REGD. No. DL ( N) 04/ 0007/2003-05 रजिस्ट्री सं० डी एल (एन ) 04/0007/2003-05
सत्यमेव जयते भारत काराजपत्र The Gazette of India
प्राधिकार से प्रकाशित
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
साप्ताहिक
WEEKLY
सं. 41 ]
नई दिल्ली, अक्तूबर 3 अक्तूबर 9 , 2004 , शनिवार/आश्विन11-आश्विन17, 1926
OCTOBER 9 , 2004, SATURDAY/ASVINA 11- ASVINA 17, 1926 No. 41 NEW DELHI , OCTOBER 3
इस भाग में भिन्न पृष्ठ संख्या दी जाती है जिससे कि यह अलग संकलन के रूप में रखा जा सके
Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation
भाग II- खण्ड 3- उप-खण्ड (ii) PART II- Sectian 3- Sub- section (ii )
भारत सरकार के मंत्रालयों ( रक्षा मंत्रालय को छोड़कर ) द्वारा जारी किए गए सांविधिक आदेश और अधिसूचनाएं Statutory Orders and Nutifications Issued hy the Ministries of the Government of India
(Other than the Ministry of Defence)
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS गृह मंत्रालय
New Delhi , the 20th September, 2004 नई दिल्ली, 20 सितम्बर, 2004
S.O. 2501. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the PublicPremises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (40 of 1971 ). the Central Government hereby appoints the officer mentioned in column ( 1 ) of the Table below, being an officer equivalent to the rank of Gazetted Officer of the Government . to be Estate Officer for the purposes of the said Act , and the said officer shall exercise the powers conferred, and perform the duties imposed, on the estate officers by or under the said Act , within the local limits of his jurisdiction in respect ofthe public premises specified in column ( 2) of the said table.
TABLE
का.आ. 2501.- सरकारी स्थान ( अनाधिकृत अधिभोगियों की बेदखली ) अधिनियम , 1971 ( 1971 का 40 ) की धारा द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुएं, केन्द्र सरकार नीचे सारणी के कालम ( 1 ) में वर्णित अधिकारी को सरकार के राजपत्रित अधिकारी होने के नाते कथित सारणी के कालम ( 2 ) में विनिर्दिष्ट उनके संबंधित लोक परिसरों के क्षेत्राधिकार की सीमाओं के अंदर कथित अधिनियम के प्रयोजनार्थ सम्पदा अधिकारी नियुक्त करती है और कथित अधिकारी कथित अधिनियम के अंतर्गत अथवा उसके द्वारा सम्पदा अधिकारियों को प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करेगा तथा सौंपे गए कत्र्त्तव्यों का निर्वहन करेगा: - सारणी
Designation of the Officer Categories of public premises and local limits ofjurisdiction अधिकारी का नाम
(2)
(1)
सरकारी आवास की श्रेणी एवं स्थानीय क्षेत्राधिकार
कमाण्डेन्ट ( स्टाफ) , कार्यालय
पुलिस उप महानिरीक्षक ,
Premises belonging to or taken on lease or requisi- tioned by or on behalf of Central Reserve Police Force at Nehru Nagar, NewDelhi
नेहरू नगर, नई दिल्ली में केन्द्रीय रिजर्व पुलिस बल का अथवा उसके लिए पट्टे पर लिया गया अथवा अधिग्रहित परिसर
केन्द्रीय रिजर्व पुलिस बल, आर. के. पुरम्, नई दिल्ली।
Commandant (Staff Officer ) , Office of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central Reserve Police Force, R. K. Puram , NewDelhi
[F. No. A -11-1 /2003 - Adm. -1 (E.O. )/CRPF/ MHA/PF - III ] [सं. ए.- 11-1/2003-प्रशा.- 1 ( स.अ.) केरिपु वल/गृह मंत्रालय/पी.एफ-3 ]
M. S. KALANIA, Under Secy.
एम. एस. कलानिया, अवर सचिव
(5931)
2908 GI 2004 5932
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9 , 2004/ASVINA 17. 1926
PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] वित्त मंत्रालय
New Delhi , the 24th September , 2004 आर्थिक कार्य विभाग )
(बैंकिंग प्रभाग नई दिल्ली , 24 सितम्बर, 2004
S.O. 2503. In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of Sub- section ( 3 ) of Section 9 of the Banking Companies ( Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1980 , read with sub - clause ( 1 ) of clause 3 of the Nationalised Banks ( Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1980 , the Central Government. hereby nominates Shri Vinod Kumar Bhasin , Joint Secretary and Legislative Counsel . Legislative Department , Ministry of Law and Justice, New Delhi as a director on the Board of Directors of Corporation Bank with immediate effect and until further orders .
[F. No. 9 / 11 /2004-B.O.I. ( ii) ) RAMESH CHAND , Under Secy.
का.आ. 2502.- राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक ( प्रबंध एवं प्रकीर्ण उपबंध) स्कीम, 1970 के खंड 3 के उप - खंड ( 1 ) के साथ पठित बैंककारी कंपनी ( उपक्रमों का अर्जन एवं अंतरण ) अधिनियम , 1970 की धारा 9 की उप- धारा ( 3 ) के खंड ( ख ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार, एतद्वारा श्री एम. दीन दयालन, संयुक्त सचिव एवं वित्तीय सलाहकार, वित्त मंत्रालय, नई दिल्ली को तत्काल प्रभाव से और अगले आदेश होने तक , सिंडिकेट बैंक के निदेशक मण्डल में निदेशक के रूप में नामित करती है ।
नई दिल्ली, 24 सितम्बर , 2004
[ फा. सं. 9/ 11/2004- बी.ओ.आई. ( i ) ]
रमेश चन्द, अवर सचिव
MINISTRY OF FINANCE (Department of Economic Affairs )
( BANKING DIVISION)
का.आ. 2504.- भारतीय स्टेट बैंक ( अनुषंगी बैंक ) अधिनियम, 1959 की धारा 25 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( ङ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार, एतद्वारा , वित्त मंत्रालय, आर्थिक कार्य विभाग , नई दिल्ली में निदेशक सुश्री पी. बोलिना को तत्काल प्रभाव से और अगले आदेशों तक, स्टेट बैंक आफ बीकानेर एंड जयपुर के निदेशक मण्डल में श्री एस. डी. एस . मिन्हास के स्थान पर निदेशक के रूप में नामित करती है ।
New Delhi , the 24th September. 2004
[फा. सं . 9/8/2000- बी.ओ.आई. ( iii ) ]
रमेश चन्द, अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 24th September , 2004 S.O. 2502. In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of Sub - section (3 ) of Section 9 of the Banking Companies ( Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 , read with sub - clause ( 1 ) of clause 3 of the Nationalised Banks ( Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970 , the Central Government. hereby nominates Shri M. Deena Dayalan . Joint Secretary and Financial Advisor. Ministry of Finance . New Delhi as a director on the Board of Directors of Syndicate Bank with immediate effect and until further orders .
[F. No. 9 / 11 /2004-B.O.I . ( i ) ]
S.O. 2504. In exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( e) of Sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 25 of the State Bank of India (Subsidiary Banks ) Act , 1959 , the Central Government , hereby nominates Ms. P. Bolina , Director , Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs , New Delhi as a Director on the Board of Directors of State Bank ofBikaner and Jaipur with immediate effect and until further orders vice Shri S.D.S. Minhas.
RAMESH CHAND , Under Secy.
[F. No. 9/8/2000 -B.O.I . (iii) ] नई दिल्ली, 24 सितम्बर, 2004
RAMESH CHAND , Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 29 सितम्बर, 2004
का.आ. 2503.- राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक ( प्रबंध एवं प्रकीर्ण उपबंध ) स्कीम, 1980 के खंड 3 के उप - खंड ( 1 ) के साथ पठित बैंककारी कंपनी ( उपक्रमों का अर्जन एवं अंतरण ) अधिनियम , 1980 की धारा 9 की उप - धारा ( 3 ) के खंड ( ख ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार, एतद्वारा विधायी विभाग , विधि एवं न्याय मंत्रालय, नई दिल्ली में संयुक्त सचिव और विधायी काउन्सल श्री विनोद कुमार भसीन को तत्काल प्रभाव से और अगला आदेश होने तक कारपोरेशन बैंक के निदेशक मण्डल में निदेशक के रूप में नामित करती है ।
का.आ. 2505.-बैंकों एवं वित्तीय संस्थाओं को शोध्य ऋणों की वसूली अधिनियम , 1993 ( 1993 का 51 ) की धारा 2 के खंड ( ज) के उप - खंड ( ii ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्रीय सरकार , भारत में स्ट्रेस्ड असेट्स स्टेबिलाइज़ेशन फंड, मुंबई के व्यावसायिक कार्यकलापों और परिचालन क्षेत्र पर विचार करते हुए एतद्वारा उक्त खंड के प्रयोजन के लिए स्ट्रेस्ड असेट्स स्टेबिलाइजेशन फंड को मुंबई वित्तीय संस्था के रूप में विनिर्दिष्ट करती है । [फा. सं . 9/ 11/2004- बी.ओ.आई . ( ii ) ]
[फा. सं. 18/9/2004- डी.आर. टी. ] रमेश चन्द, अवर सचिव
आर. के. शर्मा, उप सचिव 5933
भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 9, 2004/आश्विन 17, 1926
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
NewDelhi , the 29th September, 2004
प्राधिकारी " के रूप में नियुक्त करती है । यह अधिसूचना दिनांक 15 सितम्बर, 2004 से प्रभावी होगी ।
[सं. 8/1 ( 1 )/2004- पीएसयू/604 ]
जी.एम. नायर, अवर सचिव ( उद्योग एवं खनिज)
DEPARTMENT OF ATOMIC ENERGY S.O. 2505. In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-clause (ii ) of clause ( h) of Section 2 of the Recovery ofDebts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act , 1993 (51 of 1993), the Central Government , having regard to the business activities and the area of operations in India of the Stressed Assets Stabilization Fund, Mumbai , hereby specifies the Stressed Assets Stabilization Fund , Mumbai , to be a financial institution for the purposes of the said clause.
Mumbai , the 24th September, 2004 [F. No. 18/ 9 /2004 - DRT]
R. K. SHARMA , Dy. Secy.
भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक
मुंबई, 30 सितम्बर, 2004
S.O. 2507. In exercise of the powers conferred on itunder Section 27 of the Atomic Energy Act , 1962 and in pursuance of Rule 13 of the Atomic Energy ( Working of Mines ,Minerals and Handling of Prescribed Substances ) Rules , 1984 , the Central Government hereby appoints the Secretary, Department of Atomic Energy, Government of India as the " Appellate Authority " for the purpose of said rule. This notification comes into force with effect from 15th September, 2004.
[No. 8/1 ( 1 )/2004 -PSU/604]
G.M. NAIR, Under Secy. ( Industries and Minerals ) का.आ. 2506.- राष्ट्रीय आवास बैंक अधिनियम, 1987 (1987 की सं. 53 ) की धारा 6 ( 2 ) के साथ पठित , धारा 6 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खंड ( घ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक एतद्वारा श्री वी. लीलाधर, उपगवर्नर, भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक, मुंबई को डॉ राकेश मोहन , उपगवर्नर के स्थान पर राष्ट्रीय आवास बैंक के निदेशक बोर्ड में बैंक के नामिती निदेशक के रूप में नामित करता है ।
[ अधिसूचना सं. बैपंर्यवि. विसंप्र राआबैंक सं. 546/03-27.07-2004-05 ]
विज्ञान और प्रौद्योगिकी मंत्रालय श्रीमती ऊषा थोरात , कार्यपालक निदेशक
(विज्ञान और प्रौद्योगिकी विभाग )
नई दिल्ली, 1 अक्तूबर , 2004 RESERVE BANK OF INDIA Mumbai , the 30th September, 2004
S.O. 2506. In pursuance of clause (d) of Sub- section( 1) of Section 6 read with Section 6 (2 ) of the National HousingBank Act, 1987 (No. 53 of 1987) , Reserve Bank of India hereby nominates Shri V. Leeladhar, Deputy Governor, Reserve Bank of India , Mumbai , as the Bank's Nominee Director on the Board ofDirectors of the National Housing Bank vice Dr. Rakesh Mohan , Deputy Governor.
का.आ. 2508.-मीडिया लैब एशिया भारत सरकार का एक उपक्रम है जिसका पंजीकृत कार्यालय सं. 2 , चतुर्थ तल , समृद्धि उद्यम पार्क, सेंट्रल, एम.आई.डी.सी. रोड़ अंधेरी ( पूर्व ) मुम्बई -400 093 में स्थित है, जो अनुसंधान और विकास उपकर अधिनियम , 1986 ( 1986 'का 32 ) ( जिसे इसके बाद उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 2 केखण्ड (ङ) के अधीन एक औद्योगिक समुत्थान है ( जिसे इसके बाद औद्योगिक समुत्थान कहा गया है ) ;
[NotificationNo. DBS. FID. NHB. No. 546/03 . 27.07/2004-05 ]
SMT. USHA THORAT, Executive Director
परमाणु ऊर्जा विभाग
और केन्द्रीय सरकार का यह समाधान हो गया है कि लोकहित में ऐसा करना आवश्यक व समीचीन है कि उक्त औद्योगिक समुत्थान को उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 3 के अधीन इस अधिसूचना में विनिर्दिष्ट प्रौद्योगिकी के आयात हेतु संदेय उपकर के संदाय छूत दीजाए;
मुंबई, 24 सितम्बर, 2004
अतः अब केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 7 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, उक्त औद्योगिक समुत्थान के लिए भारतीय रिज़र्व बैंक अनुमोदन सं. एफ.टी. 01 बी.वाई.आर. 0065 के अधीन कतिपय शैक्षणिक अनुसंधान एवं विकास क्रियाकलाप चलाने के लिए प्रौद्योगिकी आयात के संबंध में मेसाचुसेट्स इंस्टीट्यूट ऑफ का.आ. 2507.-परमाणु ऊर्जा अधिनियम, 1962 के खंड 27 के तहत प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए और परमाणु ऊर्जा (खान, खनिज एवं निहित पदार्थों के हस्तन के कार्य हेतु ) नियमावली, 1984 के नियम 13 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा सचिव, पऊवि, भारत सरकार को उपरोक्त नियम के प्रयोजन हेतु " अपीलीय 5934
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: OCTOBER 9 , 2004/ASVINA 17, 1926
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)] टेक्नोलॉजी, यू.एस.ए. के साथ तकनीकी सहयोग हेतु उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 3 के अधीन, उक्त औद्योगिक समुत्थान के सम्पूर्ण संदेय उपकर के संदाय से, इस अधिसूचना के प्रकाशन की तारीख से पांच वर्ष की अवधि के लिए और निम्नलिखित शर्तों के अधीन छूट देती है,
अर्थात्:-
section 3 of the said Act , for entering into technical collaboration with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, U.S.A. , in relation to the import of technology for undertaking certain Educational Research and Development Activities under Reserve Bank of India approval No. FT 01 BYR 0065 , which is meant for the said industrial concern , for a period of five years with effect from the date of publication of this notification , and subject to the following conditions, namely :-
(i) ऐसी प्रौद्योगिकी का उपयोग उसी प्रयोजन के लिए किया जाएगा जिसके लिए इसका आयात किया जाता है;
(1) that such technology shall be used for the purpose for which it is imported;
( ii ) उक्त शैक्षणिक अनुसंधान एवं विकास क्रियाकलापों से विकसित की गई प्रौद्योगिकी का प्रचार - प्रसार भारत में आम लोगों के लाभ के लिए किया जाएगा;
(ii) that the technology evolved by undertaking said Educational Research and Development Activities shall be disseminated in India for the benefit of the common people ;
(iii ) उपयुक्त ( i ) और ( ii ) में उल्लिखित शर्तों के पूरा न होने की दशा में , उक्त औद्योगिक समुत्थान सम्पूर्ण का संदाय करने के लिए उत्तरदायी होगा;
(iii) that the said industrial concern shall be liable to pay entire cess in case of non-fulfilment of conditions mentioned in clauses ( i ) and ( ii ) above; and
(iv ) इस अधिसूचना के अधीन प्रदान की गई छूट , तत्समय प्रवृत्त किसी अन्य कानून के अधीन किसी कर या शुल्क के संदाय की किसी दायिता पर कोई प्रतिकूल प्रभाव नहीं डालती ।
[सं. डीएसटी/टीटी/आर एण्ड डी सेस एग्जेंप/एम.एल.
(iv) that the exemption granted under this notification shall be without prejudice to any other liability to pay any tax or duty under any other law for the time being in force .
एशिया/2004-2005 ]
[No. DST/TT/R& D Cess Exemp/ML Asia/2004-05 ] एम.एल. गुप्ता, वैज्ञानिक ' जी'
M.L. GUPTA , Scientist ' G' MINISTRY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
(Department of Science and Technology)
स्वास्थ्यऔर परिवार कल्याण मंत्रालय New Delhi , the 1st October, 2004
(स्वास्थ्यविभाग ) ,
नई दिल्ली, 29 सितम्बर, 2004
S.O. 2508.- Whereas , Media Lab Asia , a Government of India undertaking, having its registered office at No. 2 , 4th Floor Samruddhi Venture Park , Central M.I.D.C. Road, Andheri (East ) , Mumbai - 400093 , is an industrial concern [ herein referred to as the said industrial concern] in terms of clause (e ) of Section 2 of the Research and Development Cess Act , 1986 (32 of 1986) (herein referred to as the said Act):
का.आ. 2509.- भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद्अधिनियम , 1956 (1956 का 102 ) के प्रयोजन हेतु ढाका विश्वविद्यालय द्वारा प्रदत्त चिकित्सा अर्हता एम.एस. ( नेत्र विज्ञान ) , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 14 के अधीन एक मान्यता प्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता है;
And , whereas , the Central Government is satisfied that it is necessary and expedient so to do in the public interest , to exempt the said industrial concern from the payment of cess payable under Section 3 of the said Act for the import of technology specified in this notification:
और, डा. सैयद अब्दूल वदूद और डा. खांडेकर जियाउल इस्लाम मोहम्मद अली , दोनों बांग्लादेशी नागरिक, जिनके पास उक्त अर्हता है , मेडिकल रिसर्च फाउण्डेशन , 18, कालेज रोड, चेन्नई- 600006 से धर्मार्थ ( चैरिटेबल ) कार्य हेतु और न कि व्यक्तिगत लाभ हेतु जुड़े हैं ;
Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 7 of the said Act , the Central Government , hereby exempts , the said industrial concern from the payment of the cess payable under
अतः , अब, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 14 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( ग ) के अनुसरण में, केन्द्र सरकार एतद्वारा विनिर्दिष्ट करती है कि भारत में डा . सैयद अब्दूल वदूद और डा. खांडेकर 5935 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 9, 2004/आश्विन17, 1926
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
(पी. एम. एस. अनुभाग )
जियाउल इस्लाम मोहम्मद अली द्वारा आयुर्विज्ञान की प्रैक्टिस करने कीअवधि:-
नई दिल्ली, 30 सितम्बर, 2004
(क) 1-10-2004 से आगे छह माह की अवधि; अथवा
का.आ. 2510.- दन्त चिकित्सक अधिनियम, 1948 ( 1948 का 16 ) की धारा 10 की उपधारा ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्र सरकार भारतीय दन्त चिकित्सा परिषद् से परामर्श करने के बाद, एतद्वारा उक्त अधिनियम की अनुसूची के भाग -1 में निम्नलिखित संशोधन करती है; अर्थात्:-
(ख) उस अवधि, जिसके दौरान डॉ. सैयद अब्दूल वदूद और डॉ. खांडेकर जियाउल इस्लाम मोहम्मद अली, मेडिकल रिसर्च फांउडेशन , 18 , कालेज रोड, चेन्नई -600006 से जुड़े हैं , इनमें से जो भी कम हो , तक सीमित रहेगी ।
[सं. वी-11016/1 /2004-एम ई (नीति-1)
अनुसूची के भाग 1 में बर्बाबा फरीद यूनिवर्सिटी आफ हैल्थ साइंसेज, फरीदकोट, पंजाब से संबंधित क्रम संख्या 51 के सामने कालम 3 की मौजूदा प्रविष्टियों में निम्नलिखित प्रविष्टियां जोड़ी जाएंगी , नामत्:-
पी. जी. कलाधरण, अवर सचिव
MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE
(Department ofHealth)
'खालसा डेंटल कालेज एंड हास्पिटल फार वूमेन , नांगल कलां, जिला, मानसा, पंजाब के संबंध में बी डी एस डिग्री एक मान्यता प्राप्त दन्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी यदि यह उक्त दन्त चिकित्सा कालेज के 1995-1996 से 1998-1999 के बैचों को प्रदान की गई हो। '
NewDelhi , the 29th September, 2004
[सं. वी-12017/18/95- पी.एम.एस. ]
ए. के. सिंह, अवर सचिव
(P. M. S. SECTION)
S.O. 2509. -Whereas medical qualification MS (Ophthalmology) granted by Dhaka University is a recognised medical qualification for the purpose of the Indian Medical Council Act , 1956 ( 102 of 1956 ) under Section 14 of the said Act;
NewDelhi , the 30th September, 2004 And whereas Dr. Syed Abdul Wadud and Dr. Khandaker Ziaul Islam Mohammod Ali, both Bangladeshi National, who possess the said qualification is attached to Medical Research Foundation, 18, College Road, Chennai- 600006 for the purpose of charitable work and not for personalgain;
S.O. 2510. -In exercise of the power conferredby sub - section (2) ofthe Section 10 of the Dentists Act , 1948 (16 of 1948) , the Central Government, after consultation withDental Council of India, hereby makes the following amendments in Part I of the Schedule to the said Act, namely:--
Under the existing entries of column 3 , against Serial No. 51 , pertaining to Baba Farid University ofHealth Sciences, Faridkot, Punjab , in Part I of the Schedule, the following entries shall be added, namely:-
Now, therefore, in pursuance of clause (c) of sub- section ( 1 ) of the Section 14 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby specifies that the period of practice of medicine by Dr. Syed Abdul Wadud and Dr. Khandaker Ziaul Islam Mohammod Ali in India shall be limitedto:
(a) aperiod of six months from 1-10-2004 onwards; ог
'TheBDS Degree in respect ofKhalsa Dental College & Hospital for Women, Nangal Kalan , Distt .: Mansa, Punjab shall be a recognised dental qualification, if granted to the 1995-1996 to 1998-1999 batches of the said dental college.'
[F. No. V- 12017/18/95 -P.M.S . ]
A. K. SINGH, Under Secy.
(b) the period during which Dr. Syed Abdul Wadud and Dr. Khandaker Ziaul Islam MohammodAli is attached to Medical Research Foundation, 18, College Road, Chennai-600006, whichever is shorter.
नई दिल्ली, 30 सितम्बर, 2004 [No. V- 11016/ 1/2004-ME(Policy-1) ]
का.आ. 2511.- दन्त चिकित्सक अधिनियम , 1948 ( 1948 का 16 ) की धारा 10 की उपधारा ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग P. G. KALADHARAN, Under Secy.
5936
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9, 2004/ASVINA 17, 1926
करते हुए, केन्द्र सरकार भारतीय दन्त चिकित्सा परिषद् से परामर्श करने के बाद, एतद्वारा उक्त अधिनियम की अनुसूची के भाग I में निम्नलिखित संशोधन करती है; अर्थात्:-
अनुसूची के भाग 1 में पंजाबी विश्वविद्यालय, पटियाला, पंजाब से संबंधित क्रम संख्या 12 के सामने मौजूदा प्रविष्टियों में निम्नलिखित प्रविष्टियां जोड़ी जाएंगी, अर्थात्: -
" खालसाडेंटल कालेज एंड हास्पिटल फार वूमेन, नांगल कलां, जिला, मानसा, पंजाब के संबंध में बी डी एस डिग्री एक मान्यता प्राप्त दन्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी यदि यह उक्त दन्त चिकित्सा कालेज के 1995-1996 से 1998-1999 के बैचों को प्रदान की गई हो।"
[सं.वी-12017/18/95-पी.एम.एस. ]
ए. के. सिंह , अवर सचिव NewDelhi , the 30th September, 2004 S.O.. 2511. -In exercise of the power conferred by sub -section ( 2) of the Section 10 of the Dentists Act , 1948 (16 of 1948) , the Central Government , after consultation withDental Council of India, hereby makes the following amendments in Part I of the Schedule to the said Act , namely:-
Under the existing entries of column 3 , against Serial No. 12 , pertaining to Punjab University, Patiala, Punjab, in Part I of the Schedule , the following entries shall be added, namely :-
"TheBDS Degree in respect ofKhalsa Dental College &Hospital for Women , Nangal Kalan, Distt . Mansa, Punjab shall be a recognised dental qualification , if granted to the 1995-1996 to 1998-1999 batches of the said dental college" .
[F. No. V- 12017/18/95 -P.M.S. ]
A.K. SINGH, Under Secy.
कृषि मंत्रालय
(कृषि एवं सहकारिता विभाग )
नई दिल्ली, 20 सितम्बर, 2004
का.आ. 2512.-केन्द्रीय सरकार, राजभाषा ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) नियम, 1976 के नियम 10 के उप-नियम (4 ) के अनुसरण में कृषि एवं सहकारिता विभाग , कृषि मंत्रालय के
[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] नियंत्रणाधीन स्वायत्त संगठन, राष्ट्रीय सहकारी विकास निगम, नई दिल्ली के निम्नलिखित कार्यालयों को जिसके 80 % कर्मचारीवृन्द ने हिन्दी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है, अधिसूचित करती है :-
1. राष्ट्रीय सहकारी विकास निगम , क्षेत्रीय निदेशालय, बोरा सर्विस स्टेशन बिल्डिंग , जी.एस. रोड, उल्लूबारी, गुवाहाटी-781007
2. राष्ट्रीय सहकारी विकास निगम , क्षेत्रीय निदेशालय, 5-10-193, हाका भवन, दूसरी मंजिल, पब्लिक गार्डन के सामने, हैदराबाद-500004
[सं. 3-2/2002- हिन्दी नीति ]
के.डी. सिन्हा, संयुक्त सचिव MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE
(Department of Agriculture and Cooperation)
NewDelhi , the 20th September, 2004
S.O. 2512. -In pursuance of sub - rule (4 ) of Rule 10 of the Official Language ( Use for Official Purposes of the Union ) Rule, 1976 , the Central Government hereby notifies the following offices of the National Cooperative Development Corporation, New Delhi , autonomous organisation under the control of the Department of Agriculture and Cooperation , Ministry of Agriculture , 80% staff whereof have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi :-
1. National Cooperative Development Corporation, Regional Directorate, Bora Service Station Building. G.S. Road, Ullubari ,
Guwahati -781007 .
1 2. National Cooperative Development Corporation , Regional Directorate, 5-10-193 , Haka Bhawan , Second Floor, Opp . Public Garden , Hyderabad-500004.
[No. 3-2/2002-Hindi Neeti ]
K. D. SINHA , Jt . Secy.
5937 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 9, 2004/आश्विन 17,1926
[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
कोयला और खान मंत्रालय
(कोयला विभाग)
शुद्धिपत्र
नईदिल्ली, 30 सितम्बर, 2004
का. आ. 2513.- भारत के राजपत्र, भाग II, खंड 3, उपखंड (ii ) में तारीख 29 मई, 2004 के पृष्ठ क्रमांक 2532 से 2535 पर प्रकाशित भारत सरकार के कोयला एवं खान मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का . आ. 1254 तारीख 14 मई, 2004 के । पृष्ठ क्रमांक 2533 पर प्रथम पंक्ति में -
" रेखांक सं ० सी- I/III/ एफ आर/697-0602 " के स्थान पर
" रेखांक सं० सी- I( ई)/ III/ एफ आर/697-0602" पढ़ा जाए ।
" ग्राम बीना में अर्जित किए जाने वाले प्लॉट संख्यांक" के स्थान पर " ग्राम बीना में अर्जित किए गये प्लॉट संख्यांक " पढ़ा जाए ।
ग्राम बीना में अर्जित किए जाने प्लांट संख्यांक की पांचवी पंक्ति में -
66 162/1 162/2 162/3 , 163/1 163/2 163/3 " के स्थान पर " 162/1 - 162/2 - 162/3 , 163/1 163/2 163/3 " पढ़ा जाए ।
" ग्रांम भानेगांव में अर्जित किए जाने वाले प्लॉट क्रमांक" के स्थान पर
" ग्राम भानेगांव में अर्जित किए गये प्लॉट संख्यांक " पढ़ा जाए ।
[फा. सं. -43015/2/98- पी.आर.आई. डब्ल्यू. ]
गार्गी मुखर्जी, निदेशक
Ministry of Coal and Mines
(Department of Coal)
Corrigendum
NewDelhi , the 30th September, 2004 .
S. O. 2513.- In the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal and Mines (Department of Coal ) number S.O. 1254 dated the 14th May , 2004 published at pages 2532 to 2535 of the Gazette of India , Part - II , Section - 3 , sub-section (ii ) dated the 29thMay , 2004.
At page No. 2534---
In the schedule "Plot numbers to be acquired in village Bina " 5938
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9 , 2004/ASVINA 17, 1926
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] read " Plot numbers acquired in village Bina"
"Plot numbers to be acquired in village Bhanegaon "
內 read " Plot numbers acquired in village Bhanegaon "
[No.43015/2/98-P.R.I.W. ]
GARGI MUKHERJEE , Director
नईदिल्ली, 30 सितम्बर, 2004
का. आ. 2514.- केन्द्रीय सरकार ने कोयला धारक क्षेत्र (अर्जन और विकास) अधिनियम, 1957 ( 1957 का 20 ) ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है) की धारा 7 की उपधारा ( I ) के अधीन भारत सरकार के कोयला मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्यांक का. आ. 3479, तारीख 18 दिसम्बर, 2003 जो भारत के राजपत्र, भाग 2 , खंड़ 3 , उपखंड़ (त्त्) तारीख 27 दिसम्बर, 2003 में प्रकाशित की गई थी, द्वारा उक्त अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट परिक्षेत्र की भूमि में, जिसका भाग 87.884 हेक्टर ( लगभग) या 217.16 एकड़ ( लगभग ) है, खनिजों के खनन, खदान बोर करने, उनकी खुदाई और तलाश करने उन्हें प्राप्त करने, उन पर कार्य करने और उन्हें ले जाने के अधिकारों के अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की सूचना दी थी ,
और सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 8 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार को अपनी रिपोर्ट दे दी है ,
और केन्द्रीय सरकार का, पूर्वोक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् और छत्तीसगढ़ सरकार से परामर्श करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है, कि इससे संलग्न अनुसूची में वर्णित 87.884 हेक्टर (लगभग ) या 217.16 एकड़ (लगभग) माप भूमि में खनिजों के खनन, खदान, बोर करने उसकी खुदाई और तलाश करने , उन पर कार्य करने और उन्हें अधिकार अर्जित किये जाने चाहिए । अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 9 की उपधारा (1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह घोषणा करती है, कि इससे संलग्न अनुसूची में वर्णित 87.884 हेक्टर ( लगभग) या 217.16 एकड़ (लगभग ) माप वाली भूमि में खनिजों के खनन, खदान, बोर करने, उसकी खुदाई और तलाश करने, उन्हें प्राप्त करने , उन पर कार्य करने और उन्हें ले जाने के अधिकारों को अर्जित किये जाते है ।
इस अधिसूचना के अधीन अपने आने वाले क्षेत्र के रेखांक सं . एस.ई.सी.एल. /बी.एस.पी./पी.एल.जी./ भूमि/288 तारीख 21 मई, 2004 का निरीक्षण कलेक्टर, कारेबा (छत्तीसगढ़) के कार्यालय में या कोयला नियंत्रक, 1 , काउंसिल हाउस स्ट्रीट, कोलकाता के कार्यालय में या साउथ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड ( राजस्व विभाग ) , सीपत रोड, बिलासपुर- 495006 (छत्तीसगढ़) के कार्यालय में किया जा सकता । भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 9 , 2004/आश्विन 17,1926
[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
अनुसूची
ढेलवाडीह दुसरा विस्तार ब्लाक कोरबा कोलफील्ड्, कारेबा क्षेत्र जिला - कोरबा ( छत्तीसगढ)
खनन अधिकार
ब्लाक "क"
तहसील ग्राम का नाम
क्रम संख्या
पटवारी हल्का संख्या
कटघोरा
41
1 अभयपुर
कटघोरा
42
ढेलवाडीह
2
सीमा वर्णनः
क-खः
5939
टिप्पणियाँ क्षेत्र हेक्टर में
जिला
भाग
17.560
कोरबा
भाग
28.834
कोरबा
कुल क्षेत्रः- 46.394 हेक्टर
रेखा ग्राम अभयपुर- ढेलवाडीह की सम्मिलीत सीमा पर बिन्दु " क " से आरंभ होती है और ग्राम ढेलवाडीह के प्लाट संख्या 78/1 , 136, 137, 138, 199, 198, 197, 192, 190, 161 से होकर बिन्दु " ख " पर मिलती है ।
ख- ग- ग 1 रेखा ग्राम ढेलवाडीह की प्लाट संख्या 161 की भागतः उत्तर पूर्वी दिशा, प्लाट संख्या 161 के मध्य से, प्लाट संख्या 158 की उत्तरी दिशा , प्लाट संख्या 158, 154, 153, 152 , 149 की पूर्वी दिशा, बाद में प्लाट संख्या 78/1 से होते बिन्दु " ग 1 " पर मिलती है ।
ग 1 - ग 2 - घ - क रेखा ग्राम अभयपुर के प्लाट संख्या 34,1 से होते हुई आरंभिक बिन्दु " क " पर मिलती है ।
अनुसूची जारी
खनन अधिकार
ब्लाक "ख "
तहसील ग्राम का नाम
क्रम संख्या
पटवारी हल्का संख्या
42
कटघोरा 1 अभयपुर
कटघोरा
42
2 ढेलवाडीह
कटघोरा
48
3 ढेलवाडीह
टिप्पणियाँ क्षेत्र हेक्टर में
जिला
भाग
9.883
कोरबा
भाग
24.112
कोरबा
भाग
07.495
कोरबा
कुल योगः ( ब्लाक क + ख) -46.394+ 41.490 = 87.884 हेक्टर (लगभग) या 217.16 ( लगभग ) 2908 GI/2004-2 5940
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9 , 2004/ASVINA 17 , 1926
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] (1 ) ग्राम ढेलवाडीह ( भाग) में अर्जित किए गये प्लाट संख्याकः- 315/ 1 क (भाग) , 345 (भाग) , 346 (भाग) ,347, 348 (भाग) , 349(भाग) ,
A (2) ग्राम ढबढब (भाग) में अर्जित किए गये प्लाट संख्याकः- 325 (भाग) , 340, 341 (भाग) , 374 (भाग) , 375 (भाग) , 376 (भाग ) , 377, 378,379,380 (भाग) , 381 (2 गाग) , 382 (भाग) , 383, 384,385,386 (भाग) , 387,388,389,390 (भाग) , 395(भाग) .
(3) ग्राम अरदा (भाग ) में अर्जित किए गये प्लाट संख्याकः- 8 (भाग) , 9 ( भाग) , 11 ( भाग ) , 12 (भाग) , 13 से 16, 17 (भाग) , 18, 19 (भाग) , 20 (भाग) , 72 (भाग) , 100 (भाग) , 101 (भाग) .
सीमा वर्णन
ड- च-छ रेखा ग्राम ढेलवाडीह में बिन्दु "ड" से आरंभ होती है और ग्राम ढेलवाडीह के प्लाट संख्या 315 / 1 क, 346,345 , 315/1 क, से होते हुई ग्राम ढबढब में प्रवेश करती है और प्लाट संख्या 382 , 381 , 380,374, 375,376,341,325 से होते हुई बिन्दु " छ " पर मिलती है।
छ-छ 1 ज रेखा ग्राम अरदा के प्लाट संख्या 19,8,9, 11 , 12, 101 , 100, 101 , 12,72,12,20,19 , से होते हुई बिन्दु " ज " पर मिलती है ।
ज-ज 1 ङ रेखा ग्राम ढबढब के प्लाट संख्या 325 की भागतः दक्षिणी सीमा, प्लाट संख्या 395, 341 , 390 , 395 से होते हुई ग्राम ढेलवाडीह में प्रवेश करती है और प्लाट संख्या 348,349,315/ 1 क से होते हुई आरंभिक बिन्दु "ड" पर मिलती है ।
[फा. सं. -43015/13/2002- पी.आर.आई. डब्ल्यू. ] गार्गी मुखर्जी, निदेशक
New Delhi , the 30th September, 2004
S. O. 2514.- Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal Number S.O 3479 dated the 18th December , 2003 , issued under sub - section ( 1 ) of section 7 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development)Act , 1957 (20 of 1957 ) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and published in Part II , section 3 , sub- section ( ii ) of the Gazette of India . dated the 27th December , 2003 , the Central Government gave notice of its intention to acquire the rights to mine , quarry , bore , dig and search for win , work and carry away minerals in the lands measuring 87.884 hectares ( approximately) or 217.16 acres ( approximately) in the locality specified in the Schedule appended to that notification;
K And whereas the competent authority in pursuance of section 8 of the said Act , has made his report to the Central Government .;
And whereas the Central Government , after considering the aforesaid report and after consulting the Government of Chhattisgarh , is satisfied that the rights to mine , quarry, bore , dig and search for. win , work and carry away minerals in the lands measuring 87.884 hectares ( approximately ) or 217.16 acres ( approximately) described in the Schedule appended hereto should be acquired:
[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
5941 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 9 , 2004/आश्विन 17,1926
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of section 9 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that the rights to mine , quarry, bore dig , and search for , win , work and carry away minerals in the lands measuring 87.884 hectares (approximately) or 217.16 acres ( approximately ) described in the Schedule appended hereto are hereby acquired.
The Plan bearing No.SECL/BSP/ GM (Plg ) / Land/ 288 dated 21th May , 2004 of the area covered by this notification may be inspected in the Office of the Collector, Korba (Chhattisgarh) or in the Office of the Coal Controller , 1 , Council House Street, Calcutta or in the Office of the South Eastern Coalfields Limited (Revenue Section ) Seepat Road, Bilaspur 495006 ( Chhattisgarh) .
Schedule
Dhelwadih IInd Extension Block
Korba Coalfield , Korba area District - Korba ( Chhattisgarh )
Mining Rights
BLOCK- " A "
Tahsil
Distret
Remarks Serial number
Patwari halka number
Name of village
Area in hectare
01
41
Korba
Abhaipur
17.560 Part
Katghora
02
42
Dhelwadih
Korba 28.834 Part
Katghora
Total: 46.394 hectares (1) Plot numbers acquired in Village Abhaipur (part): - 1 ( part) , 34 (part).
( 2) Plot numbers acquired in village Dhelwadih (part): -
78/1 ( part ) , 134,135,136( part ) , 137 (part) , 138 (part), 139 to 160 , 161 (part) , 190 ( part), 192 ( part), 193 to 196,197 ( part) , 198 (part) , 199 (part ) .
Boundary description
A-B
Line starts from point " A" on the common boundary of villages Abhaipur - Dhelwadih and passes in village Dhelwadih through Plot numbers 78/ 1,136,137,138,199,198,197,192,190,161 , and meets at point " B" .
B- C - C1 Line passes in village Dhelwadih partly North East boundary of Plot number 161 , through plot number 161 , Northem boundary of plot number 158 , Eastern boudary of plot numbers 158,154,153,152 , 149 then through plot number 78/1 and meets at point " C1 " .
C1 - C2 - D - A Line passes in village Abhaipur through plot numbers 34,1 and meets at the starting point " A" .
5942
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9 , 2004/ASVINA 17 , 1926
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]
Schedule Continued
Mining Rights BLOCK- " B "
District
Remarks
halka Tahsil
Serial number
Patwari number
Area in hectares
Name of village
01
42
Dhelwadih
Korba 09.883
Part
Katghora
42
02
Dhabdhab
Korba
Part
24.112
Katghora
03
Arda
48
07.495
Part
Korba
Katghora
TOTAL : - 41.490 Hectares Grand Total : ( Block A+ B ) = 87.884 hectares ( approximately) or 217.16 acres ( approximateky) (1) Plot numbers acquired in village Dhelwadih ( part) : 315/ 1K (part) , 345 (part ) , 346 (part) , 347 348 ( part ) , 349 (part ).
(2) Plot numbers acquired in village Dhabdhab (part ) :
325 ( part ) , 340 , 341 ( part ) , 374( part ) , 375 ( part ) , 376 (part ) , 377 , 378,379 , 380(part ) , 381 ( part ) , 382 ( part ) , 383 , 384 , 385 , 386(part) , 387,388 , 389,390(part) , 395(part) .
(3) Plot numbers acquired in village Arda (part) :
8 ( part ) , 9 ( part ) , 11 ( part) , 12 ( part) , 13 to 16 , 17 (part ), 18 , 19 (part ), 20 ( part ) , 72(part ), 100 ( part ) , 101 ( part ) .
Boundary Description
E-F- G
Line starts from point ' E' in village Dhelwadih and passes through plot numbers 315/1K、 346.345 , 315 / 1K enter in village Dhabdhab and passes through plot numbers 382 , 381. 380. 374 , 375 , 376,341 , 325 and meets at point " G " .
G -GI -H
Line passes in village Arda through plot numbers 19,8,9,11,12,101,100,101,12,72 , 12.17.20,19 and meets at point " H " .
Line passes in village Dhabdhab and passes partly along the Southern boundary of plot number 325 then through plot numbers 395, 341 , 390 , 386, 395 enter in village Dhelwadih passes through plot numbers 348,349 , 315/ 1K and meets at the starting point " E " .
[No. 43015/13/2002- P.R.I.W. ] GARGI MUKHERJEE , Director
नई दिल्ली, 30 सितम्बर, 2004
का. आ. 2515.- केन्द्रीय सरकार को यह प्रतीत होता है कि इससे उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में उल्लिखित भूमि में कोयला अभिप्राय किए जाने की संभावना है ;
अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार कोयला धारक क्षेत्र ( अर्जन एवं विकास ) अधिनियम, 1957 ( 1957 का 20) ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात उक्त अधिनियम कहा 5943 भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 9 , 2004/आश्विन 17,1926
[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
गया है) , की धारा 4 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए उस भूमि में कोयले का पूर्वक्षण करने के अपने आशय की सूचना देती है ;
इस अधिसूचना के अन्तर्गत आने वाले रेखांक सं ० सी-1 ( ई ) III / एफआर/ 716-0404, तारीख 1 अप्रैल, 2004 का निरीक्षण वेस्टर्न कोलफीड्स लिमिटेड ( राजस्व विभाग) , कोल ईस्टेट, सिविल लाईन्स, नागपुर 440001 ( महाराष्ट्र) के कार्यालय में या कालक्टर, नागपुर ( महाराष्ट्र) के कार्यालय में या कोयलो नियंत्रक, 1- काउंसिल हाऊस स्ट्रीट, कोलकाता के कार्यालय में किया जा सकता है ;
इस अधिसूचना के अन्तर्गत आने वाली भूमि में हितबद्ध सभी व्यक्ति उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 13 की उपधारा (7) में निर्दिष्ट सभी नक्शों , चार्टो और अन्य दस्तावेजों को इस अधिसूचना के राजपत्र में प्रकाशन की तारीख से नब्बे दिन के भीतर विशेष कार्य अधिकारी , ( भूमि और राजस्व) , राजस्व विभाग, वेस्टर्न कोलफीड्स लिमिटेड, कोल ईस्टेट, सिविल लाईन्स , नागपुर 440001 ( महाराष्ट्र) को भेज सकेंगे ।
अनुसूची
सिंगोरी विस्तारित खंड
नागपुर क्षेत्र, जिला नागपुर ( महाराष्ट्र)
( रेखांक सं. सी-1 ( ई) III / एफआर/ 716-0404 तारीख 1 अप्रैल, 2004)
जिला
क्रम ख्या
तहसील
ग्राम का नाम
टिप्पणी
क्षेत्र हेक्टर में
पटवारी
सर्किलसंख्या
54.00
भाग 1.
सिंगोरी
12
नागपुर
पारसिओनी
60.00
2.
12
भाग
नागपुर
पारसिओनी
हिंगणा बारभाई)
कुलक्षेत्र - 114.00 हेक्टर ( लगभग) या 281.70 एकड़ ( लगभग) सीमा वर्णन-
क-खः
रेखा बिन्दु ' क ' से आरम्भ होती है और ग्राम 'सिंगोरी से होती हुई बिन्दु 'ख ' पर मिलती है ।
ख-गः
रेखा ग्राम सिंगोरी और हिंगणा ( बारभाई) की सम्मिलित ग्राम से गुजरती हुई बिन्दु ' ग ' पर मिलती है ।
ग-घः
रेखा ग्राम हिंगणा ( बारभाई ) नाले के पश्चिम किनारे से गुजरती हुई बिन्दु ' घ' पर मिलती है ।
!
5944
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9, 2004/ASVINA 17, 1926
[PART II-SEC . 3( ii) ] घ-ड़ः
रेखा ग्राम हिंगणा ( बारभाई ) से होती हुई ग्राम हिंगणा ( बारभाई) और सिंगोरी की सम्मिलित ग्राम सीमा से गुजरती हुई बिन्दु ' ड' पर मिलती है ।
ड़-चः
रेखा ग्राम सिंगोरी तथा तमासवाडी की सम्मिलित ग्राम सीमा से गुजरती हुई बिन्दु ' च ' पर मिलती है ।
च-कः रेखा ग्राम सिंगोरी से होती हुई रास्ते की आंतरिक सीमा के साथ- साथ गुजरती है और आरंभिक बिन्दु ' क ' पर मिलती है ।
[फा. सं . -43015/18/2004- पी.आर.आई. डब्ल्यू. ]
गार्गी मुखर्जी, निदेशक
New Delhi , the 30th September, 2004
S. O. 2515.- Whereas it appears to the Central Government that coal is likely to be obtained from the lands mentioned in the Schedule hereto annexed;
Now , therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of section 4 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957), the Central Government hereby gives notice of its intention to prospect for coal therein ;
The plan bearing No. C - 1 ( E ) III/ FR/ 716-0404 dated the 1st April, 2004 of the area covered by this notification can be inspected in the office of the Western Coalfields Limited (Revenue Department ) . Coal Estate. Civil Lines , Nagpur - 440 001 ( Maharashtra ) or in the office of the Collector. Nagpur ( Maharashtra) or in the office of the Coal Controller, 1, Council House Street . Kolkata :
All persons interested in the lands covered by this notification shall deliver all maps , charts and other documents referred to in sub- section (7) of section 13 of the said Act to the Officer on Special Duty ( L & R ) of the Revenue Department , Western Coalfields Limited, Coal Estate . Civil Lines . Nagpur 440 001 ( Maharashtra) within ninety days from the date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette.
Schedule
Singori Extension Block
Nagpur Area
District Nagpur ( Maharashtra)
( Plan No. C - 1 ( E ) III/ FR/ 716-0404 dated the 1st April , 2004).
Tahsil District
Remarks Serial Number
Name of village
Area in Hectares
Patwari circle number
12
Singori
54.00
Part 2
12
Hingna
Parseoni Parseoni
60.00
Nagpur Nagpur
Part (Barabhai)
Total area : 114.00 hectares (approximately ) or 281.70 acres (approximately) 5945 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 9 , 2004/ आश्विन17,1926
Boundary description : -
A - B : Line starts from point ' A ' and passes through village Singori and meets at point ' B ' . :
B - C : Line passes through common village boundary of villages Singori and Hingna (Barabhai) and meets at point ' C ' .
C - D : Line passes along the Western Bank of Nala of village Hingna ( Barabhai ) and meets atpoint ' D' .
D - E : Line passes through village Hingna ( Barabhai ) and partly through common village boundary of villages Hingna ( Barabhai ) and Singori and meets at point ' E ' .
E - F : Line passes through common village boundary of villages Singori and Tamaswadi and meets at point ' F ' .
F - A : Line passes through village Singori along the inner boundary of road and meets at starting point ' A' .
[No.43015/18/2004- P.R.I.W. ] GARGI MUKHERJEE , Director
नई दिल्ली, 30 सितम्बर, 2004
का. आ. 2516.- कन्द्रीय सरकार को यह प्रतीत होता है कि इसके नीचे दी गई अनुसूची में उल्लिखित भूमि में कोयला अभिप्राप्त किए जाने की संभावना है । अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार कोयला धारक क्षेत्र (अर्जन और विकास ) अधिनियम, 1957, ( 1957 का (20 ) की धारा 4 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , उस क्षेत्र में कोयले का पूर्वेक्षण करने के अपने आशय की सूचना देती है ।
इस अधिसूचना के अंतर्गत आने वाले क्षेत्र के रेखांक सं ० डी जी/08588, तारीख 24 जून, 2004 का निरीक्षण महाप्रबंधक ( गवेषणा प्रभाग ) सेन्ट्रल माइन प्लानिंग एण्ड डिजाइन इंस्टीट्यूट गोन्दवाना प्लेस, कांके रोड, रांची या कोयला नियंत्रक 1 , काउंसिल हाउस स्ट्रीट, कोलकाता कार्यालय में या जिला कलक्टर, जिला रायगढ़, छत्तीसगढ़ के कार्यालय में किया जा सकता है ।
इस अधिसूचना के अन्तर्गत आने वाली भूमि में, हितबद्ध सभी व्यक्ति, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 13 की उपधारा ( 7) में निर्दिष्ट सभी नक्शों, चार्टो और अन्य दस्तावेजों को इस अधिसूचना के राजपत्र में प्रकाशन की तारीख से नब्बे दिन के भीतर महाप्रबंधक ( गवेषणा प्रभाग ) , सेन्ट्रल माइन प्लानिंग एण्ड डिजाइन इंस्टीट्यूट गोन्दवाना प्लेस , कांके रोड, रांची को भेजेंगे । THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9 , 2004/ ASVINA 17, 1926
5946
अनुसूची
गारे सेक्टर III खण्ड, मान्द रायगढ़ , कोयला क्षेत्र
जिला- रायगढ़, छत्तीसगढ़
जिला
ग्राम नं०
खाना
क्र. सं . ग्राम
तमनार 149 रायगढ़
ढोलनास
1
214
तमनार
2
रायगढ़
बंजरमुडा
18
रायगढ़
करवाही
3
तमनार
तमनार 67
रायगढ़
4
खम्हरिया
254 5
रायगढ़
तमनार
मिल्लूपाडा
तमनार 635 6
रायगढ़
सिलट आर एफ
कुलः-
सीमा वर्णनः-
क-ख
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii ) ]
$
टिप्पियां
क्षेत्रफल (हेक्टर लगभग)
क्षेत्रफल (एकड़ 'लगभग)
भाग
144.52
357.11
172.62
भाग
426.54
76.27
भाग
188.46
भाग
20.07
49.59
124.44 भाग
307.49
भाग
136.49
337.27
674.41
(लगभग)
1666.46 (लगभग)
रेखा ग्राम ढोलनास के बिन्दु " क " से आरम्भ होती है और ग्राम बंजरमुड़ा के सिलट आर एफ के उत्तरी भाग से होकर गुजरती है, दोबारा सिलट आर एफ में पुनः प्रवेश करती है और केलो नदी को पार करती हुई ग्राम मिल्लूपाडा के पूर्वी भाग में बिन्दु " ख " पर मिलती है।
ख- ग
रेखा ग्राम मिल्लूपाडा से होकर गुजरती है और उसके पश्चात केलो नदी को पार करती हुई सिलट आर एफ के दक्षिणी भाग, ग्राम खमहरिया के उत्तरी भाग , ग्राम करवाही के उत्तरी भाग , ग्राम बंजरमुडा के केन्द्रीय भाग से होकर गुजरती है और ग्राम ढोलनास के दक्षिणी भाग में बिन्दु " ग" पर मिलती है ।
ग-क
रेखा ग्राम ढोलनास से होकर गुजरती है और उसी गांव के उत्तरी पश्चिमी भाग में बिन्दु " क " पर मिलती है।
[फा. सं. -43015/24/2004- पी.आर.आई. डब्ल्यू. ]
गार्गी मुखर्जी, निदेशक 5947
भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 9 , 2004/आश्विन 17,1926
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]
New Delhi , the 30th September, 2004
S. O. 2516. Whereas it appears to the Central Government that Coal is likely to be obtained from the lands mentioned in the Schedule hereunder;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 1 ) of section 4 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisitions and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957) , the Central Government hereby give notice of its intention to prospect for coal therein.
The Plan bearing No.DG/08588 dated 24th June, 2004, of the area covered by this notification can be inspected at the office of General Manager (Exploration Division) , Central Mine Planning and Design Institute , Gondwana Place , Kanke Road, Ranchi or at the office of the Coal Controller , 1 , Council House Street , Calcutta or at the office of the District Collector , Dist . Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.
All persons interested in the land covered by this notification shall deliver all maps , charts and other documents referred in sub -section (7) of section 13 of the said Act to the General Manager ( Exploration Division) , Central Mine Planning & Design Institute , Gondwana Place , Kanke Road , Ranchi within ninety days from the date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette .
Thana
Village
Village Number
Sl. No.
149
Tamnar
Dholnas
1.
214
Tamnar
2 .
Banjarmuda
Tamnar 18 Karwahi
3 .
67
Tamnar
Khamharia
4.
254
Tamnar
5.
Milupara
635
Tamnar Silot re
6.
Schedule
Gare Sector - III Block, Mand-Raigarh Coalfield District - Ralgarh Chhattisgarh
Remarks District
Area (hectares) (approx)
Area (acres) (approx)
Part
144.52
357.11
Raigarh
Part
172.62
426.54
Raigarh
Part
76.27
188.46
Raigarh
Part
20.07
49.59
Raigarh
Part
124.44
307.49
Raigarh
Part
136.49
337.27
Raigarh
TOTAL : - 1666.46 acres ( approximately ) or 674.41 hectares ( approximately )
Boundary description
A-B
The line starts at point ' A' in village Dholnas and passes through Silot RE , northern part of village Banjarmuda , again re - enters Silot RE and meets point ' B ' in the eastern part of village Milupara after crossing Kelo river .
2908 GI/2004-3 [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] 5948
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9 , 2004/ASVINA 17, 1926
B-C
The line passes through village Milupara and after crossing Kelo river passes through southern part of Silot RE , northern part of village Khamharia , northern part of village Karwahi , central part of village Banjarmuda and meets point ' C ' in the southern part of village Dholnas .
C -A
The line passes through village Dholnas and meets point ' A' in the north - western part of the same village .
[No. 43015/24/2004- P.R.I.W. ] GARGI MUKHERJEE , Director पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय
नई दिल्ली, 30 सितम्बर, 2004
का. आ. 2517.- केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम , 1962 ( 1962 का 50) ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है) की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1 ) के अधीन जारी और भारत के राजपत्र में प्रकाशित भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का० आ ० 1293 तारीख 31 मई , 2004 द्वारा उडीसा राज्य में पारादीप से पश्चिमी बंगाल राज्य में हल्दिया तक इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा कच्चे तेल के परिवहन के लिए पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन हेतु उरा अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी और उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियां जनता को तारीख 2 जुलाई , 2004 को उपलब्ध कर। दी गई थी ।
और चक्क अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अनुसरण में सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने केन्द्रीय सरकार को अपनी रिपोर्ट दे ओर, केन्द्रीय सरकार का उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात यह समाधान हो गया है कि इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूदी में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाना है ।
अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , धोषागा करती है कि इस अधिसूचना की अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार पाइपलाइनें बिछाए जाने हेतु 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 हे कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख से केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने की सजाय सभी विल्लंगगों से मुक्त होकर इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड में निहित होगा । 5949
भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 9 , 2004/आश्विन17,1926
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
अनुसूची
जिला : भद्रक
राज्य : उद्दिमा
क्षत्रफल
खसरा संख्या
गाँव का नाम
तहसील का नाम
हक्टयर
4
3
2
1
0
581
चान्दबाली
कूली
0
652
81
0
0
82
0
83
0
217
गोलाडिहा
0
225
0
224
0
218
0
219
0
220
0
320
0
309
0
308
0
307
0
305
0
304
0
306
0
302
0
300
0
301
0
298
0
297
0
265
0
296
0
294
0
293.
0
269
0
292
0
272
273
0
270
0
274
वर्ग मीटर
एयर
S
31
18
36
04
10
00
78
00
10
08
94
06
76
00
67
00
62
00
98
00
15
00
36
03
49
00
72
02
25
01
08
04
25
00
00
61
01
79
50
01
10
00
78
01
09
04
38
00
10
00
76
05
59
03
40
01
80
00
28
02
21
04
12
00
69
00 5950
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9 , 2004/ASVINA 17, 1926
1
4
2
3
276
0
0
588
587
0
584
0
586
0
585
0
583
0
608
0
579
0
609
0
577
0
573
0
576
0
574
0
575
0
561
0
628
0
560
0
629
0
559
0
558
0
557
0
556
0
495
0
555
0
496
0
497
0
498
0
552
0
549
0
548
0
0
546
547
0
0
543
0
537
0
538
541
0
542
0
539
0
540
0
27
0 [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ) 5
6
01
89
02
02
03
83
01
20
00
10
02
54
00
10
10
48
00
10
00
10
06
96
01
66
00
45
02
08
03
25
02
35
05
44
00
33
00
84
00
84
73
00
00
74
02
54
12
98
01
25
03
09
03
94
03
25
00
76
00
82
02
43
00
10
05
60
06
93
10
08
03
80
00
28
00
15
00
96
01
19
06
05 5951
भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 9 , 2004/आश्विन 17,1926
[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
4
3
2
1
0
945
बालीगणं
0
946
0
947
0
948
0
949
0
3548
0
5486
0
3521
0
3520
0
3519
0
3522
0
3492
0
3523
0
3491
0
3485
0
3486
0
3490
0
5505
0
3494
0
3467
0
3464
0
3466
0
3465
0
3434
0
3433
0
3428
0
3427
0
3426
0
3416
0
3415
0
3414
0
5050
0
3417
0
3418
0
3377
0
3376
0
3382
0
3385
0
3383
0
3384
0
3364
6
5
95
00
94
03
86
03
72
01
36
05
10
00
97
02
57
05
73
01
90
03
28
02
10
00
17
06
49
06
10
00
10
00
47
00
32
02
02
89
19
02
61
04
22
01
14
02
92
03
52
00
02
05
17
05
44
04
97
01
05
01
10
00
40
12
48
01
16
00
82
02
97
01
93
03
96
01
81
01
90
00
37
12 5952
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9, 2004/ASVINA 17, 1926
2
3
4
0
3365
3764
0
3771
0
3772
0
3773
0
3770
0
5526
0
3767
0
3776
0
5501
0
3777
0
3824
0
3825
0
3823
0
3826
0
3833
0
3832
0
3831
0
3852
0
3850
0
3849
0
3848
0
3975
0
3974
0
0
3973
0
3971
0
3972
3977
0
0
3978
5286
0
3219
0
3218
0
3217
0
5037
0
3211
0
3212
0
3216
0
3215
0
0
5334
3214
0
5300
0 [PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)] 5
6
00
10
00
77
03
25
02
35
05
44
00
33
00
84
01
30
00
63
02
83
00
58
01
42
02
23
03
08
00
10
03
77
02
99
02
14
02
68
02
07
02
28
12
94
04
98
02
37
02
47
00
17
00
56
02
03
01
68
02
00
01
83
03
11
04
03
00
10
01
71
01
51
01
36
01
48
01
57
01
81
01
33 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 9, 2004/आश्विन 17,1926
4
2
3
3081
0
3080
0
0
3082.
0
3079
0
3089
0
3078
0
3090
0
3074
0
5135
3091
0
0
3095
0
3097
0
3096
0
5404
0
5122
0
2451
0
2890
2891
0
0
2889
0
2894
0
2895
0
2888
0
5026
0
2901
0
2887
0
2886
0
5085
0
2470
0
2475
0
2474
0
2476
0
2477
0
2479
0
2482
0
2487
5009
0.
0
2486
0
2483
0
5010
0
2485
0
2484
5953
6
5
66
01
83
00
10
02
00
89
00
18
15
07
10
00
66
03
03
15
00
10
13
00
02
17
30
01
43
01
13
00
00
10
03
83
68
02
67
03
00
54
67
00
29
09
15
01
01
20
37
02
03
47
02
78
96
03
99
00
23
03
07
08
10
00
88
06
03
88
03
20
11
00
03
17
16
00
10
00
37
04
03
65 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9 , 2004/ ASVINA 17 , 1926
5954
4
3
0
2352
2348
0
0
2237
0
2347
2346
0
0
2345
0
2344
0
2343
0
2340
0
5250
0
2338
0
2337
0
2334
2335
0
2336
0
0
2331-
5241
0
0
2333
0
2249
0
2260
0
2259
0
2261
1101
0
बड़ाओस्तीया
0
1102
0
1100
0
1103
0
1104
0
1105
0
1056
0
1053
1052
0
0
1051
0
1054
0
1050
0
1047
0
1048
0
970
0
967
0
969
0
968
0
966 [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii )]
6
5
01
56
00
51
30
00
00
89
07
28
10
00
04
20
03
41
03
36
02
09
01
08
08
01
46
00
02
42
00
10
26
03
95
03
12
31
14
08
03
26
02
24
26
00
23
06
00
10
91
00
06
29
04
74
88
03
01
48
01
26
74
01
49
12
04
56
00
10
01
03
00
11
31
09
63
04
17
01
00
88
45
03 भारत का राजपत्र अकर 9 , 2004/ 17,1926 [ भाग - खण्ड 3(ⅱ) ]
4
3
2
0
965
964
0
963
0
917
0
919
0
921
0
922
0
925
0
924
927
0
0
909
0
928
0
908
0
902
0
904
0
905
0
906
0
886
0
695
0
694
0
696
0
731
0
711
0
712
713
0
0
725
0
724
0
722
0
721
0
714
0
715
0
603
0
602
0
599
0
264
0
269
0
274
0
275
0
283
0
286
0
285 2908 GI/20044
5955 5
01
06
11
01
40
03
02
75
93
02
52
03
70
03
33
04
10
00
86
08
00
10
23
00
03
90
68
02
19
01
03
18
07
01
01
83
07
08
27
01
96
10
35
04
10
00
01
02
00
02
10
00
10
00
88
00
92
00
10
05
04.
05
14
14
10
00
00
10
51
11
26
06
10
00
46
14
11
00
51
00
08
03 5956
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9 , 2004/ASVINA 17, 1926
4
2
3
284
0
0
288
287
0
1459
0
289
0
290
0
295
0
1460
0
1461
0
296
0
294
0
293
0
306
0
305
0
307
0
308
0
0
309
0
310,
0
311
312
0
314
0
318
0
320
0
0
321
322
0
0
332
0
333
972
0
पणसपाड़ा
0
971
945
0
969
0
0
946
947
0
0
948
950
0
0
955
968
0
967
0
966
0
965
0
956 [PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii)] 5
6
01
57
01
81
00
10
00
93
00
36
00
10
01
72
02
23
02
60
00
28
04
78
00
14
00
14
04
35
03
90
02
05
03
38
01
20
00
63
00
63
05
26
06
13
00
84
10
11
00
96
00
14
11
54
04
53
03
23
00
20
06
27
00
10
03
22
00
72
00
10
00
10
00
26
01
49
02
55
02
77
04
07 भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 9, 2004/आश्विन 17,1926 [भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii ) ]
4
3
2
0
919
0
920
0
918
0
915
0
914
0
512
0
513
0
516
0
517
0
912
0
518
0
520
0
911
0
910
0
1005
0
909
0
908
0
536
0
529
0
535
0.
537
0
538
0
539
0
557
0
559
0
558
0
543
0
555
0
556
0
564
0
565
0
566
0
983
0
567
0
568
0
574
0
640
0
639
0
638
0
636
0
637
5957
6
5
31
01
27
00
26
02
14
05
71
03
01
00
92
04
32
00
22
01
57
01
01
01
37
00
79
02
34
05
69
05
76
00
10
00
21
01
45
01
56
02
87
00
38
01
98
01
35
03
97
01
40
00
10
00
46
07
25
00
54
02
83
00
34
01
10
00
67
02
61
00
52
00
85
00
83
00
45
03
47
00
00
23 5958
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9 , 2004/ASVINA 17, 1926
1
2
3
4
627
0
628
0
629
0
626
0
625
0
619
0
618
0
621
0
620
0
615
0
616
0
617
0
984
0
610
0
609
0
612
0
611
0
661
0
1722
0
1723
0
1721
0
1726
0
4412
0
1730
0
1731
0
1745
0
1743
0
1737
0
1738
0
1740
0
1741
1779
0
4352
0
1778
0
1796
0
1797
0
1793
0
1791
0
0
1790
0
1810
0
1811
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] 5
6
02
34
02
22
00
10
t 05
14
01
01
04
35
00
37
00
83
01
51
00
11
01
59
00
34
00
11
01
93
00
16
00
18
00
86
01
98
03
48
02
78
05
22
03
50
00
85
07
83
08
97
04
66
02
82
00
10
02
69
02
57
03
74
01
56
06
38
06
05
05
01
01
71
12
56
01.
37
00
10
07
79
03
37 [भाग II- खण्ड3 (ii) ]
भारत काराजपत्र : अक्तूबर 9 , 2004/आश्विन 17,1926
4
2
3
0
1867
0
1865
0
1866
0
1870
1952
0
0
1947
0
1948
0
1949
0
1950
1943
0
0
1941
1940
0
0
1939
2400
0
4441
0
2390
0
2327
0
0
2389
0
4579
2391
0
0
2393
2399
0
0
2397
0
2398
0
2396
2404
0
2472
0
0
2405
4508
0
0
2449
0
2450
2447
0
2437
0
0
2446
2445
0
4411
0
0
2590
0
2632
0
4582
0
4351
2630
0
5959
い
5
13
24
02
04
10
09
03
78
05
62
03
62
06
04
04
38
00
10
12
61
04
87
01
02
01
36
12
29
05
63
02
53
00
17
91
11
00
43
50
05
01
49
00
17
07
73
00
40
06
78
34
02
07
89
03
37
10
00
14
08
01
91
41
09
04
04
02
88
17
02.
03
13
01
86
01
23
06
02
03
58
00
90 5960
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA ; OCTOBER 9 , 2004/ASVINA 17 , 1926
4
3
2
1
0
2631
0
2629
0
2628
0
4350
0
2627
0
2635
2636
0
2637
0
0
2721
0
2719
0
2720
0
2723
0
2724
0
2718
0
2725
0
2715
0
2713
0
2714
0
2712
0
2709
0
2706
0
2705
0
2750
0
2694
0
621
622
620
0
631
0
0
634
0
619
0
641
0
640
0
642
0
643
646
0
0
658
657
0
0
650
0
656
4306
0
0
655 [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii)] 5
6
06
34
03
75
06
29
00
10
06
05
05
18
02
86
10
04
01
06
04
70
04
19
00
10
03
62
05
00
40
00
13
09
03
06
02
13
07
25
00
06
14
05
03
84
28
01
12
29
06
79
00
19
07
01
03
19
09
17
00
10
01
01
05
13
01
77
08
08
11
52
03
57
26
05
42
00
38
14
01
92
04
33 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 9, 2004/आश्विन 17,1926
2
3
4
560
0
4303
0
336
0
4252
0
341
0
340
0
337
0
339
0
338
0
4285
0
4282
0
25
0
जयकृष्णपुर
26
0
नवगरडा
39
0
41
0
40
0
34
0
42
0
43
0
44
0
46
0
55
0
54
0
57
0
56
0
76
0
11
0
10
0
9
0
8
0
6
0
7
0
41
0
चसाखण्ड
55
0
54
0
0
50
51
0
52
0
49
0
43
0
5961 5
6
02
15
06
84
12
87
07
47
02
63
14
92
00
56
08
18
04
42
05
31
02
61
06
91
02
86
00
67
04
65
02
23
01
67
05
78
01
61
07
51
04
22
17
70.
04
95
04
48
00
14
07
60
04
66
04
29
00
32
07
15
00
75
12
90
05
32
25
43
00
20
02
31
05
93
00
10
09
39
15
53 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9 , 2004/ ASVINA 17, 1926 5962
4
3
2
1
0
42
0
44
0
17
0
1-8
0
15
0
12
0
466
मोत्तां
0
467
0
471
0
47.0
0
469
0
484
0
485
0
486
0
561
0
496
0
487
0
495
0
454
0
504
0
547
0
505
0
511
0
546
0
51.2
0
519
0
514
0
516
0
518
0
517
0
428
0
421
0
423
0
424
0
158
0
156
0
185
0
186
0
187
0
150
0
189 [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)] 5
94
01
17
05
84
10
10
00
63
07
05
07
57
00
68
01
01
89
17
10
10
00
30
03
85
04
01
06
41
01
24
00
52
12
11
05
18
05
88
10
01
08
24
10
85
14
10
00
05
05
78
00
26
01
64
15
02
56
15
03
37
02
19
08
22
10
46
11
51
16
10
00
67
11
64
12
86
03
45 11
99 11 भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 9 , 2004/आश्विन 17,1926 [ भाग - खण्ड3 ( ii) ]
4
3
2
146
0
145
0
0
144
0
142
0
138
216
0
0
137
0
217
0
136
0
337
प्रतापपुर
338
0
340
0
0
341
344
0
342
0
0
343
0
365
366
0
367
0
0
369
368
0
370
0
1438
373
0
375
379
380
0
0
392
0
382
1431
0
0
393
394
G
405
0
396
401
0
400
0
399
0
439
G
440
0
441
437
0 2908 GH/2004-5
6 5
00
55
10 15
06
34 18
06
47 16
71 11
03
26 06
63 06
38 00
55 09
08
02 05
03
38 11
92 03
68 09
97
37 01
10
30
42 05
98 11
00
10
00 06
04
29 00
55
35 00
05
66 00
42
97 06
00
10
67 02
95 04
00
17 00
18
71 04
57 00
03
12 04
19 06
477
02. 02
04
15.
10 00 5964
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9 , 2004/ASVINA 17 , 1926
1
0
442
0
434
432
0
0
431
0
430
0
445
446
0
311
0
नालगुण्डा
289
0
0
290
0
291
303
0
304
0
302
0
301
0
300
0
0
321
324
0
325
104
0
96
0
0
95
0
1736
0
88
0
93
0
89
0
90
77
0
85
0
0
84
78
0
0
82
0
79
0
80
0
81
73
0
0
65
0
64
0
56
0
61
57
0 [PART II-SEC .3 ( ii )] 5
9
08
80
03
35
00
10
02
1.3
96
04
36
03
32
01
16.
11
05
56.
02
21
01
88
04
20
02
36
01
19
28
09
00
60
87
03
00
85
27
06
84
09
60
04
04
69
11
00
08
06
00
10
00
66
08
07
52
02
00
77
78
06
02
12
10
00
07
03
06
86
01
44
08
29
68
02
03
63
07
68
41
05
64
01 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 9, 2004/आश्विम 17,1926 [ भाग - 3(ii ) ]
4
3
2
0
60
0
59
0
58
0
51
0
423
0
49
424
0
0
48
0
46.
0
47
45
0
0
1
0
637
कावपूनी
0
351
0
352
0
357
0
356
0
355
0
354
0
374
0
592
0
591
0
590
0
589
0
587
0
588
0
390
0
389
0
394
0
404
0
403
402
0
0
400
0
401
0
399
0
156
0
412
0
413
0
155
0
416
0
151
590 5
61
02
31
64
07
13
06
10
17
10
00
02
11
76
01
00
10
00
07
10
00
03
25
06
01
06
28
29
07
07
27
01
97
49
16
59
02
47
08
07
73
87
04
83
05
91
05
04
88
46
02
76
07
10
00
08
05
37
00
12
00
73
06
14
05
79
00
15
08
45
12
05
69
10
00
74
05
06
29
97
00
23
00 9966
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9, 2004/ASVINA 17, 1926
2
3
4
150
0
152
0
149
0
153
0
148
0
154
0
147
0
146
0
145
0
140
0
143
0
142
0
89
0
नूवागन
87
0
90
0
91
0
92
0
97
0
106
0
103
0
104
0
102
0
101
0
99
0
100
0
145
0
157
0
156
0
159
0
155
0
160
0
154
0
153
0
152
0
151
0
167
0
168
0
174
0
175
0
179
0
180
0 [PART II SEC. 3 (ii) ] 5
6
00
35
02
00
02
03
02
87
07
04
02
69
04
96
01
75
01
75
01
29
04
26
08
12
00
29
01
73
05
63
04
580
06
46
01
38
17
37
05
93
02
25
10
63
00
10
00
60
10
57
02
18
09
63
01
53
04
15
03
70
00
10
06
64
06
72
03
53
06
92
01
78
01
53
04
45
00
57
12
05 भारत का सपत्र अमर 9, 2004/आश्विन 17,1926 [ भाव II- 3(11)]
4
3
2
0
173
0
181
0
182
0
183
0
202
0
203
0
509
खेरंग
0
510
0
511
0
526
0
524
0
525
0
527
0
523
0
522
0
533
0
521
0
534
0
551
0
553
0
548
0
433
0
430
0
431
0
423
0
422
0
349
0
348
0
350
0
343
0
344
0
335
0
336
0
324
0
337
0
323
0
322
0
295
0
320
0
296
0
297
é 5
23 00
16 03
67 00
44 01
30 19
03
44
66 04
37 13
27 03
10 08
60 00
28 01
81 11
34 06
71 11
49 00
35 01
11 06
12
26
63 14
84 01
36 01
51 01
70 09
37 02
59 10
73 06
35 05
68 06
69 14
10 00
28 02
32 03
34 11
22 00
63 03
42 07
32 06
32 06
94 02
55 03 5968
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: OCTOBER 9 , 2004/ASVINA 17, 1926
2
3
4
299
0
0
313
310
0
311
0
312
0
309
0
314
0
:275
0
272
0
271
0
269
0
252
0
139
0
77
0
76
0
81
0
83
0
82
0
84
0
85
0
19
0
18
0
16
0
22
0
20
0
21
0
30
0
33
0
1
0
वहाग्पाल
495
0
493
0
492
0
491
0
488
0
480
0
485
0
481
0
482
0
479
0
483
0
452
0
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)] 5
09
75
03
88
00
10
08
56
00
80
02.
89
01
05
04
39
06
15
01
24
01
44
01
08
02
16
02
55
00
10
00
85
00
85
12
69
01
15
01
25
02
37
04
92
: 00
67
00
97
02
14
02
73
02
59
10
83
06
17
10
72
00
10
57
05
09
37
02
06
10
91
00
34
00
10
02
05
05
31
00
37
09
03 भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 9, 2004/आश्विन 17,1926 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
4
3
2
0
450
0
449
0
138
0
139
0
134
0
141
0
142
0
1628
0
144
0
131
0
130
0
129
0
80
0
81
0
82
0
78
0
75
0
77
0
72
0
71
0
70
0
52
0
54
0
45
0
53
0
37
0
36
35
0
0
34
0
28
0
29
0
323
लक्ष्मीप्रसाद
0
335
0
324
320
0
0
325
0
326
0
260
0
319
0
263
0
262 5
9
04.
08
28.
09
10
00
15
11
24
00
81
16
17
00
73
01
46 10
10
00
86 12
09
05
61 03
06 07
10 00
36 05
27 24
25 03
84 04
:
81 04
45 10
10 00.
88 08
57 00
10 00
44 11
44 00
02 04
88 09
96 03
67 10
03
99
10 00
60 00
31. 08
72 02-
00
31
55 00
83 00
36 04
34 00 5970
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9 , 2004/ASVINA 17 , 1926
1
2
3
4
0
297
296
264
0
270
0
271
0
275
0
272
0
276
0
277
0
274
0
280
0
278
0
167
0
166
0
165
0
163
0
164
0
1749
0
संतरापूर
1355
0
1358
0
1356
0
1357
0
1345
0
1361
0
0
1340
1339
0
1332
0
0
1333
1334
0
1330
0
1328
0
1768
0
1203
0
1202
0
1163
0
1765
0
0
1159
1162
0
1165
0
1161
0
1166
0 [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ] 5
6
00
27
03
71
00
35
9 00
11
00
91
02
13
00
10
01
87
04
18
03
85
00
17
03
67
01
68
01
94
05
14
00
10
04
60
00
10
07
67
00
10
1
76
07
10
29
03
51
00
10
14-
48
03
25
00
10
06
56.
10
26
03
00
13
49
07
49
09
43
01
72
03
79
00
22
03
23
09
60
00
60
05
36
06
21 भारत का राजपत्र :
4
3
2
0
1149
0
1148
0
1170
0
1171
0
1172.
0
1179
0
1146
0
1082
0
1083
0
855
हरीसिंहपूर
0
854
0
856
0
878
0
876
0
875
0
874
0
873
872
0
0
870
0
900
0
901
0
902
903
0
0
917
0
904
905
0
906
0
909
0
908
0
907
0
831
0
832
0
833
0
839
0
185
भान्नूपुर
0
186
0
188
0
187
0
190
0
194 2908CH/2004-6
6 5
07 08
21 00
45 05
90 01
23 01
1
91 11
82 05
33 09
20 12
10 00
12 15
23
29
11 07
10 00
98 06
47 03
65 02
61 00
59 09
18 05
99 13
06 09
89 02
18 00
26 04
74 02
61 02
00
52
40 04
09 03
78 01
00
89
97 00
56 05
31 05
78 01
4010
86
21 02
00
36
10 00 5972
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9 , 2004/ASVINA 17, 1926
2
3
+
0
193
192
0
196
0
197
0
198
0
0
128
127
0
0
126
125
0
124
-0
123
0
36
0
35
0
398
0
कान्हूपुर
0
399
400
0
0
401
403
0
404
0
405
0
406
0
408
0
415
0
412
0
0
414
0
413
0
366
369
0
0
370
365
0
371
0
358
0
0
357
356
0
351
0
0
339
0
335
334
0
0
326
0
327
0
328 [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ] 07
00
00
42
03
24
01
16
00
97
00
96
00
87
00
93
00
68
01
13
32
74
10
80
00
35
00
11
00
10
06
68
06
69
70
05
04
20
00
82
00
56
02
20
64
05
03
80
02
62
01
57
12
46
10
00
01
77
04
17
03
52
05
85
00
76
06
40
16
25
00
73
14
03
05
24
10
00
05
68
01
10 3973
भारत काराजपत्र: अक्तूबर 9 , 2004/आश्विन 17,1926
] [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
4
3
2
1
0
308
0
307
0
306
0
34
0
33
0
74
0
31
0
3
0
13
0
14
0
15
0
12
0
115
सन्डंकपुर
0
123
0
99
0
47
0
48
0
49
0
52
0
51
0
50
0
31
0
30
0
33
0
28
0
59
मोमानीपुर
0
616
ताराचन्दविन्धा
0
590
0
584
0
581
0
551
0
552
.0
555
0
554
0
557
0
573
0
572
0
571
0
14570
0
1314
ववनविन्धा.
6
5
45
05
16
15
04
01
66
00
35
23
49
01
73
00
10
06
12
09
45
02
74
05
33
02
72
12
55
00
64
12
57
10
44
02
02
05
17
06
20
05
10
00
35
05
10
0:
13
13
81
01
59
02
27
00
22
41
44
00
03
01
52
00
57
10
54
12
66
19
86
00
10
00
17
02
60
06
33
02
10
00 5974
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9 , 2004/ASVINA 17, 1926
3
0
2406
1310
0
1311
0
1309
0
1306
0
1307
0
1302
0
1291
0
1288
0
1287
0
1301
1285
0
1286
0
1272
0
1273
0
1265
0
1263.
0
1262
0
1261
0
1053
0
1054
0
1062
0
1061
0
1058
0
1057
0
1047
0
1043
0
0
1045
1044
0
1034
0
1033
0
1032
0
1030
0
1005
0
1006
0
1007
0
1009
0
1008
0
970
0
942
0
944
0 [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii)] 5
07
25.
01
54
01
08
07
14
07
22
01
08
10
87
02
62
00
65
06
95
00
13
11
11
02
74
04
16
04
85
05
64
07
78
02
55
04
33
00
59
01
37
03
76
06
57
02
41
00
74
04
28
02
33
01
55
02
16
00
10
03
53
02
74
17
69
10
00
07
24
03
88
00
93
01
42
00
10
14
66
00
10 5975
भारत का राजपत्र : अबतूबर 9 , 2004/आश्विन 17,1926
2
3
1
4
0
943
917
0
916
0
0
902
0
903
904
0
905
0
907
0
906
0
162
0 हाबुडासिंह
0
159
0
160
156
0
0
155
158
0
124
0
126
0
127
0
129
0
0
91
143
0
165
0
134
0
0
135
142
0
136
0
141
0
138
0
139
0
39
0
0
38
1183
0 साहपुर
1182
0
1165
0
1164
0
295
0
300
0
299
0
298
0
256
0 5
6
87
02
96
09
00
94
16
76
25
02
01
17
01
72
11
26
05
47
08
44
01
70
04
08
07
06
00
88
00
92
01
66
97
05
30
13
85
00
00
61
06
58
02
78
09
87
01
83
00
89
01
14
01
58
00
61
01
23
01
28
02
04
10
29
00
23
12
27
10
92
04
44
04
54
13
14
06
70
10
00 5976
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9, 2004/ASVINA 17, 1926
1
2
3
4
304
0
305
0
255
0
251
0
253
0
252
0
250
0
151
0
154
0
155
0
156
0
127
0
0
112
0
111
0
113
88
0
89
0
91
0
0
93
94
0
95
0
97
0
0
1326
कवीग्पुर
1327
0
1240
0
0
1238
0
1239
1265
0
1241
0
1242
0
1264
0
1245
0
1247
0
1248
0
124
0
1225
0
1222
0
1210
0
1483
0
1208
0
0
1207
[PART II-SBC. 3(ii) ] 5
6
00
10
09
48
08
73
00
45
05
96
06
57
03
46
13
00
10
50
00
33
13
75
07
56
10
51
01
71
05
84
10
21
02
10
15
03
52
02
17
02
94
00
50
11
11
01
66
00
19
05
21
03
93
00
20
01
12
10
16
07
05
00
101
84
02
04
98
05
56
05
71
13
43
05
98
03
11
03
01
07
30 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 9 , 2004/ आश्विन 37,1926 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]
3
2
0
1195
0
1196
0
1194
0
1193
0
1116
0
1431
0
1115
0
1114
0
515
जाफावाद
0
514
0
512
0
513
0
1142
0
1143
0
511
0
509
0
1144
0
526
0
508
0
506
0
504
0
494
0
557
0
559
0
485
0
483
0
1139
0
477
0
478
0
479
0
475
0
450
0
327
0
448
0
330
0
443
0
442
0
336
0
337
0
441
0
338
5977 5
62
03
10
00
23
02
50
00
82
07
97
01
03
08
79
06
71
07
03
90
61
04
93
06
63
03
66
02
23
02
34
00
10
13
55
00
35
01
27
09
21
44
58
00
56
04
56
07
99
01
10
00
73
01
98
04
85
06
69..
00
14
10
04
13
92
01
72
01.
14
10
79
03
05
11
00
48
82
02
60
00
47
05 5978
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9 , 2004/ASVINA 17, 1926
2
3
4
440
0
1120
0
354
0
1184
0
356
0
1183
0
355
0
1182
0
421
0
397
0
419
0
400
0
407
0
408
0
282
नव्हुनीपाल
0
142
0
266
0
265
0
155
0
161
0
162
0
160
0
159
0
163
0
158
0
165
0
164
0
167
0
35
0
22
0
13
0
12
0
23
0
24
0
25
0
10
0
289
0
1506
0
वहाबलपुर
1505
0
1494
0
[PART II-SBC. 3(ii)) 5
6
09
70
02
39
03
02
00
10
00
92
01
74
09
10
03
77
01
83
00
71
02
18
01
91
01
14
04
15
02
16
23
08
04
23
00
10
16
89
06
61
00
37
02
56
09
91
11
01
0.0
10
00
10
05
43-
00
10
18
915
01
OS
02
11
01
87
00
75
02
58
03
97
03
49
09
52
03
94
02
90
04
54 5979
भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 9 , 2004/आश्विन 17,1926
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ⅱ) ]
4
3
2
0
1493
0
1237
0
1241
0
1962
0
1242
0
1231
0
1248
0
1250
0
1252
0
1249
0
1457.
