The Gazette of India · 2013. 3. 12. · 5624 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22,1997/AGRAHAYANA 1,.1919 [PART II SEC. 3(ii)] ORDER New Delhi, the 5th November, 1997 S.O, 2944. In

REGISTERED NO D. L —36001/97

The Gazette of IndiaPUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

No. 471 NEW DELHI. SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 1997/AGRAHAYANA 1,1919

Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as aseparate compilation

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (II)

Statutory Orders and Notification! Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES

AND PENSION

(Department of Personnel and Training)

New Delhi, the 28th October, 1997

S.O. 2943.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974), the Central Government herebyappoints Shri R. M. Tewari, Advocate, Delhi as Special PublicProsecutor for conducting case No. RC-l(S)/92-SIU-III/NewDelhi in the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi/Additional District and Sessions Judsge, Delhi/New Delhiand any other matter connected therewith or incidental theretoin any other Court.

[No. 225/14/97-AVD. II]]

HARI SINGH, Under Secy.

2883 GI/97'-1(5623)

5624 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22,1997/AGRAHAYANA 1,.1919 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ORDER

New Delhi, the 5th November, 1997

S.O, 2944.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 5 read with Section 6 of the DelhiSpecial Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No. 25 of1946), the Central Government with the consent of the StateGovernment of Uttar Pradesh vide Order No. 677/PSHS/97dated 20-10-1997, hereby extands the powers of jurisdiction ofthe members of the Delhi Special Police .Establishment inwhole of the State of Uttar Pradesh for investigation ofcharges against various officers of Greater Noida IndustrialDevelopment Authority. with reference to certain proposalswhich were sought approved in its 25th Board Meeting heldon 12-9-1997,, or .any other offences arising out of thesecharges.

[No. 228/84/97-AVD. IllIIARI SINGH, Under Secy.

5625

5626 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22,1997/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1919 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

5627

5628 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER-^ 1997/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1913 [PART II—SEC, 3{ii)]

5629

5430 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22,1997/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1919 [PARE II—SEC. 3(ii)]

5631

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Economic Affairs)

(Banking Division)

New Delhi, the 2Sth October, 1997

S.O. ;945.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) ofRule 10 of the; Official Languages (Use for officialpurposes of the Union) Rules, 1976, the CentralGovernment, hereby, notifies the listed offices/branches of the following banks in the attachedannexure, more than 80% of the staff whereof haveex quired the working knowledge of Hindi :

s.No.

I.2.

3.4.

5.

Name of the Bank

State Bank of IndiaVijaya Bank-Central Bank of IndiaSyndicate BankAndhra Bank

Total

No. of Officesbranches

161041

008

025

021

256

[F. No. 11016/3/96-Hindi]MATHURA PRASAD, Dy. Director (O.L.)

STATE BANK OF INDIA

1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.

10.11.12.13.14.15.16.17.18.19.20.21.22.23.24.25.26.27.28.29.30.31.32.33.34.35.36.37.38.39.40.41.

Quila Branch.Shahbtupur BranchNekpur BranchRasauli—Nizampur (Budaun) BranchLabhari BranchReonai BranchLakhanpur BranchEkta Nagar BranchRatanpurkala BranchNoorpur BranchDhaniyakote BranchInd. Estate Alipur BranchSisaia Khera BranchDhauladevi BranchChhalnichhina BranchPaisiya BranchGagrigoal BranchChilianaulla BranchBarakote BranchKapkote BranchManan BranchRampur BranchKafra BranchDangoli BranchGhinghar Tola BranchRawai Khal BranchDhayari BranchJakh BranchCharma BranchRaiagar BranchGunji BranchGhorpatta BranchBadawe BranchDasaitha'BranchBangapanl BranchKande Kjroli BranchSuraj Kund BranchRakhat BranchMalaon BranchBudtiiabjri BranchTekwar Branch

5632 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22,- 1997/AGRAHAYAWA, L 1919. [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

42.43.44.45.46.47.48.49.50.51.52.53.54.55.56.57.58.59.60.61.62.63.64.65.66.67.68.69.70.71.72.73.74.75.76.77.78.79.80.81.82.83.84.85.86.87.88.89.90.91.92.93.94.95.96.97.98.

Boktr. BranchJaswal BranchMahadeva. Bazar BranchKhunwa BranchTilaura BranchMadanpur BranchMahokawa BranchDindai BranchMamijot BranchKarounda Masina BranchSophipur BranchSikari Bakharia BranchAuratal BranchBadhya Branch 'Pokharni BranchAgaya BranchMolnapur BranchPuraina BranchDubaulia Chouraha BranchBhiti Mishra Brant hChapilaon BranchBhadawal BranchMahuli BranchPakaddad BranchUtraon BranchChhivaiya BranchIsmailpur BranchMahuaii Kalan BranchTewaripur BranchChogara BranchKasaundsr BranchKarimanpur BranchMishrabazar BranchArrah BranchKolhua BranchSatharia Industrial Estate.' BranchTewa BranchBashahi BranchBashahara BranchEtwakalan BranchAkhari Shuhpur BranchSinghia BranchBharesar BranchLaltara BranchBirauli BranchMohammadpur Anetha BnanchKadipur BranchBhadah Chauraha BranchCnilmabazar BranchCjhaganj BranchKeshavpur BranchIndus. Area Klialilabad BranchMundila Bazar BranchDarhata BranchNarayanpur (Parasia Mall) Branch -Bagapur BranchTarkulwa Branch

99,100.101.102.103.104.105.106.107.108.109.110.111.112.113,114.115.116.1.17.118.119.120.121.122.123.124.125.126127.128.129.130.131.132.133.134,135.136.137.138.139.140.141.142.143.144.145.146.147.148.149.150.151.152.153..154.55.

I .O. C. Kanpur BranchSherpur BranchDabauli BranchDadora BranchLaharpur BranchLabedi BranchIndustrial Estate Barura BranchAmlihipal BranchKora Kanak BranchGarah BranchNarocha BranchRailway Station Kanpur BranchDhawakar BranchBakua Buzurg BranchH.A.L. Kanpur BranchBasela BranchBethar BranchHafizabad BranchParenda BranchBandhur Khurd BranchBhikharipur Patasia BranchService Branch Kanpur BranchIGFCC Jagdishpur BranchIndustrial Finance BranchOverseas, Varanasi BranchOverseas, Kanpur BranchBhaptamau BranchJail Road, Lucknow Branch

Vikramaditya Marg, LucknowIndira Nagar, Lucknow BranchGomti Nagar, Lucknow BranchNanuti BranchBani BranchSaifabad BranchLilapur BranchKumbhi Aima BranchMangarh BranchAgai BranchNandmehar BranchChandpur BranchDeewananj BranchSneiknpur Ashiq BranchBholara BranchSoanriyawan BranchRaasagaon BranchBiswan Khurd BranchKurwa Br.inchBnelsar BranchBalpur BranchSisamau(Gonda) BranchBistiunpur BranchS.irai Khas BranchMangura Bazar BranchBangtiusra BranchNaganasa BranchJanakpur BranchFatehpur Gazi Branch

2883 Gl/97—2

5633

156.157.158.159.160.161.

1.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9

Piparia Agra BranchPahremau BranchRampura Miahra BranchService Branch, Lucknow BranchKashi Vishwanath Temple BranchAmbala City Branch, Ambala

Vijaya Bank,Region Office,P. B. No. 53,Parmod Building.Cherutti Road,Calikat—67? 001.

Vijaya Bank,P.O. Chippar,Via Uppala.,Bayar Mulligaddc—671 322,Kasargod, Kerala.

Vijaya Bank,P. B. No. 6, Block No. 7,Fort Road, Kannur—670 001,Kerala.

Vijaya Bank,P.B. No. 507,Indus Avenue Bldg.,Francis Road Junct,Challpuram, Calicut—673 002.Calicut District, Kerala

Vijaya Bank,Chattanchal—670 541,P.O. Thekkil,Kasargod District, Kerala.

Vijaya Bank,P.B. No. 1,Padma Building,VII16E Main Road, 1st Floor,Kalpetta—673 121,Wyanad District, Kerala.

Vijaya Bank,Padmavathi Building,Near Vivekananda Circle,Kumbla—670 321,Kasargod District, Kerala.

Vijaya Bank,Mashkoor Building,Near Mahe Bridge,Kalai, New Mane—673 331,Kannur District, Kerala.

Vijaya Bank,P.B. No. 6,Pramod Building,Cherutty Road,CMtcwt—673 001, Kerala.

•10.

11.

12.

13

14.

15.

16.

17.

18

19.

Vijaya Bank,. . . .P,B- No. 5,1st Floor,Brothers, Shopping Complex, .Opp. Kailash Theatre,Kanchangad—671 315Kasrgod District, Kerala.

Vijaya Bank,P.B. No. 1,Main Road,Kundothi—673 638,Malapuram District, Kerala.

Vijaya Bank.3-/549-K, Srilakshmi Complex,Wyand Road, East NadakkavCalicut—673 001, Kerala.

Vijaya Bank,P.B. No. 16.Kalkatta Building,Railway Station R d ,Kasargod—670 121.Kasargod District, Kerala.

Vijaya. Bank,P.B. No. 1,Fazeesh Building,Near Govt. Hospital,T. C. Road,Kuthuparamba—670 643,Kannur District, Kerala.

Vijaya Bank.National Highway,Edakkad—670 663,Kannur District, Kerala.

Vijaya Bank,Palace Road,Kottatkal— 676 503,Malapuram District, Kerala.

Vijaya. Bank,P.B. No. 4, Main Road,Malapuram—676 505, Kerala.

Vijaya Bank,P.B. No. 7,1st Floor,Kailas Building, Court Road,Manjeri—676 121,Mab.puram District, Kerala.

Vijaya Bank,P.B. No. 2,Main Road,Pormani—679 577,Malapuram District, Kerala


20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

Vijaya Bank,P.B. No. 39,New Subca Building,Thazepalam,Tirur—676 101.Malapuram District, Kerala

Vijaya Bank,Adkasthala, Panje Road,Kattukukke—670 552,Via Perla,Kasargod District, Kerala,

Vijaya Bank,Devi Krishna Shopping Centre,R.S. No. 272/3, Narayan Nagar,Badgara—673 101,Kerala,

Vijaya Bank,Panchayath Commercial Complex,Near Railway Station,Udyavar, Manjeshwar—671 323,Kasargod District, Kerala.

Vijaya Bank,6/795, New Bus Stand cum ShoppingComplex Building, Main Road,Quilandy—673 005, Kerala.

Vijaya Bank,P.B. No. 3,Opp. Railway Station,Trikarpur—670 310,Kasargod District, Kerala.Vijaya Bank,R.S. No. 536/50,Madikai-Chalakadav,Post-Madikai—670 314,(Via Nileshwar),Hosdurg Taluk, Kasrgod Distt. Kerala.

Vijaya Bank,Nedumpuramchal,P.O. Poola Kutty—670 650,Via Chittariparamba,Kannur District.

Vijaya Bank,P.B. No. 14,Main Road,Payyanur—670 307,Kannur District, Kerala,

Vijaya Bank,P.B. No. I l l ,17, National Highway,Taliparamba—670 141,Kannur District, Kerala.

Vijaya Bank,Mulinje Village,P.O. Uppala—670 322,Kasrgod District, Kerala.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

Vijaya Bank, No. 5/289,Thoota—679 357,Via Anamangad, Kerala.

Vijaya Bank,Kalichamaram—670 314,Via Neleshwar,Post Kari dalam,Kasargod District, Kerala.

Vijaya Bank,P.B. No. 9,Central Bazar,E.K.K. Building,Perintalmanna—679 322,Malapuram District, Kerala.

Vijaya Bank,P.B. No. 51,Jubilee Shopping Complex,Hospital Road,Tellichery—670 101,Kannur District, Kerala.

Vijaya Bank,Door No. MP/IX/340,Calicut-Ooty Rd.,Meppadi—673 577,Wyanad District, Kerala.

Vijaya Bank,Main Road, Karaparamba,Kozhikod, Kerala—673 10.

Vijaya Bank,Badiadka—671 55),Kasargod District, Kerala.

Vijaya Bank,Poona Bangalore Road,Bankapur Chowk,Old Hubli,Hubli—580 024, Karnataka,

Vijaya Bank,Enkay Complex, Kcshavapura,Hubli—580 023,Karnataka.'B' Region

Vijaya Bank,P.B. No. 42,No. 1828, Sunder Complex,Dhulia—424 001.Maharashtra.

Vijaya Bank,252-C, 28/3, 1st Floor,Nasthe Complex, Opp. Udyog Bhavan,Assembly Road, Near Basant Bihar Talkies,Kolhapur—416 001.Maharashtra.

5635

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Central Bank of India,Gumtala Branch,Amritsar, Punjab

Central Bank of India,Palasaur Branch,Amritsar, Punjab

Central Bank of India,Tarn Taran,Amritsar, Punjab.

Central Bank of India,Bhagtanwala Gate, Amritsar Branch,Amritsar, Punjab.

Central Bank of India,Guru Bazar, Amritsar Branch,Amritsar, Punjab.

Central Bank of India,Dewanhat Branch,Cooch Behar, West Bengal,

Central Bank of India,Chandamari Branch- Cooch ViharWest Bengal.

Central Bank of India,Officer's Training College,Salt Lake, West Bengal,Calcutta.

List of Branches to be notified under Rule 10(4) ofOfficial Language Rules, 1976.

1.

2.

3.

4.

Sydicate Bank,Mumbai Ghatk ear Branch,Garden View, Plot No. 55Vallabh Bagh Lane,Ghatkopar East.Mumbai-400 077.

Sydicate Bank,Mumbai Kolivada Branch,226/227 A, Ram Nivas,Kolivada Sion (East),Mumbai-400022.

Syndicate Bank,Staff Tarianing College,Jagdeep Cottage,1st Floor IV Road, Khar (West).Mumbai-400 054.

Syndicate Bank,Uran Mora Branch,Bunglow No. 6976,Uran Mora Road, Uran Mora,Raighad Distt.Maharastra State,

PinCode-400701

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11

12.

13.

Syndicate Bank,Panvel Branch166, M.G.H. Society, V.B. Phadkc Road,P.B. No. 134, Panvel, Raighad Dislt.Maharastra, State,Pin Code-410206.

Syndicate Bank,Goa Kavlem Branch,Tip Top Mansion,Dhavli Margoa Road.Pond a,Goa-403 401,

Syndicate BankGoa Murmuguo Branch,Near Marmugao Port Trust.Mormugao Harbour.Goa-403 803,

Syndicate Bank,Goa Betim Branch,Main Road BetimBardez — GoaGoa-403 101

Syndicate Bank,Goa Sanquilim Branch,Main RoadSanquilim Goa,Bicholim Tq.Pin Code-403 505.

Syndicate Bank,Goa Curchorem Branch,1st Floor Church BuildingStation Road, P.B.N 10,Curchorem Goa,Pin-403 706.

Syndicate Bank,Goa Caranzalem Branch.Caranzalem, Goo,Pin-403 002.

Syndicate Bank,Malvan Branch, House No. 381,Somvarpeth Malvan,Sindhudurg Distt.Maharastra State,Pin -416 606.

Syndicate Bank,Mavinkurva Branch,Near Navadurgi Temple.Mavinkurve,Via Honnavar,Uttar Kannada Distt.K.arnataka-581 335.


14.

15.

16.

17.

J8.

19.

20.

21

22

Syndicate Bank,Gundalli Branch,House No. 85, Main Road,Gundalli, Uttara Kannada Dist.Karnataka—581 329.

Syndicate Bank,Honnavar Branch,B 2365 Bazar Road, Honnavar,Uttara. Kannada Dist.Karnataka—581 334.

Syndicate Bank,Aversa Branch,Gutino Building, Main Road,Aversa, Ankola Tq, Uttar KannadaDist. Karnataka—581 316.

Syndicate Bank.Manki Branch,Super Bazar, Manki,Honnavara Tq.Uttara Kannada Dist.Karnataka—581 348.

Syndicate Bank,Mysore Saraswathipuram BranchD. No. 2961/38A5th Cross, 5th Main Road,Saraswathipuram,Mysore—570 009.

Syndicate Bank,Mysore Vanivilas Branch.D. No. 2997/3Sudarshan Temple Road,Vanivilas Mohalla,Mysore—570 002.

. Syndicate Bank,Mandya Sugar Town Branch,1123, 1st Main Road,Eastern Extn. P.B.No. 25,Mandya—571 401.

. Syndicate Bank,Staff Training College,4—4—286/297, Ilnd Floor,Mithila Complex,Bank Street, Sultan Bazar, Kothi,Hyderabad—500 195.

. Syndicate Bank,Mysore Bannimantap Branch,D. No. 154, Baunimantap Road,Near Hotel Highway, P.B.No. 1.Mysore, Karnataka,Pin Code-570 015.

23.

24.

25.

Syndicate Bank,Hassan Branch,1st Floor, Vidya Bhavan Biulding,Bus Stand Road,P.B.No. 25 Hassan,Karnataka State,Pin Code-573 201.

Syndicate Bank,Bangalore Chamrajpet Branch,Royan Circle,P.B. No. 1815,Chamrajpet,Bangalore- 560 018.

Syndicate Bank,Agaciam Branch,Confraria Building,Baixi Do Igreja,Goa - 403 204.

List of Branches to be notified Rule 10(4)of Official Language Rules 1976

1.

2

3.

4.

5.

Andhra BankNo. 1-90, Main Road,Uppada Kothapalli Branch,Pithapuam TaluqAndhra Pradesh,Pin-533447

Andhra Bank,Main Road,Rajavommangi Branch,East Godavari Dist,Andhra Pradesh,Pin-533436Pin-533436

Andhra Bank,G. T. Road,Annavaram Branch,East Godavari Dist,

Andhra Pradesh,Pin-533406.

Andhra Bank,Opp. to RTC Complex,Mahalaxrai Bhavan,Rayavaram Branch,East Godavari Dist,Andhra Pradesh,Pin-533346.

Andhra Bank,Teki Branch,Kapileshwarpurani Mandal,East Godavari Dist.Andhra Pradesh,Pin-533312.

5637

6. Adaihra Bank,Main Roa.1,In jaram Branch,Tallarevj Mandal,East Godavari Dist,Andhra Pradesh,Pin-533465.

7. Andhra Bank,Regional Office,220, P. B. No. 1,G. T. Road,Srikakuiam 532001.

8. Andhra Bank,Special SSI Branch.12.41.1, Gajuvuka,Vishakhapaltnain.Andhra Pradesh,Pin-530026.

9. Andhra Branch,Special Aprl. Fin. Branch,18-1-28, fst Floor,Maharaninet,Vishakhanatnam,Andhra Pradesh,Pin-530002.

10. Andhra Bank,M. V. P. Colony Branch.Vishakhapattnam,Andhra Pradesh,Pin-530017.

11. Andhra Bank,Opp, to Sheeshmahal Theatre,Main Road,Ganuvaka Branch,Vishakhaoattnam,Andhra Pradesh,Pin-530026,

12. Andhra Bank,Service Centre,Scethammadhara,Vishakhapattnam,Andhra Pradesh,Pin-53001:.

13. A.ndhra Bank,Trunk Road,Malkaputam Branch,Vishakhapaltnam,Andhra Pradesh,Pin-530011.

14. Andhra Bank,R. K. Peach Road,R. K. Mission Branch,Vishakhapattnam,

Andhra Pradesh,Pin-530011.

15. Andhra Bank,Maharanipct,K. G. H. Branch,Vishakhapattnam,Andhra Pradesh,Pin-530002.

16. Andhra Bank,Maharanipct Branch,Vishakhapattnam,Andhra Pradesh,Pin-530002.

17. Andhra Bank,D. L. Puram Branch,Tallarcvu Mandal,East Godavari Dist.Andhra Pradesh,Pin-533465.

18. Andhra Bank,Markondputti Branch,Makuva Mandal,Vijayanagram Dist,Andhra Pradesh,Pin-533547.

Pin-533547

19. Andhra Bank,Ravivalasa Branch,Garugubilli Mandal,Vijayanagaram Dist,Andhra Pradesh,Pin-532525.

20. Andhra Bank,Kotah Srirangarajpuram Branch,Via Gajapathi Nagram,Vijayanagram Dist,Andhra Pradesh,Pin-535270.

21. Andhra Bank,Plot No. 4,Akkayyapalem Branch,Vishakhapattnam,Andhra Pradesh.Pin-530016.

5638 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22,1997/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1919 [PART II—.SEC 3(ii)J

(Insurance Division)


S,O. 2946—In exercise of the powers conferredby clause (q) of sub-section (1) of Section 27 (A)of the Insurance Act, 1938 (4 of 1938), the Cen-tral Government hereby declares placement offunds in various money market instruments likeCall/Notice Deposits, Commercial Bills under BillsRediscounting Scheme, etc. with Discount andFinance House of India Ltd. (DFHI) and Securi-ties Trading Corporation of India Ltd. (STCI) asScheduled Investment for the purpose of the saidsection.

[F. No. 131(40)|Invt.|IV|88]RAJENDRA PRASAD, Under Secy.

5639

MINISTRY OF COMMERCE

ORDER

New Delhi, the 3rd November, 1997

S.O. 2947.—Whereas for the development of the exporttrade of India, certain propsals for subjecting Animal Casingsto qualify Control and Inspection prior to export, were pub-lished as required by sub-rule (2) of rule 11 of the ExportQuality Control and Inspection Rules, 1964, in the Gazetteof India, Extraordinary Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii),dated the 21st February, 1997 under the Order of the Go-

vemment of India in the Ministry of Commerce NumberS.O. 132(E), dated the 21st February, 1997;

And whereas the objections and suggestions were invitedfrom all persons likely to be affected thereby, within a periodof forty five days of the publication of the said order in theOfficial Gazette ;

And whereas the copies of the said Gazette were madeavailable to the public on the 21st February. 1997.

And whereas the objections and suggestions received fromthe public on the said draft have been considered by theCentral Government ;

And, whereas it is necessary to maintain the highest qualitystandard as per the health requirement of the importing count-ries that would encompass the standards like unified Directives Number 92/118/EEC, dated the 17th December, 1992and, 94/187/EC dated the 1.8th March, 1994 of the. Euro-pean Community.

Now, therefore, in exercise of lie powers conferred bySection 6 of the Export (Quality Control and Inspection)Act, 1963 (22 of 1963), and in supersession of the notifica-tion of the Government of India, in the Ministry Of CommerceNumber S.O.. 2283 dated the 24th August, 1994 relating • toAnimal Casings, except as respects things done of omittedto be done before such supersession, the Government ofIndia after consulting the Export Inspection Council beingof the opinion that it is necessary and expedient "to- do ' sofor the development of the export trade of India, hereby;

(1) notifies that Animal Casings shall be subjecte toquality control and inspection prior to export

(2) specifies that the type of quality control and Inspectionshall be in accordance with the export of AnimalCasings (Quality Control and Inspection) Rules 1597as the the type of Quality Control and Inspectionwhich shall be applied to such Animal Casingsprior to export, in the notification ;

(3) recognises the specifications ;

(a) National and International Standards and Standardsof other bodies recognised by Export InspectionCouncil ;

OR

(b) Grade designation formulated under the AnimalCasings Grading and Marking Rules, 196f4 ;

OR

(c) The specifications declared by the exporter to bethe agreed specifications of the export contractbetween buyer and the exporter,

{4) Prohibits the export, in the course of internationaltrade of Animal Casings unless it conforms to thestanards specifications applicable to it, and isaccompanied by a certificate of inspection issuedby any of the Agencies established or recognisedunder Section 7 of the Export (Quality Control andInspection) Act, 1963 (22 of 1963).

Nothing in this order shall apply to the export by landor sea or air of bonafide samples of animal casings to pros-pective buyers, the values of which shall not exceed permis-sible limits as laid down in Exim-Policy froni time to time.Where no such provision exist the value limit of sample(s)shall not exceed Rs. l,000.

In this order. Animal Casings means processed intestinesof a healthy animal slaughtered in an authorised slaughterhouse.

[File No. 6/1/96-EI&EP]

PRABH DAS, Director

2883 CI197—3

5640 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22.1997/AGRAHAYANA 1,1919 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)l

5641

5642 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22; 1 9 9 7 / A G K A H A Y A N A 1,1919 [PART II- -SEC- 3(ii)l

5643

5644 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22,1997/AGRAHAYANA 1,1919 [PART I I - S E C . 3(ii)]

564

5646 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22,1997/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1919 [PART I I - S E C . 3(ii)]

5641

2883 GI/97—4

5648 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22,1997/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1919 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)J

5649

New Delhi, the 3rd November, 1997S.O. 2948.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Section

17 of the Export (Quality Control and Inspection 1 Act,1963, (22 of 1963) and in supersession of the notificationof the Government of India, in the Ministry of CommerceNumber S.O. 2284 dated the 24th August, 1994 relating toAnimal Casings (Quality Control and Inspection) Rules,1994, except as respects things done or omitted to be donebefore such supersession the Central Government herebymakes the following rules namely :—

1. Short title and commencement.—(1) These rules maybe called the Export of Animal Casings (Quality Control andInspection) Rules, 1997.

(2) They shall come into force on the date of theirpublication in the Official Gazette,

PART I

APPLICABLE FOR EXPORT TO EUROPEAN UNION

(EU) AND OTHER COUNTRIES WHICH STIPULATETHAT ANIMAL CASINGS SHALL COMPLY WITH THE

FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS2. Definition.—In this part unless the context otherwise

requires, the following definitions shall be applicable :

(a) "Act" means the Export (Quality Control andInspection) Act, 1963 (22 of 1963).

(b) "Agency" means any of the Export InspectionAgencies established or recognised by the CentralGovernment under Section 7 of the Act or theAgricultural Marketing Adviser to the Governmentof India or any other officer authorised on hisbehalf for inspection ;

(c) "Animal" means a livestock belonging to any ofthe following species namely :

I. Cattle

IT. Buffalo

III. Sheep

IV. Goat ; and

V. Pigs

(d) "Animal Casing" means processed intestines of ahealthy animal slaughtered in an authorised slaughterhouse which may be referred as "Casings" also.

(e) "APEDA" means the Agricultural and ProcessedFood Products Export Development Authority esta-blished under Aericultuml and Processed - FoodProducts Export Development Authority Act, 1985.

(f) "Council" means the Export Inspection Councilestablished under Section i of the Act.

(g) "Competent Authority" means Directorate of Market-ing and Inspection (DMT), Department of RuralDevelopment, Ministry of Rural Areas and Employ-ment. Government of India recognised under Sec-tion 7 of the Act.

(h) "Intestines" means small and large intestines orgullet or oesophagus or weasand or urinary bladderOf an animal

5650 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22,1997/AGRAHAYANA 1,.1919 [PART II--SEC 3 (II)]

(i) ''Processed~ Intestines" means "the" cleaned; scrappedand salted with sodium chloride for 30 days or blea-ched or dried after scrapping of the intestines of ananimal.

(j) "Slaughter" means killing of an animal for foodemploying a human method not inconsistent withthe provisions of the prevention of cruelty to AnimalAct, 1960 (34 of 1960) in an authorised slaughterhouse or abattoir where the animal is subjected tothrough ante-mortem and post-mortem examina-tions.

(k) "Slaughter Houan or Abattoir" means any premiseswhich is authorised by the local authority for slaugh-ter of animals intended for human consumption.

3. Basis of Compliance—Inspection of Animal Casingsintended for export shall be carried out with a view to seethat the same has been processed, nacked and stored in plantsapproved and registered with APEDA and that the productconforms to the standard specifications recognised by theCentral Government. under Sec'ion 6 of the Act, by samplingand testing of each consignment by the Competent Authorityas per instruction* issued by the council from time to lime.

4. Animal Casings for export shall be subject to the follow-ing conditions :

4.1 The casings must comply with the requirements ofCollection and transportation as per Annexure-T.

4 2 They must comply with the requirements of process-ings plaat as per Annexure-II,

5. They must comply with the procedure for 'Registrationof Animal Casings' Processing Plant and for Certificationof Animal Casings as per Annexures III and IV respectively.

