Subject NOT available

click here for IIIF manifest

REGISTERED No. D. (D.N.)—73

TheGazetteofIndia

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

No. 49] NEW DELHI, SATURDAY DECEMBER 4,1982/AGRAHAYaNA 13, 1904

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)

of 1946), the Central Government hereby specifies the following offences as the offences which at© to be investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment, namely :—

(a) Offences punishable under section 367 of the Indian

Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860) ; and

(b) attempts, abetments and conspiracies in relation to, or in connection with, one or more of the offences mentioned in clause (.1) and any other offence com- mitted in the course of the same transition arising out of the same facts

[No. 228/6/82-AVD-II]

H. K. VERMA, Under Secy.

MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS

(Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms)

New Delhi, the 17th November, 1982

S.O. 3975.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25

1001 GI/82—1

(4163)

Kudal Commission of Inquiry on Oandbi Peace

Foundation and other Organisations

AMENDMENT

New Delhi, th? 25th November, 198U

S.O. 3976.—Para 3 of the Order regulating the procedure of this Commission issued vide Notification No. J/1/82-KCI dated the 26th July, 1982 may be read as under :—

"Official Address.—3 Until further orders, the Head- quarters of the Commission will be at Room No, 13, "C Wing, llnd FIxir, I.ok Nayak Bhavan, Near Khan Market, New Delhi-110003, with eflect from 22-11-1982 nnd all communications should be addressed to (h-J Secretary to the Kudal Commission of Inquiry on Unndhi Peace Foundation and other Organisations, Room No. 21, 'C Wing, Hnd Floor, Lok Nayak Bhavnn, Near Khan Market, New Delhi-110003, till a change In address is notified." By order of the Commission.

[No. 1/1/82-KCI]

B. M. K. MATTO, Secy.

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Revenue)

New Delhi, the 23rd April, 1982

INCOME TAX

S.O. 3977.—It is hereby notified for general Information that the institution mentioned below has been approved by Department of Science and Technology, New Delhi, the prescribed authority for the purposes of clause (ii) of sub- section (1) of Section 35 of the Income-tux Act. 1961 read with Rule 6 of the Inome-tax Ruler, 1962 under the cate- gory of "Association" in the nrea of other natural and applied sciences subject to the following conditions :—

(1) That the Jain Foundation for Scientific Research and Development, New Delhi will maintain a sepa- rate account of the sums received by it for scienti- fic research in the Meld of natural and applied sciences other than Agricultural/Animal husbandry/ Fisheries and medicines.

(ii) That the snid Association will furnish annual returns of its scientific research activities to the Prescribed Authority for every financial year in such forms as may be laid down and intimate to them for this purpose by 30th April each year.

(iii) That the said Foundation will submit the Ainiinl returns and statement of Accounts to the Commis- sioner of Income-tax for every year.

INSTITUTION

Jain Foundation for Scientific Research and Develop- ment, New Delhi.

This notification is effective for a period of two years from 26-12-1981 to 25-12-1983.

(No. 4582/F. No. 203/193/80-ITA (ii)I

M. G. C. GOYAL, Under Secy.

New Delhi, the 1st June, 1982

INCOME TAX

S.O. 3978.—In pursuance of sub-clause (iii) of clause (44) of section 2 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), and in supersession of Notification of Ihc Government of India in the Department of Revenue No. 3280 (F. No. 398/3/80- ITB) dated 3-5-80, the Central Government hereby authorises Shri S. C Gupta-II being a gazetted Officer of the Central Government, to exercise the powers of a Tax Recovery Officer under ihe said Act.

2. This Notification shall come into force with effect from the date Shri S. C. Gupta-II takes over charue as Tax Recovery Officer.

[No. 4650/F. No. 398/14/8MTB (Pt. DI

New Delhi, the 3rd June, 198-1

INCOME TAX

S.O. 3979.—In pursuance of sub-clause (ili) of clause (44) of section 2 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), and in pursuance of Notification of the Government of India in the Department of Revenue No. 3498 (F. No. 398/15/80- JXCC) dated 30-6-SO, the Ccntnl Government hereby autho- rises Shri A. R. Pimpalwar, being a gazetted Officer of the Central Government, to exercise the powers of a Tax Reco- very Officer under the said Act.

2. This Notification shall come into force with effect from the date Shri A, R. Pimpalwar takes over charge as Tax Recovery Officer.

[No. 4658/F. No. 398/5/82-ITB)

INCOME TAX

S.O. 3980.—In pursuance of sub-clause (ill) of clause (44) of section 2 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), and in supersession of Notification of the Government of India in the Department of Revenue No. 4066 (F. No. 398/20/81- JTCC) dated 30-6-81, the Central Government hereby autho- rises Shri D, R. Nanda, being a gazetted Officer of the Central Government, to exercise the powers of a Tax Recovery officer under the said Act.

2. This Notification shall come Into force with effect from the date Shri D. R. Nanda takes over charge as Tax Recovery Officer.

[No. 4660/F. No. 398/25/82-ITBI

INCOME TAX

S.O. 3981.—In pursuance of sub-clause (iii) of clause (44) of section 2 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961) and in supersession of Notification of the Government of India in the Department of Revenue No. 2918 (F. No. 404/134/ TRO-Orissa/79-ITCC) dated 30-6-79, the Central Govern- ment hereby authorises Shri N. P. Rama Rao ,bsing a gazetted Officer of the Central Government, to exercise the powers of a. Tax Recovery Officer under the said Act.

2. This Notification shall come into force with effect from the date Shri N. P. Rama Rao takes over charge as Tax Recovery Officer.

[No. 4662/F. No. 398/21/82-ITBj

New Delhi the 18th June, 19S2

INCOME TAX

S.O, 398Z.-—In exercise of sub-clause (iii) of clause (44) of section 2 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), and in supersession of Notification of the Government of India in the Department of Revenue No. 3133 (F. No. 404/22/TRO- W&/79-1TCC) dated 16-1-80. the Central Government hereby authorises Shri B. S. Biswas, being a gazetted Officer of the Central Government, to exercise the powers of a Tax Reco- very Officer under the said Act.

2. This Notification shall come into force with effect from the date Shri B. S. Biswas takes over charge ns Tax Recovery Officer.

[No. 4702/F. No. 398/19/82-ITB]

New Delhi, the 12th July, 1982

INCOME TAX

S.O. 3983 —In pursuance of sub-cluuse (in) of clause (44) of section 2 of the Income-lax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), and in supersession of Notification of the Government of India in the Department of Revenue No 3276 (F No. 39&/3/8O- ITCC) dated 3-5-80 the Central Government hereby authori- ses Shn Rajinder Prasad, being a gazetted Officer of the Central Government to exercise the powers of a Tax Recovery Officer under the said Act

2. This Notification shall come into force with effect from the date Shri Rajmdei Prasad takes over chaigc as Tax Recovery Officer

INo 4791/F No 398/14/B1-ITB]

N K SHUKLA, Under Secy

New Delhi, the 21st August, 1982

INCOME TAX

S.O. 3984—In pursuance of sub-clause (in) of clause 144) of section 2 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), and in supersession of Notification of ihe Government of India in the Department of Revenue No 4650 (K No. 398/14/81- ITB) dated 1-6-82, the Central Government hereby authorisres Smt. Sumttti K- Mehta, being a gazetted Officer of the- Central Government, to exercise the powers of a Tax Reco- very Officer under the said Act.

2. This Notification shall come into force with effect from the dat" Smt Sumati K Mehta takes over charge as Tax Recovery Officer

[No. 4876/F. No 398/14/81-ITB} New Delhi, the 13th September, 1982

INCOME TAX

S O. 3985,-^In pursuance of sub-clause (In) of clause (44) of section 2 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961) nnd in supersession of Notification of the Government of India in the Department of Revenue No 2678 (F No 404/"'2/TRO- WB/W-ITCC dated 23 1-79, the Central Government hereby nuthouses Shn D Bhowmick, being a gazetted Officer of the Central Government, to exercise the powers of a Tax Recovery Officer under the said Act

2 This Notification shall come into force with effect from the date Shn D Bhowmick takes over charge as Tax Recovery Officer.

[No 4909/F No 398/l"/82-ITB]

New Deltu, the 12th October, 1982

INCOME TAX

it O. 3986.—In pursuance of sub-clause (in) of clause (44) of section 2 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), and in supersession of Notification of the Government of India in the Depjrtmcnt of Revenue No 4863 (F No 398/8/81- 1 TB) dated 10-8 82 the Central Government hereby authorises Shri B N K Verma, being a gazetted Officer of the Central Government to exercise the powers of a Tax Recovery Officer under the said Act.

2 This Notification shall conic into force with effect from the date Shri B N K Verma takes over charge as Tax Recovery Officer

(No 4945/F. No 398/8/81-ITB]

R. C HANDA, Dy. Secy

New Delhi, the 25th August, 1982

INCOME TAX

S.O. 3987—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (v) of sub-stction (23C) of section 10 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), the Central Government hereby notrflet "Sice Padmanabhaswami Temple Trust" for the purpose of the said section for the period covered by the assess- ment years 1982-83 to 1984-85

[No 4878/F No 197/66 '8MT(AI)]

INCOME TAX

S.O. 3991.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause u) of sub-section (23C) of section 10 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), the Central Government hereby notifies '"Archidiocese of Trivandrum" for the purpose of the said section for the period covered by the assessment year 1982- 83.

[No. 4896/F. No. I97/85/8(MT(A])]

New Delhi, the 31st August, 1982

INCOME TAX

S.O. 3988.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (v) of sub-section (23C) of section 10 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), the Central Government hereby notifies "Shri Bahubali Brahmacharyashram Bahubali" for the purpose of the said section for the period covered by the assessment years 1981-82 and 1982-83.

[No. 4894/F. No, 197/30/8l-IT(Al)I

New Delhi, the 2nd September, 1982

INCOME TAX

S.O. 3992.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (v) of sub-section (23C) of section 10 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), the Central Government hereby notifies "Kumba Konam Diocese Society, Kumbnkonam" for the purpose of the said section for the period covered by the assess- ment years 1979-80 to 1982-83.