0
1251
0
1961
0
1260
0
1451
0
1259
0
1448
0
1276
0
1275
0
1273
0
1279
0
1280
0
1281
0
1283
0
1284
0
1285
0
1107
0
1105
0
1108
0
1106
0
1104
0
1101
0
1102
0
461
कोरबाटीयाबड़ा
बासुदेबपूर
0
462
0
466
0
463
0
465
0
467
0
456
0
468 2908 GI/2004-7
い
5
02
04
85
02
25
06
12
01
00
13
32
15
10
00
43
02
71
00
52
09
15
00
77
07
80
06
64
10
10
00
63
05
63
03
19
01
18
00
36
09
82
00
82
01
95
01
59
10
96
00
60
02
50
01
88
02
10
00
28
02
18
06
77
13
50
05
94
03
45
00
42
03
57
00
05
02
02
06
14
01
41
00 5980
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: OCTOBER 9 , 2004 /ASVINA 17, 1926
2
3
4
0
455
451
0
412
0
418
0
417
0
416
0
271
0
244
0
247
0
246
0
245
0
249
0
243
0
250
0
253
0
0
255
0
257
269
0
268
0
267
0
33
0
28
0
30
0
27
0
41
0
46
0
15
0
14
0
13
0
10
0
5
0
मबादिला
0
116
115
0
113
0
117
0
112
0
118
0
121
0
122
0
123
0
124
0 [ PART II- SEC. 3 (ii) ] 5
06
49
13
12
00
95
02
14
09
08
06
21
07
48
07
27
01
01
00
10
10
00
00
52
09
54
03
79
15
02
03
13
16
87
00
10
00
10
01
20
09
20
16
56
08
43
01
33
00
51
00
10
00
10
12
16
11
55
06
62
04
23
10
06
01
17
00
34
01
11
00
21
4
08
53
04
18-
10
37
09
10
09
04 5981
भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 9 , 2004/ आश्विन 17,1926
[भाग II-खण्ड 3(ii) ].
4
3
2
1
0
128
0
254
0
255
0
253
0
252
0
150
0
149
0
151
0
146
0
156
0
157
0
1973
जगन्नाथप्रसाद
0
1974
0
1976
0
1977
0
1376
0
1375
0
1343
0
1342
0
1341
0
1344
0
1347
0
1350
0
1349
0
1355
0
1356
0
1.354
1252
0
0
1251
0
1253
0
1254
0
1255
0
1257
0
1250
0
265
0.
269
0
264
0
270
0
262
0
247
0
261
6
5
46
01
37
01
13
17
61
18
10
00
20
10
13
03
80
02
07
29
35
09
95
05
06
40
05
81
23
01
10
11
82
03
88
01
41
06
18
05
48
08
10
00
74
00
24
08
56
02
69
05
65
09
24
00
29
10
16
04
78
01
97
04
81
01
14
06
77
05
94
05
83
04
63
00
94
03
69
00
53
04
15
01 5982
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9 , 2004/ASVINA 17, 1926
2
3
4
248
0
255
0
196
0
195
0
194
0
193
0
0
51
54
0
56
0
57
0
55
0
58
0
68
0
67
0
0
66
65
0
64
0
0
75
0
76
95
0.
90
0
83
0
85
0
89
0
86
0
88
0
87
0
93
0
94
0
103
0
97
0
96
0
609
0
जयकृष्णपुर
610
0
593
0
592
0
586
0
585
0
587
0
561
0 [PART II-SBC. 3 (ii)] 5
6
08
71
10
68
02
24
07
45
03
46
09
95
13
09
05
53
28
08
09
36
00
10
05
38
00
62
40
01
02
83
07
82
00
10
09
32
13
05
04
34
01
45
01
45
00
60
01
39
02
30
01
07
01
30
12
66
06
33
01
38
00
31
03
69
11
71
00
10
07
21
04
61
00
96
00
24
03
81
01
66 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 9, 2004/आश्विन 17,1926.
[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
4
3
2
0
562
0
558
0
507
0
564
0
506
0
503
0
496
0
497
0
495
0
473
0
474
0
476
0
475
0
467
0
438
0
439
0
440
0
429
0
426
0
423
0
422
0
421
0
420
0
419
0
417
0
416
0
414
0
411
0
68
0
77
0
71
0
73
0
72
0
60
0
206
0
59
0
18
0
19
0
9
0
10
0
8
6 5
95 02
12
29
10 06
10 00
27 10
55 13
15 03
10 00
67 04
14 03
26 02
:
10 00
08 15
30 00
52 00
70 07
45 11
54 02
24 12
53 02
62 02
68 04
07
02
63 08
74 07
60 04
50 04
02 01
87 09
08 15
95 04
39 05
17 12
49 06
01 04
58 02
59 00
42 08
90 03
04 02
71 05 5984
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9 , 2004/ ASVINA 17, 1926
2
3
4
6
0
22
0
24
0
25
0
5
0
4
0
2
0
काशीअभिराम
97
0
96
0
95
0
90
0
23
0
21
0
20
0
17
0
27
0
16
0
6
0
3
0
4
0
2
0
1
0
कामारगन
3753
0
3751
0
3752
0
3749
0
3738
0
3739
0
3736
0
3742
0
3712
0
3697
0
3696
0
3679
0
3676
0
3744
0
3668
0
3667
0
3666
0
3665
0
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii )] 5
い
02
77
04
60
04
22
01
46
00
66
02
66
17
99
10
68
05
99
00
26
11
43
00
97
12
38
02
63
03
15
00
21
02
98
24
07
10
66
00
18
10
04
04
18
02
53
02
35
00
48
01
35
00
29
03
58
12
89
03
06
02
11
08
73
05
95
00
10
13
85
03
86
00
48
04
28
11
79
05
00 भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 9 , 2004/आश्विन 17,1926 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
4
3
2
0
3664
0
3660
0
3661
3662
0
0
3014
0
2973
0
2972
0
2968
0
2971
0
2969
0
2967
0
2962
0
2963
0
2964
0
3944
0
2933
0
2924
0
2925
0
2929
0
2926
0
2927
0
2928
0
2912
0
2934
0
2935
0
2884
0
1451
चिरोल
0
1450
0
1449
0
1448
1447
0
0
1438
0
1446
0
1441
1445
0
0
1407
0
1406
0
1409
0
1408
1411
0
0
1404
9985 5
6
87
08
23
09
61
00
38
05
34
09
07
52
06
11
81
05
60
01
37
06
07
54
95
02
87
03
05
53
11
04
10
05
33
04
06
76
03
54
00
10
02
28
87
05
37
04
52
05
53
05
21
02
74
00
22
97
73
08
44
02
10
65
03
16
17
00
65
01
29
11
03
48
83
00
50
05
05
85
29
06
62
01 5986
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9, 2004/ ASVINA 17, 1926
1
2
3
4
1403
0
1400
0
1402
0
1414
0
1415
0
1416
0
1386
0
1396
0
1388.
0
1395
0
1393
0
1390
0
1391
0
1272
0
1271
0
1270
0
1275
0
1267
0
1266
0
1264
0
1265
0
1212
0
बेलासाँवलिया
1730
0
1713
0
1711
0
1667
0
1710
0
1674
0
1675
0
1676
0
1677
0
1678
0
0
1693
1692
0
1694
0
1695
0
1696
0
1697
0
1698
0
3378
0 खारिडाविनायकपुर
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] 5
6
05
42
05
08
13
45
02
55
05
67
01
50
00
92
11
52
03
29
20
61
01
70
01
24
04
03
08
53
03
76.
00
95
02
59
00
61
12
15
00
10
06
55
05
00
04
53
00
26
01
66
02
32
14
75
01
33
00
42
04
19
03
56
00
10
01
35
07
21
00
23
00
16
06
90
01
10
03
22
01
51 [ - ( )}
4
3
2
0
3067
0
3040
0
3039
0
3038
0
3037
10
1430
0
1436
0
1442
0
1449
0
1450
1422
0
1462
0
1451
0
1452
0
1459
0
1456
0
1453
0
1454
0
1223
0
1221
0
1222
0
1100
0
1099
0
1098
0
1097
0
970
0
998
0
976
0
975
0
974
0
977
0
967
0
980
0
963
0
964
0
965
0
962
0
961
0
909
0
910
0
911 2908GI/2004-8
6 5
01
36 04
78 07
38 02
02 02
07 08
32 08
18 18
13 00
87 12
61 00
10 00
10 08
75 00
53 00
36 07
86 03
48 06
10 16
10 00
45 01
10 00
52 06
67 05
35 00
11
70
31 01
53 02
21 01
10 00
77 00
40 06
63 00
65 01
52 01
20 00
53 01
97 07
06 01
75 01
64 00 5988
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9, 2004/ASVINA 17, 1926
2
3
4
912
0
914
0
921
0
920
0
919
0
918
0
922
0
933
0
923
0
932
0
924
0
925
0
714
0
927
0
3871
0
401
0
398
0
397
0
396
0
384
0
386
0
347
0
348
0
349
0
350
0
351
0
361
0
360
0
359
0
355
0
356
0
357
0
275
0
274
0
273
0
241
0
242
0
243
0
244
0
245
0
247
0
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)) 5
6
03
59
03
17
13
77
02
26
00
10
01
58
01
25
05
61
01
62
01
09
06
64
01
86
04
00
21
35
08
70
07
12
02
07
02
83
07
21
00
10
09
15
01
45
00
10
03
22
03
39
01
35
02
22
04
18
03
22
02
40
02
99
02
10
02
58
01
97
05
04
06
16
00
10
00
10
02
85
03
19
00
10 भारत का सजपत्र : अक्तूबर 9, 2004/आश्विन 17,1926 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
4
3
2
0
246
0
227
0
224
0
226
0
225
0
216
0
217
0
219
0
218
0
147
0
148
0
149
0
145
0
144
0
142
0
121
0
122
0
123
0
125
0
126
0
129
0
130
0
13
0
14
0
3834
0
15
0
16
0
17
0
18
0
9
0
7
0
1
0
4352
बासुदेबपूर
0
4398
0
4397
0
4396
0
4395
0
4393
0
4394
0
4392
0
4391
Y
5989 5
44
03
90
00
60
01
78
02
62
03
10
00
03
02
34
00
14
04
03
01
63
04
10
00
80
04
82
03
88
07
23
00
93
01
33
01
62
00
10
00
23
00
52
22
19
47
09
04
92
02
44
01
48
00
10
00
87
26
64
01
90
07
25
28
69
06
82
02
22
02
99
03
26
01
17
00
59
05
10
00 5990
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9, 2004/ASVINA 17, 1926
2
3
4
542
0
सुखदबपुर
529
0
528
0
527
0
1472
0
526
0
522
0
524
0
523
0
520
0
517
0
516
0
502
0
505
0
1473
0
506
0
504
0
507
0
369
0
370
0
371
0
33
0
34
0
35
0
37
0
36
0
674
0
सुगुंडा
675
0
676
0
685
0
686
0
687
0
698
0
696
0
694
0
704
0
705
0
709
0
551
0
550
0
PART I SEC. 3(ii)) 5
01
23
02
72
00
14
02
66
01
41
02
26
01
73
01
77
06
00
06
09
01
51
08
24
01
98
02
11
00
60
00
42
01
70
00
59
01
09
01
39
00
82
01
47
06
42
03
06
03
35
03
18
05
31
00
76
05
57
08
53
02
10
07
08
04
74
08
55
02
91
01
60
13
14
05
79
06
60
00
47 रात्र , 2004/आश्विन 17,1926
4
3
2
0
552
0
549
0
548
0
546
0
723
0
520
0
521
0
516
0
302
0
301
0
300
0
73
0
74
0
76
0
83
0
93
0
92
0
97
0
98
0
100
0
110
0
112
0
109
0
108
0
115
0
114
0
126
0
127
0
128
0
132
0
133
0
135
0
136
0
5
0
585.
गुआगन
0
582
0
586
0
587
0
607
0
680
0
610
6 5
32 01
59 05
18 00
74 09
26 00
73 05
04
15
30 22
50 01
66 01
76 01
72 00
10 00
50 12
83 17
76 09
60 07
74 05
15 04
30 07
11 11
10 00
41 05
87 01
97 04
67 00
52 07
60 01
85 02
70 06
94 00
52 00
25 02
04 08
13 08
57 03
61 01
08 0.1
38 10
46 11
10 00 5992
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9, 2004/ASVINA 17 , 1926
2
3
4
611
0
678
0
0
679
675
0
661
0
658
0
657
0
696
0
697
0
698
0
719
0
718
0
717
0
722
0
908
0
0
907
906
0
911
0
912
0
913
0
914
0
921
0
922
0
0
920
932
0
930
0
931
0
2031
0
2027
0
2028
0
2029
0
2024
0
2001
0
1897
0
1760
0
1761
0
1782
0
1781
0
1783
0
:
1780
0.
1774
0
[PART II-SBC. 3( ii)] 5
6
02
25
09
24
00
66
13
39
05
07
11
60
01
28
01
47
01
96
01
24
03
46
08
94
05
82
00
50
05
02
00
54
09
18
01
91
01
86
01
39
02
07
05
25
00
62
04
29
00
10
05
82
07
34
04
93
03
65
04
77
00
18
00
50
12
91
08
50
00
65
03
84
06
82
08
49
01
53
07
53
01
38 भारत का राजपत्र: अपतूबर 9, 2004/आश्विन 17, 1926 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
3
2
0
1778
0
1775
0
1776
0
1709
0
1707
0
1706
0
1652
0
1651
0
1629
0
1631
0
1650
0
1648
0
1647
0
1646
0
1642
0
1643
0
1638
0
1641
0
1640
0
1639
0
1584
0
1578
0
1577
0
1576
0
1575
0
1574 .
0
1573
0
1572
0
1571
0
1552
0
1554
0
1551
0
1547
0
1542
0
1541
0
1540
0
1537
0
1536
0
1535
0
1534
0
1475
5993
53
06
57
11
45
00
81
07
57
13
18
00
48
03
61
02
29
00
86
05
15
00
50
06
10
00
21
04
29
06
62
02
45
07
79
01
71
00
00
18
52
00
82
02
36
02
14
04
18
00
31
02
13
02
42
02
26
04
10
85
75
12
06
65
38
19
02
90
30
09
10
00
68
01
50
12
22
00
39
20
88
06 5994
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9 , 2004/ ASVINA 17, 1926
1
2
4
3
1530
0
1432
0
1434
0
1435
0
1436
0
1437
0
1454
0
1470
0
1477
0
1476
0
1474
0
1473
0
151
0
बाखरपुर
152
0
140
0
141
0
142
0
127
0
123
0
126
0
125
0
113
0
114
0
बासहत्ती
348
0
349
0
351
0
362
0
363
0
352
0
356
0
360
0
358
0
359
0
357
0
324
0
257
0
280
0
281
0
278
0
276
0 [PART II Sec. 3(H) 5
6
06
35
00
10
06
74
07
78
08
31
03
03
11
14
20
94
00
51
03
49
13
25
03
98
06
74
03
51.
:
00
15
12
31
00
24
02
00
03
30
04
93
05
60
00
13
03
08
03
98
06
22
02
42
01
06
02
25
01
32
00
10
08
41
04
93
00
10
03
10
00
63
00
62
03
02
03
33
01
24
11
95 भारत का राजपत्र : अपत्र 9, 2004/ रिपत्र 17,1926 [-]
4
3
2
0
275
0
273
0
272
0
270
0
269
0
148
濃
0
149
0
147
0
145
0
150
0
144
0
143
0
142
0
30
0
31
0
32
0
29
0
23
0
27
0
24
0
25
0
21
0
26
0
8
0
11
0
9
0
10
0
1994
सुदर्शनपुर
0
1993
0
1099
सुआंन
0
1100
0
1101
0
1106
0
1102
0
1107
0
2603
0
2604
0
1105
0
1119
0
1118
2908 GI/2004-9
6 5
48 06
42 03
27 05
76 00
45 00
33 00
20 00
77 05
07 03
00
10
83 02
13 15
48 05
44 09
10 00
87 09.
10 00
18 07
10 00
07 04
85 03
76 01
30 02
00
58
62 11
10 00
00 01
30 65
10 00
22 07
44 00
47 01
24 10
10 00
47 02
10 00
15 05
47 00
75 09
20 00 5996
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9 , 2004/ ASVINA 17, 1926
2
3
4
1110
0
1117
0
1116
0
1115
0
0
1175
1174
0
0
1173
1171
0
1172
0
1166
0
1180
0
1181
0
1182
0
1183
0
1184
0
1189
0
1188
0
1190
0
1194
0
0
1193
1196
0
2606
0
2605
0
1199
0
1197
0
1232
0
1230
0
1231
0
1204
0
1216
0
1215
0
1214
0
1213
0
1212
0
1209
0
1210
0
1211
0
1297
0
0
1369
0
1367
0
1370
[PART II SEC . 3 (ii)] 5
6
00
10
03
40
08
01
01
16
00
48
03
83
01
15
00
63
04
74
04
33
05
12
03
36
02
64
00
28
00
68
07
33
00
10
00
90
06
25
04
48
00
91
10
00
00
47
00
10
09
26
01
06
04
18
00
55
01
65
08
74
00
10
01
46
02
68
00
45
01
70
04
38
00
10
01
00
06
63
00
33
05
46 भारत का राजपत्र अक्तूबर 2004/आश्विनः 17,1926 [भाग II-खापड 3 (ii) ]
4
3
2
1
0
1371
0
1397
0
1379
0
1380
0
1395
0
1392
0
1394
0
1393
0
1534
0
1535
0
1533
0
1536
0
1538
0
1545
0
1546
0
1543
0
1542
0
1550
0
1551
0
1567
0
1562
0
1565
0
1564
0
1563
0
1170
0
2623
0
1574
0
1581
0
1614
0
1613.
0
1616
0
1617
0
1608
0
1607
0
1606
0
1627
0
1631
0
1653
0
1654
0
1655
0
1656
6
5
65 05
37 08
10 00
06 01
46 05
50 10
51 07
65 00
17 03
58 03
49 00
62 04
43 00
39 03
44 05
13 07
10 00
92 02
45 00
60 02
23 00
24 05
30 نیا
08 05
35 03
06 01
66 03
52 15
24 06
67 04
00 04
10 00
49 12
98 02
39 04
61 10
58 08
92 02
94 04
90 01
04 04 3998
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9, 2004/ASVINA 17, 1926
1
2
3
4
1658
0
1657
0
1659
0
778
अरतुंग
0
670
0
671
0
673
0
677
0
679
0
676
0
523
0
522
0
511
0
510
0
512
0
513
0
514
0
496
0
495
0
516
0
391
0
493
0
494
0
492
0
392
0
394
0
323
0
322
0
324
0
321
0
326
0
260
0
265
0
261
0
262
0
3929
0
254
0
266
0
206
0
0
3994
252
0
[PART II Sac . 36 5
6
03
55
02
62
04
16
16
15
00
20
00
10
01
91
00
35
00
85
00
50
03
19
03
60
01
96
01
76
10
63
04
99
02
18
01
44
02
83
01
24
01
98
00
10
02
55
00
10
00
78
05
94
00
57
02
37
00
19
02
66
07
44
01
65
05
74
00
66
00
10
10
00
06
23
00
10
01
79
01
84
00
37 19, 2004 17,1926
4
3
2
1
0
207
0
208
0
210
0
209
0
122
0
160
0
161
0
159
0
3711
0
123
0
133
0
91
0
92
0
3818
0
93
0
3817
0
83
0
84
0
88
0
85
0
87
0
73
0
86
74
0
0
28
0
26
0
27
0
46
दामोदरपुर
0
47
0
48
0
49
0
50
0
51
0
45
0
39
0
37
0
32
0
36
0
35
0
33
0
34
6 5
74 01
86 02
93 02
70- 04
78 11
09 01
00
10
53 02
10 00
10 00
48 09
10 00
79 01
05 02
20 04
10 00
21 02
42 02
91 00
64 01
22 03
10 00
45 01
87 07
82 02
35 03
97 05
86 05
37 00
75 00
52 01
60 01
96 01
02 02
59 06
75 08
42 02
94 05
66 01
43 02
92 02 6000
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9 , 2004/ ASVINA 17, 1926
2
3
4
812
0
17
0
18
0
19
0
पारूंहा
131
0
133
0
132
0
130
0
0
129
40
0
39
0
41
0
126
0
127
0
92
0
91
0
89
0
87
0
88
0
84
0
3929
0
85
0
86
0
3927
0
3928
0
79
0
58
0
60
0
59
0
67
0
62
0
63
0
65
0
973
0
राधामोहनपुर
972
0
978
0
985
0
986
0
987
0
0
983
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] 5
6
04
51
02
99
11
04
05
86
01
28
01
78
02
57
01
51
01
18
06
06
00
10
10
11
00
32
00
10
02
73
01
79
06
40
00
62
07
61
00
10
01
90
02
61
01
92
00
12
03
14
13
69
01
88
00
37
00
85
05
09
00
10
06
84
06
84
06
86
11
70
04
74
03
57
00
86
00
43
05
19 भारत का राजपत्र : अमर 9 , 2004/ास्थिन 17,1926 [भन II-खण्ड 3(ⅱ) ]
4
3
2
1
0
988
0
993
0
992
0
994
0
995
0
1001
0
1000
0
1007
0
1005
0
1011
0
1012
0
922
0
886
0
884
0
882
0
883
835
0
877
0
0
876
0
875
0
870
0
869
851
0
0
865
0
864
0
866
0
855
0
854
0
790
0
789
0
787
0
786
0
256
0
255
0
257
0
1564
0
267
0
264
0
266
0
269
0
270 5
6
02 06
45 00
74 05
62 01
31 02
68 00
43 05
04
98
46 02
11
69
55 00
29 02
10 00
96 00
05 03
68 05
03 02
77 07
00
88
70 04
02
68
71 03
00
36 03
36
43 01
01
58
55 04
16 02
34 05
36 04
35 03
85 09
03
00 03
83
59 04
08 01
44 00
18 05
05
83
41 02
13 08 6002
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9, 2004/ASVINA 17, 1926
1
2
3
4
1633
0
271
0
272
0
273
0
486
0
1611
0
481
0
478
0
477
0
475
0
476
0
473
0
1714
0
472
0
303
0
467
0
469
0
468
0
463
0
461
0
460
0
459
0
376
0
449
0
448
0
444
0
451
0
443
0
433
0
428
0
427
0
425
0
426
0
419
0
420
0
424
0
421
0
[PART II-SBC. 3 ( l)] 5
6
00
10
01
14
09
48
01
33
05
18
04
45
00
42
00
10
15
26
03
40
01
88
10
76
00
10
02
10
01
79
00
10
04
68
06
83
06
69
06
79
05
29
04
24
00
10
10
36
07
94
06
33
00
10
03
91
00
10
02
44
04
18
01
29
03
20
02
62
01
17
02
69
02
11 भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 9 , 2004/ आश्विन 17,1926
[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
6
5
4
3-
2
52
01
0
422
82
03
0
423
01
89
0
408
55
02
0
627
[फा. सं. आर-25011/11/2004- ओ.आर-1 ]
रेणुका कुमार, अवर सचिव Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas
New Delhi , the 30th September, 2004
S. O. 2517. Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, published in the Gazette of India vide S.O. No. 1293 dated the 31th May, 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 Govemment declared its intention to acquire the right of user in land specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose . of laying pipeline for the transportation of crude oil from Paradip in the State of Orissa to Haldia in the State of West Bengal by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited.
And whereas , the copies of the said gazette notification were made available to the public on 2nd July, 2004 ;
And whereas , the Competent Authority in pursuance of sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 6 of the said Act , has 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 for laying the pipelines .
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 .
2908GI/2004-10 6004
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9 , 2004/ASVINA 17, 1926 [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii )]
Schedule
District : Bhadrak
Name of Tahasil Name of Village Khasara No.
Hectare 1
2
3
4 Chandbali
Kuli
581
0
652
0
0
81
82
0
0
83
217
0
Goladiha
225
224
0
218
0
219
0
220
0
320
0
309-
308
0
307
0
305
0
304
0
306
0
302
0
0
300
301
0-
0
298
0
297
265
0
296
0
294
0
293
0
269
0
292
0
:
272
0
0
273
270
0
274
0 State : Orissa Area Are
Sq.mtr .
5
6
18
31
04
36
00
10
00
78
08
10
06
94
00
76
00
67
00
62
00
98
00
15
03
36
00
49
72
02.
01
25
04
08
00
25
61
00
01
79
01
50
00
10
01
78
04
09
00
38
00
10
05
76
03
59
01
40
00
80
02
28
04
21
00
12
00
69 भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 9 , 2004/आश्विन 17,1926 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
2
3
4
0
276
0
588
0
587
0
584
0
586.
585
0
0
583
0
608
579.
0
0
609
577
0
573
0
576
0
0
574
0
575
0
561
τα
628
0
560
629
0
559
0
558
0
557
0
556
495
0
555
0
496
497
0
498
552
549
0
0
548
0
546
0
547
0
543
0
537
0
538
0
541
0
542
0
539
540
0
27
6005 5
6
89
01
02
02
03
83
01
20
00
10
02
54
00
10
48
10
00
10
00
10
06
96
01
66
00
45
02
08
03
25
02
35
05
44
33
00
00
84
00
84
00
73
00
74
02
54
12
98
25
01.
03
09
03
94
25
03
00
76
82
00
43
02
00
10
05
60
93
06
08
10
80
03
28
00
00
15
00
96
01
19
06
05 6006
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9, 2004/ASVINA 17, 1926
2
3
4
945
0
Baligan
946
0
947
0
948
0
949
0
3548
0
5486
0
3521
0
3520
0
0
3519
3522
0
3492
0
3523
0
3491
0
3485
0
3486
0
3490
0
5505
0
3494
0
3467
0
3464
0
3466
0
3465
0
0
3434
3433
0
3428
0
3427
0
3426
0
3416
0
3415
0
3414
0
5050
0
3417
0
3418
0
3377
0
3376
0
3382
0
3385
0
3383
0
3384
0
3364
0 [PART II Sec.3(ii)) 5
00
95
03
03
01
05
00
02
05
01
03
90
02
00
10
06
17
06
49
00
10
00
10
00
47
02
32
02
89
02
19
04
61
01
22
02
14
03
92
00
52
05
02
05
17
04
44
01
97
01
05
00
10
12
40
01
48
00
16
02
82
01
97
03
93
01
96
01
81
00
90
12
37 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 9 , 2004/आश्विन 17,1926 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
4
2
3
0
3365
0
3764
0
3771
3772
0
0
3773
3770.
0
0
5526
0
3767
0
3776
0
5501
3777
0
0
3824
0
3825
3823
0
0
3826
0
3833
3832
0
0
3831
0
3852
0
3850
0
3849
0
3848
0
3975
0
3974
0
3973
0
3971
3972
0
0
3977
0
3978
0
5286
0
3219
0
3218
0
3217
0
5037
0
3211
0
3212
0
3216
0
3215
0
5334
3214
0
5300
0 5
6 00
10 00
77 03
25- 02
35 05
44
33 00
84 00
30 01
63 00
02
83
58 00
01
42
23 02
08 03
10 00
03
77 02
99 02
14 02
68
07 02
02
28 12
94 04
98
37 02
47 02
00
17 00
56 02
03 01
68
00 02
83 01
11 03
03 04
10 00
71 01
01
51 01
36 01
48 01
57 01
81
33 01 6008
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9, 2004 /ASVINA 17 , 1926 1
2
4
3
3081
0
3080
0
3082
0
0
3079
3089
0
0
3078
3090
0
3074
0
5135
0
3091
0
3095
0
3097
0
3096
0
5404
0
5122
0
2451
0
2890
0
2891
0
2889
0
2894
0
2895
0
2888
0
5026
0
2901
0
2887
0
2886
:
0
5085
0
2470
0
2475
0
2474
0
2476
0
2477
0
2479
0
2482
0
2487
0
5009
0
0
2486
2483
0
0
5010
2485
0
2484
0 [PART II SEC . 3 (ii)] 5
6
01
66
00
83
02
10
00
89
00
18
07
15
00
10
03
66
03
15
00
10
00
13
02
17
01
30
01
43
00
13
00
10
03
83
02
68
03
67
00
54
00
67
09
29
01
15
01
20
02
37
03
47
02
78
03
96
00
99
03
23
08
07
00
10
06
88
03
88
03
20
00
11
03
17
00
16
00
10
04
37
03
65 भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 9, 2004/ आश्विन 17,1926
2
4
3
2352
0
0
2348
2237
0
2347
0
2346
0
0
2345
0
2344
2343
0
2340
0
5250
0
2338
0
0
2337
2334
0
2335
0
0
2336
0
2331
5241
0
2333
0
2249
0
2260
0
2259
0
2261
0
1101
0
Baraostia
1102
0
1100
0
0
1103
1104
0
1105
0
1056
0
1053
0
0
1052
0
1051
0
1054
0
1050
0
1047
1048
0
970
0
967
0
969
0
0
968
966
0
6009
6
5
01
56
00
51
00
30
00
89
07
28
00
10
20
04
03
41
03
36
02
09
01
08
01
08
00
46
02
42
10
00
03
26
03
95
12
31
08
14
03
26
02
24
00
26
06
23
00
10
00
91
29
06
74
04
03
88
01
48
01
26
01
74
12
49
04
56
00
10
01
03
00
11
09
31
04
63
01
17
00
68
03
45 6010
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9, 2004/ASVINA 17 , 1926
2
3
4
965
0
964
0
963
0
917
0
919
0
921
0
922
0
925
0
0
924
927
0
909
0
0
928
908
0
0
902
904
0
905
0
906
0
886
0
695
0
694
0
696
0
731
0
711
0
712
0
713
0
725
0
724
0
722
0
721
0
714
0
715
0
603
0
0
602
599
0
264
0
269
0
274
0
0
275
283
0
286
0
285
0 [PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] 5
6
01
06
01
11
03
40
02
75
02
93
03
52
03
70
04
33
00
10
08
86
10
00
00
23
03
90
02
68
01
19
03
18
01
07
01
83
08
07
01
27
10
96
04
35
00
10
02
01
02
00
00
10
00
10
00
88
92
00
05
10
05
04
14
14
00
10
00
10
11
51
06
26
00
10
10
14
46
00
00
51
03
08 6011
भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 9 , 2004/आश्विन17,1926
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
4
3
2
1
0
284
0
288
0
287
0
1459
0
289
0
290
0
295
0
1460
0
1461
0
296
0
294
0
293
0
306
0
305
0
307
0
308
0
309
0
310
0
311
0
312
0
314
318
0
320
0
0
321
0
322
0
332
0
333
0
972
Panaspada
0
971
0
945
0
969
0
946
0
947
0
948
0
950
0
955
0
968
0
967
0
966
0
965
0
956 2908 GI/2004-11
6
5
01
57
81
01
10
00
93
00
36
00
10
00
72
01
23
02
60
02
00
28
78
04
00
14
14
00
04
35
03
90
05
02
38
03
20
01
63
00
63
00
26
05
13
06
00
84
11
10
96
00
14
00
54
11
53
04
23
03
20
00
27
06
00
10
03
22
72
00
10
00
10
00
26
00
49
01
55
02
77
02
07
04 6012
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9 , 2004/ASVINA 17, 1926 1
2
4
3
0
919
0
920
0
918
915
0
914
0
512
0
513
0
0
516
517
0
912
0
518
0
520
0
911
0
910
0
1005
0
0
909
908
0
536
0
529
0
535
0
537
0
538....
0
539
0
557
0
559
0
558
0
543
0
555
0
556
0
564
0
565
0
566
0
983
0
567
0
568
0
574
0
640
0
639
0
0
638
636
0
637
0 [PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] 5
6
01
31
00
27
26
02
05
14
71
03
01
00
04
92
00
32
01
22
01
57
01
01
00:
37
02
79
05
34
05
69
00
76
00
10
01
21
01
45
02
56
87
00
38
01
01
98
03
35
97
01
00
40
00
10
07
46
00
25
02
54
83
00
01
34
00
10
02
67
61
00
00
52
00
85
00
83
03
45
47
00
00
23 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 9 , 2004/आश्विन 17,1926 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
4
3
2
627
0
0
628
0
629
0
626
625.
0
0
619
0
618
0
621-
0
620
0
615
0
616
617
0
984
0
610
0
609
0
612
0
611.
0
661
0
1722
Bhatpara
0
1723
0
1721
1726
0
0
4412
0
1730
0
1731
17.45.
0
1743
0
1737
0
1738
0
1740
0
1741.
0
1779
0
4352
0
1778
0
1796
0
1797
0
1793
0
1791
0
1790
0
18.10.
0
1811
6013 5
6
34
02
22
02
10
00
14
05
01
01
35
04
00
37/
83
00
51
01
11
00
59
01
34
00
11
00
93
01
16
00
00
18
86
00
98
01
48
03
78
02
22
05
50
03
85
00
83
07
97
08
66
04
82
02
10
00
69
02
57
02
74
03
56
01
38.
06
05
06
01
05
71
01
56
12
37
01
10
00
79
07
37
03 6014
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9 , 2004/ASVINA 17, 1926
2
3
4
0
1867
0
1865
1866
0
1870
0
0
1952
1947
0
0
1948
0
1949
1950
0
0
1943
0
1941
1940
0
0
1939
2400
0 .
4441
0
2390
0
0
2327
2389
0
4579
0
0
2391
2393
0
0
2399
2397
0
0
2398
0
2396
2404
0
2472
0
2405
0
4508
0
0
2449
2450
0
2447
0
2437
0
2446
0
2445
0
0
4411
2590
0
2632
0
4582
0
4351
0
2630
0 [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] 5
6
13
24
02
04
10
09
03
78
05
62
03
62
04
06
04
38
00
10
12
61
87
04
01
02
01
36
12
29
05
63
02
53
00
17
A
11.
00
3
05
50
01
49
00
17
07
73
00
40
06
78
02
34
07
89
03
37
00
10
14
08
01
91
09
41
04
04
02
88
02
17
13
03
01
86
01
23
06
02
03
58
00
90 भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 9, 2004/आश्विन 17,1926 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
4
3
2
0
2631
0
2629
0
2628
0
4350
0
2627
0
2635
0
2636
2637
0
0
2721
0
2719
0
2720
0
2723
0
2724
0
2718
0
2725
0
2715
0
2713
0
2714
0
2712
0
2709
0
2706
0
2705
0
2750
2694
0
621
0
622
0
620
0
631
0
634
0
619
0
641
0
640
0
642
0
643
0
646
0
658
0
657
0
650
656
0
0
4306
0
655
6045
6
5
34
06
75
03
29
06
10
00
06
05
18
05
02
86
10
04
06
01
70
04
19
04
10
00
62
03
05
00
40
00
13
09
06
03
13
02
25
07
00
06
05
14
84 03
28 01
29 12
79 06
19 00
01 07
19 03
17 09
10. 00
01 01
13 05
01
08 08
52 11
57 03
26 05
42 00
38 14
92 01
33 04 6016
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9 , 2004/ASVINA 17, 1926
2
3
4
560
0
4303
0
336
0
4252
0
341
0
340
0
337
0
339
0
338
0
4285
0
4282
0
25
0
Jayakrushnapur
26
0
0
39
Naugorada
41
0
40
0
34
0
42
0
43
0
44
0
46
0
55
0
54
0
57
0
56
0
76
0
11
0
10
0
9
0
8
0
6
0
7
0
41
Chasakhand
0
55
0
54
0
50
0
51
0
52
0
49
0
43
0 [PART II SEC . 3 (ii )] 5
6
02
15
06
84
12
87
07
47
02
63
14
92
00
56
08
18
04
42
05
31
02
61
06
91
02
86
00
67
04
65
02
23
01
67
05
78
01
61
07
51
04
22
70
17
04
95
04
48
00
14
07
60
04
66
04
29
00
32
07
15
00
75
12
90
05
32
25
43
00
20
02
31
05
93
00
10
09
39
15
53 6017
भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 9 , 2004/आश्विन 17,1926
[भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]
4
3
2
1
42
0
0
44
0
17
0
18
0
15
0
12
0
466
Motto
0
467
0
471
0
470
0
469
484
0
0
485
0
486
0
561
0
496
0
487
0
495
0
454
0
504
0
547
0
505
0
511
0
546
0
512
0
519
0
514
0
516
0
518
517
0
0
428
0
421
0
423
0
424
0
158
0
156
0
185
186
0
0
187
0
150
0
189
6
5
94
01
17
05
84
10
10
00
07
63
05
07
57
00
68
01
89
01
17
10
10
00
30
03
85
04
01
06
01
41
24
00
52
12
11
05
18
05
88
10
01
08
24
10
14
85
10
00
05
05
78
00
01
26
64
15
56
02
15
03
37
02
19
08
22
10
46
11
51
16
10
00
67
11
64
12
03
86
45
11
99
11 6018
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9 , 2004/ASVINA 17 , 1926
2
3
4
146
0
145
0
144
0
142
0
138
0
216
0
137
0
217
0
136
0
337
0
Pratappur
338
0
340
0
341
0
344
0
342
0
343
0
365
0
366
0
367
0
369
0
368
0
370
0
1438
0
373
0
375
0
379
0
380
0
392
0
382
0
1431
0
0
393
394
0
405
0
396
0
401
0
400
0
399
0
439
0
440
0
441
0
437
0 [PART II-SEC. 3(ii) ] 5
6
00
55
15
10
06
34
18
06
16
47
11
71
03
26
06
63
06
38
00
55
09
08
05
02
03
38
11
92
03
68
09
97
01
37
10
30
05
42
11
98
00
10
06
00
04
29
00
55
00
35
05
66
00
42
06
97
00
10
02
67
04
95
00
17
00
18
04
71
00
57.
03
12
04
19
06
47
02
02
04
15
00
10 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 9, 2004/ आश्विन 17,1926 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]
4
3
2
0
442
0
434
432
0
0
431
0
430
0
445
0
446
0
311
Nalgunda
0
289
0
290
0
291
0
303
0
304
0
302
0
301
0
300
0
321
0
324
0
325
0
104
0
96
0
95
1736
0
0
88
0
93
0
89
0
90
0
77
0
85
0
84
78
0
0
82
0
79
0
80
0
81
0
73
0
65
0
64
0
56
0
61
0
57 2908 GI/2004-12
6. 5
30 08
35 03
00.
10
13 02.
04
96
36 03
01
32 16
11.
56 05
21 02
01
88
:
20 04
36 02
01
19
28 09
00
60
87 03
00
85
27 06
84 09
60 04
69 04.
11. .00.
08. 06
10 00
00
66
08 07
52 02
77 00
78 06
12 02
10 00
07
03
86 06
44 01
29 08
02
68
63 03
68 07
41 05
64 01 6020
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9 , 2004/ASVINA 17 , 1926
2
3
4
60
0
59
0
58
0
51
0
423
0
49
0
424
0
48
0
46.
0
47
0
45
0
1
637
0
Kaupuni
351
0
352
0
357
0
356
0
355-
0
354
374
0
592
0
0
591
590
0
589
0
587
0
588
0
390
0
389
394
0
404
0
403
0
402
0
0
400
401
0
399
0
156
0
412
0
413
0
155
0
0
416
151
0 [PART II-SEC. 3(ii) ] 5
02
31
07
64
06
13
10
17
00
10
11
02
01
76
00
10
07
00
00
10.
03
25
06
01
06
28
07
29
07
27
01
97
16
49
02
59
08
47 、
07
73
04
87
05
83
05
91
04
88
02
46
07
76
00
10
05
08
00
37
00
12
06
73
05
14
00
79
08
15
12
45
05
69
00
10
05
74
06
29
00
97
00
23 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 9 , 2004/आश्विन 17,1926 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
3
4
2
0
150
0
152
0
149
0
153
0
148
0
154
0
147
0
146
0
145,
0
140
0
143
0
142
0
89
Nuagan
20
87
0
90
91
0
0
92
0
97
0
106
0
103
0
104
102
0
0
101
0
99
0
100
145
0
157
0
156
0
0
159
0
155
0
160
0
154
0
153
0
152
0
151
0
167
0
168
174
0
0
175
0
179
0
180
6021 5
00
35
02-
61
00
95
02
03
87
02
07
04
02
69
96
04
75
01
75
01
01
29
04
26
12
08
29
00
73
01
63
05
80
04
03
06
01
38
17
37
93
05
02
25
63
10
00
10
60
00
57
10
18
02
83
09
01
53
15
04
70
03
10
00
06
64
72
06
03
53
92
06
78
01
53
01
45
04
57 00
12 05 6022
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9 , 2004/ ASVINA 17 , 1926
2
3
4
173
0
181
0
182
0
183
0
202
0
203
0
0
509
Kherang
510
0
511
0
526
0
524
0
525
0
527
0
523
0
522
0
533
0
521
0
534
0
551
0
553
0
548
0
433
0
430
0
431
0
423
0
422
0
349
0
348
0
350
0
0
343
344
0
335
0
336
0
324
0
337
0
323
0
322
0
295
0 .
320
0
296
0
0
297 [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] 5
い
00
23
03
16
00
67
01
44
19
30
03
44
04
66
13
37
03
27
08
10
00
60
01
28
11
81
06
34
11
71
00
01
35
06
11
12
26
14
63
01
84
01
36
01
51
09
70
02
37
10
59
06
73
05
35
06
68
14
69
00
10
02
28
03
32
11
34
00
22
03
63
07
42
06
32
06
32
94
02
03
55 6023
भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 9 , 2004/आश्विन 17,1926
[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
4
3
2
1
0
299
0
313
0
310
0
311
0
312
0
309
0
314
0
275
0
272
0
271
0
269
0
252
0
139
0
77
0
76
0
81
0
83
0
82
0
84
0
85
0
19
0
18
0
16
0
22
0
20
0
21
0
30
0
33
0
1
0
495 Tihidi
Baharpal
0
493
0
492
0
491
0
488
0
480
0
485
0
481
0
482
0
479
0
483
0
452
6
5
75
09
88
03
10
00
56
08
80
00
89
02
05
01
39
04
15
06
24
01
44
01
01
2.08
16
02
55
02
10
00
85
00
85
00
69
12
15
01
25
01
37
02
92
04
67
00
97
00
14
02
73
02
59
02
83
10
17
06
72
10
10
00
05
57
37
09
06
02
91
10
34
00
10
00
05
02
31
05
37
00
03
09 6024
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9, 2004/ASVINA 17, 1926
1
2
3
4
450
0
0
449
138
0
139
0
134
0
141
0
142
0
1628
0
144
0
131
0
130
0
129
0
80
0
81
0
82
0
78
0
75
0
77
0
72
0
71
0
70
0
0
52
54
0
45
0
53
0
37
0
36
0
35
0
34
0
28
0
29
0
323
0
Lakxmiprasad
335
0
0
324
320
0
325
0
326
0
260
0
319
0
263
0
262
0 [PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] 5
6
08
04
09
28
00
10
11
15
00
24
16
81
00
17
01
73
10
46
00
10
12
86
09
05
03
61
07
06
00
10
05
36
24
27
03
25
04
84
04
81
10
-45
00
10
08
88
00
57
00
10
11
44
00
44
04
02
09
88
03
96
10
67
03
99
00
10
00
60
08
31
02
72
00
31
00
55
00
83
04
36
00
34 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 9, 2004/आश्वित 17,1926 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
2
3
4
297
0
0
296
264
0
270
0
0
271
0
275
272
0
0
276
277
0
274
0
280
0
0
278
167
0
0
166
165
0
163
0
164
0
1749
0
Santarpur
1355
0
-0
1358
1356
0
1357
0
1345
0
0
1361
1340
0
0
1339
0
1332
1333
0
0
1334
1330
0
1328
0
1768
0
0
1203
1202
0
1163
0
1765
0
0
1159
1162
0
1165
0
1161
0
0
1166
6025 5
6
00
27
03
71
00
35
00
11
00
91
02
13
00
10
01
87
04
18
03
85
17
00
03
67
01
68
94
01
05
14
00
10
04
60
00
10
07
67
00
10
07
76
29
10
51
03
00
10
14
48
03
25
00
10
06
56.
26
10
03
00
49
13
07
49
43
09,
01
72.
03
79
00
22
23
03
: 09
60
60
00
05
36
21
06 6026
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9 , 2004/ ASVINA 17, 1926
2
3
1149
0
1148
0
1170
0
1171
0
1172
0
1179
0
0
1146.
1082
0
1083
0
855
0
Harsinhapur
854
0
856
0
878
0
876
0
875
0
874
0
873
0
872
0
870
0
0
900
901
0
902
0
903
0
917
0
904
0
905
0
906
0
909
0
908
0
907
0
-831
0
832
0
833
0
0
839
185
0
Bhanupur
0
186
188
187
0
190
0
194
0 [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] 5
6
08
07
00
21
05
45
01
90
01
23
11
91
05
82
33
09
12
20
00
10
15
12
23
29
07
11
00
10
06
98
03
47
02
65
00
61
09
59
05
18
13
99
09
06
02
89
00
18
04
26
02
74
02
61
00
52
04
40
03
09
01
78
00
89
00
97
05
56
05
31
01
78
00
86
02
21
00
36
00
10 भारत का राजपत्राच्तूबर 9, 2004/ आश्विन 17,1926
4
3
2
1
0
193
0
192
0
196
0
197
0
198
0
128
0
127
0
126
0
125
0
124
0
: 123
0
36
0
35
0
398
Kanhapur
0
399
0
400
401
0
0
403
0
404
0
405
0
406
0
408
0
415
0
412
414
0
0
413
0
366
0
369
0
370
0
365
0
371
0
358
0
357
0
356
0
351
0
339
0
335
0
334
0
326
0
327
0
328 2908 GI/2004-13
6027
6
5
00
07
42
00
24
03
16
01
97
00
96
00
87
00
93
00
00
68
13
01
74
32
10
80-
35
00
11
00
10 00
06
68
69
06
70
05
20
04
82
00
56
00
20
02
05
64
30
03.
62
02
57
01
46
12
10
00
77
01
17
04
03
52
85
05
76
00
40
06
16
25
00
73
14
03
24
05
10
00
68
05
10
01 6028
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9 , 2004/ ASVINA 17 , 1926
2
3
4
308
0
307
0
0
306
34
0
0
33
0
74
31
0
3
0
13
0
14
0
15
0
12
0
115
Sandakpur
0
123
99
0
47
48
0
49
52
0
51.
0
50
0
31
0
0.
30
33
0
28
0
0
59
Momanipur
0
616
Tarachandbindha
0
590
584
0
0
581
0
551
552
0
555
0
0
554
557
0
573
0
572
0
571
0
570
0
1314
0
Babanbindha
[PART II SEC. 3(ii )] 5
6
05
45
16
15
01
04
00
66
23
35
49
01
00:
73
06
10
12
09
02
45
74
05
02
33
72
12
00
55-
12
64
57
10
02
44
05
02
17
06
05
20
00
10
05
35
00
10
13
13
01
81
59
02
00
27
41
22
00
44
01
03
00
52
10
57
12
54
19
66
00
86
00
10
17
02
60
06
02
33
10
00 17,1926 [ Ⅱ- 3(ⅱ)]
4
3
2
0
2406
0
1310
0
1311
0
1309
0
1306
0:
1307
0
1302
0
1291
0
1288
1287
1301
0
1285
0
1286
0
1272
0
1273
0
1265
0
1263
0
1262
0
1261
0
1053
0
1054
0
1062
1061
0
0
1058
0
1057
0
1047
0
1043
0
1045
0
1044
0
1034
0
1033
0
1032
0
1030
0
1005
0
1006
0
1007
0.
1009
0
1008
0
970
0
942
0
944
6
5
25
07
54
01
01
08
14
07
22
07
08
01
87
10
62
02
00
65
95 06
13 00
11
11
74 02
16 04
85 04
64 05
07
78
55 02
33 04
00
59
37 01
76 03
57 06
41 02
74 00
28 04
33 02
55 01
16 02
10 00
53 03
74 02
69 17
00 10
24 07
03
93 00
42 01
00
10
66 14
10 00 6030
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9 , 2004/ASVINA 17, 1926
2
4
3
943
0
917
0
916
0
902
0
903
0
904
0
905
0
907
0
906
0
162
0
Habudasingh
0
159
160
0
156
0
155
0
158
0
124
0
126
0
127
0
129
0
91
0
143
0
165
0
134
0
0
135
142
0
136
0
141
0
0
138
139
0
39
0
38
0
1183
0
Sahapur
0
1182
1165
0
1164
0
295
0
300
0
0
299
298
0
0
256 [PART II Sac. 3(fi)] 5
6
02
87
09
96
00
94
16
76
02
25
01
17
01
72
11
26
05
47
08
44
01
70
04
08
06
07
00
88
00
92
01
66
05
97
13
30
00
85
00
61
06
58
02
78
09
87
01
83
00
89
01
14
01
58
00
61
01
23
01
28
02
04
10
29
00
23
12
27
10
92
04
44
04
54
13
14
06
70
00
10 6031
2004/ पन 17,1926
[ भाग -3 (ii)]
2
0
304
0
305
0
255
0
251
0
253
252
0
0
250
0
151
0
154
0
155
0
156
0
127
0
112
0
111
0
113
0
88
0
89
0
91
0
93
0
94
0
95
0
97
0
1326
Kabirpur
0
1327
0
1240
0
1238
0
1239
0
1265
0
1241
0
1242
1264
0
1245
0
0
1247
0
1248
0
124
$1225
1222
0.
0
0
0
1208
0
1207
10
00
48
09
73
08
45
00
05
96
57
06
46
03
13
00
50
10
33
00.
13
75
07
56
10
51
01
71
84
05
10
21
96
02
15
10
52
03
02
17
94
02
50
00
1.1
11
66
01
19
00
05
21
93
03
20
00
12
01
10
16
07
05
00
10
84
02
04
98
56
05
05
71
43
13
05
98
11
03
01
03
30
07 6032
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9 , 2004/ASVINA 17, 1926
2
3
4 1
0
1195
0
1196
1194
0
0
1193
1116
0
0
1431
0
1115
1114
0
Jafrabad
515
0
0
514
512
0
0
513
1142
0
1143
0
511
0
0
509
0
1144
0
526
508
0
506
0
0
504
494
0
557
0
0
559
485
0
483
0
1139
0
477
0
478
0
0
479
475
0
0
450
327
0
0
448
0
330
443
0
442
0
336
0
337
0
441
0
0
338 [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] 5
6
03
62
00
10
02
23.
00
50
07
82
01
97
08
03
06
79
07
71
90
03
04
61
06
93
03
63
02
66
02
23
00
34
13
10
00
55
01
35
09
27
44
21
00
58
04
56
07
56
01
99
00
10
01
73
04
98
06
85
00
69
10
14
13
04
01
92
01
72
10
14
03
79
11
05
00
48
02
82
00
60
05
47 भारत का रापपत्र : अमर 2004/ दिन 17,1926
3
4 2
0
440
0
1120
0
354
0
1184
0
356
0
1183
0
355
1182
0
421
0
20
397
419
0
400
0
407
0
408
0
282
0 Nahunipal
142
0
266
0
265
0
155
161
0
162
0
160
0
0
159
0
163
0
158
165
0
0
164:
167
0
0
35
22
0
0
13
0
12
23
0
24
0
0
25
0
10
289
0
0
1506
Bahabalpur
0
1505
0
1494
5
70 09
02
39 03
02 00
10
92 00
74 01
09
10
77 03
01
83
71 00
02
18 01
91 01
14
15 04
16 02
23
08
23 04
00
10 16
89 06
61 00
37 02
56
91 09
11
01
10 00
00
10
43 05
00
10 18
96 01
11 02
01
87 00
75 02
58 03
97 03
49 09
52 03
94 02
90
54 04.
6034
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9 , 2004/ASVINA 17 , 1926
2
4
3
1493
0
0
1237
1241
0
0
1962
1242
0
0
1231
0
1248
0
1250
0
1252
0
1249
0
1457
0
1251
0
1961
1260
0
0
1451
0
1259
1448
0
0
1276
0
1275
0
1273
0
1279
0
1280
0
1281
0
1283
0
1284
0
1285
0
1107
1105
0
1108
1106
0
1104
0
0
1101
1102
0
0
461
Korabatiabara
Basudevpur
0
462
466
0
0
463
0
465
467
0
0
456
0
468 [PART II Sec.3(ii)] 5
6
02
04
02
85
06
25
01
12
13
00
32
15
00
10
02
43
00
71
09
52
00
15
77
07
06
80
10
64
00
10、
63
05
03
63
01:
19
00
18
09
36
00
82
82
01
01
95
10
59
00
96
60
02
::
01
50
02
SS
00
10
02
28
06
18
13
77
50
05
03
94
00
45
03
42
57
00
05
02
06
02
01
14
00
41 6035
भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 9 , 2004/ आश्विन 17,1926
[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
2
3
4
0
455
0
451
0
412
0
418
417
0
416
0
0
271
0
244
247
0
0
246
0
245
0
249
0
243
0
250
0
253
255
0
0
257
0
269
0
268
0
267
0
33
0
28
30
0
0
27
0
41
0
46
0
15
14
0
0
13
१
0
10
0
5
0
116
Mabadilla
0
115
0
113
0
117
112
0
0
118
0
121
0
122
0
123
0
124 2908 GI/2004-14
6
5
49
06
13
.12
00
95
14
02
09
08
21
06
07
48
07
27
01
01
00
10
10
00
00
52
54
09
03
79
15
02
13
03
16
87
00
10
00
10
01
20
20
09
16
56
43
08
33
01
51
00
00
10
10
00
16
12:
55
11
06
62
04
23
06
10
01
17
34
00
01
11
21
00
53
08
18
04
37
10
10
09
04
09 6036
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9, 2004/ASVINA 17 , 1926
3
2
4
0
128
0
254
255
0
0
253
252
0
150
0
149
0
0
151
146
0
156
157
0
1973
0
Jagannathprasad
1974
0
1976
0
1977
0
1376
0
1375
0
1343
0
1342
0
1341
0
1344
0
1347
0
1350
0
0
1349
1355
0
1356
0
1354
0
1252
0
0
1251
1253
0
1254
0
1255
0
1257
0
1250.
0
265
0
269
0
264
0
270
0
262
0
247
0
261
0 [PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ) 5
6
01
46
01
37
17
13
18
61
00
10
10
20
03
13
02
07
29
09
35
05
95
06
40
05
81
01
23
10
11
03
82
01-
88
06
41
05
18
08
48
00
10
00
74
08
24
02
56
05
69
09
65
00
24
10
29
04
16
01
78
04
97
01
81
06
14
05
77
05
94
04
83
00
63
03
94
00
69
04
53
01
15 3( ii) ]
6037 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 9 , 2004/ आश्विन 17,1926
2
3
0
248
0
255
0
196
0
195
0
194
0
193
51
0
0
54
56
0
0
57
55
0
0
58
0
68
67
0
66
0
65
0
0
64
0
75
76
0
0
95
0
90
83
0
85
0
89
0
86
0
88
87
0
93
0
0
94
0
103
0
97
0
96
0
609
Jayakrushnapur
0
610
0
593
0
592
586
0
585
587
0
0
561
い
5
71
08
10
68
24
02
07
45
46
03
09
95
13
09
53
05
28
08
36
09
10
00
38
05
62
00
40
01
02
83
07
82
00
10
09
32
05
13
34
04
45
01
45
01
00
60
01
39
30
02
07
01
01
30
66
12
33
06
38
01
00
31
69
03
71
11
00
10
21
07
61
04
96
00
24
00
03
81
01
66 6038
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9, 2004/ASVINA 17, 1926
2
3
4
562
0
558
0
507
0
564
0
506
0
503
0
0
496
0
497
495
0
473
0
474
0
0
476
0
475
0
467
0
438
439
0
440
0
429
0
426
0
423
0
:
0
422
0
421
420
0
0
419
0
417
416
0
0
414
411
0
0
68
0
17
71
0
73
0
72
0
60
0
206
0
59
0
19
0
19
0
9
0
10
0
8
0 [PART HSBC . 3 (ii)] 5
6
02
95
12
29
06
10
00
10
10
27
13
55
03
15
00
10
04
67
03
14
02
26
00
10
08
15
00
30
00
52
07
70
11
02
12
24
C
53
00
62
04
68
07
02
08
63
07
74
04
60
04
50
01
02
09
87
15
08
04
95
05
39
12.
17
06
49
04
01
02
58
00
59
08
42
03
90
02
04
05
71 4
3
2
6
0
0
22
0
24
0
25
5
0
0
4
0
2
97
0 Kasiabhiram
96
0
0
95
0
90
23
0
0
21
0
20
0
17
0
27
0
16
0
6
3
0
4
0
0
2
0
1
0
3753
Kamargan
0
3751
0
3752
0
3749
0
3738
0
3739
0
3736
3742
0
3712
0
3697
0
0
3696
3679
0
0
3676
3744
0
3668
0
3667
0
3666
0
0
3665
6 5
77 02
60 04
22 04
01
46
66 00
66 02
17
99 10
68 05
99
26 00
11
43 00
97 12
38
63 02
15 03
00
21
98 02
07 24
10
66 00
18 10
04
13 04
02
53
35 02
48 00
01
35 00
29
58 03
12
89
06 03
02
11
73 08
05
95
10 00
13
85
86 03
00
48 04
28 11
79
00 05 6040
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9 , 2004/ASVINA 17, 1926
2
3
4
3664
0
3660
0
3661
0
3662
0
3014
0
2973
0
0
2972
2968
0
2971
0
2969
0
2967
0
2962
0
2963
0
2964
0
3944
0
2933
0
2924
0
2925
0
2929
0
2926
0
2927
0
2928
0
2912
0
2934
0
2935
0
2884
0
Chirol
1451
0
1450
0
1449
0
1448
0
1447
0
1438
0
1446
0
1441
0
1445
0
1407
0
1406
0
0
1409
0
1408
14.11
0
1404
0 [PART II SBC. 3 (ii)] 5
08
87.
09
23
00
61
05
38
09
34
07
52
11
06
05
S1
01
60
06
37
07
54
02
95
03
87
05
53
04
11
05
10
04
33
06
76
03
54
00
10
02
26
05
87
04
37
05
52
05
53
02
21
00
74
22
97
08
73
02
44.
10
65
03
16
00
17
01
65
11
29
03
48
00
83
05
50
05
85
06
29
01
62 भारत
भाग -कण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
17: 1926
पत्र समय १/ 2004/
2
3
4
1403
0
1400
0
0
1402
1414
0
1415
0
0
1416
0
1386
1396
0
0
1388
0
1395
1393
0
0 .
1390
0
1391
0
1272
1271
0
1270
0
1275
0
1267
0
0
1266
1264
0
0
1265
1212
0
1730
0
Belasaunlia
0
1713-
1711
0
1667
0
0
1710
0
1674
0
1675
1676
0
1677
0
1678
0
1693
1692
0
0
1694
0
1695
0
1696
0
1697
0
1698
3378
0
Kharidabinyakpur
6 5
05
42
08 05
13
45 02
55
67 05
50 01
92 00
52 11
03
29 20
61 01
70
24 01
04
03
53. 08
03
76 00
95 02
59 00
61 12
15 00
10 06
55 05
00 04
53 00
26 01
66
32 02
75 140
33 01
00
42 04
19 03
56 00
10 01
35 07
21 00
23 00
16 06
90 01
10 03
22 01
51 6042
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9 , 2004/ASVINA 17 , 1926
4 1
2
3
3067
0
3040
0
0
3039 、
0
3038
0
3037
1430
0
1438
0
0
1442
0
1449
1450
0
1422
0
1462
0
1451
0
0
1452
0
1459
0
1456
0
1453
0
1454
0
1223
0
1221
1222
0
0
1100
0
1099
0
1098
0
1097
0
970
0
998
976
0
975
0
0
974
977
0
967
0
0
980
963
0
0
964
0
965
962
0
0
961
0
909
910
0
0
911 [PART II SEC . 3 (ii )] 5
6
01
46
36
04
78
07
02
38
02
02
07
08
32
08
18
18
13
'00
12
87
00
61
00
10
08
10
75
00
00
53
07
36
03
86
06
48
16
10
00
10
01
45
10
00
52
06
67
05
00
35
11
70
31
01
02
53
01
21
00
10
77
00
06
40
63
00
65
Q1
01
52
20
00
01
53
07
97
01
06
01
75
00
64
1 :
भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 9, 2004/आश्विन 17,1926 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]
4
2
3
0
912
0
914
0
921
0
920
0
919
0
918
0
922
0
933
0
923
0
932
0
924
0
925
714
0
0
927
0
3871
401
0
0
398
0
397
0
396
0
384
0
386
0
347 :
0
348
0
349
0
350
0
351
0
361
0
360
0
359
0
355
0
356
0
357
0
275
0
274
0
273
0
241
0
242
243
0
0
244
0
245
0
247 2908 GI/2004-15
6043
6
5
59
03
17
03
77
13
26
02
10
00
01
58
01
25
05
61
62
01
09
01
06
64
01
86
04
00
21
35
08
70
07
12
07
02
83
02
07
21
10
00
15
09
45
01
10
00
03
22
39
03
35
01
02
22
04
18
22
03
40
02
02
99
10
02
02
58
97
01
04
05
16
06
10
00
10
00
02
85
19
03
00
10 6044
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: OCTOBER 9, 2004/ASVINA 17, 1926
2
3
4
246
0
227
0
224
0
0
226
225
0
216
0
217
0
219
0
218 .
0
147
0
148
149
0
145
0
144
0
142
0
121
0
122
0
123
0
125
0
126
0
129
0
130
13
14
0
3834
0
15
0
16
0
17
0
18
0
9
0
7
0.
1
0
4352
0
Basudebpur
4398
0
4397
0
0
4396
4395
0
4393
0
4394
0
4392
0
4391
0 [PART II-SBC. 3 (ii )] 5
6
03
44
00
90
01
60
02
78
03
62
00
10-
02
03
00
34
04
14
01
03
04
63
00
10
04
80
03
82
07
88
00
23
01
93
01
33
00
62
00
10
00
23
22.
07
01
47
04
09
02
92
01.
44
00
48
00
10 .
26
87
01
64
07
90
28
25
06
69
02
82
02
22
03
99
01
26
00
17
05
59
00
10 भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 9, 2004/आश्विन 17,1926
2
3
4
542
0
Sukadevpur
529
0
0
528
0
527
1472
0
526
0
522
0
524
0
523
0
520
0
517
0
516
0
502
0
505
0
0
1473
506
0
504
0
507
0
369
0
0
370
371
0
33
0
34
0
35
0
37
0
36
0
0
674
Sungura
675
0
0
676
635
0
0
686
687
0
0
698
696
0
694
D
0
704
705
0
0
709
551
0
0
550
6045 5
6
01
23
02
72
00
14
02
66
01
41
02
26
01
73
01
77
06
00
06
09
51
08
24
01
98
02
11-
00
60
00
42
70
01
00
59
01
09
01
39
00
82
01
47
06
42
03
06
03
35
18
03
05
31
00
76
05
57
08
53
02
10
07
08
04
74
08
55
02
91
01
60
13
14
05
79
06
60
00
47 6046
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9 , 2004/ ASVINA 17 , 1826 1
2
3
4
552
0
549
0
0
548
546
0
723
0
520
0
0
521
0
516
302
0
301
0
300
0
73
0
0
74
76
0
83
0
93
0
0
92
97
0
98
0
100
0
110
0
112
0
109
0
108
0
115
0
114.
0
126
0
127
0
0
128
132
0
133
0
135
0
136
0
5
0
585
0
Guagan
582
0
586
0
587
0
607
0
0
680
0
610 [PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii) ) 5
01
32
05
59
00
18
09
74
00
26
05
73
04
15
22
30
01
50
01
66
01
76
00
72
00
10
12
50
17
83
09
76
07
05
Be
30
11
10
00
05
$1
01
87
04
97
00
67
07
52
01
60
02
85
06
70
00
94
00
52
02
25
08
04
08
13
03
57
01
61
01
08
10
38
11
46
00
10 6047
भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 9, 2004/आश्विन 17,1926
[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
4
2
3
1
0
611
0
678
0
679
0
675
661
0
658
0
657
0
696
0
697
0
698
0
719
0
718
0
717
0
722
0
908
0
907
0
906
0
911
0
912
0
913
0
914
0
921
0
922
0
920
0
932
0
930
0
931
0
2031
0
2027
0
2028
0
2029
0
2024
0
2001
0
1897
1760
0
0
1761
1782
0
0
1781
0
1783
0
1780
0
1774 5
6
25
02
24
09
66
00
13
39
07
05
11
60
28
01
01
47
01
96
01
24
03
46
94
08
05
82
50
00
05
02
54
00
18
09
91
01
01
86
39
01
07
02
05
25
00
62
04
29
10
00
05
82
34
07
04
93
65
03
77
04
18
00
50
00
91
12
50
08
00
65
84
03
82
06
08
49
53
'01
07
53
01
38 6048
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: OCTOBER 9 , 2004/ASVINA 17, 1926
2
3
4
1778
0
1775
0
0
1776
1709
0
1707
0
1706
0
1652
0
1651
0
1629
0
1631
0
1650
0
1648
0
1647
0
1646
0
1642
0
1643
0
1638
0
1641
0
1640
0
1639
0
1584
0
1578
0
1577
0
1576
0
1575
0
1574
0
1573
0
1572
0
1571
0
1552
0
1554
0
1551
0
1547
0
1542
0
1541
0
1540
0
1537
0
1536
0
0
1535
1534
0
1475
0 [PART II-S8C, 3(ii )] 5
06
53
11
57
00
45
07
81
13
57
00
18
03
48
02
61
00
29
05
86
00
15
06
50
00
10
04
21
06
29
02
62
07
45
01
79
00
71
00
18
00
52
02
82
02
36
04
14
00
18
02
31
02
13
02
42
04
26
10
85
12
76
06
65
19
38
02
90
09
30
00
10
01
68
12
50
00
22
20
39
06
88 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 9 , 2004/आश्विन 17,1926
2
3
4
0
1530
0
1432
0
1434
0
1435
1436
0
1437
0
0
1454
1470
0
0
1477
1476
0
1474
0
0
1473
0
151
Bakharpur
152
0
0
140
141
0
142
0
127
0
123
0
126
0
0
125
0
113
114
0
348
0
Bashathai
0
349
351
0
362
0
0
363
352
0
356
0
360
358
0
359
0
357
0
324
0
257
0
280
0
281
0
278
0
0
276
6049 5
6
06
35
00
10
06
74
07
78
08
31
03
03
11
14
20
94
00
51
03
49
13
25
03
98
06
74
03
51
00
15
12
31
00
24
00
02
03
30
04
93
05
60
00
13
08
03
03
98
22
06
02
42
01
06
02
25
01
32
00
10
08
41
04
93
00
10
03
10
00
63
00
62
03
02
03
33
01
24
11
95 6050
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9, 2004/ASVINA 17, 1926 1
2
3
4
275
0
273
0
272
0
270
0
269
0
148
0
149
0
147
0
145
0
150
0
144
0
143
0
142
0
30
0
31
0
32
0
29
0
23
0
27
0
24
0
0
25
21
0
26
0
8
0
11
0
9
0
10
0
1994
0
Sudarsanpur
1993
0
Suan
1099
0
1100
0
1101
0
1106
0
1102
0
1107
0
2603
0
2604
0
1105
0
1119
0
0
1118 [PART II SEC . 3 (ii )] 5
6
06
48
03
42
05
27
00
76
00
45
00
33
00
20
05
77
03
07
00
10
02
83
15
13
05
48
44
09
00
10
09
87
00
10
07
18
00
10
04
07
03
85
01
76
02
30
00
58
62
11:
00
10
01
00
65
30
00
10
07
22
00
44
01
47
10
24
00:
10
02
47
00
10
05
15
00
47
09
75
00
20 [भाग II- खण्ड 3(il ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 9, 2004/आश्विन 17,1926
2
3
4
1110
0
0
1117
1116
0
1115
0
1175
0
1174
0
1173
0
1171
0
1172
0
1166
0
0
1180
0
1181
1182
-0
0
1183
1184
0
0
1189
1188
0
1190
0
0
1194
0
1193
0
1196
0
2606
0
2605
0
1199
0
1197
1232
0
0
1230
0
1231
0
1204
0
1216
0
1215
1214
0
1213
0
1212
0
1209
0
1210
0
1211
1297
0
0
1369
0
1367
1370
0 2908GI/2004-16
5
6 00
10 03
40 08
01 01
16 00
48 03
83 01
15 00
63 04
74 04
33 05
12 03
36 02
64 00
28 00
68 07
33 00
10 00
90 06
25 04
48 00
91 00
10 00
47
10 00
09
26 01
06 04
18 00
55
65 01
08
74
10 00
01
46 02
68 00
45 01
70 04
38
10 00
01
00 06
63
33 00
05
46 6052
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9, 2004/ASVINA 17, 1926 .
3
4 1
2
1371
0
0
1397
0
1379
0
1380
0
1395
0
1392
0
1394
0
1393
0
1534
0
1535
0
1533
0
1536
0
1538
0
1545
1546
0
0
1543
0
1542
1550
0
0
1551
0
1567
0
1562
0
1565
0
1564
0
1563
1170
0
0
2623
1574
0
0
1581
0
1614
1613
0
1616
0
0
1617
0
1608
0
1607
1606
0
0
1627
1631
0
1653
0
0
1654
0
1655
1656
0 [PART II-SEC . 3(ii)] 5
6
05
65
08
37
00
10
01
06
05
46
10
50
51
07
00
65
03
17
03
58
00
49
04
62
00
43
03
39
05
44
07
13
00
10
02.
92
00
45
02
60
23
00
24
05
30
05
05
08
03
35
01
06
66
03
15
52
06
24
67
04
04
00
10
00
49
12
02
98
04
39
10
61
08
58
02
92
04
94
01
90
04
04 [भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
6053
भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 9 , 2004/आश्विन 17,1926
1
2
3
4
0
1658
0
1657,
0
1659
778
0
Artung
670
0
671
0
673
0
677
0
679
0
676
0
523
0
522
0
511
0
0
510
512
0
513
0
514
0.
0
496
495
0
516
0
0
391
493
0
494
0
0
492
0
392
0
394
0
323
0
322
324
0
321
0
326
0
260
0
0
265
0
261
262
0
0
3929
254
0
266
0
0
206
3994
0
0
252 5
6
03
55
02
62
16
04
16
15
00
20
00
10
01
91
00
35
00
85
50
00
03
19
60
03
01
96
01
76
63
10
04
99
02
18
01
44
02
83
01
24
01
98
00
10
02
55
00
10
00
78
05
94
00
57
37
02
00
19
66
02
07
44
01
65
05
74
00
66
00 .
10
00
10
06
23
00
10
01
79
01
84
00
37 6054
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9 , 2004 /ASVINA 17, 1926 1
2
4
3
207
0
208
0
210
0
209
0
122
0
160
0
161
0
159
0
3711
0
123
0
133
0
91
0
92
0
3818
0
93
0
3817
0
83
0
84
0
88
0
85
0
87
0
73
0
86
0
74
0
28
0
26
0
27
0
46
0
Damodarpur
47
0
48
0
49
0
50
0
51
0
45
0
39
0
37
0
32
0
36
0
35
0
33
0
34
0 [PART II-SEC . 3(ii)] 5
6
01
74
02
86
02
93
04
70
11.
78
01
09
00
10
02
53
00
10
00
10
09
48
00
10
01
79
02
05
04
20
00
10
02
21
02
42
00
91
64
01
03
22
00
10
01
45
07
87
02
82
03
35
05
97
05
86
00
37
00
75
01
52
01
60
01
96
02
02
06
59
08
75
02
42
05
94
01
66
02
43
02
92 भारत का राजपत्र: जबर 2004/ रिक्त 17,1926 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
4
2-
3
1
0
812
17
0
0
18
0
19
131
0
Parhuan
0
133
0
132
0
130
0
129
40
0
0
39
0
41
0
126
0
127
0
92
0
91
0
89
87
0
0
88
0
84
0
3929
0
85
0
86
0
3927
0
3928
0
79
0
58
0
60
0
59
67
0
0
62
0
63
0
65
0
973
Radhamohanpur
0
972
0
978
0
985
986
0
987
0
0
983
6 5
51 04
02
99 11
04
86 05
01
28
78 01
57 02
51 01
01
18 06
06
10 00
11 10
32 00
10 00
02
73
79 01
40 06
00
62 07
61 00
10 01
90
61 02
92 01
00
12 03
14 13
69
88 01
37 00
85 00
09 05
00
10
84 06
06
84
86 06
70 11
04
74
57 03
86 00
00
43
19 05 6056
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9 , 2004/ ASVINA 17, 1926 1
2
3
4
988
0
993
0
992
0
994
0
995
0
1001
0
1000
0
0
1007
1005
0
1011
0
1012
0
922
0
0
886
884
0
882
0
883
0
835
0
877
0
876
0
875
0
870
0
869
0
851
0
865
0
864
0
866
0
855
0
854
0
790
0
789
0
787
0
786
0
256
0
255
0
257
0
1564
0
267
0
264
0
266
0
269
0
0
270 [PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] 5
6
06
02
00
45
05
74
01
62
02
31
00
68
05
43
04
98
02
46
11
69
00
55
02
29
00
10
00
96
03
05
05
68
02
03
07
77
00
88
04
70
02
68
03
71
00
36
03
36
01
43
01
58
04
55
02
16
05
34
04
36
03
35
09
85
03
00
03
83
04
59
01
08
00
44
05
18
05
88
02
41
08
13 भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 9, 2004/आश्विन 17,1926 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]
4
2
3
0
1633
271
0
0
272
273
0
0
486
0
1611
0
481
0
478
0
477
475
0
0
476
473
0
0
1714
472
0
0
303
0
467
0
469
0
468
0
463
0
461
0
460
0
459.
376
0
0
449
0
448
0
444
451
0
0
443
0
433
428
0
427
0
0
425
0
426
0
419
0
420
0
424
0
421 5
6
10 00
14 01
09
48 01
33 05
18 04
45 00
42 00
10 15
26 03
40
88 01
76 10
00
10 02
10
79 01
10 00
68 04
06
83
69 06
06
79
29 05
04
24
10 00
36 10
07
94 06
33 00
10
91 03
00
10
44 02
04
18 01
29 03
20
62 02
17 01
02
69
11 02 6058
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9 , 2004/ASVINA-17 , 1926
[PART II-SBC . 3 ( )
2
3
4
5
6
422
0
01
52
423
03
82
0
408
0
01
89
627
0
02
55
[No. R-25011/11/2004-Q.R.- RENUKA KUMAR, UnderSecy.
नई दिल्ली, 4 अक्तूबर, 2004
का. आ. 2518.- केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम, 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है) की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी और भारत के राजपत्र में प्रकाशित भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का० आ० 1259 तारीख 26 मई , 2004 द्वारा उड़ीसा राज्य में पारादीप से पश्चिमी बंगाल राज्य में हल्दिया तक इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा कच्चे तेल के परिवहन के लिए पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन हेतु उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची मे विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि मे उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी ।
और उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ जनता को तारीख 29 जून , 2004 को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी । और उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अनुसरण में सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने 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 संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाना है । अतः, अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , घोषणा करती है कि इस अधिसूचना की अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार पाइपलाइनें बिछाए जाने हेतु अर्जित किया जाता है ।
और केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (4 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह निर्देश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख से केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने की बजाय सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त होकर इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड मे निहित हौगा । 6059
भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 9 , 2004/आश्विन 17,1926
[ भान II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
अनुसूची पुलिस थाना: भुपतिनगर जिला: पूर्व मिदनापुर गाँव का नाम
प्लॉट संख्या
अधिकारिता सूचि संख्या
हेक्टेयर
(3)
(2)
(4) (1)
00
156
1994
किसमतबाजकुल
00
2001
00
2002
00
2005
00
2007
राज्य: पश्चिमी बंगाल
क्षेत्रफल
वर्ग मीटर एयर
(6)
(5)
00
23
01
26
35
06
00
20
32
06
26
07
200800
00
2010
00
2011
2012
00
00
2021
00
2022
00
2023
00
2024
00
2025
00
2026
00
2027
00
2028
00
2029
00
2030
00
2033
2034
00
00
2036
: 00
2037
00
2038
00
2040
00.
2041
00
2045
00
2090
00
2091
00
2092
00
2472
00
2473
00
2474
00
2482
00
2483
00
2484
00
2485
2486
00
00
2487
00
2509
00
2510
00
2512
00
2513
00
2514
00
2515
00
2609
2908 GI/2004-17
41
01
10
10
13
03
00
20
69
03
99
02
50
05
01
33
33
10
01
06
21
07
61
04
36
00
36
10
65
04
20
00
00
89
00
20
00
20
81
05
00
20
00
45
70
02
28
13
09
02
99
08
38
01
42
01
10
07
03
59
02
85
26
00
64
05
47
01
68
01
05
03
20
00
68
11
73
00
49
01 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9 , 2004 /ASVINA 17 , 1926
6060
(4)
(2)
(3 )
(1)
00
2986
00
2987
00
2991
00
2992
00
2993
00
2995
00
2996
00
2997
00
2999
00
3008
00
3009
00
3010
00
3012
00
3023
00
3024
00
3026
00
3027
00
3028
00
3029
00
3030
00
3031
00
3032
00
3036
00
3037
00
3038
00
3039
00
3040
00
3041
00
3620
00
[PART II-SBC . 3 ( ii ) ]
(6)
( 5 )
20
00
67
06
20
00
93
09
53.
07
02
10
93
05
24
00
20
00
15
02
45
08
20
00
01
83
65
03
04
27
00
20
13
04
96
04
77
04
15
04
10
56
00
20
16
03
45
00
01
02
01
03
72
00
00
00
04
3036/17049
00
85
04
3036/17050
00
3036/17051
00
00 03
3039/17052
00
3039/17053
00
4400
00
4450
00
4513
00
4805
00
4847
00
4848
00
4849
00
4850
00
4851
00
4852
00
4853
00
4856
00
4857
00
4858
00
4868
00
4893
00
4895
00
60
00
01
53
11
01
30
00
20
00
38
00
20
00
00
20
20
00
46
01.
20
00
06
08
21
01
06
05
91 51 어터20
00
58
09 भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 9 , 2004/आश्विन 17,1926
[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
(4)
(2)
(3)
(1)
00
4896
00
4897
00
4898
00
4903
00
4929
00
4930
00
4934
00
4935
00
4936
00
4937
00
4938
00
4853/17290
00
4894/17298
00
4898/17299
00:
4943/17310
:
00
5257
00
5260
00
5261
00
5270
00
5271
00
5272
00
5273
00
5291
00
5292
00
5294
00
5295
00
5296
00
5297
00
5298
00
5299
00
5302
00
5303
00
6610
00
6612
00
6613
00
6615
00
6617:
00
6618
00
6619
00
6620
00
6709
00
6710
00
6711
00
6712
00
6732
00
6736
00
6737
00
6740
00
6741
00
6747
00
6748
6061
(6)
(5)
25
01
18
02
28
03
48
00
36
01
24
03
57
03
33
08
73
00
71
03
76
00
24
01
01
48
62
01
20
00
00
20
48
02
82
05
20
00
04
05
07
65
90
00
22
01
74
02
03
01
89
05
48
06
42
01
56
02
39
04
50
04
75
04
20
00
59
00
69
15
28
01
75
07
96
02
24
06
80
00
16
01
88
05
20
02
40
09
34
10
20
00
14
07
51
11
74
00
54
05
20
00 6062
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: OCTOBER 9, 2004/ ASVINA 17, 1926
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
6811
00
5291/17363
00
6711/17571
00
8296
00
8297
00
8298
00
8299
00
8300
00
8301
00
00
8309
8310
00
8311
00
8312
00
8408
00
8481
00
8483
00
8484
00
8485
00
8486
00
8488
00
00
8491
8499
00
8500
00
8501
00
8502
00
8503
00
8523
00
00
8524
8534
00
8535
00
8567
00
8568
00
8569
00
8570
00 .
:
8571
00
8572
00
8577
00
8578
00
8579
00
8580
00
8581
00
8583
00
8584
00
9106
00
00
9118
9122
00
9123
00
9132
00
9133
00
9134
00
9135
00
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] (5)
(6)
01
16
00
34
00
20
02
18
03
47
06
75
02
55
02
97
01
36
01
64
02
76
00
73
01
69
01
68
03
80
03
28
03
15
04
33
00
93
01
77
00
20
05
25
08
85
02
92
76
04
01
99
00
20
09
93
00
20
11
13
00
22
02
48
00
54
02
30
02
70
00
32
07
07
00
81
07
80
00
42
01
03
06
11
07
83
01
25
00
54
00
27
11
31
00
78
00
20
05
67
06
70 6063 [भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 9, 2004/आशिव 17,1926
SMA
( 5 )
(0) (2 )
(3)
(1)
(4) .
00.
05
88
9166
96
00
09
9167
09
00
26
9169
65
03
00
9170
31
04
918900
00
97
04
9190
20
00
00
9191
0058
00
8572/11405
53
00
02
8312/17840
75
00
8485/17842
01
00
06
51
9133/17862
36
04
00
15858
30
00
15867.
16
99
00
03
15868
01
57
15878
200
94
00
12
15879
20
00
15880
00
06
90
00
15881
05
27
00
15903
05
91
00
15904
70
4
04
00
15906
03
25
00
15907
58
00
05
15909
25
00
02
15910
44
02
00
15911
75
01
00
15913
44
00
00
15982
20
00
00
15904/16389
66
00
09
15868/18722.
[फा. सं. आर-25011/10/2004- ओ. आर-1 ]
रेणुका कुमार, अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 4th October, 2004
S. O. 2518.-Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleurn and Natural Gas nurnber S.O. 1259 dated the 26th May, 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 Govemment declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation of crude oil from Paradip in the State of Orissa to Haldia in the State of West Bengal by Indian Oil Corporation Limited ;
And whereas , the copies of the said notification were made available to the public on 29th June, 2004 ;
Arnd whereas , the Cornpetent Authority in pursuance of sub - section ( 1 ) of section 6 of the said Act, has submitted his report to the Central Government ;
6064
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9 , 2004/ASVINA 17 , 1926
[PART II-SBC. 3 ( ii ) ] 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 for laying the pipeline;
And further , in exercise of the powers conferred by the 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, vest from the date of publication of this declaration , in Indian Oil Corporation Limited free from all encumbrances.
Schedule
PoliceStation: Bhupatinagar
District: Purba Midnapur
Name of Village
Jurisdiction ListNo.
Hectare
Plot, No.
(2)
(1)
(3)
(4)
156
1994
00 Kismatbajkul
2001
00
2002
00
00
2005
2007
00
2008
00
2010
00
2011
00
00
2012
2021
00
2022
00
2023
00
00
2024
00
2025
2026
00
00
2027
2028
00
00
2029
2030
00
2033
00
2034
00
2036
00
2037
00
2038
00
2040
00
2041
00
2045
00
2090
00
2091
00
2092
00
00
2472
State:West-Bengal
Area Are SquareMetre (5)
(6)
00
23
01
26
06
35
00
20
06
32
26
07
01
41
10
10
03
13
00
20
03
69
02
99
05
50
01
33
33
10
06
01
07
21
04
61
00
36
36
10
04
65
00
20
00
89
00
20
00
20
05
81
00
20
00
45
70
02
13
28
02
09 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 9 , 2004/आश्चिन 17,1926
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
(4)
(3)
(2)
(1)
00
2473
2474
00
2482
00
00
2483
00
2484
00
2485
00
2486
00
2487
00
2509
00
2510
00
2512
00
2513
00
2514
00
2515
00
2609
00
2988
00
-2987
00
2991
00
2992
00
2993
00
2995
00
2996
00
2997
00
2999
00
3008
00
3009
00
3010
00
3012
00
3023
00
3024
3026
00
00
3027
00
3028
00
3029
00
3030
00
3031
00
3032
00
3036
00
3037
00
3038
00
3039
00
3040
00
3041
00
3620
00
3036/17049
00
6065
a
(6)
( 5)
99
08
01
38
42
01
10
07
59
03
02
85
00
26
64
05
47
01
68
01
05
03
20
00
11
88
73
00
01
49
20
00
67
08
20
00
93
09
53
07
02
10
93
05
24
00
00
20
15
02
45
08
20
00
83
01
65
03
27
04
20
00
13
04
96
04
77
04
15
04
56
10
20
00
18
03
45
00
01
02
01
03
72
00
20
00
60
00
57
04
85
04
3036/17050
00
20
00
3036/17051
00
65
03
3039/17052
00
53
3039/17053
00
4400
00
4450
00
4513
00
4805
00
4847
00
4848
00
4849
00
60
00
53
01
11
01
30
00
20
00
03820
00 00 88 6066
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: OCTOBER 9 , 2004/ASVINA 17, 1926
(1)
( 2)
(3)
(4)
4850
00
4851
00
4852
00
4853
00
4856
00
4857
00
4858
00
4868
00
4893
00
4895
00
4896
00
4897
00
4898
00
4903
00
4929
00
00
4930
4934
00
4935
00
4936
00
4937
00
4938
00
4853/17290
00
4894/17298
00
4898/17299
00
4943/17310
00
5257
00
00
5260
00
5261
5270
00
5271
00
00
5272
5273
00
00
5291
5292
00
5294
00
5295
00
5296
00
5297
00
5298
00
5299
00
5302
00
5303
00
6610
00
6612
00
6613
00
6615
00
6617
00
6618
00
6619
00
6620
00
6709
00
6710
00
00
6711
00
6712
00
6732
6736
00
[PART II SEC . 3 (ii)) (5)
(6)
00
20
00
20
01
46
00
20
08
08
01
21
06
91
05
51
00
20
09
58
01
25
02
18
03
28
00
48
01
36
03
24
03
57
08
33
00
73
03
71
00
76
01
24
01
48
01
62
00
20
00
20
02
48
05
82
00
20
05
04
07
65
00
90
01
22
02
74
01
03
05
89
06
48
01
42
02
56
-04
39
04
50
75
04
00
20
00
59
15
69
01
28
07
75
02
96
06
24
00
80
01
16
05
88
02
20
09
40
10
34
00
20 6067
भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 9, 2004/ आश्विन 17,1926
[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
(4)
( 3 )
(2)
(1)
00
6737
00
6740
00
6741
00
6747
00 :.
