Subject NOT available

click here for IIIF manifest

REGISTERED NO. D-222

The Gazette of India

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

No. 19] NEW DELHI. SATURDAY. MAY 6, I972/VAISAKHA 16, 1894

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

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

Statutory orders and notifications issued by the Ministries of the Government of India (other than the Ministry of Defence) and by Central Authorities (other than the

Administration of Union Territories.)

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND REHABILITATION

(Department of Labour and Employment)

New Delhi, the. 20th April 1972

S.O. 1034,—In pursuance of section 17 of the Indus-

trial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the following award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad, in the industrial dispute between the em- ployers in relation to the management of Birhninat Bauxite Mine of Messrs Hindustan Aluminium Corpo- ration, Post Office Richughuta, District Palamau (Bihar) and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on the 11th April, 1972.

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUS- TRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 1), DHANBAD

In the matter of a reference under section 10(l)(d)

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

REFERENCE NO. 3 OF 1970

PARTIES:

Employers in relation to the management of Birhnipat Bauxite Mine of Messrs Hindustan Aluminium Corporation, Post Office Richu- ghuta, District Palamau (Bihar).

AND

Their Workmen,

PRESENT:

SHRI A- C. SEN,

Presiding Officer.

APPEARANCES :

For the employers—Shri S. S. Kapur, Advocate with Shri D. A. Sarupria, Agent of Mines.

For the Workmen:—Shri S. Das Gupta, Advocate

with Shri Mahavir Ram Verma, Joint Secretary.

STATE: Bihar,

INDUSTRY; Bauxite,

Dhanbad, dated the 6th April 1972

AWARD

The present reference arises out of Order No. 10/

3I/70-LR--IV dated New Delhi, the 3rd December, 1970 passed by the Central Government in respect of an industrial dispute between the parties mentioned above. The subject matter of the dispute has been specified in the schedule to the said order and the said schedule runs as follows:

"Whether the management of Birhnipnt Bauxite Mine of Hindustan Aluminium Corporation, Post Office Richughuta, Distt, Palamau (Bihar) were justified in denying employment to 114 workmen out of the 218 workmen of ex-con- tractor of the said Mine on reopening and resuming of work with effect from 8th March, 1970 under the Company's own Management? If not, to what relief the said workmen are entitled?".

2. Written statement were filed by both the parties but it is not necessary to refer the written statement and to decide the dipute on merits because it has been settled by the parties out of Court. A petition of compromise was filed on 6th April, 1972. I have gone through the said petition of compromise and I think.

( 1637 )

ANNEXURE 'A'

List of Workmen

Father's Name

Name

SI. No.

i.

that the terms and conditions contained in the said petition of compromise are quite reasonable end I do not find any reason why the terms and conditions should not be accepted. I accordingly hold that the present case should be disposed of on the basis of the terms and conditions contained in the said petition of compromise and I award accordingly. The petition of compromise shall form part of the award. Let a copy of this award be forwarded to the Central Go- vernment under section 15 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

(Sd.) A. C. SEN,

Presiding Officer.

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUS- TRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 1) DHANBAD

REFERENCE NO. 3 OF 1970

PARTIES:

Employers in relation to the management of

Birhnipat Bauxite Mine.

AND

Their Workmen.

Joint petition of compromise

2. 3. 4- 5. 6. 7. 8. 9- I O. I I. 12." 13. 14. 15 16. 17. 18. 19. 2 O. 2 1.

Both the parties beg to submit as follows:

(1) That the above reference has been fixed for

hearing today the 6th April, 1972.

(2) That the parties have negotiated and amicably settled the dispute on the following terms ond condi- tions:

Terms of Settlement

(i) That the management agrees to take into permanent employment 75 workmen concerned in this reference whose names are appended herewith in the list attached as Annexure 'A' at their Maidanpat and Birhnipat Bauxite Mines from 1st May, 1972 provided they report for such work by 30th April, 197Z.

(ii) That it is agreed by both the parties that out of the aforesaid total of 75 workmen the first 45 (SI. No. 1 to 45) in the list would be taken as miners and the remaining 30 as mazdoors.

(iii) That the union agrees to drop the dispute in respect of all other workmen in this case and also to withdraw, the Writ Petition filed Before the Hon'ble Patna High Court in respect of 218 workmen.

Sri Rantnu Uraon 3, Lohara Uraon „ Budua Uraon 3, Budhua Uraon ,3 Lakho Uraon „ Puna Uraon 3, Deharoo Mahato 3, Jauroo Mahali „ Mange Uraon a, Bhondo Uraon 33 Bahuran Manjhi a, Sukhdeo Oraon a, Taje Oraon j, Mangra Oraon< „ Mangra Oraon „ Karmu Mahali ,3 Rupu Uraon , Etwa Oraon „ Jauru Mahali „ Bhupan Mistry J} Jauru Mahali ,3 Charvva Oraon „ Punna Oraon ,3 Vudhram Orao 1 „ Lunda Oraon „ Bhaua Uraon „ Bandhan Uraon „ Rengta Singh 3, Thakru Uraon „ Bahna Uraon j, Mangra Uraon „ Suknu Uraon 3, Mangra Manjhi „ Budhua Uraon „ Sanicharwa Mahali ,3 Khoyena Singh „ Fagua Uraon ,3 Desai Uraon ,3 Khudi Uraon 3, Surtha Uraon 3, Ropn a Bhagat „ Saniya Bhagat j, Not known i| „ Mangru Mistri j Chamu Uraon 33 Sahadeo Uraon „ Lido Bhagat „ Mangra Uraon- „ Badari Mistri ,,Rama Uraon (iv) That the Union agrees that all workmen con- cerned in this case as well as those in the said Writ TV"" -" ' " * • ve no further claims whatsoever on

*,,Chamaru Uraon

(v) That 1he management agrees to withdraw the complaint cases filed under the Mines Act against some of concerned workmen.

(vi) That the parties will bear their own casts.

It is therefore prayed that your Honour may be graciously pleased to accept this compromise as fair and reasonable and to pass an award accordingly.

And for this your petitioners shall ever pray.

For employers For Workmen

(Sd.) D. A. SARTTPRIA, MAHAVIR R AM VEEMA,

Agent of Mines. Joint Secretary,

R.D.B.C.C.M.E. Union.

DHANBAD:

Jhalu Mistri j, Chura Uraon i, Budhram Uraon j, Biriya Uraon „ Lonad Uraon „ Ropna Uraon „ Maru Uraon ,3 Narsi'ngh Uraon „ Somra Mistri „ Bhakru Uraon ,3 Mithua Mahato „ Jaina Uraon „ T kan Uraon „ Not known ,, SardhuUraon ,3 Budhram Bhagat 3, Marwari Uraon „ Mahadeo Uraon „ Heta Uraon In Sohrai Uraon

2 2. 2 3. 2 4. 25- 2 6. 2 7. 2 8. 2 9. 3 0. 3 1. 3 2. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 4 0. 4 i. 4 2. 4 3. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 5 0. 5 1. 5 2. 53. 54- 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 6 1. 6 2. 6 3. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 7 0. 7 1. 7 2.

Sri Mahadeo UraOn „ MangruUraon „ Mitku Uraon „ Nandi Uraon „ Sani Uraon „ Kotho Uraon „ SahadeoMahatOj 3, SukraMahali „ Khadia Uraon , Dhani Uraon , Dhuri Manjhi , Narayan Oraonj , Bipta Oraon , Rohman Bhagar , Laldeo Bhagat , Lahasu Mahali „ Sukara Oraon ' , Bodhe Oraon , Ganga Mahali* , Nirmal Mistry £ , Bhaiya Ram Malab , Biriya Oraon , Suki Oraon , Mangara Oraon , Bandey Oraon „ Tewari Oraon , Bigu Uraon , Chuya Singh" , Aghanu Uraon „ Etwa Uraon . Karma Uraon , Brijmali Uraon , Lahasu Manjhi , Goyendra Uraon , Basudeo Mahali , Kinu Singh , Butna Uraon , Bales ar Uraon , BuduUraon , Sukhu Uraon , Faudari Uraon , Etwa Bhagat , Lachman Bhagat , Atwa Mistri 3 Some Uraon , Chamaru Uraon , Ratiya Bhagat 3 Kaila Bhagat , Mangal Mistri „ Budhua Uraon , Mangra Uraon , Balgovind Mistri , Bifai Uraon , BishunUraonp , Bari Uraon ,, Mahesh Uraon , Chumnu Uraon , Birshu Uraon ,, Biri Uraon , Sukar Mistn , Sukra Uraon ,, Jitna Mahato „ Sukaru Uraon , Sukra Uraon , Sukara Uraon ., Suku Uraon i ,3 Sukru Uraon iij „ Sukhram Uraon , PunnaUraon- , Jitbahan Uraon , Sudhram Uraon , Sudhu Bhagat

33 Saniya Bhagat

Dated, the 6th April, 1972.

Father'* Name N o. Name

si.

. Shri

Shri Thakru Bhagat ,, Budhu Bhugat Kanu Bhagat Bandey Bhagat Mange Uraon.

„ Not known.

73 74 75

Par Employers For Workmen!

(Sd.) D. A. SARUPKIA, tSdO AUHAVIR KAM VERMA,

AgcnL of Mines Joint Sccrtudry.j

R.D.JB.C.C.Ai.Ii. Union.

LNo. 10/31/70/-LRIV.]

New Delhi, the 22nd April, 1972

S.O 1035.—In pursuance of section 17 of the Indus- trial Disputes Act, 1047 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the following award oi the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbau (No. 3), in the industrial dispute between me empiu- yers in relation to the management of Madhuband Colliery, Post Office Nudkhurkee, District Dhanbad, and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on the 20th April, 1972.

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 3) AT DHANBAD

REFERENCE NO. 38 OF 1970

PRESENT:

B. S. Tripathi—Presiding Officer.

PARTIES:

Employers in relation to the Madhuband Colliery.

Vs.

Their workmen.

APPEARANCES:

i'or employers.—Sri S. S. Kapoor, Advocate. For workmen Sri J. D. Lai, Advocate.

INDUSTRY: Coal.

STATE: Bihar.

Camp at Patna, Dated the 1st April, 1U72 3. The present reference arises out of the dismissal of Sri J. P.. Sachar, Deputy Overman, Madhuband Colliery by the management of that colliery with effect from 30th April, 1970 and it is to the effect as to whether the action of the management in this re- gard is justified and ii not, to what relief the concern- ed workman is entitled to. In the joint petition it is stated that the concerned workman has been re- employed to his original job in the colliery since 15th October 1970 after the workman made an application (copy attached with the joint petition of compromise) in this regard to the management. Both the parties, therefore, prayed that the Tribunal should give no dispute award.

4. Sri J. D. Lai, Advocate on behalf of the workmen and Sri S. S. Kapoor, Advocate on behalf of the em- ployers accept the correctness of the lecital made in die joint petition and submit that the reference may be disposed of according to the prayer made by the parties.

5. In view of the facts on record and the submission made there will be a 'no dispute' award and I pass award accordingly. The joint petition of compromise along with the copy of petition to the management by the concerned workman attached to the joint petition will form part of this award as Annexure-A.

t>. Let the award be submitted to the Central Gov- ernment under Section 15 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

(Sd.) B. S. TRIPATHI, Presiding Officer, Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal

(No. 3) Dhanbad.

ANNEXURE 'A'

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. Ill, AT DHANBAD

IN THE MATTER OF REP. NO. 38 or 1970.

BETWEEN:

Employers in relation to Madhuband Colliery

AND

Their workmen as represented by the Union,

Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union.

Joint Petition of compromise:

AWARD

1. The Central Government in the Mniistry of Labour, Employment and Rehabilitation (Department of Labour and Employment) being of the opinion that an industrial dispute exists between the employers in relation to the management of Madhuband Colliery, Pout Office Nudkhurkee District Dhanbad and their workmen by its order No. 2/97/70-LRII, dated the 14th of August, 1970 referred to this Tribunal under Sec- tion 10(1) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for adjudication in respect of the matters specified in the Schedule annexed thereto.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Madhu- band Colliery, Post Office Nudkhurkee, Dis- trict Dhanbad. in dismissing Shri J. P. Sachar, Deputy Overman, with effect from the 30th April, 1970, was justified? If not, 10 what relief is the workman entitled?"

2. The workmen were represented by Sri J. D. Lai, Advocate/Vice President Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union, Dhanbad and Sri S. S. Kapoor, Advocate re- presented the employers. On the date of hearing both the parties filed a joint petition duly signed by Sri J. D. Lai, Advocate on behalf of the workmen and Sri S. S. Kapoor, Advocate on behalf of the employers with a prayer to pass a 'no dispute' award in the pre- sent reference.

The parties above named, Employers of Madhuband Colliery (hereinafter to be mentioned as Management) and the Union representing the workmen beg to sub- mit as under:,—

1. That the Central Govt. referred for adjudication

to this Hon'ble Tribunal the following disputes:

'Whether the action of the management of Madhu- band Colliery, P.O. Nudkhurkee, Dist. Dhan- bad, in dismissing Shri J. P. Sachar, Deputy Overman with eeffct from 30th April. 1B70 was justified? If not, to what relief Is the workman entieled?"

2. That the workman concerned, Shri J. P. Sachar had by his application dated 11th October, 1970 (copy attached herewith as Annexure A) had apologised and the management consequently re-employed him on his original job and since 15th October, 1970 the work- man concerned is in employment and working in this nolliery.

3. That since the workman concerned, as stated above is already in employment there is no dispute ..eft and both the parties agree to this.

4. That both the parties pray that your honour may

liive 'no dispute' award. i''ur the Workman For the Employers, (3d.) Illegible Advocate (Sd.) Illegible, Advocate Dated 2-2-72.

The Agent Central Office, Through the Manager. Madhuband Colliery.

Personnel Section Accept The apology, appoint a fresh in The old salary.

Sd/- Agent.

13.X

Dear Sir,

Due to respectfully and humbly I beg to state that I was the employee of Madhuband Colliery and was dismissed from service for disobedient of lawful orders to work in place of B. R. Mitra. In this connection I have also to state that I was misguided by certain self interested clevence in the colliery, who also creat- ed a very roudy situation and there was lot of labour trouble in the colliery. I could not approach my superiors due to misunderstanding and I hope you wiil excuse me this time.

I give you aassurance of good behaviour and conduct as also I have no connection with Union activities in the colliery.

I fervently hope that you will excuse me and give

me my work.

For 1 shall very grateful to you.

Yours faithfully, Sd/-J. P. SACIIAR,

Dt. Overman.

Put up P/File. Sd/- Illegible. 13. X

Recommended for favourable consideration.

(Sd.)— Manager. 12-10-70.

fNo. 2/97/70-LRIL]

S.O. 1036.—In pursuance of section 17 of the Indus- trial Disputes Act, 1947" (14 of 3 947), the Central Government hereby publishes the following award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (No. 3), Dhanbad, in the industrial dispute between tho em- ployers in relation to the management of Kapasara Colliery of Messrs Kapasara Coal Company, Post Office Mugma, District Dhanbad, and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on the 20th April, 1972.

CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 3) AT DHANBAD

REFERENCE NO. 53 OF 1969.

PRESENT:

B. S. Tripathi, Presiding Officer.

PARTIES:

Employers in relation to the Kapasara Colliery.

Vs.

Their workmen.

APPEARANCES:

For employers.—Sri B. Joshi, Advocate. For workmen— Sri B. Lai, Advocate.

INDUSTRY: Coal

STATE: Bihar.

Dhanbad, dated the 14th of April, 1972

AWARD

1. The Central Government, in the Ministry of Labour Employment and Rehabilitation (Department (51 Labour and Employment) being of the opinion that an industrial dispute exists between the parties, named above, in respect of the matters specified in the Schedule annexed thereto, by their order no. 2/ 256/68-LRII dated the 11th August, 1969 referred the said dispute under Section 10(1) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal The Schedule is extracted below:—

SCHEDULE

"Whether the management of Kapasara Colliery of Messrs Kapasara Coal Company, Post Office Mugma, District Dhanbad, was justified in transferring Shri Fa.supati Tewari, Chaprasi, to the Head Office at Jharia vide. Manager's letter dated the 24th April, 1967? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled.?"

2. In the proceeding the workmen were represented by Sri V. N. Prasad, General Secretary of Colliery Mazdoor Sabha, Karampura, District Dhanbad and Sri B, Lai, Advocate and the employers were repre- sented by Sri O. P. Kedia, Manager of Kapasara Colliery and Sri B. Joshi, Advocate. Both the parties filed their respective written statement. On 23rd March, 1972 both the Dirties filed a compromise peti- tion containing terms of settlement duly verified on behalf of the workmen by Sri V. N- Prasad, the General Secretary of the said union, Sri B. Lai, Advocate of the workmen and by the concerned workman and by Sri O. P. Vedia, the Manager of the concerned colliery and Sri B. Joshi, Advocate on behalf of the employers with a prayer to pass an award in terms of the settlement.

3. The above compromise petition embodying the terms of settlement arrived at by the parties was put on 12th April, 1972 before the learned Advocates of both the parties who submitted that the dispute between the parties has been settled amicably, in terms mentioned in the above petition. They submti- ted further that the terms of settlement are fair and reasonable which should be accepted and the award be passed accordingly.

4. After careful consideration of the terms of settle- ment contained in the above petiton and the submis- sions made on behalf of the parties, keeping in view the reference in question, I accept the terms of settle- ment as fair and reasonable and beneficial to both the parties and accordingly pass my award in terms thereof. The terms of settlement will form part of this Award and is annexed with this Award as Annexure 'A'.

5. Let the award be submitted to the Central Government under Section 15 of the Industrial Dis- putes Act, 1947.

(Sd.) B. S. THIPATHI,

Presiding Officer.

ANNEXURE 'A' BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 3) DHANBAD.

REFERENCE NO, 53 OF 1969

Employers in relation to Kapasara Colliery

AND

Tlielr Workmen.

Without prejudice to the respective contentions of the parties above named, the parties have amicably settled the dispute on the following terms:

Terms of Settlement

1. That the concerned workman will not claim any relief of reinstatement with back wages in this colliery since he has been gainfully employed elsewhere during this period.

2. Thut the Employers will pay fis, 500 (Five hundred) only as an exgratia payment for the loss suffered by him if any during the period from 24th April, 1967 to the date of this settlement.

3. That the concerned workman will have no fur- ther claim with the management on any other account.

4. That in view of this settlement, the dispute mentioned in the reference stands resolved and there remains no dispute between the parties which needs adjudication by the Hon'ablo tribunal.

It is humbly prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal be graciously pleased to accept the terms of the seti I :mcnt as fair and reasonable and be pleased to pass the Award in terms of this settlement.

Schedule annexed hereto, The schedule is extract- ed below:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the management of North Damoda and Kessergarh Collieries, Post Office Nudkhur- kee, District Dhanbad, was justified in termi- nating the services of their twenty-two workmen, whose names, designations and dates of termination are given below? If not, to what relief are the workmen entitled?"

Name

Designation

SI, N o.

For the Employer ] 1 r tin workmen

(S,U O. P. KEDLA, (Sd.) V. N. PRASAD.

M n a ^ r, Kap.is.ira Colliery, General Secretary

CoHiury Mazdoor Sahha At. Karampura

(3d-) B. J ishi, AdvacatO. P . O.

Via, Nirahachat Dint. Dhanbad.

iSd.) P. P. TEWARI,

fthe concerned workman).

[No. 2/256/68-LRIL]

New Delhi, the 24th April, 1972

S.O. 1037.—In pursuance of section 17 of the Indus- trial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the folowing award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, (No, 3), Dhanbad, in the industrial dispute between the em- ployers in relation to the management of North Damoda between the employers in relation to the Damada and Kessergarh Collerles Post Office Nud- khurkee, District Dhanbad, and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on the 20th April, 1972.