[No. 4900/F. No. 197/93/80-IT(AI)]

INCOME TAX

S.O. 3989.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (v) of sub-section (23C) ot section 10 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), the Central Government hereby notifies "The Congregation of tho Brothers of Sacred Heait, Palayam- kotfai" for the purpose of the said section for the period covered

by the assessment years 1977-78 to 1981-82.

[No. 4895/F. No. 197/106/79-IT(AI)]

New Delhi, the 21st September, 1982

INCOME TAX

INCOME TAX

S.O. 3993.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (v) of sub-section (23C) of section 10 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), the Central Government hereby notifies "Sri Vedantha Desikar Devaslhanarn, Mylapure" for the purpose of the said section for the period covered by the assessment years 1982-83 to 1984-85.

[No. 4918/F. No. 197/56/82-lT(AI)] S.O. 3990.—In excrciie of the rowers conferred by clause (v) of sub-section (23C) of section 10 of the Inc,ome-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), the Central Government hereby notifies. "Tbo Society of Our Lady of Dolours. The Servonls of Mary" for the purpose of the said section for the period covered by the assessment years 1979-80 to 1982-83,

[No. 4897/F. No. 197/195/81-1T(A1)]

INCOME TAX

S.O. 3994.—In exercise of the poweri conferred by clause fv) of sub-section (23C) of section 10 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961); the Central Government hereby notifies

"Shri Anandpur Trust" for the purpose of the said section for the period covered by the assessment years 1981-82 and 1982-83.

{No. 4919/F. No. 197/216/80-IT(AT)I

S.O. 3997.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 53 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949), the Central Government, on the recommendations of the Reseivo Bank of India, hereby declares that the provisions of sub- sections (.1) and (2) of Section 10B of the said Act, shall not apply to Miraj State Bank Ltd., Miraj for a period of 4 months with effect from 3rd November, 1982 upto 2nd March, 1983 or till the new Chlerman assumes charge, whichever is earlier.

[No. 15/29/82 P.O. Ill]'

N. D. BATRA, Under Secy.

New Delhi, the 30th September, 1982

INCOME TAX

S.O. 3995.—In excicisc of the powers conferred by clause (v) of sub-section (23C) of section 10 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), the Central Government hereby notifies "Shri Thakurji Lnxmi Nalh Ji Trust, Jhunjhunu" for the purpose of the said section for the period covered by the assessment years 1981-82 to 1983-84.

[No. 4930/F. No. 197/169/79-IT(Al)l

MILAP JAIN, Under Secy.

MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

New Delhi, the 12th November, 1982

S.O. 3998.—In pursuance of the clause (a) of section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Oaths and Fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948) ihe Central Government hereby authorise Shri Bimal Kapoor, Assistant in the High Commission of India, Lusaka, Zambia to perform the duties of Consular Agent with immediate effect.

[No. T. 4330 (2)/82]

DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

(Hanking Division)

New Delhi, the 13th November, 1982

S.O. 3999.—In pursuance of the clause (a) of Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular Officer (Oaths and fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948) the Central Government hereby authorise Shri j. R. Manaktala, Assistant in thj Embassy of India, Bahiain to perform the duties of Consular Agent with Im- mediate effect.

[No. T. 4330/2/82] B. S. NIDDAR, Under Secy.

S.O. 3996.—In exercise of the powers conferred by section 53 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949), the Central Government, on the recommendation of the Reserve Bank of India, hereby declares that the provisions of sub- sections (1) and (2) of section 10B of the said Act, shall not apply to Bank of Tamilnad Ltd., Tirunulveli, for a period of 3 months with effect lrom 4th November, 1982 upto 3rd February 1983, or till the appointment of the next whole- time Chairman of that bank whichever is earlier.

[No. 15/21 /82-K.O. 1H]

MINISTRY OF COMMERCE

New Delhi, the 18th Novembfcr, 1982

S,O. 4000.—In exercise of the powers conferred by section 48 of the Coffee Act. 1942 (7 of 1942). (he Central Govern- ment hereby makes the following rules further to amend the Coffee Board General Provident Fund Rules, 1965, namely : 1. (1) These rules may be called the Coffee Board General Provident Fund (Amendment) Rulci. 1982.

(2) They shall come into force on the date of then

publication in the Official Gazette.

2. In the Coffee Bomd General Provident Fund Rules, 1965. in rule 8, after sub-rule (3). the following sub-rule shall be inserted, namely :—

"(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (I), a subscriber shall not subscribe to the Fund fcr the month in which he quits service unless, before the oomrnencemeiu of the said month, he communi- cates to the Accounts Officer in writing his option to subscribe for the saJd month."

(File No. 1/17/82-Plant (B)J

B. M. S. NEGI, Under Secy.

Office of the Chief Controller of Imports and Export!

New Delhi, the 11th November, 1982

CANCELLATION ORDER

S.O. 4001.—M/s. Bank of Baroda, 10/12, Bombay Sama- char M.irg Bombay were granted an import licence No. G/A/1091356 dated 16-3-82 for a C.l.F. value of Rs. 38,500 for import of (0 One Minolta Plain Paper Copier Model EP-310; (ii) Electric Typewriter Model 'Herfnes' 808, both with spares and consumables valid for twelve months from The date of issue. Now the party have applied for grant of Duplicate Customs Purpose and Exchange Control copies for the aforesaid import licence on the ground that the ori- ginal one have been lost/misplaced by them. The party have furnished necessary affidavit/decollation as per I.T.C. Rules according 1o which the aforesaid import licence was not registered with tiny Customs House and was not utilised at all and the balance against the licence is Rs. 38,500. It has also been incorporated in the affidavit/declaiation that if the said Customs purpose and Exchange Control copies of the import ticen^ are traced or found later on, it will be leturned to the issuing authority. I om satisfied that the original Customs purpose and Exchange contiol copies of the import licence have been lost/misplaced and direct that Duplicate Customs Purpose and Fich.ingc control copies of the import licence should be issued to the applicant. The original Customs Puipose and Exchange Contiol copies of the impou licence are hereby cancelled.

IFile No. 12/183 /81-82|MLS[572j

SHANKAR CHAND, Dy. Chief Controller of

Imports and Exportg

for Chief Cbntfoller of Imports and Exports

(3) 2nd amendment published vide S. O. 2842 dated

24/7/71.

[No. F 10-4/32-AM]

D. MEHTA, Director (M)

Dated,—11-11-82.

MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS

(P & T Board)

New Delhi, 'he 17th November, 1982

MINISTRY OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT

New Delhi, the 12th November, 1982

S.O. 4002,—The following diaft rules, further to amend the Coriander Grading and Marking Rules, 1964, which the Central Government proposes to make, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Agricultural Produce (Grading and Marking) Act, 1937 (1 of 1937), nre hcrebj published as required by the said section for the information of all persons likely to bo affected thereby; and notice is hereby given that said draft rules will be taken into considera- tion after forty five days from the date on which the copies of the Gazette of India in which this notification is published arc made available to the public.

Any objections or suggestions received from any peisons With respect to the said draft rules, before the expiry of the period so specified, will be considered by the Central Government.

DRAFT RULES

1. These rule* may be culled the Coriander Grading and Marking (Amendment) Rw>s, 19S2.

2. In the Coridander Grading ond Marking Rules, 1964 in Schedule II,

(a in the heading of column 4 of the table, the word "Damaged"¹ shall lie deleted;

(b) in column 5 for the figures '1.0", '2.0', '3,0' and '3.0' the figures '2.0', '4.0', "6.0' and '6.0' shall respectively be substituted ;

(c) for the foot note 3 ihc following foot note shall be SL-bstituted, namely :—

S O. 4003.—In pursuance of para (a) of Section III of Rule 434 of Indian Telegiaph Rules, 1951, as introduced by S. O. No. 627 dated Sth March, 1960, the Director General, Posts and Telegraphs, hereby specifies 16-12-1982 as the date on which the Mcasuiid Kate* System will bo introduced in Palampur/Jandiau Guni Telephone Exchanges N. W. Circle.

[No, 55/82-PHB) R. C. KATARIA, Assistant Director Oenernl (PHB)

(MONITORING ORGANISATION)

"3. 'Elackencd Seeds' are those fruits Or split fruits which arc blackened, materially affecting the quality."

NOTE.—(1) Principle rules published vide S. O. 2391 of G.O.I, dated 11/7/64.

(2) 1st amendment published \ide S. O. 523 of G.O.I. dated 10/2/68.

New Delhi, 6th November 1982

S.O. 4004.—In puisuance of sub-rule 4 of the Official Lan- guages (.Use for official purpose of the union) Rule 1976 the Central Governmcrj srreby notify following Stations of

Monitoring Organisation of die Ministry of Communications, the staff whereof, have acquired working knowledge of Hindi.

1.Monitoring station Nagpur.

2.Monitoring station, Trlvendrum.

3. Monitoring station, Manglore.

[No. 9-Mon (10)/821

R. G, DEODHAR, Director

(Wireless Mon.)

1001 GI/82—2

MINISTRY OF ENERGY

(Department of Petroleum)

New Delhi, the 9th November, 1982

S.O. 4005.—Whereas it appears to Central Government that it h necessary to lay a pipeline for transporting Petroleum Products from Bombay to Puna in the State of Maharashtra though Pipe-line and that said Pipe-line is to be laid through the agency of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Bombay.

And whereas it appears to Central Government thnt for laying pipe-line it is necessary to acquire the Right of User in respect of the Innds appended to herewith in schedule.

Now therefore in exercise of the powers vested in them by virtue of SectloQ 3 (i) of Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) AO 1962 (50 of 1962) Cential Government notify intention to pcquire the Right of user in the lands referred to abo\e.

Any person having hj9 interest In the lands referred to above having any objection for laying the Pipe-line through above mentioned lands may prefer on objection within 21 days of the publication of this notification before the com- petent authority Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Bombay Pune Pipeline Project, Rids Refinery, Corridor Road, Bombay-74.

