  Wash-down  water closets  ;  and
(7)  Pedestals for wash basins.
>
18:2404-1963  Specification  for  malt
Malt extract
"-68  Mohan Meakin  Brewaries Ltd., Mohan
extract.
Nagar,  Ghaziabad  (U.P.)
18:564-1961  Specification  for  DDT
DDT  dusting powders.
dusting  powders  (revised).
"  Sree  Venkateswara  Minerals  (Pvt.) T td., 3 Elaiya  Mudali  St., Tondiar- Jras having  their  Registered
1 Tharnbu  Chetty  Street,
""3
IS =226-1962  Specification  for
Structural steel
"vt. Ltd, 29-30
Djnshaw
(standard  qua'itVs!
structural  steel  (standard  quality) 'third  revision)
 
T

31-S-68 Krishna  Steel Industries P\t.  Ltdj29-30 Structural bteel
1-9-67
33
Vaswani  Mansion,  120  Dinshaw (ordinary quality)
ISM977-1962  Specification  for strjctura]  steel  (ordinary  quality) CM/L-764 24-8-1964
p
Vachha Road,  ChurchpUe Reclama- tion,  Post  Box  No.  93-A,  Bombay
1-9-67 31-S-68 The  Punjab  steel  RoUiag  Mills,  Old
34
Structural  steel (standard  qualityj
Station, Baroda
CM/L-765 28-8-1964
H
IS 1226-1962  Specificttion  for structural  steel  (standard  quality) (third revision)
The  Punjab  Steel  Rolling  Mills,  Old Structural  stee
31-8-6S
w o 1-9-67
35
Station,  Baroda
(ordinary qualit>r)
IS:i977-i9<>2  Specification  for structural  steel  (ordinary  quality) CM/L-766 24-S-1964
Rathi  Steel Rolling Mills Vvt. Ltd., Loni Structural  steel
31-8-6S
CM/L-769
J6
[1-9-67
Road,  Shahdara, Delhi-32
(standard quality)"
24.8-1964
IS ^26-1962  Specification  for structural  steel  (standard  quality) (third revision)
w o
It
Rathi Steel Rolling Mills Pvl. Ltd., Loni Structural  steel
3r-S-68_
11-9-67]
CM 1--77O
37
o
Road, Shahdara, Dettn-32
(ordinary quality)
IS :I977-I962  Specification  fo1 structural  steel  (ordinary  Lquahty) 24-8-1964
Taj  Iron  & Steel  Works  Pvl  Ltd., Taj Structural sled
IS :226-i962  Specification  for 3l-8-6Sj
1-9-67
38
(standard  quality)
structural  steel  (standard  quality) CM'L-771 24-8-1964
Manzil,  247  Maulana  Azad  Road, Bombay-S
(third revisum)
o o H o
31-8-68;
StrucUiral steel
1-9-67
39
(ordinary quality)
IS:i977-i963  Specification  for structural  steel  (ordinary  quality) CM'L-772 24-8-1964
Taj  Iron  & Sted  Works  Pvt. Ltd., Tai Manzil,  247  Maulana  Ar-ad  Road, Bombay-S
Oriental  Power  Cables Ltd.,  Cablenagar.
1-9-67 31-8-6S
4° CMJL-77S 27-8-1964
Distt. Kota ^Raiasthan)
to OS -
18:692-1965  Specification  for  paper insulated  leads  heathed  cables  for electricity  supply  (revise!)
En
Paper  insulated  lead  sheathed cables  (with  aluminium conductors)  for  electricity supply  up to and including 33 kV
The  PUnc  Protection  Products  fPvt.)  Eairin  eniisifiibb  conccn- IS:i3io-i95S  Specification  for  endrin 15-S-68  '
16-S-67
41
to CM.L-ioto 10-2-1965
emulsifiable  concentrates
" Ltd.  Kodavalur  (S.  Rly\  Nellore  trates Di=tt.  having  their  office  at 5. ^5 M.inehnuscpet,  Xellorc-2
i5-s-6y
IS 114801  96s Specification  fur  m:t;c 16-3-67
- ".ale  for  general  purposes CAJ.iL-iri2 20-7-1965
Ui Dhim.i:i  Scientific  Worka.  DhiirtHii  Wooden  metric  scales  for Baild:nn.  Bcn^ili  Mshalla, A-m'iaU  generjl  purposes,  grade B, cnt*".

 
CO C>

12)
<€)
(4)
(7) (3)
CD
ISHI17-1958  Specification  for  one
Dne-mark pipettes VIR cables
31-7-63
|  1-8-67
Tlie  Laboratory  Glassware  Co,  3612.  ( Timber  Market,  Ambala  Cantt.
for  fixed  wiring
mark  pipettes CMJL-1115 28-7-1965
Diamond  RubberWorks  Pvt. Ltd.
16-S-67 15-8- S
44-
Station  Roadj  Bhaadup,  Bombaj-78
w o CM/L-1112 2?-7Er965
fe having  their  Registered  office  at 276 Xagdevi  Street,  Bombav-3
IS:434  (Part  II)-i964  Specification for  rubber  insulated  cables  with aluminium  conductors  (revised)
w
VIK  cables for fixed wiring with aluminium conductors (i)  tough rubber  sheathed 250/440 volts gradethed (ii)  Braided and  compoun- ded  (taped),  650/1 100 volts  grade
6
(iii)  Weatherproof  (house
service overhead  system^ 650/1  100 Volts grade
O
>
15-8-68
IS ^567-1963  Specification  for
:.  Malathion  emulsiiiable  con-
16-8-67
45
Cyanamid  India  Ltd., Atul  Post  Offics Via  Bulsar  having  their  registered centrates
majathion emulsifiable  concentrates CM.I'L-uzz 6-8-1965
s
office at 'The International', 16 Queea'
Road, Bombay-1
ou
15-8-68]
16-8-67
(i)  Steel  wire  ropes  ior
winding purpose in mines
IS  :  1S55.1961  Specifi-ation  for  stee' wire  ropea  for  winding  purposej  in CM/L-1125 13-8-1965
(ii)  Steel  wire  ropes  for haulage  purpose  in
The  Fort  William  Co Ltd. (Steel Wire & Rope Division), 6/A, G. T.  Road, Konnagar,  Distt  Hooghly,  West Bengal having their Registered  Office at  14 Netaii  Subhas Road, Calcutta-r 7  mines
mines 18:1856-1961  Specification  tor steel  wire  ropes  for  haulage  pur- poses  in  mines
o
31-8-68
1-9-67
47 CM^-1127 12 " 1965
Express  Cables  Pvt  Ltd. P. O. Neora, Distt  Patna having  their  Head  office at 5iStepbjen House, 4 Dalhoasie  Square East, Calcutta-i
IS:393-i96i  Specification  for  hard- drawn  strandard  aluminium  and steel-cored  aluminium  conductors for  overhead  power  transmission purposes {revised)
Hard-drawn  strandard  alumi- nium and steekored  alumi- nium  conductors  for over- head  power  transmission purposes
>
3i-8-6Sj
Rayon  satin  variety  Mo. 233,  1
1-9-67
48
204 and 208 only
'S:i453-i959  Specification  for  rayon satin
CMlL-1128 U-1-1965
an The Calcutta Silk Mfg Co Ltd, 23 B. T. Road,  P.  0.  Sukchar  (24  Parganas) having tbeir office at 37 Vivekananda Road,  Cakutta-7
29-2-68 Fordham  Pressings  (India)  Pvt.  Ltd.
CMlL-1211 1-9-67
49
16-2-1966
Boaibay-77
13:774-1964  Specification  for flushing  cisterns  for  water  closets and  urinals  (valveless  siphonic type(  (second revision)
Pressed  rted  flushing  cisterns for water closets and urinals (valvdess  riphonic  type), Highlevel  12-5 litre capacity
I I
 
