This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

रजिस्ट्रीसं० डी एल ( एन ) 04/0007/2003-05

0 REGD . No. DL (N) 04/0007/2003-05 भारत का राजपत्र The Gazette of India

प्राधिकार से प्रकाशित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप्ताहिक

WEEKLY

नईदिल्ली, जुलाई 18 जुलाई 24, 2004, शनिवार /आषाढ़ 27

सं. 30] No. 301

श्रावण 2, 1926

NEW DELHI, JULY 18-JULY 24, 2004, SATURDAY/ASADHA 27-SRAVANA 2, 1926 इस भाग मेंभिन्न पृष्ठ संख्या दी जाती है जिससे कि यह अलग संकलन के रूप में रखा जा सके

Separate Paging is getti Partinorder that it may be filed as a separate compilation

खण्ड - खणा (ii)

Section 3d- section ( ak

भारत सरकार के मंत्रालयों ( रक्षा मंत्रालय को छोड़कर ) द्वास जाकर सर साथी

StatutoryOrders and Notiflentions Issued by the Minister of the

कार्मिक, लोक शिकार तथा पेंशन मंत्राल (कार्मिक और प्रशिक्षणবिদায় ) नई दिल्ली, 13 जुलाई, 2004

का. आ. 1721.- केन्द्रीय सरकार एवद्‌द्वारा दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना अधिनियम , 1946 ( 1946 का अधिनियम संख्या 25 ) की धारा 6के साथ पठित धारा 5 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदरु शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए गुजरात राज्य सरकार की अधिसूचना संख्या जीजी/82/एमआईएस/292003/ओडी/4/डी दिनांक 20-09-2000 द्वारा प्राप्त गुजरात राज्य सरकार की सहमति से श्री रामबरण सिंह आर. तोमर एवं 21 अन्यों तथा किन्हीं अन्य लोक सेवकों अथवा व्यक्तियों के विरुद्ध उनके कपटपूर्ण कार्यों के लिए भारतीय दंड संहिता की धारा 193, 196, 199, 200, 420, 465, 466 , 468 , 471 , 474, 380, 120-बी के अधीन दंडनीय अपराधों और उक्त अपक्षधों से संबंधित अश्रवा संसक्त तथा उसी संव्यवहार के अनुक्रम में किए गए अथवा उन्हीं तथ्यों से उद्भूत किन्हीं अन्य अपराधों के संबंध में मामले के पंजीकरण और अन्वेषण के लिए दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना के सदस्यों की शक्तियों और अधिकारिता का विस्तार सम्पूर्ण गुजरात राज्य पर करती है ।

[ संख्या-228 /97/2003 - ए.वी.डी.- ( II ) ]

भाष्कर खुल्बे, निदेशक 2136 GI/2004

( Other than the Ministry of Dolce ) bersalin .

MINISTRYOF PERSONNEL,

PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS (10dant of Fersonnel & Trakbeg) New Demi , the 13th July, 2004

Б.О. 1721 -In exercise of the powers, conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 5 read with Section 6of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 ( Act No.25 of1946), the Central Government with the consent of the StateGovernment of Gujarat vide Notification No.GG/82/ MIS/292003 /OD/A/D/afted 20-9-2003 hereby extends the powersandjurisdiction of the members ofthe Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of the State ofGujarat for registration of the case and investigation of offences punishable U/Sec. 193 , 196 , 199, 200, 420 , 465, 466, 468, 471,474,380, 120-B IPC against Shri Ramvaran Singh R Tomar and 21 others for their fraudulent actuand any other public servants or persons in relation to on connection with the said offences , and any other offences committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[No. 228/97/2003 -AVD

BHASKAR KHULBE , Director

(4083) 4084

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24, 2004/ SRAVANA 2, 1926

[PART II-SBC. 3(ii)] नईदिल्ली, 15 जुलाई, 2004

रिपोर्ट संख्या 127/2003 , दिनांक 14-08-2003 और उपर्युक्त अपराधों 'से संबंधित अथवा संसक्त प्रयत्नों, दुष्प्रेरणों और षडयंत्र तथा उसी संव्यवहार के अनुक्रम में किए गए अथवा उन्हीं तथ्यों से उद्भूत किसी अन्य अपराध अथवा अपराधों के अन्वेषण के लिए दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना के सदस्यों की शक्तियों और अधिकारिता का विस्तार संपूर्ण राजस्थान राज्य पर करती है ।

[संख्या-228/50/2004- ए.वी.डी.- II ]

भाष्कर खुल्बे , निदेशक

New Delhi , the 15th July, 2004

का. आ. 1722.-केन्द्रीय सरकार एत‌द्वारा दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना अधिनियम, 1946 ( 1946 का अधिनियम संख्या 25 ) की धारा 6के साथ पठित धारा 5 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए कर्नाटक राज्य सरकार की अधिसूचना संख्या एचडी 87 पीसीआर 2004, दिनांक 11 मई , 2004 द्वारा प्राप्त कर्नाटक राज्य सरकार की सहमति से श्री संजय सब्बरवाल, कार्यपालक अभियंता, बीएसएनएल, सिविलडिवीजन- II , बंगलौर और किन्हीं अन्य व्यक्तियों अथवा लोक सेवकों के विरुद्ध मार्च-अप्रैल, 2004 के दौरान 6000/-रुपए घूस माँगने और स्वीकार करने के संबंध में भ्रष्टाचार निवारण अधिनियम, 1988 की धारा 7 के अधीन दंडनीय अपराधों और उपर्युक्त अपराधों में से एक अथवा अधिक से संबंधित अथवा संसक्त प्रयत्नों, दुष्प्रेरणों और षडयंत्र तथा उसी संव्यवहार के अनुक्रम में किए गए अथवा उन्हीं तथ्यों से उद्भूत किसी अन्य अपराध अथवा अपराधों के अन्वेषण के लिए दिल्लीविशेष पुलिस स्थापना के सदस्यों की शक्तियों और अधिकारिता काविस्तार संपूर्ण कर्नाटक राज्य पर करती है ।

[संख्या-228/45/2004- ए.वी.डी.- ( II ) ]

भाष्कर खुल्बे , निदेशक

New Delhi , the 15th July, 2004

S.O. 1723. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 5 of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act . No. 25 of 1946) and also in compliance withthe order dated 26-5-2004 passed by the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench in Habeas Corpus Petition No. 6059/2003 , the Central Government hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members ofthe Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of the State ofRajasthan for investigation of case FIR No. 127/2003, dated 14-8-2003 under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860) registered at Police Station Suraj Garh District Jhunjhunu , Rajasthan regarding Kidnapping of Km. Poonam and attempts , abetments and conspiracy in relation to or in connection with the offences mentioned above and any other offence or offences committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts .

[No. 228/50/2004 -AVD- II]

BHASKAR KHULBE , Director

नई दिल्ली, 16 जुलाई , 2004

का. आ. 1724. -केन्द्रीय सरकार एत‌द्वारा दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना अधिनियम, 1946 ( 1946 का अधिनियम संख्या 25 ) की धारा 6 के साथ पठित धारा 5 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए कर्नाटक राज्य सरकार की अधिसूचना संख्या एचडी 80पीसीआर 2004, दिनांक 14-05-2004 द्वारा प्राप्त कर्नाटक राज्य सरकार की सहमति से

S.O. 1722. In exercise of the powers conferredby sub-section ( 1 ) of Section 5 read with Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act , 1946 (Act . No. 25 of1946) , the Central Government with the consent of State Government of Karnataka , vide Notification No. HD 87 PCR 2004, dated 11-5-2004 hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of the State of Karnataka for investigation of offences of demanding and accepting bribe ofRs . 6,000/- during March-April , 2004 punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act , 1988 against Shri Sanjay Sabharwal , Executive Engineer, BSNL, CivilDivision- II , Bangalore , and any other persons or public servants and attempts , abetments and conspiracy in relation to , or in connection with one or more of the offences mentioned above , and any other offence or offences committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts .

1. श्री जी.सी. चंद्रमोहन,

[No. 228/45/2004 -AVD -II]

निदेशक,

BHASKAR KHULBE, Director

मैसर्स बेस्टकॉफी क्यूरिंग वर्क्स प्रा.लि. ,

नईदिल्ली, 15 जुलाई, 2004

हसन ।

2. श्रीमती गीता चंद्रमोहन,

निदेशक, मैसर्स बेस्ट कॉफी क्यूरिंग वर्क्स प्रा.लि. , हसन ।

3. श्री वी.एल. फर्नाडिस,

का. आ. 1723.-केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना अधिनियम, 1946 ( 1946 का अधिनियम संख्या 25 ) की धारा 5 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए और राजस्थान उच्च न्यायालय, जयपुर न्यायपीठ द्वारा बंदी प्रत्यक्षीकरण याचिका संख्या6059/2003 में पारित आदेश दिनांक 26 मई , 2004 के अनुपालन में कुमारी पूनम के अपहरण के संबंध में पुलिस स्टेशन सूरज गढ़ , जिला झुंझुनु, राजस्थान में भारती दंड संहिता , 1860 ( 1860 का अधिनियम संख्या 45 ) की धारा 363 और 366 के अधीन दर्ज मामला प्रथम सूचना

निदेशक, मैसर्स बेस्टकॉफी क्यूरिंग वर्क्स प्रा.लि. , हसन । [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

4. श्रीमती लयूरा क्रमांडिस, निदेशक, मैसर्स बेस्टकॉफी क्यूरिंग वर्क्स प्रा.लि., हसन।

5.. श्री एस. अनिल सुब्बया, प्रबंध निदेशक, मैसर्स बेस्टकॉफी क्यूरिंग वर्क्स प्रा.लि. , हसन ।.

6. श्री जी. आर. संतप्पा, प्रबंधक (वित्त ) , मैसर्स बेस्टकॉफी क्यूरिंग वर्क्स प्रा.लि. , जिली हसन।

7. श्रीचंद्रचर पुत्र श्री चिन्नाविरचर, निवासी इस्वारा मंदिर स्ट्रीट, हसन ।

8. श्री के. के. चिंगप्पा, पुत्र श्री के. करियप्पा, निवासीमुथावागांव, एराबल्ली पोस्ट, बेल्लूर तालुक, हसन ।

9. श्री एच. एस. रमेश, पुत्र श्री शिवाना, निवासी उदयवार , शकलेशपुर तालुक, जिला हसन।

10. श्री एच. एम. रामचंद्रा, पुत्र श्री एच.एस. मल्लिकाअर्जुनाह, निवासी बस स्टैंड के पीछे , शकलेशपुर तालुक, जिला हसन ।

11. श्री बी.के. गिरीधर, पुत्र श्री बी. एस. काशीविश्वनाथ, निवासी मेन रोड कोडलीपेट, सोमवारपेट तालुक, जिला हसन ।

12. श्री एच . बी. पुट्टास्वामी, पुत्रश्री बसप्पा, निवासी डोडाहल्ली, निधाता पोस्ट, शुकवारसंते , सोमवरपेट तालुक, जिलाकुर्ग।

13. श्री एच. एन. ज्ञानेश्वर राय, पुत्रश्री नारायण राय, निवासी 5555/ए, सैकेंड क्रॉस , रवींद्र नगर, जिला हसन ।

4085

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 24, 2004/ श्रावण 2, 1926

14. श्री जे.सी. विध्याकिरण, पुत्रश्री चंद्रशेखर, निवासी चगेली, हम्बल पोस्ट, शकलेशपुर तालुक, जिला हसन।

15. श्री एम. टी. सोमशेखर, पुत्रश्रीथिमागोवड़ा, निवासी राजेंद्र पारा, बालपेट हुबली शकलेशपुर तालुक, जिला हसन ।

16. श्री बी. के . यतीश, पुत्र श्री वी.एस. काशी विश्वनथिया, निवासी कोडलीपेट मेन , सोमवारपेट तालुक, जिला कोडुगु ।

17. श्री ए. पी. पोवाह , पुत्र श्री पूरनाचा, निवासी रामपुरा, चिकमंगलूर तालुका, जिलाचिकमंगलूर ।

18. श्री जी. आर. संतप्पा, पुत्र श्री राजप्पा, निवासी गोपालापुरा गांव , सनवरपेट तालुक, जिला कोडुगु ।

19. श्री सी.एच. बसप्पा, पुत्र श्री सी, चिनप्पा, निवासीचिनाहल्ली, एल्लूर, तालुक, जिला हसन ।

20. श्री एस.सी. अपर्णा गौड़ा, पुत्र श्रीचिन्नागोड़ा, निवासी श्रीधरहल्ली, अराकल गुड तालुक, जिला हसन ।

21. श्री डी. वेंकटेश, पुत्र श्री देवगौड़ा, निवासी देवीगिरी , कुंदार पोस्ट, एल्लूर तालुक, जिला हसन ।

22. श्रीके. एस. राजशेकर, पुत्र श्री संतप्पा, निवासी कोडलीपेट, सोमवारपेट तालुक, कोडुगु जिला ।

23. श्री बी.एच. नागराजै , पुत्र श्री बी. हलप्पा, निवासी येसलूर, शकलेशपुर तालुक, जिला हसन। 4086

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24, 2004/SRAVANA 2, 1926

24. श्रीबी.के. राजकुमार, पुत्र श्री कृष्णशेकर, निवासी शुकरावर सांथे, शकलेशपुर तालुक, जिला हसन ।

25. श्री बी.के. ईश्वर, पुत्र श्री काशीविश्वनाथ, निवासी मेन रोड, कोडलीपेट, जिलाकोडुगु।

26. श्री ए.आर. सोमसुंदर, पुत्र श्री ए.वी. राजप्पा, निवासी मेन रोड, कोडलीपेट, जिला कोडुगु ।

27. के.ए. नतेश , पुत्र श्री अनिह, निवासी बालूपेट, शकलेशपुर तालुक, जिला हसन ।

28 . श्रीबी.एस. मंजूनथा, पुत्रश्री सुब्बाराव, निवासी गांडीहल्ली, बेल्लूर तालुक, जिला हसन ।

29 . श्रीके.सी. महेश कुमार, पुत्र श्री के.पी. चंद्रशेकर, निवासी कंथूर , पाल्या हुबली, एलूर तालुक, जिला हसन ।

30 . श्री एच.एन. कुमारस्वरूप, पुत्र स्वर्गीय श्री एच.एल. नंजनादप्पा, निवासी चिकन्याकरहल्ली एस्टेट, होसालाइन रोड, जिला हसन ।

31 . श्री एच.एस. मोहन, पुत्र श्री एच.सी. मोहन, निवासी चिकन्याकरहल्ली एस्टेट, होसालाइन रोड, जिला हसन ।

32. श्री डी.एन. हरीश , पुत्र श्री डी.एन. नन्जुदप्पा, निवासी दुर्गा एस्टेट, देवीहल्ली, कुंदार पोस्ट, एल्लूर तालुक, जिला हसन ।

33. मैसर्स बेस्ट कॉफी क्यूरिंग वर्क्स प्रा.लि. , हसन और स्टेट बैंक ऑफ मैसूर, हसन शाखा , हसन के अज्ञात कर्मचारी ।

और किन्हीं अन्य लोक सेवकों अथवा व्यक्तियों के विरुद्ध वर्ष 1998-2003 के दौरान ' वेयर हाउस रिसिट लोन ' योजना के अंतर्गत साख- सुविधाएं प्राप्त करने के मामले में स्टेट बैंक ऑफ मैसूर, हसन

[PART IISEC. 3 (ii) ] शाखा को 125 लाख रुपये का धोखा देने के लिए भारतीय दंड संहिता, 1860 ( 1860 का अधिनियम सं. 45 ) की धारा 120- बी संपठित धारा 420, 468 और 471 तथा भ्रष्टाचार निवारण अधिनियम, 1988 ( 1988 का अधिनियम सं. 49 ) की धारा 13 (2 ) सपठित धारा 13 ( 1 ) ( डी) के अधीन दंडनीय अपराधों और उक्त अपराधों से संबंधित अथवा संसक्त तथा उसी संव्यवहार के अनुक्रम में किए गए अथवा उन्हीं तथ्यों से उद्भूत किन्हीं अन्य अपराधों के अन्वेषण के लिए दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना के सदस्यों की शक्तियों और अधिकारिता का विस्तार सम्पूर्ण कर्नाटक राज्य पर करती है ।

[सं 228/52/2004 - ए.वी.डी.- II ]

भाष्कर खुल्बे, निदेशक New Delhi the 16th July, 2004

S.O. 1724. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section ( 1 ) of Section 5 read with Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No.25 of 1946 ) , the Central Government with the consent of State Government of Karnataka , vide Notification No. HD 80 PCR 2004 dated 14th May 2004, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of the State of Karnataka for investigation of offences punishable under Section 120 - B read with 420,468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860 ) and under Section 13 (2) read with 13 ( 1 )(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act , 1988 (Act No. 49 of 1988 ) against:-

( 1) Shri G.C Chandra Mohan, Director, M/s. Best Coffee Curing Works Private Limited, Hassan .

(2) Smt. Geetha Chandra Mohan, Director, M/s. Best Coffee Curing Works Private Limited , Hassan.

(3) Shri V.L. Fernandes , Director, M/s. Best Coffee Curing Works Private Limited, Hassan.

(4) Smt . Laura Fernandes , Director, M/s. Best Coffee Curing Works Private Limited, Hassan.

(5) Shri S. Anil Subbaiah , Manager , M/ s . Best Coffee Curing Works Private Limited, Hassan.

[भाग II- खष्ठ 3 (ii) ]

भारत का सर्वत्र सुलाई 24, 2004/ 2, 1926

(6) Shri G. S. Shantaappa, Manager (Finance) , M/sBest Coffee Curing Works Private Limited, Hassan.

(18) Shri G.R. Shantaeppe, S/o. Sri . Rajappa R/o GopalapucaVillage, Sanvarpet Talak KodaguDist.

(7) Shri Chandrachar S/O Sri . Chennaveerachar, R/o Easwara Temple Street, Hassan,

(19) Shri C.H. Basappa, S/o. Sri . C. Chennapa , K R/o Chennahalli , Alur Taluk HassanDist.

(8) Shri K.K Chengappa, S/o Shri . K. Cariapa , R/o Muthava Village , Arabally post , Belur Taluk, Hassan Dist .

(20) Shri S.C. Apparna Gowda, S/o . Sri . Chenna Gowda, R/o Sreedarhalli, AnkaẾN ĐÃ CƯ HassanDist.

(9) Shri H.S Ramesh, S/ o Sri . Shivanna , R/ o Udayawar, Shakleshpur Taluk, Hassan Dist .

(21) Shri D. Venkatesh, S/o. Sri Devigasi R/ o Devigere, KamPost Alur Taluk, Hassan Dist 20 (10) Shri H.M. Ramachandra , S/o Sri H. R. Mallikarjunaiah, R/o Behind Bus Stand, Shakleshpur Taluk, Hassan Dist.

(22) SHH KS Ra S/ o. Srf. Skantappa, R/6 Kodlipet, SomvarpetTaluk KodaguDist.

(11 ) Shri B.K. Giridhar , S/o Sri . B.S. Kashiviswanath , R/o Main Road, Codlipet, Somvarpet Taluk, Hassan Dist .

(23) Shri B.H. Nagarajaiah, S/p . Sri . B. Halappa, R/oYeslur, Sakleshpur Taluk, Hassan Dist .

(12) H.B. Puttaswamy, S/o Sri . Basappa, R/ o Doddahalli , Nidhata Post , Shukwarsanthe, Somvarpet Taluk, CoorgDist.

(24) Shri B.K. Rajakumar , S/o . Sri . Krishnasekar R/ o Sukrawar Sathe Sakleshpur Taluk, HassanDist.

(13) Shri H. N. Gyaneshwara Rao , S/o Sri . Narayan Rao , R/ o 5555 / A, 2nd Cross , Ravindra Nagar, Hassan Dist .

(25) Shri B.K. Eashwar, S/o. Sit. Kashiviswanath , R/oMain Road, Kodlipet, Kodagu Dist.

(14) Shri J.C. Vidya Kiran, S/o Sri . Chandrasekhar R/o. Chagally, Hanbal Post , Shakleshpur Taluk, HassanDist .

(26) Shri A.R. Somasunder, S/o. Sri A.V. Rajappa, Rio Main Road, Kodlipet, Kodagu Dist.

(27) Shri K.A. Nateth, S/o. Sri. Annaiah, R/oBalupet, Sakleshpur Taluk, Hassan Dist.

(15) Shri M.T. Somsekar, S/o . Sri . Thimagowda, R/o Rajendra Para BallpetHobli Sakleshpur Taluk , Hassan Dist .

(28) Shri B.S. Manjunatha, S/o . Sri . Subbarao Rio G

(16) Shri B.K. Yatheesh , S/o . Sri , V.S. Kashiviswanathiah, R/o Kodlipet Main; Somvarpet Taluk, Kodugu Dist

(17) Shri A.P. Poviah, S/o . Sri , Poornacha , R/o Rampura, Chickamagalur Taluka, Chickamagalur Dist.

(29) Shri K.C. Mahesh Kumar, S/o Sri K.P. Chandrasekar, R/o Kanthur , Palya Hobli, Alur Taluk, Hassan District.

[PART II-SEC. 3(ii) ] 4088

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24, 2004/SRAVANA2, 1926

(30) Shri H.N. Kumaraswaroop , S/o Sri Late H.L. Nanjanadappa, R/ o Chickanayakarahalli Estate, Hosaline Road, Hassan District .

(iii ) यह आदेश किसी ऐसी आय के संबंध में लागू नहीं होगा, जो कि कारोबार से प्राप्त लाभ तथा अभिलाभ हो जब तक कि ऐसाकारोबार उक्त कर निर्धारिती के उद्देश्यों की प्राप्ति के लिएप्रासंगिक नहींहो तथा ऐसे कारोबार के संबंध में अलग से लेखा पुस्तिकाएं नहीं रखी जाती हों;

(31) Shri H.S. Mohan , S/o Sri H.C. Mohan , R/ o Chickanayakarahalli Estate , Hosaline Road , Hassan District .

(iv ) कर निर्धारिती आयकर अधिनियम, 1961 के प्रावधानों के अनुसार अपनी आय विवरणी नियमित रूप से आयकर प्राधिकारी के समक्ष दाखिल करेगा ;

(32) Shri D.N. Harish, S/o Sri . D.N. Nanjudappa , R/o Durga Estate , Devihalli , Kundar Post, Alur Taluk, Hassan District .

(v ) विघटन की स्थिति में इसकी अतिरिक्त राशियाँ और परिसम्पत्तियाँ समान उ‌द्देश्यों वाले धर्मार्थ संगठन को दे दी जाएंगी ।

(33) M/s . Best Coffee Curing Works Private Limited, Hassan, and unknown officials of State Bank ofMysore , Hassan Branch , Hassan .

[अधिसूचना सं. 157/2004/फा. सं. 196/3/2004-आई.टी.ए. -1] आई. पी. एस. बिन्द्रा, अवर सचिव MINISTRY OF FINANCE (Department of Revenue) CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES NewDelhi , the 15th June, 2004 (INCOMETAX)

for defrauding State Bank of Mysore , Hassan Branch to the extent of Rs . 125 lacs in the matter of availing credit facilities under the the scheme ' Ware - house Receipt Loans ' during the year 1998-2003 and any other public servants or persons in relation to, or in connection with the said offences , and any other offences committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts .

[No. 228 /52 /2004-AVD -II]

BHASKAR KHULBE , Director

S.O. 1725.-In exercise of powers conferred by clause (23 ) of section 10 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961) , the Central Government hereby notifies the "Durand Football Tournament Society, New Delhi " for the purpose ofthe said sub-clause for the assessment years 2000-2001 to 2002-2003 subject to the following conditions , namely वित्त मंत्रालय (राजस्वविभाग )

(1) the assessee will apply its income , or accumulate for application , wholly and exclusively to the ob- jects for which it is established ;

केन्द्रीय प्रत्यक्ष कर बोर्ड नई दिल्ली, 15 जून, 2004

(आयकर)

(ii) the assessee will not invest or deposit its fund (other than voluntary contributions received and maintained in the form ofjewellery, furniture etc. ) for any period during the previous years relevant to the assessment years mentioned above other- wise than in any one or more of the forms or modes specified in sub- section (5 ) of Section 11 ;

का. आ. 1725 आयकर अधिनियम, 1961 ( 1961 का 43) की धारा 10 के खण्ड ( 23 - ग ) के उपखण्ड ( iv ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्र सरकार एतद्वारा " डूरण्ड फुटबाल टूर्नामेंट सोसाइटी, नई दिल्ली " को वर्ष 2000-2001 से 2002-2003 तकके लिए निम्नलिखित शर्तों के अधीन रहते हुए उक्त उप खंड के प्रयोजनार्थ अनुमोदित करती है, अर्थात्:-

(iii) this notification will not apply in relation to any income being profits and gains of business , unless the business is incidental to the attainment of the objectives of the assessee and separate books of accounts are maintained in respect of such busi- ness ;

(i ) कर- निर्धारिती अपनी आय का इस्तेमाल अथवा अपनी आय का इस्तेमाल करने के लिए उसका संचयन पूर्णतया तथा अनन्यतया उन उद्देश्यों के लिए करेगा जिनके लिए इसकी स्थापना की गई है ;

(iv) the assessee will regularly file its return of income before the Income -tax authority in accordance with the provisions ofthe Income -tax Act , 1961 ;

(v) that in the event of dissolution, its surplus and the assets will be given to a charitable organisation with similar objectives .

[Notification No. 157/2004/F. No. 196/3 /2004- ITA-I ] 1. P. S. BINDRA , Under Secy.

(ii ) कर- निर्धारिती उपर्युक्त कर निर्धारण वर्षों से संगत पूर्ववर्ती वर्षों कीकिसी भी अवधि के दौरान धारा 11 की उपधारा (5 ) में. विनिर्दिष्ट किसी एक अथवा एक से अधिक ढंग अथवा तरीकों से भिन्न तरीकों से उसकी निधि ( जेवर जवाहिरात, फर्नीचर अथवा किसी अन्य वस्तु आदि के रूप में प्राप्त तथा अनुरक्षित स्वैच्छिकअंशदान से भिन्न) का निवेश नहीं करेगा अथवा उसे जमा नहीं करवा सकेगा ;

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 24, 2004/ श्रावण 2, 1926

4089 (आर्थिक कार्य विभाग )

(बैंकिंग प्रभाग )

नई दिल्ली, 13 जुलाई, 2004

2. In the Regional Rural Banks (Appointment and Promotions ofOfficers and other Employons) Rules, 1998 in the Third Schedule , in the Note, for thewords "theBoard may nominate occurring below each of the items 1(g), 2(g ), 30g ), 4 (g ), 3 (g), 6 (g) and 7( g) , " the words the Board shall notimate " shall be

No.3( 4 )/2000-RRB)

G.B. SINGH, Under Secy.

का. आ. 1726 - प्रादेशिक ग्रामीण बैंक अधिनियम, 1976 (1976 का 21 ) की धारा 29 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्र सरकार, एतद्वारा , क्षेत्रीय ग्रामीण बैंक ( अधिकारिथों एवं अभ्य कर्मचारियों की नियुक्तिएवं पदोन्नति ) नियम , 1998 में और संशोधन करने के लिए निम्नलिखित नियम बनाती है, नामतः :-

Footnote:(i)The principal rules were published vide noti- fication unmbernber S.O.5.0.642 (E ) dated the 29th July, 1998 in the OfficialGazette, Part II, Section, 3 Sub-Section(ii).

1. ( 1 ) इन नियमों को क्षेत्रीय ग्रामीण बैंक (अधिकारियों एवं अन्यकर्मचारियों कीनियुक्ति एवं पदोन्नति ) ( संशोधन) नियम, 2004 कहा जाएगा ।

(ii ) The amendment rules were published vide 5.0 1091 (E) dated 16th October, 2002 in the Official Gazels, Part I, Section 3 , Sub-Section (ii ).

(2) ये सरकारी राजपत्र में अपने प्रकाशन की तारीख से लागूहोंगे ।

सेन्ट्रल इकॉपामिक इन्टेलीजेंस ब्यूरो

2. क्षेत्रीय ग्रामीण बैंक ( अधिकारियों एवं अन्य कर्मचारियों की नियुक्तिएवं पदोन्नति ) नियम, 1998 में:

नईदिल्ली, 15 जुलाई, 2004

टिप्पणी की तृतीय अनुसूची में मद 1 ( छ ) , 2 ( छ ) , 3 ( छ ) , 4 ( छ) , 5 (छ), 6( छ) , एवं 7( छ ) में प्रत्येक के नीचे लिखे गए शब्दों " बोर्ड नामित कर सकता है " के लिए शब्द" बोर्ड नामित करेंगे " प्रतिस्थापित किए जाएंगे ।

[फा. सं. 3(4)/2000- आरआरबी]

जी. बी. सिंह, अवर सचिव

पाद टिप्पणी: ( i ) मूल नियम सरकारी राजपत्र, भाग II , खंड 3 , उपखंड ( ii ) में का. आ. 642 ( अ ) दिनांक 29 जुलाई, 1998 के तहत प्रकाशित किए गए थे ।

का. आ. 1727 अतः संयुक्त सचिव, भारत सरकार जिन्हें विदेशी मुद्रा संरक्षण और तस्करी निव्धरण अधिनियम, 1974 ( 1974 का 52) को धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अन्तर्गत विशेष रूप से समित प्रदान की गई है , ने उक्त उप- धारा के अधीन आदेश फाइल नं. 673/ 05/2004-सी.यू.एस. VIII , दिनांक 31-05-2004 को जारी किया और यह निर्देश दिया कि श्री अफजल फाजल दलाल, सुपुत्र श्री फाजल सत्तार दलाल , निवासी बी-803 , शिल्पराज अपार्टमेन्ट, अड़ाजन पार्टियां, सूरत, गुजरात को निरुद्ध कर लिया जाए और केन्द्रीय कारागारे, साबरमती, गुजरात में अभिरक्षा में रखा जाए ताकि उन्हें भविष्य में चीनों की तस्करी करने से रोका जा सके।

(ii ) संशोधित नियम सरकारी राजपत्र , भाग II , खंड 3 , उपखंड ( ii ) मेंका. आ. 1091 (अ ) दिनांक16 अक्तूबर, 2002 के तहत प्रकाशित किएगए थे।

2. अतः केन्द्रीय सरकार के पास यह कि पूर्वोक्त व्यक्ति फरार हो गया है या स्वयं आदेश निष्पादित नहीं किया जा सकता । विश्वासरवास करनेकरने काका कारण है को छिपा रखा है जिससे यह (Department of EconomicAffairs)

(Banking Division)

New Delhi , the 13th July, 2004

3. अतः अब उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 7 कीकी उप- धाराउप - धारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( ख ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्ति का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्रीय सरकार एत‌द्वारा पूर्वोक्त व्यक्ति को यह निर्देश देती है कि वह शासकीय राजपत्र में इस आदेश के प्रकाशित होने के 7 दिन के भीतर पुलिस आयुक्त, सूरत के सम्मुख उपस्थित थे।

एच. एम. कृष्णन, उपसर

S.O.1726 - In exercise of powers conferred by section 29 of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 (21 of 1976), the Central Government hereby makes the following Rules further to amend the Regional Rural Banks (Appoint- ment and Promotion ofOfficers and other Employees ) Rules, 1998 , namely:-

(Departament of

CENTRAL ECONOMIC DEVEL

1. (1 ) These rules may be called as the Regional Rural Banks (Appointment and Promotion ofOfficers and other Employees) (Amend- ment) Rules, 2004

NewDelhi , the 13th July, 2004,

(2) They shall come into force on the date of their publication in the Official Gazette.

S.O. 1727 -Whereas the Joint Secretary to the Government of India , specially empowered under Sub -sec- tion( 1 ) of Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Ex- [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24, 2004/SRAVANA 2, 1926

4090

change and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (52 of 1974) issued Order F. No. 673/ 11 /2004-Cus .VIII dated 17-06-2004 under the said Sub -section directing that Shri Rakesh Divedi S/o Late Shri Bansilal Divedi , R/ o No. 87 , Triveni Apartments , Pitampura (West ) New Delhi - 110034 be detained and kept in custody in the Central Jail, Tihar , New Delhi with a view to preventing him from smmugling goods in future.

change and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (52 of 1974) issued Order F. No. 673/05/ 2004 - Cus . VIII dated 31-05-2004 under the said Sub -section directing that Shri Afzal Fazal Dalal S/o Shri Fazal Sattar Dalal , R/o B- 803 , Shilpraj Apartment , Adajan Patia, Surat, Gujarat be detained andkept in custody in the Central Jail , Sabarmati , Gujarat with a view to preventing him from smmugling goods in future.

2. Whereas the Central Government has reasons to believe that the aforesaid person has absconded or is con- cealing himself so that the order cannot be executed.

3. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers con- ferred by clause (b ) of Sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 7 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby directs the afore- said person to appear before the Commissioner of Police , Suratwithin 7 days of the publication of this order in the Official Gazette.

3. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers con- ferred by clause (b) of Sub-section ( 1 ) of Section 7 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby directs the afore- said person to appear before the Commissioner of Police, Delhi within 7 days of the publication of this order in the Official Gazette .

[F. No. 673/05/2004-Cus . VIII]

N. M. KRISHNAN , Dy. Secy ( COFE POSA) :

[F. No. 673/11/2004-Cus . VIII] N. M. KRISHNAN, Dy. Secy (COFE POSA)..

आदेश

नई दिल्ली, 15 जुलाई , 2004

स्वास्थ्यऔर परिवार कल्याण मंत्रालय

(स्वास्थ्यविभाग )

नई दिल्ली, 14 जुलाई, 2004

का. आ. 1728-अतः संयुक्त सचिव, भारत सरकार जिन्हें विदेशी मुद्रा संरक्षण और तस्करी निवारण अधिनियम, 1974 ( 1974 का 52) की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अन्तर्गत विशेष रूप से शक्ति प्रदान की गई है , ने उक्त उप - धारा के अधीन आदेश फाइल सं . 673/ 11/2004- सी.यू.एस. VIII , दिनांक17-06-2004 को जारी किया और यह निर्देश दिया कि श्री राकेश द्विवेदी, सुपुत्र स्वर्गीय श्री बंशीलाल द्विवेदी, निवासी न . 87 , त्रिवेणी अपार्टमेन्ट, पीतमपुरा ( पश्चिम ) , नई दिल्ली-110 034 को निरुद्ध कर लिया जाए और केन्द्रीय कारागार, तिहाड़, नई दिल्ली में अभिरक्षा में रखा जाए ताकि उन्हें भविष्य में चीजों की तस्करी करने से रोका जा सके ।

का. आ. 1729 - राष्ट्रपति , संविधान के अनुच्छेद 239 के खंड ( 1 ) के अनुसरण में, एतद्‌द्वारा निदेश देते हैं कि उनके नियंत्रण के अध्यधीन और आगामी आदेशों तक, निम्नलिखित प्राधिकारी अपने संबंधित संघ राज्य क्षेत्रों में सिगरेट और तम्बाकू उत्पाद ( विज्ञापन का निषेध और व्यापार तथा वाणिज्य , उत्पादन, आपूर्ति और वितरण का विनियमन) अधिनियम, 2003 ( 2003 का 34 ) के अंतर्गत राज्य सरकार की शक्तियों का प्रयोग करेंगे तथा उसके कार्यों का निर्वाह करेंगे : -

प्राधिकारी

क्रम सं. संघ राज्य क्षेत्र का नाम

(3)

(1)

(2)

2. अतः केन्द्रीय सरकार के पास यह विश्वास करने का कारण है किपूर्वोक्त व्यक्ति फरार हो गया है या स्वयं को छिपा रखा है जिससे यह आदेश निष्पादित नहीं किया जा सकता ।

उपराज्यपाल

1. अंडमान और निकोबार द्वीप

समूह

प्रशासक

चंडीगढ़

प्रशासक

3. दादरा और नगर हवेली तथा

3. अतः अब उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 7 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( ख ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्ति का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्रीय सरकार एत‌द्वारा पूर्वोक्त व्यक्ति को यह निर्देश देती है कि वह शासकीय राजपत्र में इस आदेश के प्रकाशित होने के 7 दिन के भीतर पुलिस आयुक्त, दिल्ली के सम्मुख उपस्थित हो ।

दमण एवं दीव.

प्रशासक

4. लक्षद्वीप

[फा.सं. 673/11/2004- सी.यू.एस. VIII ] एन. एम. कृष्णन, उपसचिव ( कोफेपोसा )

उपराज्यपाल

5. राष्ट्रीय राजधानी क्षेत्र दिल्ली

ORDER

उपराज्यपाल

पाण्डिचेरी

New Delhi , the 15th July, 2004

[फा.सं.पी-16011/1/2004- पी.एच. ] भवानी त्यागराजन, संयुक्त सचिव S.O. 1728 -Whereas the Joint Secretary to the Government of India , specially empowered under Sub-sec- tion ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Ex- 4091 भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 24, 2004/ श्रावण 2 , 1926

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE

(Department of Agricultural Research & Education) (Department ofHealth)

New Delhi , the 12th July, 2004 New Delhi , the 14th July, 2004

S.O. 1730 -In pursuance of sub - rule (4) ofRule 10 of the Official Language (use for official purpose ofthe Union) Rules 1976 , the Central Government , Ministry of Agriculture , Department of Agricultural Research & Edu- cation hereby notifies the following Directorate/Institutes/ Centres of ICAR where the percentage of Hindi knowing staff has gone above 80 % :-

1. Central Institute for Cotton Research , Nagpur

2. Directorate of Oilseeds Research, Hyderabad S.O. 1729 -In pursuance of clause ( 1 ) of article 239 of the Constitution, the President hereby directs that , subject to his control and until further orders, the follow- ing authorities in their respective Union Territories shall exercise the powers and discharge the functions of the StateGovernment under the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribu- tion) Act, 2003 (34 of 2003 ) :--

Authority

Name of Union Territory

Sl . No.

3. Central Institute for Buffalo Research , Regional Centre , Nabha , Punjab .

(3)

(2)

(1)

4. National Research Centre for Makhana , Darbhanga, Bihar

Lt.Governor

1 . Andaman and Nicobar Islands

5. Indian Institute of Horticultural Research, Bangalore.

Administrator

[F. No. 13-2/2002-Hindi] Chandigarh

D. K. CHHATWAL , Under Secy.

Administrator

3. Dadra & Nagar Haveli and Daman & Diu

Administrator

Lakshadweep

उपभोक्तामामले, खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय (उपभोक्तामामले विभाग )

Lt. Governor

5. National Capital Territory ofDelhi

भारतीयमानकब्यूरो

Lt.Governor

Pondicherry

नई दिल्ली, 12 जुलाई, 2004

[F. No. P- 16011 /1/2004-PH)

BHAVANI THYAGARAJAN , Jt . Şecy.

कृषिमंत्रालय

का. आ. 1731 भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता हैं कि नीचे अनुसूची में दिये गये मानक( को) में संशोधन किया गया/किये गये हैं :-

( कृषिअनुसंधान एवं शिक्षा विभाग ) .

अनुसूची

नई दिल्ली, 12 जुलाई, 2004

संशोधन की संख्या

क्रम संशोधित भारतीय

संशोधन ,लागू होने कीतिथि

औरतिथि

सं. मानक की संख्या

और वर्ष

(4)

(3)

(1) ( 2)

30-09-2003

1. आईएस 283: 1976 संशोधन सं . 4 सितम्बर 2003

01-04-2004

2. आईएस 653 :1992

का. आ. 1730 केन्द्रीय सरकार, कृषि मंत्रालय , कृषि अनुसंधान एवं शिक्षा विभाग, राजभाषा ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) नियमावली 1976 के नियम 10 के उपनियम (4 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय कृषि अनुसंधान परिषद् ( आई सी ए आर ) के निम्नलिखित निदेशालय /संस्थानों/केन्द्रों में हिन्दी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान रखने वाले कर्मचारियों की संख्या 80 प्रतिशत से अधिक हो जाने के फलस्वरूप उन्हें एत‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करती है :-

संशोधन सं. 1 जुलाई 2003

1. केन्द्रीय कपास अनुसंधान संस्थान , नागपुर

09-01-2004

3. आईएस 903: 1993. संशोधन सं. 2 सितम्बर 2003

2. तिलहन अनुसंधान निदेशालय , हैदराबाद

31-10-2003

संशोधन सं. 1

4. आईएस 1367

3. केन्द्रीय भैंस अनुसंधान संस्थान का क्षेत्रीय केन्द्र, नाभा , पंजाब

अक्तूबर 2003

4. राष्ट्रीय मखाना अनुसंधान केन्द्र, दरभंगा, बिहार

(भाग 9/खंड 1 ) : 1993

5. भारतीय बागवानी अनुसंधान संस्थान , बेंगलूर ।

31-10-2003

संशोधन सं . 1

[ सं. 13-2/2002- हिन्दी]

अक्तूबर 2003

5. आईएस 1367 (भाग 9 /खंड 2 ): 1993

देवेन्द्र कुमार छतवाल, अवर सचिव

2136 GI /2004-2 4092

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24 , 2004/SRAVANA 2, 1926

(3)

(4) (2)

(1)

05-01-2004 6. आईएस 1536: 2001 संशोधन सं. 2 दिसम्बर 2003

31-03-2004 7. आईएस 1660

संशोधन सं. 6 सितम्बर 2003

(भाग 1 ): 1982

30-09-2003 8. आईएस 1652: 1991 संशोधन सं. 4 सितम्बर 2003

17-12-2003 9. आईएस 1729: 2002 संशोधन सं. 1 अगस्त 2003

05-01-2004 10. आईएस 1729: 2002 संशोधन सं. 2 दिसम्बर 2003

07-01-2004 11. आईएस 1879: 1987 संशोधन सं . 7 नवम्बर 2003

11-08-2003 12. आईएस 1977: 1996 संशोधन सं. 3 जुलाई 2003

07-01-2004 13. आईएस 2062: 1999 संशोधन सं. 4 दिसम्बर 2003

31-01-2004 14. आईएस 2112: 2003 संशोधन सं. 2 जनवरी 2004

15. आईएस 2148: 1981

10-11-2003

संशोधन सं. 6 सितम्बर 2003

16. आईएस 2171 : 1999

16-01-2004

संशोधन सं. 3 सितम्बर 2003

01-04-2004 17. आईएस 2596: 1980 संशोधन मं . 3 जुलाई 2003

31-10-2003 18. आईएस 2787: 1986 संशोधन सं. 3

अक्तूबर 2003

01-04-2004 19. आईएस 2878: 1986 संशोधन सं. 5 सितम्बर 2003

20. आईएस 3515: 1966 संशोधन सं. 1

30-09-2003

सितम्बर 2003

07-01-2004 21. आईएस 3589: 2001 संशोधन सं. 2 अक्तूचर 2003

07-01-2004 22. आईएस 3989: 1984 संशोधन सं. 4 अक्तूबर 2003

07-01-2004 23. आईएस 4984 : 1995 संशोधन सं . 3

सितम्बर 2003

13-01-2004 24. आईएस 5244 : 1991 संशोधन सं. 3 सितम्बर 2003

30-01-2004 25. आईएस 6381 : 1972 संशोधन सं. 4

सितम्बर 2003

30-01-2004 26. आईएस 7372: 1995 संशोधन सं. 2

सितम्बर 2003

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] (2)

(1)

(3)

(4)

07-01-2004 27. आईएस 8500: 1991 संशोधन सं. 5 दिसम्बर 2003

31-10-2003 28. आईएस 9449 (भाग 2): 1985

संशोधन सं. 1 अक्तूबर 2003

31-10-2003 29. आईएस 9449 (भाग 3): 1985

संशोधन सं. 1 अक्तूबर 2003

01-04-2004 30. आईएस 10204: 2001 संशोधन सं. 2 दिसम्बर 2003

31. आईएस 10658: 1999

07-01-2004

संशोधन सं. 3 सितम्बर 2003

31-10-2003

संशोधन सं. 1 अक्तूबर 2003

32.आईएस 11542 (भाग 1): 1985

संशोधन सं. 1

31-10-2003 33. आईएस 11542 (भाग 2): 1985 अक्तूबर 2003

संशोधन सं. 1

30-11-2003

नवम्बर 2003

34.आईएस 11852 (भाग 2): 2001

30-11-2003

संशोधन सं. 1 नवम्बर 2003

35.आईएस 11852 (भाग 3 ):2001

30-11-2003

संशोधन सं . 1 नवम्बर 2003

36. आईएस 11852 (भाग 8 ):2001

30-11-2003 37. आईएस 12884: 1990 संशोधन सं. 2 नवम्बर 2003

30-09-2003 38. आईएस 13346: 1992 संशोधन सं. 2 सितम्बर 2003

संशोधन सं . 1

30-09-2003 39. आईएस 13369: 1992

सितम्बर 2003

07-01-2004 40. आईएस 13385: 1992 संशोधन सं. 3 सितम्बर 2003

संशोधन सं. 1

31-10-2003 41. आईएस 13408 (भाग 1 ): 1992 अक्तूबर2003

30-09-2003 42. आईएस 13514: 1992 संशोधन सं. 2 सितम्बर 2003

01-04-2004 43. आईएस 13849: 1993 संशोधन सं. 4 सितम्बर 2003

07-01-2004 44. आईएस 14333: 1996 संशोधन सं . 2 सितम्बर 2003

12-05-2003 45. आईएस 14609: 1999 संशोधन सं. 1 फरवरी 2003

01-03-2004 46. आईएस 14609: 1999 संशोधन सं . 2 सितम्बर 2003

31-12-2003 47. आईएस 14664 : 1999 संशोधन सं. 1 दिसम्बर 2003 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

4093

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 24 , 2004/श्रावण 2, 1926

(2)

(1)

(3)

(4)

30-11-2003

संशोधन सं. 1 नवम्बर 2003

48. आईएस 14768 : (भाग 1 ) : 2003

07-01-2004 49. आईएस 14845: 2000 संशोधन सं. 1 सितम्बर 2003

30-11-2003

संशोधन सं. 1 नवम्बर 2003

50. आईएस 15111 (भाग 1 ): 2002

30-11-2003 51. आईएस 15111 (भाग 2): 2002

संशोधन सं. 1 नवम्बर 2003

30-11-2003 52. आईएस 15244: 2002 संशोधन सं. 1 नवम्बर 2003

31-10-2003 53. आईएस 15245: 2003 संशोधन सं . 1 अक्टूबर 2003

इन संशोधनों की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो मानक भवन 9 बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली-110002, क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों, नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता, चण्डीगढ़ , चेन्नई, मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों अहमदाबाद, बंगलौर, भोपाल , भुवनेश्वर, कोयम्बतूर, गुवाहाटी, हैदराबाद, जयपुर, कानपुर, पटना, पूणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

[सं. के० प्र० वि०-4/13 : 5 ]

एस. के. चौधरी, उपमहानिदेशक ( मुहर) MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS , FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department of Consumer Affairs) BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS New Delhi , the 12th July, 2004

S.O. 1731 .-In pursuance of clause (b) of sub- rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Stardards Rules , 1987 , the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that amendments to the Indian Standards , particulars ofwhich are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been issued:

SCHEDULE

Date from Sl. No. ofYear of No. and year of

No. the Indian

the amendment

Standards

amendment (1) (2)

(3)

(4)

31-10-2003

Amendment No. 1 October2003

4. IS: 1367 (Pt9/ Sec.1): 1993

31-10-2003

Amendment No. 1 October2003

5. IS: 1367(Pt9/ Sec.2): 1993

6. IS: 1536 :2001

05-01-2004

Amendment No. 2 December 2003

31-03-2004 7. IS: 1660 (Part 1) : 1982

Amendment No. 6 September2003

8. IS: 1652 : 1991

30-09-2003

Amendment No. 4 September 2003

9. IS : 1729 : 2002

17-12-2003

Amendment No. 1 August 2003

10. IS: 1729:2002

05-01-2004

Amendment No. 2 December 2003

11. IS: 1879 : 1987

07-01-2004

Amendment No. 7 November 2003

12. IS: 1977: 1996

11-08-2004

July2003 Amendment No. 3

13. IS : 2062: 1999

07-01-2004

December 2003 Amendment No. 4

14. IS: 2112: 2003

31-01-2004

Amendment No. 2 January2004

15. IS: 2148: 1981

10-11-2003

Amendment No. 6 September 2003

16, IS :2171 : 1999

16-01-2004

Amendment No. 3 September 2003

17. IS: 2596: 1980

01-04-2004

Amendment No. 3 July2003

18. IS: 2787 :1986

31-10-2003

Amendment No. 3 October 2003

19. IS:2878:1986

01-04-2004

Amendment No. 5 September 2003

30-09-2003 20. IS:3515 : 1966 Amendment No. 1 September 2003

21. 15: 3589: 2001

07-01-2004

Amendment No. 2 October2003

22. IS:3989: 1984

07-01-2004

Amc Amendment No. 4 October2003

23. 4984: 1995

07-01-2004

September 2003 Amendment No. 3

which the

shall have

effect

(3)

(1) (2)

(4) 1. IS:283: 1976

24. 5244: 1991

12-01-2004

Amendment No. 3 September 2003

30-09-2003

Amendment No. 4 September2003

2. IS:653: 1992

01-04-2004

Amendment No. 1 July 2003

3. IS :903 : 1993

25. 6381 : 1972

30-01-2004

Amendment No. 4 September 2003

26, 7372: 1995

30-10-2004

Amendment No. 2 September 2003

09-01-2004

Amendment No. 2 September 2003A

07-01-2004 27. IS : 8500 : 1991 Amendment No. 5 December 2003 4094

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24 , 2004/ SRAVANA 2 , 1926

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

31-10-2003

Amendment No. 1 October 2003

1985 28. IS: 9449 (Pt 2) :

31-10-2003

Amendment No. 1 October 2003

29. IS: 9449 (Pt3 ): 1985

01-04-2004 30. IS: 10204: 2001 Amendment No. 2 December 2003

07-01-2004 31. IS: 10658 : 1999 Amendment No. 3 September 2003

31-10-2003

Amendment No. 1 October 2003

32. IS: 11542 (Pt 1 ) : 1985

31-10-2003

Amendment No. 1 October 2003

33. IS: 11542 (Pt 2) : 1985

30-11-2003

Amendment No. 1 November 2003

34. IS: 11852 (P12): 2001

30-11-2003

Amendment No. 1 November 2003

2001 35. IS: 11852 (Pt3 ) :

30-11-2003

Amendment No. 1 November 2003

36. IS: 11852 (Pt8 ) : 2001

30-11-2003 37. IS: 12884: 1990 Amendment No. 2 November 2003

30-09-2003 38. IS: 13346: 1992 Amendment No. 2 September 2003

30-09-2003 39. IS: 13369 : 1992 Amendment No. 1 September 2003

07-01-2004 40. IS: 13385 : 1992 Amendment No. 3 September

31-10-2003

Amendment No. 1 October 2003

41. IS: 13408 ( Pt 1 ): 1992

30-09-2003 42. IS: 13514: 1992

Amendment No. 2 September 2003

01-04-2004 43. IS: 13849: 1993 Amendment No. 4 September 2003

07-01-2004 44. IS: 14333 : 1993 Amendment No. 2 September 2003

13-05-2003 45. IS: 14609 : 1999 Amendment No. 1 February 2003

01-03-2004 46. IS: 14609 : 1999 Amendment No. 2 September 2003

31-12-2003 47. IS: 14664: 1999 Amendment No. 1 December 2003

30-11-2003

Amendment No. 1 November 2003

48. IS: 14768 ( Pt1 ) : 2003

07-01-2004 49. IS: 14845: 2000 Amendment No. 1 September 2003

30-11-2003 2002 50. IS: 15111 (Pt 1 ) : Amendment No. I November 2003

30-11-2003

Amendment No. I November 2003

51. IS: 15111 ( Pt2 ) : 2002

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]

(4) (1) (2)

30-11-2003 52. IS: 15244: 2002 Amendment No. 1 November 2003

31-10-2003 53. IS: 15245 :2003 Amendment No. 1 October2003

Copyofthese amendments are available for sale with theBureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9 , Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi- 110002 and Regional Office: New Delhi , Kolkata , Chandigarh , Chennai , Mumbai and also Branch Offices : Ahmedabad, Bangalore , Bhopal , Bhubaneshwar , Coimbatore , Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur , Nagpur , Patna , Pune , Thiruvanantkapuram .

[No. CMD - IV/13 : 5 ] S. K. CHAUDHURI , Dy. Director General (Marks) कोयला और खान मंत्रालय

(कोयलाविभाग )

नई दिल्ली, 14 जुलाई, 2004

का. आ. 1732 केन्द्रीय सरकार, सरकारी स्थान (अप्राधिकृत अधिभोगियों की बेदखली ) अधिनियम , 1971 ( 1971 का 40 ) की धारा 3 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, भारत सरकार के तत्कालीन इस्पात, खान और कोयला मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना सं. का.आ. 3403 , तारीख 8 जुलाई , 1985 जो भारत के राजपत्र , भाग , II खंड 3 ( ii ) , तारीख 20 जुलाई, 1985 में प्रकाशित की गई थी, द्वारा उन बातों के सिवाय अधिक्रान्त करते हुए, जिन्हें ऐसे अधिक्रमण से पहले किया गया है या किए जाने कोलोप किया गया है , नीचे सारणी के स्तम्भ ( 2 ) में उल्लिखित अधिकारियों को, जो सरकार के राजपत्रित अधिकारी की रैंक के समतुल्य अधिकारी हैं, उक्त अधिनियम के प्रयोजनों के लिए सम्पदा अधिकारी नियुक्त करती है और उक्त अधिकारी उक्त सारणी के स्तंभ ( 3 ) में विनिर्दिष्ट सरकारी स्थानों की बाबत अपनी-अपनी अधिकारिताओं की स्थानीय सीमाओं के भीतर उक्त अधिनियम द्वारा या उसके अधीन सम्पदा अधिकारियों को प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग और उन पर अधिरोपित कर्तव्यों का पालन करेंगे , अर्थात्: -

सारणी

सरकारी स्थानों के प्रवर्ग क्रम अधिकारी का पद नाम संख्या

(3)

(1) (2)

1. महाप्रबंधक ( सम्पदा)

भारत कोकिंग कोल

बी.सी.सी.एल. टाउनशिप,

लिमिटेड, डाकघर- कोयला नगर,

धनबाद-826005

झारखंड और पश्चिम बंगाल राज्य में भारत कोकिंग कोल लिमिटेड के स्थान या उनके द्वारा या उनकी ओर से पट्टे पर लिए गए स्थान जो कोयला नगर, कोल बोर्ड कोलोनी, जगजीवन नगर के नाम से ज्ञात हैं । भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 24, 2004/ श्रावण 2, 1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

(3)

(1) (2)

(3)

(1) (2)

झारखण्ड राज्य में भारत कोकिंग कॉल लिमिटेड के कुसुमा क्षेत्र के स्थान या उनके द्वारा या उनकीउन और से पट्टे पर लिए गए स्थान ।

9. क्षेत्र कार्मिक प्रबंधक, कटरास क्षेत्र भारत कॉगिंग कोल लिमिटेड, डार्कवर सिजुआ, जिला- धनबाद पिन-828121.

