REGISTERED No. D. 222.
The Gazette of India
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
No. 37] NEW DELHI, SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 22, 1891
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 the 18th August, 1969 :—
No. and Date
Subject
Issued by
Issue No.
S.O. 3215, dated 9th August 276
1969.
, Ministry of Industrial Development, Internal Trade and Company Affairs.
Granting recognition to the Grain, Rice and Oilseeds Merchants' Association Bombay for a further period of one year from the 10th August, 1969 upto the 9th August, 1970 in respect of forward contracts in ground' nut kernels.
(3835 )
383t5THE OAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 22, 1891 [PART II—No. and Date
Subject
Issued by
Issue No.
277 S.0.3294, dated n th August, Election Commission of
India.
1969.
By election to the Council of States by the elected Members of the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly to fill the vacancy caused by the death of Shrijogesh Chandra Chattcrji.
W° V)o 32 95, ITTCT Prefab srmVi sft
frrt'P 11 w*iw,
1969
WT % f^T ^T-f^rf^PT 1
Ministry of La\V.
S.O. 3296, dated n th August,
278
1969.
Bye-election to the Council 0 f States by the elected mem- bers of the Legisla' ive As- sembely of Uttar Pradesh.
tTtfo Sfto 32 9 7,
sr^r faun HW % fMrff^r
5^ff JTTT TTJT ?T*TT ^T ^ T- fcrfa 11 flTCT,
w<
m$ 1
1969
279 S.O. 3298, dated 13th August, Election Commission of
India.
1969.
Amendment In notification No. 479/2/69(1) (S 0. 2841), dated 14th July, 1969.
q*T° Sft° 32 99,
g^TT #0 4 7 9 / 2 / 69 ( l)
[k'iiHi 13 W*Kd,
TT° *TT° 2 8 4 5 ), dlflfll
( 1. 1 %^'i, 1 9 69 flf ?TWEnT 1 1969
2 80 S.O. 3300, dated 14th August, Ministry of Law,
1969.
Bye-election to the Council of States by the elected Mem- bers of the Legislative Assembly of Uttar Pradesh.
I ^0 *ft° 3301, *
%&(i ?RT TT^T %ff\ ^7T Wf- f
1969
*m 1
S.O. 3302, dated I4gh Autust, Ministr y of Law,
281
1969.
The Presidential and Vice- Presidential Elections (Amendment) Rules, 1969.
TJ^o sfto 3303, f^rpp 14 |inrRr,
ft
1
1969
9 69 1
2 82
Election Commission of
S.O. 3304, dated I tth August,
1969.
India.
Amendments in notification No. 56/69-II (S.O. 89\ dated 4th January, 1969.
SEC. 3(H)] I.I?: GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 12., 1891 3837No. and Date
Subject
Issued by
Issue No.
S.O. 3305, datrd 1 ;th August,
283
Rajya Sabha S ;cretariat.
1969.
Final list of candidates foe election to the Office of th Vicc-Prcsidcnt of India.
r^fo ?fto 33 0 6,
fc^TPP 14 ?PFtf,
1969
f it *rfarr ^TTT 1
284 S.O. 33O7, dated i5th Aujust, Ministry of Law.
1969.
Tne Registration of Elector (Second Amendment) Rules, 1969.
^To *TTo 3 3 0 8,
fcTTT 16 5TTRT,
Trftspf) ftpPT, 1969 1
1 9 69
2 85 S.O. 33:19, dated iSth Aujaat,
Constituting an Industrial Tri-
1969.
Ministry of Lib J-ir,Em^- loymint and Rchabi i- tation.
bunal and referring the dia • pute ae stated in the schedule therein for adjudication.
S.O. 3310, dated 18th August,
Do.
1969.
Prohibiting the strike in the port of Visakhapatnam in connection with the dispute referred above (S.O. 3309).
Approval of th; films as specified 3 O. 33lidatei 18th Au^u s,
1969.
Ministry of Informitkm and Broadcasting.
in the schedule therein.
t^To m° 3312, % f^rt^r is *mw,
1 9 69
Copies of the Gazettes Extraordinary mentioned above will be supplied on indent to the Manager of Publications, Civil Lines, Delhi. Indents should b" Bubrnitted so as to reach the Manager within ten days of the date of issue of these Gazettes.
PAKT II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)
Statutory orders and notifications Issued by the 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 OF INDIA
New Delhi, the 29th August 1969
S.O. 3629.—In pursuance of section 106 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, the Election Commission hereby publishes the Order, pronounced on
3838THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 22, 1891 [PART II—14S 1968* 1 9 69 by t he H l Bh C°U rt °f J u d k a t u re flt P a t na in Election Petition No,
ELECTION PETITION NO. 1 OF 1968
In the matter of an application under section 80 of the Representation of the People
Act, 1951.
Jagat Kishore Prasad Narain Singh—Petitioner
Versus
Shri Rajendra Kumar Poddar and others—Respondents
For the petitioner—Messrs Balbhadra Prasad Singh, Umesh Chandra Prasad Sinha, Nagendra Prasad Singh, Umesh Prasad Singh and Shyam Nandan Prasad Sharma.
For the respondent No. 1-—Messers Kanhaiya Prasad Verma, Kamla Kant Prasad, Bishwambhar Prasad Sinha, Saptami Jha, N. N. Roy, A. B. S, Sinha, Anugrah Pd. Singh and Devendra Pd. Sharma.
PRESENT:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice G. N. Prasad.
G. N. PRASAD J.—This is an election petition under Part VI of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which will be referred to as "the Act of 1951", to distinguish it from the Representation of the People Act, 1950, which will be referred to in this judgment as "the Act of 1930".
2. A biennial election to the Rajya Sabha (the Council of States) was held in March, 1968, for the purpose of filling the seats of seven members of the Rajya Sabha whose term was to expire in the month of April, 1968. The election was held in the Bihar Legislative Assembly Constituency in accordance with the follow- ing Schedule:
. 1S-3-1968 (") Last date forfilingnominations . . . . ..
. I9-3-I968 ) The date for scrutiny of nomination papers
. 21-3-1968 (Hi) Last date for withdrawal of candidatures . . ..
. 28-3-1968 (iv) Date of poll
28th March 1968 was also the date on which the counting of ballot papers and the declaration of the results were made.
3. In all, 23 candidates had filed their nominations for the election, including the petitioner, who was a sitting member of the Rajya Sabha and due to retire from this office. The nominations of all of them were declared to be valid, but three of them withdrew their candidatures, and thus 20 candidates went to the poll. At the stage of the counting of the ballot papers, it transpired that 8 of t he candidates had secured nil votes. They are Sarbshri (1) Gopal Shastri, (2) Chandrika Singh, (3) Mani Kant Thakar, (4) Rajeshwari Prasad, (5) Rameshwar Sahu. (6) Shrimati Sakuntala Devi, (7) Shrl Bhagwan Singh, and (8) Hardeo Narain Singh, who are parties to this election petition as respondents Nos. 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18 and 19 respectively. The total number of valid votes was found to be 313, and the first preference votes secured by the remaining 12 candidates were found to be as follows:
2T 1 Shri Jagat Kishore Prasad Narain Singh . . . . . ..
("the Petitioner)
39 40 37 35 27 2 Shri Rajendra Kumar Poddar (Responent No. 1) . 3 Shri Balkrishna Gupta (Respondent No. 2) 4 Shri Rudra Narain Jha (Respondent No. 3) 5 Shri Mahabir Das (respondent No. 4) 6 Shri Jagdambi Prasad Yadav (respondent No. 5) 7 Shri Sura; Prasad (respondent No. 6) . . . . . .. S Shri Anant Prasad Sharma (respondent No. 7) 9 Shri Dharmuchand Jain (respondent No. 8)
363I
1 33 I 10 Shri Chandrashekharcshwar Praead Narain Singh (respondent No. 10) . 11 JShri Mohammad Thahir (respondent No. 13) 12 Shri Vishwanath Singh (respondent No. 16)
SEC. 3(Ii)l THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 22, 189] 3839The quota sufficient to secure the return of a candidate at the election, as envisaged in rule 76 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, was 3916 and, as such, there were fresh countings of the ballot papers according to the next available preferences recorded thereon. Ultimately, as a result of the final counting, the following candidates were found to have secured the largest number of votes as follows:
1 Shri Rajendra Kumar Poddar (respondent No. 1)
3913
3913 2 Shri Balkrlshna Gupta (respondent No. 2)
3 Shri Rudra Narain Jha (respondent No. 3)
3913
6900 4 Shri Mahabir Das (respondent No. 4). .
5 Shri Jagdambi Prasad Yadav (respondent No. 5) , ,
3904
3800 6 Shri Suraj Prasad (respondent No. 6) . . . ..
38^0 7 Shri Anant Prasad Sharma (respondent No. 7) . . .
Accordingly, these seven respondents were declared to have been duly elected. The petitioner challenges the validity of the election of respondent No. 1 only.
4. The main ground of attack which the petitioner has put forward to the elec- tion of respondent No. 1 is twofold; (i) that the nomination of respondent No. 1 was impronerly accepted, inasmuch as he was not qualified to be enrolled as an elector in the electoral roll of West Patna Assembly constituency for the time being in force, on the ground that he was then not ordinarily resident in the said cons- tituency, but was, on the other hand, ordinarily resident in Alipur Constituency of the West Bengal Legislative Assembly, and_ (ii) that he was guilty of corrupt practice within the meaning of sub-section (1) of section 123 of the Act of 1951, inasmuch as he had not only made offers but also payments of money to various electors Q§ motive or reward for voting in his favour.
5. The relevant allegations of the petitioner on the main ground as set out at length in paragraphs 17 to .3? of the election petition. The case of the petitioner Is that respondent No. 1 belongs to and has his home in Calcutta within the territory of West Bengal. His name is entered in the electoral roll of 136, Alipore Assembly Constituency of the West Bengal Legislative Assembly for the year 1966. But he made an application for inclusion of his name in the list of electors of the Patna West Assembly Constituency under a false pretence of being a resident of Patna and got his claim supported by one Sri Devendra Prasad Sinha, an elector of the said Constituency. He also persuaded Sri Balwant Nath Singh, the then State Minister Incharge of Mines Department, to recommend inclusion of his name in the electoral roll by contacting Shri Awadhesh Kumar, Assistant Electoral Registration Officer, and the latter mechanically ordered the Inclusion of the name of respondent No. 1 in the electoral roll on the 18th March, 1968. It has further been alleged that respondent No. 1 occasionally visits Patna in connection with his business affairs and stays in hotels, so that he cannot be treated as a resident of Patna West Assembly Constituency. Besides, respondent No, 1 had not attained the age of thirty years so as to be qualified to be chosen to fill a seat in the Council of States, This part of the petitioner's case is summed up in paragraph 23 of the election petition which reads:
"That the petitioner is advised and submits that the inclusion of the said respondent's name in the electoral roll being based on wilful and fraudulent representation is void, illegal and honest in the eye of law and that the said respondent was not qualified to be chosen to fill a seat in the Council of States by reason of the deficiency of his age and absence of the qualification of his being an elector for a Parlia- mentary constituency in the State of Bihar, as prescribed by the law mad£ by Parliament.
6. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent No. 1 is possessed of considerable wealth and he and respondent No. 8 (Shri Dharmuchand Jain) have flourishing business of their own. At the impugned election, respondent No, 1 "by the magic of his purse and his capacity to harness, in furtherance of his prospects, material resources In alloys and currencies, successfully tampered with
3840 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA' SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 22, 1891 [PART l i-the free exercise of their electoral right by several members of the Bihar Legisla- tive Assembly and lured them into voting in his favour and giving him the first preference votes" (paragraph 24). In paragraph 24, it has further been alleged:
"The said respondent committed corrupt practices at the said election within the meaning of the said 1951 Act. The said respondent and his elec- tion agent, Shri Brajeshwar Mullick, and his agent, Shri Balwant Nath. Singh, M.L.A., with the consent of the said respondent and his elec- tion agent, the said Shri Brajeshwar Mullick, offered bribe, among, others, to the voters named in the particulars hereto annexed, in compliance with the requirements of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 83 of the said 1951 Act, and marked 'B', with the object of. inducing those voters to refrain from voting for the petitioner at the said election and for voting for the said respondent. As it has trans- pired to the petitioner, many of the voters, who wou!d, in the ordinary course, have voted for the petitioner, did actually refrain from voting in his favour and voted for the respondent No. l and those particular- ly named in Armexure 'B' hereof voted for the respondent No. 1 by giving their votes of first preference to him on actual receipt of gift and gratification offered to them as aforesaid for voting at the sa.id electipn in favour of the said respondent."
I shall refer to the particulars mentioned in Annexure "B" hereafter at the appro- priate stage. Paragraph 25 of the election petition is in the following terms:
"That respondent No. 1 and his election agent and his workers, with the consent and connivance of the said respondent and his election agent,, offered and promised to offer money to several voters, including those of the petitioner, for the purpose of obtaining their votes, the neces- sary particulars whereof are given in Annexure 'C hereto annexed."
I shall refer to the particulars given in Annexure "C" also hereafter at the appro- priate stage. The petitioner's case has been succinctly put in paragraph 27 of the election petition which reads:
"That, in the premises, the petitioner submits that the result of the election* in so far as it concerns respondent No. 1, has been materially affected bv the improper acceptance of his nomination, as also by corrupt pra- tices committed in the interest of the said respondent by himself and by his agents with his connivance and concurrence, and, In any event, by non-compliance and breach of the provisions of the Constitution, read with the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1950,. and as much, the election of the respondent No. 1 is liable to be declared void."
Allegations of some more currupt practice of bribery to voters have been made in paragraph 28 read with Annexure "B" of the election, petition. To this also refer- ence will be made hereafter at the appropriate stage.
7. The petitioner has also made out a case that by reason of being in public life for quite a long period, as also an active participant in politics, he had a bright chance of success, but respondent No. 1, on account of his corrupt practices, "was; able to purloin considerable support available to the petitioner and the votes which the petitioner would otherwise have received were cast in favour of the respondent No. 1 giving him a majority of votes". Substantially, upon these allegations the petitioner has sought two reliefs; (1) that the election of respondent No. 1 be declared to be void; and, (ii) that the petitioner be declared to have been duly elected as a member of the Council of States.
8. The notice of the election petition has been served upon all the nineteen, respondents, but only respondent No, 1 has filed his written statement and con- tested the petition. The written statement starts by saying that the election peti- tion is not maintainable as it is not in accordance with the provisions of sections 80, 81 and 117 and that it is fit to be dismissed under section 86 for non-compliance of the provisions of sections 81, 82 and 117 of the Act of 1951. In paragraph 3 of the written statement, it has been alleged that the election petition was not pre- sented according to law since the petitioner was not present in Court on the 10th May, 1968, when the same was filed and presented by his lawyer. The case put forward in paragraph 4 of the written statement is that the copies of the election petition were not attested to be true copies as required under section 81 (3) of t ht Act of 1931, and as such it is fit to be summarily dismissed. It has further been alleged that the election petition, as originally filed, contained several defects
SEC. 3(iiJ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 22, lwhich were removed after the expiry of th period of limitation, and as such the election petition is fit to be dismissed. In paragraph 7, the case set up is that the election in question was a composite e'ection and me petitioner cannot be allowed to challenge the election of only one candidate.
9. On the merits of the case, respondent No. 1 asserts that he was entitled to be enrolled as a voter in Patna West Assembly Constituency since he lives both at Calcutta and at Patna in connection with his business and is more attached to Bihar, living mostly at Patna since some time to look after his business. His name was, no doubt, entered in the electoral roll of A'ipur Assembly Constituency, but along with his application for enrolment as a voter of Patna West Assembly. Constituency, respondent No. 1 has requested the authority to get his name deleted, from the electoral roll of Alipur Assembly Constituency. The application of respondent No. 1 and a notice inviting objections thereto were duly published in accordance with law, and no objection was raised against his enrolment in Patna West Assembly Constituency, by or on behalf of the petitioner, or any other per- son. In paragraph 30 of the written statement it has been averred:
"It is wrong tP s ay that the Respondent No. 1 pretended to be an ordinary resident of Patna at exhibition Road. The business of the Respon- dent No. 1 namely Auto Distributors Ltd. of which he is a Chairman, is located in a big house on Exhibition Road and it is wrong to think that Respondent No. 1 has not got an ordinary place to reside. Un- less the Respondent No. 1 resides at Patna he is not supposed to look after his business. Hence the statement made by the Respondent No. 1 was correct and not pretention and that was also supported by a voter namely Sri Devendra Prasad Sinha of that area.
In paragraph 31 of the written statement, emphasis has been laid upon the cor- rectness of the claim of the respondent No. 1 to be qualified to contest the election in the following terms:
"If the statement of the Respondent No. 1 would have been wrong, the peti- tioner and others, before being defeated in the election, must have objected and raised their fingers at a1! stages. Even at the time of the scrutiny of the nomination papers, where the petitioner was pre- sent, no objection was raised. He did not prefer to raise any objec- tion anywhere at any stage since there was nothing wrong as regard the enrolement of the name of the Respondent No. 1".
Paragraph 23 of the election petition has been traversed in paragraph 35 of the written statement in the following terms:
"That the submission made in paragraph 23 of the election petition is wrong and misconceived. The inclusion of the name of the Respondent No. 1 in the electoral roll is never based on fraudulent representation and is never void or illegal and it is wrong to say that Respondent No. 1 was not qualified to be chosen to fill the seat. There was neither an deficiency of age nor absence of any qualification. The wild allega- tion made by the petitioner is nothing but an after-thought and has been manufactured after his defeat to make out an election petition."
Further, in paragraph 36, the case of respondent No. 1 is that the validity of the enrolment of respondent No. 1 as an elector in Patna West Assembly Consti- tuency cannot be challenged hy the petitioner in an election petition "In view of the remedy provided in the Representation of People Act 1950 and the Rules pres- cribed under that Act and in view of the provision of section 100 and section 64 etc. of the Representation of People Act, 1951".
10. The petitioner's case on the point of corrupt practices on the part of Respondent No. 1, his election agent and other agents, with his consent and con- nivance, has been emphatically repudiated at great length in paragraphs 37 to 43 and 46 of the written statement; and in answer to paragraph 27 of the election petition, it has been asserted in paragraph 45 of the written statement:
"That the submission made in paragraph 27 of the Election Petition is wrong and without substance. ^The nomination paper of the Respondent No. 1 was never improperly accepted and no corrupt practice, whatsoever, was committed in the interest of Respondent No. 1 either through him or through his agents. There has not been any breach of the provisions of the constitution of India or the provisions of the Representation of the Peop'e Act 1950 and in no case the result of election was materially affected."
3842 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA. SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 22, 1891 [PART H—And the allegations contained In paragraph 28 read with Annexure "D" of the election petition have been traversed in paragraphs 46 and 47 of the written state- ment. Finally, respondent No, 1 has denied the claim of the petitioner that he was in public life and an active participant in politics for a long time or that he had a bright chance of success at the election. According to the respondent, the petitioner has no social or political background! has done nothing for the service of the country and has merely been moving from one party to another. By mere chance once he had become a member of the Council of States. On the other hand, respondent No, 1 and his family members have served the country and society in different ways and have also done many constructive works, one such work being the creation of the Gurukul of Baidyanathdham, It has been asserted that "the respondent No. 1 never committed any corrupt practice arid never purloined the support available to the petitioner. The petitioner received 21 votes which was more than enough. It is wrong to say that he could have received any more votes much less sufficient votes to be declared elected. The submission made by the petitioner for setting aside election and declaring him elected Is wrong and base- iess."
11. Upon the pleadings, the following issues have been framed for determina- tion;
1. Is the election petition not in, accordance with tha provisions of sections 81, 82 and 117 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951? If so. is the election petition not maintainable?
2. Are the allegations made in the election petition fit to be struck off or ignored because of the non-compliance of the provisions of section 83 of the Representation of the People Act, 19517
a. Is the election of respondent No. 1, fit to be declared as void on the ground that on the date of his election he was not qualified by reason of his age to be chosen to fill a seat in the Council of States,
4. Is the petitioner entitled to challenge the election of respondent No. 1 only when there were seven returned candidates in one composite election.?
6. Was respondent No. 1 not qualified to be enrolled an elector In the elec- toral roll of Patna West Assembly Constituency for the time being in force? Is the petitioner entitled to challenge his election on that ground?
6. Was the nomination of respondent No. 1 improperly and illegally accej -
ed? If, so, has it materially affected the result of the election?
7. Did respondent No. 1, his election agents any of his workers with his consent and connivance commit corrupt practices within the meaning of section 123(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, by bribing the voters or offering bribe or promising to give bribe to the voters, as alleged In the election petition and the annexures thereof? If go, has the election of respondent No. 1 been materially affected on that ground?
8. Is the election of respondent No. 1 void? 9. Has the petitioner secured the majority of valid votes and Is he entitled
to be declared elected?
10. Has the result of the election, so far as respondent No. 1 is concerned, been materially affected by reason of non-observance of the rule re- garding single transferable votes during the counting of votes, as alleged in paragraph 29 of the electioji petition?
11. Are the parties entitled to any other relief?
12. The first point which I propose to consider is whether this election petition (s liable to be dismissed under, section 86 of the Act, 1951, subsection (1) of which provides:
"The High Court shall dismiss an election petition which does not comply with the provisions of section 81 or section 82 or section 117".
The contention of Mr. K. P. Verma, who appears for respondent No. 1, Is that there has been a non-compliance with the provisions of section 81(3) of a subs- tantial character, and as such this election petition must be summarily dismissed under section 86(1) of the Act of 1951. Section 81(3) required two things; (1) that every election petition shall be accompanied by as many copies thereof as there are respondents mentioned in the petition, and (11) that every such copy
SEC. 3(ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 22, 1391 3843shall be attested by the petitioner under his own signature to be a true copy of .the petition. There is no dispute that the petitioner did file 19 copies 01 the election petition, one lor each of the 19 respondents, and, accordingly, one such copy was served upon respondent No. 1 in the normal course. But the conten- tion of Mr. Verma is that the copy which was served upon his client is not a true copy of the election petition as contemplated by section 81(3), though attested as much ay the petitioner under his own signature. Ext. 'O' is alleged to be the copy filed by the petitioner and served upon respondent No. 1 as atoresaid. But that has been disputed by Mr. Balbhadra Prasad Singh appearing for the peti- tioner, who has characterised Ext. 'O' as faked. In this context the following questions arise for consideration : (1) Whether Ext. 'O' is the identical copy ol the election petition which was filed by the petitioner and served upon respon- dent No. 1, and (ii) Whether Ext. 'O' is not a true copy of the election petition. The question as to whether the election petition must be summarily dismissed under section 80(1) of the Act, of 1951 can only arise If the two questions just formulated are answered in favour of respondent No. 1.
13. For the decision of the first question, it is necessary to state the circums- tances under which Ext. 'O' was brought on the record. On the 25th April, 1969, while the 6th witness of the petitioner, Shri Mahabir Paswan, was deposing, Mr. Verma on behalf of respondent No. 1 produced Ext. 'O' for my examination saying that It is the copy of the election petition which has been served upon his client and that it is not really a true copy thereof. I indicated to Mr. Verma that I could not go into this question unless Ext. 'O' was brought on the record as an exhibit in the case. Accordingly, on the 26th April, 1969, Mr. Verma filed Ext. 'O', and on 28th April, 1969, he filed a verified petition containing the following prayer :
"It Is therefore, prayed that your lordships may be pleased to allow this petition and the copy of the election petition, separately filed, to be kept on record and after hearing the parties be further pleased to dismiss the election petition under section 86 for non-compliance of the provision of section 81 of the R.P. Act 1951, or pass any other order or orders as your Lordships think fit and proper."
Ext, 'O' was ordered to be kept on record with a note that the matter would be considered if pressed during the arguments, leaving it on pen to the petitioner to rile a rejoinder to this petition before the arguments began. Accordingly, the petitioner filed a rejoinder In the form of a counter-affidavit on the 7th May, 1969, in Paragraph 4 of which It was stated:
"That similarly the contents of paragraph No. 4 of the petition under reply are incomplete as ' such vague and misleading. Immediately after the examination-in-chief of P.W. 6 and before his cross-examination Sri Kanhalya Prasad Verma, the learned Advocate appearing for the respondent No. 1, asked for the original election petition filed before this Hon'ble Court, pursued it and then started the cross- examination of the said P.W. the error In the last date mentioned in Annexure 'C at page 32 of the copy of election petition allegedly served upon respondent No. 1 is only a typing error and certainly it was not calculated to mislead anybody nor it has misled any body as a matter of fact."
In paragraph 5, it was stated :
"That the contents of paragraph 5 of the petition under reply are mis- representation of facts. There is no variation in the pleadings in the two documents referred to in that paragraph, rather the mention of 28th March, 1968 instead of 25th March, 1968 as alleged is a bona- •flde typing error which could not be discovered by the petitioner earlier."
The recording of oral evidence was concluded on 15th May, 1969 and on 16th June, 1969, several documents were formally marked as exhibits on both sides, and among them is Ext. 'O'. The point to be noticed is that until 16th May. 1969, it was never suggested on behalf of the petitioner that Ext. 'O' is faked and not the identical copy of the election petition filed by the petitioner and served upon respondent No, 1 in the usual course. It was really during the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner that for the first time the suggestion was put forward that Ext. 'O' Is a faked document. In view of the belated stand thus put forward on behalf of the petitioner, It is difficult to accept the sugges- tion about Ext. 'O' being spurious. Had there been any truth In this suggestion then the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner on the 7th May, 1969,
3844 THE G^HTTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/bHADitA II, 1B*1 LFART ii—would have Deen very differently worded. Besides, in that even Ext. 'O' would ob ectlVe Sn a l l o w ed to be a a m l t t ea into evidence on lbth May, 1969 without
14. T.he fact that Ext. 'O' is the identical copy of the election petition filed by the petitioner and served upon respondent J.NO. I is also apparent trom tne cir- cumstances that two similar copies ox me election petition nied Gy the petitioner and meant tor service upon respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are still in the record of his case since the service oi notice oi the election peciuon cou.d not be effected upon them in the ordinary course and recourse DUO to oe tjiKen to tne provision of Order 5, rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Comparing Ext. 'O' with the other two copies of the election petition im^ctui lor seiviue u ^ ii respondents 4 and 5 respectively), I have no manner of. douot in ^.y mind that it is the identi- cal copy of the election petition which was flJeu by u.e peuncnei- and rerved upon respondent No. 1, and that there is no mem in i^.e conientioii ot tne learned Counsel for the petitioner that Ext. 'O' is a laketi document, learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, contends that in order to prove the genuineness of Ext. 'O', respondent No. 1 should have filed an extra copy of the election petition which had been filed by the petitioner for the purpose oi effecting service of notice upon him by post; and that having not been done, it will be unsafe to hold Ext. 'O' to be a genuine copy of the election petition which was filed by the petitioner. In my opinion, there is no force in this contention, having regard to the fact that, the genuineness of Ext. 'O' was not called in question while evi- dence was being adduced at the trial. In my opinion, no duty lay upon respon- dent No. 1 to produce the extra copy, the genuineness of which he did not challenge, and which was also not the copy accompanying the election petition, but filed subsequently. Therefore, for the reasons which I have given above, I hold that Ext. 'O' is not a spurious document, but the identical copy of the election petition which was filed by the petitioner for service upon respondent No. 1, as contemplated by section 81(3) of the Act of 1951.
15. The next question Is whether Ext. 'O' is not a true copy of the election petition as urged on behalf of respondent No. 1. My attention has been drawn to certain discrepancies between Ext. 'O1 and the original election petition which are set out below :
SEC. 3(ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 22, 1SJI 8456(e) In paragraph 3 of Annexure 'B', a list of 20 parsons has been given, one 01 wnich is Shri Brindaban Swana, M.L.A. In the original, and Shri Brindaban Swansi, M.L.A. in Ext. 'O';
(f) In Annexure 'C relatins to the particulars of corrupt practice mention- ed in paragraph 25 of the election petition, it has been stated in the original that Shri Munshi Hansda, M.L.A., had offered money and promised to pay money to Shri Jetha Klsku, M.L.A., for casting his first preference vote in favour of respondent No. 1 at the M.L.A., Fiai on 19th March, 1968, but in Ext. 'O' mention has been made of the name of Shri Paul Hansda, M.L.A., as the alleged offerer of money to Shri Jethu Kisku, M.L.A.; and
(g) In Annexure 'C again, the original reads that the offer of money and promise of payment of money was made to Shri Mahablr Paswan by Bespondent No. 1 and Shri Balwant Nath Singh M.L.A., on 26th March, 1968, but in Ext. 'O\ this date has been stated as 28th March, 1968.
16. Having regard to these discrepancies between the original election peti- tion and the copy (Ext. 'O'J, Mr. Verma contends that Ext. '0' is not a copy, far less, a true copy of the election petition as contemplated by section 81(3) of the Act of 1951, and as such there has been a non-compliance pf the provision of section 81 (3), whereby the peremptory provision of section 86(1) of the Act of 1951 is attracted. As against tnis, Mr. Singh foi the petitioner contends that the discrepancies between the original and Ext. 'U are inconsequential and by no means of such a vital character as to attract the peremptory provision of section 8€<1).'
17. The true meaning of the work "copy" which occurs in section 81(3) has been indicated by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Murarka Radhey Shyam. Ram Kumar V. Roop Singh Rathore and others (A.I.R. 1964 Supreme Court 1545). There It has been held that me wora "copy" in subsection (3) of section 81 does not mean an absolutely exact copy, but means that the copy shall be so true that nobody can by any possibility misunderstand it. The test to be applied in such a case is whether the copy Is such that any variation from the original is calculated to rmsiena -an ordinary person. In other words, a true copy need not necessarily be an exact copy and may be accepted as true copy so long as any error or omission therein is merely clerical and of such a nature feat nobody would be misled thereby. In the light of this authoritative pro- nouncement of the Supreme Court, the point which falls far my consideration is whether the discrepancies between the original election petition and the copy (Ext. 'O'), which have been noticed above, are merely inconsequential or whether they are of such a character as to mislead an ordinary person. So far as dis- crepancies (a) and (b) are concerned, I am incllnded to think that they are Inconsequential as they are not likely to mislead an ordinary person. The questions as to what was the total number of elected member of the Assembly at the material time and which candidate had been set up by which political party could not possibly mislead the respondent in the matter of making his defence. These are also not material question for decision in this election petition. For the same reason the discrepancy (e) as to "Swana" and "Swansi" may safely be ignored. The same thing, however, cannot be said with regard to the other four discrepancies referred to above. Each of these four discrepancies Is of a vital character and anybody who reads the copy (Ext. 'O') and proceeds to act upon it without verifying it with the original is bound to be1 misled with regard to the true averments contained in the election petition. I would parti- cularly stress upon the two discrepancies (f) and (g), one as to the name and the other as to the date with respect to the particulars in Annexure 'C\ as I consider both of them to be on vital matters, since In regard to them it Is impossible to think that nobody can be misled by the copy (Ext. 'O'). It is to be remembered that one of the requirements of an election petition is that it must set forth "full particulars of any corrupt practice that the petitioner alleges including as full a statement as possible of the names of the parties alleged to have committed such corrupt practice and the date and place of the commission of each such practice" : vide section 83(1) (b) of the Act of 1951. The two discrepancies pertaining to Annexure "C" of the election petition are, therefore, on vital matters, and going by the copy (Ext. 'O') only, an ordinary person Is bound to be misled with regard to both these particulars of. the alleged corrupt practice. Discrepancies of such a vital character cannot be passed by as being
384 > THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 22, 1891 [PAHT II—inconsequential. I am, accordingly, of the opinion tnat Mr. Verma is right in his contention that Ext. 'O' is not a true copy of the original election petition as contemplated by section 81(3) of the Act of 1951.
SEC. 3(ii)] 1HE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 22, 1891 3847corrupt practice committed by Shri Munshi Hansda. In my opinion, any consi- deration of the question of prejudice la out of place in view of the peremptory provision of section 81(3) and 86(1) of the Act of 1951. The consequence of the non-compliance of section 81(3) has been clearly indicated in section 86(1) and it would, in my opinion, by beyond the province of this court to introduce any consideration therein about prejudice in the matter of the strict enforcement of such a peremptory provision. However, I am not satisfied that no pre- judice has been caused to respondent No. 1 by reason of defect No. (f) in Ext. 'O'. The case of respondent No. 1 with effect to Shri Munshi Hansda is that at the relevant time he was absent from Patna so that he could not possi- bly have indulged In the corrupt practice attributed to him in Annexure 'C of the election petition. In order to prove his case on this point. Respondent No. 1 relied upon the evidence of R.W. 2, whose evidence has been characterised by Mr. Singh as no better than hearsay. Respondent No. 1 has also examined R.W. 3 to say that he had made certain enquiries and learnt that Shri Munshi Hansda was an indoor patient in a Christian Hospital at Mohul Paharl neat Dumka in March 1968, from where he obtained a medical certificate (Ext. L) and a bill (Ext. M), Both Exts. L and M have been characterised by Mr. Singh an inadmissible in evidence. The evidence of R.W. 3 shows that he had bees deputed by respondent No. 1 to make the above Inquiries on the 5th May, 1969, that is to say, alter respondent No. 1 had already entered upon his defence. Had the name of Shri Munshi Hansda found place in Annexure 'C of Ext. 'O\ then it was possible that respondent No. 1 would have been in a position to procure or adduce better evidence relating to the alleged illness of Shri Munshi Hansda and his hospltalisatlon at Mohul Pahari at the relevant time. As the record stands, it is manifest that respondent No. 1 was prejudice in his defence relating to the corrupt practice attributed to Shri Munshi Hansda.
19 Mr Singh also relies upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Choudhary Subbarao v Member, Election Tribunal, Hyderabad, and others (A.I.R. 1964 Supreme Court 1087), where it was held that if there is a substantial compliance with the requirement of section 81(3). the election petition cannot be dismissed. That however, was a decision under the old law under which the Election Tribu- nal was authorised to dismiss an election petition under section 90(3), as It stood before the amendment made in 1966. Besides, the finding in that case was that there was no non-compliance with the name with the requirements of section' 81(3) Upon the facts, therefore, Choudhary Subbarao's case (A.I.R. 1964 Sup- reme Court 1087) is distinguishable from the facts and the cirr- ^stances of ther present case. The decision relied upon by Mr. Singh is, therefore, of no avail to the petitioner in this case.
20 For the reasons which I have set out above, I hold that this election peti- tion is fit to be dismissed under section 86(1) on account of non-comphance with the mandatory provision of section 81(3) of the Act of 1951.
21 It is however desirable that I should record my decision also on the merits of this election petition, particularly because there is a bitter attack in it upon the purity of the impugned election. Before taking up the merits of the case, however, I ought to deal with a point about the maintainability of the election petition. The point raised by Mr. Verma is that the election in question was a composite election in respect of seven seats which had to be filled up in the Council of States by the constituency in question, and for this purpose the valldly recorded votes had to be rotated in accordance with the procedure laid down in rules 76 to ai of the Conduct of Election Rules, lf"l, in order to decide which of the seven contesting candidates were entitled to be declared elected. In such a situation according to Mr. Verma, the election of only one of the returned candi- dates, to the exclusion of the other six, cannot be called into question. It is pointed out that if the election of respondent No. 1 alone were to be declared to be void, then it would not be possible to ascertain how the first preference and other votes counted in his favour ought to have been dealt with, and so there would be a corresponding repurcussion upon the election of the other contesting candidates, the manner of which would remain undecided. It is therefore, urged that the election petition designed to avoid the election of only one of the seven successful cfwdidates is not maintainable at all. In support of the contention Mr. Verma relies upon the decision of the Election Commission in Rai Bahadur Surendra NarayBn Sinha v. Ambuladhone Roy and 43 others, Incorporated inSen and Poddar's Indian Election Cases, 1935-1931, at pages 188-201. At page 200 of the Book, the following passage occurs:
"The system of election by means of the single transferable vote is so inter- iqeked that unless 'anomaly is to be avoided it seems difficult in fact
3848 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 22, 1891 [PART II—to provide for interference with one election without the election being upset as a whole. This in turn le_ads to some anomaly in that entirely innocent persons duly elected would have to be unseated. Mr. Amulyadhone Roy and the petitioner, for example, cannot be put in the position of .contesting for a seat except at an election where there are eight other seats being filled, besides the ninth which is the pnly one that can come into the picture so far as they are concerned; only thus can these two be enabled to repeat the contest found to have been irregular."
The point raised by Mr. Verma is, no doubt, attractive but I do not think that it •can succeed. The reason is that if the election of respondent No. 1 is found to have been vitiated on the ground of commission of corrupt practice, as alleged in the election petition, then it cannot be allowed* to stand despite certain anoma- lies which might arise in the matter of the election of the other contesting candi- dates. The ppurt must show greater concern for the purity of election than for such anomalies; and as between the two evils, it must disfavour an election taint- ed with corrupt practice. I, therefore, hold that this election petition cannot be dismissed as unmaintainable on the ground that it seeks to challenge the election of only one of the seven returned candidates.
22. On the merits of the case the first question which I ought to consider is the question relating to the qualification of respondent No. 1 to fill the seat in the Council of States. The qualifications which I have in mind are, firstly, as to the age, and, secondly, as to the residence. The qualification as to the age is to toe found in" Article 84 of the Constitution where it is provided that a person shall not toe qualified to be chosen to fill a seat in the Council of States unless, he is not less than thirty years of age. In paragraph 23 of the election petition it has. no doubt, been stated that respondent No. 1 was not qualified to be chosen to fill a seat in.-the Council of States by reason of deficiency of his age, but it has not been alleged what precisely was his age at the time of the election. Wo evi- dence also has been adduced on the side of the petitioner on the point of respon- dent No. l's age. As against this, respondent No. 1 deposing aa R.W. 5 has stated that he was born on the 5th December, 1936, and this has not been soeciflcally challenged in his cross-examination. Besides, during the arguments, Mr. Singh indicated that he does not press Issue No. 3 which has been framed for determina- tion in this case. Without persuing the point any further, I hold that the election of respondent No. 1 is not invalid for lack of his requisite age qualification.
23. So far as the qualification as to the residence is concerned, it is to be found In section 3 of the Act of 1951 which reads:
"A person shall not be qualified to be chosen as a representative of any Stage or Union territory in the Council of States unless he is an elector for a Parliamentary constituency in that State, or territory."
SEC. 3(ii)l THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 22, 18"J| 3849the beginning of the current year, when he shifted to another house in the Patli- putrs Colony. But the truth of the evidence thus given by E.W. 5 has been vigor- ously assailed in his cross-examination. Reading the relevant entries in Exts. 2 and 2/1 and the evidence of R.W. 5 as a whole, I find it difficult to accept his claim that he had any permanent place of residence in Patna, or that he w^s ordinarily resident there at the time of the present election. In the normal course, there- fore, he was not entitled to be enrolled as an elector in the electoral roll of Patna West Assembly Constituency. Section 19 of the Act of 1950 clearly provides that one of the conditions of registration of a person in the electoral roll of a constitu- ency is that he must be ordinarily resident in that constituency. Even so, I fail to see how this can be of any avail to the petitioner in this case. The Question as to whether a person is or is not entitled to be registered in an electoral roll Is a matter of the satisfaction of the Electoral Registration Officer (see section 33(2) of the Act of 1950). Besides, section 24 of the said Act provides for an appeal to the Chief Electoral Officer from any order of the Electoral Registration Officer made under section 23. In other words, the Act of 1950 provides an inde- pendent forum for dealing with all questions relating to the preparation and revi- sion of electoral rolls and correctness or amendment of entries made therein. If, therefore, the registration of respondent No. l's name in the electoral roll of Patna "West Assembly Constituency was improperly or fraudulently done, then the remedy of the petitioner lay 'before the Chief Electoral Officer in an appeal under section 24 of the Act of 1950. There is no evidence that any objection to the registration of respondent No. l's name was raised before the Assistant Electoral Registration Officer or that any appeal against his order was taken to the Chief Electoral Officer. There is also no evidence whatsoever to show that any objec- tion was raised by anybody before the Returning Officer to the acceptance of the nomination of respondent No. 1 as a1 candidate for the impugned election. In my opinion, therefore, it is too late in the day for the petitioner to dispute the pro- priety of the registration of respondent No. l's name iri the electoral roll. In an •election petition the jurisdiction of this Court is confined to the matters indicated In sections 100 and 101 of the Act of 1951. It is unnecessary to. set out these sections at length. Suffice it to say that in dealing with an election petition, this Court is solely concerned with matters involving infraction of the Constitution or of any of the provisions of the Act Of 3 951, Any infraction of the provisions of the Aft of 1950 is beyond the scope of the inquiry which this Court is called upon to make in an election petition, unless it is of such a nature as also to involve a contravention of or non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution or of the Act of K51, or of any rule or order made under that Act. So far as the Act of 1951 is concerned, it is enough that respondent No. 1 is an elector within the meaning of clause (e) of section 2(1). Even upon the case of the petitioner himself, the name of respondent No. 1 wasi included in the electoral roll af Patna West Assembly Constituency before the expiry of the last date for making nomina- tions for the election in question. It has been shown to me that this has involved any breach of the provisions of the Constitution or of the Act of 1951. It is, therefore, no^ f-omrjetent for this Court to go behind the correctness of the relevant entry in the electoral roll and to say that respondent No. 1 was not qualified to fill the seat in the Council of States as a representative of the State of Bihar. Nor it can be suggested that the nomination of respondent No. 1 for the impugned election was improperly accepted in contravention of section 36 of the Act of 1951. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the election of respondent "No. 1 cannot be called in auestion on the ground that, he was not entitled to be registered as an elector of Patna West Assembly constituency at the material time. 24. The view which I take receives considerable support from a recent decision •of the Calcutta High Court. In Kanailal Bhattacharjee v. Nikhil Das and another (A.I.R. 1968 Calcutta 267), one of the grounds on which the election of the return- ed candidate was challenged was that he was not ordinarily resident in the consti- tuency from where he wag elected to the Assembly, though his name did a ^ e ar in the electoral roll of that constituency. Dealing with this question, S. P. Mitra, J. observed at page 271 as follows:
"From the above provisions of thp 1SR0 Act and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, It'anpears that Parliament has prescribed a complete code (a) for preparation of electoral roll (b) for objections thereto (c) for inclusion of names (d) for correction of ^ntrie<: and (e) for appeals from various decisions of the registration officer."
Rejecting the contention nut forward on 'behalf of the petitioner that violations of the Act of 1950 are still within the purview of Election Court his Lordship observed at page 273 as follows:
"Upon considering the relevant statutory provisions and the authorities aforesaid it is at least clear that a violation or non-observance purely
3850THE GAZE1TE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 22, 1891 [PART II—of the Act of 1&50 or any rules made thereunder is outside the pur- view of Section 10O(l)(d)(iv) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and as such, an Election Court which derives its jurisdiction from the 1951 Act is not entitled to look into that violation or non- observance."
H13 Lordship then proceeded to consider whether the inclusion of a non-resident in the electoral roll of a constituency involved any violation of Article 326 of the Constitution, and held that it did not. Adverting to the provisions of the Act of 1951, his Lordship held at page 279 that the High Court trying an election petition, under the Act of 1951 has no jurisdiction to question the legality of inclusion of a person's name ifl an electoral roll, except where it can be shown that there haa been a violation of an express provision of the Constitution. With respect, I find myself in complete agreement with the views expressed in this decision. For the aforesaid reasons, the first ground of attack against the validity of the election of respondent No. 1 put forward in this election petition must fail,
25. The more vital question for decision is whether the election of respondent No. 1 should be declared as void on the ground of commission of acts of corrupt practice as alleged in the election petition. But before proceeding to deal with this question, I would like to give a brief outline of the activities cf the various political parties in the State of Bihar on the eve of the impugned election. After the general election of 1997, a coalition Government, popularly known as the United Front Government, was formed under the leadership of Sri Mahamaya Prasad Sinha, the leader of the Bhartiya Krantl Dal (B.K.D.), with the support of other non-Congress political parties, including the Swatantra Party, of which the then leader was the Raja Bahadur of Ramgarh, Shri Kamakhya Narain Singh. In fact, the Raja Bahadur was also a member of the Mahamaya cabinet. Within a few months, how- ever, several members belonging to the constituent units of the United Front Gov- ernment withdrew their allegiance from it and formed a new political party, known as the Shoshit Dal, in a bid to topple the Mahamaya ministry and to form another Government, The Shoshit Dal, which was founded on the 2nd October, 1067, had the support of the Congress Party In acting in opposition to the United Front Government- The opposition proved so effective that the United Front Government led by Shri Mahamaya Prasad Sinha was voted out of power on the 25th January, 1968. Two days lateT, namely, on the 27th January, 1968, a new Government wa& formed with Shri Satish Prasad Singh (R.W. 2) of the Shoshit Dal as the Chief Minister. The strength of the Shoshit Dal In the Bihar Assembly was 27, and it had the support of 11 or 12 other legislators. The Congress Party also lent its support to the Shoshit Dal Government. Shri Satish Prasad Singh, however, func- tioned as the Chief Minister for only three days, after which he stepped down at the direction of his party in favour of Shri B. P. Mandal, a member of the Parlia- ment, who was in the meantime, nominated as a member of the Bihar Legislative Council, as he was the chief leader of the Shoshit Dal. In the cabinet formed by Shri B. P. Mandal, Shri Satish Prasad Singh was included as a minister and held the portfolios of Food and Supply. But the rise of the Shoshit Dal to power was short-lived. It was confronted by an opposition formed by the other non-Congress political parties, which was known as the Sanyukta Vidhayak Dal, under the leader- ship of Shri Bhola Paswan Shastrl. The opposition put forward by the Sanyukta Vidhayak Da] proved so strong that despite the support extended to it by the Con- gress Party, the ministry of Shri B. P. Mandal collapsed on Ihe 18th March, 1968, as a result of a no-confldence motion which was passed against it at the Instance1 of the legislators belonging to the Sanyukta Vidhavak Dal, which Included the members of the B.K.D. and the Swatantra Party. Within a few days thereafter, Shri Bhola Paswan Shastri formed a new ministry as the leader of the Sanyukta Vidhayak Dal- At that stage, however, the B.K.D. had to face a rough weather. There was a sharp difference of oninion between its leader Shri Mahamaya Prasad Sinha and the Raia Bahadur of Ramgarh on the issue of their joining the Bhola Paswan Shastrl cabinet. The Raja Bahadur defected Into the Janta Party, of which he was the leader before the general election of 1967. Having thus partfd i-ioUHcal company with the B-K.D., the Raia Bahaduur joined the cabinet of Shri Bhola- Paswan Shastri. Several other legislators belonging to the B K D. also defected from that party, and the result was that the strength of the B K.P.. which was 20. was reduced to only 3. However, the Bhola Paswan Shastri Ministry was also short-lived and it Trent out of office In the last week nf June. 1968. after which the Assembly was dissolved and the President's rule was imnosed In Bihar. It wiir thus be seen that the present impugned election had taken place at a timp when the atmosphere that was prevailing in Bihar was one of great political rivalry and acrimony.
SEC. 3(ii)] THu GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 11, 1891 385126. This much is quite clear from the materials on the record that, In particular, the relationship between the members and supporters of the Shoshit Dal and those of the political parties which were the constituent units of the United Front Gov- ernment was one of great political bitterness. As slated by Sri Jaswant Kumar Choudhary (P.W. 4), himself a member of the Swatantra Party, the Shoshit Dal was formed by certain defectors of the constituent units of the United Front Gov- ernment with the avowed aim of forming the Government. The fact was that In less than four months, after its formation, the Shoshit Dal with the support of the Congress Party had succeeded not merely in voting the United Front Government out of power, but also in wresting the power for itself- Besides, during the brief tenure of its office, the Shoshit Dal Government had taken certain strong measures against the Raja Bahadur of Ramgarh, who was one of the ministers in the Mahamaya cabinet- The evidence of Shri Balwant Nath Singh (R.W. 1) shows that Shri Kamakhya Naraln Singh was the minister incharge of Mines1 and Minerals in the United Front Government, and in connection with mines and minerals a ease bet- ween the Bihar Government and Shri Kamakhya Narain Singh was pending in the Calcutta High Court. Shortly before the fall of the Mahamaya ministry, the case in the Calcutta High Court was withdrawn on behalf of the Government, but when the Shoshit Dal Government came into power, R.W. 1 became the minister incharge of Mines and Minerals, and during his ministry, the Bihar Government got that case restored in the Calcutta High Court. The evidence of R.W. 1 as also of P.W. 6 further shows that another action which the Shoshit Dal Government had taken was to constitue an Enquiry Commission to enquire Into the actions of Shri Kamakhya Narain Singh and others. These facts have not been controverted on behalf of the petitioner and it is, therefore legitimate to think that the members of the Swatantra and other constituent parties of the United Front Government were on terms of great bitterness with the members and supporters of the Shoshit Dal, and this bitterness continued not only at the time of the impugned election, but even afterwards-
27. So far as the petitioner Is concerned, the admitted position is that at the time of the impugned election, he was a member of the Swatantra Party and he was sponsored as a candidate in the election by the B.K.D., with which the Swatantra Party was in coalition- It is also abundantly clear from the materials on the record that he had great political attachment with Shri Kamakhya Narain Singh. Initially both he and Shri Kamakhya Narain Singh were members of the Janta Party with Shri Kamakhya Narain Singh as Its leader. But on the eve of the formation of the United Front Government, the Janta Party had merged with the Swatantra Party, of which Shri Kamakhya Narain Singh became the leader and the petitioner became the General Secretary of the Bihar Unit of the Party. Both of them remained in the Swatantra Party while the Mahamaya ministry was in power as well as until the fall of the Shoshit Dal Government, which took place only ten days before the impugned election. But when there was some difference between Shri Kamakhya Narain Singh and Shri Mahamaya Prasad Sinha, on the question as to whether the B.K.D- should Join the ministry of Shri Bhola Paswan Shastri or not, then Shri Kamakhya Narain Singh left the Swatantra Party and reverted to the Janta Party, of which" he was the accredited leader. When Shri Kamakhya Narain Singh reverted to the Janta Party, then the petitioner also joined that party. In other words, the petitioner was a sharer in the acrimony between his party and the Shoshit Dal.
28. So far as respondent No- 1 is concerned, he has been rightly described by the learned co_unsel for the petitioner as a stranger in the politics of Bihar- Respon- dent No. 1 (R'.W- 5) has himself stated that he was elected -to the Bengal Assembly in the general election held In 1967 and remained a member of that Assembly untill its dissolution on the 20th January, 1968. It was thereafter that he trans- ferred his political activities to Bihar- The petitioner's version as to how respon- dent No. 1 enlisted the support of the members of the newly established shoshit Dal has been set out in paragraph 20 of the election petition, where, in substance, it has been stated that while the no-confldence motion against the Shoshit Da] Government "under the initiative of the Sanyukta Vldhayak Dal was on the anvil, the said respondent, with a view to ensure the sympathy and support of the persons in power, offered his purse to some members of the said Ministry to buy, if possi- ble, the secession of members affiliated to the party-sponsors of the no-confldence motion and to enlist their support to the said ministry and by way of reciprocal arrangement and advantage sought the support and bacEing of some of the Minis- ters, particularly the then Chief Minister and his friend and colleague, Shri Balwant Nath Singh, the then State Minister incharge Mines Department, in respect of his intended candidature for election to the Rajya Sabha". Such mutual
q8<)2 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 22, 1891 [FART U- -understanding is alleged to have been arrived at between respondent No. 1 and tht- leaders of the Shoshlt Dal a few days before the 18th March, 1968, the date wheu the no-confidence motion against the Shoshit Dal Government was passed. But this has been stoutly denied in paragraph 32 of the written statement of respondent No. 1, whose case, in substance, is that he had formally joined the Shoshit Dal aa a member in February, 19tS8, and he had contested the impugned election as the official candidate of that party. On the side of the petitioner, no attempt has been made to substantiate the allegations of oiler of money leading to reciprocal arrange- ment or mutual understanding put forward in paragraph 20 of the election petition Even though Shri Satya Narain Sharma (P.W. 7) has said something about the prospective candidate being required to contribute to the party fund—a story not to be found in the election petition he has made no mention about any reciprocal arrangement between the Dal and respondent No. 1, either for supporting the Shoshlt Dal ministry* or for buying the support of the sponsors of the no-confidence motion. As against this, respondent No, 1 has adduced some evidence in support of his case that he was enrolled as a member of the Shoshit Dal and that he was sponsored as the official candidate of the Shoshit Dal for election to the Rajya Sabha. He has brought on the record a membership enrolment form (Ext. G) to show that he was admitted as a member of the Shoshit Dal on the 10th February, 1968. He has also brought on the record Ext. I which purports to be the copy of a resolution signed by Shri Jagdeo Prasad as Convenor of the Shoshit Dal dated the 21st March, 1968, and reads:
"At a meeting of the Parliamentary Board of the Shoshlt Dal held tonight at the residence of the Chief Minister. Shri B. P. Mandal, it was decided that Shri R. K. Poddar be adopted as the Shoshit. Dal candidate for the Rajya Sabha."