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 3) AT DHANBAD

REFERENCE NO. 89 OF 1969

PRESENT:

B. S. Tripathi, Presiding Officer.

PARTIES:

Employers in relation to the Kessergarh and

"North Damuda Colliery.

Versus

Their workmen.

APPEARANCES:

For employers.—Sri S. S. Mukherjee, Advocate. For workmen.—Sri P. Choudhary, Advocate.

INDUSTRY: Coal,

STATE: Bihar.

Dhanbad, dated the 13th of April, 1972

AWARD

1. The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour, Employment and Rehabilitation (Department of Labour and Employment), being of the opinion that an industrial dispute exists between the emplo- years in relation to the management of North Damoda and Kessergarh Collieries, Post office Nudkhurkee, District Dhanbad and their workmen, by its order No. 2/80/69-LRII, dated the 29th November, 1969 referred the dispute under Section 10(1) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to this Tribunal for adjudication in respect of the matters specified in the

Date of termira- tion 0 service.

1.

Wagon Loader Mirier Miner U. G. Trammer U. G. Tramn.ci- U. G. Trammer Miner

U. G. Trammer U. G. Trammer Chaprasi U. G. Trammer Miner Bailing Mazdoor U. G. Trammer Miner MinL'r U. G. Trammer

LJ. G. Trammel 2, 3. 4- s. 6. 7- B. y. 10. IT. 12. 13. 14- 15- 16. 17- I ". 19. 2O.

2 1. 11.

Sri Munilul Beldar ,, Gumani Gope „ Dukhan Gnpc ,, Raghu Nandan Gope ,, Ramdaa Gope „ Ram Chandra Gopc ,, Samaru Gopc JJ SakaUip Gupe „ Fekan Gopc ,, Deo Nandan Gope „ Dular Chand Gopc ,. Mathura Mahato „ Hardeo Gopc „ Mahadeo Gopc „ Baru Gope ,, Deo Nandan Gopc „ Ramdeo Gopc „ Rupan Dusadh „ 3akaluc" Gope „ Dehan Gopc ,5 Loknath Gope „ Raj Kumar Gopc

Chaprasi U. G. Trammer Min<*r Chaprasi

31-1-66 31-1-66 31-1-66 31-1-66 31-IC66 31-1-66 11-11-65 11-11-65 11-11-65 10-11-65 11-11-65 11-11-65 21-1-66 21-1-66 21-1-66 21-1-66 22-7-65 • 22-7-65 22-7-65 22-7-65 8-10-65 10-11-65

2. In the proceeding the employers were represented by S/Sri S. S. Mukherjee, Advocate and N. K. P. Sinha, Personnel Officer and the workmen were represented by S/Sri P. Chaudhury and J. D. Lall, Advocates and Sri Umakant Singh, Orga- nising Secretary, Colliery Mazdoor Sangh. On 27th Apr. 1970 the employers filed their written statement and the written statement on behalf of the workmen was filed on 4th July, 1970. On 6th August, 1970 a rejoin- der to the written statement of the employers was filed on behalf of the workmen. Since the matter in dispute has been settled amicably by compromise I do not consider it necessary to discuss the respective stand of the parties in their written statements.

3. The parties have filed a joint petition of compro- mise which has been verified by Sri S. S. Mukherjee, Advocate, the Agent Sri Brahmdev Bahl and the Director Sri Arjun Agarwala on behalf of the emplo- ers and by Sarva Sri P. Chaudhury, Advocate and Umakant Singh, authorised representative of the work- men-Organising Secretary, Colliery Mazdoor Sangh on behalf of the workmen and also by all the twenty two concerned workmen. The joint memorandum of compromise contains the terms of settlement arrived at by the parties.

4. Both the parties submitted before me that the terms of settlement finally resolve the dispute under reference and there is no subsisting dispute for adju- dication in the present reference. They prayed that an award be passed in terms of the memorandum of compromise.

5. The terms of the compromise appear to be fair ana reasonable and beneficial to both the parties. 1 accept the compromise and pass an award in terms of the memorandum of compromise, which is attached herewith as Annexure 'A' of the award.

6. This is my award. It may now be submitted to the Central Government under Section 15 of the Indus- trial Disputes Act, 1947.

B. S. TRIPATHI, Presiding Officer,

Central Government Tribunal (No. 3)

Dhanbad.

ANNEXURE A

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUS-

TRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 3) AT DHANBAD

In the matter of

REFERENCE NO. 89 or 1969

BETWEEN

The Employers in relation to the management of North Damoda and Kcssergarrah Collieries, P.O. Nudkhurkee., Distt. Dhanbud.

AND

Their workmen

MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT

All the parties in the present proceeding have ami- cably settled the dispute involved in the present Refe- rence on terms hereinafter stated.

(1) The twenty-two workmen concerned In the pre-

sent Reference shall be employed by the management of North Damuda and Kessergarh Collieries within a fortnight from the date of receipt of the Hon'ble Tribunal's Award in this Reference.

(2) After employment as mentioned above, these workmen concerned in this Reference shall be allowed continuity of their service without any claim for wages or any kind of other relief whatsoever and for purpose of maintaining continuity of their services, The intervening period from the date of their last termination of services (which gave rise to the present Reference) to the date of employment (as per para 1 hereof) will be treated as the period of leave without pay.

(3). The owners of the said Collieries (the past management which was partly to this dispute) on their account shall pay a sum of Rs. 500/- (Rupees live hundred only) to each of the twenty-two workmen concerned in this Reference, as an ex-gratia, amount within a week from the date of their respective em- ployment as per terms hereinabove.

(4). In the event of the failure of the concerned workmen to report for work within the period men- tioned in paragraph 1 hereof, the workmen concerned shall have no right for employment etc. under this agreement.

(5). The above terms finally resolve the dispute between the parties and therefore, there Is no subsist- ing dispute for adjudication in the present Reference.

(6). The parties shall bear their own cost of pro-

ceedings.

It is therefore, prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to accept this settlement and to give its Award in terms thereof. For the Employers For the work For the Manbhum Coal workmen concerned Syndicate (P) Ltd.,

(Sd.) ARJUN AGARWALLA, ( I) Munilal Bcldar

Director. (Thumb impression)

(SdO Illegible 9-3-72 Agcntj (2) Gumani Gopc NjrthDamoda & KeSaergath (Thumb impression) * ' Collieries.

(3) Dulchan Gope

Dat=d 28-2-73

(Thumb impression) (4) Raghu Nandan Gope (Thumb impression)

(5) Ramdas Gope

(Thumb impression)

(6) Ram Chandra Gopc

(,Sd.) Illigiblc)

(7) Samaru Gope

(Thumb impression)

(K) (Sd.) Sahaldip Gope

(9) Fckan Gope

(Thumb impression)

(10) Deo Nandan Gope

(Sd.) Migible

(11) (Sd.) Dular Chand Gope

(12) MathuxaMaharo

(Thumb impressi on

(13) Hardeo Gope

(Thumb impression)

(14) Mahadeo Gopc

(Thumb impression)

(15) Baru Gope

(Thumb impression)

(16) Deo Nandan Gopeminos

(Thumb impression)

(17) Ramdco Gope

(Sd.) Illigible

(18) (Sd.) Rupan Dusadh

(19) (Sd.) Sakaldeo Gope

(Sd.) Illigible

(20) Deban Gope

(Sd,) Illigible

(21) (Sd.) Loknath Gope

^22) (Sd.) Raj Kumar Gope (Sd,) Illigible

(23) (Sd,) Umakanc Singh (Authorised Representative of Workmen Organising Secretary, Colliery Mazjo or Sangh)

(Sd.) Illegible

(Advocate).

INo. 2/80/. .9-LR1I./

S.O. 1038.—In pursuance of section 17 of the Indus- trial Disputes Act, 1947 (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 emplo- yers in relation to the management of Kapasara Colliery of Mengers Kapasara Coal Company, Post Office Mugma, District Dhanbad, and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on the 20th April, 1972.

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

(NO. 3) AT DHANBAD

REFERENCE NO. 87 OF 1969

2. The workmen were represented by Shri V. N. Prasad, General Secretary, Colliery Mazdoor Sabha, Karampura, (Dhanbad) and the employers were re- presented by Shri B. Joshi, Advocate. The date of hearing was fixed on 24th March, 1972 but both the parties appeared before the Tribunal on 23rd March, 1972 nnd filed a joint petition of compromise. The compromise petition has been signed by O. P. Kedia, Manager. Kapasara Colliery and Shri B. Joshi, Advo- cate on behalf of the employers and it has been signed bv Shri V. N. Prasad, General Secretary, Colliery Mazdoor Sabha on behalf of the workmen.

Present;

B. S. Tnpathi, Presiding Officer.

PARTIES:

Employers in relation to the management of Kapa-

sara Colliery.

V$.

Their workmen.

APPEARANCES:

For the employers:— Sri B. Joshi, Advocate. For the workmen:—Sri V. N. Prasad, General Secretary, Colliery Mazdoor Sabha, Karampura (Dhanbad).

INDUSTRY: Coal.

STATE: Bihar.

Dhanbad, Dated the 12th April, 1972 AWARD

1. The Central Government, being of the openion that an industrial dispute exists between the employ- ers in relation to the management of Kapasara Coll- iery of Messrs Kapasara Coal Company, Post Office Mugma, District Dhanbad and their workmen by its order No. 2/115/69-LRII dated the 24th November, 1969 referred to this Tribunal under jection 10(1) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for adjudication In respect of the matters specified in the Schedule annexed thereto. The Schedule is extracted below: —

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Kapa-

sara Colliery of Messrs Kapasara Coal Com- pany, Post Office Mugma, District Dhanbad in stopping from work the twenty workmen, whose names and designations are ffiven below, with effect from the 2nd May, 1967 was justi- fied? If not, to what relief are these work- men entitled?"

Name

Designation SI. No.

1. J 2. )

3. In the present case both the parties have filed their respective -written statement. But since the dis- pute has been amicably settled it is not necessary to state the respective cases of the parties.

4. According to the terms of compromise it has been ascreed by the employers to pay a total sum of Rs, 2.000/- (two thousand) only at the rate of Rs. 100/- (Rs. one hundred) each as exgratia payment to each of the concerned workmen or to the heirs of those who are reported to have since died during the pen- dency of the present reference. The concerned work- men will have no further claim with the management on any other account and the management will for- ward the applications for refund of P.F. contributions to the C.M.P.F. Commissioner and no further dispute exists between the parties.

5. Both the parties submit that the Tribunal should accept the terms of compromise as fair and reasonable and pass award in terms of the settlement.

6. After careful consideration keeping in view the reference, I accept the terms of settlement as fair and reasonable and accordingly pass my award in terms thereof. The terms of compromise which is annexed with his award as Anncxure 'A', will form part of the award.

7. Let the award be submitted to the Central Gove- rnment under Section 15 of thr? Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

(Sd.) B. S. TRIPATHI,

Presiding Officer.

Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal (No. 3)

Dhanbad.

ANNEXUHE A

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, rENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 3

AT DHANBAD

REFERENCE NO. 87 OF 19fl9

Employers in relation the Kapasara Colliery

AND

Their workman. Without prejudice to the respective contentions of the parties above named, the parties have amicably settled the above dispute on the following terms:

Terms of the settlement

Shri Abdul Shekh , Chhakawai Prasad , Maharteo Singh , T°yi"i Mnji , ThuruModi , Sadfmard Kutnbhaf , Suhoiih Go pc , Sahadeo , Kailash Rhuian , Chan d muni Maghian , Curupari" Gorain , ShyaamapaduSarkar , BhokhaManghc , Mansha Man <5he No. 2 , Risha Munrtatn , Kalo ManRha , Purun ei M an ghi an , Moti Batirl , Hari Bhutan , Nsnda Manjhi

BoUer fireman. Trammer Trammer Trammer Trammerr HaulajreKhalasi Pump Khalasf PumpKhalasi L°ading Mazdoor LoaditR Mazdoor Bioler fireman PumnKhalssJ Tramm er Tramm er Loa,]1nP Mazdoor Tramm cr Depni MaZiionr Depot Mazdoor Depot Mazdoor Trammer, 3. J 4. t, 3 6. , 7. 1 8. , 9- . 10. 1 IT. , 12. , 13, , 14. > I t. 16. , 17. , 18. , 19. 1 20, ,

1. That the concerned workmen mentioned in the schedule of this reference will not claim any relief of reinstatement with back wages since most of them have been gainfully employed elsewhere in better em- ployments and some have died.

2, That it has been aprped bv the employers to pav a total sum of Rs. 2,0nn (Rupees two thousand) onlv at the rate of Rs, 100 (Rupees one hundred) each as cr-gratla payment to each of the workman men- tioned in the schedule of the reference or to the heirs of those who are reported to have since died during the pendency of the present reference.

CABINET SECRETARIAT

3. That the concerned workmen will huve no fur- ther claim with the management on any other account.

4. That the management will forward the applica- tions for refund of P.F. Conrtibutions to the C.M.P.F. Commissioner.

5. That in view of this settlement the dispute men- tioned In the reference stands resolved ancl there re- mains no further dispute between the parties which needs further adjudication by the Hon'ble Tribunal,

It is humbly prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal be graciously pleased to accept the above terms of settle- ment as fair and reasonable and be pleased to pass an award in terms of this settlement.

(Department of Personnel)

New Dulhi, the 24th, Mirch 1972

S.O. 1040.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (I j .if section 492 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (5 of 1898), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri S. P. Seth, a Deputy Legal Adviser in the Central Bureau of Investigation, as Public Prosecutor for the conduct of cases instituted by the Delhi Special Police Establishment in the court of anv Magistrate. Special Judge or Sessions Judge In any State or Union territory of India,

[No. 225/ll/72-AVD(II).J

For the Employers. For the Workmen

CSd.) O. P. KKDIAZ, fSd.1 V. N. PBASAIJ,

Manegcr, Kapusara General Secretary.

Colliery. Colliery Mozjoor Sarba

At. Karampuru

(Sd.) B. JOSHI, Advocate. P.O.

Via. Narshuchu'i Dist. Dliaf bad.

TNo. 2/115/69-LRII.1

KARNAIL SINGH, Under Secy.

MINISTRY OS COMMUNICATION

(P. & T. Board)

New Delhi, the 29th April 1972

S O. 1039.—In pursuance of para (a) of Section III

of Rule 434 of Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951, as intro- duced by S.O. No. 627 dated 8th March, 1060, the Director General, Posts and Telegraphs, hereby speci- fies the 1st June, 1972 as the date on which 1hf> Measured Rate System will be introduced in GUDUR Telephone Exchange, Andhra Circle.

New Delhi, the 20th April 1972

[No. 5-9/72-PHBC11).]

H, C. MATHUR, Director of Phones (E), S.O. 1041.—In exen.'ise of the powers corf erred by sub-section (1) of section 492 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (5 of 1898), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Z. A. Khalidi. Deputy "Legal Adviser in the Central Bureau of Investigation, as public Prosecutor to conduct cases of the Delhi Special Police Establishment before the court of any Magistrate, Special Judge or Sessions Judge in any State or Union territory.

I No. 225/28/72-AVDCID.1

B. C. VANJANI, Under Secy.

MINISTRY OP HOME AFFAIRS

ORDER

Nrw Delhi, the 21st April 1972

S.O. 1042.—In pursuance of clause (a) ot sub-section (3) of section 21 of the Government of Union Territo- ries Act, 1963 (20 of 1963), the President hereby determines that for the financial year 1972-73, the expenditure relating to the office of the Administrator of Mizbram, other than the Administrator's 'emolu- ments and allowances, shall be a sum not exceeding Rs. two lakhs thirty seven thousand.

[No. 3/27/72-MZ.]

JAYAKER, JOHNSON, Dy. Secy.

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Banking)

New Delhi, the 5th April 1972

S.O. 1043.—In exercise of the powers conEerred by sectojn 53 read with Section 56 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949), the Central Govern- ment, 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 Rajasthan State Industrial Co-operative Bank Ltd., Jaipur for a period of one year from 1st March, 1972 to 28 February 1973.

[No. F. 15-1/72 ACII,]

L. D. KATARIA, Dy. Secy.

(Department of Revenue and Insurance)

INCOME-TAX

New Delhi, the 30th March 1972

8.0. 1044—It is hereby notified for general informa- tion that the institution mentioned below has been approved by the Indian Council of Sosial Science Research, the 'prescribed authority' for the purposes of clause (iii) of sub-section (1) of Section 35 or the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961) subject however to the condition that it would send an annual report of its activities and research programmes and also a statement of accounts of the funds received under section 35(1) Ciii) and their utilisation, to the Indian Council of Social Science Research. New Delhi.

Institution NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF RANK MANAGEMENT. BOMBAY.

[No. 70/F. No. 203/32/71-ITA.2.]

S. N. NAUTIAL, Dy. Secy.

BOMBAY CENTRAL EXCISE COLLECTORATE

CENTRAL EXCISE

MANUFACTURED PRODUCTS

Bombay, the 28th, August, 1971

S.O. 1045.—In exercise of the powers conferred on me under Rule 5 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, I

hereby empower the Central Excise Officers of and above the rank ag specified In column 2 of the subjoined Table to exercise the powers of "Collector" under the'Central Excise Rules, 1944 enmuerated in column 1 thereof subject to limitations set out in column 3 of the said Tables:—

"TABLE"

Rank of Officer

Limittationsif any

Central Ex. Rule

96 ZO(i) All officers of and above the rank or Supdt. C. Ex-

First A.S.P. may be Pcccp- ted⁴bv the officer no below the rank of Ass"/

Collector.

96 Z0(2) All officers of and above

the rank of As8". Colli of Centra] Excise-

(el Power of accepting

96 ZOC4) All officers of & above the rank of Supdt. of C.Ex.

renewal application in form A.S.P. shall be exercised by the Supdt. of Central Excise-

(61 Where the delay in presenting A.S.P. is not more than 10 days the Supdt. C.E. shall ex- ercise the power of condoning the delay.

(c) Where delay In pre- senting the A.S.P. exceeds to days the Asfltt. Collector C. Ex. shall exercise the power of condoning the delay.

96ZQC2) All officers of & above the rank of Asstt.Collr. of Central Excise.

Adjudicating Officers-

96ZSCO to (Hi)

to demand duty, to confiscate goods wd to impose penalty in accordance with their limits of adjudications viz. (T) Supdt. C. Ex. may confiscate goods not exceeding Rs- 1000/- in value and impose pen- alty upto RE- 100/- and demand duty in such cases-

(ID Asstt. Collector of Central En- se may con- fiscate gorx'snot ex-

ceeding Rs- 5000/- in value and impose penalty UD 0 R8. 250/- and demand duty In such cases.

(HD Dy. Collector may confiscate Roods not exceeding Rs. 50*000/ In value and impose penalty upto Rs- 750 and demand duty In such cases.

[No. CER's/2/71]

M. S- MEHTA, Collector of Central Excise, Bombay

OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

DELHI (CENTRAL), NEW DELHI-

Neu> Delhi, the 17th February, 1972.

S.O. 1046,—As authorised & directed by the Central Government vide Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue & Insurance), New Delhi's order F. No. 16/202/67-ITB dated 25-3-1969 in terms of section 287 of the Income-tax Act 1961 (43 of 1961) tho nam~s and other specified particulars relating to assessee :—

(0 being indivduals or Hindu Undivided Families, who have been assessed on an Income of more than one lakh of rupees;

(it) being firms, association of persons or companies, who have been assessed on an Income of more than ten lakhs of rupees;

assessed during the financial year 1970-71 arc hereby published.