2. उप मुख्य प्रबंधक (एफ. एंड आर) , भारत कोकिंग कोल लिमिटेड, डाकघर- बी.सी.सी.एल. टाउनशिप , कोयला नगर, धनबाद-826005

झारखंड और पश्चिम बंगाल राज्य में भारत कोकिंग कोल लिमिटेड के स्थान या उनके द्वारा या उनकी ओर से पट्टे पर लिए गए स्थान जो मधुबन वाशेरी , ई. डब्ल्यू जोन , दूग्ध वाशेरी, सी.सी.डब्ल्यू ओ. कालोनी और मूली टाउन एडमन, मूली के नाम सेज्ञात है ।

झारखण्ड राज्य में भारत कोकिंग कोल लिमिटेड के कुसुमा क्षेत्र के स्थानमाउनके द्वारा या उसकी ओर से पट्टे पर लिए स्थान ।

10. क्षेत्र प्रबंधक, ( योजना) कटरास क्षेत्र भारत कोकिंग कील लिमिटेड, डाकर सिजुआ, जिला- धनबाद, पिन -828121

3. क्षेत्र कार्मिक प्रबंधक, बरोरा क्षेत्र , भारत कोकिंग कोल लिमिटेड, डाकघर- नवांगढ़ , जिला- धनबाद, पिन-828306

झारखंड राज्य में भारत कोकिंग कोल लिमिटेड के पश्चिमी झरिया क्षेत्र के स्थान या उसके द्वारा या उसकी ओर से पट्टे पर लिए गए स्थान ।

झारखण्ड राज्य में भारत कोल लिमिटेड के पोर क्षेत्र के स्थान या उनकी और से

11. क्षेत्र कार्मिक प्रबंधक, सिजुआ क्षेत्र भारत कोकिंग कोल लिमिटेड, डाकबर सिजुआ क्षेत्र, जिला- वनवाद पिन-828121

4. क्षेत्र प्रबंधक ( योजना) बरोरा क्षेत्र, भारत कोकिंग कोल लिमिटेड, डाकघर नवांगढ, जिला- धनबाद, पिन-828306

12. क्षेत्र प्रबंधक, ( योजना) सिगुआ क्षेत्र, भारत काकिंग कोल लिमिटेड, डाकघर सिजुआ, जिला- धनबाद, पिन-828121

झारखण्ड राज्य में भारत कोकिंग कोल लिमिटेड के पोस्ट आफिस क्षेत्र के स्थान या उनके द्वारा या उनकी ओर से पट्टे पर लिए गए स्थान ।

झारखण्ड में भारत कोकिंग कोल

लिमिटेड के कटरास क्षेत्र के स्थान

या उनके द्वारा या उनकी ओर से झारखण्ड राज्य में भारत कोकिंग कोल लिमिटेड के गोवन्दपुर क्षेत्र और ब्लांक-11 क्षेत्र के स्थान या उनके द्वारा उनकी ओर से पट्टे पर लिए गए स्थान ।

पढ्छे पर लिए गएः स्थान । 5. क्षेत्र कार्मिक प्रबंधक, पश्चिमी झरिया क्षेत्र, भारत कोकिंग कोल लिमिटेड, डाकघर मुनिडीह , जिला धनबाद, पिन-828129

13. क्षेत्र कार्मिक प्रबंधक, कुसुंडाक्षेत्र, भारत कोकिंग कोल लिमिटेड, डाकघर कुसुंडी, जिला- धनबाद, पिन-828116

झारखण्ड में भारत कोकिंग कोल लिमिटेड के कटयस क्षेत्र के स्थान या उनके द्वारा या उनकी ओर से पट्टे पर लिए गए स्थान । झारखण्ड राज्य में भारत कोकिंग कोल लिमिटेड के गोवन्दपुर क्षेत्र और ब्लाक- II क्षेत्र के स्थान या उनके द्वारा उनकी ओर से पट्टे पर लिए गए स्थान ।

14. क्षेत्र प्रबंधक, ( योजना ) , कुसुंडा क्षेत्र, भारत कोकिंग कोल लिमिटेड, डाकबर- कुसुडा, जिला- धनबाद पिन-828116

6. क्षेत्र प्रबंधक, ( योजना) पश्चिमी झरिया क्षेत्र, भारत कोकिंग कोल लिमिटेड, डाकघर मुनिडीह, जिला धनबाद, पिन-828129

झारखण्ड राज्य में भारत कोकिंग कोल लिमिटेड के सिजुआ क्षेत्र के स्थान या उनके द्वारा या उनकी ओर से पट्टे पर लिए गए स्थान । झारखण्ड राज्य में भारत कोकिंग कोल लिमिटेड के बरोरा क्षेत्र , के स्थान या उनके द्वारा या उनकी ओरसे पट्टे पर लिए गए स्थान ।

15. क्षेत्र कार्मिक प्रबंधक, पी बी क्षेत्र, भारत कोकिंग कोल लिमिटेड, डाकबर कुसुंडा, जिला- धनबाद, पिन-828116

7. क्षेत्र कार्मिक प्रबंधक, गोवन्दपुर क्षेत्र भारत कोकिंग कोल लिमिटेड, डाकघर सोनाडीह, जिला धनबाद, पिन-828125

शारखण्ड राज्य में भारत कोकिंग कीनिकोल लिमिटेड के सिजुआ क्षेत्र के स्थान यो उनके द्वारा या उनकी ओर से प‌ट्टे पर लिए गए झारखण्ड राज्य में भारत कोकिंग कोल लिमिटेड के बरोरा क्षेत्र, के स्थान या उनके द्वारा या उनकी ओर से पट्टे पर लिए गए स्थान ।

16. क्षेत्र प्रबंधक, ( सी ), पीबी क्षेत्र, भारत कोल लिमिटेड, डाकबर कुसुंडा, जिला- धनबाद पिन-828116

8. क्षेत्र प्रबंधक, (योजना) गोवन्दपुर क्षेत्र भारत कोकिंग कोल लिमिटेड, डाकघर सोनाडीह, जिला धनबाद, पिन-828125 4096

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24, 2004/ SRAVANA 2, 1926

(3)

(2)

(1)

झारखण्ड राज्य में भारत कोकिंग कोल लिमिटेड के लोदना क्षेत्र के स्थान या उनके द्वारा या उनकी ओर से पट्टे पर लिए गए स्थान । 17. क्षेत्र कार्मिक प्रबंधक, कुसुंडा क्षेत्र , भारत कोकिंग कोल लिमिटेड, डाकघर- कुस्तोर, जिला- धनबाद, पिन-828117

झारखण्ड राज्य में भारत कोकिंग कोल लिमिटेड के लोदना क्षेत्र के स्थान या उनके द्वारा या उनकी ओर से पट्टे पर लिए गए स्थान । 18. क्षेत्र प्रबंधक, ( योजना ) , कुसुंडा क्षेत्र, भारत कोकिंग कोल लिमिटेड, डाकघर- कुस्तोर, जिला- धनबाद, पिन-828117

झारखण्ड राज्य में भारत कोकिंग कोल लिमिटेड के सुदामडीह क्षेत्र और पूर्वी झरिया क्षेत्र के स्थान या उनके द्वारा उनकी ओर से पट्टे पर लिए गए स्थान । 19. क्षेत्र कार्मिक प्रबंधक बस्ताकोला क्षेत्र, भारत कोकिंग कोल लिमिटेड डाकघर- झरिया, जिला- धनबाद, पिन-828111

झारखण्ड राज्य में भारत कोकिंग कोल लिमिटेड के सुदामडीह क्षेत्र और पूर्वी झरिया क्षेत्र के स्थान या उनके द्वारा या उनकी ओर से पट्टे परलिए गए स्थान ।

20. क्षेत्र प्रबंधक, (योजना ) , वास्ताकोला क्षेत्र, भारत कोकिंग कोल लिमिटेड, डाकघर- झरिया, जिला- धनबाद, पिन-828111

झारखण्ड राज्य में भारत कोकिंग कोल लिमिटेड के बस्ताकोला क्षेत्र और रोपवेज खंड के स्थान या उनके द्वारा या उनकी ओर से पट्टे पर लिए गए स्थान । 21. क्षेत्र प्रबंधक, (योजना) , लोदना क्षेत्र, भारत कोकिंग कोल लिमिटेड, डाकघर- खास जीनागोरा , जिला- धनबाद, पिन-828115

22. क्षेत्र प्रबंधक, ( योजना ) , लोदना क्षेत्र, भारत कोकिंग कोल लिमिटेड, डाकघर- खास जीनागोरा, जिला- धनबाद, पिन-828115

झारखण्ड राज्य में भारत कोकिंग कोल लिमिटेड के बस्ताकोला क्षेत्र और रोपवेज खंड के स्थान या उनके द्वारा या उनकी ओर से पट्टे पर लिए गए स्थान ।

झारखण्ड राज्य में भारत कोकिंग कोल लिमिटेड के कुस्तोरा क्षेत्र के स्थान या उनके द्वारा या उनकी ओर से पट्टे पर लिए गए स्थान । 23. क्षेत्र कार्मिक प्रबंधक, पूर्वी झरिया क्षेत्र, भारत कोकिंग कोल लिमिटेड, डाकघर- भोवरा, जिला- धनबाद, पिन-828301

झारखण्ड राज्य में भारत कोकिंग कोल लिमिटेड के कुस्तोरा क्षेत्र के स्थान या उनके द्वारा या उनकी ओर से पट्टे पर लिए गए स्थान । 24. क्षेत्र प्रबंधक, ( योजना) , पूर्वी झरिया क्षेत्र , भारत कोकिंग कोल लिमिटेड, डाकघर- भोवरा, जिला- धनबाद पिन-828301

झारखंड और पश्चिम बंगाल राज्य में भारत कोकिंग कोल लिमिटेड के चंच विक्टोरिया क्षेत्र के स्थान या उसके द्वारा या उनकी ओर से पट्टे पर लिए गए स्थान । 25. क्षेत्र कार्मिक प्रबंधक, चंच विक्टोरियां क्षेत्र, भारत कोकिंग कोल लिमिटेड, डाकघर- बराकर, जिला बर्धवान, पिन-713324

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] (1) (2)

(3)

झारखंड और पश्चिम बंगाल राज्य में भारत कोकिंग कोल लिमिटेड के चंच विक्टोरिया क्षेत्र के स्थान या उसके द्वारा या उनकी ओर से पट्टे पर लिए गए स्थान । 26. क्षेत्र प्रबंधक, ( योजना ) , चंच विक्टोरिया क्षेत्र, भारत कोकिंग कोल लिमिटेड, डाकघर- बराकर, जिला- बर्धवान , पिन-713324

[फा. सं. 43022/2/2004- पी.आर.आई.डब्ल्यू. ] संजय बहादुर, निदेशक MINISTRY OF COAL AND MINES (Department of Coal) NewDelhi , the 14th July, 2004

S.O. 1732 -In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupation ) Act , 1971 ( 40 of 1971 ) and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India in the then Ministry of Steel, Mines and Coal published in theGazette of India, Part II, Section 3 ( ii) dated the 20th July, 1985 vide S.O. No. 3403 dated the 8th July, 1985, except as respects things done or omitted to be done before such supersession , Central Government hereby appoints the Officers mentioned in column ( 2) of the Table below, being Officers equivalent to the rank of Gazetted Officers of the Government to be Estate Officers for the purposes of the said Act and the said officers shall exercise the powers conferred and perform the duties imposed on the Estate Officers , by or under the said Act within the locallimits oftheir respective jurisdictions in respect ofpublic premises specified in column (3 ) ofthe said Table , namely:- TABLE

Categories of Public Premises

S. Designation of No. Officer

1.General Manager (Estate) Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. PostOffice-BCCL Township , Koyla Nagar , Dhanbad-826005.

Premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of Bharat Coking Coal Limited in the State of Jharkhand and West Bengal known as Koyla Nagar, Coal Board Colony, JagjiwanNagar.

2. Deputy ChiefManager (L&R) , Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. PostOffice - BCCL Township , Koyla Nagar, Dhanbad-826005 .

Premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of Bharat Coking CoalLimited in the State of Jharkhand and West Bengal known as Madhu- banWashery, EW Zone, Dugdha Washery, CCWO Colony & Bhuli Town Admn . Bhuli .

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 24, 2004/ श्रावण 2, 1926

3 3.AreaPersonnel Manager, BaroraArea, Bharat Coking Coal Ltd.. PostOffice-Nawagarh, District -Dhanbad, Pin-828306.

Premises belonging to or . taken on lease by or on behalf of Western Jharia Area of Bharat Coking Coal Limited, in the State ofJharkhand.

11. AreaPersonnel Manager, SijuaArea, Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. , PostOffice-SijuaArea, District -Dhanbad, Pin-828121 .

Premises belonging to ar taken on lease by or on behalfofPost OfficeArea ofBharat Coking Coal Limited, in the State of Jharkhand

12.AreaManager, (Planning) SijuaArea, Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. , PostOffice-SijuaArea, District-Dhanbad, Pin-828121.

Premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of P.O. Area ofBharat Coking Coal Limited, in the State of Jharkhand

4.AreaManager (Planning) , BaroraArea, Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., PostOffice-Nawagarh, District -Dhanbad, Pin-828306.

Premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of Western Jharia Area of Bharat Coking CoalLimited, in the State ofJharkhand.

13.AreaPersonnel Manager , KusundaArea, BharatCokingCoal Ltd. , Post Office-Kusunda, District-Dhanbad, Pin-828116.

Premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of Katras Area of Bharat Coking Coal Limited, in the State of Jharkhand.

5. Area Personnel Manager, Western Jharia Area, Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. , PostOffice-Moonidih, District-Dhanbad, Pin-828129 .

Premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf ofGovendpur Area and Block- II , Area of Bharat Coking Coal Limited, in the State of Jharkhand.

14. Area Manager (Planning ) , KusundaArea, Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. , PostOffice-Kusunda, District-Dhanbad, Pin 828116

to or Premises belonging to taken on leaselease by or on behalf of Katras Arca ofBharat Coking Coal Limited, in the State of Tharkhand

6.AreaManager (Planning) , Western Jharia Area, Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. , PostOffice-Moonidih, District -Dhanbad, Pin-828129.

Premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of Govendpur Area and Block -II Area of Bharat Coking Coal Limited, in the State of Jharkhand.

15. Arca Personnel Manager, P.B. Area, Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. , Post Office-Kuşunda, District -Dhanbad, Pin-828116..

Premises belonging to or taken on leaseby or on behalf of Sijua Arca ofBharat Coking Coal Limited, in the State of Jharkhand.

7. AreaPersonnel Manager, GovendpurArea, Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. , PostOffice-Sonardih, District -Dhanbad, Pin-828125.

Premises belonging to or taken on lease.by or on behalf of Barora Area ofBharat Coking Coal Limited, in the State of Jharkhand.

16. Area Manager (Planning) , P.B. Area, Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. , Post Office-Kusunda, District -Dhanbad, Pin-828116 .

Premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of Sijua Area ofBharat Coking Coal Limited, in the State of Jharkhand.

&Area Manager (Planning) , GovendpurArea, Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. , PostOffice-Sonardih, District -Dhanbad, Pin-828125.

Premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of Barora Area of Bharat Coking Coal Limited, in the State of Jharkhand.

17. Arça Personnel Manager, Kusunda Area, Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. , Post Office-Kustore , District -Dhanbad, Pin-828117.

Premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of Lodna Arca ofBharat Coking Coal Limited, in the State of Jharkhand.

9. Area Personnel Manager, Katras Area, Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. , PostOffice-Sirjua District-Dhanbad, Pin-828121 .

18.Area Manager (Planning) , Kusunda Area, BharatCoking Coal Ltd. , PostOffice-Kustore, District-Dhanbad, Pin-828117.

Premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of Kusuaa Area ofBharat Coking Coal. Limited, in the State of Jharkhand.

Premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of Lodna Area ofBharat Coking Coal Limited , in the State of Jharkhand

19. Area Personnel Manager , BastacollaArea. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd.. PostOffice-Jharia, District-Dhanbad . Pin-828111.

10.AreaManager (Planning), KatrasArea, Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. , PostOffice-Sijua, District -Dhanbad, Pin-828121 .

Premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of Kusuaa Area ofBharat Coking Coal Limited, in the State of Jharkhand.

Premises belonging to or taken on lease by of on behalf of Eastern Jharia Arca and Sudamdih Area of Bharat Coking Coal Limited, in the State of Jharkhand.

[PART II-SEC . 3(ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 24, 2004/SRAVANA 2, 1926

4098

जल संसाधन मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 12 जुलाई, 2004

20. AreaManager (Planning ) , Bastacolla Area, Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. , PostOffice-Jharia, District -Dhanbad, Pin-828111 .

Premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of Eastern Jharia Area and Sudamdih Area of Bharat Coking Coal Limited , in the State of Jharkhand.

का. आ. 1733 सहभागिता सिंचाई प्रबंधन ( जिसे आगे इंडिया एन पी आई एम कहा जायेगा ) , जोकि सोसाइटीज रजिस्ट्रेशन एक्ट, 1860 के अंतर्गत दिल्ली में पंजीकृत एक सोसाइटी है, के संबंध में भारतीय नेटवर्क के संगम ज्ञापन और नियम एवं विनियम के नियम 9.1 के संबंध में प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए भारत सरकार ने दिनांक 14-2-2004 को भारत के राजपत्र में एस.ओ. सं. 339 के रूप में प्रकाशित दिनांक 24 दिसम्बर, 2003 की अधिसूचना सं. 10/9/ 2000- सीएडी के द्वारा जारी इसके निदेशों में आंशिक संशोधन करते हुए निम्नलिखित निदेश दिए हैं:-

21. Area Personnel Manager , Lodna Area, Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. , PostOffice-Khas Jeenagora, District- Dhanbad, Pin-828115.

Premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of Bastacolla Area and Ropeways Divn. of Bharat Coking Coal Limited, in the State of Jharkhand.

(vii ) इंडिया एन पी आई एम के संगम ज्ञापन और नियम एवं विनियम के नियम 10.4.2 के संबंध में नवचयनित शासी निकास इंडिया एन पी आई एम के अध्यक्ष का पदभार ग्रहण करने की तारीख से दो वषों की अवधि के लिए उक्त सोसाइटी के नये अध्यक्ष का चुनाव कर सकती है ।

22.Area Manager (Planning) , Lodna Area, Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. , Post Office-Khas Jeenagora, District- Dhanbad, Pin -828115.

Premises Belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of Bastacolla Area and Ropeways Divn . of Bharat Coking Coal Limited, in the State of Jharkhand.

(viii ) इंडिया एन पी आई एम के निर्वाचित अध्यक्ष द्वारा पदभार ग्रहण कर लिए जाने के उपरांत आयुक्त ( पीपी ) , जल संसाधन मंत्रालय , इंडिया एन पी आई एम के पदेन अध्यक्ष कीसेवास्वतः समाप्त हो जाएगी ।

Premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of Kustora Area of Bharat Coking Coal Limited, in the State of Jharkhand.

23.Area Personnel Manager, Eastern Jharia Area, Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. , PostOffice-Bhowra , District-Dhanbad, Pin-828301.

(ix) इंडिया एन पी आई एम के निर्वाचित अध्यक्ष द्वारा पदभार ग्रहण कर लेने के तुरंत बाद आयुक्त ( पी पी ) , जल संसाधन मंत्रालय द्वारा प्रशासन और परिसंपत्तियां इंडिया एन पी आई एम को सौंप दी जाएगी, जो उपरोक्त को सारी चीजों के बारे में भी उचित ढंग से सूचित करेंगे जिसमें वित्तीय संस्थाएं शामिल हैं जहां पर सोसाइटी के लेखे का रखरखाव हो रहा है।

Premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of Kustora Area ofBharat Coking Coal Limited, in the State of Jharkhand.

24. AreaManager (Planning) , Eastern Jharia Area, Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. , PostOffice-Bhowra , District -Dhanbad, Pin-828301.

25. Area Personnel Manager, Chanch Victoria Area, Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. , PostOffice-Barakar, District -Burdwan, Pin-713324.

Premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of Chanch Victoria Area of Bharat Coking Coal Limited, in the State ofJharkhand and West Bengal.

(x) नये अध्यक्ष के चुनाव के उपरांत, इंडिया एन पी आई एम के प्रेक्षकके रूप में वरिष्ठतम वरिष्ठ संयुक्त आयुक्त (सीएडी) के नामांकन के लिए संगम ज्ञापन और नियम और विनियम में प्रावधान करने के लिए शासी निकाय की बैठक/आम बैठक बुलाई जा सकती है जोकि प्रत्येक शासी निकाय की बैठक तथा आम बैठक में भाग लेंगे और जल संसाधन मंत्रालय में इंडिया एन पी आई एम के विषय वस्तुप्रभाग को अपनी रिपोर्ट प्रस्तुत करेंगे । जब तक उपरोक्त कार्य पूरा नहीं होजाता और इंडिया एन पी आई एम में कोई नये नियमित प्रेक्षक की नियुक्तिनहीं हो जाती तब तक आयुक्त ( पीपी ) , जल संसाधन मंत्रालय , सोसाइटी के प्रेक्षक के रूप में कार्य करते रहेंगे ।

26. AreaManager (Planning ) , Chanch Victoria Area, Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. , PostOffice-Barakar , District-Burdwan, Pin-713324.

Premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of Chanch Victoria Arca of Bharat Coking Coal Limited, in the State of Jharkhand and West Bengal.

(xi ) निर्वाचित अध्यक्ष, जांच अधिकारी की उन सिफारिशों जिन्हें भारत सरकार द्वारा स्वीकृति मिल चुकी है और इंडिया एन पी आई एम के पदेन अध्यक्ष के रूप में रहकर आयुक्त (पी पी) , जल संसाधन मंत्रालय द्वारा यदि कोई कार्रवाई नहीं की गई है, पर यथोक्ति कार्रवाई करेंगे ।

[F. No. 43022/2/2004- PRIW] SANJAY BAHADUR, Director [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

4099

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 24, 2004/श्रावण 2, 1926

(xii) निर्वाचित अध्यक्ष सोसाइटियों के रजिस्ट्रार को भारत सरकार के उपरोक्त निदेशों के बारे में यथोचित रूप से सूचित करेंगे । सोसाइटियों /शासी निकाय के रजिस्ट्रार से परामर्श करने के पश्चात् इंडिया एन पी आई एम के निर्वाचित अध्यक्ष, यदि आवश्यक हुआ, तो शासी निकाय के 9वें सदस्य की नियुक्ति के संबंध में निर्णय ले सकते हैं ।

उपरोक्त निदेश तत्काल प्रभाव से लागू होंगे ।

[फा. सं. 10/6/2000- कमान क्षेत्र विकास ] सुषमा सिंह, अपर सचिव MINISTRY OF WATER RESOURCES NewDelhi , the 12th July, 2004

S.O. 1733. In exercise of the powers conferred in terms ofRule 9.1 of the Memorandum ofAssociation and Rules and Regulations of Indian Network on Participatory IrrigationManagement (hereinafter referred as IndiaNPIM), a society registered in Delhi under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, the Government of India in partial modification of its directions issued vide Notification No. 10/9/2003 -Vig. dated 24th December, 2003 published as No. S.O. No 339 in the Gazette of Indian dated 14-2-2004, makes the following directives:-

(1) In terms of Rule 10.4.2 of the Memorandum of Association and Rules and Regulations of India NPIM, the newly elected Governing Body may elect a new President of the aforesaid Societyfor aperiod of two years w.e.f. the date he takes over the charge of President of Indian NPIM.

(ii) On taking over the charge by the elected President of India NPIM, the Commissioner (PP), Ministry ofWater Resources will automatically cease to be the ex-officio President of India NPIM.

(iii) Soon after taking over the charge by the elected President of India NPIM, all the administration and assets will be transferred to India NPIM by the Commissioner (PP) , Ministry of Water Resources, who will also appropriately intimate the above to all concerned including the financial institutions where the accounts ofthe society are beingheld.

(iv) After the election of the new President , a GoverningBody meeting/ General Body meeting maybe convened for inserting a provision in the Memorandum of Association and Rules and Regulation of India NPIM for the nomination of senior-most Senior Joint Commissioner (CAD) , Ministry ofWater Resources as the Observer of India NPIM, who will attend each and every Governing Body meeting and General Body meeting and submit his report to the Subject MatterDivision of India NPIM in the Ministry of 2136 GI /2004-3

Water Resources . Till the above action is completed and a new regular Observer is appointed in India NPIM, the Commissioner(PP), MinistryofWater Resources will function as the Observer of the Society.

(v) The elected President will take appropriate action , if not already taken by the Commissioner (PP ) , Ministry of Water Resources in his capacity as the ex-officio President of India NPIM, on the recommendations of the enquiry officer, which has been accepted by the Government of India .

(vi ) The elected President will appropriately communicate the above directives of the Government of India to the Registrar of Societies. The decision regarding appointment of the 9th member ofthe Governing Body, may also be taken by the elected President of India NPIM, after consulting the Registrar of Societies /Governing Body and General Body, if necessary.

The above directives shall come into force with immediate effect.

[F.No. 10/6/2000-CAD] SUSHMA SINGH, Add . Secy.

पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय नईदिल्ली, 14 जुलाई , 2004

काः आ. 1734.-केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन्स ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनि 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियुक कहा गया है ) की धारा 3 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी और भारत के राजपत्र में प्रकाशित भारत सरकार के गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का. आ. 612 दिनांक 10-03-04 द्वारा उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य में सहारनपुर से नजीबाबाद तक इण्डियन ऑयल कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन हेतु उक्त अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची मेंविनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी;

और उक्त अधिसूचना की प्रतियां जनता को दिनांक 31-3-2004 को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थीं;

और, सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार को अपनी रिपोर्ट दे दी है;

और, केन्द्रीय सरकार का उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाना चाहिए;

अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि के उपयोग का अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाता है ;

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)] 4100

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 24, 2004/ SRAVANA 2 , 1926

transportation of Petroleum products from Saharanpur to Najibabad in the State of Uttar Pradesh by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited;

Andwhereas , copies of the said gazette notification were made available to the public on 31-3-2004;

और, केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप - धारा (4 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह निर्देश देती है कि उक्त भूमि के उपयोग का अधिकार इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख से केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने की बजाए सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त होकर इण्डियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड में निहित होगा ।

अनुसूची

And, whereas , the Competent Authority in pursuance of Sub-section ( 1 ) of Section 6 of the said Act, has submitted hisreport to the Central Government:

जिला:बिजनौर राज्यः उत्तर प्रदेश

तहसील: नजीबाबाद

क्षेत्रफल

आर सेन्टी आर

गांव

खसरा नं ० हैक्टेयर

And, whereas , the Central Government after considering the said report is satisfied that the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification should be acquired:

शरीफपुरवागर

विला

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 6 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification isacquired.

एहतमाली

सादुल्लानगर

268

सौफतपुर

270

And, further in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub- section ( 4 ) of Section 6 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby directs that the right ofuser in the said land shall instead of vesting in the Central Government, vest from the date of publication of this declaration, in the Indian Oil Corporation Limited free from all encumbrances.

272

SCHEDULE

363

District : Bijnor State : Uttar Pradesh

Tehsil :Najibabad

नूरमपुर

Village

हरेवली

Centi are

Area Are

Hectare

Khasra No.

सिकरोड़ा

182

मुस्सेपुर

SharifpurBangar

183

()

BilaAhtmali

184

Sadullanagar

423

268

Saufatpur

270

किशोरपुर एहतमाली

272

राहुखेड़ी कौरा 112

363

[संख्या- आर-25011/27/2002- ओ आर -1 ]

Noorampur

रेणुका कुमार, अवर सचिव

Harevali

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

Sikroda

New Delhi , the 14th July, 2004

182

Mussepur

183

184

Kishorpur Ahtmali 423

Rahu Kheri Kaura 112

[No. R-25011 /27 /2002 -OR- 1 ]

RENUKA KUMAR, Under Secy.

S.O. 1734. Whereas by the Notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas , Published in the Gazette of India vide number S.O. 612 dated 10-3-2004; issued under Sub section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act , 1962 (50 of 1962) , (hereinafter referred to as the said Act ) , the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the Right of User in the Land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for the 4101

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 24, 2004/ श्रावण 2,1926

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

नईदिल्ली, 23 जुलाई, 2004

का. आ. 17 - केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि मैं उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन अधिनियम , 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है) की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी की गई भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का. आ. 468 दिनाँक 23.02.2004 द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट राजस्थान राज्य की तहसील बसीराबाद , जिला अजमेर, की भूमि में, सलाया- मथुरा पाइपलाइन प्रणाली परियोजना के विरमगाम-चाकसू, चाकसू-पानीपत और चाकसू- मथुरा सेक्शनों के संवर्धन के क्रियान्वयन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कॉपोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा गुजरात राज्य में विरमगाम से राजस्थान राज्य में चाकसू से होकर हरियाणा राज्य में पानीपत तक अपरिष्कृत तेल के परिवहन के लिए पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के लिए अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी ;

और उक्त अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को दिनाँक 15/03/2004 को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी.;

और सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन केन्द्रीय सरकार को अपनी रिपोर्ट दे दी है ;

और , केन्द्रीय सरकार का उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात यह समाधान हो गया है कि इस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार अर्जित किया जाए ;

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि इस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार अर्जित किया जाता है ।

और केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (4) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह निदेश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख से केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने की बजाए सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड में निहित होगा । 4102

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24, 2004/SRAVANA 2, 1926

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)]

अनुसूची

जिला : अजमेर

नसीराबाद

तहसील :

राज्य : राजस्थान

क्षेत्रफल

हेक्टेयर

खसरा सं.

एयर वर्ग मीटर गाँव का नाम

3510

सनोद

[फा. सं. आर-25011/39/2001- ओ.आर -1 ]

रेणुका कुमार, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 23rd July, 2004

S. O. 1735. Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O. 468 dated 23.02.2004 issued under sub section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act , 1962 (50 of 1962 ) . ( hereinafter referred to as the said Act ) , the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land in Tehsil : Nasirabad , District : Ajmer in Rajasthan State , specified in the schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation ofCrude Oil from Viramgam in the State of Gujarat to Panipat in the State of Haryana via Chaksu in the State of Rajasthan by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited for implementing the Augmentation of Viramgam - Chaksu , Chaksu - Panipat & Chaksu - Mathura sections of Salaya - Mathura Pipeline System Project ;

And whereas , copy of the said notification was made available to the general public on 15/03/2004

And whereas , the Competent Authority has under sub - section ( 1 ) of section 6 of the said Act submitted his report to the Central Government ;

And whereas , the Central Government, after considering the said report is satisfied that the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this Notification should be acquired;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 1 ) of section 6 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification is hereby acquired;

And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section (4 ) of section 6 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby directs that the right of user in the said land shall instead of vesting in the Central Government, vests from the date of publication of this declaration , in the Indian Oil Corporation Limited free from all encumbrances .

[ भाग - खण्ड 3(ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 24, 2004/ श्रवण 2, 1926

SCHEDULE

State: RAJASTHAN

District : AJMER

Tehsil : NASIRABAD

Area

Are

Khasara No.

Hectare

Sq.mtr. Nameof the Village

3510

SANOD

[No. R-25011/39/2001 -O.R.- ] RENUKA KUMAR , Under Secy.

नईदिल्ली , 23 जुलाई, 2004

का. आ. 1736.- केन्द्रीय सरकार को यह प्रतीत होता है कि लोकहित में यह आवश्यक है कि तमिलनाडु राज्य में चेन्नई से तिरूच्चि , मदुराई और शंकरी तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादन के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन आयल कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए और ऐसा प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी पाइपलान बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए इस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करना आवश्यक है ;

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम , 1962 ( 1962 का 50) की धारा 3 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , उनमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है;

उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध कोई ब्यक्ति उस तारीख से , जिसको भारत के राजपत्र मे यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियां साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं , इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन या भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रति लिखित रूप में आक्षेप श्री आर. वज्रवेलू, सक्षम प्राधिकारी चेन्नई तिरूच्चि-मदुराई उत्पाद पाइपलाइन परियोजना और आसनूर से शंकरी तक ब्रांच पाइपलाइन परियोजना , 4/2 , आरोकियासामी स्ट्रीट , क्राफ़ोर्ड कालोनी , तिरुचिरापल्ली 620012 (तमिलनाडु) को कर सकेगा । THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24, 2004/SRAVANA 2, 1926

4104

[PART II-SBC. 3 ( ii)]

अनुसूची

जिला : सेलम तालूका : आत्तूर

राज्य : तमिलनाडु क्षेत्रफल

हिस्सा नंबर

गाँव का नाम

सर्वे नंबर

3 1

नं 98 पेरियेरी

2ब

193

4अ

193

132

193

1 क

193

2 ड

2अ

2ब

2अ

3अ

422

115

2ब

113

114

109

4ब

2ब

107

106

2ब

103

8अ

103

5अ

103

वर्ग मीटर

आर

हेक्टर

10 0

53 0

30 0

80 0

21 0

80 0

11 0

80 0

65 0

60 0

52 0

04 0

40 0

24 0

14 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 24, 2004/ श्रावण 2,1926

9अ

103

5ब

1अ

103

1.ब

102

124

1 ब

124

1क

124

1.इ

124

1 ड

124

1 एफ

13:1

४ब

13.1

8अ

130

2ब

131

4ब

130

2अ

130

134

133

134

1 नं 97 नत्तक्करै

108

.108

4अ

108

2ब

108

2अ

108

३ब

9.7

3अ

9.7

अ

4105 4

6 0

09 0

56 0

12 0

22 0

04 0

01 0

76 0

40 0

11 0

27 0

45 0

78 0

40 0

82 03

97 0

40 0

12 0

1.0

03 0

57 0

40 0

15 0

86 09

72 0

52 0

38 0

01 0

96 0

24 0

21 0

18 0

37 0

92 0

40 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24, 2004/SRAVANA 2, 1926

4106

1512

1533

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)]

6 4

4.0 00

40 00

71 03

54 06

33 0

1514

6ब नं . 94 त्यागनूर

6क

8ब

5ब

5अ

2ब

2अ

2ब

312

331 07

69 0

71 00

60 0

40 0

83 0

79 0

65 0

60 0

13 0

0 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 24, 2004/ श्रावण 2,1926

2अ

1अ

10 .

7.ब 2

7ब 1

1 क 2

1 का

6ब

2ब 2

2ब 1

1अ

111

15 नं . 95 मुम्मुडि

111

112

110

109

108

1अ

1ब

108

107

117

4ब

117

4अ

117

143

2136 Gl/2004-4

4107

6 4

75 0

90 00

40 0

93 0

01 0

17 04

88 0

59 06

40 00

38 0

75 0

48 02

48 0

21 0

27 0

86 0

35 0

45 0

06 0

50 09

79 0

40 0

61 19

67 0

33 09

43 0

75 07

95 0

66 20

86 24

97 4108

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24, 2004/SRAVANA 2, 1926

139

135

136

146

147

148

149

150

187

3ड नं . 86 देवियाकुरिच्चि

187

३क

187

३ ब

187

3अ

187

190

1ब

190

1अ

190

191

181

180

179

2अ

179

2ब

[PART II-SBC . 3 (ii )] 4

6 0

71 0

83 0

15 0

57 0

23 0

04 0

78 0

93 0

40 0

97 04

42 0

21 0

60 05

45 0

11 0

37 0

48 0

51 0

06 0

18 0

16 0

91 0

97 0

78 0

.18 0

06 0

40 0

81 0

55 0

27 0

91 0

87 0

78 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 24, 2004/ श्रावण 2,1926

179

178

174

175

176

160

161

151

150

3अ

142

143

1क

143

1ब

143

1अ

141

2ब

141

2अ

144

140

3अ

138

4अ

138

137

1ब

137

1अ

4109 4

00 0

03 0

66 08

64 0

05 0

98 0

62 0

30 0

26 0

72 09

99 0

92 0

39 0

20 0

66 0

99 05

16 0

60 0

80 0

96 0

83 0

63 0

05 0

40 00

40 0

77 0

82 0

94 0

15 0

30 08

46 0

17 0

00 4110

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24 , 2004 /SRAVANA 2, 1926

3 1

136

135

134

133

नं . 87 वडकुमरै

2अ

2ब

2अ

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)]

6 4

92 0

95 0

40 0

80 0

05 0

30 0

87 0

27 0

08 0

95 0

72 0

67 0

65 0

21 0

54 0

10 0

40 0

07 0

63 0

64 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 24 , 2004/ श्रावण 2,1926

232

4 नं. 76 सारवाय

232

231

2.3 1

204

20.4

204

203

205

15ब

201

2क 1

201

2ब

198

200

198

200

284

1-1

284

285

4114 4

6 0

40 0

86 0

28 0

50 0

32 0

27 0

68 0

85 0

52 00

1.6 01

61 σ

41 0

00 05

98 0

63 0

23 14

54 0

31 0

61 07

23 00

67 0

40 0

79 0

81. 0

65 12

68 0

08 0

68 07

28 05

98 05

31 4112

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24, 2004/SRAVANA 2 , 1926

3 1

285

332

336

339

7ब

339

340

343

317

345

175

नं . 75 सदासिवपुरम

175

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

6 4

02 04

83 06

09 03

18 0

14 0

69 09

92 0

32 03

24 0

53 0

12 0

97 08

69 0

88 0

79 0

40 0

21 02

15 02

40 0

92 0

40 0

52 0

16 0

55 0

44 0

89 0

67 0

00 .

03 [भाग II-खष्ठ 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र जुलाई 24, 2004/ बाषण 2,1926-

175

177

1.75

174

1.02

174

178

9.अ

178

15अ

178

15ब

1.79

179

1:1

179

३ब

179

3अ

179

170

169

167

1.ब

167

1.ड

167

162

163

120

4113 4

06 0

31 0

78 0

38 0

4.5 0

82 0

40 0

57 0

29 0

50 0

73 0

24 0

56 04

07 01

70 0

60 00

65 0

32 0

40 0

12 0

24 0

67 0

23 0

03 0

49 0

74 0

1.2 18

93 0

0109 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24 , 2004/SRAVANA 2 , 1926

4116

312

4क

4ब

5ब

5अ

13क

13 ब

13 अ

11 ब

11 क

15 क

15ब

16क

16 ब

16अ

15 अ

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

48 0

60 03

40 0

71 0

20 03

40 0

28 0

03 0

40 0

00 0

50 0

97 0

58 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

4117

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 24, 2004/ श्रावण 2,1926

2ब

8 एल

8क्यू

8पि

8ओ

9अ

1 ब

1 क

1 अ

19 ब

4311

15ब

33.

15अ

105

11 अ

105

107

109

123

124

125

126

1 ब 1

125

1 क

125

1अ

125

1 ब 4

52 0

58 09

06 08

72 01

81 02

40 0

05 0

67 0

93 0

56 0

45 0

40 00

01 03

96 0

40 0

38 0

94 0

35 0

58 0

45 0

08 0

22 0

41 01

96 0

56 0

62 0

96 0

89 0.4

40 0

00 4118

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24 , 2004/SRAVANA 2 , 1926

[PART II- SEC . 3( іі)) 1

172

39 नं . 71 तुलुक्कनूर

172

1 ब

171

1 ब

149

140

136

2ब

129

135

132

2ब

132

वार्ड एफ ब्लाक नं 19

नं. 70 आत्तूर टाउन

वार्ड एफ ब्लाक नं 17

वार्ड एफ ब्लाक नं 16

35 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 24, 2004/ श्रावण 2,1926

4119

वार्ड एफ ब्लाक नं

2अ

वार्ड एफ ब्लाक नं

वार्ड ई ब्लाक नं

वार्ड ई ब्लाक नं 12

92 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 24, 2004/SRAVANA 2, 1926

4120

340

नं . 52 नरसिंगपुरम

340

253

341

252

341

2क

341

2ब

341

1जि

342

1 एफ

342

1 इ

1 ड

342

1अ

342

326

325

318

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]

نيا

0 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 24 , 2004/श्रावण 2,1926

318

3.17

403

1 ड

403

4ड

399

1 क

403

1 ब

399

4जि

399

4एफ

399

5अ

399

1 इ

1 क

399

316

304

3अ

304

1अ

386

3जि

379

380

384

30.6

2ब

306

2अ

306

6अ

392

391

369

370

295

4121

6 4

15 0

05 0

03 0

19 0

41 0

78 0

40 0

89 0

50 0

44 03

58 0

98 0

50. 0

21 0

61 0

40 0

15 0

91 23

14 0

15 0

74 0

70 0

21 00

09 0

60 0

77 06

20 0

25 0

36 0

62 16

32 0

0.6

14 06 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24, 2004/SRAVANA 2, 1926

4122

377

299

3अ

299

149

नं. 42 तांडवरायपुरम

4ब

149

5क

170

169

168

163

162

159

9 ड

159

9क

9ब

159

931

160

9अ

160

157

३क

3अ

157

156

1 ब 1

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

87 01

88 0

40 00

03 0

51 05

96 0

59 0

78 0

13 0

52 0

59 0

47 0

39 0

61 0

20 0

64 0

51 0

0 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 24 , 2004/ श्रावण 2,1926

1 अ

156

155

2 न 44 ईच्चमपटिट

170

171

170

171

168

169

1.55

155

154

150

149

3 ब 2

149

3ब 1

149

1 हेच नं 45 सिलियमपटिट

278

2अ

277

2ब

277

3अ

277

4ब

277

4क

276

274

273

125

138

273

138

143

10 2136 GI/2004-6

4123 4

6 0

58 0

77 0

31 0

40 0

20 0

53 0

62 0

95 0

52 0

28 0

83 0

03 0

76 0

37 0

10 0

55 0

20 0

92 0

45 0

14 0

10 05

43 0

65 0

42 0

85 0

18 0

50 0

72 0

09 0

42 0

59 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24 , 2004/SRAVANA 2, 1926

4124

9ब

143

9अ

2अ

143

2ब

143

1 अ

143

145

146

166

169

170

173

14ब

173

1431

173

123

173

1031

173

178

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

40 00

10 12

50 05

10 03

41 04

82 01

36 08

43 05

69 0

10 0

28 0

03 0

92 0

09 .

0 भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 24 , 2004/ श्राषण 2,1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

178

177

184

183

188

194

123

194

123

194

12ड

194

12 क्क

194

12 ब

194

6ब

194

6अ

194

197

3ब

197

103

197

10ब

203

7ब

731

203

4125

6 4

03 0

34 06

31 04

38 05

90 06

83 09

40 0

98 0

ρο

48 0

26 0

87 0

40 0

67 0

0 4126

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 24, 2004/SRAVANA 2, 1926

203

5इ

203

5ड

204

16ब

204

16 अ

204

205

3 नं 46 मल्लियकरै

302

301

287

284

281

285

283

282

[PART II-SEC . 3(ii) ]

6 0

52 0

80 0

21 0

01 0

76 0

11 0

40 0

19 0

57 0

32 0

90 0

22 04

40 0

66 0

46 0

40 0

99 0

51 0

23 0

03 0

65 10

73 0

40 0

64 0

17 0

01 0

61 0

92 0

09 0

15 0

50 0

86 0

11 02

40 00 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 24, 2004/ श्रावण 2,1926

241

233

1.0

233

232

235

229

110

198

114

1जे

199

1 ऐ

199

3ड

199

1 इ

199

1 एफ

1 ड

199

200

119

183

184

185

124

122

5अ

320

नं 49 अरसनत्तम

5ब

320

4127

6 4

79 0

50 08

67 00

89 0

40 0

27 0

43 0

40 0

76 0

53 0

62 0

13 0

77 0

41 0

31 0

00 0

40 0

00 4128

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24 , 2004/SRAVANA 2, 1926

256

238

3ब

238

3अ

238

1 क

1अ

238

234

1 क

1 अ

234

1 ब

234

3जि

233

३ एफ

233

उब

233

3अ

233

1ब

233

131

233

231

3क

3 ड

231

3ब

231

2अ

4 नं. 48 गोपालपुरम

उब

1ब

2ब

2अ

1 अ

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] 4

6 0

61 0

40 0

05 0

90 0

98 0

60 0

65 0

98 0

56 0

41 0

58 0

40 0

36 0

87 0

15 0

70 0

61 0

27 0

83 0

80 0

39 0

88 0

21 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 24, 2004/श्रावण 2,1926

17 ब

171

16अ

104

105

1 क

105

1अ

2ब

1ब

4129 4

6 0

93 0

40 0

10 00

87 0

79 0

82 0

84 09

57 0

61 0

88 0

40 00

30 03

99 05

95 0

98 0

70 0

77 0

55 0

04 0

28 0

90 0

82 0

55 0

46 0

43 02

00 0

93 0

27 0

13 .

11 0

81 0

17 0

56 23

14 27

20 4130

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24 , 2004 /SRAVANA 2, 1926

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii

6 4

जिला :

सेलम

तालूका : गंगावल्ली

931

नं . 25 ओटियत्तूर

3 एफ

3इ

3ब

उक

2ब

2क

4ब

332

2इ राज्य : तमिलनाडु 0

93 0

42 0

74 0

40 0

41 0

07 0

34 0

87 0

85 0

25 0 .

40 0

26 0

जिला : सेलम

तालूका : संकरि

634

नं. 21 मोटूर

633

632

610

4अ

610

1132

611

610

1131

7ब

610

711

610

712 राज्य : तमिलनाडु 0

10 0

27 0

26 0

40 0

48 0

40 [ भाग II - खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 24 , 2004/ श्रावण 2,1926

613

1111

613

८

613

11 ब 1

613

615

613

617

1 ब

617

1 अ

617

1 अ

623

1 ब

623

231

623

4क

622

4इ

622

4ब

622

479

471

2अ

471

2ब

468

468 .

467 :

1अ

467

465

464

454

2136GI/2004-7

4131 4

00 02

12 06

43 0

40 00

00 0

76 0

20 0

56 0

55 0

48 06

66 0

40 0

69 0

75 0

74 00

40 00

82 0

52 0

17 06

44 0

34 0

32 0

84 0

28 0

44 0

34 0

36 0

86 0

12 0

00 0 4132

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24 , 2004/SRAVANA 2, 1926

454

436

437

1 इ

431

441

2क 2

2 ब

441

2अ

441

4अ

1 ब 2

376

1 ब 1

378

2क 1

378

2क 3

2ब

378

2अ

378

3ब

359

385

1 ब

1अ

385

384

12ब

234

नं . 22 कस्तूरिपटिट

236

237

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]

6 4

12 01

80 21

95 0

53 0

05 0

20 0

42 09

40 0

70 00

92 0

40 0

64 0

27 08

80 0

09 0

28 06

90 0

86 0

52 0

31 0

40 0

87 0

08 0

63 0

72 0

16 0

02 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

4133

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 24, 2004/ श्रावण 2,1926

237

180

179

178

177

2हेच

6 4

40 0

60 0

48 0

52 0

60 0

88 0

98 [फा. सं. आर-25011/14/2004-ओ.आर-1 ]

रेणुका कुमार, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 23rd July, 2004

S. O. 1736.- Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum products from Chennai to Trichy , Madurai and Sankari in the State of Tamilnadu , a pipeline should be laid by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited .

And whereas, it appears that for the purpose of laying such pipeline , it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the land described in the Schedule annexed to this notification;

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

Any person , interested in the land described in the said Schedule may within twenty one days from the date on which the copies of this notification as published in the Gazette of India , are made available to the general public , object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein or laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri . R.Vajravelu , Competent Authority , Indian Oil Corporation Limited , Chennai - Trichy- Madurai Product Pipeline Project with a branch pipeline from Asanur to Sankari , 4/2, Arockiasamy Street , Crawford Colony , Tiruchirappalli - 620 012 , Tamilnadu .

4134

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 24, 2004/SRAVANA 2, 1926

SCHEDULE Taluk : Attur

District : Salem

Sub-Division no.

Name of the Village

Survey no.

3 1

NO . 98 PERIYERI

193

1A2

193

422

115

113

114

109

107

106

103

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] State: Tamil Nadu

Area

Hectare

Are

Sq.mtr. 4

10 0

40 0

53 0

03 0

30 0

04 0

70 0

80 0

18 0

21 0

80 0

40 0

65 0

16 0

60 0

40 0

52 0

04 0

47 0

24 भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 24, 2004/ श्रावण 2,1926

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

103

102

124

131

130

131

130

134

133

134

108

NO . 97 NATHAKARAI

108

4135

04 0

40 0

11 0

27 0

78 0

82 0

40 0

03 0

38 0

01 0

96 0

24 0

21 0

18 0

37 0

92 0

0 4136

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 24, 2004 /SRAVANA 2, 1926

15A2

15A3

15A4 NO . 94 THIYAGANUR

1.1

3A2

3A1 [PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

Y 0

22 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 24, 2004/ श्रावण 2,1926

1 ८

7B2

7B1

1C2

1C1

2B2

2B1

1 NO.95 MUMMUDI

111

112

110

109

108

107

117

143

4137 4

75 0

40 0

93 0

55 0

01 0

17 0

88 0

59 0

40 0

75 0

48 0

21 0

27 0

86 0

35 0

45 0

15 03

06 0

50 0

79 0

08 0

40 0

61 0

67 0

33 0

43 0

75 0

95 0

27 0

86 0

97 4138

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24, 2004 /SRAVANA 2, 1926

139

135

136

146

147

148

149

150

187

NO . 86 DEVIYAKURICHI

187

190

191

181

180

179

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

6 4

15 0

57 0

04 0

42 0

16 0

91 0

97 0

0 भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 24, 2004/ श्रावण 2,1926

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

179

178

174

175

176

160

160.

160

161

151

150

142

143

141

144

140

138

137

2136 GI/2004-8

4139

66 0

99 0

0 4140

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24, 2004/SRAVANA 2, 1926

136

135

134

133

2 NO . 87. VADAKUMARAI

48.

[PART II-SEC . 3( ii) ] 4

6 0

24 0

92 0

95 0

40 0

05 0

04 0

87 0

27 0

40 0

21 0

95 0

34 0

72 0

19 0

27 0

67 0

26 0

40 0

10 0

40 04

29 0

93 0

20 13

85 0

64 भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 24 , 2004 / श्रावण 2,1926

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

232

NO . 76 SARVAI

232

231

204

203

15B

205

2C1

201

198

200

198

200

284

285

4141

35 0

40 0

86 0

28 0

32 0

27 0

85 0

52 0

41 0

00 0

63 0

08/

23 0

54 0

31 0

61 0

40 0

65 0

03 0

28 0

98 0

31 4142

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24 , 2004/SRAVANA 2 , 1926

285

332

336

339

340

343

317

345

175

NO.75 . SADASIVAPURAM

175

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] 4

02 0

83 0

09 0

18 0

69 0

92 0

32 0

24 0

53 0

12 0

69 0

88 0

81 0

40 0

21 0

15 02

27 0

40 0

92 0

40 0

52 0

40 0

50 0

75 0

16 0

55 0

89 0

67 0

33 0

00 भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 24, 2004/श्रावण 2,1926

[भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

175

177

175

10B2

174

178

15A

178

15B

178

179

170

169

167

162

163

120

4143

6 4

06 0

38 0

40 0

45 0

46 0

40 0

57 0

50 0

24 0

40 0

65 0

32 0

40 0

12 0

67 0

23.

12 0

09 0 4144

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24, 2004/SRAVANA 2, 1926

119

114

12D

114

12A

114

10B

114

12E

114

10A

114

124

58.

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] 4

6 0

38 0

85 0

40 0

52 0

99 0

34 0

23 0

14 0

41 0

16 0

88 0

92 0

04.

65 0

93 0

18 0

22 0

36 0

44 0

08 0

40 0

60 0

50 0

1.5

15.

23 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ⅱ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 24, 2004/ श्रावण 2,1926

9A3

14A

14B

29.

1 NO.72 VALAIYAMADEVI

5C2

5C1

4145 4

6 0

11 0

96 0

58 0

36 0

97 0

77 0

56 0

16 0

40 0

54 0

40 0

76 01

10 0

45 0

08 0

40 0

20 0

42 0

06 0

20 0

40 4146

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24 , 2004/SRAVANA 2 , 1926

3A2

13C

138

13A

11B

11C

15C

158

16C

168

16A

15A

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

6 4

48 0

60 0

40 0

71 0

91 0

20 0

17 0

49 0

40 0

03 0

55 0

31 0

63 0

40 0

10 0

35 0

50 0

48 0

68 0

74 0

50 0

72 0

75 0

21 0

58 भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 24, 2004/ श्रावण 2,1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

19B

4A1

15B

15A

11A

105

107

109

123

124

125

126

1B1

125

2136 G1 /2004-9

4147 4

52 0

58 0

06 08

72 01

81 0

38 0

40 0

67 0

93 01

55 0

56 0

45 02

40 0

01 03

96 0

40 0

38 0

35 0

22 0

41 0

56 0

96 0

89 0

19 0

0 [PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] 4148

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24, 2004/SRAVANA 2 , 1926

172

NO . 71 THULUKKANUR

172

171

149

140

136

129

135

132

Ward F Block No. 19

NO.70 ATTUR TOWN

Ward F Block No. 17

Ward F Block No. 16

9 4149 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 24, 2004/ श्रावण 2,1926

Ward F Block No. 13

Ward F Block No. 12

Ward E Block No. 14

Ward E Block No. 12

13-

12- 4150

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 24 , 2004/ SRAVANA 2, 1926

3 1

340

NO.52 NARASINGAPURAM

340

341

2D3

341

2D2

341

342

326

325

318.

318

[PART I-SEC. 3 ( ii)]

6 4

94 0

46 0

40 0

17 0

61 0

77 0

76 0

23 0

30 0

80 0

90 0

45 0

73 0

91 0

33 0

40 0

52 0

40 0

95 0

05 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 24, 2004/ श्रावण 2,1926

318

317

403

399

4D T

403

399

316

304

386

379

380

384

306

392

391

369

370

295

4151 4

6 0

15 0

05 0

03 0

19 0

41 0

78 0

40 0

89 0

50 0

44 0

98 0

50 0

21 .0

61 0

40 0

15. 0

91 0

14 0

15 0

74 0

70 0

21 0

72 0

09 0

60 0

20 0

25 0

36 0

62 0

32 0

65 0

14 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24 , 2004 /SRAVANA 2, 1926

4152

377

299

149

NO.42 THANDAVARAYAPURAM

149

170

169

168

163

162

159

160

157

156

1B1

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

88 0

51 0

13 0

52 0

69 0

59 0

47 0

40 0

39 0

90 0

16 0

20 0

0 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 24, 2004/ श्रावण 2,1926

156

155

2 NO . 44 EACHAMPATTI

170

171

170

171

168

169

155

154

150

149

3B2

149

3B1

149

278

NO 45 SEELIYAMPATTI

278

277

276

274

273

125

138

273

138

143

-10

4153 4

40 0

62 0

28 0

83 0

32 0

76 0

37 0

20 0

45 0

14 0

10 0

43 0

65 0

42 0

85 0

18 0

50 0

72 0

09 0

42 0

59 4154

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24 , 2004/ SRAVANA 2, 1926

143

145

146

166

169

170

173

14B

173

14A

173

12A

173

10A

173

178

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ]

40 0

50 0

82 0

36 0

69 0

10 0

45 0

46 0

74 0

87 0

40 0

09 0 [ भाग 1- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 24, 2004/श्रावण 2,1926

178

177

184

183

188

194

12A

194

12E

194

12D

12C

194

12B

194

197

10A

197

10B

203

6 2136 GI /2004-10

4155

6 4

03 0

34 0

40 0

77 0

40 0

55 0

46 0

77 0

40 0

98 0

23 0

40 0

48 0

59 02

86 0

11 0

26 00

87 15

96 00

40 00

40 0

55 00

47 0

77 06

20 0

67 01

57 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24 , 2004 /SRAVANA 2, 1926

4156

203

16B

204

16A

204

205

NO.46 MALLIYAKARAI

302

301

287

284

281

285

283

282

[PART II-SEC. 3( ii)]

52 0

21 0

40 0

19 0

66 0

92 0

0 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 24, 2004/ श्रावण 2,1926

241

233

232

235

229

110

198

114

199

200

119

183

184

185

124

122

3 NO.49 ARASANATHAM

320

4157 4

6 0

79 0

50 0

30 0

89 0

87 0

40 0

15 0

69 0

43 0

86 0

78 0

69 0

43 0

40 0

20 0

65 0

76 0

53 0

51 0

26 0

62 0

53 0

13 0

99 0

77 0

41 0

00 13

31 0.

60 09

00 0

40 4158

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24 , 2004/ SRAVANA 2 , 1926

256

238

234

233

231

NO.48 GOPALAPURAM

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ] 4

05 0

90 0

98 08

60 0

65 0

98 0

63 09

56 0

41 02

53 0

58 0

40 0

37 0

36 05

57 04

97 0

43 0

87 0

09 0

70 0

84 0

40 0

21 0

06 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 24, 2004/ श्रावण 2,1926

17B

17A

16A

104

105

4159

40 0

10 0

87 00

79 05

82 0

84 0

57 0

61 0

88 0

95 0

98 0

77 0

55 0

82 0

46 0

00 0

40 0

93 0

11 0

10 4160

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24 , 2004/SRAVANA 2, 1926

3 1

District : Salem Taluk : Gangavalli

NO . 25 ODHIYATHUR

3A2

2E Taluk : Sankari

District : Salem

634

2 NO . 21 MORUR

633

632

610

11A2

611

610

7A1

610

7A2

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] 4

6 State : Tamil Nadu 0

93 0

42 0

74 0

41 0

34 0

08 0

87 0

85 0

33 0

25 0

40 0

26 0

State: Tamil Nadu 0

85 0

39 0

27 0

32 0

40 0

46 0

40 0

48 0

00 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii)]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 24 , 2004/ श्रावण 2,1926

613

615

613

617

623

622

479

471

468

467

465

464

454

4161

6 4

00 0

12 0

43, 0

00 0

76 0

20 0

56 0

55 0

48 0

66 00

40 0

69 0

75 00

74 0

40 0

82 03

17 06

44 0

34 10

43 0

14 05

32 0

37 0

84 25

28 0

44 0

34 06

36 0

12 0

00 4162

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24, 2004/ SRAVANA 2 , 1926

454

436

437

431

441

2C2

441

376

182

376

181

378

2C1

378

2C3

378

359

385

384

12B

234

2 NO . 22 KASTHURIPATTI

236

237

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] 4

6 0

80 0

95 0

53 0

05 0

27 0

06.

42 0

40 0

64 0

27 0

80 0

40 0

25 0

28 0

90 0

65 0

86 0

31 0

14 0

25 0

40 0

87 0

08 0

63 0

43 0

47 0

16 0

01 0

97 4163

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 24 , 2004/ श्रावण 2,1926

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

3 1

237

180

179

178

177

[No. R- 25011/14/2004-O.R. - I ] RENUKA KUMAR , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 23 जुलाई , 2004

का. आ. 1737. - केन्द्रीय सरकार को यह प्रतीत होता है कि लोकहित में यह आवश्यक है कि तमिलनाडु राज्य में चेन्नई से तिरूच्चि, मदुराई और शंकरी तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादन के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन आयल कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए

और ऐसा प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी पाइपलान बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए इस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करना आवश्यक है ;

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम, 1962 (1962 का 50) की धारा 3 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , उनमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है ;

1 उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध कोई ब्यक्ति उस तारीख से , जिसको भारत के राजपत्र मे यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियां साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं , इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन या भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रति लिखित रूप में आक्षेप श्री आर. वज्रवेलू, सक्षम प्राधिकारी चेन्नई तिरूच्चि- मदुराई उत्पाद पाइपलाइन परियोजना और आसनूर से शंकरी तक ब्रांच पाइपलाइन परियोजना , 4/2 , आरोकियासामी स्ट्रीट , क्राफ़ोर्ड कालोनी, तिरुचिरापल्ली 620012 (तमिलनाडु) को कर सकेगा ।

2136 G1/2004-11 4164

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24 , 2004/ SRAVANA 2 , 1926

अनुसूची

जिला: नामक्कल तालूका : रासिपुरम

सर्वे नंबर

गाँव का नाम

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii ) ] राज्य: तमिलनाडु

क्षेत्रफल

हिस्सा नंबर

3 1

226

1अ नं 61 तिम्मिनायक्कनपटिट

226

1 ब

227

224

2क1

203

2इ

203

2क2

202

201

180

3अ

169

158

160

2ड

160

2क

161

2क

161

2ब

161

232

148

1अ

149

2 हेक्टर

आर वर्ग मीटर 4

6 0

64 0

00 0

26 0

76 0

65 0

58 0

33 0

55 0

82 0

43 0

83 0

40 0

77 0

80 0

82 0

22 0

79 0

99 0

71 0

34 0

16 0

80 0

93 0

52 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत काराजपत्र: जुलाई 24 , 2004/ श्रावण 2,1926

149

1 ब

149

131

144

138

139

1क नं. 60 ईश्वरर्मूतिपालैयम

161

2एफ

161

2जि

161

2इ

161

2ब

161

2क

161

2ड

161

150

2ब3

150

2ब 4

150

3ड

150

3ब

150

3अ

143

146

2ब

146

2इ

146

2क

146

2एफ

146

2जि

146

2अ

145

146

182

183

7अ

4165 4

6 0

05 0

22 0

79 0

64 0

06 0

87 0

15 0

75 0

96 0

95 0

45 0

01 0

49 0

54 0

14 0

22 0

58 0

03 0

60 0

58 0

67 0

60 0

40 00

33 0

92 0

54 0

18 0

31 0

40 0

39 0

35 0

03 0

22 0

86 0

25 0

05 0

92 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24, 2004 /SRAVANA 2, 1926

4166

186

1 ब

186

187

1ड

187

4ब

188

4इ

4ड

188

4क

188

5क

188

196

2हेच

112

196

1अ

196

2ब

196

3ब

197

3अ

197

196

197

2ब

197

2क

197

1जि

197

1अ

197

1 एफ

197

1 इ

1ड

197

198

199

1अ

205

1 ब

205

206

4अ

206

209

1 इ

209

1 एफ

4ब

209

4क

209

3ब

209

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii)]

6 4

52 0

09 0

28 0

65 0

40 0

0 भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 24, 2004/ श्रावण 2,1926

[भाग !!- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

209

उक

210

209

3ब

2ड

1अ

6क

2अ

6ब

6अ

1क

3इ

3एफ

3ड

3क

4अ

4ब

4क

4ड

2ब

2अ

2क

233

1एफ

1जि

2ब

237

1ड

237

1इ

5ब

237

5अ

9ब

239

4167 4

40 0

07 0

28 0

88 0

43 0

23 0

58 0

61 0

86 0

30 0

40 0

74 0

39 0

52 0

48 0

91 0

40 0

19 0

97 0

18.

40 0

24 0

98 0

40 0

01 4168

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 24, 2004/SRAVANA 2, 1926

239

9अ

238

1 ब

238

1अ

240

अ

240

253

1एफ

253

1 इ

255

4ड

255

4क

255

4अ

256

2एफ

256

2ड

258

4अ

258

अ

258

2ब

4ब

258

3ब

258

2क

258

2 नं 59 मंगलापुरम

4ब

431

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)] 4

6 0

53 0

34 0

77 0

20 0

87 0

53 0

21 0

14 0

92 0

37 0

29 0

79 0

21 0

50 0

45 0

40 0

00 0

40 0

96 0

78 0

29 0

60 0

87 0

90 0

40 0

90 0

40 0

30 0

48 0

56 0

33 0

34 0

40 0.

71 0

27 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 24, 2004/ श्रावण 2,1926

6अ

अ

2ब

4ब2

237

2ब

237

उक

237

उब

237

3अ

238

238-

1अ

238

1ब

235

3क

235

4अ

235

4ब

235

7क

235

7अ

235

226

230

4ब

230

4क

4169 4

6 0

47 0

40 0

79 0

07 0

85 0

62 0

88 0

96 0

33 0

90 0

20 0

47 0

96 0

40 0

94 0

28 0

40 0

45 0.

67 0

40 0

45 0

51 0

70 0

19 0

40 0

23 0

40 0

28 0

51 0

63 0

50 0

05 0

16 0

75 0

04 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 24, 2004/SRAVANA 2, 1926

4170

4ड

230

अ

229

230

229

2ड

230

229

1ब

229

230

5ब1

230

5अ

230

1अ

163

1ब

163

1ब

164

10ब

165

4ड

161

4क

161

7क

165

10क

165

7ब

165

10अ

165

10इ

7अ

165

10एफ

165

अ

165

3एफ

165

3इ

166

5ब

165

4अ

166

157

5अ

157

5ड

157

156

5क

157

10ब

156

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

6 4

40 0

29 0

89 0

71 0

97 0

0 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 24 , 2004/ श्रावण 2,1926

155

13क

155

13ब

155

1अ

153

1 ब

153

7क

153

176

6ड

176

6क

176

6ड

177

4क

178

4ब

178

4जि

178

149

नं 58 नवलपटिट

149

2इ

1क

153

2क

149

1 ब

153

1अ नं 57 आयलपटिंट

231

2ब

2ब 2

5अ

1ब

1क

2 2136 GI /2004-12

4171 4

00 0

47 0

69 0

51 0

02 0

23 0

60 0

69 0

40 0

51 0

83 0

34 0

62 0

88 0

95 0

11 0

14 0

26 0

77 0

70 0

65 0

22 0

26 0

40 0

70 0

00 0

55. 0

08 4172

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24, 2004/SRAVANA 2 , 1926

108

1 ब

1अ

108

112

7 ब

112

7अ

112

115

1ब 2

119

2ब

119

3अ

119

3क

3ब

119

5ब

119

123

3क

123

3इ

123

3ड

125

2अ

125

2ब

135

126

135

132

133

1क

133

177

131

177

112

133

177

1 ब

[PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii )]

6 4

40 0

96 0

48 0

16 0

40 0

61 0

39 0

40 0

08 0

91 0

40 0

01 0

40 0

18 0

40 0

82 0

40 0

1:7 0

24 0

01 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 24, 2004/ श्रावण 2,1926

179

1ब

179

203

2 नं. 56 कर्कुडलपटिट

2अ

1ब

2ब

अ

2जे

2हेच 2

2एन

331

2अ

2ब

3ब

5अ

5ब

134

2अ

134

2ब 1

134

2ब 3

136

3ब3

146

138

956

3ब

4173

6 0

28 0

98 0

88 0

40 16

93 0

07 0

53 0

85 0

36 0

90 0

06 0

40 0

15 0

24 0

34 09

33 0

41 0

75 0

84 0

90 0

68 0

41 03

14 0

13 04

43 0

40 0

45 01

55 0

37 0

40 0

87 17

90 0

93 0

79 10

45 21

32 4174

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24 , 2004/SRAVANA 2 , 1926

957

950

उब

950

2अ

4क

948

4अ

948

947

8क

947

946

139

नं. 45 मुलैपल्लिपटिट

139

158

1अ

158

157

8ब

157

8अ

157

2अ

143

1अ

143

1ब

143

142

3अ

142

3ब

142

144

142

140

2अ

240

अ

239

223

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

6 4

62 0

79 0

40 0

18 0

51 0

63 0

40 0

96 0

82 0

70 0

74 0

54 0

36 0

54 0

14 0

40 0

56 0

0 [भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 24, 2004/ श्रावण 2,1926

223

4ब

223

226

7अ

226

5अ

226

5ब

226

228

2अ

1ब

132

2अ

1ब

118

1ड

118

332

118

331

118

3ब

114

1ब1

114

1ब2

124

123

242

1 ब नं. 47 नामगिरिपे‌ट्ट

242

3ब

249

247

246

236

246

235

246

1ब

246

234

4175 4

40 0

66 0

41 0

29 0

71 0

59 0

58 0

87 0

62 0

55 0

43 0

14 0

64 0

40 0

56 0

20 0

97 0

07 0

63 0

73 0

92 0 4176

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24 , 2004/SRAVANA 2, 1926

1अ

246

245

1 ब

245

112

245

2ब

245

2अ

3अ

245

257

6अ

5अ

257

4ब

5ब

257

5क

258

1ड

258

1इ

258

2व

4अ

259

3अ

259

442

3ड

259

3एफ

401

259

261

131

261

2व

262

2अ

262

2ब

263

2व

264

3इ

264

उक

2317

264

1 ब

272

2अ

272

131

265

266

2311

2ब

193

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] 4

6 0

68 0

72 0

40 0

54 0

40 0

32 0

17 0

03.