1

^Structural steel
Digvijaya  Industries P n.  Ltd.,  Bangrod,
3I-3-68J
So
(standard quality)
Rattem (MJ".)
CM/L-1276  [1-9-67 W-1966
h
!S 1226-1962  Specification  for structural  steel  (standard  quality) (tfard  rreww))
Digvijaya  Industries  Prt-  Ltd.,  Bangrod
31-S-68J
5i
Structural sted  18:1977-1962  Specification  for (ordinary quality)  structuralj[sttel  (ordinary  qaalhy) Ratlam (M.P.)
CM/L-1277  ti-9-67 6-6-1966
Panharmm  Pottery  Works  Co.  Ltd.,
15-7-68
5a
H £ CM/L-1289  16-7-63 30-6-1966
Vitreoos  sanitary  appliances  183556-1963  Specification  for (vitreous  china)  consisting  vitreous  lanittry  appliances  (yitre- of  ous china)
Thsngadh,  Near  Rly.  Station,  Than Juactioa  (Gujarat  State)  luring their  Registered  office  at  Morvi (1)  Squatting  pans  and traps  long  pattern,
tsl w- H
size 450,580 and 680 mm (2)  Wash-down  water-clo-
sets pattern  with 'P* trap  and  ' S'  trap
(3)  Squatting  pans  and
g
traps,  Orissa  pattern size  580  x  440  mm
w
(4)  Washbasins  flatback, size  630x450  mm  and
r—I
O
550  x  400 mm  with two traps  and  450 x 300 mm with  one  trap
(5) Wash basins, angleback pattern,  1 size 600 x  480 mm
(6)  Urinals,  bowl  pattern,
I
flat  back,  size 430 x  260 x  350  mm
en
(7)  Urinals,  bowl pattern, angle  back,  size  340  x 430  x  265  mm
>
(8)  Squatting  plate urinal size  600  x  350 mm  and 450  x  350  mm
I
5  Bhandtii  Crossfields  Pvt.  Ltd.,  Balanced  feed  mixtures  for
[31-7-6
CM/L-I300  [1-8-67
53
25-7-66
IS  :  2052-1962  Specification  for balanced  feed  mixtures  for  cattle.
 
Mimglia Goan  (Near Indore) having  cattle theli  Registered  Office  at27Mahatma Gandhi  Road,  Indore  City

1 UJ
1  oc
( I)
(3)
(3)
(5)
(6)
(4)
16-8-67 15-8-68
Flashights
IS:2oS3-i962  Specification  for
54 CM/L-I3O3 28-7-1966
flashlights.
•4 X
16-3-67 15-8-68
Endxin  emulsifiable  concen- I S ; i 3 i o - i 9 58  Specification  forendrin 55
The  Eveready  Flashlight  Co.  Division of  Union  Carbide (India) Ltd., Mill Road,  Aiahbagh,  Lncknow  (U.P.) Venkateswara  Agro  Chemicals  & Minerals,  6/303  T.H.  Road,
CMfL-1306 28-7-1966
trates
emulsifiable  concentrates.
1-8-67 31-7-68
Integral  cement  waterproofing
56
1—^ CM/L-I3O7 28-7-I966
compotmd
18:2645-1964  Specification  for  in- tegral  cement  waterproofing com-
pounds.
T he  Structual  Waterproofing  Co. Pvt. Ltd.,  N o.  8  Sevak  Baidya  Street, Calcutta-29  having  their  office  at 21/1  Dover Road, Bally gunge, Cal- cuttfl— 1 c*
16-8-67
Inland  Electrical  Mfg C o. Pvt. L t d .,
15-8-68
Direct-on-Une  motor  starter, I S : i 8 2 2 - i 9 6i  Specification  formotoi 57 CM/L-1308 29-7-1966
ordinary  duty  upto  5 • 6 kw starter  of  voltage  up  to 650 volts.
Basunagar,  Madhyamgram,  24  Parga- nas  (West  Bengal)
(or  7 -5  H P ), 400/440  volts
>
16-8-67 15-8-68
Malathion  emulsifiable  con- 18:2567-1963  Specification  formala- 58
CM/L-1309 29-7-1966
centrates
thion  emulsifiable  concentrates.
Plant  Protection  Pro ducts; (Pvt.) Ltd., Kodavalur  ( S.  Rly),  Nellore  Distt having  their  office  at  5/355  Stone- housepet,  NeUore-2  (A.P.)
16-8-67 15-8-68
Poultry feeds  grovfing, laying and  ISU364-1964  Specification  for 59
71 CM/L-1312 29-7-1966
starting  poultry  feeds-
Mysore  Feeds (Pvt) L t d ., Mysore  Road, Nayandaballi,  Bangalore  havingtheir office  at  230  Old  Tharagupet, Bangalore-2.
60
Co ttoa-covered,  round  copper
16-8-67 15-8-68
CM/L-1314 10-8-1966
conductors
18:450-1964  Specification  for  cotton covered  round  copper  conductors.
T he  National  Screw  & Wire  Products L t d,  Belur,  Distt  Howrah,  West Bengal.
61
Galvanized  round  steel  armoui
1-9-67 31-8-68
CM/L-1317 29-8-1966
wire
fi)  IS:434  (Part  I)-I964  Specifica- tion  for rubber  insulated  cables with  copper  conductor  (revised), Hindustan  Wires  L t d,  B.  T.  Road, P.  O.  Sukchar,  Distt  24-Parganas having  their  Regd  Office  at  16/5 Chowringhee  Road,  Calcutta-13.
|i
jO
(ifi  I S 4 34  (Part  I I ) - I 9 64  Speci- fication  for  rubber  insulated cables  with  aluminium  conduc- tors  (revised).
"^
(iii)  I S : i 5 54  (Part  I) 1964 Specifi- cation  for  P VC  Insulated (Heavy  D u t y)  Electric  Cables for  Working  Voltages  up  to and including  1100 Volts.
 