Issue of Animal Health Certificate—On, receipt of theapplication, the agency, on satisfying itself on the basis ofInfraction carried out as referred above that the consignmentof Animal Casings has been processed and packed accordingto 'he specification applicable to it. shall issue Animal HealthCertificate in the proforma laid down in the. Schedule VIPIt »hall be lawful for the agency to supervise, oversee andsecure compliance of these rules.

Where the agency is not Satisfied, it shall refuse to issuethe Animal Health Certificate. Such refusal alongwith thereasons thereof shall be communicated writing to theexporter immediately after inspection of the consignment.

The Animal Health Certificate shall be valid for a maximumperiod of 90 days in the; case of dried animal casines or 45days in the case of salted animal casings or as prescribedby the importer, whichever is earlier.

If the consignment is not :shipped within the period ofvalidity of the certificate, the exporter shall be permittedto present the Certificate for revalidaton. In such a case,the validity shall be extended for a further period of 45days in the case of dried animal casing or 15 days inthe case of salted animal casings or upto the last shipmentdate prescribed by the importer.

A duplicate certificate may be issued on pavment ofRs. 500 and furnishing a declaration that the certificatewas lost or mutilated and if the orginal cert'ificate isfound it will be returned. The validity of the duplicatecertificate will be Same as that of the original,

7. Inspection Fee—The inspection fees would be Rs. 200per ten banks subject to a maximum of Rs. 500 perconsignment for local inspection and Rs. 1000 for outstation inspection and shall be collected by the Com-petent Authority from the processor and/or exporter.

NOTE.—The amount of inspection fee for each consign-ment payable by the exporter shall be rounded offto the nearest rupee and, for this .purpose wheresuch amount contains a part of a rupee, then if

such a part is .fifty, .paise or more, it shall round-ed off- to-one rupee and. if Such part is less than

fifty paise, it shall be ignored.

P A R T - I I

APPLICABLE FOR EXPORT TO ALL COUNTRIES INRESPECT OF GRADING AND MARKING OF ANIMAL

CASINGS

2. DEFINITION.—In this part unless the contort other-wise requires, the following definitions shall be applicable:

a. "Act" means the Export (Quality Control EndInspection) Act, 1963 (22 of 1963).

b. "Act" mean? any of the Export InspectionAgencies established or recognised by the CentralGovernment under section 7 of the Act or theAgricultural Marketing Adviser to the Governmentof India by any other officer authorised on thisbehalf for inspection :

c. "Animal" means a livestock belonging to any ofthe following species namely :

I. Cattle

II. Buffalo

III. Sheep

JV. Goat, and

V. Pigs.

d- "Animal Owing" means processed intestines of ahealthy animal slaughtered in an authorised slaugh-ter house which may be referred as"Casings" also.

e. 'Council" means the Export Inspection Councilestablished1 under Section 3 of the Act.

f. "Intestines" means small and large intestines orgullet or oesophague or weasand or urinary bladderof an animal).

g. "Processed Intestines" means the cleaned, scrappedand suited with sodium chloride for 30 days or ,bleached or dried after scrapping of the intestinesof an animal.

h. "Slaughter" means tilling of an animal for foodemploying a human method not inconsistent withthe provisions of the prevention of cruelty toAnimal Act, 1960 (54 of 1960) in an authorisedslaughter house or abattoir where the animal issubletted to through ante-mortem and post-morteraexaminations.

i. "Slaughter Home or Abattoir" means any pre-mises which is authorised by the local authority forslaughter of animals intended for human conump-tion.

3. BASIS OF INSPECTION.— Inspection of AnimalCasings intended for export shall bo carried out with aview to SEC that the same has been processed, packed andstored in plant-; approved by the Agency and that theproduct conforms-: to the standard specifications recognisedby the Central Govt. under section 6 of the Act by sampl-ing and testing of each consignment by the Agency. aa perinstructions) issued by the council from time to time.

4. PROCEDURE OF INSPECTION.—I. Any exporterintending to export Animal Casings shall submit an applica-tion tor inspection (in duplicate) to the nearest Agency orall officer of the Acency authorised in this behalf by theAgency, giving particulars of the consignment, intended tobe exported.

II. An application under sub-rule (I) shall bo submitted:

a. Not less than two days before the inspection to becarried out at the premises situated at the samestation to the office of the Agency: and

. _ .Not, less than ten days before'the Inspection to he, carried out at the premises which are not situated

' ' a t the same station to the office of the Agency,

5651

III. On receipt of the application referred to in sub-rate(2), the Agency shall Inspect the consignment of AnimalCasing* as per the instructions issued by the Export Inspec-tion Council in this behalf from time to time, with a viewto satisfy itself that the consignment has been graded andpacked in accordance with Rule .3. The exporter shall pro-vide all necessary facilities to the Agency to enable it tocarry out such inspection.

IV. If. after inspection, the Agency is satisfied that theconsignment of animal casings to be exported complies withthe requirements of the specifications referred to in rule3, it shall, issue a certificate declaring the consignment asexport worthy.

V. When the Agency is not so satisfied it shall refuse toissue such certificate and communicate such refusal to theexporter in writing alongwith the reasons thereof.

VI. Subsequent to certification the Agency shall haw theright to reassess the quality of the consignment at any place.storage, in transit. or at the ports before the actualshipment.

VII. In the event of the consignment being found notconforming to the standard specifications at any of thesestages. the« certificate of inspection orifiinally issued shallbe withdrawn.

5. Cacking and marking—!. An exporter intending topack animal casings for deport shall pack in standard pack-ages or as per specific requirements of the buyer.

II. The following information shall be stencilled/printedon the packages :

a.. Name and address of the exporter.

b. Name of the item and variety:

c. Grade;

d. Lot number and date of packing:

t. Gross weight and net weight:

f. Product of India;

g. Shipping Marks

6. Place of inspection.—Inspection for the purpose ofthese rules be carried out at the premises of the exporterwhere the goods are offered for inspection provided thatadequate facilities exist therein for inspection.

7. Inspection fees.—The inspection fee to be paid by theprocessor/'exporter under consignment wise inspection tothe agency will be at the rate of 0.4% of f.o.b. value of theconsignment.

NOTE.—The amount of inspection fee for such consignmentpayable by the exporter shall be rounded off tothe nearest rupee and, for this purpose where suchamount contains a part of a rupee then if such apart is fifty paise or more. it shall be increasedto one rupee and if such part is less than fifty paise.it shall be Ignored.

8. A P P F A L . - ( 1 ) Any exporter aggreieved by the refusalOf the Agency to issue the Certificate of inspection eitheras prescribed in Part I or Pnrf II of these rules may withinten days of such refusal prefer an appeal to the saidAgency which shall refer the same to a panel of experts

consisting of nor less than three but not more than personsappointed for the purpose by Central Government.

2)A minimum of teo-thirds of the total membership ofthe panel of experts shall be non -Officials

(3) The quram for the panel shall be three.(4) The appeal shall be disposed of within fifteen daysfrom the date of its receipt.

ANNEXURE4

1. COLLECTION AND TRANSPORTATION :

1.1. The intestines must be derived from healthy ani-mals slaughtered in a slaughter house.

1.2 The transportation of intestines from the slaughterhouse to 'casings' processing plants has to takeplace under sufficient hygienic conditions whichprevents infection and contamination of the intes-tines.

1.3 Cleaning of the intestines must be carried outimmediately after slaughter of the animal.

1.4 The delay between collection, transportation andprocessings of intestines should be minimised toproduce better quality animal casings.

1.5 Fermentation of intestines should be avoided asfar as possible.

ANNEXURE-II

1. REQU1REMENTS OF ANIMAL CASINGS PRO-CESSING PLANT :

1.1 PROCESSING ROOMS :

The rooms for processing of Animal casings must compriseof ;

1.1.1 The premises of the casings processing plants shouldpresent an aesthetic appeal and should not emanateoff odours.

1.1.2 The raw material handling and processing roomsshould be separate from finished material handlingand storage rooms.

1.1.3 The casings processeing room should have adequatespace for convenient and easy conduct of opera-tloiu.

1.1.4 The flooring shall be impervious, non-slippery andwashed daily with disinfectant. The floor shouldslope sufficiently for liquids to be drained off totrapped outlets protected by a grill.

1.1.5 The walls shall be tiled with white glazed ceramictiles or light coloured coatings or hygienic panelsupto a height of 1.5 meters to enable washing withhot water and chemical disinfectant!.

1.1.6 Ceiling with light colour and adequate coatingwhich does not rot.

1.1.7 Adequate ventilatlon.

1.1.8 Adequate natural or artificial lighting which doesnot distort colours.

1.1,9 The premises shall be maintained in sanitary condi-tion and the drainage and plumbing system shall beefficient and well maintained , The water supplyshall ample and dean.

1.1.10 The rooms where the casings: are processe willbe free from dust etc. Facilities shall be providedin the premises for- cleaning utensils and for clean-inc hands of persons handling casings.

1.111 The waste /scrap should be kept in syarvun with anairtight lid which can be easily cleaned and disin-

fected.

1.1.12 It shall exclude the carryof dogs,cast ridents,inspects ,files,crows bats and yultures.The useof poisons or poisonous bats is ,Forgivcen in placeswhere processing is carreed out or any packed product is stored;and

1.1.13 At the end of each day a through cleaning pro-gramme suould be follewed.

5652 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA NOVEMBER 2l, 1997/AGRAHAYANA 1, _1919[PART II—SEC.'3(ii)]

2. EQUIPMENT":

2.1 For cleaning of tools, adequate water facility inthe unit ,'should be provided,

2.2 Proper equipment for protection against posts suchas insects and rodents.

2.3 Instruments andi working equipment such as sortingtables, cases, containers, conveyors or belts andknives are of such a. material which,can be easilycleaned /washed.

2.4 The equipment for storing the containers must be .in food hygienic condition and have 'to secure thatthere will, not be any contact of the merchandiseeven in contained with the floor or the walls.

2.5 Equipment for' hygienic handling of the casings-during loading and unloading: may be used.

2 6 Wash basin with adequate' supply running watershould be provided and

2,7 Equipment find instruments used in proccessing/manu-facturing of casing, must be carefully cleaned andwashed SEVERAL times during each working day if(hey have been contaminated and at the end ofthe days work and before being used again. How-eve;. continuous production machines -should onlybe cleaned when the work has been finished or in

cases where contamination is suspected.

3, STAFF :

3.1 The highest possible 'standard of cleanliness shallbe required of stuff. All unsanitary practices shouldbe avoided.

3.2 All persons entering the 100ms in which work onanimal casings is undertaken, must wear clean, lightcoloured :and easy to wash working clothes andheadcans; fully covering the hair on lira's Staffengaged in processing of animal casings shall washtheir hands several times during each working day,i e-. each time they resume work,

3 3 Eating, drinking smoking shall be forbidden inwork rooms and store rooms.

3.4 Persons who are ill or whose hands are cut andexpopsed --likely to contaminate casings , shall beprohibited from working or handling, and

35. A medical fitness - certificate shall be produced forevery person working in processing of animal casings

at the time of joining.It shall be renewed everyyear.It shall be produced to the inspecting officeras and when demanded.

GENERAL

a t the time of joining . It shall be renewed e v e r y

A medical fitness certificate shall be produced for- •

4.1 Rooms instruments and working equipment mustbe used only for the preparation of the casingsand if required to be used for any other purposethere shall be aded fir any other purposethere dhakk be a gap of 24 hours after throughcleaning and before animal cvasing are processed

again.4 2 For all purposes other thanb cleaning of floorpotable water must be used.

4 3 The use of detergents disinfectants and pestisidesmust not affect the wholesomeness of the casings.nd pestividesmust not affect the wholesomeness of the casings.and if required to be used for any other putrposethere shall be a bap of 24 hours after throughcleaning and before animal cadings are processed

again.

must rot ;ifT:ct the wholesomencss o! the casinirs.4.4|First aid kit should be available for the benefit ofall the workers.4.5 Warning and packaging must take place undersatisfactory hygienic conditiobns.4 6 Casings should be stored under conditions which.do not effect the quality of the.casings

4.6. In the case, of sheep casings, thase.must be ade-quqtcly salted and stored under proper conditions.Where longer period of storage (more than 10days) is involved,- these must be stored, in refri-

.cerated conditions. „

4.6.2 In the case of cattle casings, after cleaning andprocessing the casings should be dried either inthe sun or by heat process under hygienic condi-tion's. Dried cattle castings should be sitored underclean, dry and damp proof cond;tions- Preserva-tives like black pepper may be used for storage;and

4.7 Practices that results 'in contamination of casingsshould be avoided.'

ANNEXURE-III

v l , Procedure for registration of Animal Casings' processingPlants :

1.1 The exporters, desirous for export of animal casingsto European Communities and other countries where PlantRegistration and Certification is warranted, should get theplant registered with APEDA as per the procedures laid downhereunder. 1

2. Application for Registration :

2 1 Application may be made to:Chairman, APEDA In theprescribed proforma as laid down in Schedule I. A COPY ofthe proceedure to be followed is obtainable from the office(sVof APF.DA.

2.2 Application should be accompanied by Animal CastingsPlant Data as laid down in Schedule II.

2.3 The application duly completed may be submittedeither at the headquarters of APFDA at New Delhi or at nnyof its regional offices us per The addresses given in Sche-dule-TTT. who will forward the same to the headquarters.

2.4 The application should he accompained by a declara-tion in the "''proforma laid down in schedule-lV that themanufacturer/exporter has complied with the sanitary andother requirements of animal casings' plants.

2 The application should bo accompanied by a demanddrraft of- in favour of APEDA towards'documentprocessing and inspection charges.

2.6 The following additional documents should be submit-ted alongwith the application :

(a) Lay out of the premises.

(b) l ist of machinery and equipment in the premises.

(c) Names and addresses of owners/partners/'directors/trustees etc. alongwith documentary evidence.

(d) Permission from the local municipal body to runthe processing unit for animal casings,

(e) Copv of the lens,e agreement in case the processingunit is being run on lease basis,

(f) Confidential reports issued by financial institutionsbanks mentioning the financial status of the manu-facturers /expqrter.

(g) Certificate from a Govt laboratory regarding potabi-lity of water used for processing of animal casings.

(h) Medical fitness certificate for personnel engaged inthe processing operation.

2.7 The "application should be signed by the owner /partner/director/managing trustee duly authorised for the purpose and

' a 'documentary evidence'power of attorney/copy of the resol-ution, as the case may be, must accompany the application.

5653

3. PLANT REGISTRATION PROCEDURE :3.1 Preliminary scrutiny of the application will be carried

out by APEDA and in case the .application is in order,APET>A will forward a copy of the application to each mem-ber of the Plant Inspection Committee.

3.2 Physical inspection of the processing plant will be car-ried out for registration -by a Plant Inspection Committee tobe constituted by Chairman,, APEDA comprising of thefollowing :

3.2.1 One representative of Deptt. of Animal Husbandry'and Dairying, Ministry of Agriculture, Oovt. ofIndia.

3.2.2 One representative of Deptt of Animal Husbandryof the State Govt.

3.2.3 One representative of Export Inspection Council/Agency.

3.2.4 One representative of Directorate of Marketing andInspection,

3.2.5 One representative of dried animal casings' ex-porters.

3.2.6 One representative of Sheep Casings Exporters'Association.

3 2.7 One representative of APHDA who shall be theconvenor of the Committee.

3.3 Three members of the Committee shall form the quo-rum for inspection. In case, for any reason, the quorum isnot complete, the inspection shall bo carried out on a subse-quent date which will be informed to the processor and/orexporter.

3.4 APEDA shall normally inform the processor and /orexporter one week in advance of the date of Inspection forverification.

4 ISSUE OF PLANT REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE :

4.1 In case the Committee is satisfied that the animalcasings plant conform to the standards and recommendsissue of a certificate, then the same shall be issued by APEDAin the proforma laid down under Schedule-V. The certificatewill bear a Regulation Number alloted by APEDA.

4.2 The certificate shall be prominently displayed in theprocessing unit.

4.3 Any change in the lay out, design or capacity of pro-cessing unit should be got approved by APEDA within 60days of such a change,

4.4 The Plant Registration Certificate will be in additionto their registration with APEDA as an exporter of a sche-duled product |as per Section 42(i) of the APEDA, Act]The date of validity of the Plant Registration Certificateshall be specified on the certificate. In case no specific dateis mentioned, the certificate shall be deemed to be valid upto31st December of the year in which it is issued.

4.5 The animal casings plant shall be reinspected by theCommittee for the purpose of renewal of the Certificate. Thereinspection shall be carried out before expiry of validity ofthe certificate.

4.6 In case the processing of animal casing& is carried outin a leased plant, the certificate shall be issued to the manu-facturer/exporter who may be the lessee and not the ownerof the plant. The validity of the certificate will be limitedto the date of expiry of the lease agreement.

4.7 The manufacturer/exporter shall also comply with suchother instructions as may, from time to time, be issued byAPEDA.

3. REFUSALLCANCELLATION OF CERTIFICATE :

5.1 The certificate issued under .clause 4 may be refusedor, cancelled or suspended provided that :

The animal casings plant does not conform to the pres-cribed standards as laid down under these rules;

There are any adverse reports from the financial ins-titutions/banks against any of the owner/directors/partners/trustees or from the importers or import-ing countries ;

There is insufficient potable water at the premises:

Unsatisfactory arrangement for disposal -of effluents :

No valid licence from lite local body or if tile commit-tee feels that the plant is situated at the place whereif will be injurious to the inhabitants.

5.2 Refusal, cancellation or suspension of the certificate asthe case may be, shall be communicated in writing specifyingthe reasons, to the exporter.

5.3 An agrieved exporter may make another application toChairman, Agricultural and Processed Food Products ExportDevelopment Authority for registration of his plant aftersatisfying that the deficiencies pointed out by the Committee,have been rectified. The reinspection of the plant shall becarried our in terms of para 5 above.

ANNEXURE-IV

1. PROCEDURE FOR CERTIFICATION OF ANIMALCASINGS :

The inspection of animal casings for issue of Animal HealthCertificate shall be done to verify the species of animal.nature of packaging, number of packages, net weight, clean-liness of casings, etc. '

2. PLACE OF INSPECTION'The inspection of animal casings for the purpose of these

rules shall be carried out at the premises registered with theAPEDA.

3. APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATION i

An Exporter intending to export animal casings shall sub-mit an application for issue of the Animal Health Certificate,giving particulars of the consignment proposed to be exportedto the nearest office of the agency in the prescribed proformaas laid down in the ScheduIe-VI.

4. TIME LIMIT FOR INSPECTION :

4.1 For inspection of animal casings for local and out-stat'on inspection a two and three CLAER working davs' ad-v i c e information, respectively shall be sent to the agencyoffice.

4.2 Although every effort will be made to take up inspec-tion as soon as possible after the receipt of intimation, no,guarantee be given except that request will be entertainedstrictly in the chronological order of receipt of applications.In special cases, however, the Inspecting Officer may attendto inspection even with shorter notice, provided he is nototherwise occupied with urgent work.

IF. No. 6/1/96-EI&EP1PRABH DAS, Director

SCHEDULE I

FORM OF APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATIONOF ANIMAL CASINOS' PROCESSING PLANT

1. Name and address of theapplicant '.

5654 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22,1997/AGRAHAYANA 1,1919 [PART ll—SEC 3(ii)]

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

Resistration-cum-member-ship No. of APEDA.

Address of the processingplant.

Factory licence numberand date, if any.

Name and address of theowner of the building(processing plant) if he/they are different fromthe applicant.

Date of expiry of leaseagreement, if applicable.

Name and address of thefinancial institutions/bankswho have financed theplant.

Details of Bank draftcheque.

APPLICANT ORAUTHORISED SIGNATORY

PLACE :DATE:

VERIFICATION

I do hereby declarethat to the best of my knowledge and belief, theabove information is complete and correct and thatI agree to abide by the conditions and standards laiddown in this behalf.

APPLICANT ORAUTHORISED SIGNATORY

DATE :

PLACE :

SCHEDULE-IIANIMAL CASINGSPLANT DATA

1. Name of the Processing Plant

2. Address

3. EXTERNAL INSPECTION

I. Surroundings (clean/unclean).

II. Whether situated nearobnoxious industry likefish canning, tanneries,chemical plants, feiti-llzer plants releasingHydrogen Sulphide etc.

Where the plant isused for processingmaterial other thananimal casings.

TV.

V.

VI.

VII.

VIII.

IX.

X.

XI.

XII.

XIII.

4.

Condition of approachand service roads.

Whether boundary wallprovided.

Presence of birds,crows, vultures, etc. ifany.

Condition of drainagesystem, whether openor permanently instal-led underground.

Arrangement for dis-posal of waste material.

Whether wash andchange loom for wor-kers provided, if pro-vided, number of toi-lets for each sex ofworkers and provisionfor water, soap, towels,etc.

Whether the externalwalls are properly plas-tered and free fromcrevices, holes, damp-ness, etc.

Whether the entry isrestiicted and the entry(ies) and cxit(s) pro-vided with doubledoors having flyproo-fing and self closingdevices.

Whether the windowsare flyproof.

Whether antiseptic/dis-infectant foot wash isprovided at the entrance.

INTERNAL INSPECTION

I.

II.

Whether the walls andceilings are properlywhite washed.

Whether the floors,walls and ceilings areproperly plastered withimpervious material.

5655

III.

TV.

V.

VI.

VII.

VIII.

IX.

5.

Whether Fissures,holes crevices anddampness present.

Whether the walls arecovered with washablecoating or plaint uptoa height of atlcast2 meters. Whether thewindows are at a suffi-cient height and awayfrom working plat-forms/tables to avoidcontamination by dust,accidentally brokenglass panes.

Whether sufficient careis being exercised toensure that each wor-ker before entering andleaving the factory,,washes his hands pro-perly.

Whether sufficient sign-boards indicating "donot spit and smoke"in the premises are dis-played prominently.

Whether adequate ligh-ting arrangements pro-vided in the workingarea.

Whether adequate ex-haust fans provided.

Whether the processingarea is free from cowwebs and sipders.

WATER SUPPLY :SOURCE : MUNICIPAL OR OPENWELL(S) OR TUBE WELL(S)

T.

II.

111.

IV.

Whether adequate po-table water supply withpressure is provided.

Whether hot water(82 degree C) is avail-able for sterilizationof equipment.

Condition of over headstorage tank.

Is water treated sepa-rately, if so, systemfollowed.

V.

6.

Whether water is testedregularly for it's pota-bility if so the frequ-ency of testing.

PERSONNEL :

I.

IT.

Ill,

IV.

V.

7.

Whether the staff isperiodically examinedfor medical fitness ifso, what is the perio-dicity.

Whether the nails andhair are properly trim-med. Use of nail polishto be prohibited.

Whether clean uniformcap, hand gloves andgum-boots provided.

Whether educated toobserve personal hy-giene.

Whether informed thatsmoking, chewing, spit-ting in the processingarea is prohibited.

EQUIPMENT :

I.

IT.

III.

8.

Condition of workingequipment, etc. e.g.knives, hooks, cases,containers for storageof animal casings, tab-les and other cuttingtools.

Whether the equipmentare cleaned and dis-infected daily.

Whether the equipment,utensils, trollies usedfor inedible/waste ma-terial are properly mar-ked so that they arenot used for edibleanimal casings.

TRANSPORTATION :

I. In case intestines/ani-mal casings are sour-ced from outside sour-ces, the names and ad-dresses of the abattoirsfrom where these aresourced.

38 3 GI/97—5

5656 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22,1997/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1919 [PART II—SEC 3(ii)]

IT. Transportation dis-tance from abattoirsand mode of trans-portation of intestines/animal casings fromabattoirs.

SCHEDULE III

ADDRESSES OF APEDA HEADQUARTER ANDREGIONAL OFFICES

1.

2.

3.

4.

Agricultural and Processed Food ProductsExport Development Authority,Ansal Chamber-II, 3rd Floor,6, Bhikaji Cama Place,New Delhi—110 066.Tel : 6192141/6192148/6192747Tlx : 031-82061 EFDA INFax : 6195016

Bombay Office12th Floor, Unit No. 1, MVIRDCCufle Parade; World Trade Centre,Bombay—400 005.Tel : 022-2183106/2189060Fax: 022-2189681Tlx : 011-83737 APED-IN

Bangalore Office12/1/1, Palace Cross Road,Bangalore—560 020.Tel : 080-3343425Fax : 91-80-3364560

Calcutta OfficeMayukh Bhavan, Bidhan Nagar,Calcutta—700 091.Tel : 033-374244Tlx : 21-2222 WBGT IN

SCHEDULE-1V

DECLARATION OF EXPORTER

I.

II.

III.

I/we, hereby declare thatmy/our animal casings, processing plant complywith all the sanitary and hygienic requirementslaid down under Animal Casings (QualityControl & Inspection) Rules. 1996.

I/We also declare that intestines arc obtainedfrom approved/slaughter houses/abattoirs.

I/We declare that I/we possess the full autho-rity and right to process/store animal casings,in the premises....(Address and to effect any structural and/orother modifications required to confirm toinstructions issued by the APEDA from timeto time.

IV. I/We also declare that we will inform APEDAabout any change in the ownership/manage-mont of the company and also the building ofthe processing plant.

SIGNATURE OF THE APPLICANT/AUTHORISED SIGNATORY

PLACE:DATE :

SCHEDULE-V

THE AGRICULTURAL AND PROCESSEDFOOD PRODUCTS EXPORT DEVELOPMENT

AUTHORITY

MINISTRY OF COMMERCE, GOVT. OF INDIA)

CERTIFICATE OF PLANT REGISTRATION FORANIMAL CASINGS PROCESSING PLANT

This is to certify that the animal casings proces-sing plant described below has been inspected by aPlant Registration Committee constituted by Agri-cultural and Processed Food Products Export Deve-lopment Authority and existing facilities are consi-dered adequate to meet the hygienic and sanitaryconditions required for export :

1. Name of exporter .

2. Registration No.

3. Location of the processingplant

4. Type of Animal Casingsauthorised for export.Certificate valid upto

Place : New Delhi For and on behalf of APEDADate : CHAIRMAN

ANSAL CHAMBERS-Il, 3rd FLOOR, 6 BHIKAJICAMA PLACE, NEW DELHI—66 TEL : 6192141,6192148 FAX : 6195016

SCHEDULE-VI

APPLICATION FOR ISSUE OFANIMAL HEALTH CERTIFICATE

FromTo

The AgencySir,

I request you to issue Animal Health Certificatefor exporting the consignment of Animal Casingsparticulars of which are furnished below :

5657

I. Identification of casings :Casings of

(Species)

Nature of packagingNumber of packagesNet weight

II. Origin of casingsApproved establishment(Plant Registration) No.

III. Destination of casingsThe casings will be sent from

(place of loading)to

(country andplace ofdestination)

by the following meansName and address ofconsignorName and address ofconsignee

Yours faithfully,Name

(Designation)

SCHEDULE VII

ANIMAL HEALTH CERTIFICATEFOR ANIMAL CASINGS INLENDED FOR

DISPATCH TO THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY

Country of destinationReference number of the healthceitificate.Exporting countryResponsible MinistryCertifying Department

I. IDENTIFICATION OF CASINGSCasings of

(species)Nature of packagingNumber of PackagesNet Weight

II. ORIGIN OF CASINGSAddress(es) and veteri-nary control number(s) ofthe approved establish-ment(s)

III. DESTINATION OF CASINGSThe casings will be sentfrom (Plaae of loading)

to(Country and placeof destination)

By the following meansof transport.Number of the Seal (*)Name and address ofconsignor.Name and address ofconsignee.

IV. ATTESTATION

• The undersigned official veterinarian certifies that

the casings described above :(a) Come from plants approved by the competent

authority.

(b) Have been cleaned, scraped and— Salted (—) with Sodium Chloride for30 days;or— Bleached (—);or— Dried after scraping (—);

(c) Have undergone all precautions to avoidrecontamination after treatment.