03 0

18 0

40 0

28 0

79 0

17 0

81 0

76 0

82 0

00 0

17 0

40 0

13 0

12 0

0 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 24, 2004/ श्रावण 2,1926

193

2अ

193

3अ

193

उक

189

191

1.अ

191

1ब

244

2 नं. 48 अरियगवुन्डनपटिट

244

1..

235

1अ

235

2अ

234

2अ

234

2ब

236

227

226

2क 2

226

2क 1

222

2ब 1

222

2ब2

222

212

295

1अ

295

2अ

296

4ब

298

300

299

1 इ

299

1क

299

1अ

301

2ब

302

6अ

302

6ब

302

2ब

323

2ब

323

2अ

323

1ब

4177 4

6 0

37 0

93 0

89 0

01 0

40 0

96 0

76 0

81 0

28 0

39 0

47 :

10 0

03 0

97 0

37 0

62 0

16 0

34 0

03 0

78 0

64 0

77 0

29 0 .

43 0

66 0

00.

40 0

12 0

64 0

47 0

42 0

17 0

32 0

54 0

96 0

08 0

87 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24 , 2004/SRAVANA 2 , 1926

4178

321

2ब

321

320

1ब

318

6ब2.

319

318

122

120

118

2ब

117

116

1अ

116

2ब

113

4ब

113

2ब

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii ) ] 4

94 0

11 0

26 0

45 0

50 0

26 0

45 0

15 0

95 0

71 0

35 0

60 0

46 0

25 0

77 0

07 0

65 0

99 0

00 0

51 0

28 0

09 [ भाग II - खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 24 , 2004/ श्रावण 2,1926

1अ

4ब

3ब

3अ

2अ

2ब

3क

3अ

131

उब

नं 91 ओ . पच्चुदेयनपालयम

185

43 नं. 37 वोडुवन्कुरिचि

185

4क

185

412

185

2ब

185

1ड

185

1अ

188

190

191

2अ

2ब 1

1 नं 49 ओ .जेदारपालैयम

211

2ब

3 2136G1/2004-13

4179 4

6 0

76 0

07 0

30 0

40 0

23 0

00 0

60 0

58 0

70 0

77 0

13 0

55 0

69 0

61 0

44 0

91 0

41 0

93 0

67 0

32 0

16 0

43 0

37 0

84 0

42 05

82 0

19.

49 0

03 29

38 0

89 0

59 0

12 0

62 0

48 24

40 0

72 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24 , 2004/SRAVANA 2, 1926

4180

2ब

2अ

2ब नं. 89 पेर्मकवुन्दनपालैयम

1अ

6अ

1ब

176

6ब1

अ

उब

1अ नं 35 थोप्पपटिट

1ब

7ब

1ड

5अ

11अ

9अ

9ब

8अ

8ब

7ब

7अ

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] 4

85 0

49 0

22 0

41 0.

25 0

44 0

65 0

40 0

47 0

62 0

40 0

76 0

75 0

45 0

80 0

51 0

66 0

50 0

40 0

00 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 24, 2004/ श्रावण 2,1926

6ब

6अ

4ब

4अ

3 नं 34 सिंगलंदपुरम

146

148

2ब

148

उब

148

अ

148

149

19 ब

149

12ड

149

12अ

149

7ब

149

157

149

7अ

149

150

15एन

150

151

6एफ

151

5ब

151

5अ

151

6ड

151

6इ

151

6क

4181 4

6 0

34 0

75 0

11 0

64 0

65 0

28 0

03 0

72 0

20 0

03 0

55 0

19 Q

41 0

23 0

90 0

59 0

68 0

40 0

64 0

22 0

65 0

37 0

25 0

50 0

57 0

64 0

81 0

04 0

82 0

47 0

50 0

29 0

46 0

40 0

63 0

42 0

53 4182

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24 , 2004/SRAVANA 2, 1926

151

6ब

6अ

151

202

3बाड

202

332

202

205

5ब

5अ

205

4ब

205

1क

206

211

207

208

2अ

2ब

2अ

34.

4अ

231

2ब

1अ

1ब

218

2हेच नं 21 काक्कावेरि

218

2जि

218

2एफ

218

2इ

2क

218

2अ

218

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)]

6 4

40 0

34 0

40 0

90 0

82 0

25 0

96 0

79 0

88 0

08 0

86 0

07 0

72 0

89 0

86 0

76 0

27 0

91 0

78 0

40 0

10 0

84 0

58 0

63 0

24 0

38 0

08 0 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 24, 2004/ श्रावण 2,1926

502

2इ नं. 23 रासिपुरम

502

2एफ

502

2ड

502

2अ

502

2ब

503

508

509

513

2अ

514

2अ

533

530

479

476

6क

476

6ब

474

453

11अ

453

11 ब

453

1अ

452

449

4183 4

6 0

82 0

55 0

86 0

35 0

40 0

12 0

40 0

58 0

84 0

35 0

15 0

33 0

42 0

95 0

35 0

22 0

15 0

40 0

23 0

27 0

44 0

09 0

13 0

86 0

59 0

76 0

11 0

08 0

40 0

59 0

13 0

57 0

05 4184

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24, 2004/ SRAVANA 2 , 1926

445

7अ

445

7ब

447

1 ब

447

510

2 नं 25/1 चंद्रशेकरपुरम

514

484

541

542

543

455

18अ

452

446

5अ

5क

446

538

7अ

538

539

1अ

नं. 32 मुरंगपटिट

3ब1

1ब 1

1अ

1 ब नं 26 अनैपालयम

112

2ब

2अ

112

1 ब

112

1क

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] 4

80 0

07 0

20 0

06 0

39 0

01 0

45 0

77 0

40 0

12 0

28 0

90 0

50 0

80 0

44 0

18 0

27 0

22 0

84 0

69 0

85 0

16 0

40 0

05.

72 0

34 0

90 0

46 0

24 0

04 [ भाग II - खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 24 , 2004/ श्रावण 2,1926

113

2ब

113

102

7ब

102

931

102

1031

102

831

102

103

131

अ

3 ब

1ब

1 ब नं 27 कुरुकापुरम

4185-

6 4

78 0

46 0

40 0

80 0

91 0

87 0

60 0

87 0

67 0

42 0

09 0

40 0

76 0 .

88 0

25 0

11 0

72 0

87 0

54 0

22 0

21.

58 00

50 0

55 0

34 0

78 0

73 21

20 0

54 0

74 0

28 0

65 0

95 0

08 0

40 4186

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24 , 2004/SRAVANA 2, 1926

उक

उब

3अ

4क

4ड

212

1ब

112

नं. 83 एल्लपालयम

1ड

1क

2के

2हेच

2जि

2एफ

2अ

1 ब

112

4अ

3ब

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)]

75 0

40 0

56 0

05 0

31 0

59 0

17 0

47 0

72 0

98 0

58 0

63 0

38 0

59 0

81 0

56 0

66 0

0 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

4187

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 24, 2004/ श्रावण 2,1926

अ

2क تو

1 ब

1अ

103

6 नं. 29 पिल्लानल्लूर

103

102

6एफ

104

٢٠٤٠

101

2क

101

2अ

5ब

5अ

9अ

9ब

2एफ

2ड

2इ

2ब

6ब

6अ

4ब

9अ नं 30पोन्कुरिचि

9ब 2136 GI /2004-14

238000004-444

15 230

35 0

A 11

01 13 40

36 0

04 0

68 0

081

80 0

25 [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

JULY 24 , 2004/SRAVANA 2 , 1926

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA:

4188

641

6अ

4ब

4अ

2क

5ब

5अ

2ब

231

उक

431

14हेच

14ऐ

14एफ

14क

143

2क

2ब

14 05

48 06

04....

0 (11) 」

राज्य: तमिलनाडु

जिला: नामक्कल

तालूका: तिरुचेंगोडु

नं 87 कल्लूपालेयम

2अ

4ब

1अ

2ब

1 ब

1अ

1ब4

1 ब3

1अ

1ब

2ब

1क 2

1क3

1 ब

1क 1

2अ

1अ

185

नं. 86 मुंजनूर

185

184

183

210

17.

0 4190

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24 , 2004/SRAVANA 2 , 1926

3 1

212

3ड

212

3एफ

212

3इ

212

उक

233

215

2अ

216

2क

217

1 ब

217

1अ

218

1 ब

218

1अ

219

202

2ब3

202

2ब 4

202

2अ

2 नं 88 मिन्नंपल्ली

1अ

1 ब

1अ

100

1 नं.84 मोरंगाम

1ड

1क

1अ

6अ

[PART II-SEC . 3( ii) ] 4

6 0

70 0

06 0

40 0

43 0

46 0

61 0

10 0

77 0

85 0

37 0

64 0

73 0

19 0

91 0

00 0

34 0

32 0

52 0

20 0

09 0

00 0

50 0

32 0

59 0

67 0

00 0

56 [ भाग - खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 24, 2004/ श्रावण 2,1926

1 नं. 92 करुगलपटिट

1ड

1 ब

1अ

2अ

1 ब

2क

2ड

4ब

3इ

3ड

4अ

उक

1ब

2अ

1अ

17क

9ड

7क

7ब

7अ

17ब

17अ

218

2 नं 93 परुटिपल्लि

218

213

4191

6 4

98 0

01 0

27 0

80 0

37 0

58 0

05 0

15 0

41 0

18 0

21 0

12 0

33 0

13 0

02 0

93 0

70 0

74 0

53 0

40 0

53 0

04 0

46 0

40 0

55 0

89 0

10 0

20 0

36 0

19 0-

57 0

79 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24, 2004 /SRAVANA 2 , 1926

4192

219

213

219

211

2ब

207

1ब

207

2अ

207

1अ

207

196

194

7ब

191

7अ

191

190

188

187

183

182

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

57.

02.

0 भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 24 , 2004/ श्रावण 2,1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

3 1

182

181

180

179

175

170

170.

170

1अ

150

171

14क

171

1ब

110

1क

110

1अ

110

105

104

उक

उब

अ

1 ब

1अ

4193

6 4

40 0

54 0

46 0

60 0

00 0

96 0

64 0

18 0

50 0

91 0

40 0

53 0

54 0

61 0

31 0

0 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24 , 2004/SRAVANA 2, 1926

4194

1अ

15एफ

15ब

15जि

15ऐ

15हेच

17जे

नं. 94 रामापुरम

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)]

300

00 140

07 :

0 भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 24, 2004/ श्रावण 2,1926

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

3 1

13ड

2ब

2इ

2अ

308

नं. 68 वट्टूर

307

306

305

1क

304

131

304

431

254

252

2136 GI/2004-15

4195 4

25 0

96 0

35 0

18 0

88 0

61 0

29 0

83 0

76 0

24 0

37 0

52 0

24 0

87 0

74 0

75 0

0 4196

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24 , 2004/ SRAVANA 2 , 1926

3 1

233

221

222

224

219

217

2ब

217

1ब

112

111

1अ

1ब

1अ

161

160

5अ

9अ

7ब

7क

7अ

7इ

अ

1अ

2क नं 69 पिल्लनत्थम

2ब

5ब

5अ

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

6 0

52 0

40 0

04 0

13 0

94 0

61 0

83 0

40 0

46 0

58 0

55 0

72 0

97 0

58 0

44 0

05 0

18 0

37 0

61 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 24, 2004/श्राषण 2,1926

2हेच

2एफ

2जि

2ब

232

न 50 करुमापुरम

232

2ब

1ब

232

231

1 ब

4ब

231

3अ

230

229

311

229

228

1 ब 2

1 ब 1

228

227

3ब

213

2अ

213

1 ब

6ब

1 .

1क

1 ब

1क

1ब

4197

6 4

40 0

10 0

43 0

: 08

40 0

65 0

96 0

40 0

69 0

40 0

03 0

10 0

72 0

85 0

47 0

84 0

13 0

72 0

74 0

14.

13 0

09 0

40 0

00 4198

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24, 2004/SRAVANA 2 , 1926

1 नं. 51 तिरुमंगलम

3अ

4अ

2अ

1अ

1 ब

2ब3

2ब2 इ

2ब 1

2अ

1 ब

2ब

2क

2ब

13 नं. 52 करुप्पगवुंदमपाल्यम

1 ब

2ब 1

[PART II- SEC . 3( ii )]

90 0

41 0

84 0

04 0

71 0

40 0

76 0

40 0

86 0

63 0

56 0

40 0

74 0

27 0

15 0

09 0

07 0

22 0

40 0

46 0

07 0

1.5

28 0

30 0

50 0

00 4199

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 24, 2004/ श्रावण 2,1926

[भाग II- खण्ड़ 3 (ii) ]

4अ

185

नं. 49 राजपाल्यम

186

उब

178

185

183

2एफ

178

331

2ब

183

111

178

180

6 4

10 0

40 0

42 0

78 0

84 0

[फा. सं. आर -25011/15/2004- ओ.आर-1 ]

रेणुका कुमार, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 23rd July, 2004

S. O. 1737.- Whereas , it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum products from Chennai to Trichy, Madurai and Sankari in the State of Tamilnadu , a pipeline should be laid by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited;

And , whereas , it appears that for the purpose of laying such pipeline , it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the land described in the Schedule annexed to this notification;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act.1962(50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein:

Any person, interested in the land described in the said Schedule may within twenty one days from the date on which the copies of this notification as published in the Gazette of India , are made available to the general public , object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein or laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri . R.Vajravelu , Competent Authority , Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Chennai- Trichy-Madurai Product Pipeline Project with a branch pipeline from Asanur to Sankari , 4/2 , Arockiasamy Street , Crawford Colony, Tiruchirappalli -620 012, Tamilnadu .

4200

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24 , 2004/SRAVANA 2 , 1926

SCHEDULE

District : Namakkal

fuk : Rasipuram

State: Tamil Nadu

Area

Sub- Division no .

Nameof the Village

Survey no.

Hectare

Are

Sq.mtr. 1

226

NO.61 THIMMANAYAKKANPATTI

226

227

224

203

2C1

203

2C2

202

201

180

169

158

160

161

2A2

148

149

52 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 24, 2004/ श्रापण 2,1926

149

1499

144

138

139

161

2F No.60 ESWARAMURTHIPALAYAM

161

2B3

150

2B4

150

150.

150

143

146

145

146

182

183

4201 4

05 0

22 0

15 0

75 0

96 0

95 0

01 0

49 0

54 0

14 0

58 0

60 0

58 0

67 0

00 :

60 0

00:

33 0

18 0

31 0

40 0

86 0

05 0

0 4202

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24 , 2004 /SRAVANA 2. 1926

186

187

188

195

112

196

197

196

197

198

199

205

206

209

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] 4

6 0

52 0

48 0

74 0

09 0

91 0

28 0

84 0

70 0

88 0

40 0

78 0

65 0

70 0

10 0

40 0

63 0

47 0

01 0

19 0

22 0

40 0

51 0

01 0

40 0

45 0

17 0

40 0

24 0

15 0

25 [भाग 11- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 24, 2004/ श्रावण 2,1926

209

210

209

233

237

239

9B 2136 GI/2004-16

4203 4

6 0

84 0

40 0

07 0

28 0

84 0

40 0

43 0

23 0

58 0

43 0

40 0

61 0

86 0

30 0

40 0

75 :00

74 0

83 0

88 0

86 0

39 0

89 0

52 0

40 0

91 0

40 0

56 0

19 0

25 0

97 0

40 0

86 0

24 0

81 0

98 0

40 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24. 2004 /SRAVANA 2 , 1926

4204

239

238

240

253

255

256

258

2 NO . 59 MANGALAPURAM

[ PART 11 - SEC. 3 ( ii ) ]

34 0

77 0

53 0

64 0

21 0

92 0

29 0

79 0

21 0

45 0

40 0

96 0

90 0

40 0

48 0

56 0

34 0

40 0

1.1

27 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

4205.

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 24, 2004/ श्रावण 2,1926

4B2

237

238

235

226

230

4C 4

6 0

47 0

40 0

79 0

07 0

85 0

62 0

96 0

33 0

20 0

47 0

96 0

94 0

28 0

40 0

45 0

67 0

45 0

51 0

70 0

19 0

40 0

23 0

40 0

28 0

51 0

50 0

05 0

77 0

01 0

58 0

75 0

04 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 24 , 2004/SRAVANA 2, 1926

4206

230

229

230

229

230

229

230

5B1

230

163

164

10B

165

161

165

10C

165

10A

165

10E

165

10F

165

166

165

166

157

156

157

10B

156

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

6 4

40 0

29 0

85 0

13 0

89 0

64 0

68 0

94 0

49 0

70 0

28 0

85 0

09 0

20 0

63 0

40 0

14 0

0 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 24, 2004/ श्रावण: 2,1926

13C

155

13B

155

153

176

177

178

149

3 NO.58 NAVALPATTI

149

153

149

153

1A NO . 57 AYILPATTI

2A1

2B2

7.4

4207 4

6 0

47 0

69 0

51 0

02 0

23 0

61 0

60 0

69 0

97 0

40 0

21 0

65 0

51 0

83 0

34 0

62 0

43 0

88 0

95 0

13 0

95 0

14 0

26 0

86 0

65 0

80 0

40 0

70 0

00 0

55 4208

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24, 2004 /SRAVANA 2. 1926

108

112

115

119

1B2

119

123

125

135

126

135

132

133

177

1A1

177

1A2

1A3

177

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii )] 4

40 0

36 0

52 0

36 0

96 0

16 0

10 0

10.

40 0

05 0

39 0

40 0

08 0

40 0

18 0

40 0

80 0

17 0

99 0

24 भारत का सजपत्र जुलाई 24, 2004/ श्रावणः 2,1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

179

203

2 NO. 56 KARKUDALPATTI

2H2

3A1

134

2B1

134

2B3

134

136

3B3

146

138

956

4209 4

28 0

88 0

53 0

85 0

06 0

34 0

41 0

75 0

90 0

68 0

41 0

14 0

13 0

45 0

55 0

40 0

87 0

93 0

79 0

0 4210

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24 , 2004/ SRAVANA 2. 1926

957

950

948

947

946

139

NO45 . MULAIPALLIPATTI

139

158

157

i 157

157

143

142

144

142

140

240

239

223

[ PART 11- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] 4

6 0

83 0

62 0

04 0

40 0

24 0

51 0

40 0

12 0

40 0

96 0

82 0

70 0

74 0

81 0

36 0

78 0

98 0

54 0

42 0

78 0

14 0

40 0

61 0

56 0

57 0

65 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 24, 2004/श्रावण 2,1926

223

226

228

1A2

118

3A2

118

3A1

118

1B1

114

1B2

114.

124

123

242

1B NO . 47 NAMAGIRIPETTAI

242

249

247

2A6

246

2A5

246

2A4

246

2136GI/2004-17

4211 4

6 0

66 0

34 0

41 0

62 0

71 0

59 0

16 0

51 0

21 0

43 0

14 0

23 0

64 0

40 0

49 0

56 0

07 0

02 0

85 0

63 0

92 0

03 4212

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24 , 2004/SRAVANA 2 , 1926

3 1

246

245

1A2

245

257

258

259

4B2

259

4B1

261

262

263

264

2A7

272

265

266

2A1

193

[PART II -SEC. 3 (ii ) ]

6 4

68 0

72 0

13 0

40 0

25 0

44 0

41 0

32 0

17 0

03 0

40 0

90 0

79 0

02 0

17 0

81 0

54 0

76 0

82 0

56 0

71 0

17 0

13 0

77 0

40 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 24, 2004/ श्रावण 2,1926

193

189

191

1B NO WAGOUNDANPATTI

244

235

234

236

227

226

2C2

226

2C1

222

2B1

222

2B2

222

2A2

295

296

298

300

299

301

302

323

4213 4

6 0

37 0

93 0

89 0

01 0

40 0

96 0

76 0

43 0

81 0

28 0

39 0

47 0

10 0

03 0

37 0

62 0

16 0

34 0

03 0

78 0

64 0

09 0

77 0

29 0

43 0

66 0

40 0

12 0

64 0

47 0

42 0

17 0

32 0

54 0

96 0

08 0

87 4214

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 24 , 2004/SRAVANA 2 , 1926

321

320

6B2

318

319

318

122

120

118

117

116

113

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]

6 0

46 0

94 0

80 0

99 0

26 0

99 0

88 0

0045 0

28 0

15 0

95 0

50 0

71 0

35 0

55 0

60 0

46 0

25 0

07 0

28 0

65 0

16 0

20 0

25 0

09 [भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत काराजपत्र: जुलाई 24 , 2004/ श्रावण 2,1926

3B NO.91.0 . PACHUDAYAMPALAYAM

NO.37 ODUVANKURICHI

185

4A2

185

188

190

191

2B1

NO.49 O.JEDARPALAYAM

2A1

4215 4

76 0

07 0

30 0

40 0

00 0

60 0

58 0

70 0

77 0

13 0

55 0

69 0

61 0

44 0

91 0

93 0

32 0

16 0

43 0

37 0

64 0

84 0

42 0

82 0

49 0

03 0

38 0

89 0

04 0

59 0

12 0

62 24

48 0

40 0

72 4216

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24. 2004 /SRAVANA 2. 1926

NO.89 PERUMAGOUNDEMPALAYAM

6B1

176

NO.35 THOPPAPATTI

11A

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii ) | 4

72 0

41 0

03 0

49 0

41 0

99 0

25 0

51 0

74 0

48 0

65 0

40 0

60 0

62 0

75 0

45 0

38 0

62 0

39 0

75 0

66 0

50 0

40 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भातारा बुलाई 24, 2004/ श्राप 2,1926

3 NO.34 SINGALANDAPURAM

146

148

149

19B

149

12D

149

12A

149

157

149

150

15N

150

151

4217 4

6 0

34 0

75 0

11 0

64 0

65 0

28 0

03 0

72 0

20 0

03 0

55 0

19 0

41 0

23 0

90 0

59 0

68 0

40 0

64 0

22 0

65 0

37 0

25 0

50 0

64 0

81 0

04 0

82 0

47 0

50 0

29 0

46 0

40 00

40 0

63 0

42 0

53 4218

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24 , 2004/SRAVANA 2, 1926

3 1

151

3B1D

202

3A2

202

205

206

211

207

208

2A1

い

218

ΝΟ.21 ΚΑΚAVERI

218

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

6 4

40 0

88 0

35 0

40 0

25 0

96 0

79 0

88 0

08 0

86 0 .

72 0

89 0

38 0

86 0

80 0

91 0

78 0

16 0

58 0

63 0

0 ,

08 0 भारत का राण

502

NO.23

502

503

508

509

513

514

533

5303

5300

479

476

476 47

476.4

47647

476

474

453 .

453

453 台

11A

4534

11B.

453

453-49.

453-42

25. 28

453

452

449.

449

4219

ह 4

R 04

02. 555

86 Bf 0

35 0

40 00

3237

12 0

40 0

70 0

35 0

15 0

33 06

42 0

95 0

22 0

15 0

02 .

000 40

23 0

27 0

03. 44 0

13 0

40 0

59 0

0076 0

11 0

0806 0

00 A

595

00 b

66 65

03 : 57 57 0

058184 4220

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24, 2004/SRAVANA 2, 1926

445

447

510

NO.25/ 1 CHANDRASEKARAPURAM

514

484

541

542

543

455

18A

452

446

538

539

1A NO.32 MURUNGAPATTI

3B1

1B1

112

2B ΝΟ . 26 ΑΝΑIPALAYAM

112

[PART II SBC . 3 ( ii )]

6 4

80 0

20 0

60 0

01 0

45 0:

77 0

40 0

12 0

28 0

90 0

93 0

50 0

80 0

44 0

18 0

99 0

27 0

85 0

84 0

69 0

85 0

24 0

40 0

62 0

46 0

76 0

24 0

04 [ भाग II-खष्ठ 3 (ii) ]

4221

सत्र बुलाई 24, 2004/ 2,1926

113

: 113

102

10A

102

103

2 NO.27 KURUKKAPURAM

1A TC

6 0

78 0

40 0

80 0

00 0

91 0

87 0

60 0

87 0

67 0

42 0

30 0

40 0

76 0

88 0

1.1

25 0

11 0

87 0

58. 0

50 0

55 0

78 0

73 0

20 0

54 0

74 0

28 0

.00

95 0

08 0

40 PART II SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24, 2004/SRAVANA 2, 1926 4222

2A2

1A2

NO.83 ELLAPPALAYAM

1A2

6 5

75 04

40 00

56 09

44 03

05 19

31 02

59 19

17 01

47 21

40 00

18 01

48 16

09 24

72 19

98 11

58 17

56 13

72 01

82 31

09 13

82 00

70 03

40 00

59 02

82 12

81 06

56 06

66 02

25 09

46 02

71 09

40 00

40 00 1926 3 (in) ]

-2C

103

6 NO.29 PILLANALLUR

103

102

104

101

60:

9A NO.30 PONKURICHI

4223 5

15 09

46 00

91 04

65 15

30 05

47 02

57 07

63 02

40 00

23 27

47 19

38 06

48 11

39 07

40 00

10:

40 01

00 02

01 12

16 01

66 00

68 20

88 01

04 13

00 01

10 08

80 07

25 4224

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24 , 2004/SRAVANA 2, 1926

3 1

681

14H

141

14F

14C

14D

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] 4

55 0

35 0

24 0

25 0

32 0

72 0

12- 0

90 0

60 0

04 0

21 0

84 0

40 0

44 0

29 0

40. 0

71 0

53 0

80 [भाग II- अण्ड 3(H) ]

भारत का राजपत्र 2004/21926

Taluk : Tiruchengode

District : Namakkal 1

3 NO. 87 KALLUPALAYAM

1B4

183

1C2

1C3

75%

1C1

185

2 NO.86 MUNJANUR

185

184

183

210

4225 State : TamilNadu 4

6 0

80 0

90 0

44 0

08 0

68 0

0 :

72 0

16 0

12.

60 0

78 0

10 0

86 0

76 0

81 0

29 0

14 0

72 0

45 0

20 0

40 0

53 0

07 0

19 0

15 0

57 0

68 0

60 0

13 0

29 0

99 0

18 0

67 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 24 , 2004/SRAVANA 2, 1926

4226

212

233

215

216

217

218

219

2B3...

202

2B4

202

NO.88 ΜΙΝNAMPALLI

100

NO.84 MORANGAM :

[PART II See:3 ( ) ]

43 0

61 0

04 0

40 0

37 0

60 0

73 0

33 0

32 0

45 0

52 0

20 0

09 0

00 0

49 0

00 0

56 0

36 [भाग ।। - खण्ड 3( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 24, 2004/ श्रावण 2,1926

NO.92 KARUNGALPATTI

17C

17B

17A

218

NO.93 PARUTHIPALLI

218

213

2136 Gl /2004-19

4227 4

92 0

98 0

23 0

27 0

80 0

37 0

32:

15 0

41 0

21 0

12 0

13 0

02 0

96 0

74 0

53 0

40 0

04 0

46 0

40 0

55 0

19 0

57 0

79 4228

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24, 2004 /SRAVANA 2, 1926

219

213

219

211

207

196

194

191

190

188

187

183

182

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] 4

56 0

90 0

50 0

71 0

50 0

46 0

42 0

17 0

50 0

80 0

09 0

86 0

77 0.

40 0

22 0

59 0

24 0

81 0

94 0

02 0

0 [भाग II- खण्ड ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 24, 2004/श्रावण 2,1926

182

13.

182

181

180

179

175

170

150

171

14C

110

105

104

4229 4

54 0

02 0

99 0

46 0

93 0

91 0

00 0

57 0

40 0

64 0

34 0

54 0

18 0

36 0

91 0

40 0

31 0

38 0

26 0

82 0

71 0

74 0

96 0

53 0

54 0

43 0

61 0

31 0

79 0

31 0

10 0

4.1

10 4230

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24, 2004/SRAVANA 2, 1926

15F

15B

15G

151

15H

17J

9 NO.94 RAMAPURAM

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii )]

6 4

60 0

00 0

40 0

11 0

40 0

18 0

96 0

40 0

73 0

71 0

37 0

17 0

00.

09 0

40 0

18 0

95 0

47 0

77 0

29 0

97 0

24 0

40 0

15 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

भारत का सजपत्र : जुलाई 24, 2004/ श्रावण 2,1926

13D

308

3 NO.68 VATTUR

307

306

305

304

1A1

254

4A1

254

252

4231

4232

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24, 2004/SRAVANA 2 , 1926

3 1

233

221

222

224

219

217

1A2

1A1

161

160

2C NO.69 PILLANATHAM

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)] 4

52 0

27 0

55 0

14 0

94 0

04 0

79 0

13 0

09 0

94 0

27 0

55 0

83 0

82 0

24 0

61 0

83 0

87 0

40 0

58 0

00:

33 0

72 0

00 0

97 0

63 0

72 0

44 0

05 0

18 0

58 0

20 0

37 0

61 4233 [ भाग - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

2,1926

232

NO.50 KARUMAPURAM

232

231

230

229

3A1

228

1B2

228

1B1

227

213

40 4234

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24, 2004/SRAVANA 2 , 1926

1 NO.51 THIRUMANGALAM

2B3

2B2E

2B1

NO.52

13 KARUPPAGOUNDAMPALAYAM

2B1

[PART II SEC . 3 (ii)] 4

48 0

90 0

41 0

84 0

71 0

40 0

80 0

86 0

63 0

40 0

74 0

49 0

40 0

15 0

09 0

95 0

40 0

07 0

61 0

28 0

70 0

96 0

30 0

28 0

00 4235

'भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 24, 2004/ श्रावण 2,1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

185

NO.49 RAJAPALAYAM

186

178

185

183

178

3A1

183

178

1A1

180

6 0

40 0

45 0

66 13

90 0

40 0

84 0

54 [No. R -25011/15/2004- O.P. -I ] RENUKA KUMAR , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 23 जुलाई , 2004

का. आ. 1738.- केन्द्रीय सरकार को यह प्रतीत होता है कि लोकहित में यह आवश्यक है कि तमिलनाडु राज्य में चेन्नई से तिरूच्चि , मदुराई और शंकरी तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादन के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन आयल कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए और ऐसा प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी पाइपलान बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए इस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करना आवश्यक है ;

अतः , अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार , पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम , 1962 ( 1962 का 50) की धारा 3 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , उनमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है;

उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध कोई ब्यक्ति उस तारीख से , जिसको भारत के राजपत्र मे यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियां साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं , इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन या भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रति लिखित रूप में आक्षेप श्री आर . वज्रवेलू, सक्षम प्राधिकारी चेन्नई तिरूच्चि मदुराई उत्पाद पाइपलाइन परियोजना और आसनूर से शंकरी तक ब्रांच पाइपलाइन परियोजना , 4/2 , आरोकियासामी स्ट्रीट , क्राफ़ोर्ड कालोनी, तिरुचिरापल्ली 620012 (तमिलनाडु) को कर सकेगा । 2136 GI/2004-20 4236

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24, 2004/ SRAVANA 2 , 1926

[PART II SEC . 3 (ii)]

अनुसूची

जिला: कडलूर तालूका: विधर्धाचलम

राज्य: तमिलनाडु

क्षेत्रफल

हिस्सा नंबर

सर्वे नंबर

गॉव का नाम

नं 9 अडियूर

102

1 ब

132

103

131

103

2ब

103

2अ

103

2क

2ब

104

2अ

1क

104

1 ब

1ब4

107

1ब3

107

1 ब1

106

1ब2

107

131

110

112

5ब2

113

5अ

116

117

वर्ग मीटर

आर

हेक्टर

6 4

83 0

'20 0

89 0

20 0

40 0

74 0

36 0

30 0

40 0

95 0

94 0

78 0

98 0

86 0

40 0

12 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 24, 2004/ श्रावण 2,1926

117

118

127

3ड

127

3अ

127

2ब

127

2क

127

2अ

127

122

1अ

219

नं. 4 कोत्तनूर

218

5ब

217

5क

217

4अ

217

12ब

192

17ब

192

194

4237 4

25 0

52 0

14 .0

50 0

10 0

22 0

93 0

24 0 .

40 0

76 0

0 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24, 2004/SRAVANA 2 , 1926

4238

3 1

194

उक

3ब

194

3अ

5ब

197

10ब

197

10अ

197

9अ

197

9ब

197

6एफ

197

6इ

6क

197

6ड

197

1अ

198

5क

182

5ब

182

4ब

181

4अ

181

2ब

2अ

181

3ब

181

3अ

181

1अ

181

1ब

181

172

105

नं 3 मलिगेगेडू

105

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ) 4

25 0

86 0

43 0

92 0

09 0

10 0

48 0

73 0

40 0

13 0

90 0

67 0

98 0

62 0

90 0

57 0

30 0

28 0

03 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 24, 2004/ श्रावण 2,1926

105

11 ब

105

11अ

105

7ब

106

7अ

106

7क

106

6क

106

5ब3

106

512

101

5ब

5अ

1ब3

1ब2

1अ

2अ

1ब

1अ

6ब

6अ

5अ

2अ

4239 4

6 0

20 0

63 0

52 0

48 0

01 0

31 0

42 0

18 0

83 0

24 0

99 0

86 0

66 0

50 0

31 0

67 0

97 4

31 0

70 0

12 0

24 0

40 0

44 0

87 0

69 0

93 0

21 0

40 4240

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24 , 2004/ SRAVANA 2, 1926

5ब

5अ

1 ब

1अ

11 ब

11अ

19अ

12ब

12अ

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] 4

6 0

28 0

00 0

40 0

34 0

28 0

11 0

59 0

90 0

52 0

66 0

85 0

58 0

79 0

09 0

46 0

66 0

40 0

67 0

63 0

01 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

4241

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 24, 2004/ श्रावण 2,1926

4अ

70:

नं. 5 मेलकुरिच्चि

5ब

5अ

104

जिला : कडलूर तालूका : तितक्कूडि

नं .33 एन्डाल

2ब

2अ

6 0

69 0

40 0

90 0

43 0

58 0

71 0

40 0

66 0

62 0

51 0

08 0

41 राज्य : तमिलनाडु

70 0

61 0

19 0

03 .

0 4242

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24, 2004/SRAVANA 2 , 1926

1 /

नं 32कोलवाय

: 7

3ब

2ब 2

2ब 1

232

231

1अ

123

12ब

9अ

9ब

5ड

9क

5क

5ब

5अ

7ब

6ब 2

6ब 1

[PART II SEC . 3 (ii ) ] 4

6 0

19 0

44 0

20 0

23 0

84 0

73 0

08 0

71 0

05 0

02 0

70 0

43 0

14 0

42 0

46 0

43 0

01 0

97 0

70 0

82 0

81 0

78 0

31 0

40 0

28 0

49 0

94 0

96 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 24 , 2004/ श्रावण 2,1926

6क

4इ

4ड

अ

उब

4एफ

104

116

1 ब

116

1अ

117

2ब

117

118

उब

अ

118

1क

1ड

118

1ब

118

120

8ब नं. 31 किल वोरटूर

8क

120

7ब

120

5ब

5अ

120

2136 GI/2004-21

SAD

4243 4

6 0

82 0

45 0

82 0

66 0

25 0

70 0

60 0

62 0

52 0

28 0

10 0

63 0

57 0

39 0

77 0

67 0

41 0

40 0 4244

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24, 2004/SRAVANA 2 , 1926

120

110

2अ

110

1ब

108

2ड

108

2क

108

2ब

111

उक

108

2अ

108

1 ब

108

1अ

उक

3 ब

332

331

6अ

6ब

4ब

4अ

3 ब

3अ

7ब

7अ

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ] 4

6 0

26 0

80 0

66 0

63 0

54 0

47 0

98 0

95 0

15 0

77 0

14 0

10 0

85 0

78 0

41 0

79 0

58 0

30 0

75 0

40 0

29 0

86 0

04 0

85 0

84 0

57 0

02 0

69 0

34 0

36 0

64 0

68 0

32 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 24, 2004/ श्रावण 2,1926

4245 1

1.1

उक

3ब

3अ

1 ब

131

[फा. सं. आर-25011/16/2004- ओ.आर-1 ]

रेणुका कुमार, अवर सचिव

New Demi , the 23rd July, 2004

S. O. 1738.-Whereas , it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum products from Chennai to Trichy , Madurai and Sankari in the State of Tamilnadu , a pipeline should be laid by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited.

And, whereas, it appears that for the purpose of laying such pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the land described in the Schedule annexed to this notification;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act.1962( 50 of 1962) , the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein:

Any person , interested in the land described in the said Schedule may within twenty one days from the date on which the copies of this notification as published in the Gazette of India , are made available to the general public , object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein or laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri . R.Vajravelu , Competent Authority , Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Chennai- Trichy -Madurai Product Pipeline Project with a branch pipeline from Asanur to Sankari , 4/2, Arockiasamy Street, Crawford Colony, Tiruchirappalli - 620 012, Tamilnadu.

4246

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 24, 2004/SRAVANA 2 , 1926

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii )]

SCHEDULE

State : TAMILNADU

District : CUDDALORE

Taluk : VIRDHACHALAM

Sub-Division No.

Survey No.

Name of the Village

NO 9.ADIYUR

102

1A2

103

1A1

103

104

1B4

107

1B3

107

1B1

107

106

1B2

107

1A2

1A1

107

110

112

113

5B2

113

116

117

Area

Are

Hectare

Sq.mtr.

83 0

89 0

50 0

40 0

17 0

14 0

39 0

67 0

C [ भांग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

4247

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 24, 2004/ श्रावण 2,1926

117

118

127

122

219

NO 4 KOTTANUR

218

217

192

12B

192

17B

192

190

192

194

40 0

48 0

40 0

44 0

97 0

14 0

50 C

71 0

82 0

04 0

41 0

56 0

93 0

45 0

62 0

78 C

44 0

90 0

75 0

41 0

42 0 4248

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24 , 2004/SRAVANA 2, 1926

194

197

10B

197

10A

197

198

182

181

172

6 NO 3 MALIGAIMEDU

105

[PART II-SBC . 3 (ii)]

6 4

86 0

43 0

40 0

80 0

92 0

10 0

73 0

13 0

37 0

90 0

40 0

67 0

98 0

62 0

49 0

64 0

62 0

60 0

57 0

30 0

28 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र गुरुवाई 24 2004/श्रावण 2,1926

105

11B

105

11A

105

106

5B3

106

5A2

101

1B3

1B2

4249

6 0

20 0

63 0

00 0

52 0

01 0

31 0

42 0

18 0

83 0

99 0

86 0

66 0

50 0

67 0

97 0

70 0

12 0

24 0

40 0

44 0

60 ن

32 0

93 0

67 0

40 4250

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24 , 2004/SRAVANA 2 , 1926

3 1

118

11A

19A

12B

12A

[PART II-SBC . 3 (ii)] 4

64 0

00 0

40 0

30 0

34 0

28 0

11 0

29 0

58 0

09 0

61 0

47 0

66 0

0 भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई17, 2004/आषाढ़ 26, 1926 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

NO 05 MELKURICHCHI

104

4251

6 4

69 0

40 0

90 0

58 0

40 02

66 00

62 20

51 0

State: TAMILNADU

District : CUDDALORE

TALUK: TITAKUDI .

NO . 33 ENDAL

NO 32KOLAVAY

2136 GI/04-22

36 0

81 0

98 0

45 0

35 0

66 0

20 0

84 0

0 4252

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 17 , 2004/ ASADHA 26 , 1926

2B2

2B1

2A2

2A1

12A

12B

6B2

6B1

104

1 [PART II- SEC. 3 (ii) ] 4

02 0

36 0

70 0

43 0

14 0

05 0

73 0

42 0

46 0

01 0

43 0

01 0

97 0

40 0

70 0

82 0

81 0

78 0

31 0

40 0

28 0

49 0

94 0

96 0

75 0

82 0

37 0

92 0

40 0

45 0

82 0

66 02

40 0

25 0

70 0

67 0

60 03 भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 17 , 2004/आषाढ़ 26, 1926 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

116

117

118

120

NO 31 KIL ORATUR

120

110

108

111

108

4253

6 4

14 0

48 0

52 0

99 0

04 0

63 0

14 0

77 0

67 0

41 0

40 0

26 0

80 0

63 0

54 0

98 0

95 0

15 0

77 0

14 0

10 0

78 0

79 0

0 4254

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24, 2004/SRAVANA 2 , 1926

3A2

3A1

1A1

[PART II SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] 4

85 0

67 0

72 0

86 0

55 0

[No. R- 25011 /16/2004- O.R. - I ] RENUKA KUMAR, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 23 जुलाई , 2004

का. आ. 1739.- केन्द्रीय सरकार को यह प्रतीत होता है कि लोकहित में यह आवश्यक है कि तमिलनाडु राज्य में चेन्नई से तिरूच्चि , मदुराई और शंकरी तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादन के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ायल कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए और ऐसा प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी पाइपलान बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए इस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करना आवश्यक है; अतः, अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम , 1962 (1962 का 50 ) की धारा 3 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , उनमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है;

उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध कोई ब्यक्ति उस तारीख से , जिसको भारत के राजपत्र मे यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियां साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं, इक्कीस 4255

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 24, 2004/ श्रावण 2,1926

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

दिन के भीतर भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन या भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रति लिखित रूप में आक्षेप श्री आर. वज्रवेलू, सक्षम प्राधिकारी चेन्नई तिरूच्चि- मदुराई उत्पाद पाइपलाइन परियोजना और आसनूर से शंकरी तक ब्रांच पाइपलाइन परियोजना , 4/2 , आरोकियासामी स्ट्रीट , क्राफ़ोर्ड कालोनी , तिरुचिरापल्ली 620012 (तमिलनाडु ) को कर सकेगा ।

अनुसूची राज्य: तमिलनाडु

जिला: विल्लुपुरम

तालूका: कल्लकुरिच्चि

हिस्सा नंबर

सर्वे नंबर

गॉव का नाम

125

नं 146 कुंडलूर

127

129

142

1इ

1क

142

1ब

142

1अ

142

3अ

139

2ब

139

2अ

139

7क

141

-141

170

1अ

143

1ब

143

149

1 ब

148

1अ

148

151

1ब

151

1ड

151

1एफ

151

क्षेत्रफल

वर्ग मीटर

आर

हेक्टर

50 0

41 0

52 0

61 0 4256

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 24, 2004/SRAVANA 2, 1926

151

1 इ

151

1जि

151

1हेच

155

2ब

153

154

नं. 147 एरांजि

2अ

2ब

उब

3अ

138

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] 4

01 0

98 0

75 0

19 0

90 0

44 0

40 0

66 0

91 0

56 0

92 0

82 0

40 0

42 0

54 0

74 0

18 0

63 0

75 0

59 0

38 0

19 0

97 0

60 0

03 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 24, 2004/ श्रावण 2,1926

138

136

113

114

5क

114

9अ

5ब

114

5अ

114

3 ब

114

6ब

114

6अ

117

119

6अ

119

$99

4257 4

51 0

24 0

86 0

04-

37 0

55 0

4C 0

75 0

07 0

40 0

39 0

21 0

00.

95 0

40 0

04 0

0 .

32 0

65 0

40 0

22 4258

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24, 2004/SRAVANA 2 , 1926

3 1

100

6ड

6इ

6ब

6क

6अ

123

9अ

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

6 4

60 0

82 0

40 0

45 0

90 0

.53 0

89 0

93 0

46 0

40 0

67 0

42 0

40 0

95 0

42 0

41 0

88 0

0 [भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 24, 2004/ श्रावण 2,1926

3 1

9ब

1एम

1एन

एल

120

नं 142 कुत्तकुडि

120

14अ

120

7ब

124

121

122

6ब

122

6अ

5ब

122

5अ

122

4अ

122

7अ

124

4ब

122

3अ

122

3ब 2136 GI/ 2004-23

4259 4

6 0

23 0

35 0

80 0

00 0

87 0

73 0

23 0

11 0

72 0

07 0

82 0

89 4260

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24, 2004/SRAVANA 2, 1926

123

13अ

123

13ब

123

12ब

123

1ब

123

125

115

5अ

115

2एफ

115

2जि

1अ

115

1ब

134

132

136

134

2ब

134

2अ

100

712

100

711

100

5अ

100

[PART II-SBC . 3 (ii) ] 4

47 0

42 0

26 0

20 0

18 0

09 0

40 0

28 0

40 0

46 0

61 0

96 0

58 0

68 0

09 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 24, 2004/ श्रावण 2,1926 1

66अ

4ब

66अ

3ब

66अ

2ब

66अ

1 ब

66अ

5क

62अ

7क

62ब

2ब

2अ

उब

3अ

5अ

6क

6ब

6अ

2अ

2ब

1ब1 ब

1ब1अ

1 ब2अ

22ब

13क

13ब

22ब

4261 4

6 0

05 0

03 0

97 0

77 0

99 0

10 0

74 0

36 0

50 0

14 0

61 0

04 0

45 0

79 0

94 0

00 0

82 0

65 0

73 .

53 0

60 0

94 0

07 4262

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24 , 2004/SRAVANA 2, 1926

22ब

12ब

115

2 नं 138 असकलट्टूर

115

116

7एफ

7ब

116

7अ

116

उक

116

3ब

116

3अ

116

120

253

120

2एफ

120

6अ

120

6ब

120

11अ

120

123

435

124

123

124

1अ

127

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii)] 4

73 0

66 0

59 0

87 0

78 0

31 0

06 0

17 0

40 0

53 0

58 0

64 0

46 0

07 0

51 0

85 0

40 0 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

4263

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 24, 2004/ श्रावण 2,1926

146

6ड

146

6क

146

19 ब

146

20 ब

146

201

146

19अ

146

18 ब

146

18अ

145

5अ

146

15ब

146

12ब

145

2अ

145

1अ

146

144

5अ

152

12ब

152

12अ

152

6ड

152

160

4 4

6 0

83 0

45 0

46 0

40 0

79 0

95 0

40 0

08 0

93 0

40 0

95 0

07 0

63 0

81 0

51 0

64 0

40 0

66 0

47 0

14 0

91 0

62 0

16 0

81 0

75 0

69 0

85 4264

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24, 2004/SRAVANA 2 , 1926

3 1

160

9ब

159

9अ

159

7अ

159

ब

159

158

162

158

1 ब 2

158

157

6ब

157

186

[PART II-SEC. 3( ii)]

17 0

55 0

95 0

40 0

21 0.

40 0

42 0

67 0

69 0

86 0

61 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii)]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 24, 2004/श्रावण 2,1926

3 1

186

2अ

186

190

14अ

12क

190

12अ

190

1ब

191

279

नं 130 इरियूर

279

277

4265 4

6 0

99 0

40 0

43 0

23 0

90 0

36 0

96 0

81 0

77 0

22 0

61 0

51 0

04 0

42 0

59 0

96 0

40 0

23 0

32 0

08 4266

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24 , 2004/SRAVANA 2 , 1926

277

276

251

1इ

1ड

251

1क

251

1ब

251

1अ

251

13इ

252

13ड

252

12क

252

123

252

12ब

252

254

1ब

254

260

23ब

260

16ब

260

259

260

265

6ब

265

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

6 4

03 0

09 0

58 0

62 0

72 0

29 0

40 0

69 0

01 0

30 0

18 0

60 0

45 0

67 0

28 0

30 0

90 भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 24, 2004/ श्रावण 2,1926

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

265

11अ

4क

265

10अ

265

10ब

265

उक

9अ

265

9ब

7ब

266

7अ

266

6अ

266

6ब

270

4क

269

270

4अ

270

150

1अ

149

1 ब

149

148

147

5क

147

5ब

147

5अ

146

3ब

146

2136 GI /2004-24

4267 4

40 0

97 0

03.

40 0

97 0

83 0

14 0

00 0

69 0

20 0

24 0

75 0

57 0

64 0

27 0

52 0

73 0

25 0

31 0 4268

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24, 2004/ SRAVANA 2, 1926

146

145

335

अ

341

2ड

341

2क

341

1ड

341

1क

341

1 ब

341

1अ

343

344

5अ

344

5ब

344

4अ

344

3अ

345

174

6 नं 129 करूंगुली

174

2ब

174

2अ

174

173

4ब

173

3ब

173

2ब

173

1 ब

166

1ब

[PART II SEC . 3 (ii) ] 4

6 0

61 0

32 0

16 0

37 0

49 0

12 0

69 0

20 0

85 0

79 0

15 0

50 0

40 0

49 0

50 0

44 0

28 0

23 0

96 0

78 0

04 0

55 0

31 0

49 0

12 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 24, 2004/ श्रावण 2,1926

166

अ2

164

8क

164

111

4ब

111

4अ

111

3अ

111

उब

111

2क

111

2अ

113

20हेच

113

20ड

113

20क

113

20ब

113

20अ

123

146

ब

146

1अ

147

145

144

140

129

6 0

53 0

14 0

27 0

88 0

89 0

81 0

73 0

63 0

53 0

51 C

40 0

19 0

13 0

69 0

24 0

01 0

56 0

32 0

40 0

91 0

68 0

65 0

70 0

76 0

10 θ

76 4270

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 24, 2004/SRAVANA 2, 1926

139

135

20ब

135

134

143

नं 127 अम्मकलट्टूर

143

144

146

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

0 भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 24, 2004/ श्रावण 2,1926

[भाग 1 ]- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

3 1

146

161

157

160

131

158

1 व

158

159

8क

159

154

अ

154

159

1क

189

4अ

189

401

189

190

1च

1क

190

187

4271

6 4

74 0

41 0

50 0

69 0

(04

00 0

99 0

40 0

43 0

16 0

50 0

91 0

0 4272

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24 , 2004 /SRAVANA 2, 1926

195

176

अ न 128 सेंबाकुरिच्चि

176

171

172

2 नं 126 तेन सिरुवल्लूर

196

2अ

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)] 4

6 0

88 0

05 0

20 0

91 0

54 0

17 0

08 0

34 0

04 0

82 0

53 0

18 0

35 0

21 0

66 0

65 0

31 0

40 0

77 0

46 0

77 0

70 0

08 0

02 0

58 0

71 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र बुलाई 24, 2004/ 2,192635

1अ

196

197

198

199

203

नं 116 अनुमनंदाल

126

नं 117 नायिनारपालेयम

127

128

130

$129

130

141

140

३अ

138

4ब 2

4273 4

6 0

75 0

44 0

34 0

92 0

28 0

14 0

54 0

67 0

24 0

32 0

66 0

52 0

08 0

10°

0 .

27 0

94 0

27 0

16 0

01 0

29 0

36 0

12 0

43 0

80 4274

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24, 2004/SRAVANA 2 , 1926

138

441

139

5ब

4अ

138

3ब

138

3अ

138

11 ब

138

2ड

138

11अ

138

137

3एफ

137

3इ

137

3ड

137

उक

158

12इ

8ब

12ड

8अ

162

163

5ब

163

5अ

165

[PART HSBC . 3 (ii ) ] 4

6 0

40 0

55 0

41 0

40 0

07 0

35 0

64 0

73 0

35 0

40 0

81 0

40 0

72 0

53 0

38 0

37 0

00 भारत का राजपत्र सुखाई 24, 2004/2, 1926

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

10ब

165

171

172

176

1.78

178

178.

178

179

180

181

196

219

8अ

218

1ब

218

1अ

218

2136 GI /2004-25

4275 4

6 0

24 0

34 0

69 0

71 0

34 0

82 0

85 0

03 0

89 0

0 4276

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24, 2004/SRAVANA 2; 1926

215

1क

215

1 ब

215

1अ

215

212

1क नं 106 पेत्तसमुद्रम

1 ब

2ब

1अ

513

534अ

4ब

4अ

3ब

3अ

1अ

6ब

6अ

[PART II SEC. 3 (ii) ] 4

97 0

24 0

29 0

01 0

66 0

47 0

88 0

38 0

57 0

70 0

11 0

73 0

68 0

37 0

70 0

65 0

67 0

08 0

40 0

11 0

86 [भाग II-खण्ड 3(ii) ]

4277

भारत का राजपत्र जुलाई 24, 2004/ श्रावण 21926

अ

2ब

1अ

उब

3अ

2व

1क2

11अ

11 ब

7 ब 4

90. 0

64 0

29 0

56 0

00 0

93 0

14 0

03 0

38 0

53 0

47 0

17 0

31 0

49 0

99 0

40 0

56 0

85 0

12 0

63 0

57 0

11 0

18 0

64 [भाग - खष्ट 3 ( ii) ]

4279

भारयकरणपत्र: जुलाई 24, 2004/ श्रावण 2,1926

8क

1अ

192

191

6ब

191

7अ

7ब

191

৪ब

191

189

5ड

189

5क

189

5ब

189

5अ

190

क

8अ

नं. 104 दत्ताद्रिपुरम

331

312 4

6 0

46 0

02.

24 0

71 0

18 0

10 0

40 0

57 0

03 0

61 0

60 0

85 0

46 0

05 0

59 0

30.

88 0

49 0

40 0

04 0

77 0

95 0

57 0

40 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 24 , 2004/SRAVANA 2, 1926

4280

6अ

6ब

4क

4ब

4अ

उब

1ब

2अ

3अ

उब

नं 103 कल्लसमुद्रम

उक

5ब

2ब

1ब

2ब

5ब

1अ

10क

10ब

10ड

9ब

9अ

8ब

8अ

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii )]

39 0

03 0

65 0

98 0

36 0

07 [भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 24, 2004/ श्राम 2,1926

10हेच

5क

5ब

10ऐ

12ब

123

1ड

6क2

1 इ

4281 4

6 0

00 0

40 0

14 0

40 0

70 0

69 0

95 0

35 0

85 0

92 0

57 0

69 0

78 0

40 0

67 0

14 0

40 0

51 0

70 0

00 0

30 0

65 0

88 0

33 0

40 0

64 0

96 0

99 4282

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 24, 2004 /SRAVANA2, 1926

1क

1ब

4ब

431

7अ

7ब

2ब

2अ

912

911

6ब

6क

17ब

171

1ब4

1ब 3

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii )]

6 4

27 0

06 0

00 0

40 0

05 0

26 0

45 0

24 0

43 0

62 0

40 0

87 0

00 0

10 0

84 0

42 0

48 0

17 0 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 24, 2004/ श्रावण 2,1926

3ब 2

50,

50...

312

331

205

3 नं 102 दगामतीर्तपुरम

205

206

उब

206

अ

206

1व

206

208

208,

198

6 .

198

199

198-

198

199

198.

199

7. 2136 GI/2004-26

4283 4

6 0

77 0

20 0

56 0

50 0

48 0

78 0

58 0

28 0

10 C

69 C

84 0

28 0

31 0

73 0

54 0

19 0

79 0

27 0

03 0

46 0

66 0

60 0

08 0

12 4284

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 24 , 2004/SRAVANA 2, 1926

196

225

226

168

20 ब

162

160

11 ब

160

उब

3अ

160

4क

158

4ड

158

12ब

4ब

158

248

9ब

248

9अ

7ब

248

9क

7क

248

9ड

248

248'

9इ

248

7अ

248

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii )]

6 4

61 0

52 0

37 0

05 0

38 0

05 0

15 0

25 0

21 0

24 0

40 0

97 0

40 0

00 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

4285

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 24, 2004/ श्रावण 2,1926

249

5क 1

249

5क2

249

5ड1 ब

249

532

249

551अ नं 101 पुंडि

9 नं 99 रायप्पंनूर

376

6 0

87 0

79 0

23 0

50 C

93 0

33 0

69 0

92 0

39 0

23 0

60 0

83 0

43 0

90 0

83 [फा. सं. आर-25011/17/2004-ओ.आर- । ]

रेणुका कुमार, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 23rd July, 2004

S. O. 1739.- Whereas , it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum products from Chennai to Trichy, Madurai and Sankari in the State of Tamilnadu , a pipeline should be laid by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited.

And, whereas , it appears that for the purpose of laying such pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the land described in the Schedule annexed to this notification;

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

Any person, interested in the land described in the said Schedule may within twenty one days from the date on which the copies of this notification as published THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24, 2004/SRAVANA 2, 1926

4286

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii)] in the Gazette of India , are made available to the general public , object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein or laying of the pipe ...me under the land to Shri . R. Vajravelu , Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Chennai- Trichy- Madurai Product Pipeline Project with a branch pipeline from Asanur to Sankari , 4/2 . Arockiasamy Street, Crawford Colony , Tiruchirappalli - 620 012. Tamilnadu .

SCHEDULE

District : VILLUPURAM Taluk : KALLAKURICHCHI

Sub-Division No.

Survey No.

Name of the Village

NO.146 KUNDALUR

125

127

129

142

139

141

170

143

149

148

151

IF State : TAMILNADU

Area

Are

Hectare

Sq.mtr .

6 4

88 0

64.

77 0

'00

40 0

19 C

21 0

C 4287

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 24, 2004/ आपण 2, 1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

151

155

153

154

NO.147 ERANJI

6 4

33 0

02.

75 0

19 0

90 0

79 0

44 0

40 0

83 0

66 0

91 0

56 0

92 0

40 0

42 0

63 0

75 0

0 4288

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24, 2004/SRAVANA 2 , 1926

138

136

113

114

117

[PART II-SBC . 3 (ii) ] 4

6 0

59 0

19 0

97 0

60 0

81 0

24 0

04 0

86 0

37 0

55 0

40 0

75 0

07 0

69 0

40 0

56 0

40 0

39 0

21 0

40 0

95 0

60 0

40 0

04 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 24, 2004/ श्रावण 2,1926

117

119

100

4289 4

29 0

32 0

41 0

40 0

65 0

40 0

79 0

40 0

96 0

40 0

22 0

60 0

82 0

40 0

00 0

45 0

97 0

00 0

90 0

53 0

65 0

76 0

81 0

89 0

93 0

36 4290

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24, 2004/SRAVANA 2, 1926

12A

[PART I-SEC . 3 (ii)]

52.