I. Names of all Individuals and Hindu Undivided Families who have been assessed on an income of Rs. 1 lakh or more during

the Financial year 1970-71 :—

Name and address of the asscsscc

Status Assessment year SI. No.

Total income

assessed

2

1

4

3

5

1. Shri Anil Mohan Gupta C/o M/s. Auto Sales, P. D. Tandon Road, Allahabad. . Indl.

2. ShriAiitKumarC/oIndialmplemcntMfg.Co., MarrisRoad,Aligarh.

. Indl.

Shri Ashnk Kumar P/O M/s Ramcshwar Dass Prem Crwnd, Rewari, Shri Ajay HariDalmiu,4, Scindia House, New Delhi Shri AmarNath Kapoor, General Ganj, Kanpur. . . . ..

. Indl. . Indl. , indl.

3- 4- 5-

145830

15471°

117250

141920

463600

132310

139550

108520

119080

1968-69 1969-70 1967-68 1968-69 1966-67 1970-71 1968-69 1969-70 1970-71

I

2

3

4

5

6. Bakshi Abdul Majid, Parnposh Hotel, Residency Roa'd, Snnagar,

Indl,

1954-55 1955-56 1966-67

154230 468230 181900

Master Baboo (Pankaj Gupta) through L. Devi Chand, P. D. Tandon Road. Alla-

7-

habad

.

Seth Banarsi Dass Gupta C/o M/s. Jaswant Sugar Mills Ltd., Mecrut Scth Banarsi Dass Gupta C/o M/s. Jaswant Sugar Mills Ltd., Meerut .

8. 9

Indl. Indl. HUF

10. Shri B. K. Bedi, 38 Pussa Road, New Delhi.

Indl.

. . ..

Shri Baldev Krishan Bahal P/o Pearl Woolen Mills No. 1, Ludhiana. Shri Bal Chand Soni, P/o M/s. R. K. Machine Tools, Ludhiana. . M/8. B. D. Seth & Sons, Calcutta., . .. Shri Charan Das C/o M/s JagtuMalKundan Lai,Patiala

11. 12. 13- 14-

Indl. Indl. HUF Indl.

Shri C. M. Gupta C/o M/s. Auto Sales, P.D. Tendon Road, Allahabad. . Shri Chand Rattan Ruthi C/oRathi Steel Rolling Mills, Shahdara. Delhi. . Shri Charaujit Singh C/o Oriental Building & furnishing Co. (P) Ltd., New Delhi

Indl. H.U.F, fndl.

15- 16. 17.

18. 19- 20.

Shri Dharambir C/o M/s. DhararnbirManohar Lai,Haldwani. Shri Durga Purshad P/o Shri Ramoshwar Dass Prem Chand, Rewari. Shri Daljit Singh C/o Oriental Bldg. & Furnishing Co. (P) Ltd., New Delhi. .

H.U.F. Indl. I9lridl.

Shri Dharam Pal Seth CloShivPrakash Janakraj & Co., Amritsar . Shri F. C. Mehra, 13-B, Rajiadra Park, New Delhi

tndl. Indl.

21. 22.

R. B. GujarMalModijModinagar

Indl.

23-

24. 25.

Shri Gopal Chand P/o M/s. Rameshwar DBBS Prem Chand, Rewari. Shri Gian Chand P/o Ramjidas Rambilae, Kucha Natwan, Dclhi-6. .

Indl. indl.

S. Gurinder Singh Kairon C/o Ncelam Theatre. Amritsar Shri H. P. Nanda. iz, Jor Bagh, New Delhi. . . . . ..

26. 27.

Indl. Indl.

1969-70 1966-67 1959-60 1960-61 1966-67 1966-67 1967-68 1966-67 1966-67 1961-62 1968-69 1960-70 1958-59 1969-70 1966-67 1969-70 1970-71 1966-67 1966-67 1969-70 1970-71 1966-67 1959-60 1960-61 1966-67 1961-62 1966-67 1966-67 1963-64 1964-6-; 1966-6~7 1967-68 1968-69 1967-68

Indl.

106450 141 sw 784892 733990 910560 165450 105220 432110 212480 105160 139886 113027 181983 109950 158733 146670 195739 322115 324030 185000 2Ii;S9O 21IS70 270054 602554 676299 II1676 I15778 465350 154825 332778 152880 174586 162125 126940 28. 29.

ShriH. C. Gupta,23-A, AshokMarg. Lucknow. • . .. Bakshi Haji Ghulatn Nabi P/o Haji Ghulam NabiNo.wudin & Co., Residency Rd.,

Srinagar.

Shri Hari Kishan Rmhi C/oRathi Steel Rollng Mills, Shahdara, Delhi. . Shri I. C. Gupta C/o M/s. Kailash Motors, G.T. Road, Kanpur.

Indl. H.U.F. Indl.

30. 3i-

S. Indcr Singh C'o M/8. The Singh Engg. Works (P) Ltd.Kanpur. • Shri JagdishRai Jain, n o - D, KamlaNagar3 Delhi

indl. Indl.

32- 33-

1958-59 1966-67 1968-69 1969-70 1970-71 1970-71 1967-68 1968-69

Shri JagdishRai Jain, 110-D, KamlaNagar, Delhi. . . . .. Shri Joginder Singh, 12, Roshanara Road, Delhi Srat. JogwatiDevi C'oM/s. JagtumalKunJan Lal,Paliala- . . .. Shri J. Dalmia,4, Scindia House, New Delhi. Shri Jai Hari Dalmia, 4, Scjndia House, New Delhi Shri Jiwand Singh P< 0 M/s. Aeroplane Shoe Factory, Karol Bagh, Delhi. . Shri J. R. Malik C/o Erose Cold Storage, Railway Road, Gurgaon. •

H.U.F. Indl. Indl. Indl. Indl. Indl- indl.

34. 35. 36. 37- 38- 39. 40.

Indl.

jndl.

1969-70 1966-67 1966-67 1969 70 1970-71 1970-71 1969-70 1964-65 1965-66 1966-67 1966-67 1965-66

Indl.

145130 265598 11515° I336IO H38lo 102850 123080 105250 128235 I80703 H8385 I17027 15531= H2564 136308 I68000 16200O 425010 203539 II0420 Shri Jigdish Lai Bahal P/o Pearl Woollen Mills No. 1, Ludhiann. Shri Janak Raj Seth C 0 Shiv Prakash Janak Raj & Co., Amritsar, . Shri Jcthanand Manekchand> ^44, Semuel Street, Bombay. Master K. Kishorc (Rakesh Gupta) through Shri H.C. Gupta, 23-A, Ashok Marg

41. 42. 43. 44.

Lucknow

Indl.

Shri Kailash Chand Gupta, 53, Gandhi Road, Dchradun. . . ..

indl.

45.

, .

1967-68 1968-69 1968-69 1969-70 1962-63 1961-62 1966-67

indl. Indl. H.U.F.

106870 133740 135890 I6766O 1^7189 1II727 435710 ShriK.M. Modi, Modi Nagar. . ShriK.N. Modi, Modi Nagar Shri Khlli Ram, Rewari. Shri Kailash Lamba Prop. M/s. Continental Furnishers, Punchkuian Road. New

46. 47- 48. 49-

Delhi

Indl.

ShriK.C.Khosla, 1, Dcshbandhu Gupta Road, New Delhi

5°

Indl.

. ShriL. P. Jaiswal,54, Ring Road, JajpatNagar-III, New Delhi.

Indl.

1963-64 1964-65 1966-67 1966-67 1967-68 196S-69 1968-69 1969-70 1970-71

19945O 126070 I87909 122066 141957 IO7263 105596 213718 251072

I

2

3

4

5

Shri Kantt Kumar Uehal, p /0 Pearl Woollen Mills No. 1, 425, Industrial Area,

52-

Ludhiana.

indl. 1966-67

431150

Smt. Laj Kaur Go M/s. Oriental Bldg. & Furnishing Co., (P) Ltd., Connaught

53.

Place, New Delhi. . . ..

. . . ..

1967-68 1966-67

indl. Indl.

54-

212677 196404 Shri M. R. Dhawan, 4/8, Asafali Road, New Delhi Late Shri Murari Lai through his L/H Sham Lai, C/o M/s. Jagtu Mai Kundan

Lai, Patiala

: [ndl.

55-

1967-68 1968-69 1969-70

103970 103897 10048

Master Munna (Ajay Gupta) through Sh. H.C. Gupta,, 23-A, Ashok Marg, Luck-

now.

l ndl.

S6.

Shri M. C. Gupta, 53, Gandhi Road, Dehradun. . . . . ..

Indl.

57-

1967-68 1968-69 1969-70 1967-68 1968-69 1969-70 T966-67

indl.

105760 130890 171400 110122 149230 198240 153667 Shri Mauohar Lai C/o M/s. Dhararnbir Manoharlal, Haldwani Shri Mahabir Kapoor (Late) L/H Smt. SarlaKapoor C/o M/s. Indian Implement

:s

Manufacturing Co. Marris Road. Aligarh. . • . ' . .

indl.

1966-67 1967-68 1966-67 1970-71

indl. Indl.

138490 160000 1246481 "7356 Shri M. L. Narang Co M a. Narang & Co., 17, Sunder Nagar Market, N. Delhi Shri Mridhu Hari Dalmia, 4, Scindia House, New Delhi. Lite M. L. Soni through Legal heirs Smt. Resham Devi & Mrs. M. L. Soni, P/o

58. 59- 60. 61. 62.

M's. R. K'Machine Tools, Ludhiana

1966-67

Shri isliranjan Lai Jain, n o - D, KamlaNagar, Delhi

63.

Indl. Jndl. 1967-68 1968-69 1969-70 1966-67

indl.

214760 120380 104200 118380 234280 64. 65.

Shri Narinder Kumar Soni p/o R. K. Machine Tools. Ludhianas. . Shri Om Parkash Goyal, C'o M/s. R. S. Madhoram & Sons, Rajpur Road, Dehra-

dun. .

indl. H.U.F. Indl. Indl,

1969-70 1970-71 1969-70 1966-67

126610 118196 "5590 H57167 M/s. OmParkash Modi & Son, Modi Nagar. Smt. PreetoDeviC/oM/s. JagtumalKundan Lai,Patiala Shri O.P. Narang Co M/s. Narang & Co., 17, Sunder Nagar Market, N- Deihr. Shri Promod Kumar Co M/s. Indian Implements Mfg. Co., Marries Road, Ali-

66. 67. 68. 69.

garh. . . . ' .'

.

indl.

Seth Puran Chand, 5) Curzon Road, New Delhi. . . . ..

H.U.F.

70.

7i.

1967-68 1968-69 i96r-62 1962-63 1966-67 1967-68 1966-67 1966-67 1966-67

Indl. Indl. H.U.F

Shri prcm Chand P/o. M's. Rameshwar Dass Prem Chand, Rewari. Shri Parkash Ghand P'o M/s, Rameshwar Dass Prem Chand Rewari. Shci Poonam Chand Rathi C/o Rathi Steel Rolling Mills, Shahdara, Delhi. Shri PyarelalKapur C/o Amritsat Rayon & Silk Mills, Amritsar

H.U.F. 1968-69

106200 132720 980850 976910 475I9O 33442O 550720 464350 102226 120211

Shri Raicndra Kumar Gupta P/o M/s- S. Chand & Co., Ram Nagar, N. Delhi . Shri Ram La] C/o M/s. jagtu Mai Kundan Lai,Patiala

Indl. Indl.

72. 73. 74 75 76

Shri Rama Nand Jain, 110-D, Kamla Nagar, New Delhi . . .. Indl.

77

1967-68 1968-69 1959-60 1958-59 1967-68 1968-69 1969-70

Smt. Ram Dulari C/o M s. East Art Knitwear, Asafali Road, N. Delhi . Shri Rajeshwar Pershad C/o M/s. Nigar Talkies, Ambah Cantt. Ch. Raghvcndra Singh C/oNaaz Cinema, New Delhi

78 79 80

Indl. H.U.F. Indl.

Indl. Indl.

1966-67 1970-71 1966-67 1967-68 T966-67 1966-67

1966-67

81 8z 83 84 85 86

Shri Ramcshwardass C/o M/s. Rameshwar Dass Prem Chand, Rewari. . Shri R.L. Narang C/o M/s. Narang & Co., 17, Sunder Nagar Market, New Delhi Shri R. Dalmia, ro, Daryaganj, Delhi. . . . . .. Shri Raghu Hari Dalmia, 4, Scindia House, New Delhi . . .. Smt. Radha Devi Rathi C/o Rathi Steel Rolling Mills, Shahdara, Delhi. Begum Rafat Zarnani, 19, Friends Colony, New Delhi

Indl. Indl. Indl. Indl.

1970-71 1966-67 1967-68 1968-69

636789 102255 *5356i 113678 120260 132430 160700 198161 111507 159960 110631 648710 1107064 1664870 122140 109221 101961 120868

Indl. Indl.

Shri Raj Kumar SonlP'oR.K. Machine Tools, Ludhiana . . .. Shri Ramesh Seth C/o Shiv Prakash Janak Raj & Co. Amritsar Raj Kumar Seth Co Shiv Prakash Janak Raj & Co., Amritsar .

87 88 89

) M/s R. K. Seth & Sons, Bombay

Shri Sham Lai Gujta P/o M/s S. Chand & Co., Ram Nagar, N. Delhi Shri Sri Ram Jain, n o - D, KamlaNagar,, Delhi

Indl. H.U.F. Indl. Indl.

9C 91 92

Shri Sham Lai C/o JagtumalKundan Lai, Patiala

Indl.

93

\ Shri Suresh Chand Co M/s. East Art Knitwear, Asafali Road, New Delhi .

T966-67 1966-67 1966-67 1966-67 1067-68 1967-68 1968-69 1969-70 1968-69 1969-70 1966-67 1967-68

Master S. Krishana(Gunjan Gupta) through S h r i H. C Gupta, 23-A, Ashol

Indl. < Indl.

9") 95

2I1940 201170 315635 215368 1H4354 121910 132430 151060 106333 105334 142428 103050

Marg. Luchnow.

1968-69 1969-70

223510 215580

I

2

3

4

5

Shri Subodh Kumar C/o India Implements Mfg. Co., Marris Road, Aligarh •

96.

Indl. 1966-67 1967-68 1968-69

Shri Sudhir Kumar Co Indian Implements Mfg. Co., Marris Road, Aligarh

1966-67

Indl.

97

1967-68 1968-69 1969-70 1966-67

98 Shri Surendra Kumar Co Indian Implements Mfg. Co., Marris Road, Aligarh Indl.

1967-68

147910

120870

141410

209770

183530

196320

12722O

130140

H357O

S. Sucha Singh Anand C/o M/s Fire Stone Tyre & Rubber Co., (P) Ltd.,

99

Kashmeri Gate, Delhi

Indl. 1962-63

1966-67

H.U.F. Indl. Indl. Indl. Indl. Indl. Indl.

1965-66 1966-67 1966-67 1966-67 1966-67 1968-69 1966-67

337964

192940

140300

418750

142136

281810

229485

113908

213461

M/s. Shiamlal Chimanlal,Frceganj, Agra . . . . .. Satlsh Kumar BchalP o Pearl Woollen Mills No, I, Ludhiana Shiv Kumar Gupta P/o M/s. Metal Products of India, Chandigarh Shiv Parkash Seth C'o Shiv Parkash Janak Raj & Co., Amritsar S. Surindcr Singh Kairon Co Neelam Theatre, Section 17, Chandigarh SatishKapur C/o Amritsar Rayon & Silk Mills, Amritsar. Smt. Usha Narain C/o M/s. Jagtumal Kundan Lal.Patiala. . . .. Shri Vinod Kumar C/o M/a Indian Implements Manufacturing Co., Marris Road,

IOO IOI 102 103 104 105 106 107

Aligarh

; [ndl.

Vijay Kumar BehalPIo Pearl Woollen Mills N o . i, Ludhiana Vinod Kumar Soni P/o R. K. Machine Tools, Ludhiana • • . Vldya Parkash C/o Amritsar Rayon & Silk Mills, Amritsar Vipan Kumar Co Amritsar Rayon & Silk Mills, Amritsar • Shri Yadu Harl Oalmia, 4, Scindia House, New Delhi . . ..

I14230

146820

419830

215080

111612

114431

161900

Indl. Indl. Indl. Indl. Indl.

1967-68 1968-69 1966-67 1966-67 1968-69 1968-69 1970-71

, Sh. Sangram Singh Mchta, Prop. M/s. Import Export Corporation of Pondi-

108

109

110

III

113

II2A.

chery, Bara Gangaore-ka-Rasta, Jaipur

1966-67

Indl.

1146780

II. The Names of firms, A.O. Ps., & Companies.

Co. 1966-67

M s. Amrit Binaspati Co. Ltd., G.T. Road, Gaziabad. • M/s. Allenberry & Co. (P) Ltd., Daryagau), Dclhl-6 .

1 2

Co.

3 4 5

Amritsar Rayon & Silk Mills (P) Ltd., Amritsar M/s. Bharat NidhiLtd., Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi M/s. Chaman L ai Bros., 167, P.D. Mello Road, Bombay . M/s. Dalmia Cement Distributors (P) Ltd., 4, Scindia House, New Delhi

6

Co. Co. R. F. Co.

M,'s. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd., 4, Scindia House, New Delhi . Co.

7

1828920 10731090 6965910 5"5734 9395258 2353660 1153140 1697370 2307660 1467710 1281774 1304369 I5369I7 1447420 4961500 1936188 4772527 8994360 1510905 5817412 2936729 1373397 M/s, Dalmia Dadri Cement Ltd., 10, Darya Ganj, Delhi-6. M/8. Dalmia Jain Airways Ltd., (under liquidation), 10, D ai yaganj, Delhi. M/8. East Art Knitwear, Asafali Road, New Delhi . . .. M/s. Escorts Ltd., Escorts House, Roshanara Road, Dclhi-7. . . .. M/s. Goetze (India) Ltd., Escorts House, Roshanara Road, Delhi-7. M/s. Globe Motors Ltd., 1/1, Jhandewalnn Extension, New Delhi M/s. Hindustan Metals Works, Hathras (U. P.)

Co. Co. R.F. Co. Co. Co. R.F.

8 9 10 11 12 13 14

1949-50 1950-51 1951-52 1952-53 1944-45 1967-68 1967-68 1958-59 I959-6O 1966-67 1967-68 1968-69 1969-70 1961-62 1966-67 1967-68 1949-50 1966-67 1966-67 1967-68 1966-67 1965-66 1966-67 1966-67 1966-67

15 16

R. F. U. R. F.

1966-67 1966-67

I (

I. F. : o.

TI2I220 I284165 II21450 3251492 3476840 8034955 M/a. Indian Implements Mfg. Co., Marris Road, Aligarh M/s. India Products, 116/2, Kotla Mubarak Pur, New Delhi M/H. Jain Bros. Hauz Kazi, Delhi M/8. Jaipur Udyog Ltd., Swaimadhopur M/s. Jagatjit Distilling & Allied Industries (P) Ltd., 54, Ring Road,

17 18 19

Lajpat Nagar-III, New Delhi

1

M/s. Kailash Motors, G.T. Road, Kanpur My8. Modi Industries Ltd., Modinagar . M/8. Modi Spg. & Wvg. Mills Ltd., Modinagar . . .. M/s. Orissa Cement Ltd., 4, Scindia House, New Delhi . M/s. Pearl Wollen Mills No. 1, 425 Industrial Area-A, Ludhiana. M/s. Rameshwardass Premchand, Rewari . . . . .. M/s. R. K. Machine Tools, Industrial Area, Ludhiana . . ..