Done at on(Place) (Date)

(Stamp) -(Signature of the Official (X)

(Stamp)(*) optional(__) Delete as appropriate(X) The signature and the stamp must be in a colour

different to that of the printing.[F.No. 6/1/96—E1&P[PRABH DAS Director


MINISTRY OF COMMERCE

Now Delhi, the 4th November, 1997

S.O, 2949.—In exercise of the powers conferrd by sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Export (Quality Control andInspection) Act, 1963 (22 of 1963), the Central Govern-ment hereby recognises for further period of three years witheffect from 21-9-1997, M/s. Mitra S. K. Pvt. Ltd., 23.22.14Bach Road, Visakhapatnamr53000l, as an agency for the ins-pection of Minerals and Ores Group-1) and (Group-II) speci-fied in Schedule annexed to Ministry of Commerce Notifi-cation No. S.O. 3975 dated 20-12-1965 and Notification No.S.O. 3978, dated 20-12-1965 respectively prior to export atVisakhaptnam subject to the following: conditions, namely:—

(i) that M/s. Mltra S. K. Pvt. Ltd., Visakhapatnamshall give adequate facilities to the officers nomina-ted by the Export Inspection Council in this behalfto examine the method of inspection followed bythem in granting the certificate of inspection underrule 4 of Export of Minerals & Ores (Group-I) and(Group-II) (Inspection) Rules, 1965;

(ii) that M/s. Mitra S. K. Pvt. Ltd., Visakhapatnam inthe performance of their function under this notifi-cation shall be bound by such directives as the Dir-ector (Inspection and Control) may give in writingfrom time to time.

[File No. 5/26/97-EI&EP],PRABH DAS, Director

5659

MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

(Department of Youth Affairs and Sports)


S.O. 2950.—In pursuance of rule 10(4) of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purposes of the Union)Rule 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies the following 29 offices (Annexure attached) of Nehru YuvaKendra Sangathan the staff whereof have acquired working knowledge of Hindi.

[F.No. E-11011/5/97-H.U]PRADEEP KUMAR SINHA, Jt. Secy.

ANNEXURE

S.No.

1

1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.

10.11.12.13.14.15.

Name of the Office

2

NYK, SehoreNYK, TikamgarliNYK, NarsinghpurNYK, ChambaNYK, NahanNYK, BankaNYK, AurangabadNYK, JodhpurNYK, BannerNYK, BaranNYK, MauNYK, DehradunNYK, BaliaNYK, HamirpurNYK,Panipat

State/UT

3

Madhya PradeshMadhya PradeshMadhya PradeshHimachal PradeshHimachal PradeshBiharBiharRajasthanRajasthanRajasthanUttar PradeshUttar PradeshUttar PradeshUttar PradeshHaryana

Region

4

"A""A""A""A""A""A""A""A""A""A""A""A""A""A""A'1

5660i THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 1 9 9 7 / A G R A H A Y A N A 1, 1919 [PART 1I -SEC. 3{ii)]

1

16.17.18.19.20.21.22.23.24.25.26.27.28.29.

2

NYK, GurgaonNYK, AmbalaNYK, RewariNYK, JalnaNYK, NasikNYK, DodaNYK, RajouriNYK, AlleppyNYK, BangaloreNYK, TumkurNYKS, Regional office, ChitradurgaNYK, GulbargaNYK, FatehpurNYKS, Regional office,Dehradun

3

HaryanaHaryanaHaryanaMaharashtraMaharashtraJammu & KashmirJammu & KashmirKeralaKarnatakaKarnatakaKarnatakaKarnatakaUttar PradeshUttar Pradesh

4

"A""As>

"A"" 'B '"A"" B ""B""C"" C "" C ""C»"C""A'"A"

(Deptt. of Education)

New Delhi, the 5th November, 1997 '

S O. 2951.—In pursuance of sub rule (4)of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for pur-poses of the Union) Rules, 1976 the Central Govt.hereby notifies of the following Kendriya Vidyalayasunder the Ministry of Human Resources Development(Deptt. of Education) more than 80% staff of whichhas working knowledge of Hindi :—

5661

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 3Air Force Station BhatindaPunjab.

Kendriya Vidyalaya,Paschim Vihar,Delhi.Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 39 V. R. DAir Force StationPune.Kendriya Vidyalaya,Army Area,D. A. D. Complex,Vanvari Range,Pune.Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 2Dhar Road,Udhampur.Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 1Udhampur.Kendriya Vidyalaya,O. R. D. Fy. Balangir,Ordinance Factory, Balangir,P.O. BadmalDist. Balangir-767770(Orissa)

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

Kendriya Vidyalaya,I. O. C.Guwahati, Refinery,Noonmati, Guwahati-781020

Kendriya Vidyalaya,Maligaon, Guwahati.

Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 3Bokaro Rly. Colony,Bokaro Steel City,(Bokaro)

Kendriya Vidyalaya,Barhampur (Ganjam)Orissa

Kendriya VidyalayaI I. TKharagpur-721302

Kendriya Vidyalaya,Uppa, Hyderabad-39

[No. 11011-5/97-O.L.U

NISHENDU OJHA, Director (O.L)

5662 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22,1997/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1919 [PART I I - -SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE

(Department of Health)

New Delhi, the 31st October, 1997

S.O. 2952. —In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of section 10 of the DentistsAct, 1948 (16 of 1948), the Central Government, after consulting the Dental Council of India, hereby makesthe following further amendment in Part I of the Schedule to the said Act, namely :—

In Part 1 of the said Schedule, after serial number 43 and the entries relating thereto, thefollowing serial number and entries shall be added namely :—

1

"44, "44, Pondicherry University,Pondicherry.

2

Bachelor ofDental Surgery.

3

B. D. S. PondicherryThis qualification shall be a rekognised dentalqualification in respect of Pondicherry Univer-sity when granted on or after 1st September,1994".

[No. V. 12025/17/95-PMS]C.L. BHATIA, Under Secy.

5663

MINISTRY OF FOOD AND CONSUMERAFFAIRS

(Department of Consumer Affairs)


S.O. 2953.—Whereas the Central Government,after considering the report submitted to it by theprescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model des-cribed in the said report (sec the figure given below).is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards ofWeights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) andthe Standards of Weights find Measure", (Approval ofModels) Rules, 1987 and the said Model is likely tomaintain accuracy over periods of sustained use andto render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now therefore, in exercise of the powers conferredby sub-section (7) of section 36 of the said Act, theCentral Government hereby publishes the certificate of

approval of the Model of the self-indicating non-auto-matic electronic platform weighing instrument of typeMTR-1001 scries of class III (medium) accuracy withbrand name -'METRO1' (hereinafter referred to as theModel) manufactured by M|s. Metro Digi Scale, 6,Sadhana Chamber, Varacha Road, Surat-395006, andwhich is assigned the approval mark IND|09|96j72;

The Model (see figure) is a medium accuracy

(accuracy class III) weighing instrument with a maxi-

mum capacity of 50kg and minimum capacity of

200g. The verification scale interval (e) is l0grm.

It has a tare device with a 100 per cent substractive

retained tare effect. The load receptor is of rectangular

section of size 300X400 millimetre. The Light

Emiting Diodes display indicates the weighing result

2883 GI/97—6

5664 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22,1997/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1919 [PART I I — S E C . 3(ii)]

The instrument operates on 230 volts, 50 Hertz alter-nate current power supply;

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred bysub-section (12) of the said section, the Central Gov-ernment hereby declares that this certificate of ap-proval of the Model shall also cover the weighinginstrument of similar make; accuracy and performanceof some series with maximum capacity of 30kg|5g.

120kg|20g, 150kg 20g, 200kg|50g, 3OOkg|5Og,500kg.l00g and 100kg|200g;. manufactured by thesame manufacturer in accordance with the sameprinciple, design and with the same materials withwhich, the approved Model has been manufactured.

[F. No. MW 2l(66) |95]

RAJIV SRIVASTAVA, Addl. Secy.

5665

New Delhi, the 4thi November, 1997

S.O. 2954.—Whereas the Central Government,

after considering the report submitted to it by the

prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model des-

cribed in the said report (see the figure given below),

is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards

of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976)

and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Appro-

val of Models) Rules, 1987 and the said Model, is

likely to maintain accuracy over periods of sustained

use and to render accurate service under varied

conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferredby sub-section (7) of section 36 of the said Act, theCentral Government hereby publishes the certificateof approval of the Model of the self-indicating non-automatic electronic table top weighing instrument oftype MTR-101 series of class IT (high) accuracywith brand name "METRO" (hereinafter referred toas the Model) manufactured by M|s. Metro DigiScale, 6, Sadhana Chamber, Varachha Road, Surat-395006, and which is assigned the approval markIND|09|96|73;

The Model (see figure) is a high accuracy (accu-racy class II) weighing instrument with a maximum

5 6 6 6 N T H E GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22,1997/AGRAHAYANA I, 1919 [PART 11—SEC. 3(ii)]DI

capacity of 5.5 kg and minimum capacity of 25g Theverification scale interval (e) is 500 mg. It has atare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retainedtare effect. The load receptor is of square section of

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (12) of the said section, the Central Govern-ment hereby declares that this certificate of approvalof the Model shall also cover the weighing instrumentof similar make, accuracy and performance of sameseries with maximum capacity of 300g|10mg, 32Og]20mg, 550g[50mg, 750g(50mg, 2200g|200mg and

size 250 X 250 millimetre. The Light Emiting Diodesdisplay indicates the weighing result. The instrumentoperates on 230 volts, 50 Hertz alternate current powersupply;

11000 g/1 g manufactured by the same manufacturein accordance with the same principle, design andwith same materials with which, the approved hasbeen manufactured.

[F. No. WM 21 (66)|95]

RAJIV SRIVASTAVA, Addl. Secy.

5667

5668 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22,1997/AGRAHAYANA I, J919 [PART 11—SEC. 3(ii)]


S.O- 2955 Whereas, the Central Government after considering the report submitted to it by theperscribed authority is satisfied that the Model described in the said report (see the figure givenbelow) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models) Rules, 1987 and the saidmodel is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate serviceunder varied conditions;

Now, therefore in exercise of the powers conferredby sub-section (7) of section 36 of thesaid Act, the Central Government hereby publishes the certificate of approval of the Model of Multi-purpose dispensing pumps for delivery of petroleum products with digital display of "Wayne Multigrade dispensing pump" series and with the trade name "WAYNE VISTA 390 and 399 MULTI-GRADE PUMPS" (hereinafter referred to as the Model;, manufactured by M/s Wayne DivisionDresser Industries, Inc, 124, West College Avenue P.O. Box 1159, Salisbuiy, MD, 21801-1859 USA and marke-ted., in India by M/s Teltech Instrumentation Pvt. Ltd., 28.4, Kharadi Off Nagar Road. Pune-411014., andwhich is assigned the approval mark Ind/13/97/01,

The model (see figure) is Multi-purpose disusing pumps . meant for delivering petroleumproducts digital display of Wayne Vista 390 and 399 Multigrade Pump series . The technical detailsof the machine are as follows :

The technical features of the machine are an follows :

Manufactrurer M/s Wayne Division,Dresser Industries Inc,124, West College Avenue,P.O. Box 1859,Salisbury, MD, 2180x-1859 USA

Name of the Instrument Multi-purpose dispensing pumps to deliverm petroleum products.

Type :— WAYNE VISTA 390 and 399 MULTIGRADE PUMPS.Maximum flow rate 50 liter per minute nominal.Quantity display 999.99 liter in increment of 0.01 litre.Calibration adjustments In steps of 5ml in a delivery of 5 litre.Range of calibration provided +ql00 ml on a delivery of 5 litreDisplay Unit Six digit LED

indicator for "amount to pay"Four digit LED

indicator for Unit Price display (above each hose)."Unit "setting range Upto Rt.. 99.99."Amount to Pay" setting rang Upto Rs. 9999.9.Power supply 230 v 50 Hertz a.c.temperature range +5°C to 40°C.Delivery Hose Less than 5 m with authomatic retrival facility.

File No. 21 (84) /96]RAJIV SRIVASTAVA, Addl Secy.

MINISTRY OF CIVIL AVIATION

New Delhi, the 3rd November, 1997

S.O. 2956.—In pursuance of Sub-Pule (4) ofRule 10 of the Official Language (Use for theOfficial Purposes of the Union) Rule, 1976, theCentral Government hereby notifies Indian AirlinesLtd., Ranchi Station, Eastern Region under theAdministrative Control of Ministry of Civil Avi-ation, the staff of which have acquired the workingknowledge of Hindi.

[No. E. 1101118|95-Hindi]RAGHU NATH SAHAI, Director (O.L.).

5 670 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22,1997/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1919 [PART II—SEC 3(ii)J

5671

2883 GI/97—7

5672 - THE GAZETTE OF INDIA, : NOVEMBER 22,1997/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1919 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

5673

5674 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22,1997/AGRAHAYANA 1,1919 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

5675


5677

5678- THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :NOVEMBER 22,1997/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1919 [PART II—SEC 3(ii)]

5679-

2883 GI/97-8

5680 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 1997/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1919 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

56*1

3682 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 12,1997/AGRAHAYANA 1,1919 [PART 11—SEC, 3(II)]

568 3

5684 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22,1997/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1919 [PART-II—SEC. 3(ii)]

5685

5686 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA NOVEMBER 22,1997/AGRAHAYANA-L, 1919. [PART I I - S E C . 3(ii)]

DEPARTMENT OF CULTUREARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA

New Delhi, the 11th November, 1997(ARCHAEOLOGY);

S.O. 2957.—Whereas by notification of the Government ofIndia in the Department of Culture (Archaeological Surveyof India) number S.O. 796(E), dated the 12th November1996 published in Part II, Section 3, Sub-Section (ii) of theGazette of India dated the 15th November, 1996, the Cen-tral Government gave two months' notice of its intentionto declare the monument specified In the Schedule annexedhereto to be of national importance.

And whereas copy of the said notification was affixedin a conspicuous place near the said monument as required

by subsection (i) of Section 4 of the Ancient Monumentsand Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 (24 of1958);

And whereas • copies of the -said Gazette notification weremade available to the public on' the 4-th December 1996;

And whereas no objection have been received to the makingof such declaration from any person by the Central Govern-ment;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the Ancient Monuments andArchaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 (24 of 1958),the Central Government hereby declares the said ancientmonument to be of national importance.

SCHEDULE

State

1

Himachal Pradesh

"

District

2

Shimla

Tehsii

3

Shimla

Locality

4

Shimla

Name of monument

5

Vice Regal Lodge(Rashtrapati Niwas)

Revenue numbers to beincluded under protection asper plan attached

6

Khasra Number 32Khasra Number 33Khasra Number 34Khasia Number 35Khasra Number 36Khasra Number 37Khasra Number 38Khasra Number 39Khasra Number 40Khasra Number 41Khasra Number 42Khasra Number 43Khasra Number 44Khasra Number 45Khasra Number 46Khasra Number 47Khasra Number 48Khasra- Number 49Khasra Number 50Khasra Number 51Khasrd Number 52Khasra Number 53Khasra Number 54Khasra Number 55Khasra Number 56Khasra -Number 57Khasra Number 58Khasra Number 59Khasra Number 60Khasra Number 61Khasra Number 62Khasra Number 63Khasia Number 64Kha«ra Number 65Khasra Number 66Khasra Number 68Khasra Number.'78Khasra Number 79

5647

Area inSq. Mtrs.

7

438.8777.88

252.99274.T020.80

1.4417.6450.82

1.002659.62

15548.34704.62.

1440.88"130.8047. 00

853.0432.6513.33

327.076.83

77.1439.656.70

56.03.18.8836.6637.6023.5030.68

335.1328.0016.2029.24

5.7ft55.7321.12

1373.2*933.20

Ownership

8

Central Government

Boundaries

9

North: Khasra Nos. : 321, 323389 and roadEast : Khasra Nos : 459

South: Khasra Nos. 193, 252,253, 354, 621, 622, 623, 624,625, 838, 871, 872, 873, 874,877, 879, 896, 895.West : Khasra Nos : 24 road,31 road, 95 road, 98, 193

Remarks

10

The Details of Khasra Nos : under thepossession of Central Public WorksDepartment 32 to 43, 78 to 95, 194 to 208255 to 260, 320 to 328, 333 to 388, 470 to493 , 507, 523, 528 to 620, 887 to 891

Khasra Nos : Under the Possession ofIndian Institute of Advanced study: 44 to66, 68, 261 to 319, 329 to 332.Under the possession of Central PublicWorks Department and Himachal PradeshUniversity, Shimla 494 to 506, 508 to522, 524 to 527.

2883 GI/97-9

5688 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER: 22,1997/AGRAHAYANA 1, .1919 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)1

1 2

Himachal Pradesh(Comd.)

3

Shimla ShimlaContd.) (Contd)

4

Shimla(Contd.)

5

Vice Regal Lodge(Rashtrapati Niwas)

(Contd.)

6

Khasra Number 80

Khasra Number 81Khasra Number 82Khasra Number 83Khasra Number 84Khasra Number 85Khasra Number 86Khasra Number 87Khasra Number 88Khasra Number 89Khasra Number 90Khasra Number 91Khasra Number 92Khasra Number 93Khasra Number 94Khasra Number 95Khasra Number 194Khasra Number 195Khasra Number 196Khasra Number 197Khasra Number 198Khasra Number 199Khasra Number 200Khasra Number 201Khasra Number 202Khasra Number 203Khasra Number 204Khasra Number 205Khasra Number 206Khasra Number 207Khasra Number 208Khasra Number 255Khasra Number 256Khasra Number 257 .Khasra Number 258Khasra Number 259Khasra Number 260Khasra Number 261 .Khasra Number 262 -Khasra Number 263 .Khasra Number 264Khasra Number 265Khasra Number 266Khasra Number 267Khasra Number 268Khasra Number 269Khasra Number 270Khasra Number 27lKhasra Number 272Khasra Number 273Khasra Number 274Khasra Number 275Khasra Number 276Khasra Number 277Khasra Number 278

5689

1.44176.12

1.443.06

44.8524.0028.0020.6021.5821.502.88

210.741613.341441.125555.34283.6721.06

7.023.807.20

90.8324.606.72

30.24 •65.4536.96 •

182.75 •375.10

3283.76-50.46

354.97-1.211.21

888.0053.3014.15

3445.22817.23389.06528.36

7.98139.80'100.5235.605.00

83.271966.57130.90

1.96858.99

6.9072.7260.8946.35

102.56

8

Central Government

9 10

'5690 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 1997/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1919 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

1 2 3

HimahalPradesh (Co

ntd.)

4

Khasra Number 279Khasra Number 280 .Khasra Number 281Khasra Number 282Khasra Number 283Khasra Number 284Khasra Number 285Khasra Number 286Khasra Number 287Khasra Number 288Khasra Number 289Khasra Number 290Khasra Number 291Khasra Number 292Khasra Number 293Khasra Number 294Khasra Number 294/1Khasra Number 295Khasra Number 296Khasra Number 297Khasra Number 295Khasra Number 299Khasra Number 300Khasra Number 391Khasra Number 302Khasra Number 303Khasra Number 304Khasra Number 395Khasra Number 396Khasra Number 307Khasra Number 307/1Khasra Number 308Khasra Number 309Khasra Number 310Khasra Number 311Khasra Number 312Khasra Number 313Khasra Number 314Khasra Number 315Khasra Number 316Khasra Number 317Khasra Number 318Khasra Number 319Khasra Number 320Khasra Number 321Khasra Number 322Khasra Number 323Khasra Number 324Khasra Number 325Khasra Number 326Khasra Number 327Khasra Number 328Khasra Number 329Khasra Number 330..Khasra Number 331

5691

7 8

7.12 Central Government3689.14

7.9271.8926.018.603.77

61.427.20

49.8425.557.20

63.883.24

863.37141.1616.4723.90

102.9044.4622.2063.4015.9250.25

548.6521.12

130.2443.8378.1437.4220.441.444.16

63. 16168.51

8.8081.5361.33

1010.96174.96

5.3912.142.89

3746.862305.21

54.401030.52911.7775.041.21

697.5292.8959.80

686.6391.43

9 10

5692 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22,1997/AGRAHAYANA 1,1919 [PART II—SEC 3(ii)]

1 2 3

Himachal Pradesh (Contd.)

4 5 6

Khasra Number 332Khasra Number 333Khasra Number 334Khasra Number 335Khasra Number 336Khasra Number 337Khasra Number 338Khasra Number 339Khasra Number 340Khasra Number 341Khasra Number 342Khasra Number 343Khasra Number 344Khasra Number 345Khasra Number 346Khasra Number 347Khasra Number 348Khasra Number 349Khasra Number 350Khasra Number 351Khasra Number 352Khasra Number 353Khasra Number 354Khasra Number 3 55Khasra Number 356Khasra Number 357Khasra Number 358Khasra Number 359Khasra Number 360Khasra Number 361Khasra Number 362,Khasra Number 363Khasra Number 364Khasra Number 365Khsara Number 366Khasra Number 367Khasra Number 368Khasra Number 369;Khasra Number 370Khasra Number 371Khasra Number 372Khasra Number 373Khasra Number 374Khasra Number 375Khasra Number 376Khasra Number 377Khasra Number 378Khasra Number 379Khasra Number 380,Khasra Number 381Khasra Number 382Khasra Number 383Khasra Number 384Khasra Number 385

5693

7

1349.82 '237.07

1.0811.054.702.640.54

514.176.302.735.080.72

52.1471.8689.90

950.24167.40

0.646.76

52.47103.06198.46

1.875.74

180.945.608.806.60

10.00430.38

6.1228.445.221.35

99.851.001.00.1.001.101.501.10

33.04358.23133.0810.0633.2321.3966.60

5.271.21

98.67240.58

2.8937.51

.. . 8

Central Govt.

10

5694 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA i NOVEMBER 22,1997/AGRAHAYANA 1,1919 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

1 2

- - — -

4

_

5 6

Khasra Number 386Kliasra Numbor 387Khasra Number 388Khasra Number 470Khasra Number 471Khasra Number 472Khasra Number 473Khasra Number 474Khasra Number 475Khasra Number 476Khasra Number 477Khasra Number 478Khasra Numbor 479:Khasra Number 480Khasra Number 481Khasra Number 482Khasra Number 483Khasra Number 484Khasra Number 485Khasra Number 486Khasra Number 587Khasra Number 488Khasra Number 489Khasra Number 490Khasra Number 491Khasra Number 492Khasra Number 493Khasra Number 494Khasra Number 495Khasra Number 496Khasra Numbor 497Khasra Number 498Khasra Number 499Khasra Number 500Khasra Number 501Khasra Number 502Khasra Number 503Khasra Number 504Khasra Number 505Khasra Number 506Khasra Number 507Khasra Number 508Khesra Number 509Khasra Number 510Khasra Number 511Khasra Number 512Khasra Number 513Khasra Number 514Khasra Number 515Khasra Number 515/1Khasra Number 516Khasra Number 517Khasra Number 518Khasra Number 519Khasra Number 520Khasra Number 521Khasra Number 522

5695

716..50

6793.971275.84

16.026.6:'5.229.44

44.8842.754.907.11

10.8116.39

4/8.1934.88

1189.595.40

47.5012.255.607.289.738.649.00

29.161.98

276.0863.6036.00

134.589.24

37.1294.32

1.80727.0618.6010.1725.568.25

13.3049.976.27

24.8818.8470.2036.26

228.826/16

136.53159.0928,93

166.7152.58

121,838.64

12.6131.96

8

Centralgovernment

9 10

2883 GI/97—10

5696 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22,1997/AGRAHAYANA 1, ].»19 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

1 2 3

Himachal Pradesh (Contd.)

4 5 6

Khasra Number 523Khasra Number 524Khasra Number 525Khasra Number 526Khasra Number 527Khasra Number 528Khasra Number 529Khasra Number 530Khasra Number 531Khasra Number 532Khasra Number 533Khasra Number 534Khasra Number 535Khasra Number 536Khasra Number 537Khasra Number 538Khasra Number 539Khasra Number 540Khasra Number 541Khasra Number 542Khasra Number 543Kharna Number 544Khasra Number 545Khasra Number 546Khasra Number 547Khasra Number 548Khasra Number 549Khasra Number 550Khasra Number 551Khasra Number 552Khasra Number 553Khasra Number 554Khasra Number 555Khasra Number 556Khasra Number 557Khasra Number 558Khasra Number 559Khasra Number 560Khasra Number 561Khasra Number 562Khasra Number 563Khasra Number 564Khasra Number 565Khasra Number 566Khasra Number 567Khasra Number 568Khasra Number 569Khasra Number 570Khasra Number 571Khasra Number 572Khasra Number 573Khasra Number 574Khasra Number 575Khasra Number 576Khasra Number 577Khasra Number 578

5697

7

28.402.70

16.026.46

34.741.92

749.3620.47

417.798.72

71.4058.7267.58

1.445.10

940.750.56

141.44623.03145.40103.71

19.8562.682.760.81

109.3611.401.50

62.751.351.44

58.5819.1088.55

1 .821.90I.90

39.125.06

21.751578.19

14.5665.4042.77

111.0412.84

154.7720.802.884.904.21

25.882.09

27.306.70

67.10

8

Central Government

9 10

2884 Gl/97—11

5698 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 2.2,1997/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1919 [PART I I—SEC. 3(ii)]

] 2 3

Himachal Pradesh Conted.

Site Plan to be reproduced.

4 5 6

Khasra Number 579Khasra Number 580Khasra Number 581Khasra Number 582Khusra Number 583Khasra Number 584Khasra Number 585Khasra Number 586Khusra Number 587Khasni Number 588Khasra Number 589Khasra Number 590Khasra Number 591Khasra Number 592Khasra Number 593Khasra Number 594Khasra Number 595Khasra Number 596Khasra Number 597Khasra Number 598Khasra Number 599

Khasra Number 600

Khasra Number 601

Khasra Number 602

Khasra Number 603Khasra Number 604

Khasra Number 605Khasran Number 606

Khasra Number 607Khasra Number 608Khasra Number 609Khasra Number 610Khasra Number 611Khasra Number 612Khasra Number 613Khasra Number 614Khasra Number 615Khasra Number 616Khasra Number 617Khasra Number 618Khasra Number 619Khasra Number 620Khasra Number 887Khasra Number 888Khasra Number 889Khasra Number 890Khasra Number 891

5699

7

9.72255.29

9.1014.1615.621.623.006.855.74

69,7756.20

1.601.201.21

47.85132.0253.07

3.00652.0287.510.81

91.93450.36213.80

88.72863.77

1.69404.9542.6798.7239.04

196.394.92

78.246.905.402.89

125.7815.5046.98

530.851537.50110.96

4.10297.65

78.71800.76

8

CentralGovernment

99565.24 Sq. mts or 24.60 Acres

9 10

[F. No. 2/10/96-M]

Satya Pal, Director (Administration)

5700 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA ; NOVEMBER 22,1997/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1919 [PART II—SEC, 3(ii)|

57(

2883 GI/97---13

04 T H E G A Z E T T E OF I N D I A : N O V E M B E R 2 2 , 1 9 9 7 / A G R A H A Y A N A 1, 1919 [PART I I — S E C . 3(II)]

DEPARTMENT OF CULTURE

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA

(ARCHAEOLOGY)


S.O. 2958.—Whereas by notification of theGovernment of India in the Department of Culturerchaeological Survey of India) number S.O.35, dated the 12th November, 1996, publishedPart II, Section 3, Sub-Section (ii) of the

izette of India dated the 23rd November, 1996,c Central Government gave two months' noticeits intention to declare the monument specifiedthe Schedule annexed hereto, to be of national

iportance.

And whereas copy of the said notification wasaffixed in a conspicuous place near the said monu-ment as required by sub-section (1) of Section 4of the Ancient Monuments and ArchaeologicalSites and Remains Act, 1958 (24 of 1958);

And whereas copies of the said Gazette Notifi-cation were made available to the public on 10thDecember, 1996.

And whereas no objection have been received tothe making of such declaration from any personby the Central Government;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers con-ferred by sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the AncientMonuments and Archaeological Sites and RemainsAct, 1958 (24 of 1958), the Central Governmenthereby declares the said Ancient Monument tobe of national importance.

