This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

रजिस्ट्री सं० डी एल ( एन ) 04/0007/2003-05

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

प्राधिकार से प्रकाशित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप्ताहिक

WEEKLY

सं. 3 ]

नई दिल्ली, जनवरी 9 जनवरी 15 , 2005 , शनिवार /पौष 19- पौष 25 , 1926 No. 3 ]

NEW DELHI, JANUARY 9 JANUARY 15 , 2005 , SATURDAY/ PAUSA 19- PAUSA 25 , 1926 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-Section 3-Sub- section ( ii )

भारत सरकार के मंत्रालयों ( रक्षा मंत्रालय को छोड़कर ) द्वारा जारी किए गए सांविधिक आदेश और अधिसूचनाएं Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

वित्त मंत्रालय

MINISTRY OF FINANCE /

(Department of Revenue ) (राजस्व विभाग )

ORDER

आदेश

New Delhi , the 4th January , 2005 नई दिल्ली , 4 जनवरी , 2005

STAMPS

स्टाम्प

S.O. 123. In exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( a) of Sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 9 of the Indian Stamp Act , 1899 (2 of 1899 ) , the Central Government here by remits the duty with which the bonds in the nature of promissory notes described as KSFC Unsecured , taxable and redeemable bonds 2004 of rupees ten lakh each aggregating to rupees eighty one crore only issued by the Karnataka State Financial Corporation , Bangalore , are chargeable under the said Act.

का.आ. 123.- भारत्तीय स्टाम्प अधिनियम , 1899 ( 1899 का 2 ) की धारा 9 की उप - धारा ( i ) के खंड ( क) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा उस शुल्क को माफ करती है जो कर्नाटक राज्य वित्त निगम बंगलौर द्वारा जारी किए गए मात्र इक्यासी करोड़ रुपये के समग्र मूल्य के प्रत्येक दस लाख रुपये के क.रा.वि.नि. असुरक्षित , करयोग्य और विमोच्य बंधपत्रों 2004 के रूप में वर्णित वचनपत्रों के रूप में बंधपत्रों के साथ उक्त अधिनियम के तहत प्रभार्य है ।

[No. 1 /2005 / STAMP/ F . No. 33/ 50/2004- ST]

R. G. CHHABRA , Under Secy.

[सं . 1 /2005/स्टाम्प/फा . सं . 33/ 50/ 2004- बि.क. ] आर . जी. छाबड़ा, अवर सचिव

(403)

11 G1 /2005 404.

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 15 , 2005 / PAUSA 25 , 1926

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] ( आर्थिक कार्य विभाग )

New Delhi , the 4th January, 2005

(बैंकिंग प्रभाग ) नई दिल्ली, 4 जनवरी, 2005

S.O. 125. In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (e) of the 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 appoints Shri V. Gurumurthy, Special Assistant, Allahabad Bank as Workmen Employee Director on the Board of Directors of Allahabad Bank for a period of three years with effect from 4th January, 2005 or until his successor is appointed or till he ceases to be a workman employee of Allahabad Bank, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 15/1 /2004- IR] का.आ. 124.- राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक, ( प्रबंध एवं प्रकीर्ण उपबंध ) योजना, 1980 के खंड 3 के उपखंड ( 1 ) के साथ पठित बैंककारी कंपनी ( उपक्रमों का अर्जन एवं अंतरण ) अधिनियम, 1980 की धारा 9 की उपधारा ( 3 ) के खंड (ङ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार, एतद्वारा श्री मोहन सिंह सेखों, लिपिक, पंजाब एंड सिंध बैंक को 4 जनवरी , 2005 से तीन वर्ष की अवधि के लिए अर्थवा उनके उत्तराधिकारी की नियुक्ति होने तक अथवा पंजाब एंड सिंध बैंक के कर्मकार कर्मचारी के रूप में उनकी सेवाएं समाप्त होने तक, जो भी पहले हो, पंजाब एंड सिंध बैंक के निदेशक बोर्ड में कर्मकार कर्मचारी निदेशक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है ।

A. THOMAS , Under Secy .

[फा. सं. 15/9/2003- आई . आर. ]

ए. थामस, अवर सचिव

विज्ञान और प्रौद्योगिकी मंत्रालय

(Department of Economic Affairs)

(BANKING DIVISION )

(विज्ञान और प्रौद्योगिकी विभाग )

New Delhi , the 4th January , 2005

नई दिल्ली, 20 दिसम्बर , 2004

का.आ. 126.-1980 के श्री चित्रा तिरुनाल आयुर्विज्ञान एवं प्रौद्योगिकी संस्थान , त्रिवेन्द्रम अधिनियम संख्या 52 की धारा 5 ( ञ ) के उपबंधों के संदर्भ में निम्नलिखित लोक सभा सदस्यों का संस्थान के निकाय में सदस्य के रूप में कार्य करने हेतु चयन किया गया है : -

चयन की तारीख

क्र. सं. सदस्य का नाम

18अगस्त, 2004

(i) श्री पी. के. वासुदेवन नायर

(ii) श्री पी . सी. थामस

18 अगस्त, 2004 S.O. 124. In exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( e) of the 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 appoints Shri Mohan Singh Sekhon , Clerk , Punjab and Sind Bank as Workmen Employee Director on the Board of Directors of Punjab and Sind Bank for a period of three years with effect from 4th January , 2005 or until his successor is appointed or till he ceases to be a workman employee of Punjab and Sind Bank , whichever is earlier . [F. No. 15/9/2003 - IR]

A. THOMAS, Under Secy.

2. चुने गए सदस्यों काकार्यकाल चयन की तारीख से 5 वर्ष के लिए होगा और सदन का सदस्य न रहने के साथ ही यह कार्यकाल भी समाप्त होजाएगा ।

नई दिल्ली, 4 जनवरी , 2005

3. उपर्युक्तसदस्योंकी सदस्यता श्री चित्रा तिरुनाल आयुर्विज्ञान एवं प्रौद्योगिकी संस्थान, त्रिवेन्द्रम के संबंधित प्रावधानों के अंतर्गत होगी ।

[सं. एआई/एससीटी/08 / 2004 ]

शंभूसिंह, निदेशक

MINISTRY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

(Department of Science and Technology)

New Delhi , the 20th December , 2004 का.आ. 125.-राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक, ( प्रबंध एवं प्रकीर्ण उपबंध) योजना, 1970 के खंड 3 के उपखंड ( 1 ) के साथ पठित बैंककारी 'कंपनी ( उपक्रमों का अर्जन एवं अंतरण ) अधिनियम, 1970 की धारा 9 की उपधारा ( 3 ) के खंड ( ङ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार, एतद्वारा श्री वी. गुरुमूर्ति, विशेष सहायक, इलाहाबाद बैंक को 4 जनवरी , 2005 से तीन वर्ष की अवधि के लिए अथवा उनके उत्तराधिकारी की नियुक्तिहोने तक अथवा इलाहाबाद बैंक के कर्मकार कर्मचारी के रूप में उनकी सेवाएं समाप्त होने तक, जो भी पहले हो, इलाहाबाद बैंक के निदेशक बोर्ड में कर्मकार कर्मचारी निदेशक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है ।

[फा. सं. 15/1/2004- आई. आर. ] ए. थामस, अवर सचिव

S.O. 126. In terms of the provisions of Section 5 (j ) ofthe Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute of Medical Sciences and Technology , Trivandrum Act No. 52 of 1980, the following Members of the Lok Sabha have been elected to serve as Members on the body of the Institute:-- [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

405

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 15 , 2005/पौष 25, 1926

S. No. Name of Member

Date of election (i) Shri P. K. Vasudevan Nair 18th August, 2004 (ii) Shri P. C. Thomas 18thAugust, 2004 2. The term of office of elected Member , shall be five years from the date of election and the same shall come to an end as soon as he ceases to be Member of the House .

3. The membership of the above Members shall be subject to the relevant provisions of the SCTIMST , Trivandrum.

[No. AI/ SCT/08/2004] SHAMBHU SINGH , Director स्वास्थ्यऔर परिवार कल्याण मंत्रालय (स्वास्थ्यविभाग )

नई दिल्ली, 27 दिसम्बर, 2004

का.आ. 127.-केन्द्रीय सरकार, भारतीय पत्तन स्वास्थ्यनियम, 1955 के नियम, 1957 के उपनियम, ( 6 ) के अनुसरण में और भारत सरकार के तत्कालीन स्वास्थ्य और परिवार नियोजन मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्यांक एफ. 13-26/61- आई एच, तारीख 2 मई, 1967 को अधिक्रांत करते हुए, यह निदेश देती है कि मुम्बई, नावाशेवा, कोलकाता, कोचीन, कांदला, चेन्नई, विशाखापत्तनम, मारमगाव, और मंडपम कैम्प के पत्तनों पर कर मुक्त प्रमाण पत्रऔर कर मुक्त छूट प्रमाण पत्रों को जारी करने के लिए प्रभार्य फीस ( कोचीन, कांदला, विशाखापत्तनम, मारमगाव, और मंडपम कैम्प तथा नवाशेवा पत्तनों पर इस समय कर मुक्त छूट प्रमाण पत्र जारी किए जाते हैं ) वह होगी जो इसके नीचे अनुसूची में यथा विनिर्दिष्ट है:-

"अनुसूची भाग-1

निम्नलिखित के लिए प्रभारित की जाने वाली फीस के मानदंड- (क) पत्तन स्वास्थ्य संगठन से भिन्न किसी अभिकरण द्वारा कर मुक्त किए जाने के पश्चात् कर मुक्त प्रमाण पत्र अनुदत्त करना;

(ख) कर मुक्त करने या कर मुक्तछूट प्रमाण पत्र के लिए आवश्यकता सुनिश्चित करने के लिए किसी जलयान का निरीक्षण:

400 रु.

(क) ऐसे जलयान के लिए जिसकी 1400 घनमीटर या उससे कम की घन क्षमता है

(ख) ऐसे जलयान के लिए जिसकी घन क्षमता 1401 से 2801 घनमीटर की है 450रु.

(ग) ऐसे जलयान के लिए जिसकी घन क्षमता 2801 से 5700 घनमीटर की है 550 रु .

600 रु.

(घ ) ऐसे जलयान के लिए जिसकी घन क्षमता 5701 से 8500 घनमीटर की है

(ङ) ऐसे जलयान के लिए जिसकी घन: क्षमता 8501 से 11300 घनमीटर की है 700 रु.

(च) ऐसे जलयान के लिए जिसकी घन क्षमता 11,300 से 14,200 घनमीटर की है

800 रु.

80रु.

(छ ) ऐसे प्रत्येक 2800 या उसके किसी भाग के लिए जो 14,200 घनमीटर से अधिक है

अतिरिक्त

350 रु.

( ज) प्रत्येक कार्य दिवस पर छह बजे अपराहन् और छह बजे पूर्वाह्न के बीच निरीक्षण प्रमाण पत्र जारी करने के लिए वहां भी जहां ऐसे घंटे भागतः रविवार या सार्वजनिक अवकाश को और भागतः कार्य दिवस को पड़ते हैं. अतिरिक्त

(झ) रविवार या किसी सार्वजनिक अवकाश को निरीक्षण प्रमाण पत्र जारी करने के लिए 350 रु. अतिरिक्त

टिप्पण-1: जलयानों के निरीक्षण के लिए विहित फीस में कोई कर मुक्त छूट प्रमाण पत्र जारी करने के लिए फीस भी सम्मिलित है ।

टिप्पण-2: कर मुक्त करने के लिए प्रभार्य संबद्ध पोत परिवहन अभिकरणों द्वारा वहन किए जाएंगे । कर मुक्त प्रमाण पत्र के लिए फीस भाग -1 में अधिकथितानुसार प्रभरित की. जाएगी।

भाग -11

यदि पत्तन स्वास्थ्यसंगठन द्वारा विष ठहराव के द्वारा कर मुक्ति की गई है तो कर मुक्त छूट प्रमाण पत्र अनुदत्त करने के लिए प्रभारित किए जाने वाली फीस का मानदंड-

3500 रु.

(क) ऐसे जलयान के लिए जिसकीं 8500 घनमीटर या उससे कम की घन क्षमता है

(ख) ऐसे जलयान के लिए जिसकी 8500 घनमीटर या उससे अधिक की घन क्षमता है

4000 रु.

भाग- III .

तीन घंटे तक या उसके भाग के लिए कार्य करने के लिए अतिकाल फीस दो सौ रुपए ( केवल दो सौ रुपए) होगी और यदि अतिकाल कार्य तीन घंटे से अधिक का है तो अतिकाल फीस का मानदंड प्रति घंटे या उसके भाग के लिए 30 रुपए ( केवल तीस रुपए ) दर पर होगा" । [फा."सं. एल -21021 / 28/2001- पीएच ( आईएच ) ] : आर. के. गथवाल, अवर सचिव 406

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 15 , 2005 /PAUSA 25 , 1926

MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE (Department of Health)

New Delhi , the 27th December , 2004 S.O. 127. In pursuance of sub - rule (6) of rule 57 ofthe Indian Port Health Rules , 1955 and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India , in the erstwhile Ministry of Health and Family Planning No. F. 13-26/61 - IH dated the 2nd May , 1967 , the Central Government hereby directs that the fees chargeable for the issue ofDeratting Certificates and Deratting Exemption Certificates at the ports of Mumbai , Nava Sheva , Kolkata, Cochin, Kandla , Chennai , Vishakhapatnam , Marmagoa and Mandapam Camp shall be as specified in the Schedule hereunder (at the ports of Cochin , Kandla, Visakhapatnam , Marmagoa and Mandapam Camp and Nava Sheva only Deratting Exemption Certificate are issued at present) , namely:-

"SCHEDULE

Part-1

Scale of fees to be charged for-

(a) the grant of Deratting Certificates after deratting by an agency other than the Port Health Organisation ;

(b) inspection of a vessel to ascertain the need for deratting or Deratting Exemption Certificate :

(a) for a vessel having a cubic capacity of 1400 cubic metres orunder Rs. 400 (b) for a vessel having a cubic capacity of 1401 to 2800 cubic metres

Rs.450 (c) for a vessel having a cubic capacity of2801 to 5700 cubic metres

Rs. 550 (d) for a vessel having a cubic capacity of 5701 to 8500 cubic metres

Rs. 600 ( e) for a vessel having a cubic capacity of 8501 to 11,300 cubic metres

Rs . 700

Rs . 800 (f) for a vessel having a cubic capacity of 11,300 to 14,200 cubic metres

( g) for every 2800 or part thereof in excess of 14,200 cubic metres

Rs. 80 extra

[PART II-SEC. 3( ii) ]

Rs. 350 extra (h) for the issue of certificate ofinspection , between 6 P.M. and 6 A.M. on any working day even where such period falls partly on Sunday or clossed holiday and partly onaworking day.

Rs. 350 extra (1) for the issue of a certificate of inspection on a Sunday or a closed holiday

Note- 1: The fee prescribed for the inspection of vessels includes fee for issue of a Deratting Exemption Certificate.

Note 2: Charge for deratting will be borne by the concerned shipping agencies . The fee for Deratting Certificate shall be charged as laid downinpart- 1.

Part-11

Scale of fee to be charged for the grant of Deratting Exemption Certificate if the deratting has been carried out bythe Port Health Organization by poison baiting :

Rs. 3500 (a) for a vessel having a cubic capacity of 8500 cubic meters or less

(b) for a vessel having a cubic capacity ofmore than 8500 cubic metres .

Rs. 4000

Part- III

The overtime fee for work up to three hours of part thereof will be Rs . 200 (Rupees two hundred only) and if the overtime work extends beyond three hours , the scale of overtime fee will be at the rate of Rs . 30 ( Rupees Thirty only) per hour or a part thereof" .

[F. No. L -21021 /28/2001 - PH ( IH) ] R. K. GATHWAL, Under Secy .

नई दिल्ली, 4 जनवरी , 2005

का.आ. 128.- दंत चिकित्सक अधिनियम, 1948 ( 1948 का 16) की धारा 10 की उपधारा 2 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार, भारतीय दन्त चिकित्सा परिषद् से परामर्श करने केबाद, एतद्वारा उक्त अधिनियम की अनुसूची के भाग -1 में निम्नलिखित संशोधन करती है; नामतः

2. कुरूक्षेत्र विश्वविद्यालय, कुरूक्षेत्र से सम्बन्धित , दन्त चिकित्सक अधिनियम, 1948 ( 1948 का 16 ) की अनुसूची के भाग- 1 में क्रम संख्या 39 के सामने कालम 2 और 3 की मौजूदा प्रविष्टियों में निम्नलिखित प्रविष्टियां जोड़ी जाएंगी-

IV. महर्षि मारकण्डेश्वर दंत चिकित्सा विज्ञान और अनुसंधान कालेज, मुल्लाना ( अम्बाला ) , हरियाणा :

407 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 15, 2005/पौष 25, 1926

( i ) दंत शल्य चिकित्सा में स्नातक बी डीएस. कुरूक्षेत्र (जब यह दिनांक 5-10-2004 को अथवा इसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो ) ।

(No. 55 of 1994) the Central Government hereby appoints Shri P.S. Nair, Airport Director, Indira Gandhi International Airport to the post of Member ( Personnel & Administration), Airports Authority of India ( AAI ), in the scale of pay of Rs . 25750-650-30950/- for a period offive years or till the date of his superannuation , or whichever isearlier.

[सं.वी-12017/4/2000- पी एम एस ] ए. के. सिंह, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 4th January , 2005

[No. AV-24011 /006/2003 -AAI] L. HAOKIP, Under Secy .

S. O. 128. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section (2 ) of 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:-

पोत परिवहन, सड़क परिवहन और राजमार्ग मंत्रालय (पोत परिवहन विभाग ) नई दिल्ली, 23 दिसम्बर, 2004 2. In the existing entries of column 2 & 3 against Serial No. 39 , in Part- 1 of the Schedule to the Dentists Act , 1948 ( 16 of 1948 ) pertaining to Kurukshetra University , Kurukshetra , the following entries shall be inserted thereunder :-

V. Maharishi Markandeshwar College of Dental Sciences & Research , Mullana (Ambala) , Haryana

का.आ. 130.-केन्द्रीय सरकार, राजभाषा ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) नियम, 1976 ( यथा संशोधित 1987 ) के नियम 10 के उप- नियम 4 के अनुसरण में पोत परिवहन, सड़क परिवहन और राजमार्ग मंत्रालय, पोत परिवहन विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रण के अधीन निम्नलिखित कार्यालय में 80 % से अधिक कर्मचारियों द्वारा हिन्दीका कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लेने पर उसे एत‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करती है :-

(i) Bachelor of Dental BDS . Kurukshetra Surgery (Whengranted on or after5-10-2004).

टी एस चाणक्य करावे नेरुल नवी मुम्बई -400706

[No. V- 12017 /4 /2000 -PMS] A. K. SINGH , Under Secy.

[फा. सं. ई -11011/ 1/ 2000-हिन्दी] आर. के. जैन, संयुक्त सचिव नागर विमानन मंत्रालय (एएआई अनुभाग) नई दिल्ली, 9 दिसम्बर, 2004

MINISTRY OF SHIPPING , ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS (Department ofShipping) New Delhi , the 23rd December, 2004 का.आ. 129.- भारतीय विमानपत्तन प्राधिकरण अधिनियम, 1994( 1994 की संख्या 55 ) के खंड 3 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्र सरकार श्री पी.एस. नैयर, हवाई अड्डानिदेशक, इंदिरा गांधी अंतर्राष्ट्रीय हवाई अड्‌डा, को पांच वर्ष अथवा उनकी सेवानिवृत्ति की तिथि जो भी पहले हो, तक रु. 25750-650-30950/- के वेतनमान में सदस्य ( कार्मिक एवं प्रशासन ) , भारतीय विमानपत्तन प्राधिकरण के पद पर नियुक्त करती है ।

[सं. एवी-24011/006/2003 - एएआई ] एल. हौकिप, अवर सचिव

S. O. 130. In pursuance of sub-rule ( 4) of the Rule 10 ofthe Official Language ( Use for the Official Purpose ofthe Union ) Rules , 1976 ( as amended 1987) , the Central Government hereby notifies the following office under the administrative control of the Ministry of Shipping , Road Transport and Highways , Department of Shipping , more than 80% of the staff of which have acquired working knowledge ofHindi ' :--

TS Chanakya, KaraveNerul , Navi Mumbai -400706

MINISTRY OF CIVIL AVIATION (AAI SECTION) New Delhi , the 9th December, 2004

S. O. 129. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Airports Authority of India Act , 1994

[ F. No. E- 11011/ 1 /2000-Hindi ] R. K. JAIN , Jt . Secy.

408

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JANUARY 15 , 2005 /PAUSA 25 , 1926

रेल मंत्रालय (रेलवे बोर्ड )

नई दिल्ली, 16 दिसम्बर , 2004 का.आ. 131.- रेल मंत्रालय ( रेलवे बोर्ड ) , राजभाषा नियम , 1976 ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) के नियम 10 के उप-नियम ( 2 ) और ( 4 ) के अनुसरण में उत्तर मध्य रेलवे के महाप्रबंधक कार्यालय, इलाहाबाद एवं मुख्य कारखाना प्रबंधक कार्यालय, रेलस्प्रिंग कारखाना, सिथौली, ग्वालियर तथा दक्षिण पूर्व रेलवे के बोकारो स्टील सिटी रेलवे स्टेशन को, जहां 80 % से अधिक अधिकारियों/कर्मचारियों ने हिंदी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है, को एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है ।

[सं. हिंदी-2003 /रा. भा. 1/12/3 पार्ट ] वी. एन. माथुर, सचिव MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS (RAILWAY BOARD)

New Delhi , the 16th December , 2004 S.O. 131. Ministry of Railways (Railway Board). in pursuance of sub - rule (2) and ( 4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language Rules , 1976 (Use for the Official Purposes of the Union) hereby notify theG.M. Office . North- Central Railway, Allahabad and Office of the Chief Workshop Manager, Rail Spring Workshop , Sithouli , Gwalior of North- Central Railway and Bokaro Steel City Railway Station of South Eastern Railway, where 80% or moreOfficers/Employees have acquired the working knowl- edgeofHindi .

[No. Hindi - 2003/O.L. 1/12/3 Part ] V. N. MATHUR, Secy.

उपभोक्तामामले , खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय (उपभोक्तामामले विभाग )

(भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो )

नई दिल्ली, 29 दिसम्बर, 2004

का.आ. 132.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम, 1987 के नियम 7 के उप - नियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गए हैं :-

अनुसूची

नये भारतीय मानक स्थापित्त

तिथि मानक( कों ) की क्रम स्थापित भारतीय सं. संख्या वर्ष और शीर्षक

द्वारा अतिक्रमित भारतीय मानक अथवा मानकों, यदिकोई हो, की संख्या और वर्ष

(1) (2)

(4)

(3)

1. 13382: 2004

28-02-2005 पानी, गैस और मलजल कीदाब पाइप लाइनों

13382: 1992 पानी , गैस और मल- जल की दाब पाइप

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

(3)

के यांत्रिक और पुश- लाइनों के यांत्रिक

आन नम्य जोड़ों के और पुश-आन नम्य

घटक-

जोड़ों के घटक-

विशिष्टि

(पहला पुनरीक्षण)

इस भारतीय मानक की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन , १ , बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली -110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता , चण्डीगढ़ , चेन्नई, मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों: अहमदाबाद, बंगलौर, भोपाल , भुवनेश्वर, कोयम्बतूर, गुवाहटी , हैदराबाद, जयपुर, कानपुर, पटना, पुणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम मेंबिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

[सं. एमटीडी6/टी-79 ] , एस. दास गुप्ता, वैज्ञानिक ' एफ ' उप महानिदेशक( तक-1 ) MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS , FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION (Department of Consumer Affairs) (BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS) New Delhi , the 29th December , 2004 S.O. 132. In pursuance of clause (b ) of sub - rule ( 1) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each:

SCHEDULE

Dateof

No. & year of

Indian Standards Established Sl . No. & year of the No. Indian Standards Established

ifany. Super- seded by the New Indian Standard

(4) (1) (2)

(3)

1. 13382: 2004

13382: 1992

28-02-2005

Cast iron specials for mechanical and

push-on flexible

pipe lines for water .

gas and sewage-

joints for pressure Specification

Castiron specials formechanical and push-on flexible joints for pressure pipe lines for water . gas and sewage Specification (FirstRevision)

Copy of this Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards . Manak Bhawan , 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg , New Delhi - 110 002 an.. Regional Offices : New Delhi , Kolkatta , Chandigarh , Chennai , Mumbai and also Branch Offices : Ahmedabad , Bangalore, Bhopal , Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore . Guwahati , Hyderabad , Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur , Patna. Pune , Thiruvananthapuram.

[No. MTD 6/T - 79 ] S. DAS GUPTA, Scientist ' F Dy. Director General (Tech . I) [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

409

भारत का राजपत्र: जनवरी 15, 2005/पौष 25 , 1926

नई दिल्ली, 29 दिसम्बर , 2004

का.आ. 133.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गए हैं :-

अनुसूची

स्थापित भारतीय नये भारतीय मानक स्थापित क्रम सं.

तिथि मानक(कों ) की द्वारा अतिक्रमित

संख्या वर्ष और भारतीय मानक अथवा

शीर्षक

मानकों, यदिकोई

हो की संख्या और

वर्ष

(1)

(4) (2)

(3)

31-10-2004

आई एस 12235 :

12235: ( भाग 1

से19): 2004 (भाग 1 से 11 ):

1986

' थर्मोप्लास्टिक पाईप वफिटिंगें-जाँचके

तरीके'

इस भारतीय मानक की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन, १ , बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली -110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता, चण्डीगढ़ , चेन्नई, मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयोंः अहमदाबाद, बंगलौर, भोपाल, भुवनेश्वर, कोयम्बतूर, गुवाहाटी, हैदराबाद, जयपुर, कानपुर, पटना, पुणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

[सं. सीईडी/गजट] , एस. दास गुप्ता, वैज्ञानिक ' एफ ' उप महानिदेशक (तक-1 ) New Delhi, the 29th December, 2004 S.O. 133. In pursuance of clause (b ) of sub -rule (1) ofRule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules . 1987 , the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards , particulars ofwhich are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each:

SCHEDULE

Date of

No. and year of

Sl. No. and year ofthe

Indian Standards Indian Standards Established No.

Established

ifany, Super-

seded by the

New Indian Standard

(1)

(3)

(4) (2)

31-10-2004 1.

IS 12235: (Part 1

IS 12235 : (Parts 1

to 11): 1986

to 19) : 2004

"ThermoplasticPipes

and Fittings- Methods of Test'

Copy of this Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards , Manak Bhavan , 9 . Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110002 and Regional Offices: New Delhi , Kolkata , Chandigarh, Chennai , Mumbai and also Branch Offices : Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati , Hyderabad , Jaipur, Kanpur , Nagpur , Patna .. Pune , Thiruvananthapuram.

[No. CED/Gazette] S. DAS GUPTA, Scientist ' F ' Dy. Director General (Tech . 1) नई दिल्ली, 29 दिसम्बर , 2004

7के उपनियम ( एतद्वारा अधि का.आ. 134.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम, 1987 के नियम के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गए हैं :-

अनुसूची

नये भारतीय मानक स्थामित स्थापित भारतीय

तिथि

क्रम सं. मानक(कों) की द्वारा अतिक्रमित

संख्या वर्ष और

शीर्षक

भारतीय मानक अथवा मानकों, यदिकोई हो,की संख्या और वर्ष

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

30-11-2004 कार्बन पेपर का आधार

कागज-

1. आई एस 3413 : 2004 विशिष्टि: (दूसरा पुनरीक्षण)

इस भारतीय मानक की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो, मानक भवन, १ , बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग, नई दिल्ली-110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों: नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता, चण्डीगढ़, चेन्नई, मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों: अहमदाबाद, बंगलौर, भोपाल, भुवनेश्वर, कोयम्बतूर, गुवाहाटी, हैदराबाद, जयपुर, कानपुर, नागपुर, पटना, पुणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

[सं. सीएचडी 15/टी-3413 ] , एस.दास गुप्ता, वैज्ञानिक ' एफ' उप महानिदेशक( तक-1) New Delhi , the 29th December, 2004

S.O. 134. In pursuance of clause (b ) of sub - rule (1) ofRule (7) of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules . 1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards, particulars of which are given in the 410

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 15 , 2005/PAUSA 25 , 1926

Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each :

SCHEDULE

No. and year of

Indian Standards

Dateof Established Sl . No. and title of the No. Indian Standards Established

ifany, Super-

seded by the

New Indian

Standards

(1) (2)

(3)

(4) 1. IS 3413 : 2004

30 November 2004 Base Paper For Carbon Paper-

Specification

( Second Revision )

Copy to these Standards are available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards , Manak Bhavan , 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg , New Delhi - 110 002 and Regional Offices : New Delhi , Kolkatta , Chandigarh , Chennai , Mumbai and also Branch Offices : Ahmedabad, Bangalore . Bhopal , Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore , Guwahati . Hyderabad , Jaipur, Kanpur , Nagpur, Patna , Pune . Thiruvananthapuram.

[No. CHD 15/T-3413 ] S. DAS GUPTA, Scientist F Dy. Director General (Tech . I) नई दिल्ली , 29 दिसम्बर , 2004

का.आ. 135.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए मानक (कों) में संशोधन किया गया/किये गये हैं :

अनुसूची

क्रम संशोधित भारतीय संशोधन की संख्या

औरवर्ष

संशोधन लागू होने की तिथि सं. मानक की संख्या औरवर्ष

(1)

(4) (2)

(3)

30 नवम्बर आई एस 13798: 1993 संशोधन संख्या

2 नवम्बर 2004 2004 पालियूरेथेन पद्धति के

लिए नाइफिंग फिलर

(दो पैक) विशिष्टि

इन संशोधनों की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन, १ बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली -110002, क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों: नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता, चण्डीगढ़ , चेन्नई, मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों: अहमदाबाद, बंगलौर , भोपाल , भुवनेश्वर, कोयम्बतूर, गुवाहाटी, हैदराबाद, जयपुर , कानपुर, नागपुर, पटना, पूणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

[ सं. सीएचडी 20/टी-13798 ] एस.दास गुप्ता , वैज्ञानिक ' एफ ' उप महानिदेशक( तक-1)

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] New Delhi , the 29th December , 2004 S.O. 135. In pursuance of clause (b) of sub - rule (1) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987 , the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the amendments to the Indian Standards , particulars of which given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been issued:

SCHEDULE

Sl . No. and title of the

Date of Established No. Indian Standards

No. and year of Amendment

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4) 1.

Amendment No. 30 Novem-

2. Nov. 2004

ber, 2004 IS 13798 : 1993 KnifingFiller (Two Pack) For Polyurethane System-Speci- fication

Copy to these Standards are available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards , Manak Bhavan , 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg , New Delhi - 110 002 and Regional Offices: New Delhi, Kolkata, Chandigarh , Chennai , Mumbai and also Branch Offices: Ahmedabad, Bangalore , Bhopal , Bhubaneshwar , Coimbatore , Guwahati ,. Hyderabad , Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur , Patna , Pune , Thiruvananthapuram.

[No. CHD 20/T- 13798 ] S. DAS GUPTA, Scientist ' F' Dy. Director General (Tech . I) नई दिल्ली, 29 दिसम्बर, 2004

का. आ. 136.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम 1987 के नियम 7. के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गए हैं :-

अनुसूची

नये भारतीय

स्थापित तिथि क्रम स्थापित भारतीय

सं.

मानक द्वारा

मानक ( कों) की संख्या वर्ष और शीर्षक अतिक्रमित भारतीय मानक अथवामानकों, यदिकोई हो, कीसंख्या और वर्ष

(2)

(3)

(1)

(4)

31अक्तूबर, 2004 1. आई एस 8662: 2004 इनेमल संश्लेषित बाहरी सतह पर प्रयुक्त रेल के डिब्बों के ( क ) अधलेपन ( ख ) परिसज्जा के लिए -विशिष्टि ( दूसरा पुनरीक्षण) [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

411

भारत का राजपत्र: जनवरी 15, 2005/पौष 25, 1926

इस भारतीय मानक की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो, मानक भवन, १ बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली-110002, क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता, चण्डीगढ़, चेन्नई, मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों अहमदाबाद, बंगलौर, भोपाल, भुवनेश्वर, कोयम्बतूर, गुवाहटी, हैदराबाद, जयपुर, कानपुर, नागपुर, पटना, पुणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम मेंबिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

[सं. सीएचडी 20/आईएस-8662 ] एस. दास गुप्ता, वैज्ञानिक ' एफ' उप महानिदेशक( तक-1 ) New Delhi , the 29th December, 2004 S.O. 136. In pursuance of clause (b) of sub - rule (1) ofRules (1) ofRule 7 ofthe Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987 , the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby noti- fies that the Indian Standards , particulars of which given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each :

SCHEDULE

Date of Sl. Ne and title of the No. and year of

Indian Standards , Established No. Indian Standards

Established

ifany, Superseded

the New Indian

Standards

(3)

(4) (1)

(2)

1 . IS 8662: 2004

31October

2004 Enamel . Synthetic

Exterior:

(a) Undercoating

(b) Finishing for

Railway Coaches-

Specification

(Second Revision)

Copy to these Standards are available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards , Manak Bhavan . 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg , New Delhi - 110 002 and Regional Offices : New Delhi , Kolkatta, Chandigarh. Chennai . Mumbai and also Branch Offices : Ahmedabad. Bangalore, Bhopal , Bhubaneshwar , Coimbatore , Guwahati . Hyderabad , Jaipur , Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna, Pune . Thiruvananthapuram .