20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Co. R. F. Co. Co. Co. R. F. R. F. R. F.

11

M/s. Sharpedge Ltd., Escorts House, RoBhanaraRoad, DeHii-7 . M/B. Steel (1957, (P) Ltd. 167, P. D. Mcllo Road, Bombay . M/s. Simbholi Sugar Mills (P) Ltd., Simbholi, Distt. Mecrut . M/s. Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co., Ltd., Swadeshi House, Civil LineB, Kanpur

29 30

Co. Co. Co. Co.

I223I04 I58247O 4983740 5472645 9357079 2343260 2962520 II745IO I96764O 2583288 2234885 1276430 1637640 5872OOO 9O62290 424533O 2864080

1966-67 1969-70 1966-67 1966-67 1966-67 1966-67 1966-67 1966-67 1968-69 1969-70 1965-66 1962-63 1966-67 1948-49 1949-50 1950-51 1953-53

I

2

3

4

5

A m r i t s ar . . . ..

1958-59

S h a m l ij D i s t t, M a u z a f f a r n a g nr

. R. F. . Co. . Co.

Shiv Parkashjanak Raj &Co., M^B Seth Induetres (P) Ltd. . M '8 Upper Doab Sugar Mills, Ltd.,

1966-67 1966-67

1181742 1584333 1706380 11 32 33

[No. 2 (F.No. SI/PN (2)/C/7i-72]

P.L. MALHOTRA,

CommissloDer of Income Taxj

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND REHABILITATION (Department of Labour and Employment) New Delhi, the 28th April 1972

8,0. 1047.—In pursuance of section 17 of the Indus- t-ial Disputes Act, 1847 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the following award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Calcutta, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Samla Colliery, Post Office Pandavashwar District Burdw'an and¹ their workmen, which was received by the Central Govern- ment on the 24th April, 1972. CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT CALCUTTA

REFERENCE NO. 67 OF 1971

time before approaching the Labour Concili- ation Officer? If not, Is the reference com- petent in law?

(ii) How many continuous years of service was rendered by the three workmen referred to above? Do any one/or all of them come with- in the scope of Section 25B & 25C and expla- nation thereto of the Industrial Disputes Act? If not, can any of them get any relief available under Chapter VA of the Act?

PARTIES:

AND

PRESENT:

APPEARANCES:

Decision

7. Point (i):

The first point for consideration is: "Did all the workmen themselves, and/or all the workmen through the Union duly approached and raised the dispute under reference either themselves or under the aegies of the union, before the management at any time before approaching the Labour Conciliation officer. If not, is the reference competent in law?". Before entering into the merits of the point (i) it must be made clear here and now that if the industrial dispute as refer- red to for adjudication did not arise on and from 8th October, 1969, the reference of such a dispute for adju- dication would on the face of the reference be ultra- vires the jurisdtion of the Central Government. Let us now examine the evidence on the point (i). The three workmen are members of the Union and each of them deposed in this proceeding. Madhob Pal is Witness No. 1 for the workmen. In the first week oi October, 1969, as ho said in his examination in chief, he was not given any employment. Besides Madhob many other workmen who were his coleagues during the period from 1963 to 1969, in the first week of October, 1969 wore not also given employment. He said in his examination in-chief, "On the day follow- ing we workmen were not given employment, we app- roached in abody to the Manager and requested him to give each of us employment. Ho refused to em- ploy us. For two months almost on every day we app- roached the Manager in a body, meaning all the unem- ployed workmen, and demanded our employment but the Manager Babu rfave the same reply that there was no scope for employment". In the written statement of the Union there was no reference of any approach ever made to the Agent, So, the evidence of Madhob Pal and other two workmen regarding their approach to the Agent is irrelevant and inadmissible. So, I would not consider that part of evidence of any' of those witnesses. After the Manager refused to employ Madhob and his colleagues, Madhob, as he said In his examination in-chief, approached the Conciliation offi- cer and handed over papers to him raising a dispute over nan employment of Madhob and his colleagues. He again reiterated in his examination in-chief that he crasrd to have any employment from the employer in October, 19G9. In cross-examination Madhob said, "Before 8th October, 19(39 there was no cessation of work for me m the colliery. Shri B. K. Bhattacherjee, Assistant Manager, asked me not to do any work from 8th October, 1969. Different jobs on different dates were assigned to me for performance by the Assistant Manager B. K. Bhattacherjee. When we all approached the Manager on 8th October, 1969 for allocating jobs to us he gave out that there was no work available for any one of us as one section of the colliery had been closed On 8th October, 1969 jobs were not alloted to about 20 workmen, we workmen who were not given employment app- roached the management as we were members of the union, but not on behalf of the union. There_was no meeting of the union over our non-employment. Leader Kalanand Singh of the union and we 10 work- men held a meeting, but none else and then we app- roached the Conciliation officer; we moan, we 10 and none else. We gave no written application either jointly or severally either to the Manager or to the Agent raising dispute over our non-employment, in- dividually and collectively. Our union did not in writing raise any dispute over our non-employment either before the Manager or before the Agent of the colliery". Tarapada Acharya, workman, witness Ho. :i, said in examination in-chieF that he entered in the services of the colliery in March. 1903 and worked upto 8th October, 1S69. He and 5 or 7 other em- ployees were not given employment on 8th October, 1969 and he and all 7 or 8 persons approached the Manager for employment who refused to employ them. He further said in examine ion in-chief, "When we could not get our employment we three, Madhob Pal myself and Narayan Ghose, approached the Regional Labour Commissioner, Raniganj. We placed our

could be no occasion either for the Manager of the colliery or for the Assistant Manager Bhattacherjee, the management's witness No. 1 to ask any of those three workmen not to work in the colliery. The schedule to the reference says that these three work- men's working in the colliery was stopped on and from 8th October, 1969 but the evidence of unim- peachable character clearly establishes that none of the three workman had any occasion to approach the Manager or the Assistant Manager, MW1 on 8th Octo- bor, 1969 for their employment nor had any one of them any occasion to stop any of the three workmen from working in the colliery on that day. Madhob Pal in cross examination said that Mwl, Assistant Manager stopped the three workmen from doing any work on 8th October 1969 and I find that the said Assistant Manager used to allot work to each work- men. The Assistant Manager MW I proved entries in Wage Payment register Ext. Mill series. There is nothing in his evidence to question his veracity. So, there can be no occasion for a dispute arising and existing between the management and the workmen, regarding the non-employment of the workmen now before me by the management on and from 8th Octo- ber 19G9. The reference is not that the workman Narayan Ghose's work was stopped in the fortnight ending on 15th July 1969 and that the work of workman Tarapada Acharya was stopped in the fort- night ending on 30th September 1969 and that the work of Madhob Pal was stopped in the fortnight ending on 30th September 1969. The reference relates to stoppage of work of those three workmen by the management on and from 8th October, 1969. So, if there was no occasion for any dispute to arise and exist between the management and the three work- men on and from 8th October, 1969, there could be no industrial dispute, apart from any other question, arising and existing between the management and the workmen relating to the non-employment of the three workmen on and from 8th October 1969 as men- tioned in the Schedule to the reference.

8. The three workmen, as the evidence clearly shows, never approached either the Manager or the Assistant Majiager either on 8th October 1969 or any day thereafter. Now, according to Madhob Pal (vide his cross-examination) he had not given any written application either jointly or sevrrelly with other workmen either to the Manager or to the Agent rais- ing a dispute over their non-employment. Witness did not in writing raise any dispute over the non- employment of the 10 workmen cither before the Manager or before the Agent of the colliery. But, according to Tarapada Acharya vide his cross-exami- nation, he and his colleague workers ventilated their grievances about their non-employment in writing to the management sometime in November, 1069, He wrote the application addressed to the management in Bengali but kept no copy. He said that the Manager gave no reply to the written demand made by the 10 workmen. So, there is the violent conflict between the two witnesses on a vital point. Accord- ing to Madhob Pal the union did not in writing raise any dispute over the non-employment of 10 workmen including the three before me, either before the Manager or before the Agent, but Tarapada Acharya in his cross-examination said that the witness gave a letter to the management raising dispute containing their grievances. He had to admit that there was no meeting over the matter of their non-employment and to the union the workmen made no application in writing mentioning the workmens grievance, According tj Madhob Pal, leader Kalanand Singh of the union and 10 workmen held a meeting. None else attended the meeting. Then the ten workmen, but not Kalanand Singh approached the Conciliation officer. Hf' also stai pd in cross-examination that there was no meeting of the union over the non-employment of the 10 workmen and that the union did not in writing raise any dispute over the workmen's non-employ- ment before the management, Narayan Ghose in his cross-examination said that no written application was made by the workmen ventilating their grievances to the nianagoment and raising a dispute and that there was no meeting of the union, to his knowledge over the question of non-employment of the 10 workmen. He wag posetive that there wass no written application made to the management ventilating the grievances and raising a dispute thereon. One Dlnesh Babu, assistant to Robin Babu met the management. He approached Ramachandran who is the Head Agent of Kendra office. This is new story and it nowhere appears in the written statement of the union. Neither JJincsti Babu nor Hobin Babu came to dispose before this Tribunal on any point. So considering the nature of entire evidence, I hold that none of the workmen including the three before me made before the man- agement either orally or writing any demand on account of their alleged non-employment by the man- agement on and from 8th October 1969. The union re- presenting tde workmen now before me did not either in the writtlng or orally made any repre.seni ution re- 'Tardintf the non-employment of the 10 workmen in- cluding the three workmen before me by the man- agement on and from 8th October 1969. None came before the tribunal for the union to depose to the fact as to what step the union had taken before approaching the Labour Commissioner for settlement of the dispute under reference. The Ui.ion in the face of the written statement of the man.igyment was required by daw to produce any of its oiilcc-bearers for deposing in this proceeding for establishing the stand taken by the workmen through the union in para 3 of t b; written statement filed by the union for the workman. Therefore, on the materials un record 1 hold that ihere was no industrial dispute existing on 8th October 1969 which could be taken up legally for conciliation "t the instance oE the union by the concili- ation Office L\ The failure report of tho Conciliation officer to thii Central Government was, therefore, ille- gal and will lout jurisdiction since there was no indus- trial dispute existing about the non-employment of the 10 workmen including the three workmen before me by the management on and from Sth October 1969 and the workmen and the union or either of them never raised any dispute as the one under reference either orally or in writing before the management when the union straightaway approached the Cdncili- ation officer with the dispute under rei'eience that did not and coudd not exist on and from 8th October 1969. Accordingly, the reference made by the Central Government regarding the alleged industrial dispute is incompetent in law and cannot be entertained by this tribunal for adjudication.

Point (ii):

9. I have examined the evidence of the three workmen and the wage register, Mill series as well as tcmporary/badli/ casual appointment letters Ex. Ml series. I also examined the Bonus Card of Madhob Ch. Paul, I!x. W-l and the form of appointment of competent person, Madhob Pal, Ext. W-2 and Ration card of Madhob Ext. W-3. Madhob Pal produced and proved Bonus card, Ext. W-l. It is interesting read- ing. In column 1 figure 67 is penned through without attestation, Thereafter a figure appears—1963. Name of the worVer was one Abhiram rest not readable penned through. Below that entry there is a name Madhab Paul. Ticket No, BF No, 32. Column for 'Designation/Category of employee—Electric' and something unreadable, penned through and un- attested. Above that entry there is a word 'temporary'. Column Provident Fund Account No BF 39/4144 penned through unattested. There is the 1humb im- pression afiainst the column of thumb impression or signature over which it is written Madhab Ch. Paul, Ex. W-l. Name of the worker is Madhob Pal, but the signatory is Madhab Ch. Paul. So this document, Ext. W-l, is a forgery. The Ext. W-2, the Form of appoint- ment of competent person, It relates to Madhob Ch. Pal not Madhob Paul, who is a Shot-nrer Mazdoor It is dated 17th May 1963 and bears a thumb Impres- sion thereon ibut no signature. It was issued by the Manager of the colliery on 17th May, 1903. In the re- ference the name of the workman is Madhob Pal not

Ex Ml (7) shows that Tarapada got Badli appoint- ment for 6 days from 4th November 1968, to 9th No- vember, 1968 in place of Haris Singh. Ex. M2(3) shows that Tarapada got temporary appointment as Shot flrer helper for 0 days from 11th November 1968. Ex. M2(4) shows that Tarapada got temporary appointment of Shot nrer mazdoor for 6 days from 25th November 1968, Ex. Ml(10) shows that Tarapada got temporary appointment of Shot firer mazdoor from 2nd December, 1968 to 7th December 1968, Ex. Ml (11) shows that Tarapada got temporary appointment &a Shot flrer mazdoor from 9th December, 1968 to 11th December, 1968. Ex. Ml (12) shows that Tarapada got Badli appointment as Proping mazdoor from 1st Jan- uary, 1969, for 15 days in place of Ramdeo. Ex. Ml (13) shows that Tarapada got Badli appointment as Prop. Mazdoor on and from 1st January, 1969 to 28th Janu- ary, 1969. Ex. Ml (14) shows that Tarapoda got Badli appointment as Shot flrer mazdoor in place of Umesh Singh who was working as Pit Sarkar from 7th Febru- ary, 1069 for 8 days. Ex. Ml(ia) shows that Tarapada wag appointed as Badll Shot flrer Mazdoor and worked for 6 days from 23rd June 1969, in place of Umesh Singh. Ex. Ml (16) shows that Tarapada worked as Badli Shot lirer mazdoor in place of Nilkamal Adikary from 30th June 1969, for 5 days. Ex. Ml (17) shows that Tarapada worked as Badli Prop, mazdoor for 8 days, from 4th July, 1969. Ex. Ml(18) shows that Tarapada worked in place of Bhagabat for 2 days. Ex. Ml (10) shows that Tarapada line mazdoor worked as Badli in place of Lagiram as Shot flrer mazdoor. Ex. Ml (21) shows that Tarapada worked as P. F. Mazdoor In place ol Tarapada Ghosh from 11th August 1969 to 16th August, 1969. All these papers which are In printed forms, except one only, bearing the thumb impression, bear the signature in English of Tarapada Acharya who deposed before me and denied that he could jot down letters in English. So these three workmen as the record shows were purely temporary substitute workers in the year 1968 andl969. They were each appointed for a short period in short vacan- cies when permanent incumbent was absent, either on leave or for other reasons. They were never given any appolntement in any substantive vacancy by¹ the management. It appears from the documents I have just now considered that whenever the permanent incumbent was absent for a temporary period each of the three workmen was appointed by the manage- ment to work in the temporary vacancy till the return of the permanent incumbent. When the permanent Incumbent returned each of the workmen working temporarily in the temporary vacancy due to perma- nent workman being absent ceased to have any work. This was the system in which the three workmen were being employed by the colliery In 1968 and 1960. Madhob Pal attempted to prove that he was working in the colliery since 1963 by false and forged docu- ments. None of the workmen produced any reliable documentary vidence such as Bonus card or any other document to show that any one of them worked from 1963 to the first week of October, 1969 continuously in a substantive post appointed by the management. In the written statement a very vague assertion was mads that the workmen rendered continuous years of ser- vice and In the evidence the workmen attempted to make out as if they had been working continuously in the colliery since 1963 upto 8th October, 1969. But to substantiate thot proposition Madhob Pal Indulged in blatant falsehood producing forged documents to support his case of having had worked in the colliery continuously from 1903. Narayan Ghosh claimed that he was dispensed with his employment by the colliery after he had worked for 4 years and that his service was dispensed with by the colliery after Durga Puja of 1969. The Durga Puja of 1969 as Ext. CII shows held on 17th to 20th of October, 1969. If after the Durga Puja of 1909 that means after 20th October, 1969 Narayan Gosh's service wag dispensed with by the management then the case of the union for the three workmen that their services were dispensed with by the management on 8th October, 1969 falls to tht Madhab Chandra Paul or Madhab Ch. Paul. He is des- cribed in the reference as Shot-nrer mazctoor. In his evidence Madhob Chandra Paul but not Madhob Pal Have out that he entered the colliery on 17th May 1U63 and worked from 1U63 to 1st week of October, 106U. During this period he worked as Fitter Mazdoor, Prop. Mazdoor, Shot tirer mazdoor, Line mazdoor, Pipe .titter mazdoor and Hammer man. From May 1903 to May 1964 he worked as a litter Mazdoor; for 10 months thereafter he worked as Proping mazdoor and lor one and half years thereafter lie worked as lino mazdoor. Then for two years as Shot firer mazdoor and rest of the period a* Hammer mazdoor. So, Madhob Pill on 8th October 1069 as the reference shows wat not a Shot fixer mazdoor. In 1963 Madhob Pal or Mailhob Ch. Paul vide Bonus card, Ext. W-l was only temporary, but in which post, the document is silent. In 1063 vidu Ex. W-2 Madhob Ch. Paul was appointed a Shot flrer mazdoor. But his evidence snows that from 1963 May to 1964 May he waa Pipe litter mazdoor. Therefore, the document, Ext. W-l, Bonus Card, and Ex. W-2 form of appointment oil competent person cannot relate to the workman Madhab Pal or Madhab Ch. Paul who deposed before me as one of the three workmen. By these two docu- ments an attempt was made to prove as if the workman Madhob Pal entered the services of the < olliery in 1963. This case was not stated in the written state- ment where a vagua statement was made to this effect: the workman concerned had completed year of con- tinuous service". So, the document Ex.W-1 which Is a forged one and Ex, W-2 read with the evidence of Madhob Pal workman deposing as Madhob Chandra Pal cannot relato to the workman Madhob Pal as mentioned in the reference or to Madhab Chandra Paul who deposed as a workman in this Tribunal. Ex. W-3 the nation card relates to Madhob Paul and does not relate to Madhob Chandra Pal. His evidence and the Kation card do not prove that he as an employee of the colliery drew ration, if so, which position he held and in which year in the colliery. So, it has no relevancy. Madhob Pal deposing as Madhob Chandra Pal admitted that he got papers intermittently from the management. He iaentiiied those papers which are Temporary/Badli/Casual appointment which were put to him by the management and marked for identifi- cation (X to X5), Ex. Ml (22) shows Madhob got Badli appointment in place of Sripat en 25th June, 1969. £xt. Ml (20) snows that in place of Sripat Zamadar he got Badll appointment on 80th June, 1969 for six days. Ex. Ml(2 I<562 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 6, 1972/VAISAKHA 16, 1894 [PART I I-

workmen as substitute for permanent workmen were employed for short periods intermittently, and that they ceased lo have employment when the permanent workmen joined in their duties. So, the provisions of Section 25 Band 25C and explanation thereto of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 do not apply in case of any of these three workmen. They are not entitled to any retrenchment compensation or lay off compen- sation under the provisions of Chapter VA of the indus- trial Disputes Act.

Point (lu):

11. I have dealt with thus point while dealing with Point No. (iii). I have held that only in i968-69 each of the workmen worked intermittently for short pe- riods, as substitute* or popularly called as "badli" for the permanent workmen in the colliery. Narayan Gosh worked only for 5 day" in place of Bhaktia and none of the three workmen in any of the yeara in 1968-69 worked as a "badli" worker as appearing in the "x- planation to Section 25C of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1047. None of the three workmen ever worked either in 1968 or in 1969 or in any year previous to these yeara in place of a permanent workmen conti- nuously for a period of one year. So, none of them was a badli worker in the sense as appearing in the explanation to Section 25C of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ai well in. para 3(d) of the Standing orders Ext. C.I. They were merely substitute workers working intermittently as substitutea for permanent workers during the *hort periods the permanent workers were absent either on leave or otherwise. The services of each of them working as a substitute worker in place of a permanent worker ceased as soon as the permanent worker returned and join in his post. Tarapada work- ed for short periods as temporary worker for a specific work as was Reposed by MW-1 Bhattacherjee. See also Ex. Ml(13), M l ( l l ), M l ( 8 ), M l ( 9 ), Ml(10) total days 17 or so. Thus, I answer the Point No. (iv).