SCHEDULE

District

Raisen

Tehsil

Goharganj

Locality

Bhojpur

Name ofMonument/Site

Ancient re-mains rocksengraving Bhojpur, Tahsil-Goharganj,District Raisen

Khasra

Acre

34 0.96

35 0.92

37 5.825

38 1.20

(Part)

P.819 62.50VTIt

i Area

Hec-tare

0.39

0.38

2.36

0.49

25.31

Ownership

Governmentof MadhyaPradesh




Forest Depart-mentGovernmentof MadhyaPradesh

Boundaries

North; Forestremainingpart ofP-819VI1TSouth remain-ing part of46/2. ForestlandP-819/V11IKhasra No,40 and re-mainingpart of 38

East ; Remain'ing part ofForest landP-819/VIIIand KhasraNumber 38

71.405 28.93 Total Government Area

(SITE PLAN REPRODUCED BELOW

Remarks

The SivaTemple (Noti-fied as Sai-vite temple)situatedKhasra No.36 (Area0.35 Acre0.15 Hectare)is protectedvide protec-tion Notifi-cation onNo. D. 250/5A2 dated

• 12-2-1951under sec-tion 3(1) ofAncientMonumentsAct, 1904 by

Governmentof India,Ministry ofEducation ;confirmedvide Noti-fication No.D.250/51-A2dated10-5-1951.

[F.No. 2-2-96-MJSATYA PAL, Director (Adm)

5705

2883/GI/97-14

.706 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: NOVEMBER 22.1997/AGRAHAYANA 1,1919 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

5707

MINISTRY OF POWER


S.O. 2959.—In exercise of the powers conferredby the proviso to sub-rule (1) of rule 45 of theIndian Electricity Rules, 1956 (hereinafter refer-red to as the said rules), the Central Governmenthereby exempts the Department of Atomic Energy,Government of India (hereinafter referred to asthe said department) and its constituent units(1) Bhaba Atomic Research Centre, Mumbai,(2) Centre for Advance Technology, Indore.(3) Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research,Kalpakkam. (4) Variable Energy Cyclotron Centre,Calcutta. (J5) Atomic Minerals Division, Hydera-bad. (6) Heavy Water Board, Mumbai. (7) NuclearFuel Complex, Hyderabad. (8) Board of Radiationand Isotope Technology, Mumbai. (9) Director ofPurchase and Stores, Mumbai. (10) ConstructionService and Estate Management Group, Mumbai.(11) General Services Organisation, Kalpakkam.(12) Tata Institute of Fundamental Research,Mumbai. (13) Tata Memorial Centre, Mumbai.(14) Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics, Calcutta.(15) Institute of Physics, Bhubaneswar. (16) Insti-tute of Mathematical Science, Chennai. (17) The

Mehta Research Institute of Mathematics andMathematical Physics, Allahabad. (18) AtomicEnergy Education Society, Mumbai. (19) Instituteof Plasma Research, Gandhinagar. (20) NuclearPower Corporation of India Ltd., Mumbai.(21) Indian Rare Earths Limited, Mumbai.(22) Uranium Corporation of India Limited, Bihar.and (23) Electronic Corporation of India Limited,Hyderabad; from the provisions of said sub-rule(1) subject to the following conditions :

(i) that the said department shall complywith all the safety precaution specified inthe said rules.

(ii) the said department shall carry out theinstallatfon works under the supervisionof a person belonging to the said depart-ment and possessing the qualificationsprescribed under rule 4 of the said rules;and

(iii) all the installation work carried out bythe said department shall be in accord-ance with the other provisions of the saidrules.

[F. No. 25|10|94-D(SEB)]

J i n THOMSON, Director2883 GI/97—15


5709



S.O. 2960.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 36 of the Indian Electricity Act,

1910 (9 of 1910), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri A. M. Joshi, Chief Engineer (Electrical Inspec-

torate Division), Central Electricity Authority, New Delhi to bo Electrical Inspector in respect of all installa-

tions belonging to or under the control of the Central Government and the Union territories as specified below,

except for the low voltage installations which shall continue to be inspectted by the respective suppliers of the

electricity ;—

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

Union territories of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands ;

Chandigarh; Dadra Nagar Haveli; Daman and Diu;

Lakshadweep; Pondicherry and the States of Arunachal

Pradesh, Goa and Mizoram.

Ministry of Agriculture

Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers

Ministry of Civil Aviation and Tourism

Ministry of Civil Supplies, Consumer Affairsand Public Distribution

Ministry of Coal.

Ministry of Commerce

Ministry of Communications

Ministry of Defence

Ministry of Environment and Forests

Ministry of External Afiairs

Ministry of Finance

Ministry of Food

Ministry of Food Processing Industries

Ministry of Health and Family Welfare

Ministry of Home Affairs

Ministry of Human Resources Development

Ministry of industry

Ministty of Information and Broadcasting

Ministry of Labour

All installations

All installations

All installations

All Installations

All installations

All installations

All installations

All intallations except Post and Telecom-munications Department

All installa lions except Military.Engineering Service and OrdinanceFactories.

All installations

All installations

All installations

All installations

All installations

All installations

All installations

All installations

All installations

All installations

All installations

5711

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs

Ministry of Mines

Ministry of Non-ConventonE.l Energy Sources

Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs

Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension

Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas

Ministry of Planning

Ministry of Power

Ministry of Programme Implementation

Ministry of Rural Development

Ministry of Science and Technology

Ministry of Steel

Ministry of Surface Transport

Ministry of Textiles

Ministry of Urban Development

Ministry of Water Resources

Ministry of Welfare

Department of Atomic Energy

Department of Electronics

Department of Ocean Development

Department of Space

Cabinet Secretariat

President's Secretariat

Prime Minister's Office

Office of the Commissioner for Scheduled Castes andScheduled Tribes

Central Vigilance Commission

Election Commission of India

Supreme Court

Union Public Service Commission

All installations

All installations except Mines and OilFields

All installations

All installations

All installations

All installations except Minesand Oil Fields.

All installations

All installations

All installations

All installations

All installations

All installations

All installations

All installations

All installations

All installations

All installations

All installations except Mines

All installations

All installations

All installations

All installations

All installations

All installations

All installations

All installations

All installations

All installations

All installations

[F. No. 25/l/90-D(SEB) -Vol.II]

P.I. SUVRATHAN, Jt. Secy.

5712 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA. : NOVEMBER 22,1997/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1919 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF LABOURNew Delhi, the 22nd October, 1997

S.O. 2961.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In-dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen-tral Government hereby publishes the Award of theCentral Government Industrial Tribunal, Kanpur asshown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute bet-ween the employers in relation to the management ofCentral Railway, Jhansi and their workman, whichwas received by the Central Government on the21-10-97.

[No. L-41011|12l88-DII.B)SANATAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI B. K. SRIVASTAVA, PRESIDINGOFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUS-TRIAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT PANDU NAGAR,

DEOKI PALACE ROAD KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 65 of 1996Reference No. L-4101l/12|88-D.II(B) dt. 19-7-89

In the matter of dispute between:Secretary, INTUC, U.P.2|36 Namneir Agra.

AND

Divisional Railway ManagerCentral Railway Jhansi.

AWARD U/s. 33-A.1. This is an application by Badruddin, Harish,

Irehad and Astam complaining that they have beendismissed from service during the pendency of I.D.No. 167 of 1989 and for acquiring temporary statusas Monthly Rated Casual Labour against CentralRailway Opposite Party. It appeals that the con-cerned applicants, namely, Aslam Harish, Badruddin,Ram Khilari, Irshad, Bankev Behari Lal and MahcudraSingh, had raised I.D. No 167 of 1989 for theirclaim for acquring status of MRCL temporary. Thecase of the applicants is that during the pendency ofthis reference all of them were removed from service.However, Ram Khihri, Dashrath Bankey Beliari andMahendra Singh have been taken brick in service. Theremaining four workmen, the present applicants, havenot been taken in service. By removing them from

service during the pendency of reference registered asI.D. No. 167 of 1989, the opposite party railway haschanged the condition of service.

2. The opposite party railway have contested thecase.

3. From the documents filed by the applicants itappears that in the year 1985, they had carried thematter before ALC(C) Delhi. Notice was ordered tobe issued and it was during the pendency of concilia-tion proceedings that the applicants were removedfrom service. From the above narration of facts, itbecomes clear that the applicant were removed muchearlier to the registration of Industrial Dispute no. 167of 1989. Hence, it is not coticct to say that appli-cants were removed from service during the pendencyof 167 of 1989. A bare perusal of section 33-A ofI.D. Act would go to reveal that a workman can com-plain about breach of condition of service only whensuch charge is effected during the pendency of In-dustrial Dispute before the Tribunal. In the instantcase such breach of condition by way of terminationoccurred much before registration of I.D. No. 167 of1989. Obviously this application is not maintainable.Accordingly the application is rejected being not main-tainable and the applicants arc not entitled for anyrelief.

Dt. 3-10-1997.B. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

New Delhi, the 22nd October, 1997

SO. 2962.—In pursuance of Section 17 of theIndustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), theCentral Government hereby publishes the Award ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Kanpuras shown in the Annexure, in the industrial disputebetween the employers in relation to the managementof Northern Railway Lucknow and their1 workman,which was received by the Central Govetnmcnt on the21-10-97.

[No. L-41012|5|90 IR(DU)]SANATAN, Desk Officer

5713

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRJ B. K. SRIVASTAVA, PRESIDINGOFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUS-TRIAL-CUM-LA3OUR COURT PANDU NAGAR,

Industrial Dispute No. 251 of 1990In the matter of dispute between:

Zonal working PresidentNorthern RailwayKarmchari Union, 96/196 Roshan Bajaj LaneGanesh Ganj Lucknow.

AND

Divisional Railway ManagerNorthern RailwayLucknow.

AWARD

1. Central Government, Ministry of Labour, NewDelhi, vide its notification no. L~41012|5|9(MR(DU)dated 24~10-90, has referred the following dispute foradjudication to this Tribunal —

Whether the DRM Northern Railway is justifiedin not promoting Sri Sita Ram Electric PumpDriver Fazalganj Kanpur as highly skilledGrade II w.e.f. 1-1-84? If not to whatrelief he is entitled to?

2. In his claim statement concerned workmanSitaram has alleged that the opposite party railwayhas not promoted him in Grade II Oil Engine Driverwhereas juniors to him Abdul, Suhan, Ram Dutt MotiLal and Jangali Prasad have been promoted w.e.f1-1-84. His trade test was taken on 21-3-86, still hehas not been promoted and no result has been dec-lared. He is entitled for promt-lion w.«.f. 1-1-84when juniors to him were promoted.

3. No doubt the opposite party has filed writtenstatement but nothing has been said about the resultof trade test. Only technical objection like the claimpetition is not maintainable has been taken.

4. In my opinion, the concerned workman is notentided for any relief an its own showing. Perhaps hehas sought promotion because juniors to him beenpromoted on the principle of NEXT BELOW RULE,I am afraid this rule is not applicable in the case ofpromotion. Further promotion is accorded only whena certain workman of category clears trade test forhigher category. It is the own case of the concernedworkman that sofar he has cleared the trade testalthough trade test was taken. Simply because resulthas not been declared it would not entitled the con-cerned workman for autometic promotion.

5. In the end my award is that us the concernedworkman so far lias rot cleared the test the concernedworkman is not entitled for promotion as ElectricPumplDriver w.ef. 1-1-84. However. I would directthe railway to declare the result of trade test if it hadactually taken place on 21-3-84.Dated : 3-10-1997.

ft. K. SRTVASTAVA, Presiding Officer


S.O. 2963.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In-dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), theCentral Government hereby publishes the Award ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Kanpuras shown in the Annexure, in the industrial disputebetween the employers in relation to the managementof Northern Railway, Lucknow and their workman,which was received by the Central Government onthe 21-10-97.

[No. L-4I012/5|9IR(D.U.)l

SANATAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXUREBEFORE SRI B. K. SRIVASTAVA, PRESIDINGOFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUS-

TRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,PANDU NAGAR, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 154 of 1991.In the matter of dispute :

BETWEEN :Zonal Working President,

Uttar Railway Karamchari Union,96/196 Roshan Bajaj Lane Ganeshgan],Lucknow.

AND

Dy. Chief Electrical Engineer (W),Northern Railway, Lucknow.

APPEARANCE :D. P- Awasthi for the Union andHamid Qucreshi, for the Railway, opposite

party.

AWARD

7, Central Government. Ministry of Labour, NewDelhi, vide its Notification No. 41012/5/91-I. R.D. U., dated 25-9-1991 has referred the followingdispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :

"Whether Dy. CEE(W) Northern RailwayLucknow was justified in removing ShriUdai Singh Mason under SS/CPH Lucknoww.e.f. 10-12-1983 ? If not, what relief theworkman was entitled ?"

571 4 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22,1997/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1919 [PART II—.SEC 3(ii)]

2. The concerned workman Udai Singh was work-ing as SS Mason under CPH shop Suptd. Lucknowof the opposite party Northern Railway. He wasissued a charge-sheet dated 30-9-1981 by the Dy.Chief Electrical Engineer which runs as under :—

CHARGE NO. 1 :

That said Shri Udai Narain T. No. 62/CPH SS/Messon while functioning Masson under principalforman CPH Lucknow at about 12/15 hrs. on24-9-1981 entered in the room of foreman alongwithShri S. K. Sen T. No. 53/CPH and started throwingpapers and files which were kept over the table inpresence of Shri Vjrendra Kumar Sr. Clerk CPHLucknow and Shri K. K. Saxena T; No. 143/CPHShri Udai Singh T. No. 62/CPH was looked overdrunk and was also abusing Shri M. N. PandeyMAEE (I)/Lucknow.

CHARGE NO- 2 :

That said Shri Udai Singh T. No. 62/CPH SSMasson after creating trouble in CPH/LKO enteredDT-CEE's office at 12.45 hrs. on 24-9-1981 and wasintoxicated abusing loudly using filthy language lorofficers and staff and thereafter he entered in thechamber of Dy. CEE"s also. The RPF man fromthe gate were called and they led him away to RPFPost Loco/CS.

One R. C. Awaslhi an officer of the managementwas appointed enquiry officer. He submitted hisreport after completing enquiry on 16-9-1980holding that charge of remaining in intoxication wasnot proved while other acts of misconduct wereproved. On the basis of this enquiry report discipli-nary authority had ordered for dismissal of the con-cerned workman vide order dated 10-12-1987.Feeling aggrieved he has raised the instant industrialdispute.

3. In the claim statement it was denied that theenquiry was not fairly and properly held. It wasalso alleged that the concerned workman had actuallycommitted the above misconduct. On the pleadingsof the parties a preliminary issue regarding fairnessand proprietory of domestic enquiry was framed.Vide finding dated 16-7-1997 it was held that enquirywas fair and proper. Thereafter, the case was fixedfor deciding the question of quantem of punish-ment.

4. I have heard both sides on the question ofpunishment. I am of the opinion that the misconductcommitted by the concerned workman was graveone and it requires different punishment so that othermay be afraid of committing such misconduct.

5. In view of this I come to the conclusion thatdismissal from service was justified. Consequently,the concerned workman is not entitled for anyrelief.

B. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer.


S.O. 2964.—In pursuance of Section 17 of theIndustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), theCentral Government hereby publishes the- Award ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Kanpuras shown in the Annexure, in the industrial disputebetween the employers in relation to the manage-ment of Northern Railway, Allahabad and theirworkman, which was received by the Central Govern-ment on 21-10-1997.

'No. L-41O12/23/95-IR (B)]SANATAN, Desk Officer.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI B. K. SRIVASTAVA, PRESID-ING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOURCOURT, DEOKI PALACE ROAD, PANDU

NAGAR, KANPUR.

Industrial Dispute No. 45 of 1996.

in the matter of dispute,

BETWEEN :

Zonal Working President,Northern Railway Karamchari Union96/195 Roshan Bajaj Lane,Ganesh Ganj, Lucknow.

AND

Divisional Railway Manager,Northern Railway,Allahabad.

APPEARANCE :

Shri Hamid Quraishy for the Management.

Shri D. N. Tiwari for the Workman.

AWARD

1. Central Government Ministry of Labour, NewDelhi vide its Notification No. L-41012/23 /95-I.R(B), dated 29-3-1996 has referred the followingdispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :

"Whether .the management of Northern Railwayis just in refusing regularisation of emp-loyment of Shri Shiv Sagar S/o. ShriGhagwan Das as a regular fitter in the

5715

open line at present employed as ad-hocfitter under C.T.F.O. (Construction) ofthe management ? If not, to what reliefthe worker concerned is entitled to ?

1. The concerned workman Shiv Sagar in bigclaim statement has alleged that he was as ElectricKhalasi on 21-11-1980. He was given temporarystatus w.e.f, 1-1-1984 in the grade of 196—232.Work of Electric Fitter is being taken from himw.e.f. 15-9-1984 and he has also been promoted inthe pay scale of 950—1500 by order dated1-1-1987 as T. S. Filter. Since he had continouslyworked as Electric Fitter from 15-9-1984 he isentitled for regularisation as Fitter w.e.f. 15-9-1984.

3. The opposite party has filed reply in which ithas been alleged that he was engaged as casualFitter by way of local temporary arrangement It isdenied that work was taken continously w.e.f.15-9-1984.

4. In the rejoinder nothing new has been said

5. The only point which needs consideration Isas to whether the concerned workman had worked'as Electric Fitter from 15-9-1984 continously. Onthis point there is oral evidence of the concernedworkman. Beside there is Ext.-W-2 promotionletter dated 8-5-I989 which shows that concernedworkman has been promored and his name appearat SI. No. 44. Ext.-W-3 Is the medical report dated12-9-1996. And Ext.-W-4 is the wage Slip of 1996.None of these paper help the case of the concernedworkman. There is only bald statement of the con-cerned workman. In my opinion it is not enoughto prove that the concerned workman had workedas electric fitter w.e.f. 15-9-1984. Hence he Is notentitled for regularisation from this date for want ofproof. I award accordingly.



S.O. 2965.—In pursuance of Section 17 of TheIndustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947). theCentral Government hereby publishes the Award ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Kanpuras shown in the Annexure. in the industrial dispute

between the employers in relation to the managementof North East Railway, Lucknow and their work-man, which was received by the Central Governmenton 20-10-1997.

[No L-41012/152/96-IR (B)lSANATAN, Desk Officer.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI B. K. SRIVASTAVA, PRESIDINGOFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUS-

TRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,DEOKI PALACE ROAD, PANDU NGARA,

KANPUR.

Industrial Dispute No. 67 of 1997.

In the matter of dispute,

BETWEEN :Rajender Singh,

Substitute Railway Quarter No. 59-MLoco Colony Maviya,Lucknow.

ANDDivisional Railway Manager (P),

North East Railway,Ashok Road, Lucknow.

AWARD

1. Central Government Ministry of Labour NewDelhi vide its Notification No. L-41012/152/96-I.R.(B), dated 25-4-1997 has referred the following dis-pute for adjudication to this Tribunal :

"Whether the action of the management ofNorth Eastern Railway, Lucknow not toutilize the seivices of Shri Rajendra Singhsubstitute only as couplong khalasi is legaland justified 7 Whether he is entitled toget the regular scale of wages irrespectiveof nature of duration of vacancy ? If sohe is entitled to what benefits ?".

2. It is unnecessary to give the details of case asafter sufficient service the concerned workman hasnot filed the claim statement. Hence the referenceis answered against the workman for want of prose-cution and proof and he is not entitled for anyrelief.


2883 GI/97—16

5716 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22,1997/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1919 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)l

New Delhi, the 23rd October, 1907

S.O. 2966.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the IndustrialDisputes Act, 1947 (.14 of 1947), the Central Governmenthereby publishes the award of the Industrial Tribunal,Tamil Nadu, Madras as shown in the Annexure, in the

indusirial dispute between the employers in relation to themanagement of Southern Railway, Madras and their work-nan, which was received by the Central Government on12-10 1997.

[No L-41012/13/93-TR (DU)1SANA TAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRlBUNAL,, TAMIL NADUMADRAS

Tuesday, the 30th day of September, 1997

PRESENT :

Thiru S. Ashok Kumar, M Sc, B.L., Industrial Tribunal.Industrial Dispute No. 174 of 1994

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under Section10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 between theWorkman and the Management of Southern Railway, Madras)

BETWEEN

Shri R. Paranthaman,T. No 1479, 39, Barracks Road,Sivagamipuram, Madras-600012.

AND

The General Manager,Southern Railway,Park Town, Madras-600003.

2, The Assistant Mechanical Engineer,Southern Railway, Basin Bridge Yard,Madras-600003.

REFERENCE :

Order No. L-41012/13/93-IR (DO), Ministry of Labour,

dated — Government of India, New Delhi.

This dispute coming on for final hearing on Tuesday, the16 th day of September, 1997, upon perusing the claim, counterstatement and, all other material papers on record, and uponhearing the arguments of Tvl, R. Devaprasad and R. Jinan,Advocates appearing for the petitioner and of Thiru M. MunirSheriff, Advocate appearing for the respondent, and thisdispute having stood over till this day for consideiation, thisTribunal made the following

AWARD

This reference has been made for adjudication of thefollowing issue :

"Whether the action of the management of SouthernRailway Madras, in terminating the services of ShriR. Patanthaman, Ex-Khalnsi, Token No. 1479, AME/C MRS w.e.f. 10-4-90 is justified ? If not, to whatrelief he is entitled to ?"

2 The main averments found in the claim statement filedby the petitioner are as follows :

The petitioner was appointed on 12-7-1973 as CL onRS and was made permanent in 1973 as Khalasi.He was working as Khahisi in the Assistant Mechani-cal Engineer, Carriage Maintenance, Basin BridgeYard, Southern Railway, Madras-3. During May1988 he fell ill and hence he could not attend tohis duty nor send any leave letter to the respondentFrom 7-5 88 till 28-5-90. he was undergoing treat-ment for effective disorder under Doctor S. P, Muru-

gappa, Register Medical Practitioner. After becom-ing medically fit to join duty, the petitioner presentedhimself on 29-5-90 before the second respondent,and reported for duty. The Head of the Depart-ment asked the petitioner to submit himself beforethe Railway hospital to confirm fitness. Thereafterhe issued necessary forwarding letter to the Railwayhospital. The petitioner has submitted himself formedical examination and after thorough examination,the Assistant Divisional Medical Officer, RailwayHospital issued a fitness certificate, dated 31-5-90 toattend to his duties on 1-6-90. On 1-6-90 the peti-tioner approached second respondent to join duty.

But the petiiioner was refused permission and wasasked to write a letter to the Additional DivisionalRailway Manager as an appeal against the oraltermination. Immediately the petitioner sent a letterto the Additional Divisional Railway ManagerSince there was no reply, a legal notice dated 1-3-91was sent to the respondent. Even thereafter therewas no reply. The petitioner was not served withcharge memo or called for any enquiry before thealleged oral termination was passed against thepetitioner. Till 7-5-38 the petitioner was renderingan impeccable diligent service without blemish. Thealleged order of termination is violative of principlesof natural justice, illegal, unjustified, and excassivepunishment. The permanent railway employee canavail leave for a period of five years. The respon-dents before taking necessary steps dispensed withthe ser vices of the petitioner and also after termi-nation of service arc duty bound to make a news-paper publication in any local daily regarding theirdecision. The act of the respondents in terminatingthe service of the petitioner invoking Rule 14(ii)of Railway Servants (D and A) Rules, 1968 isagainst the principles of natural justice and termi-nation of the service of the petitioner without makingany publication is void ab initio. Two ther railwayemployees Sri Durai and Sri Susai, both Khalasi,who had absented for 6 to 9 years were reinstatedby the respondents. The petitioner filed a petitionbefore Assistant Labour Cntnmissiner (Central-T),Madras for conciliation and the respondents filedtheir objections and alleged that a major penaltywas imposed on the petitioner for his absence andhis service was terminated w.e.f. 10-4-90. As theconciliation did not materialise, the Assistant LabourComissioner (Central-I), has sent the failure reportto the Government of India, Ministry of Labour,hence this reference has been made. The petitioneris without employment for the past several yearsand he is the only bread winner of his family. Due

to illegal and (arbitary termination of the petitionerthe petitioner and his family arc suffering withoutminimum b:'sic necessity of the life. The petitionerprays at) award may be passed holding termination ofthe petitioner from service is not justified and consc-cuwnllv leinstaro him in service, with all benefits,continuity of service and attendant benefits.

3. The m;jjn averments fund in the counter filed by therespondent management are as follows :

The avermonts of the petitioner are denied except thefact that the petitioner WAS working as Khalasi andhe remained absent from duty from 7-5-88 to 13-5-88and from 15-5-88 to 22-8-89) without proper autho-rMv or following the Railway Medical AttendanceRules. He had failed to intimate the. Administrationduring his long spell of ,absence. cither in person ofthrough a letter or send the private medical certi-ficw as claimed. An employee is expected to getprior sanction of leave and cannot abstain himselffrom duty If he is sick he has to report to thenearest ; Railway Hospital. A charge sheet for im-posiivr major penalty was initiated on 22.-8-89. andthe same was sent to the petitioner's last knownaddress by RPAD and the same was returned un-delivered. It was was .also displayed on notice boardprovided at the workspot spot and the same evoked noresponse. The respondent's efforts to serve the chargesheet had failed and the Administration invokedRule 14(ii) of Railway Servants (Discipline andAppeal) Rules 1968 since there was no possibility

5717

of holding an enquiry. The petitioner was removedfrom service with effect from 10 4-90 vide penallyadvice M/M 125/DAY dated 30-3-90 . Thepetitioner submited his appeal to the AdditionalDivisional Railway Manager on 1-6-90 against hisremoval and the same proves that the petitioner wasaware of his removal from service, The AppellateAuthority viz., the Additional Divisional RailwayManager upheld tne penalty awarded by the Disci-plinary Authority. The respondent passed the ordersof the Appellate Authority at the workspot of mepetitioner .since the petitioner had not furnished hisproper address tor communication. Petitioner wasremoved from service according to the rules andthere is no question of oral termination or violationor principles of natural justice. The permanentemployees of railway are eligible for 5 years leaveas per Note 3 of Rule 530 of the Indian RailwayEstablishment Code Vol. I but Rule 502 providesthat leave of any kind cannot he claimed as amatter of right and such leave can also be refusedor revoked by the authority competent to grant it.The petitioner should have abstained irom dutyonly after the leave applied by him is sanctionedby the competent autnority. .Regarding the news-paper publication, for the purpose of disciplinarymatters, the railway servants are governed by theRailway Servants (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules1968. According to the clarification to Rule 12 ofthe Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules1968, in the. case the Railway Servant is not presentin office, the order/notice should lie communicatedto him at his last known address by registered postacknowledgement due. All therailway servant doesnot accept the order/notice, and the same is returnedundelivered by the postal authorities, with the endorse"ment as "addressee not found" "refused to accept"etc., the same should be pasted on the notice boardof the Railway premises in the employee concernedwas working last as v\ell as in a place in the lastnoted local address of that employee. 'The order,/notice should be. deemed to have come into effectfrom the date of issue there of unless:- it specifiesany subsequent date from which it has to takeeffect." 'Ihus, the rules do not provide for publi-cation of the removal order in local daily. Theorder/notice was pasted by the respondent on thenotice board and the same was to the petitioner'slast known address and the same is in consonancewith the prescribed procedures. In the absence ofSpecific details, the averment regarding the casesof Soosai Durai could not he spell l out. Disci-plinary cases are dealt according to merits of eachcase The averments are not tenable. The respon-dent prays to dismiss the claim with costs.

4. 'Ihe petitioner has: examined himself as WW-1 and hasmarked Ex, W-1 to W-10. No witness was examined onthe side of the respondent and no document has been filed.

5. The only point for cur consderation is : Whether thetermination of the petitioner is justified ? If not, to whatrelief the petitioner is entitled to ?'