6748
00
6811
00
5291/17363
00
6711/17571
00
8296
00
8297
00
8298
00
8299
00
8300
00
8301
00
6309
00
8310
00
8311
00
8312
00
8408
8481
00
00
8483
00
8484
00
8485
00
8486
00
8488
00
8491
00
8499
00
8500
00
8501
00
8502
00
8503
00
8523
00
8524
00
8534
00
8535
00
8567
00
8568
00
6569
00
8570
00
8571
00
8572
00
8577
00
8578
00
8579
00
8580
00
6581.
00
8583
00
8584
00
9106
00
9118
00
9122
00
9123
00
9132
00
9133
00
9134
00
9135
2908 GI/2004-18
(6)
( 5 )
14
07
51
11
74
00
54
05
20
00
16
01
34
00
00
20
18
02
47
03
75
06
55
02
97
02
36
01
64
01
76
02
73
00
69
01
68
01
80
03
28
03
15
03
33
04
93
00
77
01
20
00
25
05
85
08
92
02
76
04
99
01
20
00
93
09
20
00
13
11
22
00
48
02
54
00
30
02
70
02
32
00
07
07
81
00
80
07
42
00
03
01
11
06
83
07
25
01
54
00
27
00
31
11
78
00
20
00
67
05
70
06 6068
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9 , 2004/ASVINA 17 , 1926
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
9166
00
9167
00
00
9169
9170
00
00
9189
9190
00
00
9191
8572/11405
00
8312/17840
00
8485/17842
00
9133/17862
00
15858
00
15867
00
00
15868
00
15878
00
15879
15880
00
00
15881
00
15903
00
15904
15906
00
00
15907
00
15909
15910
00
00
15911
00
15913
00
15982
00
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]
(6)
(5)
05
88
96
09
26
09
03
65
31
04
97
04
00
20
58
00
02
53
01
75
06
51
04
36
16
30
03
99
01
57
12
94
00
20
90
06
05
27
05
91
70
04
03
25
05
58
02
25
02
44
75
01
44
00
00
20
15904/16389
00
15868/18722
66
09
[No. R-25011 /10/2004- O.R. - I ] RENUKA KUMAR , Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 4 अक्तूबर, 2004
का. आ. 2519. - केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार काअर्जन) अधिनियम , 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है) की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी और भारत के राजपत्र में प्रकाशित भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का० आ० 1348 तारीख 8 जून , 2004 द्वारा उड़ीसा राज्य में पारादीप से पश्चिमी बंगाल राज्य में हल्दिया तक इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा कच्चे तेल के परिवहन के लिए पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन हेतु उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची मे विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि मे उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी । और उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ जनता को तारीख 12 जुलाई , 2004 को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी । और उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अनुसरण में सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने 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 संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाना है । 6069
भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 9 , 2004/आश्विन 17,1926
[भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]
अतः, अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , घोषणा करती है कि इस अधिसूचना की अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार पाइपलाइनें बिछाए जाने हेतु अर्जित किया जाता है ।.
और केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (4) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह निर्देश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख से केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने की बजाय सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त होकर इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड मे निहित हौगा ।
अनुसूची राज्य: पश्चिमी बंगाल
जिला: पूर्व मिदनापुर
पुलिस थाना: मारिशदा
गाँव का नाम
हेक्टेयर क्षेत्रफल
वर्ग मीटर एयर
प्लॉट संख्या
अधिकारिता सूचि संख्या
(4)
(3)
(2)
(1)
00
1115
79
पचिश वाटा
1116
00
00
1117
00
1118
00
1119
00
1120
00
1121
00
1122
00
1124
00
1125
00
1126
00
1130/1140-
00
24
134
हाटियारी
00
25
00
26
00
30
00
32
00
44
00
45
00
48
00
49
00
54
00
55
00
56
00
57
00
59
00
68
00
69
00
70
00
71
00
72
00
81
00
107
00
109
00
114
00
115
(6)
(5)
25
02
07
19
42
03
89
03
04
05
07
01
38
04
71
03
99
03
49
01
20
00
77
00
54
04
28
02
86
00
97
02
20
00
56
01
82
05
26
11
31
00
59
01
22
09
06
01
37
00
72
10
71
01
17
08
20
06
33
03
63
02
21
01
78
00
58
02
20
00
10
04 6070
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9 , 2004/ ASVINA 17, 1926
(2)
(3 )
(4) (1)
116
00
117
00
122
00
123
00
124
00
129
00
00
130
151
00
152
00
153
00
155
00
156
00
158
00
159
00
166
00 .
00
190
245
00
249
00
00
251
00
253
00
254
363
00
00
364
365
00
00
371
372
00
373
00
378
00
387
00
388
00
389
00
391
00
392
00
496
00
00
497
00
498
499
00
00
518
159/1123
00
00
131/1124
00
45/1130
00
00
215/1154
107/1171
00
00
107/1183
00
215/1185
00
14
श्रीचन्दनपुर 76
00
78
79
00
00
80
00
81
82
00
00
83
00
84
85
00
[PART II-SEC . 3( ii)] ( 5 )
(6)
16
41
00
20
10
05
68
11
20
00
06
01
81
05
20
00
72
00
10
82
14
69
11
89
50
00
12
73
08
47
21
00
00
20
86
05
84
07
06
00
02
20
06
05
01
79
05
08
30
00
13
09
20
05
82
04
00
20
89
06
38
00
07
72
05
67
04
68
76
01
64
07
01
63
66
00
02
58
80
09
05
30
23
00
00
20
02
20
16
11
37
02
19
47
00
68
00
75
04
01
07
12
05
09
07
05
03
55
04
39 6071
भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 9, 2004/आश्विन 17,1926
[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
(4)
(2)
(3)
(1)
00
87
00
88
00
95
00
99
00
111
112
00
00
113
00
99/137
00
14/138
00
80/147
00
113/148
00
100/160
00
74/201
00
99/212
00
60
75
वाहुलिया
00
103
00
105
00
106
00
110
00
112
00
117
00
118
00
119
00
127
00
133
134
00
00
135
00
142
00
144
00
145
00
146
00
148
00
151
00
152
00
153
00
155
00
322
00
74
62
वामनिया
63
00
?
64
00
00
65
00
162
00
165
00
166
168
00
00
169
00
170
00
173
00
174
00
176
00
179
180
00
00
192
00
195
(6)
(5)
27
02
11
02
93
04
26
02
67
18
08
53
28
17
76
00
00
73
98
01
00
65
10
03
97
08
15
49
00
20
31
01
00
22
05
48
09
09
53
00
00
25
08
46
68
12
27
29
03
01
57
03
00
22
00
58
47
08
08
06
38
04
24
09
20
00
56
05
06
09
20
00
74
00
20
00
69
08
60
00
00
99
48
00
38
03
03
07
96
02
02
61
40
02
38
06
28
03
65
07
73
01
11
08
00
89
20
00 6072
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9 , 2004/ASVINA 17 , 1926
(1)
(2)
(3)
( 4)
196
00
197
00
200
00
332
00
333
00
334
00
337
00
377
00
378
00
379
00
384
00
385
00
386
00
401
00
402
00
405
00
00
413
00
63/617
174/679
00
195/685
00
00
196/686
00
199/687
41
121
00 शिवपुर बेलतलिया
161
00
169
00
00
180
00
185
210
00
00
211
00
242
243
00
00
257
00
161/438
170/474
00
00
170/475
00
170/476
00
170/477
00
170/478
00
170/480
00
170/481
00
170/482
174/483
00
174/484
00
00
174/485
179/494
00
180/497
00
00
180/498
80/499
00
00
211/500
00
180/501
[PART II-SEC . 3( ii) ] (5)
(6)
08
88
11
96
09
32
01
59
02
84
02
49
00
20
00
70
00
33
07
81
01
49
06
06
07
89
11
77
00
44
08
63
00
40
02
64
03
18
00
49
01
10
04
55
00
81
03
50
14
56
76
06
01
01
00
19
09
70
03
77
00
84
38
01
05
71
00
20
02
31
05
31
02
63
00
10
01
66
04
94
00
56
02
29
04
50
00
21
04
01
00
17
00
11
06
61
74
05
07
47 [भाग - खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
6073
भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 9 , 2004/आश्विन 17,1926
(1)
(2)
(4)
(3)
180/502
00
206/513
00
00
207/517
207/518
00
210/523
00
00
210/524
00
211/529
211/530
00
00
242/538
00
242/539
242/540
00
257/556
00
258/560
258/561
00
00
258/562
70
00
42
कादुया
71
00
72
00
00
73-
00
75.
00
76
00
79
00
80
00
81
69/215
00
69/216
00
82/218
00
52
00
1
धानघरा
6
00
10
00
11
00
00
12
14
00
15
00
00
17
00
19
00
20
00
18/309
6/316
00
00
6/317
00
6/318
00
9/323
00
9/325
00
9/326
10/327
00
00
11/328
00
11/329
00
13/330
00
14/333
(5)
(6 )
06
44
17
09
06
66
06
11
3
27
09
18
04
71
06
00
20
04
09
10
38
04
32
20
15
05
84
00
06
02
65
17
02
03
86
05
94
00
72
22
09
08
64
16
00
60
03
05
01
00
63
02
02
02
85
83
00
21
00
03
20
03
53
05
93
02
44
02.
12
05
73
02
71
20
00
14
02
17
05
49
05
02
57
:
02
05
34
03
88
00
61
00
05
02
02
02
06
03
71
02 6074
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9 , 2004/ASVINA 17, 1926
(1)
( 2)
(4)
(3)
00
14/334
14/335
00
18/336
00
00
20/339
20/340
00
30
00 कुमारियाखान काकुरिया 51
31
00
00
55
56
00
00
57
00
59
00
60
00
61
62
00
83
00
00
84
93
00
00
94
95
00
00
97
00
62/122
00
62/123
41/124
00
00
19/148
00
19/149
00
19/152
19/153
00
00
19/154
00
19/158
00
19/159
00
19/160
00
19/161
00
19/163
00
19/164
19/165
00
00
19/166
31/182
00
00
31/183
31/184
00
31/185
00
00
31/186
00
82/216
93/245
00
93/246
00
00
93/247
00
96/254
00
97/257
98/260
00
00
56
हरिनापासदलवार 53
[PART II-SEC . 3(ii)] (5)
(6)
01
39
02
76
40
02
01
40
00
27
20
88 02
83
03
55
02
42
03
21
23
04
03
15
03
58
04
99
00
98
07
91
04
22
01
94
61
00
22
05
12
01
00
20
01
01
00
20
02
86
26
07
03
92
03
68
03
00
81
02
00
90
65
02
04
06
05
04
01
01
82
03
07
32
02
66
03
44
01
69
00
11
00
20
07
21
03
58
04
00
14
90
02
21
00
20
04
59 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
6075
भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 9 , 2004/आश्विन 17,1926
(2)
(1)
( 3 )
(4)
57
00
58
00
335
00
336
00
338
00
340
00
341
00
00
346
347
00
349
00
352
00
356
00
357
00
00
335/597
00
56/605
53/634
00
00
53/635
00
53/637
00
56/655
00
56/656
56/662
00
00
56/664
00
56/665
00
56/666
56/669
00
00
56/670
00
56672
00
56/673
00
56/674
00
58/693
58/694
00
58/697
00
00
58/698
58/699
00
58/700
00
00
58/701
58/702
00
62/711
00
00
62/712
00
341/806
342/807
00
342/808
00
00
346/811
347/812
00
00
352/816
00
352/817
00
352/818
00
352/819
352/820
00
352/821
00
355/826
00 208 G1/2004-19
( 5 )
( 6)
52
01
01
10
06
37
00
50
00
40
05
86
82.
04
01
06
97
09
16
09
02
97
11
48
00
20
00
93
00
87
00
47
01
96
01
45
01
05
39
04
20
Do
03
99
74
05
07
15
62
07
05
59
02
71
05
22
03
09
00
20
35
04
06
24
06
47
02
88
00
20
02
28
08
71
01
18
00
17
40
04
04
85
06
01
11
63
00
69
06
59
02
88
00
20
81
02
60
03
03
55
57
01 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9 , 2004 /ASVINA 17, 1926
6076
(4)
(3 )
(2)
(1)
00
355/827
00
355/828
00
355/829
00
355/830
00
1
47
डुमुरबेरे
00
2
00
3
00
18
00
17/194
00
13/266
00
13/270
00
18/274
00
18/276
00
18/277
00
18/278
00
18/280
00
18/281
00
18/282
00
141
46
पश्चिमसरपाई
00
143
00
144
00
146
00
148
00
149
00
150
00
152
00
321
00
330
00
331
00
332
00
333
00
351
00
357
00
358
00
360
00
381
00
382
00
385
00
431
00
432
00
433
00
434
00
435
00
446
00
447
00
448
00
452
00
453
00
454
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]
(6)
(5)
10
02
46
01
38
02
82
03
74
06
76
04
07
07
51
05
18
04
71
07
43
10
72
02
60
02
15
08
79
03
62
04
97
07
35
07
22
05
84
02
73
09
28
04
53
03
86
00
89
03
14
00
62
01
89
04
30
08
70
02
48
18
11
01
77
01
69
01
67
01
57
01
88
02
82
04
56
01
20 00
20 00
57 04
47 04
83 04
36 08
26 03
17 07
11 01
20 00 6077
भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 9 , 2004/आश्विन 17,1926
[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
(4)
(3)
(2)
(1)
00
455
00
458
00
460
00
560
00
145/614
00
145/615
00
148/616
00
148/617
00
148/618
00
148/620
00
151/621
00
151/622
00
152/623
00
319/657
00
319/658
00
319/659
00
319/661
00
319/662
00
329/671
00
332/672
00
350/697
00
350/698
00
350/699
00
350/700
00
350/701
00
430/719
00
451/724
00
453/725
00
454/726
00
455/727
00
460/728
00
462/730
पुलिस थाना : एगरा
00
35
90
बोलकुशदा
00
37
00
38
00
39
00
41
00
42
00
43
00
56
00
57
00
58
00
62
00
63
00
64
00
65
00
66
00
35/1362
00
35/1374
(6)
(5)
81
02
25
04
60
00
16
01
16
04
20
00
33
04
38
03
46
03
42
03
60
02
41
02
07
03
89
00
03
05
25
07
72
09
61
07
11
00
20
00
77
05
83
10
49
03
00
48
98
00
82
06
91
00
68
01
20
00
35
03
00
01
20
00
73
03
26
01
46
04
83
15
53
05
55
06
56
01
52 03
38
09
31
00
73
02
33
08
20
00
38
00
21
10
00
27
13 60078
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9 , 2004/ASVINA 17 , 1926
(2)
(3)
(4)
93
2436
00
2437
00
2441
00
00
2443
2444
00
2445
00
2449
00
2450
00
2478
00
2479
00
2483
00
00
2487
2488
00
00
2507
2508
,00
2512
00
2513
00
2514
00
00
2518
2519
00
00
2520
3250
00
3280
00
3281
00
3284
00
3285
00
00
3291
3292
00
3293
00
3294
00
00
3295
3296
00
3297
00
3310
00
3311
00
3312
00
00
3313
3316
00
3342
00
00
3343
00
3358
3359
00
3360
00
3361
00
3362
00
3363
00
3366
00
3367
00
00
3312/3839-
00
2507/3918
3540
00
[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii)] (5)
(6)
07
39
06
53
01
47
00
57
06
28
08
-73
07
29
01
01
00
20
06
52
11
49
08
29
08
48
00
95
13
48
00
20
11
29
01
11
06
22
00
20
01
88
09
15
06
55
09
42
08
37
02
72
02
12
00
20
00
33
04
46
70
09
00
73
01
18
02
08
09
73
06
45
00
20
02
37
17
04
00
58
00
20
23
00
11
24
01
67
09
09
00
31
49
14
18
80
10
87
78
02
00
20 6079
भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 9, 2004/आश्विन 17,1926
[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
(4)
(3)
(2)
(1)
00
3541
00
3542
00
3543
00
3544
00
3549
00
3551
00
3554
00
3560
00
3561
00
(6)
(5)
23
08
98
01
14
05
20
00
95
06
20
13
99
08
31
02
10
06
66
07
3559/3925
00
1304
102
चिरुलिया
00
1318
00
1319
00
1320
00
1321
00
1324
00
1325
00
1326
00
1327
00
1328
00
1333
00
1334
00
1335
00
1336
00
1337
00
1339
00
1340
00
1379
00
1380
00
1385
00
1386
00
1387
00
1388
00
1391
00
1392
00
368
203
पानिपारुल
00
369
00
370
00
512
00
513
00
514
00
598
00
602
00
604
00
605
00
614
00
615
00
616
00
617
40
05
76
00
41
05
46
02
29
04
43
01
20
00
64
05
38
04
40
01
76
00
17
06
42
03
05
102
00
02
12
09
61
00
03
13
96
04
22
07
24
00
62
00
78
12
98
10
20
00
56
00
18
01
01
36
20 00
85
06
16
11.
46
09
28
04
12
14
23 1.9
45 00
91 00
85 05
45 02 6080
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9 , 2004/ ASVINA 17, 1926
(1 )
(2)
(3)
( 4)
628
00
629
00
00
630
637
00
638
00
00
639
650
00
656
00
00
657
00
688
00
689
624/6258
00
00
652
00
655
656
00
657
00
00
745
746
00
00
748
749
00
00
750
00
751
00
755
00
756
00
757
00
758
00
784
00
790
00
791
792
00
00
793
00
795
00
796
00
807
00
808
00
866
00
988
00
990
00
991
00
994
00
995
00
1006
00
1008
00
1009
00
1010
00
1013
00
1025
00
1027
1028
00
00
1029
00
1246
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii))
(6)
(5)
58
01
06
89
10
04
35
09
04
49
24
00
12
68
57
15
03
06
04
32
27
00
07
56
00
75
08
92
34
00
05
24
90
04
47
01
00
20
11
00
10
39
94
00
66
04
04
20
14
03
29
07
19
87
61
01
56
17
12
08
05
18
00
55
00
12
03
97
26
00
20
00
20
39
04
22
09
95
07
16
04
04
55
00
77
00
26
37
00
20
41
02
01
11
33
06
06
95
00
23
83
08 6081
भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 9 , 2004/आश्विन 17,1926
[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
(4)
(3)
( 2)
(1)
00
1247
00
1262
00
1263
00
1264
00
1265
00
1266
00
1267
00
1269
00
1270
00
1271
00
1272
00
1273
00
1274
00
745/8901
00
746/8902
00
758/8903
00
988/8908
00
794/8911
00
1007/8948
00
1025/8952
00
1027/8953
00
2794
00
2795
00
8000
00
129
202
लालपुर
00
173
00
174
00
175
00
179
00
181
00
182
00
183
00
184
00
185
00
192
00
193
00
185/1027
00
352
201
खुरुटिया
00
353
00
361
00
362
00
363
00
364
00
368
00
369
00
373
00
360/1468
00
360/1469
(6)
(5)
71
09
37
00
13
05
73
04
37
00
14
07
39
00
25
03
65
05
79
13
46
01
43
09
65
02
66
00
07
21
59
07
42
05
96
06
76
04
96
01
01
25
13
05
64
02
82
08
06
07
23
10
69
04
98
02
03
09
09
01
74
06
20
00
65
07
58
00
62
00
00
28
51
10
24
00
97
00
43
08
32
02
81
03
23
00
20
03
55
09
20
00
20
00
77
05 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9 , 2004/ASVINA 17, 1926
6082
(4)
(3)
( 2)
(1)
00
362/1471
00
363/1472
00
362/1661
00
397
00
398
00
401
00
403
00
404
00
406
00
408
00
419
00
421
00
423
00
424
00
425
00
426
00
427
00
430
00
431
00
848
00
849
00
851
00
852
00
853
00
854
00
857
00
858
00
936
00
938
00
939
00
940
00
949
00
950
00
951
00
953
00
962
00
963
00
964
00
965
00
966
00
969
00
1153
00
1154
00
1155
00
1156
00
1157
00
1159
00
1160
00
1161
00
1183
00
1186
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ]
(6)
(5)
01
19
00
55
56
00
55
02
39
00
83
05
66
04
70
02
73
03
46
05
00
42
53
01
57
00
33
02
54
01
39
04
15
01
24
01
20
00
93
00
46
01
63
03
31
06
08
13
60
10
20
00
64
01
24
00
58
00
20
15
70
00
98
04
63
05
15
01
00
51
29
05
05
93
77
04
00
08
20
00
52
01
20
00
20
00
67
02
47
05
83
03
23
01
89
05
03
07
57. 05
20
00 6083
भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 9 , 2004/आश्विन 17,1926
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]
(2)
( 3 )
( 4) (1)
00
1187
00
1189
00
1191
00
1200
00
1201
00
1223
00
1228
1229
00
00
1230
00
1231
00
1232
00
1244
00
1245
00
1246
00
1247
00
1248
00
1252
00
1294
00
1295
00
1298
00
1300
00
1301
00
1303
00 (5)
(6)
06
14
02
97
01
67
11
06
07
61
32
07
20
00
42
11
38
09
00
20
11
06
92
08
38
01
09
07
00
61
01
75
03
03
05
33
56
00
01
09
52
04
03
23
02
12
61
08
430/1494
00
948/1567
00
1190/1625
00 01
29
69
02
38
00
1194/1627
00
27
02
1199/1631
00
1201/1633
00
25
01
10
12
1231/1639
00
11
06
1242/1646
00
1244/1647
00
200
1
तेघरि
00
2
3
00
00
21
00
22
00
1/443
00
999
196
गड़िया
00
1035
00
1036
00
1072
00
1073
00
1074
00
1075
00
1078
00
1079
1087
00
1088
00 2905 GI/2004-20
18
02
16
08
52
02
54
03
04
99
32
00
39
04
20
00
04
85
20
00
98
02
60
10
63
00
72
09
54
03
40
02
93
10
37
04 [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9 , 2004/ASVINA 17, 1926
(4) (2)
(3)
00
1096
00
1102
00
1103
00
1104
00
1106
00
1125
00
1126
00
1127
00
1134
00
1135
00
1136
00
1137
00
1138
00
1139
00
1152
00
1155
00
1024
195
00
1025
00
1027
00
1028
00
9282
191
00
9283
00
9284
00
9285
00
9288
00
9299
00
9300
00
9456
00
9457
00
9458
00
9460
00
9461
00
9471
00
9472
9473
00
00
9474
00
9481
00
9487
00
9488
00
9489
00
9511
00
9512
00
9513
00
9514
00
9522
00
9523
00
9524
00
9525
00
9529
(6)
(5)
70
00
53
02
:
40
04
29
07
04
59
41
01
02
07
02
83
34
00
39
11
17
10
12
03
67
01
20
00
85
17
82
01
20
00
76
03
11
02
45
06
00
61
01
04
59
02
63
01
20
00
08
84
04
02
19
01
06
99
20
00
54
10
07
03
99
07
20
00
64
10
25
02
31
04
03
28
73
02
33
05
81
00
39
08
01
01
62
09
35
07
49
05
07
92
44
03
81
16 6085
भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 9 , 2004/आश्विन 17,1926
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
(4)
(3)
(2)
(1)
00
9620
00
10712
00
10714
00
10715
00
10716
00
10720
00
10727
00
9625
00
9626
00
9627
00
9628.
00
9630
00
9661
00
9663
00
9664
00
9667
00
9668
00
9682
00
9683
00
9684
00
9685
00
9686
00
9688
00
9689
00
9690
00
9691
00
9692
00
9708
00
9580/13036
00
9692/13040
00
10135
00
10164
00
10269
00
10273
00
10274
00
10275
00
10281
00
10282
00
10284
00
10285
00
10287
00
10288
00
10289
00
10290
00
10291
00
10292
00
10411
00
10451
00
10452
00
10453
00
10454
( 6)
(5)
01
03
07
04
06
01
16
05
82
03
38
02
42
01
03
17
96
00
20
02
00 07/
05
07
20
00
29
03
55
03
59
16
49
04
32
00
41
09
17
04
20
00
76
10
33
00
81
01
03
08
34
05
43
09
20
00
83
04
02
03
52
03
22
01
73
06
94
09
67
04
20
00
57
03
25
03
94
02
06
03
97
02
60
03
20
00
18
03
07
05
97
04
48
02
17
01
67
00
39
01
66
01 FE GAZETLF OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9 , 2004 /ASVINA 17 , 1926
(3)
(4) 10455
00
00 10456
10457
00
00 10473
00 10474
00 10475
00 10476
00 10477
10478
00 10479
00 10480
00 10481
00
00 10482
10488
00 10489
00
00 10491
00 10492
00 10493
00 10494
10648
00
00 10649
00 10657
0658
00
00 10661
10686
00
00 10687
00 10688
00 10691
00 10694
00 10695
00 10696
00 10699
10700
00
00 10702
00 10703
11226
00
00 11227
00 11228
11229
00
00 11230
00 11236
11237
00
00 11397
00 11406
00 11407
00 11408
00 11411
00 11412
00 11423
00 11425
00 11426
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] (5)
(6)
39
00
12
54
00
20
00
20
90
01
03
48
45
00
06
26
06
61
03
69
68
03
03
66
00
97
51
12
00
20
00
74
17
11
00
20
00
20
00
20
30
12
33
15
22
15
50
01
02
75
00
49
30
17
84
04
20
00
51
00
07
27
33
10
78
02
07
64
03
22
12
99
34
05
84
01
03
80
61
01
27
04
20
00
00
82
33
01
05
17
80
06
63
08
50
08
71
00
58
11
20
00 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
6087
भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 9 , 2004/आश्विन 17,1926
(1)
( 2)
(3)
(4)
11429
00
11430
00
11433
00
11434
00
11435
00
11441
00
11442
00
$ 11443
00
11444
00
11445
00
00
10650/13044
11498
00
11499
00
11500
00
11502
00
11503
00
11504
00
11712
00
11714
00
11716
00
00
11717
11718
00
11719
00
00
11741
00
11742
11743
00
00
11814
11815
00
11818
00
11819
00
11820
00
00
11822
11823
00
11828
00
11829
00
11830
00
11831
00
00
11832
11833
00
11834
00
11866
00
11867
00
00
12031
00
12032
00
12033
12036
00
12040
00
12041
00
12042
00
12043
00
00
12044
( 5)
(6)
00
20
67
01
13
65
98
04
03
96
00
54
09
04
00
20
09
30
03
15
57
02
05
61
05
00
11
33
11
55
04
77
04
25
01
08
11
96
10
12
05
39
08
25
01
95
05
96
57
08
00
66
00
20
15
62
15
13
04
75
05
34
00
20
00
20
00
76
12
09
12
39
01
61
01
44
73
09
01
76
01
66
01
83
04
60
01
09
07
13
06
13
00
20
09
68
00
99
03
75
11
06 6088
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEBER 18 , 2004/BHADRA 27 , 1926
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
00
12051
12052
00
00
12054
00
11866/12340
00
12027/12341
00
11858/12343
00
11812/13072
449
265
00 चिरुलिया
00
450
00
454
00
455
00
456
462
00
463
00
00
464
465
00
00
466.
00
467
00
481
00
482
483
00
485
00
486
00
00
491
00
492
00
493
00
495
00
505
00
506
00
507
00
508
509
00
00
511
00
513
514
00
00
522
00
523
525
00
00
526
00
527
00
528
00
529
00
549
00
552
00
553
00
554
00
563
00
564
00
566
00
567
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] (5)
(6)
02
08
73
06
43
09
45
21
04
35
00
20
00
60
08
97
20
00
00
20
96
05
00
15
03
87
01
84
00
20
00
48
01
83
60
08
03
05
20
00
03
68
01
75
01
49
04
11
02
89
00
28
05
05
20
00
04
70
28
00
73
00
90
07
01
80
00
44
02
13
26
02
16
02
60
00
13
03
12
05
64
02
86
02
01
04
57
09
25
01
20
00
09
95
20
00
10
17
43
00 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
6089
भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 9 , 2004/आश्विन 17,1926
(3)
(1)
(2)
(4)
00
569
570
00
571
00
00
572
871
00
872
00
00
873
00
878
00
879
00
880
00
881
00
882
00
884
00
938
00
939
00
940
00
941
00
984
00
985
987
00
00
988
00
989
505/1118
00
00
562/1119
00
450/1121
00
2049
259
बासुदेबपुर
00
2050
00
2111
00
2120
00
2121
00
2122
00
2123
00
2124
00
2127
00
2128
00
2129
00
2130
00
2131
00
2132
00
2133
00
2135
00
2142
00
2143
00
2146
00
2147
00
2149
00
2150
00
2151
00
2160
00 (5)
(6)
46
01
05
01
03
50
01
91
25
03
04
53
02
70
07
52
01
15
00
92
08
51
71
01
59
00
46
08
71
04
52
07
00
20
00
20
17
53
04
97
00
27
84
03
33
00
00
69
47
00
01
22
00
29
00
74
01
75
00
86
03
21
82
01
06
03
00
20
51
05
82
02
02
54
00
20
03
77
07
16
02
49
46
06
18
01
30
04
00
07
01
28
10
29
22
04
37
00
05
89
2149/5840
6090
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9 , 2004/ASVINA 17 , 1926
(11
( 2)
(3)
(4)
00
2150/5841
00
2151/5842
00
2439
00
2440
2449
00
00
2450
00
2451
00
2452
00
2453
00
2454
00
2455
00
2456
00
2457
00
2731
00
2734
00
2741
00
2742
00
2765
00
2768
00
2769
00
2816
00
2817
00
2829
2830
00
00
2894
00
2895
2896
00
00
2897
00
2898
00
2904
2905
00
00
2906
2907
00
00
2908
2927
00
00
3003
00
3004
00
3006
00
3007
00
3010
00
3018
00
3019
00
3020
00
3044
3045
00
00
3046
00
3047
00
3049
00
3056
3057
00
00
3058
[PART II -SEC . 3( ii) ] (5)
(6)
34
02
20
00
03
15
00
20
03
36
96
04
05
80
02
42
01
69
03
53
04
51
06
21
00
72
05
99
14
39
02
79
06
22
00
85
69
09
92
08
37
12
04
00
01
32
00
87
02
31
01
61
11
38
02
49
00
20
23
03
58
00
03
05
03
19
00
42
21
01
05
92
93
02
56
13
01
11
84
01
20
00
89
09
05
04
34
03
02
24
00
48
55
02
20
00
01
11
02
56
11
68 भारत का राजपत्र ( 1)
(3)
( 2 ( 2 )
28
٢٥
8061
02
3082
00
306,3 20
03
3299
05
3048/5862
00
3048/5883 50
00
3048/5864
80
20
3475 10
40
3076 30
00%
3477
00
3478
03
3079
10
15
3082
05
3400 00
03
3491
00
3492
00
3494 08
20
3495
00
SO
3496
20
3497 05
00
1099 AA
03
3780 88
20
00
3789
٢٥
3091
0
3792 09
3793
80
10
3794
00
33
3804 3
10
3805 80
00
3806 85
10
3507 43
13
3810 29
00
3847 με
00
3848
3849
20
00
3850
04
3851 84
3965
03
30
3967 $3
10
3968 sa
10
3969.
00
50
3970 33
03
3478/5923 15
282
1255
जिनन्दपुरु
20
204 50
00
205 80
05
389
SO
000
20
88
303 2908 GI/2004-21
AD T
609 ) 15 ( 5 )
( 4)
( (6 )
200
02
10
04
48
07
48
02
18
808
04
23
200
01
39
200
01
46
45
00
60
56
200
12
22
600
10
28
100
93
60
01
800
06
05
97
00
20
000
33
200
08
880
09
11
500
05
68
800
13
58
00
000
64
01
06
000
$00
02
03
01
003
04
406
01
09
00
20
200
100
03
24
800
03
62
200
12
09
000
01
07
000
33
03
06
11
00:
$00
99
90:
$00
00
32
10
00%
55
34
00
000
04
100
49
$$00
14
04
00
00%
67
200
11
10:
¥00
00
62
03
06
00:1
00
20
100 %
00
81
03
83000.1
39
01
63
20
00
100001
01
17
33
01
11
58
100950
01
31 6092
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9 , 2004 /ASVINA 17 , 1926
(2)
(3)
(1)
(4)
345
00
00
346
415
00
00
417
00
418
00
419
00
425
00
426
427
00
00
435
00
436
00
437
00
438
00
439
00
440
485
00
00
486
00
492
00
528
00
529
00
530
532
00
00
533
534
00
00
535
547
00
00
548
549
00
550
00
00
596
00
641
00
642
00
643
00
647
00
656
00.
657
674
00
00
675
00
676
677
00
00
679
00
484/829
00
346/854
00
428/858
00
434/859
00
340/896
00
492/901
00
641/907
00
470/928
00
470/929
00
470/930
[PART II-Sec. 3 ( 日)】
(6)
(5)
85
07
34
05
20
00
03
03
89
02
00
20
00
46
08
95
04
01
00
20
71.
00:
63
03
01
12
52
02
90
03
00
21
40
00
80
03
20
00
46
05
20
00
77
03
68
05
78
00
96
07.
49
90
08
47
01
*
33
00
35
01
98
00
82
01
13
13
65
06
39
00
69
06
00
92
14
04
48
14
39
03
23
01
62
01
20
00
33
03
19
11
64
07
05
10
20
00
08
02
63
02
05
88 6093
भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 9 , 2004/आश्विन 17,1926
(4)
(3)
(1)
(2)
00
282/949
00
244
1730
बाधुयाकि
00
1737
00
1736
00
1730
00
1740
00
1769
00
1770
00
1785
00
1624
00
1826
00
1833
00
1838
00
1840
00
2707
00
2708
00
2709
00
2712
00
2713
00
2714
00
2723
00
2032-
00 (5)
(6)
30
00
01
15
06
81
10
20
00
56
12
25
01
31
13
01
46
04
03
42
43
97
00
04
11
00
88
68
00
90
09
88
11
52
06
32
03
20
00
81
02
77
03
10
58
1746/3055
00 14
51
1824/3057
00
28
12
1633/3089
239
10
उत्तर रामचक
00
00
12
00
13
00
71
00
78
00
79
00
80
00
82
00
88
00
89:
00
90
00
130
00
138
00
139
00
140
00
143
00
150
00
155
00
156
.00
157
00
158
162
00
163
00
00
164
20
00
49
18
36
15
43
06
46
06
28
03
30
10
07
93
00
99
08
06
42
07
01
07
20
05
25
04
56
01
20
00
00
02
20
00.
37
04
51
06
49
03
70
01
54
01.
43
01 6094
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: OCTOBER 2004MASMINA 17, 1926
(1)
(2)
( 4)
( ( 3 ) ( Ε) 00
00 165
166
00
00 167
168
20
RABTS3 (ii )] (5) (5) ( 1) ( 6)
01
13
01
28
03
00
٢٤٢٢ 00
00 169
59
13
02
8811 00
00
00 170
01
00
日 00
15
173
00
20
ΘΑΓΓ 00
10
00 185
00
20
0800
00 99/363
03
86
01 00
10
00 129/365
06
93
28 00
00162/394
84
02
ABI 00
54
00
238
00 9
08 00 उत्तर कुरि
11
00
83
00
86
04
8:00
00
13
04
02
0800
17
00
00
18
02
74
33
11
801 00
41
23
04
eors 00
00
42
CO
15 00
44
01
13
25
21
٤١٢٤ 00
51
00
23
AITS 00
50
53
00
55
20
05
52
94
08
20 00
56
00 57
59
00
60
00 67
03
99
04
32
93
03
04
02
04
OF 00
68
St 00
00
00 72
30
73
00 30
167
87 00
67/336
ег 00
67/337
08 00
100
$8
236
53
00 बारभागिया
00
88
00 ران
55
28
56
00
00 57
58
00
00
0142
20
00
28
07
12
02
65
01
72
04
01
32
00
70
73
12
33
01
40
02
46
00
17
55
ear 00
D0 143
00
140 00
00 146
00
143 SO
00 175
97
06
00
20
47
05
02 : 00
00
00 179
02
15
2200
00 180
82
03
02 00
181
Ter 00 05
182
00
00
183
S 10
00
253
16
00
256
01
98
03
88
20
00
11
34
80
02 6095
TESAD JHT
० भारमा ) 2014/ অমিরাল 170926
[भाग का 3 (11 ) ]
(5)
( 6 )
( 1 )
( 3 )
( S)
(2)
(4)
( 4)
( ε )
( 3 )
(1)
(0)
53
00
02
257
€08
00
SA
28
00
05
00 258
408
A0
22
05
259
228 00
80
00
48
00
20
00
260
328
e0
ve
67
00
00
270
00
00
00
85
00
337
258
٢٤
٢٥
00
00
20
00
339
00
00
40
00
00
340
00
858
ae
43
03
00
399
258
00
10
18
00
00
20
400
00
088
20
10
00
403
188
00
00
05
06
01
00
425
258
00
00
37
00
22
455
788
00
00
51
00
883 00
00 53/605
04
03
00
288
00 53/606
ST
08
11
00
00 53/607
٤٢
Ase
00
40
00
455/631
20
00
40
08
00
339/642
00
20
56
10
00
144/648
00
00
09
99
00
00 403/681
20
57
03
00
51/689
00
ace
SO
86
04
00
400/700
00
84
20
00
09
184/728
10
00
84
10
00
eeraar00
184/729
00
02
01
00
5
00 317/733
07
94 SO
00
00 340/744
02
01
22
20
00 340/745
63
01
00
80/200
00455/758
13
01
00
00455/759
21
92 au
e2800
455/760
00
04
18 20
τeshree00
SS
455/761
00
03
62
000
400/774
09
00
00
00
00
85
00
00
81
233
उत्तर पद्या
02
84
00-
43
00
113.
26
00
114
St
00
00
a
00
01
54
00
604
231
ढगोदा
00
10
09
12
753
00
00
TAST
SA
06
80
00
754
20
00
84
67
00
756
00
80
00
00
01
78
757
94
02
00
758
00
te
20
05
00
776
aar
00
00
23
53
05
00
780
εε
00
Tar
00
37
00
01
790
40
ear
38
00
01
00
12
791
20
00
tar
04
44
00
792
00
00
sar
00
59
00
794
00
T
99
00
04
802
at
10
00 6096
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9, 2004 /ASVINA 17 , 1926
(2)
(1)
(3)
(4)
803
00
804
00
853
00
856
00
874
00
875
00
00
876
878
00
00
879
00
880
881
00
00
885
887
00
00
888
00
889
924
00
00
932
00
933
934
00
00
935
00
938
937
00
953
00
00
748/1199
00
755/1202
00
755/1203
00
756/1205
757/1206
00
00
757/1207
00
856/1219
00
931/1231
00
932/1248
00
932/1249
पुलिस थाना : रामनगर
बाधिया
6
1238
00
1239
1240
1247
1248
1249
5
155
00 उदामपुर
00
156
157
00
159
00
00
161
162
00
163
00
164
00
[PART II-SBC. 3 ( ii ) ]
(6)
(5)
03
42
04
63
08
84
09
97
00
20
07
37
00
57
96
03
01
81
21
73
00
20
00
38
00
59
10
81
76
08
03
73
54
03
04
05
00
20
05
54
33
02
14
48
16
01
00
20
20
00
02
00
55
01
00
65
00
63
39
06
03
00
00
సిరిసి 22 20 20
12
18
01
76
42
43
03
96
91
53
33.
88
57
32
00 00 02 00
27
01
01
75 [ भा - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
6097
भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 9, 2004/ आरिथन 17,1926
(1)
(2)
( 3 )
(4)
(5)
(8)
165
00
03
07
00
166
02
21
168
45
00
00
169
01
03
170
00
04
61
171
00
02
[फा. सं. आर-25011/13/2004- ओ. मार-1 ]
रेणुका कुमार, अभर सचिन
New Delhi , the 4th October , 2004
S. O. 2519. Whereas by the notification of the Government of inte in the Ministry of Petroleum and Naturai Gas number S.O. 1346 dated the 8th June, 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 deciared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation of crude oil from Paradip in the State of Orissa to Haldia in the State of West Bengai by Indian Oli CorporationLimited;
Andwhereas , the copies of the said notification were made available to the public on 12th July , 2004;
And whereas , the Competent Authority in pursuance of sub -section ( 1 ) of section 6 of the said Act, has 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 Centrai Government hereby deciares that the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline ;
And further, In exercise of the powers conferred by the 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 , vest from the date of publication of this deciaration , In indian Oli Corporation Limited free from all encumbrances .
8609
THE GAZETTE OF INDIANOCTOBER 952004/ASVINAH 7,1926
[PART I SEC. (il)
(S)
( A ) Schedules )
(1)
State:West-Bengal Police Station : Marishda
00
District: Purba Midnapur
Area
801
Jürisdiction 00 Plot. 00
Name of Village
List No.
Are SquareMetre
Hectare
No.
(5)
(6)
14)
00 ( 3 )
( 2 )
(1)
25
02
00
1115
79
Pachish Batya
19
07
00
1116
42
03
00
1117
03
89
11180 Othell
wall
LOGS
04
05
"80"
1119
07
01
1120
dni sibni tem μετα
00 28821Μμεισρλμεκορόμουοι
Muelonts
84800819dmun 2603 Ismutsi bns
81122bats
03 noitose to
bigmualoite e 00 00
karu1124 elstenii 1125
20A ( bis
1265 of banat niere aet 01
en ( A bis
atiberstoeb
noinstmi
ลอม 10 1100 erit eriupos 09
has : 1130/1440
option telt of Babragge
soggetto
prive to
hondongg
134
Hatiari
mako 16102511 ni sible 00022h to 91602erlt ni gibsms28mont lic
00
26
98
csopo
00 batimui
02
00
30
20
00
00
32
44tow noiteo00on bise edt 10teigen entaoriw ba ハトルテロイド
05
82
00
45
5004
26
11
00
48
31
00
00
49
59
55
JOA
00 09 22 εοιπιπνος Ισeat of hori bettimet
37
00
00
57
kaitse a hodet bluz art 00
59mariannettomattinammavotne adt asesornw bri 10 72 00 71
68
Masedon at it bubnaggs sluberio ni benzoani edi ni 19217 te frigh
06
00
70
03
33
00
71
63
02
00
72
dose d84 yd henstag 00won erit to sobiex ni moterit won tupa got town tomato fim
00
00
1197 erit Jet 2918
78 $ 589
109
astromyol tot hariupos yderennoitsoititon add of bebnegas2jubedaa 00
But
10
04
00
115
41
16
00
116
exciteetusbomelecomelegpλίμε
117 01/22h enteni ab00ib ydereri the tomevents05elt to
68 00
124
81
05
00
130
00
20
00
151
72
00
00
152
82
10
00
153 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
6099
भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 9 , 2004/आश्विन 17,1926
(4)
(2)
(3)
(1)
00
155
00
156
00
158
00
159
00
166
190
00
00
245
00
249
251
00
00
253
00
254
00
363
00
364
00
365
00
371
00
372
00
373
00
378
00
387
00
388
00
389
00
391
00
392
00
496
00
497
00
498
00
499
00
518
00
159/1123
00
131/1124
00
45/1130
00
00
215/1154
00
107/1171
00
107/1183
00 (5)
(6).
14
69
89
11
00
50
12
73
08
47
00
21
00
20
05
86
84
07
06
00
02
20
05
06
79.
01
05
08
30
00
09
13
05
20
82
04
20
00
89
06
38
00
07
72
67
05
04
88
76
01
07
64
63
01
00
66
58
02
09
80
30
05
23
00
20
00
02
20
16
11
37
02
215/1185
00
14
76
Srichandanpur
00
78
00
79
00
80
00
81
00
82
00
83
00
84
00
85
00
87
00
88
00
95
00
99
00
111
2908 GI/2004-22
47
19
68
00
75
00
04
01
12
07
09
05
07
05
55
03
39
04
27
02
11
02
93
04
26
02
67
18 6100
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9 , 2004/ASVINĄ 17 , 1926
(4) (1)
(3 )
( 2)
112
00
113
00
00
99/137
14/138
00
00
80/147
00
113/148
100/160
00
00
74/201
00
99/212
00
60
75
Bahulya
00
103
00
105
00
106
00
110
112
00
117
00
00
118
00
119
00
127
00
133
00
134
135
00
142
00
00
144
00
145
146
00
00
148
00
151
00
152
00
153
00
155
00
322
00
62
74
Bamania
00
63
64
00
00
65
00
162
00
165
00
166
00
168
00
169
00
170
00
173
00
174
176
00
00
179
00
180
00
192
00
195
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)] (5)
(6)
53
08
28
17
76
00
00
73
01
98
65
00
03
10
08
97
49
15
20
00
31
01
00
22
05
48
09
09
00
53
25
00
46
08
12
68
29
27
03
01
03
57
22
00
00
58
08
47
06
08
04
38
24
09
00
20
05
56
06
09
00
20
00
74
00
20
08
69
60
00
99
00
00
48
03
38
03
07
96
02
61
02
40
02
06
38
03
28
65
07
73
01
11
08
89
00
20
00 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
6101
भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 9, 2004/आश्विन 17,1926
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
196
00
197
00
200
00
332
00
333
00
334
00
337
00
377
00
378
00
379
00
384
00
385
00
386
00
401
00
402
00
00
405
413
00
63/617
00
174/679
00
00
195/685
196/686
00
199/687
00
41
121
00 Shibpurbeltalya
161
00
00
1.69
180
00
185
00
210
00
211
00
242
00
243
00
257
00
00
161/438
170/474
00
170/475
00
170/476
00
170/477
00
170/478
00.
00
170/480
00
170/481
170/482
00
174/483
00
174/484
00
174/485
00
179/494
00
180/497
00
180/498
00
80/499
00
00
211/500
00
180/501
(5)
(6)
08
88
11
96
32
09
01
59
02
84
02
49
20
00
00
70
00
33
07
81
49
01
06
06
07
89
11
77
44
00
63
08
00
40
02
64
03
18
00
49
01
10
04
55
00
81
03
50
14
56
06
76
01
01
00
19
09
70
03
77
00
84
01
38
05
71
00
20
02
31
31
05
02
63
00
10
01
66
94
04
00
56
02
29
04
50
00
21
1
01
04
00
17
00
11
06
61
05
74
07
47 6102
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9 , 2004/ASVINA 17 , 1926
(3)
(4)
(2)
(1)
00
180/502
00
206/513
00
207/517
00
207/518
210/523
00
00
210/524
211/529
00
00
211/530
00
242/538
00
242/539
00
242/540
00
257/556
00
258/560
00
258/561
00
258/562
00
42
70
Kadua
00
71
00
72
00
73
00
75
00
76
79
00
00
80
00
81
00
69/215
00
69/216
00
82/218
1
00
52
Dhanghara
00
6
00
10
00
11
00
12
00
14
00
15
00
17
00
19
00
20
00
18/309
00
6/316
00
6/317
00
6/318
00
9/323
00
9/325
9/326
00
10/327
00
00
11/328
00
11/329
00
13/330
00
14/333
[PART II-SEC , 3 (ii) ]
(6)
(5)
44
06
17
09
66
06
06
11
27
09
18
04
71
06
20
00
04
09
38
10
32
04
15
20
84
05
06
00
65
02
17
02
03
86
94
05
72
00
22
09
64
08
00
16
60
03
05
01
00
63
02
02
85
02
83
00
00
21
20
03
53
03
05
93
44
02
12
02
73
05
02
71
20
00
14
02
05
17
49
05
57
02
05
02
03-
34
88
00
61
00
05
02
02
02
03
06
02
71 6103
भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 9 , 2004/आश्विन 17,1926
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
00
14/334
14/335
00
00
18/336
20/339
00
00
20/340
51
30
Kumariakhankakuria
00
31
00
55
00
00
56
57
00
59
00
00
60
61
00
00
62
00
83
00
84
00
93
00
94
95
00
00
97
00
62/122
62/123
00
00
41/124
00
19/148
00
19/149
00
19/152
00
19/153
00
19/154
00
19/158
00
19/159
00
19/160
00
19/161
00
19/163
00
19/164
00
19/165
00
19/166
00
31/182
31/183
00
00
31/184
00
31/185
00
31/186
00
82/216
00
93/245
00
93/246
00
93/247
00
96/254
00
97/257
98/260
00
56
00
53
Harinapashdalbar
(5)
(6)
01
39
02
76
02
40
40
01
00
27
00
20
02
83
03
55
42
02
03
21
23
04
03
15
58
03
04
99
00
98
07
91
04
22
01
94
61
00
05
22
12
01
20
00
01
01
00
20
86
02
07
26
03
92
03
68
03
00
81
02
00
90
65
02
06
04
)
04
05
01
01
03
82
07
32
02
66
44
03
69
01
11
00
00
20
21
07
03
58
04
00
14
90
02
21
00
20
59
04 6104
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: OCTOBER 9 , 2004/ ASVINA 17 , 1926
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
57
00
58
00
335
00
336
00
338
00
340
00
341
00
346
00
347
00
349
00
352
00
356
00
357
00
335/597
00
00
56/605
53/634
00
53/635
00
53/637
00
56/655
00
56/656
00
56/662
00
00
56/664
00
56/665
56/666
00
00
56/669
56/670
00
00
56672
56/673
00
56/674
00
58/693
00
00
58/694
58/697
00
00
58/698
00
58/699
58/700
00
58/701
00
58/702
00
62/711
00
62/712
00
341/806
00
342/807
00
342/808
00
346/811
00
00
347/812
00
352/816
00
352/817
352/818
00
352/819
00
352/820
00
00
352/821
355/826
00
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)] (5)
(6)
01
52
10
01
06
37
00
50
00
40
05
86
04
82
01
06
09
97
16
09
02
97
11
48
00
20
00
93
00
87
00
47.
01
96
01
45
01
05
04
39
00
20
03
99
05
74
07
15
07
62
05
59
02
71
05
22
03
09
00
20
04
35
06
24
06
47
02
88
00
20
02
28
08
71
01
18
00
17
04
40
04
85
06
01
11
63
00
69
06
59
02
88
00
20
02
81
03
60
03
55
01
57 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
6106
भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 9, 2004/आश्विन 17,1926
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
355/827
00
355/828
00
00
355/829
355/830
00 Dumurbere
47
1
00
2
00
3
00
18
00
17/194
00
13/266
00
13/270
00
18/274
00
18/276
00
18/277
00
18/278
00
18/280
00
18/281
00
18/282
00
46
141
00 Paschim Sarpai
143
00
144
00
146
00
148
00
00
149
150
00
152
00
321
00
330
00
331
00
332
00
00
333
351
00
357
00
358
00
360
00
381
00
382
00
00
385
431
00
432
00
433
00
434
00
435
00
446
00
447
00
448
00
452
00
453
00
454
00 (5)
(6)
02
10
01
46
02
38
03
82
06
74
04
76
07
07
05
51
18
04
07
71
10
43
02
72
60
02
08
15
03
79
04
62
07
97
07
35
05
22
02
84
09
73
04
28
03
53
00
86
03
89
00
14
01
62
04
89
08
30
02
70
18
48
01
11
01
77 (
01
69
01
67
01
57
02
88
04
82
01
56
00
20
00
20
04
57
04
47
04
83
36
08
03
26
07
17
01
11
00
20/ 6106
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9 , 2004/ASVINA 17 , 1926
(4) (1)
( 2)
(3 )
455
00
00
458
460
00
560
00
00
145/614
145/615
00
00
148/616
00
148/617
148/618
00
00
148/620
00
151/621
151/622
00
00
152/623
319/657
00
00
319/658
00
319/659
00
319/661
00
319/662
00
329/671
00
332/672
00
350/697
00
350/698
00
350/699
00
350/700
00
350/701
00
430/719
00
451/724
00
453/725
454/726
00
00
455/727
00
460/728
462/730
00 Police Station : Egra
35
00
90
Bolkushda
00
37
00
38
00
39
00
41
42
00
43
00
56
00
00
57
00
58
62
00
00
63
00
64
00
65
00
66
00
35/1362
00
35/1374
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]
(6)
(5)
02
81
04
25
60
00
16
01
04
16
00
20
33
04
03
38
03
46
03
42
02
60
41
02
07
03
00
89
05
03
07
25
09
72
07
61
00
11
20
00
05
77
83
10
49
03
48
00
00
98
82
06
91
00
01
68
00
20
35
03
01
00
00
20
03
73
01
26
04
46
83
15
05
53
06
55
56
01
03
52
09
38
00
31
73
02
33
08
00
20
00
38
10
21
00
20
13
27
!
[भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]
6107
भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 9 , 2004/आश्विन17,1926
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4) Chatla
93
2436
00
2437
00
2441
00
2443
00
2444
00
2445
00
2449
00
2450
00
2478
00
2479
00
2483
00
2487
00
2488
00
2507
00
2508
00
2512
00
00
2513
00
2514
00
2518
00
2519
00
2520
00
3250
00
3280
00
3281
00
3284
00
3285
00
3291
00
3292
00
3293
00
3294
00
3295
00
3296
00
3297
3310
00
00
3311
00
3312
00
3313
00
3318
00
3342
00
3343
00
3358
00
3359
00
3360
00
3361
00
3362
00
3363
00
3366
00
3367
00
3312/3839
00
2507/3918
00
3540
290865/ 04-23
(5)
(6)
07
39
53
06
01
47
00
57
06
28
08
73
07
29
01
01
20
00
06
52
49
11
29
08
08
48
00
95
48
13
00
20
11
29
01
11
22
06
20
00
88
01
09
15
55
06
42
09
37
08
72
02
12
02
20
00
33
00
04
46
70
09
00
73
01
18
08
02
73
09
45
06
20
00
37
02
04 :
17
00
58
20
00
23
00
24
11
67
01
09
09
31
00
49
14
18
80
87
10
78
02
00
20 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9 , 2004/ ASVINA 17, 1926
6108
(4)
(3)
(2)
(1)
00
3541
3542
00
00
3543
00
3544
00
3549
3551
00
00
3554
00
3560
00
3561
00
3559/3925
00
1304
102
Chirulia
00
1318
00
1319
00
1320
00
1321
00
1324
00
1325
00
1326
00
1327
00
1328
00
1333
00
1334
00
1335
00
1336
00
1337
00
1339
00
1340
00
1379
00
1380
00
1385
00
1386
1387
00
00
1388
00
1391
00
1392
00
368
203
Paniparul
00
369
370
00
00
512
513
00
00
514
00
598
00
602
00
604
00
605
614
00
00
615
616
00
617
00
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]
(6)
(5)
23
08
01
98
14
05
20
00
06
95
20
13
99
08
02
31
10
06
66
07
40
76
00
41
05
46
02
29
04
43
01
20
00
05
64
38
04
40
01
76
00
17
06
42
03
02
05
00
02
12
09
61
00
03
13
96
04
22
07
24
00
62
00
78
12
10
98
20
00
56
00
18
01
36
01
20
00
85
06
11
10
09
46
28
04
12
14
23
19
45
00
00
91
85
05
45
02 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
6109
भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 9, 2004/आश्विन 17,1926
(2)
(1)
(3)
(4)
628
00
629
00
630
00
00
637
00
638
639
00
00
650
656
00
00
657
00
688
00
689
00
624/6258
652
00
00
655
00
656
00
657
00
745
746
00
00
748
749
00
00
750
751
00
00
755
00
756
00
757
00
758
00
784
00
790
00
791
00
792
00
793
795
00
00
796
00
807
00
808
00
866
00
988
00
990
00
991
00
994
00
995
00
1006
1008
00
00
1009
00
1010
1013
00
00
1025
00
1027
00
1028
00
1029
00
1246
(5)
(6)
58
01
06
89
10
04
35
09
49
04
24
00
68
12
15
57
03
06
32
04
00
27
56
07
75
00
92
08
00
34
24
05.
90
04
01
47
00
20
00
11
10
39
00
94
66
04
20
04
03
14
29
07
87
19
61
01
17
56
08
12
18
05
00
55
12
00
03
97
26
00
00
20
39
20
22
04
95
09
07
16
04
04
00
55
77
00
26
37
20
00
41
02
01
11
33
06
06
95
23
00
83
08 6110
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9 , 2004/ASVINA 17 , 1926
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
00
1247
1262
00
1263
00
1264
00
1265
00
1266
00
1267
00
00
1269
1270
00
1271
00
1272
00
00
1273
1274
00
745/8901
00
-00
746/8902
00
758/8903
988/8908
00
00
794/8911
00
1007/8948
1025/8952
00
1027/8953
00
00
2794
2795
00
8000
00
202
129
00 .
Lalpur
173
00
174
00
00
175
179
00
00
181
00
182
183
00
00
184
185
00
00
192
193
00
00
185/1027
00 Khurutia
201
352
353
00
361
00
00
362
363
00
364
00
368
369
00
373
00
360/1468
00
00
360/1469
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)] (5)
(6)
71
09
00
37
05
13
> 04
73
00
37
14
07
00
39
03
25
05
65
13
79
46
01
43
09
65
02
66
00
21
07
59
07
05
42
96
06
04
76
96
01
25
01
13
05
64
02
82
08
07
06
10.
23
04
69
02
98
03
09
01
09
74
06
20
00
07
65
00
58
62
00
00
28
10
51
00
24
00
97
43
08
02
32
03
81
00
23
20
55
09
00
20
20
00
05
77 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 9 , 2004/आश्विन 17, 1926
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
(4)
(2)
(3)
(1)
00
362/1471
00
363/1472
0.00
362/1661
00
397
00
398
00
401
00
403
00
404
00
406
00
408
00
419
00
421
00
423
00
424
00
425
00
426
00
427
00
430
00
431
00
848
:00
849
00
851
00
852
00
853
00
854
00
857
00
858
00
936
00
938
00
939
00
940
00
949
00
950
00
951
953
00
00
962
00
963
00
964
8.00
965
00
966
00
969
00
1153
00
1154
00
1155
00
1156
00
1157
00
1159
00
1160
00
1161
00
1183
00
1186
(6) (5)
19 01
55 00
58 00
55 02
39 00
83 05
06 04
70 02
73 03
46 05
42 00
53 01
57 00
33 02
54 01
39 04
15 01
24 01
20 00
93 00
46 01
63 03
31 06
13 08
60 10
20 00
64 01
24 00
58 00
20 15
70 00
98 04
63 05
15 01
51 00
29 05
93 05
77 04
00 08
20 00
52 01
20 00
20 00
67 02
47 05
83 03
23 01
05
89
03 07
57 05
20 00 6112
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: OCTOBER 9 , 2004/ASVINA 17, 1926
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
1187
00
00
1189
00
1191
1200
00
1201
00
00
1223
1228
00
1229
00
1230
00
1231
00.
1232
00
1244
00
1245
00
1246
00
1247
00
1248
00
1252
00
00
1294
00
1295
00
1298
00
1300
1301
00
1303
00
430/1494
00
00
948/1567
00
1190/1625
1194/1627
00
00
1199/1631
00
1201/1633
1231/1639
00
1242/1646
00
1244/1647
00
200
1
: 00 Teghari
2
00
00
3
21
00
22
00
1/443
00 Garia
196
999
00
1035
00
1036
00
1072
00
1073
00
1074
00
1075
00
1078
00
1079
00
1087
00
00
1088
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)] (5)
(6)
14
06
02
97
01
67
06
11
61
07
07
32
00
20
11
42
09
38
00
20
06
11
08
92
01
38
07
09
00
61
01
75
03
03
05
33
00
56
09
01
04
52
03
23
12
02
08
61
01
29
02
69
00
38
02
27
01
25
12
10
06
11
02
18
08
16
02
52
03
54
04
99
00
32
04
39
00
20
04
85
20
00
02
98
10
60
00
63
09
72
03
54
02
40
10
93
04
37 6113
भारतका राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 9 , 2004/आश्विन 17,1926
[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
(4)
(3)
(2)
(1)
00
1096
00
1102
00
1103
00
1104
00
1106
00
1125
00
1126
00
1127
00
1134
00
1135
00
1136
00
1137
00
1138
00
1139
00
1152
00
1155
00
1024
195
Asti
00
1025
:
00
1027
00
1028
00
9282
191
Dubda
00
9283
00
9284
00
9285
00
9288
00
9299
00
9300
00
9456
00
9457
00
9458
00
9460
00
9461
00
9471
00
9472
00
9473
00
9474
00
9481
00
9487
00
9488
00
9489
00
9511
00
9512
00
9513
00
9514
00
9522
00
9523
00
9524
00
9525
00
9529
(6)
(5)
70
00
02
53
40
04
29
07
59
04
41
01
02
07
83
02
34
00
11
39
17
10
12
03
67
01
20
00
17
85
82
01
20
00
76
03
11
02
45
06
61
00
04
01
59
02
63
01
20
00
84
08
04
02
19
01
06
99
00
20
54
10
07
03
99
07
20
00
64
10
25
02
31
04
28 03
73
02
33
05
81
00
39
08
01
01
62 09
07
35
49
05
92 07
03
44
81
16 6114
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9, 2004/ ASVINA 17, 1926
(4)
(2)
(1)
(3 )
00
9620
00
10712
10714
00
10715
00
10716
00
00
10720
10727
00
00
9625
00
9626
00
9627
00
9628
00
9630
00
9661
00
9663
9664
00
9667
00
00
9668
00
9682
00
9683
9684
00
00
9685
00
9686
00
9686
00
9689
00
9690
00
9691
00
9692
00
9708
00
9580/13036
00
9692/13040
00
10135
00
10164
00
10269
10273
00
00
10274
00
10275
00
10281
00
10282
00
10284
10285
00
00
10287
00
10288
00
10289
00
10290
00
10291
10292
00
00
10411
00
10451
00
10452
00
10453
00
10454
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii ) ]
(6)
(5 )
01
03
07
04
06
01
16
05
P2
03
38
02
42
01
03
17
98
00
20
00
02
07
05
07
20
00
03
29
55
03
59
16
49
04
00
32
41
09
17
04
00
20
76
10
00
33
01
81
03
08
34
05
43
09
20
00
04
83
02
03
03
52
01
22
73
06
09
94
04
67
20
00
57
03
03
25
02
94
06
03
02
97
03
60
20
00
03
18
07
05
97
04
48
02
01
17
67
00
01
39
01
66 6115
भारत का राजपत्र:अक्तूबर 9, 2004/आश्विन 17,1926
[ भाग - खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
(4) ( 1 )
(2)
(3)
00
10455
00
10456
00
10457
00
10473
00
10474
00
10475
00
10476
00
10477
00
10478
00
10479
00
10480
00
10481
00
10482
00
10488
00
10489
00
10491
00
10492
00
10493
00
10494
00
10648
00
10649
00
10657
00
10658
00
10661
00
10686
00
10687
00
10688
00
10691
00
10694
00
10695
00
10696
00
10699
00
10700
00
10702
00
10703
00
11226
00
11227
00
11228
00
11229
00
11230
00
11236
00
11237
00
11397
00
11406
00
11407
00
11408
00
11411
00
11412
00
11423
00
11425
00
11426
290862/04-24
(6)
(5)
39
00
54
12
20
00
00
20.
90
01
48
03
45
00
26
06
61
06
69
03
03
68
66
03
97
00
51
12
20
00
74
00
11
17
20
00
20
00
20
00
30
12
-33
15
22
15
50
01
75
02
49
00
30
17
84
04
20
00
51
00
07
27
33
10
78
02
64
07
22
03
99
12
34
05
84
01
03
80
61
01
27
04
20
00
82
00
33
01
17
05
80
06
63
08
50
08
71
00
58
11
00
20 6116
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9 , 2004/ASVINA 17, 1926
(2)
(3)
(4) (1)
00
11429
00
11430
00
11433
00
11434
00
11435
00
11441
00
11442
00
11443
11444
00
00
11445
00
10650/13044
00
11498
00
11499
00
11500
00
11502
00
11503
00
11504
00
11712
00
11714
00
11716
00
11717
11718
00
00
11719
00
11741
00
11742
00
11743
00
11814
00
11815
00
11818
00
11819
00
11820
00
11822
00
11823
00
11828
00
11829
00
11830
00
11831
00
11832
00
11833
00
11834
00
11866
00
11867
00
12031
00
12032
00
12033
00
12036
00
12040
00
12041
00
12042
00
12043
00
12044
[PART II SEC . 3( ii) ] (5)
(6)
00
20
67
01
65
13
04
98
03
96
00
54
09
04
00
20
30
09
15
03
57
02
61
05
00
05
33
11
55
11
04
77
25
04
08
01
96
11
10
12
39
05
25
08
95
01
96
05
57
08
66
00
20
00
62
15
13
15
75
04
34
05
20
00
20
00
76
00
09
12
39
12
01
61.
44
01
73
09
76
01
66
01
83
01
04
60
09
01
13
07
06
13
20
00
09
68
99
00
03
75
06
11 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
؟
6117
भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 9 , 2004/आश्विन 17,1926
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
12051
12052
12054
11866/12340
12027/12341
00
11858/12343
11812/13072
00 00 00 8888888
Chirulia
265
449
00
450
00
454
00
455
00
456
00
462
00
463
00
464
00
465
00
466
00
467
00
481
00
00
482
483
00
485
00
486
00
491
00
492
00
00
493
00
495
505
00
506
00
507
00
508
00
509
00
511
00
513
00
514
00
00
522
523
00
525
00
00
526
00
527.
528
00
529
00
549
00
00
552
553
00
00
554
563
00
564
00
566
00
567
00 (5)
(6)
02
08
06
73
09
43
21
45
35
2C
04 00 888
60
08
97
00
20
00
20
05
96
00
15
03
87
01
84
00
20.
00
48
01
3
08
60
03
05
00
20
03
68
01
75
01
49
04
11
02
89
00
28
05
05
00
20
04
70
00
28
00
73
07
90
01
80
00
44
13
02
26
02
16
02
00
60
03
13
12
05
02
64
02
86
04
01
09
57
25
01
00
20
95
09
00
20
17
10
00
43 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9 , 2004/ ASVINA 17, 1926
6118
(4)
(3)
(2)
(1)
00
569
00
570
00
571
00
572
00
871
00
872
00
873
00
878
00
879
00
880
00
881
00
882
00
884
00
938
00
939
00
940
00
941
00
984
00
985
00
987
00
988
00
989
00
505/1118
00
562/1119
00
450/1121
00
2049
259
Bashudebpur
00
2050
00
2111
00
2120
00
2121
00
2122
00
2123
00
2124
00
2127
00
2128
00
2129
00
2130
00
2131
00
2132
00
2133
00
2135
00
2142
00
2143
00
2146
00
2147
00
2149
00
2150
00
2151
00
2160
00
2149/5840
[PART II -SEC . 3 (ii) ]
(6)
(5 )
46
01
01
05
50
03
91
01
25
03
53
04
70
02
52
07
15
01
92
00
51
08
71
01
59
00
46
08
71
04
52
07
20
00
20
00
53
17
97
04
27
00
84
03
33
00
69
00
47
00
22
01
29
00
74
00
75
01
86
00
21
03
82.
01
03
06
20
00
51
05
82
02
02
54
20
00
77
03
16
07
49
02
46
06
18
01
30
04
00
07
28
01
29
10
22
04
37
00
89
05 6119
भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 9, 2004/ आश्विन 17,1926
[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
(4)
(3)
(2)
(1)
00
2150/5841
00
2151/5842
00
2439
00
2440
00
2449
00
2450
00
2451
00
2452
00
2453
00
2454
00
2455
00
2456
00
2457
00
2731
00
2734
00
2741
00
2742
00
2765
00
2768
00
2769
00
2816
00
2817
00
2829
00
2830
00
2894
00
2895
00
2896
00
2897
00
2898
00
2904
00
2905
00
2906
00
2907
00.
2908
00
2927
00
3003
00
3004
00
3006
00
3007
00
3010
00
3018
00
3019
00
3020
00
3044
00
3045
00
3046
00
3047
00
3049
00
3056
00
3057
$00
3058
( 6 )
(5)
34
02
20
00
03
15
20
00
36
03
96
04
80
05
42
02
69
01
53
03
51
04
21
06
72
00
99
05
39
14
79
02
22
06
85
00
69
09
92
08
37
12
00
04
32
01
87
00
31
02
61
01
38
11
49
02
20
00
23
03
58
00
03
05
19
03
42
00
21
01
92
05
93
02
56
13
11
01
84
01
20
00
89
09
05
04
34
03
24
02
48 00
55
02
20
00
11
01
56
02
68
11 6120
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9 , 2004/ASVINA 17, 1926
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
3061
00
3062
00
3063
00
3299
00
3046/5862
00
00
3046/5863
3046/5864
00
3475
00
3476
00
3477
00
3478
00
3479
00
3482
00
3490
00
3491
00
3492
00
3494
00
3495
00
3496
00
3497
00
3499
00
3780
00
3783
00
3789
00
3791
00
3792
00
00
3793
00
3794
3804
00
3805
00
3806
00
3807
00
3810
00
3847
00
3848
00
3849
00
3850
00
3851
00
3965
00
3967
00
3968
00
3969
00
3970
00
00
3478/5923
255
282
Jinandapur
00
284
285
339
340
343
[PART II-SBC. 3 (ii)] (5)
(6)
02
10
04
48
07
48
02
18
04
23
01
39
01
46
00
45
09
56
12
22
10
28
09
93
01
06
05
97
00
20
08
33
09
11
05
68
13
58
00
64
01
06
02
03
01
04
01
09
00
20
03
24
03
62
12
09
01
07
03
33
06
11
06
99
00
32
10
55
00
34
04
49
04
14
00
67
01
11
00
62
03
06
00
20
00
81
03
39
01
63
00
20
01
17
01
33
11.
58
00
00
888888
00
01
31 16121
भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 9, 2004/आश्विन17,1926
[भाग II-खण्ड 3(ii)]
(2)
(3)
(4) (1)
345
00
346
00
00
415
00
417
00
418
00
419
00
425
00
426
00
427
435
00
-00
436
00
437
00
438
00
439
00
440
00
485
00
486
00
492
00
528
00
529
00
530
00
532
00
533
00
534
00
535
00
547
00
548
00
549
00
550
00
596
00
641
00
642
00
643
00
647
00
656
00
657
00
674
00
675
00
676
00
677
00
679
00
484/829
00
346/854
00
428/858
00
434/859
00
340/896
00
492/901
00
641/907
00
470/928
00
470/929
00
470/930
(6)
(5)
85
07
34
05
00
20
03
03
02
89
00
20
46
00
08
95
04
01
20
00-
71
00
63
03
01
12
52
02
90
03
21
00
40
00
03
80
20
00
46
05
00
20
03
77
68
05
00
78
96
07
0
49
08
90
01
47
33
00
35
01
98
00
82
01
13
13
65
06
39
00
06
69
00
92
14
04
48
14
39
03
23
01
62
01
20
00
33
03
19
11
07
64
05
10
00
20
08
02
63
02
88
05 6122
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9, 2004/ ASVINA 17, 1926
(3)
(4) (1)
(2)
00
282/949
1730
00
244
Bathuari
00
1737
00
1738
00
1739
00
1746
00
1769
00
1770
00
1785
1824
00
00
1825
00
1833
00
1838
00
1840
00
2707
00
2708
00
2709
00
2712
00
2713
00
2714
00
2723
00
2932
00
1746/3055
00
1824/3057
00
1833/3089
00
10
239
Uttarramchak
00
12
00
13
00
71
00
78
79
00
00
80
00
82
00
88
00
89
90
00
130
00
00
138
00
139
00
140
00
143
00
150
00
155
00
156
157
00
00
158
00
162
00
163
00
164
[PART II SEC . 3 (ii)]
(6)
(5)
30
00
15
01
06
03
10
81
20
00
56
12
01
25
13
31
46
01
04
03
43
42
00
97
11
04
88
00
68
00
90
09
11
88
52
06
32
03
00
20
81
02
77
03
58
10
51
14
28
12
20
00
49
16
36
15
43
06
46
06
28
03
30
10
93
07
99
00
06
08
42
07
07
01
05
20
25
04
01
56
00
20
00
02
00
20
04
37
51
06
03
49
70
01
54
01
43
01 [ भाग II- अण्ड3 ( ii) ]
6123
भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 9 , 2004/आश्विन 17 ,1926
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
165
00
00
186
00
167
00
168
169
00
170
00
00
173
185
00
00
99/363
00
129/365
00
162/394
00
9
Uttarkuri
238
00
11
13
00
17.
00
00
18
41
00
42
00
00
44
00
51
53
00
55
00
00
56
57
00
00
59
00
60
67
00
00
68
72
00
73
00
00
167
00
67/336
00
67/337
00
53
236
Barhbhagia
00
55
56
00
00
57
58
00
00
142
143
00
00
146
00
175
00
179
00
180
00
181
00
182
00
183
00
253
00
256
290865/ 04-25
(5)
(6)
01
13
28
01
71
03
00
59
13
02
00
01
00
20
00
20
03
86
06
93
84
02
83
86
04
02
02
74
33
11
23
04
13
01
21
25
23
00
05
52
94
08
03
99
32
04
03
93
02
04
04
42
20
00
28
07
12
02
01
65
72
04
32
01
70
00
73
12
33
01
02
40
00
46
55
17
97
06
20
00
47
05
15
02
03
82
01
98
03
88
20
00
34
11
80
02 6124
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9 , 2004/ASVINA 17 , 1926
(4)
(3)
(2)
(1)
00
257
00
258
00
259
00
260
00
270
00
337
00
339
00
340
00
399
$00
400
00
403
00
425
00
455
00
53/605
00
53/606
00
53/607
00
455/631
00
339/642
00
144/648
00
403/681
00
51/689
00
400/700
00
184/728
00
184/729
00
317/733
00
340/744
340/745
00
00
455/758
00
455/759
00
455/760
00
455/761
00
400/774
00
81
233
Uttarpadma
00
84
00
113
00
114
00
604
231
Dhalgoda
00
753
00
754
00
756
00
757
00
758
00
776
00
780
00
790
00
791
00
792
00
794
00
802
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]
(6)
( 5)
53
02
28
05
22
05
00
20
67
00
00
85
20
00
40
00
03
43
20
00
20
10
06
01
22
37
51
00
04
03
11
08
40
00
40
08
10
56
99
09
57
03
86
04
20
09
84
10
02
01
-94
07
02
01
63
01
13
01
92
21
18
04
62
03
85
00
43
९৪
02
14
01
82
26
54
01
09
12
80
06
67
00
78
01
94
02
05
69
53
05
37
01
01
12
44
04
59
00
99
04 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
6125
भारत काराजपत्र: अक्तूबर 9 , 2004/आश्विन 17,1926
(1)
( 2 )
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
803
00
03
42
804
00
04
63
853
00
08
84
856
00
09
97
874
00
00
20
875
00
07
37
876
00
00
57
:
878
00
03
96
00
879
01
81
880
00
21
73
881
00
00
20
885
00
00
38
887
00
00
59
888
00
25 10
81
889
00
76.
08
924
00
03
73
932
00
03
544
933
00
05
04
1.
934
00
00
20
935
00
05
54
936
00
02
33.
937
00
14
48
953
00
01
16
746/1199
ob
: 00
20
755/1202
00
00
20
00
755/1203
02
00
756/1205
00
01
55
757/1206:
00 .
00
65
757/1207
00
00
63.9
856/1219
00
06.
39
931/1231
00
03
22
00
932/1248
00
20
932/1249
00
00
20 Police Station : Ramnagar
Badhia
6
1238
00
00
12
1239
00
01
18
1240
00
01
78
1247
$ 00
00
42
1248
00
05
43
12495
00
03
06 5
155
00
Udampur
91
05
:
156
00
00
53
00
157
00
33
159
00
04
88
161
00
02
57
162
00
00
32
163
00
01
27
184
00
01
75.
[PART II-SEC. 300)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: OCTOBER 9 , 2004/ASVINA 17 , 1926
6126
(6)
(5)
(4)
(3)
(2)
(1)
07
00
03
165
21
02
00
1.66
45
00
00
168
03
01
00
169
61
04
00
170
02
09
00
171
[No. R-25011 /13/2004-O.R. -I] RENUKA KUMAR, Under Secy.
नईदिल्ली, 4 अक्तूबर, 2004
का. आ. 2520.- 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 उप- धारा (1 ) के अधीन जारी भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना सं. का. आ. 466 , तारीख 23 फरवरी , 2004 द्वारा राजस्थान राज्य में कोयली सिद्धपुर सांगानेर से अजमेर तक इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा पेट्रोलियम उत्पाद के परिवहन के लिए पाइपलाइन बिछाई जाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट राजस्थान राज्य के अजमेर जिला में तहसील नसीराबाद की भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी;
और उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को तारीख 15 मार्च , 2004 को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी;
और पाइपलाइन बिछाने के संबंध में सक्षम प्राधिकारी को जनता से कोई आक्षेप प्राप्त नहीं हुआ है ।
और सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप- धारा (1 ) के अधीन केन्द्रीय सरकार को अपनी रिपोर्ट दे दी है ;
और, केन्द्रीय सरकार का उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् और यह समाधान हो जाने पर कि उक्त भूमि पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए अपेक्षित है उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने का विनिश्चय किया है ।
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 पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाता है ।
और केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप- धारा (4 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह निदेश देती है कि पाइपलाइन बिछाने के संबंध में उपयोग का अधिकार इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन के तारीख को केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने की बजाए सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड में निहित होगा । [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( i ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 9, 2004/आश्विन 17,1926
6127
अनुसूची
तहसील : नसीराबाद
जिला : अजमेर
राज्य : राजस्थान
क्षेत्रफल
गाँव का नाम खसरा संख्या
हेक्टेयर
वर्ग मीटर
एयर
1
2
3
4
5 भवानीखेडा
1707
0
11
00
1706
0
07
00
0
1699
03
20
1615
0
03
00
[फा. सं. आर-25011/2/2004- ओ.आर-1 ]
रेणुका कुमार, अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 4th October , 2004
S. O. 2520.-Whereas by the notification of the Government of India , in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas No. S.O. 466, dated 23rd February, 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 of Petroleum Product from Koyali - Sidhpur- Sanganer to Ajmer in the State of Rajasthan by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited;
Andwhereas , copies of the said gazette notification were made available to the general public on dated 15th March , 2004;
And whereas , No objection have been received by the Competent Authority from the public regarding the laying of the pipeline.
: And whereas , the Competent Authority has , under sub- section (1 ) of section 6of the said Act , submitted report to the Central Government ;
And whereas , the Central Government after considering the said report and on being satisfied that said land is required for laying pipeline has decied to acquire the right of user their in .
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 for laying the pipeline.
And further , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section (4) of section 6of the said Act , the Central Government hereby directs that the right of user in the land for laying the pipeline 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 .
6128
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9 , 2004/ ASVINA 17, 1926
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]
SCHEDULE
Tehsil : Nasirabad
State : Rajasthan
District : Ajmer
Area
Nameof Village Khasara No.
Hectare
Are
Sq.mikr. 1
3
4
2
5
Bhawanikheda
1707
0
11
00
1706
00
07
1699
0
03
20
1615
0
03
00
[No.R-25011/2/2004-O.R.- I ] RENUKA KUMAR , Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 4 अक्तूबर, 2004
का. आ. 2521.- केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिजः 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 उप- धास (1 ) को अधीन जारी भारत सरकार को पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना सं. कान आ 465 , तारीख 23 फरवरी , 2004 द्वारा राजस्थान राज्य में कोयली सिद्धपुर - सांगानेर से अजमेर तक इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा पेट्रोलियम उत्पाद के परिवहन के लिए पाइपलाइन बिछाई जाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ठ राजस्थान राम के अजमेर जिला में तहसील अजमेर की भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी;
और उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को तारीख 15 मार्च, 2004 को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी;
और पाइपलाइन बिछाने के संबंध में सक्षम प्राधिकारी को जनता से 10 आक्षेप प्राप्त हुये है ।
और सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप-धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन केन्द्रीय सरकार को अपनी रिपोर्ट दे दी है;
और , केन्द्रीय सरकार ने उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् और यह समाधान हो जाने पर कि उक्त भूमि पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए अपेक्षित है उसमे उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने का विनिश्चय किया है ।
अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाता है ।
और केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप-भास (4) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह निदेश देती है कि पाइपलाइन बिछाते के संबंध में उपयोग का अधिकार इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन के तारीख को केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने के बजाए सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड में निहित होगा । [भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 9 , 2004/ आरिणम 17,1926
अनुसूची
तहसील : अजमेर
जिला : अजमेर
गाँव का नाम खसरा संख्या
हेक्टेयर 1
2
3 ककलाना
1437/1
0
1439
0
0
1440/2
1426
0
0
1429
1418
0
1433
0
1432
0
1431
0
0
1415
0
1377
0
1376
1373
1372
0
707
0
704
0
706
0
703
0
0
661
660
0
659
0
657
0
664
0
665
0
656
0
654
0
654/1602
0
648
0
राज्य : राजस्थान क्षेत्रफल
वर्ग मीटर एबर
4
5
00
20
08
80
03
20
03
$80
80
05
00
20
04
60
12
00
01
00
00
20
00
20
00
40
00
40 .
00
20
00
206
40
06
00
40
08
40
00
01
10
00
08
00
15
60
04
40
00
20
03
00
02
00
00
06
04
60 6130
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9 , 2004/ASVINA 17, 1926
2
3 1
0
646
647/1
0
0
645
0
640/1
640/2
0
638
0 तबीजी
0
3578
0
3575
3574
0
3554
0
0
3555
3541
0
3540
0
3544
0
3545
0
3537
0
3536
0
3549
0
3550
0
3530
0
3507
0
3511
0
0
3504
3512
0
3503
0
3502
0
3485
0
3489
0
3488
0
3477
0
3478
0
3476
0
3468
0
3467
0
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] 4
5
08
80
01
20
06
80
03
60
40
00
09
20
32
00
08
60
12
60
26
20
11
40
03
60
40
08
00
60
06
60
00
60
13
60
08
80
04
60
07
00
40
05
07
80
00
60
07
60
00
20
13
00
09
20
40
13
09
00
00
80
12
40
02
00
13
20
01
60 6131
भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 9 , 2004/आश्विन 17,1926
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
3
2
1
0
3462
0
3461
0
3457
0
3480
0
3427
0
3430
0
3431
0
3435
0
3436
0
3441
0
3406
0
3408
0
3410
0
3387
0
3388
0
3343
0
1967
0
1966
0
1964
0
1963
0
1969
0
1970
0
1972
0
1974
0
1973
0
2005
0
2009
0
2008
0
2007
0
2015
0
2014
0
2016
0
2017
0
2018
2900G1/04-26
5
4
40.