In course of his arguments learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently assailed the authenticity of Exts. G. and I, both of which were produced by respondent No. 1 from his own custody. As to Ext. G, it was urged that its reliability has not been established with reference to its counterfoil from the Shoshit Dal Secretariat. In regard to Ext- I it was argued that it has not been properly Droved and it has not been supported by calling for other official records of the Parliamentary Board of the Shoshlt Dal referred to by R.W. 2, such as, the application, if any, made to the Dal by respondent No, 1 for his nomination as the Party's candidate, the agenda of the meeting supposed to have been he]d on 21st March, 1968, and minutes book of the Excutive Committee or the so-called Parliamentary Board of the Party. It has been pointed out that according to R.W. 1, a whip had been Issued on 27th March, 1968 by the Shoshit Dal In connection with the condldature of one Shri Bhagwan Singh, who was set up by the Shoshlt Dal as its Party's candidate for election to the Bihar Legislative Council which had taken place at about the same time- It has been urged that had respondent No. I been set up as the Party's candidate for election to the Hajya Sabha, then it was expected that a similar whip would have been issued in connection with his candidature, but no such document has been brought on the record. The argument of learned counsel for the peti- tioner is that upon the failure of respondent No. 1 to bring such vital documents on the record, an Inference should be drawn that there is no truth in his claim that he was admitted as a member of the Shoshit Dal or that he was adopted as the official candidate of that Dal for the Rajya Sabha election. In this connection. I have been referred to the recent decision of~The Supreme Court in the case of Dr. M. Chenna Keddy V- V- Ramchandra Rao and another (Civil Appeal No. 1449 of 1968) decided on the 17th December, 1968, where it has been pointed out that there is an inherent difference between the trial of an election petition and a criminal trial. Unlike in a criminal trial, the candidate charged with corrupt practice in an election petition invariably leads evidence to prove his denial. In such a case, the duty of the Court is to weigh the two varsioni and come to a conclusion as to whether notwithstanding the denial and the evidence in rebuttal, a reasonable person Can form the opinion that on the evidence the charge is satis- factorily established. The Court also cannot lose sight of the fact that quite apart from the nature of the charge, the trial itself goes on as if the Issues In a civil suit Are being investigated into. The petitioner has to give particulars of the corrupt practice with details. In default whereof, the allegations way be Ignored The procedure before the High Court has to be In accordance with that applicable to the trial of suits under the Code of Civil Procedure with the aid of the provisions of the Evidence Act. Therefore, it Is permissible to draw inference against the party who does not call evidence which should be available in support of his veision. In my opinion, however, there are two difficulties in the way of accepting these contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. One is that the peti- tioner has led no positive evidence to the effect that respondent No. I was not
SEC. 3(11,] JTHI- GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 22, 1cruolJed as a member of the Shoshit Dal or that he was not set up by that party i>, its candidate in the election. Secondly, Exts- G and I were allowed to go into -evidence without objection, and not even a suggestion was thrown to R-W. 1 who proved these two documents that they -were not genuine. In his examination-in- hlet R.W. 1 said:
' 1 know Shri Rajendra Kumar Poddar, who is the respondent in this case. In 19G8, he was a member ot the Shoshit Dal. I identify the writing of Shri Jajjdeo Prasad as well as of 3hn Rajendra Kumar Poddar. This membership receipt is of my party and I identify the writings thereon of Shri Jagdeo Prasad and Shri R .K. Poddar (Points out- Marked Ext. G)." E-W. 1 further stated: ,
,
, "On 21st March 1968 a formal resolution was passed by our £arty nominating Shri Poddar as our candidate in the election. A copy of that resolution was fcrwarded to the candidate concerned. This i3 the copy of the resolution bearing the signature of Shri Jagdeo Prasad which I identify (marked Ext. 'I')-"
These two statements of R.W. 1 were not specifically challenged in his cross- examination- Besides, one of the petitioner's witnesses, Shri Shambhu Nath Jha (P.W. 2) had earlier stated in no uncertain words that "Shoshit Dal had adopted Rajendra Kumar Poddar as a candidate of its party for the Rajya Sabha". The •evidence of Brijmohan Singh (P-W. 5) was that R.W. I had told him that Soshit Dal wanted Poddar to be elected to the Rajya Sabha. The evidence of Satya Narain Sharma (P.W. 7) was that Shri Poddar had approached the legislators of the Shoshit Dal for their support of his candidature and that in support of his candidature some of the legislators of the Shoshit Dal, among whom were Mahanth Sukhdco Giri, Balwant Nath Singh, Jagdeo Prasad and others who had pleaded for the party's support. It would thus appear that it was more or less undisputed at the time when the petitioner led evidence, and even until R.W. 1 deposed, that the respondent No. 1 had become a member of the Shoshit Dal and that the Dal had adopted him as its candidate in the Rajya Sabha election. It was not until R.W. 2 came to the witness-box that the petitioner abandoned his lorrner .stand and cross-examined R.Ws. 2 and 5 at great length with a view to discredit the respondent's case on both these points. I do not think that by reason of such a change of front on the part of the petitioner, any duty lay upon respondent No, 1 to brinff on the record any further materials in support of Exts. G, and I. It •would, therefore, be unreasonable to draw any adverse inference against him, as suggested on behalf of the petitioner.
29 Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon several statements of R-.Ws. 2 and 5 with a view to demonstrate that their evidence about respondent No. 1 having been adopted as the official candidate of the Shoshit Dal in the impugned election is unworthy of credence. I have gone through the evidence of these two witnesses minutely, and I may say that had they stood by themselves. T would have been inclined to accept the contention put forward on behalf of the petitioner. But the fact is that there are various other materials on the record which lend considerable support to the case of respondent No. 1 that the Shoshit Dal did adopt him as its candidate in the impugned election. I have already referred to ihe evidence of P.W. 2 on this point. The evidence of P.W. 7 also shows that the candidature of respondent No. 1 did come up for consideration Tepeatedly before the members of the Shoshit Dal and In the discussion of his political party. P.W. 7 had opposed the candidature of respondent No. 1 on some ground to which 1 will advert later. If Ext. I Is genuine, as I hold it to be, then It is manifest that the oufcome of the discussion, to which P-W. 7 has referred, was that the Shoshit Dal had ultimately decided, at least one week before the day of poll, that respondent No. 1 would be its official candidate in the election- This also explains the circumstances that respondent No, 1 had filed his nomination (Exts. H and H/l) on the 18th March, 1968, as an independent candidate. Even acfordinR to Ihe case set up by the petitioner in paragraph 20 of his election petition, the dialogue between respondent No. 1 and the leaders of the Shoshit Dal was concluded before that date. But since no formal resolution was adopted by the party until the 21st March, 1968. it is manifesi th-vt respondent No. "L could not "have described himself as the official candidate of the Shoshit Dal in his nomina- tions (Exts. H and H/l). But the fact that an Informal decision to this effect had already been taken by the party leaders is indicated strongly by the fact that the proposers of respondent No 1 in Exts H and H/l were prominent members of the Shoshit Dal, namely, Shri Balwant Nath Singh (R.W. 1), In one case, and Shri Ramehandra Yadav. who, as the evidence shows, was the Treasurer of that party in the other- Both these proposers of respondent No. 1 were ministers in
3854 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 22, 1891 [PART 11^-the Shoshit Dal Government (see R.W. 1 and P.W. fl respectively). Upon a consi- deration of the relevant materials on the record, I have come to the conclusion that respondent No_. 1 was not merely enrolled as a member of the Shoshit DaL but was also the official candidate of that party in the impugned election.
30. The only other material to which reference need be made in this connection Is a newspaper report (Ext. 5) showing that respondent No. 1 had filed his nomina- tion as an Independent candidate. But it is difficult to act upon a newspaper report. Besides, that is not inconsistent with the other materials on the record to which I have referred in support of my finding that respondent No. 1 was formally adopted as the official candidate oi the Shoshit Dal on the 21st March, 1068.
31. The real question at controversy between the parties is not whether res- pondent No. 1 was the candidate of the Shoshit Dal in the impugned election, but that was the ground which had weighed with that political party In adopting him as its official candidate. According to the case set up by the petitioner, what had weighed with the members of the Shoshit Dal was the petitioner's purse, whereas according to respondent No. 1, his selection as such was made in consideration of his social and political status, besides his education and young age. According to R.W. 2. such step was taken on the ground that the idea of his party was to organise the Shoshit Dal on All India basis and it was thought that respondent No, 1, who was formerly a member of the Bengal Legislative Assembly, might be of help In that endeavour. The original idea of the party, however, did not mate- rialise because the Shoshit Dal Government was voted out oi office on 18th March 1968.
32. In commending the petitioner's case on this point for my acceptance, Mr. Singh has put forward the following arguments. The Shoshit Dal was party of defectors. Respondent No. 1 was "a new born babe" in the Dal, having become Its member in February, 1908, and accepted as that party's candidate in the very next month. The evidence of R.W. 5 shows that he had been lurking around the office of the Shoshit Dal located in the M.L.A. Flat occupied by Mahanth Sukhdeo Glri, one of the Ministers of the Shoshit Dal Government; the purpose obviously was to duck about ior votes and support! for his candidature- His cons- tant visits to the Party's office must have enabled him to assess his position, as also to realise what sort of man he had to deal with; besides the evidence of R.W. 1 and 2 indicate that the leaders of tha Dal had very little knowledge about his social and political activities. The financial position of the Shoshit Dal was very meagre since the evidence of R.W. 2 Indicates that his party's Bank balance had remained stationary at the modest figure of Rs- 160. As against this respondent No. 1 was a millionaire or at least In possession of considerable monetary resources. The party's bosses must have thought of seizing the oppor- tunity of utilising the monetary resources of respondent No. 1 to their advan- tage. Respondent No. 1 In his turn has shown himself by his answers in the witness box to be not merely an Intelligent, but also a shrewd person, in as much as at several stages during his cross-examination he had eluded the cross- examiner by anticipating the Questions which were going to be put to him and modulating his answers in order to baulk the cross-examination. He has sought to make a wonderful distinction between 'defection' and 'deviation' on the part of his party-men. Such a shrewd man was not likely to make any leap in the dark or to leave his political future to chances. Before deciding to contest the election as the candidate of the Shoshit Dal, he must have obtained a firm commitment of support from Its members and this must have been secured by P.W. 7, who has said the reason why he was opposed to the candidature of respondent No. 1 was not that he was not a non-resident of this State, but that "he was introducing monetary considerations for securing our support". These arguments, however, must be pitted against certain other circumstances about which there is ample Indication in the record. As I have already indicated, the Shoshit Dal was brought into existence with the avowed object oi seizing the political power. Its rise to glory was meteoric. Inasmuch as It succeeded in forming the Government in leas than four months of its birth. This rneteorlr* rise must have attracted the notice and admiration of young persons in politics with aspirations for the future. At about the relevant time, respondent No. 1 had lost his member- ship of the Bengal Legislative Assembly and he was confronted with a cessation of his political activities in West Bengal on account of the introduction of the President's rule there. As an ambitious voung politician, he may well have turned his eyes upon the political situation In Bihar where new opportunities seemed to have come into existence in the wake of phenomental rise of the Shoshit Dal to power. It would not be strange if in these circumstances respondent No. 1 Identi- fied himself with the Shoshit Dal and staked his *uture political career, by associa- ting himself with that Dal. The Shoshit Dal in its turn seems to have been anxious
&EC. 3(ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 22, i89l 3855for ijiQre and more support for Itself. Ad .littedly, 11 had admitted a journalist of repute like Shri Shambhu Nath Oha (P.W. 2) into its fold and had conferred upon him the status of a cabinet minister, although he was not even a member of the Bihar Legislature at the relevant time. Further, as the evidence shows, almost every legislator belonging to the Shoshit Dal, as also those who had extended their support to it, had already become ministers of the Government of their party. For setting up a candidate for the Rajya Sabha election, the Shoshit Dal had to make a suitable selection from outside its immediate folds. Even according to the evidence of P.W. 3, apart from respondent No. 1, there were two or three candidates who were anxious, for the support of the Shoshit Dal legislators. There is no evidence on the side of tho petitioner as to who those two or three other candidates were. But according to respondent No. 1, one such candidate was, Shri Shambhu Nath Jha (P.W. 2) himself, though P.W. 2 has denied this fact. However, It does :iol appear that the Shoshit Dal had set up any other candidate in the election to the Kajya Sabha, though at the relevant time it was certainly in a position to set up a candidate of its'own in the impugned election. It is, therefore, non improbable that the Shoshit Dal had selected respondent No- 1 as its official candidate in the impugned election in pursuance of its aims and policies or to consolidate its posi- tion in the political life of Bihar. Going by probabilities alone, therefore, it cannot be held confidently that what had weighed with the Shoshit Dal In choosing respondent No. 1 as its official candidate in the election was his purse.
33. Be that it may, concluded finding on a charge of corrupt practice of bribery- attributed to a successful candidate cannot be arrived at on a consideration of vhe probabilities of the case It has been repeatedly held by the Supreme Court ihat a charge of corrupt practice is in the nature of a criminal charge and must be established by cogent and reliable evidence without airy reasonable doubt relating thereto.
It is hardly necessary to emphasise that the law looks upon the electoral offence of bribery with the utmost disfavour. Under the Act of 1951, a successful candidate against whom such a charge of corrupt practice is brought home, not only loses his seat in the legislature, but also incurs a disqualification for a period of six years under section f)A of that Act. In the Indian Penal Code also, a set of offences relating lo election has beeji incorporated in Chapter IX A. Section 171 B provides that an offence of bribery is committed both when a person gives a gratification to another with the object of inducing him or any other person to exercise any electoral right or of rewarding any person for having exercised any such right and when any person accepts for himself or for any other person any gratification by way of reward for exercising any such electoral right. In other words, both the giving and accepting of illegal gratification is punishable under the Indian Penal Code. About the quality of mercy, Shakespeare wrote in his Merchant of Venice:
It is twice bless'd; It blesseth him that gives, and him that takes
So, as to the vice of the electoral offence of bribery,, it may be said:
It is twice damn'd It damns him that gives and him that takes.
Further, section 99 of the Act of 1951 imposes a duty upon the High Court to narr.e all person or persons who may be proved at the trial of an election petition to have beer guilty of corrupt practice and to Indicate the nature of that corrupt practice, I have emphasised upon the gravity of the charge of corrupt practice attributed to respondent No. 1 with a view to indicate thnt it cannot be proved except by cogent and reliable evidence, or evidence as to tne truth of which there Is no scope for entertaining the slightest doubt. The question is, has the petitioner adduced evidence of such calibre in proof of h}s case on corrupt practice.
,'S4. I will now turn to the Particulars of corrupt practice as detailed in Annex- ures 'B1, 'C and 'D' of the election petition, In all, a dozen incidents involving trie corrupt practice of bribery within the meaning cf section 123(1) of the Act of 1951 are alleged to have taken place which, in chronological order, were as follows: (i) On 19th March 1968, at the M.L.A. Flat (Gardiner Road), Shri Muii^hi Hansda, M.L..A. made offer of money and promised to pay money to Shri Jatha Kisku. M.L-A. for securing the latters vote with first "re- ference In favour of respondent No. 1 (Annexure: C),
3856 THE GAZE1 TE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1%9/BHADRA 22, 189! [FART II—(ii) On 23'ci March 1968, at the M.L.A. Flat, similar oiler and promise va pay money lor tne same purpose were made by respondent No. 1 ana ton m l w a nt Math bingh (H. W. 1) 10 Sn Kagnunandau Piusad; (Annexure C).
(iii) On 26th March 1968, at No. 1 Strand Road, respondent No. 1 and H.W. 2 made oiler of money and promised to pay money to Sri Mahabir Paswan (P.W. 6) for the same purpose: (Annexure C).
(iv) On 26th March 1968, respondents JNos. 1 and 8 conferred together at the Republic Hotel, Patna, with Sri Brijmohan Singh (P.W. it) and Sri Saheb Prasad Shastri, a political worker, and appealed to them to secure some votes with first and second preferences only In favour of either oi those two respondents, and respondent No. I assured them that regardless of the fact whether he got the first or the second preference, the Voters would be paid Rs. 4,000 each by res- pondent No. 8 who had kept ready cash in hand for payment: (An- nexure D).
(v) On 27th March 1968, at the M.L.A. Flat, respondent No. 1 and R.W. 2 made offer of money and promised to pay money to Sri Janmejay Nath Choubey for securing the latter's vote with first preference in favour 01 respondent No. 1. (Annexare C):
(vi) On 27th March 1968 at the M.L.A. Flat, Sri Bhagat Murmu offered and.
promised to pay money to Sri Jetha Kisku for the same purpose. (Annexure C);
(vii) & (vin) On 27th March 1968 at 1, King George Avenue, the residence of Mahanth Ram Kishore Das, M.L.A., respondent No. 1 ofTerod and promised to pay money to crl Saiya Narain Sharxna (.P.W. I) and to Sri Jaswant Kumar Choudhary (P.W. 4) for the same pur-pose: (Annexure C);
(ix) On 27th March 1968 at 1, King George Avenue, R.W. 1 oileted and promised to pay money to P.W. 4 for the same purpose: (Annexure C);
(x) On z7tn March WkU, a dinner was oigamsed at 1, King George Avenue in tne name 01 Mananth Ram Ktehore Das, but at the cost ol respon- dent No. 1, tor meeting seveial M.L.As, and their friends. At, the guests were arriving, Mahanth Ram Kishorc Das went on introducing respondent No. 1 and his election agent, Shii Brajeshwar Muliick, to them, and Mahanih Ram Tiis-hoit D; and Siiii ba want I\Tmh Singh (R.W. 1) alonijwitn respondent No. 1 and his election agent, canvas- sed for a firm commitment on the part of the invitee-legislators to cast votes in favour of respondent No. 1, Four M.L.AS., Sarvshri S. N. Abduila, Ahmad Karim, Mahabir Prasad Yadav and Dr. B. P. Jawahar held a conference with respondent No. 1 and R.W. 1 in a separate room for some lime and thereafter there was some talk beyond hearing in divided groups between some of the aforesaid per- sons and the other assembled guests. After the dinner was over, payments were made in currency notes kept in separate envelopes which respondent No. 1. brought out in a bund^ from a small brief- case attache, which he was holding with himself, to 20 M.L.As. mentioned in paragraph 3 o> Annexure 'B'. Respondent No. 1 took out tne enve^jpes and made them over one by one to Shrl Balwant Nath Singh (R.W. 1), who in his turn passed them on to the persons named i > oarajt -aph 3. Lastly, respondent No 1 handed over one envelope containing currency notes to Sri Balvvant Nath Singh (R W. M and another similar envelope to Mahanth Ram Kishorc Dai. After that , two other persons. Sri Paul Hansda and Sri Bhagat Murrrri nskiM for being entrusted with Rs. 4,000 each to enable them to negotiate for two more votes for respondent No. 1 during the night, savi"" thnt the said two voters were not agreeable to accept the money dl"ectlv from responrVnt No. 1 or R.W 1. Sri Pau' Hansda and Sr< Bhasfat Murmu assured respondent No. 1 that the ballots casts in favour of respondent No. 1 on the basis of their negotiation would bear a distinct Ink mark which they would noint out to res- pondent No. 1 on the following rnn-rtlrT There upon respondent
SEC. 3(ii)J THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 22, 1891 3857No. 1 handed over one envelope with currency notes to Sri Paul Hansda and Sri Bhagat Murmu each. However, two of the Invitee- legislators, Su Satya Narayan Sharma (P.W. 7) and Sri Jaswant Kumar Choudhary (P,W. 4), who had also been offered similar bribe by respondent 1M o. 1 at the said dinner meeting, refused to accept the money and expressed their displeasure and annoyance at the sug- gestion of Mahanth Ram Kishore Das and. Sri Balwant Nath Singh (R.W. 1) to vote lor respondent No. 1 on acceptance of grati- fication, and on the contrary, they protested at having been lured into payments by respondent No. 1 under the pretext of an Invita- tion extended for dinner: (Annexure B);
(xi) On 27th March 1968, at about 10 P.M. respondent No- 8 paid Rs. 5,000 to Sri Tarnl Prasad Singh, M.L.A., at his residence in Rajendranagar and Rs. 5,000 to Sri Bhula Kai, M.L.A. at the M.L.A. Flat at about 11 p.m. (Annexure D); and,
(xii) On 28th March 1968 at the Bihar Assembly Buildings, Sri Bhagat Murmu olrered and promised to pay money to Sri Jetha Kisku, M.L.A., for securing his vote of first preference in favour of respon- dent No. 1: (Annexure C).
H5. With regard to five of the aforesaid Incidents, namely, Nos. (i), (li) (v), (vi) and (xl), no evidence has been adduced by the petitioner at all- Therefore, as the evidence stan lg, all the alleged illegal acts of respondent No. 1 and others were committed on the day of poll and two days preceding It.
36. Incident No. (Hi) has been sought to be proved by the evidence of Shrl Mahabir Paswan (P.W. 6). His version is that in the evening of 26th March, 1968, R.WE. I and 5 met him at his residence at No. 1, Strand Road, and in the presence of R.W. 5, R.W. 1 told him, to quote his own words, that:
"I should vote for Stirl Poddar. He also told me that he would make some present to me for this purpose. I asked Balwant Babu to clarify what he meant by 'Sewa'. Thereupon, Balwant Babu told me, com- mensurate with my nositlon, he would pay me a handsome amount of money. I told Ba'want Nath Singh that it was highly improper for him to have talked to me In this manner."
P.W. 6 was a State Minister in the Mahamaya ministry. In the general election of 1967, he had been elected to Bihar Legislative Assembly as a candidate of the B.K.D. Like the petitioner, he left the B.K.D. and joined the Janta Party, of which the leader was Ehri Kamakhya Narain Singh. Evidently, therefore, his political attachment with the petitioner or with Shrl Kamakhya Narain Singh was very great. It Is to be remembered that it was at the initiative of the Shoshit Dal that both P.W, 6 and Shri Kdmakhya Narain Singh had lost their ministry. His own evidence shows that he had voted in favour of the no-confidence motion against the Shoshit Dal Government, of which R.W. 1 was one of the ministers. The intensity of bad blood between his political party and the Shoshit Dal can well be imagined from his own statement which reads:
"We had put up sufficient opposition to the Shoshit Dal Government and had ultimately succeeded in toppling it. The Shoshit Dal Govern- ment had set up an Inquiry Commission for Investigation of charges of corruption against Kamakhya Narain Singh, the leader of the Janta Party."
In the background of such bitterness, it appears to me highly incredible that respondent No. 1 would have been so foolish as to indulge In such an act of corrupt practice at the very door of an important member of the party of his rival who was the official candidate of the B.K.D. It is also too much to believe that R.W. 1 had lost all sense of decency so as to indulge in such a corrupt act within a few days of having been voted out of office at the vote of P.W. fl and others in the no-confidence motion. P.W. 6 has said that he had been refrained from taking any action against R.Ws. I and 5 aince they were his frienda, although he knew that offer and acceptance of bribe are criminal offences. But if R.W. 1 would have been such a friend of his then it was expected that he would have shown some kindness for him at the time of casting his vote in the no-confidence motion against the Shoshit Dal Government. Since P.W. 6 did not show any kindness for him at that time, It Is difficult to believe that he would have shown
3858 THE GAZEITE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, iy69/BHADRA 22, 1891 [PARI 11^any consideration at the subsequent stage .as suggested by him, if R.W. 1 would have really indulged in such a criminal act prejudicial to the official candidate of the B.K.D. P.W. 6 has not suggested that R.W. 1 had approached him to spare his ministry by not voting in favour of the no-confidence motion against the Shoshit Dal Government; rather in view of the bitterness of political feelings then prevailing, It is unthinkable that R.W. 1 could have approached P.W. 6 with any such request. If R.W. 1 did not approach P.W. 6 for his own sake, it is highly improbable that he had thought of approaching him for the sake of respondent No. 1 only a few days later, as described by P.W. 6. How vitally P.W. 6 is interested In the petitioner's case in this Court Is clear from his own statements: "I did feel sorry at the defeat of the petitioner in this election. I had advised him to file an election petition. I do want that he should win this election petition."
It seems to me that it will be highly unsafe to rely upon the uncorroborated testimony of such a partisan and highly interested witness. He has deposed that on 28th March, 1968, he had met the petitioner at his residence on the S. P. Verma Road after the declaration of the results of the election. But he does not say that he had any talk with the petitioner about the alleged incident of the 20th March, 1968. The petitioner also has not desposed in this case, which he would not have failed to do at least to corroborate P.W. 6, if the latter would have told him about the alleged incident of 26th March, 1968, when they had met on 28th March, 1968 after the declaration of the results. Evidently, P.W. 6 had told him nothing about the incident until then, and so its truth is greatly in doubt. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the evidence of P.W. 6 is wholly insufficient to prove the petitioner's case relating to incident No. (iii) referred to above.
37. In order to prove incident No. (iv) which also is alleged to have taken place on 26th March, 1968, the petitioner has relied upon the testimony of Shri Brijmohan Singh (P.W. 5). The version of P.W. 5 is that on that day he was introduced to respondent No. 1 by R.W. 1 at the Republic Hotel where respondent No. 8 and Shrl Saheb Prasad Shastri were also present. He had talks with res- pondent No. 1 about the prospects of his election to the Rajya Sabha. In course of his talks respondent No. 1 had requested him to arrange for some votes for him, saying that he was prepared to pay Rs. 4,000/- for each voter who would vote for him, but, says P.W. 5, he declined to help respondent No. 1 in this matter. It will be noticed that the version of P.W. 5 is at variance with the particulars set out in Annexure "D" of the election petition, according to which respondent Nos. 1 and 8 had jointly appealed P.W. 5 and to Shri Saheb Prasad Shastri to secure some votes with first or second preference only in favour of either of those two respondents. Further, according to Annexure "D", it was respondent No. 8, and not respondent No. 1, who had kept cash money ready in hand for payment to voters regardless of the fact whether respondent No. 1 got the first or the second preference. In his evidence P.W. 5 has exhonerated respondent No. 8 of the charge of corrupt practice and his merely spoken about his presence In the company of respondent No. 1 at the Republic Hotel. The story of P.W. 5 that respondent No. 1 was prepared to pay Rs. 4000/- to each voter who would vote for him Is fit to be thrown out on this ground alone. Further, the evidence of P.W. 5 shows that he had political alliance with the Congress Party. He had contested the general election of 1967 as a Congress candidate, but he was unsuccessful, and then he was nominated as a candidate for election to the Bihar Legislative Council as a Congress nominee from the Bihar Legislative Assembly. The evi- dence shows that In that Council election also, the Shoshit Dal had set up a candidate of its own. The Congress Party had candidates of Its own in the elec- tion to the Rajya Sabha. It sounds highly Improbable that in this context R.W. 1 would have thought of bringing P.W. 5 in touch with respondent No. 1 for the purpose of securing votes for him in his election. It is all the more improbable that respondent No. 1 would have talked with P.W. 5 In the aforesaid manner, particularly when, as the evidence of P.W. 5 himself shows, there was no prior acquintanee between the two. P.W. 5 has stated that prior to meeting him at the Republic Hotel on 26th March, 1968, he had not met respondent No. 1. He had not met him thereafter also. It appears to me unbelievable that at his very first meeting with a man of a rival party and a strange, respondent No. 1 could have thought of talking with him about paying bribe to voters; rather respondent No. 1, If at all he met P.W. 5 would have known that as a Congress man. P.W. 5 was not expected to extend any support to him the election, in which the Con- gress Party had set up three candidates of Its own. The unreliable character of the evidence of P.W. 5 Is also apparent from the fact that although he claims
•SBC. 3(ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 22, 189) 3859to have spoken to the petitioner on 27th March, 1968 about the alleged talks with respondent No. 1 on the previous evening, the petitioner did not think It worth- while to cite him as a witness in this case until the 20th March, 1969, when he applied for issue of Desti summons In his name, n this connection I may also point out that the records of the Republic Hotel (Exts. 2 and 2/1) do not show that respondent No. 1 had stayed in that Hotel on 26th March, 1968. There is an •entry in Ext. 2/1 dated 25th March, 1968, but it does not appear to be reliable, as there is some overwriting on It and it has not been signed by the alleged visitor. This is another circumstance to indicate that P.W. 5 could not have met respondent No. 1 at tbe Republic Hotel on 26th IVnroh, 1908. It appears that there is also pome element of partisanship in him. He had been elected to the "Bihar Legislative Assembly In the Reneral election of 1962 as a candidate of the Swantra Party, of which the petitioner was also formerly a member. I, there- fore, consider It hiffhly unsafe to act upon the uncorroborated testimony of P.W, fl and I hold that the petitioner has failed to prove the alleged Incident of 26th March. 1968 at the Republic Hotel, Thus, neither of the two Incidents of the 39th March, 1P68. Involving corrupt practice of bribery, namely, incident Nos. (ill) and (iv) has been proved,
38, That takes us to the most serious part of the petitioner's case, namely, that relating to Incidents Nos. (vil), (vlii), (ix) and (x), all of which are alleged to have taken place on 27th March, 1968 at No. 1, King George Avenue, the residence of Mahanth Ram Klshore Das. These incidents are sought to be proved by three of the most important witnesses of the petitioner, Sarvashri Shambhu IsTain Jha (P.W. 2), Jaswant Kumar Choudhary (P.W. 4) and Satya Naratn Sharma (P.W. 7). P.W. 2 Is a reputed journalist and Editor incharge of the Searchlight, a daily newspaper of Patna. He was not a member of the legislature at the relevent time, but he was invited by Sri B. P. Mandal to join his ministry and he was a minister of the cabinet rank in the Shoshit Dal Government from 10th February, 1968 to 22nd March, 1968. He was, however, a minister without portfolio. The version of P.W. 2 is that he had attended a dinner meeting of the Shoshit Dal legislators which was held at the residence of Mahanth Ram Kishore Das on 27th March, 1968. On that- occasion, he saw that money was distributed to the legislators to persuade the voters to cast their votes in favour of respondent No. 1 in the election which was to be held on the following day. Giving some details of the incident, he has deposed:
"Money was handed over in envelops and some of the recipients had opened the envelopes and counted money they contained. Amontf those who counted the money in my presence on that occasion I recall the names of Sri Jagdeo Prasad, Mahanth Sukhdeo Giri, Ram Nagaina Singh, Ahmed Karlm, and Satish Prasad Singh. Among others who had received the envelopes I recall the names of Ram- chandra Yadav, Mahabir Prasad Yadav, Mahabir Prasad, Ramasis Singh, Ramchandra Prasad, Dr. B. P. Jawahar, Majhia Majhi, Simon Tigga, Paul, Hansda, Munshi Hansda, Bhagat Murmu, Kesho Prasad Singh, S. M. Abdulla, Sohan Lal Jain and Nath Mai Dokania. On that date all these were the sitting members of the Bihar Legislative Assembly. The money was brought by one who, I was told, was a cashier of Sri Poddar. Mr. Balwant Nath Singh was present there. The money was taken by Sri Poddar and personally handed over by him to the various persons whom I have named above. Mahanth Ram Kishore Das was also present there, Balwant Nath Singh was also an M.L.A. and a former state Minister of Government of Bihar. I cannot recall the name of any other person who may have been present on that occasion. Sri Shatrumardan Sahi and Sri Satya Narain Sharma, both of whom were ministers, had objected to the payment."
Tn answer to a Court question as to whether he could get any Idea as to how much money had passed In this manner, P.\7. 2 said:
"Mr. Poddar was prepared to pay up two lakhs of rupees, but I learnt that the amount Involved was about one and half lakhs of rupees."
His further evidence is that in regard to the aforesaid Incident, he had addressed a communication (Ext. 1) to the Home Secretary of the Government of India on the following day.
38£o JTHE GAZli'l lE OF INDIA; SEPTEMBER 13, iy69/BHADRA 22, 18'Jl [PART II—'39. P.W. 4 was a member oi the Swatantra Party and an elected member of the Bihar Legislative Assembly at the material time. His version is, that he had been invited to a dinner parly which was held at the residence of Mahanth Ram Kishore Das in the night of the 27th March, 1968. About 30 lo 40 persons were present at the residence ol the Mahanth inclusive of servants and bearers. Theie Kumar Balwant Singh (K.W. l), who is his friend, introduced him to res- pondent No. I, The dinner was over at about 10 or 10-15 p.m. and thereafter several people were gossipping here and there. At that stage, Mahanth Ram Kishore Das, the host, and Kumar Balwant Singh (R.W. 1) were seen taking the guests who were members of the Legislative Assembly in batches of two or three Into a side-room, R.W". 1 took him also into that room. What he saw and ex- perienced in that room has been described by him in the following words: —
"There I saw Sri Rajendra Kumar Poddar handing over envelopes to Kumar Balwant Singh who was making them over to the M.L.As. saying that this was for taking Pan etc., so that they might vote for Sri Rajendra Kumar Poddar. Among the recipients, I saw some counting money which was in the envelops handed over to them. A similar oiler of bribe was made to me, but I did not accept the money. I expressed my anger to Kumar Balwant Singh, and after using abusive words towards him, I left that room saying that I was not so mean as he thought me to be. In the room, tne persons whom I had seen counting money from the envelopes were, Sri Satish Prasad Singh, Sri Ahmad Karlm and Sri Ram Nagina Singh, all M.L.As."
P.W. 4, however, took no action of any kind In this connection. He did not raise any issue about it at the sitting of the Assembly on 28th March, 1968, nor he made any complaint about this matter to any authority at any time.
40. P.W. 7 was elected to the Bihar Legislative Assembly in the general elec- tion of 1967 as a candidate of the P.S-P., one of the constituent units of the United Front Government. He was one of these who had withdrawn their support to the Mahamaya ministry and joined the Shoshit Dal after defecting from the P.S.P. When the Ehoshit Dal Government came into power, he became a minister. He remained a member of the Shoshit Dal until December, 1968, but did not renew his membership In January, 1969, He has given the account of certain events which preceded the fateful day 27th March, 1968. The no-confldence motion against the Shoshit Dal Government was tabled on the 13th Marcn, .d68. On. that day there was some discussion amongst the members of the Shoshit Dal in connection with supporting the candidate in the Rajya Sabha election, A pro- posal was put forward that such cau'lidpte should be supported by the members of the Dal who contributed money to its fund. But some other members of the Dai, Including P.W. 7, opposed this suggestion. One of the candidates in the election was respondent No. 1 and he had approached the legislators of the Shoshit Dal for their support of his candidature. Some of the Shoshit Dal legislators had pleaded for the party's support to his candidature. Ultimately, respondent No. 1 succeeded in enlisting the support of the legislators of the Shoshit Dal, several of whom had decided to support his candidature in consideration of monetary payment. The offer and acceptance of bribe money took place at the residence of Mahanth Ram Kishore Das In the evening preceding the day of elec- tion. All those who had gone to the Mahanth's residence on that evening were legislators, besides, P.W. 2, R.W 1 and a few others Before the dinner was held, respondent No. 1 had suggested that all the legislators should assemble at one place and, on that occasion, he would make payments to them as far as he could. After the dinner was over, what happened according to P.W". 7 was this. The legislators were going in batches of two or three into a side-room, adjacent to the main hall, where all the guests had assembled, and coining back with envelopes containing money. Among such legislators were Paul Hansda, Munshi Hansda, Bhagat Murmu, N.E. Horo, Mahanth Sukhdeo Girl and Ram Nagina q'ingh. In the meantime R.Ws 1 and 5 requested P.W. 7 also to go into that room for the- same purpose, saying that it had been decided that every legislator would be paid Rs. 4,000/- in consideration of supporting the candidature of respondent No. 1. After that R,W. 1 stretched out towards him a long envelope saying that it con- tained Rs, 4,000/- which he was pavinj? to him on behalf of respondent No. 1 and added that he should also support the candidature of respondent No 1. like others. But P.W. 7 did not accept the money and left the room telling respondent No. I that he could not be so mean as to sell his conscience for monetary con- siderations. R.Ws. 1 and 2 did not, however, leave P.W. 7 alone and about two hours after P.W. 7 had left the residence of the Mahanth, both of them along
A.L.. 3(u)J Itih uAZHVTE OF INDIA: S£Pii,MBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 22, "i8>L386L.wiLh three or five oiiiei. pe.semis apjjioacheu m.n ai 1113 j.eaiUenct;. These pejpLe toid him that when the consensus of opinion in his parly was to fc.upj.ort the candidature of respondent No. 1, then he should also support him, but F.W, 7 remained firm and told them that left to himself, he might have supported the candidature of respondent No. 1, but he was repelled by the manner In which he had been approached for the purpose. Unlike P.W. 4 he Ciaims to have made a written report about the incident to the authorities and also to have raised the issue at subsequent meetings of his party, but he did not raise any question about it in the Assembly though it continued to be in session for about three months thereafter.
41. The petitioner also tiled an affidavit sworn by Shri S. M. Abdullah on the 2tSth April, 1969, to the erlect that there was a meeting of the Shoshit Dal at the residence of Mahanth Ram Kishore Das on the 27th March, 1968, and there res- pondent No. 1 had oflered a sum of RE. 4,000/- to him, but having protested against such barter of votes, he had rejected the offer and made over the amount to Shri Jagdeo Pra^ad, tne Secretary of the party, In presence of respondent No. 1- This affidavit was filed along with a petition for summoning Shri S. M. Abdullah for his evidence at the trial. But no such incident finds mention in any of the Anne^ures to the election petition. The name of Shri Abdullah figures promi- nently in Annexure 'B' but for reasons best known to himself, the petitioner did not include his name either in his original list of witnesses or in his second list oi the 20Jh March, 1969. He filed this petition at a late stage after six out of his nine witnesses had been examined at the trial I did not feel persuaded to allow such a belated petition for issuing summons to Shri Abdullah. In the cir- cumstances, the affidavit of Shri Abdullah can be of no avail. It is quite clear from the provisions ni1 rule 1 of Order If) of the Code of Civil Procedure that the affidavit of a witness can be read as evidence at the hearing only if the Court permits such a procedure, for sufficient reason, on such condition as it thinks reasonable. No such order has been recorded In this case. Besides, it would be highly unreasonable to make use of such an affidavit of which the statements have not been tested by cross-examination of the deponent. I, therefore, leave this affidavit totally out of consideration, and proceed to deal with the evidence of P.Ws. 2, 4 and 7.
42. I have great respect for the eminent position of each of these three wit- nesses in the public life of Bihar, but this alone cannot relieve me of the duty of sci ulinizing their evidence with care and caution. It is an oft saying that in politics, as in war, everything is fair, and that, in my opinion, casts a duty upon the Court to be astute lest it might mistake the wood for the tree. A warning to this effect was sounded by the Supreme Court In .Tagannath and another Versus. V, Narayan Uttamrao Deshmukh and another, Civil Appeal No. IS!) of 1908, decide/1 t.n the fillj Scot, i n ' c, 1968. The e it has been Caid that the Court must be satisfied that the evidence on the point of corrupt practice stands all scrutiny and does not bpar the stings of having been manipulated, and further that in elections, as in war, everything seems fair and the Court has to be astute all the time to see that there had not been foul practice.
43. "While dealing with the evidence of P.Ws. 2, 4 and 7, one cannot miss to note that each one of them had reasons of their own for not looking upon the success of respondent No. 1 at the election with favour. The evidence of P.W. 3 is clear that the Swatanlra Party had decided to support the candidature of the petitioner. So far as P.W. 4 Is concerned, I have no doubt in my mind that no reliance can safely be placed upon his testimony. P.W. 4 must have had ample reasons for disappointment at the lesults ol the election at which the candidate of his party, namely, the petitioner had suffered a defeat. He has himself stated that the Swatantra Party had no alliance of any kind with the Shoshit Dal and he was in opposition of the Shoshit Dal Government and had exercised his vote in the no-confidence motion against that Government. Besides. I have grave doubts about his presence at the Mahanth's place on the night In question. In Ext. 1, as will anpear hereafter, the occasion has been described as a meeting of the Shoshit Dal legislators. It Is hard to believe that any Invitation could have been extended to P.W. 4, a man of the rival camp, to such a meeting or to a function or gathering, supposed to have been organised on behalf of respondent No, 1 wtth the illegal purpose of buying votes by making monetary payments to the electors. Inviting a man of the rival camo on an occaiion like this would have amounted to acting against the very Interests of respondent No. 1 Tn my- on'nion, he could never have been at the Mahanth's residence on the eve cf the
38J2 1HH GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 22, 1891 [PART ll—poll. P.W. 4 has nowhere suggested that R.W. 1 or R.W. 5 had made any proposal IO him on any previous occasion thai he should lend his support lo ihe candida- ture oi respondent No. 1 or accepi any money irom nim lor exercising his lancnise m ma xavour In prelerence to the candidate oi ms own party. It is, tnereiare, iiujniy lncredlable that all on a sudden he was not only Invited at ihe alleged dinner, but also offered money in an envelope so that he might vote lor respon- dent No. l. He also could not possibly nave gone there as an uninvited guest. The fact tnat there is no truth in his story is clear Irom the circumstance that .although he claims to have seen rt.Ws, 1 and b committing such grave electoral offences with his own eyes, he made no complaint about it to any authority or tiled any petition anywhere. With regard to incidents Nos. (viii) and (ix), his -evidence stands alone with nothing to corroborate it. Talking about incident No. (x^ he has betrayed his rivalry for the Shoshit Dal by roping in Satish Prasad Singh (R.W. 2), although the name of R.W. 2 does not find place in Annexure 'B'. I, therefore, discrad his evidence altogether.
44. Before dealing with the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 7, I ought to clear up a jnatter about which there is a controversy between the parties. I have already Indicated that an election to the Bihar Legislative council from the Assembly Constituency was going on side by side with the impugned election. The date of poll In the Council election was 29th March, 1968. One of the candidates In that election was Shrl Shambhu Nath Jha (P.W. 2). The case of respondent No. 1 is that P.W. 2 was trying that the Shoshit Dal should accept him as its •official candidate in the council election, but the Shoshit Dal did not accept his request and set up another candidate of its own in that election. So out ot annoy- ance against the Shoshit Dal, P.W. 2 contested the Council election as an inde- pendent candidate, but he was able to secure only one vote and thus suffered a miserable defeat. According to respondent No. l's, case, P.W. 2 was also a candidate for his party's ticket in the impugned election, but this has been denied by P.W. 2 and I do not consider It necessary to enter into this controversy. P.W, 2 has, .however, admitted that he was a candidate for election to the Council, as being a minister at that time, he wanted to become a member of the legislature. But the cJaim of P.W. 2 is that he had contested the Council election as a Shoshit Dal , candidate. If P.W. 2 was a candidate of the Shoshit Dal in the Council election, then he could have no cause for grievance against the members of the Dal, even if he lost that election. But the question to be decided Is whether the claim of P.W. 2 that he had contested the Council election as a Shoshit Dal candidate is .true. Of course, P.W. 2 was a cabinet minister in the Shoshit Dal Government until its fall. But the evidence on behalf of respondent No. 1 shows that the Shoshit Dal had turned down the request of P.W. 2 for the ticket of his party for the Council election and had adopted one Shrl Shagwan Singh as its candi- date In preference to P.W. 2, Speaking about this matter, R.W. 2 gave three reasons for the decision of their party to decline to give its ticket lo P.W. 2, namely, (i) P.W. 2 wa3 admitted in the cabinet without the concurrence of the members of the party, (li) He was not a political figure before, and, (Hi) Shri Bhagwan Singh had produced certain papers in the party meeting which Indicated that several cases had been Instituted against P.W. 2. It Is not necessary to Investigate into the correctness or otherwise of all these reasons. But it seems to me, as I shall presently shown, that R.W. 2 had truly stated that P.W. 2 was not the candidate of his party in the Council election. A curious feature of the mlnistership of P.W. 2 was that he had remained a minister without portfolio all the while. Evidently, his admission into the Shotihlt Dal cabinet did not evoke any enthusiam amongst the Shoshit Dal legislators, almost ""J1 the whom were members of the cabinet. It is not at all surprising, therefore that the consensus of opinion in the Shoshit Dal was against the candidature of P.W. 2 In the Council election. In this connection the evidence of P.W. 7 is significant. He stated that P.W. 2 had approached the Shoshit Dal for Its support in the election to the Vidhan Parishad and that the Shoshit Dal legislators had decided in a party meeting to vote for him. But he also admitted that P.W. 2 was able to secure only one vote, and that really shows that the Shoshit Dal legislators had not extended their support to P.W. 2 in his election at all, because at the relevant time their strength was 27. and had It "been true that they had decided to vote for him, then he would not have secured only one vote. I, therefore, accept the evidence of R.W. 1 that the Shoshit Dal had decided not to extend Its support to P.W. 2 but to adopt Shrl Bhagwan Singh as Its candidate. In cross-examination he stated that the decision to set up Shrl Bharvan Sineh as his party's candidate -for the Council was taken at a part meeting M on the 28th March, 1968. It is
SEC. 3(ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 22, 1891386$obvious that the evidence of R.W. 2 to this effect also is correct, since, P.W. 7 also has spoken about such a party meeting. But his evidence with regard to the decision arrived at in that meeting cannot be preferred to the evidence of R.W. 2, having regard to the results of the voting which took place on 20th March, 1968. So the true fact is, as stated by R.W. 2 that the Shoshit Dal legislators had finally decided on 26th March, 1968 not to support the candidature of P.W. 2. Even. P.W. 7 made the following statement:
"I had not supported the candidature of Shri Shambhu Nath Jha, nor had I helped him In the election to the Council".
Had the decision of his party been to vote for P.W. 2, there could have been no. reason for P.W. 7 not to support his candidature. P.W. 7 has not indicated any- other reason for not supporting the candidature of P.W. 2 Rather he has admitted that Shri Bhagwan Singh was a candidate for the Council seat on behalf of the Shoshit Dal. It is difficult to believe, as P.W. 7 suggests, that both P.W. 2 and Bhagwan Singh were candidates of the Shoshit Dal in the Council election. He has himself admitted that Shri Bhagwan Singh had secured 16 or 18 votes as against one vote secured by P.W. 2. This could not have been the voting results if both these candidates would have contested the election on behalf of the Ehoshit Dal. I, therefore, hold that P.W. 2 has falsely claimed that he was the candidate of the Shoshit Dal in the Council election. The evidence of P.W. 2 shows that having joined, the cabinet at the invitation of Shri B. P. Mandal, he was anxious to become a member of the legislature, a natural anxiety for a non- legislator minister. It follows that by the time that the impugned election toot place, all hopes of P.W. 2 to get his party's support in his election had been shattered and he had become frustrated. It was really in this state of frustration- and disappointment that he thought of addressing a communication like Ext. 1 to the Home Secretary of the Government of India, with a view to disgrace the Shoshit Dal, as a whole, since it had virtually disowned him.
45. In Ext. 1, P.W. 2 came out with a version that on 13th March, 1968, im- mediately after a cabinet meeting of the Shoshit Dal Government, a proposal was put forward by a minister (not named) that the seat for the Rajya Sabha should be sold to the highest bidder. P.W. 2 was taken aback by such a suggestion and two or three other ministers also objected to it, but an overwhelming majority supported the idea. His objections were ignored because he was not a member of the Assembly and he was told that he had no business to lnterefere in such affairs. Subsequently, the Shoshit Dal legislators, almost all of whom were Minis- ters, State Ministers and Deputy Ministers, met several times and openly declared at each of these meetings that each one of them would take Rs. 4,0(10/- before votes were cast for the Rajya Sabha seat. P.W. 2 was present in nearly all such meetings, P.W. 2 has further stated in Ext. 1:
"The last meeting of the Shoshit Dal legislators were held on March 27 at the residence of one of the ex-Minister. There I saw with my own eyes these ex-Ministers collecting their envelopes containing four thousand rupees each. I was present in that meeting as an Ex- Minister. The election was held on March 28 and Mr. Poddar got the votes of all 38 Shoshit Dal M.L.As."
Ext. I ends with the following feelings of P-W. 2:
"I think since our independence there has been no such instance in which bribes have been paid and accepted so openly in the meetings by legislators for exercising their votes. I think the matter should be fully investigated by the C-B-I. so that suitable action can be taken to prevent the recurrence of such shameful things In future- Some- thing has to be done to save this country from corrupt politicians."
It is significant to observe that P.W. 2 did not think it worth-while to address any such communication to the Home Secretary prior to the 26th March, 1968 (the fateful date when the Shoshit Dal legislators had rejected his request to adopt him as its party candidate in the Council election), In spite of the fact that the Shoshit Dal legislators are supposed to have rebuked him on 13th March, 1968 and made repeated declarations that they would 4ake Rs. 4,000/- each before casting their votes for the Rajya Sabha election and PW. 2 was present in nearly all such meetings. Had there been any such declaration by the Shoshit Dal legislators, then P.W. 2. as a man of integrity and self-respect, would not have sought the support of the Shoshit Dal legislators, or stood in the Council election as a candidate of the Shoshit Dal. He would have disassociated himself entirely
3864 THE GAZETTE Of INDIA. SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 22, 1891 [PART II—with the activities of his party men from the very moment when his objections were Ignored and he was told on Uui March, 10&3 (before 18th March, 1908) that he had no business to interfere in such aflairs as he was not a member of the Assembly. It is curious that in spite of such a rebuff alleged to have been given to him, he made no complaint to the Chief Minister, Shri B. P. Mandal, although it was at his invitation that he had condescended to join the Shoshit Dal cabinet. Neither in the election petition nor in evidence, there is any attack upon the integrity of Shri B. P. Mandal, personally. Even in Annexure 'B', his name does not find place. One would, thereiore, have expcctad P-W. 2 to have complained to Shri B. P. Mandal about the alleged illegal propensities of his party men. Prom the circumstance that P.W. 2 did not speak to Shri B. P. Mandal about these matters and on the other hand, went on soliciting the support of the Shoshit Dal Legislators for his own election, and from the further circumstance that he did not think it fit to address any such communication to the Election Commission -or to the Government of India, or to any other authority until 26th March, 1988, it would be legitimate to entertain considerable doubt as to the truth of the state- ments incorporated in Ext. 1 at a time when his political frustration was com- plete. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that it would be extremely risky to act upon the evidence of P,W- 2, even though it may seem to have been partly corroborated by his own version in Ext. 1.
46. It should also be borne in mind that both P.Ws. 2 and 7 had parted political company with the Shoshit Dal before they figured as witnesses in the present trial This means that they have deposed in this case when their frame of mind was one of thorough disgust for the political party to which they once belonged- In the case of P.W- 7, his disgust had risen to such a high pitch that when the Shoshit Dai had offered him its ticket for the mid-term election held in February, 1SJ69, he thankfully returned it. Evidence of such angry or disgusted persons must naturally be viewed with great caution.
47. With regard to P.W. 7, It is abundantly clear that his approach to the ques- tion of giving his party's ticket to respondent No- 1 was parochial. In course of his cross-examination he himself stated:
"At no time, neither on 27th March, 1068, nor on any other occasion, I had agreed to support the candidature of Shri Rajendra Kumar Poddar I was anxious that the candidate who should win the election to the Hajya Sabha should be a member of the Shoshit Dal who was resi- dent of Bihar."
Subsequently, P-W. 7, realised that he had unconsciously betrayed his parochial outlonk in the matter, and so he modified his stand as follows;
"In the discussions of my political party I had opposed the candjdature of Shri Rajendra Kumar Poddar not on the ground that he was a non- resident in this State, but on the ground that he was introducing monetary considerations for securing our support. I set up such opposition at each of my party discussions prior to 27th March, 1.9G8. I put up my opposition against Shri Podrlar on the above ground at two or three party meetings and always in a general way. The first time when I put up this opposition against Shri Poddar's candidature was on the date on which the no-confldence motion was tabled namely 13th March, 1968- Thereafter, I again put forward my opposition to Foddar's candidature two or four days subsequently in presence of Mahanth Sukhdeo Giri and others. Thereafter, for about a week I continuously opposed the candidature of Shri Poddar at my party meetings."
T will comment upon his evidence about the introduction of monetary consider- ations by respondent No- 1 a little later. But this much is quite clear that P.W. 7 was opposed to the candidature of respondent No. 1 from the very beginning as he was not a resident of Bihar, and despite his opposition when respondent No. 1 was adopted as the official candidate of his party and even succeeded in the election, P.W. 7 could not possibly have viewed his success except with disfavour. In the circumstances it will not be unreasonable to think that the present prereedmg has merely provided an opportunity to P.W. 7 to make a final bid to nullify the election of a candidate whom he never liked. His evidence cannot, therefore, be said to be above board.