6. The Point—The petitioner Paranthaman was employedas CL on RS on 12-7-73 and was made permanent as Khalasiin 197S. The respondent do not dispuite the appointment andstatus of the petitioner. According to petitioner he fell illduring 1938 and therefore he could not attend to hisduty from 7-5-33 to 28-5-90 and could not sendany leave letcr to the respondnts. The petitioner wasundergoing treatment for affective disorder under onedoctor S. Murugappan, a registered medical practi-v> join duty on 23-5-91 and thereafter the petitioner presentedhimself on 29-5-90 before the second respondent for duty,The second respondent asked the petitioner to submit himselfbefore the Railway Hospital for finding whether he is medi-cally fit. The Additional Divisional Medical Officer, Rail-way Hospital who examined the petitioner issued a fitnesscertificate dated 31-5-90, Thereafter when the petitionerapproached the second respondent on 1-6-90 to join duty,permission was refused to him. The petitioner filed an appealbefore Additional Divisional Railway Manager on 1-6-90

a,id also issued legal notice on 1-3-91. Since there was no replyfrom the respondents The petitioner filed an appeal beforeAssistant Labour commissioner, Madras for conciliation. Themedical fitness certificate to return to duty produced by thepetitioner is Ex. W-1. Medical certificate tor leave as Ex. W-2The fitness certificate issued by the Railway Hospital is W-3andVV-4. 1 he appeal filed by the petitioner on 1-6-1990 is Ex.W-3 The lawyer's notice issued by the petitiner is Ex. W-6.T he application filed by the petitioner before the AssistantLabour Commissioner Madras is Ex. vV-9. The remarks filedby the Divisional Railway Manager before the ConciliationOrricer is E\, W-1. The rejoinder statement filed by thepetitioner before the Conciliation Officer is Ex. W-8. Con-ciliation failure report is Ex. W-10.

7. The. petitioner contends that he was affected by a diseasecalled allective disorder and hence he did not report for dutyfor 751 days and also did not send any leave letter. Thepetitioner however contends that he has been dismissed fromservice without any enquiry and also without any paperpublication. The contention of the respondent is that thepetitioner has absented himself for duty for a long periodand chjrgc was framed and notice was sent to his last knownaddress which was returned undelivered and therefore waspasted in the Railway notice board and since the petitionerabsented himself for the enquiry also, order was passed termi-nuiuig the services of the petitioner as per Rule 14(ii) ofRailway Servants (D and A) Rules, 1968. The petitioner,has not produced any document to prove his illness exceptE. W 2 which is a medical certificate issued by privatemedical practitioner. The very same medical practitionerhas also issued Ex, W-1 medical fitness certificate. Thepetitioner who was absent for 751 days has not producedany document to prove the treatment or any bill for purchaseof any medicine. Railway Hospital at Parambur, Madrasis a famous hospital where there are efficient doctors andfacilities. The petitioner is entitled for free and better treat-.ment in the railway hospital. There is no explanation onthe part of the petitioner why he preferred private medicalpractitioner than railway hospital. As already stated, thepetitioner has not produced any document except a certificateissued by the private medical practioner to prove that thepetitioner was continuously ill for more than 2 years, andwas under continuous treatment. Further, the petitionerhas never notified the respondents i.e. his employers abouthis illness and has never applied for any leave. It is notthe first occasion in which the petitioner was absent for avery long period without sending any leave letter. In thecross-examination the petitioner himself had admitted thaton an earlier occasion also the petitioner absented himselffor a. long time without leave letter and later he was rein-stated in service. Thus, we see that the petitioner absentedhimself for the second time for a very long period withoutsending any lenve letter. There is no dispute that the enquirynotice sent to his last known address was also returned usdelivered. That will show that the petitioner did notcase even to notify his change of resilience to his employer.After the attempt to serve the notice to the petitioner failed,ha respondent pasted the noice on the railway board, andafterwards terminated the petitioner from service.

8 The petitioner contends that the respondents should havemade paper publication before passing termination of serviceorder and also after passing of termination order. There isno neccesity to give paper publication before passing theorder and after passing the termination order. The respon-dents have followed Rule 14(ii) of the Railway Servants(D and A) Rules, 1968 which is applicable to the petitioneralso. There is no motive for '.he respondents as against thispetitoner to act unfairly and also against principles of naturaljustice It is the petitioner who himself absented for a verylong.period without applying for leave. In the above cir-cuiiit-U'.nccs, the action of the respondent in terminating theservices of the petitioner is justifiable. From the foregoingdiscussions, it is clear that the action of the management ofSouthern Railway in terminating the, services of Shri R. Parau-thauiati, Ex. Khalasi w.e.f. 10-4-90 is justified.


In the result, award passed dismissing the claim of thepetitioner. No costs.

Dated, this the 30th day of September, 1997.

THIRU S. ASHOK KUMAR. Industrial Tribunal

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Workman :WW-1—Tbiru R. Parathwnaa.

For Management :Nona

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Petitioner/workman :

Ex. W-l/25-5-90—Medical certificate issued to petitionerby private medical practitioner (Xerox copy).

Ex. W-2/28-5-90—Fitness certificate issued to petitionerby private medical practitioner (Xerox copy).

Ex. W-3/29-5-90—OPD Slip of Railway Hospital issuedto petitioner (Xerox copy).

Ex. W-4/31-5-90—Fitness certificate -do-

Ex. W-5/I-6-90—Letter from petitioner to respondentfor reinstatement (Xerox copy).

Ex. W-6/1-3-91—Lawyer's notice issued by petitioner torespondent (Xerox copy).

Ex. W-7/4-10-91—Reply of respondent to petitioner(Xerox copy).

Ex. W-8/2-3-92—Rejoinder of petitioner (Xerox copy).Ex. W-9,12-4-91—Conciliation application (Xerox copy).

Ex. W-10/23-1-93—Conciliation failure report (Xeroxcopy).

For Management :NIL.

New Delhi, the 24th October, 1997S.O. 2967.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Governmenthereby publishes the Award off the Industrial Tribunal,Ajmer as shown in the Annexure, in the induitrial diiputebetween the employers in relation to the management ofWestern Railway, Ajmer and their workman, which wasreceived by the Central Government on 23-10-97.

[No. L-41012/276/95-I.R.(B)]SANATAN. Desk Officer

New Delhi, the 27th October. 1997

S.O. 2968.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the IndustrialDisputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Governmenthereby publishes the Award of the Industrial Tribunal,Kozhikode as shown in the Annexnre, in the industrial dis-pute between the employers in relation to the managementof Indian Institute of Spices Research, Calicut and theirworkman, which was received by the Central Governmenton 27-10-97.

[No. L-42012/27/96-IR(DU)lK. V. B. UNNY, Desk Officer

57l9

ANNEXURE

IN THE LABOUR COURT, KOZHIKODE, KERALASTATE

Dated, this the 26th day of August, 1937

PRESENT :

Shri P. Q. Barkath Ali, B.Sc., L.L.B., Presiding OfficerI.D. No. (C) No, 24/97

BETWEEN ;

The Director,Indian Institute of Spices Research,Chelavoor. Calicut-12.

2. The Farm Superintendent,Indian Institute of Spices Research,Peruvannamuzhy, Quilandy Taluk.Calicut-673 52a. . . Managements.

AND ,

Sri Padmajan A.,Adivati House,Edavarad Post,Perambra (Via),Calicut . . Workman.

AWARD

This is an industrial dispute between the managementof M/s. Indian Institute of spices Research, Calicut and itsworkman Sri A. Padmajan referred to this court for ad-judication by G.O. No. L-42012/27/96-IR(DU) dated July,9, 1997 Of Government of India, Ministry of Labour.

2. The issue referred for adjudication is "whether theaction of the mangement of Indian Institute of SpicesResearch, Peruvannamuzhy, Calicut in terminating theservices of Sri Padniajan A. from 26-8-1995 is justtned?If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to".

3. In pursuance to the notice issued the managemententered appearance. The worker remained absent and wasget exparte. It follows the worker has abandoned his claim.Therefore, an award has to be passed rejecting the claimof the workman.

4. In the result, an award is passed rejecting the claimof the workman.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him,revised, corrected and passed by me on the 26th day ofAugust, 1997.

P. 0. BARKATH ALI, Presiding Officer


S O 2969 —In pursuance of Section 17 of the IndustrialDisputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Governmenthereby publishes the Award of the Central GovernmentIndustrial Tribunal, No. 2, Mumbai as shown in theAnnexure. in the industrial dispute between the employersin relation to the management of Astt, Engineer, MicrowaveMaintenance, D/o, Telecom, Koprl Thane, and! their work-man, which was received by the Central Government on28-10-97.

{No. L-40012/18/94-IRO5U)]K. V. B. UNNY, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIALTRIBUNAL NO. II, MUMBAI

PRESENT :

Shri 6. B. Panse, Presiding Officer

Reference No. CGIT-2/8 of 1996

Employers in relation to the Management of MicrowaveMaintenance,

AND

Their Workmen

APPEARANCES :

For the Employer—Mr. Rohin Pandya, Advocate.

For the Workmen—Mr. S. P. Kulkarni, Advocate.Mumbai, dated 22nd September, 1997

AWARD

The Government of India Ministry of Labour by its OrderNo. L-400012/l8/94-IR(DU), dated 16-1-96. had referredto the following Industrial Dispute for adjudication :

"Whether the action of the management off Asstt.Engineer, Microwave Maintenance Deptt of Tele-corn, Microwave Building. Kopri Thane in terminatingthe services of Shri Lalchandl Kachru Pandit islegal and justified. If not, to what relief theworkman is entitled to 7"

2. Lakhand Kachru Pandit filed a statement of Claim atExhibit-3. He was appointed as a casual labour by Asstt.Engineer Microwave Maintenance Deptt of Telecommunica-tion. Thane on 1-10-84. He was employed at Igattpurioutpost Microwave repeater centre. It is pleaded that hecontinued to work till 11-8-89. On that date he was ter-minated without giving any notice, notice pay or retrench-ment compensation. It is averred that there was no com-pliance of section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(herein after Act) by the management. The worker ap-porached the management on seveal occasions for reinstate-ment but it was of no use. He thereafter issued a legalnotice. On its non com plaince he approached the AssistantLabour Commissioner raising the dispute. The concilia-tion could not take place. The Assistant Labour Com-missioner refused to make a reference contending that, theworker has not put in 240 days of service in 12 monthsprior to his alleged disengagement on 11-8-89, As suchhe is not eligible for any compensation under the provisionof the Industrial Disputes Act.

3. The worker pleaded that thereafter he filed a petitionbefore the Central Administrative Tribunal and got directionto the Central Government' which is an appropriate govern-ment to make a reference. On the direction of the CentralAdministrative Tribunal the present reference is made. Theworkman pleaded that the retrenchment is illegal. I f issubmitted that the termination was on flimsy ground ofmisconduct without holding a departmental inquiry. It isdenied that ho was gainfully employed by the railways.It la pleaded that he had to give that letter to manage-

5720 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 1997/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1919 [PART II-SEC. 3(ii)]

ment to that effect as he was assured job thereafter. Itis submitted that for all these reasons he may be reinstatedfrom the date of termination in continuity alongwith theback wages and consequental relief.

4. The management resisted the claim by their writtenstatement Exhibit-6. It is averred that the telecommunica-tion is not no industry within the meaning of section 2(i)of the Act and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decidethe matter. It is; averred that the workman was engagedas purely a casual labourer when the work was availablebetween the period 1-10-84 to 31-5-86. Thereafter hestopped report inn to work as he joined the services ofRailway.

5. The management pleaded that again he was employedon 11-89 purely on casual/ad-hoc basis for miscellaneouswork and in leave period of a. permanent staff. As thepermanent staff resumed the duty he could not be continued.He was engaged for only 176 days. It is averred that theworkman had a criminal back ground. For all these reasonsthe provision of the Act for retrenchment are not applica-ble to the worker. It is prayed that under such circumstancesthe reference may ho answered accordingly,

6. The worker filed a rejoinder at Exhibit-7. He reiteratedhis claim in his statement of claim and denied thecontention taken by the management in the Written state-ment.

7. The issues are framed at Exhibit-32. The issues andmy findings there on are as follows :

Issues Findings.

1. Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction todecide the matter Yes,

2. Whether the action of the managementof Assistant Engineer, Microwave Mainta-nence. Department of Telecom, MicrowaveBuilding Kopri, Thane in terminating thethe services of Lalchand Kechru Pandit islegal and justified Yes.

If not, to what relief the workman is entitled,Does not

survive

REASONS

8. The issue of jurisdiction has to be seen by the Tribunal.It is not necessary that the adverse party should raise theissue then only the Tribunal can embrak upon it. It isgeneral contention that in view of the case, Sub-DivisionalInspector of Posts Vs. The Jospeh 1996 II Supreme 487,the telecommunication is not an industry and this Tribunal

9. In Joseph's case Their Lordships observed "India is asovereign socialist secular democratic republic has to estab-lish an egalitation social order under rule of law. The wel-fare measures pertain the character of sovereign functionsand the traditional duty to maintain law and order is nolonger the concept of the state. Directive principles of statepolicy enjoin the state diverse duties under IV of the cons-titution and performances of the duties are constitutionalfunctions. One of the duties is of the state, to provide tele-communication services to the general public as an amenityand so the essential part of sovereign functions of the state,as welfare state, it is not therefore an industry."

10. The Learned advocate for the workman placed relianceon various authorities and tried to submit that MahanagarTelephone Nigam Limited is an industry. According to himin State of Bombay and Ors. Vs. Hospital Mazdoor Sabhaand Ors. 1960 I LLJ 251 it is observed it is the characterof the activity which decides the question as to whether theactivity in question attracts the provisions of 2(j) of the Act.It is further observed who conducts the activity and .whetherit is conducted for profit or do not make a material difference.Their Lordships also referred to Schedule I to the Act whichinnumerated Industries which may be declared as publicutility service under section 2(N) of the Act.

11. In Corporation City Nagpur and its employees 1960I LLJ 523 Their Lordships considered the scope of the defi-nition industry. It is observed that however wide the defi-nition of industry might be it could not include the legal or

sovereign function of the state viz, the primary and inalicna-bale functions of a constitutional government which shouldbo confined to administration of justice, maintenance of lawand other legislative functions.

12. In the management of Safdarjung Hospital and KukieepSingh Sethi 1970 II LLJ, Their Lordships while consideringwhether Hospital run by government or a local authorityor by charitable institutions not as economic activity as anindustry held that they are not governed by the definitionof industry in section 2(j) of the Act. In paragraph 14 and15, Their Lordships discussed the point regarding materialservices. It is observed that material services are not scr-vices which depend wholly or largely upon the contributionof professional knowledge, skill or dexterity for the produc-tion of the result. Such a service given, individually and byindividual are services no doubt but not material services.These services involve inactivity carried on through coopera-tion between employers and employee to provide a commu-nity with a use of something such as electric power, water,transportation, mail delivery, telephones and the like.

13. Then comes the Bangalore Water Supply and SewerageBoard etc. and A. Rajappa & Ors. 1978 1 LLJ 349 The Cons-titutional Bench of Seven Judges discussed various aspectsnamely what is industry and laid down different tests forcoming to conclusion where a particular activity is an in-dustry or not. The Learned advocate for the workman moreparticularly placed reliance on paragraph 46 and 47 of thejudgment. He also referred to paragraph 131 of the Judg-ment. It is observed therein that what is the dominantnature of lest. It is stated that soverign functions strictlyunderstood alone qualified for exception not the welfareactivities or economic adventures undertaken by Governmentor statutory bodies.

14, In Dahir Gram Panchayat and Shri Brahad SaurashtraSafai Kamgar Mandal Rajkot 1971 I LLJ 508 wherein it isheld that the conservancy and the sanitary activity carriedon by panchayat would be covered by the definition of theword industry. Such activity being material service and apublic utility service, the workers are the workman as de-fined in section 2(j) of the Act.

15, In another case between Umanyaman and State ofKerala 1983 1 LLJ 267 Their Lordships have given a test fordetermining which establishments in an industry are an in-dustry or not, The Reference was regarding clerk, typists,Khalasis. While deciding it Their Lordships observed so-vereign functions strictly understood alone qualify for exemp-tions not the other activities or economic adventure takenby Government or statutory bodies. In another case BijoyKumar Bhafathi & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar I LLJ 214 TheirLordships observed that the mere fact that there is a servicecode does not amount be necessary implication to the exclu-sion of the provision of the Industrial Disputes Act to Go-vernment department. If there were rules,, for instancespecially dealing with the manner in which temporary ap-pointments could be terminated it could legitimately be ar-gued that section 25F is excluded. For them the rulesframed under the Constitutional provisions would have pre-cedence over the Act. It is not possible to accept the con-tention that the provisions of the Act do not apply toGovernment servants.

16. In Union of lndit Vs. Presiding Officer Vs. CentralGovernment Industrial Tribunal, Jabalpur, FGR 1994 page231 Their Lordships observed that the Central Ordnancedepartment is a severable unit of the defence departmentof the Central Government and carried of systematic activitywith the cooperation of the employees and the employersand is an Industry as defined in section 2(j) of the Indus-trial Disputes Act of 1957.

17. In Writ petition Nos. 1584 of 1981 8721 of 1981and 3122 of 1981 the Nagpur Bench of the High Court ofBombay held that telegraph department is an industry undersection 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act. In K.R.P, Kai-mal and Anr. and Director of Postal services. Trivandrum1979 I LLJ 176, it is observed by Their Lordships publicutility services like the postal services comes under industry,such activity cannot be called as a soverign functions solelybecause rules framed under articles 309 and 310 governssuch an employee. In another case between Bhaskaran and

5721

Sub-Divisional Officer 1982 II I,LJ 248 it is observed thatpost and telegraph and Telephone sen ices me named publicutility services under the Act. They are Industries to whichthe provisions of section 10, 12 and 22 of the Act directlyapply.

18. In Delhi Science Forum Vs. The Union of India(1996i) 2 Supreme Court cases 405 wherein Their Lordshipsconsidered section 4 of the Telegraphic Act. 1885 whichspeaks of granting a licence to nongovernment companies.Their right flows from the sub-section 1 of section 4 whichvests that privilege and right in the Central Government.

19. On the basis of the principles laid down in the abovesaid authorities it is tried to argue that Telecommunicationis an industry. It cannot bo termed as a soverign functionof the stage. It is Government undertaking. It works forprofits for all there reasons it clearly meets out the require-ment of industry under section 2(j) of the Act and is anindustry.

20. The Learned Advocate for the management argued thatthis Tribunal in an curlier Reference No, 2/2/6/91 came tothe conclusion on the basis of the Joseph's case that Tele-communication is not an industry judicial discipline wantsthat unless there is verdict from the superior court or thaithere is sufficient evidence on the record for changing thecurlier views the Tribunal should not change its views. Thisproposition is acceptable. Furthermore, if it is found bythe Tribunal that a view taken by it is incorrect. Therein that case it cannot be said that It should commit the samemistake in latter Judgments/Awards. It can very well cor-rect himself as laid down in M a f a t l a l Engineering IndustriesLtd Vs. Mafatlal Engineering Employees Union and Ors.1992 I CLR 418. The Award of this Tribunal was challen-ged in SI P Bombay Telephone canteen employees case. Itwas confirmed,

21. The Learned Advocate for the workman argued thatthe Bangalore Water Works was delivered by a constitutionbench of seven judges. The view expressed in Joseph's caseand later on in Bombay Telephones case is of a smaller benchof the same court. In view of Article 141 of the Cons-titution the decision given in those cases is 'per incurrium.The Tribunal has to ignore it. In Bombay Telephones caseTheir Lordships had considered many of the authoritieswhich were cited before me. The ratio therein cannot besaid to be 'perincurrim'.

22. The Learned Advocate for the workman placed relianceon Union of India and Ors. Vs. Godfrey Philips India Ltd.(1985) 4 S.C. cases 369 and Punjab Land Development andReclamation Corporation Ltd. Chandigarh Vs PresidingOfficer Labour Court Chandigarh (1990) 3 S. C. cases 682.These cases deals with the law that the Principle laid downby larger bench arc to be followed in relation to smallerbunch nobody disputes it.

2?. The Supreme Court considered their views expressedin Joseph's case in Bombay Telephone Canteen EmployeesAssociation, Prabhadevi Telephone Exchange Vs. Union ofIndia and Anr. 1997 IT CLR 21X Their Lordships consideredthe Bangalore Water Works, Hospital Mazdoor Sabha, Cor-poration of City of Nagpur, Rajasihan State Electricity Boardand many other. They also considered the case of PhysicalResearch Laboratory Vs. K. G. Sharma J. T, 1997 (4) S.C.527 and came to the conclusion that departmental canteenof Telephone is not in industry. It is observed that theemployees working in a statutory canteen in view of res-pendertiM admission are holding civil posts and are beingpaid monthly salary and are employees, the necessary con-cision would be that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to ad-iiidicnte a dispute on a reference under section 10(1) ofIndustrial Disputes Act.

24. In the above said authority their Lordships furtherobserved that the employee gets a remedy under the Act byway of reference and remedy of a judicial redresser by wayof proceedings under Article 226 or a petition filed beforethe Administrative Tribunal. They are co-existing. Thecourt would therefore strike a balance between the competingrights of the- individual and the state agency or Instrumenta-lity and decide the validity of the action taken by the man-agement. Necessarily if the service conditions stand attrac-

ted all the conditions laid there in would become applicableto the employees with a fixity of tenure and guarantee ofservice subject to disciplinary action. His removal shouldbe in accordance with the just and fair procedure envisagedunder the rules or application of the Principles of NaturalJustice as the case may be in which event the security ofthe tenure of the employees is assured and the whim andthe fancy vagory of the employer would be dettered and ifunfair and unjust action is found established it would bodeclared as an arbitrary, unjust or unfair procedure. On theother hand if the finding is that there exists no statutory ruleor certified standing order exists or they are not either madein applicable. The remedy of the reference under section 10of the Act would always be available and avail of as it ifan industry and indicia lead in Bangalore Water SupplyBoard case gets attracted,

25. In Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi and Ors. Vs. State ofBihar and Ors. 1997 S. C. castes (L&S) 1979 Their Lordshipsobserved every department of Government cannot be treatedto be an industry. When the appointments are regulated bythe statutory rules the concept of industry to that extentstands excluded. In that case the petitioners were not ap-pointed to the posts in accordance with the rules butwere engaged on the basis of need of the work. They aretemporary employee working on daily wage;:. They are dis-engagement from service, cannot be construed to be a retren-chment under the Industrial Disputes Act. The concept ofretrenchment therefore cannot he stretched to such an extentas to cover these employees since they are only daily wageemployees and have no right to the post, their disengagementis not arbitrary. Relying on the ratio given in this authorityit is tried to submit that the workman who is a casual labou-rer have no right for the employment. The other tacts aredifferent than the facts before me,

26. The ratio laid down from the above said authoritiesis that if the employees hold a civil post) and are being paidmonthly salary and are employees the necessary conclusionwould be that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to adjudicatethe dispute on a reference under section 10(1) of the Act.

27. From the testimony of Lalshand Pandit (Ex-11) theworkman and Vasudev (Ex-14) the Assistant Engineer Mic-rowave Thane it reveals that the payment of wages to Panditwas on a daily rate monthly basis. There is no pay scalefixed to him. His recruitment was not as per the prescribednorms. In other words he is not holding a civil post. It istherefore the Tribunal had jurisdiction to decide the refe-rence,

28. Lalchand affirms that he continuously nerved between1-10-84 to 11-8-89. He accepts the position that when therewas no work he was not given work. He relied upon thecertificate (Ex-4/9) given by Vasudev. It states that he wasin continuous service from 26-4-84 to 11-8-89. It is a photocopy. After seeing the original which was shown to Vasudev(Ex-14) the Assistant Engineer he categorically states thatthe word 'not' which was written by him on the endorsementis torn off and in the zerox copy the place appears to beblank. That clearly goes to show that the certificates onwhich the worker wants to rely upon is not correct one. Ifreally that certificate would have issued by Vasudevan no-body prevented him from giving him details of his workingdates. I therefore find that in the certificate the word notmust be there and as per the case of the management Panditwas employed between that period whenever the work wasavailable. Vasudev accepts the position that between 1-1-89to 11-8-89 Pandit worked for 176 days as shown on page 32of the documents produced on the record.

29. Vasudev affirmed that Pandit left the earlier job be-cause he cot an employment at Railways., It was orallyinformed to him in somewhere in July '19K6. Exhibit-19 isa letter written by Pandit to the management informingthat as he got job in railways he left the earlier job andnow he may be re-cmployed. No doubt in this letter thereis no reference of his employment With the present employerbetween 1-1-89 to 11-8-89. On this it is tried to be arguedon behalf of tho worker that Pandit had affirmed to the effectthat using undue influence on him this letter was procuredby the management . If really that would have been soimmediately he would have raised an objection before thecompetent authorities viz. the supervisors of the Vasudevanor with the union but he had not done so. I am not in-


clined to accept that this letter was got written by the emp-loycr using undue influence. Further more the conduct ofproducing the certificate (Ex-4/9) by tearing the word 'not'clearly speaks that Pandit is not reliable.

30. Pande (Exhibit-15) affirmed that he had liven thecomplaint Exhibit-21 dated 1 l-8-89 to his superiors alleegingmisconduct of the workman. Such complaint was also givenby one Diwale on the same date (Exhibit-23). These comp-laints were admitted by the workman. That shows that theworkman threatened these other employees and misbehavedin the premises,

3J. For the above said reasons it can be seen that Panditdid not complete 240 days in a year. Naturally he cannotbe said to be in continuous service contemplated under flection25(B) of the Act. It is therefore the management was rightin not giving him any legal notice or compensation beforeterminating his serevice. I therefore record my findings onthe issues accordingly and pass the following order :

ORDER

The action of the management of Microwave Mainten-ance Department of Telecom, Microwave Building,Kopri. Thane in terminating the services of ShriLalchand Kachru Pandit is legal and justified

S. B. PANSE, Presiding Officer


SO. 2970.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In-dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the CentralGovernment hereby publishes the Award of theCentral Government Industrial Tribunal, No. 2,Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the industrialdispute between the employers in relation to themanagement of General Manager Telecom, Kalyanand their workman, which was received by theCentral Government on the 28-10-1997.

[No. L-400l2/31/95-IR(DU>]K. V. B. UNNY, Desk, Officer,

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT IN-DUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. II MUMBAI

PRESENT:

Shri S. B. Panse, Presiding Officer.

REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/24 of 1996

Employers in relation to the management of Telecom

AND

Their Workmen

APPEARANCE :

For the Employer ; Mr. B. M. Masurkar, Advo-cate.

For the Workkmcn : Mr. M.B. Anchan Advo-cate.

Mumbai, dated 22nd September, 1997

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour byits Order No. L-40012/31/95-IR(DU), dated 30thApril, 1996 had referred to the following IndustrialDispute for adjudication.

"Whether the action of the management of Gene-ral Manager, Telecom Kalyan in not re-employing Shri U. M. Ghurade who hasworked for more than 240 days in aperiod of 12 months is legal and justified ?If not, to what relief the concerned work-man is entitled to ?"

2. M. Ghurade, the workman pleaded that he wasengaged as a casual labourer by the Sub-DivisionalOfficer Kalyan, Telecom and was working at M.I.D.O.Telephone Exchange, Dombivili since 1-10*1985. Hecontinuously worked till 31-7-1987. The total work-ing days were 669. It is asserted that on 1-8-87 hewas not given work end his services were terminated.

3. The workman pleaded that in May 1988 heworked at Murbad under Kalyan Telecom Division.Thereafter he worked for six month that is from1-5-1989 to 30-10-1989 under D.E.T. Microwave,Akola Division. He was not given any work by anydivision thereafter.

4. The worker pleaded that he continuously work-ed for more than 240 days in a year preceding histermination at Kalyan Division. It is averred thatwhile terminating he was not served with any noticenor given any retrenchment compensation. Heapproached the officers of Kalyan Division for gettingthe job. He was told that other casual labourer wasemployed in view of the orders of the Commissioner,the worker also should approach the court for gettingthe orders. The worker prayed that he may be re-instated in service with full back wages and continuiyin service.

5. The management resisted the claim by their writ-ten statement at Exhibit-5. It is averred that theTribunal has no jurisdiction to decide it. It is sub-mitted that the worker himself did not report to theduty from 1-8-87. His whereabouts were not known.They came to know regarding him only after he raisedthe dispute on 21-1-1994. It is submitted that theworker left the job at his own and joined at Akolawhich is in his native place. It is averred thatthere is no question of compliance of provisions ofretrenchment as the worker himself abandoned thework w.e,f. 1-1-87. It is averred that there is no

5/23

retrenchment of the worker within the definition ofthe terms as defined in the section 2(oo) of the In-dustrial Disputes Act, It is submitted that undersuch circumstances the reference may be answeredaccordingly.