[No. CHD 20 /IS-8662 ] S. DAS GUPTA, Scientist ' F' Dy. Director General (Tech. I) नई दिल्ली, 29 दिसम्बर, 2004

का. आ. 137.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गए हैं:-

1165/ 05-2

अनुसूची

नये भारतीय

क्रम स्थापित भारतीय

स्थापित तिथि सं. मानक (कों) की मानक द्वारा

अतिक्रमित

संख्या, वर्ष और

शीर्षक

भारतीय मानक

अथवामानकों,

यदिकोई हो,

कीसंख्या और

वर्ष

(1) (2)

(3)

(4) 1. आई एस 15495 : 2004

31अक्तूबर

2004 खाद्य पैकेजिंग के लिए

मुद्रण स्याही-रीतिसंहिता

इस भारतीय मानक की प्रत्नियाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन, १ बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली -110002, क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता, चण्डीगढ़ , चेन्नई, मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों अहमदाबाद, बंगलौर, भोपाल , भुवनेश्वर, कोयम्बतूर, गुवाहटी, हैदराबाद, जयपुर, कानपुर, पटना, नागपुर, पूर्ण तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

[सं. सीएचडी 14/आईएस -15495 ] एस.दास गुप्ता, वैज्ञानिक' एफ' उप महानिदेशक(तक- I ) New Delhi , the 29th December , 2004 S.O. 137. In pursuance of clause (b ) of sub - rule (1) ofRules ( I ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby noti- fies that the Indian Standards , particulars of which given inthe Schedule hereto annexed have been established on thedate indicated against each :

SCHEDULE

Date of

No. and year of

Sl. No. and title of the

No. Indian Standards Indian Standards , Established Established

ifany, Superseded

by the New Indian

Standards

(1) (2)

(3)

(4) 1. IS15495: 2004

31 October

2004 Printing Ink for

food packaging-

Code ofPractice

Copy to these Standards are available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards , Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg . New Delhi - 110 002 and Regional Offices: New Delhi , Kolkatta . Chandigarh . Chennai ,Mumbai and also Branch Offices : Ahmedabad . Bangalore, Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore. Guwahati . Hyderabad , Jaipur, Kanpur , Nagpur . Patna . Punc . Thiruvananthapuram .

No. CHD 14 /IS - 15495 ] S. DAS GUPTA, Scientist F Director General. ( Tech . 1 ) 412

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 15, 2005/PAUSA 25 , 1926

नई दिल्ली, 29 दिसम्बर, 2004

का. आ. 138.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम, 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गए हैं:-

अनुसूची

नये भारतीय

क्रम स्थापित भारतीग

स्थापित तिथि सं. मानक(कों ) की संख्या, वर्ष और शीर्षक

मानक द्वारा अतिक्रमित भारतीयमानक अथवामानकों, यदिकोई हो, कीसंख्या और वर्ष

(1)

(3)

(2)

(4) 1. आई एस 14529: 2004 आई एस 14529 अक्तूबर 2004 फैरोसिलिकान-मैगनी ( पार्ट 2 ) :

1998फेरो-

मियम मिश्रधातु का

रासायानक विश्लेषण

(पहला पुनरीक्षण)

सिलिकान- मैगनीसियम मिश्रधातु का रासायनिक विश्लेषण भाग 2 कैल्सियम एवंमैगनीसियम का निर्धारण

इस भारतीय मानक की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन, १ बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली-110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों, नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता, चण्डीगढ़ , चेन्नई, मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों अहमदाबाद, बंगलौर, भोपाल, भुवनेश्वर, कोयम्बतूर, गुवाहटी, हैदराबाद, जयपुर, कानपुर, नागपुर , पटना, पूणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

[सं. एमटीडी 5/टी-33 ] एस. दास गुप्ता, वैज्ञानिक ' एफ ' उप निदेशक ( तक. - 1 ) New Delhi , the 29th December , 2004 S.O. 138. In pursuance of clause (b) of sub- rule (1) of Rulc 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules . 1987 , the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that to the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each :-

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

SCHEDULE

No.

Sl . No. & year of the Indian Standards Established

No. and year of Date of Indian Standards , Established if any, Superseded by the New Indian Standards

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4) 1. IS 14529 : 2004 IS 14529 ( Part 2 ) : October

1998 Chemical

Chemical analysis offerrosilicon- magnesium alloy

(FirstRevision )

analysis of ferro- silicon magnesium alloy Part 2-Deter-

mination of calcium and magnesium 2004 Copy of this Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards , Manak Bhavan , 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg , New Delhi - 110 002 and Regional Offices : New Delhi , Kolkata, Chandigarh , Chennai , Mumbai.and also Branch Offices : Ahmedabad, Bangalore , Bhopal , Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore , Guwahati , Hyderabad , Jaipur, Kanpur , Nagpur . Patna . Pune , Thiruvananthapuram.

[No. MTD 5/T - 33 ] S. DAS GUPTA , Scientist ` F Dy . Director Genl . ( Tech . I) नई दिल्ली, 29 दिसम्बर , 2004

का. आ. 13. भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम के खंड ( ख) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गए हैं :-

अनुसूची

नये भारतीय

स्थापित तिथि स्थापित भारतीय

क्रम सं. मानक (कों) की संख्यावर्ष और शीर्षक

मानक द्वारा अतिक्रमित भारतीय मानक अथवामानकों, यदिकोई हो , कीसंख्या और वर्ष

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4) 1.

अक्तूबर 2004 आई एस 15508: 2004 इस्पात संयंत्रों में प्रयुक्त क्षारीय गनिंग-विशिष्टि

इस भारतीय मानक की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन, १ बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग, नई दिल्ली -110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता, चण्डीगढ़ , चेन्नई, मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों अहमदाबाद, बंगलौर, भोपाल , भुवनेश्वर, कोयम्बतूर, गुवाहटी , हैदराबाद, जयपुर, कानपुर, नागपुर , पटना , पूणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्धहैं ।

[सं. एमटीडी 15 /टी-134 ] एस. दास गुप्ता, वैज्ञानिक ' एफ' उप महानिदेशक ( तक. - 1 ) [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

413

भारत का राजपत्र: जनवरी 15, 2005/पौष 25, 1926

New Delhi , the 29th December , 2004 S.O. 139. In pursuance of clause (b) of sub- rule (1) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987 , the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards , particulars ofwhich are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each :-

SCHEDULE

Sl . No. and year ofthe No. Indian Standards Established

No. and year of Date of Indian Standards , Established if any Superseded by the New Indian Standard

(1)

(3)

(2)

(4)

October 2004 1. IS 15508 : 2004 Refractory mass (Basicgunning). forsteel plant application

Copy of this Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards , Manak Bhava , 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg , New Delhi - 110 002 and Regional Offices : New Delhi , Kolkata , Chandigarh , Chennai , Mumbai and also Branch Offices : Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar , Coimbatore, Guwahati , Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur , Patna , Pune, and Thiruvananthapuram.

[No. MTD 15/T - 134 S. DAS GUPTA, Scientist ' F ' Dy. Director Genl . (Tech. -1) नई दिल्ली, 29 दिसम्बर, 2004 का. आ. 140.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम, 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गए हैं:-

अनुसूची

स्थापित भारतीय

स्थापित तिथि

नये भारतीय

क्रम

सं. मानक( कों ) की संख्या वर्ष और शीर्षक

मानक द्वारा अतिक्रमित भारतीयमानक अथवामानकों, यदिकोई हो, की संख्याऔर वर्ष

(2)

(1)

(3)

(4)

अक्तूबर 2004

आई एस 1473 1960 मैंगनीज अयस्करासायनिक विश्लेषणकी पद्धतियाँ

1. आई एस 1473 : 2004 मैंगनीज अयस्क रासायनिक विश्लेषण की पद्धतियाँ ( पहला पुनरीक्षण)

इस भारतीय मानक की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन, १ बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग, नई दिल्ली-110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों : नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता, चण्डीगढ़, चेन्नई, मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों: अहमदाबाद , बंगलौर , भोपाल , भुवनेश्वर, कोयम्बतूर, गुवाहटी, हैदराबाद, जयपुर, कानपुर, नागपुर, पटना, पुणे तथा तिरुवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्धहैं ।

[सं. एमटीडी 29/टी-26 ] एस. दास गुप्ता, वैज्ञानिक ' एफ ' उप महानिदेशक ( तक.- I ) New Delhi, the 29th December, 2004 S.O. 140. In pursuance of clause (b) of sub- rule (1) ofRule 7 ofthe Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987. theBureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that to the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each:-

SCHEDULE

Dateof

Established Sl . No. and year of the No. Indian Standards Established

No. and year of Indian Standards , ifany, superseded by the New Indian Standards

(1) (2)

(3)

(4)

October 2004 1. IS 1473 : 2004 Methods of Chemical Analysis ofmanganese ores (FirstRevision)

IS 1473 : 1960- Methods of Chemical Analysis of Manganese ores

Copy of this Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards . Manak Bhavan . 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg , New Delhi - 110 002 and Regional Offices : New Delhi , Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai , Mumbai and also Branch Offices: Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal , Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur , Kanpur , Nagpur, Patna , Pune Thiruvananthapuram.

[No. MTD 29 /T - 26] S. DAS GUPTA, Scientist 'F' Dy. Director Genl . (Tech. -I ) नई दिल्ली, 29 दिसम्बर, 2004

का. आ. 141.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम, 1987 केनियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गए हैं :-

अनुसूची

स्थापित तिथि क्रम स्थापित भारतीय सं. मानक(कों) की संख्या वर्ष और शीर्षक नये भारतीय मानक द्वारा अतिक्रमित भारतीय मानक अथवा मानकों, यदि कोई हो, की संख्या और वर्ष

(1)

(3)

(2)

(4)

अक्तूबर 2004 1. आई एस 15507: 2004- इस्पात संयंत्रोंमें प्रयुक्त टंडिश के लिए क्षारीय उष्माशोधित लेपन सामग्री-विशिष्टि 414

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 15 , 2005 /PAUSA 25 , 1926

इस भारतीय मानक की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन, १ बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग, नई दिल्ली -110002, क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों : नई दिल्ली, कोलकता, चण्डीगढ़, चैन्नई, मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों : अहमदाबाद, बंगलौर , भोपाल , भुवनेश्वर , कोयम्बतूर , गुवाहटी, हैदराबाद, जयपुर, कानपुर , पटना, पूणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्धहैं ।

[PART 11- SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

अनुसूची

क्रम स्थापित भारतीय नये भारतीय मानक स्थापित तिथि संख्या

द्वारा अतिक्रमित

मानक(कों)की

भारतीय मानक

संख्या वर्ष और

शीर्षक

अथवामानकों,

यदिकोई हों,

कीसंख्या और

वर्ष

(3)

(1)

(2)

[सं. एमटीडी/5 टी-134 ] एस. दास गुप्ता, वैज्ञानिक ' एफ ' उप महानिदेशक ( तक- I ) New Delhi , the 29th December , 2004 S.O. 141. In pursuance of clause (b) of sub - rule (1) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987 , the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards, particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each :

SCHEDULE

Date of Sl. No. and year of the No. and year of

No. Indian Standards Indian Standards, Established Established

ifany, superseded

by the New Indian

Standard

(1) (2)

(3)

IS 15507 : 2004

October 2004 Basic insulating

1. coatingmaterial forapplication in tundish used in steel plants- Specification

(4) 1.

31-10-2004 आई एस 3738:

2004 रबड़ के जूते-

विशिष्टि(तीसरा

पुनरीक्षण)

इस भारतीय मानक की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन, १ बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग, नई दिल्ली-110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों: नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता, चण्डीगढ; चैन्नई, मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों : अहमदाबाद, बंगलौर , भोपाल, भुवनेश्वर , कोयम्बतूर, गुवाहाटी, हैदराबाद, जयपुर, कानपुर, पटना, पुणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्धहैं ।

[सं. सी एच डी 19/ आई एस -3738 ] एस. दास गुप्ता, वैज्ञानिक ' एफ ' उप महानिदेशक ( तक. -1 ) New Delhi , the 29th December, 2004 S. O. 142. In pursuance of clause (b) of sub - rule (1) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987 . the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each:

SCHEDULE

No.& year of

SI . No. of the Indian

Date of Established

Indian

No. and title Standards

Standards , if

Established

any, super-

seded by the

New Indian Standards

(4) (1) (2)

Copy of this Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards , Manak Bhavan , 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg , New Delhi - 110 002 and Regional Offices: New Delhi , Kolkata , Chandigarh. Chennai , Mumbai and also Branch Offices : Ahmedabad. Bangalore. Bhopal , Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore , Guwahati . Hyderabad , Jaipur, Kanpur , Nagpur, Patna, Pune. Thiruvananthapuram .

[No. MTD 15/T - 134] S. DAS GUPTA, Scientist ' F ' Dy. Director Genl . (Tech . I) नई दिल्ली, 29 दिसम्बर, 2004

का.आ. 142.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम, 1987 के नियम 7के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गए हैं : -

(3)

31-10-2004 1. IS3738: 2004

Rubber Boots-

Specification

(Third Revision)

Copy of this Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards . Manak Bhavan . 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110002 and Regional Offices: NewDelhi , Kolkata Chandigarh , Chennai . Mumbai and also Branch Offices : Ahmedabad, Bangalore . Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore , Guwahati . Hyderabad. Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur , Patna , Pune , and Thiruvananthapuram.

[No. CHD / 19/IS -3738] S. DAS GUPTA, Scientist ' F' Dy . Director General (Tech -I) [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

415

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 15, 2005/पौष 25, 1926

नई दिल्ली, 29 दिसम्बर, 2004

का.आ. 143.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम, 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गए हैं :-

अनुसूची

क्रम

स्थापित स्थापित भारतीय नये भारतीय मानक

सं. मानक(कों)की

तिथि

द्वारा अतिक्रमित

संख्या वर्ष और भारतीयमानक

शीर्षक

अथवामानकों, यदि

कोई हो, की संख्या

और वर्ष

(1) (2)

(3)

(4) 1.

15498 : 2004

31-10-2004 कम ऊँचाई वाले

आवास और अन्य

भवनों/निर्माणों की

चक्रवाती प्रतिरोधिता

को बेहतर बनाने की

मार्गदर्शिका

इस भारतीय मानक की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन, १ बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली-110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों : नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता, चण्डीगढ, चेन्नई, मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों: अहमदाबाद, बंगलौर, भोपाल, भुवनेश्वर, कोयम्बतूर, गुवाहाटी, हैदराबाद, जयपुर, कानपुर, पटना, पूणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम मेंबिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

[सं. सी ई डी /गजट ] एस. दास गुप्ता, वैज्ञानिक ' एफ' उप महानिदेशक ( तक -1) New Delhi , the 29th December, 2004 S. O. 143. In pursuance of clause (b) of sub - rule (1) ofRule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987 , the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each :

SCHEDULE

SI .

Dateof

No.& year of

No. and year

Indian

ofthe Indian

Copy of this Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards , Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110002 and Regional Offices: New Delhi , Kolkata, Chandigarh , Chennai , Mumbai and also Branch Offices : Ahmedabad, Bangalore -Bhopal , Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore , Guwahati , Hyderabad , Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna, Pune , Thiruvananthapuram.

[No. CED/Gazette] S. DAS GUPTA, Scientist 'F' Dy. Director General (Tech -1) नई दिल्ली, 29 दिसम्बर , 2004

का.आ..144.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम, 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए मानक (कों) में संशोधन किया गया/किये गये हैं :

अनुसूची

क्रम संशोधित भारतीय

संशोधन लागू मानक की संख्या

होने कीतिथि औरवर्ष

संशोधन की संख्या और तिथि

(2)

(3)

(4) (1)

31जनवरी 1.

संशोधनकी

आई एस 220:

2005 1988 -फाउंटेन संख्या 1 , नवम्बर

पैन कीस्याही 2004

-फैरो गैलो टैनेट

(0.1 प्रतिशत लौह

अंश)-विशिष्टि

(तृतीय पुनरीक्षण)

Established

No.

Standards

Standards . if

Established

any, super-

seded by the

New Indian

Standards

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4) 1.

31-10-2004 IS 15498: 2004

Guidelines for

improving the

cyclonic resis-

tance of low rise

houses and other

buildings/ structures

इन संशोधनों की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन, १ बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली -110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों: नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता, चण्डीगढ़ चेन्नई , मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों : अहमदाबाद, बंगलौर, भोपाल, भुवनेश्वर, कोयम्बतूर, गुवाहाटी, हैदराबाद, जयपुर, कानपुर, पटना, पूणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम मेंबिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

[सं. सी एच डी 14/ आई एस -220] एस. दास गुप्ता, वैज्ञानिक ' एफ' उप- महानिदेशक ( तक. - 1 ) New Delhi , the 29th December, 2004 S. O. 144. In pursuance of clause (b ) of sub -rule (1) ofRule 7 ofthe Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that amend- ments to the Indian Standards , particulars of which given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been issued:

416

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 15 , 2005/PAUSA 25 , 1926

SCHEDULE

SI. No.

No. , and title ofthe Indian Standards

No.and year ofthe amend- ment

Datefrom whichthe amendment shall have effect (1)

(3)

(4)

31-01-2005 1.

Amendment

IS 220 : 1988

No. 1, November

Specification

2004

forFountain

penink -ferro- gallo tannate (0.1 per cent Iron content) (Third revision)

Copy to these Standards are available for sale with theBureau of Indian Standards , Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg . New Delhi - 110 002 and Regional Offices:New Delhi, Kolkata , Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also Branch Offices : Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal , Bhubaneshwar. Coimbatore, Guwahati , Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur. Patna, Pune, Thiruvananthapuram .

[No. CHD 14/IS -220 ] S. DAS GUPTA. Scientist ' F' Dy. Director General (Tech. - I) नई दिल्ली, 29 दिसम्बर, 2004

का.आ. 145.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए मानक ( कों ) में संशोधन किया गया/किये गये हैं :

अनुसूची

क्रम सं.

संशोधनलागू होने कीतिथि संशोधित भारतीय मानककी संख्या और वर्ष

संशोधन की संख्या और तिथि

(4) (1)

(2)

(3)

संशोधनकी

आई एस 8984 :

30नवम्बर, 2004 1978-127, 120 संख्या 1 , नवम्बर 2004

और 620 रोल फिल्म, बैंकिंग पेपर और फिल्म स्पूल के आयामों-विशिष्टि

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

एस. दास गुप्ता, [सं. सी एच डी 1 /आई एस -8984 ] वैज्ञानिक' एफ ' उप महानिदेशक ( तक.- I )

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)) NewDelhi , the 29th December, 2004 S.Q. 145. In pursuance of clause (b) of sub -rule (1) of Rules (1 ) of Rule 7 of Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987 , the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby noti- fies that amendments to the Indian Standards , particulars ofwhich given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been issued:

SCHEDULE

SL. No.

No., and title ofthe Indian Standards

No. and year ofthe amend- ment

Datefrom which the amendment shall have effect (2)

(3)

(4) (1)

Amendment 30-11-2004

No. 1 , November

2004

IS 8984 : 1978 Dimensions of127 , 120 and620 roll film, backing paperand film

spools

Copy to these Standards are available for sale with theBureau of Indian Standards . Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg , New Delhi - 110 002 and Regional Offices: NewDelhi , Kolkata, Chandigarh , Chennai, Mumbai and also Branch Offices: Ahmedabad, Bangalore , Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati . Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna, Pune, Thiruvananthapuram.

[No. CHD 1 /IS -8984 ] S. DAS GUPTA, Scientist ' F' Dy. Director General (Tech . -I ) नई दिल्ली, 29 दिसम्बर, 2004

का.आ. 146.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए मानक ( कों) में संशोधन किया गया/ किये गये हैं:

अनुसूची

क्रम

सं.

संशोधन लागू होने की तिथि संशोधित भारतीय मानक की संख्या औरवर्ष

संशोधन की संख्या और तिथि

(1)

(3)

(4) (2)

30नवम्बर, 2004

संशोधनकी संख्या 2 , नवम्बर 2004

आई एस 2694 : 1993- स्कूल चाक, संचकित, सफेद विशिष्टि [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 15, 2005 /पौष 25 , 1926

इन संशोधनों की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवनं, १ बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली -110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों: नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता, चण्डीगढ़ चेन्नई, मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों : अहमदाबाद, बंगलौर, भोपाल, भुवनेश्वर, कोयम्बतूर, गुवाहाटी, हैदराबाद, जयपुर, कानपुर, पटना , पूणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्धहैं ।

[सं. सी एच डी 14/ आई एस-2694 ] एस. दास गुप्ता, वैज्ञानिक ' एफ' उप महानिदेशक ( तक.- I ) New Delhi , the 29th December, 2004 S. O. 146. In pursuance of clause (b) of Sub - rule (1) of Rules ( 1) of Rule 7 of Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987 , the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby noti- fies that amendments to the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been issued :

SCHEDULE

SI . No.

No. & Title of the Indian Standards

No. and year ofthe amend- ment

417

अनुसूची

स्थापित भारतीय नये भारतीय मानक स्थापित तिथि क्रम संख्या मानक (कों) की द्वारा अतिक्रमित

संख्या वर्ष और भारतीय मानक

शीर्षक

अथवामानकों,

यदिकोई हों, की

संख्या और वर्ष

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4) 1.

नवम्बर आई एस 11245 :

2004 2004-वातिल

सिलिंडर क्रय

विशिष्टि( पहला

पुनरीक्षण)

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

[सं. एमजीपी 14/ आई एस -11245: 2004 ]

Date from

which the

amendment

shall have

effect

(3)

(2)

(4) (1)

30-11-04

Amendment

1. IS 2694 : 1963

No. 2. November Specification

2004

for school

chalks moulded,

white

Copy to these Standards are available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards . Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110002 and Regional Offices: New Delhi , Kolkata , Chandigarh, Chennai , Mumbai and also Branch Offices : Ahmedabad, Bangalore , Bhopal. Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati , Hyderabad . Jaipur. Kanpur . Nagpur, Patna, Pune, Thiruvananthapuram.

[No. CHD 14/1S - 2694 ] S. DAS GUPTA , Scientist ' F' Dy . Director General (Tech -I ) नई दिल्ली, 29 दिसम्बर , 2004

का.आ. 147. -भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गये हैं: -

एस. दास गुप्ता, वैज्ञानिक ' एफ ' उप महानिदेशक ( तक. - 1 ) NewDelhi , the 29th December, 2004 S. O. 147. In pursuance of clause (b) of Sub - rule (1) ofRules (1 ) ofRule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby noti- fies that the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been estab- lished on the date indicated against each:

SCHEDULE

Date of No. & Year of No. and year

Established

of Indian

SI . No. the Indian

Standards.

Standards

Established ifany.

Superseded

by the New

Indian

Standard

(2)

(3)

(4) (1)

IS 11245 : 2004

November 2004 Pneumatic

cylinders-

Purchase

specification

(First Revision) 418

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 15, 2005 /PAUSA 25 , 1926

Copy of this Standard available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards , Manak Bhavan , 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg , New Delhi - 110 002 and Regional Offices:NewDelhi , Kolkata , Chandigarh, Chennai , Mumbai and also Branch Offices : Ahmedabad , Bangalore , Bhopal , Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore , Guwahati , Hyderabad, Jaipur. Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna, Pune, Thiruvananthapuram .

[No. MGP 14/IS 11245 : 2004 ] S. DAS GUPTA , Scientist ' F ' Dy. Director General (Tech - I ) नई दिल्ली, 29 दिसम्बर, 2004

का.आ. 148.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गये हैं : -

अनुसूची

स्थापित भारतीय नये भारतीय मानक स्थापित तिथि क्रम संख्या मानक(कों) की द्वारा अतिक्रमित

भारतीय मानक

संख्या वर्ष और

शीर्षक

अथवा मानकों,

यदिकोई हो, की

संख्या और वर्ष

(2)

(3)

(4) (1)

नवम्बर 2004 आई एस 11698 (भाग 1 ) : 2004

आई.एस.ओ.

मीनियचर पेंच चूड़ियाँ- भाग 1 आधारभूत प्रोफायल (पहला पुनरीक्षण)

इस भारतीय मानक की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन, १ बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली -110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता , चण्डीगढ़ , चेन्नई, मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों अहमदाबाद, बंगलौर, भोपाल , भुवनेश्वर, कोयम्बतूर , गुवाहाटी, हैदराबाद, जयपुर , कानपुर , पटना, पूणे तथा तिरूवनन्तपुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्धहैं ।

[सं. एमजीपी 20/आई एस -11698 ( भाग 1 ): 2004 ] एस. दास गुप्ता, वैज्ञानिक ' एफ ' उप महानिदेशक ( तक. - 1 ) New Delhi , the 29th December, 2004 S. O. 148. In pursuance of clause (b) of Sub - rule (1) of Rules (1) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987 , the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby noti- fies that the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been estab- lished on the date indicated against each:

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

SI .

No.& Year of No. and year

ofIndian

the Indian

No.

Date of Established Standards

Standards .

Established ifany,

Superseded by the New Indian Standard

(2)

(3)

(4)

(1)

1. IS 11698 (Part 1):

2004 ISO

November 2004

Miniature screw

threads - Part 1 Basic Profiles

(First Revision)

Copy of this Standards is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards , Manak Bhavan , 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg , New Delhi - 110002 and Regional Offices: New Delhi , Kolkata , Chandigarh , Chennai , Mumbai and also Branch Offices : Ahmedabad, Bangalore . Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore , Guwahati . Hyderabad. Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna, Pune. Thiruvananthapuram.

[No. MGP 20 /IS - 11698 (Part 1 ): 2004 ] S. DAS GUPTA, Scientist ' F' Dy. Director General ( Tech - I ) नई दिल्ली, 29 दिसम्बर , 2004

का.आ. 149.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए है वे स्थापित हो गये हैं : -

अनुसूची

नये भारतीय मानक स्थापित तिथि स्थापित भारतीय

द्वारा अतिक्रमित

क्रम संख्या मानक( कों ) की संख्या वर्ष और शीर्षक

भारतीय मानक अथवा मानकों, यदिकोई हो, की संख्या और वर्ष

(4)

(3)

(1) (2)

12820: 1989

12820: 2004

नवम्बर 2004

पानी गैस तथा

मलजल ले जाने

केलिए लोहे के

के लिए लोहे के

♪

ढलवाँ पाइपों और

फिटिंगों के साथ

प्रयुक्त यांत्रिक जोड़ों

और पुश-आन

औरपुश-आन

के लिए रबड़

गास्केटों की आया गास्केटों की आया-

मीय अपेक्षाएँ

मीयअपेक्षाएँ

(पहला पुनरीक्षण) [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

इस भारतीय मानक की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो, मानक भवन , १ बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली-110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता, चण्डीगढ़, चेन्नई, मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों अहमदाबाद, बंगलौर, भोपाल , भुवनेश्वर, कोयम्बतूर, गुवाहाटी, हैदराबाद, जयपुर, कानपुर , पटना, पूणे तथा तिरूवनन्तपुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

[सं. एमटीडी 6/टी -71 ] एस. दास गुप्ता, वैज्ञानिक ' एफ' उपमहानिदेशक ( तक. - 1 ) New Delhi , the 29th December, 2004 S. O. 149. In pursuance of clause (b) of sub- rule ( 1) ofRules ( 1 ) ofRule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby noti- fies that the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been estab- lished on the date indicated against each:

SCHEDULE

Date of Established Sl. No.

No. & Year of the Indian Standards Established

No. and year ofIndian Standards, ifany, Superseded by the New Indian Standard

(1)

(4) (2) (3)

12820:1989

November 2004

Dimensional requirements ofrubber gaskets for mechanical joints and push- on joints for use with cast iron pipesand fittings for carryingwater, gas and sewage

1. 12820:2004- Dimensional requirements ofrubber gaskets for mechanical joints and push onjoints for use with cast iron pipes and fittingsfor carryingwater, gas and sewage (First Revision)

Copy of this Standards is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards , Manak Bhavan . 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110002 and Regional Offices: New Delhi , Kolkata, Chandigarh , Chennai , Mumbai and also Branch Offices : Ahmedabad, Bangalore , Bhopal , Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati , Hyderabad , Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna, Pune, Thiruvananthapuram .

[No.MTD 6/T-71 ] S. DAS GUPTA, Scientist ' F' Dy. Director General (Tech. -1) 1161 / 05-3

419

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 15 , 2005 /पौष 25, 1926

नई दिल्ली, 29 दिसम्बर , 2004

का.आ. 150.-भारतीय मानक व्यूरो नियम 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एत‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए वे स्थापित हो गये हैं: -

अनुसूची

स्थापित तिथि क्रम संख्या

स्थापित भारतीय मानक( कों ) को संख्या वर्ष और शीर्षक

नये भारतीय मानक द्वारा अतिक्रमित भारतीय मानक अथवामानकों, यदिकोई हो, की संख्या और वर्ष

(1) (2)

(3)

(4) 1.

4260: 1986

नवम्बर 2004 4260:2004- फेरोटिक इस्पात में बट वेल्ड के पराश्रव्य परीक्षण को अनुशंसित रीति (तीसरा पुनरीक्षण)

फेरोटिक इस्पात में बट वेल्ड के पराश्रव्य परीक्षण की अनुशंसित रीति ( दूसरा पुनरीक्षण )

इस भारतीय मानक की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन, १ बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली -110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता , चण्डीगढ़ , चेन्नई , मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों अहमदाबाद, बंगलौर, भोपाल, भुवनेश्वर, कोयम्बतूर , गुवाहाटी, हैदराबाद, जयपुर, कानपुर, पटना, पूणे तथा तिरूवनन्तपुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

[सं. एमटीडी 21/टी-14 ] एस. दास गुप्ता , वैज्ञानिक ' एफ' उप महानिदेशक ( तक. -1 ) New Delhi , the 29th December, 2004 S. O. 150.-In pursuance of clause (b) of sub - rule (1 ) ofRules ( 1 ) of Rule 7 ofthe Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby noti- fies that the Indian Standards . particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been estab- lished on the date indicated against each :

SCHEDULE

Date of Established No.

No. andYear of the Indian Standards Established

No. and year ofIndian Standards . ifany. Superseded by the New Indian Standard

(3)

(+) (1) (2)

4260:1986

November 2004

Recommended

practicefor ultrasonic testingof butt welds. inferritic steel (Second Revision)

1 . 4260:2004- Recommended practice for ultrasonic testing of butt welds inferritic steel (Third Revision) 420

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 15, 2005/PAUSA 25 , 1926

Copy of this Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards , Manak Bhavan , 9 , Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110002 and Regional Offices: New Delhi , Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai , Mumbai and also Branch Offices : Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal , Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati, Hyderabad , Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna, Pune, Thiruvananthapuram.

[No. MTD 21/T- 14] S. DAS GUPTA, Scientist 'F' Dy. Director General (Tech. -I) नई दिल्ली, 29 दिसम्बर, 2004

का.आ. 151.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए वे स्थापित हो गये हैं : -

अनुसूची

क्रम स्थापित भारतीय नये भारतीय मानक स्थापित्तं तिथि

द्वारा अतिक्रमित

संख्या मानक( कों ) की

संख्या वर्ष और भारतीय मानक

शीर्षक

अथवामानकों,

यदिकोई हो, की

संख्या और वर्ष

(1) (2)

(3)

(4) 1.

15531:2004

नवम्बर

2004 वेल्डफिलेट के

अरेखीय जोड़ोंके पराभव्य परीक्षण हेतुअनुशंसित रीति

इस भारतीय मानक की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन, १ , बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली -110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता, चण्डीगढ़, चेन्नई, मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयोंः अहमदाबाद, बंगलौर, भोपाल, भुवनेश्वरं, कोयम्बतूर, गुवाहाटी, हैदराबाद, जयपुर, कानपुर, पटना, पूणे तथा तिरूवनन्तपुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्धहैं ।

[सं. एमटीडी 21/टी-56 ] एस. दास गुप्ता, वैज्ञानिक ' एफ ' उप महानिदेशक ( तक. - 1 ) New Delhi . the 29th December , 2004 S. O. 151. In pursuance of clause (b ) of sub -rule (1) ofRules ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987. the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby noti- fies that the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been estab- lished on the date indicated against each:

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

SCHEDULE

No. & Year of

Dateof 'S1. No. and year

No. the Indian

Established

ofIndian

Standards

Standards,

ifany,

Superseded

by the New

Indian

Established Standard

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4) 1. 15531:2004

November 2004 Recommended practice for

ultrasonic

testing of

weld fillets

ofnon -linear joints.