r

Co
18:2645-1964  Specification  for 62
Integral  cement  waterproof-
31-8-68
1-9-67
p CM/L-1319 29-8-1966
ing  compound
integral cement  waterproofing  com- pounds.
1  1 Dukart  &  Co. Pvt.  Ltd,  58/12, Prince Anwar  Shah  Road,  Calcutta-33 having  their  office  at 42-A,  Madan Botal  Lane,  Calcutta-12.
18:404-1962  Specification  for  lead Ashok  Metal Industries, 6 Sewree cross Lead  pipe  foe  chemical  in-
31-8-68
63
1-9-67
Road,  Bombay-15.
pipes  (reviled).
CM/L-1324 31-8-1966
dustry  (for  composition No.  4).
PVC  insulated  cables  with
31-8-68
H K M 1-9-67
"4 CM/L-1325 31-8-1966
aluminium  conductors  of the  following  types  : —
250/440  Volts Grade
IS-:694  (Part  IT>-I964  Specification for  PVC  insulated  cables  (for  vol- tages  up  to  1  100  volts)  with aluminium  conductors.
The  Premier Cable Co.Ltd, Karukutty, Ernakulam  Distt  (Kerala  State) having  their  registered  office  at Chehir  Building,  Mahatma  Gandhi Road,  Ernakulam-6.
(i)  Single  core  (PVC
$
sheathed)
o
(ti)  Single  core  (Un-
sheathed)
a >
(til)  T w i n c o r e w i t h E . ee (iv)  Three  core  flat (v)  Three  core  circular
o
650/1  100  Volts Grade
(i)  Single  core  (PVC
I
sheathed)
(ii)  Single  core (unsheathed) (HI) Three  core  flat (iv)  Three  core  circular
CO
31-8-68
65 CM fL-1327 31-8-1966
Low density polythene pipe  for cold  water  services, normal gauge  and  heavy  gauge
Imperial  Chemical  Industries Pvt. Ltd, Rishra,  Distt. Hooghly, West Bengal having  their  office  at  ICI  House,  34 Chowringhee,  Calcutta-16.
IS:  3076  (Part  I)-i963  Specification for  low  density  polythene  pipes for  cold water services  Part  I  up  to 50  nrm  size.
[No. MD/33  :  16/A]
> to K>
 
KH OO *~1 M

387a THE  GAZETTE  OF  INDIA:  OCTOBER  14,  1967/ASVINA  22,  1889  [PART  I I-
New  Delhi,  the  22nd  September  1987
S,O- 3*73*—In  pursuance of sub-regulations(2)  and  (3) of regulation  3 of the  Indian  Standards Institution  (Certification  Marks)  Regulations,  1955, the  Indian  Standards  Institution  hereby notifies  that  the  Indian  Standard(s),  particulars  of  which  are  given  in  the  Schedule  hereto annexed,  have  been  established  during the period  1 to 15 September  1967:
TflE  SCHEDULE
Brief  Particulars No. and Title of the Indian  Stan-
dard  Established
SI. No.
No.  and  Title  of  the Indian  Standard  or Standards,  if  any, superseded by the new
Indian  Standard
(3)
CD
(4)
W
1 IS:  51-1966 Specification  for
zinc chromes for paints (second revision)
IS  : 51-1963  Speci- fication  for  zinc chromes for  paints (revised)
This  standard  prescribes  the requirements  ard the methods cf sampling  and  test  for  zinc chromes  (Prkc  Rs.  6' 00).
2 IS  :  1179-1967  Specification  for equipment for  eye and  face protection  during  welding (first revision)
IS  : r 179-1957 Speci- fication for  equip- ment for  eye and  face protection  during welding.
This  standard  covers the  require- ments  of  goggles,  hand  shield and  helmet  intended  to  pro- tect  an  operator  above  the shoulderj  from  harmful  radia- tion,  spark  and  particles  of  hot metal  during  welding,  cutting and  similar  operations  employ- ing  a  gas  flame  or  electric  arc (Price RE.  6-00)
3
IS  : 1280-1958 Speci- fication for  foundry moulding boxes.
IS  : 1280-1967  Specification  for foundry  moulding boxes of steel  construction  (first rtvi~ siori)
This  standard  covers  dimensiens of  foundry  moulding  boxes  fa- bricated  from  steel  and  their main  components.  The  range of  sizes  covered  is  from  315 X 3I5X 80mm to 2000X2000X 500
mm.
This  standard  applie only  to  box parts with pin holes on the  longi- tudinal  centre  line  (Pnce
Rs. 4-00).
4 IS:  136R-1967 Dimensions  of ends of bolts and screws, (first revision)
SI  : 1368-1961 Dimen sions  of ends of bolts and screws.
•  This  standard  lays  devvn  thc dimensions  for  ends  of  genera' purpose bolts  and  screws in  the diameter  range  1 • 6 to  150 mm (Price Rs. 2-00).
IS  : 1821-1967  Dimensions  for
5
IS  : 1821-1961  Di-
clearance holes for metric bolts (first revision)
mensions  for  clear- ance holes for metric bolts.
This  standard  specifies  thc dimensions  for  clearance  holes for  general purpose  boltB in  thc diameter  range  1-6  to  150  mm (Price Rs. 2 • 00),
6 IS  : 1911-1967 Schedule of unit
weights  of  building  materials (first revision)
IS  :1911-1961  Sche- dule of unit weights of building materials.
This  standard  lays  down  unit weights  of  materials  and  parts or components used in  building construction  (Price Rs. 12' 00).
7 IS  :2ir5-i967Codeof  practice for flat r  oof  finish  : mud PHUSKA  (first revision)
This standard  covers the laying of mud  PHUSKA  with  or  without brick-tiling,  on  a  flat  roof  sur- face (Price Rs. 3-5o).
IS  : 2115-1962 Code of practice  for  flat roof  finish  :  mud PHUSKA
8 IS  :  2338 (Part I)—1967  Code of  practice  for  finishing  of wood and wood based materials Parts  I  Operations  and] Worksmanship,
"•"his  standard  deals  with  opera- tions  and  workmanship  ft r  the finishing  of  wood  and  wood- based  materials  with  the  pig- mented  and  clear  finishes
(Price Rs. 5-5°).

Sac. S(ii)]  tHE  GAztTTt  Ot  INDIA : OCTOfitR  t4,  l&a?/AsViNA  22, 188&  3873
CD
(2)
(3)
(4)
9  I S  :  2377—1967 Tables for vo-
lumes  of  cut  sizes  of  timber (first revision)
IS  : 2377-1963 Tables of  volume  of  cut lizes of timber.
This standard  provides  tables  for Volume  of  cut  sizes  of  timber covered  by  I S:  1331-1966. Lengths  from  30 to 500 cm  are covered in steps of 5 cm. Volu- mes  are  given  in  cubic  metres correct  up  to five decimal  pla- ces (Price Rs. 14-00),
10 IS  :  2720  (Part  XXVI)—1967
• •
Methods of test for soils.
Part XXVI determination  of pH
value.
This  standard  lays down the pro- cedure for  the  determination  of the pH  value of  soil  suspension (Price Rs.  2-00).
11 IS  : 3595—19^7 Code of practice for  fire  safety  of  industrial buildings  : coal pulverizers.
This  code  covers  the  essential requirements  of  fire  Bafety  of buildings  housing  all  types  of coal pulverizing  mills  and  their associated  equipment  used  in connection  with  power  genera- tion,  coke  or  briquette  making and  pulverized  fuel  fired  fur- naces (Price RB. 4' 00).
12 IS  13813—1967 Specification  for 'C  hooks for use with swivels.
This  standard  covers the  require ments of high tensile steel hooks for  use  with  swivels according to  'Indian  Standard  Specifica- tion for swivels' (under prepara- tion).  The  requirements  of trapezoidal-section type  hooks only  have  been  covered  in  this standard (Price Rs. 4-00).
IS  :  3889—1967  Specification
13
for  dental chisels.
This  standard  covers  the  detail requirements  for  dental  chisels (Price Rs. 3" 5°).^
u
This  code  prescribes  the  condi- tions for the transport of snakeg by air and  rail (Price Rs. 2-50).
IS  :  3007  (Part-II)—1967  Code , for  the  transport  of  laboratory [ animals Part  11 transport  of
snakes.
• •
15
This code prescribes the condition for  the  transport  of  forgs by rail and air  (Price Rs. 2-00), IS  : 3907 (Part  III)—1967  Code for  the  transport  of  laboratory animals Part  III  transport  of frogs.
This recommendation  covers  th 16 IS  :  3937—1967  Recommenda- tions  for  socketing  of  wire ropes with molten  metal.
procedure  to  be  adopted  in socketing of stranded wire ropes by molten lead-tin alloys so that maximum  safety  is  assured (Price Rs. 2  00).
IS  : 3967—1967  Specification  for
17
cutch.J
This  standard  prescribes  the  re- quirements  and  the  methods  of sampling and test for  cutch used for non-edible purposes, mainly in  tanning  leather,  in  oil  well drilling  and for  descaling  boiler deposits (Price Rs. 3 • 50).
IS  :  3968-T967 Specification  for
18
wallle bark
This  standard  specifies  the requirements  and  the  methods of  sampling  and  test  for  wattle bark  intended  for  tanning  and for  use  in  the  manufacture  of tanning  extract  (Price Rs.  5.00).