6. The issues that fall for my consideration and.my findings thereon are as follows :

Issues Findings

J. Whether the Tribunal has jurisdictionto decide the reference under theIndustrial Disputes Act ? Yes.

2 Whether the action of the managementof General Manager, Telecom,Kalyan, in not reemploying Ghuradewho worked more than 240 days ina period of 12 months is legal andjustified ? Legal and Justified.

3. If not, tn what relief the workman isentitled to ? Does not survive.

REASONS

7. The issue of jurisdiction has to be seen by theTribunal. It is not necessary that the adverse party-should raise the issue then only the Tribunal can em-bark upon it. It is general contention that in viewof the case, Sub-Divisional Inspector of Posts Vs.Theyyam Joseph 1996 II Supreme 487, the telecom-munication is not an industry and this Tribunal hasno jurisdiction to decide the matter.

8. In Joseph's case Their Lordships observed'India is a soverign, socialist, secular, democratic re-public has to establish an egalitarian social orderunder the rule of law. The welfare measures pertainthe character of soverign functions and the traditionalduty to maintain law and order is no longer the con-cept of the state. Directive principles of state policyenjoin the state diverse duties under IV of the consti-tution and performances of the duties are constitution-al functions. One of the duties is of the state, toprovide telecommunication service to the generalpublic as an amenity and so is the essential part ofsovereign functions of the state, as a welfare state, itis not therefore an industry.'

9. The Learned Advocate for the workman placedreliance on various authorities and tried to submit thatMahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited is an industry.According to him in State of Bombay and Ors. Vs.Hospital Mazdoor Sabha and Ors, 1960 I LLJ 251it is observed, it is the character of the activity whichdecider the question as to whether the activity inquestion attracts the provisions of 2(i) of the Act, Itis further observed who conducts the activity andwhether it is conducted for profit or do not make amaterial difference, Their Lordships also referredto Schedule I to the Act which innummerated Indust-ries which may be declared as a public utility serviceunder section 2(N) of the Act.

10. In Corporation City Nagpur and its employees1960 I LLJ 523 Their Lordships considered the scopeof the definition industry. It is observed that how-ever wide the definition of industry might be it couldnot include the legal or sovereign function of the stateviz. the primary and inalienable functions of a Consti-tutional Government which should be confined to ad-ministration of justice, maintenance of law and otherlegislative functions.

11: In the management of Safdarjung Hospital andKuldeco Singh Sethi 1970 II LLJ 226, Their Lord-ships while considering whether Hospital run by Gov-ernment or a local authority or by charitable institu-tions not as a economic activity as an industry heldthat they are not governed by the definition of Industryin section 2(j) of the Act. In paragraph 14 and 15Their Lordships discussed the point regarding mate-rial services. It is observed that material services arenot services which depend wholly or largely upon thecontribution of professional knowledge, skill or dexte-rity for the production of the result. Such a servicegiven individually by individual are service no doubtbut not material services, These services in-volve inactivity carried on through coopera-tion between employers and employees to providea community with a use of something such aselectric power, water, transportation, mail deliverytelephones and the like.

12. Then comes the Bangalore Water Supply andSewerage Board etc. and A. Rajappa & Ors. 1978 ILLJ 349, The Constitutional Bench of seven Judgesdiscussed various aspects namely what is industry andlaid down different tests for coming to conclusionwhere a particular activity is an industry or not. TheLearned Advocate for the workman more particularlyplaced reliance on paragraph 4-6 and 47 of the Judg-ment. He also referred to paragraph 131 of the Judg-ment. It is observed therein that what is the domi-nant nature test. It is stated that soverign functionsstrictly understood alone qualified for exception notthe welfare activities or economic adventures under-taken by Government as statutory bodies.

13. In Dahir Gram Panchayat and Shri BrahadSaurashtra Safai Kamear Mandal Raikot 1971 I LLJ508, wherein it is held that the conservancy and thesanitary activity carried on by panchayat would becovered by the definition of the word industry. Suchactivity being material service and a public utilityservice. The workers are the workman as defined Insection 2(j) of the Act.

14. In another case between Umanyamn and Stateof Kerala 1983 I LLJ 267 Their Lordships have givena test for determining which establishments in anindustry are an industry or not. The Reference wasregarding clerk, typists, Khalasis. While deciding itTheir Lordships observed sovereign functions strictlyunderstood alone qualify for exemptions not the otheractivities or economic adventure taken by Govern-ment or Statutory bodies. In another case BiioyKumar Bharathi & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar I LLJ 214Their Lordships observed that the mere fact that there.is a service code does not amount to necessary' imbli-cation to the exclusion of the provision of the Indus-

2883 GI/97—17

5724 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 1997/AGRAHAYANA 1,1919 [PART I I - S E C . 3(ii)l

trial Disputes Act to Government department. If therewere rules, for instance specially dealing with themanner in which temporary appointment could beterminated it could legitimately be argued that section25F is excluded. For them the rules framed underthe Constitutional provisions would have precedenceover the Act. It is not possible to acccept the con-tention that the previsions of the Act do not applyto Government servants.

15. In Union of India Vs. Presiding Officer Vs.Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Jabalpur,FGR 1994 page 23! Their Lordships observed that theCentral Ordinance department is a severable unit ofthe defence dpartment of the Central Governmentand carried on systematic activity with the coopera-tion of the employees and the employees and is anindustry as defined in section 2(j) of the IndustrialDisputes Act of 1947.

16. In Writ Petition Nos. 1584 of 1981, 8721 of1981 and 3122 of 1981 the Nagpur Bench of theHigh Court' of Bombay held that telegraph departmentis; an industry under section 2(j) of the Industrial Dis-putes Act. In K.R.P. Kaimal and Anr. and Directorof Postal services, Trivandrum 1979 I LLJ 176 it isobserved by Their Lordships public utility serviceslike the postal services comes under industry, suchactivity cannot be called as a soverign functions solelybecause rules framed under article 309 and 310governs such an employee. In another case betweenBhaskaran and Sub-Divisional Officer 1982 II LLJ248 it is observed that post and telegraph and Tele-phone services are Darned public utility services underthe Act. They are industries to which the provisionsof section 10, 12a and 22 of the Act directly apply.

17. In Delhi Science Forum Vs. The Union ofIndia (1996) 2 Supreme Court case 405 wherein TheirLordships considered section 4 of the Telegraphic-Act, 1885 which speaks of granting of a licence tonon-government companies. That right flows fromthe sub-section 1 of section 4 which vests that privi-lege and right in the Central Government.

18. On the basis of the principles laid down in tiheabove said authorities it is tried to argue that Tele-communication is an industry. It cannot be termedas a soverign function of state. It is Governmentundertaking. It works for profits for all these reasonsit clearly meets out the requirement of an industryunder section 2(j) of the Act and is an industry.

19. The Learned Advocate for the managementargued that this Tribunal in an earlier Reference No.2/26/91 came to the conclusion on the basis of theJoseph's case that Telecommunication is not anindustry judicial discipline wants that unless there isverdict from the superior court or that there is suffi-cient evidence on the record for changing the earlierviews the Tribunal should not change its views. Thisproposition is acceptable. Further more, if it isfound by the Tribunal that a view taken by it is in-correct. There in that case it cannot be said that itshould commit the same mistake in latter Judgments/Awards. It can very well correct himself as laid downin Mafatlal Engineering Industrial Limited Vs.

Mafathlal Engineering Employees Union and Ors. 1992I CLR 418. The Award of this Tribunal waschallenged in SLP Bombay Telephone Canteen emp-loyees case. It was confirmed.

20. The Learned Advocate for the workman arguedthai the Bangalore water works was deliveredby a Constitution Bench of Seven Judges. The view*expressed in Joseph's case and later on in BombayTelephones case is of a smaller bench of the samecourt. In view of Article 141 of the Constitution thedecision given in those cases is per incurrium. TheTribunal has to ignore it. In Bombay Telephonescase Their Lordships had considered many of theauthorities which were cited before me. The ratiotherein cannot be said to be 'per incurrium'.

21. The Learned Advocate for the workman placedreliance on Union of India and Ors. Vs. GodfreyPhilips India Ltd. (1985) 4 S.C. cases 369 and PunjabLand Development and Re-clamation CorporationLtd. Chandigarh (1990) 3 S.C. 682. These casesdeals with law that, the principles laid down by largerbench are to be followed in relation to smaller bench,nobody disputes it.

22. The Supreme Court considered their viewsexpressed in Joseph's case in Bombay TelephoneCanteen Employees Association, Prabhadevi Tele-phone Exchange Vs. Union of India and Anr 1997IT CLR 218 Their Lordships considered the Banga-lore Water Works, Hospital Mazdoor Sabha, Corpo-ration of City of Nagpur, Rajasthan State ElectricityBoard and many other. They also considered thecase of Physical Research Laboratory Vs. K. G.Sharma J. 'T. 1997 (4) S.C. 527 and came to theconclusion that departmental canteen of Telephone isnot an industry. It is observed that the employeesworking in statutory canteen in view of respondentsadmission are holding civil posts and are being paidmonthly salary and are employees, the necessaryconclusion would be that the Tribunal has no juris-diction to adjudicate the dispute on a reference undersection 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

23, In the above said authority their Lord shipsfurther observed that the employee gets a remedyunder the Act by way of reference and remedy of ajudicial redresser by way of proceedings under Article226 or a petition filed before the AdministrativeTribunal. They are co-existing. The court wouldtherefore strike a balance between the competingrights of the individual and the state agency or instru-mentelity and decide the validity of the action takenby the management. Necessarily if the strvice condi-tions stand attracted all the conditions laid thereinwould become applicable to the employees with afixity of tenure and guarantee of service subject todisciplinary action. His removal should be in accor-dance with the just and fair procedure envisaged underthe rules or application of the Principles of NaturalJustice as the case may be in which event the securityof the tenure of the employees is assured and thewhim and the fancy vagory of the employer wouldbe dettered and if unfair and unjust action is foundestablished it would be declared as an arbitrary, unjust

5725

or unfair procedure. On the other hand if the findingis that there exists no statutory rule or certified stand-ing order exists or they arc not either made in appli-cable. The remedy of the reference under section 10of the Act would always be available and avail ofas it is an industry and indicia lead in BangaloreWater supply Board case gets attracted.

24. In Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi and Ors. Vs.State of Bihar and Ors. 1997 S.C. Cases (L & S) 1079Their Lordships observed every department of Gov-ernment cannot be treated to be an industry. Whenthe appointments are regulated by the statutory rulesthe concept of industry or that extent stand excluded.In that case the petitioners were not appointed to theposts in accordance with the rules but were engegedon the basis of need of the work, They are temporaryemployees working on daily wages. They are dis-ongdgotnent from service, cannot be construed to bea retrenchment under the Industrial Disputes Act.The concept of retrenchment therefore, cannot bestretched to such an extent as to cover these employeessince they are only daily wage employees and haveno right to the posts, their disengagement is notarbitrary. Relying on the ratio given in this authorityit is tried to submit that the workman who is a casuallabourer have no right for the employment. The otherfacts arc different than the lacts before me.

25. The ratio laid down from ;.he above said autho-rities is that if the employees hold a civil posts andbeing paid monthly salary and are employees, thenecessary conclusion would be that the Tribunal hasno jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute on a refe-rence under section 10(1) of the Act.

26. It can be seen from the testimony of UmeshGunde (Exhibit-8) the workman, V.N. Tupe (Ex-10)the sub-divisional engineer legal that there is no payscale fixed to the employee. He was not employedafter following due procedure. It can be further seenthat there are no specific rules and regulations gov-erning his employment. In other words he does nothold "any civil posts. In the result the Tribunal hadjurisdiction to decide the reference-

27. It is not in dispute that Ghurade was workingcontinuously without any break from 1-10-1985 to31-7-1987 with sub-divisional office telecommunica-tion, Kalyan (Ex-7/1). The total days comes to669. Ghurade affirms that thereafter he worked withat Murbad and Kalyan division in 1988 but he hadnot given its details, not produced any record to thateffect. He further, affirmed that he served with D.E.T.Microwave Akola Division between 1-8-1989 to30-10-1989. According to him in view of theschemes issued by the department he is entitled to getthe job of the management. Tupe: (Ex-10) affirmedthat the worker himself left the job and did not reporton duty from 1-8-1987. But later on joined at Akolawhich 'is his home twon. So far as the home townis concerned it is not in dispute. Thereafter, it appearsto me that he must have gone on his own accord tohis native place and got the employment. He musthave though it fit to do the job at the native placeto avoid other expenses. But when he could not getfurther employment there he thought it fit to ask for

the employment with the earlier employer. It is perti-nent to note that this he did after seven years. Primefacie it suffers from latches. No explanation has comeon the record why such a delay raising the disputeby him. Logically the answer is that he was alreadyemployer at Akola and therefore did not find it fitto do so.

28. Tupe affirmed that there was a cut off date forengaging a casual labourers who worked more than240 days earlier. The cut off date was 15-3-1990The case tried to be made out by the workman isthat he was not aware of the cut off date. It is rightlyargued on behalf of the management that there is nosubstance in it. Because he was working in thedepartment at Akola therefore, he is bound to knowthat is taking place in the department. The same situa-tion is every where. So far as the workman in thedepartment is concerned he did not approach themanagement with a request that he should be re-cmployed. Under such circumstances I find that asthe worker had left the job himself the managementcannot be held to be responsible for any actions.

29. Ghurade affirmed that he may be reinstated inservice and he is ready to forego all his dues. In viewof the above said discussion he is not entitled to re-instatement in service. Naturally not entitled forback wages. But, looking to the service he renederedwith the department the management may considersympathetically his request for re-emplovment Forthe above said reasons I record my findings on theissues accordingly and pass the following order :

ORDER

The action of the management of GeneralManager Telecom, Kalyan in not re-employ-ing Shri U. M. Ghurade who was workedfor more than 240 days in a period of 12months is legal and justified .


New Delhi, the 28th October- 1997

S.O. 2971.—In pursuance of Section 17 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of1947), the Central Government hereby pub-

5776 T H E G A Z E T T E O F I N D I A : N O V E M B E R 2 2 . 1 9 9 7 / A G R A H A Y A N A 1,1919 [ P A R T I I — S E C . 3(ii)]

lishes the Award of the Central GovernmentIndustrial Tribunal, No. 2, Mumbai as shownin the Annexure, in the industrial dispute bet-ween the employers in relation to the manage-ment of Maharashtra Telecom Circle, D|oTelecom, Mumbai and their workman, whichwas received by the Central Government onthe 28-104997.

[No. L-40012|33/95-IR(DU) IK. V. B. UNNY, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENTINDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

NO. 11, MUMBAI

PRESENT : SHRI S. B. PANEPresiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. CGTT-2i7 OF 1996Employers in Relation to the Management of

Telecom

AND

Their workmen

APPEARANCES :For the Employer : Mr. P. M. Pradhan

Advocate.

For the Workmen : Mr. N. Y. LokhandcAdvocate.

Mumbai, dated 22nd September, 1997.

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Lab-our by its Order No. L-40012/33/95-IR(DU),dated 27/29-12-1995 had referred to the fol-lowing Industrial Dispute for adjudication.

"Whether the action of the managementof Maharashtra Telecom Circle, D/oTelecommunication, Bombay-1 interminating the service of ShriPravin R. Pardesi w.e.f. February,1989 is justified? If not, to what re-lief the workman is entitled?"

2. Pravin R. Pradesi pleaded that he wasemployed by the Deputy General Manager,Maharashtra Telecom Service Mumbai as acasual labourer under T.O.T. Bassin on 1stMarch, 1997. He continued to work till 28th

February, 1989. It is asserted that break wasgiven only when there was no work and inthat period he continuously worked for 4 to7 days. It is submitted that 28th February,1989 his services was terminated without fol-lowing the provisions of Industrial DisputesAct. He was not given notice or legal compen-sation. He therefore prayed that he may be re-instated in service in continuity alongwith backwages and consequential benefits.

3. The management resisted the claim bytheir written statement Exhibit-4. It is averredthat the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decidereference as he was not workman within thedefinition of workman under Industrial Dis-putes Act.

4. The management asserted that the wor-ker was appointed as a casual labourer bySub-Divisional Officer, Telegraph Bassin. Itis denied that he was employed only when thework was available and on any project thatwas undertaken. It is submitted that undersuch circumstances there is no question of ap-plicability of the provisions of Industrial Dis-putes Act of 1947. It is asserted that the wor-ker never completed 240 days in a year. Un-der such circumstances it is prayed thatthe reference may be answered in favour ofthe management.

5. The worker filed rejoinder at Exhibit-6.It is pleaded that the worker had completed240 days in a year as contemplated under sec-tion 25 B of the Act. It reiterated the conten-tion taken in the statement of claim.

6. The issues are framed at Exhibit. Theissues and my findings there on arc as fol-lows :—

Issues Findings

1. Whether the Tribunal has Yes.jurisdiction to entertain anddecide the reference?

2. Whether the action of the Yes.management of MahanagarTelephone Nigam Limitedin terminating the servies ofShri Pravin R. Pardesi isjustified?

3. If not, what relief the Does notworkman is entitled to7 survive

5727

REASONS

7. The issue of jurisdiction has to be seenby the Tribunal. It is not necessary that theadverse party should raise the; issue then onlythe Tribunal can embark upon it. It is gene-ral contention that in view of the case, Sub-Divisional Inspector of Posts Vs. TheyyamJospeh 1996 II Supreme 487, the telecommu-nication is not an industry and this Tribunalhas no jurisdiction to decide the matter.

8. In Joseph's case Their Landlordships ob-served India is sovereign socialist secular,democratic republic has to establish an egali-tarian social order under the rule of law. Thewelfare measures pertain the character ofsovereign functions and the traditional duty tomaintain law and order is no longer the con-cept of the state. Directive principles of statepolicy enjoin the state diverse duties underIV of the constitution and performances of theduties are constitutional functions. One ofthe duties is of the state, to provide telecom-munication service to the general public as anamenity and so is the essetal part of sovereignfunctions of the state as a welfare state, it isnot therefore an industry'.

9. The Learned advocate for the workmanplaced reliance on various authorities andtried to submit that Mahanagar TelephoneNigam Limited is an industry. According tohim in State of Bombay and Ors. Vs. Hospi-tal Mazdoor Sabha and Ors. 1960 I LLJ 251it is observed, it is the character of the activitywhich decides the question as to whether theactivity in question attracts the provisions of2(j) of the Act. It is further observed who

conducts the activity and whether it is con-ducted for profit or do not make a materialdifference. Their Lordships also referred toSchedule I to the Act which innumeratcd In-dustries which may be declared as a publicutility service under section 2(N) of theAct.

10. In Corporation City Nagpur and itsemployees 1960 I LLJ 523 Their Lordshipsconsidered the scope of the definition indus-try. It is observed that however wide the defi-nition of industry might be it could not in-clude the legal or soverign function as thestate viz. the primary and inalienable func-tions of a constitutional government which

should be confined to administration of jus-tice, maintenance of law and other legislativefunctions.

11. In the management of SafdurjungHospital and Kuldeep Singh Sethi 1970 IILLJ 266, Their Lordships while consideringwhether Hospital run by Government or alocal authority or by charitable institutionsnot as a economic activity as an industry heldthat they are not governed by the definitionof Industry in Section 2(j) of the Act. Inparagraph 14 and 15. Their Lordships discus-sed the point regarding material services. It isobserved that material services are not servi-ces which depend wholly or largely upon thecontribution of professional knowledge andskill or dexterity for the production of theresult. Such a service given individually byindividual are service no doubt but not mate-rial services. These services involve inactivitycarried on through cooperation between em-ployers and employees to provide a commu-nity with a use of something such as electricpower, water, transportation mail delivery tele-phones and the like.

12. Then comes the Bangalore WaterSupply and Sewerage Board etc. and A. Rai-appa & Ors. 1978 I LLJ 349. The Constitu-tional Bench of seven judges discussed variousaspects namely what is industry and laid downdifferent tests for coming to conclusion wherea particular activity is an industry or not. TheLearned Advocate for the workman moreparticularly placed reliance on paragraph 46and 47 of the Judgement. He also referred toparagraph 131 of the Judgement. It is observ-ed therein that what is dominant nature test.It is stated that soverign functions strictly un-derstood alone qualified for exception not thewelfare activities or economic adventures un-dertaken by Government as statutory bodies.

13. In Dahir Gram Panchayat and ShriBrahad Saurashtra Safai Kamgar MandalRajkot 1971 I LLJ 508, wherein it is held thatthe conservancy and the senitary activity car-ried on by panchayat would be covered by thedefinition of the word industry. Such activitybeing material service and a public utilityservice the workers are the workman as defin-ed in section 2(j) of the Act.

14. In another case between Umanyamnand State of Kerala 1983 T LLJ 267 TheirLordships have given a test for determiningwhich establishments in an industry are an

2883' GI/97—18

57 8 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22,1997/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1919 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

industry or not. The reference was regardingclerk, typists, khtialsi. While deciding it TheirLordships observed sovereign functions strict-ly understood alone qualify for exemptionsnot the other activities or economic adventuretaken by Government or statutory bodies. Inanother case Bijoy Kumar Bharathi & Ors.Vs. State of Bihar I LLJ 214 Their Lordshipsobserved that the mere fact that there is aservice code does not amount to necessaryimplication to the exclusion of the provisionof the Industrial Disputes Act to GovernmentDepartment. If there was rules, for instancespecially dealing with the manner in whichtemporary appointment could be terminatedit could legitimately be argued that section25 F is excluded. For them the rules framedunder the Constitutional provisions wouldhave precedence over the Act. It is not possi-ble to accept the contention that the provi-sions of the Act do not apply to Governmentservants.

15. In Union of India Vs. Presiding Offi-cer Vs. Central Government Industrial Tribu-nal, Jabalpur, FGR 1994 page 231 TheirLordships observed that the Central OrdinanceDepartment is a severable unit of the defencedepartment of the Central Government andcarried on systematic activity with the Coope-ration of the employers and the employees andis an industry as defined in section 2(j) ofthe Industrial Disputes Act of 1947.

16. In writ petition Nos. 1584 of 1981.8721 of 1981 and 3122 of 1981 the NagpurBench of the High Court of Bombay held that)telegraph department is an industry under sec-tion 2(i) of the Industrial Disputes Act. InK.R.P. Kaimal and Anr. and Director ofPostal Services. Trivandrum 1979 I LLJ 176it is observed by Their Lordships public uti-lity services like the postal services comesunder Industry, such activity cannot be calledas a sovereign functions solely because rulesframed under articles 309 and 310 governssuch an employee. In another case betweenBhaskaran and Sub-Divisional Officer 1982 IILLJ 248 it is observed that post and telegraphand Telephone services are named public uti-lity services under the Act. They are industriesto which the provisions of section 10, 12 and22 of the Act directly apply.

17. In Delhi Science Forum Vs. The Unionof India (1996) 2 Supreme Court cases 405

wherein Their Lordships considered section 4of the Telegraphic Act 1885 which speaks ofgranting of a licence to non-government com-panies. That right flows from the sub-section1 of section 4 which vests that privilege andright in the Central Government.

18. On the basis of the principles laid downin the abovesaid authorities it is tried to arguethat Telecommunication is an industry. Itcannot be termed as a sovereign function ofstate. It is Government undertaking. It worksfor profits for all these reasons it clearly meetsout the requirement of an industry under sec-tion 2(j) of the Act and is an industry.

19. The Learned Advocate for the manage-ment argued that this Tribunal in an earlierReference No. 2|26|91 came to the conclusionon the basis of the Joseph's case that Tele-communication is not an industry judicial dis-cipline wants that unless there is verdict fromthe superior court or that there is sufficientevidence on the record for changing the ear-lier views the Tribunal should not changeits view. This proposition is acceptable. Fur-ther more, if it is found by the Tribunal thata view taken by it is incorrect. There in thatcase it cannot be said that it should committhe same mistake in latter judgements / Awards.It can very well correct himself as laid downin Mafatlal Engineering Industrial Limited Vs.Mafatlal Employees Union and Ors. 1992 ICLR 418. The Award of this Tribunalwas challenged in SLP Bombay Telephonecanteen employees case. It was confirmed.

20. The Learned Advocate for the work-man argued that the Bangalore Water Workswas delivered by a Constitution Bench of sevenjudges. The view expressed in Joseph's caseand later on in Bombay Telephones case is ofa smaller bench of the same court. In view ofArticle 141 of the Constitution the decisiongiven in these cases is per incurrium. The Tri-bunal has to ignore it. In Bombay Telephonescase Their Lordships had considered many ofthe authorities which were cited before me.The ratio therein cannot be said to be 'perincurrium'.

21. The Learned Advocate for the work-man placed reliance on Union of India andOrs. Vs. Godfrey Philips India Ltd. (1985) 4S. C. cases 369 and Punjab Land Develop-ment and Reclamation Corporation Ltd.Chandigarh (1990) 3 S. C. 682. These casesdeals with law that the principles laid down

57^9

by larger bench are to be followed in relationto the smaller bench, nobody disputes it.

22. The Supreme Court considered theirviews expressed in Joseph's case in BombayTelephone Canteen Employees Association,Prabhadevi Telephone Exchange Vs. Unionof India and Anr. 1997 II CLR 218 TheirLordships considered the Bangalore WaterWorks Hospital Mazdoor Sabha, Corporationof City of Nagpur Rajasthan State ElectricityBoard and many other. They also consideredthe case of Physical Research Laboratory Vs.K. G. Sharma J. T. 1997 (4) S.C. 527 andcame to the conclusion that departmental can-teen of Telephone is not an industry. It isobserved that the employees! working in statu-tory canteen in view of respondents admissionare holding civil posts and are being paidmonthly salary and are employees, the neces-sary conclusion would be that the Tribunalhas no jurisdiction to adjudicate the disputeon a reference under section 10(1) of theIndustrial Disputes Act.

23. In the above said authority their Lord-ships further observed that the employee getsa remedy under the Act by way of referenceand remedy of a judicial redresser by way ofproceedings under Article 226 of a petitionfiled before the Administrative Tribunal. Theyare co-existing. The court would thereforestike a balance between the competing rightsof the individual and the state agency or in-strumentality and decide the validity of theaction taken by the management. Necessari-ly if the service conditions stand attractedall the conditions laid therein would becomeapplicable to the employees with a fixity oftenure and guarantee of service subject todisciplinary action. His removal should be inaccordance with the just and fair procedureenvisaged under the rules of application ofthe Principles of Natural Justice as the casemay be in which event the security of the ten-ure of the employees is assured and the whimand the fancy vagory of the employer wouldbe dettered and if unfair and unjust action isfound established it would be declared as anarbitrary, unjust or unfair procedure. On theother hand if the finding is that there exits nostatutory rule or certified standing order existsor they are not either made in applicable.The remedy of the reference under section 10of the Act would always be available and

avail of as it is an industry and indicia leadin Bangalore Water Supply Board case getsattracted.

24. In Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi andOrs. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors. 1997 S.C.cases (L&S) 1079 Their Lordships observedevery department of Government cannot betreated to be an industry. When the appoint-ments are regulated by the statutory rules theconcept of industry to that extent stand exclud-ed. In that case the petitioners were notappointed to the posts in accordance with therules but were engaged on the basis of needof the work. They are temporary employeesworking on daily wages. They are disengage-ment from service, cannot be construed to bea retrenchment under the Industrial DisputesAct. The concept of retrenchment th;reforecannot be stretched to such an extent as tocover these employees since they are onlydaily wage employees and have no right to theposts, their disengagement is not arbitrary.Relying on the ratio given in this authority itis tried to submit that the workman who is acasual labourer have no right for the employ-ment. The other facts are different than thefacts before me.

25. The ratio laid down from the above-said authorities is that if the employees holda civil posts and are being paid monthly salaryand are employees, the necessary conclusionwould be that the Tribunal has no jurisdictionto adjudicate the dispute on a reference undersection 10(1) of the Act.

26. From the testimony of Pardesi it doesnot reveal that he is in a particular pay scaleIt cannot be also seen that his service condi-tions are governed by any rules or certifiedstanding orders. Under such circumstances hecannot be said to be holding a civil post. Inview of the ratios given in the abovesaidauthorities I find that the Tribunal has juris-diction decide the reference.