Copy of this Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards , Manak Bhavan, 9 , Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg , New Delhi - 110 002 and Regional Offices: New Delhi , Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also Branch Offices : Ahmedabad , Bangalore , Bhopal , Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore . Guwahati , Hyderabad , Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna , Pune, Thiruvananthapuram .

[No. MTD 21 /T- 56 ] S. DAS GUPTA, Scientist 'F ' Dy. Director General (Tech. - I ) कोयला मंत्रालय

शुद्धि-पत्र

नई दिल्ली, 24 दिसम्बर , 2004

का. आ. 152.- भारत के राजपत्र तारीख 9 अक्तूबर, 2004 के भाग II , खंड 3 , उपखंड ( ii ) में पृष्ठ क्रमांक 5938 से 5940 पर प्रकाशित भारत सरकार, कोयला मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना का. आ. 2514 तारीख 30 सितम्बर, 2004 में : -

पृष्ठ5938 पर, अधिसूचना में,

पंक्ति4, " भाग 2 , खंड 3 , उपखंड ( त्त) " के स्थान पर " भाग 2 , खंड 3 , उपखंड ( ii ) " पढ़ें ।

पंक्ति20 , " अधीन अपने आने वाले " के स्थान पर " अधीन आने वाले" पढ़ें ।

पंक्ति 22 , " कारेबा ( छत्तीसगढ़ ) " के स्थान पर " कोरबा ( छत्तीसगढ़ ) " पढ़ें ।

पृष्ठ5939 पर, अनुसूची में,

पंक्ति 2 , " कारेखा क्षेत्र " के स्थान पर " कोरबा क्षेत्र " पढ़ें । तालिका के नीचे, सीमा वर्णन के ऊपर,

(1 ) ग्राम अभयपुर ( भाग ) में अर्जित किए गये प्लाट संख्या:- 1 (भाग ) , 34 ( भाग ) , 421 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जनवरी 15, 2005 /पौष 25, 1926

(2 ) ग्राम ढेलवाडीह ( भाग ) में अर्जित किए गये प्लाट संख्याः-

0.0646

1. रमायरा राठौर (जारी) 628

642

0.3519 78/1 ( भाग ) , 134, 135 , 136 ( भाग ) , 137 (भाग) , 138 ( भाग ) , 139 से 160, 161 ( भाग ) , 190 ( भाग ) , 192 ( भाग ) , 193 से 196, 197 ( भाग) , 198 ( भाग ) , 199 ( भाग ) " पढ़ें ।

0.3216

643

0.2999 ब्लाक " ख ", तालिका में, ग्राम का नाम स्तंभ के नीचे,

644

:0.1801

780

क्रम संख्या 1 , " अभयपुर " के स्थान पर " डेलवाडीह " पढ़ें ।

0,0167

779

क्रम संख्या 2 , " ढेलवाडीह " के स्थान पर " ढबढब " पढ़ें ।

783

0.0645 क्रम संख्या 3 , " ढेलवाडीह " के स्थान पर " अरदा " पढ़ें ।

0.0518

784

[फा. सं. 43015/13/ 2002- पीआरआईडब्ल्यू]

0.1361

793

बी. के. पण्डा, निदेशक

0.1866

806

799

0.0326

0.0434

798

पैट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली, 10 जनवरी , 2005

0.0150 .

797

800

0,1194

801

0,0903

825

0.1315

828

0.0959 का.आ. 153.-केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि मध्य प्रदेश राज्य में मांगल्या ( इंदौर ) संस्थापन से हरियाणा राज्य में पियाला तथा दिल्ली राष्ट्रीय राजधानी क्षेत्र में बिजवासन तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए भारत पैट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा एक विस्तार पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए;

0.3537

829

0.0292

821 (शा. भूमि)

796

0.0210

0.1687

110 (शा. भूमि.)

2. भीमपुरा

और केन्द्रीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी भूमि में, जो इससे उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित है, जिसमें उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने की प्रस्ताव है, उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए;

112

0.1284

108

0.0254

107

0.2663

122

0.0888

0.0433

126

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

105

0.0105

104

0.0791

0.0778

103

0.0763

102

0.0917

100

0.0491.

0.1505

188

: 98

0.0102

0,4448

189 (शा. भूमि) कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है , उस तारीख से जिसको इस अधिसूचना से युक्त भारत के राजपत्र की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के लिए उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार केअर्जन के सम्बन्ध में श्री वी.पी. पाठक, सक्षम प्राधिकारी, मुम्बई- मांगल्या पाइपलाइन विस्तार परियोजना, भारत पैट्रोलियम कारपोरेशन लिमिटेड, एम.बी. -7 , महाश्वेता नगर, महेन्द्र भटनागर मार्ग, उज्जैन -456010 ( मध्य प्रदेश ) को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।

208

0.1281 अनुसूची

0.0131

206 ( शा. भूमि)

राज्य: मध्य प्रदेश

तहसील: आगर जिला: शाजापुर

0.1432

204

क्षेत्रफल हैक्टेयर में

क्र. ग्राम का नाम

सर्वे नंबर

0.0589

205

सं.

0.0387

203

1 2

0,0417

202 (शा. नाला) 1. रनायरा राठौर

0.8217

201

0.0754 620(शा. भूमि)

627

0.1214

460

0.0768 626

0.0111

459

0,0380 629

0.0102

493.

0.0545 422

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 15 , 2005 /PAUSA 25 , 1926

4 1 2

492

0.3221 2. भीमपुरा ( जारी )

0.0921

491 (शा. भूमि)

498

0.1870

499

0.0100

502

0.0204

503

0.1531

0.0268

508 (शा. नाला)

0.0773

510 (शा. भूमि)

0.0060

111 ( शा. भूमि)

114

0.0220 3. लक्ष्मणखेड़ी

0.1181

115

116/482

0.1188

117

0.0924

118

0.0806

119

0.0377

130

0.1783

129

0.0234

132

0.0337

137

0.0277

0.0637

136

0.0404

140

0.1084

156 ( शा. नाला)

142

0.0491

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]

1 2

360

0.0364 3. लक्ष्मणखेड़ी ( जारी )

361

0.0449

0.0118

362( शा. भूमि)

351

0.0630

0.0908

349

0.0507

350

347

0.1401

459

0.2000

457

0.0309

458

0.1421

448

0.2889

467

0.0613

473

0.2255

0.0800

329

0.0600

166/483

0.0110

144

163

0.0115

0.0162

469 (शा. नाला )

472

0.0900

161

0.0100

0.0200

168

171

0.0200

352

0.0100

466

0.0100

0.1197

4. जैतपुरा

0.0284

202 (शा. भूमि)

0.0301

143

0.0174

184 ( शा. नाला)

0.0123

183 ( शा. भूमि)

0.0159

164 ( शा. भूमि)

0.0151

182 ( शा. भूमि)

0.0379

165 ( शा. भूमि)

0.0547

181

0,0616

166

167

0.0290

160

0.0200

169

0.0231

170

0.036

0.0787

0.2159

22 (शा. भूमि)

0.0300

32 (शा . नाला)

0.0128

33 (शा. भूमि)

0.2788

34 (शा. भूमि)

0.2902

45 (शा. भूमि)

0.0271 डब्ल्यू.बी.एम. ( शा. सड़क)

0.1901

0.1664

0.0594

0.0921

0.0100

0.0420 5. गांगडा बुजुर्ग

0.0310

330

0.0355

331नदी

356

0.0531

354

0.0305

0.0912

355 ( शा. नाला)

357

0.0564

358

0.0471

359

0.0441

0.0825

0.0179

0.0381

0.2498

0.0014

0,0690

0.0795

0.0150

1 (शा. भूमि) 423 भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 15 , 2005 /पौष 25, 1926

1 2

0.677

382

8. भ्याना ( जारी )

0.1133

6. गांगडा हद्दा

0.1207

385

7. भांदवा

0.0451

1261(शा. नाला)

386

0.0400 1249

0.1740

0.0186

581(शा. नाला)

1256

0.0105

585

0.0857 1254

0.2081

0.0901

586

0.0221

1335 (शा. रास्ता)

587

0.1628 1336

0.1063

0.0987

602 ( शा. रास्ता)

1334

0.0148

361

0.1841 1342

0.1622

360

0.0255 1343

0.0132

0.0255 1341

0.0141

358 ( शा. भूमि)

1346

0.0740

0.2763

359 (शा. भूमि)

1323

0.1130

0.0277

603 ( शा. रास्ता)

1322

0.1095

0.6581

719 ( शा. भूमि)

0.0956

1320 ( शा. भूमि)

716

0.0677 1319

0.1531

745

0.1635 1318

0.0134

0.1883

744

0.0146

1317

781

0.793 1444

0.1976

780

0.1131 1443

0.1075

779

0.0649 1442

0.1664

785

0.2407 1440

0.0891

0.0316

778

0.0100

1382(शा. रास्ता)

0.0179 8 भ्याना

0.0486

230 ( शा. नाला)

776

0.0241 272

0.2618

775

0.0290 274

0.3976

786

0.0159 279

0.1944

787

0.0187 314

0.1559

0.1585

788

286

0.1018

790

0.0131

789

0.0224

0.1979

287 ( शा. भूमि)

0.0177

310

0.0413

791 ( शा. नाला)

308

0.1834

0.0102

803 ( शा. भूमि)

320

0,0410

802

0.2360 306

0.0598

0.2037

805 (शा. भूमि)

323

0.1349

808

0.2032 396

0.0215

816

0.1642 392

0.1090

814

0.0884 394

0.1338

822

0.2043

0.0187

390 ( शा. नाला)

0.0611

823 (शा. नाला)

379

0.0149

0.0120

806 ( शा. भूमि)

380

0.0276

0.0100

717 ( शा. भूमि)

381

0.0276 424

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 15 , 2005 /PAUSA 25 , 1926

0.0100

8. भ्याना ( जारी) 718 ( शा. भूमि )

143

0.0173

11. परसुखेड़ी ( जारी- )

833

0.2100

0.0344

244 (शा. भूमि)

834

0.0100

245

0.0701 801

0.0100

246

0.1678 288

0.2077

9. जामुनिया

242

0.0105 318

0.2977

299

0.1013 315

0.2779

298

0.1876 319

0.0451

0.0367

296

320

0.1231

295

0.0127 326

0.3061

0.0561

309 ( शा. नाला)

0.1636

0.0848 327 (शा. भूमि)

310

332

0.5112

0.0299

348

334

0.0394

0.0533

349 (शा. रास्ता)

0.0347

341 ( शा. नाला)

0.0360

378 ( शा. भूमि)

374

0.1762

0.0110

369 (शा. भूमि)

381

0.1141

374

0.0155

0.0457

382

376

0.0119 384

0.0812

0.0312

377 (शा. भूमि)

0.0503

383

0.1512

379

0.0300

351 ( शा. रास्ता)

0.7200

380

10. सॅमली

0.0930

505 ( शा . भूमि)

0.0311

381 ( शा. भूमि)

0.1557

506 (शा. भूमि)

0.2546

664( शा. भूमि)

0.1556

509 (शा. भूमि)

499

0.0465

0.2760

11. परसुखेड़ी

0.0844

501 ( शा. भूमि)

0.2820

76 ( शा. भूमि)

500

0.0119 93

0.0550

0.0564

506 (शा . भूमि)

0.5174

103 ( शा. भूमि)

0.0948

505 (शा. भूमि)

0.0186

512

0.1610 62

0.0152

0.0810

508 (शा. भूमि)

0.2595

104

0.0105

510

109

0.0138

0.0280

509 (शा. भूमि)

0.1123

110 ( शा. भूमि)

527

0.1161

0.0292

137 ( शा. भूमि)

0.0278

526 (शा. भूमि)

149

0.0530

0.1211

525 ( शा. भूमि)

146

0.0493

0.0785

523

145

0.0629

0.0109

524

0.0437

139

520

0.0933

0.0111

144

522

0.1901

0.0266

140 (शा. भूमि)

535

0.0110

0.0664

141

0.0246

521 ( शा. नाला)

0.0256

193 ( शा. रास्ता) 425 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 15 , 2005/पौष 25 , 1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

1 2

0,0376

180

0.0347

13. निपानिया बैजनाथ

548

11. परसुखेड़ी (जारी- )

179

0.0545 549

0.1303

178

0.0203 552

0.4038

0.0317 586

0.1066

177

0.0281

0.0124 584 ( शा. भूमि)

176 ( शा. भूमि)

0.0379

175

583

0.0153

174

0.0358

0.0333

585 ( शा. भूमि )

173

0,0541

0.0166

582( शा. नाला)

172

0.0813 561

0.0460

171

0.0378 559

0.3212

169

0.0769 147

0.0100

167

0.1018 142

0.0100

164

0.2028

0.0400

220 (शा. नाला)

163

0.0892

0.0200

311

162

0.1437

0.0668

0.01969

105

12. बांसखेड़ी

0.0232

0.0879

106 ( शा. भूमि)

0.0594

108

0.0808 22

0.2584

111

0,1851

0.0570

113

0,0763 18

0.2290

0.0100

69( शा. रास्ता)

0.3167

119

0.0350

0.0305

118

0.0157

0.0257

117

0.0304

0.0214

116

0.0103

0.0266

0.0843

114 ( शा. भूमि)

0.0821

0.0501

0.3863

0.0113 69

0.0485

0.0513 65

0.2335

0.0568 66

0.1331

0.0151

81(शा. रास्ता)

132

0.0604

392

0.0394 131

0.4853

400

0.0111 123

0.1628

391

0.03 10

0.5648

124

390

0.0142 122

0.0104

389

0.0311 120

0,7518

388

0.0335 85

0.0189

385

0.0138

0.2182

0.0151

386 ( शा. भूमि)

0.4257

0.0145

0.0307

387 ( शा. भूमि)

0.0100

0.0128

472 (शा. नाला) 426

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 15 , 2005/PAUSA 25. 1926

1 2

471

0.0216

[PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii ) ]

1 2

14. काशी बर्डिया

12. निपनिया वैजनाथ

467

0.1102 (जारी-)

465

0,0930

469

0.0598

0.0836

464

0.0184

470 ( शा. रास्ता)

491

0.2732

545

0.5037

537

0.2585

536

0.0119

535

0.0282

534

0.0497

532

0,0893

0.0855

531

528

0.1000

527

0,1000

523

0,1084

522

0.0745

0.1264

521

0,1555

563 ( शा. भूमि)

576

0.2559

0.2513

578 ( शा. भूमि)

0.0429

584 ( शा. भूमि)

583

0.0305

0.0955

579 ( शा. भूमि)

580

0.1923

0.0715

1249

1250

0,1474

1251

0.1381

1252

0.1779

0.0334

148

0,0500

1246 ( शा. भूमि)

581

0.0100

393

0.0100

395

107

0.0300

0.0202 613 ( शा. भूमि)

633

0.0199 614

0.1079

0.1115 629

630

0.0721 627

0.0264

0.0541 628

625

0.0424 626

0.0176

0,0936 621

0.0340 620/905

0.0489 647 ( शा. नाला )

0,0609 663

0.0184 662

664

0.0504 665

0.0431 835

0,0654 702

0.0117 703

0,1052 704

0.1958 706

(0.1572 707

0.0877 808

0,0988

0.3209 608

807

0.2099 814

0,1571 815

0.1261

0.1793 816

802

0.0102

0.3037 778

779

0.1854

0.0170 735 ( शा. रास्ता)

0.0681 772

0,1000 622

0.0100 667 ( शा. नाला )

803

0.0100

0,5326

15. भीमलोद

0.0200

159

587

0.0100

0.0300

107 ( शा. भूमि)

0.0200

159

299 ( शा. भूमि)

0.0340 81 ( शा. नाला)

0,5001 298 ( शा. भूमि)

103

0,0536

0.0155 297 ( शा. भूमि) 427 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 15, 2005/पौष 25 , 1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

1 2

4 3

0.0248

भीमलोद ( जारी ) 296 ( शा. रास्ता)

1100

0,1366 293

0.1911

1098

0.0149 294

0.0348

1097

0.0292 295

0.0412

1055

0.1173

0.0497

133 ( शा. नाला)

1095

0.0752 282

0.0423

0.0457

1094

0.0170

381

0.0266

1055

389

0.0525

1057

0.1480 390

0.0173

1059

0.0450

(0.0742

388

1060

0.1172

0.0281

397 (शा. रास्ता)

1061

0.0322 459

0.0792

1044

0.020 475

0.1103

0.0820

1043

474

0.0362

1024

0.1118 473

0.0138

0.1163

1023

476

0.0712

1021

0.0690 506

0.0527

0,0602

1020

505

0.0538

0.1342

1001 ( शा. रास्ता)

504

0.0202

0.0418

1002

507

0.0348

0,1455

1003

508

0.0161

0,0266

908

0.0553

522

0.1093

899

0.1576

521

0.0159

898 ( शा. रास्ता)

536

(0.0688

0.1975

897

537

0.0321

0.0817

892

515

0.0210

0.1571

891

543

0.0387

0.0227

893

0.0565

544 ( शा. रास्ता)

0.12.26

888

549

0.01558

889

0.0126 546

0.0119

0.0151

882

547

0.2339

884

0.0239

0.0125

548

883

0.0122

0.0689

545 ( शा. रास्ता)

885

0.0764 283

0.0100

886

0.0251 1127

0.3231

861

0.0449

0465

1126

16. बापच्या

0.0299

862

1125

0.0496

859

0.0030 1124

0.0366

0.0950

860

0,01218

1123

0.0261

858 (शा. भूमि)

0.0311

1138 ( शा. नाला)

0.0604 1099

0.0783

819 ( शा. भूमि)

11G1/05-4.

428

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 15 , 2005/PAUSA 25, 1926

1 2

0.0534

825 ( शा. भूमि)

0.3212 16 बापच्या

823 ( शा. भूमि)

0.0275

824 (शा. सड़क)

0.2006

319 ( शा. भूमि)

0.0100

1122

808

0.0155

0.0360

887 (शा. नाला)

813

0.0125

0.0290

-814

17 कराडिया

0.04673

659 (शा. भूमि)

616

0.1648

617

0703

618

0.1051-

619

0.1141

0.0265

606 ( शा. नाला)

595

0.1124

596

0.2541

592

0.0152

0.2375

591

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

+ And whereas it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying such pipeline it is necessary to acquire the right of user in land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which isdescribed in the Schedule annexed hereto;

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

Any person , interested in the land described in the said Schecule may within twenty one day's from the date on which copies of the Gazette of India containing this notificaiton are made available to the public, object in writing to the acquisition of right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri V.P. Pathak . Competent Authority, Mumbai - Manglya Pipeline Extension Project . Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited. MB- 7. Mahashweta Nagar. Mahendra Bhatnagar Road. Ujjain-456010 ( Madhya Pradesh) .

SCHEDULE

Tehsil: Agar District : Shajapur State : Madhya Pradesh

Area in Hectare

S. No. Name of Village Survey No.

4 1

1. Ranaira

589

0.0327

588

0,0327

586

0.0294

0.0155

537( शा. नाला)

0.0155

524

523

0.2406

529

0.2337

0.0157

530 ( शा. रास्ता)

482

0.2446

0.0281

480 ( शा. नाला)

0.2421

479 ( शा. भूमि)

[फा.सं. आर-31015/68/2004- ओ आर- II ]

हरीश कुमार, अवर सचिव MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURALGAS New Delhi , the 10th January . 2005 S.O. 153. Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum products from Manglya ( Indore ) terminal in the State of Madhya Pradesh , an extension pipeline to Piyala in the State of Haryana and Pijwasan in the NCT of Delhi should be laid by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited;

0.8217 620 ( Govt.Land)

627

Rathor

0.1214

626

0.0111

629

0.0102

628

0.0646

642

0.3519

643

0.3216

0.2999

780

0.1801

779

0.0167

783

0.0645

784

0.0518

793

0.1361

0.1866

806

0.0326

799

798

0.0434

797

0.0150

800

0.1194

801

0.0903

825

0.1315

828

0.0959

829

0.3537

0.0292 821 (Govt . Land)

796

0.0210 429 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 15 , 2005/पौष 25, 1926

0.1687

0.1084 110(Govt. Land)

Laxman Kheri 156 (Govt. Nala)

2. Bhimpura

0.1284

112

142

0,0491 108

0.0254

0.0284

202 (Govt Land)

107

0.2663

143

0.0301 122

0.0888

0.123

183 (Govt . Land )

126

0.0433

0.0123

184(Govt . Land) 105

00105

0.0159

164(Govt Land) 104

0.0791

0.0151

182(Govt . Land) 103

0.0778

0.0379

165(Gov. Land).

102

0.0763

181

0,05:47 100

0.0917

166

0.0616 99

0.0491

167

0.0290

0.1505

188

160

0.0200 98

0.0102

169

0.0231

0.4448

0.0396

170

189(Govt . Land)

208

0.1281

330

0.03 10

0.0131

0.0355 206(Govt. Nala)

331 (River)

204

0.1432

356

0.0531 205

0.0589

0.0305

354

0.0387

0,0912 203

355 (Govt . Nala)

-0.417

357

0.0564 202 (Govt . Nala)

201

0.0754

358

0.0471

0.0768

359

460

( 0,004 ) 459

0.0364

360

0.0380

493

0.0545.

361

0,0449 492

0 3221

0.0118

362-(Govi Land)

0.06.30

(0.0921

351

492(Govt . Land)

498

0.1870

349

0.0908 499

0.0100

350

0.0507. 502

(0.0204

347

0.1401 503

0,2000

0.1531

459

0.0268

457

(0.0300 508(Govt .Nala)

458

0.1421

0.0773

510 (Govt. Land)

418

0.2889

0,0060

111 (Govt . Land)

114

0.0220

0.0613 3. Laxmankheri

467

115

0,2255

0.1181

473

116/482

0,0800

329

0.1188

117

0.0600

166/483

0.0924 :

118

0.0110

0.0806

119

0,0377

0.0115

163

130

0.0162

0.1783

469(Govt . Nala)

129

0.0234

472

0,0900 132

0.0337

161

0.0100 137

0.0277

0.0200

168

136

0.0200

171

0.0637

140

352

00100

0.0404 430

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 15, 2005/PAUSA: 25 , 1926

[PART II-SEC. 3(ii) ]

4 1

466

0.0100

1382(Govt . Rasta) 12

0.1197

0.0486

230(Govt . Nala)

& Bhyana

4. Jaitpura

272

0.0787

0.2618

0.3976

274

0.2159

22(Govt. Land)

0.0300

279

0.1944 32(Govt. Nala)

314

0.0128

0.1559 33 (Govt . Land)

0.2788

34(Govt . Land)

286

0.1018

0.2902

45 (Govt. Land)

0.1979

287 (Govt. Land)

0.0271

WBM ROAD

310

0.0177 43.

0.1901

308

0.1834 42

0.01664

320

0.0410 39

0.0594

0.0598

306

0.0921

0.1349

323

0.0100

396

0.0215

0.0100

0.1090

392

0,0420

394

0.1338 5. Gangada Bujurg

0.0825

0.0187

390 (Govt. Nala )

0.0179

379

0.0149 8

0.0381

380

0.0276 7

0.2498

381

0.0276

0.677 17

382

0,0014

385

0,0690

0.1207

386

0.0400 18

0.0795

0.0150

0.0186

581 (Govt . Nala )

1 (Govt . Land)

585

0.0857

0.01133

6. Gangada Hadda

586

0.0001

0.0451

7. Bhadwa

1261 ( Govt . Nala)

0.1628

0.1740

587

1249

0.0987 1256

0.0105

602 (Govt . Rasta )

1254

(0.1841

0.2081

361

0.0255

360

0.0221

1335 (Govt . Rasta)

1336

0.0255

0.1063

358 (Govt. Land )

0.2763

0.0148

1334

359 (Govt . Land)

1342

0.1622

0.0277

603 ( Govt. Rasta)

1343

0.0132

0.6581

719 (Govt. Land )

716

1341

0.0141

0.0677

745

0.1635 1346

0.0740

1323

0.01130

0.1883 1322

0.1095

781

0.1793

0.0956

1320 (Govt . Land)

780

0.01131

0.1531

1319

779

0.0649 1318

0.0134

785

0.2407 1317

0.0146

0.0316

778

0.1976

0.0179 1444

LLL

1443

0.1075

776

0,0241 1442

0.1664

775

0.0290 1440

0.0891

786

0.0159 { भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

431

भारत का राजपत्र: जनवरी 15 , 2005/पौष 25 , 1926

1 2

787

0.0187

788

0.1585

790

0.0131

789

0.0224

0.0413

791(Govt . Nala)

0.0102

803 (Govt. Land)

0.2360

802

0.2037

805(Govt . Land)

808

0.2032

816

0.1642

814

0.0884

0,2043

822

0.0611

823(Govt.Nala)

0.0120

806(Govt. Land)

0.0100

717 (Govt . Land)

0.0100

718 (Govt . Land)

833

0.2100

834

0.0100

801

0.0100

0.2077

288

9. Jamuniya

318

0.2977

315

0.2779

319

0.0451

320

0.1231

326

0.3061

0.1636

327 (Govt . Land)

332

0.5112

334

0.0394

0.0347

341(Govt. Nala)

374

0.1762

381

0.1141

382

0.0457

0.0812

384

383

0.0503

0,0300

351(Govt. Rasta)

10. Semali

0.0930

505 (Govt . Land)

0.1557

506(Govt . Land)

0.1556

509 (Govt . Land)

0.2760 11. Parsukheri

0.2820

76(Govt. Land)

0.0550

0.5174

103 (Govt. Land)

0.0186

0.0152

104

0.2595

109

0.0138

4 1 2

0.1123 110(Govt. Land)

0.0292 137 (Govt . Land)

0.0530

149

0.0493

146

0.0629

145

0.0437

139

0.0111

144

0.0266 140(Govt . Land)

141

0.0664

0.0256 193 (Govt . Rasta)

143

0.0173

0.0344 244(Govt. Land)

0.0701

245

0.1678

246

242

0.0105

299

0.1013

298

0.1876

0.0367

296

0.0127

295

0.0561 309(Govt. Nala)

-310

0.0848

348

0.0299

0.0533 349(Govt. Rasta)

0.0360 378 (Govt. Land)

0.0110 369(Govt . Land)

374

0.0155

376

0.0119

0,0312 377 (Govt. Land)

379

0.1512

380

0.7200

0.0311 381 ( Govt . Land)

0.2546 664(Govt . Land)

0.0465

499

0.0844 501 (Govt . Land)

500

0.0119

0.0564 506 (Govt . Land)

0.0948 505(Govt. Land)

512

0.1610

0.0810 508 (Govt. Land)

510

0.0105

0.0280 509 (Govt . Land)

527

0.1161

0.0278 526 (Govt . Land)

0.1211 525 (Govt . Land)

523

0.0785

0.0109

524 432

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 15 , 2005/PAUSA 25, 1926

520

0.0933

178

0.0203

177

522

0.1901

0.0317

0.0124 535

0.0110

176(Govt . Lana,

175

0.0246

0.0379 521 (Govt. Nala)

0.0358

0.0347

174

548

0.0541

173

549

0.1303

172

0.0813 552

0.4038

0.0378

171

586

0.1066

0.0769

169

0.0281

584(Govt . Land)

167

0.1018

0.0153

583

164

0.2028

0.0333

585 (Govt . Land)

0.0892

163

0.0166

582(Govt . Nala)

0.1437

162

0.0460

561

0.1969

105

559

0.3212

0.0879

106(Govt . Land)

147

0.0100

0.0808

108

142

0.0100

0.1851

111

0.0400

220(Govt . Nala)

0.0763

113

311

0.0200

0.0100

69 (Govt . Rasta )

0.0668

12. Banskheri

0.0350

119

0.0232

118

0.0157 23

0.0594

0.0304

117

0.2584

0.0103

115

0.0570

0.0843

114(Govt . Land)

0.2290

0.0501

0.3167

0.0113 16

0.0305

0.0513

0.0257

0.0568

0.0214

0.0151 62

0.0266

81(Govt . Rasta)

392

0.0394 9

0.0821

0.3863

0.0111

400

0.0485

391

0.0310 65

0.2335

0.0142

390

0.1331

0.0311

389

132

0.0604

388

0.0335 131

0.4853

385

0.0138 123

0.1628

0.0151

386 (Govt . Land)

124

0.5648

0.0307

387 (Govt . Land)

122

0.0104

0.0128

472 (Govt . Nala)

120

0.7518

471

0.0216 85

0.0189

467

0.1102 87

0.2182

465

0.0930 90

0.4257

0.0598

469

0.0145

0.0836

464

0.0100

0.0184

470 (Govt. Rasta )

180

0.0376

13. Nipaniya Baijnath

0.2732

491

179

0.0545 433 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जनवरी 15, 2005/पौष 25, 1.926

1 2

662

0.0184

0.5037

545

13. Nipaniya Baijnath

664

0.0504 537

0.2585

(Contd.)

665

0.0431 536

0.0119

835

0.0654 535

0.0282

702

0.0117 534

0.0497

703

0.1052

0.0893

532

704

0.1958

0.0855

531

706

0.1572 528

0.1000

707

0.0877 527

0,1000

808

0.0988 523

0.1084

0.3209

809

522

0.0745

807

0.2099 521

0.1264

814

0.1571

0.1555

563.(Govt. Land)

815

0.1261 576

0.2559

816

0.1793

0.2513

578(Govt. Land).

0.0102

802

0.0429

584(Govt. Land) .

0.3037

778

0.0305

583

779

0.1854

0.0955

579(Govt. Land)

0.0170

735 (Govt. Rasta)

580

0.1923

772

0.0681

0.0715

1249.

0.1000

622

0.1474

1250

0.0100

667(Govt. Nala)

0.1381

1251

0.0100

803

1252

0.1779

0.5326

299 (Govt. Land)

0.0334

124

0.0340

81 (Govt. Nala)

0.0500

1246 (Govt . Land)

15. Bhimlod

!

0,5001

298 (Govt. Land)

0.0100

581

103

0.0536 393

0.0100

0.0155

297 (Govt . Land)

395

0.0100

0.0248

296 (Govt . Rasta )

0.0300

107

293

0.1911 159

0.0200

0.0348

294

587

0.0100

0.0412

295

0.0300

107 (Govt. Land)

0.0497

133 (Govt . Nala)

0.0200

159

0.0423

282

0.0202

14. Kashi Bardiya 613 (Govt: Land)

0,0170

381

633

0.0199

0.0525

389

614

0.1079

390

0.0173 629

0.1115

0.0742

388

630

0.0721

0.0281

397(Govt . Rasta)

627

0.0264

459

0.0792 628

0.0541

475

0.1103 625

0.0424

474

0.0362

0.0176

626

0.0138

473

0.0936

621

476

0.0712

0.0340

620/905

506

0.0527

0.0489

647(Govt. Nala)

505

0.0538 663

0.0609 434

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 15 , 2005/PAUSA 25 , 1926

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

1 2

+ 504

0.0202

891

0.1571 507

0.0227

893

0.0348

888

508

0.1226

0.0161

0.0126 522

0.0553

889

882

521

0.1576

0.0151 536

884

0.0239

0.0688

883

0.0122 537

0.0321

885

0.0764 515

0.0210

886

0.0251 543

0.0387

861

0.0565

0.0449 544 ( Govt . Rasta )

862

0.0299 549

0.01558

859

546

0.0030

0.0119

860

0.0950 547

0.2339

0.0261

0.0125

548

858(Govt . Land)

0,0604

0.0689

819 (Govt . Land )

545 (Govt . Rasta )

0.0534 283

0,0100

825 (Govt . Land )

0.3212

0.3231

1127

823 (Govt . Land)

16. Bapachya

0.0275

0465

1126

824 (Govt . Road)

0.2006

0.0496

1125

318 (Govt . Land)

1122

0,0366

0.0100 1124

808

0.0155

0.01218

1123

0.0360

0.0311

887 (Govt . Nala)

1138 (Govt. Nala )

813

0.0125 1099

0.0783

814

0.0290

0.1366

1100

0.4673

0.0149

1098

659 (Govt . Land)

17. Karadiya

616

0.0292

0.1648 1097

0.0703

617

0.1173

1055

618

0.0151

0.0752

1095

619

0.0457

0.1141 1094

0.0265

0.0266

1055

606 ( Govt . Nala )

595

1057

0.1480

0.1124 1059

0.0450

596

0.2541

592

0.0152

0.1172

1060

0,2375

0.0322

591

1061

589

0.0327 1044

0.0920

0.983

0.0820

588

1043

0.0294 1024

0.1118

586

0.0155 1023

0.1163

537 (Govt . Nala )

524

0.0155

0.0690

1021

0.2406

0.0602

523

1020

0.2337

0.1342

529

1001 (Govt . Rasta)

1002

0.0418

0.00157

530 ( Govt . Rasta )

0,2446

0.1455

1003

482

0.0266

908

0.0281

ISTILA ! Nala)

0.1093

0.2421 899

479ovt. Land)

0.0159

898 (Govt. Rasta)

F. No. R-31015/68/2004 -OR -II ] 897

0.1975

0.0817

HARISH KUMAR, Under Secy.