48. It has already been found that the Shoshit Dal had decided on 21st March, 1968, that respondent No 1 would be its official candidate in the impugned election-
&c. 3(u)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 22, 1891 3865Upon the evidence before the Court, there is nothing to show that there was any protest against this decision of the party, except perhaps by one or two Shoshit Dal legislators like P.W. 7 so a dinner meeting for the purpose described by P.Ws. 2, 4 and 7 was not at all necessary for securing the support of the whole body of the Shoshit Dal legislators lor the election of their official candidate. ]for securing the support of one or two dissentients, the efforts of respondent No. 1 and his iupporters like R.W- 1 would have been confined to approaching them individually at their residence or elsewhere. They did not stand in need of approaching P.W- 2 for this purpose at all, as he was not an elector. Nor he had any hold over the Shoahit Dal legislators- If they stood in need of tackling P.W. 7, then they would have approached him privately and not publicly in the manner alleged by him. The evidence of P.W- 7 shows that several of the candidates in the election did go to his residence for the purpose of soliciting his vote, and this had happened two or four days before the date of poll. Among such candidates, P.W. 7 was able to recall the names of the petitioner and respondent Nos. 7 mid 17, and he says that he had informed respondent No- 7 that he would support his candidature as he wanted him to win the election. But PW. 7, does not suggest that respondent No. 1 or any one else on his behalf had approached him like this (or his personal support. On the contrary, he has clearly stated:
"Prior to meeting me at my residence in the night of 27th March, 1968 Shri Poddar or Shrl Balwant Nath Singh had not approached me at my residence."
The reason must have been that P-W. 7 had made it abundantly clear that he would, under no circumstances, support the candidature of respondent No. 1, and that being aware of his stifl. opposition, respondent No. 1 and his supporters had abandoned the idea of securing his support. In such circumstances, it is incon- ceivable that respondent No. 1 would have arranged a dinner or a dinner meeting of the type alleged by the petitioner for the purpose of securing the support of a lew dissentients of the Shoshit Dal or that a dissentient like P-W. 7 would have attended or been invited to such a function- It is all the more inconceivable that a blunt offer of money would have been made to a strong dissentient like P.W. 7 at the last stage in the night of 27th March, 1968 and persisted in at mid-night, knowing full well that he was all along opposed to the candidature of respondent No. 1 as his party's candidate and had already promised his support to Shri A, P. Sharma, who was a Congress candidate, and that also without even making any prior attempt to solicit his vote by contacting him at his residence- It is also diffi- cult to believe that those legislators of the Shoshit Dal, who were party to the decision of their party reached on 21st March, 1968, stood in need of being made an ex-gratia payment for the purpose of fulfilling the commitment which they had already made at the said meeting- There is no indication in the record that the Shoshit Dal legislators, who had voted in favour of adopting respondent N01 1 as the official candidate of its party at the party meeting held on 21st March, 1968, had subsequently shown any reticence that they were not likely to abide by their party's decision so as to necessitate respondent No. 1 or his supporters to win them back by tendering or offering bribe to them. I have, therefore, grave doubt in my mind that any Incident had at all taken place on the 27th March, 196R, of the nature alleged or that P.W. 2 or P.W- 7, had attended such a function or gathering.
49. At an assemblage of the alleged type, one should expect Shri B. P. Mandal, the leader of the party, to be present- But it has nowhere been sugfiesled that he was, presumably because he was not an elector. If that was the reason for Shri B. P. Mandal's being out of the picture, then it is difficult to believe that P.W. 2 could have been Invited to a function supposed to have been organised for the purpose of offering or giving bribe to the electors, for the simple reason that he was also not an elector. "Even If any invitation for the alleged dinner would have been extended to him, he would have declined it after his request for adopting him as his party's candidate in the Council election had been turned down. However, P-W. 2 could never have been a witness to the offer and accept- ance of bribe supposed to have taken place after the conclusion of the alleaed dinner in the night of 27th March, 1968. I would refer in this connection to the evidence of P.W. 7 who has said;
"The number of invitees in the dinner on the 27th March, 1968t was about forty. About one-third of the Invitees went away after the dinner was over. Amongst those who had left after the dinner were legis- lators besides Shri Shambhaunath Jha and Jaswant Kumar Chaudhary." "
Thus, the cjaim of P-W- 2 that he had seen the alleged offer and acceptance of bribe at the Mahanth's residence falls to the ground.
3860THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 22, 1891 [PART II—50. We are thus left with the evidence of P.W. 7 only. But his evidence also Is. open to various criticisms, some of which I have already mentioned, and, there- fore, I am of the opinion that standing by itself, it cannot sustain a finding of corrupt practice against respondent No- 1- At one stage in his evidence P.W. 7 stated that after coming out of the Mahanfh*s residence on the night in question, he "did give in writing to the authorities that bribe had been offered and accepted by such and such persons". If he had really taken this step, then there would have been something to corroborate his evidence on the point. But he did not indicate to which authorities, if at all, he had given in writing to this eilect. He claimed to have maintained a copy of his alleged petition at his residence, but even that copy is not forthcoming. The truth obviously is that he had made no such complaint or maintained no such copy. He has himself admitted that before coming to the witness-box, he did not tell either the petitioner or his lawyer that "I had filed a written petition before such and such authority in connection with the incident which I saw in the nighl of 27th Maich, 10(38". Thus, his evidence- on this point stands discredited, and that must seriously undermine the weight of his evidence as a whole. His evidence about the action of respondent No. 1 in introducing monetary consideration for securing the support of the Shoshit Dal legislators is also difficult to be believod, since, this also stands uncorroborated by any reliable material. No doubt, in Ext. 1, something was said to this effect- But in his evidence before the Court, P.W. 2 did not take any responsibility for these allegations contained in Ext. 1, and so he did not speak a word about them- I do not think that the statement of P-W. 2 contained in Ext. 1 can be read as substantive evidence or utilised for corroborating the evidence of P-W. 7. With regard to incidents alleged by P.W. 7 to have taken place prior to the stage when respondent No. 1 was adopted as the official candidate of the Shoshit Dal, it is remarkable that he did not feel the necessity of telling anyone about them until the day of his deposition. He sought to explain his strange conduct by say- ing that the fact that respondent No. 1 had held out temptations of money before being sponsored as a candidate in the election was an open secret. But if there was any such open secret, then the least that one would have expected was that some body would have been examined to corroborate the evidence of P.W. 7. No corroboratlon to his evidence is afforded merely by asserting that what he has deposed was an open secret. Besides, if there was any such open secret, then it was not ii respect of a metter which called for no action of any kind- The Assembly was in session at the relevant time, but he has admitted that with re- gard to the alleged incidents of 27th March, 1968, he did not raise any question in the Assembly, though it had continued to be in session for about three months after 28th March, 1968. I am, therefore, unable to rely upon the uncorroborated testimony of P.W. 7 with regard to the alleged introduction of monetary consider- ations by respondent No. 1 for securing the support of the electors belonging to his party.
51. Even with regard to the actual giving and taking of the alleged bribe, the evidence which P-Ws. 2 and 7 have given is discrepant, I am not referring to the evidence of P.W. 4 here, since I am fully convinced that he was not there at all. According to P-W. 7, the payment and acceptance of bribe money took place in a side-room adjacent to the main hall where the guests had assembled. The legis- lators were goin* into that side-room in batches of two or three and returning therefrom with envelopes containing money. He was also requested to go Into that room for the same purpose that It was there that Balwant (R.W. 1) is sup- posed to have stretched out a long envelope before him saying that it contained. Rs. 4,(t(W/- which he was paying to him on behalf of respondent No. 1 and that he should support his candidature like others. But P.W. 2 has made no mention of any such side-room or of the legislators being taken there in batches of two or three. According to the version which P-W. 2 has given, everything had happened in the presence of the entire assemblage and It was not Balwant (R.W. 1), but respondent No, 1 who had personally handed over the money, after taking it from a cashier, to the various persons named by him. If the payment and acceptance of bribe took place In a side-room, then this could not have been within the view of P.W. 2 because it is not the evidence of P.W. 2 that he had gone or was conducted Into the alleged side-room. Thus the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 7 Iff discrepant not only with respect to the actual site where the deal Is supposed to have taken place, but algo with respect to the alleged payer- Such discrepancy on a material part of the petitioner's case must naturally affect Its truth. Even with regard to the alleged recipients of bribe, there Is discrepancy In the evi- dence- P.W- 2 has named 19 such recipients, In regard to five of whom he has added that they had counted the money which their respective envelope contained. P.W. 7 has named only five out of these 19 persons and haa added sixth name,
SEC. A] 1HK OAZEHE OF INDIA: SEPI EMBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 22, 1891 3867that of Sri N. E. Horo, who has not been named by P.W. 2. Both P.WB. 2 and 7 have named Munshi Hansda among the alleged recipient. Respondent No- 1 has tried to prove that. Munshi Hansda was not in Patna at the relevant lime since ht; was lying ill in a hospital at Mohul Pahari. But I need not deal with the evidence which respondent No- 1 has adduced on the point because the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 7 against Munshi Hansda must be rejected for the simple reason that his name Ilnds no place in Annexure 'B'. The name ol Satish Frasad Singh (R.W. 2) also finds no place in Annexure 'B' and he has not been named by P.W. 7; yet P.W. 2 has included his name amongst those who were supposed to have received and counted the alleged bribe money. The story ol counting is conspicu- ously absent in Annexure 'B' and is obviously an after-thought. In cross-exami- nation P.W. 7 stated that Hasim Saheb was the first man whom he had seen coining out with a long envelope from the side-chamber and leaving the residence of the Mahanth. According to him, Maii^ntii Sukhdeo Giri, had also similarly come out and left with Hasim Saheb. This Haslm Saheb is supposed to have later approached P.W. 7, at his residence along with R-Wt,. 1 and 5, but P.W 2 has not named Hasim Saheb, although he. claims to have seen Mahanth Sukhdeo Girl taking the money and counting it. If llasim Saheb would have been the first man to come out like that in the company of Mahanth Sukhdeo Giri, then P-W. 2 could not possibly have missed to see him or to have forgotten his name. It is, therefore, difficult to believe this version of P-W. 7 with any degree of confidence- It would be legitimate to think that Hasim Saheb was not there at all, and in that event, It is difficult to accept the uncorroborated testimony of P.W. 7 that he had accompanied R-Ws. 1 and 5 to his residence late in the night about two hours after the close of the function at the residence of the Mahanth. Having regard to such discrepancies on vital matters, I find it difficult to rely upon the evidence of P.Ws- 2 and 7 with any degree of confidence and I feel that upon such evidence, the case of the petitioner with respect to the alleged incidents at the residence oC thej Mahanth and subsequently at the residence of P.W. 7 cannot succeed.
52- I should add here that neither P.W. 2 nor P.W. 7 has spoken about the .following matters incorporated in Annexure 'B'.
(i) That the election agent of respondent No. 1, Sri Brajeshwar MulHck, was present at the alleged function or introduced to the Euests as they were arriving;
(iij That before the dinner, there was some talk beyond hearing in divided groups between R.Ws> 1 and 5 and some of the assembled guests;
(Hi) That towards the last stage, respondent No- 1 had made over one en- velope containing currency notes to Balwant (R.W. 1) and another to Mahanth Ram Klshore Das;
(iv) That Paul Hansda and Bhagat Murmu had asked for being entrusted with Rs. 4,000/- each to enable them to negotiate for two more votes during the night and ultimately respondent No. 1 had made over one envelope with currency notes to each of them.
Evidently, there is no truth in these allegations of the petitioner, and so the entire case set up by the petitioner in Annexure 'B' must fail. As the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 7 stands, it must further be held that the petitioner has failed to prove his case with respect to incidents Nos. (vii), (viil) and (lx) also.
53. It remains to consider the evidence which the petitioner has adduced in order to prove the alleged incident (incident No- xii) at the Assembly building on the day of poll, when Shri Bhagat Murmu is supposed to have offered to pay money to Sri Jetha Kisku, M.L.A. in consideration of supporting the candidature of respondent No. 1. According to the particulars set out in Annexure 'C there was similar incident (incident No. vl) at the M-L.A. Flat on the previous day, but since no attempt to substantiate the truth of incident No. VI was made by the petitioner, it is legitimate to infer that there is no truth in thiE part of the petitioner's case- It follows that if Bhagat Murmu had any intention of buying the support of Sri Jetha Kisku for the election of respondent No. 1 then he would not have left this work to be done at the last moment, on the day of poll at the polling station itself. However, it is necessary to examine the evidence of Kailash Pati Singh (P.W- ft), •who is supposed to have witnessed such an incident. The version of P.W. 8 is that while the polling In the Assembly premises was in progress, he had heard Bhagat Murmu asking Jetha Kisku to cast his vote for respondent No. 1 In lieu of "payment of thousands of rupees" but Jetha Kisku expressed his annoyance to Bhagat Murmu. I, however, find it difficult to place any reliance upon the evidence of P-W. 8. Evidently, he is a highly interested witness. He accepted
38iri good grace that he was the proposer oi' the petitioner In the last election and had also figured as his counting agent, but when he came to be questioned as to whether he had acted also as his polling aRent in that election, he took shelter behind lapse of his memory; whereupon the requisite polling agent from (Ext. C) was shown to him, and then he said that he remembered that he had also acted us, the polling agent of the petitioner. It is impossible to believe that though he re- membered having been the propo∨ and counting agent of the petitioner, he had forgotten whether he had also acted as his polling agent in the election. It is plain that he took up such an attitude with some purpose. It was a vain attempt on his part to explain his intention m the matter. He himself stated that he had a very bad reaction when he heard the talk between Bhagat Murmu and Jetha Kisku; and yet he made no written complaint regarding this matter to the Re- turning Officer who was present all along during the polling or to the Polite In attendance in the Assembly building on the day of poll or to the Speaker of the Assembly which was in session on that day- Ax a polling agent of the petitioner, this was the least that he was expected to do, if there would have been any incident of the nature described by him. The i'act that he look no such step leaves no room for doubt that he has come out with an imaginary itory in an anxiety to support the petitioner's case in the present litigation. His political affinity with Ihe petitioner was undoubtedly great. At tbe time of the impugned election he was a member of the B K D., of which the petitioner was the official candidate in the election. Paragraph 13 of his evidence reads as follows.:—
"At present I am a member of the Janta Party. The petitioner is also a member of the Janta Parly. While I was a member of the B. K. D , the petitioner was also a member of the B. K. D. Both of us wore also in the Swatantra Party previously. Prior to that I was in Janta Party which had merged in the Swatantra Party. At that time also the petitioner was the member of the Janta Party. All the while Raja Bahadur Kamakhya Narayan Singh was the leader of the Janta Party and Swatantra Party by turns."
It is manifest that the evidence of P.W. 8 is also highly tainted with partisan- ship, and as such his testimony, uncorroborated by any other material, Is not at all sufficient to prove the petitioner's case with respect to incident No. (xii). I should add that the entire case of the petitioner with regard to this incident must fail on another ground. There is neither any averment nor any evidence that Bhagat Murmu had committed the alleged corrupt practice with the consent of respondent No. 1 or his election agent. It has also not been proved that the result of the election, so far as it concerned respondent No. 1, has been materially affect- ed by the alleged corrupt practice supposed to have been committed in his interest. Thus, with regard to this incident also, the petitioner's case fails-
54. I should point out here that during the cross-examination of Satish Prasad Singh (R.W. 2), a case was sought to be made out that a free gift of a brand new Fiat Car was made to him by the Auto Distributors, the firm of respondent No. 1, by way of reward for getting him elected to the Rajya Sabha- Searching questions were put to R.W. 2 in this connection, to some 'of which he was unable to provide a satisfactory answer. But that can be of no avail to the petitioner in the present case because no such case is to be found in the entire body of the election petition. I, therefore, decline to go Into this matter any further.
65. While dealing with the petitioner's case on the point of corrupt practice. I cannot help commencing upon his conspicuous absence from the witness-box during the trial. On one occasion, as the evidence of PW. 8 shows, he was personally present in Court, and yet he did not think it worthwhile to step into the witness- box. It is true that under the law there was no such obligation upon the petitioner. But while respondent No. 1 baulked the cross-examination, the petitioner avoided it altogether. His absence from the witness-box must give rise to an inference that he was not prepared to take any personal responsibility for the truth of any of the averments contained In the election petition and to submit himself to cross- examination with regard to those averments. To say the least, he has not thought fit even to corroborate the evidence of any of his witnesses by saying that any one of them had ever told him about any of the incidents involving corrupt practice on the part of respondent No. 1 or his supporters. It seems to me that the- petitioner has merely set the ball rolling and withdrawn from the field leavinff it entirely to his party man and their supporters to manage and look after the .game, himself playing the role of a silent spectator. In other words, the present trials has merely provided a battle ground to enable the members and supporters of the petitioner's party to indulge in mud-sllnging at their rivals in politics. If
KC. 31(tj] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 22, 1891 3869the grievances of the petitioner would have been genuine, we would not have seen " drama like that of Hamlet without the Prinze of Denmark. However, upon a scrutiny of all the relevant materials on the record, I have come to the conclusion that the evidence which the petitioner has adduced in order to prove this case on the point of corrupt practice falls far short oi the requisite standard apd is wholly insufficient to warrant an affirmative finding in his favour. Thus, this attack "REunst the validity of the election of respondent No. 1 also fails.
ofi. It is necessary lo say just one word with regard to the case put forward in paragraph 29 of the election petition relating to non-observance of the rules contained 111 the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, relating to counting of single transferable votes. No evidence was adduced by the petitioner on this point, and yet a petition was filed on his behalf on the lCth May, 1964, saying that, "in the interests of justice and for a proper appreciation and ascertainment of the tiuth behind the evidence relating to corrupt practice, it is highly expedient that the first preference votes cast in favour of the Respondent No. 1 and the petitioner be examined and '-•crutiniscd and the names oi the members who vot- ed in their favour be ascertained before the commencement of the argument''. But I rejected this petition as no foundation had been laid in the evidence adduced by the petitioner tor the adoption ol a course which would have expos- ed the secrecy of the ballot papers.
57. Finally, I should make a reference to the Parliamentary Debates held in the Rajya Sabha on Lhe 29th April, 1968, a copy of the Official Report of which was shown to me during the arguments- The Report shows that on that day when respondent No 1 was about to be sworn in a<; a member of the Rajya Snbha from Bihar, a member lrom the UtLar Pradesh. Shri Hajnarain, remar- ked that he wanted the opinion ol the House whether H was proper that those persons who had got themselves elected to the House by violating the Consti- tution, bv spending money, by corrupting their party and by paying bribe should be permitted to take their oaths. At thu. the Chairman observed:
"Shri Rajnarain's point is misplaced. The elections of some Members- he did not mention the names—have been duly notified "
The Cl'mrman further observed:
"The elections of Shri Sitaram Jaipuria and Shri Rajendra Kumar Poddar. have been notified and they are under the law entitled to make the oath or affirmation."
The Report says that "at this stage, Shri Rajnarain left the House". The fact that there was such an incident in the Raiya Sabha cannot be doubted. But beyond that the Report proves nothing. Shri Rajnarain is not a witness in this case. The petitioner did not even include his name in his lists of witnesses. The truth of the statements made by him m the Rajya Sabha has not been tested upon hi1? examination before this Couit. The basis of his statements is not known. I fail to see how they can be of any avail to the petitioner in this case. I, therefore, leave the Report out of consideration.
58. To sum up, my answers on the various issues framed in this case are as follows:
Issue Wo, 1.—The election petition is fit to be dismissed under section 86(1) as it does not comply with the mandatory provision of section 81(3) of the Act of 1951. It suffers from no other defect.
Issue No. 2.—The answer is in the negative. Issue No. 3.—The answer is in the negative. Issue No. 4.—The answer is in the affirmative. Issue No. 5,—Respondent No. 1 was not qualified to be enrolled as an elector in the electoral roll of Patna West Assembly Constituency for the time being in force, but the petitioner is not entitled to challenge his election on that ground.
Issue No. 6.—-The answer is in the neijative- Isaue No. ? The answer is in the negative. Issue No. 8.—The answer is in the negative. Issue No. 9.—The answer is in the neg&tivw. Issue No. 10.—The answer is in the negative, Issue No. 11.—The petitioner Is not entitled to either of the two declaration- which he has sought from the court, or to any other relief.
3870 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 22, 1891 [PART 11^-59. The election petition, accordingly, fails and the same is dismissed, with costs which will be payable by the petitioner to respondent No. 1, together with a consolidated hearing fee of Rs. 750/-.
GO. Let a substance of this decision be intimated forthwith to the Election Commission and the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, and let an authenticated copy of this judgment bo forwarded to the Election Commission as soon as possible.
. (Sd.) G. N. PRASAD,
[No. 82/BR-1/68.] Patna High Court, The 14th July, 1969.
ORDERS
New Delhi, the 8th August 1969
S.O. 3630.—Whereas the Election Commission Is satisfied that Shri H^ri Chand Manjhi, R/o village Lodipur Tola Parwarbigha P.O. Bela^'anj (Gaya), a contesting candidate lor election to the Bihar Legislative Assembly from Gaya Muffasil, Assembly 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;
2. And whereas, the said candidate even after due notice has not given anj reason or explanation for the failure and the Election Commission is satisfied that he ha=; no good reason or justification for such failure;
3. Now, therefore, in pursuance of section 10A of the said Act, the Election Commission hereby declares the said Shri Hari Chand Manjhi, 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-LA/251/69(6).]
New Delhi, the Uth August 196&
S.O. 3633.—Whereas the Election Comfnfsston is satisfied that Shri Ami Lal Mandal R/o Visage & P.O. Basbittl, District Saharsa, a contesting candidate for election to the Bihar Legislative Assembly from Supaul Assembly Constituency, has failed to lodge an account of his election expenses as required by the Repre- sentation of the People Act, 1951, and the Rules made thereunder;
iCC 3(ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 22. 189138712. And whereas, the said candidate even after the notice hag not given any reason or explanation for the failure and the Election Commission is satisfied that he has no good reason or justification for such failure;
3. Now, therefore, in pursuance of section 10A of the said Act, the Election Commission hereby declares the said Shri Ami Lal Mandal, 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-LA/107/69(7).]
S.O. ?,634.—Whereas the Election Commission is satisfied that Shri Nawal Klshore Singh, R/o village Gareriakhand, ward No. 3 P.O. Jahanabad (Gaya), a contesting candidate for election to the Bihar Legislative Assembly from Jehana- bad Assembly 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;
2. And whereas, the said candidate even after due notice has not given any jcason or explanation for the failure and the Election Commission is satisfied that he has no good reason or justification for such failure;
3. Now, therefore, in pursuance of section 10A of the said Act, the Election Commission hereby declares the said Shri Nawal Kishore Singh, 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.
[Np. BR-LA/236/69O).]
3872 T HE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 22, 1891 [PART II—New Delhi, the 21st August 1969
S.O. 3636.—Whereas the Election Commission is satisfied that Shri Yashodhar Pandey R/O village Dahibat Madhopur. P.O. Kamalpur, District Darbhanga (Bihar) a contesting candidate for election to the Bihar Legislative Assembly from 80- Madhubani Assembly 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;
2. And whereas, the said candidate even after due notice haa not given any reason or explanation for the failure and the Election Commission is satisfied that he has no good reason or justification for such failure:
3. Now, therefore, in pursuance of section 10A of the said Act, the Election Commission hereby declares the said Shri Yashodhar Pandey 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 yeara from the date of this order-
LNo. BR-LA/80/69(10). I
S.O. 3638.—Whereat the Election Commission is satisfied that Shri Sita Sharati Yadav, R/O village Radha Kant, P O. Selibeli, Via Jalnagar, Dibtrict Darbhanga (Bihar) a contesting candidate for election to the Bihar Legislative Assembly from 77-Harlakhi Assembly Constituency, hat, failed to lodge an account ol his election expenses as required by the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and the Rules made thereunder;
SEC 3(ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 22, 1891 38732- And whereas, the said candidate even after due notice has not given any reason or explanation for the failure and the Election Commission is satisfied that he has no good reason or justification for such failure;
3. Now, therefore, in pursuance of section 10A of the said Art, the Election Commission hereby declares the said Shri Sita Sharan Yadav, 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-LA/77/69U1).]
S.O. 3640.—Whereas the Election Commission is satisfied that Shri Saryug Sadai, R/O village and P.O. Ghoghardiha, District Darbhanga (Bihar) a contesting candi- date for election to the Bihar Legislative Assembly from 83-Phulparas Assembly Constituency, haa failed to lodge an account of nig election expenses as required by the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and the Rules made thereunder;
2- And whereas, the said candidate even after due notice has not given any reason or explanation for the failure and the Election Commission is satisfied that he has no good reason or justification for such failure;
3. Now, therefore, in pursuance of section 10A of the said Act, the Election Commission hereby declares the said Shri Saryug Sadai to De disqualified to- 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-LA/83/69(12).} By Order,
A. N. SEN, Secy.
3874 T HE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 22, 1891 [PAST II—OKDER
New Delhi, the 21st August 1960
S.O. 3642.—Whereas the Election Commission is satisfied that Shrl L. H. Siddaiah, Advocate, 112, Vinoba Road, Mysore (Mysore State), a contesting candi- date for election to the Mysore Legislative Assembly from SanthemarahalH constituency, held in February, 1987 has failed to lodge an account, of hia elec- tion expenses as required by the Representation of the People Act, 1051, and the Rules made thereunder;
And whereas, the said candidate even after the due notice has not given anv reason or explanation for the failure and the Election Commission is satisfied that he has no good reason or justification for auch failure;
]\ow, therefore, in pursuance of section 10A of the laid Act, the Election Commission hereby declares the said Shri L. H. Siddaiah 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. MY-LA/11S/6T:] By Order,
K. S. KAJAGOPALAN, Secy
SEC 3(li)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 21 IK'P 3875MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIES
New Delh^ the 30th August 1969
S.O. 3645.—In exercise of the powers conferred under sub-section (1) of section 492 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (5 of 1898), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri V. P. Raman, Advocate, Madras as a Public Prosecutor to conduct before the High Court of Judicature at Madras Criminal Appeal No. 509/ 1968, arising out of the Special Police Establishment Case RC. No. 20/63, Madras against Major Asthana and others,
[No. 225/28/69-AVD. If.J
R. C. JOSHI, Under Secy.
New Delhi, the 9th, September 1969
S.O. 3646.—Whereas arrangements have been made by the Central Government with the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany for taking the "evidence of witnesses residing in the Federal Republic of Germany in relation to criminal matters in courts in India, the Central Government, In pursuance of sub-section (3) of section 504 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1098 (5 of 1898), hereby directs that commissions from courts in India for the examination of witnesses in the Federal Republic of Germany shall be issued in the form annexed hereto, to the following courts, namely ;—
(1) Landgericht, Bonn; or (2) Amtsgericht, Bonn; or (3) Staatsanwal tschaft, Bonn,
and that such commissions shall be sent to the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi, for transmission to the Court concerned.
IN THE COURT OF
Commission to examine witness outside India
[Section 504(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898]
To
Through the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi.
Whereas it appears to me that the evidence of
the ends of justice in case No Vs
is neoessary for in the court of and that such witness is residing within the local limits of your jurisdiction and his attendance capnot be procured without un-reasonable delay, expense or inconvenience, I have the honour to request and do
3876 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 22, 1891 [PART II—hereby request that for the reasons aforesaid and for the assistance of the said Court you will be pleased to summon the said witness to attend at such time, and place as you shall appoint and that you will cause such witness to be examined upon the interrogatories which accompany this commission (for viva voce).
Any party to the proceeding may appear before you by his counsel or agent or if not in custody, in person and may examine, cross examine or re-examine (as the case may be) the said said witness.
And I further have the honour to request that you will be pleased to cause the answers of the said witnesses to be reduced into writing and all books, letters, papers, and documents produced upon such examination to be duly marked for identification and that you will be further pleased to authenticate such examina- tion by your official seal (if any) and by your signature and to return the same together with this commission to the undersigned through the Ministry of External .Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi.
Given under may hand and the seal of the Court this day of 19
Judge
District Magistrate, Presidency Magistrate,
[No. F.5/2/69-Judl.I.] B. SHUKLA, Dy. Secy.
CABINET SECRETARIAT
(Department of Statistics)
New Delhi the 28th August, 196!)
S O 3648 In exercise ol the powers conferred by sub-section (i) of section 8 of the'Indian Statistical Institute Act, 1959 (57 of 1959), the Central Government hereby constitutes a Committee consisting of:
:
1, Dr. Atma Ram,—Chairman.
Director General, Council of Scientific & Industrial Research, New Delhi.
SEC 300] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 21, 18913877Members
2. Dr. Aahok Mltra,
Chairman, Agricultural Prices Commission, New Delhi.
3. A representative of Indian Statistical Institute. 4. Joint Secretary, Finance, Department of Expenditure (FA to Deptt. of Statistics).
5. Director, CSO and ex-officio Joint Secretary, Department of Statistics. 6. Deputy Secretary, Department of Statistics—Meniber Secretary.
and assign the following duties to the said Committee, namely:—
(a) preparation and submission to the Central Government of statements showing programmes of wort agreed to be undertaken by the Indian. Statistical Institute during the year 1W7O-71 for which the Central Government may provide funds, as well as general financial estimates of such work; and
(ib) the settlement on breadlines of the programmes of such work.
2. The Committee shall submit its report before December 1069 at the latest 3. The Department of Statistics will perform the secretarial functions of the Committee, the headquarters of which will be at New Delhi.
[No. 29/4/69-Tecb.] K. P. GEETHAKKISHNAN, Dy. Secy.
3878 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 22, 1891 [PART II—MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(Department of Expenditure)
New Delhi, the 26th August 1969
S.O. 3650.—In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to article 309 and clause (5) of article 148 of the Constitution and of all other powers enabling him In this behalf and after consultation with the Comptroller and Auditor General in relation to persons serving in the Indian Audit and Accounts Department, the President hereby makes the following rules further to amend the Fundamental Rules, namely: —
1. These rules may be called the Fundamental (Sixth Amendment) Rules,
1969.
They shall come into force on the date of their publication in the Official Gazette.
2- In the Fundamental Rules, In clauses (j) (1) and (k) oi rule 5G, for the words "the age-limit for the purpose of direct recruitment to which is below thlrty-flve years", the following words shall be substituted, namely: —
"and had entered Government service before attaining the age of thirty- five years".
[No. 7(l4)-EV/07-I.l
S.O. 3651.—In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to article 309 of the Constitution and of all other powers enabling him in this behalf, the President hereby makes the following regulations further to amend the Civil Service Regula- tions, namely: —
1. (1) These Regulations may be called the Civil Service (Tenth Amendment)
Regulations, 1969.
(2) They shall come Into force on the date of their publication in the Official Gazette.
2. In the Civil Service Regulations, in Clauses (h) (1) nnd (i) of article 459— for the words "the age-limit for the purpose of direct recruitment to whirl) is below thirty-live years" the following words shall be substituted. namely: —
"and had entered Government service before attaining the age of thirty- five years."
[No. 7(14)-E.V/67-II.J
N. S. CHANDRAMOWLI, Under Secy
Src. 3(ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 22, I89I3879New Delhi, the 2nd September 1969
S. O. 3652.—In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to article 309 and cluuSe (5) of article 148 of the Constitution, the President after consultation with the Comptroller and Auditor-General in relation to persons serving in the Indian Audit and Accounts Department, hereby makes the following regulations further to amend the Civil Service Regulations, namely: —
1 (1) These regulations may be called the Civil Service (Eleventh Amendment) .Regulations, 1969.
(2) They shall come into force on the 1st day of October, I960.
2. In the Civil Service Regulations—
(,u) for article 15, the following article shall be substituted, namely:—
"15. Audit Officer means the accounts and Audit Officer, whatever his official designation, In whose circle the office of the pension sanction- Ing authority is situated.";
(b) for Chapier XLVI1 and Sections and articles thereunder, the following Chapter and Sections and articles shall be substituted, namely:—
"CHAPTER XLVII—APPLICATIONS FOR AND GRANT OF PENSIONS."
SECTION I—General
905- (1) The rules in this Chapter apply to all Government servants applying for pensions under these Regulations except the members of the Indian Civil Service to whom Chapter XLIX applies.
(2) For the purpose of this Chapter "gratuity" means death-cmu-retirement gratuity and includes service gratuity, if any.
906- (1) Every Head of the Department shall have a list prepared every six rnonths, i-e. on the 1st January and the 1st July each year of all gazetted and non-gazetted Government servants who are due to retire within the next 12 to IS months of that date. A copy of every such list shall be supplied to the Audit Officer concerned not later than the 31st January or the 31st July, as the case may be, of that year. In the case of persons retiring for reasons other than by way of superannuation, the Head of the Department shall promptly inform the Audit Officer as soon as the impending retirement becomes known to him.
(2) The Head of the Department or Office shall write to the Directorate of Estates at least one year before the anticipated date of retirement of a Govern- ment servant who is in occupation of Government accommodation, for issue of 'No Demand Certificate' so that the sanction of pension and gratuity is not delayed and the necessary dues are realised within the period specified In clause (3) of article 923.
907. Every Government servant shall submit a formal application for pension in Form 30- Gazetted Government servants shall send their applications direct to the Audit Officer and non-gazetted Government servants to the Head of Office- "Every Government servant should submit his formal application for pension at leisi one year in advance of the date of his anticipated retirement:
Provided that,—
(i) in cases in which the date of retirement cannot be foreseen one year in advance, the application shall be submitted immediately after the date of retirement is settled; and
fii) a Government servant proceeding on leave preparatory to retirement In excess of one year, shall submit the application at the time of proceeding on such leave.
008. A Gazetted Government servant whose pay and allowances are drawn and disbursed by the Head of Office on the establishment bill, shall submit his formal application for pension to the Head of Office and the procedure as laid down in Section III shall apply to him.
NOTE;—In respect of a non-gazetted Government servant holding a gazetted post in an officiating capacity at the time of retirement the Head of Office shall tend the service boot ot the Government servant concerned to the Audit Officer at least one year in advance of the date of retirement of such Government ser- vant, after verifying that the certificate of verification relating to non-gazetted
3"So THE GAZETrE OP YTHJIA: SEPTEMBER 13, lyoy/BJHADKA 22, JH91 [PART Ii~-service has been recorded and that the Service-book is complete in all respects If a non-gazetted Government servant is promoted to officiate in a gazetted post at any time during the last year of his service, and in whose case, pension papers have not been prepared and forwarded to the Audit Officer, the service book of such a Government servant duly verified and completed in all respects, shall lie forwarded immediately by the Head of Office to the Audit Officer.
909. The Head of the Department or any other authority competent to malu appointment to the post substantively held by the retiring Government servaui shall also be competent to sanction pension and gratuity. Such authority shall, after due consideration of the facts oi the case and having due regard to'the pro- vision,-, of article 470, record in Form 25-A, his orders as to whether the serviu rendered by the Government servant has been satisfactory and is approved foi the .grant of the full pension or gratuity or both, admissible under the rules oi whether the service so rendered has not been thoroughly satisfactory and whdi reduction should for that reason be made from the full pension or gratuity or both, admissible under the rules.
NOTE:—Notwithstanding anything contained in this article, th,e Comptroller and Auditor-General shall be the authority competent to sanction pension oi officers of the Indian Audit and Accounts Service.
910. (1) Subject to the provisions of articles 351 and 351-A, pension omc sanctioned after final assessment, shall not be revised to the disadvantage ol tin- Government servant, unless huch a revision becomes necessary on account of de- tection of a clerical error subsequently:
Provided that no revision of pension to the disadvantage of the pensioner shall be ordered by the pension sanctioning authority without the sanction of I ho Ministry of Finance If the clerical error is detected after a period of two year1- from the date of sanction of pension.
(2) For the purpose of clause (1), the Government servant concerned shall be served with a notice by the pension sanctioning authority, requiring him to refund the excess payments so made within a period of two months from the date oi receipt by him of the notice. On his failure to comply with the notice, the au- thority sanctioning the pension shall order that such excess payment shall be au- justed by shfirt payments of pension in future, in one or more instalments, as the said authority may order.
SECTION II—Gazetted Government servants
911. The Audit Officer concerned shall undertake the work of preparing pension papers in Form 25 one year before the date on which a Government servant i.s due to retire on superannuation or on the date on which he proceeds on leave pre- paratory to retirement, whichever is earlier. This work shall not be delayed till the Government servant has actually submitted his formal application for pension
912. (a) The Audit Officer shall send to every gazetted Government servant, under Intimation to the Head of the Department, or where the retiring Govern- ment servant is himself the Head of the Department, to the Ministry concerned a copy of Form 30 (Formal Application for Pension) one year In advance c,t the date on which the Government servant attains the age of superannuation or before the date of his anticipated retirement, if earlier, with the request that it should be returned to him duly completed within a period of three months from the date of issue of intimation to the Government servant by him but in no case later than the actual date of retirement. The Audit Officer shall also draw attention el the retiring Government servant to the provisions of article 930.
(b) On receipt of a copy of formal application for pension from the Audit Officer the retiring Government servant shall return it duly completed to the Audit Officer within the period mentioned in clause (a) under intimation to the Head of the Department or the Ministry if he is himself the Head of the Depart- ment.
(c) (1) On receipt of the intimation from the Audit Officer, the Head of the Department or the Ministry shall communicate the orders of the authority sanction- ing the pension to the Audit Officer in Form 25-A within a ueriod of three months- from the date of receipt of the intimation but in no case later than the date of retirement of the Government servant.
SEC. 3(ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 22, 1891 3881(ii) If the orders of the authority sanctioning the pension are not received by the Audit Officer within the period mentioned in sub-clause (i), he ghall assume that the retiring Government servant has been allowed full pension or gratuity or both as admissible under the rules.
(iii) If alter the communication of the order of sanction to the Audit Officer any event occurs which has a bearing on the amount of pension admissible, the fact shall be promptly reported to the Audit Officer by the authority sanctioning the pension. In case no such event has occurred a report to that cifect together with & certificate as to the satisfactory nature of the service rendered by the Government servant after the despatch of Form 25-A mentioned in sub-clause (i) ihull be forwarded to the Audit Officer within a week of the date- on which the Government servant retires-
(d) The; details of any Government dues outstanding against the Government servant and the steps taken to safeguard the interest 01 the Government m thi^; behalf shall also be communicated by the Head of Office to the Audit Officer at least 14 days before the date of retirement of the Government servant.
(e) When the Government servant has retired from service, a notified"!ion in the Gazette speciiying the actual date of his retirement .shall be issued within a week of such date and a copy of every such notlllration shall be forwarded to the Audit Officer immediately:
Provided that in <_-nt,es where a notification in the Gazette regarding the grant of leave preparatory to ictiremcnt to a gazetted Government servant i% issued, a further notification that the Government servant actually retired on the expin of such leave shall not be necessary unless the leave is curtailed and the i-ctiicment is for any reason ante-dated or postponed-
(f) As soon as the pension and gratuity are finally assessed by the Audit Officer ana the pension is payable in his circle of Audit, he shall prepare Pension Payment Order after taking into account the orders of pension sanctioning au- thority and the audit enfacement on the third page of Form 25, but shall not issue the said order more than a fortnight in advance of the d-vte on which the Government servant is due to retire. The fact of issue of Pension Payment Ord^r shall be promptly reported to the pension sanctioning authority. If the payment of pension is desired in another circle of audit, the Audit Officer shall send the necessary nayment authority to the Audit Officer of that circle for arranging pay- ment at the Treasury concerned.
913. (a) When a Government servant whose pension is payable in India is likely to retire before his pension can be- finally assessed und settled in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter, the Audit Officer shall authorise the disburse- ment of pension to which, after the most careful summary investigation that he can make without delay, he believes the Government servant to be entitled- If the payment of pension is desired in another circle of audit, the Audit Officer shall send a copy of the order to the Audit Officer of that circle for issuing neces- sary instructions to the Treasury Officer concerned for disbursement of the pension.
(b) When a Government servant whose pension is payable in England is likely to retire before his pension can be finally assessed and settled, the Audit Officer shall, after the most careful summary investigation that he can make without delay, report to the High Commissioner for India in the United Kingdom, through the authority competent to sanction the pension, the minimum amount to which toe believes the Government servant to be entitled- The High Commissioner shall then authorise the immediate disbursement of the amount reported or such smaller amount as may be deemed proper-
(c) The disbursement of pension under clause (a) or clause (b) shall be subject to revision on the completion of the detailed Investigation and enquiries, if any. If the amount of pension granted to a Government servant under clause (a) or clause (b) be afterwards found to be in excess of that to which he is en- titled under the Regulations, he shall be called upon to refund such excess in the manner and subject to the conditions specified in article 910.
(d) Subject to the provision of clause (a), the Audit Officer may also sanction the disbursement of not more than three-fourths of the amount of gratuity. If, however, the amount of gratuity so disbursed proves to be larger than the amount
3882 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 22, i89i [PART n—finally assessed, the gratuitant shall not be required to refund any excess actually disbursed to him.
,
SECTION III—Non-Gazetted Government Servants
914. (1) Every Head of Office shall undertake the work of preparing pension papers one year before the date on which a Government servant is due to retire on superannuation or on the date on which he proceeds on leave preparatory to retirement, whichever is earlier. This work shall not be delayed till the Govern- ment ieivant has actually submitted the formal application for pension.
(2) The Head of Office shall send to every non-gazetted Government servant a copy of Form 30 (Forma] Application for Pension) one year in advance of the date on which the Government servant attains the age of superannuation or before the date of his anticipated retirement if earlier, with the request that it should be returned to him duly completed within a period of three months from the date of issue of intimation to the Government servant by him but in no case later than the actual date of retirement. The Head of Office shall also draw attention of the retiring Government servant to the provisions of article 930.
&15. As a first step the Head of Office shall prepare a statement of the appli- cant's .service in the second page of Form 25 and thereafter proceed as follows :—
(a) he shall go through the service book and the service roll, if any, and satisfy himself as to whether the annual certificates of verification for the entire service are recorded therein- In respect of the un- verified portion or portions of service, he shall arrange to verify it or them, as the case may be, with reference to pay bills, acquittance rolls or other relevant records and record the necessary certificates in the service book or service rolls, as the case may be;
(b) if the service for any period is not capable of bein# verified in the manner specified in clause (a), that period of service having been rendered by the Government servant in another office or department, a reference, shall be made to the Head of that office or, as the case may be, of that department in which the officer Is shown to have served during that period for the purposes of verification;
(c) if any portion of service rendered by a Government servant is not capable of being verified in the manner specified in clauses (a) and (b), the Government servant shall file a written statement on plain paper stating that he had in fact rendered that period of service and shall, at the foot of the. statement make and subscribe to n declara- tion as to the truth of that statement and shall, in support of such declaration, produce all documentary evidence and furnish all infor- mation which is in his power to produce or furnish- The authority competent to sanction pension to that Government servant shall, after taking into consideration the facts in the written statement and the evidence produced and the information furnished by that Govern- ment servant in support of the said period of service, If satisfied, admit that portion of service as having been rendered for the purposes of calculating the pension of that Government servant.
916 After completing Tie service statement mentioned in article 915, the Head of Office shall complete the first page of Form 25. This should be done Irres- pective of the fact whether a formal application for pension has been received from the Government servant or not. If at such time the said formal appli- cation from the Government servant has not yet been received, the relevant columns in the first page of Form 25 shall be left unfilled. The relevant entries shall be made soon after the said formal application is received-
017. After complying with the requirements of article 916, the Head of Office
shall proceed as follows :—
(l ) he Knall certify in Form 25-A as to whether the character, conduct and (° \ttJZceot the applicant are such as to entitle him to thefavou^ able consideration of the authority sanctioning the pension- He Shall also record therein his own opinion as to whether the s e r v i c e , g m ri has been established and should be admitted or not. All P ^ o ds or leave, suspension, etc., which are not reckoned as service shouW be carefully recorded In section HI of second page of F o™ 2^Ar " Yj* application is for an invalid pension, the requisite medical certificate shall be attached;
Six. 3(ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA; SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADR4. 22, 1391 3883(ii) after obtaining the orders of the pension sanctioning authority In Form 25-A, the Head of Office shall send Forms 25 and 25-A, in original to the Audit Officer, with a covering letter in Form 26 along with the Government servant's service book and service roll, If any, duly completed up to date and any other documents relied upon lor the verification of the service claimed, in such a manner that they can be conveniently consulted. He shall retain one copy of each of the above forms for his office record- In cases where payment is desired in another audit circle, Forms 25 and 25-A shall bfe sent to the Audit Officer in duplicate-
ril8. (a) If after the pension papers have been forwarded to the Audit Officer, any event occurs which has a bearing on the amount of pension admissible, the fact shall be promptly reported to the Audit Officer by the authority sanctioning the pension.
(b) In cases where the pension papers have been sent to the Audit Officer before the actual date of retirement of the Government servant, a certificate as to the satisfactory nature of service rendered by the Government servant for the period from the date of admitting service by the authority sanctioning the pension to the date of actual retirement together with a copy of the order specifying the actual date of his retirement, shall be forwarded to the Audit Officer within a week from the date on which he retires. At the same time details of any Govern- ment dues outstanding against the Government servant, and the steps taken to safeguard the interest of the Government in this behalf shall also be mtimated to the Audit Officer.
919- (1) After the pension papers have been sent to the Audit Officer, the Head of Office shall draw provisional pension not exceeding the maximum pension, as may be admissible in each case, and three fourths of the gratuity as indicated by him against item 13 of Form 25 for each pensioner separately at the Treasury at which the pay and allowances are drawn by him are arrange to disburse the pension and gratuity on the first day of the month following the month in which the officer retires from service under Intimation to Audit Officer- If the pensioner desires payment through Money Order or Bank draft at the place where he is residing the same shall be remitted to him through Money Order or Bank draft at his cost. Such payment of pension shall continue only for a period of 6 mcnths from the date of retirement of Government servant unless the period is extended by Audit Officer under Art. 920.
(2) The Head of Office, where necessary shall,—
(a) recover out of the gratuity, an amount equal to two months emoluments representing the Government servant's contribution towards Family Pension Scheme, 1984; and
(b) take appropriate action for the recovery and adjustment of Govern-
ment dues as provided in Section IV.
(3) It is open to the Government servant to receive the payment of the balance of the one-fourth of the gratuity either from the Treasury from which payment of flnal pension is desired by him or from the Head of Office. If the Government servant desires to receive the payment of the balance of the gratuity from the Head of Office, he shall communicate his option in this behalf to the Head of Office, before proceeding on retirement- The Head of Office shall, In such a case, take necessary steps to draw and disburse the gratuity only after the Audit Officer has issued the necessary authority.
(4) The Head of Office shall Issue a sanction letter endorsing a copy thereof to the Audit Officer indicating the amount of provisional pension and the three- fourths of the gratuity payable to the Government servant on retirement from service- He shall also indicate In the sanction letter, the amounts to be recovered out of the gratuity. After issue of the sanction letter, he shall take necessary steps to draw and disburse the provisional pension ard gratuity. As soon as the provisional payments of pension and gratuity have been completed, the Head of Office shall inform the Audit Officer of the particulars of the aforesaid payments actually made by him.
920- (1) on receipt of pension papers passed on to him under the provisions of article 917, the Audit Officer shall apply the requisite checks and record his audit enfacement on the third page of the application In Form 25. If the pension is payable in hla circle of audit, he shall prepare the Pension Payment Order. The
3884 THE GAZETTE 01- INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 22, 1891 [PART II—payment of pension shall be effective from the date following the date on which the payment of provisional pension ceases. Arrears of pension, if any, in respect of the period for which pension was drawn and disbursed by the Head of Office shall also be authorised by the Audit Ortlcer.
(2) If the payment of the balance of the gratuity is desired to be made from the Treasury or Sub-Treasury from where the final pension is to be drawn, the Audit Officer shall authorise the payment of the gratuity after adjusting the amount outstanding against the retired Government servant. If the Government servant has opted for receiving the payment of the balance of the gratuity from the Head of Office, the Audit Officer shall issue the necessary authority In this behalf under intimation to the Government servant and the Treasury Officer indicating the amount, if any, which the Head of Office shall adjust before making payment to the Government servant.
(3) The fact of the issue of the Pension Payment Order and oider for the payment of the balance of the gratuity shall be promptly reported to the Head of Office and the pension papers which are no longer necessary shall be returned to him.
(4) The adjustment of provisional pension and gratuity drawn and disbursed by the Head of Office shall be made by the Audit Officer in whose circle the provisional payments were made-
(6) If the Audit Officer Is unable to assess the amount of final pension and gratuity within a period of six months of the date of retirement of the Government servant, he shall communicate the fact to the Head
(6) The Audit Officer may authorise the payment of the balance of the gratuity even during the period of the currency of the provisional pension provided that the amount of gratuity has been finally assessed and no recovery of Govern- ment dues is outstanding against the Government servant.
(7) If the pension and the balance of the gratuity are to be paid in another circle of audit, the Audit Officer shall send a copy each of From 25 and Form 26-A alongwith his audit enfacement, and the last pay sertlflcate if received, to the Audit Officer of that circle who shall prepare the Pension Payment Order and an order for the payment of balance of gratuity and take further action as Indicated in clause (1).
(8) If the amount of provisional pension drawn and disbursed by the Head of Office is found to be in excess of the final pension assessed by the Audit Officer, it shall be open to the Audit Officer to adjust the excess amount out of the balance of the gratuity, if any, or recover the excess amount by short payment of pension payable in future.
(9) If the amount of the gratuity authorised by the Head of Office, proves to be larger than the amount finally assessed by the Audit Officer, the gratuitant shall not be required to refund the excess.
921. The Audit Officer shall record briefly on the second page of Form 25 his reasons for disallowing any service claimed- Any other disallowance shall be recorded in the audit enfacement on the third page of Form 25 with reasons therefor.
SECTION IV—GOVEHNMENT DUES AND SANCTIONING or PENSION
922. (1) It shall be the duty of every retiring Government servant to clear all Government dues before the date of his retirement.
(2) Where a retiring Government servant does not clear Government dues and these are ascertainable, an equivalent cash deposit may be taken from him, or, out of the gratuity payable to him an amount equal to that recoverable on account of ascertainable Government dues, such as, balance of House Building or Conveyance Advance, arrears of rent and other charges pertaining to occupation of Government accommodation, overpayment of pay and allowances and arrears of income-tax deductible at source under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), shall be deducted therefrom.
SEC. 3(il)] THE GA.ZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 22, 1891 3885923. (1) If any of the Government dues remain unrealised and unaesessed for any reason, the retiring Government servant may be asked to furnish a surety of a suitable permanent Government servant in Form 26-A. If the surety furnished by him is found acceptable, the grant of his pension and gratuity shall not be delayed-
(2) If the retiring Government servant is unable or unwilling to furnish a surely, a suitable cash deposit may be taken from him, or, such portion of the gratuity payable to him as may be considered sufficient may be held over till the outstanding dues are assessed and adjusted- The cash deposit to be taken or the amount of gratuity to be withheld shall not exceed the estimated amount of the outstanding dues plus 25 per cent thereof. In caaes where It is not possible to estimate the approximate amount recoverable from the retiring Government servant the amount of the deposit to be taken or the portion of gratuity to be withheld, shall be limited to 10 per cent of the amount of the gratuity or Rs. 1,000, whichever is less-
(3) Efforts shall be made to assess and adjust the recoverable Government dues within a period not exceeding six months from the date of retirement of the Government servant concerned. If no claim is made on Government account against the Government servant within a period of six months from the date of his retirement, it shall be presumed that no Government claim is outstanding against him. In respect of dues pertaining to the occupation of Government accommodation by the Government servant, the period of six months shall reckon from the date of retirement or from the date of complete vacation of the Government accommodation whichever is later. The Government dues as assessed shall be adjusted against the cash deposit or the amount withheld from the gratuity and the balance, if any, shall be released to the pensioner after the expiry of the aforesaid period. Similarly, in cases where a pensioner has furnished a surety, the surety shall be released after the lapse of the period referred to above provided the dues assessed upto that time have been recovered.
(4) Government dues which remain unrealised within the period mentioned in clause (3) and such other du§s the claim for which is received after the aforesaid period, shall however, be recoverable from the pensioner."
(c) for the existing Forms 25 and 26, the following Forms shall b" substituted, namely: —
FORM. NO. 25-C.S.R.
[Articles 911, 912 (f). 9i5, 9i6, 917, 919, 920 and 921].
First Page
Form for Pension and Gratuity.
(To be sent in duplicate if payment is deiired in a different audit circle)
1. N a me of Government servant.
2. Father's name (and also Husband's name in the case of a woman Government s e r v a n t ) . . ..
3. Religion and Nationality
4. Permanent residential address showing village/Townj
District and State
5. Present or laat appointment, including name of
establishment . . ..