AH persons having any objection may also state whether they want to b© heard tn person either himself or through any lawyer appointed by him.

SCHUEDULE

PIPELINE FROM rVILLAGE JAMBHUL TO KANHE

Tajulf a ; Mawal, District : Pune (Maharashtra)

AREA

Gutt No. Hissa

Village

H—R

No.

Jambhul

239 PART - 240 „

60 60

00 00

M

168 „

Ji

19

00

"T

II

11

• "

00 23

169-1 „

170 1 „ -

171 1 „ -

172 V „

173 [„

174 „

1MJ ,.

256-1 ,.

^68j „ -

tt

Jl

00 12

it

*•

00 20

M

,t

II

",

J*

25

00

*F

tl

253 1 „ -

254 I ., -

255J ,. -

2411 „ -

251J „ -

2611

262

274

275

277,

It

11

Jl

m " "

00 14

ti

i"

1,

ii

1t

Tl

M" ***

1"

it

H

t*

09

00

t

291" 292 296 297 299- 300 301 302 303. 293^1 PA RT -~ 294 y „

11 . ,

295 J „

Village

Gutt No. Hissa AREA

Village

AREA

Gutt No. Hissa No.

R

H

R

H

Kanhe

39

- 00

it

00 00 00

01 43 45

• "

Jt

*i *•>

—^

04

otv

ll

„ Pan) ., Part) A 3 Part)

'1

)\

00 03

Pt

535 „ 533 „ 460 „ 4521 „ 453 „ 454 ' „ 453 }• „ 456 „ 457 1 „ 458J „ 449 „

••

0.1 34

—

1*

1 J

[No. 12016/49/82-Prpd.l

11

l"

if

73

— 0

t"

ti

* *

"t

Z 0 — 00 — 00

05 02 29

if

ii

— 00 14

"i

2961 „ 297 „ 298 V „ 290 1 „ 304 „ 307 J „ 3321 (1 A 2 3321 (1 A3 332 1 „ (1 333| „ 334 y „ 335 1 „ 336 ., ^42 J „ 3511 „ 35 J „ 353 V ., 354 f „ 361J „ 224-] „ 228 I „ 229 f „ 327J „ 3301 „ 334J „ 326 53

J i

>>

*•

54 55 „ 56 „ 257 „

— — — —

258 PART

it

• I

2591 „ ^60 „

11

11

I*

41

— 00

ff

It

S : 8t:

If

t|

)"

265] ,- 266 „ 267J „ 2681 „ —'

11

Jl

11

l"

13

— 00

FJ

270J „ 2821 „ 283 j- , 2 8 4 / 2/ ;

it

284 „

04

— 00

it

288 „

29

— 00

)i

292 „

— 00 32

tt

293 „

22

— 00

t*

— 00 27

ft

3121 „ 314J „

'i

— 00 43

ii

311 „ 316 „

— 00 08

it

316 „

— 00 37

i"

— 00 19

Pf

ft

S.O. 4006.—Whereas it appears to the Central Govern- ment that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transport of petroleum from Kanawada 2 to Chanjda-1 in Gujarat State pipeline should be laid by the Oil & Natural Gas Commission;

)"

— 00 17

i>

Ft

And whereas it appears that for the purpose of laying such pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the, nght of u"er In the land described in the schedule annexed h,eTQto ;

512/21 512/1J „ 52n „ 522 1 " 523 f „ 524J „ 540 „

00 16

Kanhe

fi

17

— 00

5361 PART 537 „ 538 y „ 539 1 „ 541J ,.

— 00

532 „

10

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of the Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals pipelines ( Acquisition o' Right of User in the Land) A#. 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;

Provided that any person interested in the said land may. within 21 day* from the Ja!e of this notification, object to the laying of the pipeline under the land to the Competent Authority, Oil 4 Natural Gas Commission, Construction & Maintenance Division, Makurpum Road, Vadodara (390009.)

And every person making such an objection shall also state specifically whether he wishes to be heard in person or by a legal practitioner,

SCHBDULH

PUB LINE FROM KANAWADA-2 TO CHANGADA-

State; Gujarat District: Kaira Taluka: Cambay

Survey No.

Ccntiarc Village

Hectare Are

91/1

15 KANAWADA

10

20

[No. 12016/50/82-Prod.]

S.O. 4007*—Whereas it appears to the Central Govern- ment that it Is necessary in the public interest that for th" transport of petroleum from SNAJ to SNAJ in Gujarat state pipeline should be laid bv the Oil & Natural Gas Com- mission";

And Whereas it appears that for the purpose of laying such pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user In the land described in tho schedule annexed hereto ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by iub-section (1) of the Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in tho Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of* user therein ;

Provided that any persons interested in the said land, may within 21 days from the date of this notification, object to the laying of the pipeline under the land to the Competent Autho- rity, Oil and Natural Gas Commission Construction and Main- tenance Division, Makarpura Road, Vadodara (390009).

And every person making sudi BTI objection shall also state specifically whether he wishes to be hearded in person or by a legal practitioner.

SCHBDULE

PJpelineFromS.N.A.J.toS.N.A.O.

State : Gujarat District : & Taluka : Mehsana

Village

Block No. Hectare

Ccntiarc

Are

KASALPURA 674 672 668 669 619

0 0 0 0 0

06 12 04 13 03

50 50 80 80 10

[No. 12016/5I/82-Prod.]

L. M. GOYAL, Director

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND REHABILITATION " MINISTRY OF EDUCATION A CULTURE

(Department of Labour) (Department of Education)

ORDER

NowDc1hi,thcl6thNovcmber, 1982

New Delhi, the 14th October, 1982

S.O. 4009.—Whereas the Central Government is of opinion that an industrial dispute exists between the employers to relation to the management of Visakhapdtnam Port Trust and their workmen in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule hereto annexed ;

And, whereas, the Cental Government considers it desira-

ble to refer the said dispute for adjudication ;

S, O. 4008.—la excercisc of the powcfa conferred by section 3 of ihe Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (40 of 1971), the Central Government herebj appoints the person mentioned in clumn (I) of the Table below, being a professor of the Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, equivalent to the rank of a gazetted officer of the Govern- ment of Indiu, to be Estate Officer for the purposes of the said Act, and who shall exercise the powers conferred and perform the duties imposed on Estitc Officer by or under the said Act, within the local limits of his respective jurisdiction in reip<.ct of the public premises siecifled in the corresponding entry in column (2)ofthe said Tabl;.

TABLE

Now, therefore, in exsreise of the powers conferred by Section 7A, and clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 10, of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby constitutes nn Industrial Tribunal of which Shri S. V. Rnmana Reddy shall be the Presiding Officer, with headquarters at Hyderabad an

SCHEDULE

Nam;

Categories of public premises and local limits of jurisdiction.

(2)

(1)

"Whether the action of the management of Visakha- patnam Port Trust in refusing to supply shoes to Grade-II Drivers of M. V. Section is justified ? If not, to what relief are the concerned workmen untitled ?"

[No. L-34011(10)/82-D. IV(A)]

1. B. SITARAMAN, Desk Officer Professor Abdul Majid Siddiqi, Professor in Chemistry, Ali- garh Muslim University, Aligarh.

Premises within the territorial local limits of AUgarh Dis- trict belonging to and un- der the administrative con- trol of the Aligarh Muslim University, AUgarh.

[No. F. 3-"2/82/D"k (U)] ASSA SINGH, Desk Officer

ORDER

New Delhi, the 20th October, 1982

S.O. 4010.—Whereas the Central Government it of opinion that an industrial dispute exists betwecri the employer* in relation to the Southern Railway Administration and ffieir workmen in respect of the matters specified in the Schedule

in the Schedule hereto annexed ;

And, whereas the Central Government considers It desira-

ble to refer the said dispute for adjudication.

Now, therefore, in exercise ol the powers conferred by Section 7A, and clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen- tral Government hereby! constitutes an Industrial Tribunal of which Shri T. Anil Kij shall be the Presiding Officer, with headquarters at Madras and refers the said dispute for adjudication to the said Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

"The view of the Railway Board's orders contained in letter No. PG-72/RLT/69-3 dated 12-6-1974 whether the Southern Railway Administration is justified in not paying the scale rate of wages to re-engaged workers who were retrenched earlier and were in receipt of the scab rate of wages at the time of their retrenchment f If not, to what relief are the workmen entitled ?"

[No. L-41011(6) /82-D. IT (B)]

New Delhi, the 23rd November, 1982

S.O. 4011.—In pursuance of section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the following award of the Central Govern- ment Industrial Tribunal, Calcutta, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Air- force Halleswar, post Office Tezp'jr, District Darrang, Assam, and their workmen, which was received by the Cen- tral Government on the 17th November, 1982.

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUS ITUAL TRIBUNAL

AT CALCUTTA.

Valvcman had been reinstated and he reported for duty on 14th luly, 1982 (Forenoon). In view of above there seems to exist no dispute in the matter.

I, therefore, pass u 'No Dispute' Award in the case.

Dated, Calcutta, The 2nd November, 1982.

sd/-

M. P. SINGH, Presiding Offlcei

[No. L-14012(3)/81-D. II (B)]

New Delhi, +he 23rd November, 1982

S.O. 4012.—In puisuance of section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the following award of the-Central Govern- ment Industrial Tribunal, JBbalpur, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Security Paper Mills, Hoshangabad, and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 9-11-82. 9-11-82.

BEFORE IUSTICE SHRI S. R. W AS (REGD.) PRESID- ING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR(M.P-)

Case No. CGIT/LCOl) (43) of 1981

PARTIES :

Employers in relation to the management of Security Paper Mills, Hoshangabad and th.eir workmen re- presented through the S.P.M. Staff Union, C/o Security Paper Mills, Hoshangabad (M.P.).

APPEARANCES :

For Workmen.—Shri P. S. Nair, Advocate.

For Management.—Shri K. K. Adhikari, Advocate.