3874 THE  GAZETTE  OF  INDIA;  OCTOBER  U,  1967/ASVINA  SS,  1889  [PART  I I-
(I)
(4) CO
0)
IS  :4Oi3—1967  Specification  for dust-tight  electric  lighting Httingg.
This  standard  covers  lighting fittings  of  dust-tight  construc- tion intended  for  use in  atmos- pheres  laden  with  duBt  of  ex- plosives,  organic  or  inor- ganic  and  dusts  of  metals and  such  of  these  factory dusts  which  are  classified  in Class  1,  namely  dusts  which ignite  and  propagate  flame readily,  the  source  of  heat  re- quired  for  ignition  being  small (Price Rs. 7' 00).
20 IS  :401a—1967  Specification for dust-proof  electric  lighting flttingg.
This  standard  covers  lighting fittings of dust-proof  construc- tion  intended  for  use in  atmos- pheres laden with dusts of Class 2  and  Class  3  varieties  as mentioned below i—
Class 3—Dusts which ignite readi- ly  with  flame  but re- quire a larger  source of ignition.
Class  3—Dusts  which  do  not
ignite  in  the  tests.
(Price Rs.  7-co).
31 IS  : 4047-1967  Specification  for heavy  duty  air-break  switches and  composite  units  of  gir- broak  switches  and  fuses  for voltage*  not  exceeding  1,000 volts.
This  specification  covers  air- break  switches  and  series  com- bination  of  air-break  switches and  fuses  forming  a composite unit, having not more than  four poles  (excluding  auxiliary contacts) with rated  current not exceeding  1  350  amperes  and Intended for  use in  distribution systems  of  ac  or  dc  or  both, where the rated voltage between poles  does  not  exceed  IJOOO volts (Price Rs. 7-00).
22 IS  : 4050-1967  Method*  of tests for  horn  switches  for  automo- biles.
This standard  covers the mcthodB of  tests  for  horn  switches  used in  automobiles  (Price Rs.l-5°).
IS  : 4054-1966  Specification  for
23
neatsfoot oil.
This  standard  prescribe  the  re- quirements  and  the methods  of sampling and test  for  neatsfoot oil  for  use  in  leather  industry (Price Rs. 3  00)
IS  : 4055-1966  Specification  for
24
maize (corn) oil.
This  standard  prescribes  the  re- quirements  and the methods  of sampling  and  test  for  maize (corn) oil (Price Rs. 2-00).
25 IS  '  4064-1967  Specification  for normal duty air-break switches and  composito  units  of  air- break  twitches  and  fuses  for voltages not exceeding  1,000 TOltS.
This  specification  covers  air- break  switches  and  series  com- bination  of  air-break  switches and  fuses  forming  a  composite unit, having not more than  four poles  (excluding  auxiliary  con- tacts)  with  rated  current  not exceeding  1  350  amperes  and intended  for  use in  distribution systems  of  ac  or  dc  or  both, where the rated voltage  between poles does not exceed  i^ooo volts (Price RB.  7"°O).

SEC. 3(ii)]  THE  GAZETTE  OF  INDIA :  OCTOBER  14,  1987/ASVINA  22,  1889 3875
{{^{{FOOTNOTE (4)}}}}
(.1)
(3)
26 IS  : 4075-1967 Methods  of
macrostreak flaw test  for  steel
Thia  standard  prescribes  the method  for  carrying  out  the macrostreak  flaw  test  for  steel.
(Price  Rs. 2.00).
IS  : 4080-1967  Specification  for
vertical itaff  gaugei.
This  standard  specifies  the  func- tional  requirements,  tests  and materials  to  be  used  for  • vertical  staff  gauge  (Price Rs. 2-50).
IS  : 4m  (Fart R—1967  Code of
28
practice for ancillary structures in sewerage  system  Part  I manholes.
This  standard  covers the  require- ments for design considerations] construction, Bafety measurei to bo  adopted  for  manholes  and types  of  manholes  (Price Rs.  5-00).
29 IS  : 4111 (Part  IIIV1967  Code
of practice for  ancillary  struc- tures  in  sewerage  system  Part III inverted sypnon.
This  standard  covers the require- ments of  design  considerations, materials,  construction,  safety measures to be adopted, etc, for inverted  syphon  in  sewerage system (Price Rs. 2- jo).
IS  ! 4123—1967  Specification
30
" *
This  standard  covers the  require- ments  for  chain  pipe  wrenchei for chain pipe wrenchei.
(Price Rs. 3 • 50).
31 IS  14r25-i967 Glossary of terms pertaining to defects in  fabrics
This  standard  prescribes  defini- tions  of  terms  pertaining  to defects  in  textile fabrics.  Some principal cause* for  some of the defects are  also  given  (Price Rs.7-50).
IS  : 4139-1967  Specification  for
32
sandllme bricks.
This  standard covers  the  require- ments ofsandlime  bricks  ofthe calcium  silicate  type  (Price Rs.  4-00),
IS  : 4144-1967  Specification  for
33
carrom-strikers
34 IS  : 4149-1967  Specification  for post-mortem rubber gloves.
IS  : 4154-1967  Specification  for
3J
endotracheal  connections.
This  standard  lays  down  the material, dimensional and cons- tructional  requirements  of carrom-strikers (Price Rs. 2-00) This  standard  prescribes  the  re- quirements and  methods  of sampling  and  test  for  gloves made  from  natural  or  synthetic rubber  for  use in  post-mortem surgical work (Price Rs. 3 • 50). ThiB standard  covers the require- ments  of  endotracheal  connec- tions  of  NoBworthy,  Magill, Rowbotham  and Ayre's  T-pat- terns  and  suction  unions  of Cobb  and  Magill  patterns (Price Rs. 5-oo).
36 IS  : 4160-1^67  Specification  for interlocking switch socket out- let.
This  standard  covers the  require- ments  for  interlocking  type switch  socket  outlets  having ratings  up  to  and  including  30 amperes  and  suitable for  use in ac and  dc circuits at rated  volt- ages  not  exceeding  250  volts (^riceRs. 7-co).
IS  : 4161-1967  Specification  for
37
Nessler cylinders.
This  standard  prescribes  the  re- quirements and methods  of test for  NeBslcr  cylinders"  used in  laboratories  for  comparin  , the  colour  of  light  colour^ liquids (Price Rs. 2 • 50).