Point No. (v):

12. In view of my finding on the points mentioned above, nons of the three workmen is entitled to nny relief under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 im this proceeding.

ground. Tarapada Acharya claimed that he worked in the colliery from 1903 upto 8th October, 1969 con- tinuously but Ext. Ml & M2 series relating to Tarapada gave a cold shoulder to his claim for having had worked in the colliery continuously from 1963 to 1969 without any break. As regards Madhob Pal, he claimed that he was continuously working in the col- liery from 17th May, 1963 upto first week of October, 1969. To support his case he produced false and forged documents, Ex. W-l and W-2. On the other hand Ex. Ml series relating to Madhob Pal and his evidence shows that in October, 1969 he could not be a Shot firer mazdoor, in view of his evidence in examination in chief. He waa at the fag end of his service a Hammer man, that means, in October, 1969, but not a Shot flrer (.vide his examination in-chief). On the other hand, it would appear from Ex, Ml(22) that on 25th June, 1969 for 11 days In place of Sripat he work- ed as Box mazdoor. Again he worked in place of Sripat from 30th June, 1969 to 5th July, 1969 vide Ex. MI (23). He again worked in place of Sripat vide Ex. Ml (24) as Box mazdoor for 6 days onwards from 7th July, 1969. Ex. Ml(25) shows that for one day on 13th August, 1969 Madhob Pal worked in place of Madhob as Loco fitting mazdoor. Ex. Ml (26) shows that Madhoh Pal worked from 11th September, 1969 to 12th September, 1969 as Water mazdoor in pluce of Shyam MondaL Ex. Ml (27) shows that Madhob Pal ae Prop. Mazdoor worked in place of Mewalal from 13th September to 18th September, 1969. Narayan Ghosh, as I have already stated vide Ex. MI(28), worked for only 5 days. Wage Register also corrobo- rates Ml(28). All these papers of Ex. Ml series relat- ing to Madhob and Narayan bear their thumb impres- sions while those relating to Tarapada bear his signatures and those were maintained by the manage- ment in regular course gf official business. 1 have no reason to disbelieve those documents. Tarapada feigned inability of signing in English but 25 of more documents of Ex. Mil and Mil of Tarapada's employment which bear his signatures in English, cannot be forged. So I disbelieve his denial. These documents clearly show that none of the work- men, Tarapada Acharya, Madhob Pal and Narayarn Ghosh ever worked continuously from 1963 to first week of October, 1969 in any substantive post in the colliery. They were in the reserve list of temporary substitute workers who were allotted work as subs- titute for permanent workers intermittently for short periods having regard to the exigencies of the circum- stances. Once or twice Tarapada Acharya was tem- porarily appointed, not as a substitute worker, for Ehort period having regard to the pressure of work and exigency of circumstances facing the management (vide evidence of MWI-Bhattacharya). Therefore. I hold in answering the Point No. (ii) that none of the three workmen worked continously for any period during 1963 to 1969 against any substaniive vacancy They were each a temporary worker, working as subs- titute in place of a permanent worker for a short period in the year 1968-69, and none of them ever worked in any substantive post temporarily in the colliery for any period whatsoever during the year 1968-69 not to speak of in any other years. There is no evidence from the side of any of the three workmen upon which I can rely to hold that each of them had been working in the colliery from 1963 upto first week of October, 1969 though temporarily in a substantive post continuously. Each of them worked as a substi- tute for a permanent workman for a short period intermittently in 1968-1969. When the permanent workman came back and joined in his post, the em- ployment of each of the three workmen ceased vide Ex. Ml & Mil series. Therefore, they cannot get any relief under the industrial law.

Potwt (lit):

13. Neither the workmen nor the Union approached the management with a dispute regarding the none- employment of the three workmen by the management on and from 8th October, 1969. The union that es- poused the cause of the workmen before the Labour Commissioner did not raise any dispute regarding the non-employment of the three workmen ay the management on and from 8th October, 1969 before the management. From the evidence I have found that there could be no occasion for the dispute under reference arising or existing regarding the non-em- ployment of the three workmen on and from bth October, 1969. For all these circumstances, I find that there was no factual and legal existence of any indus- trial dispute regarding the non-employment of the three workmen by the management on and from 8th Oct- ober, 1969. The Labour Commissioner had therefore no jurisdiction to entertain a non-existant dispute for conciliation at the instance of the union. The fail- ure report of the conciliation Officer to the Central Government was illegal and ultra virejt his jurlsdic ton. The reference of the dispute which did not exist as an industrial dispute on 8th October, 1969 regard- ing the non-employment of these three workmen for adjudication by the Central Government to thii Tri- bunal has, therefore, been Illegal and ultra vires the jurisdiction of the Central Government. (See Feeders Lloyd Corporation Private Ltd. v. Lt. Governor Delhi & Others, 1970 (20) F.L.R. p. 343/and Sindhu Resettle- ment Corporation, Ltd. & Industrial Tribunal, Guja- rat, 1968 I LLJ, 834). The three workmen ar" not entitled even on the merits of the case to any relief as 1U. None of the workmen rendered "continuous years of service". They were never employed, during any of the years 1963 upto 1969 first week of October, in any substantive vacancy continuously. From the evi- dence I can find that only in 1968-69 each of the three

against the management of the colliery. The refer- ence is, therefore, rejected.

This is my award.

Dated,

ApriU 18th, 1972.

S. N. BAOCHI, Presiding Officer,

[No. L/1912/35/71-LRIL]

KARNAIL SINGH, Under Secy.

ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA

Dated the 30th Mrach, 1972

S.O, 1048.—In pursuance of section 106 of the Repre.

sentatlon of the People Act, 1961, the Election Com- mission hereby publishes the orders dated the 21st July, 9th and 30th August and 2nd December, 1971 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur, in elec- tion Petition No. 2 of 1971.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADE3H, JABALPUR

BEFORE THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SURAJBHAN

GROVER.

Election Petition No. 2 of 1971.

Shri Shltal Prasad Mishra, aged 44 years, son of Shri Shivprasad Mishra, Advocate, Resident of Itarsl, tehsil and district HoshanKabad. versus

Petitioner, Shri Nitiraj Singh Choudhary, aged 62 years, son nf Choudharv Daulatsdnh, State Minister Union Government New Delhi. Respondent. Petition under section 81 of the Representation of

the People Act, 1951.

Counsel for the Petitioner

1. Shri Y. S. Dharmadhlkari 2. Shri L. S. Baghel, Advocate 3. Shri N. C. Jain, Advocate

Counsel for the Respondent.

1. Shri K. A. Chitalf Advocate 2. Shri R. K, Pandey, Advocate 3. Shri R- P- Verma. Advocate 4. Shri J. S. Verma, Advocate 5. Shrj C. P Sen. ArtvonnM 6. Shri T. C. Natk, Advocate 7. Shri P. P. Naolker, Advocate 8. Shri P. C. Naik, Advocate

ORDER

This is an election petition under R 31 of the RPp*-p-entation of the People Art, 1951 (herein- after mlled the Act), bv Shri Shitaltirashad Mlshrn Advocate, who was an elector, as weH as a candidate at the mid-term Lok Sahha Pnrlinmentary Flection from the Hoshangabad Parliamentary constituency No. 27, but subsequently withdraw his candidature challenging thr" election of the respondent on various grounds alleged tn his petition and praying that this election ot thp respondent be declared void.

2. Sbri H. V. Kamath, a candidate, had also filed his nomination paner for contesting The aforesaid pipftinn. but on thp 'late nf scrutiny, i.e. 'm 4th TVhruarv. 1071. his nomination paper was Improperly rpjected though he had filed certified copies ol the electoral rolls r"r '*•" yenrs 1967 and 1969 before the returning orfl< * concerned, which contained his name in Whantoll ward of the Nagpur town in Nagpur Par- liamentary constituency. It was also alleged that as he was an elector mentioned in the electrol rolls for the years 1987 and 1969, his name could not be re- moved from the electoral rolls without service of a nroper notice on him as is required by S. 22 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. Shri Kamath had also made an application to the Electoral'U'egls- tration Officer concerned, but it was rejected and his appeal against that order was allowed by the Chief Electoral Officer, the effect of which is that Shri Kamath's name continued to remain in the electoral rolls at all the material times and he had been*ellgl- ble to contest the election at the material time. It is further said that rules 45(1), 45(2), 4B and 47 of the Conduct of Election,? Rules, 1961 (hereinafter called the 'rules') were not properlv followed with the object of helping the respondent, who was a Congress CR) Party candidate, as shown in para 8 of the elec- tion petition. The petition also contains the conten- tion that by not properly complying with the rules 55 56 and 57 of the aforesaid rules, the resuTT of the election has been materially affected, and further on, it charges the petitioner with having committed a corrupt practice by either incurring or having autho- rised to incur expenditure at the election beyond the prescribed limit of Rs. 35.000/-, as he failed to In- clude in his return of election expenses the following items: —

(a) Hire charges, as well as the purchase price of 2 Jeeps used for the purposes of election, with Nos. HRC-2791 and HRC-2792. Tnese were taken from one Shri R. C. Tiwari a resident of Delhi, at Rs. 100/- pef day as hire charges which were in use from 81st January, 1971 to 10th March, 1971 for elec- tion work, and of which hire changes appro- ximately are estimated at Rs. 7800/-, and

i"h) Rs. 7608/- on account of the price of two Teeps Nos. DHA 2621 and 3029 purchase* ?rom the Director of Army Service, Army headquarters, Master General of the Ordi- nance Branch, DHQ, P.O. New Delhl-11 In the name of Giriraj Higher Secondary School, Nflrsimhapur, as the said Jeeps were pur- chased by the respondent out of his own money in th" last week of January 1971 or first week of February 1971, and were used for his election work. Similarly, Rs. 3000/- were also not included in the return of whieh were on account of the Jeep No. HRG 2660 purchased by the respondent from Army Head Quarters, and for which he had paid the amount from his own pockt, and had used the Jeep for his election work.

rhe other allegations of the petitioner, made bv him In para 9 of his petition against the respondent, viz m sub-paras (b), (c), fe) and (t) of this para, have already been struck off as per my order dated 30th August, 1971 As the respondent was a candidate of the Congress (R), he was allotted the symbol of "calf and row", which Is a religious symbol,' an* bv using the same he has committed a corrupt nractlce It was further alleged, that the Election" Commission of India had also violated the provisions of Article 324 nf the Constitution of India and had acted contrary to the rules 5 and 10 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, read with para 17 of the Election Sym- hoi (Tfo.diRtrntinn and Allotment") Order IPRfl (here- Inffftc- ?Hlled tbp order). VMc para 14 nf thp peti tion. the respondent has also been accused of TSriberv Tnpnninc Inat bo rnvo Rs. 1.000/- to th" AVnnda in JaRdkhpura ward of the Hoshanpabfid town only a fVw dr.vr hpfor-o his election, by thp end of'January n- beginning of February 1971. in order tn win votes from electors in that area for hia own eletcion.

amount to the Collector, Hoshangabad, in order to pay the same to the Management of the Akhada. He further added that on 12th December 1970, when the question of helping the Akhada arose, there was no question of any election then, as the 4th Lok Sabha was sitting during that period and was dls- "olved on 12th December, 1970.

4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following

issues were framed:—

Issues

(1) Was the nomination paper of Shri Kamath wrongly rejected as detailed in paragraphs 2 to 5 of the petition and what is its effect?

(2) Was there a breach of the rules 45(1), 45(2), 46 and 47 of the Conduct of Election Rules as detailed in paragraph 8 of the petition and what is Its effect?

(3) (a) Was the amendment of rules 55 to 57 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, Illegal? (b) Whether the procedure followed under the amended rules has materially affected the result of the election?

(4) Is the petition of the petitioner liable to be dismissed under section 86(1) of the Repre- sentation of the People Act, as Khusilal is not made a party to the petition?

(5) Does the petition suffer for want of proper

verification?

(6) Is the affidavit filed by the petitioner not

according to Law?

(7) Is the petitioner not competent to file this

petition?

(8) Is the petition filed by the petitioner time-

barred?

(9) fa) Has the respondent incurred or autho- rised expenditure more than the prescribed limit as detailed in para 9 (a) and (d) of the petition?

(h) Does this allegation suffer from lack of mate-

rial particulars?

(10) (a) Is "calf and cow" a religious symbol having a religious appeal to the voters ?

(b) Has it materially affected the result of the election by non-compliance of the provisions of the Constitution of India, as well as of R. P. Act and the rules made there under, as alleged In para 11 of the petition?

(11) (a) Was any Jeep purchased by the Central Cooperative Bank, Narsinhapur, under ins- tructions of the respondent and did Shri Gobind Prasad Tiwari tour on this Jeep In the whole of the constituency for securing the votes for the respondent and also distribute loans and stayed its recovery due from th* debtors of the bank?

(b) Was the Bank closed from the 1st to 4th March. 1971, and did the employees of the Bank canvass for the respondent?

(c) Does this allegation constitute a corrupt prac-

tice?

(d) Does this allegation suffer from lack of mate-

rial particulars?

3. The respondent denied all the alienations made against him in the election petition, and averred that there was nothing wrong in the rejection of the nomi- nation praper of Shri Kamath, as admittedly, he was not an elector in the constituency in question, and moreover, he had failed to produce a certified copy of the electoral roll, for time being in force, for the purpose of election to the House of People, which was held in 1971 and which was governed by the rolls of 1970, which were revised with reference to the qualifying date, viz. 1st January, 1970, though it was mandatory, and he having filed only the certified copies of the electoral rolls of 1907 and 1989, which were irrelevant, there was no alternative left for the Returning Officer hut to reject his nomination paper for non-compliance of S 33(5) of the Act. He further refuted the allegation that Shri Kamaih's name wns Improperly deleted from the electoral roll by saying that Shri Kamath had left his residential house. No. 170 in Dhantoh" ward of the Nagpur city and hence he could not remain an elector there. He has also assorted that the order of the Chief Electoral Officer, Bombay (Maharashtra') in that connection is with- out jurisdiction and illegal, and prayed that even If it be held good, then at worst, it ean take effect only from the date of decision In the appeal in ques- tion i.e. from 13th April, 1971, ns laid down in rule 23(4) of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. The respondent has also averred lhat the election petition was barred by time. As regards the non-observance of rules 45 to 47 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, the respondent said that they were properly followed. Regarding the allegations made In para 8-A of the election petition, the reply of the resnond^nt is that rules 55, 56 and 57 of the Condunt of Election Rules, 1961 were properlv amended bv the Central Government under S.169 of tho Art. Tn the matter of authorising or Incurring expenditure bevond the prescribed limit, not shown in the return of the elec- tion expenses, the respondent denied the allegation and said that he did not hire the two Jeeps as alleged In para 9 (a) of the petition, and the ques- tion of inclusion of hire charges for them thus did not arise. He also denied that he had purchased two Jeeps for his election purposes as detailed in para 9(d) of the petition. In fact he had purchased a Fiat car. DHA 2621, In his own name, and that was not used for his election work, and one .Teep was purchased In the name of Girirai Higher Secondary School, Narsimhapur. and its price was paid bv one *ihrl S. IJ. Varma, who was a founder member of the Rndy and a member nf its Managing Committee As regards Jeep No. HRG 2flflO. It was purchased from Axmv Tlead Quarters, for ahout 3000 by one Shri Sursingh in the middle of 1970, and Its price was paid, and it was a capital Investment, whieh pould not be termed as an election expense. Regarding the use of the election symbol of "calf and cow" he "a1rl that it Is not a religious svmbol, and he is not guilty of any corrupt practice, as alleged, within the meaning of sub-section (3) of S. 123 of the Act, as the symbol, standing by itself, cannot be termed as an appeal to Hindus In the name of religion. He also denied that the Election Commission of India had In any way violated the provisions of Act. 324 of the Constitution of India or had acted contrary to the powers vested in them or had acted contrary to the rules 5 and 10 of the Conduct of Election Rules. lpRlr read with para 17 of the Election Symbols (Regis- tration and Allotment") Order, 1968. and that cannot be a ground for setting aside the election. The cor- runt practice of bribery as alleged Jn para 14 of the petition atrainst the respondent was also denied by him and it was nverred that as the Akhnda in ques- tion had fallen down during the last NarmaiJn floods, n rennest wns made to the respondent for arrang- ing for some help to rehuilrl the building which he had promised bv fretting some donations for th° purpose, grid, ultimately he managed to send such

(12) Did the respondent fiive Us. 1000/- to the Akhada in Jaudishnura ward in Hoshangabad town and inaffurcite the same with a view to secure votes as alleeed in parn 14 of the petition, and if so, what is its effect?

{13) (a) Did the workers of the respondent make false propaganda as alleged in para 13 of the petition?

(b) Does this allegation lack in material parti-

culars 7

(14) Does the allegation made in para 15 of the petition constitute a corrupt practice under the R. P. Act?

(15) Is the respondent entitled to compensatory

costs ?

(16) To what relief, if any, the petitioner is

entitled to ?

5. Out of the above issues issue Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11 (d) and 13 (b) were decided by my order dated 21st July, 1971, and the preliminary issue No. 9(b) was decided vide my order dated 9th August, 1971, and in accordance with that order, issue No. 9 (a) was accordingly amended. As regards issue Nos. 11, 13 and 14, they have been struck off vide my order passed on 30th August, 1971. Now I will deal with the remaining issues.

6. Issue No. 1

This issue is based on the allegations made by the petitioner in paragraphs 2 to 5 of his petition which in brief, says that the name of Shri Kamath did exist in the electoral roll of the Nagpur Parliamentary constituency in Dbantoli Ward of Nagpur town and he had filed the electoral rolls for the years 1967 and 1969 before the Returning Officer along with his nomination paper. He alleged that as Shri Kamath's name was present in the electoral rolls for the years 1967 and 1969, it should be deemed that it did exist In the electoral roll of 1970. It is further alleged that the deletion of the name of Shri Kamath from the revised roll of 1970 was illegal as it was done with- out notice to him. Thus the reiection of the nomi- nation paper by the Returning Officer was improper and illegal and the election of the respondent Is liable to be set aside under section 100(1") (e) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The respon- dent, on the other hand, averred that the rolls for the purpose of election to the House of People held In 1971 were the rolls of 1970 which were rrvised with reference to the qualifying date, namely, 1st of January, 1970. The rolls for the years 1967 and 1969 filed by Shri Kamath with his nomination paper were old rolls and had no relevance. It is also urged that Shri Kamath waa not an elector within the meaning of section 2(e) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and as Shri Kamath did not file with his nomination paper a certified copy of the electoral roll for the time being in force, that is to say, of the year 1970, as required by section 33(5) of the Rercresentation of the People Act, 1951 which wns mandatory, the Returning Officer was justified in rejecting his nomination paper.