892 [ भाग II- खण्ड2( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जनवरी 15, 2005/पौष 25,1926

435

नईदिल्ली, 11 जनवरी , 2005

का. आ . 15.4.- केन्द्रीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम , 1962 ( 1962 कां 50) की धारा 2 के खण्ड (क) के अनुसरण में दिल्ली राष्ट्रीय राजधानी क्षेत्र तथा हरियाणा और उत्तर प्रदेश राज्यों के राज्यक्षेत्र के भीतर , उक्त अधिनियम के अधीन , मांगल्या ( इन्दौर) से पियाला /बिजवासन तक भारत पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड ( बीपीसीएल) की मुम्बई -मांगल्या पाइपलाइन विस्तार परियोजना के लिए , सक्षम प्राधिकारी के कृत्यों का पालन करने के लिए बीपीस्त्रीएल में प्रतिनियुक्ति पर , श्री लाल सिंह , सहायक बन्दोबस्त आयुक्त (एल एन्ड बी) /उपसचिव (एलए) राष्ट्रीय राजधानी क्षेत्र दिल्ली सरकार को प्राधिकृत करती है ।

[फा. सं. आर-31015/8/2004-ओ.आर- ॥ ]

हरीश कुमार, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 11th January, 2005

054. In pursuance of clause ( a) of section 2 of the Petroleum and MineralsPipelines ( Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act , 1962 (50 of 1962) , the Central Government hereby authorises Shri Lal Singh , Assistant Settlement Commissioner ( L & B )/Deputy Secretary ( LA) , Government of NCT of Delhi , on deputation to Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited ( BPCL ) , to perform the functions of the competent authority for BPCL's Mumbai- Manglya Pipeline Extension Project from Manglya ( Indore) to Piyala / Bijwasan , under the said Act, within the territory of NCT of Delhi and states of Haryana & Uttar Pradesh .

[No. R-31015/8/2004-O.R. - II ] HARISH KUMAR , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 11 जनवरी , 2005

का. आ. 155.- केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि राजस्थान राज्य में ब्यावर से चित्तौड़गढ़ तक पैट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए इण्डियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा ''सिद्धपुर- सांगानेर पाइपलाइन से चित्तौडगढ़ तक ब्रान्च लाईन " के कार्यान्वयन हेतु एक शाखा पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए ।

और केन्द्रीय सरकार को उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि उक्त भूमि में , जो इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूचि में वर्णित है और जिसमें पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने का प्रस्ताव है, उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए ।

अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, पैट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन्स (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम , 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , उक्त भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है ।

कोई भी व्यक्ति , जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है, उस तारीख से जिसको भारत के राजपत्र में यया प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती है, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने या भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाने के संबंध में श्री ओ. पी. गुप्ता, सक्षम प्राधिकारी , (राजस्थान), इण्डियन ऑयल कॉरपोरेशन लिमिटेड (पाइपलाइन्स प्रभाग), 33 , मुक्तानन्द नगर, गोपालपुरा बाईपास , जयपुर 302018 (राजस्थान) को लिखित रुप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।

11GL105-5 436

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JANUARY 15 , 2005 /PAUSA 25 , 1926

[PART II -SEC.3 ( ii ) ]

अनुसूची

राज्य : राजस्थान तहसील : भीलवाड़ा

जिलाः भीलवाड़ा

क्षेत्रफल गांव का नाम

खसरा सख्या

हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग मीटर

कोचरिया

00 20

1558/5

1.2

299/1

298

297

265

276

286

285

278

279

284

283/1

283/2

282

398

399

222/1

400

401

402

404.

437 [भाग II-खण्ड ( ii ) ]

भारत काराजपत्र: जनवरी 15 , 2005/पौष 25,1926

जिलाः भीलवाड़ा

राज्य : राजस्थान तहसील : भीलवाड़ा

क्षेत्रफल

गांव का नाम

खसरा सख्या

हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग मीटर

00 . 20

403 .

405

202

201

196

195

410

197

194

413

412

138

136

714

715

716

718

721

720

719

1543/721

1544/727

818

819

817

834

835

857

858

860

856

859 438

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 15 , 2005 /PAUSA 25 , 1926

[PART II-SEC.3( ii ) ]

राज्य : राजस्थान

जिलाः भीलवाड़ा

तहसील : भीलवाड़ा

क्षेत्रफल

गांव का नाम

खसरा सख्या

वर्ग मीटर

हेक्टेयर एयर

852

863

851

864

850

844

865

845

846

898

900

905

904

911

912

913

914

927

925

917

918

919

1404

1405

1406

1409

1410

1411

1417

1420

1418

1399 439 [ भाग II- खण्ड3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 15, 2005/पौष 25,1926

जिलाः भीलवाड़ा

तहसील : भीलवाड़ा

राज्य : राजस्थान

क्षेत्रफल गांव का नाम

खसरा संख्या

हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग मीटर

1507/1418

1400

1448

1447

1449

1446

1450

1451

1445

1462

1460

1459

1466

1467

1468

1472

595/2

सुन्दरपुरा

3/1

मुझरास

427

432

433

434

435

436

437

442 440

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 15 , 2005/PAUSA 25, 1926

[PART II-SEC.3(ii )] राज्य : राजस्थान

जिलाः भीलवाड़ा

तहसील : भीलवाड़ा

गांव का नाम

क्षेत्रफल

खसरा सख्या

461

453

454

439

441

443

444

412

408

405

406

516

404

518

400

401

399

398

397

555

551

549

550

548

43 नोगांवां

102

195

196

199

200

203

219

एयर वर्ग मीटर हेक्टेयर

20 0

90 0

70 0

20 0

90 0

60 0

30 0

20 0

30 0

20 0

70 0

40 0

20 0

50 0

20 0

90 0

50 0

90 0

80 0

50 0

40 0

50 441

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 15 , 2005/पौष 25,1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड3 ( ii ) ]

तहसील : भीलवाड़ा

राज्य : राजस्थान

जिलाः भीलवाड़ा

गांव का नाम

क्षेत्रफल

खसरा सख्या

220

221

222

223

224

230

231

23.2

233

241

240

239

वर्ग मीटर

एयर

हेक्टेयर

5 0

60 0

00 0

70 0

30 0

80 0

20 0

10 0

50 0

90 0

30 0

3044/213

भोपालगढ़

213/1

212

216

211

214 0

50 0

20 0

215/2

218

220

221

472 0

20 0

30 0

40 0

20 0

686/1

686/2

686/3

685

688

689

691

692

693 0

50 0

90 0

80 0

20 0

20 442

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 15 , 2005/PAUSA 25 , 1926

[PART II- SEC.3 (ii ) ]

जिलाः भीलवाड़ा

राज्य : राजस्थान तहसील : भीलवाड़ा

क्षेत्रफल

गांव का नाम

खसरा सख्या

हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग मीटर

5 1

680

701

702

703

711

729

741

745/3

745/2

744

746

747

1024

2055

2100

2099

2098

2091

2093

2092

2089/2

2089/1

2088

2087

2082

2076

2077

2078

2353

2359

2354

2355 443 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 15 , 2005/ पौष 25,1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड3 ( ii ) ]

राज्य : राजस्थान

जिलाः भीलवाड़ा

तहसील : भीलवाड़ा

क्षेत्रफल

खसरा सख्या

गांव का नाम

वर्ग मीटर

एयर

हेक्टेयर

2358

2357

2360

2379

2380

2382

2383

2384

2389

2390

2395

2394

2396

2708

2709

2693

2694

2695

2697

2698

2699

2690

2689

2585

2584

2586

2602

2601

2603

2604

2617

2618

11G1/ 05-6 444

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 15 , 2005/PAUSA 25 , 1926

[PART II-SEC.3 (ii )]

राज्य : राजस्थान

जिलाः भीलवाड़ा

तहसील : भीलवाड़ा

क्षेत्रफल

खसरा सख्या

गांव का नाम

वर्ग मीटर

एयर

हेक्टेयर

2619

2624

2623

2622

2625

164/3

थलाकाखेड़ा

164/2

165

166

101

100

104

105

106

107

108

127

109

125

110

126

123

148

122

1-1

161/5

जवासिया

95 445 भारत का राजपत्र: जनवरी 15, 2005/ पौष 25,1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड3 ( ii) ]

जिलाः भीलवाड़ा

राज्य : राजस्थान तहसील : भीलवाड़ा

क्षेत्रफल

गांव का नाम

खसरा सख्या

वर्ग मीटर

हेक्टेयर एयर

100

239

030

238

101

240

241

242/1

249

248

247

06 .

243

244

218

208/3

220

: 00

210

209/2

812

60.

813

808

807

816

1.020/2

1020/3

7.0

1023

1024

1025 .

1037

1038

1268/1036

446

[PART II-SEC.7( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 15 , 2005 /PAUSA 25 , 1926

राज्य : राजस्यान

जिलाः भीलवाड़ा

तहसील : भीलवाड़ा

क्षेत्रफल

खसरा सख्या

गांव का नाम

वर्ग मीटर

हेक्टेयर एयर

1039

1041

1232/1042/1

1042

1043

1234/1043

1053

1054

1074

1272/1076

1273/1076

330

छाछेड़ी

332

340

341

342

343

346

348

347

350

[फा. सं. आर-25011/31/2004- ओ.आर-1 ]

रेणुका कुमार, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 11th January, 2005

S. O. 155 .--Whereas , it appears to the Central Government , that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum products in Rajasthan State from Beawar to Chittaurgarh a " Branch Pipeline to Chittaurgarhfrom Sidhpur- Sanganer Pipeline " , should be laid by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited.

And, whereas , it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline , it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid , and which is described in the Schedule annexed to this notification .

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

[भाग II- खण्ड3 ( ii) ]

447 भारत का राजपत्र: जनवरी 15, 2005/पौष 25,1926

Any person interested in the land described in the said schedule may, within twenty one days from the date on which the copies of this notification issued under sub -section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the said Act, as published in the Gazette of India , are made available to the general public , object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein or laying of the pipeline under the land , to Shri O. P. Gupta , Competent Authority ( Rajasthan ) , Indian Oil Corporation Limited ( Pipelines division ) , 33 , Muktanand Nagar , Gopalpura Bye- pass , Jaipur-302018, ( Rajasthan).

SCHEDULE

Tehsil : BHILWARA

District :BHILWARA

State : RAJASTHAN

Area

Khasara No.

Name of the Village

Hectare Are Sq.mtr. 1

5 KOCHARIYA

1558/5

299/1

298

297

265

276

286

285

278

279

284

283/1

283/2

282

398

399

222/1

80 448

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 15 , 2005/PAUSA 25 , 1926

District : BHILWARA Tehsil : BHILWARA

Khasara No. Name of the Village

2 1

400

401

402

404

403

405

202

201

196

195

410

197

194

413

412

138

136

714

715

716

718

721

720

719

1543/721

1544/727

818

819

817

834

835

857

858

860

[PART 11- SEC.3 ( ii) ] State : RAJASTHAN

Area

Hectare Are Sq.mtr .

00 0

10 0

50 0

20 0

50 0

30 0

50 0

00 0

30 0

20 0

50 0

60 0

00 0

20 0

50 0

80 0

50 0

80 0

40 0

10 0

30 0

20 0

60 0

20 0

90 0

20 449

भारत का राजपत्र: जनवरी 15, 2005/पौष 25,1926

[भाग II-खण्ड ( ii) ]

State : RAJASTHAN

District : BHILWARA

Tehsil : BHILWARA

Area

Khasara No.

Name of the Village

Are

Hectare

Sq.mtr.

856

859

852

863

851

864

850

844

865

845

846

898

900

905

904

911

912

913

914

927

925

917

918

919

1404

1405

1406

1409.

1410

1411

1417

1420

1418

1399 450

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 15 , 2005/PAUSA 25 , 1926

Tehsil : BHILWARA

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

District: BHILWARA

Khasara No. Name of the Village

2 1

Area

Hectare Are Sq.mtr.

5 3

70 0

1507/1418

1400

1448

1447

1449

1446

1450

1451

1445

1462

1460

1459

1466

1467

1468

1472

595/2 SUNDERPURA

3/1 MUJARAS

427

432

433

434

435

436

437

442

20 0

60 0

00 0

30 0

90 0

50 0

00 0

60 0

30 0

90 0

10 0

00 0

10 0

20 0

10 0

30 0

10 0

20 0

0 451 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 15, 2005/पौष 25,1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड3 ( ii ) ]

Tehsil : BHILWARA

State : RAJASTHAN

District:BHILWARA

Area

Khasara No.

Nameof the Village

Are

Hectare

Sq.mtr.

5 1

461

453

454

439

441

443

444

412

408

405

406

516

404

518

400

401

399

398

397

555

551

549

550

548

NOYAGOAN

102

195

196

199

200

203

219

11 GI /05-7 452

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 15 , 2005/PAUSA 25 , 1926

[PART II-SEC.3 (ii) ]

State : RAJASTHAN

District : BHILWARA

Tehsil : BHILWARA

Area

Khasara No.

Name of the Village

Are

Hectare

Sq.mtr .

220

221

222

223

224

230

231

232

233

241

240

239

3044/213

10 BHUPALGARH

213/1

212

216

211

214

215/2

218

220

221

472

686/1

686/2

686/3

685

688

689

691

692

693 [ भाग II- खण्ड3 ( ii) ]

453 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 15, 2005/पौष 25,1926

Tehsil : BHILWARA

District : BHILWARA

State : RAJASTHAN

Area

Khasara No.

Name of the Village

Are

Hectare

Sq.mtr.

5 1

680-

701

702

703

010

711

012

729

012

741

745/3

745/2

744

746

00.

747

1024

2055

2100

2099

009

2098

2091

0 09

2093

2092

2089/2

007

2089/1

2088

2087

2082

2076

2077

30.

2078

2353

2359

2354

2355 454

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 15 , 2005 /PAUSA 25 , 1926

[PART II- SEC.3 ( ii ) ]

State : RAJASTHAN Tehsil : BHILWARA

District : BHILWARA

Khasara No.

Name of the Village

Hectare

Area Are Sq.mtr .

5 1

2358

2357

2360

2379

2380

2382

2383

2384

2389

2390

2395

2394

2396

2708

2709

2693

2694

2695

2697

2698

2699

2690

2689

2585

2584

2586

2602

2601

2603

2604

2617

2618 455 [भाग II- खण्ड3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 15 , 2005/पौष 25,1926

State : RAJASTHAN

District : BHILWARA

Tehsil : BHILWARA

Area

Khasara No.

Name of the Village

Hectare Are Sq.mtr .

2619

2624

2623

2622

2625

60 THALON KA KHERA

164/3

164/2

165

166

101

100

104

105

106

107

108

127

109

125

110

126

123

148

122

161/5

JAVASIYA

11 456

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :

JANUARY 15 , 2005/PAUSA 25 , 1926

District : BHILWARA Tehsil : BHILWARA

Khasara No. Name of the Village

2 1

100

239

238

101

240

241

242/1

249

248

247

243

244

218

208/3

220

210

209/2

812

813

808

807

816

1020/2

1020/3

1023

1024

1025

1037

1038

1268/1036

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

Area

Are

Hectare

Sq.mtr.

5 3

50 0

30 0

20 0

80 0

20 0

00 0

90 0

50 0

40 0

20 0

60 0

80 0

70 0

00 0

20 0

50 0

0 457 [ भाग ।। - खण्ड3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 15, 2005/पौष 25,1926

State : RAJASTHAN

District: BHILWARA

Tehsil : BHILWARA

Area

Khasara No.

Name of the Village

Hectare Are Sq.mtr .

1039

1041

1232/1042/1

1042

1043

1234/1043

1053

1054

1074

1272/1076

1273/1076

330

80 CHHACHOERI

332

340

341

342

343

346

348

347

350

[No. R -25011/31/2004- O.R. - I ]

RENUKA KUMAR , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 11 जनवरी , 2005

का. आ. 156.- केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि राजस्थान राज्य में ब्यावर से चित्तौड़गढ़ तक पैट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए इण्डियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा ''सिद्धपुर- सांगानेर पाइपलाइन से चित्तौडगढ़ तक ब्रान्च लाईन " के कार्यान्वयन हेतु एक शाखा पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए ।

और केन्द्रीय सरकार को उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि उक्त भूमि में , जो इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूचि में वर्णित है और जिसमें पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने का प्रस्ताव है , उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए ।

अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, पैट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन्स (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम , 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , उक्त भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है । 458

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 15. 2005 / PAUSA 25. 1920

PART II- S3 ( ii ) | कोई भी व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है, उस तारीख से जिसको भारत के राजपत्र में यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती है , इक्कीस दिन के भीतर उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने या भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाने के संबंध में श्री ओ. पी. गुप्ता, सक्षम प्राधिकारी , (राजस्थान) , इण्डियन ऑयल कॉरपोरेशन लिमिटेड (पाइपलाइन्स प्रभाग), 33 , मुक्तानन्द नगर, गोपालपुरा बाईपास , जयपुर 302018 (राजस्थान) को लिखित रुप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।

अनुसूची

तहसील : मांडल

जिलाः भीलवाड़ा

राज्य : राजस्थान

क्षेत्रफल

गांव का नाम

खसरा सख्या

हेक्टेयर

वर्ग मीटर

एयर

1188

हिसणियां

1187

1200

1214

1216

1213

1222

1225

1224

1235

1247

1236

1242

1241

1239

1317

1315

1316

1325

1326

1327

1309

2026/1310

1981/1300

459 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 15, 2005/पौष 25,1926

[भाग ।। - खण्ड3( ii ) ]

राज्य: राजस्थान तहसील : मांडल

जिलाः भीलवाड़ा

क्षेत्रफल

खसरा सख्या

गांव का नाम

वर्ग मीटर

हेक्टेयर एयर

1300

1302

1786

1823

1824

1822

1839

1836

1850

1838

1851

1852

1847

1899

1903

1900

1902

1930

1923

1919

1925

1918

1914मिन

1965

1967

2057/1989

1968

104

सोदानपुरा

103

11GI/05-8 460

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 15 , 2005/PAUSA 25 , 1926 [PART 11-SEC . (ii)] तहसील : मांडल

जिलाः भीलवाड़ा

राज्य : राजस्थान

क्षेत्रफल

खसरा सख्या

गांव का नाम

हेक्टेयर

एयर वर्ग मीटर

110

102

111

116

115

504/124मिन

122

121

506/124मिन

507/126

128

140/1

142

140मिन

139

141

152

246

295

296

294

459/283

283मिन

453/283

282

275

274

276

277

273

60 461 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 15 , 2005/ पौष 25,1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड3( ii) ]

तहसील : मांडल

जिलाः भीलवाड़ा

राज्य : राजस्थान

क्षेत्रफल

गांव का नाम

खसरा सख्या

हेक्टेयर

वर्ग मीटर

एयर

255मिन

1.0

270

.00

258/1

258मिन

00-

326मिन

268

267

266

327

234

329

328

330

233

232

392/231/1

1.0

392/231/2

392/231मिन

393/231/1

3.93/231मिन

00 . 20

230

231/1

218

217

216

215

214

192

191

190

438/188

1344

40 भगवानपुरा 462

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 15, 2005 /PAUSA 25 , 1926

तहसील : मांडल

जिलाः भीलवाड़ा गांव का नाम

खसरा सख्या

2 1

4767/1345

1345

1354

1353

1359

1360

1349

1361

1362

1364

1366

1367मिन

1367/1

1466

1439

4878/1429

1525

1524

1612

1611

1610

1626

1627

4780/1599

4928/1598

1598

1597

1593

1594

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

क्षेत्रफल

वर्ग मीटर हेक्टेयर एयर

00 0

20 0

00 0

70 0

30 0

00 0

50 0

20 0

80 0

30 0

50 0

10 0

30 0

20 0

80 0

20 0

0 463 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 15, 2005/पौष 25,1926

[भाग II- खण्ड3( ii ) ]

तहसील : मांडल

जिलाः भीलवाड़ा

राज्य: राजस्थान

क्षेत्रफल

खसरा सख्या

गांव का नाम

हेक्टेयर

एयर वर्ग मीटर

5 1

1568

1998

1999

4770/2000

2000

2001

2002

2003

4759/2080

2080

2087

4880/2103

5170/2103

2088

5188/2089

2089

2090

2067

2093

2094

2092

2191

2192

2204

2193

2194

2205

2200

0 464

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 15 , 2005/PAUSA 25 , 1926

[PART II- SEC.3 (ii) ] तहसील : मांडल

जिलाः भीलवाड़ा

राज्य: राजस्थान

क्षेत्रफल

गांव का नाम

खसरा सख्या

वर्ग मीटर

हेक्टेयर एयर

5 1

2195

2199

2198

2214

2371

2368

2367

2369

2370

2360

2358

2357

2356

2355

2354

2351

2350

2417

सूरजपुरा

775/6

154

153 465 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 15, 2005/पौष 25,1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड ( ii) ]

तहसील : मांडल

जिलाः भीलवाड़ा

राज्य : राजस्थान

क्षेत्रफल गांव का नाम

खसरा सख्या

वर्ग मीटर

हेक्टेयर एयर

184

185

188

187

181

180

196

205

206

207

210

308

307

306

304

305

302

301

295

354

294

292

293

733/284

284

286

282

285

70 466

[PART II-SEC.3 (ⅱ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 15 , 2005/PAUSA 25 , 1926

तहसील : मांडल

राज्य : राजस्थान

जिलाः भीलवाड़ा

क्षेत्रफल

गांव का नाम

खसरा संख्या

हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग मीटर

281

280

278

279

380

300

718

भीमड़ियास

719

720

722

723

724

725

729

733

741

739

740

744

745

757

758

756

760

761

883

886 467 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 15 , 2005/पौष 25,1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड3 ( ii) ]

तहसील : मांडल

राज्य : राजस्थान

जिलाः भीलवाड़ा

क्षेत्रफल

गांव का नाम

खसरा सख्या

हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग मीटर 1

885

884

877

875

869

870

871

873

847

846

845

1480/846

834

844

835

836

832

831

830

1522/1022

1014

1021

1018

1020

1138

1162

20 राजपुरा

80 11 Gl/05-9 468

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 15 , 2005 /PAUSA 25 , 1926

[PART II-SEC.3(ii ) ]

राज्य : राजस्थान तहसील : मांडल

जिलाः भीलवाड़ा

क्षेत्रफल

खसरा संख्या

गांव का नाम

हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग मीटर

5 1

40 थोबकाखेड़ा

183/20

15/1

15/2

104

115

114

174/114

189/110

190/148

320

याबोला

343

342

341

321

313

03 469 भारत का राजपत्र: जनवरी 15 , 2005 /पौष 25,1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड3 (ii) ]

तहसील : मांडल

जिलाः भीलवाड़ा

राज्य : राजस्थान

क्षेत्रफल

गांव का नाम

खसरा सख्या

हेक्टेयर

वर्ग मीटर

एयर

312

311

310

309

324

325

865

1237/868

875

876

1220/876

904

903

902

1193/902

899

906

895

894

937

908

909

910

911

913

925

920

1127

80 470

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 15 , 2005/PAUSA 25. 1926

[PART II-SEC . 3( ii) ] तहसील : माडल

राज्य: राजस्थान

जिलाः भीलवाड़ा

क्षेत्रफल

गांव का नाम

खसरा सख्या

हेक्टेयर

वर्ग मीटर

एयर

297

भालड़ीखेड़ा

300

298

301.

304मिन

338/1

338मिन

337

403

404

402

400

407

399

408

406

419

410

418

417

653

625

624

627

633

632

631

630 471

भारत का राजपत्र: जनवरी 15, 2005 /पौष 25,1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड3 ( ii ) ]

तहसील : मांडल

राज्य : राजस्थान

जिलाः भीलवाड़ा

क्षेत्रफल

खसरा सख्या

गांव का नाम

हेक्टेयर

वर्ग मीटर

एयर

638

2855/1320

16 भादू

2850/1320

2901/1320

2985/1320

2984/1320

2982/1320

1298

1308

1299

1300

1301

158

159

155

161

162/1

163

165

170

169

168

167

199

480

477

40 472

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA . JANUARY 15 , 2005/PAUSA 25 , 1926

[ PART II-SEC.3 ( ii ) ] तहसील : मांडल

राज्य: राजस्थान

जिलाः भीलवाड़ा

क्षेत्रफल

गांव का नाम

खसरा संख्या

हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग मीटर

476

475

518

523

524

526

527

529

573

572

571

576

567

566

613

614

612

615

616

627

617

625

622

623

630

624

631

731 473 भारत का राजपत्र: जनवरी 15, 2005/पौष 25,1926

[भाग II- खण्डं 3 (ii ) ]

तहसील : मांडल

राज्य : राजस्थान

जिलाः भीलवाड़ा

क्षेत्रफल

गांव का नाम

खसरा संख्या

वर्ग मीटर

हेक्टेयर एयर

729

735

777

778

780

783

784

786

785

790

791

792

793

797

796

795

2934/704

2862/2290

2821/2290

2914/2290

2916/2290

2926/2290

2840/2290

2837/2290

2853/2290

2924/2290

2292मिन

2834/2292

474

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JANUARY 15 , 2005 /PAUSA 25 , 1926

[ PART II-SEC3 ( ii ) ]

राज्य : राजस्थान तहसील : मांडल

जिलाः भीलवाड़ा

क्षेत्रफल

गांव का नाम

खसरा सख्या

हेक्टेयर

वर्ग मीटर

एयर

2684/2292

1806

घोड़ास

1807

1809

1810

1803

2073/1

2128

2133

2134

2136

2135

2149

2148

2155

2161/1

2162

2178

2177

2176

2175

2173

2216

2218

2217

2274/1

2274/2

2288

2289 475 [भाग II- खण्ड3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 15, 2005/ पौष 25,1926

तहसील : मांडल

जिलाः भीलवाड़ा

राज्य : राजस्थान

क्षेत्रफल

गांव का नाम

खसरा संख्या

हेक्टेयर

वर्ग मीटर

एयर

2291

2302

2303

2318

2317

2319

2320

2321

2334/1

2333

2332

2348/1

2348/2

2349

2350

2358

2352

2351

153

पीयास

152

154

155

108

107

113

112

20 11 Gl/05-10 476

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 15 , 2005/PAUSA 25 , 1926

तहसील: मांडल

[PART II-SBC.7( ii) ] राज्य : राजस्याव

जिलाः भीलवाड़ा

गांव का नाम

क्षेत्रफल

खसरा संख्या

590

593

594 ,)

596

693

604

689

688

687 CT

682

683

674

754

755

757

761

774

789

791

788

786

797'

795

798.

799

796 हेक्टेयर

वर्ग मीटर

एयर

5 0

40 0

20 0

50 0

70 0

30 0

00 0

30 0

20 0

80 0

70 0

20 0

40 0

30 0

20 0

80 0

20 0

30 0

00 0

20 0

00 0

10 0

10 477 [भाग II- खण्ड3( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 15, 2005/पौष 25,1926 :

तहसील : मांडल

जिलाः भीलवाड़ा

राज्य: राजस्थान

क्षेत्रफल

गांव का नाम

खसरा संख्या

वर्ग मीटर

हेक्टेयर एयर

$ 4

800

2134

2142

892149

2150

2151

2153

2152

2179

2191

2159

2192

2262

2264

2263

2259

2254

2252

2251

2245

32226

2227

2244

2230

2334

2335

2337

1281

अमरगढ़ 478

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 15 , 2005/PAUSA 25 , 1926

[ PART 11-SEC.3 ( ii ) ] तहसील : मांडल

जिलाः भीलवाड़ा

राज्य : राजस्थान

क्षेत्रफल गांव का नाम

खसरा सख्या

हेक्टेयर

वर्ग मीटर

एयर

5 1

1284

1283

1293

1288

1289

1356

1355मिन

1354

1353

1352

1350

1385

1387

1386

1388

1392

1391

1393

1394

1395

1608

1604

1609

1610

1611

1612

1618/1

1617 479 [ भाग II- खण्ड3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 15 , 2005 /पौष 25,1926

तहसील : मांडल

जिलाः भीलवाड़ा

राज्य : राजस्थान

क्षेत्रफल गांव का नाम

खसरा सख्ख्या

हेक्टेयर

वर्ग मीटर

एयर 1

1616

1615

1720

1717

1715

1716

1666

1665

1664

1649

1663

1661

1658

1657

1659

[फा. सं. आर-25011/31/2004-ओ.आर-। ]

रेणुका कुमार, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 11th January. 2005

S. O. 156.-Whereas , it appears to the Central Government, that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum products in Rajasthan State from Beawar to Chittaurgarh a " Branch Pipeline to Chittaurgarh from Sidhpur - Sanganer Pipeline " , should be laid by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited.

And , whereas , it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline , it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid , and which is described in the Schedule annexed to this notification .

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

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JANUARY 15, 2005/PAUSA 25 , 1926

[PART II-SEC.3 ( ii) ] of India, are made available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein or laying of the pipeline under the land, to Shri O. P. Gupta , Competent Authority ( Rajasthan ) , Indian Oil Corporation Limited ( Pipelines division ) , 33 , Muktanand Nagar , Gopalpura Bye- pass , Jaipur 302018 , ( Rajasthan) .

SCHEDULE

Tehsil : MANDAL

District : BHILWARA

Name of the Village

Khasara No. 1

2 HISANIYA

1188

1187

1200

1214

1216

1213

1222

1225

1224

1235

1247

1236

1242

1241

1239

1317

1315

1316

1325

1326

1327

1309 State : RAJASTHAN

Area

Hectare Are Sq.mtr. 3

2026/1310

1981/1300

1300 16

40 481

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 15 , 2005/ पौष 25,1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड3 ( ii ) ]

State : RAJASTHAN

District : BHILWARA

Tehsil : MANDAL

Area

Khasara No.

Name of the Village

Are

Hectare

Sq.mtr.

1302

1786

1823

1824

1822

1839

1836

1850

1838

1851

1852

1847

1899

1903

1900

1902

1930

1923

1919

1925

1918

1914Min

1965

1967

2057/1989

1968

104

SODANPURA

103

110

102 482

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 15 , 2005 /PAUSA 25 , 1926

Tehsil : MANDAL

District : BHILWARA

Khasara No. Name of the Village

111

116

115

504/124Min

122

121

506/124Min

507/126

128

140/1

142

140Min

139

141

152

246

295

296

294

459/283

283Min

453/283

282

275

274

276

277

273

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

Area

Hectare Are Sq.mtr. 3

5 0

90 0

10 0

50 0

40 0

50 0

90 0

40 0

50 0

10 0

30 0

20 0

10 0

50 0

00 0

60 0

04 [ भाग II- खण्ड3 ( ii ) ]

483

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 15, 2005/पौष 25,1926

State : RAJASTHAN Tehsil : MANDAL

District : BHILWARA

Khasara No.

Name of the Village

Area Are

Hectare

Sq.mtr.

255Min

270

258/1

258Min

326Min

268

267

266

327

234

329

328

330

233

232

392/231/1

392/231/2

392/231Min

393/231/1

393/231Min

230

231/1

218

217

08 70

216

215

214

192

191

190

438/188

1344

40 BHAGWANPURA

11 GI/ 05-11 484

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 15 , 2005/PAUSA 25 , 1926

[PART 11- S3 ( ii )|

State : RAJASTHAN Tehsil : MANDAL

District : BHILWARA

Area

Khasara No.

Name of the Village

Hectare Are Sq.mtr. 1

4767/1345

1345

1354

1353

1359

1360

1349

1361

1362

1364

1366.

1367Min

1367/1

1466

1439

4878/1429

1525

1524

1612

1611

1610

1626

1627

4780/1599

4928/1598

1598

1597

1593

1594 485 [ भाग II- खण्ड3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जनवरी 15, 2005/पौष 25,1926

Tehsil : MANDAL

District : BHILWARA

State : RAJASTHAN

Area

Khasara No.

Name of the Village

Are

Hectare

Sq.mtr .