27. Pravin Paredesi (Exhibit-9) the wor-ker affirmed that he worked as a casual lab-ourer between 1-3-87 to 28-2-89. He admitsthat in that period break was given for wantof work. He produced a certificate Exhibit-'A*given by the Telecom District EngineerBombay Cit. The management did not leadany oral evidence.

5730 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22,1997/AGRAHAYANA 1,1919 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)}

28. Pravin affirmed that when the servicewere terminated he was not given any noticenor retrenchment compensation. It is to beseen whether the management was requiredto follow the provisions of retrenchment underthe Industrial Disputes Act, in this particularcase. From Exhibit-'A' it can be seen that theworker had not completed 240 days in 12months preceding the date of the referenceof which calculations is to be made. Here thedate which is to be taken into considerationis 1-3-1989. Taking last 12 months it can beseen that he worked only for 224 days. Asthis is so he cannot be said to be in continuousservice as defined under section 25 (B) of theAct. It is therefore, the provisions of retrench-ment of the Act are not applicable to the wor-ker. In the result the action of the managementterminating the worker is legal and justified.The issues are answered accordingly.

ORDER

The action of the management of Maha-rashtra Telecom Circle, D|o Tele-communication, Bombay-1 in termi-nating the service of Pravin R. Par-desi w.e.f. February, 1989 is legaland justified.



S.O. 2972.—In pursuance of Section 17 of theIndustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), theCentral Government hereby publishes the Awardof the Central Government Industrial Tribunal,No. 2, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in theindustrial dispute between the employers in relationto the management of T.D.E., Akola (MaharashtraState) and their workman, which was received bythe Central Government on 28-10-1997.

[No. L-40012|98|95-IR(DU)lK. V. B. UNNY, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENTINDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. II, MUMBAI

PRESENT:

Shri S. B. Panse, Presiding Officer.

Reference No. CGIT-2|28 of 1996

Employers in relation to the Management ofTelecom.

AND

Their Workmen.

APPEARANCES:

For the Employer: Mr. P. M. Pradhan,Advocate.

For the Workmen: Mr. S. P. Inamdar,Advocate.

Mumbai, dated 22nd September, 1997

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labourby its Order No. L-40012|98|95-IR(DU), dated30-5-1996, had referred to the following IndustrialDispute for adjudication:

"Whether the action of the management ofTDE Akola (Maharashtra) State in termi-nating the services of Shri TribhuwanSingh Panchdev Singh is legal andjustified ? If not, to what relief the work-man is entitled to ?"

2. Tribhuwan Singh Panchdev Singh the work-man filed a statement of claim at Exhibit-3. Hecontended that he was employed as a casualmazdoor from 1-1-87 and continued to work till10-12-87 on wages of Rs. 780 plus D.A. and usualallowances at Distt. Engineer Telecom, DistrictAkola. His service was illegally terminated. Healongwith other casual mazdoors approachedCentral Administrative Tribunal for redressal. TheTribunal ordered the department to give theappointments.

3. The workman pleaded that as per the orderof the Central Administrative Tribunal he wasappointed on 7-7-93. He worked until 9-12-93.Thereafter he was sick for about seven and a halfmonths. He approached the authorities on 1-8-94alongwith a medical certificate dated 31-7-94. Theauthorities did not consider the correctness of themedical certificate nor gave any ruling thereon andultimately did not allow him to join the duties. Itis submitted that the opposite party No. 2 that isthe Sub-Divisional Engineer Phones pleaded thathe had no authority to consider the request madeby the workman. It is submitted that the approachof the management is not proper. The T.D.E. Akolawas not competent to condone the absence period

5731

exceeding one month but the sub-divisional En-gineer should have done that work. It is pleadedmat the action of the management not allowinghim to join the duties in other words terminatinghis services may be declared as illegal and he maybe reinstated in service with full back wages.

4. The management resisted the claim by theirwritten statement Exhibit-5. It is averred that theTribunal has no jurisdiction to decide the matter.It is pleaded that the workman was engaged atRailway Electrification Telecom Project which doesnot come under Akola Division. But in view oforders passed by Central Administrative Tribunal,he was employed on 7th July, 1993. His nameappeared at seniority list No. 155.

5. The management pleaded that the workmanwas absconding from the duty forgetting that hewas appointed in view of the order of theCentral Administrative Tribunal. He never inform-ed the management regarding his illness and re-maining absent. It is pleaded that the Sub-DivisionalEngineer nor the T.D.E., Akola had any authorityto condone the delay for more than one month.It is therefore incorrect to state that those autho-rities were Competent to condone the delay. It issubmitted that the workman had no case and thereference may be answered accordingly.

6. The workman reiterated the claim made byhim in Rejoinder (Ex-6).

7. The issues are framed at Exhibit-7. The issuesand my findings thereon are as follows :

Issues Findings

1. Whether the Tribune has a Yesjurisdiction to decide thematter ?

2. Whether the action of the Yesmanagement of T.D.E. Akola,Maharashtra in terminatingthe service of TribhuwanSingh Panchdev Singhis legal and justified ?

3. If not, to what relief the Does notworkman is entitled to ? service.

REASONS

8. The issue of jurisdiction has to be seen bythe Tribunal. It is not necessary that the adverseparty should raise the issue then only the Tribunalcan embark upon it. It is general contention thatin view of the case. Sub-Divisional Inspector ofPosts Vs. Theyyam Joseph 1996 II Supreme 487,the telecommunication is not an industry and thisTribunal has no jurisdiction to decide the matter.

9. In Joseph's case Their Lordships observed'India is a sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic

republic has to establish an egalitarian social orderunder the rule of law. The welfare measures per-tain the character of sovereign functions and thetraditional duty to maintain law and order is nolonger the concept of the state. Directive principlesof state policy enjoin the state diverse duties underIV of the constitution and performances of theduties are constitutional functions. One of the dutiesis of the state, to provide telecommunicationservice to the general public as an amenity and sois the essential part of sovereign functions of thestate as a welfare state, it is not therefore anindustry'.

10. The Learned advocate for the workmanplaced reliance on various authorities and tried tosubmit that Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limitedis an industry. According to him in State of Bombayand Ors. Vs. Hospital Mazdoor Sabha and Ors.1960 I LLJ 251 it is observed, it is the characterof the activity which decides the question as towhether the activity in question attracts the pro-visions of 2(j) of the Act. It is further observedwho conducts the activity and whether it is con-ducted for profit or do not make a material diffe-rence. Their Lordships also referred to ScheduleI to the Act which enumerated Industries whichmay be declared as a public utility service undersection 2(N) of the Act.

11. In Corporation City Nagpur and itsemployees 1960 I LLJ 523 Their Lordships con-sidered the scope of the definition industry.. It isobserved that however wide the definition of in-dustry might be it could not include the legal orsovereign function of the state viz. the primary andinalienable functions of a constitutional govern-ment which should be confined to administrationof justice, maintenance of law and other legislativefunctions.

12. In the management of Safdurjung Hospitaland Kuldeep Singh Sethi 1970 II LLJ 266, TheirLordships while considering whether Hospital runby Government or a local authority or by charitableinstitutions not as a economic activity as an industryheld that they are not governed by the definition ofIndustry in section 2(j) of the Act. In paragraph14 and 15, Their Lordships discussed the pointregarding material services. It is observed thatmaterial services are not services which dependwholly or largely upon the contribution of pro-fessional knowledge and skill or dexterity for theproduction of the result. Such a service givenindividually by individual are service no doubt butnot material services. These services involve in-activity carried on through cooperation betweenemployers and employees to provide a communitywith a use of something such as electric power,water, transportation, mail delivery telephones andthe like.


13. Then comes the Bangalore Water Supplyand Sev erage Board etc. and A. Rajappa & Ors.1978 I LLJ 348 The Constitutional Bench of sevenjudges discussed various aspects namely what isindustry and laid down different tests for comingto conclusion where a particular activity is anindustry or not. The Learned Advocate for theworkman more particularly placed reliance onpara-46 and 47 of the Judgment. He also referredto paragraph 131 of the Judgment. It is observedtherein that what is dominant nature test. It is statedthat soverign functions strictly understood alonequalified for exception not the welfare activities oreconomic adventures under taken by Governmentas statutory bodies.

14. In Dahir Gram Panchayat and Shri BrahadSaurashtra Safai Kamngar Mandal Rajkot 1971I LLJ 508, wherein it is held that the conservancyand the sanitary activity carried on by Panchayatwould be covered by the defintion of the wordindustry. Such activity being material service anda public utility service the workers are the work-men as denned in section 2(j) of the Act.

15. In another case between Umayamn andState of Kerala 1983 I LLJ 267 Their Lordshipshave given a test for determining which establish-ments in an industry are an industry or not. Thereference was regarding clerk, typists, Khalasis.While deciding it Their Lordships observedsoverign functions strictly understood alone qualifyfor exemptions not the other activities or economicadventure taken by Government or statutory bodies.In another case Bijoy Kumar Bharathi & Ors. Vs.State of Bihar I LLJ 214 Their Lordships observedthat the mere fact that there is a service code docsnot amount to necessary implication to the exclu-sion of the provision of the Industrial Disptues Actto Government Department. If there was rules, forinstance specifically dealing with the manner inwhich temporary appointment could be terminatedit could legitimately be argued that section 25Fis excluded. For them the rules framed under theconstitutional provisions would have precedenceover the Act. It is not possible to accept the con-tention that the provisions of the Act do not applyto Government servants.

16. The Union of India Vs. Presiding OfficerVs. Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Jabal-pur FGR 1994 page 231 Their Lordships observedthat the Central Ordinance Department is a seve-rable unit of the defence department of the CentralGovernment and carried on systematic activity withthe Cooperation of the employees and the em-ployers and is an industry as defined in section 2(j)of the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947.

17. In Writ Petition Nos. 1584 of 1981, 8721of 1981 and 3122 of 1981 the Nagpur Bench ofthe High Court of Bombay held that telegraphdepartment is an industry under section 2(j) of

the Industrial Disputes Act. In K. R. P. Naimaland Anr. & Director of Postal Services Trivandruru1979 1 LLJ 176 it is observed by Their Lordshipspublic utility services like the postal services comesunder industry, such activity cannot be called as asoverign functions solely because rules framedunder articles 309 and 310 governs such an em-ployee. In another case between Bhaskaran andSub-Divisional Officer 1982 II LLJ 248 it is ob-served that Post and Telegraph and Telephoneservices are named public utility services under theAct. They are industries to which the provisions ofsection 10.12 and 22 of the Act directly apply.

18. In Delhi Science Forum Vs. The Union ofIndia (1996) 2 Supreme Court cases 405 whereinTheir Lordships considered section 4 of the Tele-graphic Act 1885 which speaks of granting of alicence to non-government companies. That rightflows from the sub-section 1 of section 4 whichvests that privilege and right in the CentralGovernment.

19. On the basis of the principles laid down inthe above said authorities it is tried to argue thatTelecommunication is an industry. It cannot betermed as a soverign function of stage. It is Gov-ernment undertaking. It works for profits for allthese reasons it clearly meets out the requirementof an industry under section 2(j) of the Act andis an industry,

20. The Learned Advocate for the managementargued that this Tribunal in a earlier Reference No.2|2|91 came to the conclusion on the basis at theJoseph's case that Telecommunication is not anindustry judicial discipline wants that unless there isverdict from the superior court or that there issufficient evidence on the record for changing theearlier views the Tribunal should not change itsviews. This proposition is acceptable. Further more,it is found by the Tribunal that a view taken byit is incorrect. There in that case it cannot be saidthat it should commit the same mistake in latterjudgments|Awards. It can very well correct him-self as laid down in Mafatlal Engineering IndustrialLimited Vs. Mafatlal Employees Union and Ors.1992 I CLR 418 The Award of this Tribunal waschallenged in SLP Bombay Telephone CanteenEmployees case. It was confirmed.

21. The Learned Advocate for the workmanargued that the Bangalore Water Works was deli-vered by a Constitution Bench of Seven Judges.The view expressed in Joseph's case and later onin Bombay Telephones case is of a smaller benchof the same court. In view of Article 141 of theConstitution the decision given in those cases is'per incurrium'. The Tribunal has to ignore it. InBombay Telephones case Their Lordships hadconsidered many of the authorities which were citedbefore me. The ratio therein cannot be said to be'per incurrium'.

5733

22. The Learned Advocate for the workmanplaced reliance on Union of India and Ors. Vs.Godfrey Philips India Ltd. (1985) 4 S.C. cases369 and Punjab Land Development and Reclama-tion Corporation Ltd. Chandigarh (1990) 3 S.C.682. These cases deals with law that the principleslaid down by larger bench are to be followed inrelation to the smaller bench, nobody disputes it.

23. The Supreme Court considered their viewsexpressed in Joseph's case in Bombay TelephoneCanteen Employees Association, Prabhadevi Tele-phone Exchange Vs. Union of India and Anr. 1997II CLR 218 Their Lordships considered theBangalore Water works Hospital Mazdoor Sabha,Corporation of City of Nagpur Rajasthan StateElectricity Board and many other. They also con-sidered the case of Physical Research LaboratoryVs. K. G. Sharma J.T. 1997 (4) S.C. 527 andcame to the conclusion that departmental canteenof Telephone is not an industry. It is observed thatthe employees working in statutory canteen in viewof respondents admission are holding civil postsand are being paid monthly salary and are em-ployees, the necessary conclusion would be thatthe Tribunal has no jurisdiction to adjudicate thedispute on a reference under section 10(1) of theIndustrial Disputes Act.

24. In the above said authority Their Lordshipsfurther observed that the employee gets a remedyunder the Act by way of reference and remedy ofa judicial redresser by way of proceedings underArticle 226 of a petition filed before the Adminis-trative Tribunal. They are co-existing. The courtwould therefore strike a balance between the com-peting rights of the individual and the state agencyor instrumentality an decide the validity of theaction taken by the management. Necessarily if theservice conditions stand attracted all the conditionslaid therein would become applicable to the em-plovees with a fixity of tenure and guarantee ofservice subject to diciplinary action. His removalshould be in accordance with the just and fairprocedure envisaeed under the rules or applicationof the Principles of Natural Justice as the casemay be in which event the security of the tenureof the employees is assured and the whim and thefancy vapour of the employer would be detteredand if unfair and uniust action is found establishedit would be declared as an arbitrarv. unjust orunfair procedure. On the other hand if the findingis that there exists no statutory rule or certifiedstanding order exists or they are not either madein atrolicable. The remedy of the reference undersection 10 of the Act would always be availableand avail of as it is an indnstry and indicia leadin Bangalore Water Supply Board case getsattracted.

25. In Himanshu Kumar Vidvnrthi and Ors. Vs.State of Bihar and Ors. 1997 S.C. cases (L &S)1079. Their Lardship observed every department of

Government cannot be trated to be an industry.When the appointments are regulated by the sta-tutory rules the concept of industry to that extentstands excluded. In that case the petitioners werenot appointed to the posts in accordance with therules but were engaged on the basis of need ofthe work. They are temporary employees workingon daily wages. They are disengagement from ser-vice, cannot be construed to be a retrenchmentunder the Industrial Disputes Act. The conceptof retrenchment therefore cannot be stretched tosuch an extent as to cover these employees sincethey are only daily wage employees and have noright to the posts, their dis-engagement is notarbitrary. Relying on the ratio given in this authorityit is tried to submit that the workman who is acasual labourer have no right for the employment.The other facts are different than the facts beforeme.

26. The ratio laid down from the above saidauthorities is that if the employees hold a civil postsand are being paid monthly salary and are em-ployees, the necessary conslusion would be that theTribunal has no jurisdiction to adjudicate thedispute on a reference under section 10(1) of theAct.

27. Admittedly Tribhuwan Singh PanchdevSingh was employed as a casual labourer. Therewas no specific pay scale for him. His recruitmentwas not under any rules framed for employment.For all these reasons it cannot be said that he isholding a civil post. Under such circumstances forthe principles laid down in the above said autho-rities the Tribunal had jursidiction to decide thereference under Industrial Disputes Act of 1947.

28. Tribhuwan Singh Panchdev Singh (Exhibit-10) affirmed that he was a casual mazdoor between1-7-87 to 10-12-90. He was terminated on11-12-90. It appears that alongwith him othercasual mazdoors were also terminated. Thereforethey filed a petition before the Central Administra-tive Tribunal Mumbai Bench, Nagpur. TheTribunal allowed the application and directed themanagement to reinstate these casual mazdoors. Itis not in dispute as per the orders of the CentralAdministrative Tribunal Tribhuwan Singh wasappointed on 7-7-93 as a casual mazdoor.

29. Tribhuwan Singh affirms that he workedbetween 7-7-93 to 9-12-93 at Washim underAssistant Engineer, Phones. He thereafter fell sickfrom 10-12-93 to 31-7-94. He affirmed that thereafter on 1st August 1994 when he approached theauthorities alongwith the medical certificate he wasnot allowed to join the duties on the pretext thatthey cannot condone more than one months delay.It can be seen that except the workman and othercasual employees which were appointed were giventhe temporary status (Ex-8|17) dated 5-5-95,

5734 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22,1997/AGRAHAYANA 1,1919 [PART ll—SEC. 3(ii)]

30. Ingle (Exhibit-12) the Assistant EngineerPhones Washim affirmed that the workman left theplace of work without intimation to the manage-ment. He was absconding. He never intimated hissickness to the management at any time. It can beseen that he is a person who approached the CentralAdministrative Tribunal and got the job. It is there-fore he is bound to know what steps should betaken in a particular circumstances. As he was sickit was his duty to inform the management regard-ing his inability to attend the duties. But he didnot do so. Therefore the natural conclusion is thathe absconded from the duties. The managementcannot be said to be at any fault for not allowinghim to join the duties.

31. That takes me to the medical certificate(Ex-8|11) dated 3-7-94 issued by one doctor ofAkola. He certified that the workman was underhis treatment between 10-12-93 to 31-7-94. Thatis the period in which he remained absent.Tribhuwan Singh accept that he went to Resowdwhich is his native place after falling sick. He tooktreatment there. It is about 80 Kms. away fromAkola. On the advice of his doctor at Resowdhe went to Akola for further treatment. He was apatient in the private clinic of the doctor who isattached to the government hospital. Naturallysome of the days of his absentism must be atResowd where he alledged to have taken treatment.If that is so the period mentioned in the certificate(Ex-8|11) appears to be incorrect. If that is so thetestimony of Tribhuwan Singh is not reliable. Thecontention taken by the management that heabsconded the duty is to be accepted. It cannotbe forgotten that he is a casual worker and gotthe job in view of the order of the Central Adminis-trative Tribunal. His conduct clearly speaks thathe has no care for his job and now moved theTribunal with ulterior motive. That cannot beallowed. In the result I record my findings on theissues accordingly and pass the following order :

ORDER

The action of the management of T.D.E.,Akola, Maharashtra in not allowing tojoin Tribhuwan Singh Panchdev Singh toservice is legal and justified.



S.O. 2973.—In pursuance of Section 17 of theIndustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), theCentral Government hereby publishes the Awardof the Central Government Industrial Tribunal,No. 2, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in theindustrial dispute between the employers in rela-tion to the management of Mahanagar TelephoneNigam Ltd., Mumbai and their workman, whichwas received by the Central Government on the28-10-97.

K. V. B. UNNY, Desk Officer[No. L-40012/233|94-ID(DU)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI

PRESENT :Shri S. B. Panse, Presiding Officer

Reference No. CGIT-2|14 of 1996

Employers in relation to the Management ofM.T.N.L.

ANDTheir Workmen '

APPEARANCES :For the Employer—Mr. S. R. Rajguru, Ad-

vocateFor the Workmen—Mr. N. Y. Lokhande,

Advocate

Mumbai, dated 15th September, 1997

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labourby its Order No. L-40012|233l94-IR(DU), dated30-1-96, had referred to the following IndustrialDispute for adjudication :

"Whether the action of the management ofMahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd.,Bombay in terminating the services ofShri Shivsagar Shrinarayan Dubey w.e.f.1-6-1992 is justified ? If not to whatrelief the workman is entitled ?"

2. Shivsagar Shrinarayan Dubey pleaded thathe was employed by the Chief General ManagerTelephone Nigam Ltd., Bombay oh 1-4-32 underAssistant Engineer, Cable Depot|Parcel, Santacruz.

5735

3. The workman pleaded that he worked from1-4-82 till 4-3-92. Thereafter as he was sick hewas took an oral permission from the superior andhad gone to the native place because there wasnobody to look after him at Bombay. It is assertedthat he required such time to over come from thesickness and thereafter approached the superiorson 15-3-93 but he was not allowed to join theduties. He made an appeal with the medicalcertificate to the Assistant Engineer, Kurle CableDepot on the same day. But ii was not heard andhe was not taken on duty.

4. The workman ].'leaded that in last ten yearshe worked continuously but in the year 1991 dueto the sickness he could attend only 57 days andin the year 1992 he could not attend the duties atall. It is averred that on 3-11-93 he received theorder of termination stating that his request dated15-9-93 to resume the duty with medical certificateafter a lapse of 18 months cannot be entertainedby the department and as such his service withM.T.N.L. be treated as terminated effective from1-6-93.

5. The workman asserted that the action of themanagement is not on the disciplinary ground. Nomemo nor a chargesheet was issued to him and hisservice is illegally terminated which is bad in law.He prayed that he may be reinstated in servicewith effect from 15-3-93 with full back wages andother consequential benefits. He also prayed thathis absence from January, 1992 to 15-3-93 shallbe treated as an extra ordinary and should begranted all the benefits of the service.

6. The management resisted the claim by theWritten Statement (Ex.-4|9). The first writtenstatement was filed when the management did notreceive the copy of the statement of claim but lateron it filed it after receipt of the copy of the state-ment of claim. It is averred that the workmanabandoned the service. It is submitted that hewas served with a notice by the department toresume the duty but he did not join the duties. Itis pleaded that the notice dated 3-11-93 is wronglyconstrued by the workman. It is averred that theworkman was a temporary mazdoor and as such isnot entitled to any chargeshect regarding termi-nation. In fact he voluntarily given up the job.It is denied that the action of the management isagainst the Principles of Natural Justice. It is alsodenied the there is requirement of compliance tobe made under Article 311 of the constitution ofIndia. It is averred that the workman had takenleave in the period of his employment. It is sub-mitted that the workman is not entitled' to any ofthe reliefs, as claimed. The workman filed arejoinder a Exhibit-5. He reiterated the conten-tion taken in the statement of claim.

7. The issues and my findings there on are asfollows :

Issues Finding1. Whether the Tribunal has No.

jurisdiction to entertain anddecide the reference ?

2. Whether the workman uban- Does notdoned the service from 5th survive,March, 1992 ? If survies

yes.3. Whether the action of the Does not

management of Mahanagar surviveTelephone Nigam Limited If survi-in terminating the services yes yes.of Shri ShivsagarShrinarayan Dubey w.e.f.1-6-1992 is justified ?

4. If not, what relief the Docs notworkman is entitled to ? survive.

REASONS8. The issue of jurisdiction has to be seen by

the Tribunal. It is not necessary that the adverseparty should raise the issue then only the Tribunalcan embark upon it. It is general contention thatin view of the case, Sub-Divisional Inspector, PostsVs. Theyyam Joseph 1996 II Supreme 487,the telecommunication is not an industry and thisTribunal has no jurisdiction to decide the matter.

9. In Joseph's case Their Lordships observedIndia is a sovereign, socialist, secular democraticrepublic has to establish an egalitarian socialorder under the rule of law. The welfare measu-res pertain the character of sovereign functionsand1 the traditional duty to maintain law and orderis no longer the concept of the state. Directiveprinciples of state policy enjoin in the state diverseduties under IV of the Constitution and performan-ces of the duties are constitutional functions. Oneof the duties is of the state, to provide telecom-munication service o the general public as an eminity and so is the essential part of sovereign func-tions of the state, as a welfare state, it is nottherefore an industry."10. The Learned advocate for the workmanplaced reliance on various authorities and tried tosubmit that Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limi-ted is an industry. According to him in state ofBombay and Ors. Vs. Hospital Mazdoor Sabhaand Ors. 1960 I LLJ 251 it is observed, it is thecharacter of the activity which decides the ques-tion as to whether the activity in question attractsthe provisions of 2(i) of the Act. It is furtherobserved who conducts the activity and whetherit is conducted for profit or do not make a mate-rial difference. Their Lordships also referred to

2883 GJ/97—10

7. The issues and my findings there on are asfollows :

1.

3.

4.

Issues

Whether the Tribunal hasjurisdiction to entertain anddecide the reference ?

Whether the workman aban-doned the service from 5lhMarch, 1992 ?

Whether the action of themanagement of MahanagarTelephone Nigam Limitedin terminating the servicesof Shri ShivsagarShrinarayan Dubey w.e.f.1-6-1992 is justified ?

If not, what relict' theworkman is entitled to ?

Finding

No.

Does notsurvive.

If surviesyes.

Does notsurvive

If survi-ves yes.

Docs notsurvive.

5736 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22, 1997/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1919 [PART II—SEC. 3(II)]

Schedule I to the Act which innumerated Indus-trie? which may be declared as public utility ser-vice under section 2(N) of the Act.

11. In Corporation City Nagpur and its emp-loyees 1960 ILLJ 523 Their Lordships consi-dered the scope of the definition Industry. It isobserved that however wide the definition of in-dustry might be it could not include the legal orsovereign function of the state viz. the primaryand inalienable functions of a constitutional Go-vernment which should be confirmed to adminis-tration of justice, maintenance of law and otherlegislative functions.

12. In the management of Safdurjung Hospitalana' Kuldeep Singh Sethi 1970 II LLJ 266, TheirLordships while considering whether Hospital runby Government or a local authority or by Chari-table institutions not as a economic activity as anIndustry held that they are not governed by thedefinition of Industry in section 2(j) of the Act.In paragraph 14 and 15, Their Lordships discus-sed the point regarding material services. It is ob-served that material services are not services whichdepend wholly or largely upon the contribution ofprofessional knowledge, skill or dexterity for theproduction of the result. Such a service givenindividually and by individual are services nodoubt but not material services. These services in-volve in activity carried on through cooperationbetween employers and employee to provide acommunity with a use of something such as elec-tric power, water, transportation, mail deliverytelephones and the like.

13. Then comes the Bangalore Water Supplyand Sewerage Board etc. and A. Rajappa & Ors.1978 ILLJ 349. The Constitutional Bench ofseven judges discussed various aspects namely whatis industry and laid down different tests for comingto conclusion where a particular activity is an in-dustry or not. The learned advocate for the work-man more particularly placed reliance on para-graph 46 and 47 of the Judgment. He also re-ferred to paragraph 131 of the Judgment. It isobserved therein that what is the dominant naturetest. It is stated that sovereign functions strictly/understood alone qualified for exception not thewelfare activities or economic adventures under-taken by Government or statutory bodies.

14. In Dhari Gram Panchayat and Shri BrahadSaurashtra Safai Kamgar Mandal Rajkot 1971 ILLJ 508, wherein it is held that conservancy andthe sanitary activity carried on by panchayat wouldbo covered by the definition of the word industry.Such activity being a material service and a publicutility service, the workers are the workman asdefined in section 2(j) of the Act

\5. In another case between Umanyamn andState of Kerala 1983 i LLJ 267 Their Lordshipshave given a test for determining which establish-ments in an industry are an industry or not. Thereference was regarding clerk, typists, Khalasis.While deciding it Their Lordships observed sove-reign functions strictly understood alone qualityfor exemptions not the other activities or economicadventure taken by Government or statutorybodies. In another case Bijoy Kumar Bharathi &Ors. Vs. State of Bihar I LLJ 21.4 Their LordshipsDeserved that the mere fact that there is a servicecode does not amount by necessary implicationto the exclusion of the provision of the IndustrialDispute?; Act to Government department. If therewere rules, for instance specially dealing with themanner in which temporary appointments couldbe terminated it could legitimately be argued thatsection 25F is excluded. For them the rules fram-ed under the constitutional provisions would haveprecedence over the Act. It is not possible toaccept the contention that the provisions of the Actdo not at all apply to Government servants.