05
40
10
80
01
80
04
80
02
20
01
20
03
20
04
40
09
60
10
00
04
00
10
40
01
60
03
80
26
80
02
09
00
80
05
00
05
80
07
60
00
00
11
80
02
60
04
20
11
00
20
20
00
40
12
20
02
80
05
40
00
20
10
00
01
60
11 6132
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9 , 2004/ASVINA 17 , 1926
1
2
3
0
2019
2633
0
2634
0
2637
0
2639
0
2690
0
2688
0
3048
0
3049
0
0
3050
3040
0
3039
0
3038
0
3036
0
3035
0
3033
0
3034
0
2965
0
2962
0
2967
0
2968
0
2969
0
2970
0
2937
0
2936
0
2930
0
2931
0
2925
0
2929
0
2927
0
2924
0
2923
0
2919
0
2915
0
[PART II SEC . 3 (ii ) ] 4
5
04
60
09
00
05
80
07
80
17
60
16
60
19
40
00
60
18
40
00
20
03
80
02
20
04
00
04
60
07
40
15
00
00
20
20
80
01
00
08
20
11
20
02
20
00
20
01
00
10
40
10
00
00
80
01
80
00
60
00
20
08
80
02
40
09
00
12
00 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]
6133
-भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 9 , 2004/आश्विन 17,1926
1
2
3 दौराई
0
710
0
711
712
0
720
0
0
719
721
0
722
723
C
0
709
620
0
621
0
622
0
628
0
0
629
631
0
0
630
638
0
639
0
682
0
684
0
685
0
0
1187
188मिन
0
1182
0
1181
0
1171
0
1172
0
1170
0
1655
0
0
1651
1650
0
-1652
0
1648
1649
4
5
05
40
06
80
04
00
05
20
00
20
05
60
00
08
04
00
00
20
60
05
00
20
10
80
20
01
03
80
05
60
12
20
12
80
06
40
00
20
04
40
19
20
60
08
40
06
23
60
07
20
00
05
00
20
80
04
02
20
60
06
40
02
03
60
10
80
00
20 6134
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9 , 2004/ ASVINA 17 , 1926
1
2
3
1647
0
1641
0
1640
0
0
1639
0
1638
0
1635
1634
0
1630
0
0
1631
1618
0
0
1617
0
1538
1540
0
1541
0
1544
0
1545
0
1543
0
1546
0
1507
0
1508
0
[ PART II-SEC. 3( ii ) ] 4
5
00
20
20
01
01
00
01
00
04
80
03
80
03
60
00
20
03
60
00
60
02
60
01
40
17
00
15
20
13
00
01
00
01
40
02
00
00
40
03
40
[फा. सं. आर-25011/2/2004- ओ.आर-1 ]
रेणुका कुमार, अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 4th October, 2004
S. O. 2521.-Whereas by the notification of the Government of India , in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas No. S.O. 465 , dated 23rd February , 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 : Ajmer, District : Ajmer in Rajasthan State , specified in the schedule appended to that notification , for the purpose of laying Pipeline for the transportation of Petroleum Product from Koyali - Sidhpur - Sanganerto Ajmer in the State of Rajasthan by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited ;
And whereas , copies of the said gazette notification were made available to the general public on dated 15th March , 2004;
6135
भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 9, 2004/आश्विन 17,1926
[ भाग ।।- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
And whereas , 10 objections have been received by the Cornpetent Authority frorn the public regarding the laying of the pipeline .
And whereas , the Cornpetent Authority has , under sub- section ( 1 ) of section 6 of the said Act , subrnitted report to the Central Government;
And whereas , the Central Government after considering the said report and on being satisfied that said land is required for laying pipeline has decied to acquire the right of user their in .
Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 1 ) of section 6 of the said Act, the Central Governrnent hereby declares that the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline.
And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section (4) of section 6 of the said Act , the Central Governrnent hereby directs that the right of user in the land for laying the pipeline shall , instead of vesting in the Central Government , vests frorn the date of publication of this declaration , in the Indian Oil Corporation Limited, free from all encumbrances .
SCHEDULE
State : Rajasthan
District : Ajmer
Tehsil : Ajmer
Khasara No.
Name of Village
Area
Are
Hectare
3
2
1
0
1437/1
Kaklana
0
1439
0
1440/2
0
1426
0
1429
0
1418
0
1433
0
1432
0
1431
0
1415
0
1377
0
1376
0
1373
Sq.mtr. 4
5
20
00
80
08
20
03
80
03
80
05
20
00
04
60
00
12
00
01
20
00
20
00
40
00
40
00 6136
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9 , 2004/ ASVINA 17 , 1926
1
2
3
1372
0
707
0
704
0
706
0
703
0
661
0
0
660
0
659
657
0
0
664
665
0
656
0
654
0
654/1602
0
648
0
646
0
647/1
0
645
0
0
640/1
640/2
0
638
0 Tabiji
3578
0
3575
0
3574
0
3554
0
3555
0
3541
0
3540
0
3544
0
3545
0
3537
0
3536
0
3549
0
3550
0
3530
0
[PART 1 SEC. 3( ii) ] 4
5
00
20
06
06
40
00
40
08
40
01
00
10
00
08
00
15
60
04
40
00
20
03
00
02
00
06
00
04
60
08
80
01
20
06
80
03
60
00
40
09
20
32
00
08
60
12
60
26
20
11.
40
03
60
08
40
00
60
06
60
00
60
13
60
08
80
04
60
07
00 [भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]
6137
भारत काराजपत्र: अक्तूबर 9, 2004/आश्विन 17,1926
1
2
3
3507
0
3511
0
3504
0-
:
3512
0
3503
0
3502
0
3485
0
3489
0
3488
0
3477
0
3478
0
3476
0
3468
0
3467
0
3462
0
3461
0
3457
0
3480
0
3427
0
3430
0
3431
0
3435
0
3436
0
3441
0
3406
0
3408
0
0
3410
3387
0
3388
0
3343
0
1967
0
1966
0
1964
0
1963
0 4
5
05
40
07
80
00
60
07
60
00
20
13
00
09
20
13
40
09
00
00
80
12
40
02
00
13
20
01
60
05
40
10
40
01
80
04
80
02
80
01
20
03
20
04
20
09
40
10
60
04
00
10
00
01
40
03
60
26
80
02
80
09
00
05
80
05
00
07
80 6138
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9 , 2004/ ASVINA 17 , 1926
2
3 1
1969
0
0
1970
0
1972
0
1974
0
1973
0
2005
0
2009
0
2008
0
2007
0
2015
2014
0
0
2016
0
2017
0
2018
0
2019
0
2633
0
2634
0
2637
0
2639
0
2690
0
2688
0
3048
0
3049
0
3050
0
3040
0
3039
0
3038
0
3036
0
3035
0
3033
0
3034
0
2965
0
2962
0
2967
0
2968
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]
5
4
60
00
11
00
02
80
04
60
11
20
00
20
00
20
12
40
02
20
80
05
40
00
10
20
01
00
11
60
60
04
00
09
05
80
07
80
60
17
60
16
40
19
60
00
40
18
20
00
03
80
20
02
04
00
60
04
40
07
00
15
20
00
80
20
00
01
20
08
20
11 6139
भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 9, 2004/आश्विन 17,1926
[ भाग ।।- खण्ड 3 ( ii )]
3
2
1
0
2969
0
2970
0
2937
0
2936
0
2930
0
2931
:
0
2925
0
2929
0
2927
0
2924
0
2923
0
2919
0
2915
0
710
Dourai
0
711
712
0
0
720
0
719
0
721
722
0
0
723
0
709
0
620
0
621
0
622
0
628
0
629
0
631
0
630
0
638
0
639
0
682
0
684
0
685
0
1187
2908 GI/04-27
5
4
20
02
00
20
00
01
40
10
00
10.
00
80
80
01
60
00
00
20
80
08
40
02
00
09
00
12
40
05
80
06
00
04
20
05
20
00
60
05
00
08
00
04
20
00
05
60
20
00
80
10
20
01
80
03
60
05
20
12
80
12
40
06
00
20
40
04
20
19
60
08 6140
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 2004/ASVINA 17. 1926
3
2
1
0
1188 Min
0
1182
0
1181
0
1171
0
1172
0
1170
0
1655
0
1651
0
1650
1652
0
0
1648
0
1649
0
1647
1641
0
1640
0
1639
0
1638
0
1635
0
1634
0
1630
0
1631
0
1618
0
1617
0
0
1538
1540
0
1541
0
1544
0
1545
0
1543
0
1546
ว
0
1507
1508
0
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] 4
5
06
40
60
23
20
07
00
05
20
00
04
80
02
20
06
60
40
02
60
03
10
80
00
20
20
00
01
20
1 01
00
00
01
04
80
03
80
03
60
00
20
60
03
00
60
02
60
01
40
17
00
15
20
13
00
00
01
01
40
02
00
00
40
40
03
[No. R -25011 /2/2004- O.R. -I ] RENUKA KUMAR, Under Secy.
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
श्रम, मंत्रालय
नई दिल्ली, 8 सितम्बर, 2004
का. आ. 2522.-औधोगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947(1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बी. एस. एन. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, नं. 1 मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या कम्प्लेन्ट नं. सी.जी.आई.टी 6/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 8-9-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं.एल-40025/21/2004- आई आर ( डी यू) ] कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डैस्कअधिकारी MINISTRY OF LABOUR NewDelhi, the 8th September, 2004 S.O. 2522.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes, Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. Complaint No. CGIT 6/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court, No. 1 , Mumbai now 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 8-9-2004.
[No. L-40025/21 /2004- IR (DU)] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 1 AT MUMBAI
COMPLAINT NO . CGIT -6 OF 2004 (Arising out of Ref. No. CGIT - 22 of2003) PARTIES:
Mrs.Ghelot
...Complainant
V/s.
...Respondent BSNL , Kalyan
APPEARANCES :
Shri Ameta, Adovcate Forthe Complainant :
Shri Mishra , Adovcate For the Respondent :
Mumbai, dated the 23rd August, 2004
AWARD
1. This is a complaint under Section 33 - A of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (the Act for short ) filed on 08-7-2004 by the complainant for interlocutory order to
16141
भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 9 , 2004/आश्विन 17, 1926.
allow her to perform her duty without any changes in the service conditions in the BSNL (the Company for short).
2. The learned counsel for the Company has filed a their reply on 20-8-2004 and also filed a further say. It states that the complainant agree to report for the work and the Company agreed to allow the Complainant to work.
3. Inview ofthe aforesaid subsequent development the complaint dated 6th July, 2004 does not survive for consideration. Complaint is dismissed.
S. C. PANDEY, PresidingOfficer नई दिल्ली, 10 सितम्बर, 2004
का.आ. 2523.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार दूर संचार विभाग के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 194/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जोकेन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-9-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं० एल-40025/23/2004- आई भार ( डीयू) ]
कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 10th September, 2004 S. O. 2523. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes he award (Ref.No. 194/2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Hyderabad now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management ofDeptt. of Telecom, and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 10-09-2004 .
No. L-40025 /23/2004 - IR(DU) ]
KULD PRAI VERMA, Desk Officer
ANNEX URE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM-LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD
PRESENT:
Shri E. Ismail , B. Sc. LLB. , Presiding Officer Dated the 29th day of July, 2004
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L. C. L. D. NO . 194/2001 (Old 1. D. No. 67/2000 Transferred from Labour Court - III Hyde bad) 6142
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9, 2004/ASVINA 17, 1926
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)] BETWEEN:
Sri K. Raju,
S/ o Mahabubji
R/ o H. No. 4-1116/4
RamaiahBowli ,
Petitioner
Mahaboobnagar.
The Petitioner was neither appointed nor terminated from the services . That the Petitioner earlier moved for conciliationbefore the ALC(C) , the conciliation ended in failure .His case was forwarded to the Secretary, Ministry ofLabour and Employment and the Ministry has refused to refer the dispute for adjudication . Hence, the Petitioner isnot entitled for any relief.
AND
Te Sub -Divisional Officer, Telecom,
Mahaboobnagar.
...Respondents
APPEARANCES :
For the Petitioner : Sri K. Ravinder Goud , Advocate
For the Respondent : Sri R. S. Murthy, Advocate
AWARD
4. The Petitioner examined himself as WW1 and deposed that he joined the Department on 1-12-82 . Не was not given any appointment order . He worked upto 30-9-84 , on which date the Respondent asked him not to come to work from 1-10-84 . After the termination of his services some ofhis juniors were appointed in his place namely S/ Sri T. Veera Swamy, A. Madhavaiah , E. Laxma Reddy, Thirupathaiah Goud, K. Gopal . He approached on 2-2-99 the ALC(C) , Hyderabad by way of representation vide Ex. WI . The conciliation officer closed the conciliation on 25-6-99 and sent failure report to the Government of India. Minutes of conciliation is Ex . W2 . Ex . W3 is corrigendum to failure report. Ex. W4 ls failure report . Hence, he maybe reinstated .
5. He was cross examined . He denied that he did not seek the work and there are subsequent engagement of casual labour and now there is no work of casual labour.
This is a case taken under Sec . 2 A ( 2) of the I. D. Act, 1947 by the Labour Court - III , Hyderabad in view of thejudgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra 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 and transferred to this Court in view of the Government of India, Ministry of Labour's Order No. H- 11026/ 1 / 2001 - IR( C- II) dated 18-10-2001 bearing I.D. No. 67/2000 and renumbered in this Court as L. C.I.D.No. 194/ 2001.
6. The Respondent filed an affidavit of deposition by Sri P. Krishnaiah , Sub -Divisional Officer, Telecom, Mahaboobnagar. He deposed that the engagement of Petitioner from 1-12-82 to 30-9-82 cannot be verified as the records for the said period has been weeded out by efflux of time as per retention schedules stipulated. Hence , the Petitioner is not entitled for any relief. In the cross examination he says that as there is no record available he cannot assert or deny the engagement of the Petitioner.
2. The brief facts as mentioned in the petition are : That the Petitioner was appointed on 1-12-82 as casual mazdoor and worked continuously till 30-9-84 and his services were terminated by oral order dated 1-10-84 by the Respondent herein . The said order was unjust, illegal and liable to be set aside by virtue of the said order. The Petitioner became unemployed in spite of several oral and written requests , nothing was done. Hence , he raised a dispute before the ALC( C ) for conciliation.
3. A counter was filed stating that the Petitioner was never engaged in the Department as casual/contigent labour, but purely on work basis , depending on the availability of work and he was paid contingent daily wages . He was engaged in the Depatment as follows :
7. It is argued by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the MW1 himself has stated that he cannot assert or deny the engagment of the Petitioner. Therefore, itmay be safely concluded that the Petitioner has worked for more than 2.40 days . Hence, he may be reinstated with backwages.
Sl . From
To
No.
No. ofdays worked by the Petitioner
1. 1-11-83
30-11-83
30
31
2. 1-12-83
31-12-83
8. The Respondent's Counsel submits that even the Government of India refused to refer the matter as it isbelated and raised in 1999 after a lapse of 17 years . Therefore , he submits that the petition may be dismissed .
31-1-84
31
3. 1-1-84
29-2-84
4. 1-2-84
29
5. 1-7-84
31-7-84
31
31-8-84
31
6. 1-8-84
30-9-84
30
7. 1-9-84
213
Total working Days :
9. It may be seen that no doubt as no records are available and even if it is presumed that the Petitioner worked from 1-12-82 to 30-9-84 still he has approached in 1999 to the ALC(C) and the Government of India, Ministry ofLabour and Employment has refused to refer the matter . It may be noted that no doubt Industrial Disputes Act does not provide any limitation, but it does not mean that 6143 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 9, 2004/आश्विन 17 , 1926
Court, No. H, New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of CPWD and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 10-9-2004.
[No. L. -42011/23/97- IR(DU)] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
one can keep quite for 15 long years and after perhaps working some where else or engaging himself in other profession can approach this Court as a chance litigation . Merely, because this Court is bound to take the petitions under Sec . 2 A(2 ) of the I.D. Act, 1947 in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra 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 .Hence , I am of the opinion that the Petitioner is not entitled to any relief except that whenever in future if any casual labour is engaged the Petitioner may be given preference taking his date of entry into service as 1-12-82 and his age as on 1-11-80 .
Awardpassed accordingly. Transmit.
BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT- II NEW DELHI
PRESIDING OFFICER : Shri R. N. RAI, Dictated to Kum. K. Phani Gowri , personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected and pronounced by me on this the 29th day of July, 2004.
ID No. 68/98
E. ISMAIL, Presiding officer
IN THE MATTER OF
Appendix ofevidence
THE CPWD KARAMCHARI UNION
Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the Petitioner: Respondent:
VERSUS
MW1 : Sri P. Krishnaiah
WW1 : Sri V. Prabhakar Rao
CPWD
Documents marked for the Petitioner
AWARD
Ex. W1: Copy ofrepresentation to ALC(C) dt . 2-2-99
Ex. W2: Copyofminutes of conciliation
Copy of corrigendum to failure report
Ex. W3:
The Ministry of Labour by its letter No. L-42011 / 23/97 - IR(DU) Central: Governmentdt . 23-02-1998 had referred the following point for adjudication.
Documents marked for the Respondent
The point runs as hereunder:-
NIL
नई दिल्ली , 10 सितम्बर, 2004
"Whether the action of the management of C.P.W.D Superintending Engineer (Electrical ), Coordination Circle(Electrical ), New Delhi in not regularising the services of employees as at Annex A from date of their initial appointment and not granting them equal pay for equal work and similar terms and conditions ofemployment as applicable to regular workmen is legal and justified ? if not , what relief the concerned workmen are entitled to ?"
का. आ. 2524. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सी. पी. डब्ल्यू. डी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, नं . II , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 68/98 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-9-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-42011 /23/97- आईआर ( डीयू) ]
कुलदीप राय वर्मा , डैस्कअधिकारी
New Delhi , the 10th September, 2004
The Union has filed statement of claim on behalf of the workmen. In the statement of claim, it has been stated that 24 workmen joined the services of the management on the date as mentioned against each in the statement 'Annexure A' appended to the Notification in Column 7 ofthe Statement as clearly mentioned therein. That the oldest workman who joined the management w.e.f. 15-08-1978 and the latest to join in 01-08-1987 which is after 9 years exactly. That the fact that the said workmen are still working shows that there are vacancies in the departments of the management without which they S.O. 2524.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 68/98) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour 6144
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: OCTOBER 9 , 2004/ASVINA 17 , 1926
cannot continue for such long years that too continuously without break. It is now 20 years since the first or the oldest workmen joined and it is now 11 years since the last or the latest workmen joined the management .manag That it also establishes that the work in which they have been engaged is of permanent nature and there is no doubt about it that it is not continuing further . In other words the work exists , it requires men to man it . Otherwise the management would not have continued the workmen in the posts for the last over 20 years or so . That when the work is there and that they are manned by the workmen since such an unusually long time, it is not understood as to why they, the workmen should not be regularised from the date of their appointment or in other words taken on a permanent basis right from the beginning .
That it is unfortunate that of the 24 workers shown in the statement ' A' , 22 have been regularised already while only two have yet been regularised so far . The two workmen who have not yet been regularised are S. No. 1 Shri Mohan Lal and S. No. 3 Shri Rajendra Singh. That though as per the statement S. No. 2 is also shown as not regularised, the correct position is that he has since been regularised on 10-02-1997. Thus only two workmen have not yet been regularised, which is an invidious discrimination offending Articles 14, 16, 19 etc. ofthe Constitution . Thus it may be seen that the dispute isrespect of S. No. 1 and 3 is for regularisation while in respect of S. No. 2 and 4 to 24 is for regularisation from the date of their initial appointment . That elaborate instructions exist in the CPWD about the period upto which one can be kept on muster roll or without regularisation etc. The period is one year and all those who are employed for more than one year should be taken on work charged. Instructions further exists on which type of work these muster roll employees should be employed. In fact the CPWD requires a certificate to the effect that no worker was appointed/ kept in employment in contravention of the above instructions . In cases of contravention , the sanction of the Superintending Engineer/ Chief Engineer shouldbe obtained , that too in writing.
That the workmen who are not regularised and taken on permanent basis stand to lose lots and lots of privileges which the permanent workmen enjoy or entitled to . Basically they do not even get a scale of pay. They are kept on the minimum of the time scale of pay paid D.A. , etc. on that minimum for years together while their counterparts in regular establishment enjoy the privileges continuously. The irony is that there is absolutely no difference in the nature , quality and quantity of work performed by both . In the directive principles of the Constitution there should be no difference in employment , payment of wages , differentiation of sex etc. , "Equal Pay for Equal Work" is the maxim . This is fluted with impunity by C.P.W.D.
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)]
ל Addedto this is the wide scale unemployment problem , the workmen do not venture to open their mouth lest they should lose even these jobs. In view of such silent and large scale suffering of the workmen the Karamchari Union, a registered Trade Union under the Trade Union Act, raised an Industrial Dispute before the Regional Labour Commissioner ( Central) New Delhi seeking regularisation and payment of equal remuneration for equal amount of work . It was in October 1996.
That the Central Industrial Machinery tried their best to make the management see reasons , but they could not succeed because of the unhelpful and rigid stand of the management . The Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central ) who held conciliation proceedings in the dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 reported failure of conciliation to the Appropriate Government who in turn have referred the dispute to this Hob'ble Tribunal as stated in the beginning of this claim statement. That this is collective dispute raisedby the representative Union on behalf of the 24 workmen who are it's members . They are workmen under the I.D. Act 1947 and the CPWD is an Industry within the meaning of the said Act , namely I.D. Act of 1947. The management has filed written statement . In the written statement Parawise comments have been submitted :-
A
Para 1 Matter of record.
Para 2 The action of the management not to regularize the services of daily rated workers. since the date of their engagement as daily rated workers is correct and justified because the daily rated workers are regularised only after the posts are created and sanctioned and allotted and made available for the purpose of regularisation . The ban on direct recruitment imposed on 19-11-1985 has also not been lifted as yet (Annexure - I) . All the daily wages workers are being paid basic plus admissible allowances at par with their fellow regular employees . Hence at present the applicants are not entitled for any relief. It is however submitted that all the daily wage workers engaged prior to the imposition of ban i.e. 19-11-1985 have since been regularised in accordance with the recruitment rules.
Para-3 Needs no reply.
Para4 Matter of record and needs no reply.
- Para 5 Matter of record and needs no reply.
Para-6 Needs no reply.
Para- 7 The casual workers are engaged on purly temporary basis against a purely temporary 6145 [ भाग II- खण्ड (ii) ]
भारत का समपत्र : अक्तूबर 9, 2004/ आश्विन 17, 1926
It is, therefore, prayed that in view of the above stated facts, the application of the workmen to be regularised since the date of inductment as casual workers "without the sanction " and allotment of posts and the prevailing ban imposed on direct recruitment by the Govt. is devoid of any merit and be therefore dismissed with.... cost.
nature of work and their wages charged to that particular work against the specific name of work, until the posts are created and allotted for regularisation. No casual worker can therefore be considered for regularisation which falls under direct recruitment upon which the ban has been imposed by the Govt.
Most of the paragraphs of statement of claim have been denied but it has been admitted that the workmen are working in the CPWD and they have been engaged as casual labour from 1978 to 1987 .
८
Rejoinder has been filed from the side of the Union and the averments of statement of claim ' have been reiterated in the rejoinder.
Para-8 The work may of course be there to be carried out on purely temporary basis but in the event of non availability of sanctioned posts andban on direct recruitment the daily rated worker so engaged on purely temporary basis to carry out a particular work can not be regularised unless the posts are sanctioned and allotted for regularisation.
Heard arguments from both the sides and perused the papers on the record.
Para 9 Out of the 24 listed daily wage workers 22 daily wage workers who are engaged before the imposition of ban and others belonging to S/C , S/T, OBC to fill up the respective back log have already been regularised. In respect of two workers who could not be regularised the comments are as under Sh . Mohan Lal (Sl . No. 1 ) S/o Sh. Dharam Singh was engaged as a casual worker since 1-8-1987. Because of the prevailing imposition of ban on direct recruitment since 19-11-1985 vide No. 38/11/ 84-EC . X dt. 19-11-1985 he can not be regularised as on date as he was engaged after 19-11-1985 . While the casual worker Sh. Rajinder Singh ( Sl . No. 3 ) working on temporary basis has not qualified the Departmental trade test for regularisation, as yet, which is mandatory as per the recruitment rules.
Para-10 The contents of the para are denied . No such instructions have been issued and received inthis office .
Para-11 Temporary status has already been conferred
to such casual workers vide Govt . order No. 51016/2/90-Estt ©dt . 10/09/93 (Annexure - II ) and such workers are being given the benefits accordingly. As regards equal pay for equal work , all such workers are being paid equal pay and allowances as admissible to their counter parts of the same grade.
Para-12 Needs no reply.
Para-13 Needs no reply:
Itwas submitted from the side of the Union that it is admitted to the management that Mohan Lal has been working since 1-8-1987 and Sh. Satya Parkash has been working since 19-6-1985 and Sh. Raj Kumar has been working since 30-11-1984. It has been admitted by the management as a list all the 38 employees has been annexed with the record. The present case is about regularisation of Sl. Nos. 1 and 3 Satya Prakash and Sh . Raj Kumar and regularisation of the remaining 22 employees from the date of their initial engagement. It was admitted by the management that 22 workmen have already been regularised and the other two workmen, namely, Sh. Mohan Lal and Sh. Rajinder Singh could not be regularised as there was a circulardt. 19-11-85 that the remaining workmen will be regularised when posts are sanctioned . As such, admittedly the two workmen Sh. Rajinder Singh and Sh . Mohan Lal have not been regularised as no post was vacant. Sh . Mohan Lal was appointed on 1-8-87 and Sh. Rajinder Singh was also appointed after the date of the circular letter. The mananagement admitted that Mohan Lal cann't be regularised as he joined in 1987 after the date of the circular and the post have not been sanctioned so far. But the other workman can be regularised as he is not covered by the circular dt. 19-11-85. It was also submitted by the management that Mohan Lal has not passed the trade, test . Rajinder Singh has passed the trade test but there is no post vacant so he could not be regularised. At present Sh. Mohan Lal and Sh. Rajinder Singh are to be regularised. Sh . Rajinder Singh was appointed after the date of circular i.e. 6-12-85 and Sh. Mohan Lal was ⚫also appointed from 1-8-87 where as the circular letter is of 19-11-85, These two could not be regularised after the ban date i.e. 19-11-85 . The substantial question is whether the two workmen could not be regularised in view of circular letter dt . 19-11-85. It is explicit that Sh . Mohan Lal is working since 1-8-87 and Sh. Rajinder Para 14 This office does not know whether the 24 enlisted workmen are the members of this particular Union or not and since what time also 6146
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9 , 2004/ASVINA 17, 1926
Singh joined after 19-11-85. From the perusal of the circular letter dt. 19-11-85 that the vacancies that are existing may be filled up by regularisation of eligible muster -roll workers after proper screening since the vacancies were not available and the post was not created so these workmen have not been regularised till then and the executive engineer was directed to furnish certificate to the effect that no workman was appointed or kept in employment in contravention of the order dt. 30-1-1969. The two workmen have been engaged prior to 1987 and at present they have been working for long 17 years and they have not been regularised till today. The substantial question is whether circular dt . 19-11-85 can prevent the workman from being regularised and can over- ride the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It was submitted from the side of the Union that the action of the management is quite illegal and they are indulging in unfair labour practices . In case the posts were not available they should not have engaged the workmen . The workmen are the tradesmen just as carpenter and the electrician and the management has been taking work from them for more than 17 years . Such practices amount to unfair labour practice by the management . If there is requirement of an employee , the management should have sanctioned the post and thereafter the workmen should have been engaged . There is no question of sanction of the post or otherwise for regularisation , in case the workmen are working for long 17 years and they should be regularised from the date of their initial engagement .
It was also submitted from the side of the workmen that it has become the tendency of the several departments of the Government to engage workmen and not to regularise the workmen till their superannuation and to avoid regularisation contract, workers are being engaged. The contract workers are paid only 2/3 of the emoluments given by the management and 1/3 is pocketed by the contractor. Such practices really are absolutely unfair labour practices and the contractors have become the parasite of the society i.e. they are maintaining their subsistence on the labour of the workmen whom they have enrolled . Since contract labour matter is not under reference as such no opinion can be given regarding the same but there is substance in the argument of the Union. It was submitted from the side of the Union that theApex Court in Bhagwati Devi Vs. U.O.I. AIR 1990 SC 371 has held as under :-
"Practical experience would always aid the person to effectively discharge the duties and is a sure guide to assess the suitability. The initial minimum educational qualification prescribed for the different posts is undoubtedly a factor to be reckoned with, but it is so at the time of the initial entry into the service. Once the appointments of petitioners were made as daily rated workers and they were allowed
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] to work for a considerable length of time, it would be hard and harsh to deny them the confirmation inthe respective post on the ground that they lack the prescribed educational qualifications . It can be said that three months experience, ignoring artificial break in service for short period/periods created by the management , in the circumstances, would be sufficient for confirmation. If there is a gap of more than three months between the period of termination and re-appointment that period may be excluded in the computation of the three months period. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to equal pay at par with the persons appointed on regular basis to the similar post or discharge similar duties, and are entitled to the scale of pay and all allowances revised from time to time for the said posts."
My attention was drawn to the case of Jaipal and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Others AIR 1988 SC 1505 as under :-
"Article 39 ( d) contained in Part IV of the Constitution ordains the State to direct its policy towards securing equal pay for equal work for both men and women. Though Art . 39 is included in the Chapter of Directive Principle of State Policy, but it is fundamental in nature . The puropose of the article is to fix certain social and economic goals for avoiding any discrimination amongst the people doing similar work in matters relating to pay. The doctrine of equal pay for equal work has been implemented by this Court in Randhir Singh Vs. Union of India, ( 1982) 3 SCR 298 : (AIR 1982 SC 879), Dhiren Chamoli Vs. State of U.P. ( 1986) 1 SCC 637 and Surinder Singh Vs. Engineer - in -Chief, C.P.W.D. , ( 1986) 1 SCC 639 : ( AIR 1986 SC 584) . In view of these authorities it is too late in the day to disregard the doctrine of equal pay for equal work on the ground of one employment being temporary and the other being permanent in nature. A temporary or casual employee performing the same duties and functions is entitled to the same pay as paid to a permanent employee . " It was further submitted that the workmen should be regularised after completion of one year service . They are working to the post of their ability and capacity, as such their pension and gratuity are affected in case they are not regularised from the initial date of their engagement . This practice is unfair, unjust , harsh and unlawful for the workers of the low category and it is contrary to the very object cherished in the very preamble to the Constitution. The petitioners are entitled for parity in their pay and allowance at par with their regular counter parts w.e.f. the date of their initial appointment and consequently the arrears in this regard should be paid to [ 3( ii) ]
6147
भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 9, 2004/ आश्विन 17, 1926
them and the provisions of the Constitution of part 3 and 4 should not be violated.
My attention was also drawn to AIR 1986 Supreme Court 584. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that "the persons employed on a daily-wage basis in the Central Public Works Department are entitled not only to daily wages but are entitled to the same wages as other permanent employees in the department employed to do the identical work. In this connection, it cannot be said that the doctrine of" equal pay for equal work". is a mere abstract doctrine and that it is not capable of being enforced in a court oflaw. The Central Government the State Governments and likewise , all public sector undertakings are expected to function like model and enlightened employers and arguments that the principle of equal pay for equal work is an abstract doctrine which cannot be enforced in a court of law should ill- come from the mouths of the State and State Undertakings ."
According to this verdit of the Hon'ble Supreme Court even the daily wages workmen should be made equal payment as are paid to similarly employed employees . It implies that the workmen should be regularised from their initial date of engagement only then the direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court as extracted above can be implemented. The directions of the Hon'ble APEX Court are to be followed by the union and the State Governments otherwise an anarchy will prevail . Despite, law laid down in the several cases, the employees have not been regularised that amounts to contempt of the Hon'ble Supreme Court .
My attention was drawn to JT 1992 (5 ) SC 179 State of Haryana and others etc. The Hon'ble APEX Court has held that ad hoc or temporary employees in class- III and IV services in Punjab and Haryana should be replaced by regularly selected employees as early as possible. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has laiddown these guidelines regarding the Government employees and to prevent unfair labour practice to keep employees without considering their merits and to make them permanent later on. In such a way, the competent candidates are deprived of the opportunities and the Government gives appointment on temporary and ad hoc basis and thereafter they are regularised but this case law is not applicable in the present facts and circumstances of the case . The Hon'ble APEX Court has laid down in this judgement that employees should be selected regularly as early as possible. In the present case, the workmen are working since 1981 and they have not been regularised till today. As such , the above judgement of the Hon'ble APEX Court has given the guidelines to fill up the posts as soon as possible by regularising selected employees so that the competent candidate may not be deprived of their rights and the 2908 Gl/04-28
vacancy should also be created as soon as possible. The candidate should not be taken from the back door and they should not be regularised in the present case, the candidates have not been taken from the back door and their cases have not been considered for regularisation from 17 to 25 years . As such, the judgement referred to above is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case. In this case, the employees have been engaged and work is being taken , they are class -IV employees and they have been working from the date of their initial engagement . As such, Surinder Singh's case referredto above is applicable to all intents and purposes . Admittedly, 22 workmen have been working from 1981 to 1985 and the other two are working just after 1985. As such, the two workers have been working for 17 to 19 years and the rest of the workers are working from 19 to 25 years. Some of them were at the verge of their superannuation and they are not getting benefits as has been directed by the Hon'ble APEX Court. In Surinder Singh's case, it has been specifically laid down that equal payshould be given for equal work. It implies that the workmen are to be given the emoluments from the initial date of their engagement . Only then it can be deemed that they are getting payment of the permanent employees in the department employed to do the identical work. In view of this decision of the Hon'ble APEXCourt, the workmen Mohan Lal and Rajinder Singh are to be regularised from the initial date of their engagement and the rest 22 workers should also be regularised from the initial date of their engagement and they should get the entire benefits as of permanent employees of the department from the date of their initial service.
The reference is replied thus :-
The action of the management of C.P.W.D. Superintending Engineer (Electrical), Coordination Circle (Electrical) , New Delhi in not regularising the services of employees of Annexure A from date of their initial appointment and not granting them equal pay or equal work on similar terms and conditions of employment as applicable to regular workmen is not legal and justified. The workmen whose names have been mentioned in Annexure A should be regularised in service from their initial date of engagement and they are also entitled to get equal pay of a permanent employee from the date of their initial engagement and all the arrears that have accrued from their initial date of engagement should be paid to them within one month after publication of the award. In case of default, all the 24 workmen referred 'to above will be entitled to an interest of 6% per annsiin.
The award is given accordingly.
Dt . 1-9-04
R.N. RAI, Presiding Officer 6148
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9 , 2004/ASVINA 17, 1926
[PART II-SEC. 3( ii)]
APPEARANCES :
नईदिल्ली, 10 सितम्बर, 2004
Shri Babu Ram A/R for the workman
Shri Ghanshyam Singh A/R for managment .
AWARD
का. आ. 2525.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार कलावती सरन चिल्ड्रन हॉस्पिटल के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , नं . 1 नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 89/97 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-9-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-42012/78/96- आई आर ( डी यू) ] कुलदीप राय वर्मा , डेस्क अधिकारी
The Central Government in the Ministry ofLabour vide its Order No. L-420 12/78/96 - IR (DU) dated 20/25-6-97 has referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:-
New Delhi , the 10th September, 2004
"Whether the action of the management of Kalawati Saran Children Hospital in denying the promotion to Shri Khem Chand Safaiwala to the post of Head Safaiwala w.e.f. 10-5-95 is just and fair? If not to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to ?"
S.O. 2525. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 89/97 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court , No. 1 , New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Kalawati Saran ChildrenHospital and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 10-9-2004.
[No. L -42012/78/96 -IR (DU) ]
KULDIP RAJ VERMA. Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM - LABOUR COURT NEW DELHI
2.Brief facts of this case as gleaned from record are that the claimant has been working in K.S. C. Hospital , New Delhi since 19th of September, 1979 as Safai Karamchari . The Post ofHead Safaiwala had fallen vacant. The Department Promotion Committee promoted other employee superseding three senior incumbents including the claimant Shri Khem Chand who lodged a protest that he was entitled to be promoted as he was senior to the Individual who have been promoted to the post ofHead Safaiwala. The claimant raised the above industrial dispute as the person junior to him were promoted . The claimant filed the statement of his claim and disputed the promotion averring that he should have been promoted to the said post ofHead Safaiwala.
Presiding Officer : Shri S.S. Bal
LD . NO . 89/97
In the matter of dispute between :
Shri Khem Chand through
The General Secretary.
Kalawati Hospital Workers Union , 11/88 , Panchkuian Road, Hospital Quarters , New Delhi.
Workman
Versus
TheMedical Superintendent .
Kalawati Saran Children Hospital . NewDelhi.
Management
3. Management contested the claim of workman by filing written statement claiming that the workman was entitled to be promoted as Head Safaiwala and he has been lawfully superseded . The management raised preliminary objections interalia that claim of the workman is false, frivolous and misconceived , and not maintainable in law on many ground, that the applicant No. 1 has not exhasted available channels ( ii ) that present dispute is squarely covered by the judgment passed by the Superme Court of India reported in AIR 1970 S.C. page 1407 titled S.J. Hospital versus K.L. Sethi wherein itwas held that Kalawati Saran Children Hospital is not an Industry within the definition of section 2(j ) of Industrial Dispute. Act and as such the claimant's claim is not maintainable in the eye of law ; that the claim is barred by provisions of section 28 Administrative Tribunal Act 6149 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 9, 2004/आश्विन 17, 1926
Government and is providing medical aid for the welfare ofpublic without any charges and is entirely funded by Ministry of Health , Government of India and such a Hospital is not an Industry. This fact has not been disputed by the respondent claimant . In the decision reported in AIR 1970 SC 1407 it was held in para 22 as under:
1985 as the Administrative Tribunal is the appropriate Forum where the claimant can seek the relief sought for and not the present Industrial Tribunal as it is not so competent . Respondent Hospital is being run by Central Governmentwhich is providing medical aid to the citizens ofIndia free ofcharge and is run for the welfare ofpublic and entire fund is provided by Ministry of Health, Government of India. Hence present claim is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
"Hospital run by Government and even by private association not on commercial lines but on charitable lines or as part of the function of Government Department of health cannot be included in the definition of industry. The reason given was that the second part of the definition of Industry contained an extension of the first part by including other items ofindustry. It was also held that the respondent being the charitable hospital rendering free service to the citizens of India cannot be termed as an Industry within the definition of section 2 (j ) of the 1.D. Act and as such the dispute between its employee and management is not an industrial dispute and as such a dispute itself cannot be adjudicated upon by the Industrial Tribunal ."
4. On merits it is stated that a list of 15 eligible candidates including the applicant claimant was prepared. D.P.C. scrutinized the seniority list of 15 eligible safaiwala/ wali for promotion to one post of Head Safaiwala/wali . The candidates appearing at Sl . No. 1 to 3 ( 1 ) Smt. Surjo, (2) Beena and (3 ) Khem Chand claimant of said list was not found suitable for post ofHead Safaiwala/wali by D.P.C. In fact claimant whose name appeared at Sl. No. 3 in the saidlist was found inefficient for the post in question which is a supervisory post and the person working on thepost is to be required to supervise and take attendance ofthe vast number ofpeople employed in different shifts . This post also involves extraneous duty of checking of workers from time to time and D.P.C. recommended the name ofone Smt. Prem Wati appearing in the said list at Sl. No.4.
5. Written statement was followed by the replication wherein the claimant reiterated the contents of his claim statement and denied the averments and pleas raised in W. S. claiming that he is entitled to be promoted to the post ofHead Safarwala being senior most and competent one among all the candidates.
6. Claimant filed his affidavit inevidence and was cross-examined. On the other hand management evidence was closed vide order dated 17-4-2000 . Arguments were addressed by Shri Babu Ram A/R for the workman and Shri Ghanshyam Singh A/R ofthe management.
8. It has also come in evidence that post of Head Safaiwala is a 100% promotional post and appointment has to be made to the said post from Safaiwala/ Safaiwali with three years regular service în grace . A list of 15 eligible candidates were prevared including Shri Khem Chand claimant . D.P.C. Scrutinised Seniority list of 15 eligible Safaiwala/wali for promotion to one post ofHead Safaiwala/wali and he was found inefficient by the D.P.C. and recommended the name of Smt . Prem Wati - III appearing at Sl . No. 4 of the said list to be appointedto the post ofHead Safaiwali . Thus D.P.C. considered the name of the claimant and found him inefficient for appointment to the said postand this Court/Labour Court/ Industrial Tribunal is not competent to sit upon the decision of the D.P.C. Hence the clalm ofthe claimant is also not tenable on merits also .
9. In view of the above discussions I am of the opinion that the claim of the applicant/ claimant to promotion to the post of Head Safaiwala preferred by the claimant is not maintainable and the action of the management hospital Kalawati Saran Children Hospital in denying promotion to the workman to the post ofHead Safaiwala is just and fair . Feference is answered in the affirmative. Award is given accordingly.
Dated: 30-8-2004
S.S. BAL, Presiding Officer 7. On behalf of the workman it is not disputed that Kalawati Saran Children Hospital-respondent is a hospital and rendering medical services to the citizens ofIndia free ofcost as claimed by the Management . The questions which require determination in this case are whether the respondent is an industry or not within the meaning of Section 2 (j ) ( ii ) whether the claim is barred by the provisions of Section 28 of Administrative Tribunal Act and ( iii ) whether this court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the present dispute . It is averred in the written statement and affidavit in evidence that respondent hospital is being run by Central 6150
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9, 2004/ASVINA 17 , 1926
[PART II SEC. 3 (ii)] नईदिल्ली, 10 सितम्बर , 2004
has referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal foradjudication:-
का.आ. 2526.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सी.पी.डब्ल्यू.डी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं.० I , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 101/96 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-9-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
"Whether the action of the management of CPWD ExecutiveEngineer, Electrical Divi . - 12, New Delhi , interminating and thereafter not reinstating Shri Surender Prasad, Asstt. Wireman in service w.e.f. 5-5-89 after his acquittal by Additional Sessions Judge is justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to and from which date?"
[सं ० एल-42011 /94/95- आई आर ( डीयू) ]
कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डैस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 10th September , 2004
S.O. 2526. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 101/96) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court No - I , New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of CPWD and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on10-09-2004.
[No. L-42011 /94/95 - IR (DU) ] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR-COURT, NEW DELHI
PRESIDING OFFICER : Shri S.S. BAL
2. Brief facts of this case as culled from record are that Surender Pd. was initially engaged on muster roll as Assistant Wireman on 27-1-83 by Executive Engineer ElectricalDivision - 12 CPWD . He was arrested in a criminal case/murder case on 5th of May, ' 89 under Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C. , P.S. Inderpuri , FIR P.S. 82/83 Management terminated his services w.e.f. 5-5-89 without notice, payment of any compensation, notice pay. At the time ofhis termiantion he was drawing pay scale@ Rs. 800 plus , DA , CCA , HRA etc. except increments; he was acquitted in the said murder case on 26-7-84 by Mr. M.S. Rohilla A.S.J. Copy of the judgement is annexed as Annexure ' E' . Workman is entitled to reinstatement in view of the policy decisions of the respondent contained in letter dated 27-5-91 that after his acquittal in the said case many personsjunior to him were regularised in the scale of Rs . 800-1150 . He further avers that the termination ofhis services by the respondent and not reinstating him w.e.f. 5-5-89 after his acquittal by A.S.J. Delhi is not justified and isillegal.Hence he claims re-instatement w.e.f. 5-5-89 when hewas terminated in the pay scale of Rs . 800 alongwith accruingbenefits .
LD . No. 101/96
Inthe matter ofdispute
BETWEEN:
Shri Surender Prasad, Asstt . Wireman , through Maha Sachiv, C.P.W.D. Mazdoor Union E-26 (Old Quarters) RajaBazar,
Workman
BabaKharak Singh Marg , New Delhi.
Versus
M/s. Executive Engineer (Elect) ,
..Management
Electrical Division - 12 , CPWD, Upstairs Kitab Mehal , Baba Kharak Singh Marg, New Delhi .
APPEARANCES :
Shri B.K. Pd . for workman.
Shri Jaswinder Singh for management
AWARD
3. The claim of the workman has been contested by the respondent-management by filing written statement justifying termination of the workman on the ground that he was only a muster roll employee and he concealed his involvement in the criminal case . He misrepresented the fact about his arrest and falsely stated that he worked upto 5th May, 89. He has suppressed material information from the employer/management ofhis involvement in the crime/ criminal case . Hence vide letter No. 15-2-91 -ECX dated 27-5-91 services of the muster roll employees are deemed to have been terminated when the workman absented himself. The workman has in fact mis -represented the facts about his arrest in claim application. He worked upto 4-5-89 and in view of this fact he could not be taken on duty after his absence from muster roll duty as suppressing information of his arrest and concealing the facts from employer amounts to misconduct . He was arrested on 12-5-81 as per evidence discussed above he came on duty on5-4-89 and slipped away from duty without information. He was marked absent . Hence he is not entitled to be reinstated. It was not permissible under ruled to place him under suspension. He could not be reinstated as per The Central Government in the Ministry of labour vide its Order No. L -42011/94/95 - IR(DU) dated 31-10-96 6151 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 9, 2004/आरिसक 17 1926
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]
clarification dated 28-12-94 of Chief Engineer (Elect . ) I CPWD as concerned employee was engaged on muster rollas such he was not liable to be reinstated or re -employed after hewas once terminated/sacked out. He is not entitled to be automatically reinstated on his acquittal in criminal caseas his services came to an end due to his wilful absence.
4. The written statement was followed by rejoinder wherein the workman reinstated the averments made in claim statement and claimed that he is entitled to be taken back on duty on his acquittal and denied the averments made inReply.
5. 1 have heard Ld. A/R for both the workmen as well as the management and perused the record meticulously.
murder case he cannot be allowed to work. Because ofhis involvement in such a criminal case the claimant was rightly not allowed towork by the department but the necessary consequence of his acquittal which is implicit in above referred policy decision is that the muster roll worker is entitled to be taken back on work after he is clearly exoneratedbythe court . The management has not disputed the claim ofclaimant who was admittedly muster roll worker that he was acquitted in the murder case which fact is also proved on the photo copy ofthe judgment passed by Shri M.S. Shilla. SJ. Ex. WW1 /6 placed on record. This fact is further above from the statement placed on record. This fact is further proved from the statement ofthe claimantEx. WW1.1 am ofthe view that absence of the claimant due to his involvement in the said murder case is not wilful i.e. intentional or deliberate , but is on account of his involvement and of his detention in police and judicial custody in the saidoffence of murder case which is a serious criminal case he stands exonerated after his acquittal in said criminal case and is entitled to be taken back on duty orreinstated.
8. In view of the above discussions I am of the opinion that the claimant who was a muster roll worker/ casual worker is entitled to be taken on work from the date the approached and requested the department to allow him tojoin as muster roll worker after his acquittal as per above the said policy decision. Workman is entitled to be reinstated inthe pay scale ofRs . 800 with incidental D.A. , H.RA. C.C.A. dc. He be accordingly reinstated/taken back onmuster roll duty as casual worker w.e.f. 5th ofMay 89 . Award is accordinglypassed.
S. S. BAL, Presiding Officer
Dated:30-8-2004
6. The management has not disputed the following policy decisions alleged to have been circulated by the Dy. D.M.C. of Administration II CPWD vide letter dated 27-5-91 as mentioned in Para 11 ofthe claim statement that "the matter was discussed with the representative ofthe union. The procedure adopted in CPWD is that whenever a muster roll worker/casual labour is arrested on servere criminal charges like murder , theft, rape , etc. , and is detained by the police in its custody for more than 48 hours the token of such worker is taken by the Executive Engineer andhe is not allowed to work till he is clearly exoneratedby the Court . Except where notice is necessary under any statutory obligation no notice is required for termination of services ofthe muster roll worker/casual labour. Their services will be deemed to have been terminated when they absents themselves on the close of the day. The existing practice should continue till some alternative is decidedupon".
नई दिल्ली, 10 सितम्बर, 2004
का.आ. 2527.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बी.बी.एम.बी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध निधीजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औधोगिक अधिकरण चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 142/91 ) को प्रकाशित करती हैं, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-9-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं० एल-42011 /6/91 -आई आर (डीयू) ] कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डैस्कअधिकारी
NewDelhi , the 10th September, 2004
S.O. 2527. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 142/91) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure inthe Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation tothe management of BBMB and their workman, which was received bythe Central Government on 10-9-2004.
[No. L-42011/6/91 - IR (DU)] KULDIP RAI VERMA, DeskOfficer 7. The perusal of the above policy decision shows that the management appears to have followed the second part of policy decision according to which services of a muster roll workman/casual labour will be deemed to have been terminated when they /he absent or absents themselves on the close of the day. In the instant case as per the facts disclosed by the management in written statement the workman was present on 4-5-89 and thereafter absented himself and he did not attend muster rollduties .He did not inform the management respondent about his arrest and detention by the police in criminal case which according to the management amounted to misconduct. It is apparent that the management ignored the fact that the workman could not attend the duties as he was involved in a murder case and detained in police and judicial custody. The management has not disputed the fact that the workman -claimant was involved in a serious criminal case i.e. murder case and subsequently he was acquitted by the Sessions Court and in view ofthis fact the policy decision contained in first part, referred to above that the workman will not be allowed to work till he is exonerated by the court will be applicable . It means that the workmanwhen arrested in a serious criminal case i.e.
6152
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9 , 2004/ASVINA 17 , 1926
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT CHANDIGARH Presiding Officer : Shri Kuldip Singh Case No. ID . 142/91
Received on : 3-10-1991 .
Decided on: 31-8-2004
Ashok Kumar & Others C/o Ram Kishan Singh, General Secretary, Nangal Bhakra Mazdoor Sang , Nangal Township , Distt . Ropar.
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]
4
১ requested for striking out the defence of the management, but when representative of the management filed his authority letter, petitioners did not press their application which was dismissed as withdrawn on 5-5-95 . The petitioners produced, as their witness. Baldev Singh on 24-11-95, Ashok Kumar on 8-1-96. The management produced Sh. T.R. Aggarwal as their witness on 12-2-96. The petitioners closed their evidence on 8-1-96 whereas the management did so on 12-2-96, after the statement of the management's witness T.R. Aggarwal was recorded.
.... Claimant
Versus
The Chief Engineer, Bhakra Beas Management Board, Nangal Township, Distt.Ropar.
Respondent
APPEARANCES :
For the Workman : Shri R.K. Singh
For the Management : Shri R.C. Sharda.
AWARD
The Govt . of India vide its notification No. L-42011/6/91 - IRDU, dt . 30-9-91 , has referred the following dispute for the adjudication of this Industrial Tribunal: - "Whether the action of the Chief Engineer, B.B.M.Β. , Nangal Township in terminating the services of S/ Sh . Ashok Kumar, Baldev Singh , Binder Pal and Gurdial Singh we.f. 30-9-89 , 30-9-89 , 31-10-89 and 30-9-89 respectively is justified? If not , to what relief the concerned workmen are entitled?"
2.On the receipt of reference it was registered in the register of this Tribunal and notices were issued to the parties . Sh . R.K. Singh appeared for the workman as their representative whereas the management appeared through their representative . The petitioners filed claim statement on 22-25th May, 1992 , whereas the management filed the written statement on 26-11-92 . The parties took opportunities to file replication and affidavits . Before the same was filed an application for production of record was made on 30-3-94 . The rejoinders were filed on 2-12-94 and on request , time was given for filing the reply and then the file was put up for the consideration of application seeking production of documents . The management produced the seniority list of the workers and in view of that the workers did not press for the consideration of their applicationdt . 30-3-94 . As such the same was dismissed as withdrawn . Four affidavits were filed on 20-1-95 and the case was adjourned for cross - examination of the workmen on 17-2-95 .
3. The Court orders further read that petitioners examined Baldev Singh on 17-2-95 . The petitioners 4. Itmaybe noted here that Baldev Singh, one of the petitioner, made statement , in the owurt on 17-2-95 whereby he stated that he will not press for the adjudication of the reference and shall for- go his back - wages , besides the claim of seniority, provided them management engages him on a regular appointment as Baildar/Fitter within one month from that date. He further, stated that he will not claim any other reliefnor a claim for past service benefits . What happened to his offer is not knows so far.
5. In their statements of claim, messers. Ashok Kumar, Baldev Singh, Binder Pal and Gurdial Singh have jointly put up the claim that they had joined the services, with the management initially in Jan. 1986, Jan , 1987 April 1980, and 1st Jan. 1996 respectively; that their services were terminated in September & October 1989. In case of S/Sh . Ashok Kumar, Baldev Singh and Gurdial Singh on 30-9-89 and in the case of Binder Pal on 31-10-89 , which gave cause for the present Industrial Dispute . The conciliationproceedings , before ALC (C) , Chandigarh also failed as result of which the matter was referred to the Govt. , which on its part, made the present reference , as noted above . It is further alleged that the management maintained the seniority of the petitioner's w.e.f. 1-04-88 , but their earlier service was ignored stating that their earlier will not be considered so as to give them the seniority. Thus, the management did not comply with the provisions ofSection 25 (F) and ( G) of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947, hereinafter to be referred as ' Act' . The management further failed in its duty in serving a notice on the petitioners in terms ofSection 25 (F) sub - section (A) , therefore, the action of the management in terminating the service of the petitioner is illegal & viod - abinito . They did not pay any retrenchment compensation and for that reason also the terminating of the petitioners, in the light of sub -section B of Section 25 (F) of the Act is bad. The petitioners further allege that the management followed the policy of victimization . They retainedjuniors , recruited new hands , but never gave the option to the petitioners for re- employment and thereby violated Section 25 (H) of the Act. The petitioners have claimed that they are entitled for reinstatement , besides to the continuity in service and full back-wages . The petitioners , in support oftheir claim , have placed on record a photocopy of service record of Sh . Ashok Kumar, one of the petitioners.
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii ) ]
6153 भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 9, 2004/आश्विन 17, 1926
proceeding disengagement , therefore , no notices were issued to them nor any retrenchment competition was paid to them . They have further claimed that no juniors of petitionerswere re-employed by the management nor any pick and choose policy was followed. They have prayed for dismissal of the reference being of no merit.
6. The management has opposed the petition. In their preliminary objections it is claimed by the management that the petitioners have no existing right nor any such right was apprehended, therefore , the present reference is not maintainable. According, to them the seniority ofthe workers is being maintained at the divisional level and the samewas duly circulated vide No. 30315-450/PD/468-87/ A7 dt . 08-08-88 . The seniority list was prepared in compliance to the directions ofthe Himachal Pradesh, High Courtpassed in Civil Writ Petition No. 27/88 , in the caseof Ram Piari & others Vs. B.B.M.B. The approach in maintaining the seniority was further upheld by the Himachal Pradesh, High Court in Civil Writ PetitionNo. 274/1990, in the case ofKishnu Ram & others Vs. B.B.M.B. decided on 19-07-90. According to them even theHon'ble Supreme Court did not disturb the system of maintaining the seniority list as they did not disturb the judgement of Himachal Pradesh, High Court,delivered on 19-07-90 in the case (Supra) . Even the Punjab & Haryana High Court did not disturb the policy on framing the seniority list initiated by instructionsdt. 08-07-88.
7. The management has further submitted that the seniority of the workers is being maintained as per the instruction dt . 08-07-88 and the same seniority is being followed in redeployment, in the case ofstart of new work, on need for fresh labour, except in the case of emergency like floods ,breaches in the canal etc.
10. The petitioners filed rejoinder , after the written statement of the respondent , in which they stated that the objections raised by the management are of no worth in the light of adjudication of the various High Courts and Supreme Courts of the India. Also because the reference was made by the Govt . of India , after the due consideration and investigation . They have contested the claim of the management, with the help of Judgement of Punjab & HaryanaHigh Court, passed in CWP No. 6589 of 1988, in the case ofGian Singh Vs. B.B.M.B. and have claimed that the seniority was to be maintained division -wise in one pool. On merit no worthwhile facts were stated and the petitioners have only described the claim of the management, made in the written statement, as incorrect, irrelevant, and liable to be rejected . They reiterated that the petitioners hadperformed duties continuously for 240 days, therefore, theywere entitled for notice or notice pay besides retrenchment compensation , at the time of their retrenchment . They have claimed that the managementhas retained 1200workers in, Sent. 1993, who were retrenchment from BCB , whereas the petitioners were not given chance.
11. As stated earlier petitionera filed the affidavits ofBaldev Singh, Ashok Kumar , Gurdial Singh andBinder Pal . They also placed on record detail ofworking days on which the petitioners performed their duties, besides the seniority list . The management tendered the affidavit of one T.R. Aggarwal, SDO and also placed on record on a number of documents including the seniority list , as maintained by them.
12. The petitioners, who appeared as witnesses, made the following statement :
Baldev Singh, in his statement recorded on 24-02-95 admitted the contents of his affidavit Ex. Ml besides that ofdocuments Ex. W2 to W5 . When cross -examined by the representative of the respondent, he stated that he does not know whether he had served for 240 days in 12 calendar months . He admitted that the management has prepared seniority list in the year 1988 , but he cannot say whether that seniority list was prepared on the directions of the High Court. He also showed his ignorance about the retrenchment and deployment of the workers according to the seniority list. He claimed that he is unemployed since 1989; and that the management had deployed Ram Lalas Fitter for 4 months, after his termination. He categorically claimed un-employment since his retrenchment .
8. The management has also disputed the case of petitioners on merits . They have not denied the engagement ofthe petitioners as daily- wagers , but stated that they had worked intermittently in different divisions as per the detail enclosed . They were engaged on special jobs of replacement of steal ropes of gates of Nangal Dam and changing of roller of canal Head Regulator at Lohand. After the completion of the jobs their services were no more required. The management has reiterated that the seniority of the daily rated worker was prepared on divisional level ; and that only those worker who hadworked continuously for a period of 6 months immediately. proceeding 01-04-88 were eligible to be included in the divisional seniority list; that none of the petitioners were qualified tobe included in the seniority list; and that as per the record ofthe management the seniority of petitioners , in theNangal Dam Division, stood at 2,1,3, of fitter trade and No. 1 in the welder trade at the time they were disengaged from service in September/October 1989. They have further claimed that the casual labour is being deployed as per the seniority filed requirement . However, as and when the need is over the casual labour is disengaged, again strictly according to the seniority and after the following of proper procedure , as prescribed by thepolicydirection.
9. The management has claimed that the petitioners didnot complete 240 days in their service, during 12 months
Ashok Kumar, another petitioner, admitted the contents of his affidavit, placed on record , and the same 6154
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: OCTOBER 9 , 2004/ASVINA 17, 1926
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]
bad in law. It is further claimed, by them , that the management followed the policy of victimization . They retained thejuniors of the petitioner's in service, recruited new hands , but they never gave option to the petitioner for re-eniployment and thus they further violated the provisions of Section 25 (H) of the Act .
was exhibited as Ex. W6 . In cross - examination he stated that it is wrong to say that he had not worked for 240 days , in one division . He admitted that the seniority list was prepared on the directions of the High Court and stated that he was made to work in various divisions , by the management ; that he is married having two children and unemployed.
15. The managements as opposed the claim ofthe petitioners stating that petitioners are not entitled to any reliefsince theydo not fulfill the requirement ofprovisions of Section 25 of the Act, as they had not served the management for 240 days so as to be declared as workman , forthepurposes ofthe Act. It is their case that in terms of the circular ofthe management respondent , No. 303 15-450/ PD/468-87/A7 dated 08-08-88, the seniority of the workman was to be prepared and according to that policy every workman was placed in the seniority list w.e.f. 01-04-88, ifhe had continuous service , at his credit, for at least 6 months immediately before that date. As per the policytheregisters ofdaily rated workers were requiredto be prepared and maintained according, to the seniority at the divisional, sub-divisional and sectional level separately. For inclusion in the seniority, list, the requirement of 6 months continuous service was a pre -condition , before the date from which the seniority list was to take effecti.e. 01-04-88 . The management has further claimed that the same seniority list was taken into consideration in the case of re- employment of the workers , in the case of start of new work, on need for fresh labour basis except in the case of emergencies like floods , breaches in cartals etc. Sh. T.R. Aggarwal , the witness for the management, inhis statement recorded on 12-02-96 , admitted the contents. of his affidavit and the same was exhibited as Ex. M1 . He was thoroughly cross -examined, by the representative of the petitioners . In the cross -examination , he admitted that the service of the petitioners were governed by certified standing orders and admitted that Sh. Binder Pal, one of the petitioner , had worked for 240 days, in one division. He then corrected himself and stated that Binder Pal had worked only for 216 days and showed his lack ofknowledge ofletter ofthe personal office of B.B.M.B. dt . 05-01-93, by which the concerned rep . of workmen was informed that the workman has rendered services for 240 days, in a calendar year, before the termination of the services . He denied the employment of one Ram Nath as Fitter/Welder in Nangal Dam Division and admitted that one Bhagwan Dass is working with the management as Fitter, but stated that the said Bhagwan Dass had never worked on daily- wages basis , therefore , his name did not figure in the seniority list . He also could not say whether the said Bhagwan Dass was employed on regular basis . He admitted that no notice was issued to the workers nor they were paid retrenchment compensation. He also denied that the petitioners were illegally retrenched though the vacancies were available .
12. I have heard the representatives of the parties and have also through the record.
13. By this reference the Government of India has desired of this Tribunal to find out whether the action of Chief Engineer , BBMB, Nangal Township , Himachal Pradesh, in terminating the services of S/Sh. Ashok Kumar, Sh. Baldev Singh and Sh. Gurdial Singh w.e.f. 30-09-89 and ofBinder Pal w.e.f. 31-10-89 was justified or not . The appropriate Government has further required of this Tribunal to say as to what relief the workmen are entitled to incase the action of the said engineer was not justified.
16. The Management has disputed the case ofthe petitioner on merits stating that the workers , in this reference, had not worked for the management continuously. They worked intermittently and that to in different divisions of the respondents management . They were engaged on special jobs like replacement ofsteal ropes of gates of Nangal Dam and changing of roller of canal head regulate at Lohand and after the completion of their jobs , their services were no more required and since they had not continuously worked for 6 months , immediately before 01-04-88, therefore, they were not included in the seniority list. The management has further claimed that theyhad engaged the casual labourers as and when there was need, strictly " according to the seniority" and after following the prescribed policy. They have categorically denied that anyjuniors of the petitioners were re -employed or any pick and choose policy was followed.
are: The points which are required to be considered,
(1) Whether the petitioners had rendered continuous service of 240 days so as to claim benefits Under Section 25 (F) ofAct ,
14. The workman , named above , in their statement of claim alleged that they had joined the services with the Management of BBMB and worked till September and October 1989 as noted in the order of reference when their services were terminated by the management without following the provisions of the Act . They have specifically claimed that the management neither served upon them noticebefore terminating their services nor they paid the salary in lieu of the notice period . No retrenchment compensation was paid to them. Thus , the termination is
(ii) Whether the Management had violated the provision of the Act in not giving option to the petitioners of re-employment and recruited fresh [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
6155 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 9, 2004/आश्विन 17, 1926
hands or retained juniors to the petitioners in service. ?
in the gates and gearing sub-division of Nangal Dam Division . Baldev Singh had also served for 227 days and Gurdial Singh also for that period. So all the 3 had not completed 240 days in one year preceding the date of their termination. Therefore, these petitioners have failed to show that they had served for 240 days in the year preceding the date of their termination so as to get the benefit of Section 25 (F) of the Act.
19. As regards the case of Binder Pal , he had definitely served for 258 days in the year preceding the date ofhistermination on 31-10-89 .
The petitioners , in support of their claim, about the rendering of service to the management claimed, in the statement of claim that they had began serving the management in case of Ashok Kumar from Jan , 1986 in case ofBaldev Singh from Jan , 1987 , in case of Binder Pal from 04-04-86 and in the case of Gurdial Singh from 01-06-86. According to them the services of Binder Pal were terminated on 31-10-89 ; and that of rest of the petitioners on 30-09-89. Along with their statement of claim they have placed on record the detail of the services rendered by petitioner Ashok Kumar for the period 03-10-85 to September 1989. As per the detail given the petitioner had not served continuously for 6 months preceding 01-04-88 . He did not work for the management after 26-04-87 till 03-01-88 . Thus in the 6 months preceding 01-04-88 he worked for a period about 3 months and before that he had not worked for about 7 months for the respondents by a rough estimates . Similarly, Baldev Singh also did not work for 6 months continuously preceding 01-04-88 . Same can also be said about Gurdial Singh . Thus the petitioners have no justifiable claimsto make for their entry in the seniority list in terms of the policy referred to above framed by the management .
20. The management produced Sh. T. R. Aggarwal as their witness, who in the beginning of his statement admitted that Binder Pal had served the management for 240 days but later on retracted from that statement and claimed that Binder Pal had served only for 216 days.He also could not say anything about a letter alleged to have beenwritten by the personal officer of the management BBMB, photocopy of which was placed on record . He admitted that nở notice was given to the workman before the termination of their services nor any retrenchment compensation was paid . He further denied that the workmen were terminated from services even when the vacancies were available . In their written statement also the management admitted that no notice was issued to the workman nor any retrenchment compensation was paid to them since the workman had not completed the service of 240 days , preceding 12 months from the date of termination oftheir services . Thus , in case of Binder Pal the Management has failed to show that the workman had not served for 240 days. There is sufficient evidence, on recordto show that this workman had served for 240 days in ayear preceding the date of termination of services and in his case no notice was given to him nor he was paid salaries in lieu ofthe notice period. It is also not shown that he was paid retrenchment compensation . There is also no evidence to show that the management had sought the permission of the appropriate Government before the termination of services of this workman , In his case the violation of Section 25 (F ) is proved against the management.
17. The petitioners have tried to challenge the policy on the basis that they were employees of the management , whichwas headed by one Chief Engineer, Therefore, their services , in whatever division of the Management they have performed, should be counted in their credited and then decided as to whether they are entitled for seniority or not. There is no weight in this submission since the policy in question was framed in compliance to the Judgement ofHimachal Pradesh , High Court , in the case ofRam Piari & others Vs. BBMB , passed in Civil. Writ Petition No. 27/1988 (Supra) . The policy again came for the consideration of the same High Court in the case of Kishnu Ram & Others C.W.P.No. 274/90 decided on 19-07-90 and the same was upheld . Hon'ble Supreme Court of India also did not disturb the decision of the Himachal Pradesh , High Court, by an order passed in the case of Kishnu Ram & Others (Supra ) civil appeal No. 5635 of 1990 decided on 25-11-90 . Thus the policy framed by the management received the stamp of Supreme Court of India so the petitioner cannot challenge the same .
21. The workman has placed much reliance upon a judgement of Hon'ble High Court ofPunjab & Haryana passed in the case ofBBMB Board Vs. Presiding Officer, CGIT, Chd. & others in CWP No. 10399 of 2003. The Hon'ble Division Bench in this case was seized with the matter of an award passed by this Tribunal on 19-09-2002. In that case this court had passed an award against the management holding that the workman had worked for 240 days preceding the date of his retrenchment and the management had retrenched his services saying that since the workman has not worked in one division , therefore , he was not entitled to claim continuous service under the management so as to make it 240 days , preceding the date 18. Now, coming to the question of violation of Section 25 (F) of the Act as claimed by the petitioner. I am of the opinion that the petitioners have no case on that count also except in the case of Binder Pal. The services ofMessers Ashok Kumar, Baldev Singh and Gurdial Singh were terminated on 30-09-89 . If we examine their period of service i.e. 240 days in one year preceding the date of their termination, we find that as per the detail placed on record Ashok Kumar had served for 227 days
2908 G1/04-29 6156
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9 , 2004/ ASVINA 17 , 1926
ofhis termination from the services . The Hon'ble Division Bench did not agree with the management and held that the employee workman was an employee of BBMB , a statutory body, constituted under the Punjab Reorganizations Act , 1966. The designated authority under the said Act was Executive Engineer who could be termed as an employer of the workman . As such the workman cannot be termed to have been engaged under two different employers , since the two divisions in which he worked were controlled and managed by the statutory authority i.e. BBMB therefore , there was no reason not to clubbed the service of the workman in one for the purposes of holding whether or not he had served for 240 days under one division in a year proceeding from the date of his retrenchment . There is nothing in this Judgement to show that policy framed by the management referred to above was brought to the notice of Hon'ble Division Bench along with the fact that the said policy had received the approval of Hon'ble Superme court of India in the case of Kishnu Rain & Others (Supra) in civil appeal No. 5635 on 1990 decided in November 1990 , Even otherwise it makes little difference since this case belongs to Himachal Pradesh and the judgements of Himachal Pradesh , High Court in the Case of Ram Piari and Kishnu Ram & Others ( Supra) have binding force over this Tribunal . As such authority of Punjab & Haryana High Court referred to by the petitioner, has no effect in the present case. In my opinion this Judgement is not helpful to the petitioner to count their services of two divisions so as to find out whether they had served for 240 days preceding the date of their termination from services . The Judgement referred to by the petitioner in the case ofGain Singh Vs. Union of India CWP No. 6589 of 1988 is also of no help to them since the said matter pertained to the period before 01-4-1988 when the management framed the new policy in compliance to the direction of High Court ofHimachal Pradesh ,
22. As regards the claim of the petitioners about the violation of provisions of Section 25 G &H of the Act. I find that the petitioners have failed to prove that the management had recruited fresh hands without providing them opportunity of re -employment or their services were terminated though their juniors were retained in service. On this count the prayer of the petitioner is rejected.
23.After considering the facts and circumstances , asbrought on record by the parties , I answer the reference holding that the action of the Chief Engineer, BBMB , Nangal Township , Himachal Pradesh in terminating the services of Sh. Ashok Kumar, Sh Baldev Singh , Sh . Gurdial Singh was justified and legal . However , it was not justified in the case of Binder Pal since he had completed continuous service of 240 days in the year preceding the date of termination of services on 31-10-89 . Thus he is deemed to be in service all through this period as if there was no order of termination of his services . He is entitled
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]
4
برها to wages aswell as continuity in service with all benefits . As regards the payment ofback wages , I am of the opinion that the interest ofjustice demands that 50 per cent of the backwages be paid to the workman since he did not work for the management during this period, though technically not because of his fault. The management has failed to bring on record any evidence to show that this workman remained gainfully employed all through this period. However, it cannot be accepted , by any stretch of argument that heremained idle during this period and still survived and also fed his family. The award is passed in these terms. Let a copy of it be sent to the Govt . of India for appropriate action. The file be consigned to record after duecompletion.
KULDIP SINGH, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 10 सितम्बर, 2004
का.आ. 2528.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार रीफल स्टेशन फॉर फोरेज प्रोडक्शन एण्ड डेमोन्स्ट्रेशन के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और ठमके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 78/92 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-9-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं० एल-42012/99/91- आई आर ( डी यू) ] कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डैस्कअधिकारी NewDelhi , the 10th September, 2004
S.O. 2528. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 78/92) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure inthe Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Regional station for Forage Production and Demonstration and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 10-09-2004.
[No. L-42012/99/91 - IR (DU)] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT, CHANDIGARH
Presiding Officer , Shri Kuldeep Singh Case No. IL.D. 78/92 Recived on 20-7-92 Registered on 20-7-92 Decided on 30-8-2004 6157 भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 9 , 2004/आश्विन17, 1926
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]
Ram Sarup son of Chandgi Ram resident of 1188 , M.С.
H.Bharat Nagar, Hissar- 125001
Applicant.
Versus
Management , Regional- Station for Forage Production and Demonstration . Through its Director.
Respondent
APPEARANCES :
For the Workman
: Shri Manjit Singh
: Shri Arun Walia
Forthe Management
AWARD
neither served with any notice nor was given one month's salary in lieu thereof (notice ) . That the management. acknowledged the performance of duties by the workman by their letter dt . 2-2-87, placed on record as Annexure . Cl . Thus, the workman served the management for more than 240days , which fact was certified by ALC(C) Rohtak. That the management retained juniors to the workman in service whereas they retrenched his services and the Director of the respondent acted malafidely and arbitrarily in doing so, as he engaged his relations in place of the workman. Themanagement thus violated the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, hereinafter to be referred as ' Act' . They did not even follow the principles of natural justice and equity. The petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order ofhis termination, after declaring the same illegal malafide and intentional . He has also sought directions to the management to re- instate him in service and for payment of full back-wages, since the workman, did not remain gainfully employed all through this period.
Exercising the powers conferred U/s 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (hereinafter referred to as theAct ), the Central Government vide No. L-42012/99/91 IR(DU) has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal foradjudication: -
"Whether the action of the Management ofRegional Station for Forage Production and Demonstration, Hissar interminating the services ofSh. Ram Sarup w.e.f. 14-4-88 isjustified ? Ifnot, what reliefhe is entitledto?"
2. This is the reference, this Tribunal received on 16-7-1992 from the Government of India vide their notification No. L-42012/99/91 and the same was entered in the concerned register as ID No. 78/92. The notice ofthe reference hadbeen given to the parties , by the appropriate Government alongwith the submission ofthe reference to this court and in reply to that the parties appeared on 17-9-92. The petitioner filed his statement of claim on 7-10-93 to which the management filed written statement on 30-9-94 the management also placed on record documents shown as annexure . R1 , R2 along with their written statement . The petitioner filed rejoinder to the written statement on 27-2-96 . On the same day he also filed his affidavit . The management further placed on record some documents such as photo copy of letter, photo copy ofawardand photo copy ofMuster rolls pertaining to the years 1986, 1987 comprising of 22 pages .
3. In support of his claim the workman appeared as a witness whereas the management produced Shri S. C. Bhattacharya as their witness.
5. The management has opposed the claim of the petitioner stating that the same is not maintainable since themanagement respondent is not an industry as defined by the Act. According to them Regional Station for Forage Production and Demonstration is an office of the Government of India, which is a subordinate office of Ministry of Agriculture, New Delhi . They have claimed that the Regional station was created by Govt . order No. 14-2/69 -LD - III , dt. 7-2-69 so as to achieve the objective of introduction of Fodder Crops in the existing crop rotation, and such other objects as are given in the written statement. That the services rendered by the Station are free ofcost and the expenses of the station are met by the Govt . of India. That Industrial Tribunal , Hyderabad has already held that the Regional Station for Forage Production and Demonstation is not an Industry. That the applicant is not a workman besides theres delay and latches in the submission of the claim. Claire was raised , for the first time, on 5-6-90 , before the ALC . The claim is also bad since the Union of India a necessary party in the circumstances , has notbeen arrayed. Admitting at the workman was engaged in August 1986 , it is submits by the respondents that the workman had left the job at as own, on 15-3-88 without any intimation or information to the respondent . They have placed on record copies of the applications of the workman dt. 11-6-88 and marked as Amayxure . R3 and R4 . They have further admitted that the vorkman had worked from 23-8-86 to 14-3-88 , as per the detail given in para 4 of the written statement. Denying the contents of the other paras ofthe objection the respondents have prayed for rejecting the claim of the petitioner.
6. The petitioner, in hi statement, on oath, recorded on16-11-98 admitted the contents of his affidavit as correct. In cross -examination he stated that from 15-3-88 onward hedidnotwork for the manas, ment and the applicationEx. M1 was submitted by him. The Medical Certificate Ex. M2 4. The workman in his statement of claim has submitted that he hadjoined the service ofthe management inthe month ofAugust, 1986,as Chowkidar, on a salary of Rs. 800 per month. That the Director of the respondent terminated the services of the workman in Feb. , 1988 , verbally for the reason known to him, The workman was 6158
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9 , 2004/ASVINA 17, 1926
PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii)]
(ii ) That the workman was not paid retrenchment compensation by the management and that;
is not false . That Ex. M3 is another application which he had made on 11-6-88 . That the inanagement asked him to come after 2/3 months , but later on they refused to take him in employement . Thereafter. he had made an application to the Labour Commissioner.
(iv) That there is also no evidence to show that theManagement had informed the appropriate Govt. about the termination of the workman or had obtained permission in that regard.
7. Sh . S.C. Bhattacharya who appeared as witness for the management also admitted, as correct , his affidavit Ev . M4. He further stated that the workman was engaged as a casual labour in August 1986 , but denied that the workman had worked as a Chowkidar. He further admitted that the workman had served upto 14-3-88 , and that there was no complaint against his work and conduct , and that the workman was paid on monthly basis and the holidays and sunday's were included in the working days . After examining the original Muster Roll , the copies of which were placed on record and Exhibitted as Ex . M5 , containing 1 to 22 pages , he stated that the Sunday's are not included in the working days of the workman for the period August 1986 to March 1988. He further admitted that the workman had worked for 240 days immediately preceeding the date ofhis termination . He had further admitted that no notice oftermination was given to the petitioner nor he was paid the retrenchment compensation . The workman was also not chargeshceted nor any inquiry was held against him. He however, denied that applications Ex.M1 and M3 , were made by the workman at the instance of inanagement or that the workman was put off for being taken in service for 2 years .
10. There is no doubt that the management has claimed that the workman had abandoned the service, but they have failed to produce any evidence to show that the workman had in fact done so. The management has relied upon two applications , of the workman, Ex. M1 and Ex.M3 , which also suggest that the workman was ill therefore, he could not attend to his duty w.e.f. 1-4-88 and requested for leaveupto 14-6-88, on account of his ill health . In Ex.M3 he again contended that he was not well for the last 3 months, therefore, he could not attend to his duties and for that he had already made an application to the Management . On record I find a certificatedt . 4-5-88 , issued by Dr. T. A. Kidwai , who certified that the workman was under his treatment from 1-4-88 to 4-5-88 . On the application of petitioner Ex. Ml there is an order passed by an officer of the Management , who noted that the workman has left the job without information to the competent authority and has made the application after one and a half month . Therefore, he cannot be re -engaged he did not come for the work earlier..These documents suggest that the management did not enquire into the truth and false-hood ofthe claim ofthe petitioner, that he was ill and therefore , he could not attend to his duties from 1-4-88 till 17-5-88. They, in an arbitrary manner came to the conclusions that the workman has left the job without informing the competent authority. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it has to be accepted that the workman could not attend to his duties due to his ill health . In such a circumstance the management should not have terminated him from the services without a notice and without following the provisions of Section 25 - F of the Act .
8. The witness further admitted that the Regional Station owns 150 acre of land, two tractors , trolleys and has four functioning tubewells , but denied that the Fodder Produced by the management , is sold in the city, or that he has made a wrong statement . He admitted that bareley, maize , grass , millet, mustard and seeds are sown in the farm. He denied the knowledge that after the termination of petitioner , Sanjay and Umed , were appointed as labourers . He further stated that the workman was marked absent from 15-3-88 since he had left the job himself. He admitted that no notice was issued to the workman to join his duties or about his absence .
11. The management has lead much stress on their claim that they are not an ' Industry' . Therefore , the present reference is not maintainable against them . Section 2(J ) of theAct defines industry in the following manner :
9. The combined reading of the pleadings of the parties, their sworn terstimonies and statement made by their witnessess , before this Tribunal , the following facts emerge out undisputed.
" Industry " means any business , trade , undertaking manufacture or calling ofemployers and includes any calling, service , employment , handicraft, or industrial occupation or avocation ofworkman" .
(i) That the petitioner workman had served the management for the period August 1986 to March 1988 , continuously and thus he served for 240 days continuously proceeding the date ofhis termination on 15-3-88 .
(ii ) That the workman was not given a noticebefore his termination nor was paid salary for the noticeperiod.
12. The definition of the Industry fell for the consideration of Hon'ble Supreme Court in a number of cases and the law is laid down by their Lordship of Supreme Court in the case ofBangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board Vs. A. Rajappa, reported as 1978 Lab . I.C. 467. Their Lordship considered the earlier judgements of the Apex Courtand ofdifferent High Courts of the country. Hon'ble
!
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3(ii) ]
6159 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 9 , 2004/आश्विन 17, 1926
enumerated the objectives for which Institute is established. Objective shown as Sr. No. 8 reads as under:---
"Production of high quality foundation seeds of Forage Crops for further multiplication and distribution " .
The other objectives noted also clearly indicate that thejob undertaken by the management was to satisfy the human wants and wishes , of better Fodder Crop and increased production. Thus , there is no weight in the claim of the respondents , that they are not Industry since they were engaged in the research work and were not engaged inthe commercial activity.
14. After considering the rival contentions of the parties , the evidence brought on record and the law referred to in the case I answer the reference in the following. manner:-
V.R. Krishna Iyer who wrote the leading judgement held that an establishment is an industry where there is (i) systematic activity, ( ii) organised by co -operation between employer and employee . The direct and specific element is chimerical, ( iii ) for the production and/or distribution of goods and for services calculated, to satisfy human wants and wishes, that are not spiritual and religious , inclusive of material things or services gear to celestial bliss , i.e. working , on a large scale parsad and food. His Lordship held that business of profit motive or gainful objective , is irrelevant. Be a venture in public , joint or private or other sector. According to His Lordship , the true focus is functional and the decisive test is the nature ofthe activity with special emphasis on the employer and employee relationship . According to His Lordship ifthe organisation is a trade or business it does not cease tobe onebecause ofphilanthrophy animating the undertaking. Their Lordship relied upon the judgement ofthe Apex Court reported in AIR- 1953 Supreme Court 58 .
That the action of the Management of Regionál Station for Forage Production and Demonstration, Hissar in terminating the services of workman Ram Sarup was not justified.
The management did not follow the law contained in, Section 25 (F) of the Act and they violated the same in a letter and spirit. Thus , the termination of the workman's service isbad in law and non-existent . He did held to be in service as if there was no order of his termination from service. It has come on record that the workman has remained absent on account of his ill health from the 1-4-88 to 11-6-88, the day he reported for duty, but was not allowed to join. The management shall examine the claim of the petitioner for grant of sick or any other leave for that period. However, the workman shall be considered to be on duty w.e.f. 11-6-88, if not earlier, if the Management finds the claim ofworkman for grant of leave for genuine then he shall be treatedto be on duty from the day he was terminated fromservice.
:
15. The next question to be considered is that of back-wages . It is true that the workman did not work for theManagement during this period. The Management has failed to prove that the workman was gainfully engaged during this period, but this fact cannot be ignored that the workman could not have survived without working anywhere. Though he may aot be fully engaged, buthe mustbedoing somejob to earn his livelihood to feed himeolf and his family. Thus his claim for full back -wages is not justified. In the circumstances I allow the workman: fifty per cent of this back-wages which he would have drawn, but for his termination from service by theManagement with continuety to service and other benefits. The referenge is answered. Let a copy of this award be sent to the Government of India for necessary action . File bebe consigned to the records after due completion.
13. The Management's case is that they are not an industry and their organisation is engaged in the research and development of forage , a fodder , produced for the animals and for the Demonstation thereof. They have further claimed that the activities of their station are not for commercial purposes and are purely for a research purposes . Hon'ble Iyer considered this aspect also in the case ofBangalore Sewerage (Supra) and held that the absence ofprofit motives or gainful objectives is irrelevant . What is relevant is the systematic activity carried on in an organised manner with co- operation of employer and employees . The management has by their own pleadings admitted that they are engaged in the production ofForge though they have claimed that it is for the development of theFodder and for its Demonstration . Whatever, may be the reasons, but the job of undertaking - respondent, is to satisfy the human wants and wishes , which are neither religious nor spiritual . Over ruling the judgements ofApex Court inthe case ofSafdarjung Hospital reported as AIR- 1970, Supreme Court 1407. Their Lordship held that research institutes, Albert run without profit motives are also industries. In the case ofphysical Research Lab. Vs. K.G. Sharma reported as ( 1997) 2LLJ625 , No doubt it was held that physical research laboratory is not Industry, primarily on the ground that it was not rendering any service to others. It was engaged purely for research in space science. Similarly, distinction was drawn by the single Bench of Jharkhand, High Court, in the case of Central Rain -Fed Upland RiceResearch Institute Vs. Union of India reported as (2002) 2LLn655 (Jhar ). His Lordship hold that the Rice Institute was not an Industry since it has no objective to produce and distribute any service to satisfy the need of consumer community. In the present case of Management has failed to bring anything on record to show that the Fodder producedby them was not meant for satisfying the human wants . Rather, in their written statement they
KULDIP, SINGH, PresidingOfficer 6160
THEGAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9, 2004/ASVINA 17, 1926
[PART II-SEC, 3(ii )]
AWARD
नई दिल्ली, 10 सितम्बर, 2004
का. आ. 2529,-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार दूर संचार विभाग के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 193/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-9-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
This is a case taken under Sec . 2 A (2 ) of the I.D. Act , 1947 by the Labour Court - III, Hyderabad in view of the judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra 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 and transferred to this Court in view of the Government of India , Ministry of Labour'S Order No. H- 11026/1 /2001 - IR (C-II) dated 18-10-2001 bearing I.D. No. 66/2000 and renumbered in this Court as L.C.I.D. No. 193/2001 .