(t) Subatantive
(") Officiating, if any
6. Class of Pension or Service Gratuity applied for and cause of application . . . ..
7. Pension Rules opted/eligible . . ..
8. Govcmmentsunderwhichservicehasbeenrendered
(in order of employment)
9. Period of Service qualifying for pension :
(a) Period of Civil Service . . ..
C&) Period of War/Military Service .
3886 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 22, 1891 [PART II—(e) Amount and nature of any pension/gratuity re-
ceived for Military service • ' . (d) Amount and nature of any pension/gratuity r e- ceived for Civil Service . . ..
10. (a) Average emoluments
(b) Emoluments for Gratuity . . ..
1 1. Pay as defined in F. R. 9(21)
12. Proposed Pension . . . . ..
13. Proposed Gratuity
14. Whether the Family Pension Scheme^ 1964, is appli-
cable , if so amount of life time family pension b e- coming payable to t he entitled members of t he family of t he Government servant) in t he event of his/her death
15. Date from which pension is to commence .
16. Place of payment of
(a) Pension (Treasury/Sub-Treasury) . (b) Gratuity (Treasury/Sub-Treasury/Head of the
Office)
NOTB Non-gazetted retiring Government servants can opt for receiving the entire amount of gratuity through the Head of Office.
17. Whether nomination made for :
(*') Family Pension under the Liberalised Pension Rules, 1950, if applicable . . ..
(ii) Death-cKOT-retirement Gratuity .
18. Whether Government servant haspaid all the Govern-
ment dues (See Section IV of Chapter XLVII) •
19. Date of birth by Christian era of,—
(0 Government servant (ii) Government servant's wife/husband
20. Height 21. Identification Marks . . . . ..
•22. Thumb and ringer Impressions,—
Thumb Forefinger Middle finger
Ring finger Little finger
(i) of Government servant (ii) of Government servant's wife/husband
23. Date on which the Government servant applied for
pension in Form 30 .
Signature of Head of Office!Department.
(Audit Officer)®
•Persona who are literate enough to sign their names in English, Hindi or the Official Re- gional Language, are exempted from recording their left-hand thumb and finger impressions pro- vided they furnish certified copies of passport-size photographs.
@In Case of Gazetted Government servants only.
SEC. 3(ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 22, 1891 3887Second Page
Details of Service of Shri/Shrimati/Kumari
Date of birth
SECTION I
Establish-
ment
Date of beginning
Date of ending
Period re- ckoning as
Appoint- ment
service
Offlicating/ Substan- tive
Period not recokning as service
Remarks by the Audit Officer
6
1
8 2
4
5
3
7
Yrs. Mts. Ds.
Yrs. Mths Ds.
Total period of service
NOTE Date of commencement and date of ending of each period of military service,
if any, should also be indicated in this section.
SECTION II
Emoluments drawn during the last * three Years
Post held From To Pay Personal/Special pay
Average emoluments :—
* Inacasewherethclastthreeyearsincludesomeperiodsnot tobereckoned for calculating average emoluments an equal period backwards has to be taken for calculating the average emolu- ments.
SECTION III
Period(s) of non-qualifying sendee
From To 1 Interruption^) 2. Extraordinary leave not qualifying for pension 3. Period of suspension not treated as qualifying. 4. Any other service not treated as qualifying
TOTAL
3888 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 22, 1891 [PART II—Second Page(contd.)
SECTION IV
Period of service not verified with reference to Acquittance
RollB
Whether the above period verified in accordance with the provisions of article 9151c) andifnotwhethcrthenecessity of verification of the aforesaid period of service dispensed with under orders of the appropriate authority
Third Page
(1) Audit Bnfacemmt.
1. Total period of (Qualifying service which hrs been accepted for the grant of superannuation/retiring /jr- valid/compensation pension/gratuitj, with reasons for disallowance, if any3 (other than disallowance indicated in Second page) ,
NOTE.— Service for the period commencing from
and upto the date of retirement has not yet been verified; this should be dorte before the pension payment order is issued.
2. Amount of superannuation/retiring/invBlid/ccmrer- sation pension /gratuity, that has been admitted, 3. Amouni of the superaitrtuatiort/retiring/invf 1 d/ccm- pensation pension/gratuity, admissible after taking into account reduction, if any, in pension and gratu- ity made by the authority sanctioning pension 4. Total period of qualifying service which has been approved for the grant of special additional pension. 5. The amount of special additional pension, if any, ad-
mitted under the rules . . . ..
6. The dattc from which the special additional pension
iB admissible
7. The date from which the superannuation/retiring/ invalid/compensation pension/gratuity is admissible. 8. Head of Account to which the superannuetion/retjr- ing/inValid/compensation and special additional pen- sion/gratuity is chargeable . . . ..
9. The amount oflife-timc family pension becomingpay-
able to the entitled members of family in the event of death of the Government servant after retire- ment . . . . . ..
Accounts Officer.
Assistant Accountant General.
Back of the Third Page
1. Date of submission of Pension Application by the
Government servant
2. Name of Government servant . . .. 3. Class of pension or gratu ty 4. Sanctioning authority 5. Amount of pension sanctioned . . .. 6. ytonount of gratuity sanctioned . . .. 7. Date of commencement of pension U. Date of sanction
SEC. 3 U O] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA; SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 22, 1891 3889Back of the Third Page (contd.)
9. Almount of Family Pension admissible in rhe event of
dfcath of Pensioner
10. Amount to be recovered from gratuity under para 7
of the Family Pension Scheme, 1964
11. Government dues held over from the gratuity
Fourth Page
Instructions
1. Calculation of average emoluments.—The calculation of average emolumentB, mentioned at item 10 of the First Page should be based on the actual nutnber of days contained in each month.
2. Compensation pension or gratuity—(a) If the application is for a compensation pension or gratuity the particulars of the bavings affected should be ouly stated against item 6 of the First Pape.
(e) State why employment was not found elsewhere.
3. History of service,—(a) Give date, month and yenr of the various appointments, promotions and cessations. For the purpose of adding towards broken periods, a month is reckoned as thirty days.
(b) All periods not reckoned as service should be distinguished and reasons foi tre^r exclv* siona given in the remarks column.
4. Identification Marks.—Specify a few conspicuous marks, not lets than twoif possible.
5. Name.—When initials or name of Government servant are incorrectly given in the various records consulted, mention this fact 'in the letter forwbrdirig the pension papeis to avoid unnecessary reference from Audit Officer.
6. Date of Retirement.—Shown in the Service Book3 and the Last Pay Certificate.
7" Reinstatement.—In the case of an officer who has been reinstated after having been suspended, gompulsorily retired, removed or dismissed, brief statement leading to his reinstatement should be appended.
8. Alterations.—Make in red ink under dated initials of a gazetted Government servant.
9. Calendar Month The following examples show how a period stated in calendar months should be calculated:—
Examples.—A period of six calendar months
beginning on the
ends on the 27th August.
28th February 31st March or 1st April 30th September. 29th August . . . . . .. 28th February. 33th August or 1st September . , . Last day of February.
A, period of three calendar months
beginning on the
ends on the 28th February.
29th November 30th November or ist December . . . Last day of February.
FORM N O. 25-A, CS.R.
(Articles 909, 912, 917 and 920)
Form for sanctioning Pension (To be sent in duplicate if payment is desired in a different audit circle)
1. Name of the Government servant 2. Father's name (and also husband's name in the case of
a woman Government servant)
3890 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 22, 1891 [PART II—3. (a) Present or last appointment, including name of
establishment:
(i1) Substantive
(""') Officiating, if any
(6) Remarks by the Receiving Authority.
1. As to Character and past conduct of
Government servant . . .. Good/Fair/Indiffcrent/Bad
2. Explanation of any suspension or degradation
3. Any other remarks . . .. 4. Specific opinion of the Receiving Authority whether the service claimed 1B established and should be admitted or not.
(c) Orders of the pension Sanctioning Authority.
The undersigned having satisfied himself that the service of Shri/Shrimeti/Kvmer: has been thoroughly satisfactory hereby orders thc grent of the full pension, death cawi-retirement gratuity) service gratuity which may be accepted by the Audit Officer as admissible under the rules.
Or
The undersigned having satisfied himself that the servico of Shri/Shrimati/Kumar has not been thoroughly satisfactory hereby orders that the full pension and/or gratuity which may be accepted by the Audit Officer as admissible under thc rules shall be reduced by the specified amount or percentage indicated below, —
Amount or percentage of reduction in pension .
Amount or percentage of rfcduction in gratuity .
Thc grant of pension and/or gratuity shall take effect from
(d) In the event of death of Shri/Shrimati a faSnily pension of Rs will be admissible to Shrimati/Shri
a" admissible under the Family Pension Scheme5 1964.
(") In terms of para 7 of the aforesaid Scheme he/she is required to contritvte a portirn of gratuity etjual to two months emoluments or pay, as the cate may be. Necessary recovery out c f the gratuity payable tn Shri/Shrimati
has been/may be made.
*(/) A sum of Rs on account of is to be held over from the gratuity t;ll the outstanding Government dues are assessed and adjusted.
(g) The following service of thc Government servant htis been npproved for the grant of s T>-ial additional pension admissible under the Rules:—
Post/Posts held
Period of Service
The pension, and gratuity, are payable at Treasury/Sub-Trcasury and are Chargeable to the Head
This order Is subject to the condition that if thc smount of pension end/or prdviij ss au- thorised be afterwards found to be In excess of amounts to which the pensioner is entitled under the ruletj he/she shall be called upon to refimd such excesB.
Dated
Signature and Designation of the Pension
Sanctioning Authority.
*No a mo u nt of the gratuity need be held over if the Government servant hes msde a cash deposit or furnished a iurety of a permanent Government servant in terms of article 923.
S EC 3(il)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 22, 18913891Second Page
(To be u"ed in the case of Government servants to whom Section I II of Ctspter XLVII applies) Details of provisional pension and gratuity to be drdorn by the Htad of Office in accordance with thi procedure laid down in article 919.
Provisional pension
RB. p.m. Gratuity (3/4th of the full gratuity mentioned agaimt
item 13 of Form 25)
RB.
Less
CO Contribution towards Family Pension Scheme, 1964 [ste item
3(") of the Form]
, . Rs.
C"0 Amount held over for adjustment of Government dues [see
item (/) of the Form] Rs.
Net amount of gratuity to be paid provisionally . . , Rs.
Signature of Head of Office.
FOKM No. 26 C.S.R.
(Article 917)
Vornt of Utter to the Audit Q/fflcer forwarding the ptnsim papers of a Government servant.
No.
Government of India
Ministry of
Department/Office
Dated,
,
To
The Accountant General/Pay and Accounts Officer.
Sir,
I am directed/have the honour to forward herewith the pension papers of Shri/Shrimati/ of this Office/Department as per list forfuithcr neces- Kumari sary action.
Yours faithfully,
Head of Office.
List of enclosures.
1. Form 25 with details of service, etc., and Form 25-A containing the orderBof the pension sanctioning authority.
2. Medical certificate for invalidation (if the claim is for invalid pension). 3. Service Book. 4. Memorandum of average emoluments reckoningfor pension. 5. Last Pay Certificate.
3892 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBERS, 1969/BHADRA 22, 1891 [PART II—6. (a) Two specimen signatures duly attested by Gazeited Government servant or in the cise of pensioner not literate enough to sign his name, two slips bearing the left hand thumb arid finger impressioi s, duly attested by a Gazetted Government ser- vant, and
Ch) Three copies of joint passport size photographs with wife/husband duly attested by the Head of Office.
7. Formal application for pension in Form 30. 8. Explanation for delay, if sny3 beyond one month from the date of retirement of the Gov- ernment servant In forwarding Forms 25 and 25-A-
9. When the fact of service in anoiher office is not satisfactorily attested in the Service Book duly c;rtified abstractfrom the Head of Office.
10 Statement of the applicant and collateral evidence as required under article 915 duly accepted by the authority competent to sanction the pension.
FORM NO. 26-AC.S.R,
(Article 923)
Form of Swety Bond.
In consideration of the President of India (hereinafter called the "Government." which expression shall include his successors and assigns) having agreed to settle the final accounts of Shri/Shrimati without production of a "No Demand Certificate from the Director of Estates, I hereby stand surety (which expression shall include my heirs, executors and administrators) for payment by the said of rent and other dues in respect of residence now allotted to him by Government and also for any residc.ee that may be allotted or that was allotted to the said from time to time , by Government. I, the surety, futher agree and undertake to indemnify the Government against all low and damage until delivery of vacant possession of the above-said residence is made over to Government.
I hereby aho stand surety for any amounts that may be due by the said
to Government byway of ovcpiynsnt of pay, allowances, leave salary, advances for conveyance, house-building or other purposes, or any other dues.
The obligation udertaken by me shall not be discharged or in anyway affected by an extension of time or any other indulgence granted by Government to the said
This guarantee shall remain in force till,—
(i) the " H J. Dimmd C=rtiflcate" is issued by the Director of Estates in favour of the said
(ii) the Head of Office in which the said was last employed and in case he/she was drawing pay and allowances on Gazetted Government servants bill forma the concerned Audit Officer has/have certified that nothing is now duo to the Government from the said
The stamp duty on this instrument shall be borne by Government.
Signature of the Surety.
this.,
S igncd and delivered by the said surety at day of
in the presence of:
1. Signature
Address and occupation of witness
2. Signature
Address and occupaton of witness
Certified that Shri/Shrimati
is a permanent Govern- ment servant.
Signature of the Head of Department or Office in which the surety is employed .
Thin bond 1* hereby accepted.
(Signature and designations) for and on behalf of the President of India.
[No. 6(2) EV/66] S. P. MAHNA, Dy Secy.
SEC 3(ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 22, 1891 3893(Departmtent of Economic Affairs)
New Delhi, the 30th August 1969
8.O. 3653.—In exercise of the powers conferred by section 53 read with section 56 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 sub-Section (1) of section 11 of the said Act, shall not apply to the Chandigarh State Co-operative Bank Ltd., Chandigarh for a period of one year with effect from 1st March, 1969.
[No. F. 18|4]69-SB.l
3 8 9 4
T H E
New Delhi, the 3rd September 1969
S.O. 3<55.—Statement of the Affairs of the Reserve Btnkof Icriia as on the 2 9* August, 1969.
BANKDH DEPARTMBMT
G A Z E T T E
O F
I
Rs.
LIABILITIES
ASSETS
N D
I
A
:
22,69,13^)00
Notes
Capital paid np
5,00^0,000
Rupee Coin
8,59^00
S E P T E
4,88^00
150^0^00,000
Small Coin
Reserve Fund
M B E R
Bills Porcbocd and DiscOutKed:
1 3
, National Agncattaftl Credit (Long Term
iSSiOO^oovooo
(a) Internal
Operation) Fond
1 9 6 9
((0 External
/
I86^O,87/JOO
(e) Goremmeot Treaiury BiUa
35^0*0,000
tituaaai Agncnttunl Crsdit {SabaiMdcu) Foul
Btiaocea Hekl Abroad*
179,31,55^00
B H A D R A
2 2
,
177,69187,000
Ineatmeao**
1 8 9 1 National Industrial Credit (Long Term Operations)
Loan* aad Adranca tot —
Fund
75^xw>o,ooo
[
P A R T
(i) Cootral Gorcrnauat
I I
—
(ii) State QoTernments @
4S^7,i7"ooo
Loans and Advance* to t—
S E C
.
(0 Scheduled Commetrial Banks t
Deposits —
229JI3J79^"0
t*Q S Mi Co-opcntfva B a i t a tt •
(a) Government
3 0 0
]
I,86^>8,OOO
((tf) Other* . . . . . ..
1
Loan*, Adrance* and InTeftmenti fnmNational Agricnl-
(1) Central Government
H L
tutal Credit (Lang Term Opexttiaoi) Fond
(a) Loan* aad A d n o c et to :—
7,03,38.000
(n) State Government'
31,46,88,000
(0 S a te G o r e m n x aa . . ..
15,88,16^00
(fi) State Co-apeiatiTe B ub .
(£0 Cennal Land Mortgafe Banki
•• (t>) rttnkt
G A Z E T T E
i^ftj Inreatmeot in Central Land Mortgage Bank Debentures
8^6,93"ooo
O F
I
Loan* and Advance* from National Agricultural Credit
,0 Scheduled Com"eraa(rbsiut
N D
I
5,71.17,000
Loans and Advances to State Co-opentive B u k i.
207,79*02,000
8,96,02,000
A
:
Loan*, Adnnoe* and I m t o n e aa from National Indmtrial
tfO Schednkd State Co-operatrve Bank*
V*cO Noo-Scbeduled State Co-opermtire Banks
Credit (Long Term Operation*) Fundi—
S7.i5floo
30,57,000
fe> Other Banks
6,26,71,000
(a) Loan* and Advance* to the Development Bank
S E P T E
(b) Investment in bondt/debeatorei iuned by tbe
236,73,93-100
(c) Others
M B E R
34,10,38,000
Dtiiiupuaent Bank
Other A n en . . . ..
35,89,36,000
1 3 Bill* Payable Other liabilities
30,921 l i ^ oo
,
Rupees
999,61,91,000
999,61,91,000
Rupees
1 9 6 9
/
*Inchidea Caab, Fixed Deposits and Short-term Securitie*.
••BKlodrng inveatmentt from the National Agricultural Credit (Long Torm OpermtJoos) Pond and tbe National Indtutiial Credit (Long Term
Operations') Fond,
B H A D R A (gjExduding Loans aad Advancea from tne Naoonai Agricultural Credit (Long Term Operations) Fond but including temporary overdrafts to
2 2 State Governments,
,
tlndndes Ri 31,00^0/xid advanced to schednkd commercial banks against usance bills under sectioa 17(4) (c) of the Reserve Bank of India ACL
ttHzdndrngLoansaod Aivancea from tho National Agricultural Credit (Long Term Operations) Fand"nd the National Agricahnnl Ciedit (Stabili-
1 8 9 1 sation} Hand.
Dated tbe 3rd day of September, 1969.
3 8 9 5
An AaoouniparsuanttotheR"m r eB"nkof I*fit Act, I934> for the week ended the 29th day of August, 1969
3 8 9 6
ISJUB DBFAJCTMENT
T H E
Ri.
A S S E TS
R*.
Rs.
LIABILITIES
Rs.
G o ld C on a nd B u l l i o n :—
Notes held in the Banking Depart-
G A Z E T T E ment
. ,
( 0) H e kl in I n d i a. . . ..
I82>53,I I;°°O
O F Motes in circulation .
(b) H e ld o u t s i de I n d ia
3467,81,24,000
I
Total Notes issued .
F o r e i gn S e c u r i t i es . . ..
200,88,70,000
349°J5O,37>000
N D
I
A
T O T AL
:
38341^^°°
3032,76^5=°°°
S E P T E
R u p ee C o in . . . .. G o v e r n m e nt of I n d ia R u p ee S e c u r i t i es I n t e r n al Bills of E x c h a n ge a nd o t h er
C i n u n w al p a p er
M B E R
3400,50,37,000
T o t al A s s e t r- . . ..
T o t al j j t b i h d et . ..
349O
1 3
,
(sd.) L. K. JHA,
DtfeJ the 3rd day of September, 1969.
Govenwr-
1 9 6 9
/
[Mo. F. 3(3)-BC/69.]
2 2
,
1 8 9 1
[
P A R T
I I
—
SLC. 3(ii)] DJL GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 22, 1891 3897New Delhi, the 6th September 1969
S.O. 3656.—In exercise of the powers conferred by section 63 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949), the Central Government, on the recommendation of the Reserve Bank of India, hereby declare that the provisions of section 9 of ths said Act shall not apply to the New Bank of India Ltd., New Delhi, till the 5th September 1970, in respect of the agricultural lands measuring 2493-33 square yards held by it at Batala Road, Amritsar.
[No. F. 15(23)-BC/68 ] K. YESURATNAM, Under Secy.
(Department of Revenue and Insurance)
CUSTOMS
New Delhi, the 6th September 1969
S.O. 3657.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of section 7 of the Customs Act, 1962, (52 of 1962). the Central Government hereby appoints Lhe port at Veppalodai in the State of Tamil Nadu as a Customs port for the un- loading of imported goods and the loading of export goods.
[No. 123. F. No. 8/3/68-LC.II.]
STAMPS
New Delhi, the 13th September 1969
S.O, 3659.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 9 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899), the Central Govern- ment hereby remits the duty with which the debentures to the value of two crores of rupees to be Issued by the Maharashtra Housing Board are chargeable under the said Act.
[No. 8/69-Stamps/F.No. 1/28/69-CUE.VII.] P. K. KAPOOR, Under Secy.
(Department of Revenue and Insurance)
INCOMETAX DEPARTMENT Nagpur, the 29th July 1969
S- O. 3660.—Whereas the Central Government is of the opinion that it it necessary and expedient In public interest to publish the names and other particulars of the asscssees :
(i) being individuals or Hindu Undivided Families, who have been F8scsced on ?n Ircome of more than one lakh of rupees;
3898 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 22, 1891 [PAST H—("0 bring Firms, Associations of Persons or Companies, who have been assessed on an income of more than ten lakhs of rupees, during the financial year 1967-68 and has, therefore, in exercise of the power* conferred by Section 287 of the Inccmetex Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), directed that the names and other particulars of the aBsessccs aforesaid be published, the same arc hereby published in Schedules I and II, hereto annexed :—
SCHEDULE I
Namts of all Individuals and hufs assttstd on incom* of over Rs. z lakh during the financial
year 1967-68.
Assessment
Name and address of the assessce Status
Remarks s.
year
No.
Income assessed under Incometax Art, 1961
1
2
6
4
3
5
1
1,40,000
M/s. Bhagatram Santram, Bilas- H.U.F.
1958-59
pur*
2
1,08,915
196^64
Individual
ShriB. B. J. Seth, SimroIRoad,
Mhow.
M/s. Baburao Pimplapure,
"3,32,104
Do.
3
1963-64
Sagar, C/o. M/s. Vrijlel Manilal, Sagar.
Do.
1,03,468
4
1963-64
Shri Balbhadra Singh C/o M/s. Baktawar Singh Balbhadra Singh, Jagdalpur.
Shri ChitnaVU G. M. Chitnavis- H. U. F.
1963-64
5
1)65^745
pura, Nagpur.
6 Shri Chintamanrao Balaji, Sugar. Individual
7 M/s. Chaganlal Mittal, Sital- H.A.F.
1963-64
1963-64
3^47,279
1,89,900
mata Bazar, Indore.
8
Individual 1963-64
2,95,82 0
Shri Devendra Kumar Patel, C/o M/8. Vrijlal Manilal, Sttg,ar<
L
Do. Do.
I966--67
1963-64
9 10 11
Shri Gulabdas Agarwal . Shri Gingadas Kothari, Raipur. S hri Gopaldas, C/o M/s. Udhoji Do.
1963-64
1,00,474
1,07,453
1,01,592
Shriixishandas, Satna.
12
i>74>543
Do.
1964-65
Shri Gangada* Kothari, C/o Gango Steel Re-Rolling Mill, Raipur.
1,12,906
1,11,761
1^2,725
1,04,252
HazarilalDevkishan,Piparia . Smt. Jyotisna Dtevi, P. Jabalpur Do. Do. Shri J. T. Joshi, Ramdaspeth,
Do. Do. Do, Do. Do.
1963-64
1963-64
1964-65
1965-66
1963-64
13,74,206
13 14 15 16 17
Nagpur.
18 Shri Kharabe, D. S. C/o. M/s. Do.
1963-64
3>i4>35i
Kharabw & Co., Cotton Mar- ket, Nagpur.
ShriK"nhaiyalalJassaram,Usha Do.
1963-64
2,20,000
19
Ganj, Indore.
20
1962-63
I,I5J7I° 1,40,000
Do. H.U.F.
21
Do. M/s. KishanlalThakurdas,Bllas-
1958-59
pur.
22 Shri Mohd. Hanif, Partner of M/s. K. M. Hanif, Ibrahhn- pura, Bhopal
Individual Do. Do. D o.
Shri Mohd. Islam, Do. Shri Mohd. Aziz, Do. Shri Madanlal Agarwal, Lashkar
23 24 35
I>6I,699
1,10,818
1,03,418
3i45>833
2,36,029
4=29,779
1963-64 1963-64 1963-64 1947-48 1948-49 1949-50
SEC. 3(ii)l THfc GAZETTE OF fNDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 22, 1891 3^99I
4
3
6
5
26 ShriMadhukar Rao Pimplapure, C/o. M/s. Vriilal Manllal,
S a g e .j . . ..
Individual
2,80,924
27 Shu MaJhoji, C/o M/s. Udhoii
Shrikrishandas, Satna .
Do.
1963-64
1,00,749
28
Do.
1,63,406
1963-64
Shri Mohd. Hanif, Legal heirs of late Shri Kalokhefn Jum- man Khan, Partner of M/s. K. M. Hanif, Ibrahimpura, Bhopal . . .. Shri H. H. Maharaja MartaPd
D o.
Sinuh Ju Deo of Ricwa
1955-56
I;92.Iy3
3J
Shri Manak Caand Navin
1963-64
Do.
Chand, Indore .
1,32,115
31 Shri Manablal Motilal Agarwali Sh'imgarh . . ..
Do.
1964-65
1,01,840
Shii Narendra Kumar Patel,
32
D o.
2,84J46O
1963-64
G/o M/8.Vri)lal Manila), Sagar . . .. Shri N. G. Zamindar, Raoji
33
1963-64
Do.
Bazar, Indore
I,l8,85O
34 Shri Narayandao, C/o M/s. Udhoji Shrikrishandas, Satna . . ..
1,03,356
Shri O. S. Gupta, Ratlam Shri Paramandbhai, Jablalpur . D o.
4l62,53O 24,I3>785 I4i9i>84l 5,82,580
ShriPutahotamdas Moda, Raigarh
Do. Do. Do. D o. Do.
35 36 37 38
Do.
1963-64 1963-64 1963-64 1964-65 1956-57 1957-58 1963-64 1963-64
5,81,276 3,72,487 6,94,638
39 40
Shri Rishi T. C., Bllaspur Shri R. C. Jail, M t a ii Mohalla, Indore . . ..
41
1963-64 1963-64 1963-64
5,84,086 2J39)879 1,26,827
D J. Ratanchand Bhounath, Jabalpur H. .F. ShriR. B. Gaur, Katni . . Individual Ratilal Manakji, Burhanpur,
42 43
D;stt.Khandwa . . . H.U.F. Do. Do.
Do. Do.
1964-65 1965-66 1966-67
i,54i623
1,07,680
1,06,580
44 45
Shri Sial I . S ., New Colony, Nag-
46
pur . . . .. Individual
Do.
1963-64 1963-64
2,87,931
1,51,817
Ghri S. Sanyal, Itwari, Nagpur. Shri Sadiq Bhai C/o. M/s.
47 48
Sadiq & Co., Mount Rd. Nagpur . . ..
D<>" Do.
1963-64 1963-64
1.53,496 1,03,892
49 50
1,2^274
1963-64
D o.
51
Do. Do. Do.
1963-64 1964-65 1965-66
1,13,510 I,98JB4I 12.72^39
Shri Sial M . S. J a b a l p ur . Shri Sidharath Kumar, Jabal- pur . . . .. Shri Shrawan Kumar Patel, J a b a l p ur . . .. Do. Do. S h r i k i s h a n d as C / o, M / B. U d h o ii
1,00,990
1963-64
Do.
Shrikrishandas, Satna .
55
1948-49
Do.
Shri Shakir Huwaln (deceased) Legal Heirs, Shri AbduT Kadar, Mosan Hussain, Smt. Shakinabai& Amna Bai, Dttmoh
5,86,824
Shri Sheonarayan Prabhudayal,
56
Seonl. . . .. H.U.F.
D o.
Do.
1956-57 1957-58
1,45,841 2,44,848
57 58
Do.
M/s. S. R. Kalani, M. G. Road, Indore . . ..
Smt. Ujjambai, Jabalpur . . Individual
11
1963^64 1964-65 1963-64 1965-66
61
3900THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 22, 1^91 [PAST 11^-I
2
6
4
3
5
63 H. Maharani Ushadevi, Manjk
Bagh Palace, Indore
Individual
1963-64
Shri YuBuf Ghani, Central
63
1,20,127
1963^64
Do.
Avenue Road,Nagpur .
64
1963-64
Do.
Shri Zoeb Bhai C/o. M/s. Sadiq & Co., Mount Road, Nagpur.
1,22,496
SCHEDUIE II
Names of all films, Associations of persons and companies assessed On income'of over Rt- 10 lakhs
during the financial year lp6?-68
Name & Address of the assessec Status
Ren tiks
s.
Assessment year
No.
Inccme rsfct'cd under the In- come tax Act, 1961
i
2
6
4
3
5
1
4 9 , 7 9 J I 68 The Central Provinces Manga- nese Ore Co. Ltd.,Nagpur . Company 1963-64
2 M/s. Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg. (Wvg.) Co. Ltd., Birlagraxn, Nagda . . ..
1963-64
2.27,53,250
Do.
M/a, Mohanlal Hargovind,
3
Jabalpur . . .. R.F.
1963-64
45.36,175
Do.
32,72,242
Do.
1964-65
4
Do.
Do.
1965-66
31,96,664 5
6 National News Print & Paper
Mills, Nepanagar
Company 1965-66
68,25,353
The Perfect Pottery Co. Ltd.,
7
Jabalpur . . ..
1964-65
10,36,227
Do.
M/s. Rajkumar Mills, Indore .
I963-64
8
Do.
I 3 , 4 5 . I OI
Do.
M/s. Sajjan Mills, Ratlam
1963-64
9
14.34,34°
10 M/9. Vrijlal Manilal & C o .,
1963-64
Sagar . . .. R . F.
15,14,756
,"[No. C.S. 9/68-69.]
V. R. BAP AT,
Commissioner of Income-taXj Madhya Pradesh, Nagpur and Bhandara,
Nagpur.
SEC 3(ti)l THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 22, 1891 3901CENTRAL, BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES
New Delhi, the 28th June 1969
INCOME—TAX
S.
In the said schedule against the Ranges shown below in Column 1, the following shall be
substituted under column 2, namely :—
SCHEDULE
Income-tax Circles, Wards and Districts
Range
2
1
A—Range, Ahmedabad .
1. Group Circle I(i), Ahmedabad. 2. Group Circle I(i), Ahmedabad. 3. Group Circle 1(4), Ahmedabad. 4. Circle III, Ahmedabad. 5, Circle V, Ahmedabad. 6. Special Investigation Circle 'B' Ahmedebad. 7. Special Investigation Circle 'A', Ahmedabad.
B—.Range, Ahmedabad
1. Group Circle I I I ( i\ Ahrnedabad. 2. Group Circle 111(3), Ahmedabad. 3. Circle IV, Ahmedabad. 4. Circle IX, Ahmedabad. 5. Central Circle, Ahmedabad.
E—Range,. Ahmedabad .
1. Circle II, Ahmedabad. 2, Circle Vill, Ahmedabad. 3. Group Circle 1(3), Ahmedabad.
F—Range, Ahmedabad .
1. Circle X, Ahmedabad. 2. Petlad. 3. Mehsana- 4. Palanpur. 5. Patan. 6. Group Circle 111(2), Ahmedabad.
A—Range, Baroda .
1. A, B, C, D Wards Baroda. 2. Godhra.
B—Range, Baroda
i. E,F,G,H,IJ,K, and L, Wards, Baroda. 2. Breach, 3. Bulsar.
This notification shall take effect from ist July, 1969-
Explanatory Note
The amendments have become necessary on account of reorganisation of AACs' jurisdi-
ction in the Commissioner's charge.
(The above note does not form a part o* the notification, but is intended to be merely
clarificatory).
'[No. 87 (P. No. 50/40/69-ITJ)]. S. V- SUBBA RAO, Under Secy.
igbi itie GAZETTE of itaoiA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 22, 1891 [PAst n— SEC. 3(ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 22, 1891 3903OFFICE OF THE COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, HYDERABAD
CENTRAL EXCISE
Hyderabad, the 30th August 1969
S O 3G63 —In exercise of the powers conferred on me by rule 173H of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, I hereby direct the assessees manufacturing Refri- eeratinE and Air Conditioning appliances and machinery to maintain a Job card in the form appended below, in addition to the Register maintained under Rules 97 97-A, 173-H and 173-Ii in respect of duty paid Refrigerating and Air Condi- tioning appliances and machinery received within the factory premises for repro- cessing, repairs, servicing etc.,
Job Card
Name and address of the assessee :-—
Repairs/Reconditioning Record.
(1) Serial No. and date of entry in Excise Register in Form V:—
(2) Description of goods:—
(3) Marks and Numbers:— (4) Nature of repairs/reconditioning:—
<5) Charges made for repair with Bill No. and Date:—
3904 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 22, 1891 [Psm II—(6) Dutiable spare parts utilised:— (7) Date of completion of repairs/reconditioning:—
(8) Delivery ticket No. and date on which returned to service department.
Signature of Foreman/ Supervisor Repair shop. When the duty paid goods received within the factory for repairs, service,- etc, are sent to a particular section, then the same should be covered by a job card prescribed above. The Job Cards should be filed serially, date wise indicat- ing the corresponding entry numbers in form V.
(C. No. V29-A/30/12/69.M.P.)
°" fi9J
M. L. ROUTH, Collector.
COLLECTORATE OF CENTRAL EXCISE : POONA
C EN I'RAL EXCISES
Poona, tiu 2$th August, 1969
S. O. 3<><>4-—In exercise of the powers vested in me under Rule 5 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, I empower all officers of Central Excise in the Poona Central Excise CoUectornte specified' in Column 3 of the table below to exercise within their respective jurisdiction the powers of Collector under the Central Excise Rules mentioned in Column 2 of the table subject to the limitations in Column 4 thereof.
TAB 1*
Rank of Officers
CEx, Rules
Limitations, if any.
s.
2
3
No. 1
4
All Officers of & above the rank oi
1 96ZH(i)
Supdt. of Central Excise.
F First ASP (application) shall be accepted by the officers not below the rank of Asst. Collr.
All Officers of & above the rank of
2 96ZH(2)
Asst, Coilr.
All Officers of & above the rank of
96ZH(4)
3
Supdt. of Central Excise.
(a) Power of accepting renewal application in form ASP shall be exercised by Supdt. CEx.
(6) (i) Where delay in presenting
the ASP iB not more than 10 days, the supdt. C. Ex. shall exercise power of condoning the delay, (ii) Where delay in presenting the. ASP exceeding 10 days A. C. C. E shall exercise the power.
All Officers of and above the rank
96ZH (5)
—
4
of Asstt. Collr. C. Ex.
All Officers of and above the rank
—
96ZI (4)
5
of Asstt. Collr. C. Ex.
Adjudicating Officers
96ZL(i)
6
To demand duty, to confiscate goods and to impose penaltv in ac- cordance with their limits of adjudication powers.
[No. G.E.R. No. 5/69]
D. N. LAL,
Collector of Central Excise, Poona.
SEC 3(ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 22 1891 3905MINISTRY OF FOOD AGRICULTURE, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND
COOPERATION
(Department of Food)
New Delhi, the 5th September 1969
S.O 3665.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 42 of the Ware housing Corporation Act, 1962 (58 of 1962), the Central Warehousing Corporation, with the previous sanction of the Central Government, hereby makes the follow- ing regulations further to amend the Central Warehousing Corporation (Staff) Regulations, 1966, namely:—
1. These regulations may be called the Central Warehousing Corporation (Staff).
Third Amendment Regulations, 1969,
2. In sub-regulation (1) of regulation 12 of the Central Warehousing Corpora- tion (Start) Regulations, 1966, for the opening paragraph, the following shall be substituted, namely:—
"(1) The power to fix or revise the scales of pay of posts in the Corpora- tion shall vest in the Board of Directors, subject to the condition that, for appointment of persons who have already attained the age of 58 years to posts with scales of pay having a maximum of Rs. 2500/- or above or to posts with a fixed pay of Rs. 2500/- or above, prior approval of the Central Government shall be obtained.".
LNo. F.26-7/67-S.G.IL]
DEVAKI NANDAN GOYAL, Under Secy.
MINISTRY OF TOURISM AND CIVIL AVIATION
ORDER
New Delhi, the 20th August 1969
S.O. 3666.—In exercise of the powers conferred by rule 160 of the Aircrafts Rules, 1937, the Central Government hereby exempts for a further period of one year with effect from 1st September, 1969, all holders of appropriate Aircraft Maintenance Engineers Licences granted or rendered valid by appropriate autho- rities of the United Kingdom and Australia from the operation of rule 61 in so far as it relates to rules 57, 58 and 60 of the said rules and directs that the holders of such licences may act as Aircraft Maintenance Engineers in connec- tion with the repair, overhaul, modification and maintenance of aircraft owned and operated by Air India.
[No. F.10-A/38-69.1
S. N. KAUL, Under Secy.
MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING
ORDER
New Delhi, the 1st September 1969
S.O. 3667.—In pursuance of the directions isiued under the provision of each of the enactments ftpecifled in the First Schedule annexed hereto, the Centra) Government after considering the recommendations of the Film Advisory Board, Bombay hereby approves ihe film specified is column 2 of the Second Schedule annexed hereto in Gujarati to be of the description specified against it in eolumn 6 of the said Second Schedule.
THE FIRST SCHEDULE
(1) Sub-Section 4 of Section 12 and Section 16 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 (Central Act XXXVII of 1952).
(2) Sub-Section (3) of Section 5 and Section 9 of the Bombay Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1953 (Bombay Act XVII of 1953)-
(3) Sub-Section (4) of Section 5 and Section 9 of the Saurashtra Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1953 (Sauraahtra At XVII of 1953).
3906 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 22, 1891 [PART II—THE SECOND SCHEDULE
Name of Name of
Title of the film.
Length 35mm
the the
Applicant Producer
s. No.
Whether a Scientific film or a film intended for educational purposes or a film dealing with news & current events or a
t)ocumpntary films.
I
2
6
3
4 5
Namarata Na Sagar 285- 90M
Documentary film ffor release in
(Colour)
Gujarat Circuit only).
Sh. Narendra Trivedi Proprietor* Parimal Pictures, 34/AWest View, 10th Khetwadi Bombay-4.
[No. F. 24/1/69-FP-App. 1383].
BANU RAM AGGAHWAL, Under Secy.
SEC 3(11)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 22r 1891 3907 3908 THE GAZE1TE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 22, 1891 [PART I U-New Delhi, the 5th September 1969
S.O. 3671.—In pursuance of para (a) of Section III of Rule 434 of Indian Tele- graph Rules, 1951, as Introduced by S.O. No. 627 dated 8th March, I960, tha Director General Posts and Telegraphs, hereby specifies the 1st October, 1969 as the date on which the Measured Rate system will be Introduced in AGARTALA Telephone Exchange, Assam Circle.
[No. 5-70/68-PHB(ll).]
D. R. BAHL,
Asstt. Director General (PHB).
MINISTRY OF HEALTH, FAMILY PLANNING, WORKS, HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT
(Department of Health)
New Delhi, the 30th August 1969
S.O. 3673.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 14 of tho Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956) the Central Government, after consultation with the Medical Council of India, hereby directs that the medical qualifications "M.~D" granted by the Kyoto University, Japan, and M.D. granted by the Chiba University, Japan, shall be recognised medical Qualifications for the purposes of this Act.
[No- B\ 19-37/89-MPT.]
R. MURTHI, Under Secy.
(Department of Health)
New Delhi, the 30th August 1969
S.O. 3674.—In pursuance of sub-rules (2) and (3) of rule 67 of the Indian Aircraft (Public Health) Rules, 1954 and sub-rules (2) and (3) of rule 89 of the Indian Port
SEC. 3(ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADSA 22, lt>yi 3909Health Rules, 1955, the Central Government hereby makes the following amend- ment to the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Health No. F. 29-10/64-IHF dated the 7th April, 1965, namely: —
1. In the Schedule to the said notification, in paragraph 2(a) for the figure "25", the figure "31" shall be substituted-
2. This notification shall become effective ten days after its publication in the Official Gazette.
[No. F. 24-9/68-I-H.3
S. SRINIVASAN, Under Secy
(Department of Works, Housing and Urban Development)
New Delhi, tlie 1st September: 1969,;
S.O.3675.— In exercise of the powers conferred by section ^ of the public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1958 (32 of 1958) the Central Government hereby appoints the officer mentioned in column (1) of the table tetow, being the officer equivalent to the rank of a gazetted officer of Government to be estate officer for the purposes of the said Act who shall ex- ercise the powers conferred and perform the duties imposed on estate officers by or urdcr the said Act within the local limits of his jurisdiction m respect of the public premises specified in column (2) of the said table.
THE TABLE
Categories of public premises and local limits of Designation of the officer
Jurisdiction
(2)
( 1)
Personnel Managcr-cum-Administrative Offi-
cer, Sindri Unit, District Dhanbad, Bihar, Fertilizer Corporation of India Limited.
Public Premises belonging to the Fcrti'izer Cor- poration of Irdia L mind wilhin the limitsfcf the SJndri Unit, Sindri, District Dhanbad, Bihar
[No. F.2ioi2(io)/69-Pol. IV.]
T. K. BALASUBRAMANIAM,
Deputy Director of Estates and Ex-Offitio Under Secy.
39IO THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 22, 1891 [PAST II— S-Jfc. H'i)] HIE GAZETTE OF INblA: fcEtTEMfeER i3. l&69/BHAbRA 25, 1891 35,1 i 3QI2 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 22, 1891 [PAKT It* THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 22, 1891 [PART H— 3913 3914 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 22, 1891 [PART II— Sac. MUl] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/TIHADRA 22, 1891 3 ^5 3915 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 22, 1891 [PART II— SfiC. 3(ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 22, 1891 3917 3918 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 22, 1891 [PART II—. SEC. 3(ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADR\ 22, 18913919 3920 Tlfh GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 22, 1891 [PART II— SEC 3M0] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 21, 1891 3921 3922 THfi GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 22, 1891 [PART II—MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM & CHEMICALS AND MINES & METALS
(Department of Petroleum) New Delhi, the 26th August 1969
S.O. 3685.—Whereas It appears to the Central Government that It Is neces-
sary in the pu!blle interest that for the transport of Petroleum from the drill sites well No. Sanand 14(SL) to Well No. 15 (ST) in the Kalol Oil Field, in Gujarat State, Pipelines should be laid by the Oil and Natural Gas Commission and that for the purpose of laying such Pipelines it is necessary to acquire the Right of User in the land described in the schedule annexed thereto.
2. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-Section (1) of the Section 3 of the Petroleum Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein.
3. Any person interested in the said land may, within 21 days from the date of this notification object to the laying of the pipelines under the land to the Competent Authority, at Western Region, Shed No. 21, Makarpura Road, Near Central Workshop, Baroda 4, In the Office of the C and M Division (Oil and Natu- ral Gas Commission), Baroda. Every person making such an objection shall also state specifically whether he wishes to be heard in person or by a legal practi- tioner.
SCHEDULE
Laying pipeline from Sanand Well No. I4(SL) to Well No. 15 (ST)
KALOL
TAL :
STATE : GUJARAT
DIST : MAHSANA
Village
S.No.
Hectare Are. P.Are.
0
10 Jethala) .
32 • 457/i\ •
0
0 7
0 0
12
50 38 44
1
0
00
0
0
1 15 2
0 0
457/2/ 456 455 449 \ 4 4 8/ 450 • Village Panchayat c a"t track. 444 433 438/2
81 90 00 41 82
SBC J ( U )] TIJE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 22, 1891 3923S. No. Hectare Are. P. Are.
Jethala)
60
7
11 4
&t5°
0 0 0 0 0 0
1 8 5 0 10 3
H 74
438/iA • ) . . .. 4 3 8 / 1B > . .. 0 4 3 8 / 1C J 4 3 7 /2 . 43° 43i 376 375, • 374 11 __ __ 374/2/
[No. 20/3/67-IOC/Lab. and Legls.]
(Department of Mines and Metals)
ERRATUM
New Delhi, the 30th August 1969
S O 3686 In the erratum of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petro- leum and Chemicals and Mines and Metals, (Department of Mines & Metals) No. SO "99 dated the 24th April, 1969 published in Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii) of the Gazette of India dated the 3rd May, 1969. at page-1544—In lme-5, for "S.O- 2932" read "SO. 2832".
INo. C2-22(3)/67.]
M. S. K- RAMASWAMI, Dy. Secy.
MINISTRY OF1 FOREIGN TRADE AND SUPPLY
(Department of Supply)
New Delhi, the 2"&th August 1969
S.0.3687.—In p irsuaace of the provisions of Rule 45 of the Fundamental Rules, the President hereby mikes the following rules to amsnd the Directorate General of Supplies and Disposals (Allot- ment of Government residences for employees of Inspection Offices at Tatanagar, Jamshedpur, Burnpur and Kulti) Rules, 1966, namely :—
(1) These rules may be called the Directorate General of Supplies and Disposals (Allot- ment of Government residences of employees of Inspection Offices at Tntanagar, Ja'nshedpur, Burnpur ani Kulti) Amendment Rules, 1969,
(2) They shall come into force with effect from the iat September 1969.
1, In the Directorate General of Supplies end Disposals aCA'lotrrcnt of CoVcrrircnt residences for emp'ovees of Inspectior Offices at Tatanagtrj JemsfcedFUrj Eumrur end KultT • R u l e s j i 9 66 f or t he T a b le o c c u r i ng b e l ow s u b - r u le ( 2) of t he r u l es u n d er " S. R . 3 I 7 - R - 5 ^ C 1 B B B'
•flcatnn of residences" the following Table shall be substituted namely :—
Old rates
E-noVj-n:rtts of officers aa on the first day : of the allotment year in which the allot
Typesf : Residence
ment is made.
(2)
( 1)
(3)
Less than Rfl, iro/-
I Less than Rb. 175/- • • • • 1 from Rs. 175/- to Ra. 349/-
11
Less than Rs. 25O/- but r,ot less tl ar PP
lio/-
from Rs. 350/-to Rs. 499/-
III
Lcss than Rs. 4C0/- but r ot less tr8n R"
250/-
IV from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 799/-
Lffss than Rs. 7C0/- t)ut net kss thgr R
400/- •"*
3Q24 THfi GAZETTE OfiJJSTDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 22, 1891 [PART II—2
I
3
. LesB than Rs. 13CO/- but rot less than Rs from Rs.Soo/- to 1299/- .
V
700/-
from Rs. 1300/-to Rs. 2249/- . . Less thar Rs, 22"c/- but not less thar- Re.
VI
1300/-
Rs. 2250/- rnd above.
Ri. 2250/- and above
VII
[No.57(i)/6s-E.f.II]
V. RADHAKRISHN/.N, Under Secy
SEC. 3(li)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 22, 1891 3^25(Department of Foreign Trade)
New Delhi the 29th August 1969
8,O. 3689.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (i) of auh-Rpetinr. (3) of section 4 of the Central Silk Board Act, 1948 (61 of 1948) tk Central Gov" ernment hereby nominates the Director of Industries, Government of Hiiraehal Pradesh, Simla to be a member of tBe Central Silk Board in place of Shri P K Mattoo and makes the following further amendment in the notification o f ' t he Government of India in the Ministry Qf Commerce No. S.O. 2260 dated the 28th June, 1967, namely:—
In the said notification, for the entry against serial number 30, the following
ft entry shall be substituted, namely:—
"30. The Director of Industries, Government of Himachal Pradesh, Simla.'"
[No. F. 22/l/67-Tex(F).] DAULAT RAM, Under Secy-
(Department of Foreign Trade)
TEA CONTROL
New Delhi, the 30th Auguit 1969
3 9 26 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 22, 1891 [PART II—.RUBBER CONTROL
New Delhi the 30th August, 1969
S.O. 3691.—Shri T. V. Joseph, Secretary, Rubber Board, Kottayam, Kerala, is granted earned leave for 27 days with effect from 3rd February, 1969, to 1st March, 1969, (both days Inclusive) with permission to suffix the 2nd March, 1969 (Sunday) to his leave and also earned leave for 10 days with effect from the 14th August, 1969, with permission to prefix 13th August, 1969 and suffix the holidays on the 24th to 28th August, 1969.
2. In pursuance of sub-section (2) of section 6A of the Rubber Act, 1947 (24 of 1947), Shri K. V. Chacko, Finance and Accounts Officer in the Rubber Board, Kottayam, is hereby appointed to hold additional charge of the post of Secretary, Rubber Board, in addition to his own duties, during the period of leave of Shri T. V. Joseph.
[No. F. 21(19)Plant(B)/67.]
New Delhi the 2nd September 1969
S.O. 3693.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (i) •of section 9 of the Tea Act, 1953 (29 of 1953) the Central Government hereby appoints until further orders Shri P. V. iRamaswamy, a Selection Grade Officer of the Central Secretariat Service as Secretary, Tea Board with effect from the fore- noon of 29th July, 1969, vice Shri S. S. Nandkeolyar.
[No. 3(27)-Plant(A)/69.]
M. L. GUPTA, Under Secy,.
(Office of the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports)
ORDER
Bombay, the 16th August 1969
SO 3693.—A licence No. P/SS/1565818, dated 28th May, K68 of the value of "Rs lObOQ' for import of Polyethleno Moulding Power High Density, Poly- styrene, C.A.B. Moulding Power, Polyvinyl Formal and Polyvimyl Acetol. etc., was issued to Messrs. Satya Plastic Products, Industrial Estate, Vidisha, Madhya Pradesh subject to the conditions as under:—
"This licence is issued subject to the condition that all the items of goods Imported under it shall bfe used only in the licence holder's factory at address shown in the Essentiality Certificate issued by the recom- mending authority, against which the licence is issued and no portion thereof will be utilised by the licensee for a Unit/purpose other than the one for which the licence in question is issued, or will be so]d or be permitted to be utilised by any other party."
2 Thereafter, a Show Cause Notice No. l/79/69/AU/Enf./8914, dated 23th May, 1969 was issued asking them to show cause within 15 days as to why in terms of Clause &, sub-clause (cc) the said licence in their favour should not 'be can- celled on the ground that the firm has not made any progress towards establish- ment of industry.
3 In response to the aforesaid Show Cause Notice, Messrs Satya Plastic Products Vidisha, Madhya Pradesh had, by their letter No. SPP/1/6&, dated the 11th June, 1969 have stated that the captioned licence Is not received by them and they have no objection for concellation of the said licence.
4 The undersigned has carefully examined the said representation and has come to the conclusion that the aforesaid licence will not serve the purpose for which it has been granted.
5 Having regard to what has been stated in the preceding paragraph, the undersigned is satisfied that the licence In question should be cancelled or other- wise rendered ineffective. Therefore, the undersigned, in exercise of the cowers
SEC. 3(ii)] THL GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 22, 18&1 3927vested in him under Clause 9 sub-clause (cc) of the Imports (Control) Order, 1955 hereby cancels the licence No. P/SS/1565818, dated 28th May, 1968 lor Rs. 10,000 issued in favour of Messrs Satya Plastic Products, Vidisha, Madhya
[No. 1/79/69/ AU/Enf.]'
I. R. KAKAR,
Dy. Chief Controller of Imports & Exports.
(Office of thie Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports)
ORDERS
Kanpur, the 18th. August 1969
8.O. 3694.—The following licence was issued to M/s. B. R. Circles and Sheet Manufacturers, Bhatti Street Moradabad:—
1. P/SS/1622780 dated the 13th December, 1967 for Rs. 7,712 for import of Ger- man Silver Scrap and Brass Scrap.
Thereafter a show cause notice No. Enf. l(175)/1968/Kan dated the 25th Nov- ember, 196B was issued asking them to show cause within 10 days of the leceipt of notice as to why the said licence should not be cancelled for the reason that the firm has since dissolved and has ceased functioning since July, 1968.
In response to the aforesaid show cause notice M/s. B. R. Circles and Sheet Manufacturers Bhatti Street Moradabad, could not show any valid reasons against the proposed cancellation as per their reply vide letter dated 5th December, 1968.
Having regard to what has been stated in the preceding paragraph, the undersigned is satisfied that the said licence in question should be cancelled or otherwise rendered in-effective. Therefore, the undersigned in exercise of powers vested in him under clause 9 of the Import (Control) Orders, 1955 hereby cancells the licence No. P/SS/1622780 dated 13th December, 1967 issued in favour of M/s. B. R. Circles and Sheet Manufacturers, Bhatti Street, Moradabad.