INDUSTRY : Paper Mills DISTRICT : Hosbangabad (M.P.)

Reference No. 30 of 1982

PARTIES :

Employers in relation to the management of Airforce,

Halleswar, P. O. Tezpur, Di&tt. Darrang, Assam.

AND

Their Workmen.

PRESENT :

Mr. Justice M. P. Singh.—Finding Officei.

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of Employer*.—Absent

On behalf of Woikmen.—Absent.

STATE : ASSAM

AWARD

By Onler No. L-14012/3/81-D. II(B) dated 23 August 1982 the Government of India, Ministry of Labour sent to this Tribunal tho following diapuie for adjudication :

"Whether the action of Garrison Engineer, Airforce, M.E.S. Tezpwr in discharging Shri Kamal Chandra Keot Valvcman from service w.e.f. 24-8-72 is justified 7 If not, to what relief the workman is entitled T

2, On receipt of the Reference notices were issued to parties fixing 2-1J-1982 as first hearinjr date with direction to file their respective documents and written statements, if any. But to-day when the case was called out nobody ap- peared. The- Tribunal received a letter from the office of Garrison Engineer Airforce, Tezpur, P. O. Halleswar intimat- ing that the concerned workman Sri Kamal Chandra Keot,

AWARD

Hoshangabad, the 29th October, 1982

This is a reference made by the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide Notification No. L-4201K12)/ 80-D. II (B) dated 20th November, 1981, for adjudication of the following dispute by this Tribunal :—

"Whether tho action of the management of Security Paper Mills, Hosganbabad in denying overtime and night duty allowances to its staff members draw- ing basic pay of Rs. T51 and above is legal and justified when then- counterparts in Indian Security Press, Nasik arc entitled to such allowances ? If not, to what relief the concerned workmen are entitled ?"

2. Facts which are not in dispute in this case are as

under :—

Workmen in this case are the employees of the Security Paper Mills, Hoshangabad, hereinafter referred to as the Mills. The Mills employ different categories of workmen some of whom are gotting Rs. 750 p.m. as wages. Neither any Overtime Allowance nor any Night Duty Allowance is paid by the Mills management to such workmen who are drawing their basic pay of more than Rs. 750 p.m. Workmen claim that since in the Indian Security Press at Nasik such allowances are paid to such member* of the staff whose basic pay is more than Rs. 750 p.m. the Mills management fa not justified in denying such allowances to them also. A" the claim made by the workmen of the Mills was not conceded to by the Mills management an industrial dispute was raised which has resulted in the present reference to this Tribunal.

3. The case of the workmen is that in the Indian Security Press, Nasik, which k also an Undertaking of the Govern- ment of India as also in other Government Undertakings

like Ordnance Factory etc. Overtime Allowance and Night Dutvi Allowances are paid to thoss employees whose basic ?y is m o T t h an Rs. 750 ; that those -workmen who are receiving these two allowances in *e Indian Security Press, Nasik. and other Undertakings of the Government of India are employees of the *ame Government of which these workmen are the employes; that in the other establishment of Security Press Nasik there Is no ceiling of basic pay for entitlement of these two allowances; that in the Ordnance Factory Khamaria, Jabalpur, Ordancc Factory Itorsi, Govern- ment Mint* at Calcutta, Hyderabad find Bombay, Central Government pays these two allowances to the workmen even though their basic pay is more than Rs. 750; that duty hours of the employees are fixed at 8 hours per day and taking duties fro-n the workmen beyonct this duty period of 8 hours without payment of Overtime Allowance is not legal; that the Government cannot discriminate the cuse of one employee with the case of lie other employees in the other establishment; that Overtime & Night duties involve extra physical and menial burden on the workmen and that denial of Overtime and Night Duty Allawances to the workmen by the Government and grant the sam" allow- ances to the similar workmen working in similar undertakings is a clear discrimination in law by the Government of India.

4. On behalf of the management, it is contended that members of the Security Papers Mills Statf Union (at whose instance the present reference jas been made) are not workers as defined under the Factories Act, 1948; that overtime allowance of the workers who ars covered under the Factories Act is regulated under S sc 59 of the Factories Act; that these workmen arc non-industrl.il workmen in the Mills; that the question of overtime allowance of workers of the Mills except those covered under Sec. 59 of the Factories Act is regulated by the Government of India Circulars re- ferred to in Annexures A to E; th

5. Rejoinder was filed oniv bv the workmen and not by th" Mjlld. In th^ rejoinder th" workmen have reiterated the allegations of discrimination allejiedlv beinft made by the Government as also for their entitlement '.o the Overtime find Night Shift Allowances nt par with the employee* of the Security Press at Nasik.

6. On these pleading of (he partis, th? following isu'es

were framed :—

'

ISSOFS

J(a) Whether the workmen of the Security Paper MHN Hoshangabed me entitled to dnim Overtime Allow- ance and Night Shift Allowance as clairaed in this

case ?

(b) If so, from what date and at what rate* ?

2. Relief.

7. My flndinsg on the afores-aid issues are as under :—

Issue No. Ha).—That '-ho workmen of the Seucrity Paper Mills Ltd. drawmg pay of Rs. 751 or more are entitled to Overtime and Night Shift Allowance at the same rate at which the same- is being to the similar employees of the Security Press at Nasik.

Issue No. l(b) & (2).—As per order passed below.

Reasons for the above findings ;

8. hsue No. lla).—In this case no oral evidence has been given by either party- O n ly t ne management of the Mills has filed certain Government Circulars/Orders etc. in sup- port of its contentions. Accordingly in the absence of any oral evidence the issues referred to above huve to be decided on the basis.of the pleudings of ihe parties and the docu- ments filed by the management.

9. Ex. M/10 is the first document in o'der of time dated 10-8-1927 from the Finance Department, Government of India, addressed to the Master.. Searrity Printing, India which gives him, power to employ overtime labour to meet the work. It also specifies the manner in which the overtime is to bo paid. Ex. M / ll is the next order of the Finance Depart- ment, Government of India, dated 6-1-1942 which allows 25 per cent more in addition to normal days pay as Night Shift Allowance. The next order of the Government in order of time is Ex. M /l dated 8-3-1968 by which overtime allowance was allowed to non-industrial staff of tha Mills for work done in excess of 48 hours on the terms and con- ditions stated therein. Ex. M/7 is the next document in order of time dated 10-2-1970. By this order the Finance Ministry allowed Night Duty Allowance to non-industrial em- ployees of the Mills drawing pay upto Rs. 470 Ex. M/2 is the next document dated 18-5-1972 by which calculation of the rate of overtime allowance was fixed. By Ex. M/3 dated 13-10-1972 the period of work for entitlement of over- time and night shift allowances to workmen drawing basic pay of Rs. 500/- was regulated. Ex. M/4 dated 1-5-1974 Is the next order of the Finance Ministry by which the ceiling of Rs. 500/- was raised to Rs. 750/-. To the same effect is order Ex. M/5 dated 6-1-7^. The last order is dated 6-6-1980 Ex. M/6 , By this order the General Manager of the Mills was informed bv the Ministry of Labour that the limit of Rs. 750/- has been fixed on the recommendation of the Third Pay Commission and is applicable to all Industrial undertakings of the Government. It was further stated in this letter dated 6-6-1980 that under Sec. 64(1) of he Fac- tories Act payment of overtime allowance to employees drawing pay Rs, 750/- or more per month is barred.

10. From the aforesaid documentary evidence it would therefore be clear that sometime in the beginning overtime/ night duty allowance was payable but subsequently the ceil- ing was fixed at Rs. 470 Rs. 500 and lastly at Rs. 750.

11. Section 59 of the- Factories Act referred to in the state- ment of demand provides that where a worker works in a factory for more than nine hours in any day or more than forty-eight hours in any week, he shall be entitled to over- time wages at the date of twice his ordinary rate of wages Sub-section (1) of Sec. 64 referred to in Ex. M/6 dated 6-6-1980, with is the last nrder cf the Government, Provides for making rules to define persons who holds position of Supervision or management or who are employed in confiden- tial position in a factory. No document has been produced before thjs Tribunal about the making of such rules or definition of persons holding the position of supervision or rnarmgernnt employed as a confidential position in the factory JJI the- light of the aforesaid documentary evidence given by the management only, rhe only question that arises for consi- deration is as to whether the non-payment of overtime and ntgftt shift duty allowance of employees getting Rs 750/ or more can be said to be justified only on the basis of tha Government Order ?

12 The grievance of the workmen that lheir counter-parts in the Security Press at Nasik -re being puid these two ;illow- unces and the same arc bsing danied to them.

13. In piira 11 it is stated by the management that restri- ctions imposed by the Government Order dated 1-5-1974 (ExM/4) for payment of ovettime allowance to persons getting Rs. 750 is applicable to all the industrial undertak- ings of the Government including the Indian Security Press at Nasik. It is, however, admitted in this. paragraph that despite the imposition of celling non-industrial employees of the Security Press at N'jsik. ore paid overtime at the single rate in view of an old practice of paying this allowanco with- out putting any limitation by virtue of the Goyernment of India in the Finance Ministry's letter dated 16-8-1927 (Ex. M/10). It is also admitted that night shift allowance is elso allowed to the employees of the Security pres- in view of the order dated 6-1-1942 (Ex. M / l l ).

14. It would thus be clear that despite Hie order Ex. M-10 dated 16-8-1927 and Ex. M / ll dated 6-1-1942 and the sub- sequent orders passed by the Government of India by which ceflings have been fixed thc employees of the Security Press tire paid overtime and aight ihift allowances by the Govern- ment of India. Government of India is tho owner of the Seciirity Press at Nasik and the Security Paper Mills at Hoshangabad. An important qaestion arises jj as to whether there can be any discrimination between the two employees of the same employer in the matter of payment of overtime and night shift allowances?