[सं. एल -40025 /22/2004- आई आर ( डी यू) ] कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डैस्कअधिकारी
New Delhi , the 10th September, 2004
2. The brief facts as mentioned in the petition are: That the Petitioner was appointed on 1-11-80 as casual mazdoor and worked continuously till 30-9-82 and his services were terminated by oral order dated 1-10-82 by theRespondent herein. The said order was unjust , illegal and liable to be set aside by virtue ofthe said order. The Petitioner became unemployed inspite ofseveral oral and written requests , nothing was done. Hence , he raised a dispute before the ALC (C) for conciliation.
S.O. 2529.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 193/2001 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court, Hyderabad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Deptt . of Telecom and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 10-9-2004 .
[No. L-40025 /22/2004- IR (DU) ] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
3. A counter was filed stating that the Petitioner was never appointed nor terminated from the services. That the Petitioner earlier moved for conciliation before the ALC (C) , the conciliation ended in failure . His case was forwarded to the Secretary, Ministry of Labour and Employment and the Ministry has refused to refer the dispute for adjudication. Hence, the Petitioner is not entitledfor any relief.
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD
PRESENT :
Shri E. Ismail , B. Sc. , LLB. , Presiding Officer Dated the 29th day of July, 2004
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C. L. D. 193/2001
(Old I.D. No. 66/2000 Transferred from Labour Court -III, Hyderabad)
BETWEEN :
Sri . V. Prabhakar Rao ,
S/o Kotaiah ,
R/o H. No. 17-183/20 ,
4. The Petitioner examined himself as WW1 and deposed that he joined the Department on 1-11-80. He was not given any appointment order. He worked upto 30-9-82, on which date the Respondent asked him not to come to work from 1-10-82 . After the termination ofhis services some of his juniors were appointed in his place namely S./Sri T. Veera Swamy, A. Madhavaiah, E. Laxma Reddy, Thirupathaiah Goud , K. Gopal. He approached on 2-2-99 the ALC(C) , Hyderabad by way of representation videEx. W. 1. The conciliation officer closed the conciliation on 25-6-99 and sent failure report to the Government of India, Minutes of conciliation is Ex . W.2 . Ex. W 3 is corrigendum to failure report . Ex. W 4 is failure report. Hence, he may be reinstated.
Hanumannagar,
Petitioner
Mahaboobnagar.
AND
5. He was cross -examined . He denied that he did not seek the work and there are subsequent engagement ofcasual labour and now there is no work of casual labour.
The Sub - Divisional Officer,
4 Telecom,
Respondent
Mahaboobnagar.
APPEARANCES :
For the Petitioner : Sri K. Ravinder Goud, Advocate
6. The Respondent filed an affidavit of deposition by Bri . P. Krishnaiah, Sub- Divisional Officer, Telecom, Mahaboobnagar. He deposed that the engagement of Petitioner from 1-11-80 to 30-9-82 cannot be verified as the records has been for the said period has been weeded out by efflux of time as per retention schedules stipulated. Hence, the Petitioner is not entitled for any relief. In the cross examination he says that as there is no record For the Respondent : Sri R.S. Murthy, Advocate 6161 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 9, 2004/आश्विन17, 1926
Documents
available he cannot assert or deny the engagement of the Petitioner.
NIL
नई दिल्ली , 10 सितम्बर, 2004 7. It is argued by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the MW1 himselfhas stated that he cannot assert or deny the engagement ofthe Petitioner. Therefore, itmaybe safely concluded that the Petitioner has worked for more than 240 days . Hence , he may be reinstatedwith backwages . The Respondent's Counsel submits that even theGovernment of India refused to refer the matteras it is belated and raised in 1999 after a lapse of 17 years. Therefore he submits that the petition may be dismissed.
का. अर. 2530. औधोगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार दूर संचार विभाग के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सोधिक अधिकरण जयपुर के पंचाट को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केंद्रीय सरकार को 10-9-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-40012/26/89- (डी-11 ) ( श्री) ] कुलदीप ग्रुप वर्षा, वैस्क अधिकारी
NewDelhi , the 10th September, 2004
S.O. 2530.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Industrial Tribunal Jaipur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Deptt . of Telecom and their workman, whichwas received by the Central Govomment on 10-9-2004.
[No. L-40012/26/89-D-II (B) ] KULDIP RAI VERMA, DeskOfficer 8. It may be seen that no doubt as no records are available and even if it is presumed that the Petitioner worked from 1-11-30 to 30-9-82 still he has approached in 1999 to the ALC (C) and the Government ofIndia , Ministry ofLabour and Employment has refused to refer the matter. It may be noted that no doubt Industrial Disputes Act doesnot provide any limitation, but it does not mean that one can keep quite for 17 long years and after perhaps working somewhere else or engaging himself in other professioncan approach this Court as a chance litigation. Merely, because this Court is bound to take the petitions under Sec . 2 A (2 ) of the I.D. Act, 1947 in view of the Judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra 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. Hence, I am of the opinion that the Petitioner is not entitled to any relief except that whenever in future if any casual labour is engaged the Petitioner may be given preference taking his date of entry into service as 1-11-80 and his age as on 1-11-80.
अनुबन्ध
Awardpassed accordingly. Transmit.
केन्द्रीय औोगिक न्यायाधिकरण , जयपुर
केंस नं० सी.आई. टी. 117/89
Dictated to Kum. K. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected and pronounced by me on this the 29th day ofJuly, 2004.
E. ISMAIL, PresidingOfficer
रैफरेंस : केन्द्र सरकार, श्रम मंत्रालय, नई दिल्ली आदेश क्रमांक एल.40012/26/89 -ही- II (मी) दिनांक-3-11-89 Appendix ofevidence
असलम खान पुत्र श्री अलवाफ खान, प्लाट नं० 50, 11, ई रोड, सरदारपुरा जोधपुर ।
Witnesses examined for Witnesses examined for the the Petitioner Respondent
-प्रार्थी MW 1 : Sri P. Krishnaiah
बनाम
WW 1 : Sri V. Prabhakar Rao
Documents marked for the Petitioner
असिसटेंट डिवीजनल इंजीनियर, टेलीकाम (ए. डी. ई. टी. ) सेट ई/एस (एम) /जोधपुर ।
Ex. W 1 : Copy of representation to ALC(C) dt. 2-2-99 .
Ex.W2 : Copy of minutes of conciliation.
उपस्थित
Ex. W3: Copy ofcorrigeridum to failuré report.
पीठासीन अधिकारी : श्री पी.एल. हिस्सारिया, आर. एच. के. एस.
Ex. W4: Copy of failure report by ALC (C) , Hyderabad dt. 25-6-99.
प्रार्थी की ओर से श्री सी. पी. सर्मा Ex. W5 : Copy of representation to SDOT,
अप्रार्थी की ओर से: श्री टी. पी. शर्मा Mahaboobnagar dt . 1-2-99.
दिनांक अवार्ड: 9-7-2004 Ex.W6: Copy of list of casual mazdoors.
6162
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: OCTOBER 9 , 2004/ASVINA 17, 1926
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] अवार्ड
1. भारत सरकार, श्रम मंत्रालय , नई दिल्ली ने अपने उपरोक्त आदेश द्वारा निम्न विवाद इस न्यायाधिकरण को अधिनिर्णयार्थ प्रेषित किया है :
"Whether the action of the management ofA.D.E.T. Sect . E/ S (M) , Jodhpur in terminating the Services of Shri Aslam Khan , Daily Rated worker w.e.f. 1-1- 84 is just a legal ? If not , to what relief is the worker concerned entitled? "
26-10-83 तक कार्य किया । इस बीच 22-10-83 को प्रार्थी तथा एक अन्य दैनिक वेतन भोगी श्रमिक अतिउल्ला रात्रि डयूटी पर थे जिन्होंने दोनों ने डी.आर.एन. को मौखिक तथा लिखित शिकायत पेश की कि रात्रि में 9.45 बजे सैटेलाईट का दरवाज़ा खुला पाया, दो अपरिचित व्यक्ति देखे जब उन्होंने ग्रामवासियों को पुकारा तब देखने पर अंदर कोई नहीं पाया, यह उनका भ्रम था या क्या, यह वे नहीं बता सकते और इसे देखने के पश्चात् दूसरे श्रमिक अतिउल्ला खान ने 24-10-83 तथा प्रार्थी ने 27-10-83 से स्वेच्छा से काम पर आना बंद कर दिया, उन्हें विभाग से कभी निकाला नहीं गया । उसके काम पर आना बंद करने से इनके स्थान पर अन्य दैनिक श्रमिकों को रखा गया । प्रार्थी ने 27-10-83 से काम छोड़ने के पश्चात् अप्रार्थी विभाग में कभी कोई सम्पर्क न तो स्वयंकिया न पत्र के द्वारा किया । चार वर्ष पश्चात्दिनांक 12-10-87 को प्रार्थी ने एक पत्र विभाग को भेजा जिसमें उसने अप्रार्थी कार्यालय में 2-7-83 से मस्टररोल पर दैनिक वेतन के रूप में रखे होने की बात कही और आठ माह तक सेवाएं देने की बात कही जो पत्र पूर्णतया निराधार व गलत तथ्यों पर था । प्रार्थी को निकाला नहीं गया बल्किउसने स्वेच्छा से काम छोड़ा और लंबे समय तक कोई विवाद नहीं उठाया और अब 6 वर्ष पश्चात्1989 में यह विवाद उठाया है । इस देरी का कोई स्पष्टीकरण नहींदिया है । प्रार्थी दैनिक वेतन पर कार्यरत था, उसने 240 दिन कार्य किये बिना ही स्वयं कार्य छोड़कर चला गया , उसे निकाला नहीं गया। उसने कुल दैनिक वेतन भोगी के रूप में 144 दिन काम किया जिसका वेतन उसे दे दिया गया वह किसी प्रकार की राहत पाने का अधिकारी नहींहै । प्रार्थी का क्लेम खारिज किये जाने की प्रार्थना की है ।
4. प्रार्थी ने अपने क्लेम की पुष्टि में स्वयं का शपथ पत्र पेश किया है और दो दस्तावेज़ प्रदर्श डब्ल्यू 1 व डब्ल्यू-2 पेश किये हैं । प्रदर्श डब्ल्यू-1 समझौता वार्ता का प्रार्थना पत्र व डब्ल्यू-2 असफल वार्ता प्रतिवेदन है । प्रार्थी के शपथ पत्र पर अप्रार्थी के प्रतिनिधि ने जिरह की है । अप्रार्थी की ओर से श्री भवानी शंकर , सहायक अभियन्ता का शपथ पत्र पेश हुआ है जिससे प्रार्थी के विद्वान प्रतिनिधि ने जिरह की है और अप्रार्थी ने प्रदर्श एम -1 लगायत एम -19 कुल 19 दस्तावेज्ज प्रदर्शित करवाये हैं ।
2. प्रार्थी ने स्टेटमैंट ऑफ क्लेम पेश किया है जिसमें प्रार्थी ने वर्णित किया है कि प्रार्थी श्रमिक की प्रथम नियुक्ति अप्रार्थी द्वारा नियोजक कार्यालय से नाम मांगे जाने पर 2-4-83 को की गई और तब से वह लगातार मेहनत से कार्य करता रहा, कभी अपने कार्य से अनुपस्थित नहीं हुआ और 240 दिन से अधिक काम किया । अप्रार्थी प्रबन्धक द्वारा प्रार्थी की सेवाएं बिना कोई कारण बताये 1-1-84 से समाप्त कर दी गई। सेवा समाप्ति से पूर्व अप्रार्थी ने कोई वरिष्ठता सूची नहीं बनाई, प्रार्थी से कनिष्ठ श्रमिक मेवा राम नाई व डूंगर लाल अब भी अप्रार्थी के कार्यालय में कार्य कर रहे हैं जबकि कनिष्ठ श्रमिकों की सेवाएं समाप्त कीजानी चाहिये थी । अप्रार्थी प्रबन्धक की यह कार्यवाही अनुचित श्रम व्यवहार है । अप्रार्थी ने प्रार्थी की सेवा समाप्त करने के बाद कई नई नियुक्तियांकी हैं परन्तु प्रार्थी को कोई सूचना नहीं दी जबकि नई नियुक्ति मेंप्रार्थी को प्राथमिकता दी जानी चाहिये थी । इस प्रकार अप्रार्थी ने धारा 25-एच अधिनियम के प्रावधान का उल्लंघन किया है । अप्रार्थी ने प्रार्थी कीसेवा समाप्त करने से पूर्व धारा 25 - एफ अधिनियम की पालना में न तो कोई नोटिस दिया और न ही नोटिस के बदले एक माह के वेतन का भुगतान दिया न छंटनी का कोई मुआवज़ा दिया। प्रार्थी की सेवाएं अप्रार्थी ने बिना कारण बताये , बिना कोई आरोप पत्र जारी किये तथा बिना किसी प्रकार की जांच कार्यवाही किये समाप्त की है जो अवैध एवं अनुचित हैं तथा प्राकृतिक न्याय सिद्धान्त के विपरीत हैं । प्रार्थी ने यूनियन के माध्यम से विवाद उठाया परन्तु समझौता अधिकारी के समक्ष अप्रार्थी की हठधर्मिता के कारण वार्ता असफल रही और केन्द्र सरकार ने यह विवाद न्याय निर्णय हेतु इस अधिकरण को प्रेषित कर दिया । प्रार्थी उसकी सेवा पृथक्करण की तिथि से बेरोज़गार है और क्लेम में यह अनुतोष चाहा है कि उसके सेवा पृथक्करण आदेश को अवैध एवं अनुचित घोषित किया जाये तथा उसे सवैतनिक व निरन्तर सेवा में लिया जाकर उसे पूर्व के सभी लाभ दिलाये जायें तथा आज तक के वेतन का ब्याज व मुकदमा का खर्चा भी दिलाया जावे ।
3. अप्रार्थी ने प्रार्थी द्वारा प्रस्तुत क्लेम का जवाब पेश किया है जिसके अनुसार प्रार्थी को अप्रार्थी के यहां दैनिक वेतन भोगी श्रमिक के रूप में मस्टररोल पर कार्य करने के लिए 1-5-83 से रखा गया और 1-5-83 से 26-10-83 तक कार्य किया । इस प्रकार उसके कुल कार्य दिवस 144 दिन थे , उसने 240 दिन तक काम नहीं किया, इस कारण औद्योगिकविवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( जिसे बाद में अधिनियम संबोधित किया है ) के प्रावधान उस पर लागू नहीं होते । अप्रार्थी ने प्रार्थी की सेवाएं 1-1-84 से समाप्त नहीं की, प्रार्थी का यह कथन पूर्णतः गलत है वह. 2-4-83 से भी काम पर नहीं आया बल्कि उसने 1-5-83 से
5. दोनों पक्षों की बहस सुनने के पश्चात् इस अधिकरण ने दिनांक 6-10-97 के द्वारा अवार्ड पारित किया जिसमें अप्रार्थी विभाग को " उद्योग " नहीं मानकरं भारत सरकार द्वारा जारी अधिसूचना को निरस्तकर दिया और प्रार्थी को सक्षम न्यायालय में विवाद पेश करने का आदेश दिया । इस पंचाट के विरुद्ध प्रार्थी ने इस अधिकरण के समक्ष उक्त आदेश को पुनर्विलोकन करने का प्रार्थना पत्र दिनांक 13-2-98 को पेश किया जिस पर प्रकरण प्रार्थना पत्र सं ० 6/98 दर्ज किया जाकर सुनवाई के पश्चात् आदेश दिनांक 19-6-2000 के द्वारा इस अधिकरण ने प्रार्थी के पुनर्विलोकन के प्रार्थना पत्र को खारिज कर दिया । प्रार्थी ने उसके बाद माननीय राजस्थान उच्च न्यायालय के समक्ष एस.बी. रिट पिटीशन सं ० 4041/2000 असलम खान बनाम भारत संघ व अन्य पेश की जिसमें माननीय राजस्थान उच्च न्यायालय ने अपने आदेश दिनांक 6-2-2002 के द्वारा इस रिट को स्वीकार करते हुए इस अधिकरण द्वारा पारित पंचाट दिनांक6-10-97 एवं पुनर्विलोकन प्रार्थना पत्र पर पारित आदेश दिनांक 19-6-2000 को अपास्त कर दिया और माननीय राजस्थान 6163 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 9, 2004/आश्विन 17 , 1926
[भाग II- 3 (ii ) ]
उच्च न्यायालय ने यह विवाद अप्रार्थी को " उद्योग " घोषित करते हुए. गुणावगुण पर पुनः सुनवाई के लिए इस अधिकरण को भेजने का आदेश दिया, जिस पर विवाद पुनः उसी नम्बर पर दर्ज किया गया । दोनों पक्ष के विद्वान प्रतिनिधिगण की गुणावगुण पर बहस सुनी गई, पत्रावली का अवलोकन किया गया ।
6. प्रार्थी ने अपने क्लेम में 2-4-83 से 1-1-84 तक कार्य करना बताया है और 240 दिन से अधिक समय तक लगातार कार्य करना कहा है । इसके विपरीत अप्रार्थी ने अपने जवाब में 1-5-83 से 26-10-83 तक कुल 144 दिन प्रार्थी द्वारा कार्य करने की बात कही है और27-10-83से प्रार्थी स्वयं ने काम पर आना बंद कर दिया और उसे निकाला नहीं गया यह बताया है । प्रार्थी ने मात्र दो दस्तावेज पेश किये हैं जो समझौता अधिकारी के समक्ष विवाद का प्रार्थना पत्र व असफल वार्ता प्रतिवेदन की प्रति है । इससे प्रार्थी की सेवाएं कब शुरू हुई, कभ समाप्त हुई, यह तथ्य साबित नहीं होता । उसने अपने शपथ पत्र में मौखिक तौर पर ही यह कहा है कि उसने 2-4-83 से 1-1-84 तक कामकिया है । परन्तु जिरह में इस बात को स्वीकार किया है किउसकी नियुक्तिआदेश प्रदर्श एम-1 है, पदस्थापन का आदेश 21-4-83 प्रदर्श एम -2 उसे मिला नहीं, उसने 1-5-83 को ड्यूटी जोइन नहीं की बल्कि 2-4-83 को की थी । प्रदर्श एम-4 पर उसके हस्ताक्षर हैं, उसका कार्यरत दफ्तर भूत बंगला के नाम से प्रसिद्ध नहीं है । रजिस्टर में उसकी हाफिरी कनिष्ठ अभियन्ता करते थे, उसे 9 रुपये प्रतिदिन की दर से वेतन मिलता था ।
नेमात्र 144 दिन ही कार्य किया है, उसे सेवा से न तो निष्कासित किया गया और न ही छंटनी की गई बल्किउसने स्वयं ने काम पर आना चंद करे दिया । इस तथ्य की पुष्टि प्रार्थी व समने साथी श्रमिक के बयान से होती है जिन्होंने रात्रि में कार्यालय खुला देखने एवं दो अनजान व्यक्तियों का देखा जाना तथा आस- पास के लोगों को बुलाने पर वहां किसी का नहींहोना पाकर भ्रम की स्थिति पैदा होना कहा है , जिससे प्रतीत होवा हैकि वे इस घटना से भयभीत हो गये और उन्होंने कार्य पर आना स्वयं ही बंद कर दिया। इसलिए मात्र 144 दिन कार्य करने से और उसकी कोई छंटनी नहीं किये जाने से धारा 25 एफ, 25- जी व 25- एच अधिनियम के प्रावधान आकर्षित नहीं होते । प्रार्थी ने 1983 के पश्चात् मात्र एक प्रार्थना पत्र 1987 में अप्रार्थी को दिया है और उसके पश्चात् यह विवाद का प्रार्थना पत्र 1989 में दिया है । 1983 से 1989 तक उसने कोई कार्यवाही नहींकी और इस देरी का किसी प्रकार का कोई स्पष्टीकरण भी प्रार्थी द्वारा न तो अपने क्लेम में बताया गया है, न समझौता वार्ता में कोई स्पष्टीकरण दिया है और न ही बहस के दौरान इस तथ्य का कोई स्पष्टीकरण दिया है । इस तरह यह विवाद जो प्रार्थी के स्वयं द्वारा सेवा में न आने पर मृतप्रायः हो गया, इस विस्मृत विवाद को 1989 में प्रार्थना पत्र देकर जीवित करने का प्रयास किया गया है, इस देरी का कोई स्पष्टीकरण महींदिया है इस कारण जैसा कि माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय ने शालीमार वर्क्स लि० बनाम उनके श्रमिकगण 1960 ( 1 ) एस.सी. आर. 150, रतन चन्द्र सामन्ता बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इण्डिया 1993 (67 ) एफ.एल.आर. 70 (एस.सी. ) , नेदुनगड़ी बैंक लि० बताम के. पी . माधव कुट्टी 2000 (84) एफ.एल.आर.- 673 ( एस.सी. ) में यह निर्धारित किया है कि जहां विवाद मृतप्रायः हो गया हो और देरी का कोई स्पष्टीकरण नहीं हो , ऐसे में प्रार्थी कोई अनुतोष पाने का अधिकारी नहीं है । अतः प्रार्थी का क्लेम खारिज किये जाने योग्य है व इस क्लेम के द्वारा प्रार्थी किसी प्रकार की राहत पाने का अधिकारी नहीं है ।
8. उपरोक्त विवेचन के आधार पर प्रकरण में निम्म अवार्ड पारित किया जाता है :
" ए. डी. ई. टी. सैटेलाईट ई/एस ( एम ) , जोधपुर के प्रबंधतंत्र जोधपुर द्वारा श्रमिक असलम खाम, दैनिक वेतन भोगी श्रमिक की सेवाएं दिनांक1-1-84 से समाप्त किया जाना उचित एवं वैध है । श्रमिक कोई राहत पाने का अधिकारी नहीं है ।"
9. अवार्ड आज दिनांक 9-7-2004 को खुले म्कघालय में लिखाया जाकर सुनाया गया ।
10. अवार्ड की प्रति केन्द्र सरकार को प्रकाशनार्थ नियमानुसार भेजाजावे ।
पी. एल. हिस्सारिया, पीठासीन अधिकारी
नई दिल्ली , 10 सितम्बर, 2004
का. आ. 2531.-31.- औद्योगिकऔद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार पंजाब नेशनल बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक 7. खण्डन में अप्रार्थी की ओर से भवानी शंकर का शपथ पत्र पेश हुआ है जिसमें बताया गया है कि 1-4-83 को दैनिक मजदूरों की चयन सूची नियोजन अधिकारी से नाम मंगाकर एस. डी.सी.टी. कार्यालय जोधपुर के नाम तैयार की गई जो प्रदर्श एम -1 है । इसमें चयनित व्यक्तियों के जिसमें असलम खां को भी दैनिक मजदूर के रूप में है, 21-4-83 को नियुक्ति दी गई जो प्रदर्श एम 2 है और प्रार्थी असलम खाम ने 1-5-83 से जोधपुर सैटेलाईट में मस्टररोल पर कार्य करना शुरू किया जिसके दस्तावेज प्रदर्श एम 3 व एम -6 हैं । उसकी सूचना एस.डी.ओ.टी. को 22-3-83 को भेजी गई जो प्रदर्श एम-3 है । अप्रैल 1983से नवम्बर 1983 के हाजिरी रजिस्टर की प्रति प्रदर्श एम -8 से एम-15 है जिसमें प्रार्थी के काम प्रारंभ करने व छोड़ने का स्पष्ट होता है । इसका अक्तूबर व नवम्बर का एल.टी.आई. फार्म एम -16 व एम-17 तथा वर्क आर्डर एम-18 व एम-19 है । इस प्रकार प्रार्थी ने कुल 26-10-83 तक 162 दिन काम किया जिसमें 18 साप्ताहिक अवकाश के दिन थे और उसने कुल 144 दिन ही काम किया । 27-10-83 से उसने स्वयं ने काम पर आना बंद कर दिया प्रार्थी व उसके साथी श्रमिक ने22-10-83 को अपने बयान प्रदर्श एम 3 व एम-4 दिये । जिरह में इस साक्षी ने इसके विपरीत कुछ नहीं कहा । अप्रार्थी के साक्षी के कथन की पुष्टि दस्तावेज़ी साक्ष्य से होती है , जब नियुक्ति पत्र ही 21-4-83 कोजारी किया गया तो 2-4-83 से कार्य करने का प्रश्न ही नहीं उठता प्रार्थी ने अपने ड्यूटी 1-5-83 से जोइन की है और 26-10-83 तक की उसकी उपस्थिति रजिस्टर में अंकित है जिसका उसे वेतन दिया गया है। 27-10-83 से वह स्वेच्छा से अनुपस्थित है तथा तभी से उसका वेतन नहींदिया गया है । इस प्रकार दस्तावेज़ी साक्ष्य से यह प्रकट है कि प्रार्थी
2908G1 /04-30 [PART II -SEC . 3 (ii) ] 6164
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: OCTOBER 9 , 204/ASVINA 17 , 1926
AWARD
1 अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 120/92 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 09-09-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
Inthis reference, received from Govt . of India, vide their-No. 12012/163/92 . IR (B -II ) dt. 1-9-92. This Tribunal isrequired to adjudicate upon the following matter :-
[सं. एल-12012/163/92- आई आर( बी- II ) ] सी. गंगाधरण , अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 10th September, 2004
"Whether the action of the management of Punjab National Bank in dismissing Sh . Shiv Darshan Pal from the services of the Bank w.e.f. 25-6-1990 is justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?" 2
S.O. 2531. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 120/92) ofthe 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 Punjab National Bank, and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on09-09-2004.
2.On the receipt of the reference notices were issued tothe parties who appeared . The petitioner, workman, filed claim statement on 9-9-1992 against which the Management filed the written statement on 16-9-94. The petitioner filed replication and affidavit. The Management also filed two affidavits, on 22-2-96 . The parties produced thewitnessess . The petitioner appeared as his own witness whereas the Management produced Sh. J. K. Bhargawa as theirwitness.
[No. L- 12012/ 163 /92-IR (B -II) ]
C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
3. In this between the management made an application opposing the appearance of a counsel on behalf oftheworkman. Before that application could be decided, the workman produced Sh. Dhani Ram as his representative and made the application infractuous .
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, CHANDIGARH
Shri Kuldip Singh
Presiding Officer:
Case No. ID 120/92
Received on :
Registered on : 9-9-1992
Decided on : 31-8-2004
Shiv Darshan Pal Sharma R/ o H. No. 3378/1 , Gali Kakyzian Katra Bahian, Ram Bagh, Amritsar.
......Applicant/ Claimant.
Versus
1. The Zonal Manager, Punjab National Bank, Zonal Office , Ludhiana .
2. The Regional Manager, Punjab National Bank , Amritsar.
3. The Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Rasulpur Kalan , Amritsar.
Respondents
4. The claim of the petitioner as made out in the statement of claim is that he had joined the services of the respondents bank on 15-4-71 and was appointed as Clerk in the year 1979. That in the year 1989 , the workman was implicated in a false case of fraud when he was posted as Clerk-cum-Cashier , Rasulpur Kalan Branch, that he had been attacked upon by one Vijay Kumar, who , on pistol point, snatched Rs . 31,740, That no case about that incident was lodged against the workman even under Section 420 IPC. However, the workman was chargesheeted. That the Management recovered Rs . 9675 from said Vijay Kumar and the applicant was made to deposit Rs . 22,065 under fear and so as to save his service , which the Branch Manager had promised him , but despite that he was charge-sheeted and the enquiry was conducted, whereafter the workman was dismissed from service by the disciplinary authority on 25-6-90 . His appeal, against the punishment , was also rejected by the Appellate Authority without the application of mind . That the punishment awarded to the workman was disproportionate to the offence alleged against the applicant as whole of the amount involved was recovered, therefore, no loss was caused to the Bank . That the parties did not take into consideration the previous conduct of the petitioner workman, during his long service of 18 years . That the workman was not allowed assistance of a legal expert nor the Management considered the reputation of Sh . Vijay Kumar, who had a bad reputation in the area .
APPEARANCES :
For the Workıman : Sh. Dhani Ram
5. The management has opposed the prayer of the petitioner and stated that the services of the petitioner are governed by Industry- wise award /Bi partite Settlement For the Management : Sh. S. K. Verma 6165 भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 9 , 2004/आश्विन 17 , 1926
[भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
and the said settlement contains the procedure for taking disciplinary action against the employees under para - 19. That theManagement followed the provisions ofpara- 19.
is submitted by the management that a proper enquiry was held. The workman was given full opportunity of hearing. Therefore, his dismissal was wellwelljustified. The management inthe alternative submitted that, if the court is not satisfied about the manner the enquiry was held, they may be allowed to lead the evidence, to prove the misconduct of the workman .
7. The workman, in his rejoinder, did not raise any new claim nor he could do so. However, he tried to rebut the assertions made by the management and stated that the management did not consider the past service record of the workman nor the Enquiry Officer as well as disciplinary authority considered the same. That the person name Vijay Kumar was of bad character and was involved in terrorist activity. He again contested that he was providedwith reasonable opportunity to file reply to the chargesheet or that since the workman was falsely implicated, therefore, no FIR was lodged against him.
ofthe theBi -partite settlement in letter and spirit. Therefore, the action of the Management cannot be questioned by present petition. The Management being a public institution working as custodian of public money. Therefore, its employees are required to maintain highest degree of integrity and whenever they do the lapse they deserve severest punishment. On facts , it is claimed by theManagement that on the involvement ofpetitioner in afraudulent act, while posted as Incharge, Rasulpur Kalan, branch ofthe respondents Bank, on 10-3-89, he was placed under suspension, chargesheeted on 20-3-89 . That the workman admitted in his statement that, in fact, no incident ofdacoity had taken place and the money so involved was shown to have been embazzled by him, with the help ofone Vijay Kumar . The workman did not submit reply to the charge sheet, even when he was given sufficient time. Despite, that the departmental enquiry was conducted and inthat regard appointing authority and presenting officers were appointed. In this report , the Enquiry Officer held that the charges against the workman were proved. The punishing authority, on the basis of the evidence produced, during the enquiry, proposed the punishment ofdismissal . The disciplinary authority, after hearing the petitioner personally confirmed the punishment. On 25-6-90, the workman appealed against the verdict ofthe punishing authority. The Appellate Authority also gave personnal hearing to the petitioner. The appeal was , however, rejected on the basis of the evidence and the punishment awarded was confirmed.
8.The petitioner, in his statement, recorded on 19-3- 2001 admitted the contents ofaffidavit exhibit Ex. WI; that ofdocuments Ex. W2 to W10. In the cross-examination he stated that he is working with a transport company; that hehad attended the enquiry proceeding, that exhibit Ex. W2 and W3 are the charge sheet . That he had signed on the typed proceedings, a copy ofwhich was given to him. That the witnessess ofthe Management were examined in his presence and he had cross-examined them . That he was not allowed to defend himself by an advocate. He further stated that he does not remember whether he had given in writing that he will defend himselfpersonally.He further stated that his statement and rejoinder were prepared by his representative, in English, but he has signed thereon. He further admitted that he had received the documents during the enquiry, and that he was given personal hearing by the disciplinary authority and before the passing oforder in the appeal .
9. Sh . J. K. Bhargawa, who appeared for the Management proved his affidavit Ex. MI and documents Ex. M2 to M16, placed on record and stated that the incident did not take place his presence nor the workman had made any confessior statement in his presence .
10. Before, I proceed, further, it may be noted here that in the order of reference , the name of the workman has been shown as Shiv Darshan Pal Singh, whereas the record ofthe file shows that the name of the workman is ShivDarshan Pal Sharma and not Shiv Darshan Pal Singh. TheMinistry of Labour alse acknowledged this fact in the order of reference when they endorsed the copy of the reference to the workman in the name of Shiv Darshan Pal c/o Sh. D. R. Sharma, 551/41 -A, Chandigarh. The workınan has also given his names Shiv Darshan Pal Sharma s /o Hans Raj Sharma R/o 3378/1 , Gali Kakyzian , Katra Bagkkian, Ram Bagh, Amritsar. The discrepancy in the reference , therefore, is immaterial as the parties know each other and 6. Replying to the parawise claim of the workman the management submitted that the workman has given twistto the facts and his stated against the factual position. That the workman had admitted his omission and commissiontowards the conspiracy which he had hatched with theVijayKumar. That since the workman had admitted hisguilt, therefore , no FIR was lodged. That the workman had handed over whole ofthe amount to Vijay Kumar and when finding that he cannot get an escape , he admitted his guilt and made good the amount embazzled. That the cabewas not got registered against the workman on his spefific request and for the reason that the amount embazzled had been recovered. On the other hand the Managementdecided to hold disciplinary enquiry against the workman and the punishment ofdismissal from service was handed over to him . In view of the facts and circumstances ofthe case that was done after giving him full Opportunity of hearing. That an employee having doubtful integrity cannot be accommodated in a financial institution, dealing in the public money. That the incident , though did no result into monetory loss to the bank but it definitely affected the faith of the public in it. Denying other assertions, made by the workman, in the petition, it 6166
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9 , 2004/ASVINA 17, 1926
the workman is to be taken as Shiv Darshan Pal Sharma s/o Hans Raj Sharma, r/ o Ram Bagh , Amritsar.
11. From the pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced by them , it is made out that the parties do not dispute about certain facts and the controversy between them is not that wide as is shown in the order of reference . The statement of workman is quite relevant in this respect . He appeared as his own witness on 19-3-01 and stated that whatever facts , he has mentioned in his affidavit Ex , W1 and which are in the documents , placed on record , and exhibitted as Ex. W2 to W10 , are all correct . On cross -examination he stated that he is working for a transport company on payment in Delhi . Regarding the allegations against him he stated that he had participated in the enquiry proceedings initiated against him . He was provided with the copies of the proceedings and he had signed on the proceedings that Ex. W2 and Ex . W3 are the chargesheet which were served upon him; that the witnessess of the Management -Bank , had appeared and he had cross - examined them . He alleged that he was not allowed to engage a counsel ; and that he does not remember whether he had , given in writing that he will defend himself personally. He admitted that the statement of claim was prepared for him , by his representative; that besides the rejoinder , he had signed thereon . He further admitted that he was given personal hearing by the disciplinary authority as well as by the Appellate Authority before the orders were passed against him.
12. From the statement of workman it is clear that after the alleged occurence , a departmental enquiry was initiated against him in which the workman had participated. He was provided with the copies of the chargesheet, the enquiry proceedings and he had cross- examined the witnessess . He claimed to be knowing the contents of his statement of claim and rejoinder, but felt shy to admit/ acknowledge, that he had given in writing that he will defend himself in the enquiry proceedings . He has not raised any grievance against the providing of opportunity to him by the diesiplinary authority and the Appellate Authority, before passing the orders.
13. If, we revert back to the record, pertaining to the enquiry proceedings the photo- copies of which have beenplaced on record and were exhibitted, at the instance ofworkman as W2, W3 , W4 , W6 , W7 , W8 , W9 , W10, it is clear that these documents had originated from the Management . There is also , on record , the photo -copies of the day - to-day proceedings , held by the Enquiry Officer, it includes the statements of the witnesses such as Capt . K.S.Gill , who was working as Security Officer of the respondent bank . The way this witness is shown to have been cross -examined by the workman is evident of the fact, that the workman had cross -examined the
[PART II-SBC. 3(ii)] witnesses elaborately. The enquiry proceedings further show that the workman took his time to cross -examine the witness and even sought adjournment on that score which were liberally granted. Even cursory look at the way the enquiry is shown to have been conducted, shows that the workman is not at all prejudiced; that he was provided with the copies of the proceedings . On record there is document M7 & M8 which are shown to be a confessional statements of the workman. It is true, that these documents were not put to the workman at the time he appeared as witness, but the workman also did not raise any grievance against these documents when the same were proved by Management's witness, J. K. Bhargawa, the workman only asked whether those confessional statements were made in his presence and the witness answered in the negative. There is nothing on record to show nor it is the claim of the Management that Mr. J. K. Bhargawa was present at the time of incident or at the time the workman is shown to have made the confessional statement . During the enquiry, the workman did not put any question about the confessional statements to the witness of Management and their genuiness has not been questioned , by the workman . Sh. K. S. Gill, management's witness stated that both these documents were drafted by workman Shiv Darshan Pal Singh , in his presence . Same was stated by the other witness who appeared for the Management .
14. From the evidence available on record it is therefore clear that the workman was posted as Clerk-cum- Cashier in the Rasulpur Kalan, Branch. On 10-3.89 he manipulated a incident of dacoity saying that an amount ofRs . 31,740 has been stolen by one Vijay Kumar, at the pistol point, but on enquiry by the bank official, it was proved that the incident shown to have occurred, did not occur and the incident was manipulated. The workman admitted this fact in his written statements , made to the Branch Manager, concerned. There is also evidence on record to show that , on the quick action, by the employees ofconcernedbank, an amount of Rs . 9675 was recovered from one Vijay Kumar and the rest of the amount was deposited by the workman himself, by vouchers , the copies of which are on record . The enquiry initiated against the workman proved, that there was no incident of dacoity and the story was concocted by the workman and ultimately the workman was held of it as guilty. He was punished for his misconduct and was dismissed from service.
15. The workman has come to this Tribunal with a grievance that he was involved in a fabricated case of fraud. When actually it was a case of dacoity; that the Management did not report the matter to the Police even they did not register the case of cheating against him. They further did not proceed against Vijay Kumar from whom, the part of the amount was recovered; and that 6167 भारत पत्र अक्टूबर 9 , 2004/आरिक्त 17, 1926
[भाल -खण्ड 3(ii)]
the workman was made to deposit the balance amount by coohersion . That the Management also did not enquire about the reputation of Vijay Kumar nor they allowed the workman, the assistence ofa counsel. In the endhe claimed that the Management did not took into consideration his long and unblemished service of 18 years which he had rendered to the bank and the punishment awarded was disproportionate to the alleged guilt, in any case. However, the workman has failed to produce any evidence to substantiate these allegations. In the enquiry he examined witnesses in his defence, who could not say anything about these claims madeby him and stated only about the arranging of money for the workman, which he had deposited with the bank. In this Tribunal he did not even produce those witnesses . There has also come no evidence on record to show that theearlier service career ofthe workman was unblemished andsincere.
16. It is a fact , that working in the Financial Institutions is run on trust. Institutions like banks , are the custodian of public money and those who run them are answerable to the public . Nowhere , an employee, who is not sincere to his Master and commits frauds, canbe tolerated, much less in the Financial Institutions. After, going through the evidence , brought on record, I am satisfied that the Management did not commit any lapse in holding the enquiry against the workman, who was Chief Architect of the conspiracy, in committing fraud on his employer, for an amount ofmoney, more than thirty thousand which he was keeping in trust for thecustomers.
ithis credit, when the alleged occurence took place and the punishment banded over to him is disproportionate to the guilt . He relied upon a judgement passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad, in the case ofAmok Maganbhai Rathod Vs. Union of India, a photocopy ofwhich has been placed on record. After going through this Judgement, 1 am convinced that the facts of the case, pending before the Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad, were quite different . In that case theenquiry officer had failed to provide the copies of certain documents to the workman and the order had been passed on the basis of statement of applicants, recorded in the preliminary enquiry. It was in those circunstances that the learned Judges held that since copy ofthe FIR and the documents were not provided to the petitioner, therefore, he could not effectively cross-examine the witnessess of the employer. They tookthe support of a Judgement passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case reported as Raizada Trilok Nath Vs. Union of India. This is not the position in the present case, since by his own admission, the workman stated before this Tribunal that he had participated in the enquiry proceedings ; that he was provided with the copies of the charge sheet , copies of the documents and the copies ofother proceedings . Thus, the workman wasnotprejudiced in any manner, in the enquiry, helid against him, therefore , the Judgement relied upon by the representative of the workman, is not helpful to him. The workman has failed to show me that the punishment given to him is otherwise disproportionate to the guilt, proved against him . As stated earlier, no punishment is less where the money is involved, otherwise, it will be very difficult to control the corrupt trend, the society is aheading. The money which has less purchasing power, has become more dare to the peopleand they are adopting all fair and foul means to collect the same. Every now and then we read about scams after scams , frauds after frauds, being committed in the public as well as private institutions , in Govt . Departments and in such a situation how the Managers ofthe Financial Institutions can control when the guilty are let loose by the courts on technical grounds .
17. During the course of the arguments, even the representative ofthe workman could not say anything substantial against the manner in which the enquiry was conducted. He alleged that the bank did not report the matter to police. Otherwise the truth would have come out and that prejudiced the workman. I am not convinced with this submission, because if the public institution get themselves involved in police enquiries and court cases, it does not add to their reputation, It has been noticed that the public maney is generally wasted in such proceedings and nothing useful comes out . So, if the respondents decided not to report the case for investigation especially when their money had been recovered, they perhaps were the best judges , to take that option. It may have also been done because the Management was satisfied, on their own enquiry, with the assistence of their own Security Staff, that it was not acase ofdacoity, but of fraud committed by their own employee, who wanted to cover up his embazzlement by amanipulated case ofdacoity.
19. After going through all the evidence available onthe file, 1 answer the reference, in the positive terms, holding that the action of the management ofthe Punjab National Bank, in dismissing Sh. Shiv Darshan Pal Singh, from the services ofthe Bank w.e.f. 25-06-90 was justified andthe workman is not entitled to any relief. The award is accordingly passed. Let a copyopy of it be sent to Govt. of India for necessary action and file be consigned to record afterdue completion.
KULDIP SINGH, Presiding Officer 18. The representative of the workman then argued that the workman had faithful service of 18 years, 6168
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9 , 2004/ASVINA 17 , 1926
[PART II-SBC. 3 ( ii) ]
उपस्थित
नई दिल्ली, 13 सितम्बर, 2004
पीठासीन अधिकारी श्री पी. एल. हिस्सारिया, आर. एच. जे. एस.
श्री जे. एल. शाह
प्रार्थी की ओर से :
अप्रार्थीगण की ओर से : श्री आर. सी. पापड़ीवाल का.आ. 2532.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण, जयपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 23/91 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 13-9-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
दिनाके अवार्ड : 16-3-2004
अवार्ड
1 , केन्द्र सरकार, श्रम मंत्रालय , नई दिल्ली द्वास निम्न विवाद इस न्यायाधिकरण को अधिनिर्णयार्थ प्रेषित किया है
[सं. एल-12012/387/ 90 - आई आर ( बी- II ) ] सी. गंगाधरण , अवर सचिव New Delhi, the 13 September, 2004
"Whether the action of the management ofBank ofBaroda in terminating the services ofMiss Premlata Agarwal, ex-clerk in their Shahpur branch (Bhilwara) w.e.f. 5-1-87 is just and legal ? If not, to what relief is the worker concerned entitled to?"
S.O. 2532.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 23/91 ) of the Industrial Tribunal , Jaipur as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Bank of Baroda and their workman, which was receivedby the Central Government on 13-9-2004 .
2. रैफरेंस दर्ज रजिस्टर किया जाकर पक्षकारों को नोटिस जारी किये गये ।
[No. L - 12012/ 387/ 90- IR(B - II) ] C. GANGADHARAN , Under Secy.
अनुबंध केन्द्रीय औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण, जयपुर क्रमांक केस नं. आई . टी. 23/91
रैफरेंस: केन्द्र सरकार, श्रम मंत्रालय , नई दिल्ली का आदेश क्र. एल- 12012/387/90 - आई. आर . ( बी-2 ) दिनांक 5-4-91 .
कुमारी प्रेमलता अग्रवाल पुत्री श्री गोपीलाल जी अग्रवाल मार्फत बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा स्टाफ यूनियन, अजमेर यूनिट, अजमेर ।
प्रार्थी
बनाम
* 1. शाखा प्रबन्धक, बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा शाखा शाहपुरा , जिला भीलवाड़ा
2. क्षेत्रीय प्रबन्धक, ( अजमेर क्षेत्र ) बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा पी. बी. नं. 164 स्टेशन रोड, अजमेर ।
3. सहायक महाप्रबन्धक, बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, अंचल कार्यालय, जयपुर ।
प्रार्थीया ने स्टेटमेंट ऑफ क्लेम पेश कर अभिकथन किया है कि उसकी नियुक्ति चयन मण्डल द्वारा चयन किये जाने पर बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा की रेलवे कैम्पास अजमेर शाखा में दिनांक 28-2-85 को क्लर्क के पद पर हुई थी । प्रार्थीया को दो नियुक्ति पत्र दिये गये , प्रथम नियुक्तिपत्र में ट्रेनिंग व बाद में पोस्टिंग की कोई सर्व नहीं थी, दूसरे नियुक्ति पत्र में अलग से ट्रेनिंग व पोस्टिंग की बात बोड़ी गई थी व बदनियतीपूर्ण थी । प्रार्थीया का कथन है कि उसका स्थानान्तरण सितम्बर 1985 में शाहपुरा जिला भीलवाड़ा कर दिया। प्रार्थीया ने कई पत्र लिखकर स्थानान्तरण रद्द करने की प्रार्थना की किन्तु उन पर गौर नहीं किया गया तो उसने शाहपुरा शाखा में ड्यूटी जोइन कर ली किन्तु उसका स्वास्थ्य खराब हो गया अतः प्रार्थीया ने उसने 1-10-85 से 5-10-85 तक का अवकाश स्वीकार करने का प्रार्थना पत्र भेजा था और समय- समय पर अवकाश अवधि बढ़ाने हेतु मेडीकल प्रमाण पत्र के साथ प्रार्थना पत्र प्रेषित किये किन्तु बिना उन पर गौर किये प्रार्थीया को आरोप पत्र जारी कर दिया जिसमें सेवा से अनुपस्थित रहने का आरोप लगाया गया और आदेश दिनांक 5-1-87 द्वारा उसे बैंक सेवा से मुक्तकर दिया । प्रार्थीया का कथन है कि उसकी सेवा मुक्ति अनुचित व अवैध है क्योंकि प्रार्थीया के प्रथम नियुक्ति आदेश में ट्रेनिंग व पोस्टिंग का कोई उल्लेख नहीं था, उसकी नियुक्ति स्पष्ट तौर पर अजमेर शाखा में रिक्त पद पर की गई थी तथा उसकी नियुक्ति स्थाई तौर पर क्लर्क कम कैशियर के पद पर हुई थी व उसका काम संतोषजनक था तथा आदेश क्रमांक 317 दिनांक 21-9-85 स्पष्ट रूप से स्थानान्तरण आदेश है और अनुचित है क्योंकि अविवाहित महिलाओं/युवतियों के बाहर स्थानान्तरण की प्रथा नहीं है । प्रार्थीया का कथन है कि उसे सेवा मुक्त करने से पूर्व विभागीय जांच नहीं की गई तथा सेवा मुक्ति आदेश द्विपक्षीय समझौते के प्रावधानों के विपरीत है, अतः उसके खिलाफ
अप्रार्थीगण 6169
भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 9, 2004/आश्विम 17, 1926
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]
पारित सेवा मुक्ति आदेश दिनांक 5-1-87 को अनुचित व अवैध होने के कारण निरस्त किया जावे व उसे पूरे वेतन व अन्य लाभ सहित पुनः सेवा में बहाल किया जावे ।
शाहपुरा ब्रांच मैनेजर द्वारा प्राथीयत की दिनांक 14-3-86 को अवकाश अस्वीकृत करने की सूचना भेजी गई और कार्य पर उपस्थित होने की सूचना दी गई किन्तु फिर भी वह लापरवाह रही और उपस्थित नहींहुई, ऐसे में प्रार्थीया की सेवाएं अपने हित में बैंक लेने से वंचित रहा और बैंक को काफी कठिनाई व असुविधा हो रही थी अतः दिनांक 5-1- 87 कोआदेश से प्रार्थीया की सेवाएं उसकी लगातार रैकरिग अस्वागता के आधार पर समाप्त कर दी गई जो कार्यवाही उचित व वैध है।
4. क्लेम की पुष्टि में प्रावर्षीया सुश्री प्रेमलता ने अपना स्वयं का शपथ पत्र पेश किया है जिससे अप्राणी बैंक के प्रतिनिधि ने जिरह की है और अप्रार्थी बैंक कीऔर से श्री आर. सी. शर्मा प्रबन्धक (कार्मिक) क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय अजमेर का शपथ पत्र पेशे किया गया है जिससे प्रार्थीया के विद्वान प्रतिनिधि ने जिरह की है दोनों ओर से दस्तावैकात पेश किये गये हैं जिनमें नियुक्ति पत्र, अवकाश के प्रार्थना पत्र व पत्रों के उत्तर प्रत्युत्तर आदि हैं ।
5. मैंने दोनों पक्ष के विद्वान प्रतिनिधिगण द्वारा प्रस्तुत लिखित बहस एवं पत्रावली का भली भांति अवलोकन किया । प्रस्तुत किये गये प्रोद्धरणों को भी आदर सहित पढ़ा ।
6. हमारे समक्ष मुक्त विचार बिन्दु केवल यह है कि क्या प्रार्थीया सुश्री प्रेमलता अग्रवाल पर से मुक्ति आदेश दिनांक 5-1- 87 विधिक एवं उचित है या नहीं ? प्राथीया ने जो शपथ पत्र क्लेम की पुष्टि में पेश किया है, उसके अनुसार उसका कथन है कि उसकी नियुक्ति रेलवे कैम्पस शाखा अजमेर में क्लर्क के पद पर की गई थी जहां वह मेहनत व ईमानदारी से कार्य करती रही , उसे दो नियुक्ति आदेश दिये गये थे जिसमें पहले में ट्रेनिंग व पोस्टिंग की कोई सर्च नहीं थी और दूसरे में ट्रेनिंग के बाद पोस्टिंग का अलग से लिखा हुआ था । बाद में उसका स्थानान्तरण सितम्बर, 1985 में अजमेर से शाहपुरा कर दिया गया, वह अविवाहित व अकेली होने के कारण शाहपुरा साखासार में कार्य करना उसके लिए संभव नहीं था और बीमार रहने लगी व शाहपुरा में जोइन करने के पश्चात् उसने अवकाश लिये और बीमारी के कारण समय - समय पर अवकाश बढ़ाने के प्रार्थना पत्र दिये, एक प्रार्थना पत्र दिनांक 5-10-85 का 14 दिन के अवकाश का भेजा जो प्रदर्श डब्ल्यू-8 है, फिर 14-10-85 को 15 दिन के अवकाश का प्रार्थना पत्र प्रदर्श डब्ल्यू-9 भेजा, इसके साथ मेडीकल प्रमाण पत्र प्रदर्श डब्ल्यू-10 भेजा । जिरह में उसने स्वीकार किया है कि उसके पास चिकित्सा के प्रैसक्रिप्शनस नहीं है, उसे कमज़ोरी तथा उच्च रक्त चाप था, उसने हमेशा दवाई नहीं ली, दवाइयों के बिल पेश नहींकिये हैं, दवाई, कैषसूल आदि के नाम याद नहीं हैं । उसे 10-10-85 को तार द्वारा ड्यूटी जोइम करने को कहा गया था तब उसने 12-10-85 को ड्यूटी जोइन की, 14-10-85 से बीमार होने के कारण काम पर नहीं गई। 24-10-85 को तार मिलने पर वह आर. एम . ऑफीस गई थी जहां उसे कहा गया कि शाहपुरा में जोइन करे, उसे मेडीकल चैकअप कराने का कहा था, और उसने जांच करवाई थी ।
7. यहां विवादित प्रश्न दिनांक 5-1-87 को सेवा मुक्ति आदेश हैजिसमें प्रार्थीया की अनुपस्थिति के कारण सेवा मुक्ति किया जाना अंकित नहीं है बल्किलंबे समय से बीमार होने के कारण कार्थ करने में व उसकी सेवाएं नहीं लिये जा सकने के कारण बैंक को हो रही 3. अप्रार्थी बैंक ने क्लेम का जवाब पेश कर अभिकथन किया है कि प्रार्थीया की नियुक्ति बैंक के पत्र दिनांक 28-2-85 के द्वारा कैशियर- कम- क्लर्क के पद पर रेलवे कैम्पस अजमेर ब्रांच पर की गई थी और उसने 6-3-85 को सेवाएं जोइन की । उनका कथन है कि अजमेर में प्रार्थीया को पोस्टिंग इण्डक्शन/ट्रेनिंग परपज हेतु पदस्थिापित किया गया था, उसे कोई दो नियुक्ति पत्र नहीं दिये गये बल्कि28-2-85 को दो पत्र दिये गये थे जिनमें एक पत्र में उन्हें बैंक में कैशियर- कम- क्लर्क के पद पर चयनित किये जाने की सूचना व कुछ हिदायतें थी और दूसरा पत्र नियुक्ति बाबत था उसमें सेवा शर्तों का उल्लेख था जिन्हें स्वीकार करके ही प्रार्थीया ने अपना कार्य ग्रहण किया था । अप्रार्थी का कथन है कि ट्रेनिंग समाप्त होने के बाद प्रार्थीया का स्थाईकरण करने के पश्चात् बैंक की शाखा में पदस्थिापित किये जाने का निर्णय लिया जाकर उसे शाहपुरा शाखा में पदस्थिापित किया गया जहां उसने अपना कार्यभार दिनांक 20-9-85 को संभाला। यदि इसे स्थानान्तरण भी माना जाये तो भी यह सेवा शर्तों का एक अभिन्न अंग है, अतः स्थानान्तरण का विरोध नहीं किया जा सकता, सेवा शर्तों के अनुसार प्रार्थीया को किसी भी शाखा में स्थानान्तरित किया जा सकता था। उनका कथन है कि प्रार्थीया ने 1-10-85 से 5-10-85 तक का अवकाश स्वीकृत करने हेतु प्रार्थना पत्र दिया, दिनांक 6-10- 85 को अन्य प्रार्थना पत्र पेश कर 14 दिन का और अक्कास बाहा, चूंकिशाहपुरा ब्रांच का कार्य बिगड़ रहा था, अतः तार द्वारा प्रार्थीया को सूचित किया गया कि वे अपनी ड्यूटी जोइन करे, प्रार्थीया ने ड्यूटी 12-10-85 को जोइन भी की किन्तु उसी दिन फिर अवकाश का प्रार्थना पत्र पेश किया पुनः उसे सूचित किया गया कि वह अपना मेडीकल चैकअप करावे अन्यथा उनका अवकाश स्वीकृत नहींकिया जायेगा किन्तु प्रार्थीया ने उक्त आदेशों की अवहेलना की और उसे बिना वेतन पर माना गया, प्रार्थीया येन केन प्रकारेण अपने कार्यस्थल पर उपस्थित नहीं होना चाहती थी और वे फिर भी अवकाश प्रार्थना पत्र देती रहीं । अप्रार्थी का कथन है कि प्रार्थीया को रीजनल मैनेजर के निर्देशों की अनुपालना में प्रार्थीया को सूचित किया गया कि वो दिनांक 14-10-85 से बिना अवकाश स्वीकृत कराए अनुपस्थित चल रही हैं और बावजूद आदेशों के कार्य पर उपस्थित नहीं हो रही हैं अतः उपस्थितहोकर तुरंत स्पष्टीकरण प्रस्तुत करें तो उन्होंने पत्र द्वारा सूचित किया कि वह बीमार चल रही हैं और मेडीकली फिट नहीं हैं अतः उनका अजमेर स्थानान्तरण किया जावे । अप्रार्थी का कथन हैं कि जब प्रार्थीया दिनांक 2-1-86 तक कार्य पर उपस्थित नहीं हुई तो उन्हें कारण बताओं नोटिस 2/3 जनवरी 1986 को ए.डी. द्वारा जारी किया गया कि क्यों न उसकी सेवाएं समाप्त कर दी जावें । प्रार्थीया ने पुनः यही जवाब दिया कि वह बीमार है , इस प्रकार उनका कथन है किवह बार - बार प्रार्थना पत्र देती रही और दिनांक 10-3-86 को कार्य पर उपस्थितहुई और फिर 13-3-86 तक कार्य किया फिर अवकाश का प्रार्थना पत्र दे दिया जिसे अस्वीकार कर देने के बावजूद भी प्रार्थीया उपस्थितनहीं हुई और अवकाश का प्रार्थना पत्र भेज दिया । उसके बाद 6170
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9, 2004/ASVINA 17, 1926
[PART II-SBC. 3 (ii) ]
कोई विभागीय जांच नहीं की गई, जब कि वह बीमारी के कारण अनुपस्थितरही थी और अनुपस्थिति के मुद्दे पर ही उसकी सेवा मुक्तिकी गई है, उसे सुनवाई का अवसर नहीं दिये जाने के कारण प्राकृतिक न्याय के सिद्धान्त का हनन हुआ है और बैंक को ऐसा सेवा मुक्तिआदेश पारित करने का अधिकार नहीं है । अपने तर्क के समर्थन में विद्वान प्रतिनिधि ने निम्न प्रोद्धरण प्रस्तुत किये हैं :
1- एल.एल.जे. I 1996 पेज 152 ( मानं ० राज०४च्च न्या० ) राजस्थान स्टेट इलैक्ट्रिसिटी बोर्ड बनाम जल, लेबर कोर्ट ।
2-. एल.एल.जे. II 1993 पेज 74 ( मान ० इलाहबाद उच्च न्या० ) हिन्दुस्तान अल्यूमीनियम कार्पोरेशन लि० रेनूकूट बनाम औद्योगिक न्ययाधिकरण
कठिनाई के कारण उसे नोटिस दिये जाने के बावजूद उपस्थिति नहीं देने व नोटिस का जवाब नहीं देने के कारण सेवा मुक्ति की गई है । प्रार्थीया का तर्क है कि उसका स्थानान्तरण गलत किया गया है , बैंक को स्थानान्तरण करने का अधिकार नहीं था; बैंक के प्रतिनिधि का तर्क है कि उसका स्थानान्तरण नहीं किया गया बल्कि ट्रेनिंग के पश्चात् उसे शाहपुरा पदस्थापित किया गया । यहां मेरे समक्ष यह विवाद बिन्दु नहीं है कि उसका स्थानान्तरण किया गया या पदस्थापन किया गया । वैसे स्थानान्तरण करने का भी बैंक को अधिकार है और उन आदेशों की अनुपालना में प्रार्थीया ने शाहपुरा में अपनी ड्यूटी भी जोइन की है , उसके पश्चात् वह लंबे समय तक अनुपस्थिति रही है और बीमारी के कारण अवकाश के प्रार्थना पत्र भेजे हैं जो स्वीकार नहीं किये गये । उसे दिनांक 30-1-86 को बैंक द्वारा नोटिस दिया गया जिसका कोई जवाब प्रार्थीया ने नहीं दिया तब दिनांक 5-1-87 को बीमारी के कारण सेवाएं नहीं देने का बताते हुए प्रार्थीया की सेवा मुक्ति की गई है ।
3- लैब.आई.सी. 1996 पेज 1319 ( मान ० दिल्ली उच्चन्या० ) बी. जी. सारस्वत बनाम इंजीनियर्स इंडिया लि०
4- लैब.आइ.सी. 1994 पेज 561 ( मान० गुजरात उच्च न्या० ) एस.एन. जेजूकार बनाम डायरेक्टर नेशनल केडेट कॉर्पस
5- एल.एल.एन. I 1991 पेज 1999 ( मान० उड़ीसा उच्च न्या० ) बिसरा स्टोन लाईम क० लि० बनाम ठमके श्रमिकगण
6- एल.एल.एन. I 1992 पेज 780 ( मान ० दिल्ली उच्च न्या० ) ललित मोहन पुरी बनाम प्योर ड्रिंक्स (न्यूदिल्ली ) लि० । 8. अब प्रश्न यह है कि बिना विभागीय जांच किये सेवा मुक्ति का यह आदेश क्या प्राकृतिक न्याय सिद्धान्तों के विपरीत है अथवा नहीं और क्या ऐसा आदेश बैंक को पारित करने का कोई अधिकार था ? विद्वान प्रतिनिधि अप्रार्थी ने अपने तर्क में अंकित किया है कि प्रार्थीया का यह सेवा मुक्ति आदेश छंटनी की परिभाषा में नहीं आता है इसलिए धारा 25- एफ औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( जिसे बाद में अधिनियम संबोधित किया जा रहा है ) के प्रावधान इस पर लागू नहीं होते क्योंकि धारा 2 ( 00 ) में छंटनी को परिभाषित किया गया है और उसमें 00 ( सी ) में यह अंकित किया गया है कि लगातार बीमारी व अस्वस्थता के आधार पर कर्मचारी की सेवा मुक्ति छंटनी की तारीफ में नहींआती इसलिए यह छंटनी नहीं है । विद्वान प्रतिनिधि ने यह भी तर्क अंकित किया है कि द्विपक्षीय समझौते के अधीन भी लंबी अवधि तक बीमारी के आधार पर अनुपस्थित रहने के कारण सेवा मुक्ति करने का उन्हें अधिकार है और ऐसे में विभागीय जांच की आवश्यकता नहीं है और प्राकृतिक न्याय के सिद्धान्तों की अवहेलना उन्होंने नहीं की है । अपने तर्कोंके समर्थन में विद्वान प्रतिनिधि ने निम्न प्रोद्धरण प्रस्तुत किये हैं :
1- पंजाब एवं सिंध बैंक व अन्य बनाम शख्तार सिंह (2001 ) 1, एस.सी.सी. 214
2- डॉ० श्रीमती दक्षा सांखला बनाम जय नारायण व्यास यूनीवर्सिटी जोधपुर, 2001 ( 4 ) डब्ल्यू एल.सी. (राज० ) 417 ( हैड नोट-ख)
3- दी सिंडीकेट बैंक बनाम जनरल सेक्रेट्री, सिंडीकेट बैंक स्टाफ ऐसोसिऐशन 2000 ( 5 ) एस.सी.सी. 65
4- नटराजन बनाम पीठासीन अधिकारी व अन्य, 2001 (88 ) एफ.एल.आर. 177 ( मद्रास )
5- इंद्र देव यादव बनाम नेशनल थर्मल पावर कार्पोरेशन लि० , 2002- IV, एल.एल.जे. ( सप्ली) एन.ओ.सी. - 71 (मान ० दिल्ली उ ०न्या० ) ।
10. मैंने उक्त प्रोद्धरणों को आदर सहित पढ़ा । विद्वान प्रतिनिधि प्रार्थीया द्वारा प्रस्तुत सभी प्रोद्धरणों के तथ्य भिन्न हैं इसलिए उनमें प्रतिपादित सिद्धान्तों से प्रार्थीयों को कोई लाभ नहीं पहुंचता क्योंकि बीमारी के आधार पर अनुपस्थित रहने के कारण अनुपस्थिति को आधार मानते हुए सेवा मुक्ति आदेश पारित नहीं किया गया है बल्कि लम्बीअवधिसे बीमार रहने पर सेवा न दे सकने के कारण प्रार्थीया की सेवा मुक्ति की गई है । जहां तक शाहपुरा पदस्थापित अथवा स्थानान्तरित किये जाने का प्रश्न है , किसी कर्मचारी का यह विधिक या नैसर्गिक अधिकार नहीं है कि वह अपने मनवांछित स्थान पर पदस्थापित रहे या मनवांछित समय में कार्य करे । जैसा कि विद्वान प्रतिनिधि बैंक ने उपरोक्त प्रोद्धरण प्रस्तुत किये हैं, उनमें माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय ने भी यही सिद्धान्त प्रतिपादित किया है कि यदि सेवा मुक्ति आदेश छंटनी की तारीफ में नहीं आता और लम्बे समय तक बिना अवकाश स्वीकृत कराये प्रार्थीया अनुपस्थित रही हैं तो ऐसी सूरत में सेवा मुक्ति से पूर्व जांच की आवश्यकता नहीं है । प्रस्तुत प्रकरण में प्रार्थीया बिना अवकाश स्वीकृत कराये लम्बे समय तक अनुपस्थित रही है, प्रार्थीया को 30-1-86 को नोटिस भी दिया गया है जिसका भी प्रार्थीया ने कोई जवाब नहींदिया है न ही उसने ड्यूटी जोइन की, तब लगभग एक वर्ष पश्चात्दिनांक 5-1-87 को बीमारी के कारण कार्य नहीं कर सकने के कारण उसके विरुद्ध सेवा मुक्ति आदेश पारित किया गया है जिसका बैंक को अधिकार है और इसके लिए विभागीय जांच की आवश्यकता नहीं थी, प्राकृतिक न्याय के सिद्धान्त का हनन नहीं हुआ है । इस प्रकार हमारी विनम्र राय में बैंक द्वारा पारित आदेश दिनांक 5-1-87 जो प्रार्थीया की सेवा मुक्ति से संबंधित है , पूर्णतया उचित व विधिक है और प्रार्थीया कोई अनुतोष प्राप्त करने की अधिकारिणी नहीं है । 9. इसके प्रतिकूल विद्वान प्रतिनिधि प्रार्थीया के तर्क हैं कि प्रार्थीया की सेवा मुक्ति अनुपस्थिति के आधार पर की गई है जिसकी 6171 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 9 , 2004/आश्विन 17 , 1926
[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
PRESENT:
Presiding Officer : P. L. Hissaria, RHJS 11. उपरोक्त विवेचन के आधार पर प्रकरण में निम्न अवार्ड पारित किया जाता है :
Forthe Applicant
: Shri Nand Lal Goel, workman
Shri J. K. Chaddha
For the Non - applicant :
Date ofAward : 4th March, 2004
AWARD
" बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा के प्रबन्धतंत्र द्वारा प्रार्थीया सुश्री प्रेमलता अग्रवाल के विरुद्ध, जो कि पूर्व लिपिक थी, दिनांक 5-1-87 के आदेश से उनको सेवा मुक्त करने की कार्यवाही उचित एवं विधिक है, प्राथिया कोई राहत प्राप्त करने की अधिकारिणी नहीं है।"
12. अवार्ड आज दिनांक 16-3-2004 को खुले न्यायालय में लिखाया जाकर सुनाया गया जो केन्द्र सरकार की प्रकाशनार्थ नियमानुसार भेजाजावे ।
पी. एल. हिस्सारिया, न्यायाधीश
नई दिल्ली, 13 सितम्बर, 2004.
का.आ. 2533.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार पंजाब नेशनल बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण जयपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 1/97 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 13-9-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-12025/1 / 2004- आई आर ( बी-11 ) ]
सी. गंगाधरण, अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 13th September, 2004
1. The applicant has filed a complaint under Section 33 - A of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred as an Act) before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, New Delhi on 27-2-91 . The complaint was transferred to this Tribunal by the competent Government and thereafter registered here on 29-9-94 . The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant was the General Secretary of P.N.Β. Karamchari Union, Delhi and has to fight the rights of the employees with the management. There were some complaints and reference pending between the parties before the Central Industrial Tribnbunal, Labour Court and in the Civil Court for adjudication and the complainant was attending these matters for the union. Therefore, the management was prejudice to complainant and made a threat to complainant to remove from the service including illegal suspension etc. Miss Anjali Saxena and Shri M.K. Jain threatened the complainant on6-2-91 . Therefore , the complainant filed this application before the Central Industrial Tribunal , Delhi praying to protect the life and service of the complainant from the hand of the accused persons . It was further prayed in the application that illegal , unfawful and malafide suspension order ofthe complainant be revoked including all wages .
S.O. 2533. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 1/94) ofthe Industrial Tribunal Jaipur as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Punjab National Bank and their workman , which was receivedby the Central Government on 13-9-04 .
[No. L- 12025/ 1 /2004 - IR (B - II) ]
C. GANGADHARAN , Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL JAIPUR
C.I.T. Complaint No. 1/94 (Old No. 22/91 )
Nand Lal Goel ,
C/o Punjab National Bank ,
Kashmiri Gate, Delhi- 110001
...Applicant
Vs.
2. The management has filed the reply of the complaint. According to the reply of the management the application filed by the applicant is mis -conceived and bad in law having no substance . The application has been filed beyond the scope of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and the complaint is not as per the provisions of the Act . There is no change in the service conditions of the complainant, the suspension order of the complainant has been done as the service conditions applicable to him and there is no violation of the same. The whole application of the complainant is mis - leading and wrong , the allegations tevelled against the management are vague and baseless . The complainant is not the General Secretary of the P.N.B. Karamchari Union, Delhi and he is not a protected workman as per the provisions of the Act. The management has urged to dismiss the complaint.
The Regional Manager ,
C/o Punjab National Bank,
F- 14 , Competent House , New Delhi
3. The complainant has filed the rejoinder of the reply of the management and again prayed for the claims and damages .
....Non- applicant
4. I have heard the arguments from both the sides and gone through the file thoroughly.
Complaint u/ s 33-A and Sec . 33 (3 ) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
2908G1/04-31 6172
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9 , 2004/ASVINA 17, 1926
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii )] 5. Sections 33 -A and 33 (3 ) of the Act are as follows :
33 - A: Special Provision for adjudication as to whether conditions of service etc. changed during pendency of proceedings.-- Where an employer contravenes the provisions of Section 33 during the pendency of proceedings before a conciliation officer, Board, an arbitrator, Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal , any employee aggrieved by such contravention, may make a complaint in writing, ( in the prescribed manner ,-
6. On bare persual or simple reading of these sections, the complaint under Section 33 -A or 33 ( 3 ) of the Act can only be filed if the management has altered the conditions of the service applicable to the protected workman or has discharged him or punished him whether by dismissal or by otherwise to such protected workman under Section 33 (3 ) of the Act . Likewise under Section 33 -A when any proceeding is pending before the Conciliation Officer, Board , arbitrator, Labour Court , Tribunal or National Tribunal and employer contravenes the provisions of Section 33 during the pendency of proceedings , any employees aggrieved by such contravention, may make a complaint in writing.
(a) to such conciliation officer or board and the conciliation officer of Board shall take such complaint into account in mediating in , and promoting the settlement of, such industrial dispute; and
7. Here in this case , there is no evidence that the complainant was General Secretary ofthe Union and was aprotected workman, hence Section 33 (3 ) of the Act is not applicable in this case nor the employer has altered the conditions of service applicable to him , nor he has discharged or punished by way of dismissal or otherwise. To suspend an employée is not a punishment . This Section 33 (3 ) of the Act is not applicable.
(b) to such arbitrator , Labour Court , Tribunal or National Tribunal and on receipt of such complaint , the arbitrator . Labour Court , Tribunal or National Tribunal , as the case may be, shall adjudicate upon the complaint as if it were a dispute referred to or pending before it, in accordance with the provisions of this Act and shall submit his or its award to the Appropriate Government and the provisions of this Act shall apply accordingly) .
8. As far as Section 33 -A is concerned , though it is not a disputed that some proceedings were pending in between the parties before the Labour Court or Tribunal etc., but as has already been stated above that suspension order is not a punishment and it does not amount to alter the service conditions of the employee. Hence management has not contravened the provisions of Section 33 of the Act, therefore, the application is not maintainable under Section 33 -A of the Act .
Section 33 : Conditions of service , etc. to remain unchanged under certain circumstances during pendency of proceedings-
9. On the basis of above discussions , following award is passed in this case:
(3) Notwithstanding anything conntained ) in sub- section ( 2 ) , no employer shall, during the pendency of any such proceeding in respect of an industrial dispute , take any action against any protected workman concerned in such dispute-
"The complaint filed by Shri Nand Lal Goel under Section 33 - A of the Act is not maintainable , hence rejected . The complainant is not entitled to any relief."
10. Award pronounced in the open court this the 4th day of March , 2004. A copy of the Award be sent to the Central Government as per rules .
(a) by altering , to the prejudice of such protected workman, the conditions of service applicable to him immediately before the commencement of such proceedings: or
P.L. Hissaria , Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 13 सितम्बर, 2004
(b) by discharging or punishing , whether by dismissal or otherwise , such protected worknian , save with the express permission in writing of the authority before which the proceeding is pending .
का.आ. 2534.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार पंजाब नेशनल बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध निंयोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण जयपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 2/94 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 13-9-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
Explanation- For the purposes of this sub - section , a "protected workman " , in relation to an establishment means a workman who , being ( a member of the executive or other office bearer ) of a registered trade union connected with the establishment , is recognised as such in accordance witlt rules made in this behalf.
[सं . एल-12025 /1/ 2004- आई आर ( बी- II ) ] सी. गंगाधरण , अंवर सचिव 6173 भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 9 , 2004/आश्विन 17, 1926
[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
New Delhi , the 13th September, 2004
S.O. 2534.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 2/94) ofthe Industrial Tribunal Jaipur as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Punjab National Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 13-9-04.
[No. L- 12025/ 1/2004 - IR(B - II ) ] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.
पोलीटन मजिस्ट्रेट, शाहदरा , दिल्ली के यहां इस संबंध में परिवाद सं. 162/93 अपराध अन्तर्गत धारा 471 , 499, 500 , 192 , 409, 420, 109, 120 ( बी ) , 177 , 211 , 389, 202 भारतीय दंड संहिता एवं धारा 29, 31 , 32, 25 व 4 औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम का पहले से लंबित है जो परिवादी द्वारा पेश किया हुआ है अतः इस संबंध में दूसरा विवाद नहीं चल सकता । उनका कथन है कि वैसे भी इस न्यायालय में इस प्रकार की कार्यवाही के लिए परिवादी सक्षम नहीं है , यह परिवाद धारा 33- ए, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 के अन्तर्गत श्रेणी में नहीं आता है और खारिज किये जाने योग्य है, अतः खारिज किया जाता है; और मामले में निम्न अवार्ड पारित किया जाता है :
अनुबंध
केन्द्रीय औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण, जयपुर
"पंजाब नेशनल बैंक कर्मचारी यूनियन, कश्मीरी गेट दिल्ली द्वारा प्रस्तुत प्रार्थना पत्र अन्तर्गत धारा 33 - ए औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 पोषणीय नहीं होने के कारण खारिज किया जाता है और प्रार्थी यूनियन कोई अनुतोष प्राप्त करने की अधिकारी नहीं है।" केस नं. सी.आई.टी. 02/94
प्रार्थी
पंजाब नेशनल बैंक कर्मचारी यूनियन, दिल्ली
4. अवार्ड आज दिनांक 4-3-2004 को खुले न्यायालय में लिखाया जाकर सुनाया गया जो केन्द्र सरकार के प्रकाशनार्थ नियमानुसार भेजाजाये ।
बनाम
पी.एल. हिस्सारिया, पीठासीन अधिकारी
अप्रार्थीगण
श्री गणपति शर्मा व अन्य ।
नई दिल्ली, 13 सितम्बर, 2004
उपस्थित
:
पीठासीन अधिकारी
श्री पी. एल. हिस्सारिया, आर. एच. जे. एस.
प्रार्थी की ओर से
: श्री के. एल . ग्रोवर व श्री नन्द लाल गोयल
: श्री जे.के. चढ्ढा
अप्रार्थी बैंक की ओर से
का.आ. 2535.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक ऑफ बड़ोदाके प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण जयपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 4/95 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 13-9-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
दिनांक अवार्ड: 4-3-2004
[सं. एल-12012/285/94- आई आर ( बी- II ) ] अवार्ड
सी. गंगाधरण , अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 13th September, 2004 1. दोनों पक्षों के प्रतिनिधि उपस्थित । रैफरेंस सं. 1/94 व एम.आई.टी. 1/94 को पत्रावलियों में निर्णय लिखाया जाकर पक्षकारान् कोसुनाया गया है। इस प्रकरण में दोनों पक्षों के प्रतिनिधिगण की बहस सुनी, पत्रावली का ध्यानपूर्वक अवलोकन किया ।
S.O. 2535.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 4/95) ofthe Industrial Tribunal Jipur as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the managemen Bank of Baroda and their workman, which was receive by the Central Government on 13-9-04.
[No. L- 12012 /285 /94- IR(B - II )] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy .
अनुबंध
केन्द्रीय औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण , जयपुर
केस नं. सी.आई. टी. 4/95
2. पंजाब नेशनल बैंक कर्मचारी संघ की ओर से यह प्रार्थना पत्र श्री गणपति शर्मा व अन्य बैंक अधिकारियों के विरुद्ध धारा 340 दण्ड प्रक्रिया संहिता एवं धारा 25 टी व 25 यू औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 के अन्तर्गत कैन्द्रीय औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण , नई दिल्लीके समक्ष पेश किया गया था, जिसे धारा 33 - ए अधिनियम का प्रार्थना पत्र मानकर दर्ज किया गया जो बाद में अनुकूल सरकार ( स्त्रोप्रियेट गर्वनमैंट ) द्वारा इस अधिकरण में अंतरित किये जाने पर पत्रावली आने पर इस अधिकरण में धारा 33 - ए औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम के अन्तर्गत 2/94 पर दर्ज किया गया । यह मामला धारा 33 - ए औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम का नहीं है बल्किआपराधिक कृत्य के लिए कर्मचारी संघ द्वारा बैंक अधिकारियों के विरुद्ध न्यायालय द्वारा परिवाद प्रस्तुत किये जाने की प्रार्थना बाबत है ।
चन्द्र प्रकाश बोहरा पुत्र श्री सीताराम बोहरा निवासी डी- प्रार्थी 452, विद्याधर नगर, जयपुर ।
हाम
3. इस प्रार्थना पत्र का जवाब बैंक कर्मचारियों की ओर से प्रस्तुत किया गया है जिसके अनुसार परिवादी द्वारा एडीशनल मैट्रो 6174
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9 , 2004/ASVINA 17 , 1926
[PART I-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] 1. मुख्य महा प्रबन्धक, बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, प्रधान कार्यालय, मांडवी, बड़ौदा ।
2. सहायक महाप्रबन्धक बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, आनन्द भवन, चौथी मंजिल, संसार चन्द्र रोड, जयपुर ।
अप्रार्थीगण
3. शाखा प्रबन्धक, बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, पार्क स्ट्रीट शाखा, एम.आई. रोड, जयपुर।
उपस्थित
पीठासीन अधिकारी : श्री पी. एल. हिस्सारिया, आर. एच. जे. एस.
पालना, विपक्षी बैंक द्वारा नहीं की गई है । इस संबंध में प्रार्थी ने क्षेत्रीय प्रबन्धक को आवेदन पत्र प्रस्तुत किया, प्रधान मंत्री को भी पत्र लिखा है, सहायक महाप्रबन्धक को भी 95 दिन तक लगातार कार्य करने के संबंध में सूचितकिया । सहायक महाप्रबन्धक क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय ने सहायक श्रम आयुक्त को पत्र लिखा कि अगर प्रार्थी नियमित नौकरी चाहता है तो नियोजन कार्यालय में अपना नाम दर्ज करवाये यह पत्र उन्हें गुमराह करने के लिए लिखा गया जबकि नियोजन कार्यालय में नाम दर्ज कराने के लिए प्रार्थी को कोई आवश्यकता नहीं थी वह पूर्व में बैंक में कार्य कर चुका है, इस प्रकार अवैध रूप से उसकी सेवा मुक्ति की गई है जिसे अवैध मानकर निरस्त किया जाकर प्रार्थी को पुनः सेवा में बहाल किये जाने व पिछला वेतन व अन्यलाभ मय ब्याज के दिलाने की प्रार्थना की गई है ।
प्रार्थी की ओर से : श्री यशपाल शर्मा
अप्रार्थी की ओर से
: श्री तेज प्रकाश शर्मा
दिनांक अवार्ड : 17-7-2004
अवार्ड
1. भारत सरकार, श्रम मंत्रालय , नई दिल्ली ने अपनी अधिसूचना क्रमांक सं. 12012/ 285/91/आई.आर. बी-2 दिनांक 8 फरवरी , 1995 के द्वारा निम्न विवाद इस अधिकरण को निर्णयार्थ प्रेषित किया है :
"Whether the contention of Shri Chandra Prakash Bohra, ex- sub staff that the management ofBank of Baroda , Jaipur have terminated his services w.e.f. 23-11-91 in violation of the provisions of Sections 25 - G and 25 -H of the I.D. Act, 1947 is correct ? If so , to what relief is the said workman entitled ? "
3. अप्रार्थी ने क्लेम का जवाब पेश किया है जिसके अनुसार प्रार्थी को विपक्षी बैंक में दैनिक वेतन भोगी कर्मचारी के रूप में रखा गया था और उसकी मजदूरी 42 रुपये प्रतिदिन थी । उसे बैंक द्वारा कोई चतुर्थ श्रेणी कर्मचारी के रूप में नियुक्ति नहीं की गई थी। प्रार्थी ने 26-8-91 से 18-1-91 तक केवल मात्र 69 दिन अप्रार्थी संस्थान में कार्य किया था, वह दैनिक वेतन भोगी कर्मचारी था जिसका कार्य समाप्त होते ही उसकी सेवाएं स्वतः समाप्त हो गईं, प्रार्थी ने उसे सेवा मुक्त नहीं किया न ही अन्य श्रमिकों को प्रार्थी के स्थान पर रखा । आकस्मिक कार्य की पूर्ति हेतु दैनिक वेतन भोगी कर्मचारी के रूप में श्रमिक को रखा गया था जिनकी न तो कोई वरिष्ठता सूची बनाई जाती है, न कोई रिकार्ड रखा जाता है , आकस्मिक कार्य के समाप्त होने पर स्वतः ही प्रार्थी की सेवाएं समाप्त हो गईं, प्रार्थी ने केवल एक वर्ष में 69 दिन ही कार्य किया अतः अधिनियम के प्रावधान उस पर लागू नहीं होते। किसी प्रकार के नियमों का उल्लंघन नहीं हुआ है अतः प्रार्थी का क्लेम खारिज करने की प्रार्थना की गई है ।
4. प्रकरण में प्रार्थी को साक्ष्य प्रस्तुत करने हेतु 27-7-2000 है । साक्ष्य प्रस्तुत करने का समय दिया जा रहा है किन्तु आज तक भी उन्होंने कोई साक्ष्य प्रस्तुत नहीं की है । आज भी प्रार्थी की साक्ष्य उपस्थितनहीं है, चार वर्ष तक साक्ष्य प्रस्तुत करने का समय न्याय हित में दिया गया है, अब और समय दिया जाना उचित नहीं है , अतः प्रार्थी की साक्ष्य बंद की जाती है ।
5. प्रार्थी का दायित्व है कि जो क्लेम उसने अधिकरण के समक्ष प्रस्तुत किया है, उसे अपनी साक्ष्य के द्वारा प्रमाणित करे किन्तु प्रार्थी ने कोई साक्ष्य प्रस्तुत नहीं की है और अपने क्लेम को साबित नहीं किया है । ऐसे में यह नहीं कहा जा सकता कि अप्रार्थीगण द्वारा की गई उसकी सेवा मुक्तिअनुचित है , उसे साबित करने में प्रार्थी असफल रहा है ।
6. उपरोक्त विवेचन के आधार पर प्रकरण में निम्न अवार्ड पारित किया जाता है :
" प्रार्थी चन्द्र प्रकाश बोहरा का यह कथन की अप्रार्थी बैंक द्वारा उसकी सेवाएं दिनांक 23-11-91 को समाप्त करना धारा 25-जी व 25 - एच औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 की उल्लंघना है; सही नहीं है, प्रार्थी का सेवा मुक्ति आदेश उचित एवं वैध है । प्रार्थी कोई राहत पाने का अधिकारी नहीं है । "
7. आज अवार्ड दिनांक 17-7-2004 को खुले न्यायालय में लिखाया जाकर सुनाया गया जो केन्द्र सरकार को प्रकाशनार्थ नियमानुसार भेजाजावे।
2. प्रार्थी ने स्टेटमेंट ऑफ क्लेम पेश किया है जिसके अनुसार प्रार्थी चन्द्र प्रकाश बोहरा ने अप्रार्थी बैंक की पार्क स्ट्रीट शाखा जयपुर में चतुर्थ श्रेणी के पद पर कार्य करने हेतु आवेदन पत्र दिया जिसको स्वीकार कर 20-8-91 को ही उसे चतुर्थ श्रेणी कर्मचारी के रूप में नियुक्ति दे दी गई , तब से लगातार 22-11-91 तक उसने कुल 95 दिन कार्य किया, 23-11-91 को जब वह कार्यालय पहुंचा तो उसे बिना किसी कारण काम नहीं करने दिया गया व उसे कहा कि उसकी सेवाएं तुरन्त प्रभाव से समाप्त कर दी गई हैं । प्रार्थी के स्थान पर विपक्षी ने सत्येन्द्र कुमार, राजेश , बिजेन्द्र को काम पर रखा , प्रार्थी ने जिस पद का कार्य किया है वह स्थाई प्रकृति का है , उसे कभी भी लीव वैकेन्सी के विरुद्ध नहीं रखा गया, स्थाई पद होते हुए भी विपक्षी द्वारा दैनिक वेतन पर श्रमिकों को रखा जाता है और वे वरिष्ठता अथवा नियमित वेतन की मांग न करे इसलिए उन्हें समय- समय पर ब्रेकस देते हैं इस प्रकार औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( जिसे बाद में अधिनियम लिखा जा रहा है ) के नियम 77 व 78 की पालना नहीं की गई है ये आज्ञापक प्रावधान हैं । उसकी सेवा समाप्त करने से पहले न तो वरिष्ठता सूची बनाई गई, न ही वरिष्ठता के अनुसार सेवा पृथक किया गया इस प्रकार विपक्षीगण द्वारा लास्ट कम फर्स्ट गो के सिद्धान्त की पालना नहीं की गई है और नये श्रमिकों को लेने से पहले उसे सूचित नहीं किया गया । इस प्रकार अनुचित श्रम नीति अपनाते हुए एवं शोषित करने की नियत से उसकी सेवा मुक्ति की गई है । शास्त्री अवार्ड के प्रावधान की भी पालना नहीं की गई है तथा श्रमिक संगठन के साथ हुए समझौते व माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा दिए गए निर्णय के अनुसार जिन श्रमिकों ने 80 दिन तक विपक्षी बैंक की किसी भी शाखा में काम किया है तो ऐसे श्रमिकों को स्थाई नियुक्ति दी जायेगी, इसकी भी
पी. एल. हिस्सारिया, पीठासीन अधिकारी 6175 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूचर 9 , 2004/आश्विनं 17 , 1926
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
अवार्ड
नईदिल्ली, 13 सितम्बर , 2004
केन्द्र सरकार, श्रम मंत्रालय , नई दिल्ली द्वारा निम्न विवाद इस न्यायाधिकरण कोअधिकनिर्णयार्थ प्रेषित किया गया है :
का. आ. 2536.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार पंजाब नेशनल बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण जयपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 14/94 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 13-9-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं० एल-12012/390/89- आई आर/डी-11 (ए) ]
"Whether the demand of the Punjab National Bank Karamchari Union that the action of the management of Punjab National Bank în terminating the services of Shri K. L. Grover and continuing in service S/shri Ram Prakash andK.B. Tyagi was discriminatory, If so , to what relief is Shri K. L. Grover entitled?"