3876 THE  GAZETTE  OF INDIA :  OCTOBER  It,  l&S7/ASVlNA  22, 1889  [TAUT  tt
( I)
(2)
(4)
0)
38 IS  : 4172-1967  Dimensions for radii  under  the  head  of the bolts and screw*.
This  standard  lays  down  the dimensions  for the radii  under the  head  of  general  purpose bolts  and  SCTCWB,  in  the  dia- meter  range  i-6 to 150 mm for all the three grades of bolts and screws  covered  in  I S: 1367- 1967 (Price Rs. 2-00).
IS  : 4187-1967  Specification for
39
skewers for use on cotton speed frames.
This  standard  prescribes  the re- quirements  of  skewers  for use on cotton  speed  frames  in con- junction  with  flyer  bobbins having lift from  173 to 350 mm (Price Rs. 2-50).
40 IS  : 4216-1967 Specification  for
needle cages.
This  standard  specifies  the  re- quirements of needle cages used as a typo  of rolling  bearing for high  load  carrying  capacity (Price Rs. 2-co).
18:42171967  Specification for
needle rollers.
This  standard  specifies  the  r e- quirements  for  needle  roller B, used  as  rolling  element  in needle  bearings  of  nominal dismetcr  up to  5 mm and the ratio  of the nominal  length  to the  nominal  diameter  in  the range of 3 to 10 (Price Rs. 3-50).
Copies  of  thes;  Indian  Standards  are  available,  for  sale,  with  the  Indian  Standard s Institution,  Man^k Bhavan, 9 Bahadur  Shah Zafar  Marg, New Delhi-i  and also its  branch  offices at (i) Bombay  Mutual  Terrace,  Sandhurst  Bridge,  Bombay-7,  (ii)  Third  and  Fourth  FloorB, 5  Cnowringhee Approach, Calcutta-13, (iii) Second Floor, Sathyamurthi Bhavan, 54 General Patters Road, Madraa-z and (iv) 117/4188, Sarvodaya Nagar, Kanpur.
[No.  MD/i3'.2]
S.O-  3*"74;—In pursuance  of regulation  4 of the Indian  Standards  Institution  (Certification Mirks) Regulations,  1955, the  Indian  Standards  Institution  hereby  notifies  that  amendment^)  to the  Indian  Standard(s) given in the schedule  hereto  annexed  have been  issued  under the powers conferred  by the sub-regulation (1) of  Regulation 3 of  the said  Regulations.
THE  SCHEDULE
Brief particulars of the Amendment
No.  and title of the Indian Standard amended
SI. No.
No.  and Date of the Amendment
Date  from which  t he amendment shall  have effect
No.  and Date of Gazette Notifi- cation in which the establishment of  the  Indian Standard was
notified
(4)
CO
(5)
(6) CO
1
(i)  Clauses 1.1.1,
S.O.  4120, dated
5, December 196*
L No. 1 i. June 1967
IS  :  1148-1964  Specifi- cation for rivet bars  for structural  purposes (revised)
8-4 and Table  1 have been substi- tuted by new ones, (ii)  A new clause 7-2 has been added
Immediate effect.
2
I
No. 1 August 67
S.O. 3 8i, dated 29 December, 62.
IS : 1977-1962 Specifica- tion for structural  steel (ordinary quality)
Clauses 0-3,0-5,1-1, I - I - I,  4-1, 5-ianc Table  1 have  been amended.

SEC. 3(il)]  THE  GAZETTE  OF  INDIA:  OCTOBER  U,  1967/ASVINA  22,  1889 3877
(2)
(6)
(5)
(3)
(4)
IS  : 2909-1964 Dimen-
Page 7, Table 3 third
3
sions for star grips.
S.O.  618,  dated 20 February, 1965
No. 1. September
1967
30  Sep- tember 1967
row  under  last column—Subs- titute  '3x30' for '3 x 32r
Copies of these amendment slips are available, free of cost, with  the  Indian  Standards  Institu- tion, Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi-i  and also its branches at (1) Bombay Mutual  Terrace,  Sandhurst  Bridge,  Bombay-7,  (ii)  Third  and  Fourth  Floors,  5  Chowringhee Approach, Calcutta-13, (iii) Second Floor, Sathyamurthi Bhavan, 54 General Patters Road,  Madras and (iv) 117/418, Sarvodaya Nagar, Kanpur.
[No.  MD/I3I5J.
New  Delhi,  the  26th  September  1067
S.O.  3675.—In  licence  No.  CM/L-525,  dated  28th  March  1963  held  by  M/s. Weights  &  Measures  Syndicate,  78/2,  Ichapur  Road,  Howrah  the  details  of  which are  published  under  S.O.  2651  in  the  Gazette  of  India,  Part  II,  Section  3,  Sub- section  3(il),  dated  5th  August,  1967,  small  three  phase  induction  motors  of  2  HP with  Class  'A'  insulation,  conforming  to  15:325-1961,  have  been  included  with effect  from  25  July  1967.
[No.  MD/35:1244.]
S.O.  3676.—In  licence  No.  CM/L-663,  dated  1st  May,  1964  held  by  M/s. Industrial  Cables  (India)  Ltd..  Industrial  Area,  Rajpura  (Punjab),  the  details of  which  are  published  under  S.O.  2651  in  the  Gazette  of  India,  Part  II,  Section (3),  Sub-Section  3(ii),  dated'  5th  August,  1967,  paper-insulated  lead-sheathed cables  (with  aluminium  conductors)  for  electricity  supply  upto  and  including 33  KV  have  been  included  with  effect  from  19th  July,  1967.
[No.  MD/35-1244.]
S.O,  3677.—In  licence  No.  CM^L-1244,  dated  21st  April,  1P66  held  by  M/s. Shamsher  Sterling  Cable  Corpn.  Ltd.,  Kirol-Ghatkopar,  Bombay-77  having  their Regd  Office  at  Vaswani  Mansions,  Dinsha  Vacha  Road,  Bombay-1,  the  details  of which  are  published  under  S.O.  2176  in  the  Gazette  of  India,  Part  II,  Section  (3), Sub-section  3(ii),  dated  1st  July,  1967,  Hard-drawn  stranded  aluminium  and steel-cored  aluminium  conductors  for  overhead  power  transmission  purposes (upto  4.39  mm  diameter  only)  have  been  included  with  effect  from  1st  July,  1967. [No.  MD/55:1244.]
S.O  3678—In  licence  No  CM/L-1335  dated  27th  September,  1966  held  by M/s.  Electric  Manufacturing  Co.  Ltd..  138,  Jessore  Road,  Calcutta-28.  the  details Of  which  are  published  under  S.O.  3299  in  the  .Gazette  of  India,  Part  II,  Section (3)  sub-Section  3(ii),  dated  5th  November,  1966,  the  following  type  of  fittings for  aluminium  and  steel  cored  aluminium  conductors  for  overhead  power  lines, conforming  to  IS: 2121-K62,  has  been  included  with  effect  from  15th  June,  1967:
Armour  rods.
[No.  MD/55:1244.]
SO  8679—In  licence  No.CM/L-1341,  dated  30th  September,  1966  held  by M/s.  Aluminium  Industries  Ltd.,  No.  1  Ceramic  Factory  Road,  Kundara,  Kerala State,  the  details  of  which  are  published  under  S.O  3299  m  the  Gazette  of  India, Part  n,  Section  (3)  Sub-section  3(ii),  dated  5th  November  1966  the  following types  of  thermoplastic  insulated  weatherproof  cables  have  been  included  with effect  from  10th  July,  1967  :
 
(a)  PVC  insulated  and  PVC  sheathed  cables  of  (i)  single  core,  250/440 W  volts  with  aluminium  conductors,  (ii)  single  core  650/1  00  vo te with  aluminium  conductors  and  (iii)  flat  twin  core  650/1100volts with  aluminium  conductors,  conforming  to  IS:3035  Fart  l-iaoo,  ana

3878  T HE  GAZETTE  OF INDIA : OCT.  14, 1967/ASVINA 2,2,  1889  [PART  II-SEC. 3(11)]
(b)  Polythene  insulated,  taped,  braided  and  rompounded  cable  of  single core  250/440  volta  with  aluminium  conductors,  conforming  to  13:3035 Part  11-1965.
[No.  MD/B5:1244.]
(Dr.)  SADGOPAL,
Dy.  Director' General.
 