0 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 24, 2004/ श्रवण 2,1926

4 NO.142 KUTTAKUDI

120

14A

124

121

122

124

122

123

13A

123

13B

123

12B

123

18 2136 G1/2004-27

4291 4

6. 0

73 0

23 0

48 0

11 0

40 0

65 0

72 0

02 0

34 0

83 0

27 0

40 0

45 0

07 0

87 0

82 0

60 0

64 0

92 0

81 0

69 0

89 0

47 0

42 0

02 0

26 0

98 0

20 0

35 4292

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24 , 2004/SRAVANA 2, 1926

3 1

125

115

134

132

136

134

100

7A2

7A1

100

66A

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

6 4

18 0

40 0

01 0

28 0

40 0

31 0

46 0

40 0

96 0

80 0

50 0

18 0

47 0

35 0

58 0

62 0

68 0

03 0

97 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र जुलाई 24, 2004/श्रावण 2,1926

66A

62A

628

1818

181A

182A

228

13C

228

13B

4293 4

6 0

47 0

77 0

99 0

10 0

57 0

74 0

49 0

36 0

85 0

01 0

50 0

95 0

14 0

61 0

04 0

45 0

79 0

94 0

65 0

00 0

82 0

65 0

73 0

53 0

60 0

56 0

20 0

94 0

07 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 24 , 2004/SRAVANA 2, 1926

4294

12B

22B

115

NO.138 ASAKALATTUR

115

116

2E3

120

11A

120

4A5

123

124

123

124

127

[PART II SEC . 3 (ii)]

0 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 24, 2004/ ऋषण 2,1926

146

198

146

208

146

20A

146

19A

146

188

146

18A

145

146

158

146

128

145

146

144

152

12B

152

12A

152

160

4295 4

6 0

83 0

45 0

46 0

40 0

79 0

95 0

40 0

08 0

93 0

40 0

95 0

07 0

63 0

81 0

28 0

51 0

64 0

40 0

66 0

47 0

14 0

91 0

62 0

16 0

81 0

75 0

69 0

85 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24 , 2004/SRAVANA 2, 1926

4296

160

159

158

162

158

1B2

158

157

186

186:

[PART II-SBC, 3 (ii) ]

6 4

55 0

21 0

15 0

70. 0

87 0

0 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 24, 2004/ श्रावण 2,1926

186

190

14A

190

12C

190

12A

190

191

5 NO.130 IRIYUR

279

277

4297 4

6 0

99 0

40 0

50 0

43 0

15 0

23 0

90 0

08 0

36 0

63 0

96 0

81 0

64 0

77 0

40 0

22 0

61 0

51 0

01 0

32 0

04 0

39 0

42 0

59 0

60 0

96 0

40 0

23 0

32 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24, 2004 /SRAVANA 2, 1926

4298

277

276

251

13E

252

13D

252

12C

252

12A

252

12B

252

254

260

23B

260

16B

260

259

260

265

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii ) ]

6 4

62 C

40 0

42 C

18 C

60 C

30 0

26 G

44 0

0 भाया का राजपत्र: जुलाई 24, 2004/1920

[भाग II- सहष्ठ 3 (ii) ]

265

11A

265

10A

265

10B

265

266.

266

6B.

266

270

269

270

150

149

148

147

146

2136 GM20044-288

4299

40 0

97 0

13 0

40 0

68 0

97 0

00 0

39 0

75 0

24 0

87 0

47 0

27 0

34 0

61 0

0 4300

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24, 2004 /SRAVANA 2, 1926

146

145

335

341

241

341

343

344

345

1 NO . 129 KARUNGULI

174

173

166

[PART II-SBC. 3 (ii )] 4

6 0

61 0

32 0

16 0

37 0

49 0

12 0

40 0

69 0

20 0

85 0

79 0

42 0

15 0

50 0

40 0

49 0

50 0

44 0

28 0

23 0

96 0

78 0

38 0

04 0

55 0

31 0

49 0

67 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 24, 2004/ श्रावण 2,1926

166

1A2

164

111

113

20H

113

20D

113

20C

113

208

113

20A

123

146

147

145

144

140

129

4301 4

6 0

53 0

14 0

27 0

88 0

89 0

65 0

73 0

63 0

53 0

51 0

40 0

19 0

39 0

69 0

24 0

01 0

96 0

56 0

32 0

40 0

25 0

91 0

68 0

65 0

70 0

76 0

10 0

76 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24 , 2004/ SRAVANA 2 , 1926

4302

3 1

139

135

208

135

134

NO.121 AMMAKALATTUR

143

144

146

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ) 4

40 0

15 0

72 0

57 0

00 0

62 0

40 0

98 0

50 0

00 0

38 0

98 0

52 0

02 0

94 0

92 0

65 0

40 0

00 [भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत कम राजपत्र: जुलाई 24 , 2004/ छावण 2, 1926

146

161

157

160

158

159

154

159

189

4B1

189

190

187

4303 4

6 0

74 0

41 0

90 0

18 0

40 0

70 0

92 0

50 0

69 0

40 0

35 0

39 0

00 0

99 0

88 0

40 0

87 0

33 0

40 0

43 0

75 0

47 0

36 0

16 0

50 0

58 0

91 0

02 4304

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24 , 2004/SRAVANA 2 , 1926

195

NO.128 SEMBAKURICHCHI

176

171

172

NO.126 TEN SIRUVALLUR

196

[PART II-SBC . 3 (ii )]

6 4

54 0

82 0

21 0

77 0

0 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 24, 2004/ श्रावण 2,1926

196

197

198

199

203

2 NO.116 ANUMANANDAL

4 NO.117 NAYINNARPALAYAM

126

127

128

130

129

130

141

140

138

4B2

4305 4

6 0

75 0

44 0

34 0

92 0

28 0

30 0

14 0

54 0

24 0

32 0

66 0

52 0

08 0

13 0

27 0

94 0

80 4306

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 24, 2004/SRAVANA 2, 1926

4B1

138.

139

138

118

138

11A

138

137

158

12E

12D

162

163

165

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]

40 0

52 0

40 0

0 भाग- खण्ड (鐘 ) ]

DERES खुलाई 24, 2004/

165

171 St

At 171

$ 171

171

3 172

€ 172 88

01 172

176

9 $ 176 40

At 178

178 it

178

178 es

179

179 ва

AA 03

179 ٢٤

180

Αε

181 га

181 03

196

219

A 80

219

A SE

219

ผล ০৯

218 00

Aa 40

218

S 28

218 2136 GI/2004-29

304807

энг

6 3

27 10B

24 rs 14

212 7

73 as 12

76 $ 5

18.

34 9515

18 $ 5

MAROUMARA

S 3

34 6

61 7

82 5

41 1

49 5

17 2

73 10

03 1

41 a

90 8

49 5

36 7

40 1A 4308

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24, 2004/SRAVANA 2 , 1926

215

212

NO.106 PETTASAMUDRAM

5A3

5A4A

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ] 4

6 0

69 0

97 0

66 0

47 0

88 0

11 0

38 0

70 0

11 0

29 0

73 0

68 0

70 0

67 0

00 0

40 0

86 [भाग II- खष्ठ 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 24 , 2004/ श्रावण 2,1926

3 1

1C2

11A

11B

4309 4

6 0

90 0

64 0

29 0

07 0

00 0

93 0

38 0

53 0

47 0

49 0

56 0

63 0

04.

57 0

11 0

0 4310

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 24, 2004/SRAVANA 2, 1926-

10B

10A

[PART II SBC. 3 (ii)]

6 4

85 0

45 0

29 0

95 0

48 0

38 0

83 0

69 0

00 0

90 0

31 0

94 0

72 0

63 0

82 0

50 0

35 2

3 a1

10 50

8€ 00

192

191

15C AS 5

191

6A 00

191

رية

191

३

189

5A SU

190

2 20

190

NO 104 DATTADRIPURAM

3A1

3A2 ९७

4311

1 0

30.

40 4312

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24 , 2004/SRAVANA 2, 1926

3B NO.103 KALLASAMUDRAM

10C

108

10D

[PART II-SBC. 3 (ii) ] 4

40 0

91 0

40 0

37 0

70 0

83 0

26 0

06 0

20 0

11 0

06 0

46 0

39 0

08 0

80 0

67 0

33 0

88 0

93 0

03 0

90 0

67 0

65 0

46 0

98 0

34 0

29 0

36 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 24, 2004/ श्रावण 2,1926

10H

101

12B

12A

6C2

4313 4

00 0

40 0

14 0

40 0

70 0

69 0

95 0

35 0

85 0

92 0"

57 0

69 0

78 0

67 0

39 0

40 0

51 0

70 0

30 0

65 0

88 0

40 0

64 0

96 0

99 4314

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24, 2004 /SRAVANA 2, 1926

3 1

4A1

9A2

9A1

17B

17A

1B4

1B3 }

PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii)] 4

27 0

01 0

25 0

58 0

00 0

05 0

26 0

02 0

45 0

62 0

40 0

00 0

10 0

84 0

42 0

48 0

17 0 [भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजमत्र: जुलाई 24 , 2004/ श्रावण 2,1926

1B5

3B2

3B1

3A3

3A2

3A1

205

3 NO.102 DAGAMTIRTTAPURAM

205

206

208

198

199

198

199

198

199

21960130

4315 4

6 0

77 0 '

20 0

50 0

78 0

58 0

36 0

31 0

73 0

05 0

19 0

27 0

03 0

66 0

60 0

02 0 .

12 4316

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24 , 2004/ SRAVANA 2, 1926

196

225

226

168

162

20B

160

11B

160

158

12B

158

248

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)) 4

74 0

61 0

52 0

85 0

36 0

37 0

34 0

05 0

14 0

26 0

60 0

21 0

54 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

4317

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 24, 2004/ श्रावण 2,1926

248

249

5C1

249

5C2

249

5D1B

249

5D2

249

5D1A NO.101 PUNDI

76-

-4

9 NO.99 RAYAPPANUR

376

9 4

6 0

57 0

40 0

97 0

84 0

87 0

23 0

50 0

93 0

69 0

92 0

39 0

23 0

83 0

43 0

90 0

83 [No. R- 25011/17/2004- O.R. - I ] RENUKA KUMAR , Under Secy.

नईदिल्ली, 23 जुलाई, 2004

का. आ. 1740.- केन्द्रीय सरकार को यह प्रतीत होता है कि लोकहित में यह आवश्यक है कि तमिलनाडु राज्य में चेन्नई से तिरूच्चि , मदुराई और शंकरी तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादन के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन आयल कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए और ऐसा प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी पाइपलान बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए इस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करना आवश्यक है ;

अतः, अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम , 1962 ( 1962 का 50) की धारा 3 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , उनमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है ;

उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध कोई व्यक्ति उस तारीख से , जिसको भारत के राजपत्र मे यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियां साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं , इक्कीस 4318

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24 , 2004/SRAVANA 2, 1926.

[PART II-SEC . 3( ii)] दिन के भीतर भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन या भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रति लिखित रूप में आक्षेप श्री आर. वज्रवेलू, सक्षम प्राधिकारी चेन्नई तिमिदुराई उत्पाद पाइपलाइन परियोजना और आसनूर से शंकरी तक ब्रांच पाइपलाइन परियोजना , 4/2 , आरोकियासामी स्ट्रीट , क्राफ़ोर्ड कालोनी , तिरुचिरापल्ली 620012 (तमिलनाडु) को कर सकेगा ।

अनुसूची

तालुका: अम्बत्तूर

राज्य : तमिलनाडु

जिला: तिरुवल्लूर

गॉव का नाम

सर्वे नंबर हिस्सा नंबर

3 सदन ( थिरुवोटियूर टाऊन )

क्षेत्रफल

आर वर्ग मीटर हेक्टर

6 0

वार्ड डि ब्लाक 1 टि एस 4

वार्ड डि ब्लाक 1 टि एस 3

नं 41 मनालि

258

4अ

258

331

258

332

258

3ब

253

1ब

1अ

253

127

2ब 3

116

115

113

10 0

45 0

65 0

20 0

21 0

40 0

08 0

64 0

07 0

45 0

34 0

38 0

58 0

40 0

19 0

62 0

10 0

06 0

72 0

81 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 24, 2004/ श्रावण 2,1926

100

1ब

1अ

1 ब

1अ

अ

1ब

: 8

1अ

3 ब

अ

1ब

1अ

5 नं. 28अरियलूर

4319 4

6 0

42 0

08 0

24 0

78 0

29 0

40 0

42 0

32 0

42 0

31 0

11 0

40 0

08 0

66 0

89 0

42 0

40 0

87 0

42 0

40 0

45 0 4320

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24, 2004/SRAVANA 2, 1926

1 तालूका : पोन्नेरि

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)] 4

6 0

69 0

65 0

38 0

86 0

75 0

13 0

जिला

: तिरुवल्लूर

नं 150 विचूर

396

395

394

6ब

394

360

2क

360

2ब

360

2अ

360

361

363

2अ

362

2ब

362

358

352

1 क राज्य : तमिलनाडु 0

42 0

88 0

73 0

62 0

12 0

95 0

75 0

26 0

69 0

57 0

22 0

76 0

65 0

72 0

38 0

30 0

37 00

77 00

40 12

49 07

82 0

78 0

55 0

47 06

99 0

61 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 24, 2004/ श्रावण 2,1926

1 ब

352

372

2 नं 121 पेपुंगवूर

373

380

375

378

377

उक

377

3ब

377

3अ

400

1अ

397

398

395

414

412

414

429

428

431

1ब

442

442.

458

459

2ब

459

2अ

459

456

460

461

453

452

481

4321 4

6 0

40 0

34 0

81 0

72 0

00 0

12 0

44 0

71 0

62 0

21 0

57 0

61 0

67 10

-90 0

34 0

79 0

91 0

38 0

15 0

23 0

35 0

69 01

14 0

57 0

81 0

29 0

55 0

93 0

98 0

95 00

65 0

72- 0

82 0

71 0

30 0

57 0

05 4322

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 24 , 2004/SRAVANA 2, 1926

479

478

544

543

544

545

547

1 ब

131 ब

547

131 अ

547

132

557

556

562

1अ

565

564

572

573

नं 123 कुम्मनूर

2अ

1 .

2ब

2अ

1क

1ब

1अ

2ब

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

40 0

38 0

05 0

04 09

0 .

12 05

05 0

11 0

59 0

66 0

55 0

95 0

22 0

03 0

49 0

13 0

71 0

07 0

53 0

36 0

24 0

00 0

73 0

63 0

35 0

99 0

13 4323

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 24, 2004/ श्रावण 2,1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

2अ

1अ

2अ

1क

142ब

1ड

1 ब2अ

1क

231

1 ब

में 124 अंगाडु

2इ

2ड

2क

2ब

1.9

2ब

2अ

285

287

2क

287

2ब

287

2136 G1 /04-31

6 4

34 0

49 0

05 0

92 0

03 0

02 0

91 0

13 0

78 0

31 0

02 0

92 0

94 0

04 0

52 0

34 0

40 0

56 0

88 0

30 0

31 0

82 0

62 0

63 0 4324

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 24 , 2004/SRAVANA 2, 1926

288

2ब नं 125 ओरक्काडु

2अ

3अ

232

112

131

251

2क

2ब

3ब

3अ

1 ब

1अ

232

1 ब नं 104 सोतुपेटुंबेडु

232

1अ

231

2ब

231

1ब

230

343

230

342

230

242

230

241

230

341

230

3अ

162

161

109

3ब

109

108

1अ

108

1ब

108

2ब

[PART II SBC . 3 ( ii) ] 4

6 0

34 0

39 0

00 0

46 0

56 0

68 0

33 0

42 0

28 0

70 0

08 0

30 0

76 0

18 0

70 0

72 0

40 0

53 0

21 0

34 0

97 0

16 0

11 0.

51 0

01 0

24 0

03 भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 24, 2004/ श्रावण 2,1926

[भाग II- खण्ड (i) ]

2अ

108

2क

108

107

2इ

2ड

107

2ब

107

2अ

नं 116 चोलवरम

4ब

4अ

345

344

339

8क

467

5ब

467

5अ

467

471

2ब

471

2अ

465

1अ2अ

132 ब

465

4325

6 4

41 0

54 0

76:..

39 0

28 0

06.

12 0

36 0

08 0

04 0

75 0

33 0

70 0

58 0

15 0

84 0

35 0

84 0

04 0

24 0

54 0

45 0

10 0

Q 4326

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24, 2004 /SRAVANA 2, 1926

472

4ब

478

4ब

478

2अ

478

2ब

487

485

6अ

485

134

485

135

485

132

485

133

485

1 ब

534

5अ

534

5ब

517

4क

499

517

उब

517

अ

1अ

521

515 ब

3क 1 .

515 ब

2क

515 ब

1ब3

515 अ

515अ

[PART II-SEC.3 (ii) ] 4

6 0

00 0

44 0

15 0

97 0

64 0

55 0

53 0

66 0

74 0

45 0

85 0

22 0

91 0

40 0

07 0

84 0

99 0

90 0

40 0

33 0

90 0

92 0

24 [फा. सं..आर-25011/18/2004- ओ.आर-1 ]

रेणुका कुमार, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 23rd July, 2004

S. O. 1740.- Whereas , it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum products from Chennai to Trichy , Madurai and Sankari in the State of Tamilnadu , a pipeline should be laid by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited.

And, whereas , it appears that for the purpose of laying such pipeline , it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the land deso ed in the Schedule annexed to this notification;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferredby sub - section ( 1 ) of section 3 of Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

4327

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 24, 2004/ श्रावण 2,1926

Act.1962( 50 of 1962) , the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;

Any person , interested in the land described in the said Schedule may within twenty one days from the date on which the copies of this notification as published in the Gazette of India , are made available to the general public , object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein or laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri . R.Vajravelu , Competent Authority , Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Chennai- Trichy-Madurai Product Pipeline Project with a branch pipeline from Asanur to Sankari 4/2, Arockiasamy Street , Crawford Colony , Tiruchirappalli - 620 012, Tamilnadu .

SCHEDULE

State : Tamil Nadu

District : Tiruvailur

Tajuk: Ambattur

Sub-Division no.

Surveyno.

Nameof the Village

3 1

Ward D

Block 1 TS SATTANKADU (THIRUVOTTIYUR TOWN)

Ward D Block 1 TS

258

NO.41 ΜΑΝALI

258

3A1

258

3A2

258

3A3

258

253

127

2B3

116

115

113

Area

Are

Hectare

Sq.mtr.

65 0

24 0

45 0

65 0

56 0

20 0

18 0

83 0

90 0

21 0

24 0

08 0

64 0

07 0

45 0

34 0

38 0

0 4328

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24, 2004/SRAVANA 2, 1926

113

100

*1B

1A NO.28 ARIYALUR

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)] 4

40 0

62 0

10 0

06 0

42 0

08 0

78 0

48 0

30 0

65 0

33 0

03 0

53 0.

65 0

38 0

49 0

42 0

31 0

40 0

33 0

08 0

30 0

89 0

42 0

40 भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 24, 2004/ श्रावण 2,1926

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

District : Tiruvaliur Taluk : Ponneri

396

-NO.150 VICHUR

396

395

395.

395

394

360

361

363

362

358

352

4329

6 4

87 0

45 0

69 0

65 0

State: Tamil Nadu

38 0

40 0

0 [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24, 2004/SRAVANA 2, 1926 4330

352

372

NO.121 PERUNGAVOOR

373

380

375

378

377

400

397

398

395

414

412

414

429

428

431

442

458

459

456

460

461

453

452

481

6. 5

99 06

40 00

34 13

72 03

00 04

12 08

44 06

71 04

62 11

62 02

21 06

57 00

61 03

67 10

90 10

79 15

91 00

38 15

15 08

23 07

69 08

14 01

57 06

29 09

55 03

93 03

95 08

65 00

72 01

71 09

30 17

57 08

05 07 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 24, 2004/श्रावण 2,1926

479

478

4 به

478

544

543

544

545

547

1A1B

547

1A1A

547

1A2

557

556

562

565

564

572

573

1 NO.123 KUMMANUR

80 、

2B 2136 GI/04-32

4331 4

72 0

40 0

39 0

38 0

05 0

46 0

04 0

12 0

05 0

03 0

11 0

59. 0

66 0

40 0

95 0

22 0

1459 0

03 0

59 0

49 06

71 0

13 0

71 0

07 11

53 24

09 0

36 0

57 01

24 0

00 0

60 0

73 06

63 0

35 0

99 0

38 0

13 4332

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24, 2004/SRAVANA 2, 1926

1B2B

1B2A

2A1

2 NO.124 ANGADU

285

287

[PART II SEC . 3 (ii )] 4

6 0

23 0

34 0

32 0

49 0

05 0

92 0

12 0

03 0

02 0

40 0

91 0

13 0

64 0

78 0

15 0

31 0

02 0

92 0

94 0

04 0

74 0

52 0

04 0

34 0

62 0

40 0

56 0

88 0

87 0

30 0

31 0

82 0

62 0

63 0

83 0

76 0

63 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 24, 2004/ श्रावण 2,1926

288

NO.125 ORAKKADU

2A2

1A2

1A1

2D1

1A NO.184: 80THUPERUMBEDU

234

232

231

230

3B3

230

3B2

230

2B2

230

2B1

230

3B1

230

162

161

109

108

4333

6 4

00 0

46 0

56 0

68 0

33 0

26 0

42 0

00 0

57 0

28 0

70 0

86 0

08 0

30 0

76 0

36 0

70 0

40 0

53 0

21 0

97 0

16 0

11 0

51 0

01 0

24 03

39 4334

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 24 , 2004/SRAVANA 2 , 1926

108

107

3 NO.116 OLAVARAM

345

344

339

467

471

1A2A

1A2B

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] 4

41 0

54 0

76 0

39 0

88 0

10 0

05 0

32 0

12 01

08 0

04 0

75 06

33 15

11 0

70 0

58 11

15 04

84 0

35 0

84 0

04 00

81 0

85 08

24 0

54 0

12 0

45 0

00 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

4335

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 24, 2004/ श्रावण 2,1926

472

478

487

485

1A4

485

1A5

485

1A2

485

1A3

485

534

517

499

517

521

3C1

515B

515 B

1B3

515-B

515 A

6 0

00 0

44 0

64 0

55 "

53 0

66 σ

45 0

40 0

22 0

12.

40 0

07 0

99 0

40 0

90 0

24 0

[No. R-25011 /18 /2004- O.R. - I ] RENUKA KUMAR , Under Secy.

नईदिल्ली, 23 जुलाई , 2004

का. आ. 1741.- केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन अधिनियम , 1962 ( 1962 का 50) (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है) की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी की गई भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का. आ. 467 दिनाँक 23.02.2004 द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट राजस्थान राज्य की तहसील ब्यावर, जिला अजमेर, की भूमि में , सलाया-मथुरा पाइपलाइन प्रणाली परियोजना के विरमगाम - चाकसू, चाकसू- पानीपत और चाकसू- मथुरा सेक्शनों के संवर्धन के क्रियान्वयन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कॉपोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा गुजरात राज्य में विरमगाम से राजस्थान राज्य में चाकसू से होकर 4336

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24, 2004/SRAVANA 2, 1926

[PART II SEC . 3 (ii) ] हरियाणा राज्य में पानीपत तक अपरिष्कृत तेल के परिवहन के लिए पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के लिए अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी ;

और उक्त अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को दिनाँक 15/03/2004 को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी ;

और सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (1 ) के अधीन केन्द्रीय सरकार को अपनी रिपोर्ट दे दी है ;

और, केन्द्रीय सरकार का उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात यह समाधान हो गया है कि इस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार अर्जित किया जाए ;

अतः , अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि इस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार अर्जित किया जाता है ।

और केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (4) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह निदेश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख से केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने की बजाए सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड में निहित होगा ।

अनुसूची

तहसील : ब्यावर

जिला : अजमेर

राज्य : राजस्थान

क्षेत्रफल

गाँव का नाम

खसरा सं .

हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग मीटर 1

5 बाड़िया श्यामा

549

[फा. सं. आर-25011/8/2001 - ओ. आर-1 ]

रेणुका कुमार, अवर सचिव 4337 भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 24, 2004/ श्रावण 2,1926

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

New Delhi , the 23rd July, 2004

S. O. 1741.-Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O. 467 dated 23.02.2004 issued under sub section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines ( Acquisition of Right of User in Land ) Act, 1962 ( 50 of 1962 ). ( hereinafter referred to as the said Act ), the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land in Tehsil : Beawar, District : Ajmer in Rajasthan State, specified in the schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation of Crude Oil from Viramgam in the State of Gujarat to Panipat in the State of Haryana via Chaksu in the State of Rajasthan by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited for implementing the Augmentation of Viramgam - Chaksu , Chaksu - Panipat & Chaksu - Mathura sections of Salaya - Mathura Pipeline System Project ;

And whereas , copy of the said notification was made available to the general public on 15/03/2004 .

And whereas , the Competent Authority has under sub- section ( 1 ) of section 6 of the said Act submitted his report to the Central Government;

And whereas , the Central Government , after considering the said report is satisfied that the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this Notification should be acquired;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 1 ) of section 6 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification is hereby acquired;

And further , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section (4) of section 6 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby directs that the right of user in the said land. shall instead of vesting in the Central Government, vests from the date of publication of this declaration , in the Indian Oil Corporation Limited free from all encumbrances.

SCHEDULE

State: RAJASTHAN

District : AJMER

Tehsil : BEAWAR

Area Are

Hectare

Khasara No.

Sq.mtr Name of the Village

549

BADIYA SHYAMA

[No. R-25011/8/2001-0R -1

RENUKA KUMAR, Under Seeg 4338

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24, 2004 /SRAVANA 2, 1926

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)] श्रम मंत्रालय

the first party) filed the Claim Statement with the following averments:-

नईदिल्ली , 25 जून, 2004

3. The Mysore Minerals Ltd: is a Government of Karnataka Undertaking. It is running several Mines situated all over the State of Karnataka .

4. The Second party is running several Mines in Chromite Sector with the divisional Headquarters at Byrapur, Hassan District. The following 4 Mines comes under this Division:

का. आ. 1742.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसूर मिनरलस लि. , के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण बैंगलोर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 68/99 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25-6-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

(a) Thagadur Chromite Mine

[सं. एल 29012/ 197/98- आई. आर ( विविध ) ]

(b) Jambur Chromite Mine

बी.एम. डेविड, अवर सचिव

MINISTRY OF LABOUR

(d) Aladahalli ChromiteMine

New Delhi , the 25th June , 2004

Thebreak up of the workmen under these Mines are given below:-

290

( a) Thagadur Chromite Mine

111

(b) Jambur Chromite Mine

143

138

( d) Aladahalli Chromite Mine

Totally in all there are 682 workmen working in these Mines .

S.O. 1742. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 68 / 99) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum -Labour Court , Bangalore as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Mysor Minerals Ltd. and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 25-06-2004

[No. L -29012/197/ 98 - IR (M) ] B.M. DAVID , Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM - LABOUR COURT

Present:

Shri A.R Siddiqui Presiding Officer

C.RNO . 68/99

5. When the matter stood thus , the Second party by order No. PER/ 240 /GEN/ 98-99 /2504 dated 1-9-98 obtained false reports from the Company's officers (Mining ) and MinesManagers of these Mines to the effect that due to heavy rains in the areas comprised in these Mines , Mining operations had become difficult because of water logging of pits and that it was not condusive for continuing the mining operations for another 3 to 4 months affecting closing down of production operations in these mines we.f. 1-9-1998. A copy of the Order dated 1-9-1998 together with its enclosures 1 and 3 ate herewith produced as Annexure "A" .

I PARTY

II PARTY

The General Secretary Mysore Minerals Ltd. Employees Union, 2nd Cross , 9th Main Road Gokula 1 Stage , II Phase Bangalore

The Chairman and Managing Director, Mysore Minerals Limited No. 39 , M.G. Road, Bangalore- 1

AWARD

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause ( d) of sub- section 2A of the Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 has referred this dispute vide order No. L- 29012 / 197/ 98/ IR ( M ) , dated 5th May, 1999 for adjudication on the following schedule .

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management in declaring lay- off in 4 chromite mines of Byrapur Division is justified? If not , to what relief the workman are entitled to? "

2. The first party viz . the President , Mysore Minerals Limited, Employees Association (hereinafter called

6. The first party union which is the only majority and representative Trade Union ofthe workers employed in the Second Party Company in the State and which has been declared as the sole Collective Bargaining Agent in respect of these workers in a Referendum, challenged the stand taken by the Management in the matter and termed the closure of the mines as violative of Section 25-0 of the Industrial Disputes Act and termed the lay off of the workers as being violative of Section 25 -M of the said Act in that the Company had not applied for and obtained necessary permission from the Central Government which isappropriate Government under the Act to close down these mines and to lay off the workers employed therein . The First party demanded of the Management to reopen these mines and also provide work to these workers . The water logging of pits due to heavy monsoon rains and therefore continuing mining operation these mines will not be possible , is only a ruse to close down the operations in these mines and to lay off the workers . Therefore , neither the closure nor the laying off the workmen in these mines is bonafide and real , but it is a make believe and totally unwarranted and illegal .

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

7. When the matter was taken up before the ConciliationOfficer, viz . the Asstt . Labour Commissioner, Central, the first party Union raised these issue andwanted the Conciliation Officer to direct the Second Party Management to lift the lay off effected on these workmen and permit them to work in these Mines. The Management falsely informed the said Authorities that it had applied for necessary permission in the matter and the same was awaited, but in fact no such permission was sought for . Further, laying off all workmen can be effected under Section 25-M ofthe Industrial Dispute Act only after receipt of the permissionfrom the appropriate Government and not prior toor in anticipation of the permission. Therefore, laying off 637workmen w.e.f. I - 9-98 is wholly irregular, arbitrary, mala- fide, illegal and not sustainable in law.

8. Under these circumstances and in view of sub- section 8 of Section 25 -M of the Industrial DisputesAct. , the laying off these workmen by the second party management w.e.f. 1-9-1998 is deemed to be illegal and all these affected workmen are entitled for all the benefits under any law for the time being in force as if they had not been laid off. In other words , these workers are entitled to be paid full wages and other consequential benefits as if they had not been laid off by the Second Party on and from 1-9-1998.

9. In these circumstances , the first party most respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleasedto pass an Award holding that the lay off ordered by the Second Party Management in its Order dated 1-9-1998 w.e.f. 01-09-1998 is wholly unwarranted, illegal and unjustified being in violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 25-M of the ID Act and consequently these 637wasemen are entitled to be paid full wages and all other consequential benefits as if they had not been laid off by the Sosend Party on and from 01-9-1998 and grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Tribunal deems it fit to grant in the facts and circumstances ofthis case, in the interest of justice.

10. The Second Party Management vız . Mysore Minerals Ltd. Bangalore ( hereinafter called the management ) by its counter statement challenged the claim ofthe first party contenting among other ground that:

11. The Second Partyby order dated 1-9-1998due to unavoidable circumstances , closed 4 mines temporarily with effect from 1-9-1998 . The facts leading to the temporary cloence as per the onder dated 1-9-98 has been briefly explained in the order by the Second Party. As per the roport of the senior surveyor and other officials, because ofwater legging ofpits due to heavy monsoon rain for the dast fowssoksprionto 1-9-1998 the entire mining area was flooded and itwas assessed that the same position would contiquo for another three to four months as on 26-8-98 . Theroworowther allied reasons for ordering the closure of the amines, they were inmaterial and negligible when 213601/04-33

4339

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 24, 2004/श्रावण 2, 1926

compared to the mining activities because of the natural calamities, the floods due to heavy monsoon rain . The Second party submits that under Section 25 -MefID Act, no permission from Government is necessary for auch temporary closure or lay off which this due to natural calamities and in the case of mines such lay off is duo.40 flood. In this case , as already explained all the four mines had been flooded with heavy monsoon rain and thomines had to be closed with effect from 1-9-98. In these circumstances , the management was justified in doing so Hence, this Hon'ble court may be pleased to uphold the temporary closure of the mines for the above reasons and reject the reference .

12. The Second Party has paid lay off wages act 50%ofthe gross salary without any deduction . The details ofthe payments made for the period 16-9-1998 to 30-11- 1999 are as follows: -

Mines

Total Rs.

Salary Rs .

Wages Rs .

5,55,628

4,37,952

9,93,120 Thagadur

1327 Jambur

Aladahalli

2,18,415 (Average)

1,54,351

226,339.

Bhaktharahalli

71,978

Rs . 16,36,091

GrandTotal:

13. The second party humbly submits that the fest party has no lucus standi whatsoever to raise the above dispute as itdoes not command the support of majority employees ofthe four mines belonging to the second party which is the subject -matter of this dispute. None of the employees of the four mines are members of the first party union . Further, the majority of employees of the second party working in the four mines have not authorized the first party union to raise the dispute on their behalf. In these circumstances , the present dispute referred to this Hon'ble Tribunal is bad in law. Therefore , this Hou'ble Tribunal may be pleased to frame the following two issues and both of them may please be tried as preliminaryismes before embarking upon adjudication of main dispute.

14.Whether the first party proves that it has locus standi to represent the workmen offour mines of Second Party ofByrapurDivision.

15. Whether the first party proves that it is.an Industrial Dispute under Section 2 (K) of ID Act, andhas the support of majority of workmen of four mines of ByrapurDivision.

16. The allegations made in para 4 of the Claim Statement is absolutely unfounded and motivated The factual position obtained in the mine have been brought to the notice of the Head Office of the Company by the field officers for urgent action to suspend mining operations. Hence, this decision . The Second Partydonies 4340

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24, 2004/SRAVANA 2, 1926

other allegations of the union which are contrary to what is stated above .

17. Regarding para 5 of the Claim Statement , it is submitted that the reference to Section 25 ( 0) is incorrect as the provisions of the section is not attracted in this , as there were incessant rains and consequently all the working pitswere filled with water and hence the decision was taken. The letter or notice intimating the Government/Appropriate Authority regarding the temporary lay off ( suspension of work) had been duly intimated . This is to prove that the company had sent intimation after the lay off (within 30 days) .All other allegations of the union which are contrary to what is stated above are hereby denied.

18. Regarding para 6 of the Claim Statement, it is vehemently denied that the action of the management is inviolation of provisions of Section 25M. Under the special circumstances / situation , the company had to suspend operations involving a lay off and intimate the authorities about such action . The allegation made in the concluding part of para 6 of the union is hereby denied. The company being a State Government undertaking has the best interest of the workers much more than any body to see that they are not to be put into any inconvenience or loss . The action taken was under specific compulsions . The suspension of mining operations /lay off in this case was done under the provisions of sub - sec . 1 of Scc . 25 (m) and in the casc of the mine such lay off is due also to fire , flood, inflammable gas or explosion . The other allegations of the union which are contrary to what is stated above are hereby denied .

19. Regarding para 7 , it ts submitted that the provisions of sub - section B of Section 25 (m) does not apply to this case. The action taken by the management in the circumstances was fully justified and such urgent action was called for and the management could not have waited for permission from the Central Government . The other allegations contrary to what is stated above are hereby denied.

20. Regarding para 8 , it is submitted that the action taken by the management in declaring lay off due to incessant rains and consequent floods, filing up with water in the working pits and also with continuous seepage of ofwater into the workings pits , was necessary and hence the above decision . The allegation made by the first party is totally baseless . The claim should therefore be dismissed . The other allegations contrary to what is stated above are hereby denied .

21. Therefore , the first party union or the workman are not entitled to any relief whatsoever in the facts and circumstances of the case .

22. From the perusal of the order sheet maintained by this Tribunal , it could be seen that as on 20-8-1999 Claim Statement was filed by the first party and thereafter second party filed its Counter Statement on 8-1-2002. The matter came to be posted for the evidence of the second

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)] party, as burden of proof was cast on it as per the reference point . On 25-3-2004 when the matter was taken up for hearing, the first party remained absent and the learned counsel , Shri K. R. Anand representing the management submitted that in the light of the specific contentions raised by the management in the Counter Statement , the two additional issues are to be framed as indicated at para 5 of the Counter Statement . After hearing the learned counsel and perusing the contentions taken in the Counter Statement , this court on the said date framed the following two issues and there upon they being treated as preliminary issue were taken up for hearing in the first instance.

Issues

(1 ) Whether the first party proves that, it has locus standi to represent the workmen of four mines of second party ofByrapur Division.

(2) Whether the first party proves that it is an Industrial Dispute under Section 2(k) of ID Act, and has the support of majority of workmen of four mines of ByrapurDivision.

23. As the first party namely the Union President who raised the present dispute remained absent before this tribunal on many of the dates ofhearing, the court to be on safer side thought it proper to take fresh notice to him and accordingly notice was issuedby way of RPAD returnable by 25-5-2004 . The notice returned back unserved with the report that there was no sufficient address for service earlier to this also notice by RPAD was sent to the firstparty President returnable by 5-3-04 and that also came to be returned unserved with similar endorsement by the post office concerned . Therefore , on 25-5-04 the court taking note of the fact that notice could not be served upon the first party President though sent under RPAD twice , the reason being insufficient address , felt it unnecessary to take fresh notice against him and since the matter was posted for evidence of the first party on the aforesaid date , it was taken that first party has no evidence on the aforesaid two issues . Then the case was posted for evidence of Second Party, if any, giving the date as 10-6-2004, on which date both the parties remained absent , no evidence was led on behalf of the Second Party also and therefore, the case is posted this day for award. Asnoted above the aforesaid two additional issues have heen framed by this court on the basis of the contentions takenby the management in its Counter Statement . The questions involved in these two issues go to the very root of the case with regard to locus standi of the first party to represent the workmen of the four mines of the management involved in this case and as to whether the dispute on hand is an Industrial Dispute under Section 2(k) of the ID Act, commanding the support of the majority ofthe workmen of the 4 mines of Byrapur Division involved in this case . These are the two issues involving question of fact and law and the burden to prove them is squarely rest upon the first party, which raised the dispute. No [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

4341

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 24, 2004/ श्रावण 2, 1926

evidence as such was forth coming on the part of the first party to establish the above said two issues , as noted above. The first party after having filed the Claim Statement has remained in indifferent in attending the case on many number of dates of bearing . Therefore what appears from the conduct of the first party is that it has lost interest in the dispute and is no more willing to go ahead with the proceedings on hand.

24. In the result the court has no hesitation to arrive at the conclusion that the aforesaid two issues remained to be substantiated by the first party and therefore , they are to be answered accordingly in the negative holding the first party has no locus standi to represent the workmen of four mines of the management of Byrapur Division and that the dispute raised by the first party is not an Industrial Dispute under Section 2(k) of the ID Act .

25. In the result , the reference is liable to be rejected and hence the following Award:

ORDER

Reference is rejected . No cost .

(Dictated to P. A. transcribed by her corrected and signed by me on 16th June, 2004) .

A. R. SIDDIQUI , Presiding Officer नईदिल्ली, 25 जून, 2004

का. आ. 1743.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार ऑयल इण्डिया लि. , के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में श्रम न्यायालय गुवाहाटी के पंचाट को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25-6-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-30012/11/2003- आई. आर. ( एम ) ] बी.एस. डविड, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 25th June , 2004

S.O. 1743. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Labour Court , Guwahati as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Oil India Ltd. and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 25-6-2004 .

[No. L - 30012/ 11/2003 - IR (M) ] B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUWAHATI : ASSAM

REFERENCE NO . 6 ( C) OF 2004

Present:

Shri T. C. Jain, LL . B. ,

PresidingOfficer,

Industrial Tribunal , Guwahati .

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute betweeen :

TheManagement of Oil India Ltd. , Guwahati - 5 .

Versus

The workman Ms. Manima Dutta .

DateofAward : 5-5-2004 .

AWARD

The reference arising out of the Govt . order No. L- 30012/ 11/ 2003 - IR(M ) dt . 4-9-2003 relates to the dispute indicated in the schedule below :

"Whether the action of the management of Brahmaputra Vally Exploration Project, Oil India Ltd. Rangpur, R. G. Baruah Road, Guwahati (Represented through the Dy. General Manager) in not expressly considering thejob performed by Miss Manima Dutta asthejob directly done under the estt . ofBVEP, Oil India, since 1-8-1994 in whatsoever form may be and whether the action of the management of BVEP, Oil India Ltd. in not regularising the service of Miss ManimaDutta under Oil India Ltd. isjustified ?

If not , what relief Miss Manima Dutta is entitled to?"

On receipt of their respective notices both the parties appeared on 18-3-04 before this Tribunal and suhmitted their joint compromise Petition alongwith Memorandum of settlement which is marked as Annexure 'X' stating therein that they have amicably settled their dispute out of Court . The settlement is therefore accepted and an award is hereby passed in terms of the settlement which is a part of the award. The reference case is accordingly finally disposed off.

Givenunder my hand and seal of this Tribunal on this 5th May, 2004 .

T. C. JAIN , PresidingOfficer

Annexure-X Ref. No. 6(c) /04 Memorandum of Settlement Between

TheManagement of Oil India Limited

AND

Ms. Manima Dutta

Consequent tothe appeal by Ms. Manima Dutta to theManagement of OIL vide her letter dated 25-11-2003 alongwith a copy of her letter dated 24-09-2003 addressed to the Secy. Govt . of India , Minister of Labour, praying for withdrawal of Report bearing No. 8 (31 )/2002 -G/A of 19-02-2003 , after protracted deliberations , this Memorandum of Settlement has been signed by and between the Management ofOil India Ltd. and Ms. Manima Dutta under the following terms of settlement:

[PART II SEC . 3 ( ii)] 4342

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24, 2004/SRAVANA 2 , 1926

CASE No.: CGIT/LC(R) (94)/99 Terms of settlement :

PRESIDING OFFICER : SHRIKANT SHUKLA 1.0 In view of abandonment of the Project (BVEP) although the Management has no legal obligation , but purely on humanitarian gound , has agreed to pay an ex- gratia amount to be calculated @ 3 (three) months' last drawn service charges for each completed year of service to the aforesaid person . The period of service and the ex-gratia amount payable are shown below:

Shri S. N. Shrivastava Through: President, RKKMS ( INTUC) , B- 21 , Indira Vihar, Seepat Road, Bilaspur. AND SECL Raigarh Area, 13-5-2004

Name From To Ms. Manima Dutta 1-2-95 30-9-2002

AWARD

7 yrs . 4550×3×7 =Rs 95,550,00

The Government of India , Ministry of Labour vide its order No. L-22012/ 154/98/IR(C-II) dtd: 22-2-1999 referred the following issue for adjudication to P. O. CGIT-cum- Labour Court , Jabalpur.

2.0 Ms. Manima Dutta and the Management shall jointly approach the Industrial Tribunal, Assam, Guwahati for disposal of the Reference made by the Govt . of India , Ministry of Labour vide its OM No. L- 30012/ 11/2003 - IR(M) dated 4-9-2003 as "No Dispute " or " Dispute has been amicably settled by and between the parties " .

3.0 The amount calculated as in clause 1.0 above will be paid to Ms. Manima Dutta by A/ c . payec cheque within a period of 30 days from the date of disposal of the Reference case by the Industrial Tribunal , Assam, Guwahati.

"Whether the action of the General Manager, SECL. Raigarh Area of SECL in denying Shri S. N. Shrivastava regularization to the post of T & S Gr . ' A' and not paying him wages of the said post is justified ? If not , to what reliefis the workman entitled ?"

4.0 Ms. Dutta however has made an appeal to the Management that as and when there be any requirement in any Project/Place of Oil India Ltd, her case may be synupethetically considered with better terms than those received by her in BVEP.

Signed this on the 10th day of February, 2004.

Inspite ofthe fact that copy oforder dtd. 22-2-1999 was endorsed to the Union, the Union did not file SOC within the stipulated period . Under the circumstance, notices were issued to the Union but Statement of Claim was not filed . It is note worthy that notice was sufficiently served on the union.

Representing the Management ofOil India Ltd. Sd/-

Representing the Person Concerned Sd/- (Manima Dutta)

(Amivo Sarma) Sd/- (M.M. Mazumdar) Witness :

Witness :

The union has not come forward with the specific date as to when he was to be regularized . On the other, hand, the management has filed Memorandum of Settlement, Paper No. 14. wherein it was agreed between the concerned workman Shri S. N. Shrivastava and the management that Shri S. N. Shrivastava shall be given T& S Gr. ' A' on completion of the Cadre Scheme under NCWA - V w.e.f. 1-9-1999, without any monetary benefit except notional fixation.

Sd/- (Illegible) नई दिल्ली, 28 जून , 2004

Itappears that the union remained satisfied and they have not come forward with the claim . Under the circumstance, it will be deemed fit to pass "No Claim Award" .

No Claim Award is accordingly passed and Paper No. 14 the Memorandum of Settlement will the part ofthe Award.

का. आ. 1744.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, एस.ई.सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/जबलपुर (संदर्भ संख्या सी.जी.आई.टी. /एल.सी. /( आर ) ( 94 )/ 99 को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-6-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

SHRIKANT SHUKLA , Presiding Officer FormH [सं. एल-22012/154/98- आई. आर ( सी- II ) ] एन.पो. केशवन , डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 28th June , 2004

(RULE -58 UNDERI.D . ACT RULES) MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT

1. Rep . Employer : (A) Sri G. Prasad, Dy. C.P.M. , Knivarh Area

S.O. 1744.-In pursuance of Section 17 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CGIT /LC ( R) ( 94 ) / 99 of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court , Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of SECL and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 28-6-2004 .

(B) L. N. Durga Prasad, Dy. P.M. RaigarhArea.

2. Rep . Workman : (A) Sri S.N. Srivastava .

[No. L -22012/ 154/ 98 - IR( C - II) ] N. P. KESAVAN , Desk Officer ANNEXURE

SHORT RECITAL OF THE CASE

Sri S.N. Srivastava, Foreman (Elect . ) T& SGr. ' B ' of Chhal and the SECL Management Representative agreed CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM - LABOUR COURT JABALPUR (MP) [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

toaccept the following terms and condition which are laid down below:-

1. That, the issue has been negotiated amicably between the workman and the management for resolving in accordance with the Cadre Scheme under NCWA -V. 2. That, in the event of agreeing to give him regularisation by the management, on completion of the required experience under the Cadre Scheme , theApplicant is not interested tocontinue the proceedings beforethe Hon'ble Authority.

3. Both the parties , in the event of above understanding, submit that the present proceedings, pending before the Hon'ble Authority , may please be closed and rectified award may kindly be issued.

4. Sri S.N. Shrivastava , shall be given T & S Gr. ' A' on completion of Cadre Scheme under NOWA-V c.g. w.e.f. Sept. 1999 without any monetary except Notional Fixation.

5. The both parties have agreed and accepted the settlement and a copy be sent to CGIT for issuing Award in this respect.

Sd/-

Sri S.N. Shrivastava, Concerned workman

Sri Gopal Prasad, Dy. Chief Personnel Manager Sd/-

Sri G.L.N. DurgaPrasad, Dy.Personnel Manager.

S.N. Shrivastava, Foreman(Elect.) Chhal Incline S.E.C.L. Raigarh Area

Sd/-

Witness:

(Illegible)

नईदिल्ली , 28 जून, 2004

काआः 1745.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, एस.ई.सी.एल. प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण जबलपुर (संदर्भ संख्या सी.जी.आई.टी./एल.सी./आर/ 53/ 92 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-6-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था। [सं. एल-22012/361/91- आई. आर. ( सी- II ) ] एन.पी. केशवन , डैस्क अधिकारी NewDelhi, the 28th June, 2004

S.O. 1745. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT/LC/R/53 /92) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum - Labour Court , Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of SECL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 28-6-2004.

[No. L-22012/361 /91 - IR (C- II)] N.P. KESAVAN , Desk Officer

4343

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 24, 2004/ श्रावण 2 , 1926

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM-LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR PRESENT: Shrikant Shukla , PresidingOfficer CaseNo. CGIT/LC (R) (53) of 1992 Between General Manager, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Kusmunda Project Distt .-Bilaspur . (Presently Chhattisgarh)

AND

VicePresident, M.P. Koyla Shramik Sangh (CITU) , Quarter No. M / 192 , Pump House , P.O. Korba Colliery, Distt. Bilaspur. (Presently Chhattisgarh)

AWARD

Govt. of India,Ministry of Labour vide its order No. 22012/361 /91 /IR (C- II) 12-3-92 referred the following issue for adjudication to P. O. Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court , Jabalpur.

"Whether the management of Kusmunda Project of SECL, Bilaspur justified in not promoting S / Shri R.K. Kesharwani , R.K. Patel , V.K. Soni , V.N. Vishwakarma and R.A. Rathore as Fitter Gr. III w.e.f. 9-3-88 when their juniors S/ Sri K. Patra and others have been promoted ? If not , to what relief the worker concerned are entitled to ?" During the course of proceedings the parties have cometo the settlement, and the Memorandum of Settlement hasbeen filed which is paper number- 11.

The terms of settlement are as follows

1. That Shri R.K. Kesharwani , R.K. Patel , V.K. Soni , V.N. Vishwakarma and Ramadhar Rathore, E.P. Fitter Gr. II, Kusmunda Project will be allowed notional seniority w.e.f. 2-4-92 with notional fixation without any monetarybenefit to the post ofEP Fitter Gr. II .

2. That the union/workmen shall withdraw the case No. CGIT/LC/R 53/92 pending before the Hon'ble CGIT Jabalpur and petition to this effect shall be submitted before the CGITby the Management and Union.

3. That this settles fully and finally all the claims pertaining to their promotion/ regularization and the workmen shall not raise any dispute regarding their pastpromotion in future either himself/themselves or through any union

I have verfied the memorandum of statement by examining Shri T.K. Bose , Dy. C.P.M. Kusmunda onbehalf ofmanagement and worker namely, Shri R.K. Kesharwani , VicePresident ofUnion, Shri Kameshwar Singh onbehalf of union , who have signed the Memorandum of Settlement. During examination Dy. CPM has stated on: oath that the concerned union have arrived at a settlement on 26-8-95 . He has verified the memorandum of settlement paperNo. 11. Hehas also stated that the concerned worker willbegiven for notional seniority w.e.f. 2-4-92 on EP Fitter Gr. II and their salary willbe fixed accordingly. So far as the monetary benefit are concerned , the worker shall get the monetarybenefit from the date of settlement i.e. 26-8-95 . However, the monetary benefit will not be paid prior to 26-8-95 . Shri R. K. Kesharwani has also verified the 4344

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24 , 2004/SRAVANA 2 , 1926

memorandum of settlement and has stated that he was promoted on EPGr. II on 1-5-94 . However, now he will get seniority from 2-4-92 and his salary shall be accordingly fixed. However he shall get monetary benefit from 26-8-95 . TheVice President Shri Kameshwar Singh has also verified the settlement .

All the persons have examined and this memorandum of settlement is finally disposes of the reference finally.

special interview conducted by the management from Dana karny Project, Orissa . This was resorted to as there was need of some experienced persons . They were given direct Category II post on their experience put in by them inthe Govt. Organisation . They are ITI certificate holders and in consideration of their special skill and experience theywerepromoted to the post of EP Fitter Gr. III in Excav. Gr. D and granted notional seniority w.e.f. 9-3-88 . They were governed by separate seniority list and as such claim of Shri . R.K. Kesarvani and others have not relevancy with them . Shri . K.S. Patra and others have already been promoted to Gr. II w.e.f. 2-4-92 whereas Shri . R.K. Kesarvani and others have been promoted to Gr . II w.e.f. 1-5-94 and V.N Viswakarma w.e.f. 11-7-93 .

Although, the issue referred for adjudication was in respect of promotion to the concerned worker to Fitter Gr. III w.e.f. 9-3-88. It appears that the dispute has been resolved between the parties by fixing seniority in the Fitter Gr. II as the workers in the meantime were promoted to Fitter Gr . II . The issue referred is disposed of in view of the above settlement arrived between the parties . Award is passed accordingly. Settlement paper No. 11 shall be the part ofaward .

SHRI KANT SHUKLA , Presiding Officer

REF . NO . SECL/ GM/KSM/DY CPM .... 6151

Dt. 19-9-95

Form 'H'

(See Rule 58)

However, Union wanted the matter to be discussed for settlement outside court and accordingly discussion was held on 10-5-95 at SECL HD . Qrs , with the Union and the Management. During the course of discussion Union agreed to withdraw the case from the CGIT if notional seniority is granted to all the incumbants . In view of the above, the competent authority as a gesture of goodwill , hasagreed for granting S/Shri . R.K. Kesarvani and others notional seniority as communicated vide letter No. SECL/ BSP/PER/ IR/95 /918 dated, 19/20-6-95 on the followingterms and conditions .

Form ofMemorandum of Settlement .

TERMS AND CONDITIONS :

Representing T. K. Bose ,

Name of Parties

: Dy. Chief Personnel

Employer

Manager, SECL , Kusmunda Area.

1. That Shri . R.K. Kesarwani , R.K. Patel , V.K. Soni , V.N. Visvakarma and Ramadhar Rathore , EP Fitter Gr. II , Kusmunda Project will be allowed notional seniority w.e.f. 2-4-92 with notional fixation without any monetary benefit to the post of EP Fitter Gr. II Representing: Workmen

Sri . Kameshwar Singh , Vice President , MPKSS (CITU) ( CS) S /Shri .

1. R. K. Kesarvani EP Fitter Gr. I

2. That the Union/ workmen shall withdraw the case No. CGIT /LC/R/ 53 / 92 pending before the Hon'ble CGIT Jabalpur and petition to this effect shall be submitted before the CGIT. by the Management and Union .

-do-

2. V. K. Soni

-do-

3. VN Visva- karma

-do-

4. Ramadhar Rathore

3. That this settles fully and finally all the claims pertaining to their promotion/ regularisation and the workmen shall not raise any dispute regarding their pastpromotion in future either himself/themselves or through any union .

SHORT RECITAL OF THE CASE:

Signature of : ( theParties

(T.K.Bose) Dy. CPM, SECL , Kusmunda Area.

Kameshwar Singh) Vice President MPKSS / CITU (C )

Witness :

(R. K. KESWARVANI) (V. K. SONI) (V. N. VISWAKARMA ) (RAMADHAR RATHORE )

S/ Shri . R.K. Kesarvani , R.K. Patel , V.K. Soni , V.N. Visvakarma and Ramdhar Rathore were appointed initially as Category I Mazdoors in August/Nov. 83 , subsequently promoted to the post of Gen. Mazdoor/ Helper Cat. II from 3-8-84, thereafter to EPGH in Excavation Gr. 'E' . They were further promoted to the post of EP Fitter Gr. III with effect from 19-4-89 . Thereafter the Union raised a dispute for effecting their promotion w.e.f. 9-3-88 , the date from which Shri . A.K. Patra and others have been promoted to the post of EP FitterGr . III , on the plea that Shri . A.K. Patra and others were juniors to them since they were appointed after R.K. Kesarvani and others . The case is pending before the CGIT vide case No. CGIT /LC/R/ 53/92 .

Witnesses : 1. S. S. Saigal 2. P. Pappachan The Management contented that Shri . K.S. Patra and others were appointed directly as Category II after a भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 24, 2004/ श्रावण 2, 1926

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 28 जून , 2004

का. आ. 1746.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, खादी और ग्रामीण उद्योग आयोग प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, जयपुर (संदर्भ संख्या सी.जी.आई.टी. 4/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-6-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल . 42012/204/2002- आई. आर. (सी.- II ) ]

4345

after referred to as the Act) has referred the following industrial disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal which runs as under :-

"Whether the action ofthe management ofKhadi &Village Industries Commission in terminating the services of Shri Prahlad Sahai Meena S/o Surajmal Meena w.e.f 30-7-1994 is legal and justified? If not , to what relief he is entitled to?"

एन. पी. केशवन , डैस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 28th June, 2004

S.O. 1746. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. CGIT- 4/2003 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum - Labour Court , Jaipur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Khadi & Village Industries Commis- sion, and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 28-6-2004 .

[No. L-42012/204/2002-IR(C. -II)]

N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR

CaseNo. CGIT -4/2003 .

Reference No. L-42012/ 204/2002- IR(C - II)

Shri Prahlad Sahai Meena , S/o Shri Surajmal Meena , R/o Village & Post - Aatela,

Tehsil-Viratnagar

...Applicant Distt. Jaipur (Rajasthan).

Versus

1. Director (Administration) ,

Mumbai -400056.

2. National Project Convenor,

Khadi &Village Industries Commission, 3, Irla Road, Parkvarli , Kumarappa National Handmade Paper Instt . , UNDP-KVIC Project, Ramsingh Pura,

Sanganer,

Non-applicants Jaipur(Rajasthan) .

Present:

Shri R. C. Sharma .

Presiding Officer

Shri S. P. Singh .

Forthe applicant

Shri R. K. Sharma .

Forthe non-applicant :

3-6-2004

Dateof award

AWARD

1. The Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred under Clause ' D ' of Sub- sections 1 and 2(A) to Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (herein 2. Theworkman in his statement of claim has pleaded that he was appointed as a 4th Class Employee on 17-9-1992 by the non - applicant management against the permanent post which was lying vacant and that on 20-7-94he had complained to non -applicant No. 1 against thenon -applicant No. 2 to this effect that he was forcedto perform the domestic work at the residence of non- applicant No. 2. When this fact came into the notice ofthe non- applicant No. 2, his service was terminated on 30-7-94by an oral order. He preferred a writ petition against this order before the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court, which wasdisposed ofvide order dated 29-8-2001 with a direction that the workman may raise an industrial dispute. Thereupon, he unsuccessfully raised an industrial dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) at Jaipur, who later on submitted the failure report to the Central Government, which has referred the dispute to this Court . While assailing the termination order, the workman has further averred that neither the notice was served upon him, nor the wages in lieu of notice and compensation were paid to him. It has also been stated that at the time of his termination, the junior employees to himwere retained and after his termination, the new hands, viz., Shri Ram Prasad Sharma and Shri Narendra Kumar Sharma were appointed by the management without affording him an opportunity of employment. On these grounds, the workman has claimed that his termination order may be quashed and he may be reinstated in the service with back wages and all other consequential benefits.

3. Both the non - applicants have disputed the claim ofthe workman by way of filing their respective written statement and have adopted a common stand . They have pleaded, inter alia, that the post of the National Project , Convernor has been abolished, that the non- applicant management does not fall within the ambit of the definition of industry as defined under Section 2 -J ofthe Act and that the workman has not completed 240 days of service with the non- applicant management . They have further denied that the junior employees to the workman were retained at the time of his said termination and that no fresh appointments were made by the management.

4.Theworkman has filed the rejoinder wherein he has reiterated the facts as stated by him in the statement ofclaim.

4346

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24, 2004/ SRAVANA 2, 1926

[PART II-SEC. 3( ii)] 5. On the pleadings ofboth the parties , the following pointsfordetermination were framed:-

1. Whether the workman was appointed as 4th Class employee on 17-9-92 by the non - applicants , whose service was illegally terminated on 30-7-94 without payment of salary in lieu of one month's notice and compensation thereof ? BOA

11. Whether the new employees, who have been named atpara 8 of the statement of claim, have been employed after the termination of the service ofworkman? BOA

III . Whether the non- applicant no . 2 is not a necessary party in the dispute? BONA

IV. Whether the non - applicant management does not fall within the definition of ' industry ' under Section 2-J of the ID Act ? BONA

V. Whether the workman is entitled to reinstatement in service?

13. In the letter Ex. W- 1 , the non-applicant no . 2has stated that the regular staff could notbe appointed against the sanctioned post in the project due to some administrative difficulties and at present the dailywagers are working on the grades mentioned against their names in order to carту on the smooth running of the project. Four daily wagers have been named in this letter and at serial no . 3 occurs the name of the workman, who is shown to be engaged on the payment of thewages@ Rs . 30/- per day. This fact is further fortified by the note -sheet dated 18-9-92 which says that an application for the post of peon was received on 17-9-92 and after noting the particulars of the workman and his educational qualification, the permission was sought for hisappointment . It is further revealed that the permission for his appointment was accorded on 18-9-92. So far as the genuineness ofboth these documents are concerned, MW- 1, Shri Bharat Lal Meena in his cross -examination has admitted that the letter Ex. W- i was received in their office, whichwas transmitted by the non-applicant no . 2. Similarly, MW-2, Shri Baleshwar Prasad in his cross-examination has also admitted that the note- sheet Ex. W- 2 belong to their department . Thus , this fact stands fully proved that the workman was appointed by the non -applicant management on 18-9-92 as a 4th Class employee .

6. In the oral evidence, the workman Sh. Prahlad Sahai Meena has filed his own affidavit, who was cross -examined on behalf of the non- applicants. On behalf of the non- applicants , the counter- affidavits of Sh . Bharat Lal Meena, Assistant Director and Sh . Baleshwar Prasad , Technical Officerwereplaced on the record, who were cross -examined onbehalf ofthe workman.

14. Now, I am called upon the docide as towhether the workmanhas completed more than 240 days of employment in the calendar year preceding to this termination .

7. The workman in support of his case, has placed three documents on the record, whereas the non - applicants have chosen not file any document .

8. I have heard both the parties and have gone through the record. The point- wise discussion follows as under:-

Point No. I

15. The workman in his statement of claim and affidavit has categorically pointed out that he has worked formorethan 240 days . This fact has further been admitted by MW-2, Shri Baleshwar Prasad in his cross-examination, who has deposed that the workman had worked from 17-9-92 to 30-7-94 in the office of the non-applicant no . 2. Thus it is established that the workman has worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year preceding to his termination. The management witness Shri Baleshwar Prasad has also admitted this fact that the workman was performing the duties of the chowkidar in the office.

9. The Ld . representative for the workman contends that the workman was appointed on 17-9-92 by the non- applicant management who continuously worked up to 30-7-94. His submission is that the workman had continuously worked for a period of240 days, but he was terminatedwithout following the requirements laid down under Section 25 - F of theAct . The Ld . representative, in support ofhis contention, has relied upon Ex. W- 1 and Ex. W- 2 .

10. Countering the submissions made on behalf of the workman, the Ld. representative for the non - applicants contends that the workman had not completed 240 days of employment with the non- applicant management and that neither he was appointed nor his service was terminated.