7. The petitioner, in order to prove this issue, has examined himself, S. S. Bawankar (P.W. 4) and Shri Kamath (P.W. 8), and the respondent has examined himself as R.W. 1 Before dealing with their evidence, it will be proper to set out the material part of the order of the Returning Officer, which is Ex. P-10 (R-3), assigning reasons for rejection of the nomina- tion paper is as follows:

It is clear from the above order that the Returning Officer rejected the nomination paper of Shri Kamath for the reason that he did not file a copy of the elec- toral roll in force, that is, of the year 1970. The petitioner as well as Shri Kamath (P.W.8) both have admitted in their statement, that for the mid- term Lok Sabha Parliamentary Election, the elec- toral rolls were revised and the qualifying date for this purpose was 1st January, 1970. Shri Kamath has also admitted that the rolls for the mid-term Lok Sabha Parliamentary Election of 1971 were re- vised by the order of the Election Commission of India, vide Exs. R-4 and R-5. He also admitted that he did not file with his nomination paper a certified copy of the electoral roll for 1970. He further ad- mitted that he did not file with his nomination paper a certified copy of the electoral roll for 1970. He further admitted that he had filed with his nomina- tion paper a copy of Ex. P-6 and a copy of Ex. P-ll. Ex. P-6 relates to the Assembly Constituency of the Maharashtra State for the year 1966 in which the name of Shri Kamath has been mentioned as an elector and Ex. P - ll Is a copy of the voters' list prepared by the Nagpur Corporation for the year 1E)fi9 which mentioned the name of Shri Kamath as a voter, Shri Bawankar (P.W.4) has also deposed the same thing, that is, the name of Shri Kimath wm mentioned as an elector in the voters' list for thp Assembly Constituency known as 120 West, Natfpur nnd it is dated 15th November, 1969. He has also stated that there was n revision of electoral roll of this constituency and the last date for the final publication was 15th January, 1970. Enumera- tors were sent for the preparation of the electoral roils from time to time and the report of the enume- mtor was that Shri Kamath had left his residential ho"sp at Napnur and thnt report is dated 6th Dec- ember J9fi9 CKx. R-R). It was on the basis of this '•"oort that th" name of Rhn Kamatb was deleted r-nrn the nrcvinns voters' list. He has also deposed that u general notice was jjiven for the revised list.

contained and anything done under the Act ctouaot be re-opened in this election petition. After having heard both the learned counsel and giving my care- ful attSntidn¹ to the contention raised before me. I am elerifly ef im VteW that the rejection of the nomination paper of HHfi ttflfna'tn by the Returning Officer was justified and proper f,VJ the reasons I presently show,

and a copy of the revised list was also given to P.S.P. Party and the acknowledgment to this effect is Ex. K-29. Shri Niti Raj Singh Chaudhary (B.W.l), respondent, has also deposed the same thing Wheii he has stated that the I*oft 3&bha Was dissolved Oil •27th Beceniber, 1070 (vide Ex. R-1) and elections to Jfta LOR Sabha were ordered to be held (vide Ex. S-2). The Election Commission had also ordered a revision of the electoral rolls, vide Ex:. R-4 and the qualifying date for the revised electoral rolls for such an election was 1st January, 1970.

tiecUon 3J of the Act deals with the appointment of LLtues iur uit ii^iuiiaiiuii etc. Section OJ. deals wiui vuuiicution or tne nouce of election and section it/ meals wiLn vu^ rumination oi tne candidates for eiec- nun. Sec. JiJ aeais witn the presentation of tne numma- liijn paper MIIU prescuDtis me requirements lor a valid 1101n1.nui.10u. i.i, wouia De relevant to refer to SUD- section e±j and (.0; oi tnis section. Sub-section (•*) provider that on the presentation ol a nomination paper, the Returning mincer shall satisfy that the inline and electoral roll number oi the canttidatu and ms prupuser as entered in tnc nomination paper aru same as tnosu entered in the electoral rolls. The pxbviso to ttna sub-sec Lion requires tne Returning orticer to permit cericai of technical errors to be co- rrected, bub-section (t>) deals with tne stage of the aerumiy ot the nomination papers and it provides tnai wnere a candidate is an elector of u different constituency, a copy of tho olectoral roll of thut con- stituency, or tho ieievant pan thereof or a certiiied copy ol the relevant entry of such roll shall, unless it IS filed along with the nomination paper, be produced before the Returning Officer at the time of the scrutiny. Xt is thus Uear that when the stage of scruuny is reached, tn*> .Returning Officer has to be satislied tnat tne candidate is an elector ol! a ditterent constituency and for that purpose the statute has pro- vided, the mode of proof. Section 36 (7) of the Act lava down that certiiied copies, which are required to be produced under section 33 (6), shall be conclusive evidence of the fact that the person referred to in the relevant entry is an elector of that constituency. In other words, tne scheme of the Act appears to be that where a candidate is an elector of a different constituency, he has to prove that fact in the manner prescribed and the production of the prescribed copy nas to be taken as conclusive evidence of the said fact. In the instant case, Shri Kamath has himself admitted that he did not produce before the Return- ing Officer cither along with the nomination paper or at the time of scrutiny a copy of the electoral roll of 1970 which was relevant for the purpose of the mid- term election to the Lok Sabha. It is true that he had filed Exs. P-6 and P - ll which were not the copies of the electoral rolls of the constituency for the time being in force and it is manifest that Shri Kamath had not complied with the requirements as required by sub-section (5) of section 33 of the Act. Now the question arises as to what should be the consequence for such aon-compliance. In Jagan Nath v. Jaswant Singh (A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 210), the Supreme Court ob- served as follows:

•The general rule is well settled that the statu- tory requirements of election law must be strictly observed and that an election contest Is not an action at law or a suit in equity but is a purely statutory proceeding unknown to the common law and that the court possesses no common law power. It is also well settled that it i" a sound principle of natural justice that the success of a candidate who has won ai an election should not be lightly inter- ferred with and any petition seeking such interference must strictly conform to the requirements of tho law.

in Nasir Ahmad v. King-Emperor [A.I.R. 1936 P C. 253(2)>, their Lordship of the Privy Council have observed that where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or mot at all. See also Secretary of State v. Mtisk & Co. (A.I.R. 1940 P.C. 105). In Baru Ram v. Smt. Prasanni (A.I.R. 1959 S.C, 93 at page 100), their Lordship have observed that whenever the statute requires a particulars act to be done in a particular manner and also lays down that failure to comply with the. said requirement leads to a specific consequence, it would be difficult to accept the argument that the failure to comply with the said requirement should leau 10 any otner consequence, m a similar case, tho Supreme Court in Ranjit Singh v. Pntam Singh (A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 1626) has observed as follpws:—

"Section 33 (6) requires that it la the copy pro- duced by the candidate wnich snould snow whetner ho is quantied or not and tor that purpose a copy produced by the candidate anould bo complete whether it is of the roll or of the relevant part thereof. To such a case, S. 36 (4) has no application. That pro- vision is to the effect lhat the returning officer shall not reject any nomniation paper on the ground of any defect which io not of a substantial character."

Similarly, thu Supreme Court in Narbada Prasad v. Clmaganlal (A.l.K. 1969 S.C. 395) justified the rejection of the nomination paper when the provi- sions of section 33(5) of the Act were not followed. See also S. K. Singh v. V. V. Giri (A.I.H. 1970 S.C. 2097).

It is not in dispute that, instead of filing a certified copy of the electoral roll for the time being in force, mat is, of 1970, on the basis of which the present eiccLion in question was held, Shri Karnath had tiled Jilxs. lJ-6 and .P-ll which clearly showed that there was a non-compliance of the provisions of sub-section (.5; of section 33 of the Act and the Returning Officer was justified in rejecting the nomination paper tiled by him as it was not the duty of the Returning Officer to iind out how and why the name of Shri Kamath was not present in the electoral roll of 1970.

11. Now two questions arise (1) whether there was any mistake of procedure in deleting the name of Shri Kamath from the revised roll of 1970 and (11; whether this Court can go behind it and, if the proper procedure is not followed in the revision of the electoral rolls, what is its effect. The programme lor the revision of the rolls as aforesaid is set out in Ex. P-4. The last date of final publication of the electoral rolls was 15th January, 1970 and it was extended by the Election Commission of India to 18th January, 1971. Shri Kamath applied for in- clusion of his name in the electoral roll by a letter dated 27th January, 1971 which was received in the office of the Electoral Registration Officer, on 28th January, 1971. Ex. R-7 is the note-sheet of the Elec- toral Registration Officer, Nagpur. It shows that the whole procedure regarding the revision of the electoral rolls was followed by the Electoral Regis- tration Officer and furthermore, the application filed for inclusion of the name was also not submitted by Shri Kamath in the prescribed form nor the pres- cribed fee was deposited, Ex. R-8 shows that the name of Shri Kamath was deleted as the report of the enumerator was that he had left his residence. Ex. R-10 is the order of the Electoral Registration Officer rejecting the application of Shri Kamath pre- sented under section 23 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 for inclusion of his name in the electoral roll which also shows that the lists, as per Rule 21-A of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, were prepared by house to house enumeration and, as Shri Kamath had left the house in Dhantoli ward, his name was, therefore, proposed to be deleted. The lists under Rule 21-A were duly published in the notice board of the Office of the Electoral Regis- tration Officer and also of the Corporation Offices in Mahal area and the Civil Station. A copy of such list waa supplied to the recognised political parties (in this case, the P.S.P.). No objection was raised and the deletion order was pnssed on 28th December, 1969, The Chief Electoral Officer, Mahar -htra State in appeal passed an order on 13th April, 1971 setting aside the order of the Electoral Registration Officer on the ground that, in his opinion, a notice

should nave been issued to Shri Kamath and he MIUUIU iidve been nearcL At is ture mat the electoral roils 111 iorce in mtiy were taJten as arait roils lor me purpose ui ivuiw 10 ot me iiegistration ui Elec- tors liuum, lUoU und, as aforesaid, all the require- m e nt 01 law una me msti actions issueu by the nux- tiun t_omnussioii ul Inaia {vulu Ex. ±t-4j were fol- lowed, mere is no evidence LO show mat any 01 mo rules was not complied with. On a reading ui. me relevant rule zi-A and onwards, all thai, is proviued is that uu endeavour should be maiio to yive a person, whose name is to be deleted on the oasis mat he is not oruinarily resident in the cons- tituency, a reasunaoic opportunity to show cause why the action proposed snouid not be taJten in re- iuuun to him. 1 uo not think that a personal notice 13 contemplated by this rule. The required lists were published in the notice board of the Electoral Registration (Jilicer as well as oi the Corporation omcer and, as a matter of abundant caution these lists were supplied to all tne political parties in- cluding the party to which Shri Kamath belonged at the relevant time, r urthermore, ussuming lor argument that there was non-compliance of any of the provisions of the .Rules, such a con-comphanco cannot make the officer's act now estt though his order may act aside in appeal or by resorting to any appropriate remedy |.See B. M. Ranwiswamy y. B. M. Knshnamurtny (A.I.K. 1963 S.C. 46tf)J. it is also noteworthy that Rule 23(4) of the Registration of Electors Rules, 11160, provides tnat every decision of an appellate order shall be final, but in so far as it reverses or modifies a decision of the Registration Oillcer, shall take effect only from the date of the decision in appeal. In the instant case, an appeal is provided in section 24 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. It does not any where say that, if the appeal is allowed, the order will have retros- pective effect as urged by Shri Dharmadhikari. So, 1 am clear in my mind that th" order Ex. R-22 does not relate back in such a manner that, even if Shri Kamath had filed Exs. P-6 and P-ll, it should be deemed as if he had filed an electoral roll for the year 1970 before the Returning Officer. Even as- suming that there was any non-compliance of any of the provisions of the Rules of 1960, this question cannot be gone into in an election petition, as decided by the Supreme Court in Wopansao v. N. L. Odyuo (A.l.R. 1971 S.C. 2123). Their Lordships in paragraph 6 have observed as follows: —

"This Court in Ramaswamy v."73. K Krishna- murthy (1963) 3SCR 479, Held that the finality of the electoral roll cannot be chal- lenged in a proceeding impeaching the vali- dity of the election."

Shri Dharmadhikari has contended that, even though the Supreme Court has held that the finality of the electoral roll cannot be challenged, but still they decided the question on merits. This argument of Shri Dharmadhikari has no force. There were two questions before the Supreme Court for decision and the second question was whether any of the electors registered as service electors in the last part of the said Electoral Roll were not Indian citizens and this was the question their Lordships decided on merits and this decision is an authority for the proposition that the finality of the electoral roll cannot be challenged in a proceeding impeaching the validity of the election [See P. R. Belagali v. B. D. Jatti (A.l.R. 1971 S.C. 1348); Baidyanath v. Sitaram (A.l.R. 1970 S.C. 314) and Kabul Singh v. Kundan Singh (A.l.R. 1970 S.C. 340)].

12. It Is clear from the above discussion that Shri Kamath did not file with his nomination paper or at the time of the scrutiny on 4th February, 1971 a copy of the electoral roll in force, that is, of 1970. On the othur hand, he illed Exs. P-U and P - ll which are of no consequence, it is manifest, tnereiore, that there was a non-compliance with me provisions of sub- section (u) ut section 33 of the Act, and that delect being oi a substantial eharactur, the Returning tjnicer was correct in rejecting th" nomination paper. 1 have also held mat ihere was no non- compliance of any o± the provisions of the Registra- tion ui Electors Rules, lwbO, anu, even assuming mere may be one, the question cannot be gone into tins eiccnon petition and, furthermore, the order passeu by the Chiet Electoral Unicer, vide Ex R-22, nas no retrospective effect. The result, therefore, u that the rejection of the nomination paper of Sim Kamaih is justified and proper, Th" rulings cited by fcihri Dharmdhikari, namely, Wopansao v. N. h. udyuo (A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 2123.) and Baidyanath v. Situram (A.l.R. 1970 S.C. 314), do not support the case of the petitioner aa the above discussion shows and, on the other hand, they help the case of the respondent. As regards the rulmg reported in Kabul iungli v. Kundwn Singh (A.I.K. 1970 S.C. 340), it 1H distinguishable as the question in this decision was in respect of section 02 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, relating to right to vote which Ifl not the question involved in the present petition. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid discussion, I am clear in my view that the petitioner haw failed to prove this issue and it is, therefore, doaidad against him,

13. Issue No. 2

This issue is not pressed by the petitioner. There-

fore, it is decifled against him,

14. Issue No. 3

This issue is also not pressed by the petitioner.

This also stands decided against him.

15. Issue No. 9 (a)

This part of the issue relates to the allegation made by the petitioner that the respondent hired jeeps Nos. HRG-2791 and HRG-2792 from B, C. Tiwari, resident of Delhi Cantt. at the rate of Rs. 100/* per day and the said two jeeps worked from 31st January, 1971 to 10th March, 1971 for election of the respondent and the latter had not included Rs. 7500/- the hiring charges for the said two jeeps. The petitioner in paragraph 8 of his statement has deposed that, as regards the allegation made in para- graph-9 (a) and (d) of his petition, the source of hia information for the same was Shri D. P. Pathak, advocate, Narsimhapur, and he was only source, on this point. Shri Pathak has not entered the witneaa box though the petitioner was given an opportunity to examine him. R. C. Tiwari (P.W, 9) has also not said a word about the hiring of these two jeepa by the respondent for the purpose of his election. The respondent himself in paragraph 8 of his de- position has very clearly stated that he did not hire any jeep for his election work nor did he pay any hire charges for the jeeps Nos. HRG 2791 and HRG 2792. It is quite clear, therefore; that there is not an iota of evidence to show that the respondent had hired any of the two jeeps in question for the pur-

Eose of his election. The second part of this issue is ased on the allegation made by the petitioner In paragraph 9 (d) of his petition to the effect that the respondent had purchased two jeeps Nos, DHA2621 and DHA3029 from the Director of Army Headquar- ters Master General of the Ordnance Branch, DHO P.O. New Delhi, for a sum of Rs. 7608/- in the name of Giriraj Higher Secondary School, Narasimhapur, and he had paid the amount himself and used them for his election purpose. It is further alleged that the respondent had also purchased from the Army Headquarters one jeep No. HRG 2000 lor about 3000/- and used the same for hia election but he bad

pain me amount. There appears no icason why theii lesLiiuony siiouia not ue I'enea upon when they appcai to niu to ue reuabie. it IS true that Whatever kjiij.1 v aiayu nau staLeu is correct in tne tense tnat no ocop nau so lar u^en placed at me disposal Of tne ;.i_ii^oi as tne scnooi property, buL mis ooes not mean uiiiL, tne Jeeps in question weie not purchased uy Jim a. j-.. vcima (.xt.vv.i; ana Visnwanath toingu ^±-1. vv.uj lespectively when mere is ampie evidence LO prove tms lact. It is worthy of note that 8hri vaiuya had staLed that Shri b. !_,. Verma had expies- stii u aeoivo to purcnase a Jeep in the meeting oi tne executive committee ol tne scnooi wiucn ruias support irom tne statement oi me respondent, himseii, m paragraph 12 of his statement. It goes to slyjw that tne IUIK about the purchase of the Jeep had taKen piace u loug lime uelore it could DC imagined that iiioru woulu be A nnu-term parliamentary election. muie is no evidence, on the other hand, to show tnat me money paid tor the purchase of the Jeeps was paid by the lespondem in his personal capacity, on tnis point, H. C. Tiwari (1J.W. U> has clearly stated that whatever the respondent did for the purchase of tne juups in question, ne did for the purchase in the capacity oi a Manager and Correspondent Of the scnooi. .t urtnermore, there is no evidence to show thai tnese Jeeps were usea in the election of the res- pondent, as alleged by the petitioner. The respondent mmself hi paragraph 7 of his deposition haa clearly Stated that the Central Congress Committee had aent one Jeep HitG 2btS0 foi the purpose of election work and ne had notmng to do with this Jeep personally. "Wnencver any Jeep was used, he had mentioned it in his election return Ex. P-l. The statement of the respondent is trustworthy and there is nothing on iucora to prove the ailegaLion made by the petitioner m this regard as required by law. The result, there- fore, is that this issue is decided hi favour of the respondent and against the petitioner.

10. Issue Wo. 12

This issue is no I pressed. Therefore, this is decided

against the petitioner.