सी. गंगाधरण , अवर सचिव
NewDelhi , the 13th September , 2004.
S.O. 2536. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 11/94) ofthe Industrial Tribunal Jaipur as shown in the Annexure inthe Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Punjab National Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on13-9-2004.
[No. L- 12012/390/89-IR/D- II (A) ] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.
अनुबन्ध
केन्द्रीय औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण, जयपुर
2: प्रार्थी के. एल. ग्रोवर द्वारा क्लेम पेश किया गया है कि वह अप्रार्थी बैंक में स्थाई कर्मचारी के रूप में दिनांक 14-4-71 को अनिश्चित अवधिके लिए नियुक्त किया गया था । श्री राम प्रकाश व के. बी. त्यागी ने अस्थाई कर्मचारी के रूप में 1973 तक काम किया जिनको स्थाई रूप से नियुक्त कर दिया जो धारा 25 - एच औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( जिसे बाद में अधिनियम संबोधित किया जायेगा ) के प्रावधान के विपरीत है और प्रार्थी के. एल. ग्रोवर की सेवाएं 12-6-71 को समाप्त कर दीगई जिसमें किसी प्रकार की जांच या प्रक्रिया नहीं अपनाई गई व और कोई नोटिस नहीं दिया गया जिससे वह अपने अधिकारों से वंचित रहा । इस प्रकार प्रार्थी के. एल. ग्रोवर की सेवा समाप्ति अन्य कर्मचारियों कीअपेक्षा विभेदपूर्ण रही जिसके लिए उसने श्रम विभाग में कार्यवाही कीजहां से यह रैफरेंस केन्द्रीय औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण , नई दिल्लौं को भेजागया जहां 26-12-89 को सं . 139/89 पर दर्ज किया गया । बाद में अनुकूल सरकार ( एप्रोप्रियेट गर्वन्मेंट ) द्वारा यह रैफरेंस इस अधिकरण को अंतरित किये जाने पर व पत्रावली आने पर इस न्यायाधिकरण में यह रैफरेंस दिनांक 5-7-94 को दर्ज हुआ ।
केस नं. सी.आई.टी. 11/94
रैफरेंस: भारत सरकार, श्रम मंत्रालय , नई दिल्ली का आदेश क्रमांक एल. 12012/390/89 -डी 2 (ए) दिनांक निल .
3. क्लेम में प्रार्थी की ओर से प्रार्थना की गई है कि श्री के. एल. ग्रोवर की सेवा समाप्ति अवैध व भेदभावपूर्ण है इसलिए उसे पुनः सेवा में लिये जाने का व पुराने वेतन व भत्ते आदि समस्त लाभ दिलाये जाने का अवार्ड पारित किया जावे ।
1
श्री के. एल . ग्रोवर द्वारा पी.एन.बी. कर्मचारी यूनियन, सी/ओ पी.एन.बी. कश्मीरी गेट दिल्ली ।
-प्रार्थी
बनाम
रीजनल मैनेजर, पंजाब नेशनल बैंक , एफ-14 , कॉम्पोर्टेट हाऊस, कनॉट प्लेस, नई दिल्ली ।
-अप्रार्थी
उपस्थित
पीठासीन अधिकारी : पी.एल. हिस्सारिया, आर.एच.जे. एस.
प्रार्थी की ओर से :
श्रीके. एल. ग्रोवरस्वयं एवं श्री नन्द लाल गोयल
श्रीजे. के. चढ्ढा
अप्रार्थी की ओर से :
4. अप्रार्थी बैंक की ओर से इस क्लेम का जवाब पेश किया गया है जिसकी प्रारंभिक आपत्तियों में यह ऐतराज किया गया है कि यह रैफरेंस विधिके अन्तर्गत संधारणीय नहीं है क्योंकि पूर्व में पक्षकारान् के बीच कई बार समझौते का प्रयास किया गया और कोई मामला नहीं बनने सेन्याय निर्णय हेतु निर्देशित नहीं किया गया । यह मामला 1971 काहै जो अत्याधिक पुराना है व पूर्व में न्याय निर्णय हेतु निर्देशित नहीं किये जाने के बाद भी अब इसे लंबे समय के पश्चात दूसरे तरीके से निर्देशित किया गया है । जो विधिपूर्वक नहीं है । उनका यह भी जवाब है किप्रार्थी द्वारा प्रस्तुत क्लेम भी संधारणीय नहीं है क्योंकि प्रार्थी ने इससे पहले भी एक प्रार्थना पत्र अधिनियम की धारा 33 ( 2 ) ( c ) के अन्तर्गत केन्द्रीय श्रम न्यायालय नई दिल्ली में पेश किया गया था जिसे 94/83 पर दर्ज किया गया और उसे 12-1-84 को निर्णय किया जाकर प्रार्थी का प्रार्थना पत्र खारिज किया गया । अब इसी मामले को दुबारा अन्य तरीके से उठाया जाकर निर्देशित किया गया है । राम प्रकाश व के. बी. स्थानी का मामला प्रार्थी से पूर्णतः भिन्न है, जो परीक्षा पास कर साक्षात्कार के पश्चात् स्थाई रूप से नियुक्त हुए हैं और प्रार्थी को भी परीक्षा का अवसर दिनांक अवार्ड : 4 मार्च, 2004 6176
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9 , 2004/ASVINA 17, 1926
दिया गया किन्तु प्रार्थी न उस अवसर का उपयोग नहीं किया और परीक्षा नहीं दी । जवाब के अनुसार प्रार्थी को कभी भी स्थाई रूप से नियुक्त नहीं किया गया न ही वह अस्थाई कर्मचारी था बल्कि उसने अप्रैल 1971 से जून 1971 तक दो माह के समय में भिन्न -भिन्न ड्यूटी पर लीव वैकन्सी के रूप में मात्र 56 दिन तक काम किया , इसलिए न तो उसे कोई नियुक्ति पत्र दिया गया और न ही उसे सेवा मुक्त किया गया व न ही कोई जांच की आवश्यकता थी तथा प्रार्थी किसी प्रकार का कोई अनुतोष पाने का अधिकारी नहीं है इसलिए उसका क्लेम खारिज किया जाकर नो क्लेम अवार्ड पारित किया जाये ।
5. प्रार्थी की ओर से इस जवाब का जवाबुल जवाब दिया जाकर बताया गया है कि प्रार्थी द्वारा जो श्रम न्यायालय में प्रकरण सं. 94/83 प्रस्तुत किया गया था वह यद्यपि प्रार्थी के विरुद्ध निर्णित हुआ है लेकिन वह इस निर्देश से भिन्न मामला था जिसका इस निर्देश से कोई संबंध नहीं है, उसका लाभ अप्रार्थी को नहीं मिल सकता, वह आदेश विधि अनुसार नहीं था और प्रार्थी के अवैद्य सेवा मुक्ति के आदेश को अपास्त किया जाकर उसे पुनः सेवा में नियुक्तकिये जाने का आदेश पारित किया जाये । 6. मैंने इस रैफरेंस में दोनों पक्ष के विद्वान प्रतिनिधिगण की बहस सुनी, पत्रावली का ध्यानपूर्वक अवलोकन किया ।
[PART II-SEC. 3(ii) ] सेवा समाप्त किया जाना व श्री राम प्रकाश एवं के. बी. त्यागी कीसेवाएं कायम रखे जाने का कृत्य विभेदकारी है, उचित एवं वैध नहीं है । प्रार्थी श्री ग्रोवर किसी प्रकार का कोईअनुतोष प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी नहीं है ।"
9. अवार्ड आज दिनांक4-3-2004 को खुले न्यायालय में लिखाया जाकर सुनाया गया जो केन्द्र सरकार को प्रकाशनार्थ नियमानुसार भेजाजावे ।
पी. एल. हिस्सारिया, पीठासीन अधिकारी नई दिल्ली, 13 सितम्बर , 2004
का. आ. 2537. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ बीकानेर एंड जयपुर के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय औद्योगिक अधिकरण कम- लेबर कोर्ट, जयपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ आई. डी. सं. 30/96 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 13-9-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं ० एल-12012/23/95- आई आर ( बी- I ) ]
अजय कुमार, डैस्कअधिकारी New Delhi , the 13th September, 2004
S.O. 2537. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. I. D. No. 30/96 ) of the Central Industrial Tribunal , Lobour Court Jaipur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 13-9-2004 .
[No. L-12012/23/95 - IR(B -I ) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer अनुबन्ध
केन्द्रीय औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण , जयपुर
केस नं. सी.आई.टी. 30/96
7. जो रैफरेंस इस अधिकरण को प्रस्तुत किया गया है , उसमें प्रार्थी के. एल. ग्रोवर की सेवा समाप्ति एवं श्री राम प्रकाश तथा के. बी. त्यागी की सेवाओं को बनाये रखना विभेदकारी है अथवा नहीं के बाबत है । निश्चित तौर पर राम प्रकाश व के. बी. त्यागी की सेवाओं को जहां तक प्रश्न है, वे नियमित रूप से परीक्षा देकर, साक्षात्कार के पश्चात् सेवा में नियुक्त किये गये हैं और उनका मामला श्री ग्रोवर के मामले से पूर्णतया भिन्न है । प्रार्थी के. एल. ग्रोवर ने जहां पूर्व में दिनांक 21-2-83 को केन्द्रीय श्रम न्यायालय नई दिल्ली के समक्ष धारा 33 ( 2 ) ( c ) अधिनियम के अन्तर्गत प्रार्थना पत्र प्रस्तुत किया था जिसका प्रकरण सं. 94/83 दर्ज हुआ, जिसके निर्णय दिनांक 12-1-84 की प्रतिलिपि अभिलेख पर मौजूद है , जिसके अनुसार प्रार्थी ने उस प्रार्थना पत्र में स्वयं को बैंक में अस्थाई कर्मचारी के रूप में नियुक्त होना मानकर अप्रैल से जून 1971 तक काम करना बताया और 390 रुपये क्षति पूर्ति की मांग को जो प्रार्थना पत्र केन्द्रीय श्रम न्यायालय ने अपने आदेश द्वारा यह निर्धारित करते हुए खारिज किया है कि प्रार्थी की नियुक्ति लीव वैकेन्सी के रूप में हुई है और उसने मात्र 56 दिन तक कार्य किया है तथा वह अस्थाई या स्थाई कर्मचारी नहीं है । ऐसी सूरत में अब यह निर्देश प्रार्थी की सेवा समाप्ति व श्री राम प्रकाश एवं के. बी. त्यागी के सेवा में बनाये रखने को विभेदकारी मानते हुए चलने योग्य नहीं रह जाता है । ज्यादा से ज्यादा यह मामला धारा 25 - जी अधिनियम या 25 एच अधिनियम के अन्तर्गत आता था जिसका कोई रैफरेंस नहीं किया गया है और इस रैफरेंस में प्रार्थी द्वारा प्रस्तुत क्लेम में प्रार्थी सेवा समाप्ति के आदेश को अपास्त कराये जाने का अनुतोष प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी नहीं है और उसका क्लेम खारिज किये जाने योग्य है ।
8. उपरोक्त विवेचन के आधार पर प्रकरण में निम्न अवार्ड पारित किया जाता है :
" पंजाब नेशनल बैंक कर्मचारी यूनियन की यह मांग कि पंजाब नेशनल बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र द्वारा श्री के. एल. ग्रोवर की
रैफरेंस: केन्द्र सरकार, श्रम मंत्रालय , नई दिल्ली का आदेश क्रमाक एल. 12012/23/95 - आई.आर. ( बी I ) दिनांक 23-7-96
श्री जगदीश माली पुत्र श्री हरीराम, उम्र 30 वर्ष, हनुमान जी के मंदिर के सामने राठौड़ों कुआं नागौर । - प्रार्थी बनाम 6177
भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 9 , 2004/आश्विन17, 1926
[भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]
3. अप्रार्थी ने क्लेम का जवाब पेश कर प्रारंभिक आपत्ति की है
-अप्रार्थी
स्टेट बैंक ऑफ बीकानेर एण्ड जयपुर, जरिये शाखा प्रबन्धक, कृषि उपज मण्डी, नागौर, राजस्थाम
उपस्थित
पीठासीन अधिकारी: श्री पी.एल. हिस्सारिया, आर.एच.जे.एस.
श्री जोगेश जोशी
प्रार्थी कीओरसे 1
अप्रार्थीकी ओर से :
श्री एच.सी. छाबड़ा
दिनांक अवार्ड: 18-8-2004
अवार्ड
1. केन्द्र सरकार, श्रम मंत्रालय , नई दिल्ली ने अपने उपरोक्त आदेश द्वारा निम्म विवाद इस अधिकरण को न्याय निर्णय हेतु प्रेषित कियाहै :
"Whether the action of the Branch Manager, SBBJ-Krishi Upaj Mandi , Nagaur is justified in terminating the services of workman ( Sh. Jagdish Mali ) w.e.f. 10-6-85 after employing him for80 days from 23-3-85 to 9-6-85 as a workman- cum-peon and employing other workman Shri Ramuram in his place , without giving him any opportunity ofemployment, which is a violation ofSection 25H of the 1.D. Act , 1947 ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to and from what date?"
किप्रार्थी को 10-6-85 को सेवा से हटाया गया और उसने 1993 में विवाद प्रस्तुत किया है जो बहुत देर होना है और इसी आधार पर क्लेम निरस्तनीय है । प्रार्थी के प्रकरण पर धारा 25 - एच अधिनियम के प्रावधान लागूनहीं होते क्योंकि उसकी नियुक्ति धारा 2 ( 00 ) ( बीबी ) अधिनियम के तहत एक निश्चित अवधि के लिए हुई थी जिसे आगे नहीं बढ़ाया गया। गुणावगुण पर अप्रार्थी का कथन है कि प्रार्थी को नियुक्ति पीओन कम-चौकीदार के पद पर एक निश्चित अवधि अर्थात् 30 दिन के लिए दिनांक 23-3-85 को की गई थी । उसके नियुक्ति पत्र में यह अंकित किया गया था कि उसकी सेवाएं बिना किसी सूचना के दिनांक 22-4-85 को समाप्त हो जायेंगी उसके बाद प्रार्थी की सेवाएं 23-4-85 से 21-5-85 तक तीस दिवस के लिए बढ़ाई गई और फिर 21 मई से 10 जून , 1985 तक फिर बढ़ाई गई । चूंकि उसकी सेवाएं पूर्णतया अस्थाई रूप से एक निश्चित अवधि के लिए थी, अतः उसका सेवा रिकार्ड रखा जाना आवश्यक नहीं था । चूंकि प्रार्थी ने एक निश्चित अवधि 80 दिन के लिए ही कार्य किया और उक्त अवधि के समाप्त होने के बाद सेवा की संविदा नहीं बढ़ाई गई अतः यह सेवा मुक्ति का मामला नहीं होकर सेवाच्युति का मामला है जिसकी सेवा संविदा आगे नहीं बढ़ाई जाने पर सेवाएंस्वयं ही समाप्त हो गई । इसके लिए किसी नोटिस की आवश्यकता नहींथी क्योंकि नियुक्ति शर्तों में यह बात उल्लिखित थी। नियुक्ति शर्तों के अनुसार कोई नोटिस अथवा उसके एवज में वेतन देव नहीं था । चौकीदार के रूप में चूंकि प्रार्थी एकमात्र अस्थाई कर्मचारी था अतः वरिष्ठता सूची प्रकाशित करने का प्रश्न ही पैदा नहीं होता। इसी आधार पर प्रार्थी का मामला छंटनी की परिभाषा में भी नहीं आता और यह मामला 2(00 ) ( बीबी) अधिनियम के अन्तर्गत आता है अतः धारा 25- एच के प्रावधानों अथवा प्राकृतिक न्याय के सिद्धान्तों का कोई उल्लंघन नहीं हुआ है । प्रार्थी को चौकीदार के पद पर पूर्णतया अस्थाई रूप से एक निश्चित अवधि के लिए रखा गया , चूंकि चौकीदार की पात्रता में एक्स-मिलिट्रीमैन होना आवश्यक है अतः वह इस पद के लिए वैसे भी उपयुक्त नहीं था अतः उसके पुनः नियोजन का प्रश्न ही पैदानहीं होता । इस तथ्य को जवाब में इन्कार किया गया है कि प्रार्थी के स्थान पर श्री रामूराम को नियुक्त किया गया हो । प्रार्थी का मामला गुणावगुण के आधार पर अनुचित व तुच्छ प्राकृतिक का होने के कारण खारिज किये जाने योग्य है जिसे खारिज किये जाने की प्रार्थना की गई है।
4. प्रार्थी की ओर से जगदीश माली प्रार्थी स्वयं का शपथ पत्र पेश किया गया है जिससे अप्रार्थी के विद्वान प्रतिनिधि ने जिरह की है और अप्रार्थी की ओर से श्री एम.एल. जोड़, शाखा प्रबन्धक का शपथ पत्र पेश किया गया है जिससे प्रार्थी के विद्वान प्रतिनिधि ने जिरह की है ।
5. मैंने दोनों पक्षों के विद्वान प्रतिनिधिगण की बहस सुनी, पत्रावली का अवलोकन किया ।
6. मेरेसमक्ष केन्द्रीय सरकार की ओर से जो विवाद न्याय निर्णय हेतु प्रस्तुत किया गया है उसमें प्रार्थी जगदीश माली की सेवाएं 10-6-85 के बाद से समाप्त किये जाने की वैधता की बाबत अंकित किया गया है । प्रार्थी ने जो अपना शपथ पत्र प्रस्तुत किया है उसमें उसने अंकित किया 2. प्रार्थी की ओर से स्टेटमेंट ऑफ क्लेम पेश किया गया है जिसके अनुसार प्रार्थी जगदीश माली की नियुक्ति अप्रार्थी बैंक में 23-3-85 कोपिओन- कम- चौकीदार के पद पर हुई थी । प्रार्थी ने अप्रार्थी के यहां 80 दिन तक लगातार कार्य किया और अप्रार्थी ने बिना कोई कारण बताये व बिना कोई नोटिस दिये मौखिक रूप से प्रार्थी की सेवाएं समाप्त कर दी और सेवा समाप्ति से पूर्व प्रार्थी को सुनवाई का कोई अवसर नहीं दिया, न ही किसी प्रकार का नोटिस, न ही एक माह का भुगतान किया जो कि प्राकृतिक न्याय सिद्धान्तों की अवहेलना है । प्रार्थी की सेवाएं समाप्त करने से पूर्व वरिष्ठता सूची जारी नहीं की इस प्रकार प्रार्थी की सेवा समाप्त करने का कात्य शून्य है जिसे निरस्त किया जाये। प्रार्थी की सेवाएं समाप्त करने के बाद नये व्यक्तियों को नियुक्तियां दीहै जबकिपहले उसे अवसर दिया जाना चाहिये था इस प्रकार औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( जिसे आगे अधिनियम लिखा जा रहा है ) की धारा 25 - एच के उल्लंघन में उसकी सेवाएं समाप्त की गई हैं । प्रार्थी से कनिष्ठ श्री रामूराम को उसके बाद चतुर्थ श्रेणी के पद पर नियुक्ति दी गई है जोकि प्राकृतिक न्याय सिद्धान्तों के भी विपरीत है । अपना मामला प्रार्थी ने श्रम विभाग केन्द्रीय सरकार के समक्ष प्रस्तुत किया किन्तु वार्ता असफल होने से विवाद केन्द्र सरकार ने इस अधिकरण को निर्णयार्थ प्रेषिति किया है । प्रार्थी की प्रार्थना है कि उसका सेवा मुक्ति आदेश अनुचित व अवैध होने से निरस्त किया जावे व उसकी सेवाएं निरन्तर मानते हुए दिनांक1-7-85 से उसे समस्त लाभ सहित सेवा में बहाल कियाजाये । 6178
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9 , 2004/ASVINA 17, 1926
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii )]
9. मैंने उक्त प्रोद्धरणों को आदर सहित पढ़ा । चूंकि ये प्रोद्धरण धारा 2(00 ) ( बीबी ) अधिनियम के प्रावधान आने के पूर्व के हैं जबकि हस्तगत मामला धारा 2 (00 ) ( बीबी ) के प्रावधान के अनुसार छंटनी की परिभाषा में नहीं आता है, ऐसी सूरत में उक्त प्रोद्धरण में प्रतिपादित सिद्धान्त का लाभ प्रार्थी प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी नहीं है । वैसे भी प्रार्थी की सेवाएं स्वयं उसके अनुसार 10-6-85 को समाप्त कर दी गई जैसा किक्लेम में बताया गया है और उसके शपथ पत्र में 1-7-85 से समाप्त करना बताया गया है और यह विवाद उसके 11 वर्ष बाद 1996 में उठाया गया है । इस 11 वर्ष की देरी का कोई स्पष्टीकरण नहींदिया गया है और इस देरी के कारण उठाये गये इस मृतप्रायः विवाद में प्रार्थी कोई अनुतोष प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी नहीं हो सकता ।
10. जहां तक रामूराम की सेवाओं का प्रश्न है, उसकी सेवाएं नियमित तौर पर नियुक्ति की गई हैं जैसा कि अप्रार्थी के शपथ पत्र से प्रकट होता है और नियमित रूप से नियुक्त कर्मचारी के साथ निश्चित अवधिके लिए नियुक्त कर्मचारी की सेवाओं की तुलना नहीं की जा सकती । ऐसी सूरत में भी प्रार्थी किसी प्रकार का कोई अनुतोष प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी नहीं है और उपरोक्त विवेचन के आधार पर प्रकरण में निम्न अवार्ड पारित किया जाता है :
" अप्रार्थी बैंक के शाखा प्रबन्धक द्वारा प्रार्थी श्री जगदीश माली की सेवाएं समाप्त किया जाना उचित एवं वैध है । प्रार्थी के स्थान पर अप्रार्थी द्वारा श्री रामूराम की नियुक्ति नहीं की गई है बल्कि उसे नियमित तौर पर नियुक्ति दी गई है जो उचित एवं वैध है और धारा 25 - एच अधिनियम के प्रावधानों का उल्लघंन नहीं हुआ है। अतः श्रमिककिसी प्रकार का अनुतोष प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी नहींहै । "
11. अवार्ड आज दिनांक 18-8-2004 को खुले न्यायालय में लिखाया जाकर सुनाया गया जो केन्द्र सरकार को प्रकाशनार्थ नियमानुसार भेजाजावे ।.
है कि श्रमिक प्रार्थी को अप्रार्थी एस.बी.बी.जे. कृषि उपज मण्डी नागौर में 23-3-85 से चपरासी- कम-चौकीदार ( चतुर्थ श्रेणी ) के पद पर नियुक्ति दी गई थी और 1-7-85 को बिना कारण बताये व बिना कोई नोटिस दिये मौखिक रूप से उसकी सेवाएं समाप्त कर दी । जबकि रैफरेंस 10-6-85 का है, 1-7-85 का नहीं है । इस बाबत प्रार्थी की ओर से किसी प्रकार का स्पष्टीकरण नहीं दिया गया है , इससे यह प्रतीत होता है कि प्रार्थी ने अपने शपथ पत्र में सही तथ्य अंकित नहीं किये । इस अधिकरण द्वारा प्रार्थी को आदेश दिया गया था कि वह अपना नियुक्ति पत्र पेश करे लेकिन आदेश दिनांक 29-7-2000 की पालना में प्रार्थी ने किसी प्रकार का अपना कोई नियुक्ति पत्र पेश नहीं किया । अप्रार्थी ने उसकी प्रतियां पेश की हैं और अपने साक्षी से साबित भी करवाई है जिसमें निश्चित तौर पर प्रार्थी की सेवाएं 23-3-85 से 22-4-85 तक 30 दिन के लिये नियुक्ति दिया जाना अंकित है । उसके पश्चात् 22-4-85 से 22-5-85 तक 30 दिन के लिए इस नियुक्ति की अवधि बढ़ाई गई फिर प्रदर्श डी-3 के द्वारा 22-5-85 से 10-6-85 तक 20 दिन की अवधि और बढ़ाई गई, इस प्रकार प्रार्थी ने मात्र 80 दिन काम किया और उसकी नियुक्ति सिर्फ 80 दिन की निश्चित अवधि के लिए ही की गई थी । धारा 2 ( 00 ) ( बीबी ) अधिनियम के अनुसार जहां निश्चित अवधिके लिए कोई नियुक्ति दी जाती है और अवधि समाप्त होने के पश्चात् उसकी सेवाओं की अवधि आगे नहीं बढ़ाई जाती तो वह छंटनी की परिभाषा में नहीं आती और धारा 25 जी व एच अधिनियम के प्रावधान जो कि छंटनी के लिए लागू हैं , वह धारा 2 ( 00 ) ( बीबी) के अनुसार छंटनी की परिभाषा में नहीं आने से यह प्रावधान लागूनहीं होते । ऐसी सूरत में जब निश्चित अवधि के लिए नियुक्ति की जाती है और अवधि नहीं बढ़ाये जाने पर उसकी सेवा समाप्त होना और किसी आदेश से उसकी सेवा समाप्त नहीं की जाती है तो न तो उसकी सेवा समाप्ति कहलायेगी और न ही छंटनी कहलायेगी और जब प्रार्थी की छंटनी की गई तो ऐसी सूरत में धारा 25 - एच अधिनियम के प्रावधान का उल्लघंन होना नहीं कहा जा सकता । ऐसे में प्रार्थी इस आधार पर कोई अनुतोष पाने का अधिकारी नहीं है ।
पी.एल. हिस्सारिया, पीठासीन अधिकारी
नई दिल्ली, 13 सितम्बर , 2004
7. प्रार्थी के विद्वान प्रतिनिधि ने तर्क दिया है कि धारा 25 - एफ 25-जी व 25- एच अधिनियम की पालना नहीं की गई है जो आवश्यक थी । इसलिए प्रार्थी पुनः नियुक्ति का अधिकारी है और अपने तर्क के समर्थन में विद्वान प्रतिनिधि ने निम्न प्रोद्धरण प्रस्तुत किये हैं :
1. पंजाब वाटर सप्लाई बनाम प्रेसाईडिंग, ऑफिसर, एल.सी. भटिण्डा, 2001 ( एस. एल. आर. ) 235 ( पंजाब व हरियाणा )
2. 1996 (4 ) एल.एल.आर. 695 ( एस.सी. ) सैन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इण्डिया बनाम एस. सत्यम
का. आ. 2538.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार दा बैंक ऑफ राजस्थान लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय औद्योगिक अधिकरण जयपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या आई.डी. नं. 8/93) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 13-9-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
3. बलजीत सिंह बनाम स्टेट ऑफ हरियाण 1995 ( 2 ) एस.एल.आर. 664 ( पंजाब व हरियाणा )
[सं० एल-12012/136/93- आई आर ( बी- I ) ] अजय कुमार, डैस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 13th September , 2004 8. इसके प्रतिकूल अप्रार्थी के विद्वान प्रतिनिधि का तर्क है कि धारा 2( 00 ) ( बीबी ) अधिनियम की व्याख्या इनमें से किसी प्रोद्धरण में नहींकी गई है यह प्रावधान 1984 में नये जोड़े गये हैं और इन प्रोद्धरणों में वर्णित तथ्य इससे पूर्व के हैं इसलिए इन प्रोद्धरणों में प्रतिपादित सिद्धान्तों से प्रार्थी को कोई लाभ नहीं पहुंचता ।
S.O. 2538. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( I.D. No. 8/93) of the Central Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court , Jaipur 6179 3(ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 9 , 2004/आश्विन 17,1926
now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of TheBanks ofRajasthan Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 13-9-2004.
[No. L- 12012/136/93 -IR(B-I)]
AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer
अनुबन्ध
केन्द्रीय औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण, जयपुर
केस नं. सी.आई.टी. 8/93
रैफरस: केन्द्र सरकार , श्रम मंत्रालय , नई दिल्ली का आदेश क्रमांक एल -12012 /136/93- आई आर ( बी-1 ) दिनांक 20-7-93
रहा है । इससे पूर्व उसे जुलाई, 86 व जुलाई , 87 के पार्ट टाईम के आधार पर आधा-2 इन्क्रीमेंट देकर दो वर्षों की एक वेतन वृद्धि दी गई और जुलाई, 88 में उसका वेतन 450/- रुपये प्रति माह हो गया था । विपक्षी बैंक ने अपने आदेश क्रमांक 237 दिनांक 5-1-89 के द्वारा कर्मचारी का स्थानान्तरण बैंक की बड़ी सादड़ी शाखा में किया और इस आदेश में उसका पूर्णकालीन पीओन का वेतन कम कर 450/- रुपये के स्थान पर 440/- रुपये कर दिया । इसके लिए कर्मचारी ने बैंक को इसे सही करने काअनुरोध किया लेकिन उसके वेतन को सही नहीं किया गया । कर्मचारी नेयूनियन के माध्यम से विवाद उठाया जिस पर भी कोई समझौता नहीं हुआऔर यह रैफरेंस राज्य सरकार द्वारा भेज दिया गया । विपक्षी बैंक को प्रार्थी कर्मचारी का वेतन 450/- रुपये से कम कर 440/- रुपये करने काकोई अधिकार नहीं है । विपक्षी बैंक का आदेश दिनांक 5-1-89 पूर्णतया अवैध , अनुचित व अमान्य है । प्रार्थी को कोई सुनवाई का अवसर नहीं दिया गया जो नैसर्गिक न्याय के सिद्धांत के विपरीत है इसलिए यह क्लेम पेश कर प्रार्थना की गई है कि प्रार्थी का वेतन 5-1-89 को 440/- से पुनः 450/- किया जाकर जुलाई, 89 से464/- रुपये पर नियत किया जावे व तमाम एरियर ब्याज सहित दिलाया जाये ।
-प्रार्थी
श्री कमल कुमार जैन मार्फत राजस्थान बैंक एम्पलाईज यूनियन, परवाना भवन, माधोवास, जोधपुर ।
बनाम
-अप्रार्थी
महाप्रबन्धक, बैंक ऑफ राजस्थान लि. , सी-72 , सरोजनी मार्ग, सी-स्कीम , जयपुर
उपस्थित
पीठासीन अधिकारी: श्री पी. एल. हिस्सारिया, आर.एच.जे.एस.
श्री जे.एल. शाह
प्रार्थी की ओरसे :
अप्रार्थी कीओर से : श्री आलोक फतहपुरिया
दिनांक अवार्ड: 17-3-2004
अवार्ड
1. केन्द्र सरकार, श्रम मंत्रालय , नई दिल्ली द्वारा यह विवाद इस न्यायाधिकरण को अधिनिर्णयार्थ प्रेषित किया गया है :
"Whether the action of the management of The Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. in fixing the pay of Shri Kamal Kumar Jain , full time Peon at the rate of Rs. 440/-p.m. is justified ? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled to ?"
3. बैंक ने इस क्लेम का जवाब पेश किया है जिसमें प्रारंभिक आपत्ति ली है कि यूनियन मे कर्मचारी का विवाद उठाने का कोई निर्णय नहीं लिया और किसी व्यक्ति को अधिकृत नहीं किया इसलिए यह विवाद चलने योग्य नहीं है । कर्मचारी यूनियन का सदस्य होने के बाबत कोई दस्तावेज़ पेश नहीं किया है । यह सही है कि उसको 215/- रुपये प्रतिमाह पर 29-7-85 से अंशकालीन चतुर्थ श्रेणी कर्मचारी के पद पर नियुक्त किया गया था जो 19 घंटे प्रति सप्ताह कार्य करता था और उसे पूर्ण वेतन 430/- रुपये का आधा 215/- रुपये दिया जाता था । बाद में उसके काम के घंटे 19 से बढ़ाकर 29 प्रति सप्ताह कर दिये गये और उसका वेतन 430/- रुपये का तीन चौथाई कर दिया गया । वह अंशकालीन चतुर्थ श्रेणी कर्मचारी था और बैंक प्रबन्धक को पूर्णकालीन चतुर्थ श्रेणी कर्मचारी रखने का अधिकार नहीं है । बैंक में एक पूर्णकालीन चतुर्थ श्रेणी कर्मचारी था जिसके अवकाश पर जाने के कारण प्रार्थी से उसके स्थान पर पूर्णकालीन काम करवाया गया और पूर्णकालीन कर्मचारी के रूप में काम करने के बदले उसे पूर्ण वेतन दिया गया लेकिन उसकी स्थिति अंशकालीन कर्मचारी की ही रही पूर्णकालीन कर्मचारी की नहीं हुई और पूर्णकालीन कर्मचारी के अवकाश पर रहने की अवधि तक ही पूर्णकालीन कर्मचारी का काम उसने किया । इसी भ्रम में उसका स्थरीकरण 450/- रुपये गलत कर दिया गया जो बाद में ध्यान आने पर 440/- रुपये अंशकालीन कर्मचारी के रूप में किया गया और उसके बाद उसे पूर्णकालीन कर्मचारी के पद पर भी नियुक्त कर दिया गया तथा अब उसे नियमित पूर्णकालीन कर्मचारी वेतन मिल रहा है । 450/- रुपये से440/- रुपयेका वेतन उसे कर्म नहीं किया बल्किपूर्व में उसके द्वारा पूर्णकालीन कर्मचारी के स्थान पर कार्य करने में उसके एवज में वेतन लिया गया उस आधार पर गलत स्थरीकरण हो जाने से उसे सही किया गया है जिसका अप्रार्थी बैंक को अधिकार है , प्रार्थी कोई राहत पाने का अधिकारी नहीं है इसलिए कोई विवाद नहीं का अवार्ड पारित किया जावे ।
4. प्रार्थी की ओर से कमल कुमार जैन स्वयं श्रमिक का शपथ पत्र प्रस्तुत हुआ है जिससे विद्वान प्रतिनिधि अप्रार्थी द्वारा जिरह की गई। 2. दोनों पक्षों को नोटिस दिये गये । प्रार्थी श्री कमल कुमार जैन की ओर से बैंक एम्पलाईज़ यूनियन ने क्लेम पेश किया जिसके अनुसार प्रार्थी कर्मचारी की नियुक्ति विपक्षी बैंक की टौंक शाखा में 29-7-85 को पार्ट टाईम पीओन के पद पर 19 घंटे प्रति सप्ताह कार्य के आधार पर हुई और उसका मूल वेतन 215/- रुपये प्रति माह रखा गया । उसे 20-6-87 को पूर्णकालीन पीओन के पद पर नियुक्त कर दिया गया और तभी से वह पूर्णकालीन पीओन के पद पर वेतन भत्ते व लाभ प्राप्त कर
2908 G1/04-32 [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii )] 6180
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 93004/ASVINA 17 , 1926
8. मैंने दोनों पक्षों द्वारा प्रस्तुत तर्कों पर गंभीरता से विचार किया व प्रस्तुत किये गये प्रोद्धरणों को आदर सहित पढ़ा ।
अप्रार्थी बैंक की ओर से श्री सुभाष मंगल, उप प्रबन्धक ( कार्मिक ) का शपथ पत्र पेश किया गया जिससे प्रार्थी के विद्वान प्रतिनिधि द्वारा जिरह कीगई ।
5. दोनों पक्ष के विद्वान प्रतिनिधिगण की बहस सुनी गई पत्रावली का ध्यानपूर्वक अवलोकन किया गया ।
6. विद्वान प्रतिनिधि प्रार्थी का तर्क है कि प्रार्थी को 450/- रुपये प्रतिमाह का वेतन मिल रहा था और उसे 5-1-89 को स्थानान्तरण के समय 450/- रुपये से कम कर 440/- रुपये वेतन कर दिया जिसका बैंक को कोई अधिकार नहीं है । 450/- रुपये वेतन मिलने के प्रमाण में बैंक द्वारा जारी अंतिम वेतन प्रमाण पत्र प्रदर्श डब्ल्यू-5 है और यह तथ्य कमल कुमार जैन के शपथ पत्र से साबित होना बताया गया है । इसलिए 5-1-89 के आदेश को निरस्त कर प्रार्थी के वेतन को पुनः सही किया जावे ।
9. प्रार्थी की ओर से इस बात का कहीं खण्डन नहीं किया गया है कि उसे पूर्णकालीन कर्मचारी के अवकाश पर जाने के कारण उसके एवज में उससे पूर्णकालीन कर्मचारी का कार्य लिया गया था । जो दस्तावेज बैंक की ओर से पेश किये गये हैं उनसे यह स्थिति स्पष्ट होती है । प्रदर्श एम-18 उसके वेतन नियतिकरण का हिसाब है जो 22-4-89 को उसकी वेतन वृद्धि पूर्णकालीन कर्मचारी नियुक्त होने के बाद बनती है जो उसे दी गई है और आदेश दुरुस्त किया गया है । विद्वान प्रतिनिधि ने जो प्रोद्धरण प्रस्तुत किये हैं , उनमें भी यही सिद्धान्त प्रतिपादित किया गया है जिसके अनुसार बैंक को अपनी गलती सुधारने का पूर्ण अधिकार है, इससे कोई प्राकृतिक न्याय के सिद्धान्त का हनन नहीं हुआ है क्योंकि प्रार्थी कर्मचारी का वेतन कम नहीं किया गया है बल्कि जो वेतन उसे मिलना चाहिये था वही दिया गया है । पूर्व में गलती से जो ज्यादा वेतन प्रार्थी कौ दे दिया गया था , उसका सुधार मात्र विवादित आदेश के द्वारा किया गया है जिसका बैंक को अधिकार है । ऐसी सूरत में प्रार्थी कोई राहत पाने का अधिकारी नहीं है और बैंक द्वारा प्रार्थी को पूर्णकालीन पीओन के रूप में 440/- रुपये प्रति माह पद नियत किया जाना न्यायोचित है, इसी अनुसार प्रकरण में निम्न अवार्ड पारित किया जाता है :
" बैंक ऑफ राजस्थान के प्रबन्धन द्वारा प्रार्थी श्री कमल कुमार जैन , पूर्णकालीन चतुर्थ श्रेणी कर्मचारी ( फुल टाईम पीओन ) को440/- रुपये प्रति माह पर वेतन नियतन किया जाना उचित एवं वैध है । प्रार्थी कोई राहत पाने का अधिकारी नहीं है ।"
10. अवार्ड आज दिनांक17-3-2004 को खुले न्यायालय में लिखाया जाकर सुनाया गया जो केन्द्र सरकार को प्रकाशनार्थ नियमानुसार भेजाजावे ।
पी.एल. हिस्सारिया , न्यायाधीश
नई दिल्ली, 13 सितम्बर , 2004
का. आ. 2539.- 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 औद्योगिक अधिकरण-कम-लेबर कोर्ट , जयपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या आई.डी. नं. 9/88 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 13-9-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
7. इसके विपरीत विद्वान प्रतिनिधि अप्रार्थी बैंक का तर्क है कि प्रार्थी अंशकालीन चतुर्थ श्रेणी कर्मचारी था, उसको 430/- रुपये प्रति माह का 3/4 वेतन दिया जा रहा था, पूर्णकालीन कर्मचारी के अवकाश पर जाने के कारण उसके एवज में प्रार्थी से पूर्णकालीन कर्मचारी का कार्य लिया गया और उसे पूर्णकालीन कर्मचारी के एवज में पूर्णकालीम कर्मचारी का ही वेतन अदा किया गया परन्तु प्रार्थी का दर्जा अंशकालीम कर्मचारी का ही रहा , वह पूर्णकालीन कर्मचारी नियुक्त नहीं हुआ और न ही बैंक मैनेजर को पूर्णकालीन कर्मचारी नियुक्त करने का अधिकार था वह पूर्णकालीन कर्मचारी की नियुक्ति बैंक के केन्द्रीय कार्यालय से ही होती है । प्रार्थी की ओर से प्रार्थना पत्र प्रदर्श एम -3 से एम -17 प्रस्तुत हुए हैं जिनमें प्रार्थी कमल कुमार के हस्ताक्षर हैं और उसने स्वयं अपने आप को अंशकालीन चतुर्थ श्रेणी कर्मचारी के पद पर पदस्थापित होना अंकित किया है जो वर्ष 1988 के हैं , इसलिए 20-6-87 से पूर्णकालीन कर्मचारी के पद पर नियुक्त होने की बात स्वयंमेव गलत हो जाती है । पूर्णकालीन कर्मचारी के स्थान पर काम करने के आधार पर जो वेतन प्रार्थी को दिया गया उसी कारण भूलवश उसको पूर्णकालीन कर्मचारी का वेतन दे दिया गया था जो बाद में स्थिति प्रकट होने पर आदेश सही कर दिया गया जो गलती दुरुस्त करने का बैंक को अधिकार है । इसमें प्रार्थी के किसी प्रकार के विधिक हक या अधिकार का हनन नहीं हुआ है क्योंकि प्रार्थी अंशकालीन चतुर्थ श्रेणी कर्मचारी ही था और उसे उसी अनुरूप वेतन दिया जाना चाहिये था, उसके पूर्णकालीन कर्मचारी नियुक्त होने के दिन से ही पूर्णकालीन चतुर्थ श्रेणी कर्मचारी के पद के वेतन पर नियत किया गया है । अपने तर्क के समर्थन में विद्वान प्रतिनिधि ने निम्न प्रोद्धरण प्रस्तुत किये हैं :
[सं० एल-12012/363/87- आई आर ( बी- I ) ] 1. ( 1996 ) 7 एस.सी. सी. 1 , योगेन्द्र नारायण चौधरी बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इण्डिया एवं अन्य
अजय कुमार, डैस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 13th September, 2004 2. 1996 ( 74) एफ. एल. आर. 1841 ( मान. इलाहाबाद उच्च न्यायालय ) प्रहलाद बनाम यू.पी. राज्य पथ परिवहन निगम, लखनऊ
S.O. 2539. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 9/88 ) of the Central Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court , 3. 1995 ( 68 ) एफ. एल.आर. 144 (मान. दिल्ली उच्च न्या. ) रामेश्वर दास बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इण्डिया । 6181 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 9 , 2004/आश्विन 17, 1926
Jaipur 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 workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 13-9-2004.
एक ऋणी महिला श्रीमती इन्दर बाई के घर गये और उस महिला की पुत्री कुमारी आशा जो घर पर अकेली थी, को बैलों का निरीक्षण करने को कहा, तथा उसके साथ अनर्गल हरकत की जिससे कि बैंक की प्रतिष्ठा को आघात पहुंचा।
[No. L-12012/363/87- IR(B -I) ]
AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer
अनुबन्ध
(Iबी) दिनांक 7-6-1983 , प्रार्थी ने एक बनावटी प्रथम सूचना कुशलगढ़ पुलिस अधिकारियों के समक्ष अप्रत्यक्ष मोटिव्स के साथ दर्ज कराई कि प्रार्थी को अवैध तरीके से बैंक परिसर में उस दिन रोका गया, जो रिपोर्ट गलत साबित हुई।
केन्द्रीय औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण, जयपुर
केस नं. सी.आई.टी. 9/88
(II ) दिनांक 1-6-1983 को प्रार्थी अनाधिकृत रूप से शाखा के हैडखजांची की कुर्सी पर बैठ गये और उनके कार्य में बाधा डाली तथा उच्चाधिकारियों के आदेश के बावजूद सीट नहीं छोड़ी जिससे बैंक के कार्य में बाधा पहुंची । रैफरेंस: केन्द्र सरकार, श्रम मंत्रालय , नई दिल्ली का आदेश क्र..एल. - 12012/363/87-डी-2( ए) दिनांक 29-1-1988
(III ) दिनांक 1-6-1983 जो जानबूझकर बिजली के तारों को निकाल दिया जिससे कि छत काका पंखा फिक्स था, यह कार्य कुर्सी पर चढ़कर किया जिससे कि पंखा बिजली कीलाइन से विच्छेदित हो गया ।
-प्रार्थी
श्री जुगल किशोर, क्लर्क- कम- कैशियर द्वारा डिप्टी जनरल सैक्रेट्री, स्टेट बैंक ऑफ इण्डिया स्टाफ एसोसियेशन, नई दिल्ली।
बनाम
-अप्रार्थी
दीरीजनल मैनेजर, रीजन नं. II, स्टेट बैंक ऑफ इण्डिया पृथ्वी राज रोड, जयपुर ।
उपस्थित
पीठासीन अधिकारी: श्री पी.एल. हिस्सारिया , आर.एच.जे.एस.
श्री एम.एफ. बेग
प्रार्थी की ओर से :
श्रीयशपाल गर्ग
अप्रार्थी की ओर से
जयपुर, 27 फरवरी, 2004
अवार्ड
1. केन्द्र सरकार , श्रम विभाग , नई दिल्ली द्वारा निम्न विवाद इस न्यायाधिकरण को अधिनिर्णयार्थ प्रेषित किया गया है:
i
प्रार्थी यूनियन का कथन है कि प्रार्थी ने आरोपों का स्पष्टीकरण दिया किन्तु उस पर विचार किए बिना ही जांच अधिकारी नियुक्त कर जांच शुरू कर दी गई । यूनियन का कथन है कि जांच अधिकारी श्रमिक केखिलाफ दुर्भावनाग्रस्त थे अतः श्रमिक ने जांच अधिकारी ने बदलने के लिए प्रार्थना पत्र दिया किन्तु उन्हें नहीं बदला गया और जांच अधिकारी नेअपनी रिपोर्ट में सभी आरोपों को श्रमिक के खिलाफ प्रमाणित माना, अतः यूनियन का कथन है कि जांच में प्राकृतिक न्याय के सिद्धान्तों की पालना नहीं की गई है और जांच अधिकारी का मिष्कर्ष परवर्स है तथा साक्ष्य पर आधारित नहीं है । यूस्थिन का यह भी कथन है कि जांच अधिकारी के निष्कर्षों से सहमत होकर अनुशासनिक अधिकारी द्वारा शास्त्रीअवार्ड के पैरा 521 ( 5 ) ( ए) सपठित पैरा 18.38 देसाई अवार्ड व अन्य द्विपक्षीय समझौतों के उल्लंशन में उसे सेवा मुक्ति का दण्डदिया गया है जो अनुचित व अवैध है । प्रार्थी ने प्रबन्धन के आदेश दिनांक 4-4-1986 के विरुद्ध अपील प्रस्तुत की जो कि खारिज कर दी गई । यूनियन काकथन है कि जांच पूर्णता अनुचित व अवैध है, जांच अधिकारी ने दुर्भावनावश श्रमिक के खिलाफआरोप प्रमाणित माने हैं, ऐसे में श्रमिक केखिलाफ पारित सेवा मुक्ति आदेश भी अवैध व अनुचित है । " क्यास्टेट बैंक ऑफ इण्डिया के प्रबन्धतंत्र की श्री जुगल किशोर लिपिक व खजांची को 4-4-1986 से सेवा से बर्खास्त करने की कार्यवाही न्यायोचित है ? यदि नहीं तो कर्मकार किस अनुतोष का हकदार है ?"
3. अप्रार्थी बैंक ने क्लेम क. जवाब पेश कर प्रारंभिक आपत्ति की है कि संबंधित श्रमिक क्लेम पेश नहीं कर सकता बल्कि केवल असोसियेशन ही क्लेम पेश कर सकती है , श्रमिक समझौता वार्ता के दौरान पक्षकार नहीं था, अतः उसके द्वारा प्रस्तुत क्लेम स्वीकार नहीं किया जा सकता । उनकी यह भी आपत्ति है कि क्लेम में जांच अधिकारी की कार्यवाही को अवैध बताया गया है किन्तु जांच अधिकारी को पक्षकार नहीं बनाया गया है, अरु क्लेम निरस्तनीय है । 2. प्रार्थी यूनियन ने स्टेटमैंट ऑफ क्लेम पेश कर अभिकथन किया है कि विवाद से संबंधित श्रमिक जुगल किशोर अप्रार्थी बैंक की कुशलगढ़ शाखा में बतौर लिपिक- कम- खजांची कार्यरत था जिसे दिमांक 30-6-1983 को निलंबन आदेश जारी किया गया जिसमें उसके खिलाफ निम्न आरोप लगाये गये:
4. गुणावगुण पर अप्राथी का जवाब है कि प्रार्थी ने क्लेम में झूठे तथ्य बताये हैं , जबकि श्रमिक द्वारा प्रस्तुत जवाब से संतुष्ट ( Iए) यह कि दिनांक 14-6-1983 को श्रमिक ने अपने आपको अनाधिकृत रूप से बैंक का निरीक्षक बताते हुए बैंक को 6182
[PART II-SBC. 3 (ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9, 2004/ASVINA 17 , 1926
प्रभाव पड़ा है अतः श्रमिक को दिया गया सेवा मुक्ति का दण्ड आरोपों कीप्रकृति व अनुपात में पूर्णतया उचित है ।
9. मैंने दोनों पक्षों के तर्कों पर गंभीरतापूर्वक विचार किया व जांच , पत्रावली में जो सम्पूर्ण पत्र एवं रिकार्ड पेश हुआ है, उनका अवलोकनकिया ।
10. विधि का यह सुव्यवस्थित सिद्धान्त है कि यह अधिकरण जांच अधिकारी के निष्कर्ष एवं अनुशासनिक अधिकारी द्वारा दिये गये दण्डमें बतौर अपील अधिकारी कार्यवाही नहीं कर सकते । जैसा कि ऊपर कहा जा चुका है कि विभागीय जांच को इस न्यायाधिकरण के आदेश दिनांक 1-8-1998 के आदेश से उचित व सही घोषित किया जा चुका है ।
नहींहोने पर ही नियमानुसार जांच अधिकारी की नियुक्ति की गई, जांच अधिकारी द्वारा प्राकृतिक न्याय के सिद्धान्तों का पूर्णतया पालन करते हुए सम्पूर्ण जांच पूरी की व पत्रावली पर आई साक्ष्य के आधार पर श्रमिक के खिलाफ समस्त आरोप पूर्णतया प्रमाणित पाये । अप्रार्थी का यह भी कथन है कि श्रमिक को बचाव का पूरा मौका दिया गया । श्रमिक ने जो इन्दर बाई व आशा के संबंध में कहा है उन्हें श्रमिक के खिलाफ कोई शिकायत नहीं थी, यह गलत थ्य पेश किये हैं । अप्रार्थी का जवाब में यह भी कथन है कि विभागीय जांच में साक्ष्य के तकनीकी प्रावधान लागू नहीं होते हैं अगर जांच अधिकारी किसी प्रश्न का स्पष्टीकरण कराता है तो यह नहीं कहा जा सकता कि वह पक्षपातपूर्ण रवैया है , जब श्रमिक उपस्थितहुआ तभी उसे जिरह का पूरा अवसर दिया गया । प्रार्थी ने जांच अधिकारी के समक्ष यह कहा कि मैं कोई साक्ष्य प्रस्तुत नहीं करना चाहता हूँ, अतः यह नहीं कहा जा सकता कि जांच अधिकारी दुर्भावना रखते थे । अंत में अप्रार्थी का कथन है कि न्यायाधिकरण अनुशासनिक अधिकारी के निर्णय पर अपील न्यायालय की तरह कार्य नहीं कर सकते और इस संबंध में न्यायालय का दायरा सीमित है । अतः श्रमिक को जो सेवा मुक्ति का दण्ड दिया गया है वह उचित है और श्रमिक कोई राहत पाने का अधिकारी नहीं है ।
5. श्रमिक ने अप्रार्थी के जवाब का जवाबुलजवाब पेश किया है और जवाब के तथ्यों से इन्कार करते हुए अपने क्लेम के तथ्यों को दोहराया है । प्रार्थी का कथन है कि यूनियन ने श्रमिक द्वारा अधिकृत किये जाने पर ही केस दायर किया है और यूं भी औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम में इस तरह की आपत्तियां तकनीकी होने के कारण कोई प्रभाव नहीं डालतीं । प्रार्थी का यह भी कथन है कि जांच अधिकारी का निष्कर्ष पूर्णतया परवर्स होने के कारण अनुशासनिक अधिकारी द्वारा पारित दण्डादेश अनुचित व अवैध है अतः उसे अपास्त किया जावे ।
6. यहां यह उल्लेख करना यथोचित होगा कि दिनांक 1-8-1998 के आदेश द्वारा इस न्यायाधिकरण ने श्रमिक के खिलाफ कराई गई विभागीय जांच को उचित व शुद्ध घोषित किया जा चुका है । मैंने प्रकरण में अंतिम बहस सुनी व पत्रावली का अवलोकन किया ।
11. अब मेरे समक्ष निर्णयार्थ केवल छोटा सा बिन्दु यही शेष रहता है कि क्या जांच अधिकारी ने अन्यथा विधि के प्रतिकूल कोई कार्य नहींकिया हो तथा जांच पत्रावली पर आई साक्ष्य से श्रमिक के खिलाफ आरोप प्रथम दृष्टया प्रमाणित होते हैं । जांच की समस्त कार्यवाही को देखने से प्रतीत होता है कि इसमें किसी भी प्रकार को कोई प्रतिकूलता नहींबरती गई है । सेवा मुक्ति का जो आदेश श्रमिक के खिलाफ पारित किया गया है , वह भी चारों आरोप जो श्रमिक के खिलाफ लगाये गये हैं, जोकि अत्यन्त गंभीर प्रकृति के हैं, को देखते हुए अधिक प्रतीत नहीं होता । श्रमिक के खिलाफ जो आरोप जांच से प्रमाणित हुए हैं उनमें प्रार्थी ने बैंक की एक ऋणी इन्द्र बाई की जवान पुत्री कु . आशा के साथ उसके घर जाकर गलत हरकतें करने का है जिससे बैंक की प्रतिष्ठा पर गहरा आघात हुआ है , श्रमिक द्वारा एक गलत प्रथम सूचना पुलिस में दर्ज कराई गई, श्रमिक अपने उच्चाधिकारियों की कुर्सी पर बैठ गया और बैंक के कार्य में बाधा पहुंचाई, तथा कुर्सी पर चढ़कर पंखे के तार उतारकर बैंक की सम्पत्ति को नुकसान पहुंचाया, जैसे गंभीर आरोप श्रमिकके विरुद्ध प्रमाणित हुए हैं । अतः यह नहीं कहा जा सकता कि जो आरोप श्रमिक के विरुद्ध सिद्ध पाये गये हैं वे तुच्छ प्रकृति के हैं, ऐसे में मेरी राय में यह भी नहीं कहा जा सकता कि दिया गया दण्ड आरोपों की तुलना में अधिक हो । ऐसी सूरत में प्रार्थी श्रमिक किसी भी प्रकार का अनुतोष प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी नहीं है ।
12. उपरोक्त विवेचन के आधार पर प्रकरण में निम्न अवार्ड पारित किया जाता है :
" स्टेट बैंक ऑफ इण्डिया के प्रबंधतंत्र की श्री जुगल किशोर, लिपिक व खजांची को दिनांक 4-4-1986 से सेवा से बर्खास्त करने की कार्यवाही सही व न्यायोचित है । श्रमिक कोई भी राहत पाने का अधिकारी नहीं है । "
7. प्रार्थी के विद्वान प्रतिनिधि का मुख्य तर्क यह है कि श्रमिक्र के खिलाफ जो चार आरोप लगाये गये हैं वे इतने गंभीर नहीं हैं कि जिसकी सज़ा सेवा मुक्ति हो । उनका यह भी तर्क है कि इस अधिकरण को धारा 11 - ए औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( जिसे तत्पश्चात् अधिनियम संबोधित किया जायेगा ) के अन्तर्गत सजा कम करने के विस्तृत अधिकार हैं और उनका उपयोग कर श्रमिक को जो सज़ा सेवा मुक्तिकी दी गई है , जो कि आरोपों के अनुपात में अधिक है, को कुछ कम किया जावे ।
13. अवार्ड आज दिनांक 27-2-2004 को खुले न्यायालय में लिखाया जाकर सुनाया गया जो केन्द्र सरकार को प्रकाशनार्थ नियमानुसार भेजाजावे ।
पी. एल. हिस्सारिया, न्यायाधीश 8. इसके विपरीत बैंक के विद्धान प्रतिनिधि ने खण्डन में तर्क दिया है कि श्रमिक के खिलाफ सभी आरोप अत्याधिक गंभीर प्रकृति के हैं जो प्रार्थी श्रमिक के दुराचरण को दर्शाते हैं और प्रार्थी के इन कृत्यों से अप्रार्थी बैंक की प्रतिष्ठा को अत्याधिक आघात पहुंचा है व प्रतिकूल 6183
भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 9, 2004/आश्विन 17, 1926
[शन 11- वष्ठ 3(ii)]
नई दिल्ली, 13 सितम्बर, 2004
employees upper different schemes in the form of Personal Payand this payment was made actuallytill end ofyear 1992, effective from 1-8-1987. That through a circular dt. 21-12-1992, themanagement has withdrawn the benefit unilaterally and ordered recovery ofthe amount we.f. 1-8-87.
का.आ. 2540.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एफ. सी. आई. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध मेंनिर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय नं. II , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 23/94 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 13-09-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं० एल-22012/401/93- आई आर (सी- II ) ]
That since instructions dt. 10-11-1989 were basod upon bilateral settlement , no unilateral decisions should have been taken by the management to the disadvantage ofthe employees. As such , the Union has challenged the circular letterdt. 21-12-1992 and has prayed for payment in view ofMOSdt. 10-11-1989 .
एन. पी. केशवन, डैस्क अधिकारी
NewDelhi , the 13th September, 2004
S.O. 2540.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 23/94) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court No. II, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the IndustrialDispute between the employers in relation tothe management of F.C.I and their workmen, which was receivedby the Central Government on 13-09-2004.
[No. L-22012/401 /93-IR(C- II)]
N.P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER: CENTRALGOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT- IL, NEWDELHI
PRESENT:
The management has filed written statement . In the written statement, it has been stated that the circular of 1992 has been issued by the Ministry of Food, Govt . of India as a clarification that personal pay is reckoned for allowance like CCA/HRA/DA etc. only when there is a loss in pay as a result of promotion etc. and not in any other cases. The HRA/CCA and DA are not to be paid on the allowances in the form of incentives like for small family norms , deputation duty pay etc. According to the management, the allowance by way of incentives do not form part of the basic pay in view of the CCA rules, and clarification received from Ministry of Food letter dt. 7-10-1992. It has been further stated that the basic payofthe employees was fixed in view of the 3rd Central Pay Commission but it was withdrawn by the 4th Central Pay Commission and the employees were getting the payments erroneously. When the matter came to notice a clarificationwas issued and it was directed that the personal paywill not form part of the basic pay
Presiding Officer: R.N. Raj
Theunion has filed rejoininder and in the rejoinder, the same averments have been reiterated
L.D. No. 23/94
Food Corporation of India Employees Union
Versus
Food Corporation of India
AWARD
TheMinistry ofLabour by its letter No. L-22012/401/ 93- IR(C- II) Central Government Dt. 24-02-1994 has referred the following point for adjudication.
The point runs as hereunder :-
"Whether the action of the management of F.C.I. , New Delhi was justified in withdrawing the payment of HRA/ CCA on increments /allowances granted under different schemes in the form of personal pay from the employees? If not, what relief theworkman concerned are entitled to . "
Both the parties have examined witnesses in evidence.Heard arguments from both the sides and perused the papers on the record. It was submitted from the side of the Union that FCI circular dt. 10-11-1989 is a bilateral agreement andMemorandum of Settelement is applicable to the employees ofthe F.C.I. The recommendations ofthe Central Pay Commission are not admissible to the employees ofthe FCI and the employees of the FCI are entitled to get HRA, CCA and DA on their personal pay also. The second question raised was that before changing the condition of service notice under Section 9 (A) ofthe ID Act is necessary and unilateral agreement cannot be taken away and the service conditions cannot be changed without a notice under Section 9(A) ofthe ID Act. The notice is mandatory. The case law, 1883 ( 1 ) SIR 435 ( db), 1984 ( I ) SLR 71 (DB ) , 1971 (2) SLR(db) AND 1974 ( 1 ) SLR (PB), 1990 ( 1 ) RSJ 131 , 1987 (3 ) SLR488 cited by the management are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. I have göne through the citations referred to above and the Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court have heldthat, that abenefit which has been granted to an employee can betaken away by the employer even if it has been continued by mistake . It was submitted from the side of the The Union has filed statement ofclaim. In the statement of claim, it has been stated that there was an agreement between the Management of FCI and the National Coordination Committee of FCI Employees, the FCI issued a circular No. WRC/ 17/ 5/ 89 dt . 10-11-1989 (Annexure - 1 ) authorizing payment of house rent allowance/ city compensatory allowance on increments being granted to 6184
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9 , 2004/ASVINA 17, 1926
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)]
cited by the management are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. The employees are certainly the employees of an industry and for change of service conditions of the employees of the industry, notice is necessary.
management that the basic pay was fixed of the employees inview of the 3rd Central Pay Commission Report and the said beneift was withdrawn in view of the 4th Pay Commission's recommendations of 1986. The employees were given HRA , CCA , DA by a bona fide mistake and when the mistake was detected , the benefit was withdrawn .
Inview of the discussions , the reference is replied thus:-
(
The management of the F.C.I. , New Delhi was not justified in withdrawing the payment of HRA/CCA on increments/allowances granted under different schemes in the form ofpersonal pay from the employees . It is directed that the management will give a notice under Sec . 9A of the ID Act and thereafter the basic pay of the employees willbe settled. Till the settlement is reached, the employees will not be entitled to get HRA, CCA, DA as prayed for . The payments made in respect of HRA, CCA, DA will not be recovered till the final settlement is reached between the union and the FCI.
The award is given accordingly. Dt.02-09-2004
R.N. RAI , PresidingOfficer
नई दिल्ली, 13 सितम्बर, 2004
It was further submitted from the side of the management that in case the incentives and interim reliefs will be considered as part of basic pay then there will be discrimination in payment and it will contravene the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court . In Surinder Singh's case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that equal pay should be given for equal work. The personal allowances areincentives and they are given for a small family norm or as deputation duty allowance or interim relief, they cannot form part of basic pay. In case , these incentives form part ofbasic pay, HRA/ CCA/DA willbe admissible on special allowance also as such the other employees will be adversely.effected. A special allowance is given in such circumstances and it never forms part of the basic pay of employees. In General , CCA/HRA/DA are not admissible on personal pay and allowances as in that case , the basic pay of the employees of the same category and of the same type will be adversely affected and the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court will be contravened.
का.आ. 2541.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सी. पी. डब्ल्यू. डी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. 1 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 53/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 13-09- 2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं० एल-42012/14/2000- आई आर ( सी- II ) ]
एन. पी. केशवन, डैस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 13th September, 2004
S.O. 2541. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 53/2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court , No. 1 , New Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of C.P.W.D. and their workmen which was received by the Central Government on 13-09-2004 .
[No. L-42012/ 14/2000 -IR(C- II) ] N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer ANNEXURE
The 3rd Central Pay Commission Report and the 4th Central Pay Commission Report and the subsequent Central Pay Commission Reports have not been annexed with the record so it is not certain whether the employees of the FCI are getting the benefits of the Central Pay Commission Report . In case , they are getting other benefits of the 4th Central Pay Commission Report and the subsequent Central Pay Commission Report , they are not entitled to get HRA, CCA/DA on their personal pay. The union ought to have placedbefore the court the Central Pay Commission Report and it ought to have categorically stated that they are not taking advantage of the Central Pay Commission Reports. In that case their structure ofbasic pay will remain as itwas in 1989 so I have not been able to ascertain whether the employees are getting the basic pay structure of 1989 or their basic pay structure has been subsequently changed in view of the orders of the government and in view of Central Pay Commission's Report . Papers ought to have been annexed with record . An employee cannot approbate and reprobate in view of principles of doctrine of election . It is not certain whether the basic pay structure of 1989 is still continuing or not . The management has also not stated categorically that the employees are getting benefits of the Central Pay Commissions Report . As such , it is difficult to answer the reference .
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT NEWDELHI
PRESENT :
PresidingOfficer : Shri S.S. Bal
So far as the notice under Section 9 A is concerned, notice is mandatory and prior to changing the service conditions , the FCI the Ministry of Food should have given a notice under Sec . 9A ofthe ID Act, 1947. The law [भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii)]
6185
भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 9 , 2004/आश्विन 17, 1926
L.D. No. 53/2001
In the matter of dispute between:
Shri Baldev Singh,
S/o Shri Dharam Chand,
through The General Secretary,
CPWDMazdoor Union, E-26 (Old Qtr .) , RajaBazar,
Baba Kharak Singh Marg ,
......Workman
NewDelhi.
Versus
TheDirectorGeneral Works , CPWD, Nirman Bhawan, NewDelhi.
...Management APPEARANCES :
Workman inperson with his A/R
Shri B.K. Prasad.
None for the Management
AWARD
The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L-42012/ 14/2000- IR (C -II) Dt. 9-8-2001 has referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal foradjudication:
"Whether the action of the D.G. , CPWD , Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi , the Executive Engineer (E) Elec. Division No. 15, CPWD , I.P. Bhawan, New Delhi in not regularising the services of Sh. Baldev Singh as Wireman w.e.f. 14-5-86 and on the contrary withdrawing temporary status granted to him w.e.f. 25-3-96by order dated 7-12-99 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief he is entitled to ?. "
2. Brief facts of this case as culled from record are that Baldev Singh was initially engaged as Wireman on muster roll w.e.f. 14-5-86 and was posted in PWD Electrical Division- 1 , Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi and transferred to ED-XV in the year 1992 and posted at National Museum Janpath , New Delhi; that at the time of his engagement on muster roll he had passed trade test conducted by the Executive Engineer concerned and thereafter he entered into service of the management ; it is averred that he has filed his experience certificate as Annexure A certificate of competencyClass II for the post ofWireman Photocopy of the same as Annexure B, passed trade test conductedby the Coordination Circle (E) CPWD copy Annexure Cand so passed intermediate examination copy of which is Annexure D and certificate from National Counsil of Training in Vocational Trade Annexure E. That the workman has been getting his wages in the time scale of Rs . 950- 1500 with all allowances except increment as per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Surinder Singh and others in which it was observed that thoseworkmen who had completed six months service their services will be regularised but management did not regularise the services of the workman till date ; that the C.P.W.D. vide their order No. 38/2/87-EC-X dated 30-9-92 have sanctioned 832 posts of Wireman for regularisation ofdaily rated workers in compliance of the S.C. orders. The juniors to him (workman) were regularised while he has been left out so this action of the management is also illegal, unjustified so the workman is entitled to be reinstated in the said grade, the executive engineer under which the workman has raised the industrial dispute against non- regularisation, his temporary status was withdrawn by the management w.e.f. 7-12-99 . The workman is connected with the construction, sanitation work and maintenance of building owned by Central Government and comes under the definition ofPayments of Wages Act and so he is also coveredby Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act and rules made thereunder. According to Model Standing Rules under Industrial Employment Act a workman having completed 90days of continuous service is deemed to have attained the status of permanent workman but the management denied the facilities to the workman and thereby discriminated him, that as per the above Model Standing Orders the workman acquired the permanent status after three months service in the grade but the workman has been kept on daily rated on muster roll only with a viewto deny him the privileges and benefits and non -regularisation of services by the management is unjustified as well as illegal; that the management has not been regularising the services of workman with a view to exploit him by denying the benefits and fruits of regular workman in the time scale which is unfair labour practice; that as per item No. 10 of the Vth Schedule of I.D. Act dealingwith unfair labour practice the Hon'ble Parliament has disapproved the exploitation of workman while inserting the amendments and the same has been taken effect we.f. 21-8-84.
" 10. To employ workmen as badlis casuals or temporaries and to continue them as such for years with object of depriving them of the status and privileges ofpermanent workman. "
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
There are thousands of permanent workmen (Wiremen) working in different divisions of PWD /CPWD and keeping these concerned workmen on daily rated is discriminatory and denial of equal status and this action of the management is discriminatory and unlawful ; that under the I.D. Act, Industrial Tribunal has the power to classify the workman by grade and set aisde the hostile discrimination in the matter of classification by grades of the workman by the above management as per item No. 7 in the Ilird Schedule under Section 7A ofthe I.D. Act, 1947; that the action of the D.G. (W) CPWD , Nirman Bhawan, NewDelhi in not regularising the services of the workman as Wireman w.e.f. 14-5-86 and also withdrawing temporary status granted to him w.e.f. 25-3-96 by the order dated 7-12-99 passed without following theprocedure ofnatural justice is illegal and unjustified, it is prayed for making an award to regularise the services of Shri 6186
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9 , 2004/ASVINA 17 , 1926
Baldev Singh as Wireman w.e.f. 14-5-86 and also set aside the order date 7-12-99 of withdrawing the temporary status granted to him w.e.f. 25-3-96.
the services of the workman Baldev Singh as Wireman w.e.f. 14-5-86 and withdrawing his temporary status granted to him w.e.f. 25-3-96 vide letter dated 7-12-99 is not legal and justified and he is entitled to the reliefs claimed and accordingly award is made ..
{
Dated: 31-8-2004.
3. Despite several opportunities written statement was not filed by the management and opportunity to file W.S. was closed vide order dated 22-10-2002.
S.S. BAL, PresidingOfficer
नई दिल्ली, 13 सितम्बर, 2004
4. Workman has filed his affidavit in evidence and his statement was recorded exparte in support of has claim.
5. 1 have heard learned counsel for the workman and perused the case file .
का.आ. 2542.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, डेरेक्टेरेट आफ राइस रिसर्च प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , हैदराबाद ( संदर्भ संख्या 38/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 13-9-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल -42012/17/2000- आईआर (सी- II ) ] एन. पी. केशवन, डैस्क अधिकारी
NewDelhi , the 13th September,2004
S. O. 2542. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref .No. 38/2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court , Hyderabad now as shown in the Annexure , inthe Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Directorate of Rice Research and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 13-09-2004.
6. The workman has claimed regularisation of his services as Wireman w.e.f. 14-5-86 and also setting aside order dated 7-12-99 withdrawing temporary status granted to him w.e.f. 25-3-96 . Thus the workman has in fact claimed two reliefs i.e. one of regularisation of his services and the other for the restoration of his temporary status which according to hiin was illegally withdrawn . Perusal of the record shows that the workman was in fact granted temporary status w.e.f. 25-3-96 vide order dated 25-3-96 Ex. WW1 / 7 which status was subsequently withdrawn vide letter dated 7-12-99 but the letter does not specify the reasons for which temporary status of the workman was withdrawn . There is also nothing on record to show that the workman was given any opportunity before his temporary status was withdrawn vide letter dated 7-12-99 Ex. WW1 / 8 . This has adversly affected the workman and the workman is entitled to the grant of said status in the absence of any evidence to the contrary.
[No. L-42012/17/2000- IR(C-II) ) N.P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD
PRESENT : Shri E. Ismail , B. Sc. LLB. , Presiding Officer Dated the 30th day of July, 2004
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 38/2003
BETWEEN:
The Vice President ,
All India Trade Union Congress (AITUC) LocalOffice , Bhagat Singh Bhawan ,
3-128 Chandanagar (V) ,
Petitioner Union
Hyderabad-500050 .
AND
7. Workman in the instant case was initially engaged as Wireman on muster roll w.e.f. 14-5-88 and he has been continuously working uninterruptedly since than without having incurred any blemished entry or record on his part in his service career. The workman has also placed on record a letter dated 30th of September, 1992 Ex . WW1 /6 according to which 932 posts were created for regularisation of muster roll workers of the C.P. W.D. which goes to show that there exist regular post in the management of C.P.W.D. Workman has also claimed that his juniors have been regularised while he has been denied the same and that he is possessing requisite qualifications i.e. he is having valid licence and he also qualified trade test for regularisation of his services being successful on 18-7-90 conducted by the department ofExecutive Engincer C.P.W.D. Electrical Division Ist and the post of Wireman is still vacant. His claim goes unrebutted on record . Thus he has proved his case that he is entitled to the relief of regularisation for the post of Wireman in the absence of any evidence on the contrary. TheProject Director,
ICAR (Directorate of Rice Research) ,
Respondent
Rajendra Nagar , Hyderabad- 500 032 .
APPEARANCES :
Forthe Petitioner : M/s. Shaik Anwar Pasha , Renuka & M.A. Ali , Advocates 8. In view of the above discussions 1 am of the view that the workman is entitled to both the reliefs i.e .. regularisation of his service as Wireman in the management of respondent as well as to the restoration of temporary status and the action of the D.G. , C.P.W.D. Nirman Bhawan Executive Engineer Electrical Division in not regularising 6187 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (1) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 9 , 2004/आश्विन 17, 1926
For the Respondent : Sri N. ParameswaraReddy,
Advocate
AWARD
the inception of the Institution i.e. 1972 , and are continuously working and discharging regular nature of work. Theywere working from 7.30 AM to 4 PM with a40 minutes lunch break and reach their homes in the evening by6 PM. They do ploughing, seeding, weeding, planting, spraying the pesticides with no protection to their bodies. The work is continuous in nature through out the year as the farm is operated on scientific lines and not depending upon the changes of seasons .
TheGovernment of India, Ministry ofLabourby its order No. L-42012/ 17/2000 - IR (CM.II) dated 27-1-2003 referredthe following dispute under Section 10( 1 ) (d) ofthe I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the employers in relation to the Management ofDirectorate of RiceResearch and their workmen .
THE SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of Directorate of Rice Research (ICAR) in not regularizing the services of 60 temporary status mazdoors who are working since 27 years and more as casual mazdoor/temporary status mazdoor is legal and justified ? It not, to what relief the workmen are entitled to?"
This reference was registered as Industrial Dispute No. 38/2003 and notices were issued to the parties.
4. ICAR being an organization of the Central Government instead of acting as a model employer adopting unfair labour practices . The word ' casual labour' is totally misused. The labourers are doing permanent nature ofwork for more than 30 years . That the labourers of the 1st Party have filed aWrit Petition No. 7395/1989 for regularisation oftheir services and also extension of benefits under labour welfare legislations through their union leader Sri M. Vikram Kumar, beforethe Hon'ble High Court ofA.P. The Hon'ble High Court of A.P. was pleased to dispose off the said petition on 19-4-93 with the following directions. The Director General of I.C.A.R. , Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi was directed to regularize the services of the members of the first party Farm workers with monetary benefit from 29-4-93 onwards, but they were not employed. Second party have even failed to implement the provisions of office memorandum dated 10-9-93 issued by the Ministry of Personnel , P.G. & Pensions , Department of Personnel & Training, Government of India. Still the first party are paid with dailywages @Rs . 163.80 per day and other allowances are not paid. They are not even treated as temporary Group D as stated in the clause 6 of the above said office memorandum and so Group D posts were also not filledup. Except 3. holidays , they are not given the other holidays , no maternity leave is also given. Hence , the Respondent may directed to regularize the services of the workmen by taking their first date of apointment into consideration for all purposes and from the date when they become eligible for regularisation with all the benefits and arrears ofsalary which are applicable to Group D posts, and pass such other further order or orders as deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case .
2. The brief facts as stated in the claim statement are: That the members of the Petitioner union are working since last 30 years and above and working continuously without any break of service . Even then, their services were not regularized and benefits under labour enactments have not been extended to them. As such they were constantly demanding for regularisation of their services and also for extension ofthe benefits mentioned above. Finally the matter was taken up for conciliation before Assistant Labour Commissioner (C) , Hyderabad. But the conciliation failed and the matter was referred to this Hon'ble Tribunal . The workers plough the fields and do plantations , spray fertilizers, drive the tillers, sew harvest and transport, etc. During the past three decades out of 67 workers only the services of 7 workerswere confirmed and the remaining workers continued without confirmation of their services . They lost other job opportunities and during the course of the period, many of them died and some ofthem became sick and some ofthem simply discontinued their services . In other words , the workers are treated as bonded labourers . The ICAR is one of the four research units established through out the country for developing new varieties of rice capable ofyielding more quantitywith less prone to pests .The unit of Andhra Pradesh wasestablished in the year 1972. The land was acquiredby evicting the residents of two villages in Kesi Reddypalli and Madreela ofAndhra Pradesh . All the 84 casual labour who were initially engaged in the Research Centre were residents of the said villages and they have lost their lands in the acquisition. Though they received compensation , that was frittered away. They were converted into landless labourers with hand to mouth, depending upon daily wage .
5. A counter was filed by Dr. V. Mishra , Project Director, with the Respondent organization stating that the Secretary, ICAR has not been made a Respondent , the ID may be dismissed on that ground . That all the allegations are denied. The Scheme " Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization ) Scheme of Government ofIndia 1993" has been issued by Government of India, Ministry of Personnel and PG & Pensions , Department ofPersonnel and Training , New Delhi order No. 51016/2/90 -Estt. (C) dated 10-9-93 and the same was effective from 1-9-93 and had rendered minimum one year ofcontinuous service. The engagement was on daily rates ofpay on needbasis . However, as per Government of India's decision , the casual labourers , who acquire temporary 43. The said institution have taken the services of the land outees by settling them at Srinivasa Nagar near Ramachandrapuram . All the said labourers except two or three, were land oustees and were taken into service since
2908 GI /04-33 6188
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9 , 2004 /ASVINA 1 " , 1926
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii)]
sement and also mentioned about the Writ Petition bott didnot mention about writ appeal in the chief examinati and marked Ex. W1 toW11 .
8. In the cross examination he admitted that in the writappeal theHon'ble High Court of A.P. directed them to aproach Hon'ble C.A.T.. It is correct that in Ex. W1 those who have completed 240 days in a year before 1-9-93 is a scheme was formed for grant of temporary status and regularization. He denied that they are not entitled for any relief.
9. Sri B. Swamy who is General Secretary of ICAR Workers Union deposed as WW2 . He deposed the same things as stated in the chief examination of WW1 . In the cross examination he deposed that he used to do ploughing and sprayingwho is working for the last 30 years.He used to sign whenever he used to take wages . They used to pay the wages once in a month calculating the number ofdays worked. He used to sign in the register maintained by Sri P. Ramulu, Incharge. He denied that they have to approach Hon'ble C.A.T...He denied that their wages are equal to GroupD employees. Even though some of the Petitioners are aged about 40 years, they have been working for the last 30 years and there is no age limit at the time of joining.
10. The Respondent did not produce any evidence . The Respondent counsel was absent from 15-4-2004, 28-4-2004, 10-5-2004, 9-6-2004, 16-6-2004 and 22-6-2004. Hence, the arguments of the Petitioner's counsel were heard and reserved for Judgement.
status are not to be brought on to permanent establishment unless they are selected through regular selection process for Group D posts . All the benefits as applicable to them under the above scheme are already being extended to them. Since there were no Group D posts, they could not beconsidered for appointment on regular basis . For regular appointment there are recruitment rules and it is not automatic . Even if a vacant post of Group D is available it can only be filled as per recruitment rules given in the scheme . Reservation for SC/ ST/ OBC/ Physically handicapped/Ex servicemen applies to Group D posts . Further conditions of age , qualifications etc. also apply. That the members of the first party were working since 1-9-93 as daily rated casual labourers temporary status and the same was conferred on them because they had rendered a minimum of one year of service as casual labourer when scheme came into force. The services can be regularized in GroupD posts on the availability of posts and selection as per rules . No posts can be created for accommodating a large number of temporary status staff. It is not correct to suggest that they are treated as bonded labourers since they are conferred already temporary status w.e.f. 1-9-93 and all the benefits as applicable to the temporary status , viz. , festival advance , bonus , HRA, CCA and already been paid to them . Their daily wages are also equivalent to Group D staff . They also get increments . The Group D staff has been given a permanent Group D post as and when the post has fallen vacant and this Directorate is not empowered 'to create a post or to regularize in violation of recruitment rules . The Directorate has not acquire any land at Ramchandrapuram farm and it belongs to ICRISAT. This Directorate is no way concerned with acquisition of land.
11. The arguments of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner are the same as what is written in the claim statement and deposed by WW 1 and WW 2. It will be futile on my part to repeat the argument . However, few points which he submits are , that these persons have been working since 1972 and they were out of the land keeping persons for more than 27 years temporary status mazdoor iswrong. He therefore prays that they may be regularized.
12. As the Respondent counsel was absent he could not argue .
6. Thework assigned to them is as agricultural labour and they were deployed on need basis . Although they were on rolls of Directorate of Rice Research throughout the year . It is submitted that Indian Council of Agricultural Research is society registered under Societies Registration Act, 1860. It is an instrumentality of Government to undertake research. It has not violated any instructions . Against the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. , dated 29-4-1993 a writ appeal No. 822 of 1993 was filed and followed orders has been given by the Hon'ble High Court ofA.P. and the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. held that it has nojurisdiction . That the petition may be dismissed.
13. Recently I had an Award in ID No. 1/2002 and prior to that I had decided one case against the Management ofHindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited directing regularization and equal pay from the date of Award which was upheld by Hon'ble High Court of A.P. , inwrit appeal reported in 2002 (4) LLN page 893 , it was held that , " So far as regularisation is concerned it is upheld, but equal pay was not allowed on the ground that there was no reference. But regularisation was upheld " . This is also a typical case where the parties have been working for more than 25 years . According to 2 LLJ 993 page 937 atpage 957 their Lordships observed, " If a casual labourer is continued for a fairly long spell say two or three years- 7. The President of the ICAR Workers Union and Vice President of AITUC A.P. State Council , Hyderabad , Sri M. Vikram Kumar deposed as WW1 . He stated that the claim has been filed in respect of 58 workers and all have been appointed since 1972 and all of them are members of ICAR Workers Union . Their working hours are 7.30 AM to 4.30 PM with 40 minutes lunch break . They were engaged since they lost their entire lands including their houses and they were shifts to Srinivasanagar Colony, R. C. Puram. He further deposed that now they are getting Rs . 180 per day and narrated all the facts stated in the claim 6189 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 9 , 2004/आश्विन 17, 1926
14. Further, in this case, the Respondent has admitted in page 2 ofthe counter in para 2 , that the Petitioners were working since 1-9-93 and they were granted causal labour temporary status and the same was conferred on them because they had rendered minimum of one year of service as casual labourers when the scheme came into force . Further WWI admitted that in Ex . W1 , those who have completed 240 days of service in a year before 1-9-93 a scheme was confirmed for grant of temporary status and regularization. So , it may be seen that as per counter and admission ofW1 temporary status was conferred on them as theyhad rendered a minimum of one year service as the scheme came into force . Any way I am not concerned with thepaypart of itbecause in view of the Judgement ofthe Hon'bleHigh Court ofA.P. referred above in the writ appeal reported in 2002 (4) LLN page 893 , that equal pay was not allowed on the ground that there was no reference Here, the reference is only, "Whetehr the action of the management of Directorate ofRice Research (ICAR) in not regularizing the services of60 temporary status mazdoors who areworking since 27 years and more as casual mazdoor/ temporarystatus mazdoor is legal and justified ? Ifnot, to what relief the workman are entitled to ?" . But, as they are working since 27 years and by now even more. So scheme for regularization is justified. Hence, the Respondent is directed to regularize the services of all the emplyees in a phased manner. Keeping in view the reservations of SC/ ST/OBC/Physically Handicapped/Ex. Servicemen etc. If some of the employees are more in any category, extra posts shall be created and they shall be regularized. The regularization shall be completed in a phased manner on orbefore 31st August, 200 %. The reference is answered and Award is passed as follows ; " the action of the Management ofDirectorate of Rice Research (ICAR) in not regularizing the serivices of 60 temporary status mazdoors who are working since 27 years or more as casual mazzdoor/temporary status mazdoor is not legaland not justified. Hence, the workmen are entitled for regularization and the regularization shail be done keeping in view the reservations of SC/ ST /OBC/Physically Handicapped/ Ex. Servicemen etc. Ifsor ofthe employees are more in any category, extra posts tall be created and they shall be regularized. The regularization shall be completed ina phased manner on or before 31st August, 2005" .