1568

1998

1999

4770/2000

2000

2001

2002

2003

4759/2080

2080

2087

4880/2103

5170/2103

2088

5188/2089

2089

2090

2067

2093

2094

2092

2191

2192

2204

2193

2194

2205

2200

80 486

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 15 , 2005/PAUSA 25 , 1926

District : BHILWARA

Tehsil : MANDAL

Khasara No. Name of the Village

2 1

2195

2199

2198

2214

2371

2368

2367

2369

2370

2360

2358

2357

2356

2355

2354

2351

2350

2417

2 SURAJPURA

775/6

154

153

[PART II- SEC . ( ii ) ] State : RAJASTHAN

Area

Hectare Are Sq.mtr.

5 3

80 0

40 0

60 0

40 0

60 0

13 80 0

10 0

20 0

10 0

20 0

50 0

00 0

70 0

20 0

40 0 487 भारत का राजपत्र: जनवरी 15, 2005/पौष 25,1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड3 ( ii) ]

Tehsil : MANDAL

District : BHILWARA

State : RAJASTHAN

Area

Khasara No.

Name of the Village

Are

Hectare

Sq.mtr.

184

185

188

187

181

180

196

205

206

207

210

308

307

306

304

305

302

301

295

354

294

292

293

0 .

733/284

284

286

282

285

70 488

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JANUARY 15 , 2005/ PAUSA 25 , 1920

Tehsil : MANDAL

District : BHILWARA

Khasara No. Name of the Village

281

280

278

279

380

300 BHIMADIYAS

718

719

720

722

723

724

725

729

733

741

739

740

744

745

757

758

756

760

761

883

886

PART 11 -SEC3 ( ii )| State : RAJASTHAN

Hectare

Area Are Sq.mtr. 3

5 0

40 0

20 0

10 0

80 0

90 0

20 0

40 0

00 0

30 0

20 0

30 0

60 0

20 0

70 0

30 0

00 0

40 0

02 489 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 15, 2005/पौष 25,1926

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

Tehsil : MANDAL

District : BHILWARA

State : RAJASTHAN

Khasara No.

Name of the Village

Area Are

Hectare

Sq.mtr .

885

884

877

875

869

870

871

873

847

846

845

1480/846

834

844

835

836

832

831

830

1522/1022

1014

1021

1018

1020

1138

1162

70 RAJPURA

80 490

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 15, 2005 /PAUSA 25 , 1926

[PART II-SEC.7(ii)]

District: BHILWARA

Tehsil : MANDAL

Khasara No. Name of the Village

2 1

20 THOB KA KHERA

16 State : RAJASTHAN

Area

Hectare Are Sq.mtr. 3

40 0

70 0

90 0

183/20

15/1

15/2

104

115

114 0

30 0

10 0

80 0

60 0

174/114

189/110

190/148

320 THABOLA

343

342

341

321

313 0

20 0

70 0

30 0

00 0

40 491 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 15 , 2005 /पौष 25,1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड3( ii) ]

District : BHILWARA

State : RAJASTHAN Tehsil : MANDAL

Area

Khasara No.

Name of the Village

Are

Hectare

Sq.mtr.

312

311

310

309

324

325

865

1237/868

08 90

875

876

1220/876

904

903

902

1193/902

899

906

895

894

937

908

909

910

05 20

911

913

925

920

1127

11 GI /05-12 492

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 15 , 2005/ PAUSA 25 , 26

[PART 11-SEC. 1 (ii)] Tehsil : MANDAL

District : BHILWARA

State : RAJASTHAN

Area

Khasara No.

Name of the Village

Hectare Are Sq.mtr. 1

297

BHALARI KHERA

300

298

301

304Min

338/1

338Min

337

403

404

402

400

407

399

408

406

419

410

418

417

653

625

624

627

633

632

631

630 493 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 15, 2005/ पौष 25,1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड3( ii ) ]

Tehsil : MANDAL

District : BHILWARA

State : RAJASTHAN

Area

Khasara No.

Name of the Village

Are

Hectare

Sq.mtr. 1

638

BHADU

2855/1320

2850/1320

2901/1320

2985/1320

2984/1320

2982/1320

1298

1308

1299

1300

1301

158

159

155

161

162/1

163

165

170

169

168

167

199

480

477

40 494

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 15 , 2005/PAUSA 25 , 1926

[PART 11- SEC.3 ( ii )|

State : RAJASTHAN

District: BHILWARA

Tehsil : MANDAL

Area

Khasara No.

Name of the Village

Hectare Are Sq.mtr .

476

475

518

523

524

526

527

529

573

572

571

576

567

566

613

614

612

615

616

627

617

625

622

623

630

624

631

731

0 495 [ भाग II- खण्ड3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 15, 2005/पौष 25,1926

Tehsil : MANDAL

District : BHILWARA

State : RAJASTHAN

Area

Khasara No.

Name of the Village

Are

Hectare

Sq.mtr .

729

735

777

778

780

783

784

786

785

790

791

792

793

797

796

795

2934/704

2862/2290

2821/2290

2914/2290

2916/2290

2926/2290

2840/2290

2837/2290

2853/2290

2924/2290

2292Min

2834/2292

12 496

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 15 , 2005/PAUSA 25 , 1926

Tehsil : MANDAL

[ PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ]

District BHILWARA

Khasara No. Name of the Village

2 State : RAJASTHAN

Hectare

Area Are Sq.mtr .

2684/2292

GHORAS

1806

1807

1809

1810

1803 0

20 0

70 0

30 0

60 0

2073/1

2128

2133

2134

2136

2135

2149

2148

2155 0

90 0

70 0

40 0

20 0

40 0

2161/1

2162

2178

2177

2176

2175

2173

2216

2218

2217 0

70 0

50 0

70 0

80 0

20 0

70 0

60 0

10 0

2274/1

60 0

2274/2

2288

2289

80 0

60 0 497 [ भाग II- खण्ड3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जनवरी 15, 2005/पौष 25, 1926

District : BHILWARA

State : RAJASTHAN Tehsil : MANDAL

Khasara No.

Name of the Village

Hectare

Area Are Sq.mtr.

4 1

2291

2302

2303

2318

2317

2319

2320

2321

2334/1

2333

2332

2348/1

2348/2

2349

2350

2358

2352

2351

PITHAS

153

152

154

155

108

107

113

112

0 498

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 15 , 2005 /PAUSA 25 , 1926

District : BHILWARA

Tehsil : MANDAL

Khasara No. Name of the Village

2 1

590

593

594

596

693

604

689

688

687

682

683

674

754

755

757

761

774

789

791

788

786

797

795

798

799

796

IPART 11- S3 ( ii ) | State : RAJASTHAN

Area

Are

Hectare

Sq.mtr .

5 0

20 0

50 0

70 0

30 0

00 0

20 0

70 0

40 0

30 0

80 0

50 0

20 0

00 0

20 0

10 0

10 499 [भाग 11- खण्ड3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 15, 2005/पौष 25, 1926

State : RAJASTHAN

District : BHILWARA

Tehsil : MANDAL

Area.

Khasara No.

Name of the Village

Hectare Are Sq.mtr .

5 1

800

2134

2142

2149

2150

2151

06 40

2153

2152

2179

2191

2159

2192

2262

2264

2263

2259-

2254

2252

2251

2245.

01.

2226.

2227

2244

2230

2334

2335

2337

1281

AMARGARH

11G1/05-13 500

[PART 11-SEC . 3 ( if )] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 15, 2005/PAUSA 25 , 1926

District: BHILWARA

State : RAJASTHAN Tehsil : MANDAL

Area

Khasara No.

Name of the Village

Hectare Are Sq.mtr .

5 1

1284

1283

1293

1288

1289

1356

1355Min

1354

1353

1352

1350

1385

1387

1386

1388

1392

1391

1393

1394

1395

1608

1604

1609

1610

1611

1612

1618/1

1617

60 501 [ भाग II- खण्ड3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 15, 2005/पौष 25,1926

State : RAJASTHAN

District : BHILWARA

Tehsil : MANDAL

Area

Khasara No.

Name of the Village

Hectare Are Sq.mtr.

5 1

1616

1615

1720

1717

1715

1716

1666

1665

1664

1649

1663

1661

1658

1657

1659

[No. R- 25011/31/2004- O.R. - I ]

RENUKA KUMAR , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 11 जनवरी, 2005

का. आ. 157.- केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि राजस्थान राज्य में ब्यावर से चित्तौड़गढ़ तक पैट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए इण्डियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा ''सिद्धपुर- सांगानेर पाइपलाइन से चित्तौडगढ़ तक ब्रान्च लाईन" के कार्यान्वयन हेतु एक शाखा पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए ।

अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, पैट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन्स (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम , 1962 ( 1962 का 50) की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , उक्त भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है ।

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 15 , 2005/PAUSA 25 , 1926

[PART II-SEC.3 (ii) ] के संबंध में श्री ओ. पी. गुप्ता , सक्षम प्राधिकारी, (राजस्थान), इण्डियन ऑयल कॉरपोरेशन लिमिटेड (पाइपलाइन्स प्रभाग), 33 , भुक्तानन्द नगर, गोपालपुरा बाईपास, जयपुर 302018 (राजस्थान) को लिखित रुप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।

अनुसूची तहसील : राशमी

राज्य : राजस्थान

जिला: चित्तौड़गढ़

खसरा सख्या गांव का नाम

2 1

327 नेवरीया

328

330

329

336

333

335

338

371

370 क्षेत्रफल

वर्ग मीटर

एयर

हेक्टेयर

02 00

478मिन

479

490

492

489

777

764

785

786

761

762

765

757

758

756

753

754

821

823 0

20 503 [ भाग II- खण्ड3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 15 , 2005/पौप 25 , 1926

तहसील : राशमी

राज्य : राजस्थान

जिला : चित्तौड़गढ़

क्षेत्रफल

खसरा सख्या

गांव का नाम

वर्ग मीटर

हेक्टेयर एयर

831

830

834

1163

1162

1088

1103

1129

1123

1128

1127

1124

1116

1117

1125

05 20

1290

1296

1295

1291

1294

1293

1304

1303

1329

1330

1837

90 माताजी का मण्डपीया

136

134

24 80

146

147

249

90 504

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA JANUARY 15 , 2005/ PAUSA 25 , 1926

PART II- Sre.3 ( ii) | तहसील : राशमी

राज्य: राजस्थान

जिला : चित्तौड़गढ़

क्षेत्रफल

गांव का नाम

खसरा संख्या

हेक्टेयर

वर्ग मीटर

एयर

250

251

258

243

242

260

259

261

262

265

267

266

415

417

420

419

418

[ फा. स. आर-25011/31/2004- ओ.आर-1 ]

रेणुका कुमार, अवर सचिव New Delhi the 11th January , 2005

S. O. 157. Whereas , it appears to the Central Government, that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum products in Rajasthan State from Beawar to Chittaurgarh a " Branch Pipeline to Chittaurgarhfrom Sidhpur-Sanganer Pipeline " , should be laid by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited.

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

505 [ भाग II- खण्ड3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 15, 2005/पौष 25,1926

Any person interested in the land described in the said schedule may , within twenty one days from the date on which the copies of this notification issued under sub-section( 1 ) of Section 3 of the said Act , as published in the Gazette of India , are made available to the general public , object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein or laying of the pipeline under the land , to Shri O. P. Gupta , Competent Authority (Rajasthan ) , Indian Oil Corporation Limited ( Pipelines division ) , 33 , Muktanand Nagar , Gopalpura Bye- pass , Jaipur- 302018 , ( Rajasthan ) .

SCHEDULE

State : RAJASTHAN Tehsil : RASHMI

District : CHITTAURGARH

Area

Khasara No.

Name of the Village

Are

Hectare

Sq.mtr.

5 1

00 NEVERIYA

327

328

330

329

336

03 00

333

02 40

335

06 70

338

371

370

478Min

11 20

479

16 10

490

03 70

492

03 40

489

777

00 90

764

785

786

761

762

00 20

765

757

758

02 20

0 506

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JANUARY 15 , 2005 /PAUSA 25, 1926

[PART II- SEC.3 (ii) ] Tehsil : RASHM !

State : RAJASTHAN

District: CHITTAURGARH

Area

Khasara No.

Name of the Village

Are

Hectare

Sq.mtr. 1

03 20

756

753

05 50

754

821

09 80

20 20

823

831

830

834

15 50

1163

1162

1088

10 10

1103

1129

00 40

1123

1128

1127

1124

00 40

1116

00 20

1117

1125

1290

00 20

1296

1295

1291

1294

1293

03 30

1304

1303

1329

1330

1837

10 80

136

MATA JEE KA MANDPIYA

134 507 [ भाग II- खण्ड3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 15, 2005 /पौष 25,1926

Tehsil : RASHMI

District : CHITTAURGARH

State : RAJASTHAN

Area

Khasara No. 、

Name of the Village

Are

Hectare

Sq.mtr. 1

146

06 30

147

00 20

249

27 90

250

01 40

251

07 60

258

00 20

243

0 01 10

242

11 30

260

08 30

259

00 20

261

23 30

262

10 80

265

0 02 50

267

0 00 90

266

10 30

415

02 20

417

14 80

420

01 00

419

0 09 40

418

[No. R-25011/31/2004- O.R. -I ]

RENUKA KUMAR, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 12 जनवरी , 2005

का. आ. 158.-। केन्द्रीय सरकार को ऐसा प्रतीत होता है कि लोक हित में यह आवश्यक है कि गुजरात राज्य में विरमगाम से हरियाणा राज्य में पानीपत तक राजस्थान राज्य में चाकसू से होती हुई अपरिष्कृत तेल के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा एक पाईपलाईन बिछाई जानी चाहिए ।

और केन्द्रीय सरकार को यह प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी पाइपलाइनें बिछाने के लिये उसे भूमि मे जो इस अधिसूचना से सलंग्न अनुसूची में वर्णित है और जिसमें पाईपलाइन बिछाए जाने का प्रस्ताव है , उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करना आवश्यक है ;

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

11 Gl /05-14 [PART II-SEC.3 (ii)] 508

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JANUARY 15 , 2005 /PAUSA 25 , 1926

उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध कोई व्यक्ति, उस तारीख से जिसको, भारत के राजपत्र में यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियां साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने या भूमि के नीचे पाईपलाइन बिछाने के संबधं में लिखित रुप में आक्षेप , श्री सतीश कुमार, सक्षम प्राधिकारी , सलाया- मथुरा पाइपलाइन(संवर्द्धन) परियोजना , इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, कोठी नं. 1439 , सेक्टर 15 , अरबन इस्टेट, सोनीपत -131001 (हरियाणा) को कर सकेगा ।

अनुसूची

राज्यः हरियाणा

जिलाः झज्जर

तहसीलः झज्जर

क्षेत्रफल

का

खसरा/किला

संख्या

मुस्ततील संख्या

नाम गाँव

हदबस्त संख्या

वर्गमीटर

हेक्टेयर

एयर

10/2

100

झज्जर

1430

[फा. सं. आर-25011/ 24/2001-ओ.आर-1 ]

रेणुका कुमार, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 12th January, 2005

S. O. 158. Whereas it appears to the Central Government , that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of crude oil from Viramgam in the state of Gujarat to Panipat in the state of Haryana via Chaksu in the state of Rajasthan , a pipeline should be laid by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited ;

And ,whereas , it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline , it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is described in the schedule annexed to this notification:

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

509 [ भाग II- खण्ड3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 15, 2005/पौष 25,1926

Any person. interested in the land described in the said schedule may , within twenty one days from the date on which the copies of this notification , as published in the Gazette of India , are made available to the general public , object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein or laying of the pipeline under the land to Sh . Satish Kumar, Competent Authority. Salaya - Mathura pipeline ( Augmentation ) Project , Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. , Kothi No. 1439 , Sector- 15 , Urban Estate , Sonepat - 131001 ( Haryana ) .

Schedule

Tehsil- Jhajjar

District-Jhajjar

State-Haryana

Area

Khasra /Kila

No.

Are

Hectare

Sq. Mtr.

Name of Village Hadbast No. Mustil No.

100

10/2

28 Jhajjar

1430

[No. R-25011 /24/2001 -O.R. - I ] RENUKA KUMAR, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 12 जनवरी , 2005

का. आ. 159, केन्द्रीय सरकार को ऐसा प्रतीत होता है कि लोक हित में यह आवश्यक है कि गुजरात राज्य में विरमगाम से हरियाणा राज्य में पानीपत तक राजस्थान राज्य में चाकसू से होती हुई अपरिष्कृत तेल के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा एक पाईपलाईन बिछाई जानी चाहिए ।

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

उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि मे हितबद्ध कोई व्यक्ति, उस तारीख से जिसको, भारत के राजपत्र में यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियां साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने या भूमि के नीचे पाईपलाइन बिछाने के संबधं में लिखित रुप में आक्षेप , श्री सतीश कुमार , सक्षम प्राधिकारी , सलाया - मथुरा पाइपलाइन (संवर्द्धन) परियोजना , इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, कोठी नं . 1439 , सेक्टर 15 , अरबन इस्टेट, सोनीपत-131001 (हरियाणा) को कर सकेगा । 510

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 15, 2005/PAUSA 25 , 1926

[PART II-SEC.3 ( ii)]

अनुसूची

तहसीलः रेवाडी

जिला: रेवाडी

नाम गॉव का हदबस्त संख्या

मुस्ततील संख्या

राज्यः हरियाणा क्षेत्रफल

खसरा/किला

संख्या

चांग

238

111

14 राजपुर खालसा

वर्गमीटर

हेक्टेयर एयर

[फा. सं. आर-25011/30/2001- ओ.आर-1 ]

रेणुका कुमार, अवर सच्चिन

New Delhi , the 12th January, 2005

S. O. 159.- Whereas it appears to the Central Government , that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of crude oil from Viramgam in the state of Gujarat to Panipat in the state of Haryana via Chaksu in the state of Rajasthan , a pipeline should be laid by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited ;

And , whereas , it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline , it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is described in the schedule annexed to this notification :

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

Any person interested in the land described in the said schedule may , within twenty one days from the date on which the copies of this notification , as published in the Gazette of India , are made available to the general public , object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein or laying of the pipeline under the land to Sh . Satish Kumar , Competent Authority , Salaya - Mathura pipeline ( Augmentation ) Project , Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. , Kothi No. 1439 , Sector - 15 , Urban Estate , Sonepat - 131001 ( Haryana ) .

[ भाग II- खण्ड3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जनवरी 15, 2005/पौष 25,1926

511

Schedule

Tehsil- Rewari

District- Rewari

State-Haryana

Khasra/Kila

Area

No.

Name of Village

Mustil No.

Hadbast No.

Are

Hectare

Sq . Mtr.

7 238

Chang

111

Rajpur Khalsa

[No. R-25011/30/2001 -O.R. -I ] RENUKA KUMAR , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 12 जनवरी, 2005

का. आ. 160.- केन्द्रीय सरकार को ऐसा प्रतीत होता है कि लोक हित में यह आवश्यक है कि गुजरात राज्य म विरमगाम से हरियाणा राज्य में पानीपत तक राजस्थान राज्य में चाकसू से होती हुई अपरिष्कृत तेल के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा एक पाईपलाईन बिछाई जानी चाहिए ।

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

उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध कोई व्यक्ति, उस तारीख से जिसको , भारत के राजपत्र में यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियां साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने या भूमि के नीचे पाईपलाइन बिछाने के संबधं में लिखित रुप में आक्षेप , श्री सतीश कुमार , सुक्षम प्राधिकारी, सलाया- मथुरा पाइपलाइन(संवर्द्धन) परियोजना , इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, कोती नं. 1439 , सेक्टर- 15 , अरबन इस्टेट, सोनीपत -131001 ( हरियाणा) को कर सकेगा । 512

[PART II-SEC.3 (ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 15 , 2005 /PAUSA 25 , 1926

अनुसूची

राज्यः हरियाणा

जिलाः रोहतक

तहसीलः रोहतक

क्षेत्रफल

का

खसरा/किला

संख्या

हदबस्त संख्या

मुस्ततील संख्या

गॉव नाम

वर्गमीटर

हेक्टेयर एयर

390

कुलताना

1413

[फा. सं. आर-25011/17/2001- ओ.आर-1 ]

रेणुका कुमार, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 12th January, 2005

S. O. 160.- , Whereas it appears to the Central Government , that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of crude oil from Viramgam in the state of Gujarat to Panipat in the state of Haryana via Chaksu in the state of Rajasthan , a pipeline should be laid by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited ;

And ,whereas , it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline , it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is described in the schedule annexed to this notification :

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

513 [ भाग II- खण्ड3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जनवरी 15, 2005/पौष 25,1926

Schedule

Tehsil- Rohtak

District- Rohtak

State-Haryana

Khasra/Kila

Area

Hadbast No.

Mustil No.

No.

Are

Name of Village

Hectare

Sq . Mtr.

7 Kultana

390 1413

82 05

[No. R -25011 /17/2001 -Q.R. - I ] RENUKA KUMAR , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 12 जनवरी, 2005

का. आ. 161.- केन्द्रीय सरकार को ऐसा प्रतीत होता है कि लोक हित में यह आवश्यक है कि गुजरात राज्य में विरमगाम से हरियाणा राज्य में पानीपत तक राजस्थान राज्य में चाकसू से होती हुई अपरिष्कृत तेल के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा एक पाईपलाईन बिछाई जानी चाहिए ।

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

उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध कोई व्यक्ति, उस तारीख से जिसको , भारत के राजपत्र में यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियां साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं , इक्कीस दिन के भीतर उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने या भूमि के नीचे पाईपलाइन बिछाने के संबधं में लिखित रुप में आक्षेप , श्री सतीश कुमार, सक्षम प्राधिकारी , सलाया- मथुरा पाइपलाइन ( संवर्द्धन ) परियोजना, इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड , कोठी नं. 1439, सेक्टर 15 , अरबन इस्टेट , सोनीपत-131001 ( हरियाणा) को कर सकेगा । 514

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 15 , 2005 /PAUSA, 25 , 1926

[PART II-SEC . (ii) ]

अनुसूची

जिलाः सोनीपत

तहसीलः गोहाना

का

राज्यः हरियाणा

क्षेत्रफल

खसरा/किला

संख्या

हदबस्त संख्या

मुस्ततील संख्या

नाम गॉव

4 1

जोली

02/1

09/2

वर्गमीटर

एयर

हैक्टेयर

2€

[फा. सं. आर-25011/26/2001- ओ.आर-1 ]

रेणुका कुमार, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 12th January, 2005

S. O. 161. , Whereas it appears to the Central Government , that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of crude oil From Viramgam in the state of Gujarat to Panipat in the state of Haryana via Chaksu in the state of Rajasthan , a pipeline should be laid by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited;

And , whereas , it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline , it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is described in the schedule annexed to this notification :

Any person interested in the land described in the said schedule may , within twenty one days from the date on which the copies of this notification , as published in the Gazette of India , are made available to the general public , object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein or laying of the pipeline under the land to Sh . Satish Kumar , Competent Authority, Salaya - Mathura pipeline ( Augmentation ) Project , Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. , Kothi No. 1439 , Sector - 15 , Urban Estate , Sonepat - 131001 ( Haryana ) .

515

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 15, 2005/पौष 25,1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड3 ( ii) ]

Schedule

Tehsil- Gohana

District- Sonepat

Hadbast Mustil

State-Haryana

Khasra/Kila

No.

No. Name of Village

4 Jauli

3 8

1 10

9/2

2/1

Area

Are

Hectare

Sq . Mtr.

56 0 0

04 04

26 0

[No. R-25011/26/2001 - O.R. -I RENUKA KUMAR , Under Secy.

नईदिल्ली, 13 जनवरी , 2005

का. आ. 162. - केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि मुन्द्रा से दिल्ली तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई आनी चाहिए ;

और केन्द्रीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी भूमि में जो इस से उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित है , जिसमें उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाएँ जाने का प्रस्ताव है , उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए ;

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

कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है , उस तारीख से जिसको इस अधिसूचना से युक्त भारत के राजपत्र की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के लिए उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के सम्बन्ध में श्री शिवदत्त गौड़ , सक्षम प्राधिकारी , मुन्द्रा -दिल्ली पेट्रोलियम उत्पाद पाइपलाइन परियोजना , हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड , 16 , कृष्णा विहार , नारायण निवास के पास , गोपालपुरा बाईपास रोड़ , जयपुर 302018 (राजस्थान) को लिखित रुप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा । 11 GI /05-15 516

[PART II-SEC . ( ii) THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 15 , 2005 /PAUSA 25 , 1926

अनुसूची

जिला : अजमेर

तहसील : अजमेर

राज्य: राजस्थान

क्षेत्रफल क्रम सं.

खसरा सं.

हेक्टेयर

वर्ग मीटर

एयर गाँव का नाम

95 1. सराधना

5554(स.भूमि)

5515

5516/1

5516/2

}

5517/1 (स.भूमि)

5517/2

5518

5519

5521

5522

5523

5533

5524

5532

5525

5526

5528

5529

5539

5540

5544

5545

5546

5447

5448

5449

5451

5452

5431

5432

5433/1

0:0

5433/2

{

5421

5420 517:

भारत का राजपत्र: जनवरी 15, 2005/पौष 25,1926

[भाग II- खण्ड3 ( ii ) ]

जिला : अजमेर

तहसील : अजमेर

सं.

खसरा सं.

गाँव का नाम

3 1

5423 1. सराधमा (जारी ... )

5415(पी.डब्ल्यू.डी.सड़क)

5397

5396

5395

5394

1059

1060

1094

1097

1091

1103

1104

1105

1106

1107

1-109

1108

1.134

1133

1132

1124

1128

1150

1127

1181 (पी.डब्ल्यू. डी. सड़क)

1182 (पी.डब्ल्यू.डी. सड़क)

राज्य : राजस्थान

क्षेत्रफल

हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग मीटर 4

6 0

12 0

96 0

26 0

1:0

55 0

0.9

27 0

80 0

22 0

47 0

02 0

15 0

20 0

56 0

93 0

88:

80 0

1183 (पी.डब्ल्यू,डी. सड़क)

1190

1189

41 0

1192(स.रास्ता)

1199

1209

1210

1213 0

05 0

38 0

59 518

[PART II-SEC.3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 15 , 2005/PAUSA 25 , 1926

राज्य : राजस्थान

तहसील : अजमेर

जिला: अजमेर

क्षेत्रफल म सं.

गाँव का नाम

एयर वर्ग मीटर

हेक्टेयर

खसरा सं .

1212

1. सराधना (जारी ...)

1226

1216

1225

1217

1222

1221

1239

1240

1243

1242

1241

1280

1281

1282

5331

1267(स.पाल)

1283

1285

1286

1287

5260(स. रास्ता)

5252

5253

5251

1366

1370

1373

1374

1372

1376

1378

1391

1396

1395

1511

76 [भान II- खण्ड3 ( ii) ]

519

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 15 , 2005 /पौष 25,1926

राज्य : राजस्थान

जिला : अजमेर

तहसील : अजमेर

क्रम सं.

खसरा सं.

गाँव का नाम

3 1

1512 1. सराधना (जारी...)

1513

1514

1515

1524

5230 (स. बरडा)

1525

1526

1527

क्षेत्रफल

वर्ग मीटर हेक्टेयर एयर

6 0

84 0

27 0

48 0

40 0

49 0

28 0

1528(स.भूमि)

1710(स.बरहा)

1718

1719

1722

1723

1724

1727

1728

1729

1732 0

90 0

72 0

02 0

48 0

16 0

54 0

20 0

1739(स.बरहा)

1738 0

1746/1 (स.बरहा)

1746/2

1737

1757

1758

1760

4645

4646

4647

4648

4649

4650 0

17 0

20 0

12 0

90 0

36 0

04 0

85 520

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA . JANUARY 15 , 2005 /PAUSA 25. 1926

[PART 11-SEC.3 (ii ) ]

जिला : अजमेर

तहसील : अजमेर

राज्य : राजस्थान

क्षेत्रफल क्रम सं.

खसरा सं.

गाँव का नाम

वर्ग मीटर

हेक्टेयर एयर

4652

52 1. सराधना (जारी ... )

4626

4625(स.नाला)

4659

4660 (स. रास्ता)

4623

4679

4622

4680

4621

4681

4620

4682

4687

4686

4694

4695

4696

4697

4698

4699

4707

4708

4709(स .रास्ता)

4746

4745

4747

4752(स.रास्ता)

4766

4767

4768

4783

4786

4785

4784 521

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 15, 2005/पौष 25,1926

[ भाग ।। - खण्ड3(ii ) ]

तहसील : अजमेर

जिला: अजमेर

क्रम सं.

गाँव का नाम

खसरा सं.

4803 1. सराधना (जारी...)

4802

4801

4820

4819

4818

4822

4826

4823

4824

825(स .रास्ता) राज्य : राजस्थान

क्षेत्रफल

वर्ग मीटर हेक्टेयर एयर

48 0

98 0

21 0

40 0

20 0

03 0

32 0

84 0

4840 (स . बरडा)

4842

4841

4839

4845

4848

4846

4847

4855

4856

4857

4858

4859

4863 0

20 0

51 0

46 0

64 0

10 0

20 0

91 0

23 0

56 0

4863/1 (स.बरडा)

4863/2 0

4864(स.बरडा)

2(स.रास्ता)

2. मियांपुर

120

19 0

28 0

64 0

24 0

28 0

70 522

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 15 , 2005 /PAUSA 25 , 1926

[ PART 11-S3( ii )] राज्य : राजस्थान

जिला : अजमेर

तहसील : अजमेर

क्रम सं.

खसरा सं.

गाँव का नाम

18 2. मियांपुर (जारी...)

26 क्षेत्रफल

वर्ग मीटर हेक्टेयर एयर

43 0

46 0

79 0

73(स.बरडा)

68मिन

67मिन

66मिन

69मिन

41 0

08 0

27 0

37 0

71 (स.भूमि)

07 0

57 (स. बरडा)

312

311

310

313

361

360

358

359

20 0

55 0

36 0

75 0

315(स .रास्ता)

351

320

353

350

322

325

326

349 0

20 0

21 0

20 0

06 523

भारत का राजपत्र: जनवरी 15 , 2005/पौष 25,1926

[भाग II- खण्ड3( ii) ]

जिला : अजमेर

तहसील : अजमेर

क्रम सं.

खसरा सं.

गाँव का नाम

344 2. मियांपुर (जारी ...)

339

338

332

331

334 राज्य : राजस्थान

क्षेत्रफल

हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग मीटर 4

6 0

53 0

21 0

24 0

37 0

638(स.आबादी)

643

634मिन (स. बरडा)

600

601

557

556

555

553

554

552

100 3. ककलाना

101

103

107

105

106

111

113

114 0

08 0

42 0

17 0

88 0

52 0

71 0

54 0

58 0

26 0

47 0

20 0

11 0

ख.सं. 114 और 127 के बीच

में

127

131

130

129

144

145

143 11 G1 /05-16

85 0

38 0

21 0

56 IPII-S3( 1 ) 524

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA JANUARY 15. 2005 /PAUSA 25. 1926

तहसील अजमेर

जिला: अजमेर:

राज्य: राजस्थान

क्षेत्रफल

क्रम सं.

वर्ग मीटर

खसरा सं.

गाँव का नाम

हेक्टेयर एयर

142

3.कर्कलानी (जारी...)

140

141

155

156

157

162

163

161

160

188 (स. रास्ता)

195

198

200

201

191

203

472

473

469

469/1

469/2

468

468/1

468/2

466

464

46.1

460

457

451

450

449

452

448

446

445

80 525

भारत का राजपत्र: जनवरी 15 , 2005/पौष 25,1926

[भाग II- खण्ड3 ( ii) ]

राज्य: राजस्थान

जिला

अजमेर

तहसील: अजमेर

क्रम सं.

खसरा सं.

गाँव का नाम

444 ककलाबा (जारी...)

442

441

439

438

437

436

435

512

513

519

518

518/1

520

522

क्षेत्रफल

हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग मीटर

6 4

98 0

91 0.

52 0

06 0

20 }

90 0

88 0

553 (स. रास्ता)

554

554/1

554/2

557

555

556 0

62 0

80 0

52 0

571 (स.रास्ता)

।

580 (स.भूमि)

580मिन

576

576/1

575

575/1

575/2

575/3

574

574/1

574/2

574/3

30 0

75 0

37 526

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii )] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 15 , 2005/PAUSA 25, 1926

तहसील : अजमेर

जिला : अजमेर

राज्य : राजस्थान

क्षेत्रफल क्रम सं.

हेक्टेयर

गाँव का नाम

खसरा सं .

वर्ग मीटर

एयर 1

00 ककलाना (जारी...)