PRINTED  IN  INDIA  BY  TUB  GEMERAL  MANAGER,  GOVERNMENT  OF  ttlDIA  PRES8, NEW  DELHI  AND  PUBLISHED  BY'  THE  MANAGER  Of  PVBLICATIONS,  DELHI,  1967




' shall be deleted. (2) Against S- No- 5, Bombay City II, under Column 3 of the Schedule appended thereto, (i) the following entry shall be deleted : "2. A m Ward." (11) the existing items No. 3 to 11 shall be renumbered as 2 to 10. (3) Against S- No. 5-A Bombay City III, under Column 3 of the Schedule appended thereto, the following shall be added :— "12. A HI Ward" [ No. 122/F. No. 55/284/67-IT(A. II).] CORRIGENDUM New Delhi, the 25th September 1967 S.O- 3622.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 126 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), the Central Board of Direct Taxes hertby makes the following amendment to the Schedule annexed to its Notification No- 1 (F. No. 55/ 233/63-IT), dated the 18th May, 1964:— 1. In the said Schedule against Serial No. 14 for the existing entry in Column 5, the following entry shall be substituted : Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, P.R.-II, Poona. 2. In the said Schedule against Serial No- 23, for the existing entries in Columns .3, 4 and 5, the following entries shall be substituted:— Column 3 : 6th Income-tax Officer, Madural. Column 4 : Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax who has been appointed to perform the functions of an Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax in respect of the Income-tax Officer referred to in Column 3- Column 5: Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax who has been invested with powers to hear appeals against the deci- sions of the Income-tax Officer referred to in Column 3- [No. 11/F. No- 55/129/67-IT-] A. RAGHAVENDRA RAO, Under Secy. ↩
C P. Book, (2) Aromatic Chemicals as shown in list V of appendix of the C-P. Bookr (31 Chemicals N-O.S-, (4) Broken Coral Reeds from the general area except South Africa and Rodasi granted to the said M/s. Manjula Industries, 13-D, Beadon Street, Calcutta by the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Calcutta. The Government of India In the Ministry of Commerce in exercise of power conferred by clause 9 of the Imports (Control) Order, 1955 hereby cancel the said licence No. P/SS/1574513/C/XX/23/C/C/23-24, dated 16th November, 1966  issued to M/s- Manjula Industries, 13-D, Beadcn Street, Calcutta. [No. 48/67/E&L-] J- MUKHERJI, Dy. Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, for Jt. Chief Controller of Imports and Exports. (Office of the Jt. Chief Controller of Import* and Exports) (Central Licensing Area) ORDER New Delhi, the 22nd September 1967 S.O. 3625.—Whereas Messrs Gupta Optical Works. Sadar Bazar, Gurgaon or any bank or any other person hRve not come forward furnishing sufficient cause, against Notice No. G-1/67/ENF/CLA/1310 dated 19th May, 1967, proposing to cancel licence No. P/SS/1573557/C/XX/23-24 dated 25th August, 1966 for the- imports of optical Rough Blanks for Rs. 21,849 granted to said M/s. Gupta Optical Works, Sadar Bazar, Gurgaon by the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports (Central,Licensing Area), New Delhi, Government of India, in the Minis- try of Commerce in exercise of the powers conferred by the Clause 9 of the Import (Control) Order, 1955, hereby cancel the said licence No. P/SS/1573557/C/XX/ 23-24 dated 25th August, 1966, issued to M/s, Gupta Optical Works, Sadar Bazar, Gurgaon. [No. G-I/67ENF/CLA/M71.] Jt. Chief Controller of Imports and Exporta.- Messrs. Gupta Optical Works, RAM MURTI SHARMA, Sadar Bazar, Gurgaon. ↩
, ut t he U n i on T e r r l t o ry rf Ddhl for the pu^iHrf ↩
 ↩
—*n exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (6) of S^eti™ ↩
 ↩
* ( ↩
 ↩
of lm^' *e Central Government herebv notifies Sri Venkateswara Mandlr Society, New Delhi, to be a place of DubUe C S d f e c U o^ tbTOUSh ↩
•£ t ho n™e-tM A c t> ↩
^ V * ? - ^^ Employment, Government of India, by Notification ?£'?A/»M t~HRli *£& %X\ *?a£chl ↩
r e f e r red the following matter of dispute -lor adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad:— Matter of Dispute (2) Shri Sldh Nath Ojha, Mining Asstt. Mahua U.C. & DWKS Mine—13th - October, 1965. (3) Shri Kamal Barhi, Carpenter, Mahua U.C. & DWKS Mine—13th October, 1965. (4) Shri Slbmurat Dubey, Pump Khalasi, Mahua UC- & DWKS Mine—13th Mine— 13th October, 1965 (5) Shri Altjan Mian, Shotflrer, Mahua U.C. & DWKS Mine—13th October, 1965. (6) Shri Bhim Lohar, Compressor Driver, Barahawa No. 7 Mica Mine—8th Octo- October. 1965. (7) Shri Satya Narain Dubey, Pump Khalasil, Barahawa No- 7 Mica Mine—8th October, 1965. (8) Shri Phagu Mahato, Shotflrer, Barahawa No. 7 Mica Mine—8th October, 1965. 1 , (9) Shri Lalo Bhuian, Unskilled Worker, Barahawa No. 7 Mica Mine—8th October, 1965. (10) Shri R- K. Verma, Mining Asstt, Veloria UC- & DWKS Mine—13th Octo- ber, 1965- (11) Shri Ram Kirt Singh, Durwan, Veloria UC. & DWKS Mine—13th October, 1985. (12) Shri Amrit Passi, Shoftflrer, Veloria U.C- & DWKS Mine—13th October 1968- (13) Shri R'ameshwar Barhi, Carpenter, Veloria U-C. & DWKS Mine—13th Octo- iber, 1995. ↩
In the main Reference case No. 72 of 1967, It is agreed that Sri Bhupati Sen shall be reinstated as a special case and is allowed one month's time to resume ↩
( b> a nd 33(3) (b) of the LD. Act it is agreed ↩
( ↩
that all workmen who will be bound by the reference under Section 10 of I.D. Act would be the person con- cerned in the dispute. The other two cases of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which are usually referred for a different interpretation are Upper Ganges Valley Electric Supply Co. Ltd. Moradabad Vs. Srivastava (G.S.) 'reported in 1963(1) LLJ p. 237 and Digwadih Colliery Vs. Ramji Singh (1964-II-LLJ p. 14&). In the former case while considering the question of pendency of certain appeals before the L.A.T. their Lordships found that only one appeal was pending which related to the grant of annual increment to a workman M, K. Varshney. It was casually observed that the same was an individual dispute hi respect of one employee and so the present respondent couM not be said to be concerned with that dispute. Full facts about that appeal were not available to the Hon'ble Court and it was not known whether the dispute regarding Varshney had or had not been espoused by any Union. It was also not known whether the employee concerned Srivastava had any connection or nexus through any union so as to be concerned in the reference regarding Varshney. The observation of the Hon'ble Court, therefore, Is not to be interpreted literally for any guidance." The Digwadih case is only an authority on the point that a workman when he files an application under Section 33-A has to establish that he was concerned in the dispute under reference. The complainant in that case had made no averment about the nature of the said dis- pute and had not indicated how he was concerned in the dispute under reference. On the other hand, the company had shown that the reference was on behalf of the chaprasis and watchmen of the collieries for overtime wages and the com- plainant was a clerk in grade III. With this manifest distinction it was for the complainant to have established how he was concerned in that reference. He could have proved it by showing tfiat the difepute under reference regarding Chaprasis and watchmen was sponsored by the union of which he was a member and. was thus concerned with the industrial dispute or that he was one of the work- men who had raised the industrial dispute. In the absence of any such informa- tion, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that complainant under Section,33A cannot succeed on the presumption that the reference of the pending industrial dispute must necessarily have had a nexus with the comnlainant. It may be,noticed that In the Tata Iron and Steel Cfr, ↩
53 I54 *55 156 157 „ (203O/67 „ 204 /67 „ 2O<; /67 „ 206 /67 „ 207 I67 „ 208)/67 „ 2095/67 „ 2101/67 „ 211V67 „ 2i2)/67 166167 ↩