Award passed accordingly. Transmit .
Dictated to Kum. K. Fni Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected and pronounced by me on this the 30th day ofJuly, 2004 .
E. ISMAIL, Presding officer
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner:
Respondent :
NIL
WW 1 Sri M. Vikram Kum ::
WW 2 Sri B. Swamy
apresumption may arise that there is regular need for his services" . In such a situation it becomes obligatory for the concerned authorities to examine the feasibility of his regularization. While doing so , the authorlties ought to adopt a positive approach couple with sympathy for the person. As has been repeatedly stressed by this Court, "security of tenure is necessary for an employee to give his best to the job" . One can imagine the anxiety of a person who work for more than 25 years yet, he cannot call himself as permanent employee . What an amount of mental torture one has to go , one has to see the society at large . It is not U.S.A. where there is hire and fire policy, here in India the jobs are very very scarce and the society looks down (they ought not to, but it is) upon the person who is a dailywage earner. He does not have the mental satisfaction to give his best to the factory or the company for which he works and and not only that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 1990 LLJ page 320 at page 322 have held, "Once the appointments were made as daily rated workers and they were allowed to work for a considerable length of time, it would be hard and harsh to deny them the confirmation in the respective posts on the ground that they lack the prescribed educational qualifications. Inour view, three years ' experience , ignoring artifical break in service for short period/periods created by the Respondent, in the circumtances , wouldbe sufficient for confirmation... since the Petitioners before us satisfied the requirement of three years of service as calculated above, we direct that 40 of the senior most workmen should be regularized with immediate effect and remaining 118Petitioners should be regularized in a phased manner" . Itmay be seen that in fact under 5th Schedule of the I.D. Act, Unfair Labour Practice No. 10, "To employ workman as'badlis' , casuals or temporaries and to continue them as such for years, with the object ofdepriving them ofthe status and privileges of permanent workman " , itself is an unfair labour practice. In fact, Sec . 2 (ra) states , badli workers for areas denying permanency despite existence ofpermanent work is unfair labour practice and also denial to life and livelihood and dignity. So , it may be seen that these people who have been toiling some of them since 1972 are yet called as daily rated workers . One does not only has to live but live with dignity. The Act may provide all reliefs to even those who have completed 240 days of work but, it is question of social stigma attached to the description ofdaily rated workers . The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed in 2001 ( 1 ) LLJ page 711 at page 719 para 28 their Lordships held, " we feel that daily rated workers who have been working on the aforesaid posts for such a long number of years without complaint on these posts is a ground by itself for the relaxation of the aforesaid eligibility condition" . Their Lordships further observed at para 30, "Thus in view oftheir long experience on the fact of this case and for the concerned posts the prescribed qualification, if any, should not come in the way oftheir regularisation".
6190
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9 , 2004/ ASVINA 17 , 1926
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] DOCUMENTS MARKED FORTHE PETITIONER
workmanwhich was received by the Central Government on10-09-2004.
[No. L- 11012/03/2002- IR( C-I) ] Ex..WI : Copy of office memo No. 51-16/2 /90 -Estt (C) dt. 10-9-93
S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.
Ex. W2 : Copy of minutes of discussiondt . 1-11-94
ANNEXURE
Ex. W3 : Copy of appeal to the ALC ( C) by ICARWU dt. 1-8-95
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR-COURT
NEW DELHI
Ex. W4 Copy of appeal to the RLC( C) by ICARWU dt. 1-8-95
PRESIDING OFFICER : S. S. BAL
L. D. NO . 12/2003
Ex. W5 Copy of appeal to the RLC (C) by ICARWU dt. 9-7-98
Inthe matter ofdispute between:
Ex. W6 Copy of appeal to the Director, IEAR by ICARWU dt . 9-7-98
..Workman
Shri R. P. Singh S/ o Shri Lal Singh, House No. F-30 , D.D.A. Flats Colony, Khaiya, New Delhi . Versus
Ex. W7 Copy of appeal to the Director, ICAR, New Delhi by ICARWU dt . 21-10-99
General Manager (Engineering),
Ex. W8 Copy of appeal to the Director , ICAR by ICARWU dt. 25-10-99
....Management
M/s. IndianAirlines Limited, I.G. I. Airport, New Delhi - 10
APPEARANCES :
Ex. W9 Copy of appeal to the RLC ( C) by ICARWU dt. 25-10-99
None for theworkman,
Ex. W10 : Minutes ofconciliation dt. 8-5-2001 .
M/ s . Poonam Dass A/R with Shri Anoop Goyal , Assistant General Manager Personnel
Ex. W11 : Failure report sent by ALC (C) dt. 2-4-2002
For theManagement.
Documents marked for the Respondent
AWARD
NIL
नई दिल्ली, 14 सितम्बर, 2004
The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L - 11012/03/2002 -I.R. ( C-I ) dated 24-1-03 has referred the following industrial dispute to thisTribunal for adjudication :-
"Whether the action of the management of Indian Airlines , New Delhi in dismissing Shri R.P. Singh , Helper (Enggn. ) from serive w.e.f. 21-9-98 is legal, fair and legal ? If not to what relief is the workman entitled ? "
का.आ. 2543. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार इंडियन एयर लाइंस लि० के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नई दिल्ली -1 के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 12/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-9-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं० एल.- 11012/03/2002 - आई आर ( सी-1 ) ]
एस. एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 14th September, 2004
2. Today the case was fixed for appearance of the workman but none appeared for the workman . M/s . Poonam Dass Advocate A/R with Shri Anoop Goyal , Asstt . Manager Personnel made statement that the workman Shri R. P. Singh has been appointed afresh as Helper Engineering at Hyderabad w.e.f. 1-4-2003 . Shri R.P. Singh had made an appeal which was considered by the reviewing Authority. It is also Prayed that no Dispute Award may be passed.
3. In view of the above statement of the A/R and Shri Anoop Goyal for the Management No. Dispute Award ispassed in this case .
Date 18-8-2004
S.O. 2543. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 12/2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court, New Delhi -I Now shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Indian Air Lines Ltd. , and their
S. S. BAL , Presiding Officer 6191 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 9 , 2004/ रिवन 17, 1926
AWARD
नईदिल्ली, 14 सितम्बर, 2004
This is a complaint petition under section 33 A of the I.D. Act, 1947 filed by the complainant against the OP Management named above.
का.आ. 2544-जौधोगिक 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 मेंनिर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय- II श्रणबाद' के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या Comp 5/98 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकारकार को 10-09-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं० एल 20012/56/96- आई आर ( सी-1 ) ]
एस. एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 14th September, 2004
The case ofthe petitioner is that he was appointed by the O.P. Management as Miner/loader in the year 1965 and thereafter he was promoted to the post ofHaulage Operator in the year 1967. He submited that in the year 1983 he fell ill owing to paralysis and remained under treatment ofDr. B. N. Singh who advised him to perform light Job. In view ofthat advice he submitted prayer to the management to provide him with light job and in response to that appealhe was allowed to perform the job of Cap Lamp Issue clerk in the year 1986. He submitted that since his date ofassignment he started performing his dutiesas Cap Lamp issue clerk and in each calender year he performed the said duty for more than 240 days in the vacant post ofBijoy Biswas who was promoted to Cap Lamp incharge, Accordingly he submitted representations to the management to designate him as Lamp Issue clerk but to no effect and for which he raised an industrial dispute for conciliation which ultimately resulted reference to this tribunal being ref. Case No. 57 of 1997 for adjudication.
S.O. 2544. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. Comp. 5/98) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court , No. II Dhanbad new as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of B.C.C.L. and their workman which was received by the Central Government on10-09-2004.
[No. L- 20012/56/96-IR (C-I)] S. S. GUPTA , Under Secy.
The petitioner alleged that during pendencyof the aforesaid dispute management/ O.P. illegally and arbitrarily stopping him from discharging his duties as cap Lamp Issue clerk reverted him to haulage operator in utter violation of the provision of Section 33 of the 1.D. Act as by that order management O.P. intended to change the nature and condition of his service.
ANNEXURE BEFORE THE CENTRALGOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT- IL, AT DHANBAD
PRESENT
Shri B. Biswas,
Presiding Officer
Inthe circumstances the petitioner submitted his prayer to pass necessary order restraining the O.P. to change his service condition till disposal of the original Reference case.
Inthe matter of a Complaint under Section 33A of the I.D. Act.,1947.
2.TheManagement /O.P. did not submit any written objection in view of complaint filed bythe complainant.
FINDING WITH REASONS (Arising out of reference No. 52/97-Ministry's Order No. L-20012/56/96- IR (C-I) dt. 3-4-97) .
COMPLAINT NO. 5 OF 1998
Parties : Sri Hiralal Mahato , Cap Lamp Issue Clerk, Jealgora Colliery Lodna Area,
BOCL
....Complainant .
: Versus
3.Here the point for consideration is whether the management/O. P. by asking the petitioner to take up his original job instead of allowing him to perform the job of CapLamp issue clerk has violated the provision of Section 33Aofthe 1. D. Act and if so wehther the O. P./management shouldbe restrained to change the service condition of the petitioner till disposal ofthe original reference bearing No. 52/97 pending before this Tribunal .
TheAgent, 2 Pit Jealgora Colliary Lodna Area, BCCL, P.O. (Lodna ) , Jealgora, Distt. Dhanbad.
....Opp. Party
APPEARANCES :
It transpires from the record that the petitioner did not consider necessary to adduce any evidence with a view to substantiate his claim . Obviously, management declined to adduce any evidence on their part.
Onbehalf of the complainant : Mr. S. N. Goswami , Advocate
: Mr. D.K. Verma, Advocate
Onbehalf ofthe O.P.
Now considering the petition submitted by the Complainant let us consider if the claim of the petitioner stands on cogent footing or not .
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Coal
It transpires that the petitioner in the year 1965 got his appointment at Amlabad colliery as Miner/Loader. In Dated, Dhanbad, the 23rd March, 2004 6192
THEGAZETTE OF INDIA: OCTOBER 9 , 2004/ASVINA 17 , 1926
the year 1967 he was promoted to the post of haulage operator. In the year 1983 he fell ill owing to paralysis and doctor advised him to perform light dutyjob . Accordingly he made an appeal to the management to provide him with light job . In response to his appeal management/O . P. accordingly to him provided him with the job of cap lamp issue clerk. He disclosed that as he performed the job of Cap Lamp Issue Clerk continuously and put his attendance for more than 240 days in each calender year he made representation to the management/O. P. to change his designation but instead of changing his designation management reverted him to his original post i.e. haulage operator over that issue he raised an Industrial dispute which is pending . He alleged that by the said order management/O . P. intended to change his service condition.
[PART II-SBC. 3(ii)] में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय धनबाद- II के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 132/93 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-09-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं ० एल.- 20012/50/93- आई आर ( सी- I ) ]
एस ० एस० गुप्ता, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 14th September, 2004 S.O. 2545.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 132/93) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, No. II. Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of B.C.C.L. and their workmenwhich was received bythe Central Governmentt on 10-09-2004.
[No. 1-20012/50/93 -IR (C-I)] S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT-II, AT DHANBAD
PRESENT
Shri B. Biswas,
Presiding Officer
Inthe matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10 ( 1 ) (d) of the I.D. Act, 1947.
Reference No. 132 of 1993
PARTIES : Employers in relation to the Manage- ment of Bhurungia Project of M/s.BCCL and their workmen .
APPEARANCES :
Onbehalfofthe workman
: Mr. D. Mukherjee, Advocate
Onbehalf of the Employers : Mr. D. K. Verma, Advocate
State : Jharkhand
Considering this fact it is clear that his original designation was haulage operator .He was allowed to perform thejob of Cap Lamp Issue clerk by the O. P. in view of his appeal as he was a paralytic patient and as doctor advised himto perform light job. It is therefore, clear that neither by wayof promotion nor by fresh recruitment he got his posting as Cap Lamp Issue clerk. Accordingly he did not have any right to claim that post. It is seen that as the O. P. on compassionate ground allowed him to perform the job of Cap Lamp Issue clerk the petitioner considered that he acquired right to be designated as Cap Lamp Issue clerk knowing fully well that his actual designation was haulage Operator. Hedid not hesitate to raise industrial dispute with aview to get his relief. There is no evidence to the effect that the petitioner was allowed to work as Cap Lamp Issue clerk permanently. His postingto that post was absolutely on compassionate ground and absolutely on temporary basis . Butthe petitioner ignoring this fact intended to establish his claim for his designation as Cap Lamp Issue clerk which I consider is unjust and improper . It is not the case of the petitioner that the management reverted him back to any other post other than his original post. Accordingly there is no scope to say that the O.P. party has committed any illegality asking the petitioner to resume his duties as Haulage Operator. There is no scope to say that by passing the said order they intended to change the service condition of the petitioner. Inview of the facts and circumstances discussed above I hold that the concerned petitioner is not entitled to get any relief in view of his prayer .
ORDERED
That the Complaint Case under Section 33A of the I.D. Act . , 1947 be and the same is dismissed without cost.
B. BISWAS , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 14 सितम्बर, 2004
का.आ. 2545.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भा० को ० को ०लि० , के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध
Industry : Coal Dated, Dhanbad, the 27th February, 2004
AWARD
The Government 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(50)/93-I.R. (C.I) , dated the 25-/30-8-93 .
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the General Manager , Mahuda Area of M/ s . BCCL , P.D. Mahuda Dist. Dhanbad in denying regularisation to S/Shri Ram Prasad and 50 others as per list attached with the order of reference is justified? If not , to what relief are the concerned workmen entitled ? " 6193 [ भाग - खच्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजभत्र : अक्तूबर 9, 2004/आश्विन 17, 1926
2.The case ofthe concerned workmen according to Written Statement submitted by the sponsoring Union on their behalf in brief is as follows:-
Theyalleged that the sponsoring Union collecting group ofpersons who were in search ofjobs raised large number ofdisputes for providing them with employment. They submitted that the present case is one of such dispute for induction ofjob seekers into the employment of the management through litigation by back door method by passing Employment Exchange and manufacturing documentswith the help of and assistance of some oftheir members working as employees ofthe collieries.
They submitted that all employments under the management are done strictly by following recruitment rules having been routed through Employment Exchange. They disclosed that identity cards are issued to all workman whether permanent, temporary or causal. Pay slips are given to them to receive payments . There are various documents under the possession of each and every workman to establish that he has been recruitedby the management. They disclosed that as the concerned persons were never recrufted by the management and were never paid or controlled by the management the question oftheir regularisation did not arise.
They submitted that only the contractor's workers are not either recruited or paid by the management . They also are not under their control . They categorically denied the fact that the concerned persons even worked the job ofstone cutting inside mine under any contractor and for which question of consideration of their employment or regularisation is without any merit . They submitted that as the claims of the concerned persons is absolutely baseless they are not entitled to get any benefit and for which their prayer is liable to be rejected.
4. POINTS TO BE DECIDED
"Whether the action of the General Manager, Mahuda Area of M/ s . BCCL , P.O. Mahuda Dt. Dhanbad in denying regularisation to S/Shri Ram Prasad and 50 others as per list attached with the order of reference is justified? If not,to what relief are the concerned workmen entitled? "
5.FINDINGS WITH REASONS The sponsoring Union submittedthat the concerned workmenwere engaged by the management of Bhurungia Colliery against permanent and prohibited nature ofjob inside the mine and they used to perform the said job of stone cutting and other jobs under their direct control and supervision. They submitted that the said stone cutting job which they used to perform were prohibited category ofjob being declared by Govt. of India in February, 1975. They submitted that for doing the said job of stone cutting management used to supply implements and for all purpose they were their employees but knowing fully well of this fact they did not maintain any statutory record regarding them . Even with ulterior motive and tovictimise them the management used to disburse wages to them which was much below the rate of . N.C.W.A.S. andtoo in the name of fictitious intermediary. They alleged that such disbursement of wages in the name of alleged intermidiary was nothing but a legal camouflage . Accordingly, they submitted representation to the management on several occasions for their regularisation and payment of wages at per with permanent employees and also as per N. C. W. A. but to no effect. They submitted that on the basis of their representation Shri B. K. Singh the then Sr. Personnel Manager enquired into the matter by Checking. Form - Cregister and payment sheet confirmed about their performing stone cuttingjob in the underground of the mine. Accordingly a notesheet was initiated under signature ofacting Manager of Bharungia colliery confirming their engagement in stone cuttingjob . The said notesheet was also forwarded and recommended by Sri A.D. Shukla, the then Personnel Manager and also forwarded by the then Agent Sri Kumar P. M. (T). They disclosed that inspite of the aforesaid fact, the management instead of regularsing stopped them from service in the year 1985 without following the principle of natural justice and also without folloing mandatory provision of law. In the circumstances , finding no other alternative way the concerned workmen through sponsoring union raised Industrial Dispute before the ALC ( C) Dhanbad for conciliation which ultimately resulted reference to this Tribunal for adjudication.
Ittranspires from the record that the sponsoring Union with a view to substantiate their claim examined two witness viz. WW- 1 and WW- 2. The Management on the contrary examined one witness as MW- 1 in support oftheir claim.
The sponsoring Union accordingly submitted prayer to pass award directring the management to regularise the concerned workman with retrospective effect as stone cutter with full back wages from 1985 alongwith other consequential benefits .
WW- 1 who is one ofthe concerned workman during his evidence disclosed that since 1975 they engaged by the management to work as stome cutter at Bhuruniga Project . He disclosed that as part oftheir duties theyused tomake hole in the stone for the perpose of blasting and also used to remove pieces ofstones after such blasting. Apart from these works they also were used by the management in connection with other jobs in the mine. He further disclosed that their work was continuous and they used to put attendance for more than 240 days in a 3. 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 for and on behalf of the concerned workmen.
6194
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9 , 2004/ASVINA 17 , 1926
[PART II -SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] year and their work was to be supervised by the Mining Sirdar. It has also been submitted by him that they used to receive wages from the colliery Pay counter though the same was not at per with the wages of the permanent workers . It has been alleged by him that management in the year 1985 stopped them from work as they placed their demand for payment of wages at per with the permanent employees .
WW-2 who is Zonal Secretary, Bihar Colliery Mazdoor Sabha , and who filed the written statement on behalf of the concerned workman during his evidence disclosed that at the time of appointment the concerned workman who were delisted casual workers were not supplied with any appointment letter. He disclosed that on the basis of a circular management appointed several persons as casual workers. He submitted that nature of job of the stone cutter was permanent in nature and in that capacity the concerned workmen worked under the management. Relying on the document marked as Ext. W- 1 this witness disclosed that Sr. Personnel Officer of the management prepared a notesheet . He further disclosed that over settlement of dispute he wrote several letters to the management .
Bhurungia colliery and thereafter their work was stopped in the year 1985 excepting the document marked as Ext . W- 1 . Relying on this document the sponsoring Union submitted that Sr. Personnel Officer of the management prepared a notesheet over the claim of the concerned workman. I have carefully considered the notesheet which appears to be illegible, However, considering this notesheet there is no scope to arrive into definite conclusion that the concerned workmen were actually engaged by the management for performing the job of stone cutter. Notesheet is prepared in discharge of official administration and for which there is no scope to hand over its copy to any worker. It is not the case of the sponsoring Union that a copy ofthis notesheet was handed over to concerned workmen for future reference. Accordingly they cannot avoid their responsibility to establish its genuinity to the effect that the same was prepared for the interest of the workmen. The sponsoring Union also have failed to established that it was prepared actually by the said senior Personnel Officer. As such credibility of the notesheet comes to a question and for which it cannot be relied on. The sponsoring Union had the scope to summon the Senior Personnel Officer with a view to establish its genuinity but they did not consider necessary to do so .
MW- 1 who was attached to Mahuda Area since 1975 during his evidence categorically submitted that he did not find the name ofthe persons incorporated in the list as annexure ofthe reference who worked in the colliery where he was posted or any ofthe collieries of Mahuda area. He submitted further that management issued identity card to all workmen oftheir collieryand their payment are made through Pay sheets . Moreover their name are incorporated in the P.F. Register.
6. Therefore , considering the evidence of the concerned workmen as well as of the management it transpires that they have made claim and counter claim relating to their work at Bhurungia colliery under Mahuda Area. While it is the claim of the sponsoring Union that the concerned workmen worked under the management from 1975 to 1985 the managment categorically denied this fact. It is the claim of the management that whenever any workman is engaged in the colliery not only appointment letter but also identity card is issued to him. That worker is also liable to sign attendance register before he is allowed to enter inside the mine for work. Payment to the worker not only is given though Pay sheet but P.F. account also is opened in his favour. It is the contention of the sponsoring Union that the concerned workmen were stopped from duty after rendering their service for more than ten years as they demanded equal pay with the permanent workers . During cross-examination WW - 1 admitted that neither management issued any letter of appointment and identity card in their favour nor their names were recorded kin the Provident fund register. Actually the sponsoring Union in course ofhearing have failed to produce a single scrap of paper to show that the management engaged the concerned workmen in the year 1975 as stone cutter at
7. Ittranspires from the conciliation file bearing No.1 / 113/92 E -4 dt . 30-11-92 that after raising Industrial disputeby the sponsoring Union notice was issued to the management and the management in response to the claim of the sponsoring Union submitted their reply vide No. MPQ/P/ 93/ 246( A) dt. 11-1-93 wherein they categorically denied working ofthe concerned workmen as stone cutter atBhurungia Project. In Para- 2 of the reply they disclosed "that this matter was examined from Bhurungia Project and from the verification of the records of Bhurungia Project it was found that no such workers were engaged by the management of Bhurungia Project directly or indirectly through Contractor in stone cuttingjob at any time. " It is seen from the file ofthe conciliation officer that in course of hearing of the conciliation matter, DoulaMia, Zonal Secretary of the Union disclosed that previously local secretary, Bihar colliery Kamgar Union raised an industrial dispute before the then ALC ( C) , Dhanbad over claim of the concerned workmen . It has been further submitted by Doula Mia that at the time of conciliation proceeding there was talk of mutual settlement and as a result ofshich said Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union withdrew the dispute without the knowledge of the workmen . Later on the Union informed the workmen that the matter has beentakenup at headquarter level and decisions over the regularisation ofthe serives of the workmen were expected indue course . It is the allegation of Daula Mia, Zonal Secretary that by giving assurance to the workmen the Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union killed time and thereafter the said workmen went to the office ofthe ALC (C) to locate the file and came to know that the said dispute was withdrawn years ago and accordingly approached the 6195 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 9 , 2004/आश्विन 17, 1926
union and for which further industrial dispute was raised intheyear 1992.
: the regularisation of Stone cutter so that suitable reply- can be given to the Union representative. "
It for argument sake it is taken into consideration that the said notesheet was prepared by Mr. B.K. Singh, Senior Personnel Officer, Mohuda Area there in that case it is clear that a representation was received from contractors worker for their regularisation who worked as stone cutter. It is not the case of the present sponsoring Union for regularisation of contractors worker who worked under the management as stone cutter. Not only in the written statement but also in course of adducing evidence the sponsoring union did not agitate that the concerned workmenworked under the management as stone cutter. It is also not the claim of the sponsoring Union that the contractorwho engaged the concerned workmen for stone cutting work was a camouflage one . On the contrary it is evident not only from their written statement but also from their evidence that they were directly engaged by the management for the purpose of stone cutting and removing ofstone from the mines .
Therefore, it is seen that over the self same issue industrial dispute was raised on two consecutive occasions . In course of evidence both WW- 1 and WW- 2 have suppressed this fact. However, the facts which Doula Mia Zonal Secretary ventilated about raising Industrial Disputes byBihar Colliery Kamgar Union for regularisation of the concernedworkmen and withdrawal of that dispute byBihar Colliery Kamgar Union on the basis of talk of settlement finds no support from the record of the conciliation officer. As per allegation of the sponsoring Union the concerned workmenwere stopped from work by the management in the year 1985. Accordingly, there is reason to believe that Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union raised Industrial dispute thereafter . After long discussion with the management during pendency ofhearing ofthe conciliation proceeding as Bihar Colliery KamgarUnion got assurance from the management about regularisation of the concerned workmen they withdrew the dispute. It is anunbelievable story but Bihar Colliery Kamgar Unionwithout taking steps against the management for not takingpositive decision to materialise the talk of settlement unnecessarily assured the workmen for dates together. It also cannot be considered as acceptable story that previous conciliation file was not traced out. From the present conciliation file I do not find any whisper if the present sponsoring Union called for that previous file from the ALC (C) to put up the same incourse of hearing of the present conciliation proceeding. From the conciliation filed Idonot findany report ofALC(C) that previous conciliation file was not traceable . Therefore , credibility of the submission ofthe present Zonal Secretary of the sponsoring Union before ALC (C) in of the management definately comes to a question.
From the notesheet it further transpires that acting Manager Bhurungia Project issued a certificate in respect of51 workmen . A certificate issued by an acting Manager cannot be considered as authentic proof that those 51 personsworked under the management as stonecutter until and unless it is substantiated by cogent evidence .However, it is clear from the notesheet that those 51 persons were not contractors workers who were engaged as stone cutter. Accordingly onus absolutely shifts on the sponsoring union to establish that those 51 persons were engaged at Bhurungia Project and worked there since 1975 and put their attendance for more than 240 days in a year and further that they worked as stone cutter particularly when from the hotesheet it transpires clearly that during inspection he did not find the name of the contractor in the relevant register. I find no hesitation to say that the sponsoring union in course of hearing has not been able to produce an iota of evidence to substantiate the claim that as stone cutter the concerned workman directly being engaged by the management worked for the period from 1975 to 1985. lt is the claim of the sponsoring tinion that as the concerned workmen submitted representation for regularisation of their service management stopped their work. During hearing the sponsoring 'Union has failed to produce any copy ofthe representation which had been submitted before the managemem. On the contrary from the notesheet it transpires that a representation was given by contractors worker who were engaged for stone cutting work for their regularisation. As the concerned workmen according to their claim were not contractors worker it can safely be taken into consideration that they atleast did not submit any representation to the management for their regularisation which has been transpired from the note sheet . Accordingly in'no circumstances the sponsoring Union can not exonerate their responsibility to substantiate The Zonal Secretary in course of hearing before the ALC(C) very much stressed on the note sheet prepared by the Senior Personnel Officer which during evidence before this Tribunal was marked as Ext . W- 1 .The said note sheet was prepared by B.K. Singh, Senior Personnel Officer of Mohuda Area dt. 19-5-1981 . The legible portion of his notesheet is as follows " Please find herewith a representationdt. 24-4-81 duly forwarded by the Project Officer Bhurungia Project regarding the persons who have worked under the contractors as stone cutters. I have tried to find out the documents such as Form ' C' Register, Payment register etc. but during my inspection I found in the Form ' C' register only the names of the permanent ..... signed alongwith attendance . I do not find the name ofthe contractors under whom these contractual labour engaged. Further I have received one certificate regarding 51 persons duly signed by the Acting Manager , Bhurungia Project which is also enclosed herewith for ready reference . Since theUnion representative ofBihar Colliery Kamgar Union is pressing hard for settlement of this case hence you are requested to kindly see and give suitable decision regarding
2908 G1 /0434 61963
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9. 2004/ASVINA 17, 1926
their claim that the concerned workmen discharged their duties as stone cutter being directly engaged by the management .
However, in course of hearing Ld. Advocate for the sponsoring Union referred the following decisions in support of their claim: -
1. 1999 (2) LLN 612 (SC)
2. 1985 Supreme Court cases (L& S ) 975 .
3. 1996-( II) LLJ 435 ( SC) .
4. S.C.L.J. Vol . 15 P. 112 ( SC) .
5. S.C.L.J. Vol . VI P. 3867 ( SC) .
6. S.C.L.J. Vol . IIIP. 1557 .
7. 1997LLR 288 ( SC)
8. 1995 11 CRL 194 .
9. 1987 Lab 1.C.P. 619 ( SC)
10. FLR- 1990 ( 60) P-20 (SC)
8. In the decision reported in 1999 (2 ) LLN 612 in connection with Haryana State Electricity Board . Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Apex Court in para 13 observed to the effect that " there is however, a total unanimity of judicial pronouncement to the effect that in the event , the Contract Labour is employed in an establishment for seasonal workings , question of abolition would not arise but in the event of the same being perennial in nature , that is to say, in the event of the engagement of labour force through intermediary which is otherwise in the ordinary course of events and involve continuity in the work, the legislature is canded enough to record its abolition since involvement of contractor may have its serious evil of labour exploitation and thus he ought to go out of scene bringing together the principal employer and the contract labourers rendering the employment as direct and resultantly a direct employee. " In arriving into this conclusion Their Lordship refereed to the decision of Air India Statutory Corporation Vs. United Union ( 1993) ( 1 ) LLN75 .
9.Again the decision reported in 1985 Supreme Court cases ( L& S ) 975 in connection with Reserve Bank of India and others Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that striking out the names of workmen from rolls amounts to retrenchment covered by Sec . 25F of the 1.D Act if it is found that the workmen actually worked for a continuous period of more than 240 days in a year including Sundays and other paid holidays .
10. In the decision reported in 1996 11 LLJP. 435 ( SC) in connection with the Employees State Insurance Corporation Hyderabad vs. M/ s . Rajakmal Transport & Anr . Their Lordship of the Hon'ble Apex Court observed to the effect " It is seen that the Insurance Court after elaborate consideration found as a fact , the appellants have the control over loading and unloading of the goods entrusted to the appellants . The appellants regular business is transportation ofgoods entrusted to as carrier. When the goods are brought to the ware house of the appellants , necessarily the appellants
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii ) ] bave to get the goods loaded or unloaded through the Hamalis and they control the activities of loading and unloading. It is true as found by the Insurance Court that instead of appellants directly paying the charges from their pocket, they collect as a part of the consideration for transportation ofthe goods from the customers any pay the amount to the Hamalis . The test of payment of salary or wages in the facts of this case is not relevant consideration. What is important is that they work in connection with the work of the establishment . The loading and unloading ofthe work is done at their directions and control " While in the decision reported in S.C.L.J. Vol . 15P-112 (SC) in connection with the case ofHussainbhai , Calicut Vs. The Alath Factory Thexhil Ali , Union Kozhikode and others. Their Lordships observed" The true test may, with brevity, be indicated once again.Where aworker or group of workers labours to produce goods or services and these goods or services are for the business of another, that other is, in fact , the employers. He has economic control over the workers subsistence, skill and continued employment . If he for any reason chokes of theworker is virtually laid off. The presence of intermediate contractors with whom alone the workers have immediate or direct relationship excontract is of consequence when, on lifting the veil or looking at the conspectus of facts governing employment , discern the naked , truth, though dropped in different perfect paper arrangement , that the real is the management not the intermediate contractor, Myriad devices, halfhidden unfold after fold of legal forum depending on the degree of concealment needed , the type of industry, the local conditions and the like may be restored to when labour legislation casts welfare obligation on the real employer, based onArticles 38 , 39, 42, 43 and 43 -Aof the Constitution. The Court must be astute to avoid the mischief and achieve the purpose of the land and not to misled by the maya of legal appearances:
If the livelihood of the workmen substantially depends on labour rendered to produce goods and services for the benefit and satisfaction of an enterprise , the absence of direct relationship or the presence of dubious intermediaries or the make believe trapping of detachment from the management cannot snap the real life bond. The story may vary but the inference defines ingenuinity. The liability cannot be shaken off.
Again in the decision reported in LLJ Vol . II 1964 P-633 (SC) in D.C. Dewan Mohidaan Sahib and Sons and another Vs. United Bidi Workers Union , Salem and another Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Apex Court observed to the effect "on a review of entire evidence in the instant case the Industrial Tribunal found that the system of bidi manufacture through the so called intermediaries ( styled as contractors) was a mere camouflage devised by the bidi manufacture. The Industrial Tribunal also found that the so called contractors were indigent persons and served no particular duties and discharged no special functions . Raw materials were furnished by the manufacturers to be manufactured 6197 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 9, 2004/आश्विन 17, 1926
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]
the practice of employing labour through contractors by big companies including public sector companies is still being accepted as a normal feature of labour employment . There is no security ofservice to the regular workmen of the company. This Court in Standard Vacuum Refining Co. of India Ltd. Vs. Its workman ( 1 ) and catering cleaners of Southern Railway (2 ) has disapproved the system of contract labour holding it to be ' archie' , ' Primitive' , and of Painful nature . The system, which is nothing but an improved version of bonded labour, is sought to be abolished by the Act. The Act is an important piece of social legislation for the welfare of labourers and has to be liberally construed. "
into finished product by the workmen and the contractors hadno other functions except to take the raw materialsto the workmen and gather the manufactured materials. It therefore hold that so called contractors were not independent contractors and were more employees ofware functioning as branch managers of various factories, their remuneration being dependent upon the work turned out. Hence it held that the bidi rollers were the employees ofthe bidi manufacturers and not of the so called independent contractors. The writ petition preferred by the employer to get the award quashed was however allowed but in the Writ appeal preferredby the concerned workmen the conclusions ofthe Industrial Tribunal were upheld. "
Further in the decision reported in 1997 LLR 288 (SC) arising out ofAIR India Statutory Corporation Vs. United Labour Union and others: Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Apex Court observed " When the contract labour system is abolished by necessary implication, the principal employer is under obligation to absorb the contract labours . The linkage between the contractor and the employee stood snapped and direct relationship stood restored between the principal employer and the contract labour as its employees . Considered from perspective all theworkmen in the respective services working on contract labour are required to be absorbed in the establishment of thePrincipal employer ."
In the decision reported in 1995 11 CLR 194 (SC) in Parimal Ch. Laha and Ors . Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors . Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Apex Court observed " that the canteen workers are in fact the employees of the respondent corporation and they are entitled to minimum of the salary paid to Class IV employees ofthe Corporation. "
Learned Advocate for the workman in course of extending argument submitted that the alleged contractor was a camouflage one and it was the management who indisguise of the said camouflage contractor exploited the service of the workmen for years together. Learned Advocate submitted that the concerned workmen should be considered as regular workmen ofthe management and in support of this claim he relied on the decision reported in SCLJ Vol . VIP. 3867. In the said decision arising ofM/s. Basti Sugar Mills Ltd. and Ram Ujagar. Their Lordships observed " It was with a view to remove the difficulty in the way of workmen employed by contractors that the definition of employer has been extended by sub -clause (iv) of Sec. 2 (j ) . The position thus is (a) that the respondents are workmen within the management ofSec. 2(z), being persons employed in the industry to do manual work for reward and (b ) they were employed by a contractor with whom the appellant company had contracted in the course ofconducting the industry for the executions by the said contractor of the work of removal of press mud which is ordinarily a part of the Industry. It follows , therefore, from Sec . 2 (z) reas with sub-clause ( iv) of Sec . 2( i) of the Act that they are workmen of the appellant companyandthe appellant company is their employer." In Catering cleaners of South Eastern Railway Vs. Union of India reported in 1987 Lab . I.C. 619. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that "on the facts and the report of the Parliamentary committee of petitions on the question of employing catering cleaners on contract labour system that the work of cleaning catering establishment and Pantry car is necessary and incidental to the Industry or business of the Southern Railway and so requirement (a) of Sec . 10(2) is satisfied, that it is of perennial nature and so requirement (b ) is satisfied, that the work is done through regular workmen in most railways in the country and so requirement of sufficient number of whole time workmen and so requirement (d) is also satisfied. Thus all the relevant facts mentioned in Sec . 10 ( 2) appears to be satisfactorily accounted for. In addition is the factor profitability of the catering establishment ."
On the contrary learned Advocate for the management relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Courtreported in 2001 Lab. 1 , 3656 submitted that there is also no scope for direct apsorption of the concerned workmen considering them as gular employees even if it is held that they were camouflage contract labour. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Apex Court observed in the decision referred to above the "Neither Section 10 ofthe Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition ) Act or any other provision in the Act, whether expressly or by necessary implication, provides for automatic absorption of contract labour on issuing a notification by appropriate Government under sub-sec . (i ) of Section 10 prohibiting employment of contract labour in any process, operation or other works in any establishment . Consequently the principal employer cannot be required to order absorption of the contract labour working in the concerned establishment . Accordingly tre Lordships of the Hon'ble In Shankar Mukherjee & others Vs. Union of India and others reported in FLR, 1990 (60) P. 20 ( SC) . Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Apex Court observed " It is surprising that more than forty years after the independent, 6198
THEGAZETTE OF INDIA: OCTOBER 9 , 2004 /ASVINA 17, 1926
Court overruled the judgment of Air Indias Case . Their Lordship in this judgment further observed that on issuance ofprohibition notification under Sec . 10 ( 1 ) ofthe Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition ) Act prohibiting employment of contract labour or otherwise in an industrial dispate brought before it by any contract labour in regard to conditions of service , the industrial adjudicator will have to consider question whether the contractor has been interposed eille on the ground of having undertaken to produce any green esult for the establishment or for supply of contract labour for work of the establishment under a granne contract ct is a mere ruse/camouflage to evade compliance of arious beneficial legislations so as to deprive the workers of the benefit thereunder. If the contract is found to be not genuine but a mere camouflage , the so called contract labour wil have to be treated as employees ofthe principal empleven who shall be directed to regularise the services of the contract labour in the concerned establishment utject to the condition as may be specified byit for that purpose in the light ofpara -6 of the judgment . Hon'ble Count in para- 6 observed if the contract is found to begenuine and prohibition notification under Section 10( 1) of the Contract Labour ( Regulation and Abolition ) Act in respect of the concerned establishment has been issued by the appropriate rovt, prohibiting employment of contract labour in ans process , operation or other work of any establishment and where in such process operation or other work ofthe ect.blishment the principal employer intends to employ regular workmen he shall give preference to the erstwhile contract labour, if otherwise found suitable and if necessary by relaxing the conditions as to maximum age appropriating taking into consideration the age of the workers at the time of their initial employment by the contractor and also relaxing the condition as to academic qualifications other than technical qualification . "
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] I have already discussed above in details that to substantiate their claim the sponsoring Union have failed to produce a single cogent paper. They relied on the notesheet Ext . W- 1 in support oftheir claim but in view of my discussion above I find no hesitation to say that the concerned workmen have failed to establish their existence under the management as stone cutter..
Accordingly, after careful consideration ofall the facts and circumstances 1 hold that the sponsoring Unionhave failed to substantiate their claim with reasonable certainty and for which they are not entitled to get any relief.
In the result, the following Award is rendered:
"The action ofthe General Manager, Mohuda Area ofM/s . BCCL, P.O. Mohuda , Disttt. Dhanbad in denying regularisation to S/Shri Ram Prasad and 50 othersas per list attached with the order ofreference is justified. Consequently the concerned workmen are not entitled to get any relief. "
B. BISWAS , PresidingOfficer Name of the workers:
1. Sh. Ram Prasad S/ o Dilip, Vill . Murlidih, P.O. Mahuda, Distt. Dhanbad.
2. Sh. Jamuriddin Mian S/o Khairati Mia. Vill . Murlidih, P.O. Mahuda, Distt . Dhanbad.
3. Sh . Dhura Bahax Rawani 6/0 Singhasan Rawani , Vill . Bhurungia , P. O. Mahuda, Dt. Dhanbad.
4. Sh.Nouni Gopal S/ o Jhilmit of Murlidih of Bhurungia , P.O. Mahuda , Distt. Dhanbad.
5. Sh. Dhirulal Mahato S/ o Mangru Mahato of Bhurungia , P.O. Mahuda , Distt. Dhanbad .
6. Sh . Karim Sekh S/ o Khairati Sekh ofMurlidih, P.O. Mahuda , Distt. Dhanbad .
7. Sh . Daya Shanker Pd. S/ o . Kishan Pd . of Murlidih, P.O. Mahuda , Distt. Dhanbad .
8. Sh . Karnal Pd . Rawani S/ o . Laloo Rawani of Murlidih , P.O. Mahuda , Distt. Dhanbad .
9. Sh. Uma Shanker Lal S/ o Motilal ofBhurungia, P.O. Mahuda , Distt . Dlianbad .
-Do-
10. Sh. Arun S/ o Mangru
-Do-
11 .
Sh . Ramali
Therefore, from the decision referred to above it is clear that when there is prohibitory order U/ s . 10( 1 ) of the contract labour Regulation and Abolition ) Act and knowing full aware of that order if the management engages contraer labour thereby it will not confer any rightto place him for direct absorption of the contract labour in the organsation but if it is established that the contractor is a muse/ camouflage in that case the contract labouts shosid be considered as employers of the management though in the matter of their absorption the guidelines given fu para - 6 shouldbe followed.
-Do-
12. Sh . Maubondra
2
-Do-
13 . Sh . Krishnandu Bikash
-Do-
14. Sh . Alakhdoo Singh S/o Kripal Singh
-Do-
15.
Sh. Kripali
In the instant case it is not the claim of the sponsoring Union that the concerned workman worked under the contractor whe was a camouflage one . Therefore, it is redundant to discuss if the management in disguise of the contractor engaged the concerned workmen . Here it is the claim of the sponsoring Union that the concemed workmen were engaged by the management and they worked directly ander them and used to perform the job of stone cutting and ther jobs which were permanent in nature .
-Do-
16. Sh . Majit Lal S/o Jawahar Lal
17 . Sh: Pradip Lal S/ o Birendra Lal of Murlidih . P.O. Mahuda, Distt . Dhanbad 6196 भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 9 , 2004/आश्विन 17, 1926
[ भाग II- तखण्ड 3 (ii) ]
नई दिल्ली, 15 सितम्बर, 2004
P. O. Mahuda, Dt. Dhanbad
18. Sh . Gokhul Rawani S/o. Kishan Rawani
-do-
19. Sh. Kali S/o Budhu
-Do-
Sh. Bishwajit S/o
20.
Sh. Rahim Mia S/o
21 .
-Do-
-Do-
22. Sh. Shambhu Rawani. S/oVill, Bhurungia P.O Mahtuda, Dhanbad
का.आ. 2546. -औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनिक्रम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार,सी. पी. डब्ल्यू, डी. के प्रबंचतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औधोगिक अधिकरण नं. -1 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 140/98 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केंद्रीय सरकार को 15-9-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
-Do-
23. Sh. Uttam Rawani . S/o
[सं. एल -42012/74/97-आई आर ( की यू) ]
Do
Sh.Rajdeo S/o Krishna Deo
24.
कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डैस्क अधिकारी 25. Sh. D. Rawani S/o
Do
New Delhi , the 15th September, 2004
-Do-
Sh. Binod S/o Janardhan Pd.
26.
-Do-
27. Sh Kayum Vill, Murlidih, P.O Mahuda, Distt . Dhanbad
28. Sh. Rajendra S/o
-Do-
29. Sh. Jitendra S/o UpendraKumar
30. Sh .Niranjan S/o Kapil
S.O. 2546. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 140/98 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court No. -I , New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of CPWD and their workman, which was receivedby the Central Government on 15-9-2004.
-Do-
Sh. Raja Ram S/o Bajendra Ram
31 .
-Do
32. Sh. Ramakant S/o Sri Kant
[No. L-42012/74/97- IR(DU) ] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer
Do
Sh. Md. Ranuddih S/o
33.
ANNEXURE
Do
34. Sh. Gopal S/oBhopal
35. Sh. Somendra S/o
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT
NEWDELHI
36. Sh. Arjun S/o
-Do
37. Sh. Asshis S/o
PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI S. S. BAL
-Do-
L. D. No. 140/98
38. Sh. Danglal S/o . VillMurlidih, P.O. MahudaDistt.
In the matter ofdispute between:
39. Sh. Suleman S/ o
Shri Raghuvir Singh,
-Do-
Do-
C/oCPWDMazdoor Union,
40. Sh. Ali Hussain S/o SarajudaulaMja
E-26, Old Qur , RajaBazar,
-Do-
41. Sh. Ahmed Hussanin S/o
Baba Kharak SinghMarg,
Workman
New Delhi -110001.
-Do-
42. Sh. Samad Ansari S/ o
Versus
43. Sh. Apit Banerjee S/ o B.N. Banerjee of Bhurungia P.O Mahuda Dhanbad.
The Director, General (Works ), M/s . Central Public Works Deptt .
-Do-
44. Sh. PiyarjarBanerjee S/o
NirmanBhawan,
Management
NewDelhi- 110001 ,
-Do-
45. Sh. Apit Ghosh S/o Robin Ghosh
APPEARANCES : Workman with Sh . B. K. Prand Shri Anil Tripathi A/R for Mgt, 46. Sh. Sultan S / o Siraj Mian Vill. Murlidih P.O Mahuda, Dhanbad
AWARD
-Do
47. Sh . Mustaffa 8/o
48. Sh. Kamal Khan S /o Jabed Khan-Do-
49. Sh. Noushad Khan S/o -Do-
TheCentral Government in the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L-42012/74/97IR-(DU) dated 18-5-98 har referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribanal for adjudication:一
Do
50. Sh. Nahaj Khan 8/0
"( 1 ) Whether the action of the management of CPWD in superannuating Shri Raghuvir Singh,
-Do-
51. Sh. Jabed Khan 8/0 Noor Md. Khan 6200
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9 , 2004/ASVINA 17 , 1926
[PART II SEC. 3(ii)]
and according to this date ofbirth he will be superannuated on 31-12-2008. Thus the workman has claimed that his date ofbirth as 31-12-36 be set aside . He has also claimed regularisation of service w.e.f. 25-5-87 in the time scale of Rs . 750-940 like his juniors and he is thus entitled to subsequent revision of pay w.e.f. 1-1-96.
Mali Posted in Sub-Division I of Development Division- 2, Horticulture CPWD at Mool Chand Nursery w.e.f. 31-12-96 by arbitrarily treating his date of birth as 30-12-36 instead of 10-12-48 as taken at the time of his first appointment is just, fair and legal? If not , what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?
(2) Whether the action of the management of CPWD in not regularising the services of Shri Raghuvir Singh, Muster roll mali w.e.f. 25-5-87 . when his junior were regularised isjust, fair and legal? It not, what directions are necessary in this regard?"
3. The management contested the claim of the workmanby filing written statement raising therein pleas that the present reference has been mechanically referred to this court by the Ministry of Labour and is liable to be dismissed and that the workman has also filed mentioned his date of birth as 30-12-36 in the service record of management and the same was informed to the workman on various occasion vide many circulars issued by the management during service period and further at the time ofregularisation the age of the workman along with other workers was confirmed through a proper medical examination by the Doctor Vinay Hans: Senior Medical Officer C.G.H.S Dispensary, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi vide his report dated 22-12-86 wherein the age of the workman has been shown between 45 to 50 years at S. No. 82. The screening Committee also considered the exact and real dateofbirth of the workman as 30-12-36. The claim of the workman is false and concocted . On merits his appointment, remaining in service and superannuation are not denied . However, it is denied that the workman is illeterate rather according to the management he is educated and that he very well knows that his date of birth is 30-12-36 . It is further stated that the facts of the case of Surinder Singh are not applicable to the instant case . The workman was givenan oportunity for regularisation during the year 1987 through trade test but he could not qualify the same because he was over aged at that time . It is further stated that the workers who were found fit for regularisation were regularised . It is denied that the workman has been left out arbitrarily as stated. The screening committee never violated directions of the Supreme Court in surinder Singh's case as stated . The management never accepted that the date ofbirth of the workman was 10-12-48 as mentioned in his affidavit.
4. In the rejoinder the workman refuted averments made in the written statement and reiterated his contents of the statement of claim as correct.
5. Both the parties adduced/ led evidence and after closure of evidence arguments were heard.
2. Concisely facts of this case are that the workman Shri Raghuvir Singh was initially engaged on muster roll as Mali w.e.f. 12-12-81 and is presently posted in Sub- Division I, He submitted his affidavit on 30-4-87 stating his date of birth 10-12-48 which was confirmed by the recent medical examination of the workman . He received equal pay for equal work in the pay scale of 196-232 pursuant to i.e the Supreme Court judgment case of Surinder Singh and another Vs. Engineer - in Chief CPWD . The Hon'ble Supreme Court also expressed hope that the management would regularise the services of all the workmen who had completed six months of service but it failed to implement the said direction pertaining to the applicant -claimant Raghuvir Singh. It is further averred that the claimant -applicant was granted temporary status w.e.f 1-9-93 vide order dated 17-1-94. Many workmen were regularised during the year 1986 but the claimant workman hasbeen left out due to arbitrary attitude of the management . He performed duties of group D employees in the category ofMali since inception from 22-12-81 but he was arbitrarily not found fit for regularisation by the screening committee on the ground that he was found over aged which is in violation of the above said S.C decision in Surinder Singh's caseand this act of the screening committee is also without jurisdiction and arbitrary. It is averred that the workman worked upto 31-12-96 and arbitrarily superannuated on 31-12-96 treating his date of birth as 31-12-36 without any valid reasons . His date ofbirth as mentioned in his affidavit as 10-12-48 and confirmed by medical examination is correct but he was arbitrarily superannuated from the service as mentioned above . He was discriminated in the matter of regularisation also . He got three increments instead of regularisation in the service in the grade of Rs . 750-940 from the same date as his juniors namely Shri Mithan S/o Mange Ram , Satbir Singh s/o Mahabir Singh, Sardare S/o Shri Baldev etc. were regularised during the year 1987. The workman belongs to the category ofbackward community andhe is entitled to special treatment on direct recruitment also. Hence the management also violated instructions of Government of India for providing 27 % reservation . The same was accepted by the management but the management arbitrarily his date ofbirth as 30-12-36 instead of 10-12-48
6. Controversy in this case centres round the date ofbirth of the workman. He claims that his date of birth is 10-12-48 and the management has wrongly changed the same as 31-12-36. However, according to the management claimants/workman's date of birth is 31-12-36 and not 10-12-48. Management claims that workman has joined service on 10-12-81 and he had given his date of birth as 30-12-36 in the record of the management and the same was confirmed by the workman on various occasions .
201
भारत का राजपत्र: अरे , 2004/ आशिषण 17, 1926
[भाग II खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
Ex. MW1/3 is also mentioned as 30-12-36 . He (the workman) has never raised any objection regarding his date of birth year when he joined in the year 1981 and later on in the year 1995 but raised industrial dispute only after his retirement in the year 1996 two years after his retirement in the year 1988. He could havo verywell raised industrial dispute during his serviec much before his retirement when he filed his affidavit in the year 1987 but he chose not to do so which goes to show that he accepted his date of birth as 30-12-36 as mentioned by the department . Moreover, this age j.e. 30-12-36 of the workman has been also mentioned in the list ofworkers Ex. WW1/3 dated 20-10-95 Ex. MW1 /3 but the workman never raised any objection regarding his date ofbirth and raised industrial dispute only after his retirement in the year 1998 two years after his retiremont in the year 1996. The workman is estopped from raising this industrial dispute after he has retired from service. In saying sol am reinforced with the observation of the Apex Courtiin a decision reported in Hindustan Lever Lad Vs. S.M. Jadhav & another reported in 2001 LLB,501 Supreme Court of India wherein it was held that the respondent (the employee) cannot be allowed to raise the question of his age at the fag end of his service career. The decision reported in 1981 Lab. I.C. 880 relied upon by Learned A/R ofthe claimant is not applicable to the facts of present case as the management has not changed the date of birth of the claimant as in the above referred decision . In the said case the department changed the date ofbirth without noticebut in the present case workman furnished his date of birth at the time ofjoining as 30-12-36 as per statement of MWI which ( date of birth) was supported by physical examination by Dr. Vinay Hans vide his report Ex.MW1 /2 as mentioned above . Hence it can safelly be concluded that the date of birth of the workman was 30- 12-36 and not 10-12-48. He has been working regularly from 1981 to 1996 but till he retired, he was given temporary status only but not regularised by the screening committee on account of his being over aged. He has not-challenged decision of the screening committee in evidence . No word waswishpered during arguments regarding regularisation. Moreover, the workman has since retired from service , therefore, he cannot be allowed to raise question of regularisation 2 years after in year 1996 his date of retirement.
7. In view of the above discussions 1 am of the opinion that the date of birth of the workman is 30-12-36 and not 10-12-48 as claimed by the workman after 6 years of joining the service . He is also not entitled to regularisation.
Award is passed accordingly.
Dated 30-8--04:1
S. S, BAL, Presiding Officer The management has never accepted the date ofbirth of workman was given in his affidavit as 10-12-48. The management claims that this claim ofworkman about his date of birth being 10-12-48 . is false . Management also claims that the Dr.Vinay Hans C.G.H.S. Dispensary, Rajouri Garden has also opined on 22-12-86 the date ofbirth of the workman on his physical appearance in between 45 to 50 and as such his date of birth as per statement management witness MWI Shri Ganga Ram Deputy Director in his cross -examination is 30-12-36 . It has not been suggestedto him that the workman has not given or filed his date of birth as 30-12-36. According to management witness MW1 as mentioned in the affidavit date of birth of the workman is 30-12-36 in the record of the management and that Dr. Vinav Hans of C.G.H.S. Dispensary, Rajouri Garden also opined the date ofbirth in between 45 to 50. If the age of the workman in the year 1986vide report Ex. MW1/2 dated 22-12-86 is taken as 50 years then the date of birth comes to 1936 falls in the year and corresponds to the year 1936 because a person havingdate of birth in the year 1936 attains the age of 50 in the year 1986. Thus the Doctors opinion/ report-Ex. MW1/2 supports the statement of MW1 ofmanagement witness in his affidavit that the workman has given his date of birth in the rocord of the management as 30-12-36. Rule 79 (A) of General fmancial Rules requires workman to declare, his date of birth at the time of his appointment by the christian era with as far as possible confirmatory documentary evidence such as a matriculation certificate, muncipal birth certificate and so on. If the exact date is not known as a appropriate date shall be given and the assumed date of birth under rule 80 shall be determined as per rule 79 (2). Statement of MWI that workman has given his date of birth at the time of his joining as 30-12- 36has not been challenged in his cross -examination that he (the workman ) has not furnished his date , of birth . Workman has joined the service on 12-12-81 but furnished his affidavit in 1987 mentioning his date of birth as 10-12-48, 6 years after joining the service . The same cannot be accepted as the same has not been given immediately on joining the service . Dr. Vinay Hans in his report Ex. MW1/ 2 dated 22-12-86 has opined the age of (he workman/workers including present workman on the basis oftheir physical appearance only and he also mentioned that to determine the exact date of birth ofthe workers , further Forensic Medical Specialist report was absolutely necessary in the instant case. Forensic Medical Specialist, was not contacted. However, the date birth of the workman as 30-12-36 as initially disclosed by him at the time of joining as per statement on affidavit Ex.MW1 / 1 is further supported by report of Dr. vinary Hans Ex. MW1 /2 according to which the date of birth of the workman has been given as 40 years to 50 years . The workman is aged bout 50 years in the year 1986 as per the report of Dr. Vinay Hans Ex. MW1 /2 so his date of birth falls in the year 1936 and his date of birth in the list dated 20-110-95 6202
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9 , 2004/ASVINA 17, 1926
[PART I-SBc. 3 (ii)] नई दिल्ली, 15 सितम्बर , 2004
2. Thereafter the avove reference was referred to this tribunal and initially workmen filed the statement of claim claiming that they have worked for 250 days continuously in a year which is more than 240 days continuously in a year and are entitled to be regularised or made permanent and entitled to equal pay and benefits to that of permanent employees .
का.आ. 2547.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सेन्ट्रल सिल्क बोर्ड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण न.० 1, नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 125/94 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 15-9-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं० एल -42011 /28/ 93- आई आर ( डी.यू. ) ]
3. Claim has been contested by the management averring that there are no regular vacancies . They are not entitled to be regularised and not entitled to benefits of wages andpay.
कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डैस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 15th September, 2004
S.O. 2547. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 125/94) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court No- I , New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Central Silk Board and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 15-09-2004 .
[No. L -42011 /28/93 - IR(DU) ] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, NEW DELHI
Presiding Officer Shri S.S. BAL
L.D. No. 125/94
In the matter ofdispute between:
Smt . Shanti Devi & 15 others through Mantri ,
4. During the pendency of the proceedings some compromise was arrived at between the parties, and the Management stated that dispute has been resolved. Shri Vijender Sahai appeared for the management and stated that the controvercy has been resolved and he made the following statement that all the workmen in this case have beengranted status of time scale farm workers and they are entitledto regular pay scale of Rs . 1200-1700 and that they are also being given facilities of medical reimbursement , leave, maternity leave etc. etc. and they shall be considered for regularisation as per scheme in the course on the basis of their qualifications and availability ofvacancy under the scheme and in view of this No dispute remained with the workman. Workmen have also given in Writing Ex. Ml according to which they admitted that they have no grievance or disputes with the Management and they requested to close the case and to pass a No dispute award . Noneofthe 15workers appeared. Moreover, from statement of Shri Vijender Sahai , Deputy Director ofManagement it is apparent that there remains no dispsute between the workmen and the management . Hence No dispute Awared is hereby given in view of the statement of Shri Vijender Sahai , Dy. Director ofthe Management.
Dated: 2-9-2004.
Workman
Silk Board Karamchari Sangh, Local Bus Stand , Dehradun - 248001
Versus
S. S. BAL, Presiding Officer Director,
नई दिल्ली , 15 सितम्बर, 2004
Central Silk Board , Sehaspur, Peetu Farm , Sheeshbara Bashiwala, Dehradun - 248001
Management
Present :
Shri Vijender Sahai , Dy. Director for theManage- ment with Sh. Jog Singh, Advocate.
AWARD
का.आ. 2548.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सी.पी.डब्ल्यू. डी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण न .० I , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 67/90 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 15-9-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं० एल -42012/156/89 - डी 2 ( बी. ) ] The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L- 42011/28/93 - IR(DU) dated 4-11-94 has referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal foradjudication: -
कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डैस्कअधिकारी
NewDelhi , the 15th September, 2004
S.O. 2548. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central "Whether it is proper to grant equal benefits and pay to Smt . Shanti and 15 others said farm workers equivalent to the permanent worker of seed farm ? If not, to what remunerations they are entitled to ? י 6203 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 9, 2004/आश्विन 17, 1926
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 67/90) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court No- I, New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of CPWD and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 15-09-2004 .
[No. L -42012/ 156/89-D-2 (B) ]
KULDIPRAI VERMA, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, NEW DELHI
Presiding Officer Shri S. S. BAL L.D. No. 67/90
Shri Chander Bhushan Thakur, Through President, C.P.W.D. Mazdoor Union , E-26 (Old Quarters) Raja Bazar, Baba Kharak Singh Marg , New Delhi .
Versus
Superintending Engineer , Delhi Central Electrical Circle-VII, CPWD, East Block-I, R. K. Puram, NewDelhi .
Present:
Shri B.K. Pd . A/R for workman .
Shri Balvant Singh, Office Superintendent
For management
AWARD
27-4-84. In pursuance of the said judgement the workman was offered employment in the Office Suprintending Engineer, Delhi Central, Elerctrical Circle-VII, CPWD , New Delhi but he could not join due to serious illness of his wife and rquested for extension of time for joining vide application dated 25-10-84 and he also subsequently requested and submitted Medical Certificate from the doctorinproof of the factum of serious illness of his wife . Itisaverred that in the meantime his sister - in - law (Bhabhi) expiredand on that account he had to remain in village and thus he could not resume duty when he did not receive any response of his request for extension of joining time, he came toDelhi for reporting on duty to the office of S.E. , DCEC - VII , CPWD and submitted all the Medical Certificatets alongwith application dated 16-5-86 but the same were not accepted by them and subsequently the workman addressed representation to the Chief Engineer (Food Zone) , CPWD, New Delhi on 16th May, 1986 with all certificates and also met Director General of Works on 27-10-86 with a copy of the representation addressed to ChiefEngineer (Food Zone) . Thus he has been requesting the authorities to permit him to resume duty in CPWD but of no avail . His other colleagues who were retrenched alongwith him as had similar cases were however given extension of time whereas the Claimant has been discriminated against in the mater of extension of time. He was also discriminated in the matter of payment of wages as hewas paid less wages whereas his counterparts were getting more time- scale and more salary . The decision of the management of CPWD in not allowing the workman to resume duty is arbitrary and discriminatory and amounts to wrongful and illegal termination of service and is violation ofprinciple of natural justice. He claims for reinstatement with fullback wages and continuity in service in the time scale ofAsstt .Mechanic and any other order deem fit and proper.
The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour Vide its Order No. L -42012/156/89 -D - 2 (B ) dated05-07-90 has referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:-
"Whether the action of the Superintending Engineer, Delhi, Central Electrical circle- VII, CPWD , New Delhi not giving employment to the retrenched workman Shri Chander Bhushan Thakur , Asstt. Mechanic (Muster roll in MRM Project, Nepal ) though offered an appointment letter on 12-10-84 by the E.E. , MRM Circle No. I , Butawal and not allowing him as he did not join within stipulated timewas justified. If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to " ?
3. The Management contested the claim of the workman by raising preliminary objections that there is no Industrial dispute between the parties as mention in Para 1 ofreply. And that the claiment's appliction is highly belated and liable to be dismissed as he was asked to join duty within 15 days from the date of issue oforder dated 12-10-84 but he came to join duty on 16-5-86 . On merits it is stated that he had been posted in Nepal and performed work there . However in pursuance of Hon'ble Supreme Court's order he was offered job in Delhi as stated but the work has finished in Nepal it is denied that the workman was retrenched and ordered to be reinstated by Hon'ble Supreme Court as claimed. However it is stated that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has directed the management to take the workman on muster roll as a fresh entrant and the workman was offered the job of muster roll vide office Memo dated 12-10-1984 . It is also denied that the workman made any application dated 25-10-84 for extension of time on the ground of serious illness of his wife Supported with Medical Certificate . In fact , no such application was received by any competent authority. The 2. Brief facts of the case as culled from record are that the workman , Sh . Chander Bhusan Thakur engaged as Asstt . Mechanic at MRM Project (Nepal ) under the control of the Management . He had worked for about 7 years when he was retrenched by the management . Being aggrieved he approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court along with the other colleagues which ordered for reinstatement of the retrenched muster roll workman ofMRM Project (Nepal ) in India, vide judgement dated
2908 Gl/ 04-35 6204
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9 , 2004 / ASVINA 17, 1926
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii ) ] Workman is not entitled to join the duty after expiry of the stipulated time. The workman is guility of abondoning the job and is not entitled to relief claimed .
4. The Written Statement was followed by rejoinder wherein the workman reiterated the averments of his claim and denied the contents of the written statement of the management .
se of both the parties that in pursuance of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's Order, the workman was offered job vide letter dated 12-10-84. in which he was asked to join the duty within 15 days but he failed tojoin his job as offered within the stipulated period . He claimed that he could notjoin due to prolong - illness of his wife which was followed by the death ofBhabhi (sister - in - law) . But there is not aniota of evidence on record nor any document placed by the workman to show that his wife was suffereing from a serious disease or his sister- in -law expired as claimed. He has failed to produce anyMedical Certificate of the prolong illness of his wife and also failed to produce death certificate of his sister - in -law as claimed. There is no evidence to show that he want tojoin duty on 16-5-86 as claimed, It is obvious that the workman failed to join duty of job within the stipulatedperiod of 15 days w.e.f. 12-10-84 he also failed to show that he sought extension and offered himself to join duty thereafter at any time on 16-5-86 . The perusal of the record shows that the workman has been veru negligent in the prosecution of his case but also failed to prove that he sought extension for joining ofhis duties. In fact he failed to prove that his wife was suffering from the prolonged illness and his sister- in - law died as mentioned above . Even if it is resumedtobe correct even then there is delay of more than 2years, he was supposed tojoin duty on 27-10-84 within 15 days after expiry oftime ofvalidity of appointment contained in letter dated 12-10-84 . I have no option but to conclude that the workman himself neglected to join the duty for more than 2 years . I could have condoned the delay if it has been for a few days but this delay of more than 2 years on the part of workman in joining duty in response to the offer is not only excessive but also reflects the conduct of workman indicating that his lack of interest in joining the duty and negligence . Law does not come to succour the negligent and slowth. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case , I am not inclined to condone the delay particularly when the workman has himself greatly neglected tojoin duty for more than 2 years and has also been negligent in the prosecution ofhis case and has failed to explian the delay. In my opinion the action ofthe management in not allowing the workmanto jointhe duty, appears to be justified the reference is answered &accordingly the award is passed.
S. S. BAL , PresidingOfficer 5.Management examined his witness Sh. D. L. Gulati in evidence and closed his evidence on 12-8-91 . Thereafter workman would moved an application for setting aside the order dated 12-8-91 . The application of the workman dated 22-10-91 was allowed and management witness was allowed to be cross -examined MW 1 vide order dated23-2-93. Thereafter 2-3 adjournment were granted and on 14-9-93 Sh . P.C. Soni , Executive Engineer appeared on behalf of the management . Again neither the workman nor his rep. appeared on 14-9-93 and the statement ofSh . P. C. Soni , ex. Engineer was recorded as MW1 and the workman was proceeded Ex -Parte and thereafter the case was posted on 2-11-93 for arguments when the workman wanted to move an application for setting aside the Ex -Parte Order dated 14-9-93. Thereafter he sought some more adjournments and no application was filed and the case have been posted for filing of Written Argumentsby the Parties and numerious opportunities were given for filing of Written Arguments . On 4-6-96 Management filed Written Arguments but workman sought adjournment as he wanted to move an application for setting aside the ex - parte order dated 14-9-93 and the case was adjourned to 6-8-96 for filling of application for setting- aside Ex. parte order. On 6-8-96 the application for setting aside the Ex - parte order dated 14-9-93 filed by workman representative . And the case was adjourned to 10-9-96 for filing of reply to the application by the management . Again the case was adjourned to 5-11-96 for filing of reply by the management . On 5-11-96 reply to the application filed by the management and the case was posted for arguments on the workman application . After some more adjournments arguments were heard on the application and the workman application was ultimately dismissed on 22-6-98 by my Ld. Predecessor and thereafter the case was fixed for arguments on numerious occasion. On 24-8-04 when the case was fixed for arguments Sh . B.K. Pd. A/R for workman and Sh. Balwant Singh Office Superintendent for management appeared and ultimately the arguments were heard.
नईदिल्ली, 15 सितम्बर , 2004
का.आ. 2549.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार केन्द्रीय पशु प्रजनन केन्द्र के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औधोगिक अधिकरण जयपुर के पंचाट को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 15-9-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं ० एल-42012/102/94- आई आर ( डी.यू. ) ] कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डैस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 15th September , 2004 6. I have heard both the A/R of the parties and perused the record meticulously. The perusal of the ordersheets shows that initially the management was allowed to adduce evidence and management examined MW1 / 1 Sh. D.L. Gulati and its evidence closed on 12--8-91 . Thereafter the workman moved an application which was in essence an application for setting aside the said Ex - Parte Order dated 12-8-91 . The said application was for recalling the management witness for cross - examination . The application was allowed and then again after numerious adjournments the management witness Sh . P.C. soni was examined in the absence of workman. The workman was proceeded Ex - Parte again. and the management witness was recorded. thereafter workman was again heard on application which was also dismisssed as mentioned above. Thus the workman has failed to show that he moved an application . it is admitted
S.O. 2549. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award 6205 भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 9 , 2004/आश्विन 17, 1926
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]
कर रहे थे और उसके बाद नये व्यक्तियों को नियुक्तिदी गई है, इसलिए प्रार्थी का सेवा मुक्तिआदेश अवैध है । उक्त आदेश को अवैध घोषित करते हुए उसे पुनः काम पर लेने तथा पूर्व का तमाम बकाया वेतन, भत्ता आदि लाभ दिलाये जाने की प्रार्थना की है ।
ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Central Cattle Breeding Farm and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 15-9-2004.
[No. L-42012/ 102/94 -IR (DU) ] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer
अनुबन्ध
केन्द्रीय औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण , जयपुर केस नं. सी. आई. टी. 54/95
रैफरेंस: केन्द्र सरकार , श्रम मंत्रालय, नई दिल्ली का आदेश क्र. एल. 42012/102/94-आई. आर. ( डी. यू. ) दि. 4-8-95
3. अप्रार्थी की ओर से प्रार्थी के क्लेम का जवाब पेश किया गया हैजिसमें अंकित किया गया है कि प्रार्थी ने सहायक श्रम आयुक्त के यहां कभी कोई बयान नहीं दिया , उसके प्रतिनिधि ने ही कार्यवाही में भाग लिया है जो न्यायसंगत नहीं है । प्रतिनिधि श्री भारत भूषण आर्य के पक्ष में कोई अधिकार पत्र प्रार्थी ने निष्पादित नहीं किया हुआ है और श्री भारत भूषण आर्य किस यूनियन के सदस्य हैं यह नहीं बताया गया है । बीकानेर ट्रेड यूनियन काउंसिल को अप्रार्थी ने कोई मान्यता नहीं दी है । सहायक श्रम आयुक्त ( केन्द्रीय ) के समक्ष कोई विवाद नहीं उठाने के कारण सरकार यह रैफरेंस नहीं कर सकती , रैफरेंस गलत है, अप्रार्थी संस्थान भारत सरकार का संस्थान है जो कृषि मंत्रालय द्वारा संचालित होता है, यह संस्थान उद्योग की परिभाषा में नहीं आता जिसमें अधिनियम के प्रावधान लागू नहीं होते , इस कारण प्रार्थी का क्लेम खारिज किये जाने योग्य है ।
श्रीविजय कुमार यादव पुत्र श्री राम प्यारे लाल यादव केन्द्रीय पशु प्रजननकेन्द्र , सूरतगढ़, जिला श्रीगंगानगर जरिए श्री भारत भूषण आर्य, महामंत्री, बीकानेर डिवीजन ट्रेड यूनियन काउन्सिल, 1 , खजान्ची बिल्डिंग, बीकानेर ।
........प्रार्थी
बनाम
संचालक, केन्द्रीय पशु प्रजनन केन्द्र, सूरतगढ़ , जिला श्री गंगानगर ।
..अप्रार्थी
उपस्थित:
पीठासीन अधिकारी श्री पी. एल. हिस्सारिया, आर. एच. जे. एस.
प्रार्थी कीओर से: श्रीभारत भूषण आर्य
कोई उपस्थित नहीं
अप्रार्थीकी ओर से
दिनांक अवार्ड: 5-8-2004
अवार्ड
4. गुणावगुण पर अप्रार्थी ने जवाब पेश किया है कि प्रार्थी विजय कुमार को अप्रार्थी के फार्म पर सीज़नल दैनिक वेतन भोगी मज़दूर के रूप में निश्चित अवधि के लिए अस्थाई रूप से लगाया गया था, किसी स्वीकृत पद पर नियुक्त नहींकिया गया, उसकी प्रथम नियुक्ति 15-1-87 को चौकीदार के पद पर होने का तथ्य गलत है , अप्रार्थी द्वारा कभी कोई नियुक्ति पत्र नहीं दिया गया और प्रार्थी ने अप्रार्थी के यहां लगातार कार्य नहींकिया और उसने किसी भी वर्ष में 240 दिन पूरे नहीं किये। अधिनियम केप्रावधान अप्रार्थी संस्थान पर लागू नहीं होते हैं, इसलिए प्रार्थी औद्योगिक कामगार नहीं था और धारा 25 - एफ अधिनियम के अन्तर्गत लाभ दिया जाना अवश्यक नहीं था । प्रार्थी स्वयं ही स्वेच्छा से कार्य छोड़कर अन्य जगह कार्य करने लग जाता था, उसे 20-10-87 को अप्रार्थी द्वारा कभी नहीं हटाया गया बल्कि प्रार्थी स्वरः ही काम छोड़कर चला गया था। इसके अलावा प्रार्थी ने अप्रार्थी के निदेशक डॉ. रगरा के आवास पर हमला किया था जिसकी पुलिस में रिपोर्ट की गई थी, प्रार्थी का चाल- चलन व व्यवहार सही नहीं था और उसे चूंकि निश्चित अवधि के लिए विशिष्ट कार्य हेतु सीज़नल तौर पर रखा गया था जिसके नियमित होने कादावा गलत है, अतः प्रार्थी का क्लेम खारिज किया जावे । 1. भारत सरकार, श्रम मंत्रालय , नई दिल्ली द्वारा निम्न विवाद इस न्यायाधिकरण को अधिनिर्णयार्थ प्रेषित किया गया है:
"Whether the action of the management of CCBF Suratgarh (Raj . ) in terminating the services of Shri VijayKumarYadav, an alleged chowkidar adaily paid labour is legal, proper and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to? "
5. प्रार्थी की ओर से अपने अलेम की पुष्टि में प्रार्थी विजय कुमार एवं साक्षी तरसेम सिंह के शपथ पर पेश हुए हैं तथा प्रदर्श डब्ल्यू-1 से डब्ल्यू-20 तक कुल 20 दस्तावेज़न हुए हैं । अप्रार्थी के प्रतिनिधि बाद में उपस्थित नहीं हुए इसलिए उनक जिरह का अधिकार बंद कर दिया गया और उनके उपस्थित नहीं आने कारण अप्रार्थी की साक्ष्य भी बंद कर दी गई । बहस की स्टेज पर कोई उपस्थित नहीं हुआ इसलिए उनके विरुद्ध एकपक्षीय कार्यवाही की जमकर प्रार्थी के विद्वान प्रतिनिधि की एकपक्षी बहस सुनी गई । प्रार्थी के विद्धान प्रतिनिधि ने लिखित बहस भी पेश की है जिसका अवलोकन किरणः ।
6. जहां तक अप्रार्थी संस्थान का उद्योग की परिभाषा में नहीं आने व उस पर अधिनियम के प्रावधान लागू नहीं होने का प्रश्न है, इस संबंध में अप्रार्थी ने किसी तरह की कोई साक्ष्य पेश नहीं की है । सहायक श्रम आयुक्तके यहां की कार्यवाही का इस विवाद से कोई संबंध नहींहै, विवाद केन्द्रीय सरकार ने प्रेषित किया है जो विवाद प्रस्तुत करने के लिए सक्षम है जिस पर प्रार्थी द्वारा क्ले पेश किया गया है और जहां तक भारत भूषण आर्य के प्रार्थी के प्रर्ताि ध होने का प्रश्न है, उसका अधिकार 2. उक्त रैफरेंस पर प्रार्थी ने अपना क्लेम पेश किया जिसके अनुसार उसकी नियुक्ति अप्रार्थी संस्थान में 15-1-87 को दैनिक वेतन पर चौकदार के पद पर हुई थी । उसने 19-10-87 तक 240 दिन से अधिक अवधि तक उक्त पद पर कार्य किया और 20-10-87 को अप्रार्थी संस्थान में प्रार्थी को बिना कारण बताये व बिना कोई नोटिस दिये जुबानी आदेश से विधि विरुद्ध तरीके से सेवा मुक्त कर दिया । उक्त सेवा मुक्ति के समय अप्रार्थी नियोजक ने धारा 25 - एफ औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( जिसे आगे अधिनियम लिखा जा रहा है ) की पालना नहीं की । सेवा मुक्ति का कोई कारण नहीं बताया । कोई नोटिस नहीं दिया, नोटिस के बदले में कोई वेतन नहीं दिया, न किसी तरह की मुआवजा राशिका भुगतान किया । अप्रार्थी ने वरिष्ठता सूची का प्रकाशन नहीं किया, प्रार्थी की छंटनी के समय प्रार्थी से कनिष्ठ कर्मचारी कार्य 6206
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: OCTOBER 9, 2004/ASVINA 17 , 1926
पत्र पत्रावली पर मौजूद है । इसलिए अप्रार्थी द्वारा उठाई गई प्रारंभिक आपत्तियां अस्वीकार की जाती हैं ।
[PART II SEC. 3 (ii)]
अनुबन्ध
केन्द्रीय औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण, जयपुर केस नं. सी. आई. टी. 19/93
रैफरेंस: केन्द्र सरकार , श्रम मंत्रालय, नई दिल्ली का आदेश क्रमांक एल-40012/173/92 आई. आर. (डी. यू. ) दिनांक 7-12-93
श्री हर सहाय मार्फत श्री अशोक शर्मा , 12/332, काला कुआं हाऊसिंग बोर्ड , जयपुर ।
-प्रार्थी
बनाम
एस.डी. ओ. (टी ) एवं टी. डी. ई. , अलवर ।
-अप्रार्थी
उपस्थित:
पीठासीन अधिकारी
7. प्रार्थी ने अपने शपथ पत्र में स्पष्ट तौर पर अंकित किया है कि अप्रार्थी ने उसे दैनिक वेतन पर 15-1-87 को चौकीदार के पद पर नियुक्तकिया और उनने 19-10-87 तक उक्त पद पर कार्य किया । 20-10-87 को अत्रार्थी ने जुबानी आदेश से उससे काम लेने से मना कर दिया, इस तरह उसने वर्ष 1987 में 240 दिन का सेवा काल लगातार परा किया है । इस तथ्य की पुष्टि तरसेम सिंह के शपथ पत्र से भी होती हैं । इन साक्षियों से अप्रार्थी द्वारा जिरह नहीं की गई है और खण्डन में अपनी कोई साक्ष्य प्रस्तुत नहीं की गई है । उक्त तथ्य से यह भली- भांति साबित है कि प्रार्थी ने अप्राथों संस्थान में एक वर्ष में लगातार 240 दिन तक काम किया है , यह श्रमिक की परिभाषा में आता है और उसे 20-10-87 को बिना कोई नोटिस दिये , बिना किसी मुआवजा राशि, बिना नोटिस व नोटिस के बदले वेतन दिये सेवा से हटाया गया है जो निश्चित तौर पर धारा 3 - एफ अधिनियम का उल्लंघन है और प्रार्थी को धारा 25 - एफ अधिनियम के प्रावधान के विपरीत सेवा से हटाया गया हैजो विधि विरुद्ध है ।अतः उसका मौखिक सेवा मुक्ति आदेश अपास्त किये जाने योग्य है ।
श्री पी. एल. हिस्सारिया,
आर. एच. जे. एस.
प्रार्थी की ओर से
8. उपरोक्त विवेचन के आधार पर प्रकरण में निम्न अवार्ड पारित किया जाता है ।
कोई उपस्थित नहीं
अप्रार्थी की ओर से
"सी. सी. बी. एफ. , सूरतगढ़ ( राज. ) के प्रबंधतंत्र द्वारा श्री विजय कुभार यादव, चौकीदार/ दैनिक वेतन भोगी श्रमिक की सेवाएं समाप्त किये जाने की कार्यवाही उचित , वैध एवं न्यायसंगत नहींहै। आथों पुनः अपने पूर्व पद पर समस्त वेतन व अन्य लाभ सहित संवा में बहाल होने का अधिकारी है । "
9. अवार्ड आज दिनांक 5-8-2004 को खुले न्यायालय में लिखाया जाकर सुनाया गया जो केन्द्र सरकार को प्रकाशनार्थ नियमानुसार भेजा जावे ।
पी. एल. हिस्सारिया, न्यायाधीश नई दिल्ली , 15 सितम्बर, 2004
का.आ. 25.50. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एस. डी. ओ. (टेलीकॉम ) के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय औद्योगिक अधिकरण, जयपुर के पंचाट की प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 15-9-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[ गं. एल-40012/ 173 /92- आई आर ( डी.यू. ) ]
कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डैस्क अधिकारी NewDelhi, the 15th September, 2004 S.O. 2550.-la pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dirpuies Act. 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Industrial Tribunal . Jaipur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relationto the management of S. D. O. (Telecom ) and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 15-9-2004.
[No. L -40012 / 173/92 - IR (DU) ]
KULDIP RAI VERMA , Desk Officer कोई उपस्थित नहीं
दिनांक अवार्ड: 19-7-2004
अवार्ड
1. केन्द्र सरकार, श्रम मंत्रालय , नई दिल्ली ने अपनी उपरोक्त अधिसूचना के जरिये निम्न विवाद इस न्यायाधिकरण को अधिनिर्णयार्थ प्रेषित कियाहै :
"Whether the action of the SDO(T) , Alwar and the T. D. E. , Alwar in terminating the services ofSh. Har Sahai a muster roll worker finally w.e.f. 18-1-89 is justified, proper and legal , ? If not, to what relief is the workman is entitled to?"
2. केन्द्र सरकार से रैफरेंस प्राप्त होने के पश्चात् दर्ज रजिस्टर किया गया और प्रार्थी को क्लेम पेश करने हेतु नोटिस जारी किया गया। श्री आर. सी. जैन प्रकरण में प्रार्थी की ओर से उपस्थित हुए और उन्होंने क्लेम पेश करने हेतु समय चाहा जो दिया जाता रहा । किन्तु प्रकरण में आज दिनांक तक कोई क्लेम पेश नहीं किया गया है , अब और अवसर दिया जाना उचित नहीं है । ऐसा प्रतीत होता है कि प्रार्थी इस विवाद में रुचि नहीं रखता है , और उसने अपने विवाद को क्लेम एवं साक्ष्य के जरिये न्यायाधिकरण के समक्ष साबित नहीं किया है । ऐसे में प्रार्थी इस रैफरेंस में इस अधिकरण द्वारा कोई राहत पाने का अधिकारी नहीं है और प्रकरण में निम्न प्रकार से अवार्ड पारित किया जाता है :
" प्रार्थी श्री हर सहाय, मस्टर रोल श्रमिक को दिनांक 18-1-89 को अंतिम तौर से अप्रार्थीगण द्वारा सेवा से पृथक करने की कार्यवाही उचित एवं वैध है । प्रार्थी कोई राहत पाने का अधिकारी नहींहै ।"
3. अवार्ड आज दिनांक 19-7-2004 को खुले न्यायालय में लिखाया जाकर सुनाया गया जो केन्द्र सरकार को नियमानुसार प्रकाशनार्थ भेजाजाए ।
पी. एल . हिस्सारिया, न्यायाधीश 6207 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 9, 2004/आश्विन 17, 1926
उपस्थित
नई दिल्ली, 15 सितम्बर, 2004
पीठासीन अधिकारी पी ० एल० हिस्सारिक , आर० एच०जे०एस०
प्रार्थी की ओर से :
श्री पी० डी० खन्ना
अप्रार्थीकी ओर से :
श्री तेज प्रकाश शर्मा का. आ. 2551.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार वैस्टर्न रेलवे के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय औद्योगिक्क अधिकरण , जयपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 71/90 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 14-9-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
दिनांक अवार्ड: 28-5-2004
[सं० एल-41012/33/90 - आई.आर. ( बी-1 ) ]
अवार्ड
अजय कुमार , डेस्कअधिकारी
New Delhi , the 15th September, 2004
1. केन्द्र सरकार, श्रम मंत्रालय , नई दिल्ली ने अपनी उपरोक्त अधिसूचना के जरिये निम्न विवाद इस न्यायाधिकरण को अधिनिर्णयार्थ प्रेषितकिया है :
"Whether the action of the management of Western Railway, Ajmer in removing Shri Nauratmal, Safaiwala from Service w.e.f. 20-3-85 is justified? If not, to what relief is the worker concerned entitled?"
S.O. 2551. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 71/90) ofthe Central Industrial Tribunal Jaipur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Western Railway and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 14-9-2004.