15. Though the Government have absolute right to fix different scale* of pay and allowances according to categories of employees in different industrial undertakinas but there can be no departure from the basic principle of equal pay for equal work which is dcducible from the constitutional pro- visions of the Constitution of India,

16. The question whether there can bo any such discrimi- nation as is apparent In this case was considered in the case of Randbir Singh Vs. Union of India and others (AIR 1982 SC 879). In that case their Lordships were considerinf the case of a, Driver in the Delhi Police Force whoso pay scale was different and lower as compared to the other drivers in the Railway Protection Force and other Departments of the Government. Considering the question as to whether the principle of equal pay for equal work is or is not a funda- mental right or an abstract doctrine, it was held by their Lordships as under :—

"Construing Articles 14 and 16 in the Haht of thr Preamble and Art. 30(d), we are of the view that the principle Eual pay for Equal work' is Jeducible from those Articles and may be properly applied to cases of unequal tcales of pay based on no classi- fication or irrational classification though those drawing the different scales of pay do identical work under the same employer."

On the facts of that case their Lordship? directed the Delhi Administration to fix the scale of pay of the Petitioner at least at par with the scale of pay of the Drivers of the Rail- way Protection Force which was higher than the scale of pay admissible to the petitioner driver-constable in that cate.

17. In this case in para 11 referred to above the mana^e- menf admits that the ceiling of Rs. 750 for non-entitlement of night shift and overtime dllowances though applicable to the non-industrial employee of the Security Press also but that is being paid because of the two orders of 1927 and 1942 (Ex. M/10 and Ex. M/l I). Tt is not understood as to why when employees of the same employer i.e. Government of India in this case are being paid overtime and night duty allowances to employees of one industrial undertaking the *ame should H denied to the employees of the other indus- trial undertaking of the same employer.

18. It may also be observed that there arc fixed workine hours of the employees in all the industrial undertakings At some stage employees pelting less than Rs. 750 were allow- ed overtime and night shift allowance but the same li being denied now. How can .m employee in an industrial under- taking be asked to work overtime without payment of over- time allowance. Night shift allowance is paid because an employee is required to work during night hours which are not the normal hours of work. However, on principles of 'equity' and on the principle of 'Equal pay for Equal work' the claim by the workmen in this case appears to be Justifi- ed. Though it was stated that the conditions of working In the Security Press at Nasik und Security Paper Mills at Hoshangabad arc different but there is not an lota of evi- dence placed before this Tribunal by the management to show as to whether nod to what extent the difference lies in the work and method of these two industrial undertakings. If some material has been placed before this Tribunal to justify the discrimination the mattar could havo been con- sidered in the light of the material so placed, but since "that has not b;en done the only inference Is that the general conditions of both the industrial undertakings under which the employees getting pay over Rs, 750 is the same. Con- seuently, there is no justification made out by the manage- ment for discrimination in the matter of payment of over- time and nfght shift allowances.

19. Issue No. l(b) & (2).—As per orders passed below.

20. Accordingly for the reasons given above, the follow-

ing award is given :—

The workmen of the Security Paper Mills Ltd., Hoshanga- bad who are drawing pay over Rs, 750 are entitled to overtime allowance and night shift allowance at par with such allowances being paid to the similar employees of the Security Press at Nasik. Such allowance shall be paid to these workmen from the date of this award.

In the circumstances of the case, both the parties shall

bear their own costs as incurred.

S. R. W A S, Presiding Officer

[No. L-42011(12)/80-D.JI(B)]

S. S. PRASHER, Desk Officer

ORDER

New Delhi, the 4!h November, 7982

S.O. 4013.—In exerkse of the powers conferred by sub- section H) of section 3 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby requires the Chairman of New Mangalore Port and Tuticorin Port to constitute a Works Committee in the industrial establishment under him in the manner prescribed in the Industrial Dfs- prrtcj (Central) Rules, 1957.

[F. No. S-11O18(6)/81-D.I(A)]

B i l p un District it* n K"Tjm Oi i O B'j pur Dtsttict md D' nv d Di tr c

9(b) L b ur Cjurt B\n3i!ore Ti S at^ M K 'U kj

LXJ idi g G ilbars; nd B la^um DIM ions

Note Princirnl N^MH^Ttioi n ib!i h ' v iV S O J-6S0 d tt'' ihr

19 P-67, Pa tH.S tioni S 5 -< Jii> i(u)orOa? tteot [nth ' ted th^ ^0'2-l°67 stb'.equt.n'l^ i oen.' bv

(i) N>tifi. ton Ni SO \\i5 dnteo *'O-'¹-68 Gi7ctte of

30 ^-6S

(n) Nitification Ni S O. 668 du,t d 11 2-6 G 7 Ue of

-'2-2-6°

(m) NJt fication N> SO 1894 d^ud 9-S 69 Gazette of

17-5-69

Any suggestions or uiv^tions which may be received fiom any pemon in respect of 'he said addition on or befoie the

expiry of a period of ihiec month"! from the date of publi- cation of thi? notillUaiion in The Official Gtr/eite, will be con- sidered by the Central (io\crnment.

[No 'S-32O17/3/8I-WC (M.W.)l

M. L. MFHTA, Ifndei Secy.

Nev\ Delhi the 22nj November, 19S2

S.O 4016—In pursuance of section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Acl, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Ocntial Goveinmtnt hereby publishes the follow ing award of the Cential Gov- ernment Industrial Tribunal, Hyde.ahad. in the industrial dispute between the e m p l o ye in relation to the mangement of Singarcm Collieries Co. I imitctl Kothaiuidem, and their workmen, which was '-eceived by the Central Government on the 13th November, 1982.

BEFORE TFir INDl'STRTAL TRIBUNAL (CENTRAL) \T HYDERABAD

Industrial Dispute No. 20 of 1980

BPFWFEN

Workmen of Singareni Collieiirs C mpanv I imited.

Kothaeudem, Kharimam Distnct (A.P.).

AND

The Management of Singareni Collieiies- Company

Limited Kothagiulem. Khammam District (A P.).

APPEARANCES :

Sri D. S. R. Vaima, Ai'vouitc—foi the Workmen.

Sii K. Srinivasa Muithy, Honorary Secretary Andhra Pradesh Chambers -of Commeice and Industry, Hyderabad—for the Management

AWARD

By Order No. L-2IO12(1)/8O-D IV.B, dated 15-12-1980, the Government of India rcfeircd (lie following industrial dis- pute existing between the Singaieni Collieries Company Limi- ted, Kothacudem and then Workmen to this Tribunal for adjudication :—

"Whether |hc management of Messrs Singaieni Collieries Company Limited, kothagurlcm is justified in dis- missing Shri D. Subb.nuo, Watchman, Manugur Collieries with elect fiom 7-4-1980? If not to what relief IN he en'illed?"

2. After the above industrial dispute was taken on file in r.D. No. 20 of 1980 on 22-12-1980, notice;, were issued to both the Management and the Workmen The Workmen filed their claims statement on 12-2-1981. To the above claims statement, the Management fiL\l their counter on 17-1-1981 Sri K. Srimvaia Miirthy appeared for the Management a* Management's representative whereas- Sri DJ-.R. Varma filed his vakalat for the Workmen with the consent of (he other- side. The case underwent srme adjournments for enquiry.

3. While so, on 9-8-1982. a compiomis; petition signed bv the Management and Hie Woikmen iv.m (iled into this Tribunal Since the partis ueie absent on that dav. Ihe compromise petition numb-ied as MP No. 100/82 was posted to 27-8^1982 for anpear.inct: ol the parties, to record the compromise On 27 8-1982 Sri. V Gopala Saitiy. Dcputv Chief Peis-onncl Mnnagn of tfv Comn.mv was present He admitted the execution un | the tcirns of ihe compromise -ead over to him • As the Workmen were not present on fh.it dav. the case v as adjoinnc 1 frvm time lo lime till today Today also the Workmen piewnt for the Woikmen admits the truth mij the execution of the compromise and the leirns thcieof. Hence the compromise is recorded today.

4. The following me the terms cf ih-- compromise re-

LOided in M.P. No. 100/82 : —

"(1) The Management afireed to consider the cas" of Sn D Subba R >o, l^-Wati-hman, SJtPC, M.inu- vuru on compassionate grounds

(2) Sri D. Suhba U.io "-vill be tcappointed as Watchman, S&PC, in the C inipany and posted in any Division. He will be allowed the basic pay he was drawing at the time of his dismissal.

(3) The intcivrnini; peiiod i.e. from the date of dis- missal to the date Jf his tepoiting for woik on re- appointment *ill be treated as leave on loss of pay. Mr. Suhba Rao shall not have any claim for wages or otrjer benefits during the intencning period.

(4) The parties are filing this compromise on the above teims and conditions before the Hon'ble Ttibunal, in full and final settlement of (he. dispute, with a piaycr to the flon'ble Tiibunal to pass an Award accordingly '"

5 In view of the above compromis-e admitted by both the pai ties, this Award is passed in terms of the above compro- mise. A copy of the compromise petition is appended to this Award.

Dictated to the Stcnogtapher, transcribed by him and conected byi me an^ given under mv hand anti the seal of thi-, Tribunal, this the 15th day of October, 1982.

'No. L-210l2(12)/80-D.IV(B)l

!Sd/- S S. MFHTA, Desk Officer Industrial Tiibonul

APPf-NDIX OP EVIDFNC1-

—NJI —

Sd/- lndustnal Tribunal

BI'FORE THE HON'ELI- INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

(CENTRAL), HYDbRABA D

In the matter of I.D. No 20 of 1980

HFTWtEN

The Woikmen of S.C. Co l i d, Manugurii Division.

^Claimant/Workman.

AND

The Management of S.C. Co. ltd., Manuguru Division. Respondent/Management.

It is submitted that without preiudue to the merits of the case bcfoie the Hon'ble Industrial Tribunal (Ceutml), the parlies desired to settle the issue mulually. Accordingly, the issue n settled on the terms and conditions set out here- undcr .—

"11) The Management agreed to consider the case of Sri-

D. Snbba Rao, Px-Watchman, S&PC, Maiuguru on compassionate grounds.

(2) Sri D. Subbn Rio will he reappointed as Watchman, S&P.C, in the Company r.nc posted in nny Divi- sion, lie vill be allowed the basic pav he was drawing at the lime of his dismissal.