619 (स. रास्ता)

620

631

734/1601 (स . बरडा)

6.28

621(स.भूमि)

627(स.पाल)

622

622/1 (स.भूमि)

622/2

623

623/1 (स.भूमि)

623/2

626

626/1 (स.भूमि)

626/2

708

708/1

708/2

733 (स.बरडा)

731(सं.आबादी)

730(स. रास्ता)

723(स. बरहा)

723मिन

}

1118 (स. चरागाह)

1358(स.बरडा)

1366

1366/1

1366/2

1367

1365

1363

1364

1360

1359 527

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 15 , 2005 /पौष 25,1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड3 ( ii) ]

तहसील : अजमेर

राज्य : राजस्थान

जिला : अजमेर

क्रम सं.

गाँव का नाम

खसरा सं .

1381 3. ककलाना (जारी ...)

1385

1386

1384

1387

क्षेत्रफल

वर्ग मीटर

एयर

हेक्टेयर

6 0

89 0

20 0

ख. सं. 1387 और 1397

के बीच में

1388

1397 0

73 0

1397/1

1389

1393

1391

1390

}

57 0

56 0

1565(रेल्वे)

1566 (रेल्वे)

1587(रेल्वे)

1568

1568/1 0

1568/2

1570

1570/1

1570/2

1570/3 0

1573(स.नाला)

4. लच्छीपुरा

430(स.बरडा)

430मिन (ग्रा.पं. आबादी)

219/1

219/2

}

220

221

222

244

248

250 0

72 0

24 0

32 0

20 0

24 [PART II-SEC.3 ( ii ) ] 528

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA JANUARY 15, 2005/PAUSA 25, 1926

राज्य: राजस्थान

जिला: अजमेर

तहसील:: अजमेर

क्रम

क्षेत्रफल

सं.

वर्ग मीटर

खसरा सं.

हेक्टेयर एयर

गाँव का नाम

249 (स. रास्ता)

लच्छीपुरा (जारी...)

4.9

279

278

277

276

27-3

274

322

325

323

324

318 (स.नाला)

311

308

310

309

306

298 मिन (ग्रा.पं. आबादी)

298/1 (स. बरडा)

}

304

5. बलवंता

602(स.भूमि)

573(स.बरडा)

572

574

575

578

577

579

595

591

593 मिन (स.भूमि)

593

: 592(स. बरहा)

662(स. रास्ता)

652(स.भूमि)

529

भारत का राजपत्र: जनवरी 15 , 2005/पांष 25,1926

[भाग II- खण्ड3 ( ii ) ]

तहसील: अजमेर

राजस्थान

राज्य

जिला:अजमेर

क्रम स.

गाँव का नाम

खसरा सं.

651 बलवंता (जारी...)

655

653

2123

क्षेत्रफल

वर्ग मीटर

एयर

हेक्टेयर

6 0 10063

03 0

63 0

21:22(स. बरडा)

2121(स.रास्ता)

2107 (स. बरडा)

2105

1983

82 0

18 0

1981 (स. रास्ता)

1842(स. बरडा)

1842मिन

}

1843(स.बरडा)

1841 (स.बरडा)

1845 0

41 0

1850 (स. बरहा)

1849

20 0

1872(स.पाल)

1867(स.भूमि)

1865

74 0

1866मिन

95 }

1866 मिन (स.बरहा)

1920(स.नाला)

1893 0

1892मिन

87 0

1892मिन

1898

1896

1897

1904

1905

1883

1906

1655

1658

1:660 {

50 0

86 0

15 0

32 0

62 0

0 530

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JANUARY 15 , 2005/PAUSA 25 , 1926

तहसील : अजमेर

जिला : अजमेर गाँव का नाम

खसरा सं .

क्रम सं.

3 1 .

1654 5. बलवंता (जारी...)

1652मिन

1615 (पी.डब्ल्यू,डी. सड़क)

1614 (पी. डब्ल्यू, डी. सड़क)

1613 (पी.डब्ल्यू.डी.सड़क)

1609(स.भूमि)

1606 (स.भूमि)

1605(स.भूमि)

1604

1601 (पी.डब्ल्यू. डी. सड़क)

1595

1596

1597

1598

1599

1564

1565 6. जाटिया

1493(स.बरहा)

1565(स. नाला)

1564(स.भूमि)

1563(स.रास्ता)

1572मिन

1572मिन(स.भूमि)

1576

1562(स.रास्ता)

1560

1559

1549

1554

1551

1550

1610

1612मिन(स.बरहा)

1612मिन

1630 (स.रास्ता)

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

क्षेत्रफल

एयर वर्ग मीटर हेक्टेयर

11 }

57 0

84 0

26 0

06 0

88 0

39 0

23 0

49 0

96 0

48 0

41 0

93 0

08 0

23 0

75 0

89 0

75 0

71 0

20 0

38 0

85 0

20 0

96 }

62 [ भाग II- खण्ड3 ( ii ) ]

531

भारत का राजपत्र: जनवरी 15 , 2005/ पौष 25,1926

जिला : अजमेर

तहसील : अजमेर

क्रम सं.

खसरा सं .

गाँव का नाम

1715 6. जाटिया (जारी...)

राज्य: राजस्थान

क्षेत्रफल

हेक्टेयर

वर्ग मीटर

एयर

1715मिन (स.भूमि)

1715मिन

1714

1705

1704

1713

1706

1710 0

92 0

73 0

22 0

24 0

1709(स.भूमि)

1691 (स.भूमि)

1691मिन(स.भूमि)

1693 0

1693मिन (स.भूमि)

1693मिन

1692(स.भूमि)

1692मिन(स.भूमि)

1685(स.नाला)

1685मिन

1669

1670

1671

1672

1677

1673

1676

1813

1812

1814

1811

1816

1817

1862

1861

1856

1860

1857 11 Gi/05-17

05 0

30 0

21 0

51 0

84 0

86 0

20 0

90 0

24 0

76 0

80 0

20 0

44 [PART II-SEC.3(ii ) ] 532

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 15 , 2005/PAUSA 25 , 1926

जिला : अजमेर

राज्य: राजस्थान तहसील : अजमेर

क्षेत्रफल

खसरा सं .

गाँव का नाम

क्रम सं.

वर्ग मीटर

हेक्टेयर एयर

1854

जाटिया (जारी... )

1858

2166

2168

2170

2169

2171

2172

2173

2159

2156

2157

2158

2152

2154

2153

2147

2149

2148

2146

2046

2045

2044

2044मिन

2043 (स.भूमि)

2042

2041

2037

2036 (स. रास्ता)

2050

2035

2034

1995(स.भूमि)

2032(स.भूमि)

533 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 15, 2005/पौष 25,1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड3 ( ii) ]

राज्य : राजस्थान

जिला : अजमेर

तहसील : अजमेर

क्षेत्रफल गाँव का नाम

खसरा सं .

वर्ग मीटर क्रम सं.

एयर

हेक्टेयर

2013

जाटिया (जारी... )

2016

2015

2353 (स.भूमि)

2356

2008 (स.भूमि)

2007

2007मिन(स . भूमि)

2007मिन(स. भूमि)

2357 (स.भूमि)

2161

7. दांता

2162

2085

2084

2164

2165

2166

2046(स. बरहा)

2044

2043

2042

2030

2039 (स. बरहा)

2034

2035

2190 (स.रास्ता)

2197

2198

2199

2193

2202

2196

2200

2201

2211 534

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 15. 2005/PAUSA 25 , 1926

[PART II-SEC.3 ( ii )]

राज्य: राजस्थान

जिला : अजमेर

तहसील : अजमेर

क्षेत्रफल क्रम सं.

हेक्टेयर

वर्ग मीटर

खसरा सं .

एयर गाँव का नाम

4644

8. बीर

4645

4643

4646

4648

4653

4650

4651

4652

[फा. सं. आर-31015/74/2004-ओ.आर- II ]

हरीश कुमार, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 13th January, 2005

S. O. 162. Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum products from Mundra to Delhi , a pipeline should be laid by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited;

And whereas it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying such pipeline , it is necessary to acquire the right of user in land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is described in the Schedule annexed hereto ;

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

Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may , within twenty one days from the date on which copies of the Gazette of India containing this notification are made available to the public , object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri Shivdutt Gaur, Competent Authority, Mundra - Delhi Petroleum Product Pipeline Project , Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited , 16 Krishana Vihar, Near Narayan Niwas , Gopalpura Bye - pass Road . Jaipur- 302018 ( Rajasthan ) 535

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 15 , 2005/पौष 25,1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड3 ( ii) ]

SCHEDULE

Tehsil : AJMER

State : RAJASTHAN

District : AJMER

Khasara No. Sr. No

Name of theVillage

5554(G/L) 1. SARADHANA

5515

5516/1

5516/2

5517/1 (G/L)

5517/2

5518

5519

5521

5522

5523

5533

5524

5532

5525

5526

5528

5529

5539

5540

5544

5545

5546

5447

5448

5449

5451

5452

5431

5432

5433/1

5433/2

5421

5420

Area

Hectare Are Sq.mtr.

6 4

95 0

57 0

}

70 0

40 0

56 0

60 0

30 0

14 0

24 0

84 0

25 0

56 0

16 0

70 0

81 0

28 0

98 0

}

23 0

09 [PART II-SEC.3( ii )] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 15 , 2005/PAUSA25, 1926

536 =

State : RAJASTHAN

District : AJMER

Tehsil : AJMER

Area

Are

Hectare

Sq.mtr.

Khasara No.

Sr. No

Name of the Village

5423

1. SARADHANA (Contd ...)

5415(P.W.D . Road)

5397

5396

5395

5394

1059

1060

1094

1097

1091

1103

1104

1105

1106

1107

1109

1108

1134

1133

1132

1124

1128

1150

1127

1181( P.W.D Road )

1182( P.W.D Road)

1183( P.W.D Road)

1190

1189

1192(G/ L Cart Track)

1199

1209

1210

1213 537

भारत का राजपत्र: जनवरी 15, 2005/पौष 25,1926

[भाग II- खण्ड3 ( ii) ]

State : RAJASTHAN

District : AJMER

Tehsil : AJMER

Khasara No. Sr. No

Name of the Village

1212 1. SARADHANA (Contd ...)

1226

1216

1225

1217

1222

1221

1239

1240

1243

1242

1241

1280

1281

1282

5331

1267(G/L Pal)

1283

1285

1286

1287

5260 (G /L Cart Track)

5252

5253

5251

1366

1370

1373

1374

1372

1376

1378

1391

1396

1395

1511

Area

Are

Hectare

Sq.mtr.

6 4

85 0

20 0

04 0

52 0

65 0

38 0

20 0

40 0

53 0

13 0

20 0

96 0

73 0

62 0

96 0

66 0

60 0

53 0

77 0

96 0

76 538

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 15 , 2005/PAUSA 25 , 1926

[PART II-5.c.3 ( ii ) ] Tehsil : AJMER

State : RAJASTHAN

District : AJMER

Area Sr. No

Khasara No.

Are

Hectare

Sq.mtr. Name of the Village

6 2

1512

1. SARADHANA ( Contd ... )

1513

1514

1515

1524

5230( G/ L Barda)

1525

1526

1527

1528(G /L)

1710 ( G / L Barda)

1718

1719

1722

1723

1724

1727

1728

1729

1732

1739( G / L Barda)

1738

1746/1 ( G / L Barda )

1746/2

1737

}

1757

1758

1760

4645

4646

4647

4648

4649

4650 [ भाग II- खण्ड3 (ii ) ]

539

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 15, 2005/पौष 25,1926

Tehsil : AJMER

State : RAJASTHAN

District : AJMER

Sr. No

Khasara No. Nameof the Village

4652 1. SARADHANA ( Contd ...)

4626

Area Hectare Are Sq.mtr. 4

4625(G/L Nala)

4659 0

52 }

4660(G /L Cart Track)

4623

4679

4622

4680

4621

4681

4620

4682

4687

4686

4694

4695

4696

4697

4698

4699

4707

4708 0

12 0

24 0

20 0

42 0

30 0

52 0

20 0

55 0

76 0

65 0

17 0

70 0

23 0

4709(G /L Cart Track)

4746

4745

4747

20 0

76 0

4752(G/L Cart Track)

4766

4767

4768

4783

4786

4785

4784 11 G1/05-18

04 0

80 0

32 0

72 0

04 540

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 15 , 2005 /PAUSA 25, 1926

Tehsil : AJMER

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

District : AJMER

Sr. No

Khasara No. Name of the Village

4803 1. SARADHANA (Contd ... )

4802

4801

4820

4819

4818

4822

4826

4823

4824

Area

Hectare Are Sq.mtr. 4

48 0

56 0

98 0

40 0

03 0

4825(G/L Cart Track)

4840(G/L Barda)

4842

4841

4839

4845

4848

4846

4847

4855

4856

4857

4858

4859

4863 0

92 0

40 0

51 0

46 0

64 0

20 0

91 0

23 0

56 0

4863/1 (G/ L Barda )

}

4863/2

4864(G/L Barda)

2. MIYANPUR

2(G/L: Cart Track)

120

19 0

28 0

64 0

24 0

28 0

70 [भाग II- खण्ड3( ii) ]

541

भारत का राजपत्र: जनवरी 15, 2005/पौष 25,1926

State : RAJASTHAN

District : AJMER

Tehsil : AJMER

Khasara No. Sr. No

Name of the Village

18 2. MİYANPUR (Contd ...)

73(G/L Barda)

68Min

67Min

66Min

69Min

71(G/L)

57(G/L Barda)

312

311

310

313

361

360

358

359

315(G/L Cart Track)

351

320

353

350

322

325

326

349

Area

Hectare Are Sq.mtr.

46 0

60 0

79 0

34 0

41 0

}

08 }

27 }

}

91 0

20 0

14 0

75 0

30 0

20 0

21 0

20 0

57 0

06 [PART II-SEC.3( ii)] 542

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 15 , 2005/PAUSA 25 , 1926

State : RAJASTHAN Tehsil : AJMER

District : AJMER

Area

Khasara No.

Are Sq.mtr.

Hectare

Sr. No

Name of the Village

344

2. MIYANPUR ( Contd ... )

339

338

332

331

334

638(G/L Abadi )

643

634Min(G /L Barda )

600

601

557

556

555

553

554

552

100

3. KAKLANA

101

103

107

105

106

111

113

114

In Bet Svy No. 114 &

127

131

130

129

144

145

143 भारत का राजपत्र.: जनवरी 15, 2005/पौष 25.1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड3 (ii) ]

Tehsil : AJMER

543 State : RAJASTHAN

District : AJMER

Sr. No

Khasara No. Name of the Village

3 1

142 3. KAKLANA ( Contd ... )

140

141

155

156

157

162

163

161

160

Area

Hectare Are Sq.mtr.

6 4

84 0

15 0

02 0

04 0

56 0

188(G/ L Cart Track)

195

198

200

201

191

203

472

473

469

469/1

469/2

468

468/1

468/2

466

464

461

460

457

451

450

449

452

448

446

445 0

81 0

01 0

20 0

44 0

42 0

56 0

15 0

06 0

78 0

73 0

29 0

30 0

51 0

24 0

01 544

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 15. 2005 /PAUSA 25. 1926

Tehsil : AJMER

PAR : 11 -S3 ( ii ) | State : RAJASTHAN

District : AJMER

Sr. No

Khasara No. Name of the Village

444 3. KAKLANA ( Contd ...)

442

441

439

438

437

436

435

512

513

519

518

518/1

520

522

Area

Are

Hectare

Sq.mtr .

20 0

98 0

91 0

66 0

84 0

06 0

61 0

}

90 0

88 0

553(G/L Cart Track)

554

554/1

554/2

557

555

556 0

62 {

56 0

80 0

571 (G /L Cart Track)

580(G/L)

580Min

576

576/1

575

575/1

575/2

575/3

574

574/1

574/2

574/3 } }

75 0

37 545

भारत का राजपत्र: जनवरी 15, 2005/पौष 25,1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड3( ii ) ]

Tehsil : AJMER

State : RAJASTHAN

District : AJMER

Khasara No. Sr. No Nameof theVillage

619(G/L Cart Track)

3. KAKLANA (Contd...)

620

631

734/1601 (G/L Barda)

628

621(G/L)

627(G/L Pal)

622

622/1(G/L)

622/2

623

623/1(G/L)

623/2

626

626/1(G/L)

626/2

708

708/1

708/2

733(G/L Barda)

731(G/LAbadi)

730(G/L Cart Track)

723(G/L Barda)

723Min

1118(G /L Pasture)

1358(G/L Barda)

1366

1366/1 }

1366/2

1367

1365

1363

1364

1360

1359

Area Hectare Are Sq.mtr. 4

6 0

20 0

42 0

17 0

87 0

20 0

07 0

60 0

06 0

88 0

81 0

44 0

72 0

27 0

87 0

60 0

80 0

16 0

12 0

96 546

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 15 , 2005/PAUSA 25, 1926

Tehsil : AJMER

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

District : AJMER

Khasara No. Sr. No

Name of the Village

3 1

1381 3. KAKLANA ( Contd ... )

1385

1386

1384

1387

In Bet Svy No. 1387 &

1397

1388

1397

1397/1

1389

1393

1391

1390

1565(Railway)

1566(Railway)

1587(Railway)

1568

1568/1

1568/2

1570

1570/1

1570/2

1570/3

1573(G/L Nala) 4. LACHHIPURA

430(G/L Barda)

430Min ( G /P Abadi )

219/1

219/2

220

221

222

244

248

250

Area Are

Hectare

Sq.mtr.

6 4

89 0

20 0

73 0

43 0

}

57 0

56 0

50 0

29 0

78 0

{

68 0

}

32 0

0 [भाग II- खण्ड3 (ii) ]

547

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 15, 2005/पौष 25,1926

Tehsil : AJMER

State : RAJASTHAN

District : AJMER

Khasara No. Sr. No

Nameof the Village

Area

Hectare Are. Sq.mtr .

44 0

249(G/L CartTrack)

4. LACHHIPURA (Contd ...)

279

278

277

276

273

274

322

325

323

324

96 0

48 0

60 0

20 0

24 0

80 0

70 0

318(G/L Nala)

311

308

310

309

306 0

80 0

94 0

298Min(G/PAbadi )

298/1 (G/ L Barda)

304 5. BALVANTA

20 0

602(G/L)

573(G /L Barda)

572

574

575

578

577

579

595

591 0

23 0

57 0

20 0

}

593Min(G/L)

592(G/L Barda)

662(G /L CartTrack)

64 0

652(G/L)

11G1/05-19 548

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 15 , 2005/PAUSA 25 , 1926

Tehsil : AJMER

[PART 11- SE.3 ( ii )] State : RAJASTHAN

District : AJMER

Sr. No

Khasara No. Name of the Village

651 5. BALVANTA (Contd ... )

655

653

2123

Area

Are

Hectare

Sq.mtr. 4

6 0

03 0

63 0

2122(G /L Barda)

55 0

2121 (G /L Cart Track)

2107( G / L Barda)

2105

1983 0

82 0

1981(G/L Cart Track)

1842(G/L Barda)

1842Min

{

1843(G/L Barda)

1841 ( G/L Barda)

1845 0

1850(G/L Barda)

1849 0

90 0

1872(G/L Pal)

1867(G/L)

1865

74 0

1866Min

95 }

1866Min(G/L Barda)

1920(G/L Nala)

1893 0

1892Min

87 }

1892Min

1898

1896

1897

1904

1905

1883

1906

1655

1658

1660 0

50 0

86 0

15 0

10 0

32 0

62 0

68 0

75 0

20 549

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 15, 2005/ पौष 25,1926

[भाग II- खण्ड3 ( ii ) ]

Tehsil : AJMER

State : RAJASTHAN

District : AJMER

Sr. No

Khasara No. Name of the Village

1654 5. BALVANTA ( Contd ...)

Area

Are

Hectare

Sq.mtr. 4

1652Min

11 0

1652Min

}

57 0

1615(P.W.D.Road)

1614(P.W.D.Road )

1613(P.W.D.Road)

1609(G/L)

1606(G/L)

1605(G/L)

1604 0

39 0

1601(P.W.D.Road)

1595

1596

1597

1598

1599

1564

1565 6. JATIYA

96 0

1493(G/L Barda)

1565(G/L Nala)

1564(G/L)

1563(G/L Cart Track)

1572Min

157272 )

1576 0

1562(G/L CartTrack)

1560

1559

1549

1554

1551

1550

1610

01 0

38 0

20 0

1612(G /L Barda)

96 0

1612Min

}

1630(G/L Cart Track)

550

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 15 , 2005/PAUSA: 25, 1926

Tehsil : AJMER

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

District : AJMER

Sr. No

Khasara No. Nameof the Village

1715 6. JATIYA ( Contd ...)

Area

Hectare Are Sq.mtr. 4

1715Min(G/L)

}

1715Min

1714

1705

1704

1713

1706

1710

92 0

20 0

22 0

24 0

1709(G/L)

1691(G/L)

06 }

1691Min(G/L)

1693 0

1693Min(G/L)

1693Min

1692(G/L)

1692Min(G/L)

1685(G/L Nala)

51 0

1685Min

1669

1670

1671

1672

1677

1673

1676

1813

1812

1814

1811

1816

1817

1862

1861

1856

1860

1857 0

05 0

96 0

30 0

21 0

49 0

51 0

84 0

20 0

90 0

24 0

76 0

70 0

80 0

20 0

44 551

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 15, 2005/पौष 25,1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड3( ii) ]

State : RAJASTHAN

District : AJMER

Tehsil : AJMER

Khasara No. Sr. No

Name of the Village

1854 6. JATIYA ( Contd ... )

1858

2166

2168

2170

2169

2171

2172

2173

2159

2156

2157

2158

2152

2154

2153

2147

2149

2148

2146

2046

2045

2044

2044Min

2043(G/L)

2042

2041

2037

2036(G/L Cart Track)

2050

2035

2034

1995(G/L)

2032(G/L)

Area

Are

Hectare

Sq.mtr .

30 0

20 0

66 0

03 0

80 0

64 0

73 0

16 0

92 0

42 0

50 0

66 0

06 0

24 0

52 0

33 0

39 0

12 552

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 15 , 2005 /PAUSA 25 , 1926

[PART II-SEC.3( ii)]

State : RAJASTHAN Tehsil : AJMER

District : AJMER

Sr. No

Khasara No.

Hectare

Area Are Sq.mtr. Name of the Village

6 1

2013

6. JATIYA ( Contd...)

2016

2015

2353(G/L)

2356

2008(G/L)

2007

2007Min(G/L)

}

2007Min(G/L)

2357(G/L)

2161

7. DANTA

2162

2085

2084

2164

2165

2166

2046(G/L Barda)

2044

2043

2042

2030

2039(G /L Barda)

2034

2035

2190(G/L Cart Track)

2197

2198

2199

2193

2202

2196

2200

2201

2211 553 [भाग II- खण्ड3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 15 , 2005/पौष 25,1926

State : RAJASTHAN Tehsil : AJMER

District : AJMER

Area

Hectare Are

Khasara No.

Sr. No

Sq.mtr .

Name of the Village

4644

06 8. BEER

4645

4643

4646

4648

4653

4650

4651

4652

[No. R- 31015/74/2004-O.R. - II ] HARISH KUMAR , Under Secy.

नईदिल्ली, 13 जनवरी , 2005

का. आ. 163.- केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि मुन्द्रा से दिल्ली तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए ;

और केन्द्रीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीतः होता है कि ऐसी भूमि में जो इस से उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित है , जिसमें उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाएँ जाने का प्रस्ताव है, उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए ;

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

कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है , उस तारीख से जिसको इस अधिसूचना से युक्त भारत के राजपत्र की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के लिए उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के सम्बन्ध में श्री शिवदत्त गौड़ , सक्षम प्राधिकारी , मुन्द्रा-दिल्ली पेट्रोलियम उत्पाद पाइपलाइन परियोजना, हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड , 16 , कृष्णा विहार, नारायण निवास के पास , गोपालपुरा बाईपास रोड़ , जयपुर 302018 , (राजस्थान) को लिखित रुप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा । 554

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JANUARY 15, 2005 /PAUSA 25 , 1926

[PART 11-SEC.3 (ii) ]

अनुसूची

तहसील : नसीराबाद

जिला : अजमेर

राज्य : राजस्थान

क्षेत्रफल

क्रम सं.

खसरा सं.

हेक्टेयर

वर्ग मीटर गाँव का नाम

एयर

6 2

01 1. राजोसी

3426(स.नाला)

3427

3422/1

3422/2

}

3428/1 (स.पहाड़)

3428/2

}

3430

3429/1

3429/2

}

3442/1

3442/2

3414/1

3414/2

3385/1 (स.भूमि)

3385/2

3386(स .रास्ता)

3327(स.नाला)

3326

3325

3324

3322

3323

3333

3319

3334

3316

3337

3315

3313

3344(स. बरड़ा)

}

3344मिन (बरड़ा)

3256(स.आबादी)

[ भाग II-खण्ड3( ii) ]

555

भारत का राजपत्र: जनवरी 15, 2005/पौष 25,1926

तहसील : नसीराबाद

जिला : अजमेर

क्रम सं.

गाँव का नाम

खसरा सं.

3257/1 (स. आबादी)

1. राजोसी (जारी ...)

3257/2

3258

3259/1 (स.आबादी)

3259/2

3290

3291

3289/1

3289/2

3260

3263

3264

3265/1 (स.आबादी)

3265/2

3236 (स.सड़क)

3111

3110

3109

3114/1

3114/2

3108/1 ..

3108/2 राज्य : राजस्थान

क्षेत्रफल

हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग मीटर 4

6 0

97 {

15- 0

35 لہ }

64 0

37 }

53 0

83 0

01 }

99 0

72 -0

86 0

07 0

20 }

3106/1 (स.आबादी)

3106/2

3107/1

3107/2 0

37 0

3105/1 (स.आबादी)

3105/2

3105/3/1 0

3105/3/2

3103 0

3104/1 (स.पाल)

3104/2

3122 11 G1/05-20

28 }

15 556

[PART II-SEC. 3(ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 15 , 2005/PAUSA 25 , 1926

राज्य : राजस्थान तहसील : नसीराबाद

जिला : अजमेर

क्षेत्रफल क्रम सं.

गाँव का नाम

खसरा सं .

हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग मीटर

3123 (स.मोरी)

1. राजोसी (जारी...)

3124/4273

3056 (स. रास्ता)

3081/1

3081/2

3081/4276

3081/4276/1

3080

3079

3078

3077

3075

2764(स.रास्ता)

2760

2762

2763/1

2763/2

2757/1

2757/2

2756/1

2756/2

2755

2754

2753(स. रास्ता)

2775/1 (स.बरड़ा)

2775/2

2815(स.पाल)

2726

2721

2725

2723

2668

2667(स. नाला) [ भाग II खण्ड ( ii) ]

557

भारत का राजपत्र: जनवरी 15, 2005/पौष 25,1926

तहसील : नसीराबाद

राज्य : राजस्थान

जिला : अजमेर

क्रम सं.

खसरा सं.

गाँव का नाम

3 1

2666/4243 (स. नाला)

1. राजोसी (जारी... )

2664/4242 (स.नाला)

2664/1

2664/2

2330/1

2330/2

2336

2337

2335

2341

2342

2324(पी.डब्ल्यू.डी. सड़क)

2309

2297

2298

2296

2294

2293

2291

1240

2287

1241

1242

1245

1246

1248

1255

1268

1270

1269

2157

2156

2161

क्षेत्रफल

हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग मीटर 4

6 0

23 0

37 0

86 0

76 0

80 0

74 0

40 0

67 0

49 0

33 0

70 0

12 0

73 0

29 0

12 0

80 0

33 0

41 0

06 558

[PART II-SEC.3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 15 , 2005/PAUSA 25 , 1926

तहसील : नसीराबाद

राज्य : राजस्थान

जिला : अजमेर

क्षेत्रफल क्रम सं.

हेक्टेयर

खसरा सं .

एयर वर्ग मीटर गाँव का नाम

6 2

2163

1. राजोसी (जारी... )

2165

2155 (स.रास्ता)

2138(स.रास्ता)

2070

2071

2073

2140

2139

1446

1441

1447

1445

1454

1452

1453

1461

1462

1463/1

1463/2

}

1460

1493

1551/1 (सुरक्षा मंत्रालय)

1551/2

1560/2

1560/1 (सुरक्षा मंत्रालय)

1557/2

1557/1 (सुरक्षा मंत्रालय)

1558

1556/1 (सुरक्षा मंत्रालय)

।

1556/2

1578/1 (स.रास्ता)

1578/2 (सुरक्षा मंत्रालय)

[भाग II- खण्ड3 (ii ) ]

559

भारत का राजपत्र: जनवरी 15, 2005/ पौष 25,1926

तहसील : बसीराबाद

जिला : अजमेर

क्रम सं.

खसरा सं.

गाँव का नाम

3 1

1577/2 1. राजोसी (जारी... )

1577/1 (सुरुक्षा मंत्रालय)

1576

1581

1582

1584

1583

17 2. दिलवाड़ी

3. गादेरी

53मिन

53मिव

54मिन

55मिन

56मिन

51मिन (स. रास्ता)

51मिव राज्य : राजस्थान

क्षेत्रफल

वर्ग मीटर

एयर

हेक्टेयर

6 4

20 }

24 0

43 0

81 0

73 0

89 0

59 0

54 }

93 }

20 }

60 (पी.डब्ल्यू.डी. सड़क)

61 (पी.डब्ल्यू.डी. सड़क)

62(पी.डब्ल्यू.डी. सड़क)

85मिन

85मिन 0

16 0

02 0

42 }

87मिन (स.चरागाह )

8.7मिन (एच.पी.सी.एल. )

87मिन 1

87मिन ( भा.रा.रा.प्रा.)

560

[PART II-SEC.3 ( ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 15 , 2005 /PAUSA 25, 1926

तहसील : बसीराबाद

जिला : अजमेर

राज्य : राजस्थान

क्षेत्रफल क्रम सं.

गाँव का नाम

खसरा सं .

हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग मीटर

6 2

26 गादेरी (जारी ...)

88(स.बाला)

89मिन

}

91मिन

}

92(स.बरड़ा)

101 (स.भूमि)

103(स. बरड़ा)

102

104

105

106

107

108

4. मोड़ी

4(ग्रा.पं.चरागाह)

ख. सं. 4 और 21 के बीच

20मिन

23 (स.भूमि)

38(स.भूमि)

38मिन

24(ग्रा.पं. चरागाह)

561

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 15 , 2005/ पौष 25,1926

[भाग II- खण्ड3 ( ii) ]

तहसील : नसीराबाद

जिला : अजमेर

क्रम सं.

गाँव का नाम

खसरा सं.

3 5. लवेरा

725

726(स.पत्थर)

728

728मिन

734(स.रास्ता)

735

736(स.भूमि)

742

743

744

745

746

757

758

756

759

760

761

764(स.भूमि)

798

799

797

800

800मिन

801

802

803

804(स.रास्ता)

805

806

811

810

812 राज्य : राजस्थान

क्षेत्रफल

वर्ग मीटर हेक्टेयर एयर

6 4

18 0

}

62 0

40 0

20 0

86 0

28 0

90 0

18 0

20 0

08 0

36 0

16 0

62 0

11 0

20 0

}

89 0

11 0

89 0

85 0

36 0

04 0

06 562

[PART II-SEC.3 (ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 15, 2005/PAUSA 25, 1926

तहसील : नसीराबाद

राज्य : राजस्थान

जिला : अजमेर

क्रम सं.

गाँव का नाम

खसरा सं.

3 1

815 5. लवेरा (जारी...)

813

814

892

890

891

889

905

906

935

936

941

939

940

948

949

959

960

958

957

955

990

992

1526

1525

1524

1522

1521

1516

1515

1514

1513(स.रास्ता)

1510

1497

क्षेत्रफल

वर्ग मीटर हेक्टेयर एयर

20 0

48 0

30 0

48 0

62 0

46 0

08 0

64 0

38 0

46 0

02 0

42 0

20 0

02 0

06 0

54 0

84 0

32 0

14 0

40 0

00 0

32 0

02 0

61 0

02 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

363

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 15, 2005/पौष 25,1926

तहसील : नसीराबाद

राज्य : राजस्थान

जिला : अजमेर

क्रम सं.

खसरा सं.

गाँव का नाम

3 1

1496 5. लवेरा (जारी...)

1495(स.पाल)

1494

1498

1499

1493

1492

1438

1501

1439

1441

1445

1446

1442

1444

1443

1448

1449

1450

1482

1482/1639

1467

1466

1465

1464

1463

374मिन 6. रामपुरा अहिरान

374

375

376

377

386

385. 11 GI/05-21

क्षेत्रफल

हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग मीटर 4

6 0

87 0

28 0

30 0

52 0

13 0

20 0

19 0

55 0

20 0

64 0

12 0

94 0

96 0

91 0

32 0

02 0

}

48 0

56 0

70 564

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 15 , 2005/PAUSA 25. 1926

तहसील : नसीराबाद

[PART II-SEC.3 (ii) ]

जिला : अजमेर

क्रम सं.