16. It could not be denied on behalf of the management that no notice or wages in lieu of notice and compensation were paid to the workman as required under Section 25 -F of the Act . As such, the management has violated the provision contained under Section 25-F of theAct and the said termination of the workman amounts to the retrenchment. Accordingly, this point is decided in favour ofthe workman and against the non- applicants. Point No. II

11. I have bestowed my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions .

12. So far as the employment of the workman by non- applicant management is concerned, on behalf of the non- applicants it has been denied. But to substantiate the claim, the workman has placed Ex. W- 1 , the letter written by the National Project Convener ( non- applicant no. 1 ) to the Director , Khadi &Village Industry Commission (Non- applicant no. 2) and the copies of the note- sheets, Ex . W- 2.

17. During the course of the argument, the Ld . representative for the workman has contended that the workmanhas pleaded at para 8 of the statement of claim that at the time of his termination, the junior employees to him were retained and he has also averred that after his termination, new hands were recruited. Since the plea of violation of the provision under Section 25 -F of the Act has alsobeen adopted by the workman in his statement of claim, [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

which has been denied on behalf of the non - applicants , it wouldbe expedient to discuss the same under Issue No. II .

18. In the statement of claim, the workman could not be able to name those junior employees who were retained in the service by the management at the time of his termination . This fact could not also be disclosed in the affidavit of the workman . However, in his cross- examination he has pointed out that the junior employees to him, viz . , Sh . Ram Prasad, Sh . Mohan Singh and Sh . Babu Lal are still working with the management. But in the statement of claim, he has named Sh . Ram Prasad Sharma as a fresh hand who was appointed after his termination . Therefore , firstly, the version of the workman on this point is self- contradictory and secondly, no corroborating evidence could be brought on the record to support his submission that the juniors to him were retained in the employment by the management at the time of his termination . Hence , this submission made on behalf ofthe workman is negatived.

19. Now, I advert to the question as to whether the fresh hands were appointed by the non - applicant management after the termination of the workman without affording him an opportunity of employment.

20. The workman has pointed out in his statement of claim that Sh . Ram Prasad Sharma and Sh . Narendra Kumar Sharma were appointed after his termination . MW- 2 , Sh . Baleshwar Prasad in reply to a question put by the Ld . representative for the workman has admitted that after 30-7-94 , the new appointments have been made, but he is unable to point out the number of such appointments .

21. In this manner, the submission made on behalfof the workman stands corroborated from the deposition of the management witnesses and the evidence on the record lead to infer that after the termination of the workman, new appointments have been made by the non - applicant management in violation of Section 25 -H of the Act . This contention put forth on behalf of the workman is, therefore, accepted and this point is decided in favour of the workman.

Point No. III

22. It has been pleaded at para 1 of the counter- statement filed on behalf of the non -applicant no. 1 that the post of the National Project Convener has been abolished and he has become an unnecessary party to the dispute . MW- 2 , Sh. Baleshwar Prasad in his affidavit at para 2 has stated that the post of the National Project Convener has been abolished . But he has admitted that this post existed in the year 1992 and the post bearer had made the appointments on daily wages and after the year 1997 , the non -applicant management has been converted as an autonomous body. Thus , the submission made on behalf ofthe non -applicants is untenable and it cannot be accepted that the office relating to non -applicant No. 2. has lost its existence. Therefore , this point is decided against the non- applicants and in favour of the workman.

2138 Gl/04-34

4347

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 24, 2004/ श्रावण 2, 1926

Point No. IV

23. It has also been contended on behalf of the non- applicants that the non -applicant management no. 2 is not an industry. The expression ' industry ' has been defined under Section 2 - J of the Act , which says that "' industry ' means any systematic activity on by co- operationbetween an employer and his workmen (whether such workmen are employed by such employer directly or by or through any agency, including a contractor) for the production , supply or distribution of goods or services with a view to satisfy human wants or wishes (not being wants or wishes which are merely spiritual or religious in nature) " .

24. MW -2, Sh . Baleshwar Prasad has admitted in his cross-examination that the non-applicant management no. 2 manufactures the blank sheets , which indicates that the manufacturing work is being conducted by the non- applicant management and this point too is decided against the non -applicants accordingly. Relief

25. For the foregoing reasons , the workman has succeeded in establishing nis claim, which deserves to be allowed having considered that fact of workman's earning from his agricultrual land ranging from Rs.10000/- to Rs. 15000/- per annum, it would be expedient to grant him 25 per cent of the back wages .

26. According, an award is passed in these terms that the impugned termination order dated 30-7-1994 is illegal and unjustified and the workman is entitled to be reinstated in the service with its continuity and with 25 per cent of the back wages .

R. C. SHARMA, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 28 जून, 2004

का. आ. 1747.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , एन. सी. एल. प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण, गोवाहाटी [ संदर्भ संख्या 5 ( सी )/2004 ] को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-6-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-22012 /306/2002- आई . आर. ( सी.- II ) ] एन. पी. केशवन, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 28th June , 2004

S.O. 1747.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award [ Ref. No. 5(c) of 2004 ] of the Industrial Tribunal , Guwahati in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of North Eastern Coalfields Limited , and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 28-6-2004.

[No. L-22012/306/2002- IR (C. - II) ] N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer 4348

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24, 2004/SRAVANA 2 , 1926

[PART II- SEC. 3 (ii) ]

New Delhi , the 28th June , 2004 ANNEXURE IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL :

GUWAHATI : ASSAM

REFERENCE NO . 5 (C) OF 2004

: Shri T.C. Jain, LL.B..

Present

Presiding Officer , Industrial Tribunal , Guwahati .

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute Between:

S.O. 1748. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 46/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum - Labour Court , Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of SCCL and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 28-6-04.

The Management of North Eastern Coalfields , Coal India Ltd.

[No. L-22012/237/88 -D.IV. B. ] N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer Versus

ANNEXURE

Their workman Shri Amar Mura.

Date of Award : 15-5-2004 .

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

AWARD

TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD

This refcrence arising out of the Govt . Order No. L - 22012/ 306/2002 IR ( CM - II )dt . 16-10-03 relates to the dispute indicated in the schedule as follows:

Present : -Shri E. Ismail, B.Sc. , LL.B. , Presiding Officer

"Whether the action of the management of Ledo Collicry in terminating the services of Shri Amar Mura is legal andjustified?

If not, to what relief Sri Mura is entitled to ? "

Dated the 14th day of June, 2004 INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. 46/2004 (Old I.D. No. 49/89 transferred from Industrial Tribunal- 1 , Hyderabad)

Between:

Petitioner

Sri Y. Pochaiah , C/o Rajaiah Hotel, Near Super Bazar, P.O. Godavarikhani District Karimnagar.

AND

Pursuance with notice the management side filed an applicationdt . 5-3-04 & 21-4-04 contenting therein that the workman Amar Mura expired on 17-5-03 and accordingly management has paid his all Gratuity and Provident fund amounts and no ducs were found to be pending from the management side. On the otherhand Shri Swapan Roy, General Secretary, Rashtriya Coal Mazdoor Union ( CITU ) has also submitted a petition that the workman Amar Mura for whom the instant Industrial Dispute raised was unfortunately died on account of prolonged illness at his residence on 17-5-03 (Death Certificate is enclosed ) and as such the Secretary request to withdrawn the reference from this Tribunal .

The General Manager, M/ s. Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd. , Area- I, Ramagundam Division , P.O. Godavarikhani , District Karimnagar.

Respondent

APPEARANCES:

For the Petitioner :

In view of the above and in the circumstances the prayer for withdrawing the case is allowed and the reference is accordingly finally disposed of as a no dispute award.

M/sA.K. Jayaprakash Rao, M. Govind & K. Ajay Kumar, Advocates Given under my hand and seal of this Tribunal on this 15-5-2004 .

For the Respondent :

T.C. JAIN , Presiding Officer

M/sK. Srinivasa Murthy & G. Sudha , Advocates

AWARD

नई दिल्ली, 28 जून , 2004

का. आ. 1748.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, एस. सी.सी. एल . प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, हैदराबाद. (संदर्भ संख्या 46/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-6-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -22012/237/88 - डी. IV. बी. ] एन. पी . केशवन, डैस्क अधिकारी

1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L -22012 ( 237)/88-D.IV.B. dated 4-7-89 referred the following dispute under section 10 ( 1 ) (d) of the I.D. Act , 1947 for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal - I , Hyderabad between the management of M/ s . Singareni Collieries Co.Ltd . , and their workman which has been transferred to this Tribunal in view of Government of India, Ministry of Labour's Order No. H - 11026/ 1/2001 - IR (C.II ) dated 18-10-2001 bearing No. 1. D. 49/1989 . The reference is , 4349 भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 24, 2004/ श्रावण 2, 1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

THE SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of M/s Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd. , Area I, Ramagundam Division, P. O. Godavarikhani , District Karimnagar (AP) in dismissing Sri Y. Pochaiah, General Mazdoor, AutoWorkshop w.e.f. 17-11-86 is justified ? If not , to what reliefthe workman concerned is entitled ? "

The reference is renumbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 46/2004.

Petitioner did not sent a communication with regard to the sanction of leave or otherwise. After the so - called enquiry he was dismissed. He made several representations , submitted mercy petition and all efforts of the Petitioner are in vain . As he was left with no option , he has no alternative but to withdraw the GPF and Gratuity amounts for the survival of his family members . The Petitioner further submits that the Management informed him by a letter dated 8-8-98 that in the committee constituted for reviewing cases, rejected the claim of the Petitioner. That the order of punishment is an act of victimization and unfair labour practice and the Management has failed to take his past conduct into consideration . Hence , he may be reinstated with back wages , continuity of service and all other attendant benefits .

2. On the above reference the Industrial Tribunal - 1, Hyderabad (Of the State Government ) has passed an award in I.D. 49/1989 on 19-4-1994 directing the Respondent to reinstate the Petitioner with full back wages , continuity of serviceand all attendant benefits. Before passing the award the Industrial Tribunal - I vide an order dated 11-6-1993 held that the domestic enquiry conducted under the said case is improper and vitiated. Accordingly, the Management examined as many as four witnesses and the Petitioner examined himself land after recording the evidence the award was passed as mentioned above . The Management challenged the said award by way of a writ and the Hon'ble High Court ofA.P. was pleased to pass order in WP No. 19849/ 1995 on 20-11-2003 holding that the Tribunal namely the State Government Industrial Tribunal has not discussed theentire evidence and had not passed the reasoned award. Accordingly, it remanded the matter to this Tribunal on the ground that the matters are now being entrusted to Central Govt. Industrial -Tribunal -cum- Labour Court.

3.Acounter was filed stating that he was irregular in duties . Inspite of repeated warnings he was earlier suspended from duty at once for misconduct of his unauthorized absenteeism . That is why, he was given a charge sheet for being absent from 16-7-85 to 5-8-85 and that he was ultimately dismissed from 17-11-85 . It is true that he was sanctioned leave on 14th and 15th july 1985 butthereafter he absented himself without further leave . No information was received that he was sick . That the Management has no information that he was under treatment with Dr. R.R.Parya, Warangal from 24-7-1985 . No telegram was received . The Respondent Company is having full -fledged hospital . The Petitoner as to cover up his unauthorized absence has chosen to bring medical certificate as an after thought and the Petitioner is put to strict proof of the said medical certificates . An enquiry was conducted properly. That the Petitioner has personally received the dismissal letter on 8-12-85 . After receiving the dismissal letter also he did not file any mercy petition immediately on the contrary claimed GPF, Gratuity, FamilyBenefit Insurance Scheme, etc. , which were already paid to him . That a review was held in all the cases of dismissal, i.e. , either for reinstatement with back wages along with all other benefits . In view of the above mentioned facts this court may be to dismiss the petition .

4. As already held the case was decided and the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. has remanded to consider the evidence let in before this Court.

5.As the departmental enquiry was vitiated the Management has examined 4 witnesses . MW 1 Sri M. Ram MohanRao, Personal Officer in Singareni Collieries Co.Ltd.. He deposed that he was appointed as to conduct the domestic enquiries against the delinqent employees who commit misconducts . The said order is Ex . MI . Ex . M2 is theoffice copyofthe charge sheet . Ex.M3 is the registered cover returned etc. That he conducted the domestic enquiry. That he prepared enquiry report dated 28-8-1985 and submitted the same to the Management which is Ex. M9 . In the cross examination he denied that the Petitioner was not given proper opportunity in enquiry.

3. Immediately on receipt of the order the Hon'ble High Court ofA.P. a letter was addressed for records and the same were received in this Court through Industrial Tribunal - 1 , on 22-3-2004 and this Court asked for extension oftime vide letter dated 26-4-2004 to extend the time for disposal upto 30-6-2004. The brief facts which lead to the reference as stated in the claim petition are ; That the Petitioner was appointed as a general mazdoor in the respondent Company in the year 1975. Has put in an unblemished record of service till he was illegally dismissed from service by an order dated 17-11-85 . The Petitioner submits the order of dismissal passed by the Respondent is illegal, unjust , contrary in law and in violation of principles of natural justice . Much is written against enquirywhich need not be repeated here . The only ground is that while he was working under the control of Respondent he applied for two days casual leave on 14th and 15th July, 1985 and thereafter the Petitioner fell sick andmedical officer of the Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd. , Ramagundam examined the Petitioner and declared him unfittoto discharge duties from 17th to 23rd July, 1985. As there was no improvement he took treatment fromDr. R.R. PáryaatWarangal from 24-7-85 to 6-12-85 . The Petitioner submits that he has also sent intimations to Respondent with regard to sickness of the Petitioner and also sent a telegram informing the Respondent about his sickness . The Respondent having received the telegram from the 4350

MEGAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24, 2004/SRAVANA 2, 1926

[PART II-SBC, 3( ii) ] SLC. Chancra en kao. Divisional Engineer, Singerend Beric : Ch. U deposed as MW2 . He deposed that he worked as Senior Executive Engineer in Auto Workshop. Godavarikijani from 1984 to 1988. Ex.M10 is the dismissal order of the Pentioner. In the cross examination the deposed that after the dismissal order was received suserved he did not try to serve on the Petitioner.

24-7-1985 to 6-12-1985. Both Form- A and fitness certificate have been given by Civil Surgeon , Respondent'sMedical Officer of a Government Hospital and how it can be deployed . Further, Ex. W3 is the telegram sent to the Respondent . Hence, he submits that the order of the Industrial Tribunal - I, first passed may be again passed by this Hon'ble Court directing the reinstatement with back wages and continuity of service.

7. MWD. Sri M. Murali Moianachari , clerk deposed that no tulepsaal was received as contended by the Petitionerite cross examination he agreed that it is true thatwhes de Pentioner richerned for duty on 8-12-1985 along with Dr. W2, they served the disoussal order.

11. It is argued by the Learned Counsel for the Respondent that the Petitioner has absented hiself. He is continuously absent from 16-7-1985 to 5-8-1985 and in fact he has been absent upto 6-12-85 without intimating the company. So all these are fake documents . Hence they cannot be believed and he is not entitled to any relief.

8.By oversighi MW2 was again examined as MW4 who depesed that the Petitioner was very irregular. Action was already taken against him previously. The Petitioner was suspended twice with regard to the absenteeism. He denied thatthe Potitioner was sick and therefore he was dismissed.

9. The Petitoner examined himself as WWI and deposed that on 14th and 15th July, 1985 he applied for leave and went away. He became sick front 15th July, 1985 in thehospitsi of the Respondent Company at Godavarikhani. Though he had not recovered from his illness it was certified on 23-7-1985 in Ex. WI that he was fit for duty from 23-7-1985. But he is not recovered from sickness . So he wenttoWarangal and took treatment from Dr. R.R.Parya from 24-7-1985 to 6-12-1985 . Ex W2 is the From A and fitness certificate issued by the said Doctor. He sent a telegram to the Managerment on 7-9-1985. In the cross examination ne deposed that he applied for leave on 14th and 15th July and went to Karimanagar and returned to Godavarikhani on 16-7-1985 . That he did not maintain the office copy of the telegram issued by hin under Ex. W3 . Ex W3 does not disclose any to address or ' from ' address . Hewill examine the Doctors who gave hin . Ex. Wl and W2 .

10. It is argued by the Learned Counsel of the Petitioner that as per 1995 ( , ALD page 478 wherein it was held that " service regulations prescribing ' absence without cause as a misconder -employee establishing acceptable cause for his absence it does not constitute misconducthough he had no leave to his credit, extraordinar, ferve without pay ins te be granted" . He also relied or 1999 ( 1) CLR mee 1914 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India hold them, authorized absence for a week , held dismissal is a to harsh punishment . " He also relied ou Hon'ble Supreme Court of India 2001) ( 1) LLJ wincrele the Supreme Court held that, " when the powers of the Labour Cort ander Sec. 11A of the ID. Act are wide Haughso convert an order of dismissal into one of lesser punishment is also well settled that it should be a to the High Court injustifiable cases to modify the Order of the Labour Court. He sut mits that here the Petitioner has been able to establish that he was under treatment of the Company hospital itself from 17-7-1985to 23-7-1985 and vide Ex. WI and vide Ex. W2 hewas under trenument of Dr. R.R. Parya, Warangal from

12. Itmaybe seen that however much one may try to hide the truth somehow or other it generally comes up where one looks at the facts seriously. The Petitioner coolly says that he was sick from 17-7-1985 to 23-7-1985 . Thenas per Ex. W1 in this Collieries Hospital itself. But he does not say that he was inpatient. When he could have travel all the way from Ramagundam to Warangal immediately to start taking treatment in the M.G.M. Hospital , under Civil Surgeon R.M.O. , Warangal . I wonder what prevented him from informing the company. He himself could have personally gone and informed or otherwise he could have sent through some of his family members or registered post acknowledgement due. He comes up with a second plea that he sent a telegram on 7-9-85 . He is a person who has been so negligent from 24-7-1985 to 7-9-1985 i.e. , almost 1½ months he has not bothered about his job. Not that he was an inpatient. He was a out -patient and nothing prevented him from again informing in these 1½ months. Even after 1½ months there is no proof as admitted by him . Ex. W3 does not show from whom the telegram is sent and to whom it is sent. So it can be safely concluded that some telegram coupon issued by some XYZ is pressed into service and has borrowed from someone and attached to this . I do understand that I have to confine myself only to the period from 16-7-1985 to 5-8-1985 for which the enquiry was conducted. But the previous conduct and the subsequent conduct also has to be seen to come to a correct conclusion. He coolly walks in after receiving Ex. W2 in December after a lapse of 5½ months as if the Company waswaiting only for him and what are the other documents that are filed by him to substantiate that he has been approaching pleading mercy and what was his previous conduct? Suspended twice for his absenteeism . I do not want to say anything or certificate issued by the Civil Surgeon Ex . W2 . Becauss is not befitting on my part to pass any comments in absence of any one . As it is cardinal principle of law that no one shall be condemned without being heard. So I take it for granted that Ex. W2 is correctly given. The Petitioner was under the treatment ofthe Doctor but, what does Ex. W2 say that he was suffering from [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 24, 2004/ श्रावण 2, 1926

4351

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner:

WW1 : Sri Y. Pochaiah

Witnesses examined for the

Respondent:

MW1 : Sri M. Ram Mohan Rao

MW2 Sri C. Chandra Mohan Rao

MW3 : Sri M. Murali Mohanachari

MW4: Sri C. Chandra Mohan Rao

Documentsmarked for the Petitioner

Ex. WI:

Original ofOP ticket of SCCL dispensary, Ramagundam

Ex.W2:

Original ofForm A& Fitness certificate ofWWI

Ex. W3:

Postal receipt of issuing telegram Documents marked for the Respondent

Ex.MI:

Lr. No. Gdk. 5-4-G/85/2564dt. 18-8-1985

Ex.M2:

Copy ofcharge sheat dt . 5-8-1985

Ex. M3:

Registered cover returned

Ex.M4:

Original charge sheet dt . 5-8-1985

Ex.M5:

Attendance register

Ex.M6:

Pay sheet for the month ofJuly, 1985

Ex.M7:

Pay sheet for the month of August , 1985

Ex.M8:

Enquiry proceedings

Ex.M9;

Findings of the Enquiry Officer

Ex. M10:

Copy of Lr . No. P.R.G.I./32C/ 3135 dt . 17-11-1985 dismissal order

Ex. MI1:

Postal cover returned

Ex.M12 :

Postal cover returned

Ex.M13:

Copy of Lr . No. DE: WS : 9A/ 1007 dt. 28-4-1985

Ex.M14;

Copy ofLr. NO. DE/WS/ 9B/267 dt. 25-11-1984

Ex.M15:

Enquiry findings for the year 1984

Ex.M16:

Order for Ex. M15 Proceedings

Ex.M17;

Connected papers for the past record of unauthorized absence and enquiries conducted

Ex.M18 :

Attendance register for 1983

Ex: M19:

Attendance register for 1984

Ex. M20:

Leave Register

some disease , it does not say that he was unable to move or an inpatient. It does not say that he is not in a position to attend duty or he sent a telegram or a registered post letter was sent or so . There is no other evidence coming before this Court that he was so sick that he was unable to talk , unable to move so , all this shows that even not informing the Management , for which , from 16-7-1985 to 5-8-1985 itself is a sufficient cause taking for granted that he was made fit to join on 23-7-1985 by the Company Doctor it was none of his business to rush to the Warangal Hospital without informing that he is not fit to join . Although the Company Doctor has asked him to resume duties . He has further withdrawn all the amounts due for him. There is no proof that he has tried to contact the Company for his absence from 17-7-1985 to 5-8-1985 and the company has tried its level best to serve summons as per the addresses given by him . Accordingly, they were forcedto conduct an ex -parte enquiry what else can they do except sending notices to him on the last known address. Therefore, I am satisfied that the company is able to prove that the Petitioner was absent from 16-7-1985 to 5-8-1985 more particularly from 24-8-1985 as the Company Doctor had certified him to be fit as per Ex. W2 . He says that he is sick but the conduct of his running away, going from Kothagudem to Warangal , yet not informing his Management shows his indifferent attitude towards his job . Sympathizing with such persons beyond a particular range and giving them back wages and all , I am afraid will not be correct because these are persons who do not take their job seriously. In fact the Petitioner is working, is very clear from the fact that the Hon'ble High Court ofA.P. stated that the status quo obtaining as on today shall be maintained. Nobody has brought to the notice of the Court except the Respondent's Counsel while arguing that again the Petitioner is facing an enquiry for absenteeism which is not denied by the counsel for the Petitioner that means he was reinstated. Anyway, according to me the punishment of dismissal is too harsh a punishment and I answer the reference as follows . The award of the Industrial Tribunal- 1. was passed on I.D. No. 49/89 on 19-4-1994. Publication etc. , would have taken some time. So I hold that the Petitioner is entitled for reinstatement from 1st July, 1994. But he shall not be entitled for any back wages from 17-11-1985 or any other benefits including continuity of service from 17-11-1985 till 30-6-1994. His past services from the date of his joining of the service till 17-11-1985 shall be paid calculated for his terminal benefits. If he is not paid from 1-7-1994 he shall be till he is reinstated from such date i.e. , 1-7-1994 . The reference is ordered accordingly.

Ex.M21 :

LeaveRegister

Award passed . Transmit .

Ex.M22:

Leave Register

Ex. M23:

InwardRegister

Ex.M24:

Acknowledgement by the Petitioner Dictated to Kum. K. Phani Gowri . Personal Assistant transcribed by her and corrected and pronounced by me on this the 14th day of June , 2004 .

ExM25:

Information sentby Coal Mines Provident Fund

E. ISMAIL , PresidingOfficer 4352

[PART II SEC. 3( ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24, 2004/SRAVANA 2 , 1926

For the Respondent :

नई दिल्ली, 28 जून, 2004

M/ s . K. Srinivasa Murthy, S.R. James , V. Umadevi , Vijay Venkatesh , B. Vijay Kumar, P. Sridhar , M. Praveen , Suresh, L. Adibabu, M. S. Rajeshwari , Prasad & Sanjeev Reddy, Advocates

AWARD

का. आ. 1749.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, एस. सी. सी. एल. प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , हैदराबाद (संदर्भ संख्या एल. सी. आई.डी. संख्या 230/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-6-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल. 22013/1/2004-आई. आर. ( सी. II ) ] एन. पी. केशवन, डैस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 28th June , 2004

1. This is a case taken under Sec . 2 A (2) of the I.D. Act, 1947 in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court ofAndhra Pradesh reported in W. P. No. 8395 of 1989 dated 3-8-1995 between Sri . U. Chinnappa and M/s. Cotton Corporation of India and two others .

S.O. 1749. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. L.C. I.D. No. 230/2002 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum -Labour Court , Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of SCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 28-6-04.

[No. L- 22013/ 1 /2004 - IR (C- II) ] N. P. KESAVAN , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, AT HYDERABAD

Present: Shir E. Ismail , B.Sc. , LL . B. , Presiding Officer

Dated the 28th day of May, 2004 INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C.I.D. No. 230/2002

Between:

Shri P. Sai Kumar, S/ o P. Nagabhushanam , R/o8-3-228/ 1230/2 ,

Rahamatnagar,

Besides Yousufguda ,

Petitioner

Hyderabad.

AND

1. The Director ( CP& P) , The Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd. , Kothagudem. Khammam District.

2. The General Manager ,

The Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd. , Ramakrishnapur, Adilabad District .... Respondents

Appearances :

For the Petitioner : M/ s . G. Vidya Sagar, K. Udaya

Sree . P. Sudheer Rao and

D. Madhusudhan , Advocates

2. The brief averments as averred in the petition are : That the Petitioner's father was working as pump operator in the Respondent Company. He was sent for periodical medical examination to medical board constituted bythe Company. After examination medical board declared him unfit for the post, by an order dated 12-1-1991 . Basing on the medical report submitted by the Manager RK 4 incline , Ramakrishnapur issued termination order on 25-1-91 on medical grounds . It is submitted that the Petitioner submitted an application on 9-4-91 to the Respondents requesting them to provide employment on compassionate grounds , Since his father has been terminated on medical grounds . The application of the Petitioner was forwarded to the General Manager , Ramakrishnapur. He forwarded the same to General Manager, Kothagudem on 19-6-91 for consideration . The Petitioner was called for interview on 18-1-91 . A committee consisting of three members interviewed the Petitioner and the Committee has found the Petitioner fit for the post of clerk - grade - III . The recommendations of the committee were forwarded to General Manager , Kothagudem on 20-9-91 . The appointment order was issued to the Petitioner for the post of Clerk Grade III on 13-11-91 Petitioner joined the duties on 2-12-91. While the Petitioner was wroking as such he was received with charge sheet dated 15-10-93 in which the charge levelled against him was that he has secured employment in connivance with his father by producing a fake certificate ofMedical unfitness . That he gave a detailed explanation . Still enquiry was ordered by appointing Sri D.R.R. Murthy as Enquiry Officer. He was removed from service by order dated 20-9-93 w.e.f. 27-9-93 . That crime No. 53/93 was registered atRamakrishnapur Police Station against Dr. Ch . Bhaskar Rao , M.S. A.H. , Ramakrishnapuram who was subsequently dismissed form service . Challenging the removal order , the Petitioner filed WP No. 165051/99 before the Hon'ble High Court of A. P. , and the same was withdrawn 16-9-2002 . That the Petitioner's father was chronic patient and doctors identified as server osteo arthritis of cervical spine and also lumber spine . That Petitioner's father died on 16-5-2002 ailing with same disease . Hence , he may be reinstated .

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 24, 2004/ श्रावण 2, 1926

4353

reinstatement because in order to obtain employment he has resorted to unfair practice by forging a medical certificate and forging the signatures of two doctors and forging the letter number also along with his father. But however, false hopes have been created in him keeping the matter pending for six long years during which period hewas allowed to continue. Hence , I am of the opinion that the ends ofjustice will be met ifhe is granted 6 months gross pay i.e. , gross pay he has drawn for the month of June, 1999 multiplied by six .

Award passed accordingly. Transmit .

3. Acounter was filed stating that the medically unfit certificate was bogus and fake and signatures of Dr. Y. Rammohan Roa, Addl . ChiefMedical Officer. Area Hospital, Ramakrishnapur and Dr. Ch. Bhaskara Rao, Dy. MedicalSuperintendent, AreaHospital were forged. The dispatch No. 168 pertains to a letter dated 23-1-99 submitted to General Manager requesting advance for LTC home Town inrespect ofDr. Ch. Bhaskara Roa, Sri P. Saikumar was issued chargesheet . An enquiry was conducted. The Petitioner was dismissed from 10-7-99. The wages due to him along with the wages towards the balance Earned Leave amounting to Rs . 2427/- was credited to his Bank Account. No doubt . Dr. Bhaskara Rao was dismissed and a crime was registered against him but not for this same reason. That entering the services with false certificate is agross misconduct . Hence, he is not entitled for any relief.

4. Arguments were advanced on the validity of domestic enquiry and it was held by this Court that the enquiry was validlly conducted by a detailed order dated 6-8-2003. Arguments were advanced under Sec . 11A by both the counsels.

Dictatedto Kum. K. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected and pronounced by me on this the 28th day ofMay, 2004 . E. ISMAI, Presiding Officer Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined Petitioner NIL for the Respondent NIL

5. It is argued by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner joined services on 30-11-91 and although misconduct is said to have been discovered on 15-10-93 ultimately, he was dismissed on 10-7-99 i.e. , it took six years for dismissal and by then he has put in 8 years service. The long delay itself goes to show that the Management was not inclined to dismiss and ultimately hewas dismissed. This Court may show some sympathy and he does deserve the sympathy having been allowed to continue in service for 8 years , hence he may be reinstated.

Documents marked for the Petitioner NIL Documents marked for the Respondent NIL नई दिल्ली, 30 जून , 2004

6. It is argued by the Learned Counsel for the Respondent that it is a grave misconduct to obtain the service by misrepresentation by producing forged and fabricated documents and it is no ground as it is argued by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that his father ultimately died on 15-6-2002. Hence, he submits that he does not deserve any sympathy.

का. आ. 1750.-औद्योगिक विषाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भारत संचार निगम लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक वित्राद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, नादियाद के पंचाट को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30-6-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-40012/346/2001- आई. आर ( डी. यू. ) ] कुलदीप राय वर्मा , डैस्क अधिकारी NewDelhi, the 30th June, 2004

S.O. 1750.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Nadiad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of BSNL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 30-6-04.

7. It may be seen that he joined the service on 13-11-91. Charge sheet was issued on 15-10-93 and he was dismissed on 10-7-99. That means it took six years for the Companyto dismiss him allowing him to work for six long years creating false hopes in him. No. doubt, initial appointment was by producing a medically unfit certificate in connivance with his father. That also shows the unemployment problem in India which has reached to maximum with the population and people are ready to resort to anything to gain an employment. Any way, that is for the State Legislature and the Parliament to find out ways and means to improve the employment potential and atleast reduce it to a minimum if not completely eliminated itwhich is not possible even in the most developed countries. In this case no doubt he does not deserve

[No. L-40012/346/2001 - IR (DU) ] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer.

[PART 11- SEC . 3 (ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24, 2004 /SRAVANA 2, 1926

4354

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI Y.P. BHATT,

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, NADIAD , GUJARAT.

Reference (ITC ) No. 7/2002.

ADJUDICATION BETWEEN :

The General Manager,

Telecom District, BSNL,

Vaghabhai , Valsinh Balvantbhai , Kirtansinh Mohanbhai . Himatsinh Sonabhai etc. It is also stated by the workman that the BSNL had called upon him to furnish certain information (regarding the working days ) and that he had furnished such information on affidavit; that as he was entitled to temporary status , he had demanded the same but the BSNL had terminated his services by an oral order on 28-9-94. The workman has accordingly requested for an award of reinstatement to his original post with continuity of service and with full back wages .

Vallabhnagar Telephone Exchange . Pij Road.

..... First Party.

Nadiad (Gujarat ) -387 002

And

Shri Babublıai Bhalabhai Patel ,

C/o . Shri Suresh G. Kaushal.

Ma Shakti Bhavan,

Plot No. 128/129 , Khadi Falia ,

Second Party.

Godhra (Panchmahal ) 389 001

Appearances :

Shri S.R. Shah and Shri A.S. Shah for the first party.

Shri J.K. Ved and Shri S. G. Kaushal for the secondparty.

AWARD

The Government of India , Ministry of Labour referred an industrial dispute between the aforesaid parties to this Tribunal for adjudication under Sec . 11) ( 1 ) ( d) ofthe Industrial Disputes Act vide their order No. L- 40012/346/ 2001 ( IR/DU) dated 03-06-2002 . The dispute referred isto following effect:

"Whether the action ofthe management of General Manager Telecom District . BSNL . Nadiad in terminating the service of Sh . Babubhai Bhalabhai Patelw.e. f. 28-9-1994 is legal and justified ? Ifnot, to what relief the workman is entitled ? "

2. Shri Babubhai Bhalabhai Patel hereinafter referred 10 as" The workman " filed his statement of claim at Ex . 4 on 9-8-2002 whereas the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, to be shortly referred to as " The BSNL " filed its defence statement vide Ex . 14 on 11-7-2003 . Thereafter the parties went on trial and after closing of their evidence , their arguments were heard. It is the case of the workman that he was a casual labour under the BSNL right from 1985 and his services were terminated orally on 28-9-94 , that he had worked continuously and had put in service of more then 240 days however without following any procedure under the Industrial Disputes Act . without payment of notice pay or retrenchment compensation he was discharged; that at the time of his discharge he was getting Rs . 9500/- as basic wages + Dearness Allowance and other benefits were being given to him ; that the BSNL had also called hisjunior workers in 1995 and had employed them; that at the time of his discharge no seniority list was preparedor shown to him, that thus , the BSNL had violated Sec . 25F, 25G and 25H of the ID Act, that the BSNL had assured him to be taken back in its employment and when it came to his notice that his junior workers were employed by the BSNL , he had raised present dispute on 14-6-2001 . The workman has stated the names of his junior workers who had been employedby the BSNL as Bharatsinh

3. The BSNL filed its defence statement vide Ex . 14 contending inter alia that it is not an industry under the ID Act and hence this reference case is liable to the rejected; that the referring authority had no power to refer such dispute ; that the reference being state , it is not maintainable . The BSNL has denied all the contentions and allegations made by the workman in the statement of claim. It is admitted that the workman was working as a casual worker but it is denied that he had worked from 1985 to 28-9-94 continuously and had worked for 240 days in a calendar year or that his services were continuous in terms of Section 25B of the ID Act . It is also denied that the workman was getting Rs . 950/ -as his basic wages and he was discharged illegally on 28-9-94. It is submitted that the sub- divisional engineer of the BSNL was authorised to retain casual workers considering temporary nature of work; that the said engincer had taken work of laying the telephone lines , releasing connections etc. at the relevant time from the present workman but it is denied that the workman was given assurance that he would be called as and when there was work for him. It is further denied that the BSNL had employed the junior workers in 1995 and had committed breach of Sec . 25F, 25G and 25H of the ID Act. It is contended that as the workmen were to be retained on the base of necessity of work , there was no question of preparing the seniority list. It is further denied that the junior workers of the present workman were employed by the BSNL . It is contended that the workman has raised this dispute after about seven years and the alleged assurance by the officers of the BSNL is merely an excuse to justify the delay. It is denied that the workman was not at fault and hence he is entitled to reinstatement in service . It is denied that the BSNL had committed any breach of any provisions of law. It is submitted that in terms of the order of the Government to accomodate the casual workers , the BSNL had formed a committee and such workers were asked to file affidavit regarding the days of their work with the BSNL ; that the committee had met on 23-2-95 and 24-2-95 but the workman had not filed affidavit during the time and lateron on 14-9-95 he had filed affidavit, whereafter there was no recruitment and the workman was unnecessarily raising the issue of seniority. It is further submitted that the BSNL is a public sector undertaking or the Central Government and there are rules regarding the recruitment ofpermanent workers which provide for issuing ofadvertisement , calling the names from the employment exchange, holding of interviews , selecting the candidates , preparing a list and thereafter appointment orders are issued; that the sub -divisional engineer was authorised to make recruitment of temporary casual workers and thus, the present workman was not selected after following the [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

4355 भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 24 , 2004/ श्रावण 2, 1926

prescribed procedure for recruitment ; that the workman had stopped coming to work on his own and that the work which he was doing has been entrusted to the contractors asper the policy decision of the Government and hence BSNL is not need of workers and as such, the present workman cannot be reinstated in service . It is also submitted that the committee formed by the BSNL had given its report and the name of the workman was not found in the said report ; that the formation of committee was a "one time settlement and was not an ongoing procedure " . Accordingly, the BSNL has requestedto dismiss this reference case .

that itwas department of telecommunication . He narrated the procedure for recruitment ofthe permanent workers in the BSNL and stated that the sub -divisional officer was not authorised to recruit permanent staff, that the workman was not a permanent worker and he was not recruited after following the due procedure ; that the work which the workman was doing was decided to be given to contractors in 1994-95 and as there was no work the workman was discharged alongwith many other casual workers ; that thereafter the union had requested to employ as máy persons as could be possible; that thereafter the BSNL had formed a committe but the present workman did not fall in the norms prescribed by the committee; that the workman and such other casual workers cannot be taken in the service as due to the introduction of mobile technology, they are not needed anymore . In the cross- examination the witness for the BSNL stated that he does not know the workman and is giving evidence on the basis of the record; that he does not know that the workman had completed 240 days ofwork in each year from 1985 to 28-9-94. he stated that even presently also the BSNL is giving telephone connection of land lines by charging Rs. 2000/- . He does not know whether any license is obtained under the contract labour Act but stated that there may be exception . He also stated that before discharging the workman there might be a written order; that as there cannot be any seniority of the casual workers, no seniority list was prepared. He also stated that the guidelines and norms fixed for the casual workers are based ondepartmental instructions.

6.No other oral evidence was led by any ofthe parties except as aforesaid. The written argument of the learned representative for the workman was taken into consideration and the arguments of the learned advocate for the BSNL were heard. The parties had filed documentary evidence . From Ex. 19 to Ex. 28 the workman has produced summaryof the days of his presence which are authenticated by the officer of the BSNL . The same are as follows:

From

Daysofpresence

1-11-84

30-6-85

236

1-1-86

31-12-86

354

1-1-87

31-10-87

298

1-11-87

31-12-87

61.

1-1-88

31-12-88

360

1-1-89

31-12-89

354

1-1-90

31-12-90

360

1-1-91

31-5-91

145

1-6-91

31-12-91

214

20-7-92

31-10-92

104

1-1-93

31-3-93

79 4. Theworkman deposed at Ex. 36 wherein he stated he was employed the BSNL in 1985 and at the time of his discharge his basic wages were of Rs . 950/-; that BSNL had recorded his residential address at the time of his recruitment ; that he was discharged on 28-9-94 without payment of notice pay or retrenchement compensation; that other workers were also dischaged alongwith him but they were all paid notice pay and retrenchment compensation; that he had completed 240 days of service in many years ; that the seniority list was not prepared at the time ofhis discharge ; that he had received a letter from the BSNL in 1995 wherein he was asked to file affidavit in attached form; that he had filed such affidavit but till date the BSNL had not given any reply. The workman had also given names of his junior workers and stated that they were called in 1995 and were regularised in service . He also stated that no reason was cited at the time of his discharge; that the BSNL had shown its willingness during the conciliation proceedings , to pay retrenchment compensation and notice pay but he had not accepted the same. In the cross -examination , the workman admits that he had not made any application for appointment nor he was given any appointment letter by the BSNL; that he was doing the work of digging the pits , erecting the poles, laying and changing the lines etc. He has denied that he was called only when there was work for him. He has also denied that he had stoped going to work prior to 28-9-94 . Hehas admited that on 28-9-94 he and other fellow workers were discharged and they were all sent retrenchment compensation ,but denied that as the BSNL was not having his residential address , he could not be sent notice and retrenchment compensation . He admits that certain work has been given on contract but denies that he was remaining absent on account of his agricultural work or other work . He stated that he was a member of the union but the uniondid not inform him about the recruitment of the erstwhile workers on the basis of their working and presence etc. He denies that Himatsinh etc. (junior workers) remained absent for less than six months and that they had filed affidavits earlier . He also denied that the BSNL had decided to take them back prior to his affidavit . He has denied that he was told that as the work was tobe taken from contractrors , they were discharged. He stated that he is maintaining on labour work.

1-1-94

31-7-94

209 5. Shri Jivabhai Shivabhai Patel who is an Assistant General Manager in the BSNL had deposed at Ex. 41 and stated the BSNL was established on 1-10-2000 prior to

These figures of the presence of the workman shows that he hadworked almost on all days in five years and in three 2136 G1/04-35 4356

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24, 2004/ SRAVANA2 , 1926

[PART II SEC. 3 ( ii) ] years he was about to complete the 240 days of service. The span of his total service as casual labour was about ten years and he was retrenched without any formality. The above presence also suggests that the workman could not have left the service on his own or remained absent for his personal work as was the defence of the BSNL . The witness for the BSNL has specifically stated that present workman and others were discharged.

recommend the name of the casual worker for re- engagement. If we go through the presence sheet of the workman for the year 1994 which is produced at Ex. 28, it appears that the workman was very much on work in February, 1994 to 31-7-94 and in the year of 1994 he had put in 209 days of service, then how it can be said that present workman did not fall within the norms prescribed by the committee. In view of the above discussion of the evidence , this Tribunal is of the view that the BSNL had violated Sec . 25F, 25G , and 25H of the ID Act and hence the action of the management of the General Manager Telecom District BSNL Nadiad in terminating the services ofthe workman with effect from 28-9-94 was illegal and unjustified. One of the defences of the BSNL was that since the work which the workman doing was given on contract, he cannot be reinstated. This defence also falls to the ground in view of the fact that the BSNL itself had framed out a policy of re -engaging the retrenched casual workers , as can be seen from Ex. 34 and other documents.

8.Many decisions were cited on both the sides . It was contended by learned advocate for the BSNL that the telecom department is not an industry as held by Hon . Supreme Court but the said decision was overruled subsequently and the telecom department was held tobe an industry within the meaning of the ID Act per AIR 1998 SC 656 General Manager Telecom V/s . S. Srinivasa Rao. In 2003 SCC (L& S ) 1170 Incharge. Govt. Hide Flaying Centre V/s . Rama Ram, the Hon. Supreme, Court Stated that the termination disregarding the principle oflast come to first go was not sustainable. In 1999 LLR 529 Ajaib Singh Vis . The Sirhind Co-operative Marketing-cum- Processing Service Society Ltd. , It was held by Hon. Supreme Court that the provision of Limitation Act cannot apply to the industrial adjudication. In 2001 (2) GLH (UJ) 14Gujarat Rural Housing Board V/s Kanubhai H. Lodha it was held by our own Hon . High Court that the money payable under Sec . 25F has to be alongwith the order of retrenchment - Payment and Order must go hand in hand- Money order sent subsequent to the order of retrenchment was not in compliance of the mandatory provision of the section. And such other decisions were cited by the learned representative for the workman which I do not think necessary to refer to.

7. From the pleadings and oral evidence led, it appears that admittedly the workman was discharged on 28-9-94 and was not paid notice pay or retrenchment compensation required to be paid as per Sec . 25F of the ID Act. No seniority list was prepared at the time of retrenchment of the present workman . It is stated by the witness for the BSNL that seniority list was not required to be prepared in the case of casual workers . It is not so . The casual workmen are also workmen and before retrenching them the BSNL was required to prepare the seniority list as per the relevant rules so that the rule of last come to first go can be maintained . Even as per the decision ofHon . Supreme Court in (1993 ) 23 ATC 787 Union of India V/s . Munim Singh and others , the Telecom department was required to maintain seniority list of casual workers divisionwise . It also appears from the oral evidence that certain junior workers were called by the BSNL in 1995 and were re -employed . The defence of the BSNL as it appcars from the cross examination of the workman is that the workman had not filed affidavit within time and that the junior workers had filed affidavits carlier in point of time and hence he was not taken back in service , whereas the witness for the BSNL stated that BSNL had formed a committee and the workman did not fall within the norms prescribed by the said committee and hence he was not taken back in service . The workman was asked to furnish affidavit only after 30-8-1995 as can be seen from Ex. 16 which is a letter of the BSNL addressed to the workman in which address of the workman is also written . The workman does not appear to have made any delay and had filed an affidavit on 14-9-95 . So , there was no question of filing affidavit late by the workman because he was asked to furnish the affidavit only after 30-8-95 and he had filed the affidavit on 14-9-95 , within fifteen days . It was rather incumbent upon the BSNL to call the workman senioritywise to file affidavit in terms of Section 25H of the ID Act . The wintess for the BSNL only stated that the workman did not fall within the criteria/norms prescribed by the committee. He did not throw light as to what the criteria/norms were . This Tribunal has tried to search the norms and it was found in Ex . 34 , the recommendation of the committee had met on 23-2-95 and 24-2-95 and the continuous absence for the last 365 days in the cases of individual casual workers was counted downward from 25-2-95 . It , therefore , follows that from 26-2-94 to 25-2-95 1365 days ) a workman must have remained absent ( through such workman must have been called on work and he remained absent ) in whose case the committee could not

9. The learned advocate for the BSNL has also cited many decisions such as 1997 LLR 793 Bombay Telephone Canteen Employees' Association V/s . Union of India . It was held in this decision that Telecommunication department was not an industry and the employees employed therein were not workmen . That decision was overruled by a larger bench of Hon . Supreme Court subsequently in AIR 1998 SC 656 holding that the said decision cannot be treated as laying down the correct law. The next decision cited by him was 1988 (2 ) GLH 463 Ghelabhai Popatbhai Tarpara Vis . Agricultrual Produce Market Committee , Kalawad. It was a case wherein the [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 24, 2004/ श्रावण 2, 1926

4357

decisions without reference to the facts emerging in the case on hand has not relevance. The facts in the present case is that the workman was admittedly retrenched in violation of all the relevant provisions of the ID Act . A formula was made out by the BSNL to employ all the retrenched workers on the basis of their seniority. The workman also fell within the criteria, however he was not re- engaged , and a number of different kind ofdefences are raised which is really unfortunate for an organisation like the BSNL.

10. So far as the back wages are concerned, it is true that though the Limitation Act is not applicable to the industrial adjudication , the relief to be awarded could be moulded according to the circumstances of the case concerned . The workman was admittedly discharged on 28-9-94. It is his case that he was given assurance that he would be takenback in service and that even after filing of the affidavit on 14-9-95 he waited and when it came to his notice that his juniors were reemployed he had raised this dispute on 14-6-2001. Admittedly, the workman had raised dispute late by seven years . If this Tribunal had any discretion to exercise in the matter of back wages , this Tribunal cannot grant the full back wages even as the retrenchment of the workman is held to be illegal. In 1999 LLR 529 Ajaib Singh V/ s The Sirhind Co-op . Marketing- cum-Processing Service Society Ltd. , the workman's service was terminated on 16-7-74 and he had placed a demand on 8-12-81 . The Hon. Supreme Court modified the award of the Labour Court and granted back wages from the date the dispute was raised by the workman . In the present case, I would grant 40 % of back wages from the dateof reference i.e. 3-6-2002. There remains nothing more to dicuss and I accordingly pass the following order:

ORDER

This reference case is allowed . The termination of service ofthe workman Shri Babubhai Bhalabhai Patel w.e.f. 28-9-1994 is held to be illegal and the management ofBSNL, Nadiad is directed to reinstate the said workman to his original post with continuity of service and 40 % ofback wages only from 3-6-2002 onwards, within one month from the date ofpublication of this award. In default where of the said workman shall be entitled to full wages from the date of such default .

There shall be no orders as to costs .

Y.P. BHATT, Industrial Tribunal

नई दिल्ली, 2 जुलाई , 2004

workman concerned had claimed permanent status but the Hon. High Court stated that if the appointments not made in accordance with relevant recruitment rules , such person cannot claim permanent status . This decision is not applicable to present case as the workman has challenged his illegal retrenchment and claimed reinstatement which is as per the principles ofthe ID Act . The next decision is of 2000 Lab : I.C. 2404 Jagdish U. Nanavaty V/ s . State of Gujarat , wherein it was a case of lecturers in Govt. Colleges who were not appointed after due procedure . It was held that such lecturers had no right to continue after the expiry of term of appointment: On facts, this decision cannot apply to present case as the present workman was not a lecturer and was not appointed in Govt. College . Then 1998 (year is not legible) ILLJ 447 Patel Evelin Ranchhodbhai and Gujarat Ayurved University, Jamnagar is cited . There was an ad -hoc appointment and the post for which recruitment rules were available, it was held that such ad- hoc person cannot claim a right to appointment . On facts , the said decision is also not applicable . Then the learned advocate for the BSNL has cited 1992 ILLJ 841 Dinesh Shivubha Parmar and State of Gujarat . It was a case wherein the employee was appointed on the basis of 29 days order and his appointment was liable to be terminated without notice. The employee was not engaged through the Employment Exchange.It was held that such person cannot claim equity inhis favour and that the candidates recommended by the EmploymentExchange formed a different class . On facts , that decision also does not apply to the facts of the present case. It is not the case of the BSNL that as the workman was not sponsored by the Employment Exchange , he cannot be considered. In 1988 (2) GLH ( UJ) 18 Narmada Prasad Shivprasad MishraV/s. Shashnadhikari , Nagar Prathamik Shikshan Samittee , Ahmedabad, also it was a case that the plaintiffs were not selected through the procedureprescribed and their appointments were ad-hoc andhence their termination was not found to be illegal . The next decision cited by the learned advocate for the BSNL is ( 1997) 4 SCC 391 Himanshukumar VidyarthiV/s . State ofBihar. It was a case wherein the petitioners were engagedon daily wage basis and they were not appointed in accordance with the rules but were engaged on the basis of need of the work . It was held that their disengagement from service cannot be construed to be retrenchment under the Industrial Disputes Act . It was a case inwhich a department of Government was concerned andHon. Supreme Court stated that every department of the Government cannot be treated as industry. Thus as the concerned department was not an industry the workmen employed therein were not workmen and hence it was held that the disengagement from service of such employees would not amount to retrenchment under the Id Act. Thereafter some three decisions are cited on the point ofbackwages by the learned advocate for the BSNL . It would be appropriate to note that citing a number of

का. आ. 1751.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार सफदरजंग अस्पताल के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण 4358

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24 , 2004/ SRAVANA 2, 1926

नं० II , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 108/89 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 2-7-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-42011/21/89- आई. आर ( डी.यू. ) ] कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 2nd July, 2004

S.O. 1751. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 108/89) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum -Labour Court No. II , New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Safdarjung Hospital and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 2-7-2004 .

[No. L-42011/21/ 89 -IR (DU) ] KULDIP RAI VERMA , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDNG OFFICER: CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT- II, RAJENDRA BHAWAN, GROUND FLOOR, RAJENDRA PLACE , NEW DELHI

L.D. No. 108/89

R.N. Rai

Presiding Officer :

IN THE MATTER OF :-

RAKESH KUMAR

VERSUS

SAFDARJUNG HOSPITAL

AWARD

TheMinistry of Labour by its letter No. L -42011/21/89/ IR(DU) Central Government Dt . 05-10-1989 has referred the following point for adjudication .

The point runs as hereunder:-

"Whether the termination of the services of S/Shri Rakesh Kumar, Lachhman Singh , Bhopal Singh and Rajender Singh hy the Departmental Canteen, Safdarjung Hospital w.c.f. 14-3-1988 is justified? If not , to what relief the waykten are entitled to?" The claimants have filostement of claim . In the statement of claim, it has been stated that the claimant Shri Rakesh Kumar is employed since 7-1-1984 as Coupon Clerk, Shri Lachhman Singh is employed since 1-5-1984 as Wash Boy, Shri Bhopal Singh is employed since 1-4-1986 as cook and Shri Rajinder Singh is employed since 28-5- 1984 as sweeper and the services of these workmen have been terminated w.e.f. 14-3-1988 without assigning any valid reason thereof.

1 has been further stated that juniors to them have retained but they have been thrown out of the job . No seniority list was displayed or pasted, no notice was given

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] nor any notice pay was either offered or paid and no service compensation was either offered or paid to them. They have worked for more than 240 days so the termination ofthe services is illegal , arbitrary.

The management has filed written statement. The management has admitted some of the paragraphs of the claim and denied some of the paragraphs . It has been further submitted by the management that the management is not an industry and the workmen are not the employees so there is no relation between the employer and the employee . This Tribunal had got no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the cases of the workmen as the workmen are not the employees of an industry. It is also submitted that Trade Union and its activities are not permitted for departmental canteen employees , moreover, the question of victimization does not arise as their services were discontinued because their services were no longer required.

Theworkmen have filed rejoinder. In their rejoinder, theyhave denied all the statements of the written statement and have stated emphatically that their services have been terminated illegally. They were not adhoc employees or temporary employees and the canteen run by the management is an industry and the workmen are the workmenunder the Industrial DisputesAct, 1947 ..

Boththe parties have filed their written arguments . The management was not appearing since 25-09-2003 despite knowledge of the case . They have filed a detailed written argument. It was submitted from the side of the workmen that it is admitted to the management that the aforesaid workmen were employed in the canteen . It has also been admitted that their services were terminated w.e.f. 14-3-1988 . As such they have worked for more than 240 days . Their monthly salary has also been admitted by the management . In the cirumstances, the workmen were not adhoc employees as has been stated in the written statement. No appointment letter had been issued to them so it cannot be said that they were appointed on adhoc basis or purely on temporary basis . Even in the letter of termination, it has not been mentioned that they were adhoc employees . Even if, they are considered to be daily wagers, they have worked for more than 240 days and Section 25 (F) is attracted.

The second point raised vehemently by the management is that the canteen run by the Safdarjung Hospital is not an industry, the workers of the canteen hold civil posts. It is to be ascertained whether the workers ofthe canteen are discharging the sovereign functions so they do not come under he definition of workmen under the Industrial Dispute The departmental canteen has issued letterdt. 7-7-1987 in which it has been written that if there is any loss caused to the canteen , the employees will be responsible . Even they have issued letter of termination and in that letter, they have mentioned that the employees have been appointed on adhoc basis but [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

mere mentioning adhoc basis in the termination letter is not a proof that the employees were adhoc employees until the appointment letter has been issued to them .

That the cantéen is concerned with the business of profit and loss and according to the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage judgement of the Hon'ble APEX Court ifanundertaking carries on business or trade and there is profit and loss motive , that undertaking shall be deemed to be an industry.

In view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgement the activities of the canteen and the workmen working under them partakes of the nature of industry. My attention was drawn to the orders dt. 12-1-1982 and it has been referred to in the written arguments of the management . In this order, it has been specifically mentioned that departmental canteens were excluded from the definition of"industry" under Section 2 (J) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

4359

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 24, 2004/ श्रावण 2, 1926

It is settled law that the management has to prove that the workmen are not in gainful employment but from the character of the workmen and the nature of the workmen, it can never be presumed that a person who is a manual labourer will sit idle and do nothing . Ifhe does so, he must disclose his source of livelihood and subsistence, Even a single word has not been said in the statement of claim. In view of the canteen, being a sick industry, and the workmen being the manual labourers , in the facts and circumstances of this case , the judgement of the Hon'ble High Court is not applicable in this case . I am of the considered view that taking into consideration, the heavy liabilities of the canteen and it being run in loss , the workmen should be reinstated with 25% back wages . Since they have completed 240 days and they are not adhoc or temporary employees , their service have been terminated without giving them compensation . As such , Section 25 (F) of the 1. D. Act is attracted and termination of the services is illegal .

The award is replied thus:-

The termination of the services of S /Shri Rakesh Kumar, Lachhman Singh , Bhopal Singh and Rajender Singh by the Departmental Canteen, Safdarjung Hospital w.e.f. 14-3-1988 is not justified. The workmen deserve to be reinstated w.e.f. 14-3-1988 with 25 % back wages .

The award is given accordingly.

Dated: 21-06-2004

Ithas been held in 1991 LLR 701 that a canteen run in a university is an industry and university is the employer. The canteen has been similarly run by the Safdarjung Hospital as such, the Safarjung Hospital is the employer of the workmen . The Central Government is not the employer of the workmen. From the perusal of the judgement cited above , it becomes quite vivid that the canteen run by the Safdarjung Hospital is an industry as mentioned in the Bangalore Water Supply and the law cited above , I am of the considered view that the above said canteen is an industry and the employees working therein are not directly the Central Government employees but they are the employees of the canteen as they have been appointed by the Medical Supdt . or President of the Managing Committee of that canteen . As such , the canteen is an industry and the arguments raised by the management inthis respect is ofno merit.

Itwas argued by the workmen that they should be given full wages from the date of their reinstatement . In this respect my attention was drawn to 2002 LLR 1171 , The Hon'ble High Court has held that in case the workmen are reinstated, they should be given full wages . So far as this case is concerned, it has already been mentioned in the termination letter that the canteen has become sick and it is running in loss and there are heavy financial liabilities . As such, it should be considered a sick unit . In view ofthe financial position of the canteen , the employees are not entitled to get full back wages . The workmen have not said anything in their statement of claim as to how they maintained their subsistence and livelihood . In case there is any parental property and they are surviving on that property, they have to mention in the statement of claim. A cook , a wash boy and a sweeper cannot be sitting idle. In case he sits idle and does no work, then he must disclose the means of his subsistence .

R.N. RAI, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 2 जुलाई, 2004

का. आ. 1752.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सब - डिवीजनल आफिसर- फोन्स के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कार्मचारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , न ० II , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 103/89 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 2-7-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-40011/15/ 88 - डी. 2 ( बी. ) ] कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डैस्कअधिकारी New Delhi, the 2nd July, 2004

S.O. 1752. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 103 / 89) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court , No. II , New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Sub- Divisional Officers - Phones and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 2-7-2004.

[No. L-40011/15/88-D. 2 (B)] KULDIP RAI VERMA , Desk Officer 4360

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24 , 2004/ SRAVANA 2, 1926

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii)] ANNEXURE

5. Shri Babu Singh

810 days in 3 years BEFORE THE PRESIDNG OFFICER : CENTRAL

6. Shri Sukhdeo Singh

964 days in 3.5 years

7. Shri Rattan Singh

637 days in 2 years GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT- II , RAJENDRA BHAWAN, GROUND FLOOR, RAJENDRA PLACE NEW DELHI 8. Shri Ramdeo Singh

955 days in 3.5 years PRESIDING OFFICER: R.N. RAI

I.D.NO. 103/89

IN THE MATTER OF:-

DINESH KUMAR

VERSUS

SUB- DIVISIONAL OFFICER- PHONES , AJMER

The above mentioned period is not less than 240 days in a year and not less than 120 days in a half year in respect of each of the workmen. In addition , the services of the above mentioned workmen/ petitioners were also utilized on intervening Sundays and holidays for which payment was separately made but usually not included in the verified records.

AWARD

The Minsitry of Labour by its letter No. L -40011 / 15/ 88/D -2(B) Central Govrnment Dt . 05-10-1989 has referred the following point for adjudication .

The point runs as hereunder: -

That they were shocked to receive the notice dt. 30- 4-1988 stating that the petitioners/workmen wouldbe terminated w.e.f. 1-6-88 because the cable work was over. Infact there was work under the respondent management and few casual labours junior to the petitioners/workmen were allowed to work under the respondent/ management after 1-6-1988 . Some of casual labours in the same department at Jodhpur had approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and succeeded to obtain stay against such termination of services and they are still in service which is annexure- II .

"Whether the action of the Sub- Divisional Officer- phones , Ajmer in terminating the service of S /Shri Dinesh Kumar, Babulal , Gopal Singh Rattan Singh Budha Bagwan , Babu Singh Ramdhan , Jitender Kumar and Pushkar Singh , Casual workman w.e.f. 1-6-1988 is legal and justified . If not to what relief the workmen are entitled to ?"

That the workmen most respectfully submit that the aforesaid notices of termination oftheir services are wholly arbitrary and violative of the provisions of section 25- F(a) (b)( c) of ID Act, 1947 .

The claimants have filed statement of claim . In their statement of claim , they have stated that they had been working as casual labours under the aforesaid respondent/ management till 31-5-1988 continuously for the last 3 years viz. 1985, 1986 and 1987 for at least 240 days in each year or 120 days for a halfyear.

That the management respondent served each of the workman a notice vide No. E-50 dated 30.4.1988 ofone month for termination of the services of the petitioner workmenw.e.f. 1.6.1988.

The management has filed written statement. It has been stated that shri Ramdeo Singh, Sukhdeo Singh and Sewa Singh are not parties to the reference. These three workmen have not filed their claim as they have failed to sign the statement of claim and as such, there is no proper reference or claim petition of the said workmen before this Hon'ble Court and as such , the representation is liable to be rejected . The claim has been signed and verified on behalf of 9 workmen whose names are :-

That certain petitioners /workman were called for by the said respondent/ management for re -employment on, the work under them without any conditions which is annexure A - 9 .