[No. ENF.1(175)/1968/KAN/3586J
Kanpur, the 1st September 1969
8.O, 3695.—The following import licences were issued in favour of M/s. Dhatu Kala Udyog Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Adityanagar, P. O. Sunderpur, District, Vara- nasi:—•
(i) P/SS/1581639 dated 10th February, 1967 for Rs. 13680 1 for the import (ii) P/SS/1623594 dated 4th March, 1968 for Rs. 10000 - of German (iii) P/SS/1623595 dated 4th March, 1988 for Rs. 3680 J Silver Scrap Thereafter a show cause notice No. ENF.1(217)/1969/KAN, dated the 13th June, 1969 was issued asking them to show cause within 10 (Ten) days of the date of receipt of the said notice as to why the said licences in their favour should not be cancelled on the ground that they have misutilised the imported goods in terms of clause 9(cc) of the Import (Control) Order, 1955 as amended.
The stipulated period of 10 days is over and the party has not come forward with any explanation so far. The show cause notice was delivered to them on 20th June, 1969 as per acknowledgement on records shows.
The undersigned has carefully examined the case and has come to the conclu- sion that the party has no defence to urge and have avoided a reply.
Having regard to what has been stated in the preceding paragraph the under- signed is satisfied that the licences in question should be cancelled or otherwise rendered ineffective. Therefore the undersigned in exercise of powers vested in him under clause 9 sub clause (cc) of the Imports (Control) Order, 1955 here- by cancels the licences issued in favour of M/s. Dhatu Kala Udyog Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Adityanagar, P. O. Sunderpur, District Varanasi, Nos. P/SS/1581639* dated 10th February, 1967, P/SS/1623594 and P/SS/1623595 both dated 4th March, 1968.
[No. ENF.I(217)/1969/KAN/2568.I
O. N. ANAND,
Dy. Chief Controller of Imports and Exports.
3928 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 22, 1891 [PART U—(Office of the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports)
ORDER
Calcutta, the 30th August 1969
S.O. 3696.—An Actual Users licence No. P/SS/1629903/C/XX/29C/27 dated 6th December, 1988 of the value of Rs. 4,119/- for Import of Aromatic Chemicals, N.E. Oil & Broken Coral Reeds was issued to M/s. Sadhana Industries, 123, Balaram Dey Street, Calcutta-6 and 15, Cosslpore Road, Calcutta-2.
2. Thereafter, a show cause notice No. 76/69/E&L dated 7th May, 1989 was issued saking them to show cause within 15 days as to why the said licence in -their favour should not be cancelled on the ground that their S.S.I. Registration Certificate number was cancelled by the Director of Industries, West Bengal in terms of Clause 9, sub-clause (cc).
3. In response to the aforesaid show cause notice, M/s. Sadhana Industries had, 'by their letter dated 21st May 1969 & 6th June 1969 furnished a detailed explana- tion and had also asked for personal hearing with the undersigned which was .allowed to their representative on 5th July 1969. Intimation regarding grant of personal interview was returned to this office undelivered by the Postal authority with the remark "not Maimed". In their said reply the tan contended that they 'have approached the Director of Industries for renewal of the S.S.I. Registration number.
4. The undersigned has carefully examined the said representation and has •come to the conclusion that the licence will not serve the purpose for which it was granted.
5. Having regard to what has been stated in the preceding paragraph, the undersigned is satisfied that the licence in question should be cancelled or other- wise rendered ineffective, Therfore, the undersigned, in exercise of the powers -vested in him under clause 9 sub clause (cc) of the Imports (Control) Order, 1955 •hereby cancel the licence No. P/SS/1629903/C/XX/29/C/27 dated 6th December, 1968 for Rs. 4119/- Issued In favour of M/s. Sadhana Industries, 123, Balaram Dey "Street, Calcutta-6 and 15, Cossipore Road, Calcutta-2.
[No. 76/69/E&L.]
M. S. PURI,
Dy. Chief Controller of Imports & Exports.
MINISTRY OF LABOUR, EMPLOYMENT AND REHABILITATION
(Department of Labour and Employment)
New Delhi, the 31st July 1969
S.O. 3897.—In pursuance of section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the following award of the National Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad In the Industrial dispute between the employers In relation to the Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Bombay and their workmen which was received by the Central Government on the 19th July I960, '
BEFORE THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT DHANBAD In the matter of a reference under section 1O(1A) of the Industrial Disputes Act,
N. T. REFERENCE NO. 5 OF 1967
PARTIES:
Management of the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Bombay,
AND
Their Workmen.
"PRESENT:
Shri Kamla Sahai, Presiding Officer.
APPEARANCES : Tor the Indian Oil Corporation—Shri S. D. Vimadalal, Barrister-at-Law, with S/Shri V. Hv, Dhopeshwarkar, Deputy Manager, P&A, Aladi Subramaniam Dy. Financial Controller and D. H. Pradhan, Personnel Officer (I R) Tor the Workmen—S]Shri V. K. Tembe, Advocate, Sarjotishi M. B Kulkarnl Shidore and Surve.
STATE: Maharashtra.
INDUSTRY- Oil
Calcutta, dated the 13th Juty, 1969
SEC. 3(ii)] Ihll GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13,,1969'UUADRA Zi., \.W 3929AWARD
By order No. 17/5/67/LRIII doted the 27th July. 1E67, the Central Government, in the Ministry of Labour, Employment and Rehabilitation, has referred for adju- dication to this TTi
SCHEDULE
"Whether the workmen of the Indian Oil Corporation, Bombay, and all its branches are entitled to a higher bonus than 4 per cent for the year 1965-66? If so, what should be the quantum of bonus for the said year?
2. The Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., is a public sector Corporation. It is owned "ntirely by the Government of India. Its financial year begins from the 1st April of one year and ends on the 31st March of the next year. The Corporation's predecessor concerns namely the Indian Oil Company Ltd., and the Indian Refi- neries Ltd., were both public sector undertakings of the Government of India. They were joined together and were incorporated as the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., on or about the 1st September, 1964. The balancesheet and the profit and loss account of the Corporation are jointly audited by three different firms of Auditors viz.: (1) M/s. A. F. Fergusson & Co., Bombay, (2) M/s. P. N. Mitra & Co., Calcutta and (3) M/s. S. P. Chopra & Co., New Delhi. They are also liable to be examined and audited by the Director of Commercial Audit under the Comptroller and Auditor General of India who has, under section 619(4) of the Indian Companies Act 1956 the "right to comment upon or supplement, the audit report in such manner as he thinks fit".
3. The question of bonus relates in this reference to the year 1965-66. At the "nd of the bal&ncesheet and profit and loss account of that year, the auditors have given, besides their report, details of the allocation of work amongst the three firms of auditors as made under the directions of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India. The Director of Commercial Audit has then added his own comment! and remarks. The Chairman of the Corporation has thereafter merely said about them:—-•
"The remarks are self explanatory and as such do not require any com- ments".
4. As to the quantum of bonus for the year 1965-66, the Corporation's case is that, after careful consideration of the foalancesheet and profit and loss account, It found that there was no available, much less allocable surplus, in that year but, on the contrary, there was a substantial deficit. The result was that it found that no bonus except the minimum bonus of 4 per cent Payable under section 10 of the Payment 0° T^-us Act, 1965 was payable to tha workmen. Minimum bonus, based not on the quantum of profits made by the Corporation but on the minimum bonus laid down in section 10 of the Act was, therefore, paid to the workmen. Its case, therefore, is that no further bonus is payable.
5. The Corporation has filed the balancesheet and profit and loss account for the year 1965-66 as well as those for other years. It has also filed an affidavit (Ext. M-l).s.worn by Shrl Alladi Subramanyam who presently holds the post of Deputy Financial Controller of the Indian Oil Corporation at Bombay. He has also stated that he was concerned with the flnalisation of the accounts of the Corporation for the year ended 31st March 1966 as he was then holding the post of Chief Accounts Officer of the Corporation. He is a qualified Chartered Accoun- tant, being an associate member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India from 1960 and also an associate member of the Institute of Cost and Works Accountants of India from 1965. Further, he is a Law Graduate, having passed the LLB Degree examination of the Osmania University in 1960. Shri Subramanyam has filed along with his affidavit annexures to explain several matters. He was examined on behalf of fEe management and has beep cross-examined by Shrl Tembe, the learned Advocate for the Federation i.e. the only contesting union.
6. Apart from other documents, the Corporation has filed Ext. Con. M-l and Ext. Con. M-2 which are assessment orders respectively of the Income Tax Officer relating to the Indian Oil Corporation for the assessment'years 1965-66 and 1966- 67.
7. The~only union which appeared and contested the reference at the hearing- was the National Federation of Petroleum Workers (India) on beha'f of the work- men represented by it. This Federation has stated in its written statement that
393° T HE GAZETTE OF INDIA; SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 22, 1891 [PART li-the Corporation has already paid a bonus for the year 1665-66 at the rate of 4 per cent of the emoluments of the workmen but it has given its opinion to the effect that a "larger quantum of bonus is due to the workmen on the basis of the formula laid down In the Payment of Bonus Act". It has further stated that, in the profit and loss account for the year 1965-66, the company has debited a sum of Rs. 4,37,14,873 as loss on devaluation. It has then submitted that .since the devaluation was introduced on the 6th June, 1W6, any loss or profit on account of devaluation could not be shown in the profit and loss account or balancesheet of the company for the yeaT 1965-66. The fact that the Corporation has shown loss on account of that devaluation means that it has not revealed" a true and fair picture at the profit and of the financial position of the company as on 31st March, 1866". The Federation has further stated that it will file an application under section 23 of the Payment of Bonus Act, challenging the accurracy of th& profit and loss account and balancesheet of the company and will also ask for clarifications. In paragraph 4, it has stated that the Corporation is liable to pay the maximum quantum of bonus to the workmen under the Payment of Bonus Act. It has also said that it will submit its computation for bonus later.
8. In view of the wording of the schedule to the reference, the first question which arises for consideration in this case is whether bonus at a rate higher than 4 per cent is payable for the year 1965-66. It is only if the answer to this question. is in the affirmative that this Tribunal is further required to ascertain the exact quantum of bonus payable for that year.
9. Shri V. K. Tembe did not make any attempt at the hearing to show that the corporation made any profit higher than that shown in the balancesheet and prcflt and loss account. The main point which he argued and stressed was that tho corporation could only show in the balance-sheet for 1965-66 the profit made and loss incurred by the corporation in that financial year. According to him, the loss of Rs. 4,37,14,873 said to have been incurred by the Corporation on account of devaluation of the Indian rupee which came into effect on the 6th June, 1966 could1 not be taken into account in the financial year 1965-66.
Sec. 3(ii)J TI1L GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHAi. 'of the company and in particular about the extent to which the outstanding liabi- lities may be increased as a result of devvaluation and its effect upon the profit or loss of a company. Such a note may take the following form:
"As a result of the devaluation of the rupee after the close of the account- ing year, the additional rupee cost of meeting outstanding liabilities in foreign currencies for which no provision has been made in the accounts, amounted to: Secured Loans Rs. Unsecured Loani> Rs. Current liabilities and provisions Rs.
In cases where the amount cannot be ascertained with accuracy an approxi- mate amount should be stated. The auditor's statutory report should be signed subject to the note on the accounts.
2.2. While this is the recommended procedure, it is permissible for a company to include the effects of devaluation in its accounts ending on a date prior to 6th June. 196G. It would oe desirable to make appropriate disclosure of the effect of such inclusion on the true and fair view of the results for the year and the posi- tion as at the Balance-sheet date in the accounts or in any notes thcieon".
11. Thereatter Shri Subramanya-m ha.-, stated in his affidavit that the sum of Rh. 10,95,123 relates to outstanding creditors for demurrages, etc. Thus he has accounted for the entire sum of Rs. 4,37,14,873.
12. Shri Tembc has argued that the corporation should not have followed a procedure which is, at best, according to thp Institute if Chartered Accountants of. India, only, "permissible". The point which he has made is that although this procedure may be permissible, it is not warranted under the Company law be- cause, under that law, the profit or loss accruing after the end of the financial ^ ear for which the balancesheel is prepared, cannot be included. It cannot be gains-aid however, that the remark?, of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India as quoted by Shri Subramanyam were drawn up after the devaluation of the rupee, specillca1lv to deal with the extraordinary situation created by it and thpy tully support the principle of accounting followed by the corporation. Be- sides, it cannot possibly be asserted that the eilect of devaluation of the Indian currency upon the linance of the Corporation extremely important as it was, need not have been disclosed by it in its balance-sheet or Droflt and loss account The Corporation could have disclosed the full effect by means of notes or by means of actual deduction of the total loss on devaluation in the accounts, I find it im- possible to agree that the mere fact that the latter course was followed makes the accounts false which much necessarily include an element of dishonesty. It has at least the merit of giving a true picture of the financial position of the Corpora- tion after the devaluation came into effect. If it had stopped short by saying what was its financial on 31st March If)fi6 without disclosing what came to be the finan- cial position after devaluation on 6th June 1966, iL would not have given a true and fair picture.
3932 THE GAZETTh OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 22, 1891 [PUIT \l—The management has, therefore, submitted that this loss was entirely incurred in tne financial year 1965-66. It was shown in the balancesheet of that year specially on account of two reasons: one being that the account of that financial year war, not closed and the other being that the Institute of Chartered Accountant has recommended that procedure or has, at any rate, described it t0 be permissible. On the Other hand, it has been argued on behalf of the management, the loss of Rs. 4,38,84,209 was not shown in the balancesheet of that year beciusP the capital goods in respect oi the purchase of which that loss was incurred were not sold on or before the :51st March, 1966. In my opinion, these arguments are reasonable and ihey fully ejipJam the inclusion in the balancesheet of the loss o£ Rs. 4..JT,14.373 and the non-inclusion of the loss of Rs. 4,38,84,209 on the purchase oi i Jpn, . goods.
10. Shi-'' Tembe has elicited In cross-examination from Shu SiVjramniiyam that the debit for the entire loss on devaluation i.e. the sum ot Rs. 4,26,19 7[iO was shown in one entry only Shri Tern be has argued that this is not the method oi writ- ing up accounts. Entries relating to payments and receipts must, accvn'dir.? n him, be separately made from date to date, lie has, therefore, characterised The fact of there being- one debit entry for the entire loss 'is amounting almost lo iiilEifica- 1io:i of accounts. I think this is a clear misunderstanding oi what has beer done by the Corporation. Shri Tembe's harsh expression seems lo mp- to be quite un- justified. What ha;, clearly happened is that the Accountants of the Corporation worked out the figure of loss on account of the devaluation. En fries renting to payments to sellers of the Petroleum goods must only have been made in the accounts on the dates on which the payments were actually made ;.c dlter Ihe ;Hst March, 1966 Those accounts could not be taken bodily into the account of the year 1965-06. What the Accountants of the Corporation, therefore, obviously did was to find out the entire figure of loss and to make one debit entry in the accounts of the year 1.965-06 in order to show In those accounts the total loss which according to them was Incurred on account of devaluation In respect of transactions completed in the financial year 1965-66 with this exception only that payment for the goods by the Corporation were made later within the credit period. I do not think that this can possibly amount to falsification of account.
16- Shri Tern be has gone to the length of saying that the accounts of the Cor- poration and the balancesheet and profit and loss account in question are false. This submission is based mainly upon the arguments relating to the effect of deva- luation which I have mentioned above. Whatever may be ^aid about the point that the Corporation is or is not entitled to deduction of the nmoui't of loss suffered by It on account of devaluation of the Indian currency in the commutation of bonu> for the year 19(i!>-66, it is impossible to accept that the Corporation has deliberately prepared a false balancesheet and profit and loss account. As I have said, its accounts are audited by three well-known firms of chartered accountants and their work is seen to by the Dlrecotr of Commercial Audit. Surely they could not bo parties to the preparation of false accounts. Indeed, Shri Tern he has himself stated in so many woTds that he does not challenge the bonafides of ihe Corporation but he merely challenges the principles of accounting followed by it. This cannot lead to the inference that the balancesheet and the profit and lo.,s a -count are false. At the most, the inference most adverse to the Corporation, even according to Shri Tem'oe's argument, can be that its accountants did not follow correct principle of accounting. I am, however, not even prepared to go to this extent. So far as I can see. the principles of accounting followed by them cannot be he^d to be wrong. I can only say thut the matter is extremly doubtful and I do not consider it neces- sary to decide in this case whether the Corporation is or Is not entitled to deduct from its proltt the loss of Rs. 4,37.14,873 for the purpose of compulation of bonus. T may say that a decision on this point is also unnecessary becaue Shri VImadalal, the learned Advocate who has appeared on behalf of the Corporation, has shown that, even if I take three items only into consideration, ihe entire profits of the Corporation are wiped out and no surplus is left, much less any available surplus
17. I may also mention at this state that, under section 23 of the Payment of Bonus Act. the presumption arises that the statements and particulars contained in the Corporation's balanceshect and profit and loss account are a^miraie. Shri Tembe has argued that the words of the section show that the presumption is not manda- tory, In all the circumstances of this case, however, I am of opinion that the pre- sumption should be raised-
SEC. ?(ii)l 1HU GAZETTE OF INDIA: SKPIhMBER :; ; ^ / B H A D KA 2?, 1891 393318 Ext MW 1 IK a computation of bonus IK one sheet by boih parties, Ad-
mittedly the net profit as per profit and loss account io-
R s. I j O T . 2^ -1>O
T he m a n a g e m e nt b ai a d d ed TO T h is t he l o l l o p i ng a m o u h l t , :—
, R s. 4 , 2 4 , 0 42
L o ss on a s s e ts l e v n l u ed s o ld e i i _\ . . ..
, R s. 3 , 4 7 , 2 2 ^ 37 . R s. 2 2 . % , ^ 3Z
, R t. 1 2 , 1 9 , 3 47
On a c c o u ni of d e p r e c i a t i on . . . .. P i o v i s i on f oi d o u b t f ul d e b ts L ' r o v i s i on l oi b o n us
. . .. , . . . .,
i ' he t o l a l of i hj l o ui i i e n ii j b m i: i h is t o r n : -, 1 0: ,
T he same fi^me has also been a i m ed ut bj t he J ' a l e ' J t i o n .. To Lhc above t o ul aronunT, 1] L F e d u a t i on h as a d d ed b a d. thu l o l k w u iK
a m o u n ts :
6,62,602 55-506 3,^93 .1,61,33,000 4,37,14.873 48,25,000 5fi">405
O u t s i de r o ad d e v e l o p m e nt L K p - n d i l me Had d e b ts w r i t l en o il . . . . .. S u r v e\ 4 nd i n v e s t i g a t i on . , , . .. P r o v i s i on for loss on acLomu of u n d er looovi-iy . L o ss on devaluation . , , , . ,. E x p e n s es p e i t a i n i ng 10 previous j wi D o n a t i on . . . . . , , .
Rs. . Rs. Rs. . Rs. . RE. . Rs- . R .
6,54,51,279
I I , 4 2 , 3 C , 2 I7
TOTAL
l ' r om t h i s, t he F o d c i a u on h as d e d u c i ed :—
D c p e u u L i on . . . . . .. 8 % r c l u in o n c a p i r jl j m o u n i i n R to . . ..
3,17,22,537 3,76,22,870
. Hs. . Rs.
Rs. 7,23,45,407
The Federation has thus shown available surplus to be Hs. 4,18,34,310 after
deducting Rs. 7,,?:;,4J,407 irom thc total figure of Rs. 11,42.30,217.
3 9 34 T HE ° A Z E1 TE OF I N D I A: SEPTEMBER 13, 196VBHADRA 22, 1891 [PAKI II—22. Shri Tembe has attempted to show that the Corporation has been claiming; different amounts at different times on account of depreciation. He has pointed out that, in Lxt. JV14, the original figures submitted by the Corporation, thP amount of depreciation was shown as 6,89,42,333. The assessment order (Ext. Con. M2) shows that the revised figure of depreciation was 7,13,10.529 as mentioned by Shri Subra- manyam In his affidavit. There is nothing before me to show that the revised figure of claim before the Income Tax Assessment Officer was wrong. In his evidence, Shri Subramanyam has stated that, out of the depreciation o£ Rs. 7,13,10,529 which wai claimed by the Corporation before t he Income Tax Officer as depreciation, he disallowed a sum of Rs. 16,21,200 on the ground that this was depreciation on interest which waa capitalised. He. however, allowed a sum of RE. G,%,89,329 as depreciation obvlouslj on the written down value method- Shri Vimadalal has stated that, although he claims the entire amount of Rs. 7,U,10,529 as depreciation, he will be satisfied for the purpose of bonus in this case if depreciation is accepted at the figure accepted by thc Income Tax Officer whose duty it is to scrutinise the accounts and to allow an assessec like the Corporation nothing more as depreciation thqn it Is entitled to. I think that this argument is quite reasonable.
23. Shri Tembe has examined a witness named lVTadhukar Bhalchandra Kulkarni as W.W. 1. He has produced a paper containing bonus computation and has stated that this was prepared by t he Corporation and iunded over to the union during eanclliatiiri proceedings This has been marked Kxt. W4. He has, however, ad- mitted ia cross-examination that he did not personally receive t hc copy of compu- tation find that he was produucing it as a computation of bonus on behalf of the Corporal ion simply because it was found on the. uniori's file on which papers relat- ing to bonus for the year 1965-66 were kept. The exhibit is not on the paper of the Indian Oil Corporation nor is there any mark to show that this was prepared in the Corporation's office. I am therefore, not prepared to accept this exhibit, as a computali'jn of bonus In the office of the corporation.
24. In the ciicum^lances mentioned above, the Corporation may be entitled to a higher rlepieclalinn than the amount allowed 1o it by the Income Tax Officer in the assessment for the assessment year 1!)66-G7 (Ext. C m. I\T2> but, for the purpose of ihis case, 1 would put the figure of. depreciation at t hj one allowed by the Income TfT- Officer as submitted by Shri Vimadalal.
2.i D( rciaiiiiipnt Rebate.—According to section fi(b) of the Payment of Bonus Aft, one of the ,-,ums to be deducted from the ffross profits as prior charges is an amount "by way of development lebate or development allowance which the em- pl-jyer is entitled to deduct from his income under 1h? Income Ta^ Act. Shri Sub- ramanyam has given In paragraph 19 of his affidavit the details regarding develop- ment rebate. He has stated lhat the amount of development rebate which the Corporation is entitled to for the year 1965-60 is a sum of Rs. 15 27,82,110. The Income Tnx Officer has come to the conclusion in his order (Con. Ext. M2) that the development rebate admissible to the Corporation at 20 per cent on the amount left after o\< ludinq capitalized interest comes to Es. H.47.42,8%- He has added at thc end that the ima'osorbed development rebate of Rs, 3,47,42,096, along with the nnabsorbed development rebate allowed in previous years would be "carried for- ward" subject to creation of adequate rcseives in the year of elaim/oroliK This shows that the amount mentioned above has been allowed as development rebate but it hns not been absorbed simply because of the fact that no development re- serve ha^ yet been created. The rebate will be carried frrward and will be allow- ed as soon"as adequqale reserve ts created. In the terms of section 6 of the Payment o" Bonus Act. the amount allowed by the- Income Tax Officer is undoubtedly the amount of "development allowance" which the corporation Is entitled In deduct f r cn his income undor the Income Tax Act". Shri Vima'dalal has not submitted for the purpose of this case that the amount claimed by 1he management of the Corporation or by Shri Subramanyam in his affidavit should be allowed as deve- lopment rebate but he has slated lust for the purpose of this case that he would \v saiisfled If this Tribunal accept the figure accepted by the Income Tax Olllccr.
2fl. 3 5 pec cent rctnrn on capital.—This point r e 'd not be laboured because, the Federation has shown the amount of Rs 3,76.22,870 as admissible on this accounl. Thp three items mentioned above thus comes t o: —
fl,()fi,8£U29 R,47,4'',8f)6 3,7fl,22,f!70 Depreciation Development Rebate R.5 per cent return on capital
10,20,55,095
Src. 3ui)] 1HE GAZElTEOr INDIA: ShPJ>MBER 1?, 1969/L:I.\LH< ' ?2, Ih'JI 3935
From this has to be deducted the net profit as ^hown in the balance sheet and "the profit and lo^s account which is: —
1,01.26,580
18,10,^,7)5
27- Even supposing that the gross proilts of the Corporation stand at the high llgnre ol 11,42,:JO,217 that amount has to be deducted from the total amount arrived at on the basis of the three items mentioned above namely 19,20,55,093. On tltiM basis also, the deficit is 7,78,24.878
28. It is perfectly clear, therefore, that there was no profit to the Corporation In the year In question. The answer to the question put in the schedule, which is Inescapable, Is thjt the workmen of the Ind
29. This is my award. Let this be submitted to the Central Government under section 15 of the Industrial Disputes Act.
(Sd ) K*MII\ S-VHAI, Presiding Oillcor-
L\To n / 5 / 6 7 / L R IV !
New Delhi, the 20th August 1969
S.O. 3G!)8.—In pursuance of section 17 of the Industrial Disputes A.t 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the fol'owing award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No, 2. Dhanbad in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Bhowra Colliery of Messrs Karam Chand Thapar and Brothers (Private) Limited, Central Office, Bhowra, Post Office Bhowra (Dhanbad) and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on the 12th August, 1969.
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2) AT DHANBAD
PRESENT:
Shri Nandagiri Vcnkata Rao, Presiding Officer.
REFERENCE NO 3 OF 19C8
In the matter of an industrial dispute undei Section 10(1) (d) of the Indushial Disputes Act, 1947
PARTIES:
Employers in relation to the Bhowra Collierv of Messrs Kavam Chanel Thapar and Brothers (Private) Limited Ccntrnl Office, Bhowra, Post Office, Bhowra (Dhanbnd).
AND
Their workmen.
Al'l'EARANCES:
On behalf 0/ the employe is—Shri K. C. Nandkeolyar, Deputy Chief Per- sonnel Officer.
On behalf of the workmen .-Shri Prasanta Burman, Sr-ci"taiv, Khan Mai'- door Congress.
STATE: Bihar.
INDUSTRY- COHI,
Dhanbad, 5th August, 1969
AWARD
The Central Government, being of oninion that an industrial dispute exists between the employers in relation to tb<-> Bhowra Colliery of- Messrs Karam- chand Thapar and Brother (Private) Limited, Centra] Office, Bhowra. Post Office Bhowra (Dhanbad) and their workmen, by its order No. 2/8/68-LBTI
3936 THE GAZF.TTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBFR 13, 1%9/BHADRA 22, J891 [PART Tl—dated 4th May 1968 referred to this Tribunal under Section 10(1) (d) of t he Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for adjudication the dispute in respect of the m a t- ters specified in the sehedu'e annexed thereto The schedule is extracted below:
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action ol the management of Bhowr.i Colliery in suspend- ing their workmen Shri Jhari Gore, Pick Miner for the period from the 10th November, 1987 to 19th November, 1907 was justified? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled?"
2 Employers filed their statement of demands. Inspite of service of notice the workmen did not file their statement of demands.
3 On lfith June 19fi9 Shri Prasanta Burman, Secretary, Khan Mazdoor Cong- iess, the union sponsoring the dispute has' filed an application stating that the union is no longer interested in persuinq the dispute and that it may be dispos- ed of accordingly As no more dispute subsists for adjudication, no further en- quiry is necessary. The award is made aecordipgly and submitted under Section 15 of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947.
(Sd.) N. VENKATA RAO,
Presiding Officer, Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal
(No. 2) Dhanbad.
[No. 2/B/68-LR.IL]
New Delhi the 21st August 1969
S.O. 3699,—In pursuance oi section 17 oi the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 n£ 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the following award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Calculta, In the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Seetalpur Pit No. 4 Colliery of Messrs Bengal Coal Company Limited, Post Office Disergnrh, District Burdwan and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on the 12th August, 1969
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL. CALCUTTA
REFI HE.Nfr No 2G OF 1969
PAKTTFS
Employers in relation to the management of Sitylpur Pit No. 4 Colliery of Messrs Bengal Coal Company Limited
AND
Their workmen.
Pt finrr:
Shri B. N. Banerjee Presiding Officer
AFT TARANcrs
On behalf of Employers.—Shri B N Lala. Assistant Security Offlcei. On behalf of Workmen.—Shri Basir Khan Concerned workman.
STATK: West Bengal
INDUSTRY- Coal Mines
AWARD
By Order No. G/94/68-LRII, dated March 15. 19H9, the Government of India, in the Ministry of Labour. Employment and Rehabilitation (Department of Labour and Employment) referred the following dispute between the management of Seetalpur Pit No. 4 Colliery of Messrs Bengal Coal Company Limited and their workmen, to this tribunal, for adiudicntion, namely:
"Whether the management of Seetalpur Pit No. 4 Colliery of Messrs Bengal Coal Company Limited, Post Office Disergarh, District Burdwan was justified in terminating the .services of their workman Shri Basir Khan BoiW Khalasi with elTect from the '2nd September. 19fi79 If not to what relict is the workman entitled""
i>BC. 3(ii)l H+£ GXZETTE OF INDIA: SI'IH l-.MBRR 13, iy69/B.I\DFA 22, J8l>i 39372. Both the management and the workmen filed their respective written state- ment. I am not, however, called upon to decide the dispute on merits because the parties have settled their dispute amicably out of Court, and in token thereof huve filed a joint petition of compromise. Now that the dispute stands settled in terms ol compromise, I make an award on terms of settlement filed before this Tribunal. Let the terms of settlement form part of this award,
This is my award,
Duied, August 4, 1069
(Sd.) B. N. BANERJEE.
Presiding Officer.
BEFORE THE HON'BLE PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, CALCUTTA
REFERENCE NO. 26 or 1969
BETWEEN
Employers In realtion to Seetulpur Colliery of M/s. Bengal Coal Co. Ltd. P O. Disergarh, Dlst. Burdwan.
AND
Their workmen represented by Colliery Mazdoor Union, 27, G.T. Road, Bastin Bazar, Asansol.
Joint Petition of Compromise:
The partie., above named most respectfully beg to submit as under: —
(tj That the above matter was referred for adjudication vide Ministry of Labour, Employment and Rehabilitation (Department of Labour and Employment) Notification No. 6/94/68-LRII dated 15th March. 1969
(2) The saul matter is pending before the Hon'blc Tribunal for adjudication. (3^ That the Parties in the meantime have mutually discussed the matter and have arrived at a settlement In terms stated hereunder-
Terms of Settlement
(a) The Employers shall make to Sh 1 Basir Khan, the workman herein Con- cerned, an ex-grutia payment of Rs. 2058.00 (Rupees two thousand and fiftyeight only) in full and final settlement of all his claims against the employers,
(bi The workman concerned and the union on his behalf have agreed to accept the aforesaid ex-gratia payment in full and final settlement of all the claims of the workman against the management. The said payment shall be made within 15 days from the date on which this agreement shall be filed before this Hon'ble Tribunal.
(cj The Employers shall make payment as provided for In item (a) above, to the workman concerned and also other legal dues If any latest with- in 15 days from the date of filing this agreement.
(d) The workman or his union acting on his behalf has no other calims
against the management arising out of this present reference,
(ei That the Parties will bear their respective costs of this proceeding
4. In the circumstances the parties herein concerned most respectfully beg to pray that this Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to accept thi, compro- mise and paps an Award In terms thereof
And for this the parties as In duty bound shall ever pray.
F°r the Employers.
For the Workmen 2 8.7 Q9
Sd./- B, N. LALA.
" • . ,
28-7-6!).
Qeneral Secretary Colliery Mazdoor' Union " „. ^l s t?nA S e c u r I t>r OtRveT. 27, G.T. Road Bengal Coal Company Limited. Ba^tln Bazar. Asansol. (Sd ) Signature of the Workman. Dated, the 28th July, 1969.
(No 6/94/68-LRII.1
3938 THE GAZPTTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 22, 1891 [PART IJ—New Delhi, the 23rd August 196!)
S.O. 3700.—In pursuance of section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act. lt/47 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the -following award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, (No. 3), Dhanbad, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Benedih Colliery of Messrs Benedih Coal Concern, Post Office Nudkhurkee, District Dhanbad and their work- men, which was received by the Central Government on the 12th August, I960.
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 3) AT DHANBAD
REFERENCE NO. 29 OF 19G9
PRESENT:
Shrl Sachidanand Sinha, M.A.M.L., Presiding Officer.
PAR'HES:
Employers in relation to the Benedih Colliery.
VS.
Their workmen.
APPEAHANC.ES :
For employers: Shri S. K. Mukerjee, Special Officer, For workmen: Shrl Lalit Burman, General Secretary.
STATE: Bihar.
INDUSTRY CO- \
Dhanbad, dated the 4th of August, 1969
(AWARD)
1. The Central Government, being of opinion that an industrial dispute exists between the employers in relation to the Benedih Colliciy of Aletsrs Benedih Coal Concern, Post Office Nudkhurkeo, District Dhanbad and their work- men, by its order No. 2/266/68-LRJI, dated the 29th April, 1969 referred to this Tribunal under section 10(1) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for adjudication the dispute in respect of the matters specified in the schedule an- nexed thereto. The schedule is extracted below:
SCHEDULE
"Whether the management of Benedih Colliery of Messrs Benedih Coal Concern, Post Office Nudkhurkee, District Dhanbad, was justified in imposing idleness on Sarvashri Trilokdhari Bhnr and Kirit Gope, Pick Miners, with effect from the 3rd June, 1968 and subsequently, dismissing them with effect from the 20th June, 19G8 ? If rut, to what relief are these workmen entitled ?"
2. Both the employers and the Union representing the workmen filed then- written statements. It is unnecessary to stale the respective cases of the parties because the dispute has been settled amicably. According to the term", of com- promise each of the concerned workmen are entitled to get a sum of Rs 1500/- fRupees one thousand five hundred) only as compensation nnd Ex~grari
3. The terms must be considered satisfactory and fair. I accept the same ind pass an award in terms of the joint petition of compromise at annexure 'A' which si'(ill form part of the award. It mav be submitted to the Central Gov- ernment under section 15 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1047.
(SdA) SACHIDANAND SINHA.
Pr-ddlng Officer.
SFC. 3(iUJ THE GA.ZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/3HADRA 22, I8?I 3939ANNE::UKIC 'A'
BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO ;i
DHANBAD
REFERENCE No. 29 OF 1968
PAKTII S ;
Employees in relation to Beneidh Colliery
AND
Their workmen
Joint Petition of Compromise
The parties above named beg to submit that the parties have settled the d e- pute amicably on the following terms.
Terms of Settlement
1. That the management of Benedih Colliery hereby agree to pay to each of the concerned workmen Sarvashri Trilokdhari Bhar and Kirit Gope a sum •of Rs. 1500/- (Rupees one thousand five hundred) only as compensation find Ex-gralia payment for the period of idleness from 3-6-1968 till date. Over and above this the workmen will be paid their outstanding legal dues, if uny.
2. That the management also agree to give employment to the two workmen Sarvashri Ti'ilokdhari Bhar and Kiiil Gope as and when the work of coal ralsini? will be resumed in No. 12 seam incline.
3. That the payments as per Clause (1) to the concerned workmen shall be made within a month from date of this settlement.
4. That the workmen thall have no other claim from the management except us specifically motioned above and the dispute stands resolved.
The partiesVpray that the Honourable Tribunal may be pleased to pa;s an s\fflrd on the basis of above terms oi settlement.
Dated 28th July, 1969
For workmen : For the Employers Sd/-
For Benedih Coal Concern,
Sd/-
General Secretary. Bihar Koyln Mazdoor Sabha.
Partner.
Bencdih Coal Concern, Benedih Colliery
[No. 2/26B/6S-LR.II 1
New Delhi, the 29th August 1909
S.O. 3701.—In pursuance of section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the following award of the National Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to Associated Cement Companies Limited, Bombay, and their workmen, which was received by the Centra] Government on the 20th August, l.'lh'l
BEFORE THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT DHANBAD
In the matter of a reference under section 10(IA) oi the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
N. T. IRFFUKENCI'' NO. 7 OF 1967
AND
N. T. RfFFRHNCE NO- 3 CF 1908
PAR TIES :
The Associated Cement Companies Limited. Bombay.
AND
Their Workmen.
39.40 XHl: GAZE7 fli 0f< INDIA: SfPTEMBCK H, IW/BHADRA 22, 1891 [PARJ il—PRIISSNT ;
Shn Kamla Sahai, Presiding Officer.
APPEARANCES :
Fi>;- the Employers— S/Shri R. J. Kollnh, Advocate with S. N. Cooper and C L. Govil.
FJT the Workmen: h 'iian National Cement Workers' Federation --Shri C L. Dudhui. Advocate.
All India Cement Workers' Federation—S/Shn P- L Gandhi, Joint Secretary Dha^-idhar, General Secretary and Mrs Mehta, Advocate,
iNot^rnv • Cement. -
,
Dhanbad, Dated the V.ith August, 1064
AWARD
Tne^e arc two references in connection with the quantum ot bounsi payable for different years to the workmen oi the Associated Cement Companies Ltd. The financial year of the company beings from the 1st August, of one year and concludes on the :ilst July oi the next year. The Associated Cement Companies came into existence in. 193*3 alter a merger of several cement companies. It owns at present al"ocit 16 cement factories, two collieries as well as a Refractory Brick Works and Engineering Works at Shahabad. Ail the component parts ol the Associated Cement Companies Ltd., taken together, employ about 25,000 workers including about 543 officer;, throughout India in its Head offices and branches. It had twe- Factories m Pakistan also but its entire business in that country was taken over by the Government of Pakistan on the 12th March, 1905. It, therefore, eea'^d to have any business in Pakistan on and from that date
1 By its order No. 17/5/66/LRIV dated the 19th October, IOCS. the Central Government made a reference to the National Tribunal at Bombay for adjudi- cation of a dispute described in the schedule as given below —
SCHEDULE
"In respect of the workmen employed in the Head Office, Branches and Works including Quarries what quantum of bonus should be paid for the years 1962-63, 1903-04 and 1964-65?"
3 The above reference was numbered in the Bombay Tribunal as reference No 2(NT) of 1967. By the Ministy's Order No. 17/4/fi7-LRIII dated the 5th December, 1987. the reference was transferred for disposal to the National Tribunal at Dhanbad with me at* the Presiding Officer. In this Tribunal, this reference was numbered as N.T- reference No. 7 of 1067. The parties filed a compromise petition, settling their djspiite as to bouns for the years 19B2-63 and 1963-04. There was then a great deal of controversy between them in the first Instance as to the question whether the settlement had in fact been, arrived at. The management of the companies as well as the Indian National Cement Workers' Federation and various unions affiliated to that Federation supported the settle- ment as being full and final between the parties whereas one section of the Mancherial Cement Workers Union opposed the settlement. Ultimately, how- ever the oppnsition to the settlement was given up. The prayer before mo was that I should Rive an award in accordance with the settlement dated the 27th September, 1967 which would form part of my award. I accepted this praver and ^ave an award accordingly—vide my award dated the 35th A.pii1, 1963. Thi-* disposed of a part of N.T. Reference No. 7 of 1907 i.e. to the extent of bonus for the years 1962-63 and 1963-f54. This award has been published in the Gazette of India dated the 31st May, 1909. (S.O. No. 2047) at page 2171.
4 By its order No- 17/8/67-LRIII dated the 26th June, 1068, the Central Government ha^ made another reference to this National Tribunal in connection with bouns payable by the same companies to the workmen in respect of the year ll)8F,->5fi. The schedule to this reference is as follows • —
SCHEDULE
"Tn respect of the workmen employed in the Heart Office. Branches and Works including quarries of the Associated Cement Cornnpnies Ltd what quantum of bouns should be paid for the year 1985-66'"
SEC, 3(ii)] tUL GAZETlIi Ol INDIA: SEPTFMBhR. 13, 1969/JHADWA 12., W)\ 3941This reference has been numbered in this Tribunal at, reference No. N.T. 3 of 1968. In view of the fact that the question of quantum of bonus payable for two of the years in question namely 1962-63 and 1963-64 has already been decided by means of compromise between the parties, the question which I have to decide in respect oJ the two references namely N.T. reference No. 7 ol 1907 and NT. reference No. 'A of 1968 is vvhut bouns is payable to the workmen for the years l%4-6o und 1465-66. Before proceeding to consider these questions in detail, I may mention that both the parties have admitted in this cuse that bo'uns in rus- pect oi both the years in question ia payable under the Payment of Bouns Act- 1965.
ji. It is also agreed between the parties that, for each of the two years in qufestion i.e for 1964-65 and 1965-66. the company has paid the workmen approxi- mately 7 per cent of the basic sulary/wagcs/dearnesf. allowance. According to the management of the companies, the payment in 1964-65 amounted to a sum of ftfc 44 30 lakhs and the payment in 1065-66 amounted to a sum of Us. 43.60 Jakhs. The case of the company is that there was a deficit in the year 1964-G5 of Rs. 131-93 lakhs so that nothing was payable as bonus to the workmen by the company lor that year with the exception of approximately Rs. 23.90 lakhs as the minimum bouns (to 4 p.c. and there was a deficit of Rs 55-86 lakhs In the year 1965-66, so that nothing was payable as bouns to the work- men for that year with the exception of Rs. 26.72 lakhs as minimum bouns dO 4 p-C
6. I first take up the question of bouns payable for the year 1964-65.
7. Shrl C. Ii- Dudhia, learned Advocate for the Indian National Cement Workers Federation (heteinafter referred to as the Federation) has raised several points in connection with that year and they are all in serious controversy between the parties. I may shortly summarise the points. They are us follows :—
(i) Whether the total amount paid to the officers under the superannuation
scheme should or should not be added back to the profits?
(ii) Whether the profits ot the factories situated in Pakistan should or should
not be added back? Whether the losses arising from or e.xuonditure incurred in that business should or should not be deducted?
(lii) Whether the amouni. added by the Government in the price ol cement in fixing that price should be held to be subsidy for the purposes of rehabilitation, expansion and research and should be excluded from the profits?
(iv) Whether the management is, entitled to deduct the expenses incurred over the issue of debentures?
(v) There are general and other reserves of various kinds. Which are the amounts of reserves on which the return of 6% should be allowed under the Payment of Bonus Act?
(vi) Should the amount recomended by he Directors as one which should be paid out of the reserves as dividend to the share-holders be treated us the actual amount of dividend and deducted out of the reserves before dividend is actually declared by the share-holders, for the purpose of computing the 6% figure mentioned in Item No. 1 (lii) of the Third Schedule of the Payment of Bonus Act?
(vii) Whether the amount received by the company as an incentive payment viz. the amount of \Rs. 13J lakhs should be paid back and added for computing the profits?
iVili) Can any amounts be separately held to have been capital and reserves for the business in Pakistan which has now ceased to exist? (ix) What amount is deductible from the gross profits as direct tax which the employers are liable to pay for the accounting year for his Income, profits and gains during that year under Section 6(c) of the Payment of Bonus Act?
(x) Is the company entitled to any set off under Section 15 of the Act?
8 I proposed now to take up each of the above points in the order to which I have mentioned them above.
(I) Whether the total amount paid to the officers under the wperaunuatlon scheme should or should not be addpd to the profits'*
£642 THb GAZE1TK OF INDIA: SEPTHMBHR 13, J%9/BHADRA 22, 1891 |IJARI II—With efl'ccl from the 1st August, 1060, the company Introduced what is called ' "Superannuation Scheme' for officers drawing Ks. 500/- and above. The officers themselves do not make any contribution but the companies contributed 16 2/3% of the average of the basic salary of each officer for each year. This roiu-hly amouuts to about two months' salary. The amount is sent to the Life Insurance Corporation and certain benefits now to the officers. The company stopped pa'-mg profit bonus to the officers concerned. From 1964-65, however the company payt to the eligible officers the minimum bonus of 4%.
9. Shri S, N. Cooper has stated in his evidence as M.W. 1 In connection with the supernnuation scheme that Ext. W is a copy of the printed rules oi the officers' superanualion fund, payable to the Life Insurance Corporation ol India on accr ^nt of the superanuation fund every year, that the proviso to rule 4 sub-rule J Vidi- -cales that exemption or postponment ol membership can be allowed for a period not exceeding five years or grant of total exemption could be allowed initially when the scheme was introduced and that clause 4, sub-clause 2, makes jt clear that eligible employees joining the service alter the 1st August, 1960 have ne es- .sarily to become members of the superannuation fund. Other points which appear from his evidence are that the scheme was started us a result of some discus Ion which some representatives of the Life Insurances Corporation had with the tiien Managing Director of the Associated Cement Companies, Thev explained the advantages of the superannuation scheme to him and he d7r°ctPcf 1hpl a i r o^ t :1 scheme be prepared on the bat is, usually introduced by Lhe Lile Insurance Corporation- He also directed that, since the scheme was being Introduced lor the first time as suggested, by the Life Insurance Corporation, sailent advan1t_,'eh of the provisions of the scheme should be explained to the officers iuitiallv in order to find out whether a majority of the officers were In favour of such a scheme Accordingly, the then chief Accounatant called all the departmental heads to the hend office and explained the provisions and advantages of the scheme 1o them and requested them separately to call the officers working under each of Ihcm and to explain the advantages to them. These instructions was carried out and over 90% of the officers opted in favour ot the scheme. They were then told that the scheme would be introduced as and when the Commissioner oi Income T<.;s approved of the scheme but that, as a consideration for the same,, the offkers would be required to give up their bonus, In order to make the company's position safe, a declaration was obtained later irom some of the officers in the form ot the letter (ext M0). Mr Cooper has further stated that the company subsequently discontinued obtaining such declarations because, for several years. none of the members claimed bouns. Since it is a retliement benefit like "he provident fund, it is shown accordingly in the profit and loss account. For instance, he has pointed to item No- 3, "Salaries, Wages and Payments to and Provisions for employees" under schedule—2 • at page 32 of the profit and loss account (Ext. M.) Sub-item (b) under Item S is 'contribution to provident fund find other lunds'. He has stated that this item includes payments to the .superannuation fund.
bEC. 3(ii)J 1UU GAZ&TTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1 9 6 ; " / B H _ A O KA 22, 18-1 3 9 43fl.0} bo™* a nd t hat the Payment of Bonus Act cannot bo
a l1 of whom agreed together in order to establish the scheme for vehemently urged that the superannuation scheme is nothing but an alternative hl?T r p'^enis Held to comein conflict with it. In my opinion, there IK no substance in this argument. The first thins to be noticed is that the alternative payment under sub- secfion A of action M of the Payment of Bonus Act must an 'amount 01 bonus' a though it may be under a different iormula. There is no reason 1o suppose inst the amount paid to officers under the superannuation scheme 'is an amount or onus . The amount payable is fixed and cannot be varied. It Is not taxable Du. bonus which is paid is always taxable. The scheme has been brought Into exigence not by the Associated Cement Companies alone but by the Associated Cerent C ompames, the T.ife Insurance Corporation and the Commissioner ol l nt me L ax< c cor .erment of some benefits upon officers of the Associated Cement Companies in vie A of agreed contributions made on their behalf by the cement companies. Thi mrre fact that tile officers have to give up their bonus except the minimum bonus' pa, -li'li- under the Payment of Bonus Act cannot convert the payment made to tht Life Insurance Corporation into bonus. This conclusion is strengthened by tht 1 act that the concerned employees cannot touch or mortgage any part of the eu—rlhution made to the Life Insurance Corporation on their account
2 The entire facts leave no room lor doubt that the superannuation lund is a purely retirement benefit for an officer of the Associated Cement Companies. in he event of his death before drawing the benefits of thp scheme, those benefits go to his wife and/or members of his family.
\'\. In these circumstances, there is no escape from the conclusion thai Shri Di-.ihia's argument cannot be accepted. Hence the amount of Rfa- 12.H7 lakhs, which the Federation seeks to add to the profits cannot be so added.
14. Point No. 11 Whether the profits of the factories situated in Pakistan should
or "hould not be added back"!
Whether the losses arising from or expenditure incurred in that business should
or should not be deducted?
3944 T HE GAZEITH OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 22, 189J [PART I l-ls. Ext. MM shows that the total income and expenditure of the Pakistani business of the Associated Cement Companies Limited, was a sum of Us, 2,09,58,460.38 paise including a sum ot Rs. 49,11,445-52 paise brought down as gross profits (I.e. profits before depreciation, assets written off, taxation and bonus to employees,) and a sum of Rs. 6,86,144.fi9 paise as net loss. The total of the gross profits brought down and the net'loss amount to IJs. 55,97,"iOO.L'l paise. The Auditors, M/s. K. S. Aiyyar and Co , have certified that "the above figures stand incorporated in the combine] profit and loss account of the compan.y for the year ended 1st July, 1065". Ext. Ml2 shows, that the total receipts were Rs 40 13 lakhs though the company has shown this amount as losses of or expenditure relating to the Pakistani business. The companies have done this because 1hey ha\ e made a distinction between gross profits and net profits. It appears that the Second Schedule makes no such distinction for the purpose of calculation under it
17. fn view of the above certificate of the Auditor and in view of the clear provisions made in items 3(e) and 6(b) of the Second Schedule read with foot- note '2, it teems to me to be quite clear that the Pakistani losses or expenditure of the company and the Pakistani profits or receipts of the company have to be so added and/or deducted that no effect of either is left on the Indian balance- sheet and profit and loss account of the company. If, as stated by the auditors, the losses or expenditure of the company have been incorporated in the combine! profit and loss account, the only way by which the effect of showing the losses or expenditure can be removed is bv adding back that amount. It is also clear that, if the profits or receipts of the company from the Pakistani business, have been incorporated in the com bind profit and loss account, the only method by which its affect can be removed will be by deducting the amount. I may mention thni Ext. Mil shows the company's expenditure in Pakistan to be as follows:—
Provision for depreciation including depreciation of
(1)
loose tools.
(2) Good will and other fixed assets Provision for taxation. Provision for bonus to employees.
3,30,()3fi.00 4,35,'/R8.00 47,25,531.00 1,05.435.21 (3) (4)
The total of these four items conies to .
55,97,590.21
tf). tf the net loss of Rs. 0,86,144.69 yoes out, the balance which remains is 49,11,445.52. This amount must be deemed to be the amount of receipts from the Pakistani business within the meaning of item G(b) ol the Second Schedule That amount has, therefore, to be deducted.
19. Shri Dudhla has argued that the losses or expenditure relating 1O the business in Pakistan which amount to Rs. 6-86 lakhs should be added back. This is what he has done on behalf of the two Federations in Ext. MWl(a). Pie has, how- ever, not deducted the receipts relating to the business in Pakistan which amount in round figures comes to RE. 49.13 lakhs. In my opinion, it cannot be one sided The provisions oi both items 3(e) and 6(b) of the Second Schedule have to be given effect to at the same time. That will alone remove from the Indian balance- sheet and profit and loss account the effect of both losses or expenditure- and receipts from the Pakistani business. I, therefore, held that Rs. 6 RG lakhs should be added back as provided in item 3(e) and Rs. 49.13 lakhs should be deducted as provided in item 6(b) of the Second Schedule These are my conclusion on point No. 2.
20. Point III. Whether the amount added by the Government in t)ie price of
cement to fixing that prices should be held to be subsidy for the •purposes of, rehabi-
litation, expansion and research and should be excluded from the profits?
It appears from the evidence of Shri Cooper that the price of c°menf hns been •controlled by Government from 1943 or 1943 TnrilV corn"n<.ot.Ion= UIP* to be sit up for the purpose of calculating and recommending fixation of the price of cement from time to time- In 1958. the Tarifl commission recommended payment of rehabilitation allowance for seven companies; the allowance varying from one rupee to four rupees per ton. Altogether, rehabilitation allowance was ultimately given to six companies including the Associated Cement Companies Limited- The Tehabilltation allowance fixed for payment to the Associated Cement Companies Jri lflfil was a sum of Rs 2/- per ton. Income Tax is paid by the company on
ta^(,,)j J.IE GAZtrTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, l ^ W M D RA 12. .89, 3 9 45SLiff a l i X ^ a S I? wh& SmS0 wa°n "W A "****"""> allowance, including the rehabilitation a l l o *™ of If .Jf^f* by Gownmont. the price
or the rehabilitation allowance was concerned ^'n^vation so far as p^ merit
21. It appears that the Government thereafter allowed to the cement ronr amps an mc-iease in the price of cement to the extent of l\s. 4/- per ton net , e I'm from lax oi- Rs.. 0.10 gross i.e. subicct to tax. This increase was earrnarker foi expansion and wn^ realised by Caco from the customers of cement and then paid to the cemont manufacturers concerned- Thus, the company qot the reteuljr.n price from Caco instead ot Slate Trading Corporation during the dc-o-introl period from the lt,t January, 1900 upto the Hist January, 1967.
22. The Government referred in their correspondance with the cement coiTj-jtueK to the increased payments of Rs 2/- and later o£ Rs. 8.10 yross as rehabilitation allowance and expansion fjllowance. I may refer first to the resolution of G^-frn- ment, bearing No. CEM-8(27)761 dated the 31st October, 1961 which forms annexure VI to Ext M2 The prices of cement fixed for different man iisi'Lucr* have been mentioned In 1his annexure, The extra prices have also been mt.i'i.in. In paragraph tf(d), Government have stated: —
"(6) The above pricet are inclusive of an allowance of Tts. "2.OH per tome towards rehabilitation and other approved purposes such as research, development, etc. The present procedure applicable to rehabilitation allowance will apply in this regard".