17. Issue No. 10 (a)

The respondent has denied the commission of the corrupt practice as alleged against him by the peti- tioner in paiagraph 11 of his petition, it is not in dispute that tne symbol of 'Calf and 'Cow' was allotted to the party of the respondent by the Elec- tion Commission of India. Now the only question mat requires for decision is whether this symbol is a religious symbol. It will be proper to reproduce here section 123(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951:

"123. The following shall be deemed to be corrupt

practice for the purpose of this Act: —

(3) The appeal by a candidate or his agent or by any other person with the consent of a candidate or his election agent to vote or refrain from voting for any person on the ground of his religion, race, caste, commu- nity or language or the use of or apeal to religious symbols or the use of, or appeal to national symbols, such as the national flag or the national emblem, for the furtherence of the prospects of the election of that can- didate or for prejudicially affecting the elec- tion any candidate."

not included its price in nis return ±or election ex- penses. lue respondent denied this allegation and uverreu mat jeep i^o. rtrtLr ^ooU was puichased uy one £>ursiht;ii in ilie middle oi iyvo wim wmm lie; naa iw concern while jeep no. iJHA 302y was purcha- paid any money lor any oi the Jeeps pur- capucity of a rounder Body Member and a ManDtr o± me Managing i^oinnnttee oi tne Uiriraj ni^her •secondary £>cnool. ile denied thai he iiau pam any money lor any o± tne Jeeps pui- cnased a^ a±o±Lbaid. ihe petitioner nimseii. na^ no personal Knowieuge auuut une purchase ui mese jeeps, tihn ±i. c. i'iwau (P.W. Ooj has deposed that nc nau uepoSiteo. on /yin January, lyvi in me omw jjaiiK. oi inaia, Demi cantc. and also depositeu .us. •iuuu/- lor one vehicle 'INishau Jongu' ana xa^en aenvery oi tin'ce venicies in the month oi Junuury, i-Jli. The release OIULI IS KX. P-l. He has also stated in paragraph o ox his deposition that me res- pondent haa tiven him a letter iLx. t'-Vj. for tne re- icase oi three Jeeps in the capacity ot a Manager anu Correspondent of the aforesaid school, He nus aiso aumiued thai tne authority leiter was also given uy him in mat capacity and me amount m question was also deposited by him on behalf oi! tne alore- taid SCHOOL it is Clear, therefore, tnat the uiree Jeeps were purcnasea liom the Army Headquarters lor the purpose oi (j-iriraj Higher Secondary tienool. The respondent himself in paiagraph y of his state- ment deposed that he did apply in tne capacity of a Manager and Correspondent ot the aforesaid school lor allotment of vehicles from the iismy Vehicle uepot and his application for such vehicles is Ex. i-zd. As ruyarus the vehicle No. DHA 3029 it was imanced by fanri a. u. Verma whose nanie is mention- ed in £JX. fl-30 as a member of the Governing Body oi tne scnool. Shri S. JJ. Verma (-R.VV. 4), who is a retired Commissioner (.X.A.Sj, has deposed that he gave ±iK. 4Uuo/- to the respondent for purchase of a jeep irom the Army Headq.uart.ers which he wanted to use lor himself as well as tor the purpose of the school, irom his statement, it is clear that ulti- mately tins Jeep was not found in running condition und was left ai Itarsi and is still there, tiome parts were to be imported but they have not been avail- able so far. Vishwanath Singh (.R.W. 5) has deposed tnut he purchased two Jeeps for the purpose ot the school. He is also the founder Member of tho suid school and he paid Hs. 8000/- to the respondent. He himself gave me declarations tor the two Jeeps in question, vide Kxs. P-3 and R-31. The respondent himself in paragraph 15 of this statement has clearly deposed that he had not paid any money for the purchase of the vehicles DHA 3U29 and DHA 2600. In paragraph 1U, he has again said that he had no connection with the vehicle HRU 2000 which is re- gistered in the name oi one Sursingh of Gurgoan. He has also testified that Rs. 4000/- were paid by Shrl S. L,. Verma for the purchase of the Vehicle DHA 3029 and he had not paid for this Vehicle. From this evidence, it is quite clear that three Jeeps were purchased from the Army Headquarters through the respondent, one Shri S. L. Verma and the rest of the two for Vishwanath Sihgh (R.W. 5). Both these witnesses have stated that they had paid the amount for the vehicles they had purchased. Shri Dharma- dhikari has stressed that Shri C. V. Vaidya (P.W. 5), who is an Advocate of Narsimhapur and is now work- ing as a Manager and Correspondent of the school, has stated that no Jeep had been placed at the dis- posal of the school nor the school authorities have purchased any Jeep and, therefore, the evidence led by |the respondent should not be relied upon. This contention has no force. It is amply proved that Shri S. L. Verma (R.W. 4) and Vishwanath Singh (R.W. 5) both are the Founder Member of the Giri- raj Higher Sr-condary School, Both of them have stated on oath that they had purchased the Jeeps and

The petitioner, in order to prove this issue, has exa- mined himself Poonamchand Kotharl (P.W. 6) and Rosansingh Dhauraulia (P.W. 7) and the respondent has examined himself. The petitioner in paragraph 2 of his statement has deposed that cow is taken aa 'Gau Mata' by the Hindus and they worship the same. He has further stated that the Hoshangabad Parlia- mentary constituency is mostly populated ay culti- vators who are Hindus and cow is considered with

that the symbol of 'calf and cow' is not a religious symbol. In order to appreciate the contention raised by the learned counsel of both sides, it will be proper to refer to some of the rulings on the point and then decide whether in the light of tho evidence on record, an offence of corrupt practice as alleged in the election petition, has been made out as required by law.

19. In Shubhnath v. Ram Narain (AJ.R. I960 S.C. 148) which was an appeal from the decision of -..he Patna High Court, reported in Ram Narain Prasad v. Sobnath (.A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 586), the returned candidate was an Adi wast, belonging to the Ho community. The electors in this constituency largely belonged to Advasi cummunity. The symbol chosen by the party was a 'Cock' recognised by the Election Commission of India, and the question was whether a 'Cock' was, u religious symbol. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court, keeping in view the ceremonies performed by the Adivasis while worshipping their important deities used 'cock' for such ceremonies, held that on the facts of thai case, 'cock' was not a religious symbol though it was an instrument for the worship of their deities, und it was further held that on the basis of the pam- phlet in question, an appeal was made on the basis of religion.

20. In Ramanbhai v. Dabhi Ajitkumar (A.I.R, 1965 S.C, 669), which was an appeal from the decision of the Gujurat High Court, reported in Ramanbhai v. Dabhi Ajitkumar (A.I.R. 1963 Gujarat 315), their Lordship of the Supreme Court, wherein the question was whe- ther 'Star' (Dhurv) was a religious symbol answered the question in negative and observed as follows: —

great respect throughout the constituency. He has further deposed that the tail of the cow is given in hands of the dyine person with a view that he may be able to cross the Baitarani river safely. In paragraph 9 of his statement, he has said that he has not seen any temple in India dedicated to cali and cow and that he has nut read any religious book regarding the worship of calf and cow and what he has been doing is by Sanskar and others are also doing the same. He has further admitted in para- graph 10 that the cultivators do colcbrate a festival known as POLA and whatever cattle the cultivators possess in the form of animal wealth, all are worship- ped on that day,—it may be bullock or a she-buffalo. Poonamchand Kothari (P.W. 6) has also stated that Narsimhapur district is mostly populated by Hindus and they take cow is Gau Muta and worship her. According to him, the Hidus also think that cow is an abode of Devatas (Deities) and some time the Hindus, when on death bed, donate a cow as a gift with the idea that the dying man will go to heaven. He has further stated that cow is an abode of 33 crores of deities. On Court questions, he has stated that Bahi Khatas are also worshipped on Diwali day. Earth is also worshipped. Weapons arc also worship- ped, on Dasehra day, and horses and elephants are also worshipped. Roshansingh Dhauraulia (P.W. 7), who is the president of the Goraksha Samiti of Nar- simhapur district, has deposed that cow is consider- ed equal to God, Shri Ramchandraji, Shri Krishnaji and Shri Shankar and his statement is also to the effect that cow is worshipepd. He has also admitted that, on pola festival, bullocks arc worshipped and that Rajputs worship their weapons and Mahaians worship their bahi khaia and so on and so forth. This is all the evidence that the petitioner has led to prove that 'calf and cow' is a religious symbol. This sort of evidence is of no consequence because the symbol of 'calf and cow' allotted to the respondent was an election symbol. In the case of the Hindu religion, it is not possible to associate a particular symbol with religion as is the case of the ^Cross' with Chris- tianity. The use of a symbol, even though it may be associated w i th some deity, cannot be without showing that it has the attributes of a religion be regarded as a corrupt practice within the meaning of section 123(3) of the Representation of the P e o- ple Act, 1951.

18. Shri Dharmadhlkarl has cited before me E n- cyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, Vol. 4, page 224, wherein sanctity of the cow is discussed. He has also cited Encyclopedia Brltannica, Vol. 1 at page 984, about animal worship which mentions as fol- lows:—

"Most animals, birds and reptiles figure, in one way or another, In the religious and magical symbolism of mankind, some (e.g. serpants) more frequently than others. But whereas animals play a large in the ritual practice of many primitive religions and in the symbolism of some of the more highly developed (e.g. Hinduism), actual worship animals as incarnations or representations of the divine being or power are extremely rare."

"A reference to prophets or religions or to deities venerated in a religion or to their qualities and deeds does riot necessarily amount to an appeal to the religious sentiment of the elec- torate. Something more has to be shown for this purpose. If, for instance, the illiterate, the orthodox or the fanatical electors are told, that their religion would be in danger or they will suffer miseries or calamities unless they cast their vote for a particular candidate, that would be quite clearly an appeal to the reli- gious sentiment of the people. Similarly, if they are told that the wrath of God or of a deity will visit them if they do not exercise their franchise in a particular way or if they are told that they will receive the blessings of God or a deity if they vote in a particular way, that would be an appeal to the religious sentiment. Similarly, if they are told that they should cast their vote for a particular candi- date, whose election symbol is associated with a particular religion just as the 'Cross' Is with Christianity, that will be using a religious symbol for obtaining the votes. But where as the case of the Hindu religion, it is not possible to associate a particular symbol both religion, the use of a symbol, even when it is associated with some deity, cannot, without something more, be regarded as a corrupt practice with the meaning of sub-section (3) of S. 123 of the Act. For instance, a particular object or n plant, a bird or an animal associated with a deity is used in such a way as to show that votes are being solicited in the name of that deity or as would indicate that the displeasure of that diety would be incurred if a voter does not re-act favourably to that appeal, it may be possible to say that this amounts to making an apeal in the name of religion. But the symbol standing by itself cannot be re|arded as an appeal in the name of religion." He has also referred to the Encyclopedia Americana, Vol. 8 page 133, History of Dharmasastra by Shri P. V. Kane, page 545 and Narbada Prasad v. Chhag- ganUl (A.I.R. 1969 S.C, 395) where their Lordship have observed that the cow is venerated in our country by the vast majority of the people and they believe not only in its utility but its holiness. Shri Chitalc, learn- ed counsel for the respondent, on the other hand has invited my attention to paragraph 15 of my decision on this question in Bhartendra Singh v. Ramsaha.i Pandey and 5 others (Election Petition No. 1 of 1971 decided on 12th October, 1971) wherein I have held

(The underlining is mine). 21. In Karavnngh v, Jamuna Singh 15 E.L.R. 370- 1959 Allahabad 427), the question for decision was, whether a portrait of 'Mahatma Gandhi' was a

national symbol, Their Lordships of the Allahabad High Court, while deuling with the definition of a symbol, as well as what should bt the National sym- bol, observed as follows:

"It appears to us that, in considering the mam Question whether the portrait of Mahatma Gandhi is a national symbol or not, the mean- ing of the word 'symbol', which can appropri- ately be applied, is only that under which it must appear that this portrait presents some- thing national by some natural fitness and that it would also be an emblem. If there is no fitness at all between what the portrait actually is and what it represents, it would be very difficult to hold that it is a national symbol,"

(15 E.L.R. at p. 376)

22. In Jagdcv Singh v, Pratap Singh (AJR. 1905 S.C. 183), the question came up before their Lord- ships of the Supreme Court to the effect whether 'Om' flag was a religious symbol or does it in any way symbolises religion. Their Lordships in paragraph 10 of their judgment have made the following dbsorva- tions which have a great bearing on the question under discussion: —

"The expression—'Om'—Is respected by the Hindus generally and has a special significance in the Hindu scriptures. It is recited at the com- mencement of the recitations of Hindu reli- gious works. Macdonell in his 'A Practical Sanskrit Dictionary' states that 'Om' is' the sacred syllable used in invocations, at the commencement of prayers, at the beginning and the end of Vrdic recitations, and as a respectful salutations: it is a subject of many mystical speculations, In the Sanskrit- English Dictionary by Monier-Williams, it is said that 'Om' is a sacred exclamation which may he uttered at the beginning and end of a reading of the Vedas or previously to any prayers; it is also regarded as a particle of auspicious solutions, But it is difficult to regard 'Om' which is a preliminary to an in- cantation or to religious books, as having religious significance. 'Om', it mny be ad- mitted, is regarded as having high spiritual or mystical efficacy it is used at the commence- ment of the recitations of religious prayers. But the attribute of spiritual significance "'ill not necessarily impart to its vsc ov a flag the character of a religious symbol in the context in vihich the expression, religiovs symbol occurs in the section with which we are concerned. A symbol stands for or represents something material or abstract. In order to bp a religious symbol, ther" must be n visible representation of a thing or concept which is religious. To 'Om' high spiritual or mystical efflcacv ilS undoubtedly ascribed: but its use on a flat; does not symbolise religion, or any- thing religious."

(The underlining is mine).

23. In the instant case, in order to prove corrupt practice under sub-section (3) of section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, it is neces- sary for the petitioner to prove that the symbol allotted to the respondent was a religious symbol and, accordingly, it must be used in the manner contem- nlated bv the aforesaid section Once it is shown that the sy/nbol in this case was allotted as an election Fvmbol. its merp use will not attract the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 123 of the Act. In the rase of a Hindu religion, aa aforesaid, it is not possible In associate a particular symbol with religion. When a particular object or a plant, a bird or an animal as- sociated with a deity is used in such a way as to show that votes wore being solicited in the name of that deity or as would indicate that the displeasure of that deity would be incurred if the voter doea not react favourably to that appeal, it may be possible to say that this amounts to making an appeal in the name of religion. But the symbol, standing by itself, cannot be regarded as an appeal in the name of religion. It is no doubt true that cow is an object of great vene- ration and it may be associated with some deity, but unless it is shown that the election symbol, which was allotted to the respondent, had the characteristics or attributes which go to make it a religious symbol, the election symbol by itself will not be a religious sym- bol, The election symbol of the respondent, as It stands docs not point out anything about it godliness or holi- ness and, that being absent. I arn clearjp my mind that the elections symbol of 'calf an3 cow' allotted to the respondent was not a religious symbol,

24. Issue No, 10 (b)

The petitioner has not shown nor pressed that there was any non-complmnce of the provisions of the Cons- titution of India or of 1he Representation of the People Act and the Rules made thereunder as alleged by him in paragraph 11 of the petition. There is also no material on record to point out that there was any non-compliance of any of the provisions aforesaid. This issue is, therefore, decided against the petitioner and in favour of the respondent.

25. As the petitioner has failed to prove any of the- issue he is not entitled to any relief. In the result, the petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed with costs Counsel's fee Rs. 500/-.

(Sd.,) SURAJBHAN,

Judge. 2-12-1971.

ELECTION PETITION' NO. 2 OF 1971

Shri Shittil Prashad Mishra v. Shri Nitiraj Singh

Choudhury

ORDER

on hsn.c Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11 (d) and 13(b).

Issue No. 4:—

.Shri K. A. Chltalc, the learned counsel on behalf of the resrondent, has rightly conceded that it was not necessary to make Khushilal as a party to the petition.

2. Section 82 of the Representation of the People Act. 1951 Thereinafter called the Act), enioins on the petioner to make all the contesting candidates as respondents only where the petitioner, in addition to claiming the declaration that the election of all or any of the returned candidate is void, further claims thfit hf himself o>- anv other candidate had been duly elected. Where, however, no such further declaration is claimed, nil ihe returned candidates are not to be imnleded ns respondents. Clause (b) of this section further says that any other candidate against whom allegations of corrnnt practices are made shall also be ioinpd as respondent in an election petition. In para- graph 6 of thp election petition, the petitioner has only said that at the time of the scrutiny, Khushilal's nomi- nation paner was accepted while on the same ground that of Shri Kam.ith was reiected. There is no alle- gation of any corrupt practice against Khushilal and so it was not necessary to join him as one of tho res- pondents to the petition.

3. This issue is, therefore, decided in favour of the

petitioner and against the respondent.

Issue No. 5

4. Shri Chitale has taken me through the verifica- tion made by the petitioner --.•' +he foot of the petition

and argued, that the source of information as regards paragraphs 8, 9, 9(a) to 9(f), 10, 12

5. Shri L. S. Baghel on the other hand urged that the verification of the petition done by the petitioner is in accordance with the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure.

6. Section 83C of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 says that an election petition shall be signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. for the verifi- cation of the pleadings. Order .r. 15(2) which deals with verification of the pleadings clearly says that the person verifying shall specify by reference to the nu- mbered paragraphs of the pleadings what he verifies from his own knowledge and what he verifies upon information received and believed to be true. The peti- tioner in his verification of the petition has said that he verified the contents of paragraphs 1 to 7, 8 (a), 11, 13, 15 to 17 as true to his personal knowledge and those in paragraphs 8, 9, 9 (a) to 9(f), 10, 12 and 14 axe true to his information received from others and beleived to be true. The object of verifying is to fix on the party verifying the rrsponsibiity for the utate- ments that he makes, It is true that the court is bound to see in every case that the pleadings are verified in the manner prescribed as the verification is not treated as a formality. I have persued the verification in ques- tion in the instant case, and In my view, it is proper, and I am supported in my view by the ruling of the Supreme Court in Bhikaji Keshno Joshi v. Brijlal Nandlal Biyani ( A.I.R. 1955 S.C. 010).

7. Thn rulings filed by Shrl Chitale relate to the verifications of affidavits which are different from a verified pleading.

8. As the verification is proper, this issue is decided in favour of the petitioner and ngainst the respondent.

Issue No. 6.

9. Shri Baghel has rightly admitted that the offl- davit ftl^d by the petitioner is defective. Proviso to S.8S of the Act enjoins on the petitioner that whon- evor he alleges any rorruot practice, he shall file an affidavit in the prescribed form in support of the alle- gations of such corrupt practice and the particulars thereof. The form prescribed for the purpose is No. 2Fi by thn Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. It should be borne in mind that the provisions of section 83 are not mandatory as their non-compliance Is not made penal vide R. R6 of the Act. This filing of an affidavit was Visertod in S.83 by Act No. 40 of 1961 and tru¹ inten- sion of the legislnture in addlne this Proviso to sub- section d) of S.83 was that the petitioner should realise the seriousness of making an allegation as regards corrupt practice and if he makes a false iiile- gaMon. ho could bp made "liable for perjury. I must •aw that th" provisions of 0.1 P r 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure must n" strictly followed. 0.10 r.3 nf iho UoHp of Civil Procedure Klearlv savs that nffldavit shMI bo confined to such fnrts si the deponp'nt Is liable of his own knowledge to prove except on inW- Innntnrv implications on which the statements of h^s belief may Vie admitted provided that the prounds thfreof nre stated.

hsuc. No. 7.

11. Shri Chitale has rightly conceded that the peti- tioner is elector No. 27 in the Hoshangabad Parlia- mentary Constituency and he is competent as such to lile an election petition. The issue is. therefore, decided accordingly.

Issue No. 8.

12. Shri Chitale has rightly conceded that the elec- tion petition filed by the petitioner is not time-barred, and it is not in dispute that the result of the election was declared by the Returning Officer on 10th March, 1971 and the election petition was filed on 24th April, 1971. Reading S.81 of the Act along with section 67-A thereof, the election petition has been filed within 45 days from the date of election of the returned candidate, and therefore, this issue is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent.

Issue No. 11 (d).

13. Issue No. 11 (a) was framed on the allegation made by the petitioner in paragraph 12 of the peti- tion which says that the respondent being a Vice-presi- dent of the Central Co-operative Bank, Narasimhapur took advantage of his position and got a new jeep purchased during the elections which was used for election purposes. It is further alleged that under his instructions, Shri Govind Prasad Tiwari, Marketing Officer toured the whole of the Constituency on this jeep and distributed and stayed the recovery of the loans due from the debtors of the Bank. This alle- gation in a nut-shell is that of an indirect bribery under S.123-A of the Act.

14. The respondent has only admitted that he is the Vice-President Of the Central Cooperative Bank, but denied the rest of the allegations, and also averred that the allegations made in this paragraph are not in accordance with the provisions of S.83 of the Act.

15. Shri Chitale has invited my attention to para- graph 29 of the judgement of the Supreme Court in Samant N. Balakrishna etc. v. George Fernandez and others (A.I.R. 1969 S.C. 1201) and the relevant, pro- visions of the Act, and contended that the material particulars are lacking for this allegaton, which were necessary for the opposite party to understand the case which he was required to meet.