Sh . Budh Bhagwan , Sh . Rattan Singh , Sh . Babu Singh, Sh . Ramdeo Singh, Sh. Babu Lal , Sh . Sukhdeo Singh, Sh . Sewa Singh , Sh. Gopal Singh , Sh . Jitender Kumar.

That on 18-04-1987 a similar letter was also issued without any condition to some of the workman. That all the workman/petitioners has worked for more than 2-3 years upto 31-5-1988 . The services of some of them were terminated previously by such notice dt. 31-3-1986 . The past services of the workman had been wholly satisfactory. The total period of each of the following workman/ petitioners is detailed below which stands verified by the records of the respondent/ management.

1. Shri Budh Bhagwan

826 days in 3 years

2. Shri Sewa Singh

741 days in 3 years

3. Shri Babulal

725 days in 3 years

4. Shri Gopal Singh

852days in 3.5 years

The claim has not been signed and verified by Sh . Dinesh Kumar and Sh . Ramdhan and Sh . Pushkar Singh . As such they have not filed the claim though their names are in the reference , Sh. Sukhdeo Singh , Sh . Sewa Singh , and Sh . Ramdeo Singh have signed and verified the claim but their names are not in the reference of the appropriate Govt . Sh . Budh Bhagwan , Sh . Babu Lal , Sh . Gopal Singh , Sh . Babu Singh , Sh . Rattan Singh , Sh . Jitender Kumar have signed and verified the claim and their names are under reference These six persons have signed the claim and their names are in the reference of the Govt . The names of Sh . Ramdeo Singh , Sh . Sukhdeo Singh , Sh .

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

Sewa Singh are not in the reference of the state Govt. The names of Sh. Dinesh Kumar, Sh . Ramdhan , Sh . Pushkar Singh are in the reference but they have not signed and verified the claim . As such only Sh . Budh Bhagwan , Sh. Rattan Singh, Sh . Babu Singh , Sh . Babu Lal , Sh. Gopal Singh and Sh . Jitender Kumar have filed the claim and their names are also in the reference so only their cases can be considered.

It has been further stated that the claim is bad for non-joinder of the Ministry ofTelecommunication which is owned by the Government, and therefore, Union of India is the only proper party to the dispute. The petition is liable to be rejected on this ground as well . It has been further stated that the workmen were assigned specific job for lying the cables as absolutely temporary casual workers and on the completion of the 'said job, there was no work left with the respondent and the work against whom the workmen were employed was of temporary nature and it came toan end on the completion ofthe said workand as such the workmen are not entitled to get any benefit

It has been stated that the workmen were appointed absolutely as casual workers on the muster roll and their appointments related to the temporary work of laying the cables which waswas completed and there is no work at that time in existance to be given to the workmen.

That the casual labourers who are said to have obtained the stay orders from the Hon'ble Supreme Court , have no concern with the respondent and have no relevence with the case as those mazdoors have been Working at Jodhpur on different work with a different wing and different employer over which the respondent/ management has no jurisdiction and connection whatsoever.

That the workmen were appointed only for a specific temporary work and after the completion of the work. They are not entitled to any regularisation . The reference isbad.

The workmen have filed rejoinder. In their rejoinder, they have submitted that the claim in the above dispute is confined to only six workmen namely, Shri Babu Lal , Shri Gopal Singh, Shri Rattan Singh Shri Budh Bhagwan , Shri Babu Singh and Shri Jitender Kumar. The other three workmen have not come to file the statement of claim. It has been stated in the rejoinder that the workmen were employed permanently and are entitled to reinstatement in service with full backwages and continuity of service . The reference of the dispute is proper. It is wrong to say that the petitioner/workmen were appointed only for a

4361

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 24, 2004/ श्रावण 2, 1926 .

specific temporary work and after the completion of the work , they are not entitled to any regularisation . It is submitted that the workmen are entitled to the reliefs as claimed in the statement of claim.

Heard arguments from both the sides and perused the papers on the record. It was submitted by the management that the three workmen have not filed claim so the claim in respect of the three workmen is not maintainable. The workmen were employed on specific object of absolutely casual in nature for laying cables and after the completion of the work , their services were no longer required. The Ministry of Telecommunication is not an industry so the CGIT has no jurisdiction. Thế workmen absolutely are casual workers on daily wages Muster Roll and their appointment related to temporary work of laying cables. Since there was no work, their services were terminated.

That the management has not employed any person junior to the workmen as casual worker. The present management is not empowered to employ any workmen on regular basis in any category. It is also denied that any casual workerjunior to the applicant has been made regular in service,Nojunior worker is working or has been offered work with the management after dispensing with the services ofthe applicants/workmen.

Ithas been stated that notices on 30-4-1988 and 1-6- 1988 were served upon the workmen that they will be relieved of their work after one month. Acircular was issued inNovember 1988 for regularisation ofthe casual labourers whohave worked for at least 240 days per year. According to the circular also these workmen have worked for 240 days prior to 31-3-1987 . As such their services cannotbe reinstated . It has been further stated in the circular that their names will be arranged in order of seniority with reference to the number of days of services rendered as on 31-3-1987 . This has not been done by the management. It was argued from the side of the workmen that management witness has accepted that he could not say how many persons are working for laying the cables after the termination of the workmen. It indicates that there are still workmen who are engaged in laying the cables .He has also stated that some of the workmen have got stay from the Hon'ble Supreme Court and they are still working and he cannot say whether they were junior to these workmen or not . The seniority list was ready with us and he has further stated that he could not say whether it was displayed at the time of termination or not . So according to the management witness it is evident that some ofthe workmen have been still retained for work. It cannot be said that they are juniors to the workmen who have been retrenched.

4362

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 24 , 2004/SRAVANA 2, 1926

The workmen were employed by the SDO ( Phones) and they were not directly employed by the Ministry. The workmen are employed on a project for a specific period but in case the period of their service is for two years and the project is not completed within two years , the workmen deserve to be regularised under 25 FFF ( 2) Section . This Section reads as under :-

"Where any undertaking set- up for the construction of buildings , bridges , roads , cannal dams or other construction work is closed down on account of the completion of the work within two years from the date on which the undertaking had been set - up no workmen employed therein shall be entitled to any compensation under clause (b) of Section 25FFF but if the construction work is not so completed within two years , he shall be entitled to notice and compensation under that section for every ( completed year of continuous service) or any partthereof in excess of six months . "

My attention was drawn to Bangalore water supply and sewerage Board Versus A. Rajappa and others and it was submitted that the respondent/management is not an industry . It has been submitted by the workmen that the applicant worked under SDO telephone. If the BSNL and MTNL are industries the telephone department of Ajmer is also an industry. The workmen applicants worked under SDO telephones they received payment from the SDO telephones . The telephone department is an industry as the workmen are not government servants and are not discharging sovereign functions . Therefore the law cited above of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case .

It was further submitted that the claim has been filed Sh . Babu Lal , Sh . Gopal Singh, Sh. Rattan Singh , Sh . Budha Bhagwan , Sh . Babu Singh, and Sh. Jitender Kumar. The other persons Sh . Sukhdeo Singh , Sh . Sewa Singh , Sh . Ramdeo Singh have signed the statement of claim but there is no reference of the appropriate government regarding them . So the cases of Sh . Ramdco Singh , Sh . Sukhdco Singh and Sh . Sewa Singh cannot be considered . The reference is about Sh . Dincsh Kumar , Sh . Babu lal , Sh . Gopal Singh , Sh . Rattan Singh , Sh . Budha Bhagwan , Sh . Ramdhan , Sh. Jitender Kumar , Sh . Pushkar Singh , and Sh . Babu Singh . Out of these 9 workmen only Sh . Babu Lal , Sh. Gopal Singh, Sh . Rattan Singh Sh . Budha Bhagwan , Sh . Babu Singh and Sh . Jitender Kumar have filed the claim , Sh. Dinesh Kumar, Sh . Ramdhan and Sh . Pushkar Singh have not filed claim . So there cases cannot be considered only Sh . Babu Lal , Sh. Gopal Singh , Sh . Rattan Singh ,

[PART II-SBC. 3 ( ii)] Sh . Budha Bhagwan, Sh . Babu Singh, Sh . Jitender Kumar have filed statement of claim . The name of Sh . Ramdeo Singh, Sh. Sukhdeo Singh and Sh. Sewa Singh is not under reference so there cases cannot be considered. The cases of Sh. Dinesh Kumar, Sh. Ramdhan and Sh . Pushkar Singh have been referred to for consideration but they have not filed statement of claim . As such their cases cannot be considered . The cases of Sh . Babu Lal , Sh. Gopal Singh , Sh . Rattan Singh , Sh . Budha Bhagwan , Sh . Babu Singh and Sh . Jitender Kumar have been referred to by the Minsitry oflabour and they have filed ststement of claim and re- joinder. So , only their cases can be considered.

The workmen are entitled to be reinstated with 20% back wages from the date of their termination respectively w.e.f. 1-4-1988 and 1-6-1988 . These workmen are labourers and they have been working somewhere else so 20 % back wages are sufficient . The work is of perennial in nature and the labourers have been employed for laying down cables as have been admitted by the management witnesses . In view of the fact also , the workmen are entitled to regularisation and their services cannot be terminated without giving them compensation and notice. No compensation has been paid in this case.

It has been further submitted that no appointment letter has been given to the workmen. It is in their termination letter that it has been mentioned that they have beerr working on project . The workmen have worked for 240 days . In view of this fact also they deserves reinstatement as section 25F of the I.D. Act is also attracted and cannot be said to the Adhoc and temporary employees.

The reference is replied thus .

The action of the Sub -Divisional Officer-phones , Ajmer in terminating the services ofBabulal , Gopal Singh , Budha Bhagwan , Sh . Rattan Singh , Babu . Singh and Jitender Kumar casual workman w.e.f. 1-6-1988 is not legal and justified . The workmen are entitled to be reinstated w.e.f. 1-6-1988 with 20% back wages . No reference has been made regarding Sh. Ramdeo Singh, Sh. Sukhdeo Singh and Sh . Sewa Singh , Sh . Dinesh Kumar , Sh. Ramdhan and Sh. Pushkar Singh have not filed the claim. So no relief can be given to them.

The award is given accordingly.

Dt: 21-6-2004

R. N. RAI , Presiding Officer [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 24, 2004/ श्रावण 2, 1926

4363 नईदिल्ली, 5 जुलाई , 2004

1947 (the Act for short for adjudicating upon the following industrial dispute between the Ellath Enterprises (Petroleum) (the management for short ) and Shiddu M. Shirur & 5 others (the workmen for short) . The terms of the dispute are as follows :

का. आ. 1753.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मैं . इलाथ इन्टरप्राइजेज ( पेट्रोलियम ) के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण मुंबई नं. 1 के पचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 44/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30-6-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

"Whether the action of the management ofM/s . Ellath Enterprises (Petroleum), COCO Outlet,HP Service Station, Vasco , Goa in terminating the services of Shri Shiddu M. Shirur & 5 others, service Assistants ( as per annexure ) w.e.f. 5-1- 2003 is legal andjustified ? If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled for ?"

[सं. एल-30012/17/2003- आई. आर ( विविध ) ] बी. एम. डेविड, अवर सचिव

NewDelhi , the 5th July, 2004

S.O. 1753. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 44/ 2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Mumbai No. 1 as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employer in relation to the management of M/s Ellath enterprises (Petroleum) and their workmen, whichwas received by the Central Government on 30-6-04.

[No. L- 30012/17/2003 -IR(M)] B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.

2. The case was fixed for appearance of the parties on27-10-2003 at Goa Camp Court sitting and on the date ofworkmen filed their statement ofclaim. The matter was adjourned for 28-11-2003 for filing written statement ofthe management at Mumbai . On 28-11-2003 both the parties were present and the management prayed for time to file their written statement. The matter was adjourned on 26-12-2003. On 26-12-2003 the management filed their writtenstatement . The workmen were not present and the matter was adjourned for 20-1-2004 for filing rejoinder of theworkmen . On20-1-2004, 27-2-2004, 18-3-2004, 12-4-2004 and 30-4-2004 the workmen were not present nor filed thier rejoinder inspite of notices served upon them. The next date ofhearing was fixed for 1-7-2004.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 1, MUMBAI

3. Today, i.e. 14-6-2004 this Tribunal has received a letter from the workmen states that due to some unavoidable circumstances they do not wish to continue their dispute as they are already employed under some other management . So they want to withdraw their case .

Present:

Shri Justice S.C. Pandey, PresidingOfficer

4. Since the workmen prays for withdrawal of this case, it is disposed ofby stating that there is no industrial dispute between the parties for passing an award as they have not appeared before this Tribunal .

REFERENCE NO . CGIT-44 OF 2003

S. C. PANDEY, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 5 जुलाई, 2004

Parties:-Employers in relation to the management of M/s . Ellath Enterprises (Petroleum) And Theirworkmen

APPEARANCE :-

For theManagement : Shri R.NP. Shah, Advocate

Forthe Workman : No appearance

का. आ. 1754.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार हिन्दुस्तान कॉपर लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण धनबाद-2 के पचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 166/98 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30-6-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था । State

: Goa

[सं. एल-43012/ 16/97- आई. आर ( विविध ) ] बी. एम. डेविड, अवर सचिव Mumbai , dated the 15th June , 2004

AWARD

New Delhi , the 5th July, 2004 1. This is a reference made by the Central Government under clause (d ) of Sub- section 1 and sub- section 2A of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act

S.O. 1754. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. 166/98 ) 2136 GI/04-36 4364

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24 , 2004/SRAVANA 2 , 1926

[PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii) ] of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Dhanbad No. 2 as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Hindustan Copper Ltd. and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 30-6-04 .

[No. L-43012/16 /97 - IR (M) ]

B. M. DAVID , Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL (NO . 2 ) DHANBAD

of job and possessing the saine designation . They submitted that the concerned workman was up -graded in Grade T- 5 in the year 1983 though management claimed that he was upgraded with effect from 1-7-85 and his basic wage fixed @ Rs . 729/- in the said grade . The above named juniors on the contrary have been upgraded in Grade T- 5 with effect from 1-12-87 . The management with some ulterior motive with effect frorn 1-12-87 starting paying the aforesaid junior workmen @ Rs . 1388 /- as basic wages while his basic wage was Rs . 1351/ -. Accordingly he submitted representation to the management with prayer for higher wages in relation to the wages ofjunior workman but the management did not pay any heed to his prayer and for which he raised an industrial dispute which ultimately resulted reference to this Tribunal .

PRESENT :

SHRI B. BISWAS , Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial dispute under Section 10( 1)( d) of the I. D. Act . 1947 .

REFERENCE NO . 166 OF 1998

Parties: Employers in relation to the management of HCL / ICC , Mosabani Mines . Singhbhum and theirworkman.

APPEARANCES :-

On behalf ofthe Workman: Mr. K. Chakravorty, Advocate

On behalfoftite Employers : Mr. D.K. Verma , Advocate.

State: Jharkhad

: Industry: Copper.

Dated , Dhanbad, the 7th June , 2004.

AWARD

1. The Govt. of India , Ministry of Labour, in exercise ofthe powers conferred on them under Section 10( 1 ) (d) of the 1.D. Act . , 1947 has referred the following dispute to ( his Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L -43012/ 16/97/ IR( M) , dated, the 9th June , 1998 .

"Whether the action of the management of Hindustan Copper Ltd. , Indian Copper Complex, Mosaboni , in fixing pay of Shri Suketu Nayak, Blaster Asstt . I , Surda Centre less that S/ Shri Parash Shit and Harihar Sethi though senior to them is justified ? If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled for ? "

2. The case of the concerned workman according to Written Statement submitted by the sponsoring union on his behalf in brief is as follows :

3. Management on the contrary after filing W.S.- cum- rejoinder have denied all the claims and allegations which the sponsoring union asserted in the Written Statement submitted on behalf of the concerned workman . They submitted that the concerned workman was appointed as Mucker on 29-4-71 and was promoted as Timber Mazdoor with effect from 1-8-73 while Paresh Sethi was appointed as Mucker with effect from 27-12-71 and was promoted as Trammer with effect from 1-7-78 and Harihar Sethi was appointed as Mucker on 5-12-75 and was promoted as Blaster Assistant with effect from 1-12-79. They disclosed that initially all the three workmen were recruited as Muckher and subsequently were placed in different cadres and ultimately all ofthem became Blaster Assistant in Grade T-4. On i -9-79 when the new wage settlement was implemented all of them became Blaster in T-4 and their basic wages were fixed taking into consideration the previous wages being received by them. The date of annual increment of Harihar Sethi was 5-12-84 and his basic wage was fixed @ Rs . 705/-whereas his date of annual increment was 14-12-84 . In respect of Paresh Shithis basic wage was fixed @ Rs . 705/-on that date. The annual increment of the concerned workman was 29-12-84 and his basic wage on that date was fixed@ Rs . 729 / -. Thus after implementation of wage settlement on 1-9-79 and 1-9-83 wages of all the three workmen were fixed@Rs . 705/-and 729/ -on 5-12-84 , 14-12-84 and 29-12- 84. Thus although the concerned workman was senior to other workmen at the time of initial appointment asMucker incourse of time being routed through different cadres all ofthem merged together to one cadre of Blaster Assistant with effect from 1-9-83 . As per the wage settlement dt. 23- 1-87 with the union a service link advancement scheme was formulated and was given notional implementation with effect from 1-9-83 . As per the aforesaid scheme the concerned workman was placed in the higher grade from T- 4 to T - 5 w.e.f. 1-9-83 and his wage was fixed@ Rs . 687/- whereas two other workmen were fixed in T-4 getting Rs . 669/- . When the wage settlement was implemented in 1-9-87 the concemed workman's basic wage The sponsoring Union submitted that the concerned workman has been working as Permanent Blaster Assistant under the management . They alleged that the concerned workman is getting less wages in comparison to the workman Shri Paresh Shit and Harihar Sethi who arejuniors to him since 1987, though they are performing similar nature [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

4365 भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 24, 2004/ श्रावण 2, 1926

was fixed @ Rs . 1351/ -in T-5 whereas basic wage of two other workmen was fixed @ Rs . 1328/-in T-4 They were giventhe benefit under the settlementdt . 23-1-87 andwere placed in T-5 on 1-9-87 and their basic wage was fixed @ Rs. 1388/ - . They submitted that as per the wage settlement as well as settlement relating to providing service link benefit are binding both upon the management and the workmen as a whole . As per the settlement the wages became payable to all the workmen and the settlements are arrived at taking into consideration the benefit given to maximum number of workmen . In that connection some workmen may not get benefits to the same extent as others have received. In the absnce of any terms in the settlements relating to maintenance ofdifference of weages between different persons for all times to come no demand can be made by any person for higher wages considering that at the initial stage he was senior to certain workmen. They submitted that the wage settlement became effective with effect from 1-9-87 , there was considerable increase , in the basic wages and annual increments in the new scale T- 5 to give more benefits to workmen in T-5 grades . They submitted that the said settlement was drawn up in the spirit of maximum benefit to maximum persons although in certain cases certain employees may not get the same benefits. Accordingly management submitted that in view ofbinding nature of settlement, considering the legality and validity of the settlement duly accepted by all the workmen the grievance raised by a single person or few others cannot be the basis for declaring the settlement to be illegal and unjustifed making out a new rule modifying the settlement . They submitted that they acted bonafide according to the settlement and the concerned workman cannot claim more benefit than was due to him as per the terms of settlement taking that the other two persons got better fixation benefits under the settlement . Accordingly they submitted prayer rejecting the claim ofthe concerned workman.

4. Points to be Decided.

"Whether the action of the management of Hindustan Copper Ltd. , Indian Copper Complex, Mosaboni , in fixing pay of Shri Suketu Nayak, Blaster Asstt . I Surda Centre , less than S/Shri Paresh Shit and Harihar Sethi though senior to them is justified? If not, to what relief he is entitled?"

FINDING WITH REASON

5. It appears from the record that the concerned workman with a view to substantiate his claim did not consider necessary to adduce evidence inspite of giving several opportunities . Accordingly management also declined to adduce any evidence on their behalf. Now considering the facts disclosed in the pleadings of both sides it is to be looked into if the claim of the concerned workman stands on cogent footing or not ? Considering

the written statement submitted by the management I find no dispute to hold that the concerned workman initially was appointed as Mucker on 29-4-71 . Paresh Shit and Harihar Sethi also got their appointment as Mucker on 27-12-71 and 5-12-75 respectively. Therefore , it is clear that at the initial stage of such employment the concerned workman was senior to Paresh Shit and Harihar Sethi . " It is the contention of the management that thereafter the concerned workman and two other workmen were placed in different cadres and ultimately when the new wage settlement was implemented all of them became Blaster Assistant in T- 4 . It is the further contention of the management that after implementation of wage settlement on 1-9-79 and 1-9-83 the basic wages of all the three workmen named above were fixed @ Rs . 705,729 on 5-12-84 and 29-12-84 . They disclosed that though the concerned workman was senior to other two workmen at the initial stage of appointment . As mucker in course of time and being routed through different cadres all of them were merged together to one cadre as Blaster Assistant and under the wage settlement dt . 1-9-83 . Thereafter as per settlement dt . 23-1-87 with the Union Service Link Advancement Scheme was formulated and was given notional implementation with effect from 1-9-83 . As per the said scheme the concerned workman being senior to other two who were placed in higher scale from T-4 to T- 5 with effect from 1-9-83 and his basic pay was fixed @ Rs. 687/ - whereas the basic wage of other two workmen fixed@Rs . 669/-. After implementation of settlement with effect from 1-9-87 the basic wage of the concerned workman stood@Rs. 1351/-in T - 5 whereas the basic wage of other two workmen were fixed @ Rs . 1328/ -in T -4 . Thereafter those two workmen got promoted in T- 5 with effect from 1-12-87 and their basic wage was fixed @ Rs . 1388/- . A dispute cropped up from this place. It is the contention of the concerned workman that he is senior to other two workmen and accordingly his basic wage should be higher in comparison to the basic wage fixed for the said two workmen. It is seen that the basic wage of the concerned workman was fixed @ Rs . 1351/ - with effect from 1-9-87 whereas basic wage of other two workmen was fixed @ Rs. 1388/ - with effect from 1-12-87 . Apparently though it transpires that the basic wage of these two workmen were higher than that of the concerned workman actually the basicwage of the concerned workman will be again higher whilehe will get the next increment with effect from 1-9-88 . It is the contention of the management that the basic wage has been fixed on the basis of settleinent entered into between them and the union and it has duly been accepted byboth sides . In course of implementation of the settlement there is scope of certain anomaly but as there is no rectification clause in the settlement they did not get any scope to give any further benefit to the concerned workman in relation to his benefit . I have considered the written statement submitted by the concerned workman and in the Written statement the sponsoring union did not make 4366

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24, 2004/SRAVANA 2 , 1926

any whisper that on the basis of settlement the basic wages of the workmen working under the management were fixed . In the fixation rule 1985 it has been clearly mentioned that in case a workman's wage is fixed with effect from 1-9-83 in revised scale of pay at the same stage as the one fixed for another workman junior to him in the same cadre who is drawing wages at lower stage thanhim in the pre - revised scale, the senior person shall be granted the next increment in the revised scale on the same date as admissible to his junior provided the date of increment of thejunior happens to fall earlier. Here in the instant case date of increment of the juniors was later than that of the date of increment of the concerned workman who is senior to them . Therefore there is no scope to say that he is getting less wages in comparison to his junior . The concerned workman got ample scope to a place his submission contradicting the fixation rules, 1985 of the management but inspite of getting scope he did not consider necessary to adduce any evidence . It should be borne into mind that the facts disclosed in the pleadings cannot be considered as substantive piece of evidence until and unless the facts are substantiate by other cogent evidence . I have carefully considered all the material facts on records and I have failed to find out any gross discrepancy that management took arbitrary and illegal decision in fixing his wages. In view of the facts and circumstances discussed above the concerned workman isnot entitled to get any relief.

the result , the following Award is rendered :-- "The action of the management of Hindustan Copper Ltd. , Indian Copper Complex , Mosaboni , in fixing pay of Shri Suketu Nayak , Blaster Asstt . I Surda Centre less than S/ Shri Paresh Shit and Harihar Sethi though senior to them is justified. Consequently, the concerned workman is not entitled to get any relief."

B. BISWAS , Presiding Officer.

नई दिल्ली, 6 जुलाई , 2004

का. आ. 1755.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एयर इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , नई दिल्ली- II के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 33/92 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जोकेन्द्रीय सरकार को6-7-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-11012/19/91- आई. आर. ( विविध ) ] बी. एम. डेविड, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 6th July, 2004

S.O. 1755.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 33/92)

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] ofthe CentralGovernment Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court, New Delhi - II as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Air India and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 6-7-2004.

[No. L- 11012/ 19/91 -IR (M)] B. M. DAVID , Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER : CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT- II,

RAJENDRA BHAWAN, GROUND FLOOR, RAJENDRA PLACE NEW DELHI

PresidingOfficer : R. N. RAI

L. D. No. 33/92

In theMatter of:-

G. D. Tewari

Versus

Management of Air India, New Delhi AWARD

The Ministry of Labour by its letter No. L- 11012/ 19 /91 - IR (M) Central Government Dt . 26-5-1992 has referred the following point for adjudication .

The point runs as hereunder :-

"Whether the action of the Management of Air India, New Delhi awarding the punishment of removal from service to Shri G.D. Tewari vide management's order dated 3-4-1989 is justified ? If not to what relief the workman is entitled to?"

The workman has filed statement of claim . In his statement of claim it has been stated that the workman was a loader in Air India at the pay of Rs . 1975/ - per month and his last drawn salary was Rs . 1880/-. It has been stated that he worked to the satisfaction of authorities and the management has given him the commendation certificate. Subsequently, he was suspended on 14-10-1998 and on 3-4-1989 , he was removed from service . It has been further stated that the workman applicant fell ill seriously on 13-10-1988 and he went to the Doctor and the Doctor gave him medicine and he fell asleep so he missed the bus and he could not go to resume his duties and even he could not inform . Though it was his duty to inform the management regarding his arrival . It has been stated that a week ago from 13-10-1988 , he has hot discussions with Shri R.N. Sharma and Shri R. Nath in the colony so they were biased against him . When the applicant workman reached the place 4367 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 24, 2004/ श्रावण 2, 1926

(ii) Drunkenness on the premises of establishment.

Hewas accordingly issued a charge sheet and called upon to submit his explanation in writing within four days ofthe receipt of the above letter. Since the workman did not submit his written explanation within the stipulated period, the competent authority decided to hold an enquiry into the charges levelled against him and constituted the enquiry committee . During the course of enquiry proceedings , the workman admitted the charges levelled against him and consequently, the Enquiry Committee submitted its report to the competent authority. He was awarded the punishment of deduction of pay by one stage for a period of one year and suspension for 4 days on loss pay and allowances.

of his duty, he was not willing to perform duty due to illness and as he was under the influence of medicines and he was not fit for duty but he was compelled to work and the two above said officers conspired against him and while he was in the rest room, they got him arrested from the security guards and he was medically examined and the medical report was negative . He was against medically examined and his signature was taken on plain paper and he was told that no action would be taken against him so he put his signature on the plain paper on which his signature was taken but despite taking his signature on plain paper , an enquiry was instituted against him and it was manipulated that the workman has accepted the charges levelled against him. His termination is arbitrary, illegal and enquiry has been held against the principles of natural justice and he has not been afforded opportunity to defend himself.

On13-6-85, secondly, it has been reported that whilst the workman was on duty in the IInd shift on 13th June, 1985 at about 1500 hrs. , Mr. R.N. Sharma , Apron Supervisor suspected him to be under the influence of alcohol as he was not looking in normal state. When the matter was informed to Mr. P.N. Sinha, Shift Incharge , Mr. Singh decided to take him to Air India Medical Clinic, Palam for medical test and accordingly Security Assistant Mr. A.K. Bhatnagar was callled for rendering assistance . Consequently, at about 1700 hrs . , the workman was taken to the Medical Clinic accompanied by Mr. A.K. Sinha, Apron Supervisor and Mr. Bhatnagar, Security Assistant for alco -measure test . At about 1715 hrs . the said test was conducted on him by Dr. Vinit Chaudhary which gave positive result . The above act on his part amounted to misconduct under Air India Employees ' Service Regulations.He was, therefore, charged with the following charges:-

"Drunkenness whilst on duty" .

The Competent Authority called upon the workman to submit his explanation to the above charge in writing but his explanation was not found satisfactory and an enquiry was held against him again. During the course of enquiry, the workman admitted the charges levelled against him and consequently the following punishments were awarded by the competent authority :-

(a) Suspension for four days on loss of pay and allowances as provided under Air India Employees ' Service Regulations 43 (e) .

(b) Basic pay which was reduced by one stage vide our earlier punishment as well as his increment will not be restored on the due date i.e. on 1-7-1986 .

TheManagement has filed written statement. In the written statement, it has been stated that the workman has suppressed material facts . He was in the state of drunkenness whilst on duty, and he drove the equipment without any authority and he caused damage to the corporation's property and he was found absent from duty. The charges levelled against him were admitted by him by his letter but still an enquiry was held and independent witnesses were examined and before the independent witnesses , he admitted all charges levelled against him. In case the enquiry is not found fair, the management may be allowed to adduce fresh evidence before the Hon'ble Tribunal to substantiate the charges levelled against the workman. Here it is relevant to mention that the management has examined witnesses in support of the enquiry and as such fresh evidence is not required . It has been further stated that besides this incident on 12-1-1985 , the workman reported for duty in the first shift and was asked to stay on overtime beyond 1530 hrs . i.e. IInd shift . It was reported against him that he did not stay on overtime and left the premises after Punching time Card " Out " at 1526 hrs. It was further reported against him that at about 2015 hrs . despite his Punching " Out " , he was found near Air India Flight No. AI 308 on Bay No. 19 by Mr. O.D. Sharma and Mr. K.C. Ramachandran, Apron Supervisors on duty. He had, thus, unauthorisedly, entered the working premises despite the fact that he was off duty. It was also reported that aforesaid Apron Supervisors found the workman in abnormal state and suspected him to be under the influence ofalcohol . Sr. Security Assistant was called for rendering assistance in getting him medically examined through Air India Dispensary, Palam and an Alcomeasure test was conducted onhim by Mr. Kishan Lal , Pharmacist onduty which gave him positive result. He was , therefore, charged with the following charges :-

All the contents of the statement of claim have been denied. It has been further stated that the workman on 13-10-1988 reported for duty in the II shift as per the Roster. At about 1545 hrs . , he contacted Mr. B.K. Ramachandra, Shift- in-charge, stating that he had reported late as he missed the Staff Coach . Mr. Ramachandra in turn instructed (i) Unauthorised entry into Airport Premises whilst off duty.

4368

THEGAZETTEOFNDIA : JULY 24, 2004/SRAVANA 2, 1926

[PART II-SEC. 3( ii) ] the workman to report to Mr. M.L. Singhal , Apron Supervisor for further instructions. The workman , however, did not report to Mr. Singhal . Further at about 1700 hrs . , Mr. Ramachandra was informed that the behaviour of the workman was not normal in the canteen/rest room and he was suspected to be under the influence of alcohol . Subsequently, at about 1735 hrs . , both Mr. Ramachandra and Security Personnel , Mr. Jainder Singh went to the Rest Roomwhere they found the workman changing his clothes to go home stating that he was not on duty and had come to convey some message to his friend. Consequently, after great persuasion while the workman was being taken to theAir India Medical Clinic for Medical Test , he ran away. As a result Medical Test could not be conducted immediately.

affidavit. The management has also given affidavit . The management witnesses have been cross -examined and they all support that the workman was under the influence of liquor. Shri J.L. Rai has filed affidavit and Mrs. Meenakshi Duahas filed affidavit and nothing has been extracted from their cross -examination . I have gone through the records ofthe enquiry. Independent witnesses have been examined and the workman has put his signature on the enquiry proceedings . He has admitted in writing that he would not given any chance for complaint onwards and in case he was found indulging in such activities in future, he would not ask for any mercy. It was submitted from the side ofthe workman that the witnesses during the enquiry have not been cross-examined by the workman so he has not been afforded an opportunity to cross -examine the witnesses during the course of enquiry.

It was submitted by the management that the workman himself volunteered to sign the paper and he refused to contest the case so no opportunity was given to him. His confession is voluntary and that is not under any undue pressure. It has been written in the enquiry that he voluntarily admitted all the charges contained in the charge sheet and , therefore , there is no question of contesting the same . Shri G.D. Tiwari has put his signature so Shri G.D. Tewari has admitted his guilt during the course of enquiry and he has admitted his guilt by a separate letter. Even if it is presumed that the letter was obtained under threat and force during the course of the enquiry proceedings , the guilt of the workman was found proved by the Enquiry Officer on the basis of his voluntary admission.

That at about 1830 hrs . the workman unauthorisedly drove Tractor No. 3544 allocated to Mr. Jaswant Singh , Junior Operator and while entering through Gate No. 2 from theApron side , the workman was asked by Mr. Nathe Ram, Security Guard to stop for carrying out necessary check up. The workman , however, instead of following his instructions rammed the said tractor into the barrier of the gate, thereby causing damage to both the Tractor and the Gate. As the workman was already suspected to be under the influence of alcohal for which Medical Examination could not be performed, he was finally taken to the Air India Medical Clinic at about 2020 hrs . for Medical Test . Accordingly, Medical test was conducted by Dr. Pabrai in the presence of Mr. Ramachandra and Mr. Jainder Singh which gave positive result, thus , confirming the drunkenness of the workman . He was , therefore , charged with drunkenness whilst on duty, unauthorized driving of equipment , causing damage to the Corporation's property, missing from the appointed place of work . During the course of enquiry, the workman accepted all the charges levelled against him. He admitted his guilt without any force or coercion and on the finding of the Enquiry Officer, the competent authority awarded the punishment of " Removal from Service" as provided under Regulation 43 ( g ) of the Air India Employees ' Service Regulations from the date of communication of this order to him . "

My attention was drawn to AIR 1968 SC 266, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that rules of natural justice should be followed in the domestic enquiry against the workman. If allegations are denied by the workman , the burden of proving the truth of those allegations will be on the management and the witnesses called, by the management must be allowed to be cross- examined, by the workman and the latter must also be given an opportunity to examine himself and adduce any other evidence that he might choose, in support of his plea.

The workman has filed rejoinder and in his rejoinder, he has denied all the allegations of the written statement . He was sick and his signature was taken on plain paper .

In 1987 ( 4) SC Cases , 611 , is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case as it relates to court martial proceedings.

In AIR 1961 Supreme Court 1070 , it has been held that under article 311 (2) , if the statement do not amount to clearadmission of the guilt, a fresh enquiry should be held. In this case , his admission is clear cut .

Heard arguments from both the sides and perused the papers on the record . It was submitted from the side of the workman that the enquiry is not fair and he has admitted his guilt under pressure , and force . There are no papers on therecord regarding the previous two enquiries . The records of the third enquiry has been filed with the record. He was not provided with any assistant to defend himself during enquiry.

The management has examined his witnesses in support of the enquiry and the workman has also given

During the course of enquiry andby a separate letter, the charges levelled against him were admitted by him and itwas the third incident of drunkenness and committing damage to the property. There is sufficient evidence [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 24, 2004/ श्रावण 2, 1926

4369

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER : CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM- LABOUR COURT- IL, NEWDELHI

Presiding Officer : R. N. RAI against him in the enquiry and the two witnesses have beenexamined in the court from the side of the management and have proved the entire charges levelled against him and he has been afforded opportunity to defend himself and he has been given show -cause notice as per Air India Rules and Regulations and principles of natural justice have been followed during the enquiry proceedings . Since the workman has admitted his guilt , so there is no question ofcross -examination and contesting the case .

L. D. No. 59/97

Inthe Matter of:-

M.L. SODHI

Versus

Inthe facts and circumstances , I am of the considered view that the enquiry is absolutely fair and the principles of natural justice have been followed and the law cited above are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. The enquiry is not liable to be set aside on any ground .

STATE BANK OF INDIA

The reference is replied thus :-

AWARD

TheMinistry of Labour by its letter No. L- 12012 /48 /96 - IR (B) Central Government Dt . 14-5-1997 has referred the following point for adjudication .

The action of the Management of Air India , New Delhi awarding the punishment of removal from service to Shri G. D. Tewari vide management's order dated 3-4-1989 is justified. The workman is not entitled to get any reliefas prayed for.

The point runs as hereunder :--

The award is given accordingly.

Dt. 28-06-2004.

R.N. RAI, Presiding Officer

"Whether the action of the Management of the State Bank of India, in dismissing the workman Shri M.L. Sodhi , Ex - Clerk-cum- Cashier from banks services w.e.f. 13-08-1993 is just and fair and legal ? If not what relief he is entitled to and from what date?" नई दिल्ली , 6 जुलाई , 2004

The claimant has filed statement of claim . In the statement of claim, it has been stated that the claimant has joinedthe services ofthe State Bank of India, BHEL Branch, Ranipur ( UP ) as clerk with effect from 13-4-1981 on six months probation . He was confirmed in the bank services w.e.f. 13-10-1981 .

That the workman was transferred from BHEL, Ranipur branch to Sector- I , Ranipur branch on 24-12-1981 .

का. आ. 1756.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक आफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय सं०- II , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या आई डी० 59/97 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 5-7-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

That the workman was transferred from Sector- 1 , Ranipur Branch to Bhailakan Branch in Distt. Saharanpur on 16-12-1991 . :

[सं. एल. 12012/48/96- आई . आर ( बी-1 ) ] अजय कुमार, डैस्कअधिकारी

New Delhi , the 6th July, 2004

That the work and conduct of the workman was very good. He was considered one of the best workers .

S.O. 1756. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( ID No. 59/97) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, No. II New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 5-7-2004,

[No. L- 12012/ 48/96- IR (B-I) ]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

That the workman was falsely implicated by the management in a false case and was issued a charge sheet bythe Disciplinary Authority vide his letter dt. 17-11-1992. The charges referred therein were false , baseless and cookedup . Enquiry was held but principles of natural justice were not followed in the enquiry. He was not afforded sufficient opportunity to defend himself. No defence assistant was provided to him . He could not cross -examine the witnesses of the bank. Legal practitioner was not permittedto him so he could not cross the witnesses ofthe management.

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 24 , 2004/ SRAVANA 2 , 1926

4370

management . Therefore , the enquiry officer submitted false , baseless and perverse findings.

The following charge - sheet was issued to the workman employee:-

A. On 26-08-1990 , while working on Teller Counter, you did not account for in the branch , books a sum of Rs . 1500 / - , tendered by a account holder for deposit in their Savings Bank Account No. 1045. Instead you made a fake credit entry of Rs . 1500 /- in the pass book ofSarvshri Bansal , as well as in the Transaction Sheet before arranging for the transfer of balance from inoperative account to running ledger.

That the decision of dismissal from service by the disciplinary authority was based on the above sham show. The findings of the Enquiry Officer were based completely on confessinal statement obtained from the workman under duress and inducement . The Disciplinary Authority acted against his commitment and assurances . He acted arbitrarioly, malafide and against the principles of natural justice . Though a personal hearing was granted to the workman but it was granted just to complete the formalities . The workman was finally dismissed illegally by the Disciplinary Authority on the 7th of August , 1993. His confessional statement was not voluntary but it was taken under undue pressure and assurances that no action will be taken against him . Enquiry is mere a formality.

B. On 13-12-1990 , while officiating as OJMOS - I to conceal your act of defalcation , you transferred an inflated amount of Rs . 1623/8 as against Rs . 123/81 from the aforesaid in operative Savings Bank account to running ledger and passed yourself the relative debit/ credit vouchers , whereas you were not authorized to pass debit to Savings Bank Inoperative accounts .

That the workman had put in 12 years unblemished service. The managment has not given any cognizance or consideration on 12 years old good past record of the workman.

The above charges , if established , would amount to groos misconduct as per provisions of para 521.4 (J) ofthe Sastri Award.

The management has filed written statement. In the written statement , all the allegations of the statement of claim have been denied.

That the charges were absolutely correct and the workman accepted the same unequivocally repeatedly.

You are therefore , hereby instructed to submit your explanation in defence in writing , to the undersigned regarding the above charges within seven days from the date of receipt ofthis charge sheet , failing which it will be presumed that you have no reply to submit in this regard and we shall proceed accordingly.

As such , two charges were levelled against him. The charge is regarding misappropriation ofRs. 1500/-tendered by account holder for deposit in his Savings Banks account No. 1405 but the workman made a fake credit entry in the pass book of Shri Bansal as well as in the transactiion sheet before arraning for the transfer of the balance from the inoperative account to the running account . So he made false credit entries in the hope of transferring the same amount from in operative accounts . It has been further alleged that on 31-10-1990 , he transferred an inflated amount of Rs . 1623.81 as against Rs . 123.81 from the aforesaid inoperative savings bank account to running ledger though he was not authorized to pass debit Savings Bank Inoperative Accounts .

That after receiving the charge sheet dt . 6th June , 1992, the workman submitted his written reply admitting the charges in unequivocal terms vide his letter dt . Nil . However, since due to a clerical error, the SB Account number was not correctly mentioned in the charge sheet, it was found necessary to send another charge sheet correctly mentioning the SB Account number instead of issuing merely a corrigendum to the earlier charge sheet dt. 6th of June, 1992. The management issued a fresh charge sheet dt . 17-11-1992 . Earlier also , he had confessed his misconduct and later reiterated the same vide his letter dt . Nil . In the domestic enquiry, the workman remained absent onfirst two dates i.e. 12-3-1993 and again on 26-3-1993 and sent adjournement applications by post which was granted by the enquiry officer and again on 15-4-1993 , he was present in the enquiry. On this date , on being asked about the charges levelled against him in the charge sheet dt . 17-12-1992 , the workman unambiguously and unequivocally admitted the charges .

The claimant has filed rejoinder. In his rejoinder, he has reiterated the averments of his statement of claim and he has stated that the admission was not voluntary but it was based on the assurances that no action will be taken against him.

It has been alleged in the written statement that he has committed grave misconduct . It has been stated in the statement of claim that the management has neither filed any document in support of the charges nor produced any oral witness to substantiate the charges . The findings of the disciplinary authority were based neither on any oral testimony nor documentary evidence. The Enquiry Officer acted malafide and against the principles of natural justice. He was a biased person and acted on the dictates of the 4371 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 24, 2004/ श्रावण 2, 1926

misappropriation of pubic moneys and must be treated very differently. Misconduct such as this cannot be treated as lightly as it has been done. In this case also, there is misappropriation of money and the charges have been admitted by the workman. In the circumstances , enquiry hasbeenheld and the workman has admitted his charges inthe enquiry proceedings thrice. His confessional letter issufficient tohold him guilty.

In 1981 (43 ) FLR 194 , the Hon'ble AllahabadHigh Court has held that the burden to prove that order of termination is illegal is on the workman, In case , the workman does not appear, it shall be deemed that he has not proved that his actswere not illegal . 1984 (49) FLR Page 38 is not relevant in the facts and circumstances ofthe case. In1999 LLRpage 1036, it has been held that it is for the workman to prove as to how enquiry conducted against him is illegaldr invalid.

In 1999 LLR Page 1142 , a lower punishment was given as meager amount was involved in this case. Meagre amount is not involved so this law also is not applicable.

Heard arguments from both the sides and perused thepapers on the record. It was submitted from the side of the workman that he was assured that no action wouldbe taken against him in case he voluntarily admits the charges and on the basis of their assurance , he admitted the charges . So merely on the basis of his admission, the charges cannot be deemed to be proved . He has sent letter dt. 28-8-1991 in which he has mentioned that the entry which has been shown on 28-8-1990 has been done by bonafide mistake and he assured the Branch Manager that in future, he would not commit such mistakes and he apoligised for the same . On this letter, it has been written "letter writtenunder duress. " In the enquiry proceedings dt. 15-4-1995, Shri A.S. Verma, Chief Manager, B.B. Jindal , Deputy Manager and M.L. Sodhi were present . The enquiry officer asked the workman whether he admitted that he has read the charges and it was further asked whether he understood the charges and he replied that he understood the charges well . It was further asked by the Enquiry Officerwhether he accepted the charges brought out on the charge sheet. The employee replied that he confessed the charges through out on the charge sheet. The Enquiry Officer again read the charges serially and again asked whether he confessed the charges , the workman replied that he confessed the charges in toto. Again the workman employee was asked to re -confirm his confessionand he said that he confirmed the confession. The charges were again read out and again he confessed the charges and confirmed his confession and it has been written that he has confessed the charges without fear and pressure. Again the confession was made in the presence of Shri Sunil Kumar, Clerk-cum-typist who is the President ofthe StateBank of India Staff Association, Unit Sector- 1, BHEL, RanipurBranch. The workman was allowed to explain the compelling circumstances leading to the lapses committedby him before the disciplinary authority for a sympathetic and kind consideration. His assurance was also noted down by the Enquiry Officer, that he would never commit such lapses and mistakes in future.

In 1996 ( 1 ) LLJ811 , SC , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that in case there is admission of guilt, punishment ofdismissal from service does not call for interference having regard to the proved charge of misappropriation offunds. The charge sheeted employee has categorically and willingly without any undue pressure has admitted his guilt before the President of the Union and typist- cum -clerk and the enquiry officer and the Branch Manager . It cannot be said that his confession is under pressure, undue influence or assurances of not taking any action against him. By his voluntarily confession, the charges stand proved and the enquiry is fair and principles of natural justice have been followed. The enquiry report is not liable to be set aside and the workman employee is not entitled to get any relief. The punishment of dismissal without service is not victimization in the facts and circumstances of this case.

The award is replied thus:-

The action of the management of the StateBank of India indismissing the workman Shri M.L. Sodhi , Ex- Clerk-cum-cashier from banks services w.e.f. 13-08-1993 is just and fair and legal. The workman applicant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.

My attentionwas drawn to 2002 (94) FLR 354, the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court has held that it is unnecessary forthe Board to hold any enquiry. After all, what is required is as to ascertain omissions and commissions in the matter of cash transactions . When the same is admitted, the conducting of an enquiry would be nothingbut an empty formality. The courts have accepted that in the case of admission no enquiry is necessary and not withsanding his service for a long time , he has to be shown the door for his acts ofmisappropriation .

The award is given accordingly.

Dt .23-06-2004..

R. N. RAI , PresidingOfficer Ithas beenheld in 2000 Supreme Court cases (L& S) 830 that the bank deals with public moneys . Misappropriation by an employee of a bank is

2136 G1/04-37 4372

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24, 2004 /SRAVANA 2, 1926

नई दिल्ली, 6 जुलाई, 2004

का. आ. 1757.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण सं. II , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या आई. डी. 13/93 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 05-07-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[ सं. एल.--12012/208/92- आई. आर. ( बी-1 ) ] अजय कुमार, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 6th July, 2004

S.O. 1757. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( ID No. 13 / 93) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum - Labour Court No. II , New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank ofIndia and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 5-7-2004 .

[No. L- 12012/208/ 92 -IR (B. I) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT - II , Rajendra Bhawan , Ground Floor, Rajendra Place , New Delhi

Presiding Officer : R.N. Rai I.D. No. 13/93

In the Matter of :-

BabuRam

Versus

Management of State Bank of India

AWARD

The Ministry of Labour by its letter No. L - 12012/ 208/926 - IR ( B ) III Central Government Dt . 19-01-1993 has referred the following point for adjudication.

The point runs as hereunder : -

"Whether the action of the management of the State Bank of India in dismissing Shri Babu Ram . Clerk from service with effect from 17-1-1992 is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to and from what date ? "

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] The claimant has filed statement of claim . In the statement of claim, it has been stated that the workman wasworking as a Clerk -cum-Cashier at Mangol Puri Branch ofthe bank .

That the Branch Manager of Mangolpuri Branch out of personal ill - will and biasedness of the Regional authorities , issued letters of charge- sheet dated 20-08-1990 and 22-09-1999 , respectively to the workman whereby the following charges were levelled againt him:

LETTER NO . R. III/PCF/807 DT. 20-09-1990 " It has been decided to initiate disciplinary action against you on the following charges :-

That you had false credit entries in your own account and in three other accounts cited below and also authenticated all the entries with an intention to defraud the bank.

(a) SHRI BABOO RAM AND SHAKUNTLA S.B. ACCOUNT NO . 7681

Amount of Credit Date

Particulars

3000/- 20-12-1989 By cash

5000/- 6-1-1990 By cash

(b) MRS . USHA SHARMA S.B. ACCOUNT ΝΟ. 18434

2000/- 2-12-1989 By cash

2-12-1989

10,000/-

By cash

(d) SHRI JAGDISH PRASAD GUPTA S.B. A/ C NO. 90 18528

8680/- 8-1-1990 By B.T.

The above account holders withdrew the money from their accounts due to the credit balance credited on account of such fictitious entries made by you in their above accounts . As a result of which all the above accounts were showing debit balances when the fictitious entries were subsequently deleted by you . In order to adjust the overdrafts created in the said account of detection of fictitious entries made by you , you deposited the money intheir accounts subsequently through cash/ transfer from other accounts details given below. The relative credit vouchers have also been prepared by you which do not bear the signatures of accounts holders . It is obvious that you had unauthorisedly collected deposits from them on the Bank's behalf but not accounted for the same at the appropriate time .

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

4373

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 24, 2004/ श्रावण 2, 1926

(A) SMT. USHA SHARMA ACCOUNT NO . 18434

Amount

Particulars

Remarks Date

5000.00

By cash

6-12-1989

Pay in Slip prepared by you . It does not bear the account holder's signatures.

15000.00

1-1-1990 By B.Т.

Amount transferred from C/A No. 404 of M/s. Vikash Fashion through a debit voucherconfirmed by Prop.ofthe firm.

(B) S/B ACCOUNT NO . 18528 OF SHRI JAGDISH PRASAD GUPTA

8-2-1990

8680.00

By cash

The credit voucher prepared by you and signed by you as JagdishPrasad.

3. That your raised the loan of Rs . 5000 from M/s. Vikash Fashions which is against your service rules .

4. You have made the unauthenticated entries in the pass book ofMrs. Usha Sharma S/B A/C No. 18434.

The above charges if proved , would tantamount to gross misconduct in terms of paragraphs 521 (4 ) (J) of SastryAward read with paragraph 18.28 of Desai Award .

Yourare, therefore , hereby instructed to submit your explanation in writing, to the undersigned within three days from the date of receipt of this letter failing which it will be presumed that you have nothing to say in the matter and the bank shall proceed accordingly."

LETTER NO. S.L. PCFE DATED 22-9-1990 It has been decided to initiate disciplinary action against you on the following charge:-

" 1. That you made false credit/debit entries in your own savings bank account No. 7681 and also authenticated all the entries with an intention to defraud the bank by using the Bank's funds as below:-

Further, you also altered the credit entry dated 10-10-1988 of Rs . 1080 in your above account to read as Rs . 7080 and withdrew a sum ofRs . 7000 on 14th October, 1988 .

The above overdraft created by amounts withdrawn by you as a result of above fictitious entries made by you in your account was adjusted by you by depositing cash/transfer entry as detailed below:-

1. Rs. 2000 deposited in cash on 28-3-1988.

2. Rs. 7000/-transferred from Savings Bank 12505.

3. Rs . 4000 deposited in cash on 27-6-1988 .

4. Rs . 9400 deposited in cash on 18-1-1989 .

5. Rs . 1000 transferred on21-1-1989 .

6. Rs . 3400 deposited in cash on 27-1-1989 1. Rs . 300 deposited in cash on 28-1-1989 .

8. Rs. 1700 deposited in cash on 30-1-1989 .

The above changes if proved would tantamount to gross misconduct in terms of para 521 (4) (J) of Sastry Award read with paragraph 18.28 ofDesaiAward.

You are, therefore , hereby instructed to submit your explanation, in writing , to the undersigned within 3 days from the date of receipt of this letter failing which it willbe presumed that you have nothing to say in the matter and bank shall proceed accordingly. "

Atrue copyeach ofthe letter ofcharge sheet dated 20-08-1990 are attached and marked as Annexures W- 1 and W-2 to this statement of claim.

5. That the workman denied the charges .

6. That the Disciplinary authority suspended the workman vide their letter dt . 18-07-1990 .

That the Enquiry Officer Shri Manohar Lal conducted the enquiry into the charges levelled against the workman inabiased manner and in utter disregard to the principles ofnaturaljustice and submitted his findings holding the workman guilty of all the charges except charge No. 4 of charge sheet dated 20-08-1990 ,

Ithasbeenfurther submitted that findings returned bythe EnquiryOfficer are perverse and no person properly instructed in law could have arrived at the findings as were returned by the Enquiry Officer on the basis of material and evidence on record.

Ithasbeen further stated that principles of natural justice have not been followed and he has not been given full opportunity to defend himself. He was not issued show -cause notice and his explanation was not considered. He was not given personal hearing at the timeof awarding the punishment . The final hearingwere fixed on 9-12-1991 but the order was passed on 3-12-1991 , as such no personal hearing was given to him before awarding the punishment .

That the management has filed written statement . It hasbeen stated in the written statement that the workman has committed grave misconduct as is apparent from the charge- sheet . He misappropriated several amounts and after giving show-cause notice, an enquiry was instituted against him . The reply was not satisfactory so the charge sheetwas issued to him providing him all the papers and an enquiry officer was appointed.

[PART II SEC. 3(ii)] 4374

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24, 2004/SRAVANA 2 , 1926

The enquiry officer held enquiry and the workman fully participated in the enquiry. Enquiry Officer gave his findings based on the evidence that was adduced during the enquiry.

Itwas submitted by the management that the work man himselfdeposited the amount withdrawn from their account and false transfers have been made in the above two accounts but it has been corrected by depositing the amount. As such, the evidence of those two bank holders was not necessary.

All the paragraphs of the statement of claim have been denied and it has been asserted that the enquiry is fair and according to the principles of natural justice. The award of punishment of dismissal without notice was given because of his grave misconduct ofembezzlement ofmoney from several accounts .

Itwas argued from the side of the workman that he was given the date of personal hearing as 9th December, 1991 at 10.30 AM but the hearing was concluded on 3rd December, 1991 but a letter has been submitted from the side of the management from which it is vivid that due to urgency, the date of9th December, 1991 has been changed to 3rd December, 1991 and he was heard at the time of awarding punishment so personal hearing was given to him.

The workman has filed rejoinder. In his rejoinder, he has denied all the paragraphs of the written statement and he has asserted that he was innocent and he has nothing todo with the embezzlement alleged against him. He was innocent and fair and he was falsely implicated.

My attention was drawn to 1974-3 Supreme Court cases 103. This law is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case as there is not a solitary witness but three witnesses have been examined .

My attention was drawn to 1997 (6 ) Supreme Court cases 339 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the allegation of biasedness should be raised during the departmental enquiry. The allegation of biasedness , not made at the inception ofthe enquiry but made when show cause notice was issued to the charged officer after the enquiry report, is immaterial.

In 1977-2 Supreme Court cases 491 , it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that strict rules of Evidence Act are not applied in departmental enquiries but still the enquiry should be fair and principles of natural justice should be followed and if that has been done, there should be no interference from the court.

Heard arguments from both the sides and perused thepapers on the record. It was submitted from the side of the workman that it is alleged that the misappropriated money from his own savings bank account 7681 and authenticated all the entries with an intention to defraud the bank by using the banks funds . He withdrew a sum of Rs . 7000/ - on 14th October, 1988. He had made false credit and debit entries in his own account No. 7681 and also authenticated all the entries with an intention to defraud the bank . He had a balance of Rs . 1080 in his own account . But he committed forgery and altered the credit entry dt. 10-10-1988 and made 1080 to be read as 7080 and he withdrew Rs . 7000/-on 14th October, 1988. He adjusted his own account by depositing cash and transfer entry. In this way, he temporarily embezzled Rs . 6000/- from his own account besides he prepared slip on the account holder Usha Sharma and Jagdish Prasad . The credit vouchers and the slip prepared by him and the amount transferred by him was signed by him. In this way, he misappropriated money from the account of Smt . Usha Sharma and Sh. Jagdish Prasad.

The workman has fully participated in the enquiry. He has been given full opportunity to defend himself and there is sufficient evidence before the enquiry officer to hold him guilty so judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court referred to above is applicable.

My attention was drawn to 1990 II LLJ 1989 , AIR 1952, ASSAM 129, AIR 1960 KERALA 279 AND 1992 (3 ) SUPREME COURT CASES 473 .

It was further submitted from the side ofthe workman that the handwriting expert produced in the enquiry has said that apparently the signature was of the CSE . He has not clearly given opinion that it was in the handwriting and signature of the CSE . I have gone through the evidence of the handwriting expert and he has clearly mentioned that forgery was committed by the charge- sheeted employee . As such , the fraud that has been committed by the charge- sheeted employee is supported by the handwriting expert also and it is also supportedby the fact that he has deposited the money in the aforesaid accounts himself.

I have gone through all the citations. Only AIR 1952 ASSAM 129 , the question of sufficiency of evidence has been discussed by the Hon'ble High Court and it has been decided that the material witnesses should be produced. In this cry, the handwriting expert has been examinedand so far de handwriting is concerned , he is the only material witness. All the material witnesses have been examined during the course of enquiry in the court also.

It has also been held by the Hon'ble Court that the inference regarding the hand writing can be drawn by comparison of the disputed and admitted by the officers Itwas further submitted from the side of the workman that the other account holders such as Smt . Usha Sharma and Sh . Jagdish Sharma have not been produced as witness in the course of the enquiry.

4375

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 24, 2004/ श्रावण 2, 1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

New Delhi , the 6th July, 2004 of the bank and the court may scrutinise the same . I have carefully examined the questioned hand writing with the admitted one . It is quite clear that all the disputed papers bear the hand writing of the workman and the hand writing expert unambiguously and categorically corroborates it.

S.O. 1758. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. ID No. 151/91 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court , No. II New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Reserve Bank of India and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 5-7-2004 .

[No. L - 12012/295/91 -IR (B. I) ]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER : CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT-II, RAJENDRA BHAWAN , GROUND FLOOR, RAJENDRA PLACE NEW DELHI

PresidingOfficer : R.N. Rai

I.D. No. 151/91

IN THE MATTER OF :-

MANGU

Versus

RESERVE BANK OF INDIA

AWARD

In 1992 ( 3 ) Supreme Court cases 473 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in case reasonable inferences from other facts is established by evidence such inferences cannot be termed as surmises and conjectures . The opinion of the enquiry officer is not based on conjectures and surmises but it is based on the evidence of the handwriting expert and evidence of the other witness . As such, the charges which were levelled against him except charge No. 4 have been provedby cogent and reasonable evidence and it appears that the findings of the enquiry officer have been given on evidence on the record and there is sufficient evidence to prove all the charges except charge No. 4 and no interference is required . The law cited by the workman are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case and I am of the considered view that the enquiry is fair and reasonable and no interference is called for to set aside or alter the findings ofthe enquiry. The charges levelled against the workman have been proved by cogent and sufficient evidence and principles of natural justice during the enquiry have been followed. Hence the findings of the enquriy officer are maintainable and the punishment awarded to the workman is also justified . An employee who commits grave misconduct and defrauds the bank should not be given a lower punishment than that of dismissal without notice . As such the workman is not entitled to get any relief.

The award replied thus:-

The Ministry of Labour by its letter No. L- 12012/ 295/91 - IR(B - 1 ) Central Government Dt . 11-02-1991 has referred the following point for adjudication.

The point runs as hereunder:-

Theaction of the Management of the State Bank of India in dismissing Shri Babu Ram , Clerk from service with effectfrom 17-1-1992 is legal and justified and the workman is not entitled to get any relief as claimed.

The award is given accordingly.

Date: 30-06-2004

"Whether Shri Mangu was a workman of Reserve Bank of India ? If so , whether the action of the ReserveBank of India in terminating the services of Shri Mangu w.e.f. 26-12-1990 was justified? Ifnot, to what relief the workman is entitled to ?" R.N. RAI , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 6 जुलाई, 2004

का. आ. 1758.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार रिजर्व बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण सं. II, नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या आई. डी. 151/91) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 05-07-2004 कोप्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल. 12012/295/91 - आई. आर ( बी-1 ) ]

That the management was pleased with him . Shri Manmohan Singh Rekharao , Director has issued identity card to the applicant 24-10-1989 . Its number is 210 and the Director also verified the photo of the applicant and the officer of the RBI put his signature while issuing the identity card. The copy of the identity card is annexed अजय कुमार, डैस्क अधिकारी 4376

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24, 2004/SRAVANA 2, 1926

withthe record. It has been signed by the Director marked at " A" and officer of the Department marked at " B" .

The workman was sweeping and clearing the 6th and the 7th floor and bringing stationary to NCC office and he served tea to the officers of the management and brought milk from outside . He has further stated that he put his signature on the attendance register which was verifiedbuy the officers of the RBI and payment was made to him after affixing the ticket on which his signature was taken.

The officers of the bank took his signature on the letters so the applicant always remained temporary. The workman performed duty of cleaning furnitures and sweeping the 6th and the 7th floor of the said building . When he requested that he should be made permanent , the officers removed him from service on 26-12-1990 without any reason charge - sheet and without any reason which is illegal and unjust .