16. In Union of India Vs. Presiding Officer V.s.Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Jabalpur,FGR 1994 page 231 Their Lordships observed thatthe Central Ordinance Department is a severableunit of the defence department of the CentralGovernment and carried on systematic activitywith the cooperation of the employees and theemployers and is an industry as defined in section?(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947.

17. In Writ petition Nos. 1584 of 1981. 8721of 1981 and 3122 of 1981 the Nagpur Bench ofthe High Court of Bombay held that telegraphdepartment is an industry under section 2(j) ofthe Industrial Disputes Act. In K.R.P. Kaimuland Anr. and Director of postal services, Trivan-druin 1979 I LLJ 176, it is observed by TheirLordships public utility services like the postalservices comes under industry, such activitycannot be called as a sovereign functions solelybecause rules framed under articles 309 and 310governs such an employee. In another case bet-ween Bhaskaram and Sub-divisional officer 1982II LLJ 248 it is observed that post and telegraphand Telephone services are named public utilityservices under the Act They are industries towhich the provisions of sections 10, 12 and 22 ofthe Act directly apply.

18. In Delhi Science Forum Vs. The Unionof India (1996) 2 Supreme Court cases 405 whereinTheir Lordships considered section 4 of the Telegraphic Act 1885 which speaks of granting ofa licence to non government companies. Thatright flows from the sub section 1 of section 4which vests that privilege and right in the CentralGovernment.

5737

19. On the basis of the principles laid down inthe above said authorities it is tried to argue thatTelecommunication is an industry. It cannot betermed as a sovereign function of state. It isGovernment undertaking. It works for profits forall these reasons it clearly meets out the require-ment of an industry under section 2(j) of the Actand is an industry.

20. The Learned Advocate for the managementargued that this Tribunal in an earlier ReferenceNo. 2-26-91 came to the conclusion on the basisof the Joseph's case that Telecommunication is notan industry. Judicial discipline wants that unlessthere is a verdict from the superior court or thatthere is sufficient evidence on the record for chang-ing the earlier views the Tribunal should notchange its views. This proposition is acceptable.Further more, if it is found by the Tribunal thata view taken by it is incorrect. There in that caseit cannot be said that it should commit the samemistake in latter Judgments|Awards. It can verywell correct himself as laid down in MafatlalEngineering Industries Ltd. Vs. Mafatlal En-gineering Employees Union and Ors. 1992 I CLR418. The Award of this Tribunal was challengedin SLP Bombay Telephone canteen employees case.It was confirmed.

21. The Learned Advocate for the workman argued thatthe Bangalore Water Works was delivered by a ConstitutionBench of seven judges. The view expressed in Joseph's caseand later on in Bombay Telephones case is of a smallerbench of the same court, In view of Article 141 of theconstitution the decision given in those cases is 'per incur-rium'. The Tribunal has to ignore it. In Bombay Tele-phones case Their Lordships had considered many of theauthorities which were cited before me. The ratio thereincannot be said to be 'per incurrlum'.

22. The Learned Advocate for the workman placed relianceon Union of India and Ors. Vs. Godfrey Philips India Ltd.(1985) 4 S. C. cases 369 and Punjab Land Developmentand Reclamation Corporation Ltd. Chandigarh Vs. PresidingOfficer Labour Court Chandigarh (1990) 3 S. C. cases 682.These cases deals with the law that the principals laid downby larger bench are to be followed in relation to smallerbench, nobody disputes it.

23. The Supreme Court considered their views expressedin Joseph's case in Bombay Telephone Canteen employeesAssociation, Prabhadevi Telephone exchange Vs. Union ofIndia and Anr. 1997 II CLR 218 Their Lordships consideredthe Bangalore Water Works, Hospital Mazdoor Sabha, Cor-poration of City of Nagpur Rajasthan State Electricity Boardand many other. They also considered the case of PhysicalResearch Laboratory Vs. K. G. Sharma J. T. 1997 (4) S.C.527 and came to the conclusion that departmental canteenof Telephone is not an industry. It is observed that theemployees working in a statutory canteen in view of res-pondents admission are holding civil posts and are being paidmonthly salary and are employees, the necessary conclusionwould be that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to adjudicatea dispute on a reference under section 10(1) of the Indus-trial Disputes Act.

24. In the above said authority their Lordships furtherobserved that the employee gets a remedy under the Act byway of reference and remedy of a judicial redresser by wayof proceedings under Article 226 or a petition filed before

the Administrative Tribunal. They are co-existing. Thecourt would therefore strike a balance between the com-peting rights of the individual and the state agency or instru-mentality and decide the validity of the action taken by themanagement. Necessarily if the service conditions standattracted all the conditions laid there in would become ap-plicable to the employees with a fixity of tenure and guaran-tee of service subject to disciplinary action. His removalshould be in accordance with the just and fair procedureenvisaged under the rules or application of the Principles ofNatural Justice as the case may be in which event the secu-rity of (he tenure of the employee is assured and the whimand the fancy vagory of the employer would be dettered andif unfair and unjust action is found established it would bedeclared as an arbitrary, unjust or unfair procedure. On theother hand if the finding is that there exists no statutoryrule or certified standing order exists or they are not eithermade in applicable. The remedy of the reference undersection 10 of the Act would be always be available andavail of as it is a industry and idicia lead in BangaloreWater' Supply Board case gets attracted.

25. In Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi and Ors. Vs. State ofBihar and Ors. 1997 S. C. cases (L&S) 1079 Their Lord-ships observed every department of Government cannot betreated to be an industry. When the appointments are regu-lated by a statutory rules the concept of industry to thatextent stands excluded, In that case the petitioners werenot appointed to the posts in accordance with the rules butwere engaged on the basis of need of the work. They aretemporary employee's working on daily wages. They are dis-engagement from service, cannot be construed to be a ret-renchment under the Industrial Disputes Act, The conceptof retrenchment therefore cannot be stretched to such anextent as to cover these employees since they are only dailywage employees and have no right to the post, their disen-gagement is not arbitrary. Relying on the ratio given in thisauthority it is tried to submit that the workman who is acasual labourer have no right for the employment. The otherfacts are different than the facts before me.

26. The ratio laid down from the above said authoritiesis that if the employee holds a civil posts and are beingpaid monthly salary and are employees, the necessary con-clusion would be that the Tribunal has no Jurisdiction toadjudicate the dispute on a reference under section 10(1 )_of the Act.

27. Shivragar Dubey (Exhibit-12) affirmed that he is Inservice of M.T.N.L. from 1-4-82 to 4-3-92. Initially he wasadmittedly a casual labourer and thereafter he was tempo-rary mazdoor. From the service sheet which are producedalongwith the statement of claim it clearly speaks that hisworking days, how much earned leave he earned. Howmuch leave he enjoyed and the wages paid to him. It canbe further seen that the payment was monthly. From the-written statement Ex-4 and 9 filed by the managementit reveals that he was issued notices by the managementfor joining the duties following which a departmental action:will be taken against him. Not only that Kittimani (Ex-hibit-14) affirmed to that effect. According to him theworker eventhough served with notice to join the dutiesdid not join it nor he informed the management that dueto his sickness or for any other reason he will join theduties later on. It appears that due to his continuous work-ing as a CASUAL labourer prior to 1985 in view of thescheme initiated by the department he was given the statusof temporary mazdoor. He is paid like that of regularmazdooi On the basis of the ratio in Bombay Telephonesis has to be said the worker holds a civil post. In theresult the Tribunal cannot decide the reference under sec-tion, 10(l) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

28- For tha sake of argument if it Is said that mv findingon issue No. 1 that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction todecide this reference is incorrect I proceed to answer theremaining issues.

2883 G1/97—20


29. Dubey (Ex-12) the worker produced a certificate show-ing the working days which clearly speaks that till 1990he was continuously working. From January '1991 to31-12-91 he worked only for 57 days and in the year1992 ho did not work at all. He. affirmed that on 4-3-92he orally informed his superiors that he is sick he isleaving for his native place. It cannot be accepted at all.After working; for about nine years he- must have knowledgethat when one wants to go or avail a leave a written ap-plication is to be given. That being not done it has to besaid that he left the place without informing the higherauthorities.

20. Dubey affirmed that there was nobody to look afterhim and had no way but to go to his native place. Theremust be substance in this statement. But nothing preventedhim from giving an application for leave. It is not hiscase that he was bedridden and was imnossible to move.It is not his case that his family members took him tonative place in an ambulance. The matter does not resthere.

31. Kattimani (Ex-14) the Assistant General Manager(Exhibit-14) affirmed that as the worker remained absenthe was constantly informed by the superiors that his leavewill be treated as leave without pay. He was warned! onseveral ocassions. He was also informed that if he con-tinues to remain absent without getting prior sanction thematter will be reported to the superiors. He affirmed thaton 4-11-91 and on 20-2-92 and on 27-'-92 he was askedto resume the duties. Even through he received those noticeshe did not comply with it. There is no explanation onbehalf of Dubey regarding it. That itself suggests that heabandoned the service.

32. Duhey affirmed that he tried to Join the duties on15-9-93 along with it he produced a medical certificate ofDr. Bijendra Yadav dated 11-9-91 which sneaks that Dubeywas under his treatment from 5-3-92 and now fit to iointhe duties, It can be seen that from January, 1992 till4-3-92 admittedly the worker was absent. From perusal

of the service c card it reveals in January'1991 heworked or sixteen days, in February. two davs in Marchno davs. in April two days, in May six days in Junta thriteendays, July nine days, August six days' and September t\vodays. It also appears that from October onwards to Decem-ber '1991 he did not join the duties, His trend appears tobe leaving the Job. Ultimately he did so. The certificatewhich is produced cannot be said to be a true explanationof remaining absent or in other words sufficient reason forremaining absent from duty. I therefore find" that theworker had abandoned the service.

33. It is tried to aruge on behalf of the workman thatthe notice dated 3-11-93 informed that it is treated thathis services are treated terminated effective from 1-6-92.Eventhough the .word terminated is used the managementhad given an explanation to the effect that it is wronglyUsed and it is treated as abandonment of service and theworker has abandoned the service. For the reasons statedabove I accept that explanation, As he abandoned theservice there is no question of holding any departmentalinquiry against hi mbv issuing the charge sheet. In theresult I record my findings on the issues accordingly andpass the following order :

ORDER

The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide the referenceunder section, 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Actof 1947.


S.O. 2974.—In pursuance of Section 17 of theIndustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14- of 1947), theCentral Government hereby publishes the Award ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Banga-lore as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial disputebetween the employers in relation to the managementof Tungabhadra Board, T B. Darn, Bellary Districtand their workman, which was received by the Cen-tral Government on 29-10-1997.

[No. L-42011/56/88-D. II (B)]K. V. B. UNNY, Desk Officer.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENTINDUSTRIAL TRTBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR,

COURT, BANGALORE

Dated this Wednesday the 22nd day of October, 1997

PRESENT :Shri K, Mohanachandran, B.Sc, B.L., D.L..

A.L. Presiding Officer-

CENTRAL REFERENCE NO'. 52/89

I Party :

The. President, Tungabhadra,Board Factory Workers andCivil Employee's Union,Tungabhadra Dam, Hospet taluk,Bellary Distiict—583 101.

Vs.

II Party :Tungabhadra Board,

Tungabhadra Dam,Hospet taluk,Bellary District,583101.

5739

AWARD

In this Central Government reference No. L-42011/56/8S-D. II (B), dated 1-8-1989, the pointfor adjudication is fixed as follows :

"Whether the action of the Tungabhadra BoardT. B. Dam Hospet taluk, Bellary Districtin not agreeing to revise the wages formanual workers even after the expiry ofthe settlement dated 17-10-1986, whichwas in force upto 30-6-1988 is justified ?If not, to what relief the workman areentitled to ?"

(2) The (brief) averments of the 1st party in hisclaim statement are as follows :

The 1st party raised the dispute regarding notagreeing to raise the wages for manual unskilledworkers of Tungabhadra Board by the 2ndi partyeven after the expiry of settlement dated 17-10-1986which was in force upto 30-6-1988. The 2nd partyagreed, by signing a memorandum dated 17-10-1986,to fix the daily wage of unskilled manual workershaving upto 5 years of service at Rs- 12/- beyond5 years but less than 10 years at Rs. 14.25 and atRs. 16.25 beyond 10 years of service. As per thesaid settlement the agreement has to come into effectfrom 1-7-1986. But the 2nd party did! not lakeany action to revise the wages further inspite ofpersistent demand made by the 1st party. Thereforethe 1st party pray for an order for raising dlailywage of manual unskilled workers at Rs. 19.25 perday or at Rs. 500/- for a month as prescribed bythe Government of Karnataka with effect from1-7-1988.

(3) In the written statement the 2nd party averredas follows :

The dispute raised by the 1st party under Indus-trial Disputes Act is not valid since the said Act isnot applicable to the Tungabhadra Board. TheTungabhadra Board should be regarded as a Govern-ment department and it is not an, independent auto-nomous body. And the Industrial Dispute Act isnot applicable for Tungabhadra Board this Tribunalhas no jurisdiction to entertain the present case.But anyhow the Board in its memorandum No.3131/E. 1/80, dated 19-9-1989 had enhanced thewages of daily rated workers of Tungabhadra Boardwith effect from 1-7-1988. Under those circumstan-ces the 1st party has no right to claim any reliefbefore this Tribunal and therefore the reference hasto be rejected.

(4) While the said Central Reference is keppending in the stage of recording evidence, the Is;party on 19-9-1997 present alongwith his counseland tiled a memo stating that since the service ofthe 1st party had been converted into monthly ratedand accordingly the wages had been, paid, the 1stparty is not pressing the present reference and it maybe dismissed without cost. Counsel for the 2ndparty also taken notice of the said memo and endors-ed no objection. In such circumstances the saidmemo has been recorded.

AWARD

The reference in Central Reference No. 52/89 isdismissed without cost in terms of the memo dated19-9-1997 filed by the 1st party. The memo dated19-9-1997 of the 1st party will be part and parcelof this award. Submit to Government.

(Dictated to P. A., transcribed! by him, correctedby me and signed on this Wednesday the 22nd dayof October, 1997).

K- MOHANACHANDRA, Presiding Officer.

IN THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL(CENTRAL) BANGALORE, CAMP BELLARY.

C. R. No- 52 of 1989.

T. B. Board factory workers and Civil Emp-loyees Union by its General Secretary.

1st Party.

Vs.

The Secretary Tungabhadra Board, T. B. Dam.Memo fixed on behalf of the 1st party

The workman involved in the above Dispute whoseservices have been converted into monthly rated! andaccordingly their wages are paid

It is therefore prayed that the 1st party Uniondoes not press the above Reference and it may beDismissed without any order as to costs-

Notice taken No Objection.

SO./

Advocate for 1st Party.

Sd./-

Advocate for IInd party

Sd./-

General Secy.

5740 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 21,1997/AGRAHAYANA 1, 19l9 [PART II—SEC 3(ii)]


S.O. 2975.—In pursuance of Section 17 of theIndustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), theCentral Government hereby publishes the Award ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Cal-cutta as shown in the Annexure, in the industrialdispute between the employers in relation to themanagement of Haldia Dock Complex and theirworkman, which was received by the Central Govern-ment on the 29-10-1997.

[No. L-32012|7|89-IR (Misc.)]B. M. DAVID, Desk Officer.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIALTRI-BUNAL AT CALCUTTA

Reference No. 37 of 1989

Parties :Employers in relation to the management of

Haldia Dock Complex, Haldia.

AND

Their workmen

Present:Mr. Justice A. K. ChakravartyPresiding Officer.

Appearance :On behalf of Management

Mr. R. Fratihari, Personnel Officer.

On behalf of WorkmenMr. R. L. Banerjee, Working President of

Haldia—Calcutta Port and Dock ShramikUnion.

Mr. T. B, Roy, Vice President for Calcutta PoetShrainik Union.

None for Calcutta Port & Shore MazdoorUnion.

State : West Bengal. Industry : Port Si Dock.

AWARD

By Order No. L-32012|7|89-IR (Misc.) dated11-12-1989 the Government of India, Ministry ofLabour, referred the following dispute to this Tribu-nal for adjudication :

"Whether1 the action of the management ofHaldia Duck Complex of CPJ in selectingShri Kaiipada Ballay, Bhandary to the postof 'Winchman' is justified and lawful inthe context of the relevant rules and pro-visions of Das Gupta Tribunal Award(1958). If not, what should be the guid-ing principles in conducting selection forfilling up such posts, in future cases ?"

2. In the instant case three seperate written state-ments were filed by the three seperate unions,namely, Calcutta Port & Shore Mazdoor Union(Haldia Branch), Calcutta Poit Shramik Union andHaldia—Calcutta Fort & Dock Shramik Union onbehalf of the unions. The facts giving rise to thisdispute are that me management of Haldia DockComplex, Haldia of Calcutta Port Trust by its circu-lar No. 43|4|3473 dated 26 February, 1987 invitedapplications from the willing candidates for trainingfor the job of 'Winchman' and 'Crane Drivers'. Themanagement, thereafter, on the basis of the applica-tions received from the willing candidates, prepareda list of 19 workmen arranging the date! of interviewon 19th March, 1987. In memo No. MPM|13|4|4310 dated 13th March, 1987 the name of KalipadaBallay appeared as one of the candidates. Themanagement thereafter, with due approval of theDeput Chairman, selected by its office order No.MPM|13|4|3807 dated 8th February, 1988 the saidKalipada Ballay, who was working as Bhandary infloating craft unit of Marine Operation Division fortraining for the job of 'Winchman' and the period oftraining was fixed for 3 months. In the said officeorder it was also mentioned that on completion oftraining period Shri Ballary may be considered forappointment to the post of 'Winchman'. Themanagement, however, by memo No. MMO|2346dated 27th May, 1988 reverted Shri Kalipada Ballayto his original position of 'Bhandary' without assign-ing any reason after the completion of his trainingperiod.

3. In the written statement filed by the CalcuttaPort & Shore Mazdoor Union, Haldia Branch, theact of reversion of Shri Kaiipada Ballay was challen-ged as illegal and invalid It was also alleged by thesaid union that the management was not justified intaking such a decision of reversion as it apprehendedtroubles from the other two unions, namely, Haldia--Calcutta Port &: Dock Shramik Union and CalcuttaPort Shramik Union. ~

5741

4. In the written statement filed by Calcutta PoriShramik Union it was alleged that the post| grade of'Winchman' is a promotional post and any promotionto such a post must conform to the rules as framedby Mr. Dasgupta in his award which was publishedby the Government of India, Ministry of Labour &Employment in the Gazette of India (Extraordinary)dated 30-1-1958 under1 notification No. 437 dated21-1-1958. It was alleged that as per rule framedin paragraph 27(a) , (b) and (d) of the said towardseniority shall be the guiding principle for promotionexcept for jobs requiring higher or extra qualifica-tion. It was further alleged that consideration ofShri Kalipada Ballay, Bhandary for the post of'Winchman, amounts to supersession of other mem-bers of the staff of senior grades, which is not at allpermissible under the general rules as well as therules framed by Mr, Dasputa in his award. Thisunion has further alleged that the 'Bhandary' occu-pies the lowest grade amongst the grades in the vesseland it can never come within the zone of considera-tion for the post of 'Winchman1 which is two gradesabove the grade of 'Bhandary1. This union accor-dingly prayed for holding that the action of themanagement in selecting Shri Kahpada Ballay,Bhandari for the post of 'Winchman1 was not justi-fied and in violation of the rules and provisions ofDasgupta Award (1958).

5. Haldia-Culcutta Port & Dock Shramik Unionin its written statement supported the case of CalcuttaPort Shramik Union and prayed for similarly asprayed for by the said union.

6. The management of Haldia Dock Complex inits written statement stated that the Haldia DockComplex was established in 1976 and it constitutesa seperate establishment within the Calcutta PortTrust and functions independently through its variousdivisions under a General Manager, For the pur-pose of dredging the management obtained GrabDredger and it was required to be manned on urgentbasis in the exegency of dredging work. Some ofthe operational posts on Grab Dredger e.g., 'CraneDriver' and 'Winchmaa' were new posts under Hal-dia Dock Complex and since there was no existingfeeder post for filling up the said higher post, onecircular dated 26-2-1987 was issued inviting applica-tions from the existing employees of the floatingcrafts|units under the Marine Operations Division forselection for training for the job of 'Winchman' and'Crane Driver' for the said Grab Dredger. 19 appli-cations were received from various categories of crewmembers including Second Seacunny, Marine Hand.Greaser, Lascar, Bhandary etc. and all of them werecalled for interview on 19-3-1987. Since ShriKalipada Ballay was found suitable for the

job of 'Winchman', his name was empanelled forthe purpose of training as no other suitable candi-date from amongst; Marine Hand/Lascar wasavailable or willing to be considered for the saidpost of 'Winchman'. As Shri Kalipada Ballay wasplaced for training for the job of 'Winchman1, ob-jections were raised by the union-; on the groundthat his selection amounts to repudiation of theseniority of the workman. In view of the objectionsraised Shri Ballay could neither be engaged as'Bhandary1 nor as a trainee for the job of 'Winch-man'. As his service could not be utilised, themanagement decided to shift him to his originalposition as Bhandary'. Thereafter, the union raisedan industrial disptue and the conciliation proceedinghaving failed, the present reference was made. Themanagement has also alleged that the job of Winch-man1 and 'Crane Driver' being new posts and therebeing no feeder posts for promotion to the saidpost of 'Winchman', the management was justified inselection of personnel for training from the existingstaff. It is further alleged that the Dasgupta Tribunalhaving been appointed by the Government of Indiain the year 1956 for the specific purpose relating tocertain specific establishment existing at that timeunder the then Commissioners of the Port of Calcutta,no question of application of its recommendations inrespect of the persons of Haldia Dock Complex canarise, as it came into existence in 1976, Vng afterthe Award was passed Management also deniedthat in selecting Shri Kalipada Ballay for training forthe job of Winchman, they have not violated anyrules framed in the Dasgupta Tribunal's Award as nosuitable candidate senior to him was available forappointment to the said post. It is also alleged thatthe unions did not make any protest in similar typeof appointment in the case of 'Crane Driver', Themanagement accordingly prayed that Shri KalipadaBallay, Bhandary be allowed to have his training forthe job of 'Winchman.

6. Heard the representative of the management.None appeared on behalf of the unions at the timeof argument, It however appears from the recordthat the unions duly participated at the time of exa-mination of witnesses. Calcutta Port Shramik Unionalso filed writen argument.

7. In so far as the first point in the schedule ofreference, namely, whether the selection of ShriKalipada Ballay, Bhandary to the post of 'Winchman'is justified and lawful in the context of (he relevantrules and provisions of Dasgupta Tribunal's Award(1958), it should be noted at the cutset that theconcerned workman was not given promotion to thepost of 'Winchman'. He admitted in his evidencethat he was reverted back to his original post and he


worked as 'Binudary' from 21-9-1981 till 17-6-1991.The selection of the concerned workman for trainingfor the job of 'Winchman' on 8th. February, 1988having thus admittedly been not given any effect bythe management, any discussion in respect of the saidmatter assumes the character of academic discussionwithout any practical necessary.

8. The management, however, having pleaded thatit has rightly selected Shri Kalipada Ballay and oneof the unions namely, Calcutta Port and Shore Maz-door Union having prayed for cancellation of theorder of reversion of the management and the othertwo unions having denied the right of the manage-ment for making such selection on the basis of theDasgupta Tribunal's Award, it is necessary to examinethe Dasgupta Tribunal's Award in this matter. Themanagement of Haldia Dock Complex took the pleathat it is not bound by the Dasgupta Tribunal's Awardof 1958 as Haldia Dock Complex came into exis-tence in 1976. Haldia Dock Complex being underthe administrative control of the Calcutta Port Trust,it cannot claim to be a separate entity and accordinglythe plea of the Haldia Dock Complex that it is notbound by the said Award which was in respect ofcertain categories of employees of Calcutta Fort Trust,cannot be accepted. It was further contended onbehalf of the management that certain new posts likethe 'Winchman' was created long after the DasguptaTribunal's Award and the said Award has not madeany provisions in respect of such posts. It may betrue that certain new posts were created after ShriDasgupta passed the award but the principles laiddown for filling up the promotional posts shall haveapplication for all posts created after the said Awardwas passed. The relevant rules in respect of promo-tion to higher grades are formulated in paragraph27(b) , (c) and (d) of the Dasgupta Tribunal'sAward.

9. Admittedly, the post of Bhandary forms lowestamongst the grades of the Marino Operations Divi-sion. The next higher grade from the said gradeis 'Marine Hand cum Kodahaman'. The post of'Winchman' is a grade higher than that of 'MarineHand-cum-KoduRaman'. In justification of the selec-tion to the post of 'Winchman' from the personsoccupying the post of 'Bhandary' it was submittedthat the management can do so in terms of the pro-visions of paragraph 27 (c) . Paragraph 27(c) ofthe Dasgupta Tribunal's Award runs as follows :

"Promotion shall conform to the chart annexedto this award (ANNEXURE III) which isa part of this award. Promotion to a post

shall be from the grade just below; andthe claim of the workmen further downshall be considered only when a suitableman is not available from the grade justbelow."

This paragraph shows that the management canonly consider the suitability of the candidates offurther lower grades only when no suitable candidateis available in the grade just below. It presupposesthat the management shall have to come to a conclu-sion that the candidates occupying the grade justbelow are not suitable for appointment. Before suchconclusion is reached, the management is prescribedfrom consideration of the suitability of the candidatesholding furfher lower grades. In other words, appli-cations can only he incided from the candidatesoccupying grade next below first. This rule clearlyforbid the management from inviting applications fromother grades of its employees, unless the suitability.of the candidates of the grade just below is consi-dered. The position is further clarified from the pro-visions of paragraph 27Cd) of the Dasgupta Tri-bunal's Award which runs as follows:

"Whenever there is any vacancy or any pros-pect of vacancy in the higher grades, appli-cations shall be invited from workmen oflower grades by a general notice fishing thedate of the prescribed test according to theexisting practice, if any, posted at someconspicious place at different exists in goodtime before the date on which the test isto be held. A copy of such notice shallalso be pasted on the Notice Board of theRecruiting Office. The total number ofcandidates that may be permitted to takethe test shall be selected according toseniority and shall not exceed six times thetotal number of vacancies."

By inviting application for filling up the post of'Winchman', not only from the grades just below butalso from the candidates occupying the posts evenbelow those grades, the management clearly violatedthe provisions of the Dasgupta Tribunal's Award,which as I have stated above, shall be equallybinding in the case of Haldia Dock Complex. It isalso no good saying that the post of 'Winchman' is anew post which is not covered by the Awaid. Thepost being admittedly a promotional post, the rulesprescribed in the Dasgupta Tribunal's Award forfilling up the promotional post, shall be equallyapplicable in the case of filling up the promotionalpost, shall be equally applicable in the case of fillingup of the post of 'Winchman'.

5743

10. In view of what goes above, the action ofthe management of Haldia Dock Complex of theCalcutta Port Trust in selecting Shri Kalipada Ballay,Bhandary to the post of 'Winchman' was not justifiedand lawful in the context of the relevant rules andprovisions of Dasgupta Tribunal's Award (1958).As stated above, the ruler, and provisions prescribedfor promotion in the said Award should be theguiding principle in conducting selection for filling upsuch posts in future cases.

This is my Award.

A. K. CHAKRAVARTY, Presiding OfficerDated, Calcutta,

The 14th October, 1997.


S.O. 2976.—hi exercise of the powers conferredby section 27 of the Emigration Act, 1983 (31 of1983) and in supersession of the notification of theGovernment of India in the Ministry of Labour, S.O.2092 dated the 24th July, 1987, the Central Govern-ment hereby authorities the Protector General ofEmigrants, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi to grantprevious sanction for prosecution of any person inrespect of any offence under the Act.

[No. Z-11025/30/87-Enig. II

V. D- NAGAR, Under Secy.

Printed by the Manager, Govt. of India Press, Ring Road, Maya Puri, New Delhi-110064and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054, 1997

Documents

The Gazette of India · 2013. 3. 12. · 5624 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 22,1997/AGRAHAYANA 1,.1919 [PART II SEC. 3(ii)] ORDER New Delhi, the 5th November, 1997 S.O, 2944. In