(3) The intervening period i c, from the dntc of dis- mis-al to the data of his reporting for work rn re- appnintment will hr irMted as leni'e on loss of pay. Mi. Subbo Rio '.hall not have any claim for wages oi other benefits during the intervening period.

(4) The parties aie filling this compromise on the above terms and conditions before the Hoii'ble Tribunal, in full and final r.cltlt:mcnl of the dispute, with a player to the Hon'blc Tiibun.il to pass an Award accordingly".

In the ciicumstances, both the puilics pray the Hon'ble Industrial Tribunal ( i c n i n l ), to pa-s an Award in tcjms of the above compromise.

ko\ Workmen : For Management ;

Sd/- Sd/-

(M kom.u.iiah),

(U. D. Sh.nnu),

Gcneial Sccietai>, Executive Dnector,

Smgai.cni Collieries Wuikeis' Union. M/s. I'he Sing.ircni

Sd/- D Subba Rao. Collie-lies Company Limited.

Dated : 13-7-19K2.

Kothanudem Colliencs.

NLW Delhi, ihe 23id November, 1982

8.0. 40l7.—In pursuance of section 17 of the Industrial Disputes, Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cential Government heieby publishes the following uwaid of the Central Gov- einraent Industnal Tribunal, Culcuttn, in the industrial dis- pute between the employers in relation to the management of Deoli Colliery, Ranipur Sub-Aiea of Messis Eastern Coal- fields Limited, "nd their wotknien. which was received by the Central Government on the 17th November 1982

CENTRAL GOVERNMLNI INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL. CALCUTTA

RcfcKiKe No. 51 of 197K

PARTIES :

Management of Deoli Colliery, Kanipui Sub-Aiea,

Eastern Coalfields Limited

AND

Their Workmen.

APFLARANCLS.

On behalf of Manaueiient--Mi. J. N, Mishia, Senior

Personnel Manager,

On behalf of Workmen—Absent

STATE : West Bengal INDUSTRY : Coal Mine

AWARD

The following dispute was s ot to this Tribunal by the

^ o n . T ^nw °f I n d i a> MJllistry °r Labour vide Older No. L-19012(63)/77-D.IV(B) dsted 12th May, 1978, for adiudi- cation :

"Whcthei llic action ol the management of Ranipur Sub-Aiea of Eastern Coalfields Limited in stopping Shii Umupada K.umbhakar, Office Boy of Deoli Colliery iiom woik with ellect fiom 30-4-73 is justified' 11 not, to what idrer is the concerned woikman entitled''

2 No one appealed on btai.dl uL the woikman. lh" management is picseiit .u. 1 U\t eise has been heard ex-partr Ihe case of the Coal \Lne rmpk>>ees Union, Disheigarh (Biicily the Union) is Hut the concerned workman Uraa- pad'i kumbhakai UJS an r.lhcc bu\ ot th; colliery and he to iked us such till 24th Aptil, Wi But tlu management illegally slopped him lro/n work with effect fiom 30th April 1973 on the giound thai he '.Ms a minoi The management ul Ihe Deoli Colliery, K.ir.iput - Sub-Aie.i ot Eastern Coal- liclds ltd contends that 'lio icie-i.'nee is not maintainbule against the Government company the dispute having arisen piioi to 1st May, 1973 the appointed date ;is per the coal- mind Nationalisation Ait, 1973 :md also because no mdufi- tiial dispute enisled between the- paUies concerned. It is de- nied thai the conccined woikman was ,.\n office boy ot the colliery. The management'stated that the concerned work- man was a domestic seivant of an officei of the colliery and was aged only 14 years.

3. In view ol the oiJei dated 1st October, 1980 passed in llns case by in R. Bh.illacliarja, my piedecessor-m-office, it is noi necessary to go into ihe meiits of the case oi other contentions ol the management. By that oldci it haa been held that no appieciable numbei of workmen of Dtoli colliery were members of tins union. That no apptecinble number of workmen authorised the union to espouse the cause of the woikman anj that Hie union had no authority or locus stand) to espouse the cause of the concerned workman and bad no representative chaiaiier to teptcsent the workmen of the Deoli collieiy It lias also been held by that order that the present dispute is theiefoio, not ^.u\ indusln.il dis- pute Alter having held so the learned Tiibunal applied Section 2A ol the Act and directed the concerned workman to authoiise the loint Setrjidiy of the Union oi any other competent prison to conduct hi^ ease. In my opnion this case cannot be tieated as one onder Section 2A of the Act. No individual woikman laisej any industrial dispute in this case. II was the Union who raised the piescnt ir.dustiial dispute, Jt was a collective dispute which was lefened to this Tiibunal for adjudication. When the union has been held to have no locus j|rtndi to espouse the cause of Uma- pada Khumbhiikar the inference is not maintainable, I Bee the Division Bench case of ( aleutta Hrr,h Court in Deepak Industries I td and anoth^i vs. State of West Be.ngal and Otheis, 1975 Lab. 1C 1151. In Swapan Das-gupta v .1st labour Cumt. West Hengal, 1976 Lab. 1C 202 at 206, Para 9 it has been held by Sabyasachi Mukherji J. that when the lefeience is not undei Section 10 read with Section 2A, that is to say, the leference has not been made on the Ricund th.it there ]•, a dispute existing bctwten the employer and the individual v.oikrrnn. the icfcrenre cannot be upheld on the giuund of Section 2A of the Act. Hutthoi moie, it has to be noticed that it is a L^SC of run cmplov-ment, that is, stopping (he concerns,1 v,o;kman fiom w'ork and not a case of dismissal, discharge oi termination of eervice and hence Section 2A of the Act can have no application.

Accordingly T hold that the presen! rcfcience n not mam-

tamable and it is dismissed as such.

Dated, Calcutta,

The 2nd November 1982.

Sd/- M p. SINGH.Piesiding Officer

[No. L-190J2(fi3)/77-D.lV(B)] S. S. MEFFIA, Desk Officer

New Delhi, the 23id November. 19R2

S.O 4018,—In pursuance of section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (\i of I 4is: THE GAZE IT£ OF INDIA : DECEMBER 4, 1982/AORAHAYANA 13. 1904 [PART II—SEC 3(ii)J

BEFORF THE INDUSTRIAL TKIBUNAI (CENTRA!) :• \T HYDERABAD.

INDUSFUlA! DiSPlHF NO. 9 OF 1482.

BETWEEN •

The Woikmen of

Slate liank ol IljJeiah id.

-\ND

The Management of State of flunk of Hvdeiabad.

APPI ARANCES .

Sri B. V. Raghnvulu, Picsident, State Bank of H.\deiabad

Staff A^ocialion lor Workmen.

Sri K Srinivjsj Mu'thy. Honouraiy Secretaiy, Andhia

Ptyclfbh Ftdci.aion o¹" Commerce and Industry, H>deiahiid fur Management.

AWARD

13} Oidci No. L-120U/4I/81-D II(A), dated 19-2-1982, The Government of India refene.i the following industrial dispute twisting between .Slate Bank of Hyderabad and their Workmen to this Indusuial Tribunal for adjudication :—

•'Whcthci the management of State Bank of Hyderabad i,s justified in diiLonlinuii'g the subsidised transport i-icjlity piovided to the Workmen working at their Ramchandiapurim Bi.inch, Medak District, Andhin Pradesh v.ith tfftel from 1st June, 1981 '?"

2 Aftei the jbene industii.il dispute was t.iken on file in I. D No. (J of 19H2 un 25-2-1982, notice were issued to both sides The vvoikmen engaged their icprese nlativlc, namelj. Si i B. V Rug'iaviilu, whereas 'he Management engaged Sii K. Siinivasu Mu^hy. The Wurkmen took some adjournment', for filing tl-eir claims statement. Then bolh. parties icpiewntcd thnt the matter was under talks of lomprotnise.

f-ur Miinagement For Petitioner (P. V. B..piiaju) Manager, Peisonncl Admimstratiun Dcpi , State Bank of Hyderabad Hyderabad,

Hvi.lernb.id. 29-10-82.

^B. V, RAGHAVULU, President)

State Bink of Hyderabad Staf Association.

New Delhi, the 24th No\emb;r, 1982

S.O. 4O19.^In pursuance of section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1^47 (14 of 19+7), the Central (iovernmerit hcaby publisher (he tullowing award of the Central Govern- inunl Industrial Tribunal Court No. 1, Bombay in the indus- tiial di,pute bitween the employers in rclaiion to the Food Corporation of India, Bombay and their workmen, which was icceived b> the Cennol Government on the 6th Novem- ber, 1982.

BEFORE THE CfNTRAI GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL. TRIBUNAL NO. 1 AT BOMBAY

PRF-SENT :

Justice M, D. Kambli Fsq<-, Presiding OfTuer

Reference No. CGIT 24 of 1978

PARTIES :

Employeis in relation to the Food Corporation of India,

AND

Their Workman

APPEARANCES :

For the employer--Mr. S, G. Ghute, Advocate.

Foi the workman,—Mr- A. k. Atrey, Advocate,

INDUSTRY : Food Corporation

Ing a domestic inquiiy v.-ilh effect from 23 3-1977. rhe point to be decided in this refers cc is v.h.'lher the action of (he management in removing the woikmnn from service is justified.

3. The workman was cbargesheetcd on flic following

chaigcs : —

"(1) Thai in spite of lcptdted instructions #i\en, Shri D. C. Ihakkat, Drivct Giade II refused m comply with and cbe/ lawful orders and nrfuxed to wear uniform ihiis contiaver.ed conduct Regulation 31(d) ami 32 of tho F.C.I, (Stall) Regulation's, 1971.

(2) Th..t Sliri D. C. Thakk.ir, wilfullv absented from duty w.e.f, 16-9-75 to 26-12-75 and again w.e.f. 5-1-1976 till dat? to nuii'd vnMiing uniform thus contravened Regulation 24(jv) & (vi) of FCI (Stafi) Regulalijns, 1971.