He sent demand letters to the officers but no reply was given to him and he was told that he is a worker ofthe M/s Premier Security Services but neither the management nor the M/ s Premier Security Services have any agreement and they have not any regn . Certificate. He worked on the directions of the officers of the bank and under the supervision of the bank .

The management has filed written statement . In the written statement , some of the paragraphs have been admitted while most of the paragraphs have been denied and additional objections have been given . In the additional statement , it has been stated that the present dispute raised by Delhi Office & Establishment Employees' Union ( herein after referred to as the Union) an outside Union, is not an industrial dispute as the Union does not have any following of class III or IV workmen in the RBI nor the dispute has been espoused by a substantial number of workmen of the RBI . It is well settled that an individual dispute cannot become an industrial dispute as contemplated under Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 , unless the dispute is espoused by a substantial number of workman in an Organisation or is espoused by a Union having following of substantial number of workmen in the Organisation. As such , the present dispute is not an industrial dispute as contemplated under Section 2(k) of the Industrial Dispute Act and merits dismissal on this ground alone.

it has been stated that the National Clearing Cell (NCC) , RBI , New Delhi is presently functioning on the 6th and the 7th floor along with the other departments of RBI in Jeevan Bharti Building , Connaught Place, New Delhi . It was not possible to clean and sweep the entire building. Therefore , quotations from various firms were called for in April , 1987 by the Estate Department of the bank for cleaning and maintenance of these two floors and the contract was ultimately awarded to M/ s Security Guards

[PART II-SEC. 3( ii)]

C Corporation, a subsidiary of M/s Premier Security Services P) Ltd. Copies regarding the work order, the payment and agreement have been attached with the record. Shri Mangu is one of such persons engaged by M/s . Security Guards Corporation . He might have been engaged by the said firm to do the work of other institutions also as his work was not taking much time in the NCC . The wages payable to such persons including Shri Mangu was paid by the said firm. The persons were not on the Pay- rolls of the RBI at any point of time and further there is no sanctioned post of sweeper against which such persons could have been working. Since the aforesaid persons were not on the Pay- rolls of the Bank, the question of demanding any service benefits by them from the bank does not arise . It has been further submitted that the claimant was not employed by the bank and cannot be treated as workman of the bank. The claimant has filed rejoinder. In his rejoinder, he has state that he has filed the case under Section 10 read with 2 -A of the Industrial Dispute Act so there is no need of espousal of the union . He can himself raise the matter of termination of his services . It has been further asserted that all the allegations of the written statement are false . He was not working under the contractor but he was the direct employee of the management and he performed the duty of cleaning , sweeping bringing tea etc. He put his signature on the register and did other misc . work.

Heard arguments from both the sides and perused the papers on the record. It was argued from the side of the workman that the workman applicant is a direct employee of the RBI and he has been issued identity card from the NCC Office . I have perused the record . The Photostat copy of the card has been filed. It is in the name of Mangu and number is 210 C/o Premier Security Corporation . As such , the identity card has not been issued directlyto Mangu but is has been issued under the care ofM/ s Premier Security Corporation.

Itwas further submitted from the side of the workman thatmanagement has given direction to the SecurityOfficer to allow the workman to enter the premises as he is an employee of the RBI .

It was submitted from the side of the workman applicant that these papers are sufficient to prove that he was the direct employee of the bank and not an employee ofthe Contractor.

Itwas submitted from the side of the management that the said department has called for quotations as per annexure- IA and M/ s . Security Guard Corporation was award the work of cleaning and sweeping and there is an agreement between M/ s Security Guard Corporation and the management , the management has agreed to pay Rs . 600/- to four sweepers plus 10% service charge and the management has to supply the cleaning material . The substantial question is whether the name of Mangu is in 4377 भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 24, 2004/ श्रावण2, 1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 6 जुलाई , 2004

का. आ. 1759.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार रिजर्व बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण सं०- II नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या आई. डी. 152/91 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 5-7-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल . 12012/296/91- आई. आर. ( बी-1 ) ] अजय कुमार, डैस्कअधिकारी

New Delhi , the 6th July, 2004 the list of the employees of M/ s Security Guards Corporation or not . Annexure III shows that Mangu's name has been entered at Sl . No. 10 on the said Security Guards Corporation for cleaning of NCC . It shows that Mangu was an employee of M /s Security Guards Corporation . Annexure - IV shows that Mangu received payments fromthe M/s Security Guard Corporation . Even a single paper has not been filed by the workman that he has received the payment from the management . The payment to the Security Guards Corporation has been made lump sum by the management. The employment form has beenfilledup under the Security Guards Corporation . This paper also indicates that the workman was a contractor's man and he was not an independent employee of the management. It establishes the fact that the payment was made to Mangu through Security Guards Corporation . His employment form was filled up through the said firm and his name is in the workers of M/ s Security Guard Corporation.

S.O. 1759.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (ID No. 152/91 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court , No. 11 New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Reserve Bank of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 5-7-2004 .

My attention was drawn to 1985 ( 50 ) FLR 20 and it was argued that it was a contract for service but this law is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case as itis explicit from the record that he was an employee of Security Guards Corporation.

[No. L- 12012/296/91 -IR (B. I) ]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

1978 (37) FLR 136 SC is regarding the test ofemployer and employee relationship. The Hon'ble APEX Court has held that there should be supervision and control of the management and paymenht should be made by the management but in this case , neither the payment has been made by the management to the workman nor there is any paper regarding the supervision of the managemerit .

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER : CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT - IL, RAJENDRA BHAWAN , GROUND FLOOR, RAJENDRA PLACE NEW DELHI

PresidingOfficer : R.N. Rai

I.D. No. 152/91

IN THE MATTER OF :-

Myattentionwas drawn to 1995 LLR 552. In it, it has been held that an industrial dispute can be raised for abolition of contract labour system but there is no such case in this dispute . As such, from the perusal of the record, it becomes obvious that Shri Mangu was an employee of M/ s Security Guards Corporation . He was not the employee of the management so he has got no right of reinstatement or regularisation .

KRISHANKUMAR

VERSUS

RESERVE BANK OF INDIA

The rulings cited by the workman áre not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case . The workman has not established that he was an employee of the RBI . The award is replied thus:-

AWARD

The Ministry of Labour by its letter No. L - 12012/ 296/91 - IR (B - 3 ) Central Government DT. 11-2-1991 has referred the following point for adjudication.

Shri Mnagu was not a workman of Reserve Bank of India. The action of the Reserve Bank of India in terminating the services of Shri Mangu w.e.f. 26-12-1990 was justified. The workman is not entitiled to any relief as prayed for.

The point runs as hereunder:--

The award is given accordingly.

Dt. 28-06-2004.

R.N. RAI , Presiding Officer

"Whether Shri Krishan Kumar was a workman of Reserve Bank of India ? If so , whether the.action.of the Reserve Bank of India in terminating the services 4378

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii)] THEGAZETTEOFNDIA : JULY 24, 2004/SRAVANA 2 , 1926

of Shri Krishan Kumar w.e.f. 07-01-1991 wasjustifed? Ifnot, to what relief the workman is entitled to ? "

workmen in the Organisation. As such , the presentdispute is not an industrial dispute as contemplated under Section 2(k) of the Industrial Dispute Act and merits dismissal on this ground alone.

The claimant has filed statement of claim. In the statement of claim , it has been stated that the workman applicant was working in Reserve Bank of India, NCC Building, Connaught Place , Jeevan Bharti Building , New Delhi w.e.f. 01-08-1987 as sweeper and he was gettingRs . 750/- per month. That the management was pleased with him. Shri Manmohan Singh Rekharao, Director has issued identitycard to the applicant on 24-10-1989 . Its number is 209 and the Director also verified the photo of applicant and the officer of the RBI put his signature while issuing the identity card. The copy of the identity card is annexed with the record. It has been signed by the Director marked at"A" and officer of the Department marked at "B " .

The workman was sweeping and clearing the 6th and the 7th floor and bringing stationary to NCC office and he served tea to the officers of the management and brought milk from outside . He has further stated that he put his signature on the attendance register which was verified by the officers of the RBI and payment was made to him after affixing the ticket on which his signature was taken .

The officers of the bank took his signatures on the letters so the applicant always remained temporary. The workman performed the duty of cleaning furnitures and sweeping the 6th and the 7th floor of the said building . When he requested that he should be made permanent, the officers removed him from service on 7-1-1991 without any chare - sheet and without any reason which is illegal and unjust.

He sent demand letters to the officers but no reply was given to him and he was told that he is a worker of the Premier Security Service but neither the management nor the Premier Security Service have any agreement and they have not any regn . Certificate . He worked on the directions of the officers of the bank and under the supervision of thebank.

Ithas been stated that the National Clearing Cell (NCC) RBI , New Delhi is presently functioning on the 6th and the 7th floor alongwith the other departments ofthe RBI in JeevanBharti Building, Connaught Place, New Delhi . Itwas notpossible to clean and sweep the entire building. Therefore, quotations from various firms were called for in April , 1987 by the Estate Department of the bank for cleaning and maintenance of these two floors and the contract was ultimately awarded to M/ s . Security Guards Corporation, asubsidiary ofM/s . Premier Security Service (P) Ltd. Copies regarding the work order, the payment and the agreement have been attached with the record. Shri Krishan Kumar is one of such persons engaged by M/ s . SecurityGuards Corporation . He might have been engaged by the said firm to do the work of other institutions also as hiswork was not taking much time in the NCC . Thewages payable to such persons including Shri Krishan Kumar was paid by the said firm. The persons were not on the Pay- rolls of the RBI at any point of time and further there is no sanctioned post of sweeper against which such persons could have been working . Since the aforesaid personswere not on the Pay - rolls of the Bank, the question ofdemanding any service benefits by them from the bank does not arise . It has been further submitted that the claimant was not employed by the bank and cannot be treated as the workman ofthe bank. The claimant has filed rejoinder. In his rejoinder, he has stated that he has filed the case under Section 10 read with 2 - A of the Industrial Dispute Act so there is no need of espousal of the union. He can himself raise the matter of termiantion of his services . It has been further asserted that all the allegations of the written statement are false . He was not working under the contractor but he was the direct employee of the management and he performed the duty of cleaning , sweeping , bringing tea etc. He put his signature on the register and did other misc. work.

Heard agruments from both the sides and perused the papers on the record. It was argued from the side of the workman that the workman applicant is a direct employee of the RBI and he has been issued identity card from the NCC Office . I have perused the record. The Photostate copy of the card has been filed. It is in the name ofKrishan Kumar and number is 209 c/o M/s . Premier Security Corporation . As such, the identify card has not been issued directly to Krishan Kumar but it has been issuedunder the care of M/s . Premier Security Corporation.

Itwas further submitted from the side ofthe workman that management has given direction to the Security Officer to allow the workman to enter the premises as he is an employee ofthe RBI.

The management has filed written statement . In the written statement , some of the paragraphs have been admitted while most of the paragraphs have been denied and additional objections have been given. In the additional statement , it has been stated that the persent dispute raised by Delhi Office & Establishment Employees Union ( hereinafter referred to as the Union ) an outside Union, is not an industrial dispute as the Union does not have any following of Class III or IV workmen in the RBI nor the dispute has been espoused by a substantial number ofworkmen of the RBI . It is well settled that an individual dispute cannot become an industrial dispute as contemplated under Section 2 (k ) of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947, unless the dispute is espoused by a substantial number of workmen in an Organisation or is espoused by à Union having following of substantial number of 4379 भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 24, 2004/ श्रावण 2, 1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

The rulings cited by the workman are not applicable in the facts and circumstances ofthe case . The workman has not established that he was an employee ofthe RBI. The award is replied thus :-

Itwas submitted from the side of the workman applicant that these papers are sufficient to prove that he was the direct employee of the bank and not an employee ofthe Contractor.

Shri Krishan Kumar was not a workman ofReserve Bank of India . The action of the Reserve Bank of India in terminating the services of Shri Krishan Kumar w.e.f. 07-1-1991 was justified. The workman is not entitled to any relief as prayed for.

The award is given accordingly. DT. 26-06-2004

R.N. RAI , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 6 जुलाई, 2004

का. आ. 1760.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 12 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार नार्दन रेलवे के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण लखनऊ के पंचाट ( संद संख्या आई. डी. 156/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 05-07-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल. 41012/89/2002- आई. आर ( बी- I ) ] अजय कुमार, डैस्कअधिकारी

New Delhi , the 6th July, 2004 Itwas submitted from the side of the management that the said department has called for quotations as per annexure - l and M/ s . Security Guards Corporation was awarded the work of cleaning and sweeping and there is an agreement between M/s . Security Guards Corporation and theManagement . The management has agreed to pay Rs. 600/- to four sweepers plus 10% service charge and the management has to supply the cleaning material . The substantial question is whether the name of Krishan Kumar is in the list of employees of M/ s . Security Guards Corporation or not . Annexure III shows that Krishan Kumar's name has been entered at Sl . No. 3 on the said SecurityGuards Corporation for cleaning of NCC. It shows that Krishan Kumar was an employee ofM/s . Security Guards Corporation. Annexure - IV shows that Krishan Kumar received payments from M/s . Security Guards Corporation . Even a single paper has not been filed by the workman that has has received payment from the management . The payment to M/s . Security Gaurds Corporation has been made lump sum by the management . The employment form has been filled up under the Security Guards Corporation . This paper also indicates that the workman was a contractor's man and he was not an independent employee of the management . It establishes the fact that the payment was made to Krishan Kumar through Security Gaurds Corporation . His employment form was filled up through the said firm and his name is in the worker's of the M/ s . Security Guards Corportion.

S.O. 1760.-1n pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( ID No. 156/2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal /Labour Court , Lucknow now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Northern Railway and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 5-7-2004.

My attentionwas drawn to 1985 ( 50 ) FLR 20 and it wasargued that it was a contract for services but this was law is not applicable in the facts and circumstances ofthis case as it is explicit from the record that he was an employee of theM/s . Secuirty Guards Corporation.

[No. L-41012/89/2002-IR (B- I) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer .

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW 1978 ( 37) FLR 136 SC is regarding the test of employer and employee relationship . The Hon'ble APEX Court has field that should be supervision and control of the management and payment should be made by the management but in this case , neither the payment has beenmade by the management to the workman nor there is any paper regarding the supervision of the management .

PRESENT

SHRIKANT SHUKLA

PRESIDING OFFICER

I.D. No. 156/2002

Ref. No. L-41012/89 /2012 -IR( B- 1 ) dated: 26-9-2002 My attention was drawn to 1995 LLR 552. In it , it has been held that an industrial dispute can be raised for abolition of contract labour system but there is no such case in this dispute . As such, from the perusal of the record, it becomes obvious that Shri Krishan Kumar was an employee of M/s . Security Guards Corporation. He was not the employee of the management so he has got no right ofreinstatement or regularisation.

2136 G1/04-38 4380

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24, 2004/SRAVANA 2 , 1926

BETWEEN

Shri Deepak Kumar, S/o Late Sh. Shyam Dev, C/o The Divisional Organization Secretary, Uttar Railway Karamchari Union. 283/63 , Kha Garhi Kanaora ( Premwati Nagar) PO-Manak Nagar, Lucknow ( UP ) -226001 .

AND

The Sr. Divisional Mechanical Engineer ( Loco) Northern Railway, DRM Office, Hazratganj , Lucknow ( UP) -226001 .

AWARD

The Government of India , Ministry of Labour vide their order No. L -41012/ 89 /2002- IR ( B- 1) dated : 26-9-2002 referred the following dispute for adjudication to the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Lucknow .

" क्या उत्तर रेलवे प्रबंधन द्वारा स्व. श्याम देव, सेवा निवृत्त फिटर मिस्त्रीके पुत्र श्री दीपक कुमार को शारीरिक तौर पर अक्षमता के आधार पर पारिवारिक पेंशन नहीं दिया जाना न्यायोचित तथा न्यायसंगत है ? यदि नहीं तो वह किस अनुतोष का अधिकारी है ?"

Deepak Kumar has filed the statement of claim alleging therein that his father, Shyam Dev was employed in Northern Railway at the post of Fitter Mistry, who retired on 30-9-81. However, it is alleged that father of Deepak Kumar expired on 22-4-87. The workman has alleged that he is physically handicapped . He has further alleged that he moved an application for family pension , but no order was passed for family pension on the ground of disability. Therefore , he has requested front the Tribunal that he be allowed the family pension w.e.f. 22-4-87 along with interest and cost of litigation.

The opposite party has filed the written statement in which the retirement of the father of Deepak Kumar is not disputed, his death too is not disputed. The management's case is that the workman , Deepak Kumar furnished some papers in the office of Railway Administration in connection with pensionary benefits on the basis of physical disability . This has been alleged by the management that DRM Office, Northern Railway, Lucknow sent a letter on 17-9-99 for examining the percentage of disability of Shri Deepak Kumar. It is alleged that Shri Deepak Kumar is not entitled to any relief which is stated in the statement of claim. The management has pleaded in additional płeas that reference is not maintainable before this Tribunal because there is no Industrial Dispute ' and the claimant cannot raise the dispute under the Industrial Dispute

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] Act . It is also alleged that claimant is not workman as defined under Section 2 ( s ) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Shri Deepak Kumar does not come within the definition of workman so he is not entitled to raise dispute against Railway Administration and as such, the reference is bad in the eye of law. It is alleged that Shri Shyam Dev did submit his settlement paper but had not declared regarding the disability /physically handicapped condition of claimant in his declaration. It is also pointed out by the management that disability if any pertains to the claimant may be after the death of deceased ex - employee , Shyam Dev. It is submitted that the ex - employee Shyam Dev died on 22-4-87 after retireinent and till death the employee had not submitted any relevant papers regarding to disability of his son Deepak Kumar. It is also submitted that the claimant has not disclosed his own income from any source and the income from any movable/ immovable property, which pertains to claimant, and if there is no income absolute by any source the declaration may be given by the claimant in his claim statement.

The workman has filed the rejoinder. In the rejoinder has stated that he was fully dependent on his father and he has no source of income by which he can maintain himself.

The workman has filed following documentary evidence which are photo copies :-

1. Handicapped certificate of ChiefMedical Officer dated2-6-99 .

2. Application on prescribed for family pension.

3. Government of India, Ministry of Railway (Railway Board) circular No. 87/AC-II/21 /33 dated 5-5-95 addressed to all General Managers, Central Railway, Bombay VT & others regarding payment of pension to handicapped.

4. Government of India , Deptt. of Pension and Pensioner's Welfare Office Memorandum No. 1/21/91 - P &W (E) (Pt .) dt . 15-1-1999.

5. Photo copy of letter of DRM Office , NR , Lucknow No. 720E/PenIIG dt. 17-9-99 regarding paymentoffamily pension to Shri Deepak Kumar Yadav for medical examination.

2 Shri Deepak Kumar has filed affidavit along with application dated 3-12-2001 , photo state copy of letter or corporater Lucknow Nagar Nigam, photo copy of handicapped certificate issued to Suman Tewari and PPO issued in respect to Suman Tiwari.

Besides above evidence Shri Deepak Kumar has examined himself.

4381 भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 24, 2004/ श्रावण 2 , 1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

On 8-9-2003 parties representing the opposite party has stated that only in the following cases family pension could be sanctioned:

1. Suffering from any disorder or disability ofmind ; or

2. Being physically crippled; or

3. Disable so as to render him or her unable to earn living even after attaining age of 25 year.

Workman too was present on 8-9-2003 . I found that his left hand was not in working order on being asked he stated that his left part of the body is effected . He also stated that he was a victim of polio.

been sought from Chief Medical Supdt . and the representative of the management sought time to file the report . The opposite party was allowed time and next date fixedwas 28-1-2004. It is noteworthy that until today when I am dictating the award no clarification or report is filed by the management or any representative as yet . On 28-1- 2004 Shri U.K. Bajpai the advocate for opposite party examined Shri Raman Kumar, APO , NR, Lucknow and closed his evidence . After the management closed the evidence, Shri Deepak Kumar was directed to furnish his income from entire sources (movable and immovable ) on affidavit and he was directed to state whether he is able to earn his livelihood or not and was directed to produce the certificate of Revenue Officers to this effect and the next date was fixed 5-3-2004 . Before the above said dated i.e. 5- 3-2004, the representative ofDeepak Kumar filed affidavit C-23, photo copy of income certificate , paper No. C -24 and original certificate paper No. A1-26.

Shri Deepak Kumar was further cross - examined by Shri U. K. Bajpai on 19-3-2004.

The railway was allowed to file affidavit in rebuttal , but no affidavit was filed .

The arguments were beard and it was observed that the workman has stated on oath that he applied for family pension in the year 1988 , while the witness of the opposite party has stated that Deepak Kumar applied for family pension in the year 1999. The opposite party has not admitted the application filed by Deepak Kumar . Deepak Kumar has moved an application for summoning documents with certificate . Therefore, it was felt necessary to summon the settlement paper along with the declaration of Late Shyam Dev which was prepared on the matter of his retirement and application of Deepak Kumar on prescribed form complete with certificates from the opposite party. The opposite party with - held the application of Deepak Kumar, however, furnished the file ofShyam Dev, Fitter Mistry.

I observed that workman may fall in the IIIrd category mentioned above . It was advised to the opposite party to get the worker examined by Railway doctor, so that they may reach the correct conclusion . Opposite party's representative stated that letter to this effect was sent to the Railwaydoctor for their opinion in the year 1999 and they want to ascertain first what the doctors opined. In case that document is available they will produce . The opposite party was allowed to produce it and 23-9-2003 was fixed for hearing. Although on 8-9-2003 APO SA Naqvi and SC Gupta were also present for opposite party and they did not bother to comply the order therefore on 23-10-2003 DRM was asked to take disciplinary action against his representative and DRM was also requested to fix date, time and place for medical examination of the workman, Deepak Kumar in view of the disability and the next date was fixed 23-11-2003. 23-11-2003 being Sunday the case was taken upon the very next day i.e. 24-11-2003. The advocate for opposite party, Shri U.K. Bajpai filed application C - 17 along with copy of letter addressed to ChiefMedical Supdt . Northern Railway hospital wherein it was written that letter was sent to the Chief Medical Supdt. On 29-10-2003 but no reply was received fronı Chief Medical Supdt . Shri U.K. Bajpai accordingly requested for sometime to file the medical report . Railway advocate was allowed 10 days time but no medical certificate was filed on behalf of Railways . Railway failed to file the report even on 18-12-2003 . It is note worthy that railway did not co-operate the court regarding filing of medical report . However , workmen himself filed the photocopy of report, C-20wherein the ChiefMedical Supdt . gave his finding as follows:

"The disability 80 % as mentioned in Handicapped Ceritficate No. 581/99/216/99 due to post polio residual paralysis , Lt. Upper and lower limbs is verified ( as a Board decision ) . "

The learned counsel of the opposite party has argued that the paper are not available . However, it was admitted in the arguments that application was moved in 1999. He also argued that the worker could not move the application in 1988 as there was no pension scheme of family pension for handicapped in the year 1988. He has argued on the basis of Railway Service (Pension ) Rules , 1993 that the provision for family pension for handicapped was introduced in the year 1993 only. Thus therefore no doubt that the applicant did not move the application in the year 1988. It is also admitted fact that up to 8-12-98 the brother ofDeepak Kumar was receiving family pension till the age he completed the age of 25 years , as has come in the cross -examination in chief of the APO , Shri Raman Kumar Sharma . In the circumstances it appears that when When the certificate was produced the representative of the opposite party stated that some clarification have 4382

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 24, 2004/ SRAVANA 2, 1926

the family pension of his brother Dilip stopped on 8-12-1998 only then Deepak Kumar tried to pursue for his pension in year 1999 .

The learned advocate for opposite party has argued that the claim petition is premature as the management has not taken any decision for family pension in handicapped category. Before analysing the other aspects ofthe fact it is essential to deal with the legal issue. Whehter or not the reference is bad in eye of law as alleged in by the opposite party.

The learned counsel for opposite party has vehemently argued that Deepak Kumar is not worker of railway and therefore , his case does not fall in the category of industrial dispute and as such , the court is barred by jurisdiction for giving its findings on the issue referred to it .

Where the appropriate Government make some dispute to some Tribunal , Presumption lies that being an industrial dispute . The definition is given under section 2 ( K) where not only workers' dispute is termed as industrial dispute but the dispute of any person , which is connected , with terms of employment is also an industrial dispute . Herein I find that the terms and conditions of the railway employees are governed by the Railway Service Pension Rules . The terms of employment of the father of Deepak Kumar if entitles him to receive the family pension, he is entitled to raise the industrial dispute and he is not getting family pension enough his father was in the employment of the Railway . Deepak Kumar is not bared from raising the dispute before the appropriate government and the appropriate Government has rightly referred the issue for adjudication to this Tribunal . 1 therefore ,do not find any illegality in the reference . The argument raised by Shri U. K. Bajpai before , is not maintainable .

The workman has himself stated on oath that he is handicapped since a childhood . He has also stated that he is disabled by 10 % . This fact that Shri Deepak Kumar is disable by 80% is admitted by Shri Raman Kumar Sharma , APO , NR . Lucknow in his cross -examination . Therefore , it is established that Deepak Kumar is disabled by 80 % . Not a single question has been asked in cross - examination of Deepak Kumar that he is not disable since his childhood. Shri Raman Kumar Sharma , APO has also not uttered a single word that Deepak Kumar has subsequently attained the disability . It is also proved by the medical evidence that he was suffering from past polio rcsidual paralysis . In the circumstances 1

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] come to the conclusion that Deepak Kumar was handicapped since childhood and he is still suffering from past polio residual paralysis .

Shri Deepak Kumar has proved by affidavit that he has no means of livelihood . The certificate issued by the Revenue Officer has established that Shri Deepak Kumar Yadav earns by begging and that could not be considered to a lawful earning . From the evidence on record I am satisfied that Deepak Kumar is not in a position to earn his own livelihood due to past polio residual paralysis. I am also satisfied that he was dependent upon his father when he was alive and further was dependent upon his brother who was receiving family pension till 8-12-1998 . This satisfaction is inferred fromthe facts stated by APO, Shri Raman Kumar Sharma in his cross - examination . In the circumstances I come to the conclusion that he is entitled to family pension . But at the same time it is also noteworthy that the management has stated in clear- cut language that the claimant is not entitled to any relief. This amount to denial of Deepak Kumar's right to receive family pension . The issue referred therefore is answered in negative , against the management .

So far as the relief is concerned , the workman is not at all entitled to receive any family pension from 22-4-87 , as he never demanded for it . Family Pension Scheme for Handicapped is stated to have been introduced in the year 1993 only and Shri Deepak Kumar applied in the year 1999. The date on which he applied is not clear.

The only document which gives specific date, month and year is annexure No. 5 to statement of claim which is paper No. 2/11 . This letter is dated 17-9-99 , which has been issued on the basis of application received from Deepak Kumar Yadav.

Therefore, in the fitness ofcase Shri Deepak Kumar is entitled for family pension as per Railway Family Pension Rules from 17-9-99 . There is no order as to interest or litigation cost. The management is directed to pay the arrears of family pension with in two months from the dated of publication of award in the official gazette , in default the workman , Deepak Kumar shall be entitled to the compound interess 9% per annum. Award passed accordingly.

29-6-2004 , Lucknow

SHRIKANT SHUKLA, Presiding Officer 4383

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 24, 2004/श्रावण 2, 1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

AWARD

नई दिल्ली, 6 जुलाई, 2004

Videnotification No. L- 1-2012/ 199/99 - IR(B -I) dated 24thof September 1999, the Central Govt . has referred the following matter of adjudication to this Tribunal-cum- LabourCourt.

का. आ. 1761.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या आई डी 192 ऑफ 1999 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 5-7-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल. 12012/199/99- आई, आर. ( बी- I ) ] अजय कुमार, डैस्क अधिकारी

"Whether the action ofDy. General Manager, State Bank ofIndia, Zonal Office, Shimla and Asstt . General Manager, State Bank of India, Region - I Shimla, in dismissing the services of Shri Ranjit Kumar son of Shri Amar Nath, Messenger w.e.f. 8-8-1996 is just and legal? Ifnot, what relief the workman is entitled to?"

New Delhi , the 6th July, 2004

S.O. 1761. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( ID No. 192 of 1999) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank ofIndia and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 5-7-2004.

{No. L- 12012/ 199/99 - IR (B.I)] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

2. After receipt of the notification , notices were served upon both the parties . The workman appeared on 2-2-2000, whereas the respondent appeared through A.C. Jaidka , law officer of the respondent on 15-3-2000. The workman filed the claim statement on the day he appeared to which the respondent filed written statement on 18-12-2000 . Workman filed affidavit on 30-1-2001 . In reply to that the respondent filed on affidavit on 30-4-2001 . Thereafter the management opted to remain absent and so that court proceeded exparte against them, but later on exparte proceedings were set -aside on payment of costs and the case was restored to the stage of proceedings when exparte order was passed against them.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT, CHANDIGARH

Presiding Officer : Shri Kuldip Singh,

CASE NO. I.D. 192 OF 1999

Received on 12-10-1999

Decided on 16-6-2004

...Applicant

Ranjit Kumar son of Shri Amar Nath Resident ofV.P.O. Dheneta, District Hamirpur (H.P. )

Versus

1. The Deputy General Manager , State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Shimla .

2. The Assistant General Manager , State Bank of India, Region-1 , Zonal Office , Shimla . H.P. ...Respondents .

APPEARANCES :-

For the Workman : Shri M.M. Putney

3. The petitioner in his claim statement, submitted that he got his name registered with the employment exchange, being an unemployed and his name was recommended to the respondent bank for the post of messenger . He had appeared before the respondent and was selected for that post vide appointment order dated 28-1-1994; that neither the employment exchange nor respondent bank ever circulated or notified to the petitioner about the educational qualification required for the appointment of messenger. In compliance of the appointment letter he joined his duty on 2-2-1994 at Sansarpur Terrace Branch of the respondent bank in Himachal Pradesh where he submitted documents as required under rules that he discharged his duties to the best of abilities and his service record remained excellent although; that to his utter surprise he was served with the chargesheet on 11-2-1995 , asking him to explain as to why he had not declared having a passed matriculation examination , at the time of his initial appointment, in the bank, In reply to that it was stated by him that to the best of knowledge of the petitioner he had not passed the matriculation examination till the date he submitted the documents . To his ill luck the explanation submitted by himwas not accepted by the A.G.M. Shimla, the punishing authority and an enquiry was ordered against him: That the enquiry was only a cover , whereas the respondent bank had already decided to punish the workman for no fault of his . As such the enquiry officer did not afford full For theManagement Shri Ashok Khullar 4384

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 24, 2004/SRAVANA 2 , 1926

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] oppurtunity to the workman to defend himself and acted in a mechanical manner in holding the enquiry. The petitioner was not provided with the requisite documents , information and that prejudiced the case of the petitioner. EnquiryOfficer did not record the findings as to when , the petitioner was informed about the educational and other criteria for the appointment of the messenger, so as to hold him guilty and so as to award him the punishment of dismissal , through order dated 7-6-1996 . The petitioner has further alleged that his appeal was also not considered judiciously and was rejected in a casual and routine manner. He has alleged that the action of the respondent bank in dismissing the petitioner from the service is illegal , ultra- vires , unconstitutional and bad in law on the ground that without any evidence , about the notice of educational eligibility criteria to the petitioner no charge sheet could be served upon him and nor he could be held guilty for the same . Moreover the petitioner had submitted the information about his educational qualification as was known to him and also the over qualification could not be a disqualification for appointment as a messenger. Mentioning the names of those who are matriculate and are working as messengers , the petitioner has claimed that his being a matriculate could not be a disqualification since the criteria , fixed by the bank , did not prohibit him from applying for the job, on the ground that he possessed better qualification than the one prescribed .

in the attestation from he has mentioned having passed middle standard examination . They denied the contents of para 5 of the claim statement , but admitted that the petitioner had joined his duty on 2-2-1994 at Sansarpur , Terrace Branch. It is contended by the bank , that the petitioner was charge sheeted , since he had obtained the job by suppressing the facts and thereby committed misconduct. Disputing the claim of the petitioner, that he had no communication with his family, after he appeared inthe matriculation examination, till he was appointed on the job, contended that such a claim cannot be accepted especially when the petitioner was unemployed and was searching for the job. Supporting the decision of the disciplinary authority, it is submitted by the respondents that it was a right decision ; that the enquiry was fairly conducted, in which , the petitioner was given full opportunityto defend himself. That the learned disciplinary authority as well as Appellate Authority, judiciously considered the case of the petitioner . Denying the allegations that the relevant documents were not supplied to the workman, the respondent have claimed that all the relevant documents were provided to the petitioner, during the course of enquiry. But the petitioner was found guilty in the enquiry and therefore , he was held to have suppressed the information about his educational qualification and thereby grossly misconducted himself and he deserved the punishment . Punishing authority, on the basis ofhaving found him guilty, dismissed him from service . Denying the averments , made by the petitioner in other paras of statement of claim, it is submitted by the respondents that the petitioner was rightly dismissed from service , after hearing him and proper enquiry. The punishment awarded was proportionate to the guilt of the petitioner, and that the reference made in the case must be dismissed .

4. Coming to the punishment awarded, it is claimed by the petitioner that the same is disproportionate to the guilt alleged against the petitioner. That the fixing of the criteria for the post of messenger was violative ofArticle 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India . That the enquiry conducted by the bank was not proper since no opportunity was given to the petitioner. No opportunity was given even by the punishing authority. Even the appellate authority failed to examine the case of the petitioner judiciously and as such the termination of the petitioner is bad in law, therefore , the same be set- aside .

6. The record of the file shows that after filing the pleading by the parties , the Court asked the respondent first to file the complete enquiry file and they were asked to argue on the fairness of the enquiry. However, the respondent . instead of producing the enquiry file, placed on record photo copies of the proceedings , the correctness ofwhich has not been challenged by the petitioner, either inwriting or during the course of arguments. It is true that the parties did not produce anything orany or by way of affidavits and other documents , argued on the whole of the case . At no stage, either in their pleadings or during the arguments , they claim that in case the fairness of the enquiry is not proved, they may be allowed to produce evidence to show that the action of the respondent , dismissing the petitioner from service , was or was not bad in law. From this it is clear that the documents placed on record are not disputed by them and so they want the case to be decided in view of the facts and law.

5. The respondents have opposed the claim of the petitioner by filing their written statement by which they have admitted that the petitioner was sponsored by the employment exchange Dharmshala, but denied that respondents had not been informed. By the concerned employment exchange , about the criteria , fixed for the recommendations to the post of messenger. In fact vide its letter dated 28-12-1992 the employment exchange was informed that the educational qualification, required for the post of messenger, was minimum 8th class standard. as per the State Bank of India Regulations . Besides the bank has Circular No , PER/ 56 OF 1988 dated 11-4-1988 wherein it is mentioned that the educational qualification. for the post of messenger in the bank shall be 8th class pass and not 10th class pass . The respondent further allege that the workman , on his selection on the post of messenger . did not declare correctly his educational qualification and

7. From the pleadings of the parties and the submissions made by them , the admitted case of the 4385 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 24 , 2004/ श्रावण 2, 1926

Education qualification required for the post of a messenger-cum -farash was under matric ( minimum 8th standard for the post of messenger ) , however ex- servicemen for the post of messenger-cum -guard were required not to possess such minimunı qualification . They held, that thus the rule , as in the present case , and the circular, muchrelied upon by the respondent , bearingNo. PER-56/98 did contain, the stipulation about the minimum qualification. The use of the word " minimum " , according toTheir Lordships , postulate that neither it was meant to be the only qualification nor that any ceiling, on the possession of education qualification , over and above, thatenvisaged in the circular was ever in the contempation of the circular, issuing authority or any such restriction incorporated in the said circular. Thus in the absence of any positive and specific stipulation in the circular which could preclude the applicant from possessing educational qualification, over and above the minimum educational qualification , for making an application to the post in question , accordingto Their Lordships , disentitled the bank, either to consider to him for the appointment or get him appointed, they were of the view that it is beyond comprehension as to how the respondent read, into the circular, such restrictions so as to render the petitioner in a eligible person, who possessed educational qualification over and above the one prescribed as the minimum , in the circular. Since clearly the respondent bank has failed to point out or bring to my notice anything to show that the petitioner has committed serious lapse or misconducted so as to be a subject of departmental disciplinary. proceedings and findings to loose the job he had been given.

parties is that the petitioner obtained the employment as messenger with the respondent bank, by showing his qualification as 8th standard pass and did not disclose that he was a matriculate , on the date , he applied for the job as well as on the day he joined his service on 2-2- 1994. On the record I find a letter from the Assistant Secretary ( Exams . ) H.P. Board of School Education Dharamshala which reads that Ranjit Kumar son of Amar Nath, admittedly the petitioner, had appeared in the matriculation examination in March , 1986 under roll number 120430 , as a regular candidate , from Govt . High School Dhaneta, district Hamirpur and he was declared successful having scored 450 marks ; and that the date of birth of the petitioner was (07-04-1971 . Against this document , the petitioner has placed nothing on record. He has only tried to show , by a letter dated 21-4-1995 , address to the A. G.M. of the respondent bank Shimla, whereby he has tried to show that he had appeared in the 10th class examination, but he had no hope ofgetting through it and thereafter he left the house: and that when he applied for the job , in the bank , he was having only this information that he is middle pass ; and that he had come to know about his having passed matriculation examination during the proceedings , initiated against him , by the bank . This submission of the workman is not supported by any evidence , placed on record and therefore, can not be accepted even at this stage, The sum and substance of the stand taken by the respondent isthatthe petitioner had procured the employment in the bank by resorting to deceitful means; and that priima- facie he is guilty of suppression of material facts . He was also guilty of misleading the concerned authorities in order to seek employment and therefore , he has grossly misconducted himself.

9. Coming to the question of alleged suppression of actual facts , Their Lordships of the H.P. High Court has held, that actual educational qualification of the petitioner was that he was a matriculate as on the date of his application as also on the date of his appointment and the omission to specify the same and the act of the petitioner in disclosing that he is only 9th standard pass , in a particular year and not constitute a suppression of a vital or a relevant fact , which he was otherwise obliged to disclose andwhich he failed to have disclosed or withheld deliberately to expose him to the charge of suppression, in adepartmental proceedings. The words ' suppression' as defined in Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition if Their Lordship's view, meant , conscious effort to control and conceal unacceptable impulses thoughts, feelings or acts. The concealment of truth and/or expression of what is false, is always, they held, meant to constitute suppression . Suppression or concealment invariably is indicative of an element offraud also in it and to suppress anything to put astop to it when it actually exists and at times and not to constitute suppression by merely preventing or with- holding that which may lead to the actual facture of suppression.

8. In a case , before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh , being C.W.P. No. 348 of 1997 , decided on 25th of November, 1999 , a similar situation came before Their Lordships of the Division Bench . In that case also the petitioner had obtained the employment by showing his educational qualification wrongly as having passed only 8th standard examination . He did not disclose that he was a matriculate having passed the said examination in the year 1988. He further withheld the information that , before applying for the job, with the respondent , in another branch of the State Bank of India , he had worked as voluntary teacher in the Education Department of Himachal Pradesh in the year 1992. Thus it was proved that the petitioner had withheld the factum of his possessing higher qualification . The Hon'ble High Court after considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case reported as Y. Srinivasa Rao Vs. J. Veeraiah and Others AIR 1993 S.C. has held , that the petitioner did not commit any misconduct , by not disclosing his higher qualification . They referred to Rule 29 which pertained to the eligibility criteria , which is similar in the present case .

4386

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24 , 2004/ SRAVANA 2, 1926

[PART II SEC . 3 (ii))

absorbed permanently and the Hon'ble High Court upheld the decision of the respondent bank saying that when the regulation clearly prescribed maximum qualification for the recruitment of such posts , the action of the respondent bank was justified and the writ petition was dismissed. In the present case no maximum qualification had been prescribed by the circular, relied upon by the respondent; and following the judgment of the H.P. High Court , it is held that the over qualification of the petitioner was no bar for holding the appointment, given to him, by the respondent .

11. I have also considered the question of the fairness of the enquiry, claimed by the respondent . The petitioner has failed to bring to my notice anything to show that by any action of the respondent, the authorities who held the enquiry, the punishing authority or the appellate authority misconducted in appreciating the case ofthe petitioner. No doubt the authorities laboured under a wrong conception , that the circular which they considered contained eligibility criteria , about the recruitment of the messenger contained the stipulation of maximum qualification , required as a messenger . To my mind it only laid minimum qualification i.e. under matric or to the least middle pass. There could not be limit over and above qualification required for appointment as messenger .

It may be noted here that the counsel for the respondent laid much stress on the circular No. PER 56/98 and argued that the said circular contains a specific stipulation about the qualification required for appointment as messenger . I have gone through the circular and this circular does not contain more than what is contained in Rule 29 , referred to above , and the said rule was examined by Their Lordships of the H.P. High Court , in the judgment (supra ) and have held as noted above. Moreover there is nothing on the record to show that either in the advertisement notice , issued by the respondent bank or the employment exchange , Dharamshala , ever notified to the candidates including the petitioner that those having qualification over an above than the prescribed , were barred from applying for the post . In the absence of any such notice , how the petitioner would be held guilty for possessing over an above qualification to that which was required for applying for the post . Counsel for the respondent has referred to the judgment of High Court of Andhra Pradesh passed in Writ Petition No. 13127 of 1988 , a photocopy of which is on record , but the date of decision of which is not available in the photocopy. Taking support of this judgment he submitted that the case of the petitioner falls squarely, in the facts of the case, on the case , which was before Their Lordships of the A.P. High Court . I have gone through this judgment , but in my views , it is not helpful to the respondent because the matter before Their Lordships of the A.P. High Court was on different points . There is no dispute that it is for the employer to prescribe the qualifications for a particular job and it is the employer who can declare any qualification as a disqualification . Their Lordships . therefore, held that the decision of the management that acquisition of higher qualification was a bar for recruitment , could not be violative of Article 14,16 of the constitution of India . In the present case no such bar was ever put on the recruitment of petitioner.

10. As regards the question of action of the management in prescribing that acquisition of higher qualification is a bar for the recruitment of the post , Their Lordships followed the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case reported as AIR 1993 S.C. 929 (supra) and held that where over qualification is not prescribed as a bar for consideration of appointntent , any rejection on the ground of possession of over qualification , amounted to arbitrariness and therefore, violative of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution . In the case before the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, the regulation had prescribed that for the post of messenger / watchman/ armed guard one should have passed 8th class but not 10th class to seek appointment to those posts . The petitioner in that case had passed S.S.C. examination even at the time of his initial appointment as temporary messenger , but in view of the regulation he was not

12. It has already been discussed above that in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh ( supra ) , the petitioner did not suppress the facts as is claimed by the respondent. Since suppression or concealment invariably has indication of an element of fraud in it and to suppress anything is to put a stop to it when it actually exists and at times it may not constitute suppression by merely preventing or with - holding that which may lead to the actual factum of suppression . Supposing but not accepting that the petitioner suppressed the facts by concealing that he was a matriculate at time of applying for the post , yet , the conduct of the petitioner could not be said to be fraudulent for the reasons that by saying that he is a middle pass , he did not say that he has not studied after that . Moreover the punishment awarded to the petitioner was not proportionate to the act/lapse alleged to have been committedby him . I have already discussed that the circular (supra) relied upon by the respondent did not provide, under the eligibility criteria , the maximum qualification , a candidate was to possess before applying for the job . As per the circular the qualification prescribed was the minimum which was shown to be under matric and to the least middle pass . The punishing authority did not take this matter into consideration in the right prospective and awarded the maximum punishment i.e. dismissal from service . This is my opinion was disproportionate to the lapse committed by the petitioner. There is no evidence on the record to show that during the service of one year 4387

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 24, 2004/ श्रावण 2, 1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

the conduct of the petitioner was such so as to invite such a harsh punishment . On that ground also the action ofthe punishing authority and then the appellate authority can-not be approved . This also leads me to the conclusions I have arrived at hereinafter in the case.

Inview of the discussion made above , the reference is answered in the following terms:

The action ofthe Deputy General Manager SBI Zonal Office , Shimla and AGM, SBI , Region . I Shimla in dismissing the services of Ranjit Kumar son ofAmar Nath, messenger w.e.f. 8-8-96 was unjust and illegal .He is treated to be on duty right from that date as it there was no order ofhis dismissing from service . As regards other relief, the petitioner is entitled to, I find nothing in the pleading of the petitioner as well as of the respondent, to show that during this period the petitioner was or was not gainfully engaged in any pursuit so as to claim back wages . Therefore, in my opinion , he is not entitled to any backwages . However, he shall be entitled to other benefits in service such as seniority in service and consequential benefits if any, which he would have got except for his dismissal from service .

Chandigarh Dated 16-6-2004

KULDIP SINGH , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 6 जुलाई, 2004

का. आ. 1762.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार ईस्टर्न रेलवे, धनबाद के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण सं. II, धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या आई डी 67 आफ 1995 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 5-7-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल.- 41012/32/94- आई. आर ( बी-1 ) ] अजय कुमार, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 6th July, 2004

S.O. 1762.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( ID No. 67 of 1995 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court , No. 11 , Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Eastern Railway, Dhanbad and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 5-7-2004 .

[No. L-41012/32/94- IR (B.I) ]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer 2136 G1/04-39

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2) AT DHANBAD PRESENT :

Shri B. Biswas,

PresidingOfficer

Inthe matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section ..10(1)(d) of the 1. D. Act , 1947

REFERENCE NO . 67 OF 1995

PARTIES: Employers in relation to the management of Eastern Railway, Dhanbad and their workman.

APPEARANCES :

Onbehalfof the workman : Mr. B. B. Prasad, Advocate. Onbehalf ofthe employers : None

State: Jharkhand .

Industry: Railway.

Dhanbad, Dated , the 18th June , 2004.

AWARD

TheGovt . of India , Ministry of Labour, in exercise ofthe powers conferred on them under Section 10 ( 1 ) (d) ofthe I.D. Act , 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-41012/ 32/94 - IR (B) , dated the 5th May, 1995 : -

SCHEDULE

Whether the action of the E. Rly, Dhanbad management in removing from service of Shri Indradeo Prasad , Ex -TXR w.e.f. 10th Sept. , 1985 is justified ? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled to ? "

2. The case of the concerned workman, according to Written Statement submitted by him in brief is as follows:-

He submitted that while he was posted as Train Examiner at Katrasgarh he was in possession of Qr. No. 44/A at Katrasgarh . As the said quarter was absolutely in sufficient to meet his requirement he submitted representation before the appropriate authority for allotment of type II quarter since 1973. He submitted that Mr. R.N. Sharma No. I was in possession of type II Quarter No. 38 /C . As he was due to be retired from his service w.e.f. 31-1-85 he submitted representation to the management for allotment of the said quarter in his favour and for that purpose he met Sr. D.M.E. ( C& W) /DHN on f 4388

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24, 2004/SRAVANA 2, 1926

[PART II SEC . 3 ( ii ) ].

Accordingly, he submitted his prayer to pass award directing the management to reinstate him in service with full back wages and consequential relief.

3. The management on the contrary after filing written statement have denied all the claims and allegation which the concerned workman asserted in the his written statement .

21-2-85 . After hearing him said Sr. D.M. made his endorsement on his application for allotment of type II quarter in his favour at Katrasgarh and further verablly ordered him to get possession of the said quarter which will be adjusted in his favour in future . In good faith he took possession of the said quarter . He alleged that management putting ante date allotted the said quarter in the name of R.N. Sharma II . He submitted that over the said issue management issued chargesheetto him with the allegation of committing misconduct . Again with the allegation of dispossession of R.N. Sharma II on 29-3-85 an F.I.R. was also lodged against him . He alleged that management with the issuance of chargesheet suspended him from service.

They submitted that the instant reference is not maintainable in the eye of law as the concerned workman supressing the material facts before the Central Govt . arranged for referring the present dispute for adjudication before this Tribunal . They disclosed that before raising the instant dispute, the concerned workman over the self same issue raised dispute before the Central Administrative Tribuanal Patna which was registered as Case No. OA- 310/87 and the said application was dismissed by the said Tribunal vide order dt. 22-6-98 . They submitted that in the said decisionHon'ble Tribunal in Para 75 of the judgement observed categorically that the concerned workman was guilty of serious misconduct for breaking the lock and forcibly taking possession of the Rly. quarters allotted in favour of one R.N. Sharma. They further submitted that the Hon'ble Tribunal in disposing of that case considered the legality and validity of chargesheet issued against the concerned workman and upheld the order of the dismissal passed against him by the Disciplinary Authority. Accordingly the matter has been set at rest and cannot be reopened. They pointed out that the judgement of the CAT dt . 22-6-88 has exposed correct picture about committing misconduct by the workman and the consequences ensued therefrom.

They disclosed that the concerned workman was dismissed from his service by the employee after holding free and fair department mental enquiry after issuance of chargesheet to him for committing serious misconduct . İn course of said departmental enquiry all reasonable opportunities were given to him but he failed to avail the same.

They disclosed that the concerned workman preferred Writ petition before Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta challenging the order of suspension issued against him but he failed to get his desired result . After his dismissal from service . he again raised dispute before the Hon'ble CAT Patna for his relief but there too his case was dismissed.

In view of the facts and circumstances stated above management submitted prayer to pass award rejecting the claim of the concerned workman.

4. POINTS TO BE DECIDED

He submitted that prior to taking possession of type 11 Qr. No. 38 - C in the year 1981 one Type II Q.r. No. 34- A was allotted to him but he could not get possession of the same as it was not vacated by its occupant. Again on 2-12-83 another type II Qr . No. 143/B was allotted to him and inspite of confirmation of that order of allotment on 19-12-83 he could not get possession of the same as by that time it was allotted to Shamsul Haque Fitter. He categorically denied the fact that he occupied quarter No. 38/Con 29-9-85 unauthorisedly dispossessing R.N. Sharma II therefrom . He further submitted that as per Indian Railway Establishment manual such occupation of the quarter even unauthorisedly does not amount commission of any misconduct which could invite issuance of chargesheet . He disclosed that even if it is considered that he was in unauthorised occupation of that quarter in that case management had the scope to give him time to vacate the same and to realise penal rent from him but without taking that step he was chargesheeted and suspended from his service and thereafter appointed cnquiry officer to hold domestic enquiry against him. He disclosed that before taking up hearing of the Enquiry proceeding he made an appeal to the Enquiry Officer to stay further hearing till finalisation of the appeal which he preferred, in view of direction given by the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta in disposing of the Writ Petition filed by him but his appeal did not yield any result. On the contrary enquiry officer conducted domestic enquiry ex parte against him and submitted his report holding him guilty to the charges and relying on that report Sr. D.M.E. ( C &W) DHN . dismissed hint from service by issuing an order dt. 10-9-85 . He submitted that said Dr. D.M.R. was not his appointing authority and for which order of dismissal issued by him under his signature is liable to be vitiated as he was not competent person to dismiss . He further alleged that management neither supplied copies of enquiry papers including. report , nor issued any notice to him before passing the order of dismissal . He further alleged that Enquiry Officer conducted the Enquiry proceedings illegally, arbitrarily and violating the principle of natural justice.

"Whether the action of the R. Rly , Dhanbad management in removing from service of Shri Indradeo Prasad , Ex - TXR w.e.f. 10th Sept. , 1985 is 4389

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 24, 2004/ श्रावण 2, 1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

justified? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled to?"

5. FINDING WITH REASONS

case before CAT, Patna and the said case was registered as CA/310/ 87. He admitted that the said case was dismissed in the year 1987 and against that order he preferred SLP before the Hon'ble Apex Court but disclosed that he is not aware about the fate of that SLP. He admitted that thereafter over the self same cause of action he has raised the present industrial dispute for his relief. Inspite of admitting this fact he disclosed that the facts which he disclosed in the written statement submitted before the CAT and the facts of the Written statement in the instant case are not same .

It is seen that in course of hearing the concerned workman did not consider necessary to submit the written statement which he filed before the CAT.

Ittranspires from the record that the concerned workman with a view to substantiate his claim examined himself as WW- 1 . The management on the contrary did not adduce any evidence in support of their claim . Now let me consider how far the claim of the concerned workman stands on cogent footing . The concerned workman during his evidence not only raised dispute against the order of dismissal issued under signature of Sr. D.M.E. (C& W) Dhanbad who was not his appointing authority but also challenged the legality and validity of chargesheet issued to him for committing alleged misconduct and the way the management conducted departmental enquiry against him. He disclosed that CM.E. Calcutta was his appointing authority and for which Sr. D.M.E. had no jurisdiction to issue order of dismissal against him.

However, considering the present written statement it transpires that over unauthorised occupation of RLY Quarter which was allotted in the name of another workman management issued chargesheet to him and consequent to that chargesheet they decided to hold departmental enquiry against him. A criminal case over the self same allegation was lodged against him . However, subsequently he was acquitted from that case by the Appellate Court, which I have already discussed above . It is admitted fact that the said departmental enquiry was held exparte against the concerned workman as he did not appear . On the contrary from the submission of the concerned workman i.e. WW- 1 it transpires that he preferred Writ petition against the chargesheet issued to him by the management before the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta and hearing of thatWrit petition was pending when departmental enquiry started against him. He disclosed that enquiry officer did not defer hearing of the departmental enquiry inspite of giving intimation to him in the matter ofpendency ofhearing of that Writ petition . He disclosed that thereafter on the basis of report of the departmental enquiry he was dismissed from his service with effect from 10-9-85.

Considering the facts disclosed in the written statement submitted by the concerned workmen and also considering his evidence I find no dispute to hold that management issued chargesheet to him for unauthorised occupation of Rly . quarter No. 38-C which actually was allotted in the name of R. N. Sharma II . This witness disclosed that though he took possession of the said quarter vacated the same on 18-3-85 and communicated the same in writting to the management but inspite of the said fact managemenmt not only suspended him from service with effect from 30-3-85 but also started departmentaly enquiry against him. He further alleged that said R. N. Sharma II , also lodged FIR against him relying on which Police started a Criminal case against hini . He disclosed that ultimately he was acquitted from the said Criminal case by Ld . Additional District and Sessions Judge , 5th Court , Dhanbad indisposing of criminal appeal No. 153/88 . Certified copy of the said judgement during his evidence was marked as Ext . W - 4 . I have considered the judgement and I find support of the claim of the concerned workman.

From the copy of the judgement passed by the Ld . Judge Central Administrative Tribunal it transpires that the case which was initiated by the concerned workman was in the year 1987 being No. OA - 310/ 87 . Therefore it is clear that after the order of dismissal issued by the management against the concerned workman from his service he filed that case . From the judgement in question ittranspires clearly that the concerned workman filed that application with a prayer for quashing the order of removaldt . 10-9-85 passed by the D.M.E. (C& W) Eastern Rly. , Dhanbad. He also claimed quashing orderdt. 21-4-87 and 30-7-87 passed by the Senior Personnel Officer , Dhanbad.

This witness disclosed that against the said order ofdismissal he prepferred a Writ petition before the Hon'be High Court, Calcutta and as per order of the Hon'ble Court he submitted an appeal before CME , Calcutta through proper channel . He also intimated the said fact to the disciplinary authority but the enquiry officer did not take cognizance of the same and completed departmental enquiry against him exparte and submitted his report .He alleged that relying on the report of exparte hearing of the Departmental enquiry the Disciplinery authority dismissed him from his service w.e.f. 10-9-85 illegally arbitrarily and violating the principle of natural justice.

During cross-examination WW- 1 i.e. the concerned workman admitted that over the self same issue he filed a

In the instant case the concerned workman submitted his prayer for his reinstatement in service with effect from the date of his removal from service i.e. 10-9-85 declaring that the said order passed by the management was illegal, arbitrary, unjustified and malafide . Therefore it 4390

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24 , 2004 /SRAVANA 2 , 1926

[PART 11-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

New Delhi , the 6th July, 2004

S.O.1763 . In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( ID No. 179 of 2000 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court , Lucknow now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Northern Railway, and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 5-7-20004

[No. L-41012/ 123/2 ( XX ) -IR (B - I ) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer is clear that the issue taken in the instant case for disposal and the issue taken before the CAT are same . I have carefully considered the judgement passed by the Ld . Judge of the CAT in connection with Case No. OA - 310 / 87. It transpires that after claborate discussion Ld . Judge. dismissed the case of the concerned workman as he was not convinced with the argument extended by his Ld. Advocate . Against that judgement , concerned workman preferred S.L.P. before the Hon'ble Apex Court . It is the contention of the concerned workman that till date he is not aware of the fate of the S.L.P. which was filed before the Hon'ble Apex Court . This contention of the concerned workman is very hard to accept. on the ground that being aninterested party he preferred S.L.P. with a view to get his relief.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT LUCKNOW

PRESENT :

Shrikant Shukla: Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 179/2000

Ref. No. 41012/ 123 /2000 - IR (B - I) dated: 3/7-11-2000

BETWEEN

However, considering the facts and circumstances it is clear that he choose two forum to get his relief, over the self same issue. As he failed to get his relief before the first forum i.e. CAT and also as he did not get any relief from the Hon'ble Apex Court preferring S.L.P. he preferred the second forum i.e. this Tribunal for getting his relief raising Industrial dispute . There is sufficient reason to believe considering conduct of the concerned workman that he suppressing the fact before the Central Govt . practically obtained the order of reference for its adjudication before this Tribunal . A person cannot seek for relief from two independent forum over same cause of action as it is to be considered bad in law.

Shri Shyam Lal

S/ o Sh . Shiv Prasad By Shri D.K. Jha , T-46 , B, G.T. Road, Kanpur (U.P. )-4 .

Accordingly I hold that the instant case is not maintainable in the eye of law and for which he is not entitledto get relief in view of his prayer.

AND

In the result , the following award is rendered:

The Divisional RailwayManager NorthernRailway, Allahabad (U.P. )-211006.

"The action of the Eastern Railway, Dhanbad management in removing from service of Shri Indradeo Prasad , Ex - TXR we.f. 10th Sept. , 1985 is justified. Consequently he is not entitled to get any relief. "

AWARD

B. BISWAS, Presiding Officer.

नई दिल्ली, 6 जुलाई, 2004

The Government of India , Ministry of Labour vide their order No. 41012/ 123/2000 - IR (B.1 ) dated 3 /7-11-2000 referred the following dispute for adjudication to the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court , Lucknow.

का. आ. 1763.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार नार्दन रेलवे, के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण लखनऊ के पंचांट ( संदर्भ संख्या आई डी-179/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जोकेन्द्रीय सरकार को 5-7-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

"Whether the action of the management of Divisional Railay Manager, Northern Railway, Allahabad in re al from the services of Shri Shyam Lal, helper Khalasi vide order dated 16-2-1999 is legal and justified ? If notto what relief the workman is entitled to?"

[सं. एल. 41012/123 /2000- आई. आर. ( बी-1 ) ] अजय कुमार, डैस्क अधिकारी

Shri Shyam Lal has filed the statement of claim alleging that he was permanently employed as helper 4391 भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 24, 2004/ श्रावण 2 , 1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

was lodged against the workman. The workman violated the conduct rules on duty in the railway premises several times by misbehaving and assaulting railway officials and even at one time workman was sent to the jail also during enquiry proceedings . Disciplinary Authority as per Discipline and Appeal Rules 196 removed the workman from service vide its order dated 16-2-99 as the authorities found the charges against the workman to have been proved as such , proper action was taken by railways and removal order dated 16-2-99 is legal and valid and justified and in conformity with the provisions of law. It is alleged by the management that finding no merit in the appeal the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal. The management has therefore , prayed that the statement of claim is liable to be dismissed .

On 4-2-2002 following preliminary issues were framed:

1. Whether the domestic enquiry was fair and proper ? And

2. Whether the finding of domestic enquiry suffers with the vice of perversity ?

Boththe issues were decided against the workman vide order dated 18-7-2003 .

khalasi under Senior Divisional Engineer ( Carriage & Wagon) , NR, Shikohabad under the supervision of Asstt. Electrical Engineer ( Carriage & Wagon ) , NR, Tundla . It is further alleged that the opposite party vide their order dated 16-2-99 terminated his services . It is further alleged that he was charged vide charge sheet No. RS/ 805 /Kanpur /96 dated 28-10-96 by Asstt . Electrical Engineer (Carriage & Wagon ), NR, Allahabad . The workman alleged that he was detained on work at Kanpur on the date of occurrence . He was charged for assault and misbehaviour. A report to this effect was also lodged at GRP, Kanpur . The workman has alleged that hewas tprovided the copy of documents during the departmental proceedings and Sr. Divisional Engineer ( Carriage & Wagon) , NR, Tundla was appointed as Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer completed the enquiry proceedings with jelouse motive and submitted his report to the Disciplinary Authority on 30-9-98 and the Disciplinary Authority without applying its mind passed the order of removal dated 16-2-99 , which was delivered to the workman on 25-2-99 . The workman preferred a appeal on 22-3-99 , whichwas rejected on 22-4-99 . The workman has alleged that enquiry proceedings were conducted in the violation ofprinciples of natural justice and contrary to rules and the workman was not provided the opportunity to defend himself and , therefore , the punishment order dated 16-2-99 is liable to set aside and he is liable to be reinstated to all back wages and consequential benefits.