7 » (141 /67 „ (142 [67 „ (143 /67 „ 144 /67 » 145 / 7 „ 14 /<>7 j» 147 /67 „ (190V67 „ (i9i)/67 „ (192V67 3) (193 /6? „ 194 /67 „ 195 /67 „ 196 I67 „ i97)/67 i98)/67 „ (199)167 „ (200V67 (202V67 146 147 1 48 149 150 151 1 52 ↩
The Patna High Court referred to the above clause, but held that in all matters covered by clause 8(f), in view of clause 41, the Dock Labour Board i» the final authority, and only in such matters as may not be covered by the comprehensive specific, powers given to the Board, there may be an industrial dispute to be referred to adjudication and that sub-clause (o) of clause 8 must refer to such exceptional cases. Since fixation of wages, hours of work, enlisting, transfer, disciplinary action etc-, are all matter within the jurisdiction of the- Board, the view taken by the Patna High Court would mean that there is practi- cally no scope for reference to adjudication of a dispute raised by dock labour. But sub-clause (o) of clause 8 appears to be in general terms and I see no reason* why it should not be understood to include dispute even in respect to regis- tration or listing or fixation of wages and other conditions of service which the Board is competent to do as a Statutory Body. It is significant that under the Industrial Disputes Act under Sec. 2(s) certain categories of employees are ex- cluded from the scope of the Industrial Disputes Act, viz., persons who are members of the Army or Navy or Air Force, persons under the Police service or Paison service and so on, but the workers ergistered or listed under the Dock Labour Board are not excluded. The Supreme Court held in Guest Keen Williams Pvt, Limited v. P. G. Sterling, 1959 II LLJ 405 that the Standing Orders certified under the Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act, 1946 no doubt become part of the terms of employment by operation of Section 7 of the Act tout if an Industrial dispute arises in respect of a matter covered by Orders and it is referred to the tribunal by the appropriate Government, the tribunal has jurisdiction to deal with it on merits- By analogy it follows that even though the orders of the Dock Labour Board fixing wages, allowances and other conditions of service become the terms of employment of the workmen, by operation of clause 41 of the scheme, still if an industrial dispute arises in respect of any of such terms and it is referred to the tribunal by the appropriate Government, the tribunal has jurisdiction to deal with It. The Patna High Court referred to the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, but pointed out that the case before the Supreme Court arose before the amendment of the Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act, 1946, whereby it was provided that even workmen might apply to the appropriate authority for amendment of a provi- sion of the Standing Order Act; and held that after the amendment, the position would be different; and in support of that view, relied on the following observa- tions of the Supreme Court:— "There can be no doubt that before the amendment of 1956, if the employees wanted to challenge the reasonableness of fairness of the Standing Orders, the only course open to them was to raise an industrial dispute in that matter. The position has been substantially altered by the two amendments to which we have just referred; bait we are concerned in the present case with the state of the law as it pre- vailed prior to the said amendments and so it cannot be denied that the employees had a right to claim a modification of the Standing Order? on the ground that they were unreasonable or unfair by raising an ↩
?, winchman that in a month he has to work from 5 to 10 days in ships at mooring and the remaining days in ships at berths. Altogether he gets 6 or 7 shifts per week or 26 to 30 shifts per month. He stated that at Bombay there is a moor- ing allowance of Rs. 1/4/- per shift paid to a winchman when he has to work in a ship at mooring. But the evidence is based on hearsay evidence and the union did ↩
, ↩
registered or listed under any scheme made under the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, ID48 tnd employed by registered or listed employers- Accordingly, the contention c f Shri Bhanja Choudhury that the Payment of Bonus Act dc«s not apply to listed Dock workers working under the listed employers must be accepted. Sri P. Sen and Sri W. A. Azad appearing for the Unions have referred to certain observations in the Bonus Commission Report to supc-rt the claim that a profit bonus may legally be claimed by the Dock workers. The Bonus Commission dealt with the question of Stevedore labour in Chapter 17 paragraphs 11 to V16- In paragraph 13 the • Commission remarked as follows :~ "17.13. We are of the opinion that stevedore labour should not, per se, be ineligible for bonus. It has not been suggested that stevedoring is less profitable in Calcutta than in Bombay. The circumstance that employment is from a pool, in rotation and intermittent, is not a good argument against giving bonus and there should, be no prac- tical difficulties since a record is regularly maintained of the persons who have been employed under each stevedore." In paragraph 15, the Commission gave a summary of the agreement as to bonus entered into at Bombay with stevedore labour. The scheme briefly is that bonus at a certain rate per ton of cargo handled is paid into a bonus poo! and the amount in the bonus pool is divided among the reserve pool workers and the monthly workers In proportion to the number of man-days and the basic wages of the respective categories. The rate fixed was 16 paise per ton for 2 years ending 31st March 1863 and 16 paise per ton for the 2 years ending 31st March 1965, In paragraph 16, the Commission observed as follows:— "So far the Stevedores' Association has been able to come to an agreement with the Transport and Dock Workers' Union about the rate of con- tribution by the employers to the bonus pool. We hope that this will continue to be the case. If in future the parties canot for any year agree as to the rate of contribution to the bonus pool and/or as to the manner of its distribution among the entitled workmen, we recommend that the same should be determined by arbitration. It in any year the parties do not agree to arbitration, the machinery of the Industrial Disputes Act would be available for settlement of the dispute. In view of the particular circumstances. in which stevedore labour Is employed under the decasualisation scheme we are clear ↩
The second objection of the contractors association is that since the listing of chipping and paintaing workers by the Dock Labour Board under the. 1957 scheme, relationship as employer and employee no longer exists between the contractors and the workmen allotted to them for each particular job on the requisition by the contractor, and that therefore there, can not be. any claim toj ↩