खसरा सं.

गाँव का नाम

3 1

384 6. रामपुरा अहिरान (जारी... )

389

383

392

414

413

410

411

439

440

438

441

442

443

444

141 (स.भूमि)

140(स.रास्ता)

488

121

500

501

502

503 7. जिलावड़ा

राज्य : राजस्थान

क्षेत्रफल

वर्ग मीटर हेक्टेयर एयर

6 0

32 0

56 0

52 0

99 0

35 0

72 0

43 0

74 0

94 0

90 0

24 0

64 0

28 0

881 (ग्रा.पं.चरागाह)

898(ग्रा.पं.चरागाह)

1324(स.रास्ता)

1325 (ग्रा.पं.चरागाह)

1326 (स.रास्ता)

1323मिन

1323मिन (ग्रा.पं. चरागाह)

1323 ( (ग्रा.पं. चरागाह)

}

1329 (ग्रा.पं.चरागाह)

565 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 15, 2005/पौष 25,1926

[भाग II- खण्ड3 ( ii) ]

तहसील : नसीराबाद

जिला : अजमेर

राज्य : राजस्थान

क्षेत्रफल क्रम सं.

गाँव का नाम

खसरा सं.

हेक्टेयर

वर्ग मीटर

एयर

1322

70 7. जिलावड़ा (जारी ...)

1321

1320

1318 (स.भूमि)

1318मिन

1317

01-

1334

1316

1315

1338

1337

1339

1340

1350

1351

1349(स.धोरा)

1369मिन (स . मोरी)

1369मिन

}

1367

1357

1358

1355मिन (स.धोरा)

1355मिन

}

1359

1360

1361 मिन (स.धोरा)

1361मिन

}

1362

1356

1207

1363(स.धोरा)

566

[PART II-SEC.3(ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 15 , 2005 /PAUSA 25 , 1926

राज्य : राजस्थान

जिला : अजमेर

तहसील : नसीराबाद

क्षेत्रफल

क्रम सं.

खसरा सं.

हेक्टेयर एयर

गाँव का नाम

वर्ग मीटर

6 2

1152

7. जिलावड़ा (जारी...)

1201

1200

1188

1169 (स.धोरा)

1151

1153

1150

329

8. कानपुरा

331

332

333

323

322

321

316

315

344

290

345

289

288

287

348

286

251

285

252

253

254

240मिन

240 [भाग II- खण्ड3 ( ii ) ]

567 भारत का राजपत्र: जनवरी 15, 2005/पौष 25, 1926

तहसील : नसीराबाद

जिला: अजमेर

राज्य : राजस्थान

क्षेत्रफल सं.

गाँव का नाम

हेक्टेयर

वर्ग मीटर

खसरा सं.

एयर

255

कानपुरा (जारी...)

238

164

165

230

166

227

226

807

225

224

892

893

894

895

896 (स.रास्ता)

897

1014

1013

1013मिन

}

1321

998(स.भूमि)

998मिन

1005मिन

1005मिन (स. भूमि)

1005

1004मिन

1004

1003

997 (स. नाला)

954(स.भूमि)

955

955मिन

} 568

[PART II - SEC.3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 15 , 2005 /PAUSA 25 , 1926

राज्य : राजस्थान

तहसील : नसीराबाद

जिला : अजमेर

क्षेत्रफल

क्रम सं.

हेक्टेयर

गाँव का नाम

खसरा सं .

वर्ग मीटर

एयर

6 2

957

8. कानपुरा (जारी ...)

957मिन

958

959

962

961

709

9. बनेवडी

710

713

712

712मिन

725

704(स.भूमि)

703

703मिन

}

702

734

737

738

700 (स.भूमि)

699

698

696

697

690/1456 मिन (स.भूमि)

690/1456मिन

690/1447 (स.भूमि)

690/1448 (स.भूमि)

690/1449 (स.भूमि)

690/1450(स.भूमि)

772/1451 (स.चरागाह)

}

773

786

01 [भाग II- खण्ड3 (ii) ]

569

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 15 , 2005/पौष 25,1926

तहसील : नसीराबाद

राज्य : राजस्थान

जिला : अजमेर

क्रम सं.

गाँव का नाम

खसरा सं .

9. बनेवडी (जारी...)

847 (स.भूमि)

862(स.रास्ता)

1116 (स.भूमि)

1117 (स.भूमि)

1118

1118मिन

1120

1100

1001

1099

1098

1097

1092

1091

1093

1083

1082

1066(स.भूमि)

1074

1073

1071 (स.कुंआ)

1070(स. रास्ता)

1422(स.चरागाह)

क्षेत्रफल

एयर

हेक्टेयर

वर्ग मीटर 4

6 0

64 0

33 0

37 0

}

78 0

67 0

20 0

99 0

62 0

40 0

30 0

52 0

04 0

94 0

78 0

24 0

80 0

60 0

1392(स. रास्ता)

1361 (स.भूमि)

1362 0

1362मिन

1363 0

1390 (स .चरागाह)

1375(स.चरागाह)

1376 (स.चरागाह)

570

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JANUARY 15 , 2005/PAUSA 25, 1926

[PART II-SEC.3 (ii )] तहसील : नसीराबाद

जिला : अजमेर

राज्य : राजस्थान

क्षेत्रफल क्रम सं.

गाँव का नाम

खसरा सं.

हेक्टेयर

वर्ग मीटर

एयर

20 9: बनेवड़ी (जारी ... )

1376/1455 (स. चरागाह)

1378

1379(स.नाला)

[फा. सं. आर -31015/63/2004- ओ.आर -1 ]

हरीश कुमार, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 13th January, 2005

$. 0. 163.-Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum products from Mundra to Delhi , a pipeline should be laid by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited ;

And whereas it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying such pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is described in the Schedule annexed hereto;

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

Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may, within twenty one days from the date on which copies of the Gazette of India containing this notification are made available to the public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri , Shivdutt Gaur, Competent Authority , Mundra -Delhi Petroleum Product Pipeline Project, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited , 16 Krishana Vihar, Near Narayan Niwas , Gopalpura Bye- pass Road, Jaipur. 302018 ( Rajasthan).

571

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 15, 2005/पौष 25, 1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड3 (ii) ]

SCHEDULE

State: RAJASTHAN

District : AJMER

Tehsil : NASIRABAD

Khasara No. Sr. No

Name of the Village

3 1

1. RAJOSHI

Area

Hectare Are Sq.mtr. 4

6 0

3426(G/L Nala)

3427

3422/1

3422/2 0

18 0

}

3428/1 ( G/L Pahad)

3428/2

3430

3429/1

3429/2

3442/1

3442/2

3414/1

3414/2 0

01 0

58 } 。

92 0

}

3385/1 (G/L)

3385/2

42 1.

}

3386(G /L Cart Track)

3327 (G/L Nala)

3326

3325

3324

3322

3323

3333

3319

3334

3316

3337

3315

3313

50 0

06 0

57 0

62. 0

88 0

82 0

37 0

3344(G/L Barda)

20 。

}

3344Min(Barda )

3256 (G/L Abadi )

11G1/05-22 572

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 15 , 2005/PAUSA 25 , 1926

Tehsil : NASIRABAD

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

District : AJMER

Sr. No

Khasara No. Name of theVillage

3 1

3257/1 (G/L Abadi) 1. RAJOSHI (Contd ... )

3257/2

3258

3259/1 (G/L Abadi )

3259/2

3290

3291

3289/1

3289/2

3260

3263

3264

3265/1 (G/L Abadi)

3265/2

3236 (G/L Road)

3111

3110

3109

3114/1

3114/2

3108/1

3108/2

3106/1 (G /L Abadi )

3106/2

3107/1

3107/2

3105/1 (G /L Abadi )

3105/2

3105/3/1

3105/3/2

3103

3104/1 (G/L Pal )

3104/2

3122

Area

Hectare Are Sq.mtr.

97 0

{

15 0

35 }

64 0

37 } 。

53 0

60 0

01 0

}

99 0

86 0

20 } 。

76 0

28 } 。

15 573 [ भाग II-खण्ड3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 15, 2005/पौष 25,1926

Tehsil : NASIRABAD

State : RAJASTHAN

District : AJMER

Area

Hectare Are

Sr. No

Khasara No.

Sq.mtr. Nameof the Village

6 2

1. RAJOSHI ( Contd ... )

3123(G/L Mori)

3124/4273

3056 (G/L Cart track)

3081/1

3081/2

3081/4276

3081/4276/1

3080

3079

3078

3077

3075

2764(G/L CartTrack)

2760

2762

2763/1

2763/2

2757/1

2757/2

2756/1

2756/2

2755

2754

2753(G/L CartTrack)

2775/1 (G/L Barda)

2775/2

}

2815(G/L Pal)

2726

2721

2725

2723

2668

2667 (G/L Nala)

574

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 15, 2005/PAUSA 25 , 1926

Tehsil : NASIRABAD

[PART II-SEC.3 (ii) ]

District : AJMER

Sr. No

Khasara No. Name of the Village

1. RAJOSHI ( Contd ... )

State : RAJASTHAN

Area

Hectare Are Sq.mtr.

2666/4243(G /L Nala)

2664/4242 ( G /L Nala)

2664/1

2664/2

2330/1

2330/2

2336

2337

2335

2341

2342 0

2324 ( P.W.D. Road)

2309

2297

2298

2296

2294

2293

2291

1240

2287

1241

1242

1245

1246

1248

1255

1268

1270

1269

2157

2156

2161 0

06 [भाग II- खण्ड3 (ii) ]

575

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 15, 2005/पौष 25,1926

Tehsil : NASIRABAD

State : RAJASTHAN

District : AJMER

Sr. No

Khasara No. Nameof the Village

2163 1. RAJOSHI ( Contd ...)

2165

2155 (G/L Cart Track)

2138(G/L CartTrack)

2070

2071

2073

2140

2139

1446

1441

1447

1445

1454

1452

1453

1461

1462

1463/1

1463/2

1460

1493

1551/1 (Ministry of Defence)

1551/2

1560/2

1560/1( Ministry of Defence)

1557/2

1557/1 ( Ministry of Defence)

1558

1556/1 ( Ministry of Defence)

1556/2

1578/1 (G/L Cart Track)

1578/2(Ministry of Defence)

Area

Hectare Are Sq.mtr. 4

6 0

09 0

41 0

49 0

16 0

01 0

68 0

59 0

65 0

75 0

31 0

79 0

}

80 0

20 0

49 576

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 15 , 2005 /PAUSA 25 , 1926

[ PART II-SEC.3 ( ii )] Tehsil : NASIRABAD

State : RAJASTHAN

District : AJMER

Area

Sr. No

Hectare Are

Khasara No.

Sq.mtr. Name of the Village

1577/2

1. RAJOSHI ( Contd ... )

1577/1 ( Ministry of

Defence)

1576

1581

1582

1584

1583

2. DILWADI

3. GADERI

53Min

54Min

55Min

}

56Min

51Min(G/L Cart Track )

}

51Min

60P.W.D Road

61 P.W.D Road

62P.W.D Road

85Min

}

85Min

87Min( G/L Pasture)

87Min(HPCL)

87Min

87Min ( NHAI Road)

577 [भाग II- खण्ड3(ii) ]

भारत का राजपंत्र: जनवरी 15 , 2005/पौष 25,1926

State : RAJASTHAN Tehsil : NASIRABAD

District : AJMER

Area Sr. No

Khasara No.

Are

Hectare

Sq.mtr. Name of the Village

5 1

6 2

88(G/L Nala)

3. GADERI (Contd...)

89Min

} 。

89Min

91Min

}

91Min

92(G/L Barda)

101(G/ L)

103(G/ L Barda)

102

104

105

106

107

108

11 4. MODI

4(G/P Pasture)

In Bet . Svy. No. 4 & 21

20Min

23(G/L)

38(G/L)

38Min

24(G/P Pasture) 578

PART II- SEC.3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 15 , 2005/PAUSA 25 , 1926

State : RAJASTHAN Tehsil : NASIRABAD

District: AJMER

Area

Are

Hectare

Sq.mtr. Sr. No

Khasara No.

Name of the Village

725

5. LAVERA

726(G/L Rock)

728

728Min

} 。

734(G/L Cart Track)

735

736(G/L)

742

743

744

745

746

757

758

756

759

760

761

764(G/L)

798

799

797

800

800Min

}

801

802

९

803

804(G/L Cart Track)

805

806

811

810

812

0 [भाग II- खण्ड3 ( ii ) ]

579

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 15 , 2005/पौष 25,1926

Teksil : NASIRABAD

State : RAJASTHAN

District : AJMER

Sr. No

Khasara No. Name of the Village

815 5. LAVERA ( Contd...)

813

814

892

890

891

889

905

906

935

936

941

939

940

948

949

959

960

958

957

955

990

992

1526

1525

1524

1522

1521

1516

1515

1514

Area

Hectare Are Sq.mtr.

6 4

82 0

48 0

03 0

30 0

46 0

08 0

18 0

46 0

02 0

20 0

90 0

06 0

84 0

86 0

40 0

00 0

52 0

32 0

41 0

1513(G/L Cart Track)

1510

1497 11 G1/05-23

61 0 580

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 15 , 2005/PAUSA 25 , 1926

Tehsil : NASIRABAD

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

District : AJMER

Sr. No

Khasara No. Name of the Village

1496 5. LAVERA (Contd ...)

1495(G/L Pal)

1494

1498

1499

1493

1492

1438

1501

1439

1441

1445

1446

1442

1444

1443

1448

1449

1450

1482

1482/1639

1467

1466

1465

1464

1463

374Min 6. RAMPURA AHIRAN

374

375

376

377

386

385

Area

Are

Hectare

Sq.mtr.

6 4

87 0

28 0

20 0

52 0

20 0

19.

72 0

98 0

64 0

94 0

96 0

91 0

32 0

02 0

30 } 。

68 0

48 0

56 0

70 0

11 [ भाग II- खण्ड3 (ii) ]

581

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 15, 2005/पौष 25,1926

Tehsil : NASIRABAD

State : RAJASTHAN

District : AJMER

Sr. No

Khasara No. Name of the Village

384 6. RAMPURA AHIRAN ( Contd..)

389

383

392

414

413

410

411

439

440

438

441

442

443

444

Area

Are

Hectare

Sq.mtr. 4

03 0

56 0

16 0 :

96 0

35 0

72 0

30 0

141(G/L)

140(G/L. Cart Track)

488

121

500

501

502

503 7. JILAWADA

94 0

90 0

64 0 .

881(G/P Pasture)

95 0

898(G/P Pasture)

1324 (G /L Cart Track)

20 0

1325(G /P Pasture)

1326(G / L Cart Track)

1323Min

1323Min(G /P Pasture)

1323(G /P Pasture)

}

C 01 50

1329(G /P Pasture)

582

[PART II-SEC.3(ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 15, 2005/PAUSA 25, 1926

State : RAJASTHAN Tehsil : NASIRABAD

District : AJMER

Area Sr. No

KhasaraNo.

Hectare Are Sq.mtr. Nameof the Village

6 1

1322

7: JILAWADA (Contd... )

1321

1320

1318(G/L)

1318Min

1317

1334

1316

1315

1338

1337

1339

1340

1350

1351

1349(G/L Dhora)

1369Min(G/L Mori )

1369Min

1367

1357

1358

1355Min(G/L Dhora)

1355Min

}

1359

1360

1361Min (G /L Dhora)

1361Min

}

1362

1356

1207

1363(G/L Dhora)

583

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 15, 2005/पौष 25,1926

[भाग II- खण्ड3 (ii) ]

Tehsil : NASIRABAD

State : RAJASTHAN

District : AJMER

Sr No

Khasara No. Name of the Village

1152 7. JILAWADA (Contd ...)

1201

1200

1188

1169(G/L Dhora)

1151

1153

1150

329 8. KANPURA

331

332

333

323

322

321

316

315

344

290

345

289

288

287

348

286

251

285

252

253

254

240Min

240

255

238

Area

Are

Hectare

Sq.mtr. 4

6 0

80 0

78 0

44 0

04 0

30 0

80 0

13 0

88 0

20 0

07 0

66 0

39 0

36 0

37 0

0 584

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 15 , 2005/PAUSA 25 , 1926

[ PART 11- SEC.3 (ii )] Tehsil : NASIRABAD

District : AJMER

State : RAJASTHAN

Area

Sr. No

Are

Khasara No.

Hectare

Sq.mtr. Name of the Village

8. KANPURA ( Contd ...)

164

165

230

166

227

226

807

225

224

892

893

894

895

896(G/L CartTrack)

897

1014

1013

1013Min

}

1321

998(G/L)

998Min

1005Min

1005Min(G/L)

1005

1004Min

}

1004

1003

997(G/L Nala)

954(G/L)

955

}

955Min

957

957Min

585

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 15 , 2005 /पौष 25,1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड3( ii) ]

Tehsil : NASIRABAD

State : RAJASTHAN

District : AJMER

Sr. No

Khasara No. Name of the Village

958 8. KANPURA ( Contd ...)

959

962

961 9. BANEWADI

709

710

713

712

712Min

725

704(G/L)

703

703Min

702

734

737

738

700(G/L)

699

698

696

697

690/1456Min(G/L)

690/1456Min

690/1447(G/L)

690/1448(G/L)

690/1449(G/L)

690/1450(G/L)

772/1451 ( G / L Pasture)

773

786

847(G/L)

862(G/L Cart Track)

1116(G/L)

1117(G/L)

Area

Hectare Are Sq.mtr. 4

6 0

40 0

78 0

92 0

56 0

98 0

25 0

83 0

24 0

10 0

91 0

27 0

88 0

52 0

20 0

76 0

84 0

92 0

41 , }

68 0

64 0

37 0

08 586

[PART II-SEC.3(ii)) THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 15 , 2005/ PAUSA 25 , 1926

Tehsil : NASIRABAD

District : AJMER

State : RAJASTHAN

Area

Sr. No

Khasara No.

Are

Hectare

Name of the Village

Sq.mtr. 2

1118

9. BANEWADI ( Contd ... )

1118Min

1120

1100

1001

1099

1098

1097

1092

1091

1093

1083

1082

1066(G/L)

1074

1073

1071 (G/L Well )

1070 (G /L Cart Track)

1422(G /L Pasture)

1392(G /L Cart Track)

1361(G/L)

1362

1362Min

1363

1390(G/L Pasture)

1375(G/L Pasture )

1376(G/L Pasture)

1376/1455(G/L Pasture)

1378

1379(G/L Nala)

[No. R- 31015/63/2004- O.R. -II ]

HARISH KUMAR , Under Secy.

[भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

587

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 15, 2005/पौष 25, 1926

श्रम मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 15 दिसम्बर, 2004

का. आ. 164.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मैंगनीज ओर इण्डिया लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार, औद्योगिक अधिकरण , नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 43/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 13-12-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल. - 28012/ 2/93- आई. आर. ( विविध ) ] बी. एम. डेविड, अवर सचिव MINISTRY OF LABOUR

New Delhi , the 15th December , 2004 S.O. 164. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 43 / 2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Manganese Ore India Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 13-12-04 .

[No. L -28012/ 2/ 93 - IR(M) ] B. M. DAVID , Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL , NAGPUR PRESENT :

Shri E. Ismail, Presiding Officer.

Case No : C.G.LT./NGP/43/2002

Date : 16-09-2004 The Secretary General , Rashtriya Manganese Mazdoor Sangh-Petitioner

Vs.

The Chairman -cum-MD , M.O.1.L.-Respondent

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour , New Delhi by exercising the powers conferred by clause ( d) of Sub- Section ( 1 ) and Sub -Section 2 (A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 has referred this dispute for adjudication vide order No. L-28012/2/93/IR (Misc.) dt. 08-07-1994 on following schedule :-

11 GI/05-24

This is a reference by Govt . of India, Ministry of Labour which reads as follows :

"Whether the action of the management of Manganese Ore India Ltd. , in dismissing Shri Chandrashekhar Kawdu underground piece rated worker w.e.f. 16-11-1989 is justified ? If not , What relief the workman is entitled ?"

The petitioner has not evinced any interest in the case in spite of the notice has been served and perhaps he is not interested as the dismissal is of the year 1989. There isnothing on record to support the case of the petitioner . Hence a ' NIL' Award is passed.

Transmit.

E. ISMAIL, Presiding Officer (1) Witness for petitioner- Nil .

(2) Witness for respondent-Nil .

(3) Exhibits for petitioner-Nil .

(4) Exhibits for respondent-Nil.

नई दिल्ली, 15 दिसम्बर , 2004

का. आ. 165.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टील ऑथोरिटी ऑफ इण्डिया लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार, औद्योगिक अधिकरण, जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 211/94) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 15-12-04 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल.- 29011/2/94- आई . आर. ( विविध ) ]

बी. एम. डेविड, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 15th December, 2004 S.O. 165.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 211/ 94) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Steel Authority of India Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 15-12-04 .

[No. L - 29011/2/ 94 - IR(M) ] B. M. DAVID , Under Secy.

588

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 15 , 2005 /PAUSA 25 , 1926

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

Case No. CGIT / LC / R/ 211 / 94

Shri C M Singh, Presiding Officer.

The President , Hindustan Steel Lime Stone Mazdoor Union , 79/10 , Krislına Nagar, Satna

-Applicant

Versus

1. The Manager (Personnel ) , Prospecting Division , Rourkela Steel Plant , Raw Material division . 3rd zone , Rourkela (Orissa) .

IspatLime Stone Quarry,

2. The Dy . General Manager (Flux) , Raw Material Division, Babupur Satna

-Non- applicants

AWARD

(Pass: on this 9th day of December 2004 ) 1. The Government of India , Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L -29011 / 2/ 94-1R ( Misc . ) dated 15-11-94 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal :-

" क्या प्रबंधतंत्र स्टील अथॉरिटी ऑफ इंडिया लिमिटेड, रा मटेरियल डिविजन, जोन -2 , राऊरकेला के प्रबंधकों द्वारा आदेश दिनांक 20-7-93 द्वारा आदेश दिनांक 20-7-03 द्वारा श्रमिकों के स्थानांतरण प्रास्पेक्टिंग डिविजन ने इस्पात लाइम स्टोन क्वारी बाबूपुर, सतना में किये जाने एवं पूर्व में मिलने वाले लाभ इंसेंटिव माहवारी बोनस , रिवार्ड तथा प्रोस्पेक्टिंग यूनिट के कर्मचारियों को कैंप अलाउंस , फील्ड अलाउन्स न दिये जाने की कार्यवाही न्यायोचित है । यदि नहीं तो संबंधित कर्मकार किस अनुतोष के हकदार हैं ? "

2. After the reference was received and registered on 28-11-94 in this tribunal -cum-court , notices were issued to the parties to file their respective statement of claim etc. On several dates fixed in this case , the notices were repeatedly issued to the workman/Union to file its statement of claim but since the date of registration of the reference till 6-12-2004 , no body appeared for the workman /Union to file its statement of claim . On 6-12-2004 the date fixed in the reference , the notice was deemed to be served sufficiently to the workman/Union by registered post but in spite of service of notice , no body put in an appearance on behalf of the workman/Union .

[ PART 11-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] 3. It appears that the workman/ Union has no interest in prosecuting its case. Under the circumstances , 'No Dispute Award' is passed without any order as to costs.

4. The copy of the Award be sent to the Government ofIndia, Ministry of Labour as per rules.

C. M. SINGH , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 15 दिसम्बर , 2004

का. आ. 166.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एम . पी. स्टेट माईनिंग कार्पो. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार, औद्योगिक अधिकरण, जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 106/94 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 15-12-04 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल.- 29012/21/94- आई . आर. ( विविध ) ] बी. एम. डेविड, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 15th December , 2004 S.O. 166.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 106/ 94) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court . Jabalpur, as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M. P. State Mining Corpn. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 15-12-04.

[No. L - 29012/ 21 / 94-1R (M) ] B. M. DAVID , Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM - LABOUR COURT , JABALPUR

Case No. CGIT/ LC/ R/106/94

Shri C. M. Singh . Presiding Officer.

Shri Ganesh Prasad Rawat , State Secretary, M.P. Khadan Swatantra Mazdoor Sanghatan , Hirapur , Distt . Saugar (MP). -Applicant

Versus

The Assistant General Manager , MP State Mining Corporation , Sub -Office Tikamgarh (MP ) . -Non- applicant [ भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

589

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 15 , 2005/पौष 25, 1926

AWARD

(Passed on this 9th day of December -2004) 1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide Order No. L - 29012 / 21 / 94 - IR (Vividh) dated 28-7-94 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal:-

1. " क्या प्रबंधतंत्र, दी एम. पी. स्टेट माइनिंग कार्पोरेशन, टीकमगढ़ (म.प्र. ) के प्रबंधकों द्वारा खदान में कार्यरत पीस रेटेड श्रमिकों को समझौता दिनांकित 24-12-85 के पैरा 11 के अनुसार जिलाधीश द्वारा निर्धारित न्यूनतम मजदूरी न दिये जाने की कार्यवाही न्यायोचित है ? यदि नहीं तो संबंधित कर्मकार किस अनुतोष के हकदार है ? "

2. " क्या प्रबंधतंत्र, एम. पी. स्टेट माइनिंग कार्पोरेशन , टीकमगढ़ ( म.प्र. ) के अंतर्गत खदान में कार्यरत पीस रेटेड श्रमिकों द्वारा प्रांतिय सचिव, म.प्र. खदान स्वतंत्र मजदूर संगठन, हीरापुर, जिला सागर के आह्वान पर प्रकरण के वार्ता में लंबित रहते हुए 1-2-93 से 21-2-93 एवं 9-3-93 से 16-3-93 तक हड़ताल जारी रखने की कार्यवाही न्यायोचित है ? यदि नहीं, तो संबंधित कर्मकार किस अनुतोष के हकदार है ? " 2. After the reference order was received and registered in this tribunal cum court on 8-8-94, the notices were issued to the parties to file their respective statement of claim etc. On 17-3-96 the date fixed in the case , the reference was at the stage of evidence of workman/Union . Thereafter on several dates , in spite of issuing notice to the workman/Union , no body put in appearance for the workman/Union and lastly on6-12-2004, the service of notice was deemed sufficient on the workman/Union . On that date too , no body appeared on behalf of workman/ Union.

3. It appears that the workman/Union has no interest in prosecuting this case . Under the circumstances , No Dispute Award is passed without any order as to costs .

4. The copy of the Award be sent to the Government of India , Ministry of Labour as per rules .

C. M. SINGH, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 15 दिसम्बर, 2004

का. आ. 167.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कार्पो . लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार, औद्योगिक अधिकरण , नई दिल्ली- II के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 30/02 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 15-12-04 कोप्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल.- 30011/105/01- आई. आर. ( विविध ) ] बी. एम. डेविड, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 15th December, 2004 S.O. 167. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 30/02) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , New Delhi -II as shown in the Annexure inthe Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Hindustan Petroleum Corpn . Ltd. and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 15-12-04 .

[No. L- 30011 / 105/ 2001 - IR(M) ] B. M. DAVID , Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER , CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT - II , RAJENDRA BHAWAN , GROUND FLOOR , RAJENDRA PLACE , NEW DELHI

R. N. Rai , Presiding Officer I.D. No. 30/02

In the matter of :-

Shri N. S. Rane , Vill . Garhi Kundai , Tah . Kharkhoda, Dt . Sonepat , Haryana.

Versus

The General Manager , Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. , 11th Floor , Tower - I , 124 , Indira Chowk , New Delhi - 110001 .

AWARD

TheMinistry of Labour by its letter No. L-30011/ 105/2001 [ IR( M ) ] CENTRAL GOVERNMENT DT. 16-04-2002 has referred the following point for adjudication .

The point runs as hereunder :-

"Whether the action of the General Manager, Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. , Jeevan Bharti Building , 11th Floor, Tower - I , 124 , Indira Chowk , New Delhi - 110001 in depriving absorption to Shri N. S. Rane in the HPCL as per the agreement dt . 09-03-1994 considering his date of birth as 01-06-1959 instead of 01-06-1961 ignoring the certificate of verification of date of birth dt. 04-12-2000 from the Principal , Govt . St. Sec . School , Model To n , Sonepat , Haryana is justified, valid and reasona ,. ,what relief and benefits the workman is encici to ?" 590

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 15 , 2005/PAUSA 25, 1926

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] The workman has filed statement of claim . In his statement of claim , it has been stated that the petitioner started working with the respondent w.e.f. 12-08-1983 through a contractor . That the said contractor abandoned the work and all the workers had to approach the Labour Court in the year of 1984. That the respondent submitted before the Labour Court that in case the workers form the co-operative society then the respondent will appoint and regularise the services of the workers in accordance with seniority. Hindustan Petroleum Co-operative Society was registered and the name of the petitioner was placed at Sl. No. 20 and all the members of the co - operative society continued their work with the respondent . The services of some security personnel and other workers were continued till the management reached an agreement dt . 11-03-1994 .

That according to the direction of the Labour Court the seniority was the basis for regularisation of the services of the workers from the above mentioned co -operative society. That the respondent issued a letter dt . 23-06-1994 stating therein that the worker/petitioner has submitted fake certificate of his qualification . Copy of the letter dt. 23-06-1994 is annexed here with as Annexure P- 1 . That the respondent again issued the letterdt . 18-07-1994 stating therein that it has been found that the petitioner is Matric pass and his date of birth 01-06-1959 and the age of the petitioner comes to 26 years on June , 1985 where as maximum age for the job was allowed only upto 25 years .

That the petitioner was allowed to work upto 11-03-1994 when the services of his juniors were regularised and the cut off date was fixed in most arbitrary manner as 25 years on June , 1985. That the petitioner also filed the CWP No. 1127 of 1996 in the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi and the Hon'ble Court was pleased to allow the petitioner/ workman to raise the Industrial Dispute vide its order dt. 01-02-2000. That perusal of Agreement establishes that juniors to petitioner who had put in only 3 years of services , their services were regularised and those who started work with petitioner/ workman in 1983 their services have also been regularised .

reference passed by the Appropriate Government being without application of mind is bad and liable to be set aside. It is stated that the Hon'ble High Court in its order- dated 01-02-2000 passed in C.W.P. No. 1127/1996 has categorically observed that " The certificate which is produced by the Petitioner in the original shows some corrections made in the date of birth recorded therein" . Moreover , the claimant in his rejoinder affidavit filed before the Hon'ble High Court in the said writ petition has categorically stated , " The educational qualification of the job is eight class whereas the Petitioner has passed matriculation " . It is submitted that the certificate issued by the concerned Board , which conducts the Class Xth examinations is taken as proof of the date of birth and not a certificate issued by the Principal of the School . The management in the course of conciliation proceedings had requested the concerned authorities to direct the claimant to produce the original copy of his class Xth certificate issued by the Board as proof of his date of birth. The claimant was given various opportunities to furnish the said certificate but failed to do so . The appropriate government erred while referring the present matter and has taken into consideration a certificate dt . 04-12.2000 issued by the Principal , Govt . Sr. Sec. School , Model Town, Sonepat , Haryana . It is submitted that any reliance by the claimant on the said certificate issued in the year 2000 that too by the Principal after more than 6 years is wholly misplaced in as much as , the same was not in existence or produced by the claimant at the time of agreement/ settlementdt. 09-03-1994 between the management and employees through their union. It is submitted that as the claimant had failed to furnish proof of date of birth from the concerned Board , the claimant cannot challenge the action of the management in accordance with the agreement/settlement at such a belated stage. In view of the categorical observation of the Hon'ble High Court regarding the manipulations done by the claimant in the certificate produced by him and also in view of the failure of the claimant to produce the authenticated copy of the date ofbirth certificate from the concerned board despite opportunities , the appropriate Government ought to have refused to refer the alleged dispute before the Hon'ble Tribunal after a delay of 6 years in raising the alleged dispute by the claimant . As such, the terms of reference passed by the appropriate Government is mechanical , without application of mind and bad in law. The claim filed by the claimant is liable to be rejected on this ground alone .

That it is not understood as to how the agreement drawn on 11-03-1994 could fix the age of 25 years in June , 1985 for regularisation of the service . This is purely arbitrary . Age is not the criteria for regularisation. Age at most can be considered for appointment . Also any cut off date is arbitrary as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. That the petitioner/workman is no where gainfully cmployed since 11-03-1994 & he is being compelled to knock the door of the courts. That the petitioner / workman alone cannot be discriminated against in as much as the respondent has already given an under - taking that nobody will be thrown out ofjob .