After disposal of the aforesaid issue the workman appeared on 18-12-2003 and the next dated for evidence was fixed on 24-1-2003 . The workman absented on 24-12-2003,6-4-2004 and 21-4-2004 therefore, there was no option but to proceed under Rule 10 B ( 9 ) Industrial Disputes ( Central ) Rules , 1947 , ex - parte and the management was direct to produce its evidence .

The management has examined Praveen Sharma. The management has proved that the Disciosinary Authority issued show cause notice on 28-8-98 and the workman received the notice on 9-11-98 but the workman did not sent any reply and therefore , the Disciplinary Authority passed the order or removal from service on 16-2-99. Removal order was delivered to workman on 25-2-99 . It is also proved that the workman preferred an appeal on 26-3-99 which was rejected on 22-4-99 . The copy ofwhich was received by workman on 11-6-99 . The management has also proved that minor punishment ; WIT for two years has been imposed on the workman for unauthorised absence , this punishment was awarded on the workman on 21-1-99 . The management has also proved that the workman misbehaved and assaulted to supervisors and therefore, an FIR was registered at GRP, Kanpur which is pending. It is also proved that another FIR for misbehaviour and assault was registered on 3-10-98 while a supervisor was on duty at Farukhabad . Over and above the management has proved that Shyam Lal was in jail from 3-10-98 to 7-10-98 .

The opposite party has filed the written statement denying the allegations of the workman. The management has stated that the workman was given full opportunity during the course of enquiry and the enquiry was conducted according to the principles of natural justice . It is also allege that the workman was given full opportunity to defend himself. The management has also stated that the workman during the course of employment used to often create nuisance and never respected his superiors and never obeyed them. It is further stated that the workman was habitual absentee and had no interest in work at all. This caused loss to the administration . He often assaulted officers /supervisors of railway under whom he worked. Not only this the workman was often seen drunk, abusing the railway administration , creating a terror among employees of the depot on duty in railway premises. Prior to the award of punishment of removal from service the workman was awarded minor punishment, warnings for his misbehaviour , misconduct, assault with superiors but workman did not mend his ways . As a consequence of the assault committed by the applicant anFIRwas lodged earlier and during the course ofenquiry the workman had again committed an assault on his superiors as such the matter has been reported to higher authorities depot ( C & W) supervisors (CNB) and FIR 4392

THEGAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24, 2004/SRAVANA 2, 1926

Management has also proved by ex -parte evidence that Shyam Lal was not taking interest in his work and he was also indulged in misbehaving with railway employees besides unauthorised absence.

The workman has not come forward to disprove the charges and the workman has also not proved that the Appellate Authority has not applied its mind while rejecting his appeal with the result I come to the conclusion that the management in removing the workman vide order dated 16-2-99 is legal and justified . Issue referred, therefore, is answered in affirmative , against the workman. I also come to the conclusion that workman is not entited to any relief.

Lucknow,

29-6-2004

SHRIKANT SHUKLA, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 7 जुलाई, 2004

का. आ. 1764.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भा. को. को. लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय धनबाद- II , के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 273/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 5-7-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं.एल-20012/316/2001- आई . आर ( सी- I ) ]

एन. पी . केशवन, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 7th July, 2004

S.O. 1764. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 273/2001 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal / Labour Court , II , Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of BCCL, and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 5-7-2004.

[No. L -20012/316/2001 - IR (C - I) ] N. P. KESAVAN . Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.2) AT DHANBAD PRESENT : Shri B. Biswas . Presiding Officer

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)] Inthe matter ofan Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1) (d) ofthe I.D. Act, 1947

REFERENCE NO . 273 OF 2001

PARTIES :

Employers in relation to the management of M/ s BCCL and their workman

APPEARANCES :

Onbehalf of the workman

: None

Onbehalf of the employers

State

: Jharkhand Industry

: Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 2nd June , 2004

AWARD

The Govt. of India , Ministry of Labour, in exercise ofthe powers conferred on them under Section 10 (1 ) (d) of the I.D Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/316/ 2001- IR(C- I) , dated, the 24th September, 2001.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the demand of the union to regularise Sri Muslim Main as Dozer Operator is proper and justified? If so , to what relief is the concerned workman entitled and from what date ?" 2. Neither the concerned workman nor his representative appeared in this case . None also appeared on behalf of the management . It reveals from the record that the instant reference case is pending since 2001 for disposal . It further transpires from the record that sufficient opportunities were given to the parties but inspite of giving ample opportunities they have fail to turn up and even they did not consider necessary to submitWritten Statement on their behalf. Gesture of the parties if is taken into consideration it will expose clearly that the parties are not interested to proceed with the hearing of this case . Under such circumstances it is needless to adjourn the case suo moto for days together. Accordingly, a No Dispute ' Award is rendered and the instant reference is disposed of on the basis of'No dispute Award presuming non - existence of any industrial dispute between the parties .

B. BISWAS, Presiding Officer 4393 भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 24, 2004/ श्रावण 2, 1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 7 जुलाई, 2004

this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/ 72/2002 - IR (C-I) , dated , the Nil .

SCHEDULE

"Whethermanagement ofBCCL Bagdigi Colliery's is justified in dismissing Sri Ram Chander Pasi from service? If not , to what relief is the workman entitled?"

का० आ० 1765.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भा० को० को० लि० के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण / श्रम न्यायालय धनबाद- II के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 57/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 5-7-04 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं० एल-20012/72/2002- आई ० आर० (सी-1 ) ] एन ० पी० केशवन, डैस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 7th July, 2004

S.O. 1765. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 57/ 2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court , Dhanbad - II now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of BCCL and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 5-7-04

[No. L-20012/ 72/2002-IR (C-I) ] N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

2. In this reference neither the concerned workman nor his representative appeared before this Tribunal . Management side however made appearance through their learned Advocates . It reveals from the record that the instant reference case is pending since 2002 for disposal . It further transpires from the record sufficient opportunities were given to the workman/union but in spite of giving ample opportunities the workman/union has failed to turn up before this Tribunal and even they did not consider pecessary to submit Written Statement ontheir behalf . Geture of the workman /Union if is taken into consideration will expose clearly that the workman/ union is not interested to proceed with the hearing ofthis case. Under such circumstances it is needless to adjourn the case suo moto for days together. Accordingly, a ' No dispute' Award is rendered and the instant reference is disposed of on the basis of 'No dispute ' Award presuming non-existence of any industrial dispute between the parties.

ANNEXURE

B. BISWAS, PresidingOfficer BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2) AT DHANBAD

नई दिल्ली, 7 जुलाई, 2004

PRESENT :

Shri B. Biswas, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1 )(d) ofthe I.D. Act, 1947.

REFERENCE NO . 57 OF 2002

का० आ० 1766. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सीएमपीडीआईएल के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीग सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय धनबाद-11 के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 303/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 5-7-04 को प्राप्त हुआ था । PARTIES : Employers in relation to the management of Lodna Area ofM/s . BCCL and their workman .

[सं. एल-20012/450/2001- आई. आर. (सी-1 ) ] एन. पी. केशवन, डैस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 7th July, 2004 APPEARANCE :

Onbehalf of the workman :None

:Mr. D. K. Verma,

On behalf of the employers

Advocate .

State : Jharkhand

Industry: Coal.

Dated, Dhanbad the 3rd June, 2004.

AWARD

S.O. 1766. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 303/2001 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, Dhanbad- II now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of CMPDIL and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 5-7-04 .

[No. L-20012/450/2001 +IR (CI) ] N. P. KESAVAN , Desk Officer TheGovt . of India , Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10 ( 1 ) ( d) of the I.D. Act , 1947 has referred the following dispute to 4394

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24 , 2004/ SRAVANA 2 , 1926

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL ( NO . 2) AT DHANBAD

PRESENT :

Shri B. Biswas , Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10( 1 ) (d) ofthe I.D. Act , 1947 .

REFERENCE NO . 303 OF 2001

PARTIES:-Employers in relation to the management of C. M. P. D. I. L. and their workman .

APPEARANCES :

Onbehalf of the workman : None

On behalf of the employers :Mr. B. P. Singh, Personnel Manager .

State : Jharkhand

Industry: Coal.

Dated the 3rd June, 2004.

AWARD

TheGovt. of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10 ( 1 ) (d ) of the 1.D. Act , 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L -20012/ 450/2001 dated 29-11-2001 .

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Central Mine Planning and Design Institute Limited , Ranchi in changing the weekly rest day from Sunday to other days in respect of Security Guards working in Ranchi and other camps including C.M.P.D.I.L. Headquarter , except Bhubaneshwar Region , is proper and justified? If not ,to what relief are the workmen concerned entitled ? "

2. In this reference neither the concerned workman nor his representative appeared. Management side , however made appearance through their authorised representative . It reveals from the record that the instant reference case is pending since 2001 for disposal . It further transpires from the record that sufficient opportunities were given to the workman but in spite of giving ample- opportunities the workman/ union has failed to turn up and even they did not consider necessary to submit Written Statement on their behalf. Gesture of the workman/union if ittaken into consideration will expose clearly that the workman/union is not interested to proceed with the hearing of this case . Under such circumstances it is needless to adjourn the case suo moto for days together . Accordingly, a ' No dispute Award is rendered and the

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] instant reference is disposed of on the basis of ' No dispute' Award presuming non -existence of any industrial dispute between the parties.

B. BISWAS, PresidingOfficer नई दिल्ली, 7 जुलाई , 2004

का. आ. 1767.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भा.को.को. लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्धनियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय धनबाद- II के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 115/99 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 5-7-04 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-20012/222/98- आई.आर. ( सी-1 ) ]

एन.पी. केशवन , डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 7th July, 2004

S.O. 1767. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 115/99 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court , Dhanbad - II now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the inanagementment of BCCL and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 5-7-04.

[No. L -20012/222/98- IR (C- I) ] N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2) AT DHANBAD

PRESENT :

Shri B. Biswas , Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1 ) (d) ofthe 1.D. Act, 1947.

REFERENCE NO . 115 OF 1999

PARTIES :-Employers in relation to the management of Kusunda Area of M/s . BCCL and their workman.

APPEARANCES ;

Onbehalf of the workman : None

Onbehalf ofthe employers Mr. H. Nath, Advocate

State : Jharkhand

Industry: Coal Dated, Dhanbad the 2nd June , 2004 4395

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 24, 2004/ श्रावण 2 , 1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

AWARD

TheGovt. ofIndia, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10 ( 1 ) (d) of the I.D. Act . , 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/ 222/98 I.R. (C. I. ) dated 29th January, 1999.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Kusunda Area of BCCL in not providing employment to Sri Dunarayan Kahar dependent son of Late Ramjee Ram, Ex-General Mazdoor, Kusunda Colliery who diedwhile in service, although Sri Dunarayan Kahar hadapplied on 2-3-90 isjustified ? If not, what relief the dependent Sri Dunarayan Kahar is entitled?" their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 5-7-04

[No. L-20012/156/2000- IR (C-I) ] N. P. KESAVAN , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2 , AT DHANBAD

PRESENT:

Shri B. Biswas , Presiding Officer

Inthe matter ofan Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1) (d) ofthe L.D. Act , 1947.

REFERENCE NO. 124 OF 2000

PARTIES : Employers in relation to the management of M/s. BCCL and their workman.

Appearances:

:None

Onbehalf of the workman

Onbehalf of the employers : Mr. A. K. Sinha, Advocate

Industry: Coal.

State : Jharkhand

2. In this reference neither the concerned workman nor his representative appeared . However, management appeared through their learned Advocate . It reveals from the record that the instant reference case is pending since 1999 for disposal . It further transpires from the record that sufficient opportunities were given to the workman but in spite of giving ample opportunities the workman/union has failed to turn up and even they did not consider necessary to submit Written Statement on their behalf. Gesture of the workman/union ifis taken into consideration willexpose clearly that the workman/union is not interested to proceed with the hearing of this case. Under such circumstances, it is needless to adjourn the case suo moto for days together. Accordingly, a ' No dispute ' Award is rendered and the instant reference is disposed of on the basis of ' No dispute ' Award presuming non -existence of any industrial dispute between the parties.

B. BISWAS, Presiding Officer.

नई दिल्ली, 7 जुलाई, 2004

का० आ० 1768.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भा० को ० को ० लि० के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रमे न्यायालय धनबाद- II के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 124/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 5-7-04 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं० एल० 20012/156/2000- आई० आर० (सी-1 ) ] एन०पी० केशवन, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi, the 7th July, 2004

S.O. 1768. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 124/2000 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Dhanbad- II now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of BCCL and 2136291 / 04-40

Dated Dhanbad the 2nd June, 2004 .

AWARD

TheGovt. of India, Ministry ofLabour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10( 1 )(d) of the I.D. Act. , 1947 has referred the following dispute to thisTribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/ 156/2000 dated 27-9-2000.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the refusal of the demand of the Union to regularise Sri Ram Chandra Rai, Attendance Clerk as Time Keeper by the management of Gopalichak Colliery, M/s . B.C.C.L. is legal and justified? Ifnot, to what relief is the concerned workman entitled and from what date ?"

2. In this reference neither the concerned workman nor his representative appeared before this Tribunal . However, management side appeared through their learned Advocate. It transpires from the record that the instant reference is pending since 2000 and ample opportunities weregiven to the parties for filing their respective Written Statement. But in spite of giving sufficient opportunities they have failed to do so. Gesture of the parties if is considered will expose clearly that they are not interested to proceed in this case . Under such circumstances , a 'No dispute' Award is rendered and the instant reference is disposed of on the basis of ' No dispute ' Award presuming non-existence ofany industrial dispute between the parties.

B. BISWAS , Presiding Officer 4396

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24, 2004/SRAVANA2, 1926

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]

AWARD

नई दिल्ली, 7 जुलाई , 2004

The Govt . of India , Ministry of Labour , in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10 (1) (d) of the I.D. Act , 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L -20012/ 10/2002 - IR ( C- I) , dated, the 15th July, 2002.

SCHEDULE

का. आ. 1769.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भा० को ० को० लि० के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय धनबाद- II के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 56/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 5-7- 2004को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[.सं. एल . 20012/10/2002- आई. आर ( सी- I ) ] एन. पी. केशवन, डैस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 7th July, 2004

"KYA BIHAR PRADESH COLLIERY MAZDOOR CONGRESS KI BHARAT COKING COAL LIMITED , KUSTORE KSHETRA KEY PRAVANDHTANTRA SEY MANG KI KARMKAR SHRI SAHRAB ALI KO FITTER GRADED EX. GRADE' MEY NIYAMITA KIYA JAYA UCHIT EVAM NAYASANGAT HAI ? YADI HAN TO KARMKAR KIS RAHAT KEY PATRA HAY TATHA KIS TARIKH SEY ?

S.O. 1769.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 56/ 2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court , Dhanbad - Il now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of BCCL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 05-7-2004 .

[No. L - 20012/ 10/2002 - IR (C- 1 ) ] N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.2) AT DHANBAD

2. In this reference neither the concerned workman nor his representative appeared. Management, however , made their appearance through their learned Advocate in this case . It transpires from the record that inspite of issuance of repeated notices the concerned workman has failed to appear before this Tribunal and he also even did not consider necessary to submit any written statement Gesture ofthe workman if is taken into consideration will expose clearly that he is not interested to proceed with the heearing of this case . Under such circumstances there is no reason to drag on the case further. Accordingly a 'No dispute' Award is rendered and the instant reference is disposed of on the basis of ' No dispute' Award presuming non-existence of any industrial dispute between the parties.

PRESENT :

B. BISWAS , Presiding Officer Shri Biswas, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 7 जुलाई, 2004

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10( 1) (d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 .

Reference No. 56 of 2002

PARTIES :

Employers in relation to the management of Kustore Area of M/ s . BCCL and their workman

का. आ. 1770.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एअर इंडिया लि० मुम्बई के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय मुम्बई-1 के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 19/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 5-7-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

APPEARANCES :

Onbehalf of the workman : None

[सं. एल-11012/37/2001- आई. आर ( सी-1 ) ] एन.पी. केशवन, डैस्क अधिकारी Onbehalf of the employers : Mr. U.N. Lall , Advocate .

New Delhi , the 7th July, 2004

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 2nd June , 2004

S.O. 1770.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 19/ 4397 भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 24, 2004/ श्रावण 2 , 1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

3. In view of the aforesaid position in law, this reference is disposed of by stating that industrial dispute . referred to this Tribunal does not survive .

2001 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court - I; Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Air India Ltd. Mumbai and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 5-07-2004.

4. Let the order dated 15-06-2004 in approval application No. NTB -65 of 1999 be part of the record of the case.

S. C PANDEY, Presiding Officer [No. L- 11012/37/2001 - IR(C -I) ] N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

नई दिल्ली, 7 जुलाई, 2004

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1 , MUMBAI

PRESENT :

Shri Justice S. C. Pandey, Presiding Officer

Reference No. CGIT 19 of 2001

का. आ. 1771.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भा.को .को.लि. केप्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय धनबाद- I के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 225/1998 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 5-7-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

PARTIES :

[सं. एल-20012/125/98- आई. आर ( सी-1 ) ] एन. पी. केशवन, डैस्क अधिकारी Employers in relation to the management of Air India Ltd., Mumbai

New Delhi , the 7th July, 2004

And

Theirworkman Shri R.H. Sonarikar

APPEARANCE :

:Shri Francis, Advocate

For the Management

For the Workman

:Shri Jaiprakash Sawant

: Maharashtra

State

S.O. 1771. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) ; the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 225/98) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum - Labour Court -1 ; Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of BCCL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 5-07-2004."

Mumbai, dated this the 18th day of June, 2004

AWARD

[No.L- 20012/ 125 /98 -IR(C- I) ] N. P. KESAVAN , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 2 DHANBAD 1. This is a reference made by the Central Government to this Industrial Tribunal in exercise of its powers under clause ( d) of sub - section 1 and sub- section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for passing an award after adjudication of the industrial dispute between the Air India Ltd. and their workman Ravindra H. Sonarikar in the following terms.

Inthe matter of a reference under Section 10( 1 ) (d)(2A) ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 .

Reference No. 225 of 1998

PARTIES:

"Whether the action of the management of Air India Ltd. in dismissing Sh. Ravindra H Sonarikar from service w.e.f. 4-5-99 is just, fair and legal? If not , to what relief is the workman entitled?"

Employers in relation to the management ofNudkhurkee Colliery ofBlock - II Area of M/ S B.C.C. Ltd.

And.

Theirworkmen.

PRESENT:

Shri B.Biswas , Presiding Officer.

2. This Tribunal has already passed the order dated. 15-6-2004 in the approval application No. NTB- 65 of 1999. This Tribunal has declined to grant approval to order dated 4-5-1999 whereby the workman was dismissed. The consequence of order dated 15-6-2004 is that the dismissal order did not survive from the date it was passed by the Air India Ltd.

4398

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24 , 2004/ SRAVANA 2, 1926

[ PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] APPEARANCES :-

For the Employers

: Shi R.N. Ganguly, Advocate

Forthe Workman

: Shri N.G. Arun, Representative of the workmen

24-1-91 did not consider necessary to pass the same order infavour of the concerned workmen illegally, arbitrarily and violating the principle of natural justice. Accordingly, they submitted their prayer to pass award directing the management to pay wages with due protection to the concerned workman w.e.f 24-1-91 and also be placed in proper category of employment .

Jharkhand

: Coal

State :

Industry

Dated, the 17th June , 2004

AWARD

ByOrderNo. L-20012/ 125/ 98 - IR ( C-I) dated 1-12-1998 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( d) of sub- section ( 1) and sub- section (2A) of section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal ;

"Whether the denial of the management to protect the wages of S/ Shri Jagdhari Das , Ramanand Chowhan, Omilal Shaw, Salchand Bhar, Birju Bhar , UsmanAnsari and Pawaru Chowhan isjustified?

if not, to what the concerned workmen are entitled?"

2. The case of the concerned workmen according to the written statement submittedby the sponsoring union on their behalf , in brief, is as follow :

3. The management , on the contrary, after filing written statement - cum - rejoinder have denied all the claims and allegations which the sponsoring union asserted in the written statement on behalf of the concerned workman. They submitted that the concerned workmen were piece - rated minor/ loader in the underground mine of Nudkhurkee Colliery which got closed on account of various mining problems in the year 1991. Consequent upon closure of the said underground mine the underground workers deployed therein were transferred to different mines to work in their respective capacities maintaining the condition of service unaltered in all respects . In the instant case the concerned workmen refused to carry out the order of transfer and insisted on the management through powerful union for their deployment on the surface in the Block-II area. As a result of such pressure of the union, the management provided them alternate job as Tyndals . they disclosed that the piece rated workers drawwages as per decision of NCWA in different groups with minimum guaranted wages as well as fall -back wages subject to the condition that they may earn higher amount by doing more work on the job allotted to them. The piece - rated workers have been divided into several groups and for each group specific amount have been fixed as minimum guaranteed wages and fall -back wages . Depending the nature of jobs performed by each piece- rated worker, he gets the amount computed on the fixed rate as per the work load . Therefore , the piece - rated workers have no fixed rate of wages and he can only claim of minimum guaranteed wages or the fall back wages ofdifferent groups on which he has been permanently absorbed. If a piece - rated worker is not been permanently absorbed in any specific group , he gets the wages of different groups according to nature ofjob performed by him.

The sponsoring union submitted that the concerned workmen were permanent employees engaged as miner/ loader in piece - rated Group- IV - A. They submitted that the management according to their own requirement sometime in 1990 engaged the concerned workmen alongwith another workman , Surajdeo Dusadh to perform duties of Tyndal in the underground for the whole of 1990. Thereafter the management by an office orderdated 24-1-1991 confirmed them as Tyndal in time rate under control of Manager , Nudkhurkes Colliery. They alleged that while confirming the worker as Tyndals did not protect their pay and allowances and simply placed them in Category - IV time rate causing financial loss in existing pay scale as well as for future benefits to be accounted for from earnings . They disclosed that it is a condition of service that the workmen should not suffer loss of earning from change of service condition from onejob to another and from one place to another . They disclosed that the management though gave pay protection to Surajdeo Dusadh by office order dated

They submitted that the concerned workmen demanded for their regularisation on time- rated job where they were deployed on alternate basis and ultimately under pressure of the union they were compelled to regularise them as Tyndal category- IV which was carrying higher wages than the minimum guaranteed wages of group 1 to Group -IV, keeping in view the general principles 4399 भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 24, 2004/ श्रावण 2 , 1926

[ भाग 11- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

Rs . 88.38 per day inclusive of all allowances Inspite of this fact the management fixed their wages at the initial stage of Category - IV wages . Accordingly, he submitted that they are entitled to get pay protection when they were engage in time- rated job from piece - rated job , but the management refused to give any pay protection to them.

ofwage fixation and at that time the concerned workman did not raise any objection against such fixation . They submitted that after lapse of long years the sponsoring union has made out the present case demanding protection of wages without specifying the particular details . Accordingly, they submitted that the claim is vague , absurd and for which the same is to be rejected summarily.

POINTS TO BE DECIDED

I have carefully considered the order dated 24-1-1991 issued by the management relying on which the concerned workmen are claiming their regularisation as Tyndal in time-rated. The office order speaks as follows :

4. "Whether denial of the management to protect the wages of S/ Shri Jagdhari Das , Ranıanand Chowhan, Omilal Shaw, Salchand Bhar , Birju Bhar , Usman Answari and Pawaru Chowhan is justified ? If not, to what relief the concerned workmen are entitled ? "

Finding with reasons

"The following underground loaders who completed 190 days attendance in undergrounr asTyndal are hereby allowed to report for their duties as Tyndal to the manager, Nudkhurkec Collicrywith immediate effect . "

It is clear fromthe evidence on record of both sides that the concerned workmen were underground miner/ loader ofMudkhurkce Colliery and the said colliery was closed in the year 1991) . Accordingly, all the underground workmen of that colliery were transferred to different collieries as per their category exepting the concerned workmen . Accordingly, the question of their working in the underground as Tyndal never arose as they used to discharge their duties in the underground as piece - rated miner /loader . It is seen that the job of Tyndals were provided to the concerned workmen on the surface of Nudkhurkee Colliery by the management . It is really ridiculous to say that the management designated thein asunderground Tyndal for which they were asked to report for their duties as Tyndals to the Manager of Nudkhurkee Colliery with immediate effect . However, as it is not the case of the sponsoring union as well as the concerned workmen that they worked in the underground as Tyndal I do not like to go in details in this regard . It is the claim of the concerned workmen relying on this order marked as Ext . W- 1 that they were confirmed in the post of Tyndal by the management . From this order I do not find any whisper that the management confirmed the concerned workmea to the post of Tyndal. The representative of the concerned workmen in course of hearing has faild to satisfy me relatung to the claim made by the concerned workimen / sponsoring union that they were confirmed by the management as Tyndal by order dated 24-1-91 ( Ext. W- 1 ) . Accordingly there is little scope to give importance to the claim of the sponsoring union/ concerned workmen in this regard. It is seen from the order dated 29-11-95/9-12-95 ( Ext. W-3 ) that the concerned workmen were regularised in time-rated category from piece - rated category as Tyndal from thei 5. It transpires from the record that the sponsoring union which a view to substantiate their claim examined one witness as WW - 1 . The management with a view to substantiate their claim examined one witness as MW- 1 considering the facts disclosed in the pleadings and also considering the evidence of WW- 1 and MW - 11 find no dispute to hold that initial designation of the concerned workmen was miner /loaders at Nudkhurkee Colliery. It is admitted fact that the said colliery was declared closed on account of various mining problem in the year 1991. The contention of the management is that after closure of the said colliery underground workers of that colliery were transferred to other collieries in the same capacity, The concerned workmen were underground miner /loader , but they refused to go to any other colliery on transfer in spite of closure of the colliery. On the contrary, they created pressure to work on the surface of the said colliery. However, in course of hearing the management has failed to establish that under pressure of the union they were forcedtokeep them in the said colliery and provided them the work of Tyndals on the surface . From the evidence of MW- 1 it transpires that the management engaged thein as Tyndals in the year 1990. This witness disclosed that on 24-1-1991 their services were confirmed in the post of Tyndals by the management and provided them Category- IV wages. This witness , who is one of the concerned workman, during his evidences disclosed further that prior to their engagement as Tyndals they used to perform the job of miner/ loader on piece - rated basis . while there engagement to work as Tyndals was on time -rated basis . He alleged that inspite of their engagement as Tyndal by the management on time - rated basis w.e.f 24-1-1991 they refused to give them any pay protection. He disclosed that as miner / loader they used to draw wages at the rate of

2136 G1/04-41 4400

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24, 2004 / SRAVANA 2 , 1926

[ PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

with the wages of time - rated worker while the said worker switched over to that category from piece -rated category. It is the contention of the concerned workmen that they used to draw wage at the rate of Rs . 88.38 per day while they discharged their duties as piece - rated worker, but after conversion as time- rated to the post of Tyndal in Category - IV their wage was fixed at Rs . 70.3t) per day. The concerned workmen accordingly have claimed for pay protection of Rs . 18.08 per day. But before claiming such pay protection onus absolutely rests on the concerned workmen / sponsoring union to show that they used to draw wages at the rate of Rs . 88.38 per day as piece-rated worker. This aspect is to be considered with all importance as the question of fixation of pay has come to light . It is fact that the management fixed wages of the concerned workmen in Category -IV at the rate of Rs . 70.30 per day while they were designated as time - rated Tyndal . It is really shocking to note that in spite of claiming pay protection neither the concerned workinen nor the sponsoring union considered necessary to produce the wage slip with a view to substantiate their claim . Wage slip is to be considered as documentary evidence , in support of the claim of the concerned workmen. Therefore , when they failed to submit documentary evidence such claim connot be substantiated by oral statement particularly when the management categorically denied the fact about receiving wages by the concerned workmen at the rate of Rs . 88.38 per day . I have failed to understand how the sponsoring union raised their claim for pay protection without being supported by any documentary evidence which are very much in their possession . Accordingly on the basis of mere oral submission I find no scope to arrive at any definite conclusion that the concerned workmen as piece - rated workers usedto draw their wages at the rate of Rs . 88.38 per day as piece-rated worker and for which they are very much entitled to get pay protection while they were converted as Tyndal in time- rated Category - IV.

6. In view of the facts and circumstaces discussed above 1 therefore find no scope to give any relief to the concerned worknten on the basis of their oral evidence in absence of any documentary evidence.

7. In the result , the following award is rendered: -

}

The denial of the management to protect the wages ofS /Shri Jagdhari Das. Ramanand Chowhan, Omilal Shaw. Salchand Bhar , Birju Bhar, Usman Ansari and Pawaru Chowhan is justified. Accordingly, the concerned workmen are not entitled to get any relief.

previous category of miner/ loader . Therefore , it is clear that the concerned workmen were regularised in the time- rated category of Tyndal with effect from the date mentioned above and not w.c.f. 24-1-91 which was claimed by them. It is further seen that after the concerned workmen were converted to time - rated Tyndal they were placed in category - IV and their wages were fixed at Rs . 70.30 per day. The dispute crops up from this place . It is the contention of the sponsoring union that as per service condition the workmen should not suffer loss of earning from change of service condition from one job to another and from one place 10 another . WW- 1 during his evidence disclosed that while they used to work as piece - rated miner/ loader they would draw wages at the rate of Rs . 88.38 per day inclusive of all allowances . Disclosing this fact he submitted that while the management fixed their wage at the initial stage of Category their wage camedown to Rs . 70.30 per day. It is their allegation that inspite of repeated representation the management refused to give any pay protection to their wages which they used to draw while they worked as piece - rated miner/loader . On the contrary. MW- 1 submitted in course of his evidence that there is no fixed rate of wage of piece - rated workers. They draw wages according to volume of work done by them. However, for their protection there is provision for minmum guaranteed wages . He categorically submitted that the concerned workmen never got more wages while they were miner/loader in comparison to their wages which they started receiving as Tyndals in Category - IV and accordingly the question of giving pay protection to the concerned workmen did not arise . As per NCWA - V revised basic wage rate for piece - rated workers w.e.f. 1-7-91 for Category - IV was fixed at Rs . 69.25 and fall back wages also was fixed at 69.25 we.f. 1-7-91 . The representative of the concerned workmen referring clause 3.11.3 ofNCWA- V submitted that the piece- rated workers are entitled to get piece- rated allowance w.e.f. 1-7-91 at the rate of Rs . 1.67 per day for Category - IV. He submitted that picce- rated workers appointed on or after 1-7-91 will also be entitiled to earn the special picce- rated allowance after completion ofone year continuous service in the manner time- rated workers are granted annual increment on 1/3,1/9. There is no dispute to hold that the concerned workmen were piece - rated miner/loader. As per provision of NCWA they were entitled to get special piece - rated allowance while they discharged their duties as piece- rated miner/loader. But the NCWA - V is silent if the said special piece- rated allowance shall be merged with the wage while aworker is converted as time- rated worker in different colliery. The representative of the concerned workmen in course of hearing has failed to highlight this fact before

thisTribunal that the special allowance should be merged

B. BISWAS , PresidingOfficer .

7 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 7 जुलाई , 2004

का. आ. 1772.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भा. को. को. लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय धनबाद- II के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 28/1998 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 5-7-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-20012/19/97- आई.आर. ( सी-1 ) ]

4401

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 24, 2004/ श्रावण 2 , 1926

section ( 1 ) and sub- section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 , referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:

"Whether the demand of the union for the placement Shri Santosh Kumar, Helper (T) as Asstt. Store Keeper w.e.f. 30-11-90 and as Store KeeperGrade- I w.e.f. 30-11-93 isjustified? Ifso, to what relief is the concerned workman entitled to ?"

एन.पी. केशवन , डैस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 7th July, 2004

S.O. 1772.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 28/1998 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court Dhanbad- 11 , now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of BCCL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 5-7-2004.

[No. L-20012/19/97 - IR( C- I) ] N.P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 2, DHANBAD Inthe matter ofa reference under Sec . 10(1 ) (d)( 2A) ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Reference No. 28 of 1998

PARTIES:

Employers in relation to the management ofBlock- II Area ofM/S . BCCL .

AND

Their Workmen .

PRESENT:

Shri B. Biswas, PresidingOfficer.

APPEARANCES :

Forthe Employers:

Shri D.K. Verma, Advocate For the Workman : Shri D. Mukherjee, Secretary,

Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union.

State: Jharkhand. Industry: Coal.

Dated, the 18th June , 2004

AWARD

ByOrder No. L-20012/19/ 97- IR(C-I) dated 27-2-1998 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has in exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( d) of sub- 2.The case of the concerned workman according to the written statement submitted by the sponsoring union , inbrief, is as follows :

That sponsoring union submitted that the concerned workman started working as Asstt. Store Keeper w.e.f. 29/ 30-11-90 atBenidih colliery ofBlock - II Area as per direction and authorisation of the management . They submitted that the concerned workman actually had been working as Store Keeper even prior to November, 1993 though at that time no written authorisation was issued in his favour. They submitted that as Asstt. Store Keeper the concerned workman put in more than 190/240 days atterndance in each calander year. In discharging of his duty as Asstt . Store Keeper the concerned workman used to maintain all statutory documents of the Store . Accordingly he submitted representation before the management several time for his regularisation, as per performance ofjobbut to no effect . They submitted further that in support of the claim of the concerned workman a note - sheet also was initiatedby the Supervisor of the concerned workman for his regularisation as Asstt . Store Keeper but that too did not yield any result . They submitted that by Office Order dated 22/23-5-94 the concerned workman was asked to take the charge of Sr. Store Keeper from Bindhachal Singh who as Sr. Store Keeper was posted in the said store of Benedih colliery, as he was transferred to other colliery. They submitted that as per the said order of the management the concemedworkman started discharging his duty as Sr. Store Keeper in place of permanent vacancy and accordingly he submitted representation before the management for his regularisation as Sr. Store Keeper on and froin the date of performance of the job of Sr. Store Keeper. To that effect also the superior authority initiated a note-sheet for his regularisation as Sr. Store Keeper but that too did not yield any result . In the circumstances the sponsoring union on behalf of the concerned workman raised an industrial dispute before the A.L.C. ( C) which ultimately resulted to reference to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The sponsoring union accordingly submitted prayer to pass an award directing the management to regularise the concerned workman as Asstt . Store Keeper w.e.f. 30-11-90 and Store Keeper Grade - I w.e.f. 30-11-93 with retrospective effect and with all arrear of wages and other consequential benefits .

4402

[ PART II- SEC . 3 (ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24 , 2004/ SRAVANA 2 , 1926

Store Keeper w.c.f. 30-11-90 and Store keeper Grade - I w.e.f. 30-11-93 is without any merit and the same is liable to be summarily rejected . Accordingly, the concerned workman is not entitled to get any benefit .

Points to be decided :

4. "Whether the demand of the union for placement of Sri Santosh Kumar, Helper (T) as Asstt . Store Keeper with effect from 30-11-90 and as store Keeper Grade- 1 with effect from 30-11-93 is justified ? If so ,to what relief is the concerned workman entitled to ?"

Finding with reasons :

5. It transpires from the record that the sponsoring union with a view to substantiate their claim cxamined the concerned workman as WW- 1 . The management also in support oftheir claim examined one witness as MW - 1 .

Now considering the facts disclosed in the pleadings ofboth sides and also considering evidence of WW- 1 and MW- II find no dispute to hold that the concerned workman got his appointment as Helper (T) in Category - l w.e.f. 22-1-90 . After appointment he was placed on probation for a period of one year .

It transpires from the evidence of WW - I that before completion of the period of probation in the month of November , 1990 he was appointed by a letter to discharge his duty as Asstt . Store Keeper . Accordingly as Asstt . Store Keeper he discharged his duty continuously from November, 1990. In course of his evidence the concerned workman has failed to produce the letter by which he was authorised to discharge his duty as Asstt . Store Keeper. WW- I during his evidence disclosed that in the year 1992 he submitted representation for his regularisation as Asstt . Store Keeper. In support of his claim local management also initiated a note- sheet for regularisation of his service asAsstt . Store Keeper. This witness during his evidence admitted that during the said period one Vindhyachal Singh was Sr. Store Keeper in the store of Benedilt Block - II area . He disclosed that said Vindhyachal Singh got his order of transfer from Benedih Block - II area to Block- IV area in the year 1994. After his transfer the management did not post any workman there as Sr. Store Keeper and for which he was authorised to discharge his duty as Store Keeper and Sr. Store Keeper by the management and accordingly since 1994 he is discharging his duty as Store Keeper and Sr. Store Keeper continuously. His evidence therefore speaks clearly that till 1993 the concerned workman , accordingto his claim , discharged his duty as Asstt . Store Keeper. In spite of claiming so by raising industrial dispute the concerned workman claimed his regularisation as Store Keeper Grade - l w.e.f. 30-11-93 . It is admitted fact that the concerned workman was regularised as Store Issue Clerk in clerical Grade-III from the post of helper of Benedih O.C.P. vide order No. BCCL/O & M/RegIn - Clk 96/258 dated 28-3-96 ( Ext . M - I ) .

3. The management , on the contrary, after filing written statement - cum -rejoinder had denied all the claims and allegations which the sponsoring union asserted in the written statement on behalf of the concerned workman. They submitted that the concerned workman was appointed as Helper ( Traince ) in Category- I w.e.f. 22-1-90 during his tenure oftraining as Helper he was given the job at different places including stores . They submitted as the concerned workman who was working as Helper (T ) he was given the job of collecting store material from the regional store as helper of the authorised competent person. They submitted that he was never selected or recruited as a person in clerical cadre , and , as such , there was no scope for him to be deputed to perform the jobs of Asstt . Store Keeper either in the colliery store or in the regional store . Accordingly his claim for change of his cadre from time- rated category to clerical cadre/ grade by way of regularisation is without any merit . They disclosed that JBCCI has formulated the cadre scheme for store personnel under Implementation Instruction No. 34 dated 17-7-84.As per the said cadre scheme entry in the store cadre can only be effected in clerical Grade - III on the basis of selection/ test of all cligible candidates within a particular arca under the jurisdiction of Chief General Manager and all persons with 3 years of service in the company and holding minimum matriculation or equivalent certificate recognised by Board ofExamination are eligible for consideration for their change in cadre to clerical grade in the store personnel with initial start of Grade - III . They further disclosed that the cadre scheme made it clear that the initial entry must be made through selection test by the Selection Committee and the persons in higher grades of Grade - 11 and above can only be promoted on the basis of recommendation of D.P.C. after fulfilment of eligibility conditions . Thus. there is uniformity in the rule of change ofcadre as well as promotion to higlier grades in the cadre and all kinds of regularisation by showing favouritism on the basis of influencer exerted on the officers of the company by the union or by political pressure have come to an end. They submitted further that the present attempt on the part of the sponsoring union to regularise the concerned workman as Asstt . Store Keeper in clerical Grade - II superseding the provisions of cadre scheme and rules of fair play and justice is nothing but demand for regularisation of illegal and corrupt practices by superseding all rules and canons of justice . However . the management in order to avoid displeasure of the powerful union agred to regularise the concerned workman melerical Grade - 1 [ ] in the store w.e.f. 13-5-96 and accordingly he has already been regularised in clerical Grade - III Accordingly his seniority in clerical Grade - III can only be counted we.f. 13-5-96 as per the cadre scheme and his case for promotion for higher grades will be considered on the basis of recommendations made by Departmental Promotion Committee as and when the occasion arises . They further submitted that the demand of the sponsoring union for placement of the concerned workman as Asstt .

4403

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 24 , 2004/ श्रावण 2 , 1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

MW- 1 on the contrary during his evidence disclosed that the post of Asstt . Store Keeper and Store Issuc Clerk are regulated under stores cadre as per N.C.W.A. He submitted that Store Issue Clerk comes under clerical Grade- III as a cadre post as per N.C.W.A. He further disclosed thatStore Issue Clerk is entitled to get promotion as Asstt . Store Keeper or as Store Keeper as per N.C.W.A. only (hrough D.P.C. This witness further disclosed that the concerned workman got his appointment as Helper ( T) Category - 1 . Therefore , his claim for regularisation in the post ofAsstt . Store Kecper or Store Keeper Grade - l cannot bc possible at all directly from Helper (T) Category - 1 violating the provision as laid down in N.C. W.A. In support ofthis claim the management relied on the document , marked Ext . M-3 .

Ihave carefully considered the document , marked Ext. M-3 i.e. cadre scheme for ministerial staff. This document has clearly pointed out how Asstt . Store Keeper. Store Keeper and Sr. Store Keeper get their promotion. It is clear from the cadre scheme that before getting promotion to Asstt . Store Keeper he must be Store Issue Clerk in clerical Grade- III and his promotion in the said post is made (hrough selection/test . Thereafter for the post of Asstt . Store Keeper and onward senior posts the workmen are promoted as per recommendation of D.P.C.

6. It is the specific claim of the concerned workman that by a letter he was authorised by the management ( o discharge his duty as Asstt . Store Keeper and started discharging his duty with effect from November, 1990. In the month of January he got his appointment as Helper (T) in Category - 1 He was placed on probation for a period of one year. It is really astonishing to note that before completion of the period of probation he proved himself so efficient that the management violating the provisions of NCWA and Cadre Scheme formulated as per JBCCI Circular No. 34 directly issued letter of authorisation to work as Asstt. Store Keeper It is curious to note that neither the concerned workman nor the sponsoring union in course of hearing was able to produce the said letter by which he was authorised to work as Asstt . Store Keeper violating all provisions of the Cadre Scheme as per NCWA . On the contrary, it is the claim of the manageinent that as a probationer the concerned workman was placed at different departments including at the store . The concerned workman was placed in the store finds no dispute at all, but it is the claim of the concerned workman/sponsoring union that he was placed in the store as Asstt . Store Keeper and after discharging his duties there continuously in the year 1992 he subinitted representation to the management for his regularisation as Asstt . Store Keeper. He further subnutted that in support of his claim the Manager/Supdt. , Benedih collierymade a note- sheet requesting the superior authority for regularisation of the concerned workman as Asstt . Store Keeper Gr. II w.e.f. 1-1-92 . The said note - sheet during evidence of the concerned workman was marked Ext . W-3.

I have carefully considered the said note - sheet and from the same it transpires that the concerned workman who wasHepler (T) Category- I was authorised by the Supdt./ Manager, Benedih O. C.P. for collecting of store materials from Regional Store and other Stores . The note-sheet further speaks that in addition to that work the concerned workman also used to maintain store issue ledger and accordingly made recommendation for his regularisation asAsstt . Store Keeper. Collection of materials , according to the management, is function of the Store Boy and not by the Asstt . Store Keeper. The learned Advocate for the management further submitted in course of hearing that therewas no authorisation in writing either by the Manager/ Supdt. , Benedih colliery or by the superior authority to the concerned workman to maintain store issue ledger etc. It is seen that the concerned workman is a matriculate . He was to assist the Store Keeper if he is allowed to maintain store issue ledger. In the circumstances there is no scope to say thathe started functioning the duties of Asstt. Store Keeper. From the note- sheet it transpires that till 12-12-92 i.e. the date of issuance of the note- sheet there was Store Keeper in the store of Benedih Block- Il arca . Actually at that relevant time in the store Sr. Store Keeper, Store Keeper and two Store Boys were posted. No evidence is forthcoming that the post of Asstt . Store Keeper was very much in existence there though the said post remained vacant . Therefore until and unless it is established that there was post of Asstt . Store Keeper in the said store the question of discharging duties of the concerned workman asAsstt. Store Keeper did not arise, though from the note- sheet 1 find recommendation for regularisation of the concerned workınan as Asstt . Store Keeper . According to cadre scheme for ministerial staff (Ext . M- 3 ) the post of Asstt. Store Keeper is filled up from the Store Issue Clerk subject to full filment of conditions mentioned therein and subject to his sclection/test . There is sufficient reason to believe that the Manager/Supdt . , Benedih colliery with some ulterior motive recommended the name of the concerned workman for his regularisation as Asstt . Storc Keeper violating all the norms as laid down in the cadre scheme of ministerial staff in the matter of giving promotion to the post of Asstt. Store Keeper . As per the said scheme itfurther transpires cligibility for the post of Asstt . Store Keeper occures on completion of three years experience as Store Issue Clerk in clerical Grade - III . The concerned workman was only Helper (T) in Category - I during the period in question and the Manager/ Supdt . , Benedih colliery admitted this facts in the note- sheet . Therefore, there is sufficient reason to tetieve that the said Manager . Benedih colliery was otherwise interested and for which he recommended the name of the concerned workman for his promotion as Asstt . Store Keeper which accordingly to cadre scheme could not at all be fissible . The concerned workman claimed his further promotion as Store Keeper Grade - 1 w.e.f. 30-11-93 for his discharging duties as Asstt. Store Keeper since 1990. The Cadre Scheme (Ext. M-3) 4404

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24 , 2004 / SRAVANA 2 , 1926

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii ) ]

establishment . The Schedule provides amongst other for making provision in the standing orders for classification of workman, for example , whether permanent , temporary, apprentice , probationers or badlis . This classification ofworkmen by the employer is thus made obligatory and has to be provided for in the standing order. It is also wellsettled that certified standing orders which have a statutory flavour prescribe the conditions of service and they shall be deemed to be incorporated in the contract of employment ofeach workman with his employer. Sudhir Chandra Sarkar V. Tata Iron and steel Co. Ltd. It would therefore following as a Corollary that the employee will have to classify the workmen and failure to classify would be violative of the 1946 Act . Now is there is a statutory obligation to classsify wrokmen under the 1946 Act , the classification would be permanent , temporary, apprentices , probationers and all other known categories such ofceling, officiating etc. " has specifically pointed out how Store Keeper and Sr. Store Keeper are promoted . The concerned workman has failed to establish that he discharged his duties as Asstt . Store Keeper since 1990 and in that capacity he completed his service continously for three years. WW- 1 during his evidence disclosed that Sr. Store Keeper . Vindhachal Singh was transferred to Block - IV arca in the year 1994. He submitted that at that time he was asked by the management to discharge his duty as Sr. Store Keeper and Store Keeper and in support of this claim he relied on the document marked Ext . W - 1. Ext . W - 1 speaks that the said Vindhachal Singh was asked to hand over charge of the store to the concerned workman . But the concerned workman has failed to produce any letter of authority to show that after taking over charge he was authorised to discharge the function of Sr. Store Keeper knowing fully well of the fact that he was Helper (T) Category - 1 . Therefore, relying on this letter marked Ext . W-1 there isno scope at all to draw any conclusion that the concerned workman being a helper (T) ategory - 1 was allowed to discharge his duty as Sr. Store Keeper and Store Keeper i.e. it shows clearly that at that relevant time being Helper ( T) Category - 4 he was incharge ofAsstt . Store Keeper . Store Keeper and Sr. Store Keeper in the store of Benedih Block - 11 area . The note-sheet (Ext . W-3) further speaks that recommendation was made for regularisation of the concerned workman w.c.f. 1-1-92 . On the contrary, the concerned workman claimed his regularisation as Asstt . Store Keeper w.e.f. 30-11-90 . The concerned workman was appointed as Helper (T) in the month of January, 1990 and he was placed on probation for one year i.c. after rendering his service only for ten months as Helper ( T ) on probation , he claimed his regularisation in the post of Asstt . Store Keeper . On us absolutely rests on the concerned workman to justify his claim but I find no hesitation to say that the sponsoring union have failed to justify the claim lamentably. If the procedure of cadre scheme is taken into consideration I find no hesitation to say that it is absured to support the claim of the concerned workman for his regularisation as Asstt . Store Keeper w.c.f. 30-11-90 and Store Keeper Grade - 1 w.e.f. 30-11-93 .

7. Learned Advocate for the concerned workman in support of the claim of the concerned workman relied on adecision in connection with Civil Appeal No. 179 ( NL) of 1983 between Workmen employed by Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. Hindustan Lever Limited . I have considered the decision referred above. In the said decision their Lordships in para 7 observed-

The duspute in the instant case as I find was for confirmation ofemployees promoted to the higher grade and acting in the higher grade for more than 3 months. In other word, the demand for classification of workmen officiating in the higher grades either as permanent or temporary and they should not be continued indefinitely as temporary by making them permanent on rendering of continuous service in the higher grade for a period ofthree months . Thedemand involves both the classification of employees and classification by grade . Here in the instant case the concerned workman got his employment as Category - 1 Gerneral Mazdoor. It is his claim that he was allowed to work as Store Keeper in the store by the management and for which he has claimed for regularisation as he is rendering his servce in that capacity for years together. The concerned workman in course of hearing has failed to show that after getting promotion as Store Keeper he started discharging his duty there from Catagory - I Mazdoor. No evidence is aslo forth coming that since joining as Store Keeper he is enjoying the wages of that grade . I have already discussed above that the post of Store Keeper is a cadre post and as per NCWA there is clear verdict howthe post of Store Keeper can be filled up . As it is a cadre post there is no scope at all to get promotion directly from Category - 1 Mazdoor by any workman . For getting that post he must have to pass through some procedure as enunciated . Accordingly, relying on the said decision as referred to above there is no scope at all to draw conclusion that after getting promotion as Store Keeper he was allowed to work there as acting Store Keeper and the management discriminated in regularising him . Accordingly, I am not at par with the submission of the Icarned Advocate for the concerned workman .

"Since the introduction of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders ) Act . 1946 ( 1946 Act for short ) , it has been made obligatory for the employer in an industrial establishment to prepare a draft of standing orders and get them certified under the Act . Sec . 4 of the 1946 Act. requires the employer to make provision in the standing orders for every matter set out in the Schedule which is applicable to the industrial

8. In view of the facts and circumstances discussed above I hold that the sponsoring union have lamentably failed to establish the claim of the concerned workman and for which the concerned workman is not entitled to get any relief in view of his prayer.

[ भाग II - खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

9. In the result . the following award is rendered- The demand of the union for the placement of Shri Santosh Kumar, Helper ( T ) as Asstt . Store Keeper w.c.f. 30-11-90 and Store Keeper Grade - l w.c.f. 30-11-93 is notjustified . Hence , the concerned workman is not entitled to get any relief.

B. BISWAS , Presiding Officer .

श्रम और रोजगार मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली, 9 जुलाई , 2004

का. आ. 1773.- जबकि, मैसर्स एल एण्ड टी नीरो लिमिटेड ( जीजे /बीडी/21006 ) ( इसके पश्चात् उक्त प्रतिष्ठान के रूप में उल्लिखित ) ने कर्मचारी भविष्य निधि एवं प्रकीर्ण उपबंध अधिनियम, 1952( 1952 का 19 ) ( इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम के रूप में उल्लिखित ) की धारा 17 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( क) के अन्तर्गत छूट के लिए आवेदन किया है ।

और जबकि, केन्द्र सरकार के विचार में अंशदान की दरों के संबंध में उक्त प्रतिष्ठान के भविष्य निधि नियम उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 में उल्लिखित की तुलना में कर्मचारियों के लिए कम अनुकूल नहींहैं और कर्मचारी अन्य भविष्य निधि लाभों का भी फायदा उठा रहे हैं कुल मिलाकर इसी प्रकार के किसी अन्य प्रतिष्ठान में कर्मचारियों के संबंध में उक्त अधिनियम के अन्तर्गत अथवा कर्मचारी भविष्य निधि स्कीम, 1952 ( इसके पश्चात् उक्त स्कीम के रूप में उल्लिखित ) के अन्तर्गत प्रदान किए जा रहे लाभों की तुलना में कम अनुकूल नहीं है ;

अतः , अब, केन्द्र सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 17 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( क ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, और समय -समय पर इस संबंध में केन्द्र सरकार द्वारा उल्लिखित शर्तों के अध्यधीन एतद्वारा 01-10-1997 से उक्त प्रतिष्ठान को उक्त स्कीम के सभी उपबंधों के प्रचालन से अगली अधिसूचना जारी होने तक छूट प्रदान करती है ।

[सं. एस-35015/8/2004 - एसएस -11 ]

संयुक्ता राय, अवर सचिव MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT New Delhi , the 9th July, 2004

S.O. 1773.- Whereas M/s . L& T Niro Limited ( GJ /BD/ 21006 ) ( hereinafter referred to as the said establishment ) has applied for exemption under clause ( a) of Sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 17 of the Employces Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act . 1952 ( 19 of 1952 ) ( hereinafter referred to as the said Act) .

And whereas in the opinion of the Central Government the rules of the provident fund of the said establishment with respect to the rates of contribution are not less favourable to employees therein than those specified in section 6 of the said Act and the employees are also in enjoyment of other provident fund benefits provided under the asid Act or under the Employees Provident Fund Scheme , 1952 ( hereinafter referred to as the said scheme) in relation to the employees in any other establishment of similar character.

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( a) of Sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 17 of the said

4405

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 24, 2004/ श्रावण 2 , 1926

Act, subject to the conditions specified in this regardfrom time to time , the Central Government , hereby, exempts the said establishment from the operation of all the provisions of the said Scheme with effect form 1-10-1997 , until futher notification .

[No. S -351015 /8/2004 -SS -II ]

SANJUKTA RAY, Under Secy .

नई दिल्ली, 9 जुलाई, 2004

का. आ. 1774.-जबकि, मैसर्स एल एण्ड टी छियोदा लिमिटेड ( जीजे/बीडी/21007 ) ( इसके पश्चात् उक्त प्रतिष्ठान के रूप में उल्लिखित ) ने कर्मचारी भविष्य निधि एवं प्रकीर्ण उपबंध अधिनियम , 1952( 1952 का 19 ) ( इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम के रूप में उल्लिखित ) की धारा 17 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( क ) के अन्तर्गत छूट के लिए आवेदन किया है ।

और जबकि, केन्द्र सरकार के विचार में अंशदान की दरों के संबंध में उक्त प्रतिष्ठान के भविष्य निधि नियम उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 में उल्लिखित की तुलना में कर्मचारियों के लिए कम अनुकूल नहीं हैं और कर्मचारी अन्य भविष्य निधि लाभों का भी फायदा उठा रहे हैं कुल मिलाकर इसी प्रकार के किसी अन्य प्रतिष्ठान में कर्मचारियों के संबंध में उक्त अधिनियम के अन्तर्गत अथवा कर्मचारी भविष्य निधि स्कीम , 1952 ( इसके पश्चात् उक्त स्कीम के रूप में उल्लिखित ) के अन्तर्गत प्रदान किए जा रहे लाभों की तुलना में कम अनुकूल नहीं हैं ;

अतः , अब , केन्द्र सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 17 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( क ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, औरसमय- समय पर इस संबंध में केन्द्र सरकार द्वारा उल्लिखित शर्तों के अध्यधीन एतद्वारा 01-12-96 से उक्त प्रतिष्ठान को उक्त स्कीम के सभी उपबंधों के प्रचालन से अगली अधिसूचना जारी होने तक छूट प्रदान करती है ।

[सं. एस -35015/ 7/2004- एसएस- II ]

संयुक्ताराय, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 9th July, 2004

S.O. 1774. Whereas M/ s . L & T Chiyoda Limited ( GJ /BD/21007) ( herein after referred to as the said establishment ) has applied for exemption under clause ( a) of Sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 17 of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act , 1952 (19 of 1952) ( hereinafter referred to as the said Act ) .

And whereas in the opinion of the Central Government the rules of the provident fund of the said establishment with respect to the rates of contribution are not less favourable to employces therein than those Specified in section 6 of the said Act and the employees are also in enjoyment of other provident fund benefits provided under the said Act or under the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme . 1952 ( hereinafter referred to as the said Scheme ) in relation to the employees in any other establishment of similar character.

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( a) of Sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 17 of the said [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24, 2004/SRAVANA 2 , 1926

4406

provisions of the said Scheme with effect from 1-12-1996 . until further notification.

[No. S- 35015 /9 /2004 -SS- II ] SANJUKTA RAY, Under Secy.

Act and subject to the conditions specified in this regard from time to time, the Central Government , hereby exempts the said establishment from the operation of all the provisions of the said Scheme with effect from 1-12-1996. until further notification .

शुद्धिपत्र

[No. S- 35015/7 /2004 -SS - II ] SANJUKTA RAY. Under Secy:

नई दिल्ली, 12 जुलाई, 2004

नई दिल्ली, 9 जुलाई , 2004

का. आ. 1775.- जबकि, मैसर्स एल एण्ड टी सार्जेन्ट एण्ड लुंडी लिमिटेड ( जीजे/बीडी/ 21008 ) ( इसके पश्चात् उक्त प्रतिष्ठान के रूप में उल्लिखित ) ने कर्मचारी भविष्य निधि एवं प्रकीर्ण उपबंध अधिनियम, 1952 ( 1952 का 19 ) ( इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम के रूप में उल्लिखित ) की धारा 17 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( क) के अन्तर्गत छूट के लिए आवेदन किया है ।

का. आ. 1776.- केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा , औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 और साथ ही , इस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या एल-42012/1/97- आई.आर (डी.यू. ) , दिनांक 30-4-2004 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण- II , नई दिल्ली के दिनांक 11-6-2004 के पंचाट, औद्योगिक विवाद संख्या 3/98 के संदर्भ में शुद्धि पत्र प्रकाशित करती है ।

[सं. एल-42012/1/97- आई.आर. ( डी.यू. ) ] कुलदीप राय वर्मा , डैस्क अधिकारी

CORRIGENDUM

New Delhi , the 12th July, 2004 और जबकि, केन्द्र सरकार के विचार में अंशदान की दरों के संबंध में उक्त प्रतिष्ठान के भविष्य निधि नियम उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 में उल्लिखित की तुलना में कर्मचारियों के लिए कम अनुकूल नहींहैं और कर्मचारी अन्य भविष्य निधि लाभों का भी फायदा उठा रहे हैं कुल मिलाकर इसी प्रकार के किसी अन्यः प्रतिष्ठान में कर्मचारियों के संबंध में उक्त अधिनियम के अन्तर्गत अथवा कर्मचारी भविष्य निधि स्कीम, 1952 ( इसके पश्चात् उक्त स्कीम के रूप में उल्लिखित ) के अन्तर्गत प्रदान किए जा रहे लाभों की तुलना में कम अनुकूल नहीं हैं;.

S.O. 1776.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act . 1947 ( 14 of 1947) and in continuation of this Ministry's Notification No. L- 42012/1/ 97-1R (DU) dated 300-4-2004 the Central Government hereby publishes the corrigendum dated 11-6-2004 in award reference ID No. 3/98 of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal II . New Delhi .

अतः , अब , केन्द्र सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 17 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( क) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, और समय- समय पर इस संबंध में केन्द्र सरकार द्वारा उल्लिखित शर्तों के अध्यधीन एतद्वारा 01-12-96 से उक्त प्रतिष्ठान को उक्त स्कीम के सभी उपबंधों के प्रचालन से अगली अधिसूचना जारी होने तक छूट पदान करती है ।

[No. L-12012/ 1 /97-1R (DU) | KULDIP RAI VERMA , Desk Officer [सं. एस-35015/9/2004- एसएस -11 ]

ANNEXURE

संयुक्ताराय , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 9th July, 2004

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT - II

RAJENDRA BHAWAN, GROUND FLOOR, RAJENDRA PLACE , NEW DELHI

In the Court ofSh . R. N. Rai , Presiding Officer, CGIT- Cum - Labour Court - II , New Delhi .

S.O. 1775.-Whereas M/s . L & T Sargent and Lundy Limited (GJ /BD/21008 ) ( hereinafter referred to as the said establishment ) has applied for exemption under clause ( a ) of sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 17 of the Employees ' Provident Funds and Miscellancous Provisions Act , 1952 (19 of 1952) ( hereinafter referred to as the said Act ) .

1.D. Να . 3/98

In the matter of Sh . M. N. Singh Vis

CPWD.

Corrigendum

And whereas in the opinion of the Central Governinent the rules of the provident fund of the said establishment with respect to the rates of contribution are not less favourable to employces therein than those specified in section 6 of the said Act and the employees are also in enjoyment of other provident fund benefits provided under the said Act or under the Employees ' Provident Fund Scheme , 1952 ( hereinafter referred to as the said scheme) in relation to the employees in any other establishment of similar character.

The 5th line of the concluding para of the award dated 26-4-2004 in the industrial dispute mentioned above is to be read as

"the workman is entitled to be reinstated from 3-3-1993 instead of 1-3-1988 ".

Dated: 11-6-10

R. N. RAI , Presiding Officer Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( a ) of Sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 17 of the said Act and subject to the conditions specified in this regard from timeto time . the Central Government , hereby, exempts the said establishment from the operation of all the

Printedby the Manager , Govt . of India Press . Ring Road , Mayapuri . New Delhi - 110064 and Published by the Controller of Publications . Delhi - 110054.