^ the fact th°t the statements Ext. 6 and 6A relate lo thp ri fir"1ar's vear 1966 whereas the balancesheet, Ext. 1, is for the accounting year from 1st July, 1965 to 30th June, 1966. As regards Shipwrights Contractors Ltd., the profit and loss account^ Ext. K, shows a loss of Rs. 2,133. Thus the assertion that the listed contractors are making a large profit out of chipping and painting workers is not correct. By the latest agreement the chipping and painting contractors have p^ad'caVy screed to an at'sndance bonus of Re. 1 per shift in addition to conceding certain other benefits mentioned above. To meet the cost of the bene- fits the levy has been increased by the Dock Labour Board from 45 to 51 per cent of the wa"es by the resolution of 29th August, 1967- The chipping and painting workers therefore will have no ground in future for agitating for bonus and other benefits. The new scheme came into force on 11th September, 1967. No doubt it does not cover the claim for a production bonus or an attendance bonus for 1964-65 and 1965-66. But as I have pointed out, no ^uch bonus was claimed; and having regard to the evidence as to the nature of work put in by the chipping and painting workers during those years, it would be difficult to accept the claim for such bonus even if such claim had been made. 15. My award therefore is that the demand for payment of a profit sharing bonus on behalf of the listed chipping and painting workers employed in Cal- cutta is not justified and is not sustainable under the 'aw. Henc .0 at-.i-cn arises as to the rate and as to the date from which the bonus should be paid. Dated, 23rd September 1967. S- K- SEN, Presiding Officer. [No. 28/54/36-LRIV.] S- S. SAHASRANAMAN. Under Secy. (Department of Labour and Employment) New Delhi, the 21th September 1967 S.O. 3656.—In pursuance of section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 (14 of 1947) the Central Government hereby publishes the following award of the Additional Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Mordal's Bilbera Colliery, Post Office Kairasgarh, in strict Dhr.nba-l and their workmen, which was received by the Central Govern- ment on the 23rd September, 1967. BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT ADDITIONAL INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT DHANBAD In the matter of a reference under section lCKl)ul; '-£ £-- iviuitrial Disputes Act, 1947 RKFEBENCE NO. 64 OF 1967 Employers in relation to the Mondal's Bilbera Colliery, P.O. Katrasgarh, District Dhanbad. Their Workmen. ↩
Ma?. 19<";>. as is seen from the acknowledgement, Ext- W3- 'i  '" •'••,• V. enquiry against him v--?~ fixed the employers statement is that the affected workman did not attend the enquiry. However that may be, no enquiry record is brought forth to show as to who held the enquiry in what manner and whether it was in confirmity with the principles olf natural justice. While stating categorically in para 9 of the statement that the affecten workman "neither attended the above departmental enqu'rv nor reported for duties", in the letter of dismissal, Ext. W12 dated 30th July, 1965 *ddr-sV.--P-V--. . 1964 there was no departmental enquiry of any kind and the dismissal of ft--' -.'•-•xd workman through the letter Ext.W12 was abso- lutely unwarranted and i -"'- 6 I therefore hold that + e management of Mondal's Bilbera C o iW refused Pmnioyment to th» afle-te-1 w-rkman, Burhan Singh, Onsetter with effect from 10th (Sd.) N. VENKATA RAO, Presiding Officer, Central Government Additional Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad. ↩
;: vr issued the letter, Ext. W5 to the affected workman on 27th Mn\ :•• • •••••. • •! by the charge- sheet date! 9th May, 1965. Ext. W5 says, "since the above chargesbeet w a' r e- turned undelivered to us from your colliery address the same is being sent here- with to your home address for your necessary action". It follows, that the very chargesheet which the Manager says was sent earlier to the aflected workmen was enclosed to the letter, Ext. W5. In paragraphs 6 a.:d 7 of the statement of em- ployers also it is stated that the chargesheet was despatched per registered A/D, and was returned undelivered and, as such, the same chargesheet was sent to the home address of the affected workmar on 27th Mrrv, 19(35. But it is si↩
£ °f Ae S a id S e r t i°n ↩
r^W+h e lT M Limited 24, Chittaranjan Avenue, Calcutta-12 (hereinafter referred to as the said establishment) has applied for exemption under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952 (19 of 1952). And whereas the employees of the said establishment are in enjoyment of benefits m the nature of provident fund, pension or gratuity and the Central Gov- ernment is oi opinion that such benefits are on the whole not less favourable ' ArfUHK9mnaye?Si2S? t h eA Te f\ £S P^o v l d e? under the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952 (19 of 1952) and the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 (here- inafter referred to as the said Act and the said Scheme respectively) In relation to employees In any other establishment of a similar character; Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 17 of the said Act and subject to the conditions specified i n t he Schedule annexed hereto, the Central Government hereby exempts the said estab- lishment from the operation of all the provisions &f the said Scheme and in d i Sn? h a ? i .S C t l°n ( ↩
' t he C e n t r al Government hereby (a) the employer in relation to the said establishment shall pay within fifteen days of the close of the month to the Employees' Provident Fund ™?l T Cfh?£ges at the rate of 0.09 per cent (zero point zero nine per cent) of the pay (basic wages, dearness allowance, retaining allow- ance, if any, and cash value of food concession admissible thereon) tit ↩
or the Provident Fund of another exempted establishment is employed in his establishment, the employer shall immediately enrol him as a member of the Fund of the establishment, and accept the past accumulations in respect of such employee and credit to his account. 6. The employer—shall enhance the rate of Provident Fund contribution ap- propriately if the rate of Provident Fund contributions for the class of establish- ment in which his—establishment falls is enhanced under the Employees' Provi- dent Funds Act, 1962 so that the benefits under the provident Fund Scheme of the establishment shall not become less favourable than the benefit provided under the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952. "• The establishment shall submit an audited balance sheet of its Provident Fund every year to the Regional Commissioner within 3 months of the close of the year- g 8- Notwithstanding anything contained in the Provident Fund rules of the establishment the amount payable to any member, upon his ceasing to be an employee of the establishment or transferable on his transfer to any other estab- lishment by way of employer's and employees' contributions plus interest thereon taken together with the amount, if any, payable under the Gratuity/Pension Rules, be less than the amount that would be payable as employer's and employees' contributions plus interest thereon, if he were a member of the Provident Fund under the Employees Provident Funds Scheme, 1952, the employer shall pay the difference to the member as compensation/special contribution- 9 No amendment of the rules of the Provident Fund shall be made without the previous approval of the Central Provident Fund Commissioner. Where any amendment is likely to affect adversely the interests of the employees the Central Provident Fund Commissioner shall, before giving his approval, give a reasonable opportunity to the employees to explain their point of view- [No 11/29/67/PF-II.] New Delhi, the 30th September 10B7 S.O. 3668.—Whereas it appears to the Central Government that the employer and the majority of thei employees in relation to the establishment known as Messrs Madan Transport Company 18-A, Nungambakkam High Road, Madras-34 fv^ a£r e e£ t?at t he Provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds Act 1952 (19 of 1952), should be made applicable to the said establishment. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (41 of section 1 of the said Act the Central Government hereby applies the provisions or the said Act to the said establishment. T h ls Notification shall be deemed to have come into force on the 1st day of [No. 8/119/67/PF-II-l HANS RAJ CHHABRA, Under Secy. ↩
The employer shall display on the Notice Board of the establishment a copy of the rules of the fund as approved by the appropriate Government and, as and when amended, alongwlth a translation of the salient points thereof in the language of the majority of the employees- 5 Where an employes who is already member of the Employees' Provident Fund (Statutory Fund ↩
c ! r~ is. ! C ,&- > tr- <• Z ↩