Ir> sub-paragraph (g) of the fame paragraph i.e. G, Government have htaiert:-— *'(g) The resultant selling price of naked cement will be Rs. 94 00 per t'jnnv
plus excise duty".
In Uxlng the prices, Government have taken into account the in ten &1 that hai lapsed since 1st July. 1961. The above ex-works and selling prices aio being notified under the provisions oi the Cement Control Order and will be tfl'ective from 1st November, 1001. Goven-jment will continue to watch the performance oi' the industry in consonance with these decisions, and take sueh stcos as may be called for i-i the Interests oi consumers".
Annexure VII(3) to the same exhibit i.e. Ext. M2 is leller No. CEM-8C4)/61 dated the 27th September, 1962. In this letter, Government have mentioned some details of the strict control which they wished to exercise over withdrawal of the amounts of money to be paid in "(a) Development and Rehabilitation A^™ and (b) Research account, calculated at the prescribed rate', which .'hould thenceforward be paid into the respective accounts within 14 days ol the e*p>ry of each month. Some rules have been attached with the letter for the m a m W n ce and operation of (a) development and rehabilitation account and (b) re^arrh account, for cement industry. Rules 2 and 4 stand as follows :—
"2. Within fourteen days of the expiry of each month each producer shall pay into the 'Research Account" a sum of 10 nP. and into the pe^ eJop- men! and Rehabilitation Account' a sum of 95 nP. per tonne of cement sold In India during the month concerned. The balance of .\ nP. per tonne would be available towards tax liabilities. No such a, .ount ^hall be payable in respect of cement intended for export outside India".
3946 THK GAZE1TE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 22, 1891 \P\RY II—'23. Annexure IX to the affidavit (Ext. M3) Is Government's reply to a letter sent by the Cement Manufacturers' Association. It bears No. 9-15/G5-CEM.H dated the 28th December, 1965. Paragraph (h) of this letter refers to expansion. I may quote the whole ot this paragraph which is as follows.—
"(hj The net extra resources amounting to Rs. 4/- per tonne of cement despatches from 1st January, 1HC6 should be utilised to build up resources for the purposes of expansion only. The words "Rehabilita- tion anrl modernisation" occurring In para (i) and "production" occurring in line 10 of para (a) of the note circulated with this department's letter dated the lUth December, 1965 will accordingly be deleted. A separate proforma account should be maintained by" each producer under the hepd "Expansion Research Account" and this acxount should be credited at the rate of Rs. 4/- per tonne of all varieties of cement despatched from 1st January, 1966. Withdrawals from this fund will be made only for the purpose of expansion of cement unit/group, with reference to specific projects, either expansion of existing factories or for new undertakings, in respect of which letters ot intent have been obtained from Government and arc valid. Withdrawals lrom this account should be restricted to essential items related to expan- sion viz. purchase of plant and machinery and equipment. For meeting the expenditure on the other items which cannot obviously be met fully from this account the cement unit;, should use their own resources or obtain them from elsewhere- At the end of each quarter, the Cement Manufacturers' Association should furnish to the Govern- ment a consolidated statement showing accruals to the Account in respect of each unit, withdrawals if any, made from the account and the purposes for which such withdrawals have been made, and the closing balance at the end of each quarter".
Thu.s (he account which was called the rehabilitation and modernisation account K V; lo be called ''the expansion reserve account". The allowance was payable tc K'e cement manufacturers by Caco.
24 Shri Cooper has filed audited certificates marked Ext. M13(a) and IY113(b) sh-iVing that the expansion reserve was duly created and the expenditure which ua? incurred, thereon was In accordance with the Government's requirements. He ha^ admitted that in all the companies correspondence with the Government, the company spoke of the rehabilitation allowance and expansion allowance but never called It subsidy. He has further admitted that, even before the Tariff Commtsion, the companies always claimed rehabilitation and expansion allowance without ca'iinn the allowance as subsidy. He has then stated that the word subsidy was not used In any correspondence between the Cement Manufacturers and the Gn\ernment and that, when he has used the word subsidy in his examination in chief, he has put it down as his own interpretation of what, in his opinion, was actually allowed. He has further conceeded that, during the discussing between a team of Cement Manufacturers on one side and Secretaries and other officials of Government of India on the other, the manufacturers suggested that the amount oX Rs- 8 10 per ton should be called expansion subsidy but the Government officials replied that that would require parliamentary sanction and, therefore, the expres- sions 'expansion and rehabilitation allowance' should be allowed to stand. He has further admitted that the Cement Manufacturers used to get the amount of R^ 2/- pr"" ion and. during a later period, "Rs. 8.10 per ton as rehabilitation and expansion allowance from the consumers' and not from the Government but he has added thai they used to get the amounts because they had been added in the prices by the Government.
25. The first question which now arises js whether the amounts mentioned above were paid to the cement manufai hirers including the Associated Cement Companies Limited, as subsidy from the Government or from any body corporate established by nny law for the time bein" in force. Unless this uolnt is established hi the affirmative', the companies' case that it is entitled to a deduction of the total amount received by it on the basis of Rs. 2/- per ton at one time and Rs. 8-10 per ton at another must fall- A very strong point against the Companies is that, although the Government exercised very strict control over +V>e amounts received by the companies as mentioned above which thev called rehabilitation allowance or expansion allowance, Government officials refused to agree to the suggestion that those allowances should be called rehabilitation or expansion subsidy. It
SEC 3(ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969'BHADRA 22, li"91 3947is clear, therefore, that Government was not agreeable to the allowance "being called subsidy. I do not think that they could have been unaware of the fact that, if the allowance paid to the companies was subsidy, they might come under item 6(g) of the Second Schedule oi the Payment of Bonus Act and, on that basis the companies might become entitled to deduct the total amount from the gross profits for the purpose of bonus.
26. It JS not the company's case beiore me that they are entitled to deduction under item 6(g) of the total amount received by them from the gross prolits if the allowance was a mere allowance and was not a subsidy. In any ease, the bonus commission stated definiteJy in paragraph 10.10, 10.12, 12-1 and 11.5 that rehabilitation allowance should not be allowed to the mimagements as a prior charge. Shri Dudhia has read over extracts from the Parliamentary debates of September, 1964 showing that the then Minister of Labour spoke about rehabilita- tion allowance and said that employers could not huve both development rebate and rehabilitation allowance- Under section t!(b) of the Payment of" Bonus Act, employers are entitled to deduct as a prior charge any amount by way of develop- ment rebate or devclopmtnt allowance which he is entitled to deduct from his income under the Income Tax Act. This is obviously the reason why the legisla- ture did not make any provision in the Act for employers being entitled to deduct any amount as rehabilitation or expansion allowance- Shri Kollah has attempted to bring- the allowance under the name of subsidy merely for the purpose of being enabled to deduct the total allowance from the Gross prollts. In my opinion, this attempt is wrong, Inspite of the strict control over the income from the additional price added to the price of cement for the sake of rehabilitation or expansion, the Government had no power to deprive the workers of the bonus which under the terms of the Payment of Bonus Act, they became entitled to receive- The allowance was subject to income tax and the Government did nothing to get a provisions made to the effect that the allowance would be free from income tax. Thus, they did not allow any deduction in their own income- It is difficult, therefore, to presume that they contemplated that, Inspite of the provisions of the Payment of Bonus Act, the workers would not be entitled to have their full share of bonus.
27- For the reasons given above I disallow the claim of the companies to a deduction of Rs, 81.23 lakhs on the. basis that it was subsidy in the year 1064-65 and their claim for deduction of a sum of Rs. 229-50 lakhs on the same ground i for the year 1965-66.
28. Point Wo, IV. Whether the management is entitled to deduct the expenses incurred over the issue of debentures?
The expenditure over this item has been given in Ext. M19. It appears from this exhibit that stamp duty and other expenses over other items take together total Rs. 20-88 lakhs Shri Cooper has admitted in his evidence that, in para- graph 6 of the Director's report for 1964-65 (Ext. M), the Chiirmnn has stated that expenses on i^sue of debentures are capital expenses. He has asserted, however, that, according to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of India Cement Limited—(the refe/renoe ii 60 I.T-R- 52) the expenses are revenue expenses for income tax purposes. I am of opinion that the expenses incurred in tho issue of debenture would, according to the decision of the Supreme Court, arc revenue expenses. I, therefore, hold thai the employers are entitled. Lo deduct this amount frcni the gross profits,
2') Point Wo. V-—There are general and other reserves of various kinds. Which are the amounts of 1 Qsemat on which the return of 6 per cent .should be allowed under the payment of Bonus Act?
There are general and other reserves of various kinds. The leservei have been put under different names e-g deferred taxation reserve, plant reinstatement reserve, development and rehabilitation reserve, general reserve etc. It has been stated on behalf of the companies that different reserves have been created and the names of those reserves have been differently fixed in order to indicate the general purpose for which the reserves have been created but there is no water- tight compartment. Money can be freely transferred from one reserve to another so that the total amount of alL the reserves can be treated as general reserve, Shri Cooper has referred in his' evidence to two instances. Ho has said that deferred taxation reserve is merely a reserve to which the companies can fall back in case the taxation is higher, that it is rot a liability but is a reserve which the company can utilise in case of need and that, in order to prove this point, he can
3948 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 22, 1891 [PART II—show that the company has itself transferred money from taxation reserve to .general reserve- He has also added that the name of the reserve is merely an accounting terminology. He has pointed for instance to page 35 of the balance- sheet for 1964-65 (Ext- M). It appears from item 4 at page 35 that a sum of Hs. 30,000 was transferred from plant reinstatement reserve to the general reserve. Another instance which he has mentioned is that diilerent kinds of reserve have been shown at pages 28 and 29 of the balance-sheet for 1965-66 (Ext. Ml). Entries .at pa^e 28 show that an amount of Rs. 1,50,37,600 was transferred to the general . eserve from the deferred taxation reserve and an amount of Rs. 1,86,00,000 was transferred from the profit and losa account to the general reserve. He has •concluded that the transfers indicate that the plant reinstatement reserve and the other reserves are not water-tight nor are they ear-marked. He further says that ihe expansion reserve shown under item No. 7 at page 22 of Ext. Ml at 96,65,681 has been mentioned therein for the purpose of Government's satisfaction and that the company can, on its own, transfer the entire expansion reserve to general reserve-
30- There seems to be no material on the record which can lead to the conclusion that reserves kept under the name cannot be transferred to the general reserve. In view of the examples mentioned by Shri Cooper, I am satisfied that the reserves are not water-tight, or ear-marked and that an amount from one reserve is liable to be transferred to the general reserve etc- In these circumstances, I hold that the entire amount kept under reserves bearing different nomenclatures of reserves will be treated at, rt'orvet over whjch 6% will be allowed to the employers under item No. l(iii) of the Third Schedule as provided in section 6(d) of the Payment oi Bonus Act.
31. Point No. VI—Should the amount recommended by the Directors as one
•which should be paid out of the reserves as dividend to the shareholders be treated
as the actual amount of dividend is actually declared by the share-holders, for the
vurpose of computing the 6 per cent figure mentioned in Ited No. 1 (Hi) of the Third-
Schedule of the Payment of Bonus Act"!
The words used in item No- lull) of the Third Schedule appear to lend them- *elves to the interpretation that the employers would be entitled to deduction of 6% of their reserves as shown In its balancesheet as at the commencement of the accounting year". A company, however, knows, as do all the share-holders, that dividend would be paid out of the reserves shown in the company's balance- sheet at the commencement of the accounting year because that is the recommen- dation of the Directors and the share-holders, at their meeting, would ordinarily act upon those recommendations it is difficult for me to contemplate that a difference should be made between n company which shows its reserve at the commencement of the accounting year after deducting the dividend recommended by the Directors and another company which includes the dividend as so recom- mended by the Directors in the reserves and thereafter actually pays out the dividend In terms of the subsequent resolution of the share-holders. It seems, to me that the reserves of both the companies should be treated on one and the same footing- Dealing with the cases of Voltes and Volkarts of India Limited, I had to deal with two companies, each of which had dealt with the reserves in different manners as I have just indicated. In Voltas case, the reserves included the dividend which was likely to be declared by the share-holders on the Directors' recommendation but I said that, in fairness, It was right that 1h" reserves should be held to be the balance after deducting the dividend payable by the share-holders on the basis of lh" recomm^nflntinn of the Directors Tn my opinion, the present case is also onp '-hich the reserves should be held to be whit is left after deducting the ^'nd'Tid payable to the share-holders on the recommendation of the Directors
3? Point No. VII. Whether thp nmnnrt rpcc'wed b1" the romvtinv an an nceniive
•payment viz. the amount of Rs. V3-1/2 lakhs should be paid back and added for
computing the profits?
It seems that the Government of Irdia declared that J'ae+ories which produced more than a certain amount of cement in the yem 1964 would get an incentive pamyent, Six of the factories of the Associated Cement Companies Limited qualified for the incentive award along with some other factories. The A- C. C. Limited, was necordlnffly tfiven a sum of Rs. 13.54,000 as an Incentive payment and this amount was also £*iven to the companies by an extra amount being added to the price of cement psyable to it. The workers of Kymore raised a dispute to the effect that they were entitled to share in the payments made. The matter
SEC. 3(ii)] HIE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 195=> BHADRA 22, 1891 3949wab referred to Arbitrators- According to their award, 50% of the payment was to go to the employers and 50% to the workers. The amount of 50 per cent payable to the workers is in the process of being paid to the workers of all the six factories which qualified for the award of Incentive payment- The question which has now been raised is whether the amount of 50% payable to the employers should be included In the profits so as to be distributed to the workers as bonus. In my opinion, it will be extremely unfare to call upon one party i.e. the employers to bring out their share of the incentive payment unless the workers arc also called upon to bring to the hotch-pot their share of the incentive. That will mean that the workers of 6 factories who alone are to share 50% of the incei Jve payment among themselves should disgorge whatever they have got under the arbitration award so that that amount as well as the amount of the employers' share should be distributed among the workers of all the factories of the A. C- C. Companies to the extent of the allocable surplus i.e. 60 per cent. It seems to rr.e, how- ever, that this is not what is legally required- The incentive payment cannot be treated to be part of the gross profits so that an attempt should be made to calculate the net profits in accordance with the method laid down in the Payment of Bonus Act. The payment was an incentive payment and, when arbitrators have awarded 50% of the payment to the workers of 8 factories, the workers of other factories cannot be held to be entitled to have any part of it as bonus. In these circumstances, I hold that the claim of the Federation to bonus out of the amount of 6-77 lakhs is unjustified This claim is, therefore, disallowed.
33- Point No. Vill. Can any amounts be separately held to have been capital
and reserves jor the business m Pakistan which has now ceased to exist?
There is no material to show that the business in Pakistan had a separate capital and separate reserves- The business was in existence at the commence- ment of the accounting year, 1964-65, and the entire business was discontinued about 4i months prior to the last date of that accounting year i.e. on the 12th March, 1965. The audited balancesheet as of the 31st July, 1965 does not show any decrease in paidup capital and reserves as compared v/ith the position on the 1st August, 1964. This indicates strongly that there were no separate paid up capital or reserves for the Pakistan business.
No provision in the Payment of Bonus Act has been brought to my notice which lays down any method for adjustment of paid up capital and reserves of a company so far as business outside India is concerned. This also shows that the leRislature did not contemplate that there would be separate paid-up capital and separate reserves of a company for its business outside India. I hold accord- ingly.
34. Point No. IX. What amount is deductible from the gross profits as direct) tax which the employers are liable to pay lor the accounting year for their income, -profits and gains during that year under section 6(c) of the Payment of Bonus Act?
According to my Undine?- calculation has been mude as to the amount of direct tax which the employers are liable to pay for their income, profits and gains during the accounting year. It has been found to be Rs. 17'7-OD lakhs. This is therefore held to be the amount of direct tax
35- Point No. X. Is the company entitled to any set of] under section 15 oj the Act: —
Before I can answer this question, it will be necessary for me to calculate what amount can be held to be the allocable surplus in this case. For the purpose of this calculation, I propose to tuke the calculation of bonus f.'iven bv both parties in Ext. MWl(a) and also to give my findings. The chart as prepared by me in separate sheets is attached to this award. The chart lor the year 1964-65 shows that there is no surplus at all in the amount oi profits. There is, therefore, no question of the company beint; in a position to pay any bonus to the workmen. They had, however, to pay under section 10 of the Payment of Bonus Act 4% of the salary and/or wages earned by the employers during this accounting year as minimum bonus. Having already paid 7% of the sqlary and/or wastes of the employees, they hnve nothing fuither to pay-
36. The question which now remair is whether the company is entitled under section 15(2) of the Payment of Bonus Art to any set ofi. That sub-section reads :—
"15(2) Where for any accounting year, there is no available surplus or the allocable surplus in respect of that year falls short of the amount of
395° THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 22, 1891 [PART U—minimum bonus payable to the employees In the establishment under section 10, and there is no amount or sufficient amount carried forward and set on under sub-section (1) which could be utilised for the purpose of payment of the minimum bonus, then, such minimum amount or the deficiency, as the case may be, shall be carried forward for being set off in the succeeding accounting year and so on up to and inclusive of the fourth accounting year in the manner illustrated in the Fourth Schedule".
37- There has been a controversy between the parties on the question whether the employers paid the bonus to their employees voluntarily and gratuitously or at the request Qt the employees. In my opinion, this controversy is completely beside the point. In view of the words of the section, it is clear that the employ- ers must pay the minimum bonus to the employees in an accounting year in which there is no available surplus or no sufficient allocabje surplus at all. That was just the position in that accounting year. The employers have, therefore, paid the minimum bonus. According to section 15(2) of the Act, the employers would be entitled to a set-off in the succeeding accounting year and so on upto and inclusive of the fourth accounting year to the extent of the amount of the defi- ciency in the payment of the minimum bonus. The minimum bonus payable for this accounting year, 1963-04 has been calculated to have been Hs- 23.90 lakhs- The deficit being much larger, the whole of this minimum bous i.e. Rs, 23.90 lakhs will have to be carried forward for being set oft.
1965-66
38. I now take up the question of quantum of bonus payable for the year 1965-66. I will discuss the points relating to this accounting year under the same headings as for the year 1964-65.
Point No. I.—My answer for the year 1965-66 iti the same as that in the case of 1964-65,
Point No. II.—This point does not arise for the year 1965-66 as the business in Pakistan ceased to exist before the commencement of this year.
Point. III.So far as this point is concerned, my decision is the same as that in the case of 1964-65. As I have already mentioned, the companies claim to a deduction of the sums of Hs, 33.77 and Rs, 105-73 lakhs In this year as subsidy is disallowed.
Point No. IV.—This point does not arise in so far as this accounting year is concerned.
Point Nos- V and VI.-—My decision on this point of this ear is Ihc same as that in the year 1964-05.
Point No, VII—This point does not arise for this accountinQ year.
Point No. Vill.—My decision tor this accounting year is the sane a<; that in ths case of the accounting" year 1964-65.
Point No- IX.—According to my [hidings calculation has been made es to the amount of direct tax which the employers are liable to pay lor their income, profits and gains during this accounting year. It has been found to be Rs. 354.07 lakhs- I hold accordingly-
Point No. X.—Before I can answer this question it will be necessary for me to calculate what amount can be held to be the allocable surplus In this case. For the purpose of this calculation, I propose to take the calculations of bonus given by both parties in Ext. MW2(a) and also to give my findings. The chart as prepared by me in separate sheet is attached to this award- The chart for the year 1965-66 shows that the available surplus comes to Rs\ 62-07 lokhs. The allocable surplus at 60% of the available surplus comes to Rs. 37.42 lakhs, Set off has to be deducted to the extent of the amount carried over from the last accounting year to be set off which is Rs. 23.90 lakhs. The net allocable surplus is, therefore, Rs, 13-52 lakhs. Bonus which has been paid for this accounting year amounts to Rs. 43.00 lakhs, but I am not concerned with the whole of that amount because that amount was paid on the basis of 7% of the salary and/or wases. The amount with which I am concerned with is the amount of minimum bonus paid on the basis of 4% of the salary and/or waftes- The amount of minimum bonus which was paid by the company to the employees was a sum of Rs. 26.72
SEC. 3(ii)] "I HE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 22, 1891 3951lakhs. From this amount has to be deducted the total amount of net allocable surplus at Rs. 13.52 lakhs. After this deduction, the balance which remains is Rs. 13.20 lakhs. This is the amount which will now be carried forward to the succeeding accounting year and so on up to and inclusive of the fourth accounting year for being spt off.
39. This is my award for the bonus payable by the employers to the employees of the Associated Cement Companies Limited, for the years 1964-65 and 1965-66. Let a copy of this award be submitted to the Central Government under section 15 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Sd./- KAMLA SAHAI,
Presiding Officer-
Computation of Gross Profit for the accounting year ended 31st July, ifSj, as per tAe Seumd Schedule of the Paymmt of Bonus Act, 1965
3 9 5 2
Amount accepted by botb Amount accepted by me
T H E Amount computed by the Amount computed by the two Federations in lacs company in lacs
parties in lacs
(Tribunal) in lacs
170-18
1 Net Profit as per Profit and loss account . . ..
170-18
2 Add back provision for :
G A Z E T T E O F
I
(a) Bonus . . ..
44-05
44-OS
N D
I
Amount paid towards officers
A
:
superannuation , . . 12*37
(b) Depredation
299-36
299'36
S E P T E
(c) Direct taxes, including the provisions (if any) for previous accounting years . . .
202*60
202-60
M B E R
1 3
,
2-28 2C4-88 Income tax deducted at source on dividesd and interest on Investment . . ..
2-28
204-88
1 9 6 9
/
84'20 (i) Development Rebate Reserve
84-20
(*) Any other Reserve
632'49 TOTAJ. OF HEM NO. 2 .
632'49
B H A D R A
TOTAL OF ITEM N O. I & 2
802-67 2 2
,
3 Add back also :
1 8 9 1
(c) Bonus paid in respect of pre-
[
vious accounting year —
" •
P A R T
I I
—
(b) Donations in excess of the am°unt admissible for Income- Tax
0-57
0-57
S E C
J ( () Any annuity due or commoted value of any annuity paid under the provision of section 280 D of the Income Tax Act during the Accounting year
U
) ]
1
K
I
1
G A Z E T T E (,/i) Capital expenditure (other than capital expenditure on scientific research which is allowed as a deduction under any law for the time being in force relating to direct capital) and capital losses (other than losses on sale of capital assets on which depreciation has been allowed for Income Tax of agricultural Income-Tax
9-41
O F
9-41
I
N D
I
6'86 —
(e) losses of, cr expenditure re- lating to any business situated outside India
<5'86
A
:
TOTAL OF ITEM N O. 3 .
16-84
TOTAL OF ITEM N O. I, 3 & 3 .
819-51
S E P T E
4 Add also Income, profits or gams (if
0-40
anv) credited directly to reserves .
0-40
M B E R
1 3
I *
I
'
* (1) Capital receipts and capital profi ts (includrn g profits op the sale of capital assets on which depreciation has not been allowed for income- tax or agricultural income- tax) . . ..
• •
(ti) Profits of, and receipts relating to any business situated oufside India
M U A D R A (iii) Income of foreign concern from investments outside India! . . ..
2 2
,
TOTAL OF ITEM NO. 4
0-40
0-40
5 TOTAL OF ITEM NO. I, 2, 3 & 4
819-91
1 8 9 1 3 9 5
, ,
3 9 5 4
Amount accepted by me
(Tribunal) in lad.
Amount accepted by both parties in lacs
Amount computed by the company in lacs
T H E Amount compoted by the two Federations in IKS
6 Deduct :—
G A Z E T T E
O F
I
N D (".) Capital receipts and capi- tal profits (other than profit on the sale of assets on which depreciation has been allowed for income- tax or agricultural income- tax . . ..
I
A
:
• •
49-13
(ft) Profit of, and receipts relating to, any business wtuated -outside India
S E P T E
••
• •
(?) Income of foreign con- cerns from investments outside India .
M B E R
1 3
,
1 9 6 9
/
B H A D R A
2 2
, (d) Expenditure or losses (if any) debited directly to reserve other than : (0 Capital expenditure and capital losses (other than losses on sale of capital assets on which depreciation has not been -allowed for income-tax or agn cultural income tax .
(ri) Losses of any business
1 8 9 1 situated outside India •
[ {iii) Net payments from
0-oS Works welfare benefit reserve
P A R T
(io) Debenture issue ex-
29-96
29-88
I I
29-88
penses
—
S " C
3
( i i ) ] (i) In case of foreign concern proportionate administrative (over-head) expenses of Head Office allowable to Indian busi- ness
H
I
E
G A Z E T T E
3-20 (/) Refund of any direct tax payable in any previous account- ing years, and excess provisions, if any, or previous accounting year relating to bonus, deprecia- tion, taxation or development rebate or development allow- ance, if written back f .
O F
I
N D
I
A
:
ig) Subsidy, if any received from Government or from any body 'corporate established by any law for ihe time being in force
S E P T E
V,2-29
TOTAL 01 ITLM N O. 6
M B E R
1 3
*
,
! • )
$
:
>
73y62 7 Gross profit for purposes c| bonus (item No, 5 mini'* Hem No. 0) as per the Second Schedule
,
Less •—Sums deauctable undcrsec- tion 6 of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 :
R H A D R A
2 2
, (a) (t) Depreciation under sub-
l
K V
t bcction (1) of section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961
292-44
3 9 5
*
Amount computed by i
Amount accepted by me
\mount accepted by both
3 9 5 6
parties in lacs
the company in lacs
(Tribunal) in l ys Amount computed by t he two Federations in lacs
T H E
(ti) Allowance in respect of
8-52
G A Z E T T E scientific Reseaich und>;r itctiou 35 of .'he Income- T ax Ace, 1961
O F
112-26
1 1 2 - 20 (b) D-V-i^pmear Rsbatf •
I
129-54
23O'OI
CO D irt cr taxes
N D
177-99
••
I
A
:
1 3 8 - 12
I 6 2 - 1I
162-11
(d) Return at 8 - 5% on paid1 up capital . . ..
• *
S E P T E
M B E R
16-16
S i 6 - i8
62 86 (e) R eJu r n a r 6% on Reserve a^ at 7-8-64 (Total rfisf.rve Rs. 1376-53 l a t hs minos dividend R-.. 22S - g j l a k h s ^ R s. 1,017-63 takhs
76-59
1 3
,
Deficit . . ..
78-56
1 9 6 9
/
N IL A!!ocable surplns—60%
r N et Piofit as p er Profit a nd loss
B H A D R A account . . . ..
187-94
2 2
,
3 Add back provision for :
1 8 9 1
45-QO
; (a) (1) Bonus . . ..
45-00
[
(ti) Amount paid towards officers
..
13-88
superannuation
P A R T
I I (b) Depreciation . . t
335-17
335-17
—
S B C
.
(c) Direct taxes, including the provisions (if any) for previous accounting years .
309-83
3
( i i ) ]
1 Income tax deducted at source on dividend and interest oa investment . . ..
2-48 3I2'3i
2-4J 3H-3I
H E
93-98 (i) Development Rebate Reserve
93-98
96-66 ie) Expansion Reserve
96 66
(/) Any other reserve .
..
G A Z E T T E
883-12 TOTAL OF ITBM N O. 2 .
883-13
O F
1071-06
I
TOTAL OF ITEM N O. I & 2.
N D
I
A 3 Add back also i
:
(a) Bonus paid in respect of pre-
vious, accounting year .
• -•
(6) Donatirnin excess of ihu
cro3 amount admissible for Ipcome- Tax
S E P T E M B E R
1 3
, (c) Any annuity due or commuted value ot atiy artn'oitv paid under the provrioa of section 2S0 D of the Income Tax Act during the accounting- '-e-ai
1 9 6 9
/
B H A D R A
2 2
,
1 8 9 1 (cf) CaphalexTendicure other than caprtai expenditure on scientific research which is allowed as a deduction unier any law for the time being in force relating to d're
I2'55
12-55
3 9 5 7
-
Amount accepted by both Amount accepted by me
parties m lacs
Amount computed by the two Federarioas in lacs
Amount computed by die
company in lacs
(Tribunal) in Jacs
T H E
(e) Loses of, or expenditure relating to any business situ- ated outside India
G A Z E T T E
O F TOTAL OF ITEM N O. 3
12-63
I
N D
I TOTAL OF ITEM N O. I, 2 & 3.
1083-69
A
:
4 Add also income.profits or gains (if
0-42
any) credited directly to reserves.
0-42
S E P T E M B E R
1 3
, (1) Capita] receipts and. capital promts (including promts on the sale of capital assets on which depreciation has not been allowed for income-tas or agri- cultural income-tas)
• •
* •
1 9 6 9
/
..
m •
* *
• •
(") Profits, of and receipts relat- ing to any business situated outside India
(to) Income of foreign concern
B H A D R A
,.
from investments outside India
2 2
,
(iv) Net accerlion to Works We?
O-O5
O-O5
fare Benefit.
1 8 9 1
[
0 47
Total of ifcm No, 4
0-47
P A R T
1084' 16
I I 5 Total of item No. 13 2,3 & 4
—
.
6 Deduct :
S C
,
< „ >
, (a) Capita] receipts and capital profits (other than profit on the sale of assets on which depre- ciation has been allowed for income-tax or agricultural in- come-tax.
(6) Profit of, and receipts relat- ing to, any business situated outside India
(c) Income of foreign concerns
T U B G A Z E T T E
• r
•
••
O F
I from investments outside India (&) Expenditure or losses (if any) debited directly to reserve other than :
H
I f c (t) Capital expenditure and capital losses (other than losses on sale of capital assets on which deprecia- tion has not been allowed for income-tax or agricul- tural income-tax.
(s) Losses of any business
S E P T E M B E R
situated outside India.
1 3
,
, , (e) In case of foreign concern proportionate administrative (overhead) expenses of Head Office allowable to Indian bus i- ness-
(0 Refund of any direct tax pay-
W B H A D R A
S
.
" • able in any previous accounting years, and excess provisions, if any, or previous accounting year relating to bonus, depre- ciation taxation or development rebate or development allow- ance, if written back.
3
9 5 "
3 9 5 0
Amount computed by the company in lacs
Amount accepted by both parties in lacs
Amonnt accepted by me (Tribunal) in bes Amount computed by the two Federations in lacs
T H E (g) Subsidy, if any received from
G A Z E T T E Government or any body corpo- rate established by any law for the time being inforce. (t) Subsidy allowed by Govern- ment in tbe cement pries earmarked for development and rehabilitatian.
O F
33-77
I
N D in) Subsidy allowed by Govt. in the cement price earmark- ed for expansion.
I
195-73
A
229-SO
:
TOTAL of item No. 6
1084-16
7 Gross profit for purposes of bonus (item No. 5 minus item No. 6) as per the Second Schedule.
Less : Sums deductible undar sec- tion 6 of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 :—
S E P T E M B E R
(a) (t) Depreciation under sub-
1 3
,
306-47
306-47 section (1) of section 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. ("} Allowance in respect of
1 9 6 9
/
9-15 125-30
361-71
9-15 125'3O 354-O7
227-85
scientific research under section 35 of the Income- Tax Act, 1961 (b) Development Rebate (c) Direct taxes (d) Retnrn at 8-5% on paid up
B H A D R A
14.8-94
172-93
capital
172-93
2 2
,
1 8 9 1
5-87
68-82
(e) Return at 6% on Reserve as at 1-8-64 (Total Reserve Rs. 1276-53 lakhs minus dividend Rs. 228-90 lakhs— Rs. 1,047-63 lakhs
54" l7
[
1022-09
P A R T
I I Available surplns—60% AUocable surplus—60% of the above
—
62-07 37-42 [No. 17/5/66-LR-rV.]
SEC. 3(ii)J THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 22, 1891 39^1New Delhi, the 1st September 1969
S.O. 3102.—In pursuance of section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 at 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the following award of the -Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad, In the industrial dispute between the employers in relatii^n to the Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Post Office Kothagudem, Andhra Pradesh and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on the 25th August, 1969.
BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (CENTRAL) AT HYDERABAD
PRESENT:
Shri Mohammad Najmuddin, M.A., B.L., Chairman, Industrial Tribunal.
Hyderabad.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES NOS. 38 AND 48 OF 1968
BETWEEN :
Workmen of Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Kothagudem Collieries, Andhra Pradesh.
AND
Employers of Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Kothagudem Collieries, Andhra Pradesh.
APPEARANCES:
Sri M. Komanah, General Secretary of the Singaiem Colherics Workers' Union, Kothagudem, for the two claimants in the two Disputes. Messrs. K. Srinivasamurthy, Secretary oi Federation of A. P. Chambers of Commerce and Industry, and M. V. Ramakrishna Rao, Asst. Personnel Officer, S. C. Coy, Ltd,, for the employers in the two Disputes.
AWARD
It is convenient and feasible to dispose of these two Industrial Disputes by a single award. These two disputes were referred to me by the Government of India in its Ministry of Labour, Employment & Rehabilitation (Department of Labour and Employment). That in I.D. No. 38/68 was referred by Order No. 7/1/68-LR II dated 22nd June, 1968. The issue as per Schedule appended thereto is this; —
Whether the Management of the Singareni Colliene.s Company Ltd., Post Office Kothagudem Collieries, (Andhra Pradesh) was justified in terminating the services, of Shrj M. Dharma Raj, Welder, main Work- shop, Kothagudem Collieries, with effect from 27th July, 1947? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled?
The dispute in I.D. No. 48/68 was referred by Order No. 7/3/68-LRII dated 28th -August, 1960. The issue as per Schedule thereto is this: —
Whether the action of the Management of Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Kothagudem, in terminating the services of Shri Gulam Mohamnad Soil, Welder, main Workshop, with effect from 14th December, 1967 was justified? If not, to what relief tho workman is entitled?
The Singareni Collieries Workers Union thiough its General Secretaiy is party to both the references. The statement of claim in each case was filed by and under the signature ot Mr M. Komamh, General Secretary of the Workers Union. The other party to thp two references is the Management, Slngaroni, Collieries Company Ltd. The rounLer m each case was filed by and under tlu- 'ignalure of Mr. M. Vasudevan, Deputy General Manager.
2. By order dMerl 23rd May, 19(51 D'lair.T.uaj who is the claimant m I.D. No. 38/68 wa • appointed sis "apprentice -welder vnth Category III emoluments in the main workshop for a period of two years". By subsequent oider dated !if\tli July, 1963 Dharmoraj was appointed a.s "apprentice welder with Category IV emolu- ments in the main workshop for a further period of two years". Ir both the above orders it is staled that "his absorption in the Company's sc-vkf would depend upon his suitability and availability of vacancies". There was a third order dated 28th July, 1965. According to it,'"the services of Shri M. Dharmaraj, Category IV apprentice welder, mam workshop. Kothagudem, is extended for two years with effect from 26th July, 1965". By letter dated 28th June, 1967 Dharmaraj was
3962 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 22. 1891 [PART II—informed that his "temporary appointment as apprentice welder" would be com- pleting by 26th July and that thereafter his name would be removed from the rolls of the Company with effect from 27th July. It is stated in the statement of claims filed on behalf of Dharmaraj that he was a qualified welder, that he was appointed as welder and that he had worked as such upto 26th July, 1967 and that he was removed from service with effect from 27th July. This action on the part of the Management is characterised as discriminatory in that several trade apprentice welders and I.T.I, trained welders who had been taken as apprentices in the years 1963 and 1964, have been absorbed permanently in the employ of the Company. It is claimed that the Company should similarly absorb Dharmaraj. It is pointed out that although the orders appointing him had refer- red to him as apprentice welder, he had in fact workc-d as welder, that the said designation was mentioned m the pay sheets and that he had also been earning annual increments in Category IV wages. The prayer is for reinstatement with retrospective effect with back wages.
3. The Management filed counter to t>ay that it was only as apprentice welder that Bharmsraj was taken as per the three orders mentioned above and that therefore was no question of his being an employee as such in the service of the Company. It is explained that what was terminated by order dated 28th June, 1967 was not his services as employee but his period of apprenticeship. It is denied that Dharmara.l was working as a welder. It is pointed out that there was no obligation on the part of the Management to absorb apprentices and to take them into the regular employment of the Company. Since according to the Management it was not a case of removing Dharmaraj from service, it is pointed out that any question did not arise of justification or othewise of "termination of his services". It is further pointed out that the reference "seems to have been made on a mistaken impression" that the Management had terminated his ser- vices as an employee, and therefore the reference "ought to be rejected on this ground alone." Lastly, it is stated that if Dharmaraj was found suitable and up to the mark "he would have been recruited or taken as a permanent employee subject to vacancies". The suggestion seems to be that Dharmaraj was not found suitable at the end of six years.
4. By order dated 27 August, 1D6M Gulam Mohammad Sofi who is the claimant in I.D. No. 48/68 was appointed as "apprentice welder on category IV emolu- ments". By order dated 14th December, 1967 he was informed that the Company had thereby "terminated his apprenticeship". It is stated therein that as per Clause 13(a)(ii) of the Certified .Standing Orders of the Company he is given 15 days notice effective from 15th December and that on the expiry of the said period of 15 days his services would "automatically stand terminated", i.e., as from 30th December, 1967. It is stated in the statement of claims that Sofi was a qua'ified welder, that although the order of appointment stated that he was being- appointed as apprentice welder, he wvs in fact working as a welder. It is pointed out that he was described as welder in the pay-sheets and that he had been re- ceiving annual Increments in Category IV. It is claimed that his appointment was neither t' apoiary nor for any specified pe?'iod and that therefore termination of his service' atter n continuous period of service for about five years was ille- gal. The action of die Management in this behalf is characterised as discrimina- tory in that tho^e who hod been appointed in tho subsequent years, viz., in the yea.s 1963 and 19(34, had been ab.L orbed -J^ permanent welder in the employ of the Company. It -<; therefore p-"d > TI thn'. the Company hr directed to reinstate the claimant with back wages with c;lect from 1st January, 1968,
5. The Management filed counter to sav that Gulam Mohammad Sofi was only taken as an apprentice in order to enable him to leain work as an apprentice "till his apprenticeship was terminated by an office order dated 14th December, 1967". It is denied that lie was an employee of the Company, and it is stated that the reference "seems to have been made on a mistaken impression" that the Manage- ment had terminated his services as an employee. That being so, it is pointed out that "the question of goin^ into iustification or otherwise of his termination does not arise". It is therefore requested that "on this ground alone the reference ought to be rejected", The counter proceeds further tq say that on merit., also there was no case for the Tribunal to interfere, It is pointed out that in that Sofi was "appointed as an apprentice welder, it implies that he was not qualified to be a welder at the time of his appointment and the appointment was Intended to enable him to learn the trade". It is further pointed out that in many instances the period of apprenticeship exceeds five years and more and therefore there was "nothing unusual if Sri Sofi was retained for over four years". The allegation of
SEC 3(ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 22, 1891 3963discriminatory treatment is denied. It is slated that it was only the I.T.I, candi- dates who were recruited subsequently that were absorbed in the permanent em- ploy of the Company. As to the reason why the I.T.I, candidates were absorbed permanently into employment and as to why that was not done in the case of Son, it is explained as follows: —
Since Sri Soft was still a learner at the time of appointing I.T.I, candidates, and has not attained any proficiency, naturally his case could not be considered for absorbing him in the vacancies that occurred at that time If Sri Soft was found suitable, he would have been recruited or taken as permanent employee subject to vacancies
iju.-itly, it is stated that as a matter of fact a large number of welders was surplus and therefore the Management was not in a position to take Soft into service of the Company.
6. When these two disputes came up for enquiry, a joint memo was filed by Mr. K. Sriuivasamurthy for the Management and by Mr. M. Kumariah lor the two claimants that one batch of evidence may be taken in both the disputes. I had said at the inception that it is convenient and feasible to dispose of both the disputes by a single award. The material aspects in both the disputes are similar. One batch of evidence has been recorded. There would be this single award in both the disputes One witness was examined for the Management in both the cases, He is S. Kameswararao, Mechanical Engineer at the main workshop of the Company at KothaRudem. Exs. Ml to M9 were marked on the side of the Management. Three witnesses were examined on the side of the two claimants. W.W.I is M. Dharmaraj who is the claimant in I.D. No. 38/68. W.W.2 is Gulam Moh.imi.iid oOii wno is the claimant in I.D, No. 48/68. W.W.3 is one G. Laxmiah who is working as a welder in the main workshop of the Company at Kothagudem. Ex.s. Wl to W20 were marked on the side of the claimants. I would refer to the relevant documents during discussion. I heard arguments of Mr. K. Srinivasa- murthv for the Management and of Mr. M. Kumariah lor the two claimants, Dharmaraj and Son.
7. Ex. Ml dated 23rd May, 1961 is the order by which Dharmaraj was first appointed as apprentice welder with Category III emoluments in the main work- shop for a period of two years. Ex. M2 dated 26th July, 1963 is the succeeding order by which Dharmaraj was again appointed as apprentice welder for a period of two years, but this time it being with Category IV emoluments. Ex. M3 dated 26th July, 1065 is the third order by which the services of Dharmaraj were "extended f(br two years with effect from 25th July 1965" as apprentice welder m Category IV. Ex. Ma dated 28th June, 1967 is the order by which Dhurmaraj was told that his "temporary appointment as apprentice welder" for two years would be complete by 26th July and that his name would be removed from the rolls of the Company with effect from the said date. It is seen from these docu- ments that Dharmaraj was thus in the service of the Company as Welder for a little over six years. It will also be noted that throughout he had been referred to In tho^e documents as apprentice welder. By Ex. M6 dated 29th August, 1963 Gulam Mohammad Sofl was appointed as apprentice welder on Category IV emoluments to T"Jik in the main workshop, It will b-3 noted that anv period is not specified in Ex. M6. By Ex. M7 dated 14th December, 1967 he was informed tntit his apprenticeship was thereby terminated, it being 15 days notice under Standing Order No. 13 (a) (ii) of the Standing Orders of the Company. It will be seen that Soft was in service for a little less than 4^ years.
8 In the main, what is required to be determined is what was the status or position of Dharmaraj and Soft when by Ex. M4 dated 28th June, 1967 the former was told that his name would be removed from the rolls of the Company with effect from 27th July and when by Ex. M7 dated 14th December, 1967 the latter was given notice under Standing Order No. 13(a)(ii) and was told that thereby his apprenticeship was being terminated. It will be noticed that both of them were in Catefiorv. IV as Welders at the time their services were terminated by Exs. M4 and M7 respectively. Even from the inception Soft was taken on Category IV emoluments. During the last four years of his service Dharmaraj was in Category IV, whi'e in the first two years he was in Category III. There is thus the fact that both Dharmaraj and Son were taken as Welders in specified cate- gories. On the other hand there is the circumstance that in the various orders I have referred to in the paragraph above they are referred to as apprentice welders. The question Is how to resolve the situation created by the above mentioned fact and the circumstance. If we are dealing with an apprentice as such, then there would be no cuestion of his being an employee of the Company, and therefore
39there would be no question of termination of employment. If there is no question of termination of employment, then any question of justification of the same cannot be canvassed. If on the other hand it could be said to be a case of Dharmaraj and Sofi being in the employment of the Company, then it would mean that by orders Exs. M4 and M7 their services were being terminated; and, in that event, the justification of the same could be canvassed. It will be noted that in the counters it filed the Management had taken the stand that, as they were more apprentices learning a trade, it was not a case of removing them from service and that, inasmuch as the issue in each case was justification or otherwise of re- moving them from service, the reference Itself would not be competent The ans- wer to this particular plea would depend upon the finding I would give on the question whether at the time the orders Exs. M4 and M7 were passed Dharmaia.} and Sofl were only apprentices as such or they should be deemed to be in the employment of the Company. If the latter, the reference would be competent.
9, Dharmaraj (W.W.I) stated from the witness box that he was working as welder and that he was working as such in the erection work and also in the aerial rope way. He denied the suggestion in cross-examination that he was mere- ly assisting the welders when work on the aerial rope way was going on. He also said that he was one of the ten welders in the erection work of the power house. Earlier in his evidence-in-chief the witness had said that the Comppny had put him to a trade test when first he was appointed in the year 1961. There is an Institution called Model Blacksmithy Centre at Khammam run by the Depart- ment of Industries and Commerce, Andhra Pradesh. Ex. Wl dated 1st May, 1961 is certificate from that Institution to Dharmaraj that he had undergone training for eleven months there in blacksmithy, turning and welding. It will be noted that this certificate was prior to Ex. Ml dated 23rd May. Ex. W2 is a regular offi- cial certificate, a sort of degree, to the same effect. It therefore means that at the time he was first appointed by Ex. Ml dated 23rd May, 1961, Dharmaraj had previous training as welder. Gulam Mohammad Sofl (W.W.2) stated from the witness box that he had even from the inception worked independently as welder in the tub section and that later when he was sent to Yellandu in 1965 he worked as we'der in the tub section there. He denied the suggestion in cross-examination that he was not given independent welding work and that he was merely assisting the regular welders or was doing only rough weldiijg jobs. Like Dharmaraj, Sofl also had been through, the Model Blacksmithy at Khammam. Ex. W13 dated 20th March, 1963 is certificate to say-that Son had received training in that Centre in blacksmithy, turning and welding for a period of eleven months. Ex. W14 is the regular official certificate in that behalf, like Ex. W2 which Dharmaraj had pro- duced in respect of himself. It means that Sofl also had previous training as welder at the time he was first appointed by Ex. M6 dated 29th August, 1963. The witness said that he was given trade test when he was first appointed. W.W.3 is one Lakshmlah who is a Welder in the main workshop of the Company at Kothagudem. He testified that both Dharmaraj and Son were working indepen- dently as Welders and that he had assisted when they were given trade test. Ho denied the suggestion in cross-examination that he did not so assist. As I said, Dharmaraj and Soft had already training as welders. Therefore it was not un- likely that they were given trade test when they were appointed as apprentice welders.
10. More than what W.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 had testified, it is the testimony of M.W.I, Kameswara Rao, that is significant. He is Mechanical Engineer at the main work- shop of the Company at Kothagudem. He stated that Dharmaraj and Sofi were apprentices till the last, that apprentices were not given regular welding work and that in order to enable them to learn the work they are given some rough kind of welding work which did not involve any precision. We had it from M.W.I that apprentices, whether general apprentices or trade apprentices, are not given emolu- ments in any particular category but that they get stipend during the period of apprenticeship it being- Ha, 50 for the general apprentice and Rt. 60 for the trade apprentice. The following is what M.W.I said in cross-examination: —
In the case of Dharmaraj what was paid to him was not stipend, and we allowed him wages in Category III and later in Category IV in lieu of stipend at the request of his father. Dharmaraj was getting bonus and other benefits which other workers got. Stipend apprentices arc not paid any benefits. In the pay-sheets of 1964 Dharmaraj is shown as apprentice welder. In the years 1966 and 1967 until his removal, he is shown as welder in the pay-sheets. Except Dharmaraj and Sofl, I am not aware of any apprentice welders being paid category wages at the same time. There were none such.
SEC. 3(U)1 THE GA2£TTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 22. l l tt 39*5Later in cross-examination M.W.l said about Soft that he was shown as welder in the pay sheets of the years 1966. 1967, that Ex. Wll is the bonus card for him and that Ex. W12 is his provident fund slip. The witness proceeded to state further as follows: —
Except Dharmaraj and Soft who were getting category emoluments, the other apprentices were getting stipend. Both of them were getting incre- ments.
The witness proceeded to state in cross-examination that except Dharmaraj and Son all apprentices, whether trade apprentices or general apprentices, had signed indenture forms and that Dharmaraj "and Soft were being given all benefits that were being given to permanent workers. The witness also added that any trade apprentice or general apprentice was not given any benellt that was given to Dharmaraj and Soft.
11. It is clear from the testimony of the Mechanical Engineer (M.W.I) that in every respect Dharmaraj and Sofl were on the rolls of the Company as regular welder-employees. It is true that in Exs. Ml to M4 and in Exs. M6 and M7 Dharmaraj and Soft are repeatedly referred to as apprentice welder. I do not think that beinfi so referred would detract from the basic fact that in every other respect they were on the rolls ol the Company as regular employees as welders. They were not apprentices as such at the point of time the order Ex. M4 was passed in respect of Dharmaraj and the order Ex. M7 was passed in respect of Soft. Those two orders were without doubt instances of termination of services. I will say that there was no justification in terminating their services by the orders Exs. M4 and M7. Any reason, much Jess any valid one, is not given in either document for the action taken. It is stated m the counters filed by the Management that Dharmaraj and Sofi were not found upto the mark and therefore they were not absorbed in regular employment and their services were terminated. Such is not the reason given either in Ex. M4 or in Ex. M7. It was also pleaded by the Management, the same having been stated from the witness box by the Mechanical Engineer (M.W.I), that there was surplus of welders and therefore there was no room for absorbing Dharmaraj and Sofi in permanent employment. If there was surplus of welders, the Management had the remedy to retrench the surplus personnel with due regard to the principle of last come first go. But the alleged surplus of personnel is not a ground for arbitrarily, such being the nature of the orders Exs. M4 and M7, terminating the services of Dharmaraj and Sofi. The case of the Management is not that the orders Exs. M4 and M7 were passed as a measure of retrenchment. The Management filed the Trades- men Agreement Ex. M9 which deals with fixation of cadre strength in each de- partment. That may be so in respect of cadre strength in any particular depart- ment, but, as admited by M.W.I in cross-examination, that document is not in respect of appointments.
12. So far as Sofl is concerned, it was argued by Mr. Srinlvasamurthy that his was a case of discharge simplieitor, and that therefore the same cannot be ques- tioned. Standing Order 13(a) of the Standing Orders of the Company deals with 'termination of employment". It is provided that employment could be terminated by the Management or by the employee by one month's notice in writing for the monthly staff and two weeks notice for other employees, If, as contended by the Management, Sofl was only an apprentice, the question of any such notice did not arise. It was only on the assumption that he was an apprentice welder that such a notice was given. But on that assumption such a notice was not necessary But Ju st because there is a notice under sub-clause (a) (ii) of Standing Order No 13, the Management cannot now turn round during arguments and say that the notice in question should be treated as discharge simplicitor. Mainly, the question is whether Dharmaraj and Sofi were only apprentices as such at the points of time the orders Exs. M4 and M7 are passed or whether they were in the regular em- ployment of the Company. My finding is that they were in regular employment of the Company. There was no justification for terminating their services.
v.t he i.SBue in UD- No. 38/68 is that the Management was not1?." ^fi lnid i n? u n.d e r 27th JTnv iqfi7 T ^ T^ t he , le n5 ?es of D h a r m a ra j, Welder, with effect from
December, 1367 was not justified. That b e iM so, the Manirement i" e K w t e d to
39&5 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 22, 1891 [PART II—take him back into employment with retrospective effect with back wages and attendant benefits.
Award passed accordingly.
Given under my hand and the seal of the Tribunal, this the lGth day of August, 1969.
(Sd.) M. NAJMUDDIN,
Industrial Tribunal.
APPKNDIX OF EVIDENCE Witnesses examined for Employers
Workmen W.W.i : M. Dharmaraj. W.W.2 : Gulam Mohammad Soil. W.W.3 : G. Laxmiah.
M.W. i : S. Kameswara Rao,
Documents exhibited for Workman
Ex. W i : Certificate dated 1-5-61 issued bv the Superintendent of Model Blacksmithy Centre Kharnmam to Dharmaraj.
Ex. W 2 : Certificate dated 20-6-63 issued by the Department of Industries and Commerce A.P., in respect of Dharmaraj in Blacksmithy, etc
Ex. W3 : Letter dated 1-4-65 addressed by the Union to the Company to confirm Mr. Dharmaraj. Ex. f 4 : Reminder dated 20-4-65 addtesied by the Union tothe Management in respect of ES.W3 Ex, W 5 : Reminder datedi6-5-65 addressed bythe Union to the Company to make confirmation of Mr. Dharmaraj.
Ex. W 6 : Reminder dated 1-6-65 addressed by the Union to the Company for the confirmation of Dharmaraj.
Ex. W 7 : Do. dated 20-6-65 Do. Ex. W 8 : Letter dated 8-7-67 addressed by the Union to the Company for the 'confirmation oi Dharmaraj in Category 7.
Ex. W 9 : Letter dt. 21-8-67 addressed by thcUnion to the Asstt. Labour Commissioner (Central) Hyderabad for conciliation proceedings as Mr. Dharmaraj was removed from service.
Ex. W 10 : Conciliation proceedings dt. 30-12-67 sent to the Govt. of India by the Asat. Labour Commissioner (C) Hyderabad lor adjudication.