(3) That Shii O. C. ThaUar, iniibehavej with the acting Phhict Manpter, Shri N. G. Tonrarnkar on 12-8-'75 and also willi the Ass.t. Manager (Audit) ciinp N'wpur during August 1975 when he was instn.tt -d in wiitiniz to wear uniform, con- travening the conduct Regulation 31 of tho FCI (Staff") Regulations. 1971.

(4) That Shri ThiAkn, pin chased 20 liters petrol on credit coupons, wh.-n there was sufficient pdtol in tank of /c?p No. MPJ-RH83 and 20 liters petrol could net be a.-commoJak'd in thf tank. Thus Shri Thalkar has 'n^appiopriated and u^cd peuol for non-official use.

(5) That Shri D. C. Thakkar, Driver is doing private business of plying thiee wheeler as Taxi, contraven- ing the c-indiitt Pepu'itions 24(iiij and A5(i) of the r*CI (St,,iT) rfe-]>nt;. ni. 1971".

4. One Mw. 1. M. i,;hilia'i was appoin'ed as the Inquiry Officer. She issued a nonce dated 20th October, 1976, calling upon the uoikmnn to attend the hearing on 29-11-1976. Accordingly, the Inquir,¹ Oilkcr held the inquiry which she called the picliminaiv heuii'i' qi 29-11-1976 at the office of the Zonal Manafei, A'islry Hhsvan, Bombay. Accor- dingly, the u'cliiiqaent vvnkiuan remained present before in: Inquiiy Officer on hat d.t'e. It is not in dispute that on that day the woikrmin uppeaiod befoie he Inquiry Officer and admitted ihe chargi No, 1 viz.. that jnspite of repeated in'.tuictio is given to him h; refmed to comply with (hem and rrfusej to wenr uniform thus contravening conduct Regulation 31 (d) and 3,2 ni the F.C.I. (Staff) Regulations, 1971. At that time, he did n.->t ndmit the other charges.

5. According to the employer-corporation, later on, on the same day, the workman guve a letter to the Inquiry Officer which stated :—

"With refciencc lo to1,>y'" proceedings of the inquiry, r agreed for the chases against me and I therefore request you, kindly to excuse me and further I request for apporryy,"

According to the employer, on the same day he submitt- ed hn iriippstlon to the Vagioml Manager, Food Corpora- tion of India, Bombay, with a copy addressed to the District Manager, Food Corporation of India, Nncpur However before this Jclter admit int; the other chnrfics was piven to the Inquiry Officer, the inquiry proceedings of that day i.e. of 29-11-1976 were ^oied ond the next date for the inquiry was feed on 13-12-1976.

6. According to the employer, as the workman had filed a letter ad/nittinp all :he charge* he d.Vl not appear before the Inquny Officer on 13-12-1976. The Inqirfry Officer therefore, submitted her repot t on 14-12-1976 to the Rc- gional Manaficr (Maharashtra), Food Corporation of India iniorrrung htm :

'

"Since the official hag admitted all tie charge* , and therefore there Is no necesiity for any further cn- nulries to be conducted into the charges tramea S st hinx. Moreover it is learnt that the official hi also submitted hh jcMgni'tion to the office. Under the circnniit mccs ro further action appears to be taken bv ihe Inquiiy Offi^i The enquiry is thcreiore tinted as comjiIeteU fiom my side.

7 After the said repou wav iReived Uom the Inquiry Olli\r the Region-d Manager (Maharashlui) issued a show- c iii a notice to the v.orkman inlorniin,; him that he had come to th- crncly ion that th: w.ukman was not a fit person to b- raaiticd in service an,) he -proposed to impose on him the p-nalty of lemovil iiom service. The woiKman WUB called upon to iho-.z-cnuse ugamtt the proposed penalty.

S. The v.r>iuiian gave i le.ily to the show-came notice o.i n-2-1977 Mutinc thtr-in that he had accepted <>nly the chaii'c No. 1 and that ^npie wrilinjz was c bluined from him in which it vwi, s OLL-J that he hrj accept<1 tho other charges I'lso. In thii lcply the wo.knian denh'd that he had accepted the other chaises. H". tiricfoie, lenu^ted that he •Tiay be t'i\en a chance to defend him befoie the Inquiry Committee. The -Rtsimal Manafcr (M.ihatasht a) did not accept this i,:picscntatioii and he proceeded to icnrnvc the workman fiom servic: fiom' the d.'te thj order was served on him.

9. In the statement uf claim the woikmau stated that he h'd admitted chaigc No. I in the moinins at about 11 or 11.30 a.m on 29-11-1976 k-forf the Inquiiy Officer There- after, he was called bv *hi; Inquiry Officer in the afteinoon for coilectint* the rclicMiis older to enabl; him to collect his train faic, etc. l i .; \o.-krnan. alle;cd that when he vent kfore th • Inquiry OJIicer in th^ afternoon she started c'tering indiiccrjf'nts. 1-1 is version in the statement of claim is aa follows :—-

"It may bt stated here that though the workman is Umnruthi, ho knows Sindhi. The Inquiiy Officer was also a Sndhi lady and ?he induced the work- man to admit changes framed against him by observ- ing that he would only be warned in the matter and nothing would b? done to him. She also made it clear tc the workman that in case he does not accept the course sug£t^ted by her of admitting the charges framed against him, he would find h'mself in a VLry light position. She. ;ilso had promiVd and assure,! the workman that nhe shall Bee that he fietj all the le ive, duts etc. in case he accepts the charges. It i% iluiing (he fiilk tho workmun had alw infoiined tho Inquiry Officer that on ac- coimt of tnt bph.i-, i.-inr of Miri Rnthod, he dre" not want to work under him. It is in this back- ground, the Inquiry Officer collected two docu- ment'; ftom the workman on or about 29-11-76. Thos". documenti do not repiesrnt the tnie state of affairs, ratter dated 29-11-76 wherein the allied rial'™ ;s m"di- thru all the c h a r ts a<^ admitted by fjje workman, ii not a voluntary admis- sion on the oart of the workman; nor it is an ad- im^ion of *hr fact th.u h- his committed any nfa- conduct or that he !B guilty on any account what- toever,"

ff will thus he- pi-en that th,* workman wanted to say that the Inquiry Officer had Induced him to give some anting and collected tiv0 document, from him viz., the /?ocum;nt admit'ini? nil ihP charges and the other document of resignation. The venlon of the mnna^ment i, that tho n -⁷ , K'"Wrt'0T> w;,' sent by (he workman direct lo the Regional Manager, Bombny,

10. A preliminary inquiiy was therefore held as to whether the inquiry conducted agmV/ the workman wa, fair nnd proper. Jn that preluninarv inquiry the emplover examined the Inquiry Officer. Mis, I. M. Tahiliani. She Was cros,- .'nmincd ?t lenrth Dy Afr Atrev, the !earne,1 counsel for he workman The vnrKm.in aho examined himself. There is on recm-d nn appli-ninn Piv en bv the workman to the Inqmry Offl"r on 29-11-1976 (exhibit XE-33) Tho t e" of tho application i9 aa follows :

"With rcferenco to fnd"v\ proceeding of the inqtiir*

I agreed for il.e chargr, ajainst me, and I. therefore^

request you kindly to excuse me and further I request lor appolugy. Fuithei it is requested to do the nece^saiy in my favour on humanitarian ground as 1 am, having a family and T did not icceive the salary since Sept., 197? "

The workman admits that this lettefc bcais his signature. There is another application dated 29-11-1976 (.exhibit E-4j by the workman to the Refiion.il Manager, Food Corpora- tion of India, Bombay, \vheic'.iy he submitted hi3 resigna- tion lrora ihe post ol Driver giade 11 at Nagpui and te- qucstta the Regional Manager to accept the- same ut an early date. The wmkmiin admits that this application also bears his signatuie. In the preliminary irqiury held by me us regards the fairness of the departmental inquiry the version of the workman was thai the Inquiiv Officer hud got the two above documents written from some cleik and that she had induced him to sign them. The version of the Inquiry Officer was that th: workman handed over to her the letter at exhibit £-1 in the afternoon of 29-11-1976 in the curlier part of the d ly in which admittedly the work- man admitted the chaise No. J The Inquiry Officer slated in the pieliminary inquiiv he'.i! b/ me mat when the work- man handed over to her Ihe lcf.ci at exhibit H-3 ihe tisked him why he was admitting all the chairs. The workman thtn told her that he had already submitted his lesienjticn to the competent authority i.e. the Regional Manager, Bombay and thercfoie he w,is not inteicsti.i in the job and he was therefore admitting e\i the. charges. The vaision of the workman as regards the document ot re'ignalicn i.e. exhibit L-4 was that the Inqniiy Officei had prepared the document and had obtained his "ign.ili-re telling him that it wa$ in respect of the sanc'ion of his leave. The version of *he workman in lespect of ihe document nt exhibit E-3 wherein he is '.lid to have admitted nil 'he chaipes is that ho was told that it was in reepect of the admission of the charge No. 1 only. In my ,-rder on the preliminary point d;/ed 27-R-19R2 I have- disb'.-)ii'M_-d the version of the wmkman as regards these two documents T hava given my icajons in that older. I have held there that th; workman wanted to tesign on his on accord fs I¹- was not pulling on well with his immediate superior one Mr, Ritbod. the District Manager, Nagpur. I have also held that the workman voluntarily ad- milted all the charts amiist him, proh.ihlv to en-sure thai he was leni^ntlv dealt with in rcsr.'ct o*" Ihe sanctioning the leave to his credit and other benefits, if any. Rejecting all the con'entinns raises nn behalf of the workman T held in my order on the preliminary point dated 27-8-1982 lhat T did not find any substantial infirmity in the inquiry proceed- ings and that the workman had voluntarily admitted at the charts. One of ftv i-rniC', framed a^inst the workman was that he was doing private business while remaining absent from duty and that he ha^ been plying a three wheeler as ^ raxi. Tt h therefore probable that he vas not iWeiestcd in hK job under the pr-^ent employer I have therefore point- ed out in m" sai,| order trmt this may be nne of ihe reasons yvhv he wanted tu resign the job ant", to admit all the chargts in the inquiry.