16. Shri Baghel has rightly conceded that the alle- gation in question lacks in material particulars. Under sub-section (1) of S.83 of the Act, it is essential that a brief and clear statement of tho material facts on the basis of which the election hns to be challenged must be stated in the rjetition. It is also required under the same section that in case a corrupt practice fa alleged, full particulars of the same should be given. The material facts are those which pa to make out the petitioner's case and confirms a charge against the respondent. These particulars should be as full us possible giving therein the nnmes of the narties nlleged to have committed such corrupt practice and tho date and the place of the commission of each of such practice and the reason for the same is obvious that it waf the intention of the legislature to ensure that the petition should be bonaflde one. based on sprciflc cor- rupt practices. The petitioner has not mentioned in naragrnph 12 of the petition as to who were the per- sons concerned, and what place, and who were advanc- ed

17. Issue No. 11 fd) is, therefore, decided against the

Issue No. 13 (b)

18. Issue No. 13 was framed on the allegation made by the petitioner in paragraph 13 of his petition. It says that the workers ot the respondent hud carried on false proponunda against Shri Dwarakaprasaa Pathak, a contesting candidate, and for this purpose they had affixed posters wherein it was questioned,— 60.

The respondent has denied this allegation in paragrapn 18 of his written statement and averred that this alle- gation suffers from lack of material particulars.

19. Shri Baghel has very clearly and candidly ad- mitted that material particulars are necessary for this allegation. It was necessary for the petitioner to give the particulars of the contents of the posters, places they were affixed and the dates on which this was done, and the names of the persons who did Ihe same. Unless that is done, this corrupt practice cannot ho enquired into.

20. This issue is, therefore, decided against the

petitioner and in favour of the respondent.

(Sd.) SuRAJrjTAN.

Judgo. 21-7-1971.

ELECTION PETITION NO. 2 OF 1971

Shitalprusad Mishra, aged 44 years, son of Shri Shivprasad Mishra, Advocate, resident of Ttarsi, Tahsil and District Hoshangabad.— Petitioner.

1051 U^rein-aftcr called the Act), read with Order 6 rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for amend- ment The respondent has filed a detailed reply to oppose the application on the ground that both these paragraphs did not set-forth full particulars of the corrupt practice, including a full statement as far as possible of the names of the parties who arc alleged to have committed such corrupt practice and the date and the place of its commission, as required by the mandatory provisions of. S. 83 (b) of the Act. It is also said that the application is belated and not bona fide. It is further alleged that it is a new instance which is sought to be introduced by way of amend- ment and the petitioner cannot have a fishing and rov- ing enquiry.

4. Shri Baghel, the learned counsel for the peti- tioner, has contended before me that in paragraph 9 (a) of the petition, it is alleged that the respondent used 24 jeeps for his election purposes, and in his r e- turn of the election expenses, he has included only the- expenses of the petrol required for them but not th"ir hire charges. The charge for exceeding the pres- cribed limit of expenses is contained in paragraph 9 or the petition and now the petitioner wants to confine his allegation to the two ieeps only, the material par- ticulars nf which now he wants to amplify by way of amendment, which is neither a new charge nor any- thing foreign to the allegations already contained in the petition, and therefore, the amendment can be allowed under the law. For this he has relied on the ruling in D. P. Mishru v. Kamal Narayan Rharma and another [1970 (2) Supreme Court Cases 3091-

Versus

Shri Nitiraj Singh Choudharv, aged 02 years, aon of Choudharv Daulatsingh, Statp Minister, Union Government, New Delhi.—Respondent.

Shri I,. S. Baghol 1 Shri N. C. Jain / Counsel for the petitiont;>.

Shri K. A. Chitflle "1 Shri J. S. Verma Shri C. P. Sm Shri T. C NaiV j* Shri P. C. Naik I Counsel for the rcnvnnde.nt Shri P. P. Naolekar | Shri R. K. Pandey |

Shri R, P, Verma j

OFDEH

rnp issue No. D (M 1

Is.suPS 9Ca1 and (b) are the result of the allocations made by tlv- petitioner in paragraph 0 of his election petition to the effect that the respondent has incurred or hnd authorised more expenditure than the limit prpscribed, rind in sub-paragraphs (n) to (fl of the petition, he has ;:ivrn the instances to show 1hat the expenditure in regard to those Perns has not been in- cluded in the return of the election expenses.

r 2 Tt is not In dispute that this allegation suffers from lark of material particulars. It will be proper to sav hpre that Shri EaqhQl, the learned counsel for the petitioner, though rightiv conceded th.it suh- naracranh.s f b\ (c¹). (Q} , and (f) of paragraph 9 of the petition do suffer from lack of material nnrticii- lars but he odder! that ho i° not in a norHUon 'o •ivroply the ram" nnd the result of it. would, 'ie. thnt thp suh-parnf-raphs (h), (eV (f'). fnd (f) of n >-TFIgraph P nf the Petition ir" e+T"ick off, an<^ these nil' c-itinns '"ill not come up for trial.

5. Shri J. S. Verma, the learned counsel on behalf of the respondent, on the other hand, urged 1hat the case cited by Shri Bashel is not applicable to the facts of the nrescnt cn^e. in as much as, -what the petitioner wants to amend now was within hi^ knowledge at the lime when he filed the petition. He had known Ihe numbers of the jeeps, but he failed to mention them. He also stressed that a new charge was being hroucrht hv way of amendment and that could not bo allowed, nnd in support of his contention, he cited the rulings in A K Gvvtn. and Rons Ltd, v. Damodnr Valley

Amrrroii v Pnpctlnl Mrjirilnl Joshi nnd, others fAJR in(if) S.C 734) and Samnni N. Bnlnkriihna etc. v. Gcnrrjp Fernandez and other (AIR 1969 S.C. 1201).

fi After Vi"nrW the learned counsel for both the nartipp on the nuestion of nm"ndrnent and on oivinp mv careful consid^itlon to the contentions raised before me, T am of the opinion that the amendment should be allowed.

practice alleged in petition to be amended or ampli- fied in such a manner ds may in its opinion be neces- sary to ensure a fair and effective trial of the peti- tion but shall not allow any amendment of the peti- tion which will have the effect of introducing the particulars of corrupt practice not previously alleged in the petition. The language used by the legislature is very clear, and so far as the question of amend- ment of the election petition is concerned, the law is well established by the ruling cited above of the Supreme Court, and the ratio decidendi of these ruling is, that an amendment can be allowed provided the fact which constitutes corrupt practice must be stated and the fact must be co-related to one of the heads of corrupt practice. In other words, if the muterial facts of the corrupt practice are stated, more or better particulars of the charge may be given later, but where the material facts themselves we lacking, it is impossible to think that the charge has been made or can be later amplified, It may also be mentioned that if the corrupt practice is already alleged new instances can be added, but a new charge cannof be allowed to be added by way of amendment after the period of limitation for filing "an election petition is over. The court is competent to refuse an amendment application when it is not¹ bnnn fide one, or if it is related or is of such a kind that it appears to be a sort of patch-work.

8. Now the question that arises is> whether the amendment sought to be made by the petitioner should or should not be allowed in this cuse.

9. The election petition in this case was filed by the petitioner on 24th April, 1971, the written state- ment was filed by the respondent on 29th June, 1971. issues were framed on 30th June, 1971; and the amendment application was filed on 20th July, 1971. So it cannot be said that the application for amend- ment (I.A. 12 of 71) is belated. The corrupt practice, as aforesaid, is regarding the excess expenses incurred for election by the respondent in contravention of the limit prescribed for the same, and it amounts to corrupt practice under S.123 (6) read with S.77 of the Act. The allegation is that 24 jeeps wore used for the election work by the respondent. He has included only the petrol expenses but not the hire charges. Now the petitioner wants to confine himself to two hired jeeps only, their numbers being HRG 2791 and HRG 2792, which were said to be hired from Shri R. C. Tiwari, a resident of the Delhi Canton- ment, at the rate of Rs. 100/- per day, and they were used on hire from 31st Jamfary, 1971 to 10th March, 1971, and the expenses said to be Incurred were Rs. 7800/-. It is pertinent to note that the allegations that hire charges were not included are already there in clause (a) of para 0 of the petition relating to the" corrupt practice, It cannot, therefore, be said that the petitioner by way of the proposed amend- ment, as aforesaid, wants to add a new ground to the corrupt practice not already disclosed in his petition, and In my view, he is only seeking to furniFh particu- lars of the corrupt practice already set out in para- graph 9 of the petition. Merely because he h;is not givfn the numbers of the jeeps, that will not mean that the amendment application is not bond fide one. The same is the case regarding aub-paragranh (d) of paragraph 9 of the petition. It is true that the peti- tioner has mentioned in this paragraph that two jeeps were purchased and used during the election, and now by wny of amendment he has siid that thrsn two ieeos were purchased from the Director of the \ r my Services. Their numbers and prices are also civen in the material particulars sought to be supp- lied The allegation in paragraph 9 (d) is that the. respondent had purchased the same. It is not a TOP where in the election petition, the petitioner, hnd siid that it was purchased by somebody else and now he wants to amend that they were purchased by the respondent. Had that been the position, the amend- ment would not have been allowed, but that is not the case. I am clear in my mind that when the corrupt practice is already pleaded in the petition, and when lacks in material particulars, such particulars can bo supplid later on in order to have a fair "and effective trial of the petition as envisaged by clause (5) of S.88 of the Act, This issue, is decided accordingly.

(Sd.) SURAJBHAN,

Judge.

9-8-71.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR.

BEFORE HON'BLE SHRl JUSTICE SURAJBHAN

ELECTION PETITION NO. 2 OF 1971

Shri Sital Prasad Mishra—Petitioner

V.

Shri Nitiraj Singh Choudhary—Kespunaent.

ORDER (On Int, Application No. 21 of 1971)

Shri L. S, Baghel, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Shri J. S. Verma, learned counsel for the respon- dent, heard.

2, The application relates to the deletion and modification of certain issues framed in the case in light of the orders already passed.

Re. Issue 9.

2 By my order dated 9th August, 1971, I decided

that sub-paragraphs (b), (c), (e), and (f) of para- graph 9 of the election petition shall not come up for trial as Shri Baghel was unable to suprjly the material particulars, and issue No. 9 is accordingly amended today so that the parties may now confine their evidence to sub-paragraphs (a) and (d) of para 9 of the petition.

Re, Issue 10.

3, As regards Issue No, 10, it was framed on the

allegation made by the petitioner in paragraph 11 of his petition. In a nut shell it meant, that 'cow and calf symbol being a religious symbol. Us allotment to the respondent had religious appeal in it, which had materially affected the result of the election, and the allotment was thus in violation of the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951~ (herein- after called the Act) and the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 (hereinafter called the Rules)

4, Shri Verma, the learned counsel for the respon- dent, stressed that in this allegation it is nowhere said that the respondent had made an appeal to the voters on the basis of this symbol, and the only allegation made is about its allotment, and further, it has not been specified, as to what provisions of the Constitution, or of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 or the rules framed thereunder were violated and the issue, therefore, should be deleted because of the vagueness of the allegation.

5.. Shri L. S. Baghel, the learned counsel for the petitioner has, on the other hand, urged that this allegation is covered by Section 100 (1) (d) (iv) of the Act, and therefore, the objection raised on behalf of the respondent is not proper.

9 The grounds for setting aside the election are detailed in S.100 and 101 of the Act. Corrupt prac- tices are defined in S. 123. Th^ allegation, as it exists In para 11 of the petition is not covered by S.123 (3) of the Act, It is no doubt true that para U of the petition is not properly" worded. The gist of the allegation made bolls down to thia, that the allotment of 'cow and calf symbol had a religious appeal, with

the result that it had violated the- provisions of the Constitution, as well as the Act and the rules made thereunder.

7. It is no doubt true that if it is proved under S.100 (1) (d) (iv) that there had been any non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution or the Act or the Rules or orders made thereunder, the High Court shall declare the election of the reuu-ned candi- date to be void. But as it is left vague and not made clear as to what provisions of the Constitution, or of the Representation of the People Act, or the rules made thereunder have not been complied with, it will not be possible to proceed further for the decision of this issue, and unless this omission is supplied, the opposite pjrty would not be in a position to properly defend the allegation.

8. It is, therefore, ordered that the petitioner should, within a week's time, amend paragraph 11 of the election petition, only to the extent as to make clear as to what provisions of the Constitution or the Re- presentation of the People Act or the rules made thereunder, have not been complied with or violated, and the respondent also, if he so desires, should file his reply in writing within a week's time after the atnendmenl is made. In case, however, this is not done within a week's time, the issue (i.e. issue No. 10) sha.li be considered as struck off.

Re, Issue No. 11.

9. As regards this issue, it was decided by me on 21st July, 1971, that the allegation in para 12 of the election petition suffers from lack of material parti- culars.

10. Shri Baghel submitted that ho is not in a posi- tion to supply the material particulars, and so, it has become necessary to strike off the whole of this issue and I order accordingly.

Re. Issue No. 12.

11. This issue was framed on the basis of the allega- tions made in para 14 of the petition. It says that Rs. 1000/- were paid by the respondent to the Akhada in Jagdishpura Ward of the Hoshangabad town in about end of January or the beginning of February, 11971, by way of bribe with a view to secure for the respondent votes of the members of the Akhada.

12. The reply of the respondent to this allegation is contained in para 19 of the written-statement. He has denied the allegation and averred that Rs. 1000/- were arranged by the respondent as a donation on the request made by the people of Hoshangabad end the money was sent to the Collector, Hoshangabad, for the purpose.

13. Looking to para 14 of the election petition as it exists, I do not think it suffers from the lack of material particulars, and therefore, this issue (No. 12) as it is framed is proper, and Shri Vcrma's objection Is rejected. Re. Issue No. 13

14. As regards issue No. 13, it was decided by me by my order dated 21st July 1971 to the effect that para, 13 of the petition suffers from lack of material particulars. Today Shri Baghel submitted that he was not in a position to supply the requisite material particulars, it is ordered that issue No. 13 shall be struck off.

Re. Issue No, 14.

15. Issue No, 14 was framed on the basis of the ullegation made in paragraph 15 of the election peti- tion. It only says that the question whether the res- pondent belonged to the National Congress or not lifter the split of the Indian National Congress into two parties, is pending before for decision before the Supreme Court, ana the respondent, iherefoit, could not be a member of the Indian National Congress, and by claiming to be so, he had committed a corrupt practice.

16. As aforesaid, S.123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, defines corrurjt practices, and this is not the kmd of corrupt practice covered by the said section, and therefore, this allegation is neithei governed by the definition of any of the corrupt prac- tice nor by the provisions of section 100 and 101 of the Act. Consequently, this allegation cannot go for trial, and issue No. 14 is ordered to be struck off.

( S d .) SURAJBHAJNf,

Judge. 30-8-1971.

[No. 82/MP/2/72.] By Order, K. S. RAJAGOPALAN, Secy.

MINISTRY OF WORKS AND HOUSING (Works Division)

New Delhi, the 21st March, 1972

S.O. 1049,—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (h) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) of section 4 of the Rajghat Samadhi Act, 1951 (41 of 1951), the Central Government hereby nominates Shri M. G. "Pimputkar, Acting Lt, Governor of Delhi to be an official member of the Rajghat Samadhi Committee and also appoints him as the Chairman of the said Committee in the place of late Shri A. N. Jha. The Central Government hereby makes the following further amendments in the notification of the Govern- ment of India in the late Ministry of Works, Housing and Supply No. 19/2/62-WI, dated the 22nd August, 1962, namely: —

In the said notification, for the name of "Shri A, N. Jha" in the two places where it occurs, the following shall bo substituted, namely: —

"Shri M. G. Pimputkar".

[No. 25012(3)/66-W.III,] B. M. LAL, Dy, Secy.

(Directorate of Estate) New Delhi, the 1th April 1972

S.O. 1050—In exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 of the Public premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (40 of 1971 j, the Central Government hereby appoints the officer menlicncd in column (1) of the Table below, being gazetted officer of Government, to be estate officer for the purposes of the said Act, and tho said officer shall exercise the powers conferred, and perform the duties imposed, on estate officers by or under the said Aci, within the local limits i f his juiisdict'On in rctpeci of the public premises specified in the corresponding entry in column (2) of the said Table.

TABLU

Designation of the OJIieer Categories of public Premise⁸ and local limits of jurisdiction.

(2)

( I)

1. Deputy General Manager

(General), Northeast Frontier Railway

Premises under the adm'iiis- tru'ive cmtrol of the Northeast Frontier Railway situated with- in the jurisdiction of Gauhati, Pandu, Maliguon and Amin- Ruon.

[No. 21011 (4)/66-pol. IV]

S O x o "~ In exercise of the powers conferred hy Section FT? iuhiirPrrmiscs SKvietinn of Unauthorised Occupants)

S.O. 1052,—In exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unautho- rised Occupants) Act, 1971 (40 of 1971), the Central Government hereby makes the following amendment in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of late Works, Housing and Supply, No. S.O. 1104, dated the 7th May, 1950, namely: —

In the said notification, in the Table, the entry

against item No. 4 in column 1 shall be omitted.

K" by or under' the slid AcL vvUhia the local limits of ther rcspoctiv : jurUJiclion in ™ p c" of the public premises, spccMicj in the corrospundina entries in column 2 of the MtU table.

[No. F. 21Oll(4)/60-Pol.IV.]

THE TABLE

Designation of Officers

Categoiics of public j i u m u is and local limns of jiuis^iciii'ii

( 1)

Directors of Aii"poits, Delhi (.Pal.iiiO, Bombay (Sunta- ,<;ruz), CalcuttaCDumDum) .sipd MaJru9(Moi"nainhiik-

feaiii).

Promises belungingto or lakiMi on lease by and under the ajminiatra'ive control nf the International Airports Autho- rity of India aituato.i within the local limits of their res- pective jurisdiction.

[No, F. 21012CD '/2-Pi J. IV]

S.O. 1053.—In exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Un- authorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (40 of 1971), the Central Government hereby makes the following amendment in the notification of the Government of India in the late Ministry of Health and Family Plan- ning and Works, Housing and Urban Development (Department of Works, Housing and Urban Develop- ment), No. S.O. 4192. dated the 7th October. 1969 namely: —

In the said notification, in the Table, for the entry in column 1, the following entry shall be -;abstituted, namely: —

"Deputy Director, Indian Botanic Garden, Sib-

pore, Howrah."

[No. F. 21011(4)/6S-Pol V.]

S.O. 1054.—In exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 of the public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1071 (40 of 1971)) the Central Govcmmenihere by appoints the officer mentioned in column (1) of the Table below being an officer equivalent to the rank of gazetted officer of Government to be estate officer for the purposes of the said Act who shall exorcise the power* conferred and parform the duties imposed on the estata officers by or under the Raid Act, within the limitn of his jurisdiction in respect of the public premises specified in column (2) of the said Table :—

THE TAULB

Designation of the efficers Categories of p iblic premises an 1 lie 1 liml's of jurisJic'irn

(2)

Fntnce and Dcv.l pm m

Officer, Punjab University Chonuigarb.

Premise-, bcki.g i.g to or iaki,n on logic by anu under the adnvnitUra'ive c ntrcl of the Pu:ij.ib University, Cian, i- girh, jituateJ with in the revenue limits >if ChanJi- g.irh iifiiric¹

[No. V, r.ron(5)/67-P UV]

P. N. KHANNAH.

Dy. Director of Estates and cx-ojjido UV.der Secy.

PRINTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA PRESS. MINTO EOAD, VI-JC DHJHJ AND PUBLISHED BT THIS MANAGES OV PlTBUCATIONS. DELHI. 1972

-•-i