Ex. W 11 ; Identity book given by the Company to Mr. Guiana Mohammad Sofi. Ex. W 12 : Annual statement of provident fund account of Soft. Ex. W 13. Certificate issued by the Superintendent of Model Blacksmithy Centre, Khammam, to Mr. Gulam Mohd. Sofi that he has undergone training.
Ex. W 14 : Certificate issued by the Industries and Commerce, A.P., to ^ Gulam Mohammad Soil in Bkckamithy.
Ex. W 15 : Letter dt. 5-4-65 addressed by the Company to Soft and three others referring as welders.
Ex. W 16 : Letter dt. 3-12-65 addressed by the Management to Mr. Sofi informing that his wages, would be given proportionately on 2-12-65.
Ex. W 17 : Gate pass issued by the Management to Sofi describing him as w"elder, Ex. W 18 : Bonus card of Son for quarter ending 31-12-64. Ex. W iS(a) : Bonus card of Sofi for quarter ending 33-6-64. Ex. W 19 : Certificate issued by the Resident Engineer, Patel Engg. Co. Ltd., to Soli Ex. W i^Ca): Certificate issued by the Resident Engineer, Patel Engg. Co. Ltd., to Son. Ex. W 20 : Ideacity book given by ihe Company 10 Mr. Dharmaraj.
Documents exhibited for Employ cri
Ex. M 1 : Appointment order dt. 24-5-61 of apprentice welder in respect of Dharmaraj with category III emoluments.
Ex. M 2 : Appointment order dt. 26-7-63 of Dharmaraj. Ex. M 3 : Appointment order dt. 26-7-65 that Mr. Dharmaraj, Category IV apprentice welder'* services were extended for another two years.
SEC. 3(ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 196VBHADRA 22 ^ 1 3 9 67Ex. M 4 : Termination order dated 28-6-67 in respect of Dharmaraj. Ex, M 5 : Letter dt. 23-7-65 by the Company to the Union stating that Mr. Dharamaraj's Services stand terminated with effect from 26th July, 1965.
Ex. M 6 : Appointment order as Apprentice Welder with Category IV emoluments dt. 29-8-68 in respect of G. M. Sofi. Ex. M 7 : Termination order of Sofi dt. 14-12-67. Ex. MS : Company's Standing Order?. Ex. M9 : Memo, of Settlement arrived at during conciliation proceedings held on 3-2-61 at Kothagudem by the Conciliation Officer, Secundrabad.
(Sd.) M. NAJMUDDIN,
Industrial Tribunal.
[No. 7/1/68-LRIIJ New Delhi, 2nd September 1969.
S-O. 3703—In pursuance of section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the following award of Shri R. J. T. D'Mello, Arbitrator, in the industrial dispute between the raising Contractors of Raihara Group of Mine=j of Bhilai Steel Project, Bhilai, and their workmen re- presented by Samyukta Khadan Mazdoor Sangh, which was received by the Central Government on the 22nd August, 1969-
In the matter of arbitration under section 10A of the Industrial Disputes Act In the industrial dispute between the raising contractors in the Rajhara Group of Mines of the Bhilai Steel Project, Bhilai and their workmen regarding fixation of norms of production of the piece rated workers.
PRESENT
Shri R. J. T. D'Mello, Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central)- Arbitrator Representing employers:
1. S/Shii Manoharlal Jain,
For M/s. Manoharlal Jain & Co., Aridongri Mine
M/s. K. L. Goleha, Dalli Mines, M/s. Premraj Gundhar, Kokan Mines, M/s. Hamirmal Jain, Dalli Mines, P.O. Dalli-Rajhara, Distt. Durg (M-P.)
2. S/Shri Anoopchand Jain.
For M/s. A. C. & Co., Dalli Mines,
M/s. N. C. Jain & Co., Dalli Mines, P.O. Dalli-Rajhara, Distt. Durg (M-P.)
3- S/Shri Murlidhar Lohla,
For M/s. Adarsh Minerals, Dalli Mines,
P.O. Dalli-Rajhara, Distt. Durg (M.P.)
4. S/Shri Pukhraj Jain,
For M/s- Hindustan Miners, Dalli Mines
P.O. Dalli-Rajhara, Distt. Durg (M.p!)
5- S/Shri Lakshmilal,
Transport Contractor, Dalli Mines,
P.O. Dalli-Rajhara, Distt. Durg (M.P.)
6. S/Shri Tikamchand Jain,
For M/s. K. C. Jain, Kokan Mines,
P.O. Dalli-Rajhara, Distt. Durg (M.P.)
7. S/Shri N- D. Kamble, Kokan Mines,
P.O. Dalli-Rajhara, Distt. Durg (M.P.)
8. S/Shri S. C. Tripathl, Manager,
Rashtriya Khadan Mazdoor Sahaknri Samiti Ltd., Dalli Mines '
P.O.-Dalli-Rajhara, Distt. Durg (M.P.)
9. S/Shri S. K. Dutta, Manager,
Khadan Mazdoor Sahakri Samiti Ltd-,
P.O. Dalli-Rajhara, Dlsti Durg (M-P.)
Representing workmen;
l. S/Shri S. K. Sanyal, President,
Samyukta Khadan Mazdoor Sangh (AITUC), P.O. Rajnandaon (M.R)
3968 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 22, 1891 [PART 11—2. S/Shrl P. K. Thakur. Vice-President,
Samyukta Khadan Mazdoor Sangh (AITUC),
3. S/Shrl Prakash Roy, General Secretary,
Samyukta Khadan Mazdoor Sangh (AITUC),
4. S/Shri Jibon Mukherji, Secretary,
Samyukta Khadan Mazdoor Sangh (AITUC),
5. S/Shri P. B. Chakravorty, Secretary,
Steel Workers' Union (AITUC), Rajhara Branch,
P.O. Dalli-Rajhara, Distt- Durg (M.P.) ti. S/Shri P. K. Sengupta, General Secretary,
Khadan Mazdoor Congress (Ind),
P.O. Dalli-Rajhara, Distt. Durg (M-P.)
7. S/Shri N. S. Ghadge, General Secretary,
Chhattisgarh Khadan Mazdoor Union (HMS)
P.O. Dalii-Rajhara, Distt- Durg (M.P.)
8. S/Shri S. B. Singh, General Secretary,
Mine Workers' Union (Ind.),
P.O. Dalli-Rajhara, Distt. Durg (M.P.)
Shri M. B. Bhadhurl, Assistant Superintendent, Ores, Mm"s and Quarries and Shri M. R. Raju, Senior Labour Officer (Conciliation) B.S.P., Bhilai were likewise present.
STATE:
INDUSTRY :
Madhya Pradesh
Iron Ore
AWARD
By an agreement dated 5th December, 1967 published under Department of Labour and Employment's Order No. 36/44/67-LRM dated 6th January 1968 the following dispute between the various raising contractors of the Rajhara Group of Mines of Bhilai Steel Project and the representatives of the various unions as mentioned above was referred for my arbitration under Section 10A of the Indus- trial Disputes Act: —
''Is there a necessity to flx up norms of production for:
(a) Raising a blasted ore and float ore; (b) Transport loading and unloading of trucks; (c) Despatch by loading of railway wagons; and (d) Mechanical and manual drilling and blasting.
for the piece rated workers employed by the contractors in the lion Ore Mines of Bhilai Steel Plant to ensure payment of wages as recom- mended by the Wage Board for Iron Ore Mining Industry? If so, wh^t should be the norms and the relief the workers are entitled to?"
It was also provided in the Arbitration Agreement that I should make my Award within a period of three months otherwise it will be open to parties to choose another arbitrator.
2. On receipt of the reference I addressed the parties on 31st January, 1968, colling upon them to submit their statements of the case (endorsing copies to each other) as well as their comments on each other's statements. Til] 20th February, 1968 only one contractor viz. Shri Manoharlal Jain, Dalli-Rajhara, requested in this letter dated 5th February 1968, for the extension of time by 15 days to submit his statement. The General Secretary, Khadan Mazdoor Congress, Dalli-Rajhara In his letter dated 13th February 1968, submitted that the General Manager of Bhilai Steel Plant of Hindustan Steel Limited, P.O. Bhilai, be also impleaded as one of the purties to the dispute. As statements from most of the parties were not received, the date of giving the award was extended by Mutual consent of the parties by three months from 5th March 1968.
3- Thereafter the date of giving the Award was further extended by mutual consent of the parties from time to time and the last date for making the award is now 5th September 1069. During this Intervening period, statements were re- ceived from most of the employers and the unions and the hearings were held at Bhilai. The unions viz. Samyukta Khadan Mazdoor Sangh, (AITUC) Khadan Mazdoor Congress (Independent). Steel Workers' Union (INTUC) Chhattisgarh
SEC. 3(ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADP.A 22, U'.l 396>Khadun Mazdoor Union (HMS) and Mine Workers' Union (Independents have sub- mitted that in consideration of the changed circumstances there Is no necessity ati present to fix any norms of production and an award may be given accordingly Mott of the employers likewise have submitted that there is no necessity to fix any norms of production under this reference.
In the aforesaid circumstances, I record a 'no dispute' award in this references
NEW DELHI;
Sd/- R. J. T. D'MELLO,
Dated the 18th August, 1969. Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner
(Central) and Arbitrator.
[No. 36/44/67-LRIV.l
New Delhi, the 3rd September 1969
SO. 3T04—In pursuance of section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 194T (14 of 1047), the Central Govrenment hereby publishes the following award of the Central Govrenment Industrial Tribunal, (No. 2), Dharbad. In the industrial dispute between the employers In relation to the South Goviridpur Colliery of Shri H. I. Pathak. Post Office Katrasgarh, District Dhanbad, and their work- men, which was received by the Central Govrenment on the 25th August, 1969.
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO, 2) AT DHANBAD
PRESENT
Shrl Nandagiri Venkata Rao, Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO. 247 CF 1967
Tn the matter of an industrial dispute uncler Section 10(1) (d) of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947.
PARTIES
Employers in relation to the South Govindpur Colliery of Shrl H. I- PathaK,
Post Office Katraskgarh, District Dhanbad.
AND
Their workmen
APPEARANCES :
On behalf of the employers.—Shrl S. S, Mukherjee, Executive Committee- Member, Indian Colliery Owners' Association-
On behalf of the workmen.—Shri Shankar Bose, Secretary, Colliery Mazdoor Sangh.
STATE : Bihar
INDUSTRY : Coal.
Dhanbad, 20th August, 1969
Camp: CALCUTTA.
AWARD
The Central Government, being of opinion that fin industrial dispute exists between the employers In relation to the South Govindpur Colliery of Shri H. I. Patrick. Post Office Katrasgarh, District Dhanbad and their workmen, by its order No. 2/79/67-LRII dated 22nd July 1967 referred to this Tribunal under Section 10 (l)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Aft, 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 South Govindpur Colliery, (Post Office Katras- garh, District Dhanbad) of Shri H. I. Fathak, was justified In refus- ing employment to Sarvashri Jagdish Singh, Bishundeo Singh, Mohan Rewani, Kinu Rewani, Paltan Mahato, Piayag Mahato, Surju Singh and Goku] Rewani, Trammers and Shri Prayag Rajwar. Pick Miner with effect from 13th September 1P66, and in subsequently dis- missing from services Sarvashri Mohan Rewnnl, Kinu Rewani. Paltan Mnhato, Prayaf M-\h"*o, S^rju Sir_sh a^c1 Gokul Rewani with effect from the 3]st October, 1966? If not to whnt relief are the workmen concerned entitled?"
3970 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 22, 1891 [PART I I-2. Workmen as well as the employer submitted their statement of demands.
3. Admittedly, Shrl H. I. Pathak Is the owner of South Qovindpm Colliery The case of the workmen is that the first 8 of the afflected workmen were iram- rners and the 9th affected workman a pick miner, working as permanent work- man in the 15th middle seam of South Govindpur colliery (hereinafter referred to as the colliery). The management closed the workings of the seam without any reason and without notice with effect from Ulh September 1968 and the workings in the seam were restarted on 20th September 1969. The management refused to mark attendance of or pay lay-off compensation to the affected work- men although they were reporting for the work every day. Aiter the seam re- started working the affected workmen were not aJlowed to resume duties Intpite of their repealed prayers. AlJ, the affected workmen are active membrs of the Colliery Mazdoor Sangh and under the leadership of the union had been agitating for correct payment of their wages much to the displeasure of the management. The management had already launched a campaign against the union and in order to crush the union and to break the morale ot its members, dismissed, dis- charged and otherwise threw out of employment more than 150 workmen, out of whom the disputes with regard to ISO workmen have been pending before various tribunals for adjudication. In the end the statement of the workmen stated that the action of the management in denying work and wages to all the 9 aliected workmen with effect from 13th September 1966 and in terminating Uie services of the six affected workmen at SI. Nos. 3 to 15 was unjustified, mala Jide, Jn contravention of the provisions of the Standing Orders, in violation Of the principles of natural Justice, in breach oi Section 33 oi! the Industrial Disputes Act and amounted to victimisation and/or unfair labour practice. The state- ment of the employer deals seperately with the 0 affected workmen. According to the statement the affected workman at SI. No. 1, Shii Jagdish Singh was not working at all at the colliery at the relevant time and he had worked only for 26 days in 1965, that the aifected workman at SI. No. 2, Shri Bishundeo Singh was only a temporary workman and his services were terminated by the letter dated 12th September 1966, that the affected workman at SI. No. 0, Shri Prayag Rajwai* did not resume his duties at any time after the lay-off was lifted on 20th September 1966 and preferred to remain absent and that the aflected work- men at SI. Nos 3 to 8, S/Shri Mohan Rewanl, Kinu Bewanl, Paltan Mahato. Prayag Mahato, Surju Singh and Gokul Rewani were working as trammers, vhey recorded their attendance in the night shift ol 13th September 19U6, worked for hali an hour and then in a conserted move refused to carry on their normal duties, recorded their attendance on 14th September 196(3 but refused to perform their duties, notices dated 15th September 1966 were Issued to them asking them to carry on their normal duties and when they refused to carry on their normal duties inspite of repeated requests, the management by notice dated 16th Sep- tember 1966 laid off the workmen of the seam on account of the strike, giving information whereof to the Regional Labour Commissioner (C) Dhanbad in form O dated 20th September 1066. It is further stated that on account of the above Individual chagre-sheets dated 17th September 1986 were issued to the six affect- ed workmen and when they neither received the charge-sheets nor submitted ex- planation a departmental enquiry was held against them with due notice and as a result of the finding of guilt bv the enquiry officer their services were termi- nated by the letter dated 31st October 1966. According to the employer the •departmental enquiries were proper, just and In accordance with the principles of natural justice. It was denied that the affected workmen were victimised to any extent. The workmen were represented by Shri Shankar Bose, Secretary, Colliery Mazdoor Sangh and the employer by Shri S S. Mukherjee, Executive Committee Member, Indian Colliery Owners' Association. On admission by the employer Exts. W. I to W. 4 for the workmen and on admission by the workmen Exts. M 1 to M 1 for the employer were marked. On behalf of the workmen 5 witnesses were examined and Ext. M 59 was marked. On behalf of the em- ployer one witness wag examined and Exts. M 8 to M S3 were marked.
4. I propose to deal with cases o* the affected workmen at SI- Nos. 1, 2 and 9 at first. The affected workman at SI, No. 1 is Shri Jagdish Singh. The case ol the workmen is that this aflected workman was a permanent trammer for last 7 years in the colliery and that he was stopped from work with effect from 13th September 1966 for no reason. The employer has pointed out that the workman was not at all working at the colliery during th0 material period and that he had worked only for about 26 days in 1965. As pointed out by the workmen the dispute was raised before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C) Dhanbad by the union through their 2 letters, Ext. W 2 and W. 4. In reply to Ext. W 2 the employer hart stated in his letter, Ext. W 3 that there was no workman in his employ by name Shri Jagdish Singh. Thus, both the parties had sufficient
SEC. 3(ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 22, 1891 3971notice to establish their respective cases with cogent evidence. Among the docu- ments filed on behalf of the workmen there Is none to support their case in this respect. The affected workman at SI. No. 1 Shrl Jagdish Singh is examined as WW 1. It is his evidence that he was appointed as a trammer in the colliery on 17th March 1059 and worked as such till 13th September 1966. He has pro- duced neither his appointment letter nor any other record to show that he worked in the colliery from 17th March 1959 till 13th September 1966. He says that his attendance was noted in a pocket book and not, in a register and that his wages were.paid on loose sheets inste ad oi on the payment register. The workmen did not even summon the so-called pocket book and loose sheets. According to him he was working since 1959 and yet he did not complain in writing to anyonP in respect of his attendance being marked in a pocket book and wages paid on loose sheets. On his own showing during this long period of 7 years he had reported orally only once to the Manager- MW. 1 is the Manager of the colliery from 1960. He "has deposed that "the affected workman at SI. No. 1, Shri Jagdish Singh worked in the colliery only foi 26 days in 1965. There is not even, cross-exami- nation on this point. The evidence of MW. 1 io corroborated by the attendance registers for 1965 and 1966, Exts. M 1 and M 2- Exts. M 50 and M 51 are their extracts. During the year 1965, the attendance register shows that thP affected woikman at SI, No. 1, Shrl Jagdish Singh had put in only 26 days of attendance and during the year 1966 he had not attended to woifc 011 a single d.:y. These registers are marked on admission by the woikmen. The attendance registers have some importance nttacned to them, because they are statuttry resists/s required to be maintained under Section 43(,i) of the Mines Act, H'5? and Rule 78 of the Mines Rules. 1955. When the affected workman at SI, No., 1 Shri Jfig- dish Singh appeared as WW. 1 a suggestion was put to him that he worked in the colliery only upto 19th June 1965 and that since then h? w,i., working at Dharmaband colliery. He emphatically asserted that he did not work in Dharm- aband colliery at any time. But his own colleague has betrayed him, WW 2 says that the allcctet' workman at SI. No. 1, Shri Jagdish Singh was working at Dharmaband colliery since 3 or 4 years as a chaprasi and that WW 2 also wab living with him at Dharmaband colliery. Shri Shankar Bose, the learned repre- sentative 0! the workmen tried to elicit something favourable from the Witness and re-examined him. In the re-examination nothing favourable emerged ex- cept that since prior to his dismissal from thc colliery the affected woikman was living at Dharmaband colliery. On this material it cannot be held that the affected workman at SI. No. 1, Shri Jagdish Singh was a trammer working at the colliery till 13th September 1966, that he was stopped from working on and from that date and that it wa, not justified.
5. In respect of the affected workman at SI. No. 2, Shrl Bishundeo Sragh also the case ol the workmen is that he was a permanent trammer on 13-9-1966 and that he was stopped i'rom work without assigning any reason. The employer has pleaded that the affected workman was only a temporary workman and as such, his services were terminated by the letter dated 12th September, 1966 with immediate effect. The copy of the letter is Ext. M3. The letter says that the aflected workman was a temporary trammer, that the management did not need bis services any longer and that they would stand terminated with immediate effect. The letter further stated the affected workman would be paid one week's wages In lieu of notice and that he should collect the same along with other dues, If any on 13th September, 1966. The letter is admitted by the work- men. The envelope containing the letter sent by registered post is returned and it is Ext, M4. Exts Ml and M2 are attendence registers respectively for 1965 and 1966 and their extracts are respectively Exts. M50 and M51. These attend- ence registers show that the affected workman, Shri Bishandeo Singh had put In only 134 days attendence in 1965 and 130 days in 1966. Ext, M2 also shows that in the week 17th September, 1966 he attended only on 2 days and he did not attend to work on any day after the week ending during in the year. The attendence registers, Exts. Ml and M2 also are marked on admission by the workmen, The Manager, MW.l has deposed that the affected workman was a temporary trammer, that hisj services were terminated with effect from 12th September, 1966 and that he was no more in service on 13th September, 1966 He further deposed that the affected workman had received his full and final payment on 22nd March, 1969 under the voucher, Ext. M8. The witness has also identified his own signature and the thumb impression of the affected work man on the voucher, Ext. M8. On this point the witness Is not cross-examined. The affected workman at SI, No. 2, Shrl Bishandeo Singh is examined as WW.2 Having deposed that on 13th September, 1966 the lamp Issue clerk did not allow him to resume duty, he staled that he worked only upto 1965. May be that he made a mistake in giving the year as 1965, but he says that he was dismissed
3972 T HE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 22, 1891 [PAHT II—from the time when the other affected workmen, S/Shri Jagdish Sinfih, Mohan Rewaiii and Kinu Rewani were dismissed. Shri Mohan Rewani Is the affected workman at SI. No. 3 and Kinu Rewani is the affected workman at SI. No. 4 Admittedly, these 2 affected workmen were dismissed with effect from 31st October, 1966 as a result of domestic enquiries. It is not the case of the work- men that this affected workman at SI. No. 2, Shri Bishundeo Singh was also dismissed with effect from 31st October, 1966 or that any domestic enquiry was held against him. Before the Conciliation Officer also the employer had pleaded that the management had dismissed the affected workman with effect from 12th September, 1966 and that he was not in the employee of the employer on 13th September, 1966. The documents filed on behalf of the workmen do not support the case of the workmen that the affected workman at SI. No. 2, Shri Bishundeo Singh was a permanent workman or that he was in service on 13th September. 1066. Hence, the case set up by the workmen in this regard cannot be accepted. It is rejected.
6. As regards the affected workman at SI. No. 9, Shri Prayag Rajwar the workmen have pleaded that he was a permanent workman and that along with others he was stopped from work from 13th September, 1968 for no valid reason. The employer did not deny that the affected workman was a permanent work- man or that he was In service of the employer on 13th September, 1966, It is pointed out by the employer that when the affected workmen at SI. Nos. 3 to. 8. in a concerted action refused to carry on their duties, the management issued notices, charge-sheets, held domestic enquiries and ultimately dismissed them by the letters, Exts. M40 to M45. If the effected workman at SI. No. 9, Shri Prayag Rajwar also was one of those who absented from duty from 13th Septem- ber, 1966 there was no reason why he should also have not been dealt along with the affected workmen at SI- Nos. 3 to 8. No notice or charge-sheet was issued to him. Nor was any domestic enquiry held against him. He was not dismissed from service. When it is not denied that he was a permanent workman and admittedly he was not dismissed, he must be deemed to continue in service. The employer says that this affected workman did not report to duty on and from 20th September, 1966 when the lay-off was lifted. According to the em ployer trammers In each shift of the seam stopped working since the night shift of 13th September, 1966 and as such he had laid off 62 out of 73 workmen of the seam Ext. M46 is information conveyed to the Regional Labour Commissioner under Rule 75A of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 and Ext. M9 is the list of the 62 workmen so laid oil. The affected workman at SI. No. 9. Shri Prayag Rajwar Is not one of the 62 workmen said to have been laid off. It follows, therefore, that the affected workman was nefther laid off nor was he dealt with for absenting from 13th September, 1966. although he was a perma- nent workman. The contention of the employer is that the affected workman did not report to duty on and after 20th September, 1966 when the lay off was lifted. From the letter to the Regional Labour Commissioner, Ext. M47 it appears that the lay off had ended on 20th September, 1966. But how was the affected workman to know that the lay off was lifted and that he was to report to duty on and from 20th September, 1966. No notice was issued to him in this respect. Against the pleading of the employer MW.l has comeforth with a new case, stating that since prior to 13th September, 1966 he was absenting. This evidence against the pleading cannot be accepted. Even then MW.l d'd not say from vhat date he was absenting or what action did the management take against him for absenting without leave or permission, which is a misconduct in terms of clause 18(d) of the Standing Orders, Ext. M58. Relying on the attendence register. Ext. M2 and its extract, Ext. M51 it is argued that the affected workman did not attend to his work at any time after the week ending 25th June, 1906 But having checked the attendence registers I found the extract, Ext. M51 not correct to this extent. I have found from the registers that the affected workman had attended to his duty during the week from 21st August. 1966 to 27th August, 1966 in the shift from 4 P.M. to 12 midnight and during the week from 28th August 1966 to 3rd September, 1966 in the shift from 12 midnight to 8 A.M. Thus, the argument Is devoid of hnsis. If really the affecled workman ab-ented from duty either from the alleged or anv other date, he being a permanent workman, it could not be expected that the management would not take any action against the misconduct committed by him, the misconduct for which ho could even be dismissed and set up the plea wr^-i a dispute is raised for not permitting him to resume duty. In the result, I do not find any -justification for the employer in refusing employment or due wages to the affected wo-kman with effect from 13th September, I960.
SEC. 3(ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 22 lfiVi 39737. In respect of the affected workmen at SI. Nos. 3 to 8 the case of the employer is that charge-sheets were Issued to them for commuting misconduct and as the result of domestic enquiries held against them in accordance with the principles of natural justice they were dismissed from services with effect from 31st October, 1966. It is pointed out that out of the six affected workmen, affected workmen at SI. Nos. 3, 7 and 8 had their duties in the day shift and affected workmen at SI. Nos. 4, 5 and 8 in the night shift on 13th September, 1966 and 14th September 1966. After recording their attendence in the shifts they did not perform their duties. Thereafter they did not report to duty at all. On 15lh September 1966 the management Issued notices to the affected workmen and sent them by registered post, asking them to join duty immediately, but the letters were returned undelivered. Then charge-sheets were issued to them on 17th Septem- ber, 1966. These letters also were returned undelivered. Shri K. B. Upadhyaya, Cashier-cum-Head clerk held separate domestic enquiries against the six affected workmen. Shrl Upadhyaya! isjsued notices to the affected workmen on 28th September, 1966 fixing the date of enquiry on 3rd October, 1966. As the affected workmen did not turn up on 3rd October, 1966 for the enquiry he Issued fresh notices on 13th October, 196G fixing the dates of enquiry on 25th October, 1966 and 26th October, 1986. These notices were served. But the affected workmen did not turn up for the enquiry. Consequently, Shri Upadhyaya held the en- quiries separately exparte and submitted his reports finding the affected workmen guilty of the charge, Then all the six affected workmen were dismissed from service. The workmen in their statement have denied that the affected work men had left their work on 13th September, 1966 or 14th September, 1966. They also denied having received the notices dated 15th September, 1966 or charge- sheets dated 17th September, 1966. They have admitted receipt of notices of enquiry dated 28th September, 1966, but stated that they were received on 4th October, 1966, while hearing of the enquiry was fixed on 3rd October, 1966. Nothing is said In the statement regarding notices of enquiry "lated 13th October, 1966. MW. 1 has proved all the above notices and charge-sheets. The notice dated 15th September. 1966 is Ext. M5 and the returned notices in their envelopes are Exts. M6(l) to M6(6), the charge-sheets are Exts. M10 to M15 and their series, the notices of hearing Issued on 28th September. 1966 are Exts. M.16 to M.21 and notices of hearing Issued on 13th October. 1966 are Exts. M22 to M2T and their acknowledgements Exts. M28 to M33, In their letter. Ext. W14 to the Assistant Labour Commissioner the Secretary of the union had admitted receipt of notices, Exts. M22 to M27 but stated that they were not received in time. WW. 5 the affected workman at SI No. 7 has In evidence that on ?5th October. 1966 they had received the notice and identified hi? signature and the signature of Shrl Anirudh Dubey. the Secretary of the union on the acknowledgement, Ext. M32. All the acknowledgements. Exts. M28 to Ext. M32 bear the signature of Shri Anirudh Dubey also alone with the date 24th October, 1966. It follows that the notices Exts. M22 to M27 fixing the date of pnquiry on 25th October, 1Q6R an workmen have filed a copy of a letter said to have been addressed by the nffeetod workman at SI. No. 8 and others to the Partner of the colliery comnlsinvri" that thf charge-sheets were not received bv them. The letter Is not admitted bv 1h^ employer. No attpmnt was made to call for the original letter from Ihe employ =r or to produce the office enny and nrove It according to law. 5 of the affected vork- men are examined as WW 1 to WW-5. But none of them has spoken a word unout this alleged letter. The statement of the workmen, that the affected workmen had
974 T HE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 22, 1891 [PAST II—not received the charge-sheets at all also does not appear to be true. WW-5 has admitted that he had given a statement before the Regional Labour Commissioner in the case relating to the present dispute. A certified copy of the statement is produced by the employer and it is Ext, M59. In that statement the affected work- man, WW-5 had stated categorically that he was issued a charge-sheer after the closure of the mine on 13th September 1986 alleging that they were remaining absent. WW-3 also says that he had received the charge-sheet later on. Whether they lecelved in time or not but it emerges that the charge-sheets were received by them. But in the written statement, the workmen have denied receipt of the charge-sheets altogether. Whatever that may be, even if it Is assumed that the affected workmen had not received the charge-sheets, that could noi. be an excuse not to attend the enquiry and if the enquiry officer proceeded with the enquiries ex-pttrte he did not commit any irregularity. The enquiries were conducted by Shn K- B. Upadhyaya, Cashier-cum-Head clerk seperate]y against each of the six affected workmen. Enquiry proceedings and the enquiry reports ate Exts. M34 to M3.9 and their series respectively. These enquiry proceedings are proved by MW-1 v. ho was one of the witnesses examined in each case, The charge against each of the affected workmen was under clause 18(C) of the Standing Orders, Ext. M58 alleging wilful disobedience of lawful order of the Manager- In each of the cases the Manager had deposed that inspite of his dhections the affected workmen did Jiot resume duty after 14th September 1066. Theie is the evidence of 2 more witnesses also m each case. I have leferred to the evidence of the Manager in order to show that the finding of the enquiry officer holding each of the ai'eclcd workman guilty of the charge was not baseless. No other irregularity or violation of any principle of natural justice in the enquiries Is neither pleaded nor proved by the workmen. On this material I do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the enquiry officer. Accepting the findings the letters, Exts. M40 to M45 dated 31st October 1966 were Issued to the six affected workmen dismissing them with immediate effect. MW.l has proved that these letters were icsuod under the signatures of Shri G. H. Pathak, the Agcnf and Partner of the colliery. Thus, I do not lind any irregularity in the Agent accepting the findings of the enquiry officer and issuing the dismissal letters. Consequently, I hold that the dismi' ,al of the 6 affected workmen was proper and justified.
8- Regarding the plea of the workmen th^t the affected workmen were victi- mised for their trade union activities, there is absolutely no evidence worth men- tioning.
9. As a result of my above dismission I hold that the management of South Govindpur Colliery (Post office Katrasgarh, District Dhanbad) of Shri II. I. Pathak, was justified in refusing employment to Sarvashri Jagdish Singh, Bishundeo Singh, Mohan Rewani, KInu R'ewani, Paltan Mahato, Prayag Mahato, Surju Singh and 'Gokul Rewani, trammers with effect from 13th September I960 and in subsequently dismissing from services Sarvashri Mohan Rewani, Kinu Rewani, Paltan Mahato, Prayag Mahato, Surju Singh and Gokul Rewani with effect from 31st October 1966 and as such the above referred to affected workmen are not entitled to any relief. But the management was not justified In refusing employment to the affected workman at SI. No. 9, Shri Prayag Rajwar, Pick miner with effect from 13th Sep- tember 1966 and as such, he is entitled to his wages and other benefits from 13th September 1066 to the date when the employer issues a notice and permits him to join duty, as though bis service was never interrupted. The award is made accordingly and submitted under Section 15 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Sd/- N. VENKATA RAO,
Presiding Officer,
Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal (No, 2) Dhanbad.
[No. 2/79/67-LR.IL]
ORDERS
New DelhiL the 30th August 1969
S.O. 3705.—-Whereas the Central Government is of opinion that an Industrial •dispute exists between the employers in relation to the management of North and West Ghanudih Colliery, Post Office Jharia, District Dhanbad and their work- men in respect of the matters specified in the Schedule hereto annexed.
5FC. 3(ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 22, 1H"1 3975And whereas the Central Government considers it desirable to refer the said dispute lor adjudication;
Now, thereiore, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby refers the said dispute for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (No. 3), Dhanbad constituted under section 7 A. of the said Act.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the management of North and West Ghanudih Colliery Post Office Jharia, District Dhanbad, was justified In stoppage of work of the- following workmen with effect from the 29th_ July, 1968. H not, to- what relief are the workmen entitled?
S. No. Name
Designation
1. Shyamapada Manjhi, 2. Kali Mahato 3. Nanda Gorai 4. Shyamapado Kumbhar 5. Dwijopada Kumbhar
Bailing Mazdoor. Dusting Mazdoor. Balling Mazdoor. Pump Khal#si. Bailing Mazdoor."
[No. 2/88/60-LRII.]
S.O. 3706-—Whereas the Central Government is of opinion that an industrial dispute existe between the employers In relation to the management of Chora- Colliery Number 7 and 9 Pits, Post Office Bahula, District Burdwan, and their work- men in respect of the matters specified in the Schedule hereto annexed;
And whereas the Central Government considers it desirable to refer the said dispute for adjudication;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby refers the said dispute for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal. Calcutta constituted under section 7A of the said Act.
SCHEDELC
"Whether the management of Chora Colliery numbers 7 and 9 Pits, Post Office Bahula, District Burdwan was justified in dismissing from service the following workmen with effect from the Gth February, 1969:—
(1) Shri Shiodutta Nonla H. E. Khalasi. (2) Shri Ram Run Paswan, Trammer, (3) Shri Had Kewat. Trammer. (4) Shri Jagnarain Rajvor, Loader. (5) Shri Lakhan .Taiswara, Loader. (G) Shri Lalchand Harijan, Loader. (7) Shii Chedilal Rajvor, Loader. (8) Shri Rajdeo Harijan, Loader. (9) Shri Sriram Kurmi. Pick Miner. (10) Shri Chiller Harijan, Pick Miner. (11) Shri Jamarudln Mia, Trammer. (12) Shri Srikanta Das, C. C. Driver. (13) Shri Muneswar Singh, C. C. Helper.
If not. what relief the workmen are entitled?"
INo. e/Sa/60-LR. Ill'
3976 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 22, 1891 [PAKT II—New Delhi, the 1st September 1969
S-O. 3707.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), and in continuation of the order of the Government of India No. S.O 2537 dated the 1st June 1969, the Central Government hereby refers to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (No. 3), Dhr.nbad, constituted under section 7A of this Act, the Industrial dispute concerning a further batch of workmen in relation to the management of Pootkee Colliery, the managing Agents of which are Messrs Karamchrind Thapar and Brothers (Private) Limited, Post Office Bhowra, District Dhanbad, and further directs that In the aforesaid order, the following amendment shall be made, namely; —
In the Schedule to the said Order, after serial No. 15 and the entries ielating thereto, the following shall be inserted, namely: —
Name
Designation •'SI. No.
16.
17.
18.
19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24.
25.
2fi.
27.
28.
29.
30
HI. 32.
Shri T. K, Kar Shri Nabu Khan Shri Nakul Gope Shri Moti Gope Shri Rohan Bhowia Shrt Jogeshwar Bhowia Shri Teni Kam Shri Loaeho Bhowia Shri Bisoon Barhi Shri Kali Charan Shri Murli Bhowia Shri Golak Shri Dhukanti Jaswara Shri Ramlal Shri Ram Sumer Jaswara Shri Ehotl Dusad Shrimati Bhatni Kamin
Magazine Clerk S D. Mazdoor Banksman P. Khalasi S. Trammer S. Trammer U. G. Trammer U- G. Trammer U. G. Trammer Loading Sirdar L. Mazdoor L. Mazdoor Miner Miner Miner Miner Loading Mazdoor".
[No. F. 2/130/68-LR1L 1
S.O- 3708.—Whereas the Central Government Is of opinion that an industrial dispute exists between the employers in relation to the management of Messrs Benga] Coal C&mpany Limited, Post Office Dlshergarh, District Burdwan and their workmen in respect of the matters specified in the Schedule hereto annexed;
And wher"as the Central Government considers it desirable to refer the said dispute for adjudication;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1:147 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby refers the said dispute for adjudication to the Central Govern- ment Industrial Tribunal, Calcutta, constituted under Section 7A of the said Act.
SCHEDULE
"In view of the transfer of management of Adjal Second Colliery of Messrs Harkrishan Singh Chopra and Brothers (Collieries) Private Limited to Messrs Bengal Coa] Company Limited with effect from the 1st April, 198.9, whether the management, of Messrs Bengal Coal Company Limited is justified in refusing re- employment of the following workmen from the said date? If not, to what relief are these workmen entitled?
SEC. 3(ii)] 1IJI3 GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 21, ISM 3977D e s i g n a t i on
N a m es
S e r i al N o.
1. S h ri B i r en H a r i j an . . . . . . ..
S. F. M i n i ng S a r d ar
2. „ R a m r aj H a r i j an . . . . . . ..
Do.
3. „ L e ra
. . . . . . . ..
U n d e r g r o u nd l o a d e r.
„ R am C h a r an . . . . . . .
Do.
4-
5. „ B h a gu
Do.
6. ,j S o r ju . . . . . . . ..
Do.
ji R am B a c h au . . . . . . ..
Do.
7- 8. ,, R a m l al . .. . . . ,
Do.
„ R a d ha M o h an
9.
Do.
1 0.
„ M o h it . . . . . . . ..
Do.
1 1.
,, R a m p at
. . . . . . ..
Do.
1 2.
„ B a l g o b i nd
Do.
„ J a g a n n a th O j ha
M a c h i ne M a z d o o r. J3- 14, ,, R am G o b i nd . . . . . . ..
E x p l o s i ve c a r r i e r.
I S.
P u mp D r i v e r.
16.
D r e s s e r.
„ B h a w a ni S i n gh . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. „ S a ti R am
,, S a h a ti R am .
. . ..
*7-
18. „ S r i p a th
. . . . . . . ..
19. ,, C h a n d r i ka
. . . . . . ..
2 0.
„ R a ja R am . . . . . . ..
2 1. ,, S u d h ir R oy
2 2.
„ A m r it R oy . . . . . . ..
„ R a j p a ti
2 3.
Drill Driver. General Mazdoor. Loos cm an. Drill Driver. Fitter Helper. Haulage Driver. Underground loader
[No. 6/24/69-LRIL]
New Delhi, the 2nd September 1069
S-O. 3709.—Whereas the Central Government is of opinion that an industrial dispute exists between the employers in relation to the management of Messrs M. S. Sawhney and Sons, Chandivali, Bombay and their workmen in respect of the matters specified in the Schedule hereto annexed;
And, whereof the Central Government considers i{ desirable to refer the said dispute for adjudication;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Centra] Government hereby refers the said dispute for adjudication to the Central Govern- ment Industrial Tribunal, (No. 2) Bombay, constituted under section 7A of the said Act.
SCHEDULE
"Whether actiun of the management of Messrs M. S. Sawhney and Son:,, Chandivali, Bombay, in terminating the services of Sarvashri Sangram Dharma Kamble and Sadashiv Eknath, with effect from the 27iLh January, 1969 and the 4th May, 1968 respectively was justified? If not, to what relief arc the workmen concerned entitled"-
[No. 30 (2D/69-LRIV]
CORRIGENDA
New Delhi, the 30th August 1969
S.O. 3710.—In the order of the Government of India in the Ministry of Labour, Employment and Rehabilitation (Department of Labour and Employment) No.
3978 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 22, 1891 [PART II—S. O. 2966, dated the T7th July, 1969 published at page 3174 of the Gazette of India, Part II Section 3 Sub Section (11) dated the 26th Juiy, 1969,
in line 2 of the Schedule for "30th August, 1968" read " Oh August, 1968"
[No. 2/94/69-I/RII.]
New Delhi, the 1st September 1969
S.O. 3711—In the Order of the Government of India in the Ministry of Labour, Employment and Rehabilitation (Department of Labour and Employment) No S.O. 1990 dated the 13th May, 1969, published at page 2111 of the Gazette of India, Part II, sub section 3(ii), dated the 24th May, 1969-
In line 3 of the Schedule for:
"to the 1st December, 1968" read "till the dates they were given employment in their respective posts".
[No. 2/253/68-LR. II]. P. C. MISRA, Under Secy.
(Department of Labour and Employment)
New Delhi, the 29th August 1969
S.O. 3712.—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 Hukam Chand Insurance Company Limited and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on the 21st August, 1969.
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, CALCUTTA.
REFERENCE NO- 30 or 1969
PARTIES :
Employers in relation to the Hukam Chand Insurance Company Limited,
AND
Their workmen.
PRESENT •
Shri B. N. Banerjee—Presiding Officer,
APPEARANCES :
On behalf of Employers:—Shri Simian Kumar Ghosh, Advocate. On behalf of Workmen:—Shri Pradip Ranjan Paul, Vice-President, Eastern Zone Insurance Employees' Association
STATE : West Bengal
INDUSTRY : Insurance,
AWARD
By Order No. 25/2/69-LRIII, dated March 21, 1969, the Government of India, In the Ministry of Labour, Employment and Rehabilitation (Department of Labour and Employment), referred the fo'lowing industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Hukam Chand Insurance Company Limited and their workmen, to this tribunal, for adjudication, namely:—
"Whether the management of Messrs Hukamchand insurance Company Limited, Calcutta, was justified in terminating the services of Sarva- shri Amal Chandra Nath, Assistant, and K. N. H. Nalr, Typist, v/Itb effect from the 1st November 1968?, If not, to what relief are the workmen entitled?"
2. Of the two workmen, whose termination of services was referred to this Tribunal, K. N. H. Nalr did not put up any contest. There had been one written statement filed on behalf of the workmen represented by their trade union, the General Insurance Employees Association, Eastern Region. At the hearing, however Mr P. Paul appearing for the trade union submitted that he would not argue the case of K. N. H. Nair. K. N. H. Nalr is also not present before this
SEC. 3(11)] 1HE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 22, 18J1 3979Tribunal today (11th August, 1969). In these circumstances, I presume that there Is no subsisting dispute between the employers and K. N. H. Nalr and I record a 'no dispute' award in so far as he is concerned.
3. This award now proceeds to deal with the case of Amal Chandra Nath, Assistant only.
4. It is an admitted case thai Amal Chandra Nath was appointed as an assis- tant in the motor department of the employer company on December 1, 1967. His service was terminated, by retrenchment, by a notice dated October 28, 1968 •(Ext. A for the employers and Ext. 1 tor the workmen). The notice of retrench- ment reads:
"This is to Inform you that as froin today we are retrenching you for employment as we find that our office is overstaffed and further we desire to effect economy in the working of the Company in order to prevent violation of the Provisions of Section 40C of the Insurance Act, 1938. You must be aware that the Company has been incur- ring losses for the last two years. In view of all these situations we are compelled by these events to take Immediate steps to curtail our expenditure to avoid action by Controller of Insurance.
We are herewith sending you a cheque for the following amounts which be- coihe payable to you as result of the said retrenchment.
1. One month's notice pay under Section 25F of the Industrial
Disputes Act
Rs. 240/- 2. Compensation for the services at the rate of 15 days wages for every year completed service (period above six months is treated as one year). - .. Rs. 120/-
3. Earned wages for the period from 1st October 1968 to 31st
October, 1968
... Rs. 240/-
Total . Rs. 600/- The total amount due to you Is Rs. 600/- for which the cheque is enclosed. Wo are duly informing the authorities as per the provisions of the Indus-
trial Disputes Act about the retrenchment.
We shall issue to you, if you so desire, the necessary certificate of emp-
loyment which may help you to get employment elsewhere."
5. Now under the definition of retrenchment in Section 2 (00) of the Indus- trial Dispute Act: 1
"retrenchment means the termination by the employer of the services of a workman for any reason whatsoever otherwise than as a punish- ment inflicted by way of disciplinary action, but does not include (a) voluntary retirement of workman; or (b) retrenchment of the workman on reaching the age of superannuation, if the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned contains a stipulation in that behalf; or (c) termination of the ser- vices of a workman on the ground of continued 111 health."
In the case of Amal Chandra Nath, it appears from Ext- A and 1 quoted above, that the retrenchment was effect for the purpose of effecting economy in the working of the employer company. That was- good enough reason, if It was true. Further, according to Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act:
'•25F. No workman employed in any industry, who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under employer shall be retrenched by that employer until—
(a) the workman has been given one month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of notice:
Provided that no such notice shall be necessary if the retrenchment is under an agreement which specifies a date for the termination of service;
3980 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 22, 1891 [PAST II—(b) the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compen- sation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days' average pay (for every completed year of continuous service) or any part tbereoi in excess of six months; and
(c) notice In the prescribed manner Is served on the appropriate Government (or such authority as may be specified by the appro- priate Government by notification in the Official Gazette)."
I have already set out the notice of retrenchment. The notice complied with the formalities of Section 25F, in that the workman was paid a month's wages in lieu of notice was supplied with the reasons for retrenchment and was paid the Statutory compensation as required by the section. The Rule of "Last come first go" was, also observed, as appears from the evidence of the workman himself.
0. The employer company was, however, in a bad shape so far as the conduct of this reference was concerned. The employer company filed their written state- ment but failed to produce the documents as directed and also failed to produce their witnesses on the first date of peremptory hearing or on the adjourned date of hearing, although they had been mulcted with costs for their remissness.
7. Having considered the evidence, I find that the employer company is now in a position of some helplessness in Calcutta. The Calcutta office is being run with only three assistants. Of them one is present in the Tribunal, namely, the accountant named Kalosona Das, He openly declined to depose on behalf of the company, when Mr. Saumen Kumar Ghose, learned advocate for the company asked him to go to the witness box. I called Kalosona Das a Court witness and had "this fact recorded out of his own mouth.
8. Now, Mr. Ghosh, learned advocate for the company, argued that there was a very small profit made toy the company for the year 1966, amounting to Rs. 23,322.25 paise (vide Ext. D). In the next year, namely in the year 1967, the Company suffered a loss of Rs. 1,87,930 (vide Ext. E). He further submitted that there was notice under Section 40C of the Insurance Act, 1938, served upon the company by the Controller of Insurance, calling upon the company to impose limitations on managerial expenditure. That necessitated the retrenchment. In the absence of better evidence, this case, however, he could not establish.
9. It is admitted by Amal Chandra Nath, the concerned workman, that in October, 1968, six or seven persons apart from he himself wers retrenched and after the retrenchment only three persons of the names of Kalosona Das, Naren Das and Panchanan Kabi continued to serve in the Calcutta office. If this be so, then it goes to indicate that the company was more or less winding up its Calcutta- affairs or was trying to run the show only with a skeleton staff. This may indi- cate financial insolvency of the company.
10. Mr. P. Paul for the trade union of the workmen, however, contended that the retrenchment was not effected for economic reason and the reason given was sham or untrue. I need not concern myself very much with this aspect of the matter, because the retrenchment of Amal Chandra Nath in November, 1968, is now a closed chapter. After retrenchment and litigation over it, the workmen and the management agreed to re-employ Amal Chandra1 Nath on a temnorary 'basis. This appears from Ext. B, letter addressed to the concerned workman Amal Chandra Nath, which is set out below:
"As agreed upon in the conference held between the representative of the Union and the Management represented by Shri S. P. Gupta, Dy Regional Manager, Shri S. C. Haralalka, Principal Office Representa- tive witnessed by Shri B. Shamsukha, you are hereby appointed on purely on temporary basis with effect from 8-2-1969.
You will be paid a consolidated pay which 3'ou drew at the time of retrench- ment."
After that letter, it is too late for the concerned workman to make a grievance of his retrenchment prior to reappointment.
U. Amal Chandra Nath voluntarily gave up this reappointment, when he got an appointment in Union Cooperative Insurance Company in June 1969 He said In his evidence, 'I voluntarily left work of Hukumchand Insurance Company with effect from May 5, 1969'. If he himself left the work, his own choice, his griev- ance against the company is not understandable.
SEC, J(IO] 1HE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/B^DRA 21 ITU 398112. Moreover, the concerned workman in his evidence further stated:
"I do not want reinstatement because I am serving elsewhere. I want com- pensation for the period of enforced idleness."
This is a novel claim. The workman does not seek relief against retrenchment. H" does not want reinstatement. He wants money value for the period of his enforc- ed idleness, before his reappointment. I do not see how he claims this relief. The grievance against enforctd idleness was settled by accepting reappointment.
13. In the result, I hold,
(i) that there should be a 'no dispute' award recorded so far as K. N. H. Nair is concerned for reasons hereinbefore stated. I award1 according- ly.
(ii) that whether the management of Messrs Hukumchand Insurance Com- pany had been justified in terminating the services of Arcial Chandra Nath with effect from 1st November, 1968, is of irrelevant considera- tion now, because his grievance, if any, against the termination wo met by giving him a reappointment.
(in) that the workman concerned is not entitled to any relief.
This is my award.
(Sd.) B. N. BANERJEE,
Dated, August 19, 1969.
Presiding Officer. [No. 25/2/69-LRII (LRI).]
New Delhi, the 3rd September 1969
S.O. 3713.—Whereas the Central Government, being satisfied that the public interest so required, had declared by a notification made m pursuance of the provisions of the proviso to sub-clause (vi) of clause (n) of section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) [being the notification of the Govern- ment of India in the Ministry of Labour, Employment and Rehabilitation (Depart- ment of Labour and Employment), No. S.O. 1023, dated the Sth March, 1969], service in hospitals and dispensaries carried on 'by or under the authority of the Central Government, to be a public utility service for the purpose of the said Act for a period of six months from the 7th March, 1969;
And whereas the Central Government is of opinion that public interest requires the extension of the said period by a further period of six months;
Now, therefore, in pursuance of the provisions of the proviso to sub-clause (vi) of clause (n) of section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby declares the said service to be a public utility service for the purposes of the said Act for a further period of six months from the 7th September, 1969.
TNo. F.l/56/69-LR-I.l
ORDER New Delhi, the 30th August 1969
S,O. 3714,—Whereas the Central Government is of opinion that an industrial dispute exists between the employers in relation to the Viiaya Bank Limited and their workmen in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule hereto annexed;
And, whereas the Central Government considers it desirable to refer the "aid dispute for adjudication;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by section 7A and clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947). the Central Government hereby constitutes an Industrial Tribunal of which Shri B. M. Jayamahadeva Prasad shall bo the Presiding Officer, with headquarters at Bangalore and refers the said dispute for adjudication to the said Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the demand of the workmen of the Vijaya Bank Limited, Manga- lore-3 that their period of apprenticeship should be counted for pur- poses of granting annual increment and seniority is justified? If so, to what relief are they entitled?"
[No. 23/31769-LR-IIL] S. S. SAHASRANAMAN, Under Secy.
3982 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 22, 1891 [PART II—(Department of Labour a*d Employment)
New Delhi, the 29th August 1969
S.O. 3715.—^Whereas It appears to the Central Government that the employer and the majority of the employees in relation to the establishment known as The Atlantic Oil Company Private Limited, 14, Grandforeshore Road, Ram Krlshtopur Ghat, Howrah, West Bengal 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 thirty first day of January, 1989-
[No. 8/80/69/PF-IL]
New Delhi, the 30th August 1969
S-O. 3717.—Whereas the Central Government was satisfied that M/s- Ratnakar Canning Industries was situated in Ratnagiri area which was a sparse area (that is, an area whose insurable population was less than 500) in the district of Ratnagiri in the State oi" Maharashtra;
And, whereas by virtue of its location in a sparse area, the aforesaid factory was granted exemption from, the payment of the employer's special contribution under section 73F of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), until enforcement of the provisions of Chapter V of the Act in that area by the Cen- tral Government in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Labour, Employment and Rehabilitation (Department of Labour and Employ- ment) No. S.O. 2407. dated the 27th June, 1968;
And, whereas the Central Government is satisfied that the insurable popula- tion of the Ratnagiri area in the district of Ratnagiri in the State of Maharashtra has now exceeded 500, and it is no longer a sparse area;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by section 73F of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), the Central Government hereby makes the following amendment in the said notification, namely:—
]JI the Schedule to the said notification, against serial No. 8, the entry "Ratnagiri" in column (3) and the corresponding entry In column (4) shall be omitted
[No. F. 6/4/69-HL]
Sue 3(ii>| IBE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 11 1891 3983S O 5718.—Whereas the Central Government was satisfied that <1) M/s. Annap- PO Narayan Oil Mills, (2) E.M. Power Laundry, (3) M/s. Hind Metal Works, (4) Indian Hume Pipe Company Limited, (5) Jethalal Keshavji-Jivandas Mill, (6) S. T. Karad Depot. (7) Karad Electric Supply Company, (8) Karad Industries, (9) Karad Swastik Industrial Works, (10) Padake Industrial Works, were situated in Karad area and (1) Balwant Mudranalaym, (2) Concrete Products, (3) Elec- tric Grid Depot's Power House, (4) Pure Products and Madhu Canning Limited, (5) S.T. Ratnagiri Depot., (6) S.T. Workshop, were Situated in Ratnagiri area, which were sparse areas (that is, areas whose insurable population was less than 500) in the district of Ratnagiri and North Satara in the State of Maharashtra;
And, whereas by virtue of their location In sparse areas, the aforesaid factories were granted exemption from the payment of the employer's special contribution under section 73F of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), until enforcement of the provisions of Chapter V of the Act in those areas by the Central Government in the notification of the Government of India in the late Ministry of Labour and Employment No. S.O. 2065, dated the 2nd November, 1961;
And, whereas the Central Government is satisfied that the insurable population of Karad and Ratnagiri areas in the districts of North Satara and Ratnagiri in the State of Maharashtra has now exceeded 500, and these are no longer sparse areas;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by section 73F of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1943 (34 of 1S48). the Central Government hereby makes the following further amendment m the said notification/ namely.—
In Schedule IV to the said notification—
(i) Serial No. 14 and the entries relating thereto shall be omitted;
(ii) against Serial No. 18, the entry "Ratnagiri" in column 4 and the entries relating thereto in column 5 shall 'be omitted. r
""[No. F. 6(4)/69-HL]
S.O. 3719.—Whereas the Central Government' was satisfied that
(1) M/s. Shri Dhudhganga Vedganga Sahakari Sakhari Karkhana Ltd.