11. It is not in dispute that he admitted the charee No. I. tt is not in dispute thai hi* signed the letter dated 29-11-1976 (exhibit P-3 ) in which he admitted all the other choices. I have relectrd the ron'eiitfon of the -workman that he had wgT'M th?t Irttf n-t KnowW the content; fhero .if on account of some inducement offeied by the Industry Officer The charge No. 1 is as follows: —

"That inspitc nf rspentnd instructions given. Shri D C Thakkai> Driver Gride II lcfnscd to comply with and obey lawful orders and refused to wear uniform thus contiavened conduct Regulation 31 Cd) and 3^ of the F.C.I. (Staff) Regulations, 1971."

The other charges which an- set out in paragraph 3 above dhow that the workman wilfully a^enter) form duty for a substantial period. He misbehaved with the acting DishH Wanner. Mr N. G. Tnn,Monkar on th, d;.te mentioned in £<• charge and ;,lso with ihr- Asstt Manager (Audit) camp Nifnr when he was insLuetcd in v

12. The question for consideration is whether the punish- ment awarded to the workmaii is justified. Now, the pwiish- ment imposed upon the workm i.i by the competent auiho- nty, Regional Manager, (Maharashtia) is one of removal from service Mr. Ghiite, the learned counsel for the cmploy- LT, submitted that the chutges admitted by the workman mciitc-d the punishment of dismissal. However, on compas- sionate ground the punishment awarded agaimt him is only one of removal from seivia-. I am inclined to hold that no interference is called .'•ot the in the punishment awarded to the workman.

13. Mr. Atray, the leuincd counsel foi the woikman, sub- mitted that as the workman ha 1 tendered hii icsignation, further departmental proceedings should have been dropped. He also submitted that the punishment at any rate is highly disproportionate to" the charges held proved ugaijist the work- man. His arguments fivither w.is lhat the competent autho- rity who awaided the ounishini nt was not examined on be- half of the employer rind did not oifer himself foi cic-ss- evnmimdVin. T ,lo not find an\ <-uhst.'incr in any of tho submisiions. Admittedly the workman admitted the chaigu No. ]. That chaige, in my opinion, is sufficient to meiit the punishment awarded to the workman.

14. I therefore find rhat the action of the management of the Food Corporation of India (Maharashtra Repion), Bom- bay, in removing the workman, D. C. Thakkar, from stivjee with effect from 23-3-1977 Js justified, and, therefore , the workman is not entitled to any relief.

15. My aw'ard accordingly. No order as to costs

M. D. KAPtfHLr, Presiding Officer. LNO. L-42012(7)/78-DII(B)} S. S. PRASHER, De.sk Officer.

New Delhi, the 24th November, 1982

S.O. 4020.—In pursuance of section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the following award of the Ccntial Govern- ment Industrial Tribunal, No. 2, Bombay, in the industrial dispute between the employe-is in ielation to the management of Punjab National Bank, Bombay, and their workman, which was received by the Central Government. BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. Z, BOMBAY Refertnce No. CG1T-2/2 of 1982

PARTIES:

Employers in relation to the management of Punjab

National Bank

AND

Their Workmen.

APPEARANCES:

For the Employers—Shri Gurbachan Singh, Manager (Staff)

.For the workmen—Shri K. N. Mehrotra, Vice-president

A.I.P.N.B. Employees Association, 2. Shri G, L. Kodam, General Secretary, P.N.B. Staff Union.

INDUSTRY: Banking. STATE: Maharashtra.

Bombay, the 19th October, 1982

AWARD

By their Older No. L-I2012/8/81-D.TKA1, dated 6-1-1982 the Central Government have referred the followinjf dispute for adjudication under Section 10(l)(d) of the Industrial Dis- putes Act, 1947 :—

-Whether the action of the management of Punjab National Bank, Bombay in refusing to grunt extra

allow,iiKe to Shri G. L. Kadam, Clerk, is justified? If not, to what lehef is. the woikman concerntd entitled ?"

2. On the allegation (hat the clerk-cum-typist Shri G, L. kadam besides, his routine duties was performing other extta duties like Latc-takei officer looking after the piciperty of the Bank both moveable Aid immovable and aho perfotming some additional duties, the Union who is espousing the cause of the woikman namely Punjab National Bank Staff Union has made a demand for special allowiv:e as payable to Special Assistant fiom 18-8-1965 till June 1973 and in the statement of claim, although the ordci of reference does not speak to Ihit, effect, a further demand that from July, 1973, the clerk- cum-typist should be promo'cd in the grade Of an officer giade 'C or in the alternative no a Special Assistant.

3. The claim is refuted by the Respondent Bank on whose behalf written statement is Tiled at Ex. 2/M and rejoinder at Ex 16/M, denying the allegation that the clerk-cum-typist was perfoming any extra duties involving greater skill and responsibilities, and therefore iccordinfi to the Bank the em- ployee concerned is not entitled to any extra allowance as claimed neither under any award nor under the Bipaitite Settle- ments and as such the daim is not entertainable.

4. On the strength of thtie pljadings the following issues

aiise for determination and my findings thereto are:—

a

ISSUES FINDINGS

1. Whctlior the Union proves that Shri O.L.Kadam was Doing extra dutie> performing special duties as contended ?

2. If yes, was he entitled to E\U' i allow mcc spoci.il allowance as c\ limed ? of Rj.50/-pcr moith.

3. Whether in the light of the order of referen<.e the qu9>lioi rcgirdmg the WL'O- No ngful designation as tried to be plo ided b ' the Uni- oi in the statement of claim c in be go le i lto ?

4. What award As per award'

REASONS

5. In suppoit of [he contention that Shri Kadam was pet- foiming some cxtta duties besides his normal duties namely the routine duties there is the evidence of the clerk concerned 0\, WW wheieby staling that he was performing some extra duties namely attendiug to the complaints of the tenants occu- pying the Batik's quarters, attending the Coiporation office to ohtain permission for cairying out additions and alterations of the pioperly of the Bank, examining the work of icpairs carried out in the building and also tho repaiis to furniture and fixtures and to sec whether the repairs were canicd out according to the specification and to report to the superior officer and to attend the piopcrty cases pending in tho counts, attending the office of tht Bombay Telephone'for obtain"!' additional lines, attending various garages for obtaining quo- tations for cairying out reDSirs to vehicles of ihc Bank, atten- ding the office of the R.T.O. for petting the vehicles passed and to pay taxes. He used to purchase cloth from the market fot prcpaiing the uniform for the s'afF in the region and vciifv the petrol bills of the cash-Vans, looking after the wo'k of contractor undertaking ;epairs-t0 Typewriters, Water-coolers Air conditioners etc. ',nd to sec the wine is done according to the specification, fo arr,ins~ disposal and auction of urser- viceable Roods attending the office of Ihs Controller of ac- commodation for ohlnining N.O.C. and booking Railway and pL.ne tickets- for the executive¹!, obtaining quotations for pur- chase of stationery and to visit tho shops and make recom- mendations to the Manajjei and also to be lncharSe of the lurniture and fixtures lying in the residential houses of exe- cutives on transfer.

6. Though in the cross-examination the actual na- luie ot dunes *as tried to be challenged, the fact that all auties weie performed by then serving recommending the grant of Rs 50 P.M. as special allowance. Shn B. L. Desa" who is setving as a Special Assistant says that from June 1981 he isvstiving in Fioperty Section of the Bank and that befOie him Shti Kadam wa9 pcnoiming the duties in the said Section and thcic is further admission that his duties were wider than the duties peifoimed by the Special Assistant. But Special Assistant petforming certain duiies would not route thun duties of a Special Assistant tor which purpose we shall have to refer to the Award and Settlements especially Chapter V and Appendix B of Bipartite Settlement of 1966. Another witness Shti S. V. Pikelay rcfeis to the attendance of Shri Kadam in the Municipal Coipoiation office in connection with Bank work, but this evidence is not of much help to the Union.

7. It is evident that the claim of Shri Kadam or the Union on his behalf cannot be for snecial allowance as admissible and defined under ChaptcT V of the Bipartite Settlement dated 19-10-1966, for such special allowance an employee must be appointed as a Special Assistant and performing such duties for which certain modalities have been prescribed in the tar- lier awards. Consequently unless and until Shri KRdam was entitled to become a Speciil Assistant or performing duties as laid down he could not have claimed special allowance pyable to the Special Assistant.

8. This however does not mean that if there is proof of his performing extra duties, duties not routine.of a clerk-cum- typist and further the duties for which he wa.) lequired to work during odd hours and not restricted to the office hours, then the claim of the workman shall noL stand justified, es- pecially when the record speaks that for such type of duties outsiders were demanding Rs. 800 per month, and that too for attending the work for one or two hours a day.

9. Apart from the oral evidence, there are the various re- ports of the Manager under whom Shri Kadam was then serving. At Ex. 20/M there is a Memorandum dated 25-7-73 written by the Manager, P.N.B. House, to the Senior Rlgional Manager recommending the sanction of an allowance to the (une of Rs. 50 per month since Shri Kadam according to him was well trained in /ittendine to such type of work re- ferred in the letter. The Asstt. Regional Manager however a 4186 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 4, 1982/AGRAHAYANA 13, 1904 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

10. From the representation of Shri Kudam which is refer- red in the Manager's letter dated 25-7-1973, Ex. 20/M it seems that for the first lime the incumbent started claiming extra emoluments from July, 197J though he was on that job since 1965 and if the incumbent himself realised about the extra duties in the year 1973 and then started moving in the matter, despite the proof thai he was doing the sjimc type of work earlier in point to the time he claim will have to be reslricted to the period from July, 1973 and not before.