[No. L-41012/33/90-IR(B-I)] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer
अनुबन्ध
केन्द्रीय औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण, जयपुर
केस नं. सी.आई.टी. 71/90
रैफरेंस : केन्द्र सरकार , श्रम मंत्रालय , नई दिल्ली का आदेश क्रमांक एल. 41012/33/90- आई. आर. (डी. यू. ) दिनांक 26-10-96
श्री नौरतमल पुत्र श्री राम किशन , सफाईवाला द्वारा वेस्टर्न रेलवे कर्मचारी परिषद, अजमेर ।
-प्रार्थी
बनाम
1.यूनियन आर्फे इण्डिया द्वारा जनरल मैनेजर, पश्चिम रेलवे चर्चगेट, बॉम्बे ।
2. प्रार्थी की ओर से स्टेटमैंट आफॅ क्लेम पेश किया गया है जिसमें यह बताया गया है कि नौरतमल जो कि अप्रार्थी के अजमेर कार्यालय में सफाईवाला के पद पर कार्यरत था, जनवरी 1984 में बीमार हो गया और अपने मूल निवास नसीराबाद चला गया और कार्यालय में उपस्थितनहीं हो सका । चूंकि नसीराबाद में रेलवे डिस्पैन्सरी नहीं थी अतः उसने निजी डॉक्टर से इलाज करवाया और अपनी बीमारी की सूचनाअपने सन्निकट अधिकारी स्वास्थ्य निरीक्षक को भेजी । और वह 23-1-84 से 9-11-84 तक बीमार रहा और इलाज करवाया । निजी डाक्टर से स्वस्थ होने के बाद जो प्रमाण पत्र लिया उसके आधार पर रेलवे डाक्टर से उसने ड्यूटी मेडीकल प्रमाणपत्र बनवाया जिसके आधार पर प्रार्थी ने दिनांक 10-11-84 को डयूटी जोइन की और वह संतोष- जनक तरीके से काम कर रहा था । दिनांक 1-12-84 को उसे 23-1-84 से9-11-84 तक को अनाधिकृत अनुपस्थित के लिए आरोप पत्र दिया गया जिसका 12-12-84 को उसने जवाब दे दिया, किन्तु अनुशासनिक अधिकारी ने जांच अधिकारी की नियुक्ति कर दी, जाचं अधिकारी ने जाचं के सिद्वान्तों की पालना नहीं की और जांच रिपोर्ट में अपना निष्कर्ष दे दिया, अनुशासनिक अधिकारी ने भी बिना अपना माइन्ड अप्लाई किये तकनीकी तरीके से प्रार्थी श्रमिक को दिनाकं 20-3-85 के आदेश द्वारा सेवा से पृथक करने का कठोर दण्ड दिया । इस आदेश की प्रार्थी ने अपील एवं निगरानी की जिस पर कोई विचार नहीं किया जाकर खारिज कर दी गई तब केन्द्रीय श्रम विभाग में समझौते हेतु प्रार्थना पत्र यूनियन केमाध्यम से दिया जो वार्ता भी असफल हो जाने पर केन्द्र सरकार ने वह रैफरेंस इस न्यायाधिकरण को प्रस्तुत किया ।
2. दॉ चीफ वर्कशॉप मैनेजर ( लोको ) वैस्टर्न रेलवे,
अजमेर ।
3. दॉडिप्टी चीफ मैकेनीकल इंजीनियर ( लोको ) वैस्टर्न रेलवे अजमेर ।
-अप्रार्थीगण
3. प्रार्थी ने अपने सेवा मुक्ति आदेश दिनांक 20-3-85 को इस आधार पर चुनौती दी है कि उसे अपने बचाव के लिए पर्याप्त समय नहीं दिया अभियोजन पक्ष के बयान नहीं लिये केवल प्रार्थी के बयान लेकर ही जांच रिपोर्ट प्रस्तुत कर दी , सेवा पृथक्करण आदेश असिसटेंट वर्क्स मैनेजर ( लोको ) अजमेर द्वारा जारी किया गया है जो कि सक्षम अधिकारी 6208
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9 , 2004/ASVINA 17, 1926
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]
गया। प्रार्थी को नियमों की जानकारी भी नहीं थी अतः उसने निजी अस्पताल से इलाज करवाया जिन प्रमाण पत्रों पर गौर नहीं करके अप्रार्थी ने त्रुटि की है । अपने तर्क के समर्थन में विद्वान प्रतिनिधि ने निम्न प्रोद्वरण प्रस्तुतकिये है:
नहीं हैं, निजी डॉक्टर के प्रमाण पत्र के आधार पर रेलवे डाक्टर ने जो प्रमाण पत्र चिकित्सा का दिया उसे क्यों नहीं स्वीकार किया गया, इसका कोई कारण नहीं बताया गया जबकि नसीराबाद में कोई रेलवे डिसपैंसरी है ही नहीं । अतः प्रार्थी को सेवा पृथक्करण आदेश व अपील एवं निगरानी के आदेश 4-7-85 अनुचित व शून्य होने के कारण अपास्त किये जायें व प्रार्थी को पुनः सेवा में लिये जाने का अवार्ड पारित किया जावे ।
1. मानसिंह बनाम यूनियन आर्फे इण्डिया, 2003 ( एस. सी. ) एस. एल. आर. 579
2.बाबूलाल बनाम यूनियन आफॅ इण्डिया, 2000 ( 1 ) आर. एल. आर. 631 ( राज०)
3. राधेश्याम बनाम स्टेट आफॅ राजस्थान, 2001 ( 4 ) डब्ल्यू. एल. एन. 472 ( राज० )
4. अप्रार्थीगण ने क्लेम का जवाब पेश किया है जिसमें क्लेम के तथ्यों को अस्वीकार करते हुए कहा है कि प्रार्थी ने अपनी बीमारी की कोई सूचाना नहीं भेजी । यह सही है कि उसने 10-11-84 को ड्यूटी जोइन की किन्तु उसका कार्य संतोषजनक नहीं था जांच अधिकारी के समक्ष प्रार्थी ने अपना आरोप स्वीकार कर लिया था , अतः इसी आधार पर जांच अधिकारी ने अपना निष्कर्ष देते हुए जांच रिपोर्ट पेश की, जांच के दौरान प्रार्थी अथवा उसके प्रतिनिधि ने दस्तावेजात के निरीक्षण हेतु कोई प्रार्थना नहीं की चतुर्थ श्रेणी कर्मचारी के लिए असिस्टैंट वर्क्स मनेजर सक्षम अधिकारी है, जांच प्रतिवेदन के निष्कर्ष के आधार पर सक्षम अनुशासनिक अधिकारी ने सकारण जो सेवा पृथक्करण आदेश पारितकिया है वह विधिक है और श्रमिक को इसकी सूचना दे दी गई थी अतः संविधान के अनुच्छेद 14 व 16 का कोई उल्लंघन नहीं हुआ है अतः क्लेम खारिज किया जावे ।
5. प्रार्थी नौरतमल ने क्लेम की पुष्टि में अपना स्वयं का श्पथ पत्र पेश किया है जिससे विपक्षी के विद्वान प्रतिनिधि ने जिरह की है । अप्रार्थी ने कोई साक्ष्य प्रस्तुत नहीं करनी चाहि, अतः बहस सुनी गई, पत्रावली का अवलोकन किया गया ।
8. इसके विपरीत अप्रार्थी के विद्वान प्रतिनिधि का तर्क है कि रेलवे के जो नियम बने हुए हैं, उनके अन्तर्गत किसी भी रेलवे कर्मचारी के बीमार होने पर चिकित्सा के आधार पर अवकाश केवल रेलवे डॉक्टर के प्रमाण पत्र पर स्वीकार किया जाता है । प्रार्थी ने अपनी बीमारी की कोई सूचना अप्रार्थी को नहीं भिजवाई । जो प्रमाण पत्र चिकित्सा का पेश किया गया है वह निजी डॉक्टर द्वारा दिये गये प्रमाण पत्र के आधार पर दिया गया है जिस पर विचार नहीं किया जा सकता । जांच अधिकारी ने प्रार्थी के बयान लिये और प्रार्थी ने स्वयं माना कि वह दिनांक 23-1-84 से 9-11-84 अनुपस्थित रहा है वह इस दरमियान बीमार था और निजी डॉक्टर से इलाज करवाया, जब ठीक हुआ तो रेलवे डॉक्टर के पास गया उसने एस . आर. 3/4 का ड्यूटी प्रमाण पत्र बना दिया , इस बार उससे गलती हो गयी है । जब प्रार्थी ने अपना आरोप स्वीकार कर लिया था तो अभियोजन पक्ष के गवाही की आवश्यकता ही नहीं थी और आरोप की स्वीकारोक्ति पर ही जांच प्रतिवेदन तैयार कर जांच अधिकारी ने आरोप सिद्ध मानते हुए रिपोर्ट प्रस्तुत की जो सही है ।
9. जब लम्बे समय तक अनुपस्थित रहने के कारण विधि के अनुसार यह उपधारण ली जानी चाहिये होती है कि प्रार्थी ने स्वेच्छा से सेवा का परित्याग कर दिया इसलिए इसमें सेवा से हटाये जाने के तथ्य को दण्ड नहीं कहा जा सकता, फिर भी जांच कार्यवाही करके नियमानुसार प्रार्थी को सेवा से हटाया गया है और उस आदेश में कहीं कोई त्रुटि नहीं है ।
10. मैंने दोनों पक्षों के तर्कों पर गंभीरता से विचार किया एवं पत्रावली का ध्यानपूर्वक अवलोकन किया ।
6. प्रार्थी के विद्वान प्रतिनिधि का तर्क है कि प्रार्थी दिनांक 23-1-84 से बीमार हो गया और अपने पैत्रिक स्थान नसीराबाद चला गया जहां रेलवे डिस्पैन्सरी नहीं थी अतः निजी डॉक्टर से इलाज करवाता रहा जिसकी सूचना उसने अप्रार्थी नियोजक स्वास्थ्यनिरीक्षक जो उसके सन्निकट अधिकारी थे , को भिजवा दी । उसने दिनांक 10-11-84 को ड्यूटी जोइन की और 1-12-84 को उसे अनाधिकृत अनपुस्थितिके संबंध में आरोप पत्र दिया गया जिसका जवाब उसने दे दिया किन्तु फिर भी जांच अधिकारी नियुक्त कर जांच करावाई गई । जांच में केवल मात्र उसके बयान लिये गये अभियोजन पक्ष के गवाह नहीं हुए और जांच अधिकारी ने प्रार्थी के बयान के आधार पर ही आरोप सिद्ध मानते हुए जांच प्रतिवेदन प्रस्तुत कर दिया जो प्राकृतिक न्याय सिद्वान्तों के विपरीत होने से उसके आधार पर अनुशासनिक अधिकारी ने जो बिना माइन्ड अप्लाई किये सेवा पृथक्करण आदेश श्रमिकके खिलाफ दिनांक 20-3-85 को जारी किया, वह भी अनुचित व अवैध है जिसे अपास्त किया जाकर प्रार्थी को समस्त लाभ सहित सेवा में पुनः बहाल किया जावे । विद्वान प्रतिनिधि का यह भी तर्क है कि उसकी अपील व निगरानी पर भी बिना सुनवाई के आदेश पारित करदिया गया जो अनुचित है ।
7. प्रार्थी का यह भी तर्क है कि प्रार्थी ने निजी अस्पताल में इलाज करवाया था जिसके प्रमाण पत्र के आधार पर रेलवे डॉक्टर ने चिकित्सा प्रमाण पत्र जारी कर दिया किन्तु उसे कन्सीडर नहीं किया
11. जहां तक जांच कार्यवाही का प्रश्न है , इसमें किसी प्रकार की कोई अनियमितता नहीं है । प्रार्थी स्वीकार करता है कि वह दिनांक 23-1-84 से 9-11-84 तक अनुपस्थित रहा है परन्तु वह बीमार हो गया था, इस कारण अनुपस्थित रहा और प्राईवेट चिकित्सालय से इलाज करवाया तथा अनुपस्थिति की सूचना 23-1-84 को ही उसने नियोजक को भेज दी थी । अभिलेख पर ऐसा कोई दस्तावेज़ नहीं है जिससे यह प्रकट होता हो कि अनुपस्थिति की सूचना प्रार्थी ने अपने नियोजक को विधिवत् भिजवाई हो । नियमों की जानकारी नहीं होने का जो तर्क दिया गया है वह विधि के 6209 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 9 , 2004/आश्विन17, 1926
14. उपरोक्त विवेचन के आधार पर प्रकरण में निम्न अवार्ड पारित किया जाता है:
" पश्चिम रेलवे के प्रबन्धतंत्र, अजमेर द्वारा उनके श्रमिक श्री नौरतमल, सफाईवाला की सेवाएं दिनांक 20-3-85 से समाप्त किया जाना उचित एवं वैध है, प्रार्थी श्रमिक कोई अनुतोष प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी नहीं है ।"
15. अवार्ड आज दिनांक 28-5-2004 को खुले न्यायालय में लिखाया जाकर सुनाया गया जो केन्द्र सरकार को प्रकाशनार्थ नियमानुसार भेजाजावे ।
पी. एल. हिस्सारिया, पीठासीन अधिकारी
नई दिल्ली , 15 सितम्बर , 2004 अनुसार मानने योग्य नहीं है । प्रार्थी की नियुक्ति 1979 में सफाईवाला के पद पर हुई थी और तब से वह अजमेर में कार्यरत था, इस अवधिमें उसे यह जानकारी नहीं हुई हो कि बीमारी के लिए छुट्टी की अवस्थामें रेलवे चिकित्सा अधिकारी का प्रमाण- पत्र आवश्यक है, मानने योग्य नहीं है । जो चिकित्सा प्रमाण- पत्र पेश किया गया है वह निजी चिकित्सा प्रमाण - पत्र के आधार पर रेलवे डाक्टर ने जारी किया है वह आरोप प्रमाण- पत्र नहीं होकर मात्र एक ये फिटनेस का प्रमाण पत्र है जिसे मानने के लिए अप्रार्थी बाध्य नहीं है । ऐसी सूरत में स्वेच्छा से अनुपस्थिति का आरोप उसके विरुद्ध अभिलेख से भलीभांति साबित होता है , जांच अधिकारी एवं प्राधिकृत अनुशासनिक अधिकारी ने किसी प्रकार की कोई अवैधता या अनियमितता की हो, ऐसा प्रतीत नहीं होता । वैसे भी लंबी अवधि तक बिना सूचना के सेवा में नहीं आने पर यह उपधारण करने का पर्याप्त कारण है कि प्रार्थी ने स्वेच्छा से अपनी सेवा का परित्याग किया है और ऐसे में दण्ड तत्व शामिल नहीं है जैसा कि आनन्द भारती व अन्य बनाम स्टेट ऑफ राजस्थान आर . एल. आर. 2002 (1) 319 में माननीय राजस्थान उच्च न्यायालय ने यह प्रतिपादित किया है कि:
का. आ. 2552.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार ब्रेस्टर्न रेलवे के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय औद्योगिक अधिकरण, जयपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या आई. डी. नं. 54/90 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जोकेन्द्रीय सरकार को 14-9-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं० एल-41012/89/89- आई.आर. ( बी-1 ) ]
अजय कुमार, डैस्कअधिकारी "Absence from duty without leave for a long period presumption as to voluntaty abandonment of service-in such cases no element of punishment is involved which may require adherence to principles ofnatural justice. "
New Delhi , the 15th September, 2004
S.O. 2552. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (ID. No. 54/90) of the Central Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Western Railway and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 14-9-2004.
[No. L-41012/89/89-IR (B-1) ]
AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer 12. प्रार्थी के विद्वान प्रतिनिधि ने जो प्रोद्धरण प्रस्तुत किया है उनमेंअनुपस्थिति अवधि का बिना वेतन के अवकाश स्वीकार कर सेवा कां नियमितीकरण कर दिया गया था, इस कारण सेवा मुक्तिके आदेश को गलत माना है , जब कि प्रस्तुत प्रकरण में ऐसा नहीं है । अनुपस्थिति के बाद आरोप- पत्र देकर और आरोप सिद्ध जांच में होने के पश्चात् ही उसे सेवा पृथक किया गया है । दूसरा प्रोद्धरण बाबूलाल बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इण्डिया का है , वे अनिवार्य सेवा निवृति की बावत है जिसमें प्रतिपादित सिद्धान्त से भी माननीय राजस्थान उच्च न्यायालय के आनन्द भारती वाले सिद्धान्त के कारण प्रार्थी को कोई लाभ नहीं पहुंचता । अन्य प्रोद्धरणों के तथ्य भी भिन्न हैं, जिनमें प्रतिपादित सिद्धान्तों से प्रार्थी को कोई लाभ नहींपंहुचता।
अनुबन्ध
केन्द्रीय औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण , जयपुर
केस नं. सी.आई.टी. 54/90
रैफरेंस: केन्द्र सरकार, श्रम मंत्रालय , नई दिल्ली का आदेश क्रमांक एल-41012/89/89- आई. आर. (डी.-2) (v) दिनांक 13-8-90
श्री अशरफी लाल पुत्र श्री रूप सिंह द्वारा अध्यक्ष, पश्चिम रेलवे कर्मचारी परिषद्, के- 38 , कृष्णागंज, अजमेर।
-प्रार्थी 13. धारा 11 - ए अधिनियम के अन्तर्गत इस अधिकरण को सेवा से निकाले जाने के आदेश की औचित्यता को देखने का पूर्ण अधिकार है और यदि ऐसा आदेश अनुचित हो तभी उस आदेश को अपास्तकिया जा सका है या परिस्थितिवश दण्ड को कम किया जा सकता है । धारा 11 - ए अधिनियम के अन्तर्गत न्यायाधिकरण को केवल मात्र जांब में जांच अधिकारी के समक्ष आई सामग्री पर ही विचार करना होता है कोई नई साक्ष्य लिये जाने का प्रावधान धारा 11 -ए में नहीं है । प्रस्तुत मामले में जांच में कोई अनियमितता नहीं पाई गई है और सेवा से हटाये जाने का आदेश जो कि लंबी अवधि की अनुपस्थिति के कारण पारित किया गया है , वह पूर्णतया उचित है, अतः धारा 11 - ए के अन्तर्गत भी कोई राहत श्रमिक को नहीं दी जा सकती। 6210
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9 , 2004/ ASVINA 17 , 1926
बनाम
1. यूनियन ऑफ इण्डिया द्वारा जनरल मैनेजर, पश्चिम रेलवे चर्चगेट, बॉम्बे ।
2. चीफ वर्कशॉप मैनेजर ( लोको ) पश्चिम रेलवे, अजमेर । 3. दो डिप्टी चीफ मैकेनीकल इंजीनियर ( लोको ) पश्चिम रेलवे अजमेर ।
-अप्रार्थी
उपस्थित
पीठासीन अधिकारी: पी.एल. हिस्सारिया, आर.एच.जे.एस. प्रार्थी की ओर से :
श्री पी. डी. खन्ना
अप्रार्थी की ओर से :
श्री तेज प्रकाश शर्मा
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ]
ظم को अनुशासनिक अधिकारी ने विचार कर प्रार्थी को जान बूझकर स्वेच्छा से अनुपस्थित रहने के आरोप को सिद्ध मानते हुए सेवा से पृथक कर दिया । प्रार्थी ने इस आदेश की अपील एवं निगरानी की जिस पर कोई विचार नहीं किया जाकर खारिज कर दी गई तब केन्द्रीय श्रम विभाग में समझौते हेतु प्रार्थना- पत्र यूनियन के माध्यम से दिया तो वार्ता भी असफल हो जाने के कारण केन्द्रीय सरकार के द्वारा यह रैफरेंस इस न्यायाधिकरण में प्रस्तुत किया गया है ।
दिनांक अवार्ड : 28-5-2004
अवार्ड
1. केन्द्र सरकार, श्रम मंत्रालय , नई दिल्ली ने अपने उपरोक्त आदेश के जरिये निम्न विवाद इस न्यायाधिकरण को वास्ते अधिनिर्णय प्रेषित किया है :
"Whether the action of the management of Western Railway, Administration , Ajmer in removing Shri Asherfi Lal , Power Hammer Operater, Smith Shop of Loco workshop, Western Railway, Ajmer w.e.f. 5-5-86 (AM) is justified? If not, to what relief is the workman concerned entitled?"
2. प्रार्थी यूनियन की ओर से स्टेटमैंट ऑफ क्लेम पेश किया गया है जिसमें यह बताया गया है कि अशरफी लाल जो अप्रार्थी के अजमेर कार्यालय में कार्यरत था, दिनांक 8-3-85 को बीमार हो जाने के कारण कार्यालय में उपस्थित नहीं हो सका । इसके लिए उसने 8-3-85 की सूचना अप्रार्थी के कार्यालय में भिजवाई थी और वह लम्बे समय तक बीमार रहने के कारण कार्यालय में उपस्थित नहीं हो सका । जिस पर अप्रार्थी ने दिनांक 6-1-86 को प्रार्थी को उसकी अनाधिकृत अनुपस्थिति के कारण आरोप - पत्र दिया परन्तु प्रार्थी अपनी बीमारी के कारण तथा समय कम दिये जाने के कारण उसका कोई जवाब नहीं दे सका । जिस पर जांच अधिकारी नियुक्त कर दिया गया, जांच अधिकारी ने भी 2-4-86 की तिथि नियत की थी परन्तु उस दिन सार्वजनिक अवकाश हो जाने के कारण 11-4-86 की तिथि जांच हेतु रखी गई जो समय अत्याधिक कम होने से प्रार्थी जांच अधिकारी के समक्ष उपस्थित नहीं हो सका और जांच अधिकारी ने एक पक्षीय कार्यवाही कर विभाग के साक्षियों के बयान प्रार्थी की अनुपस्थिति में लेकर 17-4-86 को अपनी रिपोर्ट प्रस्तुत कर दी जिस पर 5-5-86 3. प्रार्थी ने उसके सेवा पृथककरण आदेश दिनांक 5-5-86 को इस आधार पर चुनौती दी है कि उसे अपने बचाव के लिए पर्याप्त समय नहीं दिया गया, वह बचाव प्रतिनिधि नियुक्त नहीं कर सका, वह वास्तव में बीमार था इसलिए जांच अधिकारी के समक्ष उपस्थित नहीं हो सका और उसकी कोई सूचना भी जांच अधिकारी को नहीं दे सका। उसकी अपील व रिवीजन पर भी कोई विचार नहीं किया गया और बिना विचारे निर्णय दिया गया है । प्रार्थी 8-3-85 से लगातार बीमारी के कारण अनुपस्थित रहा और 5-5-86 को जांच के पश्चात् सेवा से निष्कासित करने के बाद 10-5-86 को उसने ड्यूटी पर उपस्थित होने हेतु रेलवे अस्पताल का फिटनैस प्रमाण- पत्र देने का प्रार्थना- पत्र दिया, तत्पश्चात उसे सेवा में नहीं लिया गया, उसे सुनवाई का अवसर नहीं दिया गया । उसने प्राईवेट चिकित्सालय का प्रमाण- पत्र भी पेश किया जिसपर कोई विचार नहीं किया गया , इस कारण प्रार्थी का सेवा पृथककरण आदेश दिनांक 5-5-86 व अपील तथा निगरानी के आदेश दिनांक 17-6-89 व 14-3-90 अपास्त किये जावें और प्रार्थी को सेवा में पुनः लिये जाने का व समस्त लाभ दिलाये जाने का अवार्ड पारित किया जावे ।
4. अप्रार्थीगण ने क्लेम का जवाब पेश किया है, जिसमें क्लेम के तथ्यों को इन्कार करते हुए कहा है कि जांच अधिकारी का निष्कर्ष एवं अनुशासनिक अधिकारी का आदेश दोनों ही नियमानुसार हैं अतः उचित व वैध हैं उन्हें चुनौती नहीं दी जा सकती ।
5. प्रार्थी अशरफी लाल ने अपना शपथ- पत्र पेश किया जिसपर उससे जिरह भी की गई है । उसके पश्चात् अशरफी लाल की मृत्यु हो गई, तब उसके पश्चात् अशरफी लाल के विधिक प्रतिनिधि उसकी पत्नी श्रीमती लीला बाई तथा उसके पुत्र रोहिताश चन्द्र, यतीश कुमार व दो पुत्रियां ललिता व चन्द्रकला जो अवयस्क हैं, को उनकी प्राकृतिक संरक्षक माता के जरिये प्रार्थना - पत्र देने पर विधिक प्रतिनिधि के रूप में रिकार्ड पर लिया गया ।
6. इसके पश्चात् मैंने दोनों पक्षों की बहस सुनी, पत्रावली का अवलोकनकिया।
7. प्रार्थी के विद्वान प्रतिनिधि का तर्क है कि प्रार्थी 8-3-85 को बीमार पड़ गया और वह निजी डॉक्टर से इलाज करवाता रहा, 8-3-85 को ही उसने अपने बीमार होने की सूचना अपने नियोजक अप्रार्थी दे दी थी, ठीक होने के पश्चात् जब वह 10-5-86 को कार्यालय में उपस्थित हुआ तो उसको जोइन नहीं करने दिया, इससे पूर्व उसे आरोप - पत्र दिया गया और उसके पश्चात् अनुपस्थिति के आरोप में जांच कर आदेश [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
6211 भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 9 , 2004/आश्विन 17, 1926
दिया इसलिए इसमें से सेवा से हटाये जाने के तत्व को दण्ड नहीं कहा जा सकता, फिर भी जांच कार्यवाही करके नियमानुसार प्रार्थी को सेवा से हटाया है और उस आदेश में कहीं कोई त्रुटि नहीं है, अतः प्रार्थी का क्लेम खारिज किया जावे ।.
10. मैंने दोनों पक्षों के तर्कों पर गंभीरता से विचार किया एवं पत्रावली का ध्यानपूर्वक अवलोकन किया ।
दिनांक 5-5-86 के द्वारा उसे सेवा से पृथक कर दिया गया जिसमें उसे कोई सुनवाई का अवसर नहीं दिया गया । उसकी अपील व निगरानी पर भी बिना सुनवाई के आदेश पारित कर दिया गया । अतः उसका सेवा पृथक्करण आदेश विधिविरुद्ध है । चूंकि प्रार्थी श्रमिक की मृत्यु हो चुकी है, इसलिए उसे पुनः नियोजित नहीं किया जा सका, परन्तु प्रार्थी के विधिक प्रतिनिधियों को प्रार्थी की मृत्यु के दिन तक का पिछला वेतन ग्रेच्युटी व अन्य सभी लाभ दिलवाये जायें ।
8. प्रार्थी के विद्वान प्रतिनिधि ने यह भी तर्क दिया है कि प्रार्थी मे वैद्य के यहां इलाज करवाया था जिसके प्रमाण पत्र पेश किये हैं, रेलवे नियमों के अधीन रेलवे अस्पताल के डाक्टर का प्रमाण पत्र होना चाहिये इसकी जानकारी नहीं होने के कारण किस वैद्य से इलाज करवाया उसी काप्रमाण पत्र पेश किया है जिसपर अप्रार्थी ने कोई गौर नहीं करके त्रुटि कीहै । अपने तर्क के समर्थन में विद्वान प्रतिनिधि ने निम्न प्रोद्धरण प्रस्तुत किये हैं :
1 मानसिंह बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इण्डिया, 2003 (एस. सी. ) एस . एल. आर. 579
2. बाबू लाल बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इण्डिया , 2000 ( 1 ) आर. एल. आर. 631 (राज. )
3. राधेश्याम बनाम स्टेटऑफ राजस्थान , 2001 ( 4 ) डब्ल्यू. एल. एन.472 ( राज. )
11. जहां तक जांच कार्यवाही का प्रश्न है , इसमें किसी प्रकार की कोई अनियमितता नहीं है । प्रार्थी स्वीकार करता है कि 'वह दिनांक 8-3-85 से अनुपस्थित रहा है परन्तु वह बीमार हो गया था, इस कारण अनुपस्थित रहा और प्राईवेट चिकित्सक से इलाज करवाया तथा अनुपस्थिति की सूचना 8-3-85 को डाक द्वारा अप्रार्थी को भिजवाई थी । अभिलेख पर ऐसा कोई दस्तावेज नहीं है जिससे यह प्रकट होता होकि अनुपस्थिति की सूचना डाक द्वारा प्रार्थी ने अपने नियोजक को विधिवत भिजवादी हो । नियमों की जानकारी नहीं होने का जो तर्क दिया गया है वह विधिके अनुसार मानने योग्य नहीं है । प्रार्थी की नियुक्ति 14-11-58 को हुई है जो 1-8-78 से पावरहैमर मैन के पद पर अजमेर में कार्यरत था और इस अवधि में उसे यह जानकारी नहीं हुई हो कि बीमारी के लिए छुट्टी की अवस्थामें रेलवे चिकित्सा का प्रमाण पत्र आवश्यक है , मानने योग्यनहीं है । प्राईवेट चिकित्सक का जो प्रमाण पत्र पेश हुआ है वह मई 1986 का है , जो उसे सेवा से हटाये जाने के बाद का है । इसलिए यह नहीं कहां जा सकता कि उसने प्राईवेट चिकित्स्सा काकोई प्रमाण पत्र अपने प्रार्थना पत्र के साथ अपने नियोजक को दिया हो ऐसी सूरत में स्वेच्छा से अनुपस्थिति का आरोप उसकें विरुद्ध अभिलेख से भलीभांति साबित है, जांच अधिकारी अथवा अनुशासनिक प्राधिकारी ने किसी प्रकार की कोई अवैधता या अनियमितता नहीं की है । वैसे भी लंबी अवधि तक बिना सूचना के सेवा में नहीं आने पर यह उपधारण करने का पर्याप्त कारण है किं प्रार्थी ने स्वेच्छा से अपनी सेवा का परित्याग किया है और ऐसे में दण्ड तत्व शामिल नहीं है जैसा कि आनन्द भारती व अन्य बनाम स्टेट ऑफ राजस्थान आर. एल. आर. 2002 ( 1 ) पेज 3.10 में माननीय राजस्थान उच्च न्यायालय ने यह प्रतिपादित किया है कि:
"Absence from duty without leave for a long poriod- presumption asto voluntary abandonment of service- in such cases no element of punishment is involved: which may require adherence to principles of natural justice.
9. इसके विपरीत अप्रार्थी के विद्वान प्रतिनिधि का तर्क है कि रेलवेके जो नियम बने हुए हैं, उनके अन्तर्गत किसी भी रेलवे कर्मचारी के बीमार होने पर चिकित्सा के आधार पर अवकाश केवल रेलवे डाक्टर के प्रमाण पत्र पर स्वीकार किया जाता है । प्रार्थी ने किसी वैद्य का प्रमाण पत्र पेश किया है वह प्रमाण पत्र भी मई 1986 का है । 8-3-85 को उसने किसी प्रकार का कोई प्रमाण पत्र कार्यालय में अपनी अनुपस्थिति की सूचना बाबत नहीं दिया । अपने क्लेम के साथ जो प्रार्थना पत्र की प्रति अनैक्सचर ए-31 पेश की है । यह प्रार्थना पत्र कभी भी अप्रार्थी के कार्यालय में नहीं दिया गया, उसे समय - समय पर सूचना दी गई जिसका भी कोई जवाब उसने नहीं दिया । आरोप पत्र दिया उसका भी कोई जवाब नहीं दिया, जांच अधिकारी नियुक्त किया गया जिसने विधिवत जांच की, प्रार्थी को नोटिस दिया, परन्तु प्रार्थी ने जांच कार्यवाही में भाग नहीं लिया और एकपक्षीय जांच में साक्ष्य के आधार पर स्वेच्छा से अनुपस्थिति का आरोप प्रमाणित पाये जाने पर जांच रिपोर्ट प्रस्तुत की गई । जांच रिपोर्ट पर पूर्ण रूप से विचार किये . जाने के पश्चात् अनुशासनिक प्राधिकारी ने 5-5-86 को प्रार्थी को रेलवे सेवा से पृथक किये जाने का आदेश पारित किया। तब तक प्रार्थी ने किसी तरह का कोई प्रार्थना पत्र कोई सूचना, कोई डाक्टरी प्रमाण पत्र अनुशासनिक अधिकारी के समक्ष पेश नहीं किया । सेवा से हटाये जाने के पश्चात प्रार्थी को जोइन कराये जाने का कोई प्रश्त ही नहींउठता और लम्बे समय तक यानि 8-3-85 से सेवा से हटाये जाने केदिन तक अनुपस्थित रहने के कारण विधि के अनुसार यह उपधारणा ली जानी चाहिये होती है कि प्रार्थी ने स्वेच्छा से सेवा का परित्याग कर
12. प्रार्थी के प्रतिनिधि ने जो प्रोद्धरण प्रस्तुत किया है उनमें अनुपस्थिति अवधि का बिना वेतन के अवकाश स्वीकार कर सेवा का नियमितीकरण कर दिया गया था, इस कारण सेवा मुक्तिके आदेश को गलत माना है, इस प्रकरण में ऐसा कहीं नहीं हैं अनुपस्थिति के दौरान ही उसे सेवा से हटाया गया है दूसरे प्रोद्धरण बाबू लाल बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इण्डिया का है वे अनिवार्य सेवा निवृति की बाबत हैं जिसमें प्रतिपादित सिद्धान्त से भी माननीय राजस्थान उच्च न्यायालय के आनन्द भारत्ती वाल सिद्धान्त के कारण प्राथर्थी की लाभ नहीं पहुंचाता। अन्यं प्रोद्धरणों के तथ्य 2908 Gl /04-36 6212
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9 , 2004/ASVINA 17, 1926
भी भिन्न हैं, जिनमें प्रतिपादित सिद्धान्तों से प्रार्थी को कोई लाभ नहीं पंहुचता ।
13. धारा 11 - ए औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम के अन्तर्गत इस अधिकरण को किसी व्यक्ति को सेवा से निकाले जाने के आदेश की औचित्यता को जांचने का पूर्ण अधिकार है और यदि ऐसा आदेश अनुचित हो तभी उस आदेश को अपास्त किया जा सकता है या परिस्थितिवश दण्ड को कम किया जा सकता है । परन्तु इस मामले में अनुचितता नहीं पाई गई है और सेवा से हटाये जाने का आदेश जो कि लंबी अवधि की अनुपस्थिति के कारण दिया गया है , जिसे पूर्णतया उचित माना गया है , अतः धारा 11 - ए के अन्तर्गत भी कोई राहत नहीं दी जासकती ।
14. उपरोक्त विवेचन के आधार पर प्रकरण में निम्न अवार्ड पारित किया जाता है:
" पश्चिम रेलवे प्रशासन अजमेर द्वारा श्री अशरफी लाल पावर हैमर ऑपरेटर को दिनांक 5-5-86 से रेलवे सेवा से पृथक किया जाना उचित एवं वैध है । मृतक प्रार्थी के विधिक प्रतिनिधि किसी प्रकार का अनुतोष प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी नहीं है ।" 15. अवार्ड आज दिनांक 28-5-2004 को खुले न्यायालय में लिखाया जाकर सुनाया गया ।
16. अवार्ड की प्रति केन्द्र सरकार को औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 की धारा 17 ( 1 ) के अन्तर्गत प्रकाशनार्थ भिजवाई जाये ।
पी. एल. हिस्सारिया , पीठासीन अधिकारी
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] Bank ofBaroda , Regional Office and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 15-9-2004 .
[No. L- 12011/ 193/99 - IR (B - II)]
C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.
अनुबन्ध
न्यायालय श्रम न्यायालय एवं औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण,
अजमेर
सी.आई.टी. आर. 6/01
रैफरेंस नम्बर एल- 12011/193/99- आई. आर. ( बी. 2 ) दिनांक 25-5-00
सहायक महासचिव , बैंक आफ बडौदा स्टाफ यूनियन राजस्थान जरिये बैंक आफ बडौदा, वैशालीनगर अजमेर ( श्रमिक डी. सी. पाटनी)
--प्रार्थी यूनियन
बनाम
1. बैंक आफ बड़ौदा, जरिये क्षेत्रीय प्रबंधक, बैंक आफ बड़ौदा, रेलवे केम्पस स्टेशन रोड, अजमेर
-अप्रार्थी समक्ष श्री गंगासिंह शेखावत आर एच जे एस :
प्रार्थी की ओर से
नई दिल्ली , 16 सितम्बर, 2004
का. आ. 2553.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक ऑफ बड़ोदा के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण अजमेर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 6/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 15-9-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं० एल-12011 / 193/99- आई.आर. ( बी- II ) ]
सी. गंगाधरण, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 16th September, 2004 S.O. 2553.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. 6/2001 ) of the Industrial Tribunal Ajmer as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of
श्रीडी. सी. पाटनी व अधिवक्ता श्री
शेखरसैन
अप्रार्थीकी ओर से :
श्री वी. डी. भार्गव अधिवक्ता
दि.: 27-7-2004
अवार्ड
प्रार्थी की ओर से एक आवेदन पत्र लोक अदालत की भावना से प्रेरित होकर इस आशय का पेश किया गया है कि जिस शाखा प्रबंधक के गलत आदेश के तहत बाद उत्पन्न हुआ था उस शाखा प्रबंधक ने बैंक से स्वेच्छिक सेवा निवृति ले ली है अतः प्रार्थी उक्त वाद को अब नहीं चलाना चाहता है ।
किया । मैंने अभय पक्ष को सुना व पत्रावली का ध्यानपूर्वक अवलोकन प्रार्थी की प्रार्थना को मध्य नजर रखते हुए इस विवाद में " कोई विवाद नहीं अवार्ड " पारित किया जाता है ।
गंगा सिंह शेखावत , न्यायाधीश 6213 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 9 , 2004/आश्विन17, 1926
नई दिल्ली, 17 सितम्बर, 2004
the respondent bank since October, 1980 and be was promotedat the post ofHead Clerk w.e.f 1-4-1986.
का. आ. 2554.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार अमरीकन एक्सप्रेस बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण सं ० II नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या आई डी-39/ 91 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार की 16-9-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं० एल-12012/73/91 - आई.आर. ( बी- I ) ]
अजय कुमार, डैस्कअधिकारी
New Delhi , the 17th September, 2004
That he was drawing a salary ofRs .3200 and he has performed 8years service Frivolous charges were framed against him and the management issued letter dt. 22-12-1986 referring to certain vouchers and enquired about theknowledge ofthe workman. The workman replied that letter and expressed his innocence . On 4-3-1987, the management has issued charge sheet alleging inter alia the charges of preparing certain vouchers in the names of fictitious persons , forging the signature ofMs. Chitra Prinja, forging the signature of the approver Mr. Ashok Kalle, forging the signature of fictitious recipients . Two vouchers dt. 10-09-1986 and 6-10-1986 were paid to M/s Bhatia Electrostateand Typewriting company.
S.O. 2554. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (ID No. 39/91) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court II New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of American Express Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on16-9-2004.
[No. L- 12012/73/91 - IR (B- I) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER : CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT- IL, RAJENDRA BHAWAN, GROUND FLOOR, RAJENDRA PLACE, NEWDELHI
L. D. No. 39/91
Presiding Officer, R.N. Rai
Manjit Singh
Versus
TheManagement of American Express Bank
AWARD
TheMinistry of Labour by its letter No. L- 12012/73/ 91/IRB-3, Central Governmentdt. 25-03-1991 has referred the following point for adjudication.
The point runs as hereunder:-
It is stated that the vouchers were not preparedby him and those vouchers were not prepared in the name of fictitious persons . The third charge relates to payment of Rs. 70 towards taxi charges for attending meeting/ conference and the provisions of overtime were ignored The enquiry was defective and an eye-wash enquiry. The workman refused the charges categorically. The management decided to hold enquiry into the allegod charges and appointed Mr. D. P. Godinho as the Enquiry Officer tohold enquiry. The workman fell ill and thereafter hiswife also fell ill and he sought several adjournments but the enquiry officer did not pay any attention to his adjournment letters on the grounds of his illness and the illness of his family members , It has been stated in the statement of claim that the dismissal order is improper, unjustified, against the principles ofnatural justice and the enquiry was concluded without the knowledge of the workman. The workman was enquiring about the status of the enquiry from the Enquiry Officer but no response was given to him. The Disciplinary Authority informed him that the E.O. has submitted his report to the Disciplinary Authority and the Disciplinary authority gave him the date 6-11-1989 for the personal hearing. The Disciplinary Authoritywas pre-determined and the workman explained the whole situation but the Disciplinary authority vide his letter dated November , 11-1989 demanded documents but the Discipilinary Authority did not pass any order. The workman was not permitted to bring Mr. Trehan. The enquiry was concluded in the absence of the workman. He was dismissed from service w.e.f. 4-1-1990 . The order of dismissal was improper and illegal . The workman accounts has not been settled till today. The workman made an appeal but his appeal was also dismissed.
"Whether the action of the management of AmericanExpress Bank. Travel Related Services, 8th floor, Hindustan Times House , 18-20 , K. G. Marg. New Delhi , in dismissing Shri Manjit Singh, Head clerk w.e.f. 4-1-1990 is justified ? If not to what relief the workman concerned is entitled to. ?"י
The management has filed written statement . In the written statement, it has been stated that during the routine review conducted by the bank, irregularities and forgery were observed in payments made through some vouchers. The concerned employees were asked to explain as towhat circumstances those vouchers were prepared. the workman was also informed the matter and he was asked to furnish The claimant has filed statement of claim. In his statement ofclaim, he has stated that he was appointed in 6214
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9 , 2004/ASVINA 17, 1926
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] information regarding the preparation of those vouchers. He was not asked to explain whether vouchers were prepared by him . The workman claimed twice conveyance for one local travel . In two other cases , amount shown in the vouchers did not tally with the supporting receipts . It appeared that the recipient had been paid Rs. 1,000 on each voucher in excess of the amount due and payable. Photocopies of the three vouchers were duly enclosed with the letter and the workman was required to let the management have his response . The reply dated 6-2-1987. submitted by the workman to the management was not satisfactory. Hence the enquiry was instituted against him. The workman sent applications several times and he wanted to linger the enquiry proceedings . He expressed his innocence regarding the preparation of the vouchers . Charges were framed against the workman and enquiry Officer was appointed to enquire into the matter but the workman repeatedly sent adjournment letters . he wanted to linger the proceedings so the E. O. recorded the evidence of the witnesses and found the charges proved against the workman.
ceriificate of the management's Medical Officer. The workman has admitted in his cross - examination that he appeared in enquiry on 7-9-1988 and 8-11-1988 . The workman has further stated in his cross -examination that he wanted to be represented by Mr. I. K. Trehan initially he was a lawyer. He did not take physicallyMr. Trehan to any enquiry. He was never suspended by the management . From the perusal of the cross -examination of the workman. It appears that the enquiry was conducted on various dates but the workman participated in the enquiry on two dates i.e. 7-9-88 to 8-11-1988. the enquiry continued from January, 1987 to January, 1990 and there was 26 sittings but the workman applicant appeared on two dates only i.e. 7-9-88 and 8-11-1988. It indicates that sufficient time was given to the workman to appear before the enquiry officer and to defend himself, but he did not appear and he wanted to prolong the enquiry proceedings . The workman demanded the vouchers from the management but the management did not give the vouchers to him for his comments. There were other people just as Chitra Prinja Ashok Kalle and Mr. Bankim Sahai but these persons were not charge sheeted . He was not suspended during the enquiry, which went over for 2 years . The E. O. had not kept a separate register to note daily proceedings . The proceedings were recorded on normal papers , so that they can change the proceedings as and when required, The workman has filed rejoinder and he has denied most of the paragraphs of the written statement and the management has also denied most of the paragraphs of the statement of claim . The workman has reiterated the averments of his statement of claim and he has stated that he was not afforded proper opportunity to defend himself. principles of natural justice were not followed.
The E. O. had gone on a Management sponsored Foreign Tour with some of the key witnesses during the enquity proceedings of the enquiry, which included some ofthekeywitnesses including one Vendor Mr. Sanjiv Bhatia, who was not even employee of the bank.
Ms. Chitra Prinja, one of the signatory of the said vouchers , which became important part of initating this enquiry, had acted as his Secretary in the Enquiry Proceedings and later a prime witness to support management contention , management witness No.4.
The E.O. proceeded and concluded the enquiry proceedings without giving à fair chance to the petitioner, who was on medical leave due to birth of a child to his wife through caesarian operation, where the petitioner was only person to take care of his wife,
Shri Ashok Kalle did not deny that the said vouchers were signed by him . The enquiry was completed hurriedly and the workman was not afforded sufficient opportunity to defend himself. It was submitted by the management that four forged vouchers were prepared by the workman applicant in the names of Mr. Rajinder Kumar , Mr. Partap Chand, M. Mohini and Mr. M. Vernkataraman. One voucher was ofRs . 2060/- and the other was of 1300/- The third was ofRs . 1560/- and the fourth was of Rs . 1530/-It was submitted by the management that all the four vouchers were prepared in the name of the forged and fictitious persons. These vouchers were prepared by the workman applicant he knew it very well so the workman applicant The management has examined the E. O. Mr. Godinho and the workman has examined himself. Both the withesses have been cross - examined by each other. Heard arguments from both the sides and perused the papers on the record. The management witness has stated that it is correct that he had gone to Bangkok on company standard tour alongwith some Mr. K. K. Kumar, Bankim Sahai , Sanjiv Bhatia besides many others . To the best of my knowledge , mr. Sanjiv Bhatia is not an employee of the American express Bank. It is correct that he appeared as a witness in the enquiry against the workman before Mrs. Chitra Stenographer who was witness in the enquiry and had taken dictation during the enquiry once or twice . Several adjournments were allowed to the workman on his request due to sickness of his wife and on other grounds . It is incorrect that the adjournment was not allowed to the workman in the enquiry when his wife was sick and he had requested for the same. It is not correct that the copy of the enquiry report was not given to the workman . It is correct thatmedical cerificates has been sent to the bank by the workman which were not accepted by the bank. the workman was advised to go to the Government Medical Officer and obtain certificate . The workman has admitted in his cross -examination that he did not report regularly for duty due to his sickness for the period January, 1987 to January, 1990. He was paid wages by the management for the period he remained absent for which he had produced 6215 भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 9 , 2004/आश्विन17, 1926
[भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
avoided the enquiry deliberately and knowingly and he has no explanation to defend himself.
MW-9 Mr. Cedric Monsurate has also accepted that the payments were made , either to Sudershan or to Manjit Singh or Shankar.
Mr. Subhash Jain, MW- 10 has stated that the voucher was given to him already signed and as far as he could remember the voucher was given to him already signed and he remembered giving money to Mr. Sudershan or to Mr. Manjit Singh.
Investigations revealed that these vouchers were not genuine: These were pre receipted and none of the above mentioned persons had any dealings with the company.Mr.Manjit Singh is alleged to have prepared these vouchers in the names of fictitious persons who were not employed by the company and forged the signature ofMs. Chitra Prinja in the " prepared by column" . forged the signature of the approver . Mr. Ashok Kalle in the "Approved by " column . Forged the signature of the fictitious recipients in the " received by " column and presented and received the payments against these vouchers from the company on false representations .
The management has examined 12 witnesses cited below:-
Mr. Rajesh Anand , MW - 11 has also stated that the. voucher was presented to him with the signatures of M. Mohini already on the voucher. As far as he could recall , this voucher was presented to him by Manjit Singh. He stated that normally the vouchers were brought by Sudershan or Manjit Singh from HT House or Kashi House. He has said the same thing in 1986 when this voucher was shown to him.
MW- 1 Mr. RamanRoy,
MW-2Mr. Sanjiv Bhatia,
MW-3 Mr. Rahul Khosla,
MW-4 Mr. Chitra Prinja,
Inview of the above , it transpirs that independent witnesses have been examined and all the independent witnesses have stated that the vouchers were prepared by Shri Manjit Singh and in all the columns , he had forged the signatures ofthe employees who were concerned with the passing of the vouchers .
MW-5 Mr. V. K. Sakhuja,
MW-6 Mr. Sudershan ,
MW-7 Mr. K. Kumar,
MW-8 Mrs. Surekha Ghai,
MW-9 Mr. Cedric Monsurate ,
MW- 10 Mr. Subhash Jain,
MW- 11 Mr. Rajesh Anand,
MW- 12Mr. Bankim Saha,
Ihave perused the evidence ofthese witnesses , MW/ 2has stated that he is the Handwriting examiner. He was examined during the enquiry and he stated that the vouchers in questionbore the signatures of Mr. Manjit Singh.
I have gone through the evidence ofeach and every witness and the statement of witnesses cogently establishes the fact that all the four vouchers were prepared bytheworkmanapplicant and he himselfor Sudershan has received the money ofthe vouchers . From the evidence of the witnesses, it is also established that sufficient opportunitywas given to the workman applicant but during the entire sittings of the enquiry, he attended enquiry only twice.He avoided the proceedings of the enquiry. He was not suspended because evidence was to be adduced regarding the preparation of the vouchers as the vouchers passed through several employees. The enquiry officer hasgiven his report after citing the statement ofeachand every witness so the findings of the enquiry officer are based on the objective assessment . The workman applicant has committed forgery, though the amount involved is not very huge, still he has prepared all the four vouchers .
To illustrate, in the following circumstances , it was held that the holding of the proceedings ex -part was justified:
Ms. Chitra Prinja, Secretary in HR Deptt. (MW-4) stated that none of the persons by the Names of rajinder Kumar, Pratap chand, M. Mohini or M. Venkataranan worked in HR Deptt. and whenever they take on any persons for special projects or temporary help she gets to establish working relationship with them. She also stated that in the approved by column the signatures are not of Mr. Ashok Kalle.
Shri V. K. Sakhuja, handwriting expert has stated that Manjit Singh has forged the documents and tampered the documents.
(1) Where the charged employee wanted to cross- examine the prosecution witnesses only after.. the examination - in -chief of all the witnesses was recorded but the inquiry officer refused to follow this procedure Bank of India v. A.K. Saha, (1994) 2 SCC615.
(ii) Where he intended or attempted to stultifythe inquiry and his attitude was of complete non- co-operation (H. C. Sarin v. Union of India, Mrs. Surekha Ghai deposed that the voucher was pre-signed in the received column and since it was approved, she paid the money, she recalled that the voucher was presented for payment to her by somebody from Kashi House either Manjit Singh , Sudershan or Shankar.
290861/04-17 6216
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9, 2004/ASVINA 17 , 1926
AIR 1976 SC 1686) . The Supreme Court observed :
" It is found more often than not that Government servants who have no real defence to take against the accusations are advised, and sometimes not without success , to non-co -operate with the inquiry. It seemsto us that this was one such case . "
(iii) Where he declined to take part in the proceedings and failed to remain present [U.R. Bhattv. Union of India, AIR 1962 SC 1334] .
(iv) Where charged employee did not appearbefore the inquiry officer on the dates fixed for the purpose[ Shyamnarain v. Union of India, AIR 1965. Raj . 87] , although inquiry was adjourned several time [ Ghanshyamdas v. State ofM.P. , 1968 SLR533 ] .
(v) Where he asked for merely without adducing any evidence [Naubat Rai v. Union of India, AIR 1953 Raj . 137] .
(vi) Where though , in terms , he did not refuse to participate, his conduct amounted to declining to take part in the proceedings [ Jagdish Sekhri v. Union of India, SLR 1970 Delhi 571 ] .
He appeared only twice from 1987 to 1990. He diliberately avoided the enquiry proceedings . As such ex- parte enquiry is valid.
He was given personal hearing on quantum of punishment so enquiry is not vitiated on any ground. Principles of natural justice have been followed and the workman applicant has been afforded proper opportunity to defend himself but he deliberately absented and he appeared only twice during January, 1987 to January, 1990, This indicates the malafide intention of the workman applicant . He did not cooperate with the enquiry officer. As such the enquiry officer was compelled to give his findings . The findings of the enquiry officer are supported by cogent evidence and as such no interference is required regarding the findings of the E.O. The enquiry is fair and is not liable to be set aside . The reference is replied thus :-
The action of the management of American Express Bank , Travel Related Services , 8th floor, Hindustan Times House , 18-20 , K, G. Marg , New Delhi , in dismissing Shri Manjit Singh , Head Clerk w.e.f. 4-1-1990 is justified . The workman is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.
The award is given accordingly . Dt. 08-09-2004
R. N. RAI, Presiding Officer
[PART II SEC. 3 (ii) ] नईदिल्ली, 17 सितम्बर, 2004
का. आ. 2555.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 47 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक आफ इंडियाके प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण पुणे, महाराष्ट्रके पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या आई टी.-4 आफ 2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 16-9-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं० एल-12012/57 /2000-आई.आर. (बी-1 ) ]
अजय कुमार, डेस्कअधिकारी New Delhi , the 17th September, 2004
S.O. 2555. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. IT. No. 4 of 2001) of the Industrial Tribunal/Maharashtra at Pune now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of StateBank of India and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 16-9-2004.
[No. L-12012/57/2000-IR (3-1)]
AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRIV. G. INDRALE, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL MAHARASHTRA AT PUNE.
REFERENCE (IT) NO. 4 OF 2001.
ADJUDICATION BETWEEN
Management of State Bank of Insia, Pune, AND
The workmen employed underthem.
In the matter of termination of services of Smt. MeenaNhalve w.e.f. Oct. 1996 .
Appearances: Shri D.V. Kulkarni , Adv. for First Party. Mrs. T.M. Kolhatkar, Adv. for SecondParty.
AWARD
(Date: 6-01-2004)
SecondParty - Smt . Meena GajananNhalve who was working on daily wages in State Bank of India, Chandkhed- Branch under Zonal Office, Pune , has filed the application before the Ministry ofLabour/Shram Mantralya, New Delhi , alleging that her services are illegally terminated by the first party i.e. Asstt. General Manager, State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Pune. Said dispute was not settled before the Conciliation Officer. So, the Ministry of Labour/Shram 6217
भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 9 , 2004/आश्विन 17, 1926
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
Mantralaya, New Delhi , referred the dispute to this Tribunal foradjudication.
2. After the receipt of reference , notices in the appropriate forms were issued to the first party and second Party. The second Party appeared and filed statement of claim at Ex . U -6. According to the second Party , she was employed as temporary peon in the Chandkhed Branch of the first party with effect from August 1995 till October 1996 on daily wages of Rs . 25/- per day. The second party has continuously rendered service with first party without any stigma . The nature of work which was allotted to the second party was permanent i.e. to clean the premises , to fillwater, to make entries in the ledger. It is the grievance of the second party that for several times , she made requests to the first party to give her benefits of permanency as soon as she completed 240 days service in a year. However, the first party avoided for the same and terminated orally, the services of the second party. It is her further grievance that the first party, with a viewto deprive the benefits of permanency to the second party, has preparedthe record showing that Mrs. Hirabai i.e. mother of second party has served with the first party for three monthes. Thus , according to the second party, the action of the first party interminating her services is illegal , as the first party has not complied the provisions of Section 25 - F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The second party is in dire need of service and at present , the first party has employed other persons to do the work which the second party was doing. So, the second party has paryed that the termination ofher services from October 1996 be declared as illegal and she be reinstatedwith full back -wages and continuity of service with effect from October 1996 onwards .
disputes shall no longer subsist and be deemed to have been withdrawn. Likevise , as per Clause 9 of the suttlement, the temporary employees shall not be entitled for any other claim including back- wages nor they will be entitled for any further chance of being considered for permanent appointment . In view of this clause, the second party has no right to pray for the benefits of permanency and reinstatement . It is denied that the second party has worked with the first party for continuous one year i.e. since August 1995 to October 1996. According to the first party, theee months' salary was paid to one Smt . Hirabai Gajanan Nhavle who has done the work on daily wages . It is denied that said Hirabai worked in the Bank on befalf of the second party i.e. her daughter. According to the first party, the second party workman had worked from August 1996 to October 1996 as casual labour on daily wages on temporary capacityand therefore, has no right to claim for absorption as regular employee ofthe Bank. The permanent recruitment in the Bank's service in subordinate category is governed by Bipartite Settlement between the Staff Federation and Management. Branch Manager has no right or authority to make the appointments of permanent employees . As per the said settlement, zone wise waiting list of such teinporary casual labourers was required to be prepared and accordingly, appointment orders are to be given. The question of compliance of provisions of Section 2.5 - F of theI.D. Act does not arise in this reference , as the workman was not entitled to such benefits. The first party had referred some decisions of Hon'ble High Court and Supreme Court for non- application of the provisions relating to retrenchment of temporary employees. So, the first party has prayed to reject the demand.
4. On the above pleadings of the parties , following issues are framed at Ex . 0-3 and I have recorded my Findings thereon, as to reasons to follow :
Yes
1. Whether it is proved that second party worked for more than 240 days preceding her termination and first party violated Sec . 25 -F ofI.D. Act while issuing order of termination ?
2. Whether claim of second party is not tenable in view of settlements with union ? ---No
3. Whether of termination of second party is legal andjustified ? No
4. It so , to what benefits secon party is entitled ? entitled for ---reinstatement
5. What order as to referene ? As per final order 3. The first party appeared and filed written statement at Ex. C-6. The first party has denied the statement of claim ofthe second party. According to the first party, the second partyhas no right to make any grievance of her termination from services , as the job was temporary one and second party/was doing the said job on daily rate wages . It is denied that the second party worked in the first party continuously for 240 days in a calendar year . The second party workman was engaged purely in casual/daily wage, temporary capacity intermittently, but withhout continuity in service, due to administrative exigencies as Messenger and Messenger -cum-Waterman . It is their contention that there was settlement between the first party and All India Bank of India Staff Federation in which there are termes and conditions as to how and in what way, the appointment were given to the employees. It is the contention of the first party that by Clause 12 of the said settlement dated 17-11-1987, all the disputes raised by the employees will be deemed to have been settled by virtue of this agreement . The parties to such disputes should report this agreement forbeing recorded by any authority like Industrial Tribunal , Labour Court as well as other Courts or any other authority before whom disputes may be pending and all such
2908 GI/04-38 6218
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 9 , 2004/ASVINA 17, 1926
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii)] REASONS
5. Issue No. 2 : The second party has examined herselfat Ex . UW- 1 , and has placed on record office copy ofnotice Ex -U - 12 and one certificate dated 14-5-1997 issued by the Manager of the first party showing the working daysof second party and the same is at Ex. U- 16 . The first party has examined Ramesh Shankar Wani , at Ex . CW- 1 who was working as Branch Manager at Chandkhed Branch of first party. The first party has placed on record zerox copy of vouchers and applications given by the second party and the same are at Ex. C - 13 / 1 to 61 and Ex. C-12/ 1 to 19. This much is the oral and documentary evidence placed on record by both the parties.
6.It is the contention of the first party that in view of settlement dated 17-11-1987 between first party and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation, the second party has no right to ask for reinstatement . However, the first party has not proved the said copy of the settlement of the first party bank with the Federation and therefore, it cannot be read in evidence . Considering this aspect , in any case, it could not be held that the claim of the second partyis not tenable in view of the settlement with the union . I, therefore , answer Issue No. 2 in the negative.
8. From this version of the second party workman, it canbe inferred that in order to deprive the second party from getting any protection of law, said vouchers for last three months were prepared in the name of Hirabai- mother of the second party. I am saying so , because CW- I Ramesh Wani in cross - examination admits that the second party was doing work of 3 /4th the sanctioned postofmessenger during August 1995 to July 1996. Не admits the certificate Ex. U- 16 issued to the second party by the BranchManager. In that statement, it is mentioned that in between the period of August 1995 to December 1995, second party has worked for about 110 days and in between the period of January 1996 to October 1996 , she worked for 185 days . Ifwe calculate the working days of the second party for the months of August 1995 to July 1996 i.e. for 12 months , it appears from Ex. U- 16 that she worked for about 275 days during the period of one year. UW- 1 Meena has stated that/after October 1996 , first party told her not to attend work and therefore , she had given notice through Advocate Hirave. This version of the second party workman has not been challenged by the first party and so, I find no difficulty to hold that the first party terminated the services of the second party from November 1996. In cross - examination, it was asked to UW- 1 Meena in respect of zerox copy ofapplication dated 10-8-1996 and she admits that it bears thumb impression ofher mother Hirabai , She further admits that her mother Hirabai had worked in first party Bank during the said period i.e. 10-8-1996. However, the same is not fatal to the case of the second party as the period of 12 months is concluded after July 1996 and the work done by mother of the second party for the month of August 1996 is not shown in Ex . U- 16 . In cross -examination , it was asked to second party Meena regarding the wages paid to her mother. She has stated that when she was demanding the amount from the first party, the amount was not paid to her and the officials of the bank paid the amount to her mother in the house . It is true that in cross - examination, she has stated that she had not complained about it . It is also not expected from the second party to make any complaint against the employer with whom she was serving as temporary employee .
7. Issues 1 & 3 : These issues being inter - related with each other, I deal with them together. It is the grievance ofthe second party that she worked with the first party for 240 days and the action on the part of the first party terminatingher services is not legal and justified . According to the first party, the second party was working on daily wages and therefore, not entitled to get any benefit and it would not amount to contravention of provisions of Section 25 -F of the I.D. Act . In order to ascertain this , I have to see whether the second party has proved that she was in continuous service for 240 days in a year and it would amount to ' continuous service ' as defined in Sec . 25-B of the I.D. Act . I have carefully gone through the record and this is a unique case in which although the first party is doing the banking business , they have not issued any written appointment order to the second party. However, the first party did not dispute the fact that the second Party was appointed on daily wages for the period in between August 1995 to October 1996. I have gone through the evidence of second party Meena, Ex. UW - 1 who has stated that she was working in first party as temporary peon August 1995 to October 1996. She has further stated that no break was given to her and she received the payment under vouchers . She has stated that the first party paid wages under vouchers for last three months in the name of her mother Hirabai , She has stated that during that period , she was actually working and her mother did not work in the first party.
9. I have gone through the definition of ' continuous service as given in Section 25B of the I.D. Act, 1947 and it provides that a workman who has actually worked under the employer for not less than 240 days during the period of 12 months shall be deemed to have been in continuous service for a period of one year whether or not he has in fact been in such continuous service for a period of one year . It is enough that he has worked for 240 days in a period of 12 months. So, in view of this definition coupled with the certificate Ex . U- 16 issued by the first party, I haveleast hesitation to hold that the second party has [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
6219 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 9 , 2004/आश्विन17 , 1926
proved that she worked in the first party for 240 days continuous in a year. It is true that in Ex . U- 16 , it has been shown that the second party has worked for 20 days in August 1995 , 20 days in September 1995 , 22 days in October 1995, 24 days in November 1995 and December 1995 as well as 24 days in January 1996 , 26 days in February 1996, 20 days in March 1996 , 21 days in April 1996, 31 days in May 1996, 20 days in June 1996, 23 days in July 1996 and 20 days in October 1996. From the workingdays shown in Ex. U - 16 , it appears that the second party must have actually worked on holidays to the Bank. So , the actual work must include Sundays and other paid holidays for reckoning the number of days on which the workman is said to have actually worked . If any ruling is required on this point, I rely upon the ruling reported in 1985 II L.L.J. p . 539 - Supreme Court-The Workmen ofAmerican Express International Banking Corporation v/s . The Management of American Express International Banking Corporation. In this case law, the expression " actually worked under the employer " has been .
admission of CW- 1 Wani , it could be held that the second party was working on sanctioned post of messenger . Mrs. Kolhatkar, learned Counsel for the second party has submitted that the work which the second party was doing regarding cleaning the bank, filling of drinking water, carrying ledgers for entry , was of permanent nature and she was doing the work on sanctioned post . I find force in this submission, as the first party has not placed on record any documents to show that the second party was not doing the work on sanctioned post . On the contrary, in cross -examination , CW- 1 Ramesh has deposed contrary versions, at one place he has stated that the second party was not working against any sanctioned post and at another place , he has stated that second party was doing work of 3 /4th sanctioned post of messenger during that period . So, from the evidence on record, it is proved that the second party has worked in first party for 240 days continuous in ayear. So , the action on the part of the first party terminating the services of the second party is not justified.
explained as:
11. Shri D. V. Kulkarni , learned Counsel for the first partyhas relied upon in all 15 rulings as shown in Ex. C-21 . I have gone through those rulings and the same are distinguished, categorically, i.e. firstly delay in filing the reference , secondly on Section 25B of the I.D. Act and thirdly ratio laid down by Supreme Court in respect of employees appointed on daily wages .
" The expression " actually worked under the employer" cannot mean those days only when the workmenworked with the hammer, sickle or pen but must necessarily comprehend all those days during which he was in the employment of the employer and for which he had been paid wages either under express or implied contract of service or by compulsion of statute, Standing Orders , etc. The explanation to S. 25B (2) is only clarificatory and cannot be used to limit the expanse of the main provision. It cannot be said that only those days which are mentioned in the explanation should be taken into account for the purpose of calculating the number ofdays on which the workmen had actually worked though he had not so worked and no other days."
Inview ofthe ratio laid down in the said case law, it canbe very well held that the second party worked with the first party for 240 days continuous in a year . So, it can be held that she was in continuous service with the first party.
12. First, I would like to discuss the rulings which are cited on the point of delay in filing the reference . Shri Kulkarni has relied upon the ruling reported in 1959 II L.L J. p . 26- Supreme Court between Shalimar Works Ltd. and Its workmen. In this case law, it has been held that relief of reinstatement ought not to be given on such a vague and much -delayed reference and it is necessary that a dispute relating to reinstatement of a large number of workmen should be referred for adjudication within a reasonable time. It has been further held that the reference did not specify the names of the concerned workmen and therefore, heldto be vague. Such is not the case in the case before me and therefore , the ratio laid down in the said case law is not applicable.
:
13. Shri Kulkarni has further relied upon the ruling reported in 1964 ILL.J. p. 351- Supreme Court-Bombay Union of Journalists and others v/s . State of Bombay and another. In this case law, it has been held that in writ jurisdiction it is not proper to issue w mandamus employer to reconsider the question of reference. Such is not the case in thecasebefore me and therefore , the ratio is notapplicable.
10. According to the first party, the nature of work which the second party was doing was of temporary and Casual nature; she was not appointed on vacant post and therefore, not entitled to get any benefit . On this point , I have gone through the evidence of CW - 1 Ramesh Wani , who in cross -examination has admitted that during August 1995 to July 1996 , anybody was not working on 3 /4th sanctioned post of messenger. He has further stated that second party was doing work of 3 / 4th sanctioned post of messenger duringAugust 1995 to July 1996. In view ofthis 6220
THEGAZETTE OF INDIA: OCTOBER 9 , 2004/ASVINA 17, 1926
[PART II SEC. 3 (ii) ]
the post of attainders and validity of panel was for one year. So, it was held that employees to secure temporary appointments based on temporary panel cannot claim right for permanent absorption based on the inclusion on names in the Panel . The facts are distinct and therefore , the ratio isnotapplicable.
14. Shri D.V. Kulkarni further relied upon the ruling reported in 1970 II L.L.J. 306- Supreme Court- Ramakrishna Ramnath v/s . The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Nagpur and another . In this case law, the employer closed down the business on account of unavoidable circumstances beyond the control of the employer within the meaning ofproviso to Section 25FFF ( 1) of the I.D. Act and the applicant in such a case, held, need not prove that he has worked 240 days in each year of service but should prove that in the year preceding the date of closure , he had actually worked for 240 days as required under S.25B of the I.D. Act . Such is not the case here and therefore , the ratio is not applicable to the instant case .
19. He has further relied upon the ruling reported in 1999 II L.L.J. 59-Orissa High Court-Abhimanyu Mandal & Others v/s . State Bank ofIndia & Others . It is on the point ofpanel of temporary employees , daily wagers and casual labour and held that question of regularisation does not arisethereafter. In the instant case, the first party has failed to prove the alleged agreement with the Federations the year 1987 and therefore, the ratio laid down in the said case law is not applicable.
15. Shri Kulkarni has further relied upon the ruling reported in 1988 Lab . I.C. 867-Punjab & Haryana High Court-Ram Lakhan Singh v/ s. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Chandigarh and another. In this case law, it has been held that part-time workman is not covered by I.D. Act and is not entitled to benefit under S.25- F of the I.D.Act. It is not the case of the first party that second party was working as part - time employee and therefore , the ratio is not applicable to the instant case .
20. Shri Kulkarni has further relied upon the ruling reported in 1997 II C.L.R. 15-Supreme Court-Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi & Ors . v. State of Bihar & Ors . I have carefully gone through the ratio laid down in this case law wherein it has been held that the petitioners were daily wage employees in Co-operative Training Institute and their services came to be terminated without complying with S.25 -F of the I.D. Act - Held that the petitioners are temporary daily wage employees , that they were My appointed to the posts in accordance with the rules : that as such , their disengagement from service cannot be construed tobe retrenchment nor can the same be arbitrary, They are therefore not entitled to any relief. Such is not the case in the case before me as the witness of the first party has admitted that the second party was doing the work of 3/4th sanctioned post . So , the ratio laid down in the said case law is not applicable to the instant case.
16. He has further relied upon the ruling reported in 1992 II L.J. 452-Supreme Court-Delhi Development Horticulture Employees Union v/ s . Delhi Administration Delhi & Ors . I have carefully gone through the ratio laid down in the said case law in which the directions are given to Delhi Administration to keep the employees on panel and if they are registered with the employment exchange and are qualified to be appointed on the relevant posts, give them preference in employment whenever there occures a vacancy in the regular posts. These facts are distinct from the facts of the case before me and therefore, the ratio is not applicable.
21. Shri Kulkarni has further relied upon the ruling reported in 1999 Lab . LC . 2662-Allahabad High Court- Channey Lal and other v/s . Director, Malaria Research Centre, NewDelhi and another. In this case law, Hon'ble High Court has followed the ratio laid down in the case of Himancshu Kumar Vidyarthi v. State of Bihar reported in 1997 II C.L.R. 15 and held that daily wagers working in project under Indian Council of Medical Research are not entitled to get benefit of Section 25F of I.D. Act and they. have no right to say that their services could not be terminated . The ratio laid down in the said case law is not applicable as the first party admits that the second party was working on 3 /4th sanctioned post of messenger.
17. Shri Kulkarni has further railed upon the mung reported in 1993 I.C. L.R.697- Bombay High Court -R. Ganeshan v/s. Union of India & Ors . In this case Law, it has been held that when an application for making a reference is made after an inordinate delay, the same can be ajust and proper ground for refusing to make reference . 1 have gone through the facts of the said case law in which therewas inordinate delay of 7 years in making the reference and therefore , it has been held that it is a just and proper ground for refusing to make reference. Such is not the case in the case before me , as due to correspondence between the parties , the delay of 3 to 4 years is caused and the same cannot be held as inordinate delay and therefore , the ratio in the said case law is not applicable.
18. Shri Kulkarni further relied upon the ruling reported in 1997 II L.L.J. 814- Supreme Court-Syndicate Bank and Ors . v. Shankar Paul and Ors . I have carefully gone through the ratio laid down in the said case law in which it has been held that recruitment on temporary vacancies and Bank prepared temporary panel for appointment for
22. Shri Kulkarni has further relied upon the ruling reported in 2001 I L.L.J. 742-Supreme Court-Deep Chandra v/s . State of U.P. and another. In this case law, it has been held that violation of procedure prescribed in Sec . 25 - F of I.D. Act in case of employee having put in service for more than 240 days in each year for several years employee to be reinstated in service on same conditions asbefore termination . In fact , the ratio laid down in the said case law is applicable to the cases of the second 6221 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ] .
भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 9 , 2004/आश्विन 17, 1926
party, as it is proved that the second party worked with the firstparty for 240 days continuous in a year.
23. Shri Kulkarni has further relied upon the ruling reported in 2002 (94 ) F.L.R. 622 - Supreme Court - Range ForestOfficer v/s. S.T. Hadimani. In this case law, it has / been held that onus is on the workman to prove that he has worked for more than 240 days in the year preceding and the finding of the Labour Court in placing the onus on the management was not correct. In the instant case , the second party workman has proved that she worked for more than 240 days in the year preceding and the same is supported by admission of witness of first party as well as document, Ex. U- 16.
the conduct of the first party in preparing some vouchers for payment of daily wages to the mother of the second party itself shows the intention of the first party to deprive the second party from getting any benefits and so, the action of the first party terminating the services of the second party is not justifiable . I am saying so, because the lawdoes not contemplate that the employer should appoint some persons on daily wages orally and on one fine morning, he should terminate the services without assigning any reasons. This action on the part of the employer certainly amounts to arbitrary and not justifiable and the law does not allow such employer to act illegally and to defeat the rights of the employees . After all , labour laws are social welfare legislation and they are made to protect the interests of the employees from illegal termination of services . Considering this aspect, the reference deserves to be allowed. In result, I pass the following order:
ORDER
1. Reference is allowed.
2. 1 The first party is hereby directed to reinstate the second party workman as permanent Class IV 1 employee , without back -wages and without continuity of service , within one month from the date ofpublication ofAward.
3. Award be drawn accordingly.
24. Lastly, Shri D. V. Kulkarni has relied upon the ruling reported in 2002(94 ) F.L.R. 479 - Bombay High Court AurangabadBench-Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad v/s . Shahezadbis and another . I have carefully gone through the ratio laid down in the said case law in which it has been held that the delay in making the reference is ground to reject the reference. It has been further held that when there is no proof and no record to show that the worker has worked for 240 days against any permanent vacancy, then , the worker is not entitled to get reinstatement, as it would amount to back door entry. Such is not the case in the case before me , as the witness of first party has admitted that the second party was doing the work of 3/4th sanctioned post. So , the ratio laid down in the said case law is not at all applicable.
4. In the circumstances , no order as to costs.
V.G. INDRALE, Industrial Tribunal 25. Having regard to the above said legal position , it appears that the action of the first party terminating the services of the second party is not justified and it is in violation of Section 25 -F of the I.D. Act . I therefore, answer Issues 1 & 3 accordingly.
नई दिल्ली, 29 सितम्बर, 2004
का. आ. 2556.- जबकि मैसर्स एस डी बी सिस्कों(आई ) लिमि. (टी एन/7919 ) (एतदुपरान्त उक्त प्रतिष्ठान के रूप में संदर्भित ) नेकर्मचारी भविष्य निधि अधिनियम, 1952 ( 1952 का 19 ) ( एतदुमयंत उक्त अधिनियम के रूप में संदर्भित ) की धारा 17 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के खंड ( कु ) के अंतर्गत छूट के लिए आबेदन दिया है ।
26. Inview of findings on Issues 1 to 3, the second party is entitled to reinstatement on the post on par with Class IV employee of the first party. However , considering the fact that there is delay of 3 to 4 years in making the reference, I do not think it just and proper to grant the relief of back- wages as well as continuity of service , as there is no evidence on record that the second party has tried to get job during that period and she could not get it. So, I am not inclined to award any back -wages and continuity of service to the second party. Thus , the fact that the second party hasworked for 240 days continuous in a year, is entitled to get the benefit of permanency as per Model Standing orders . So , I hold that the second party is entitled to reinstatement, without back- wages and without continuity ofservice, after one month from the date ofpublication of the award. Accordingly, I answer Issue No. 4.
और जबकिकेन्द्र सरकार के विचार में अंशदान दर के मामले में उक्त प्रतिष्ठान के भविष्य निधि के नियम उसके कर्मचारियों के लिए उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 में विनिर्दिष्ट की तुलना में कम हितकर नहीं हैं और कर्मचारी भी समान प्रकृति के किसी अन्य प्रतिष्ठान के कर्मचारियों के संबंध में उक्त अधिनियम या कर्मचारी भविष्य निधि योजना, 1952 ( एतदुपरांत उक्त योजना के रूप में संदर्भित ) के अंतर्गत अन्य भविष्य निधि लाभ भी प्राप्त कर रहे हैं ।
अतः अब उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 17 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के खंड (क ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए तथा इस संबंध में केन्द्र सरकार द्वारा समय - समय पर विनिर्दिष्ट शर्तों को ध्यान में रखते 27. Having regard to the above - said reasons , it appears that although the first party is doing the business of banking , they have not intentionally issued any appointment order and got done the work orally on payment ofdailywages for continuous period of one year, Likewise, 6222
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: OCTOBER 9 , 2004/ASVINA 17 , 1926
[PART II-SEC , 3 (ii ) ]
तारीख से पूर्व संदत्त अंशदान के आधार पर हकदार हो जाते ,
हुए केन्द्र सरकार एतद्वारा उक्त प्रतिष्ठान को1-1-1992 से अगली अधिसूचना तक के लिए उक्त योजना के समस्त उपबंधों के प्रचालन से मुक्तकरती है ।
(3 ) छूट प्राप्त अवधि के लिए यदि कोई अंशदान पहले ही किए जा चुके हों तो वे वापस नहीं किए जायेंगे ,
[सं ० एस-35015/5/2004- एस एस- II ] संयुक्ता राय, अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 29th September, 2004
(4) उक्त कारखाने का नियोजक, उस अवधि की बाबत जिसके दौरान उस कारखाने पर उक्त अधिनियम प्रवर्तमान था (जिसे इसके पश्चात् उक्त अवधि कहा गया है ) , ऐसी विवरणियां ऐसे प्रारूप में और ऐसी विशिष्टताओं सहित देगा जो कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा सामान्य विनियम , 1950के अधीन उसे उक्त अवधि की बाबत देती थी,
S.O. 2556. Whereas M/ s . SDB CISCO (I) Ltd. (TN/ 7919) (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 Miscellaneous Provisions Act , 1952 ( 19 of 1952) ( herein- after referred to as the said Act ) .
(5) निगम द्वारा उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 45 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन नियुक्त किया गया कोई निरीक्षक , या निगम का इस निमित्त प्राधिकृत कोई अन्य पदधारी-
धारा 44 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन, उक्त अवधि की बाबत दी गई किसी विवरण की विशिष्टियों को सत्यापित करने के प्रयोजनार्थ, (1)
(ii) यह अभिनिश्चित करने के प्रयोजनार्थ कि कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा (साधाराण ) विनियम, 1950 द्वारा यूथा अपेक्षित रजिस्टर और अभिलेख उक्त अवधि के लिए रखे गए थे या नहीं, या
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 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.
(iii) यह अभिनिश्चित करने के प्रयोजनार्थ कि कर्मचारी, नियोजक द्वारा दिए गए उन लाभों को, जिसके प्रतिफल स्वरूप इस अधिसूचना के अधीन छूट दी जा रही है, नकद में और वस्तु रूप में पाने का हकदार बना हुआ है या नहीं, या
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 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 1-1-1992 , until further notification .
[No. S - 35015/ 5/2004 - SS - II ] SANJUKTA RAY, Under Secy.
(iv) निम्नलिखित का प्राधिकार देने हेतु यह अभिनिश्चित करने के प्रयोजनार्थ कि उस अवधि के दौरान जब उक्त कारखाने के संबंध में अधिनियम के उपबंध प्रवृत्त थे, ऐसे किन्हीं उपबंधों का अनुपालन किया गया था या नहीं:
नई दिल्ली , 30 सितम्बर, 2004
(क) प्रधान या आसन्न नियोजक से अपेक्षा करने कि वह उसे ऐसी जानकारी दे जिसे उपरोक्त निरीक्षक या अन्य पदधारी आवश्यक समझता है,
का. आ. 2557. केन्द्रीय सरकार, कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम, 1948 ( 1948 का 34 ) की धारा 91 के साथ पठित धारा 88 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, उक्त अधिनियम के प्रवर्तन से मैसर्स मंगलौर रिफाइनरीज एन्ड पेट्रोकैमिकल्स लिमिटेड , मंगलौर में नियुक्त नियमित कर्मचारियों को 1 अप्रैल, 2003 से 30 सितम्बर, 2004 तकजिसमें यह दिनांक भी सम्मिलित है , की अवधि के लिए छूट प्रदान करतीहै ।
2. पूर्वोक्त छूट की शर्तें निम्नलिखित हैं, अर्थात्: -
(ख) ऐसे प्रधान या आसन्न नियोजक के अधिभोगाधीन किसी कारखाने, स्थापन, कार्यालय या अन्य परिसर में किसी भी उचित समय पर प्रवेश करना और उसके प्रभारी से यह अपेक्षा करना कि वह व्यक्तियों, नियोजन एवं मजदूरी केसंदाय से संबंधित ऐसे लेखा बहियां और अन्य दस्तावेज़ ऐसे निरीक्षक या अन्य पदधारी के समक्ष प्रस्तुत करे और उनकी परीक्षा करने दे, या उन्हें ऐसी जानकारी दे, जिसे वे आवश्यक समझते हैं; या
( 1 ) पूर्वोक्त प्रतिष्ठान जिसमें कर्मचारी नियोजित है , एक रजिस्टर रखेगा , जिसमें छूट प्राप्त कर्मचारियों के नाम और पदनाम दिखाये जायेंगे ।
(2) इस छूट के होते हुए भी कर्मचारी उक्त अधिनियम के अधीन ऐसी प्रसुविधाएं प्राप्त करते रहेंगे जिनको करने के लिए वे इस अधिसूचना द्वारा दी गई छूट के प्रवृत्त होने की
(ग) प्रधान या आसन्न नियोजक की, उसके अभिकर्ता या सेवक की, या ऐसे किसी व्यक्ति की जो ऐसे कारखाने , स्थापन, कार्यालय या अन्य परिसर में पाया जाए, या ऐसे किसी व्यक्तिकी जिसके बारे में उक्त निरीक्षक या अन्य पदधारी [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
6223
भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 9, 2004/आश्विन 17, 1926
section ( 1 ) of Section 44 of the said period; or
के पास यह विश्वास करने का युक्तियुक्त कारण है कि यह कर्मचारी है , परीक्षा करना या
(घ) ऐसे कारखाने , स्थापन, कार्यालय या अन्य परिसर में रखे गए किसी रजिस्टर, लेखा बही या अन्य दस्तावेज की नकल तैयार करना या उससे उदाहरण लेना ।
(in) Ascertaining whether registers and records were maintained as requiredby the Employees ' State Insurance (General) Regulations , 1950 for the said period; or
[सं० एस -38014/3/2003 - एस एस-1 ]
(iii) Ascertaining whether the employees continue to be entitled to benefits provided by the employer in cash and kindbeing benefits in consideration of which exemption is being granted under this notification; or
के. सी. जैन, निदेशक व्याख्यात्मक ज्ञापन इस मामले में भूतलक्षी प्रभाव से छूट देना आवश्यक हो गया है क्योंकि छूट के लिए दिए गए आवेदनों की प्रक्रिया में समय लगा । तथापि, यह प्रमाणित किया जाता है कि भूतलक्षी प्रभाव से छूट प्रदान करने से किसी व्यक्ति पर विपरीत प्रभाव नहीं पड़ेगा ।
(iv) Ascertaining whether any of the provisions of the Act had been complied with during the period when such provisions were in force in relation to the said factory to empowered to:
NewDelhi, the 30th September, 2004 S.O. 2557. In exercise of the power conferred by Section 88 read with Section 91 -A of the Employees ' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government hereby exempts the regular employees ofM/s . Mangalore Refineries and Petrochemicals Limited, Mangalore fromthe operation ofthe said Act for the period from 1st April , 2003 upto and inclusive of the 30th September, 2004.
(a) Require the principal or immediate employer to furnish to him such information as he may consider necessary, or
2. The above exemption is subject to the following conditions namely:-
(1) The aforesaid establishment wherein the employers are employed shall maintain a register showing the name and designations ofthe exempted employees' .
(b) Enter any factory, establishment, office or other premises occupied by such principal or immediate employer at any reasonable time and require any person found in charge thereof to produce to such inspector or other official and allow him to examine account books and other documents relating to the employment ofpersonal and payment of wages or to furnish to him such information as he may consider necessary, or (2) Not withstanding this exemption , the employees shall continue to receive such benefits under the said Act to which theymight have become entitled to on the basis of the contributionspaid prior to the date from which exemption granted by this notification operates;
(3) The contributions for the exempted period, if already paid, shall not be refundable;
(c) Examine the principal or immediate employer, his agent or servant, or any person found in such factory, establishment, office or other premises or any person whom the said inspector or other official has reasonable cause to believe tohave been an employee ; or
(d) Make copies of or take extracts from any register , account book or other document maintained in such factory, establishment, office or other premises , (4) The employer of the said factory/establishment shall submit in respect of the period during which that factory was subject to the operation ofthe saidAct (hereinafter referred as the said period) , such returns in such forms and containing such particulars as were due from it in respect of the said period under the Employees ' State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950;
[No. S-38014/3/2003 -SS-I] K. C. JAIN, Director (5) Any inspector appointed by the Corporation under sub-section (1 ) of Section 45 of the said ESI Act or other official of the Corporation authorized in this behalf shall , for the purpose of:
(1) Verifying the particulars contained in any returned submitted under sub-
ExplanatoryMemorandum. It has become necessaryto giveretrospective effect to the exemption in this case as processing of the applications for exemption took time. However, it is certified that the grant of exemption with retrospective effect will not affect the interest of anybody adversely.
Printed by the Manager , Govt . of India Press, Ring Road , Mayapuri, New Delhi - 110064 and Published by the Controller of Publications , Delhi - 110054.