(2) M/s. Bharat Iron and Metal Works.
(3) M/s. Karad Taluka Sahakari Oil Mill Ltd.
were situated in Murgud and Karad areas which were sparse areas (that is, areas whose insurable population were less than 500} in the districts of Kolhapur and North Satara in the State of Maharashtra;
And, whereas by virtue of their location in sparse areas, the aforesaid factories were granted exemption from the payment of the emrjloyer's special contribution under section,73F of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), until enforcement of the provisions of Chapter V of the Act in that area by the Cen- tral Government in the notification of the Government of India in the late Depart- ment of Social Security No. S.O. 3447, dated the 18th September, 1964;
And, whereas the Central Government is satisfied tha-t the insurable population of the Murgud and, Karad areas in the districts of Kolhapur and North Satara in the State of Maharashtra has now exceed 500, and these are no longer sparse areas;
3g84 THE GAZETTE OP INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 22, 1891 [PART II—Now, therefore, In exercise of the powers conferred by section 73F of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), the Central Government hereby makes the following amendment in the said notification, namely:—
In the Schedule to the aaid notification,—
(i) against serial No. 2, the entry "Murgud" in column 3 and the entry relating thereto in column 4 shall be omitted;
(li) against aerial No. 4, the entry "Karad" in column 3 and the entry relating thereto in column 4 shall be omitted.
[No. F. 6/4/69-HL]
New Delhi, the 3rd September 1969
S.O. 3720.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 13 of the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952 (19 of 1952) and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India in the late Depart- ment of Social Security S.O. No. 3601, dated the 3rd October, 1964, the Central Government hereby appoints Shri K. M. Bhatt, Assistant Provident Fund Com- missioner (Grade I), Madhya Pradesh, to be an Inspector for the whole of the State of Madhya Pradesh lor the purposes of the said Act and of any scheme framed thereunder, in relation to any establishment belonging to, or under the control of the Central Government, or in relation to any establishment connected with a railway company, a major port, " mine or an oil field, or a controlled industry.
[No. 18(20)/6G-PF.I(i)J
S.O. 3721.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 13 of the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952 (19 of 1952), and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India in the late Ministry of J^abour and Employment S.O. No, 2079, dated the 25th August, 1961, In so Jar as it relates to Shri M. C. Das, the Central Government hereby appoints Shri M, C. Das to be an Inspector for the whole of the State of Uttar Pradesh for the pur- poses of the said Act and of any Scheme framed thereunder, in relation to any establishment belonging to, or under the control of the Central Government or in relation to any establishment connected with a railway company, a major port, a mine or an oil-field or controlled industry.
[No. 20(20)/69-PF.L]
DALJIT SINGH, Under Secy.
SEC. J(ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 22, 1891 3985(Department of Labour and Employment)
1 Office of the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central)]
ORDER
Nvw Delhi_ (he 2nd September 1969
S.O. 3323.—Whereas_ am application has been made under Section 19(b) of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 by Messrs. Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd., (employer) in relation to their establishments mentioned in the Sche- dule "below for extension of the period for the payment of bonua to their emp- loyees for the accounting year ending on 31st December, 1968.
And whereas "being satisfied that there are sufficient reasons to extend the time I hnye, in exercise of the powers conferred on me by the proviso to clause (b) of Section "19 of the said Act read with the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Labour and Employment No. WB-20(42)/65 dated the 28th August, 1965, passed orders on 1st September, 1969, extending the period for pay- ment of the said bonus by the said employer by. 2 (Two) months from the last date for payment of bonus under clause (b) of Section 19 of the Act.
Now this is published for information of the emplyoer and all the employees of the said esta"bllshmeTit
THE SCHEDULE
Name and address of the employer(s).
Establishment(s)
The Central Provinces Manganese
Dongri Buzurg Mine
Ore Co. Ltd.,
P. 0. Box No, 8,
Nagpur.
[No. BA.6(14)/69-LSl.)
O. VENKATACHALAM,
Chief Labour Commissioner (Central).
3o86 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 22, 1891' [PART II—(Department of Rehabilitation)
(Office of the Chief Settlement Commissioner)
New DpUii, the 1th AUQUSI 1969
S-O. 3724.—In exercise oJ! the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 3.
of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (44 of 1954), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Rajni Kant as Deputy Chief Settle- ment Commissioner for the purpose of performing the functions assigned to such Commissioner by or under the Said Act, with immediate effect.
[No. 5(8)/AGZ/65.]
A. G. VASWANI,
Settlement Commissioner (A) & Ex-Officio Under Secy.
(Department of Rehabilitation)
(Office of the Chief Settlement Commissioner)
New Delhi, the 2nd September 1969
S-O. 3725.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-Section 1 of Section 34 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, Itt54 (44 of 1054), the Central Government hereby directs that the powers exercisable by it under Sub-Section 4 of Section 24, 28 and Section 33 of the said Act, shall be exercisable also by the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) and Secretary to the Government of Raryana, Rehabilitation Department, in respect of proceedings pertaining to (i) agricultural lands and shops In any rural area including houses, cattlu sheds and vacant sites forming part of the Compensation Pool, and (ii) the properLios referred to in the Notification of tht; Government of India in the Ministry of Works, Housing & Rehabilitation (Department of Rehabilitation) No. 3(37)/L&R-63A dated the 5th March, 1964, situate within the State of Haryana subject to the condition that he shall not exercise any of such powers in relation to, any matter in which an order has been made by him in any other capacity.
[No. F. 3(2)/L&R/69.J
H. K. TANDON, Jt. Secy.
MINISTRY OF INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT, INTERNAL TRADE AND
COMPANY AFFADSS
(Department of Industrial Development)
(Indian Standards Institution)
New Delhi, the 14th August 1969
S.O. 3726.—In pursuance of sub-rule (2) of rule 4 of the Indian Standards Institution (Certification Marks) Rules, 1955 the Indian Standards Institution hereby notifies that the Standard Mark(s), desijm(s) of which together with the verbal 'description of the design(s) and the title(s) of the relevant Indian Standard(s) are given in the Schedule hereto annexed, have been specified.
These Standard Mark(s) for the purpose of the Indian Standards Institution1 (Certification Marks) Act, 1952 and the Rules and Regulations framed there- under, shall come into force with effect from 24th July, 1969:
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 22, 1891 [PART II— 3 9 87THE SCHEDULE
Product/Class of No. and Title of the
SI. Design of the Vcrtal description of the No. Standard Mark Product Design of the Standard
Relevant Indian
Standard
Mark
(1) (2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
1 ISU98
Varnish gold size IS: 198-1952 Specifi-
cation tor varnish,
gold size.
The monogram of the Indian Standards Ins- titution consisting of letters '1ST, drawn in the exact style and re- lative proportions as indicated in col. (2), the numbei designation of the Indian Standard being superscribed on the top bide ol the monogram as indicated in the design.
1'rench polish
2 IS 1348
IS: 348-1952 Speci-
fication for trench
polish.
The monogram oi the Indiun Stardaids Instillation, consisting of letters 'ISP, dr&wn in the exact style ard relative proportions as indicated m col. (2), the number designation oi the Indian standard being luper- senbed on the top side of the monogram as indicated in the design.
[No. CMD/13:9.]
S.O. 3727.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (3) of regulation 7 of the Inian Standards Institution (Certification Marks) Regulations, 1955, the Indian Standards Institution hereby notifies that the marking fee(s) per unit for various products- details of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed, have been determined and the fee(s) shall come into force with effect from 24th July, 19fi9:
THE SCHEDULE
No. and Title of Relevant
Marking Fee per
Unit
Indian Standard
Unit Product/Class of Products
Si. No.
(4)
(3)
CO
CD
1
One litre
IS: 198-1952 Specification for
Varnish gold size
0-5 paisa
varnish, goldsize
One litre
0*5 paisa 2
IS : 348-1952 Specicfiation for
French polish
french polish
[No. CMD/13:10.])
3988 SEC. 3(11)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 22, 1891New Delhi, the 22nd August 1969
S.O. 37"8—Tnpursuanceof sub-regulations (2)and (3) of regulation 3 of the Indian Standards Institution (C:r: fici^on Mirk*) Regulations, i955,"thclndian Standards Institution herebv notifies tthit the In lian S ndiri(s), particulars of which are given In the Schedule hereto annexed, •have bie.i a s t n l n mj during the period 16 July to 15 August, 1969 :
THE SCHEDULE
No. and Title of the Indian i-taniard Established
SI. No.
1 Brief Particulars
No. and Title of the Indian Standard or Standards, if any, superseded by the new Indian Standard
( 1)
1
(4)
CD
IS : 259-1950 Specifica-
IS : 2ri')-i9^ Spedfi-itiJn for aimniu-n alum {first revision).
tion for ammonia alum, technical.
This standard prescribes the requirements and the me- thods of samding and test for ammonium alum (aluminium ammonium sul- phate), commercially known as ammonia alum. (Price Rs. 5-50)
IS : 707-1958 Glossary of
2
terms applicable to tim- ber and timber products.
IS : 707-1968 Glossary of terms applicable to timber and timber products (first revision).
IS : 1027-196? Spicltication 3
This standard covers definitions of common terms appli- cable to timber and timber products (Price Rs. 9-00)
•1 ~~
for paper-insulated cables for use in mines.
.4
IS : 1176-1969 dimensions for aerial roia and slabs made of ferromagnetic materials.
5
This standard covers the re- quirements for impregnated paper lead-nlloy sheathed wire-armoured cables of non-draining type for use at voltages up to and including the following:
0.65/1'1 W. 1-9/3-3 kV. 3-8/6-6 kV vwthed system),
1 • 1 kV, 3• 3 kV, 6- 6 kV (unear-
thed system), and
250 V grad? twin core for lighting purposes). (Price Rs. 8-oo)
This standard lays down the dimensions of aerial rods with .circular cross-section and of aerial slabs of approximately rectangular cross-section, made of ferromagnetic oxide CPrice Rs. 1'501
IS : 2148-1902 Specifica- tion for flameproof en-
IS : 2148-1968 Specification for flameproof enclosures of electrical apparatus (Jirst revision).
closures of electrical ap- paratus.
This standard coders require- ments for flameproof en- closures of electrical apparatus for use in mines and such other places where flammable gases or vapours may exisr or may originate inside the enclo-
sure. (PriceRs. ii-50")
SFX. 3(ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 22, 1891 3989( I)
( 2)
6
(4)
(3)
IS : 2255-1962 Specifica- tion lor mild steel wire rod for the manufacture of machine screws (by cold heading process).
IS : 2255-1969 Specification for mild steel wire rod for the manufacture of machine screws (by cold-heading pro- cess) (first revision).
IS : 2472-1969 Specifieition 7
for protective gaiters.
8
This standard covers the requirements for mild steel wire rod for the manu- facture of wire for machine screws or threaded fasteners conforming to IS : 1673- 1960. (Price Rs. 2-00)
This standard prescribes the requirements, methods of sampling and test for pro- tective gaiters, used in coniuction with safety boots (IS : 3737-1966) to protect workers against splashes of molten metal while engaged in blast furnace, cast house of steel melting shop. (Price Rs, 5 • jo)
IS ' 2535-1963 Specifica-
IS : 2535-1969 Specification for basic rack and modules of cylindrical gears for gene- ral engineering and heavy engineering (first re:ision).
tion for basic rack, moul- ders and diametral pit- ches of cylindrical gears for general engineering.
9 IS : 2759-1969 Specification for higher tensile steel point hooks for use with wire rope thimbles.
10
This standard spccif.es the dimensions of basic rack and recommenced scries of mot'ules for involute cylindrical gears for general engineering and for heavy engineering. (Price Rs. 2-Co")
This standard covers the requirements of higher tensile steel point hooks with eye for use with wire rope thimbles conforming to IS : 2315.1963. (Price RB. 4-00)
IS : 3026-1964 Specifica- tion for sodium stannatc
IS : 3026-1968 Specification for tin salts for>electroplating (first revision).
for electroplating.
Ii IS : 3414-1968 Code of prac- tice for design and installa- tion of joints in buildings
12 IS : 3815-1969 Specification for pcint hooks with shank for general engineering pur- poses.
13 IS : 4595-1969 General re- quirements for non-parking tools.
This standard prescribes the requirements and the methods of sampling and test for stannous sulphate, sodium stannate, potassium stannate and btannous chloride, used for clectroplaiing. (Price RB. 7-00)
This standard deals with the design and installation of joints in maBonry and con- crete in buildings. (Price Rs. 8-oo)
This standard covers the requirements of mild steel anJ higher tensile Rtecl point hooks with shank for general engineering purposes. (Price Rs. 5-00)
This standard covers the general requirements for non-spar- king tools. (Price Rs. 2' 50)
1990 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 22, 1891 [ P A K T I I-(=0
IS : 4610-1968 Specification 14
tor glass tubes for general pur- pose and reference thermo- meters.
15 IS : 4809-1968 Specification for cotton-knitted string vests.
16 IS : 4966 (Pare B-1968 Speci- fication for gauges for serra- tions Tart I for gauging ex- ternal serrations.
*7
IS : 5022-1969 Specification for sterilizer, instruments (table model).
18 IS : 5026 (Part I)-1969 Speci- fication for radio frequency cables Part I General re- quirements and tests.
19
IS : 5028-1969 Glossary of mining terms (planning and surveying).
20 IS : 5029-1969 Specification for bedsteads, hospital, general purposes.
21 IS : 5033-1969 Specification for telescopic aerials for portable radio receivers
(4)
(3)
This standard prescribes the requirements and thc. methods of sampling and test for glass tubes used in the manufacture of general purpose, reference and all other types of liquid-in- glass thermometers suitable for use with a range of —200" to +5oo"C. (Price Rs 3-50.)
This standard prescribes the requirements of cotton- knitted stting vests, bleached (Price Ks. 4-00).
This standard covers the main dimensions of GO and NOT GO gauges and their setting giuger for external serrations according; to IS : 3654-1966. (Price Rs. 4' 00).'
This standard covers struc- tural and functional require- m<-iitb of boiling type steri- lisers for sterilizing such. articles as different types of instruments used in clinics and hospitals. Only the bt^rilizers wnich are used in places other tlvn the anacs- ihetic-gps atmospheres come under the purview of this. standard. (Price Rs. 2-50),
This standard relates to thor general requirements and te^te Tor radio frequency cables of coaxial or twin, conductor types designed lor use ir. tcleccmmunica- tion and electronic eo.uip- ment, (Price Rs. H.oo).
This standard covers the defi- nitions of terms used in mining industry in connec- tion with planning and sur- veying (Price R. 3- 50).
This standard specifies the requirements of bedsteads suitable for general purposes in hospitals and other similar institutions. (Price Rs. 5-00)
This standard lays down the requirements and methods of test for judging mechanical, electrical, physica1 and cli- matic properties of telescopic- aerials generally intended for portable radio receivers. (Price Ra. 4-00)
SEC. 3(ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 22, 1891 3991( I)
CO
22 IS : 5034-1968 Specification for chromed goatskin in wet- blue condition.
IS : 5035-1969 Specification 23
for sterilizers, bowl and uten- sil (pedal type).
24 IS : 5037-1969 Specification for basic rack and modules of straight bevel gears for general engineering and heavy engineering.
15 IS : 50+0-1969 General re- quirements for fork lift trucks.
26 IS : 5041-1969 Specification for shoe, boot and stationery eyelets.
27 IS : 5042-1969 Specification for i-aminoanthraquinone.
28 IS : 5043-1969 Specification fot 2-aminoanthraquinone.
IS : 5044-19(19 Specification 29
for benzanthrone.
30 IS : 5046-1968 Specification for letterpress ink, black, book-printing.
(3)
(4)
This standard prescribes the requirements, method of sampling and test for chrome- tanned goatskin in wet-blue condition. (Price Rs. 5-00)
This standard covers structural and functional requirements of boiling type sterlizers for sterilizing Buch articles as different types of bowls and utensils used in clinics and hospitals. (Price Rs. 3-50)
Tills standard specifies the dimensions of basic lack and recommended series of modules for straight bevel gears for general engineering and heavy engineering- (Price Rs. 2 • 00)
This standard covers the rated capacity, the main dimensions and the safety requirements relating to the construction and operation of centre control, rider operated fork lift trucks with solid, cushion or pneumatic tyres •with three or mo^e tyres and tiltablc masts up to and Including 10 000 kg nominal capacity. (Price Rs. 4-00)
This standard covers the re- quirements for shoe, boot and stationery eyelets (round-snapped;. (Price Rs. 3-jo)
This standard prescribes the requirements and the methods of sampling and test for i-aminoanthraquin- one. (Price Rs- 4' 00)
This standard prescribes the requirements and the methods of sampling and test for 2-aminoanthraquin- one- (Price Rs. 4- 00)
This standard prescribes the requirements and the methods of sampling and test for benzanthronc. (Price Rs. 5 00)
This standard prescribes the requirements an-1 the methods of sampling and test for letter press ink, black, book- printing. (Pilce Rs. 5 • 00)
399^ THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 22. 1891 [PAHT II—( I)
( 2)
(4)
(3)
31 IS : 5049-1969 Specification for gauge for wire dia- meters.
This standard lays down the requirements of a gauge to check the diameters of wires in the range 0-125 to 8 mm. (Price Rs. 21 jo)
IS : 5056-1969 Common names for coal tar food colours.
This standard gives common names for coal tar food culours permitted by the Prevention of Food Adult- eration Rules, 1955 togethci with their technical names, colour ind^x, colour, class and chemical names. (Price- Rs. 2-oo)
33 IS : 5057-1969 Specification for potassium nitrite, food grade.
This standard prescribes the requirements and the methods of" sampling and test for potassium nitrite for use as food preservative. (Price R*. 2-00)
34 IS : 5059-1969 Code for hy- gienic Conditions for large scale biscuit manufacturing units and bakery units.
This standard prescribes the hygienic conditions required for establishing and maintain- ing large scale bijevit manu- facturing units and bakery units. (Price Rs. 3-50)
35 IS : 5061-1968 Guide for treatment of effluents of pulp, paper and board industries.
This Indian standard covers methods of treatment of effluents of pulp, paper,, paperboard and strawboard industries. (Price Rs. 7 • 06}
36 IS : 5062 (Part ID-1969 Methods of test for brown coals and lignites.
Part II determination of ASH.
This standard prescribes the method for the determination of ash In brown coals and lignites by incinerating at about 8l5°C till constant in weight. (Price Rs. z-oo)
37 IS : 5062 (Part IV)-i969 Methods ot test for brown coals and lignites.
This standard prescribes the method for determining the: yield of benzene—soluble extract in brown coals and lignites. (Price Rs. 2-00) Part IV determination of the yield of benzene—soluble extract.
38 IS : 5067-1969 Specification
——
for fencing pliers.
This standard covers the re- quirements for fencirg pliers. (Price Rs. 2 • 00)
IS : 5068-1969 Specification
39
for grab hook.
This standard lays down :he requirements for grab hook. (Price Rs. 2 50)
40 IS : 5070-1969 Method for beam unnotched impact test grey cast iron.
This standard prescribes the method of conducing beam unnotched Impact test on grey cast iron containing graphite in flake form. (Price Rs. 2.-50)
SEC. 3(ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 22, 1891 3993:( I)
(2)
(4)
(3)
41 IS : 5071—1969 Method for flattening test for copper alloy tubes of circular section.
This standard prescribes the methods for conducting flattening test on copper and copper alloytubcs of circular cross section and having external diameter not greater thgn 100 mm and thickness not greater than 15 percent of external diameter. (Price. Rs. 2 00).
42 IS : 5072—1.969 Method for rockwell superficial hardness test (N and T scales) for steel.
This standard prescribes the method of conducting rock- well superficial hardness test (N and T scales) on steeL (PriccRs.400),
This standard prescribes the 43
method for rotating bar- IS : 5075—1969 Method of rotating bar bending fatigue testing of steel.
bending fatigue test on lest pieces without any features involving stress concentra- tion. (Price Rs. 3'5°)-
44
•
IS : 5076—1969 Method for calibration of standardized blocks to be used for rock- well superficial N and T scale hardness testing machines.
This standard prescribes the method for calibration of blocks for the indirect veri- fication of rockwell N and T scale hardness testing machines. (Price Rs. z-jo).
IS : 5077—T969 Specification
45
for decorative lighting outfits.
This standard sepcifes the design and constructional requirements and tests appli- cable to decoraiivc lighting: outfits for inddoor use rated for a maximum voltage of 25O V. (Price Rs. 3'50).
46 IS : 5078—1969 Specification
for brushesj typewriter.
M
This standard prescribes lhc re- quirements end the methods of sampling and tests for typewriter brushes. (Price Rs. 3-5°)-
IS : 5083—1969 Specification
47
for knifing stopper.
This standard prescribes the ie- quirements and the methods of sampling and rest for knifing stopper. This material is used for filling up dents and uneven spots, in conjunction with other materials. This material constitutes a part of the painting schedule for a rail coach. (Price Rs.3-,fo).
48 IS : 5084—1969 Specification
for nylon socks.
This standard prescribes the requirements for seamless socks knitted in plain, rib or fancy stitches. (Price Rs. 3 • 50).
3994 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 13, 1969/BHADRA 22, 1891 [PART II—( 2)
49 IS : 5085—1969 Specification for berets, knitted, one- piece.
50 IS : 5087—1969 Specification for wire stripping pliers.
IS : 5122—1969 Specification for tyre levers.
(3)
(4)
This standard prescribes the constructional details and other particulars oj knitted berets. (Price Rs, 3'jo).
This standard covers the re- quirements for two types of wire stripping pliers. (Price Rs. 2-50;.
This standard lays down the requirements for nine types of tyre levers. (Price Rs. 5-oo).
Copies of these Indian Standards are available for sale with the Indian Standards Institu- tion, Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New DelhM and also its branch offices at (i) 535 Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel Road, Bombay-7 (ii) 5, Chowringhee Approach Road, Calcutta-i3
[No. CMD/13 : 2.]
New DeiM, the 25th August 1969
S E C
.
3 S.0.3729 —In pursuance of sub-regulation CO of Regulation 8 of the Indian Standards Institution (Certification Marks) Regulations, 1955, as amended from time to time, the Indian Standards Institution) hereby, notifies that eightyfive licences, particulars of which are given in the following Schedule, have been renewed:
( i i ) ]
THE ScHHDDii
T H E
Article/Process covered by the Licence and the Period of Validity
Name and Address of the Licensee
Relevant IS: Designation Licence No. and Date
SL No.
To
From
G A Z E T T E
(6)
(5)
O F ( 2)
(4)
C3j
CO
I
N D
I
DDT water dispersible powder concentrates—
Tata Fison Industries Ltd., Union Bank Building,
A 16-7-1969
1
I5-3-I97O
:
I S: 565-1961.
Dalai Street, Fort, Bombay-I.
The Alkali and Chemical Corporation of India Ltd.,
2
T-7-1969 30-6-1970
BHC emulsifiable concentrates—IS: 632-1966.
34, Chowringhee, Calcutta-16.
Motor Industries Co. Ltd., No. 22, Bannerghatta
S E P T E 1-8-1969 30-7-1970
14 mm sparking plugs—IS: 1063-1963.
3
Road, Adugodi, Bangalore-30.
Mysore Insecticides Company Pvt. Ltd., Andhra
16-7-1969
BHC dusting powders—IS: 561-1962. 15-1-1970
4
CM/L-29 i-7-!957 CM/L-125 23-6-1959 CM/L-I34 1^-7-1959 CM/L-169 22-2-1960
M B E R
L Sulphuric add, battery, pure and analytical reagent
Bank Building, 6, Linghi Chetty Street, Madias-i. Sonawala Industries Private Ltd., 137, Shaikh Meaon
30-6-1970
1-/-1969
5
1 3
grades —IS: 266-1961.
Street, Bombay-2.
,
India Pl\-ftood Company, 33, S. K. Dev Road,
1-8-1969
Tea-chest Plywood panels—IS: 10-1964, 31-7-1970
C
Pathipookar, Calcutta-48.
1 9 6 9
Aluminium conductor, steel reinforced and all
Anam Electrical Mfg. Co., Kadiam, East Godavari
1-7-1969 31-12-1969
/ 7
^
aluminium conductors—IS: 398-1961.
Disn., Andhra Pradesh.
16-7-1969 31-8-1970
BHC water dispersible powder—IS: 562-1962.
8
CM/L-312 26-6-1961 CM/L-327 31-7-1961 CM/L-424 30-6-1962 CM/L-42? 30-6-1962
The Hindustan Mineral Products Co. Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 27, Manganese Depot, Sewri, Bombay- 15-
Indian Iron & Meel Co. Ltd., Burnpur Works, P.O.
H A D R A 1-8-1968 31-7-1971
Structural steel (standard quality)—IS: 226-1962.
9
Burnpur, DisU. BurdiAan, (West Bengal).
2 2
Indian Oxygen Ltd., Electrode Factory, Barrackpore
Covered electrodes for metal arc welding of mild
, 10
1-8-1969 31-7-197°
Trunk Road, Khardiah, 24, Parganas.
stefcl of normal penetration type—IS: 814-1967.
•CM/L-430 12-7-1962 CM/L-433 18-7-1962
m
i
*Tnis license was reiewed far aperiod of threeyears, namely from 1-8-1968 to 31-7-1971, but was shown as renewed lor one year in the notLfica-
ton published under number S.O. 3607 dated 25-9-1968.
3 ^ 9 5
3 9 9 6
(6) (4)
(2)
( I)
C5)
(3)
T H E
Single-phsse sir all AC & universal electric motors of 16-4-1969
Gaulam Electric Motors Private Ltd., 42 Qkhla
II
I5-4-I97O
I HP with class 'A* insulation—IS: 325-1961
Industrial Estate, New Delhi-20
12
30-4-1970
BHC dusting pcwdeir— I S: 561-1962 16-7-1969
CM/L-4&6 30-12-1962 CM/I.-55I 25-6-1963
New Cheni-Mineral Mills Piivate Ltd, Chakravarti Ashoka Road, Industrial Estate, Kandivlee (.East) Bombay-67
G A Z E T T E
Mahendra Electrieals Ltd., Kamla Mission Road, (1) PVC cables of 250 and 650 volts grade with 13
16-7-1969 31-12-1970
Nadiad (Gujarat State)
copper and aluminium conductors CM/L-S53 25-6-1963
O F
I
N D
(it) FVC insulated flexible cords, 250 volts grade with copper conductors only—IS : 694 (Parts I & IFl-1964
I
A
, RHC dusting powders—IS: 561-1962 31-10-1970 Annapurna Pulverising Mills, Industrial Estate
16-7-1969
14
:
Eluni(W.G. Distt) A.P.
AAC&ACSRconductors—IS: 398-1961 16-7-1969
Ahnnmiom Cable Co Ltd, 12/1 Milestone, Mauwra
15-7-1970
15
Road, Faridabad (Haryana)
16
PcwerCables Pvt Ltd., Vittulwadi, P.B. No. 4,
1-7-1969 30-6-1970
CM/L-554 26-6-1963 CM/L-555 26-6-1963 CM/L-557 2-7-1963
Kalyan (C. Rly)
Hard-drawn stranted aluminium and si eel-cored aluminium conductors for overhead power trans- mission purposes—IS: 398-1961
S E P T E M B E R
Ink, drawing, .waterproof, jblack—IS : 7S9-1955 15-7-1970 Ctmlin Pvt Limited, Kondivala, Near Marol Bazar,
15-7-1969
17
Aadberi-Kuri* Road, Bombty-59
1 3
,
Rubber Insulated Cables:
30-11-1970
Skytose Ekctrieals (India), 43 Industrial Area,
iS
I-7-I969
Ftridabad
CM/L-S97 31-10-1963 CM/L-605 29-11-1963
Type Voltage grade conductor
1 9 6 9
/
(a) V1R Cables for Fixed Wiring If) Braided & compounded "1 250/440 & 650/1 100 Volts
B H A D R A
(it) Tough rubber sheathed VCoppcr or AhuniBi-
2 2
250/440 & 650/1 100 Volts urn
,
("i) Weather proof 250/440
& 650/1 100 Volts j
1 8 9 1
[
P ^ T
U
-
(b) VIR FUxible Cords (to) Twisted and circular "1 artificial silt or glac" cot- | too raided 250/440 volts .'•Copper oaly - I S: 434 (Parts I & II)— ( ^ 1964 J
Tensile Steel Ltd., Hirabsug, Viskwamitri Raadj Plaia hard-drawn sted wire for prestressed£con- 19
1-S-1969 31-5-1970
S E C
Bsrodi.
crete—IS: 1785 (Part I>—1966
20
Guest Keen Williams Ltd., 41 Chowriasfree Road,
3 16-6-1969 15-6-1970
Structural steel (standard quality)—IS : 226-1962
Ca'euTU
( ^ )
21
1 16-6-1969 15-6-1970
Do.
Structural steel (ordinary quality)—IS: 1977-1962
22
1-7-1969 30-6-1970 Pestiddes India, Udaisaftar Road, Udaipur
DDT dusting poweders—IS: 564-1961
23
Indote Steel & Iroa Mills, Post Box No. 6, Bhagi-
30-6-1970
Structural steel (standard quality)—IS: 226-1962 1-7-1969
rathpura, Indore Qtv, (MJ.)
30-6-1970
Do.
Structural steel (ordinary quality)—IS: 1977-1962 1-7-1969
24
National Rollirg & Steel Ropes Ltd., Nicco House,
25
1-7-1969 30-6-1970
Structural steel (standard quality)—IS: 316-1162
T H E G A Z E T T E
1 & 2 Hare Street, Calcutta.
26
1-7-1969 30-6-1970
Do.-i
Structural steel (ordinary quality)—IS: 1977-1562
O F
I
Kational inBulated Cable Co of India Ltd., Niece
27
16-7-1969 15-11-1570
House, 2 Hare Street, Calcutta-i.
CM/L-656 29-4-1964 CM/L-667 7-5-1964 CM/L-66S 7-5-1964 CM/L-677 25-5-1964 CM/L-683 17-6-1964 CM/L-684 17-6-1964 CM/L-685 17-6-1964 CM/L-686 17-6-1964 CMIL-696 17-6-1964
N D
I
A
:
28
S E P T E
29
30
M B E R
31
1 3 .
32
Do.r
1 9 6 9
/ 33
34
35
B R A D R A
2 2 ,
37
1 8 9 1 3 9 9 7
3 9 9
( 2)
8
(6)
(3)
(4)
(5)
39
StrvcUjid s("l (VarcEic c.rtiii;;—It : i i 6 - i ( £; 1-8-1969
Modern Industries, Sahibabad, Gbazlatad, Distr.
31-7-197°
T H E
Meerut.
D o.
4o
1-8-1969 31-7-1970
Structural steel (ordinary quality;—IS: 1977-15*2
41
1-8-1969 31-7-1970 Ki&an Engg Works Pvt Ltd., Banksiu Statics i,N. firvctuial E1erJ (EUECEK cralii^^—IS. ; : 6 - j ( 6:
RJv.), Distt. Bulaodshahr (U.P.).
42
Do.
1-8-1969
G A Z E T T E
Structural steel (crcinarj- qualify'—IS: 1977-1562 31-7-1970
Sri Rama Machinery Corpn P-\ t Ltd. Caihclic Cen-
O F 43
1-8-1969 31-7-1970
Sireciiml sietl (stEtc'frc c^uilitj:—IS: I ; 6 - I C 62
I
tre, 5/6 Axemenian Street, Madras.
Do,
31-7-1970
44
1-8-1969
Structural steel (ordinm qualiij-.—IS: 1977-1562
N D
I
A 45
1-8-1969
Hostess Appliances. 177 C.S.T. Road, Kalira, EcinesiicpreF'Uiecccker—IS' 2347-n_Id
31-7-1970
:
Bombay.
46
The Hindustan Iron and Steel Co Ltd, 8 Rajenc'ia
16-7-1969
Structure) steel (stancsrd qualiij) cf the followmg
15-1-197°
CM/L-720 29-6-1964 CM/L-721 2P-6-1964 CM/L-724 29-6-1964 GM/L-72S 29-6-1964 CM/L-732 29-6-1964 CM/L-733 29-6-1964 CM/L-739 10-7-1964 CM/L-835 10-11-1964
Deb Road, Calcutta,
sectioxiE only:
S E P T E
(1) M.S. Rounds upto 16 mm dia and over a^mc
dia;
(2) M.S. Squares upto 14 mm, so. and over 2Fmm
sq, and
M B E R
1 3
,
(3) M-S.Acgles,flats etc. where thecross-ctct^cr-jl area of the sample cces not exceed 2co sq mm— IS : 226-1962
47
16-7-1969
The Hindustan Iron & Steel Co Ltd, 8 Rajecdra Structural steel (crdirEiy quah'n) of the following 15-1-197°
1 9 6 9 CM/L-836 io-n-1964
Deb Road, Calcutta.
/
sections only :
(1) M.S. Rounds upto 16 mm dia and over 28 mm
dia;
(2) M.S. Squares upto 14 mm sq and over 28 mm
sq,and
B H A D R A
(3) M.S. Angles, flats etc where the cross sectional area of the sample does not exeed 200 sq mm— 2 2
,
IS: 1977-1962
Guest Keen Williams Ltd, 41, Chowringhee Road,
48
16-6-1969 15-6-1970
Rivet taisfor structural purpose:—IS: 1148-1564
Calcutta.
1 8 9 1
49
High tensile rivet bars for structural purpose;—
16-6-1969 15-6-1970
Do.
IS: 1140-1064
[
National Rolling & Steel Ropes Ltd, Nicco House,
5O
1-7-1969 30-6-1970
1 & 2 Hare Street. Calcutta.
CM/L-1079 1-6-1965 CM/L-1080 1-6-1965 CM/L-1097 15-6-1965
P ^ x
(1) Mild steel and medium tensile steel bsrs for concrete reinforce men t—IS: 432 (Part 0- 1966 and
i
{2) Hard-drawn steel wire for concrete reinforce-
^
fment—IS: 432 (Part II>I966
' 1-7-1969 f 30-6-1970 The India 11 Cable Co. Ltd.,9 Hare Street,Calcntu- Polythene insulated and PVC — sheathed cable"
1.
CM/L-1100 16-6-1965
S E C
.
with afamiBrum / copper ccnctcotcrs "— I S: 1506-1C62-
3
16-7-1969
The P lant Protectic n P rocucts P vt. L td.. Kc d av ahir DielcJrin smulfif atle ccrcfnliaWE — IS : 1054-1567. 15-1-1970
52
(S. PJy), Nellore Distt.
( i i ) ]
Power Cables Pvt Ltd., Kaftan (Maharashtra?.
16-7-1969 I5-7-I97O
53
H
I
Special Steels Ltd., Dattapsra Road, Eorvli (East),
EUciKc'ts j'cr rneta] arc weWirg of rnild steel, normal penetration types °rJy — IS : 814-1567. Galvariztd ircn sz.6 steel wire for telegraph and 54
16-7-1969 I5-7-I97O
telephone purposes — IS : 279-1561.
Bombay-66.
Mild steel wire for genera] engineering purpcse£,p—
55
16-7-1969 15-7-197°
Do.
IS : 280-7962.
Hindustan National Glass Mfg. Co. Ltd., Bahadur- Glass milk bottle*, 5C0 ml only —IS: i?9z-ic67. 1-7-1969 30-6-1970
56
garh, Distt. Rohtak.
E G A Z E T T E
And Glass Industries Pvt. Ltd., 14/1 Delhi Mathura
1-7-1969 30-6-1970
57
LamirEtfc safely glatf — IS : 2553-1 cft<.
Road, Haryana.
O F S. R. Shanna & Sons., £5 Netaji SuVbas Rozd,
5S
1-7-1969 30-6-1970
I
Calcutta-1.
CM/L-1106 30-6-1965 CM/L-1107 6-7-1965 CM/L-1108 6-7-1965 CM/L-1109 6-7-1965 CM/L-J200 19-1-1966 CM/L-1282 23-6-1968 CM/L-1287 2S-6-I966
Sand-ca"t trass scrt* Tt^Ti tib taps, 1:2*, 3I4" sizes ; and stop taps, i!z". 3/4*, and 1* sizes: IS : 781-1967.
N D
I
116-7-1969
Vltrccr-: 'anitfij rppl^rcfs (yituiis china 59
A :
S E P T E
M B E R
1 3
,
1 9 6 9
/
B H A D K A
2 2
, 60
1 6 9 1 3 9 9 9
4
O O O CO (2)
(4)
(6)
(5)
T H E
6z
16-7-1969 15-12-1970 Fort Gloster Industries Ltd., 31 Cbowrinfhei
CM/L-1470 7-7-1967
Road, Calcutta-16.
t l,o) Weatler proof PVC insulated and PVC sheathed cables with aluminium conductors only of t ie foUwowing types : (0 Single core, 250/440 and 650/1 100 volts, (i'O Twin core flat. 250/440 and 650/1 ico volts
G A Z F T T E
IS : 3035 (Part I) — 1965 and
O F
(b) Weatherproof polythene Insuteled. taped braided and compounded cables with aluminium
I
conductors only of the following types :
N D
I
(0 Single core," 250/440 and 650/1 100 volts (if)) Twin core flat,~25o/44O and 650/1 100 vote— A
:
IS - 3035 (Part II>—1965
63
16- 7-1969
Gujarat Sue] Tutes Ltd.- Near Kali Village,
15-7-1970
S ab arma ti, Ahm c d abad.
< *
S E P T E
16-7-1969 31-8-1970
Mild steel rubes . black and galvanised, light, medicm acd heavy grades — IS : 1279 (Part I)— ic68 ,, Endrin emulsifiable concent re Us •— IS : 1310-1958
65
16-7-1969 15-12-196!
, Endrin emulsiflable coccectrttef >— IS : 1310-1958
M B E R CM/L-1471 16-7-1967 p i i iTCM/L-1472 l3-7-l9"7 CM/L-1473 I3-7-I967
The Hindustan Mineral Product Co. Pvt. Ltd, 27) Manganese Depot, Sewri, Bcmbay-15. ) Keen Pesticides (P) Limited, Industrial Estate. Mudical P.O., Perumbavoor (via), Ernakuiam-i (Kerala State).
1 3
,
66
16-7-1969
Shri Sarapuran Saw Mills, SaharanpurRoEd, P.O . Plywood tea-chest battens— IS 10-1964. 15-1-1970
Yamuna Nagar, Distt. Ambala (Hfrj'ana).
67
Jaypore Tea-Chesl rittings Mfg. Co., 35 Chit.ar-
1-7-1969 30-6-1970
- Tea-chest metal fittings -— IS : 10-196J
1 9 6 9
/
anjaa Avenue, (3rd Floor) Calcutta-12.
68
30-6-1970 Makum Tea Chest Fittings Mfg. Co., 35 Chittaj r- Ho.
1-7-I9"9
CM/L-1584 14-12-1967 CM/L-1604 5-1-1968 CM/L-160S 5-1-1968
anjan Avenue, (3rd Floor)j Calcutta-12.
9
Milathion eaiulsifiable concentrates—18:2567-1963 Jai Chemicals, 14/1, Mathura Road, Faridabad
16-7-69 15-7-197°
{Haryana).
B H A D R A
70
16-7-1969 15-7-1970 P.V.C. Wires & Cables Ptt. Ltd., 1, Ishan Ghosh
2 2 CM/L-1613 9-r-i968 CM/L-1692 13-5-1968
Road, Calcutta-8.
Hard-drawn stranded aluminium and steel- cored aluminium conductors for overhead power
,
transmission purposes—18:398-1961
71
22-7-1969
BHC dusting powders—18:561-1962 15-7-197°
CM/L-I--04 21-5-1968
1 8 9 1 Chemicals and Insecticides, Ramnagar Karanjaha, Rly. Station, Kusmbi/N.E. Rly. Gorakipor (U.P.).
[
72
16-6-1953
Baiizids & Sais, S/6, Iadaitrial Area, Jullunduc
I5-S-I973
© tootballs Qaceless),
CM'L-1711 4-6-1968 ,
City.
P A U T
73
H 16-6-1953 15-6-1969 Bharat Steel Tabes Ltd., Ganaur, Distt Ro'atakj
(a) Volleyballs (laceless) and (w) Basketballs (lacelws)—18^(17-1965 MUd steel tubes—ISM239 (Part I)—1968]
- CM/L-1713 6-6-1368
(Httvasj).
Haas Raj Mihajan & Sens, G. T. Roid, Jultuaiur
30-4-1970
Crieket bays —IS-434 (Parts I & II)—1964
1-7-1969
74
S E C
.
City.
Apeejay Structurals Ltd., P.O. Rajbandh CE. RiyO
15-6-1970
16-6-1969
3
75
Distt. Burdwan.
CVt'L-1725 18-6-1968 CM/L-1726 18-6-1968
Welded low carbon gas cylinders for storage aad transportation of liquefied petroleum gases-- IS: 3196-1968.
( i i ) ]
The Indian Steel Rolling Mills Ltd., Main Road,
30-6-1970
1-7-1969
Tiruninravur, Chiagleput Distt.
C.M'L-I72S 25-6-T968
i . -
'
Hot rolled mild steel a td met um tensile steel deformed bars for concrete re-inforcement— IS:ii39-i966.
I
Kirloskar Brothers Ltd., Udyos Biivia, Tilak
30-6-1970
1-7-1969
77
Road, Poona-9.
CM/L-1729 27-6-1968
Sluice valves for water works purposes (with ijon- ferros spindles and rings), class Lwith nominal sizes upto 150 mm—18:780-1967
Steel wire ropss tor haulage purposes in mires —
Bombay Wire Ropss Ltd., 'NLrmjl' 3od Flo-ar,
31-10-1970
1-7-1969
78
G A Z E T T E
13:1856-1961
CM/L-I73O 28-6-1968
241, Backbay RecUtnition, Hirimm Point, Bombay-20.
O F
Tar"-phase indu;tion motors, 2'2 kw (3 HP), 30-6-1970
1-7-1969
I
79 CH'^-T73i 28-6-196^
N D
3-7 kw (5 HF), 5-6 kw (7-5 HP) and 7 " 5^ (10 HP) WLth class W insulation—15325-1961
Forge & Blower Co., (P"pj: Laljibliii Jivrata Prt. Ltd.) Niroda Road, A|amedabai-2, Gujarat State.
I
Sun Industries, 1/8, R.mi Kuta Sea Lane,
16-7-1969
Tei-cnest plywo>d panels—IS: 10-1964 80
A . 15-7-197°
:
Galcutta-4.
(1) Footballs (laceless),
Freewill & Co., S-33 Lilj^riit Area, JiiUuaJur
81
16-7-1969 , 15-1-1970
Cit>-.
CM'L-1733 3-7-1968 CSi/L-i73 4 10-7-1968
(2) Basket-balls (laceless) and (3) Volleyball (laceless)—IS1417-1965
S E P T E
Pesticides Ltd., Chitalsar Manpada; Ghodbunder
15-7-1970
Zinc phosphide, technical—18:1251-1958 16-7-1969
. .82
Road, Tnana.
Central Insecticides & fertilizers Saki N jka, \ iair
M B E R 16-7-1969 28-2-1970
DDT dusting powders—18:564-1962 33
Lake Road, Kuria, Bombay-70.
1 3
InJiao Capper Corpn. Ltd., Min'jhudir Works, BMJS sheet/strip, grade Cu Zn 30, Cu Zn 3; a td
.
16-7-1969 15-7-1970
84
Ghatsila P.O. Distt. Singhbum, Bihar S.E. Rly. Cu Zn 40— IS^io-1967
1 9
National Hlectro Mechanical Co,, Diieoarbhai
Single-phase AC motors of 0-37 kw (0-5 HP 1-8-1969 15-3-1970
85
;
°
Road, Bhaktinagar, Ra,kot-2.
rating with dass 'A' Ii su'ations 18:996-1964 CM./L-1736 11-7-196? C.M'L-1738 11-7-196-8 CM./L-1743 15-7-1968 CM,'L-i7Si 28-7-1968
/
[No. CMD/13 : 12.]
B H A D R A
2 2
,
1 8 9 1
4 0
O
I
4OO2 THE GAZ. OF INDIA: SEPT. 13, 1969/BHADRA 22, 1891 [PAHT II—SEC. 3(il)]New Delhi, the 29th August 1969
S.O.3730 In pursuance of sub-regulation (4) of regulation 14 of the India" Standards Institution (Certification Marks) Regulation, 1955, us amended from time to time, the Indian Standards Institution hereby notifies that licences No. CM/T—1509, 1809 and i8i85 particulars of which are given below, have been cancelled with effect from 1 August, 1969.
Name and address of the
Relevant Indjan Licence No.
the licensee
Article/Process co- vered by the licence Stanard
D D T D u s t Tg Powdert ILS: 564-icd CM/L-1509 Dated 6-9-1967
M/s, Metropole In - dustrics, Pradhan- khunta, Distt. Dhanbad.
AJdrin Dusting Powders I S: 1308-1958
Do.
CM/L-1809 Dated 14-10-1968
BHC Emulsiflablc IS: 633-1966
Do.
Concentrates
CM/L-1818 Dated 18-10-1968
[No. CMD/55:l 509.]
A. K. GUPTA,
Deputy Director General,
PHINTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER GOVERNMENT OF INDIA PRESS, MINTO HOAD,
N IW DELHI ANP PUBLISHID BY THE MANAGER OF PUBLICATIONS, DELHI, 196&
- , this figure has been stated to be 317 In both these paragraphs; (b) In paragraph 16 of the original, it has been stated that respondents 2 and 3 had been set up as candidates in the election by the Sanyukta Socialist Party, and as to respondents 6 and 5, it was stated that they had been set up by the Communist Party of India and the Jana Sangh respectively. But in Ext. 'O' it has been stated that the candidates who were set up by the Sanyukta Socialist Party were respondents 2 and 6, while respondents 3 and 5 had been set up by the Communist Party of India and the Jana Sangh respectively; (c) In paragraph 28 of the original, the following passage occurs : "Particulars of the gifts and gratifications in the form of bribe ollered by respondent No. 8 and his election agent and his agent with the connivance and consent of the said respondent No. 8 and his elec- tion agent are set out in Annexure 'D' hereto annexed." But the passage in Ext. 'O' rends : "Particulars of the gifts and gratifications in the form of bribe offered by respondent No. 8 and his election agent and his agent with the connivance and consent of the said respondent No. 1 and his elec- tion agent are set out In Annexure 'D' hereto annexed"; (d) In paragraph 3 of the verification at page 25 of the original, it has been stated, inter alia, that the statements made in paragraph 3 of the election petition are true to the petitioner's Information, but In Ext. 'O', no verification has been made with respect to the statements made in paragraph 3 of the election petition and instead verification has been made twice with respect to the statements made in para- graph 2. once as true to the petitioner's knowledge and again as true to his information; ↩
- ess It is further shown that by reason of the non-compliance with the provision of section 81(3), preiudiee hes been caused to respondent No. 1 in making his defence or In the trial of the election rjetltlon. According to Mr. Singh, no preiucHce has heen caused to respondent No. I on account of any of the inaccuracies In Ext. 'O'. In this connection it is pointed out that despite defect No. (f in Ext. 'O'. respondent No. 1 has led both oral and documentary evidence to combat the petitioner's case on the point of ↩
- admits that his name was registered as an elector in the Alipur Constituency of the West Bengal Assembly in 19Go,'"but he has relied uuon his application (Ext 31 to show that while seeking" his enrolment as an elector in Patna West Assembly Constituency, he had reauested that his name should be deleted from the electoral roll of the Alipur Assembly constituency of the West Bengal, If his name was still there. Evidence has been adduced on either side in supnort of the rival casea as to the residence of respondent No. 1 at the time of the impugned election. According to the evidence which the petitioner hag adduced, respondent No 1 is •only nn occasional visitor to Patna. where he comes from time to time in connec- tion with his business affairs, and whenever he comes to Patna, he stays in a hotel "known as the Hotel Republic, as indicated in the Visitors' Book of that hotel two volumes of which are on the record as Exts. 2 and 2 / 1. Respondent No. 1 has deposed that since 1967, he has toe»n ordinarily residing at Patna, w hw he lived in a building situated on the Exhibition Road, known as the Hawai Mahal, until ↩
- B H A D R A ↩
- 53 54 Do. D o. Do. Do. 1,36,325 14,26,988 22,74,537 20,04,365 ↩
- l~In exercise of the powers conferred by section 4 of the Tea Act, 195S ,nn (29 of 1953). read with rules 4 and 5 of the Tea Rules, 1954, the Central Govern- ment hereby appoints (1) Secretary to Government, Industries Department Tamil- nadu and (2) Shri N. Bhagwandas as members of the Tea Board until the 31st March, 1972 and makes the following amendment in the notification of the Govern- ment of India in the Ministry of Foreign Trade and Supply (Department of F?r^ ^r a*d e) ^ °- S O- ↩
- ↩
- ( t ↩
- ↩
- th A»r i l- i*" ↩
- ' d a t ed t he ↩
- ↩
- Published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary, namely: — In the said notification, (a) after entry 3, the following entry shall be inserted, namely: — "3A. The Secretary to Government. Industries ' Department, Tamilnadur Madras (ex-offlcio)"; (b) after entry 15, the following entry shall be inserted, namely: — "15A. Shri N. Bhagwandas, Managing Partner, Ben Gorm Nllelri Plan- tations Co., Hulical P.O. South India". [No. t7(l)Plant(A)/69.1 ↩
- the 25th October, 1966. According to him:— "The treatment accorded by the Corporation in respect of the loss on de- valuation is also in conformity with the accounting recommendations of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India*'. He has then quoted the remarks of the Institute which are as follows:— "Accounts with financial years ending prior to 6th June, 196ff. 2.1. Where the accounts of an enterprise are closed on a date prior to 6th June; 1966, but the auditor reports thereon subsequent to that date, the question arise* whether it is necessary to include in the accounts or in the auditor's report any reference to the fact of devaluation and its effects upon the accounts of the Com- pany. It is accepted in connection with certain matters that events occurring after the balance-sheet date may be of such a nature that they would have to be taken into acqount in order to show a true and fair view. The council is, therefore, of the opinion that it is the duty of the Directors of a company to disclose by way of a note on the accounts the effect, If material, of devaluation upon the accounta ↩
- Ih"- tact of 1ho devaluation unon its assets. He has sub- mitted that, while the Cor|)nnliov has shown in the balance sheet and profit ant ↩
- loss account of J 965-69 the loss of "Rs. 4,37.14,873 it has not shown in that balance- sheet tha loss of Rs. 4,38,84,209 which appears from note 8 at page 55 of the balancfsheet of 1965-Gfl. The note is as follows: "In addition to the liabilities (less assets') in foreign currencies as at 31st March, 1986 which had not been paid before 5lh June. 1988, In respect of which a Loss on Devaluation of Rs. 4,37,14,873 has been written off in the accounts, the Corporation had liabilities for purchase of Capital assets payable in foreign currencies of Rs. 7,63,20,.164 which are stated on the Balance-sheet at the rates of exchange ruling on 31st March, 1966. Consequent upon the devaluation of the Indian rupe^ on 6th June, 1986, the rupee value of these liabilities has increased by Rs. 4,38,84,209 for which no provision has been made". 14. This note makes the position absolutely clear- It shows that, while the loss of Rs 4 37,14 873 was written off, no provision was made for the loss of Es. 4,38,84,209 on purchase of capital assets. It has been explained on behalf of the management that the loss of the amount first mentioned wos shown in the balancesheet for 1965-66 because: (i) the entire purchase on which the loss was incurred was made in the financial year 1965-66; and (ii) almost all those goods were sold in that very financial year though the goods were paid for later on account of the credit of 120 or 180 days which was allowed to the Corporation. ↩
- , per cent return on capital as conceeded by the Fedre.vtlon, thc entire profit claimed by the Federation—highly inflated as it JS— would be completely wiped out and no surplus would be left. 20. I may proceed to consider these three items: — (!) Depreciation- -There are two methods of calcul↩