The management has filed written statement . In the written statement, it has been stated that the terms of

Thatthe present reference as well as the claim filed by the claimant is barred by principles of estoppel . It is stated that it is admitted position that there was an agreement between the management and the employees through their Union on 09-03-1994 where by the inodalities of absorption of members of Petroleum Workers Labour and Contract Co - operative Society on the roll of [भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

the management were clearly laid down . As per the clause 1(i ) itwas agreed that only those members of Society who were of 25 years of age as on the month of formation of the Society i.e. June 1985 or joining the society by the member, if that is later , would only be absorbed. The claimant along with his statement of claim has filed an application, which shows that he was a member of the Union, which had entered into an agreement/settlement dt. 09-03-1994 with the management. Thus, the agreement between the management and the Union was binding upon the claimant as he was admittedly member of the union , which had entered into an agreement/ settlement with the management. It is submitted that the claimant cannot blow hot and cold in the same breath by making allegations regarding some portion of the settlement being arbitrary. It issubmitted that the claimant never challenged the vires ofthe settlement between the management and the union inthe Writ Petition filed before the High Court of Delhi . In the present case the only thing which requires consideration is that whether the claimant fulfilled the criteria laid down in the agreement or not . In the statement of claim the claimant has made allegations regarding arbitrary fixation of cut off date as 25 years on June 1985 . It issubmitted that the settlement between the management and the employees through their union has attained finality and is binding upon the parties to the said settlement . The claimant is estopped from raising issue pertaining to the settlement/ agreement between the management and the union ofwhom the claimant was allegedly a member. The claim of the claimant is liable to be dismissed on this groundalso.

That the present terms of reference is bad in as much , as in the absence of any employer -employee relationship between the parties , there is no Industrial Dispute, which subsists between the parties . It is submitted that it is the claim of the claimant that the contractor had employed him and after the contractor abandoned the work itwas agreed between the union ( of which the claimant was a member) and the management to absorb only those employees of the contractor who fulfilled the criteria laid down in the agreement . The claimant did not fulfil the criteria of age limit as required under the agreement , he was given compensation in lieu of employment. Since, earlier the contractor employed the claimant and after agreement/ settlement he was not given employment , as he did not fulful the criteria, there did not exist any employer -employee relation between the parties. In the absence of any employer -employee relation between the parties there exists no Industrial Dispute and the reference is liable to be answered accordingly.

That the claim filed by the claimant is liable to be dismissed for no -joinder of the necessary party. It is the claim ofthe claimant that he had been working as Contract Labour with Ranjit Singh & Co. The claimant has also placed on record and relied upon certain documents

591

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 15, 2005/पौष 25 , 1926

allegedly issued by the said company. As such, the said contractor is a necessary party for proper adjudication of the present matter . In the absence of the contractor being made a party to the present proceedings the present terms of reference as well as the resultant claims are liable to be dismissed for non -joinder/ mis -joinder of necessary parties.

It is denied that the claimant started working with the respondent/ management w.e.f. 12-09-1983 . It isdenied thatthe contractor abandoned the work and all the workers had to approach the Labour Court in the year 1984. It is denied that the Respondent/Management submitted before the Labour Court that in case the workers formed the society then the respondent/ management would appoint and regularisethe services of the workers in accordance with seniority. The formation of society as alleged is denied for want of knowledge . It is denied that Labour Court directed management to regularise the services of the workers on the basis of seniority. The allegations made in the claim are lacking in material particulars and the claimant is put to strict proof of the same.

Itisdenied that the cut off date under the agreement was fixed in most arbitrary manner. It is denied that the claimant had unblemished record from 1983 to 11-03- 1994. It is pertinent to mention here that the changes made by the claimant in the date ofbirth certificate as observed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi are pointer towards the integrity and righteousness ofthe claimant . It is denied that the claimant pursued his case for regularisation through his union vide letterdt . 17-01-1995 . It is stated that although the claimant has alleged about annexing the said letter, however , the same has not been annexed along with the documents supplied to the management . The document and its contents are denied and the claimant is put to strict proof of the same. It is denied that conciliation proceedings were going on before the Conciliation Officer. It is submitted that if this was the case, then there was no necessity for the claimant to approach the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and raise the issue again in the conciliation after a gap of 6 years .

It is denied that fixation of age of 25 years in June 1985 for regularisation of the service is purely arbitrary. It is denied that the claimant is not gainfully employed since 11-03-1994 . It is denied that the claimant alone has been discriminated , as alleged. It is denied that the management had given an undertaking that no body will be thrown out of job . It is submitted that the appropriate Government has not referred the issue of validity of the agreement/ settlement to the Hon'ble Tribunal . The agreement/settlement is final and binding upon the parties and its validity was neither under challenge in conciliation proceedings nor the issue of its validity has been referred to the Hon'ble Tribunal in the present proceedings . Withoutprejudice to the aforesaid, it is submitted that the claimant who himself claims to be the member of the 592

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 15 , 2005 / PAUSA 25 , 1926

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii ) ] union , which signed the agreement with the management isestopped from challenging the said agreement that too after such a long period of time . It is stated that as per the settlement the members of the society who fulfilled the eligibility criteria in respect of age and educational qualification were to be absorbed on the permanent payroll of the management . Further , it was agreed that if any member of the society did not meet the eligibility criteria, hewas to be paid retrenchment compensation . It was also agreed that if the member was not found eligible on account of furnishing false information with regard to their age , educational qualification , he would not be eligible for employment and absorption and was to be paid compensation . As per the clause 1 (i ) it was agreed that only those members of society who were of 25 years of age as on the month of formation of the society i.e. June 1985 or joining the society by the member, if that is late , would only be absorbed . It is stated that since the claimant was 26 years of age on the date of formation of society i.e. June 1985 he was not eligible for absorption in the permanent employment of the management and was only eligible for payment of compensation , which he was duly informed to collect from the management . It is pertinent to mention here that the documents filed by the claimant also show that he was 26 years of age and did not fulfil the criteria for absorption. Thus , the allegations of the claimant with regard to the said agreement are baseless and highly belated and cannot be entertained in the present proceedings.

The management has denied almost all the paras of the statement of claim and has stated categorically that he was 26 years of age whereas according to the agreement , he should be 25 years of age as on the month of formation of the society in June , 1985 or joining the society by the member .

The claimant has filed rejoinder. In his rejoinder, he has reiterated the averments of his claim and stated that his age should be counted when he was engaged and not when the agreement was made.

served for almost 11 years with the respondent management . It was submitted from the side of the workman applicant that after rendering 11 years of service , he should not be deprived of the benefit of regularisation on the basis of the agreement dt . 09-03-1994. There is a clause in the agreement regarding age and in that clause , ithas mentioned that the applicant should be 25 years of age as on the month of formation of the society in June , 1985 or joining the society by the member . It is explicit from the age criteria that the workman applicant should be of 25 years of age . It is not mentioned that he should be upto 25 years of age . It is only mentioned in the agreement that the applicant should be 25 years of age . This clause is vague . An applicant should be 25 years of age , it carries two meaning . He should be less than 25 years of age and he should not be more than 25 years of age. It is not mentioned categorically that the workman applicant for regularisation should not be more than 25 years old and it has not been mentioned categorically that he should not be less than 25 years of age . So the criteria of 25 years of age is vague . It should be specifically stipulated that for regularisation , the workman applicant should not exceed the age of 25 years or he should not be more than 25 years of age . So neither the lower status of age has been defined and nor the higher stage of age has beendefined . As such , the age prescribed for regularisation is ambiguous . It was further submitted from the side of the workman that Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down that in case the workman applicant has put up for a long span of service , then he should be given age relaxation. In the instant case , the workman has put in for about 11 years of service . As such , he should be given relaxation in age otherwise he would not be able to gain employment anywhere else . He spent his 11 years of valuable life in serving the management so in the circumstances of the case , his age should be counted from the date of his initial engagement . The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in such circumstances , the age relexation should be given despite provisions of age and qualification and it should be considered at the time of initial engagement . The age criteria is not also clear . 25 years of age carries both the meanings , less than 25 years and more than 25 years so the age criteria of the agreement is not quite specific. It may be interpreted both the ways since the workman applicant has worked for about 11 years in view of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court , he should be regularised without any back wages taking a sympathetic attitude by the management .

The reference is replied thus :-

The action of the General Manager, Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd. , Jeevan Bharti Building , 11th Floor, Tower - I , 124 , Indira Chowk , New Delhi - 110001 in depriving absorption to Shri N. S. Rane in the HPCL as per the agreement dt . 09-03-1994 considering his date of birth as 01-06-1959 instead of 01-06-1961 ignoring the Heard arguments from both the sides and perused the papers on the record. It was submitted from the side of the workman that he is deprived of the benefit of regularisation on the ground of age only . He has not put his signature on the agreement that he was a member of the union of Registered Society. He was 24 years of age when he was enrolled . It was submitted from the side of the management that he has not produced the certificate inthis file but the Hon'ble High Court has referred to his certificate while dismissing his writ petition . The qualification for regularisation is 8th pass . A substantial question is whether his age should be considered from the time of his joining into service or from the date of the agreement. It is admitted to both the parties that he served upto 11-3-1994 . The agreement was made on 09-03-1994. It is also admitted to both the parties that the workman applicant was engaged from 12-08-1983 . As such, he [ भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

certificate of verification of date of birth dt. 04-12-2000 from the Principal , Govt. Sr. Sec . School , Model Town, Sonepat, Haryana is neither justified , nor valid nor reasonable . The workman/ applicant deserves to be regularised without any back wages . The management is directed to regularise the workman/ applicant without any back wages within one month from the publication of the award . In case of default , the workman/ applicant will be entitled to get 50 % back wages and an interest of 10% on theback wages which become due .

The award is given accordingly.

Dt.: 14-12-04

R. N. RAI , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 15 दिसम्बर, 2004

का. आ. 168.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार इस्पात लाइम स्टोन क्वॉरी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार, औद्योगिक अधिकरण , जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 44/93 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 15-12-04 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल.- 29011/7/92- आई . आर. ( विविध ) ] बी. एम . डेविड, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 15th December , 2004 S.O. 168. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 44/93) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Ispat Lime Stone Quarry and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 15-12-04 .

[No. L- 29011/7 / 92- IR(M) ] B. M. DAVID , Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM - LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

Case No. CGIT/LC/R/ 44/ 93

Shri C. M. Singh: Presiding Officer

Shri C. S. Tiwari ,

---Applicant General Secretary, Hindustan Steel Lime Stone Mazdoor Union, 79/10, Krishna Nagar, Satna(MP) .

Versus

TheManager,

IspatLime Stone Quarry,

--Non - applicant Babupur , Satna (MP) .

593

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 15 , 2005 /पौष 25, 1926

AWARD

(Passed on this 9th day of December - 2004) 1. The Government of India , Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L- 29011/ 7/ 92 - IR ( Misc . ) dated 15-2-93 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal :-

(1 ) " क्या प्रबंधतंत्र इस्पात लाईम स्टोन क्वारी बाबुपुर, सतना ( म.प्र. ) के प्रबंधकों द्वारा श्रमिक श्री लक्ष्मण एवं मथुरा एवं अन्य श्रमिकों के माह सितम्बर 91 के वेतन से एम्बूलेंस चार्ज की कटौती 55 रु. एवं 165 रुपये की जाने की कार्यवाही न्यायोचित है ? "

(2) " क्या प्रबंधतंत्र द्वारा इस्पात लाईम स्टोन क्वारी , बाबुपुर, सतना ( म.प्र. ) के श्रमिकों को 4 रुपये प्रतिदिन केन्टीन अलाउन्स न दिये जाने की कार्यवाही न्यायोचित , है , यदि नहीं, तो संबंधित कर्मकार किस अनुतोष के हकदार है ? "

2. After the reference order was received and registered in this Tribunal -cum - Court , notices was issued to the parties. In response of notice , the workman/Union filed its statement of claim. The case was at the stage of filing written statement by the management . Thereafter since 20-5-96 the date fixed in the case , the workman/ Union failed to appear on the several dates fixed and lastly on 6-12-2004 the date fixed in the case , the service of notice was deemed sufficient on the workman/Union by registered post . In spite of notice to the workman/Union , none appeared on his behalf.

3. It appears from the above that the workman/ Union has no interest in prosecuting this case. Under the circumstances ,' No Dispute Award' is passed without any order as to costs ?

4. Copy of the Award be sent to the Government of India , Ministry of Labour as per rules .

C. M. SINGH , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 15 दिसम्बर, 2004

का. आ. 169.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एम. पी. स्टेट माईनिंग कार्पो . के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार, औद्योगिक अधिकरण, जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 131/93 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 15-12-04 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल.- 29012/42/92- आई. आर. ( विविध ) ] बी. एम . डेविड, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 15th December , 2004 S.O. 169. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central 594

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 15 , 2005/PAUSA 25 , 1926

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 131/93) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M. P. State Mining Corpn . and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 15-12-04.

[No. L - 29012/ 42/ 92- IR(M )] B. M. DAVID , Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM - LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

Case No. CGIT/ LC/ R/ 131/93

Shri C. M. Singh : Presiding Officer

-Applicant Shri M. K. Pathak , Local Secretary, M.P. Koyla Khanij Nigam Karamchari Sangh , HirapurMP State Mining Corpn . , Hirapur, Distt . Saugor (MP) .

Versus

-Non-applicant The Assistant General Manager ( Mines ) MP State Mining Corporation , Sub Office Hirapur , Distt. Saugor (MP) .

AWARD

(Passed on this 9th day of December - 2004) 1. The Government of India , Ministry of Labour vide Order No. L - 29012/ 42/ 92 - IR (Misc . ) dated 22-6-93 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal :-

" क्याप्रबंधतंत्र एम. पी. स्टेट माइनिंग कार्पोरेशन , उप कार्यालय, हीरापुर, जिला सागर ( म.प्र. ) के प्रबंधकों द्वारा श्री सत्येन्द्रसिंह सुपरवाईजर से माह नवम्बर 1980 से स्टोर इंचार्ज का कार्य लिया जाकर उसे इस पद पर नियमित न किये जाने की कार्यवाही न्यायोचित है ? यदि नहीं, तो संबंधित कर्मकार किस अनुतोष का हकदार है ? "

2. After receiving the reference order, it was registered in this tribunal- cum-court on 13-7-93 and notices were issued to the parties to file their respective statements of claim etc. The reference reached the stage of filing statement of claim by the workman and it was listed for the same on 15-1-96 . Since then , several dates were fixed in the case for the same purpose and notices were isued to the workman/Union for the same purpose but no body turned up for workman/Union to file the statement of claim . Lastly on 6-12-2004 the date fixed in the case, the notice was deemed sufficiently served on the

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] workman/Union by registered post . On that date too , no body appeared or turned up for workman/Union to file the statement of claim .

3. It appears that the workman/Union has no interest in prosecuting this case . Under the circumstances, No Dispute Award is passed without any order as to costs .

4. The copy of the Award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour as per rules .

C. M. SINGH, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 15 दिसम्बर, 2004

का. आ. 170.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एम. पी. स्टेट माईनिंग कार्पो . के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार, औद्योगिक अधिकरण, जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 224/89 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 15-12-04 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल.- 29012/25/89- आई . आर. (विविध ) ] बी. एम . डेविड, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 15th December , 2004 S.O. 170.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 224/ 89) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court , Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M. P. State Mining Corpn . and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 15-12-04 .

[No. L - 29012/ 25 / 89 - IR (M) ] B. M. DAVID , Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

Case No. CGIT /LC / R/ 224/89

Shri C. M. Singh, Presiding Officer.

-Applicant Shri Chandra Shekhare Tiwari , General Secretary, Satna Stone and Lime Workers Union , 79// 10 , Krishna Nagar, Satna

Versus

The Dy. General Manager ( Mines) M.P. State Mining Corporation , Sub Office : Rajendra Nagar , Satna

-Non - applicant [भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

595

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 15, 2005/पौष 25 , 1926

AWARD

(Passed on this 9th day of December, 2004) 1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide Order No. L - 29012/ 25 / 89 - IR (Vividh) dated 26-10-89 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal :

" क्या एम. पी. स्टेट माइनिंग कार्पोरेशन , उप- कार्यालय, सतना (म.प्र. ) के प्रबंधकों द्वारा श्रमिकों को दिनांक 19-3-88 से 31-3-88 तक की अवधि का वेतन भुगतान न किये जाने की कार्यवाही न्यायोचित है ? यदि नहीं, तो संबंधित कर्मकार किस अनुतोष के हकदार हैं ? "

2. After receiving the reference order, it was registered on 3-11-89 in this Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour- Court . Thereafter the notice have been issued to the parties to file their respective statement ofclaim etc. The reference was at the stage of filing rejoinder by the workman/Union and the documents on 20-5-96 . Since then, on several dates fixed in the case in spite of issuance ofnotice, no body turned up for the workman/Union and lastly on 6-12-2004, the date fixed in the case , the notice was deemed sufficiently to be served on the workman/ Union by registered post . In spite of the above service of notice, no body appeared for the workman/Union.

3. It appears that the workman/Union has no interest in prosecuting this case. Under the circumstances, 'No Dispute Award' is passed without any order as to costs.

4. The copy of the Award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour as per rules .

C. M. SINGH, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 15 दिसम्बर, 2004

का. आ. 171.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , भारतीय पुरातत्व सर्वेक्षण के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार, औद्योगिक अधिकरण , लखनऊ ( संदर्भ संख्या 40/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 14-12-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-42012/175/2002- आई. आर. ( सी.एम.- II ) ] एन. पी. केशवन, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 15th December, 2004 S.O. 171. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 40/ 2003) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court , Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in 11 GI/05-25

the Industrial Dispute between the management of Archaeological Survey of India and their workmen, which wasreceivedby the Central Government on 14-12-2004 .

[No. L -42012/ 175/ 2002- IR( CM - II) ] N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW PRESENT :

Shrikant Shukla, Presiding Officer

L. D. NO . 40/2003

Ref. No. L-42012/ 175/2002- IR ( CM- II) dt. 13-3-03

BETWEEN

Ram Khiladi Yadav, S/o J. S. Yadav House No. 34/95/ S.P. 33 , Shambhu Palace , Sanik Vihar Devari Road , Agra (U. P.)

AND

The Superintending Archaeologist , Archaeological Survey of India, AgraDivision, 22 , Mall Road, Agra (U.P. )

AWARD

TheGovernment of India , Ministry of Labour, New Delhi vide his order No. L -42012 / 175/ 2002 - IR (CM - II) dated 13-3-2003 referred the folowing issue for adjudication to Presiding Officer , CGIT -cum -Labour Court , Lucknow :

" क्या अधीक्षण पुरातत्वविद, भारतीय पुरातत्व सर्वेक्षण , आगरा द्वारा कर्मकार श्री राम खिलाड़ी यादव पुत्र ती जलधारी सिंह यादव को दिनांक 18-1-02 से सेवा से निष्कासित करना न्यायोचित है ? यदि नहीं, तो सम्बन्धित कर्मकार किस अनुतोष का हकदार है ? "

The worker has filed the statement of claim in the form of affidavit with the photostat copies of the documents alleging that the worker Ram Khiladi was employed on 13-6-93 as Gunman in the services of Archaeological Survey of India, Agra and acquire permanent status . The worker worked till 17-1-02 . On 18-1-02 the employer terminated his services without observing the provision ofSection 25F of the I.D. Act . 1947. It is also alleged that the employer violated Section 25 G & H of the I.D. Act . The worker has also alleged that the worker was appointed as ex -service man Gunman but the employer did not pay him salary of the Gunman . His claim is that he was appointed in the pay scale of Rs . 1240-2040 . He has also 596

[PART II- SEC. 3 (ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 15 , 2005/PAUSA 25 , 1926

alleged that juniors to him are still in services . In the circumstances he has requested that he be allowed to serve as Gunman and also regularised . He has also requested that he be awarded back wages since 18-1-02 . He has further claimed that he has not been paid wages of Gunman in the aforesaid mentioned scale and therefore arrears of pay be also awarded in his favour.

The worker has filed the following photocopies of the documents :-

1. Photocopy of letter Supdt. Archaeologist no . Misc./ 91/AGM dated 12-2-93.

2. Photocopy of the order Central Administrative Tribunal , Allahabad Bench, dt . 9-8-01 Ram Khiladi and others Vs. Union of India & others .

3. Photocopy of office memo Supdt. Archaeologist dt . 26-12-98 .

4. Photocopy of seniority list of casual workers .

the year 1993 worker worked for 70 days only (date of implementation of the scheme for grant of temporary status ) under the guidelines issued by the DOPT on 10-9-93 . So that the question of permanent status does not arise . The worker was assigned to keep watch over Ram Bagh , a centrally protected monument in the night between 31-12-01 and 1-2-02. His shift of duties was from 10 p.m. on 31-12-01 to 6 a.m. on 1-1-02 . It was during his shift of duties that two numbers of stone jallies measuring 1.45 metres in length and 0.50 metres in breadth were stolen from the monument by some unidentified person . It was purely due to the callousness and carelessness of the applicant that the government and the said centrally protected monument had to suffer an irreparable loss . The stolen jallies were the properties of the government costing thousands of rupees . An enquiry was ordered by the competent authority into the said theft . The worker was asked to explain as to how the stonejallies were stolen during his shift of duties and why he should not be held responsible for the said theft . In reply to this explanation calling notice he submitted that he left his place of duty in time i.e. 6 a.m. on 1-1-02 whereas his fellow workmen have stated to the contrary. The reply and the copy of the fellow workmen Ainuddin , Ganga Ram, Vinod Shanker have been enclosed with the written statement. The worker had been one of the most unruly, callous and careless worker . If he kept continued in his work, the nation , the government and the monument would have been made to suffer further loss . Hence , his engagement was discontinued on perusal of the report of the enquiry officer who was enquiring into the theft of the said stone jallies . Once disengaged from work , the question of seniority does not arise. The worker was disengaged after due process of enquiry and no injustice has been shown to the applicant . In the facts and circumstances stated above the action of the management in disengaging the worker is legal and just and proper and the worker is not entitled to any relief whatsoever .

The following photocopies of the documents have been filed by the opposite party

1. Photocopy of order dt . 9-8-01 passed in O.A. 289/01 by the CAT, Allahabad.

2. Speaking order of the Supdt. Archacological .

3. Enquiry report .

4. Copy of application of Ram Khiladi , Aniuddin , Gangaram , Vinod Shankar .

The opposite party has filed written statement alongwith affidavit disputing the claim of the worker. The opposite party has alleged that opposite party is not an industry but it is sovereign department of Government of India. The department undertakes the onerous responsibility of preserving and conserving numerous ancient monuments and archaeological sites spread over the length and breadth of the country. These monuments and sites are not only archaeological wealth of the country but also sentinels of national heritage , which are required to be preserved for the posterity . To fulfil this august and arduous task, this department engages numerous casual labourers for specific duration of work. The personnel working under this department are governed by CCS (Conduct) Rules 1965 and the temporary status casual workers are governed by Scheme for Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation of Casual Workers ( 1993 ) . The department is neither an industry nor undertakes any kind ofindustrial work, nor is a manufacturing concern to come under the purview of I.D. Act , 1947. As such application of 1. D. Act . 1947 on this department is not proper nd justified. The worker had filed an appliction No. 289/01 in the Central Administrative Tribunal , Allahabad for similar relief and the same has been decided by the Hon'ble Tribunal with the direction to the respondent to issue a reasoned, detailed and speaking order with reference to the departmental rules and directions as well as the legal position as above . Accordingly, a reasoned detailed and speaking order was issued to him in response to his application . It is also alleged that present case is barred by the principle of res judicata as this is a case on the same matter of dispute or the same relief. It is also alleged thatworker Ram Khiladi was never appointed on the post ofGunman in the establishment of the respondent/opposite party but was simply engaged as a daily waged casual labour for watch and ward duties of Fatehpur Sikri . During

The representative of the worker has filed rejoinder in which the representative have denied that the worker is not a industrial worker . It has also been stated vide order dt. 7-2-01 Cat , Allahabad , gave temporary status to 18 workers and in the year 2003 , 40 workers were regularised by the order of Hon'ble High Court . It is admitted by the representative of the worker that the duty !

[ भाग II-खंड .3 ( ii ) ]

ofRam Khiladi was in the night on 31-12-01 / 1-1-02 at 6 a.m. he handed over the charge to Aniuddin . It is stated that on 1-1-02 at 10 p.m. the worker Ram Khiladi went on duty then he got the information that the two stone jallis were broken. Thereafter Ram Khiladi had been regularly performing the duties and Sri R. K. Dixit , Conservation Asstt . have been demanding Rs.5 000 each from Ram Khiladi and Anuddin and when Ram Khiladi refused to oblige Sri Dixit then on 18-1-02 he was removed without given any notice . Subsequently the employer influenced some employees and obtained concocted complaint and filed in the court . The representative of the worker has also filed the photocopy of the order dt . 7-2-01 of CAT, Allahabad passed in O.A. 1817/93 Bindoo Khan and others Vs. Director General , Archaeological Survey of India.

The worker has examined himself and closed the evidence.

The employer has examined Dr. A. R. Siddiqui , Dy. Supdt . Archaeologist and closed the evidence.

Heard representatives of the parties and perused the evidence on record.

The worker had approached for regularisation of his services as group D employee and also requested to provide consequential benefits before CAT, Allahabad by moving original No. 289/01 alongwith one Chandan Singh . Ram Khiladi and Chandan Singh alleged that they were working in the office of Supdt . Archaeologist , Archaeological Survey of India, Circle Agra on the post ofGunman since June/July 93. They claimed that they have completed the requisite number of days they have worked then they have become entitled to be regularised with consequential benefits . In support of their contention they filed seniority list wherein their names are mentioned at the bottom sl . nos . 213 & 214 respectively. The respondent contested the case and alleged that the worker were not entitled to any benefit out of the direction as per DOPT letterdt . 10-9-93 , because it was only one time arrangement. It has also been disputed that the worker were appointed as Gunman after due process of selection but they were simply engaged from open market as daily wage casual worker on muster- roll like other daily wage for watch and ward of Fatehpur Sikri and later on they were shifted to Agra . The respondent contended their claim for regular appointment on the post of Gunman after due process of selection is absolutely baseless and therefore he is not entitled to any relief sought for. The learned Judicial member arrived on conclusion that memo dt . 10-9-93 is applicable to those who were in the employment on the date of issue of that memo and had rendered continuous service atleast one year but none of the worker had completed the required period of service to get benefit of the office memodt . 10-9-93 . However, in view of the service status of the worker and the service

597

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 15 , 2005/पौष 25 , 1926

requirement as referred in Annexure- 1 of the O.A. is decided with the following observations:

"The competent authority in the respondent establishment to consider the case of the applicant for grant of temporary status and consequential benefits in the light of above observation within four months from the date of communication of copy of this order and to pass a reasoned, detailed and speaking order with reference to the departmental rules and direction as well as the legal position and the observations as above, "

After passing of the above order by CAT, Allahabad Supdt . Archaeologist , passed a speaking order on 28-12-01 . The photocopy of the rules which is reproduced below :

"In pursuance of the directions given by the Hon'ble CAT, Allahabad vide his order passed on 9-8-01 in original application no . 289/01 , the case of Ram Khilari S/ o Sri J. Singh for grant of temporary status and consequential benefit has been thoroughly re -examined and following decision of the Supdt . Archaeologist , AST, Agra who is competent appointing authority for group D employees on reconsideration is hereby communicated as follows:

Whereas the grant of temporary status was a one time affaił and was applicable in respect of those casual employees who were in service on the date of notification of the scheme i.e. 10-9-93 and had rendered one year of continuous service with 240/206 days as the case may be at the time of implementation of the scheme .

Whereas as per record available Ram Khilari S/o Jaladhari Singh was engaged as daily wage casual worker in the establishment of answering respondent on 13-6-93 and thus he rendered his service for 70 days only upto 1-9-93 (date of implementation of scheme) and thus he is not entitled for grant of temporary status under the guidelines issued by DOPT on 10-9-93 . It is pertinent to mention here that the Hon'ble CAT, Allahabad has also upheld the same view in his judgmentdt . 9-8-01 while disposing his original application .

Whereas Ram Khilari was never appointed on the postofGunman in the establishment of Agra circle after due process of selection but he was simply engaged as a daily wage for watch and ward of Fatehpur Sikri , Headquarter office and presently at Chini - ka - Rauja as casual worker from open market like other daily wage casual employee on Muster rolls . He is also getting his wages regularly as per rules. It is further stated that in the establishment of Agra circle is no sanctioned post of gunman available.

Whereas a combired seniority list of daily wage casual employees is being nantained by Agra Crole . The name of Ram Khilad : shown at sl . no. 213 as ca 598

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 15 , 2005 /PAUSA 25 , 1926

tried to influence the enquiry officer by undue political influence . He has also stated that he was removed from services on 17-1-02 .

The worker has also submitted in the cross- examination that two stone jallies was found broken on 31-12-01 at that time his duty was on main gate .

1-1-95 , which is still under scrutiny. Thus more than 200 daily wage casual employees are senior to him . As and when regular vacancies of group ' D' post will be fallen vacant due to retirement and casual death of employees , Ram Khiladi be automatically regularised at their turn as per seniority lists vide ann. no . 3 of his said application, disposed of by the Hon'ble Tribunal .

Now in exercise of the powers and after going through the records available, I am of the opinion that Sri Ram Khilari does not fulfil the requirements of the DOPT scheme for grant of temporary status and hence his requests can not be agreed to . He will get his chance at his turn as and when vacancies of group ' D ' post will be fallen vacant in future as per seniority list and prevailing recruitment Rules .

Sd/-

(Muhammad K. K. ) Supdt. Archaeologist

Dr. A. R. Siddiqui , Supdt . Archaeologist examined by the opposite party who has stated that he was working asAsstt . Supdt. Archaeologist during June 02 to July 02 at circle office , Agra. He has stated that he knows Shri Ram Khiladi and he conducted the enquiry in that case. He has stated that Ram Khiladi was engaged as casual labour and only performing the duty of watch and ward . He has also stated that on 31-12-01 in night Ram Khiladi was posted on duty at Rambagh at Agra and in night during his duty two stone jallies were broken in the attempt of theft . The enquiry officer has also stated that other persons posted complained that Ram Khiladi left the place ofwork in the morning 4 a.m. without giving information to any one. He has also stated that as a result the breaking ofstone jallies , a loss to the tune of Rs . 5000 occurred. Therefore he was appointed as enquiry officer . He has also stated that during the enquiry he called Ram Khiladi .

In the circumstances the claim of the worker for regularisation on the post of Gunman in the regular pay scale is decided and this operates res judicata on the further claim of the worker so far as the claim of regularisation is concerned. It is noteworthy that the issue onregularisation has not been referred to this Tribunal for adjudication . The dispute to be adjudicated is " Whether the action of the management for terminating the services ofRam Khilari w.e.f. 18-1-02 is legal or otherwise. Had worker been appointed Gunman in the pay scale of Rs. 1240-2040, he could not been selected after due process and must have been given appointment letter or offer of appointment. But no such offer of appointment or appointment letter has been issued by the department nor has been produced by the either parties . The worker himselfhas admitted in the cross - examination that he has not received any written appointment letter, and he has also admitted that he has received the wages on the daily wage work basis . So in the circumstances it is clear that the worker was engaged on daily wage basis only.

The enquiry officer stated that Ram Khiladi was engaged in 1993 as casual labour and was posted at Fatehpur Sikri but as complaints were received against him he was removed from Fatehpur Sikri at the same time he was cautioned not to commit mistake again and on his request he was again posted . The enquiry officer stated that Ram Khiladi given information orally and he appeared in the enquiry proceeding accordingly. On coming to know due to negligence of Ram Khiladi and Annudin the valuable stone jallies were damaged and therefore both were asked to reimburse the loss equally to the tune of Rs . 2500 each and were asked to apologise but Ram Khiladi neither tendered nor reimbursed the loss and in the circumstances it was not found proper to engage him further and looking to the previous history he proposed to remove him from service . On this the worker Ram Khiladi was removed. The other person Annuddin tendered his apology and reimbursed the loss and looking to his past history he was not punished.

In cross - examination of the representative of the worker management witness has stated that it is false to say that he told Sri R. K. Dixit that Ram Khiladi is not at fault.

The worker has admitted that his duty was from 10 p.m. on 31-12-01 to 6 a.m. on 1-1-02 and in the morning he given charge to Anuddin. He has also stated on 17-1-02 he was asked to pay Rs . 2500 by R. K. Dixit , ConservationAsstt. but he did not deposit . He has admitted that for the said case only he was removed from service. He has also admitted that during his duty one stone jally was stolen .

The management witness has proved the enquiry report paper no. 11/8 and 11/9 is reproduced below : "Enquiry proceedings have been conducted against Ram Khilari ( Casual labour ) and Sri Ab -ud-din , Monument Attendant , Imad -ud -Daullah on 24-1-02 in the office SA, Agra Circle regarding theft and breaking of stone jali at Rambagh monument.

The worker has admitted that he knows Anuddin , Ganga Ram , Vinod Shankar and he had no enmity with these 3 persons . He has also admitted that copy of the complaint of these 3 persons were delivered to him . He has also admitted that whatever enquiry was conducted copy of such enquiry report was delievered to him in the court . The opposite party has suggested that the worker [भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

During investigation and cross questioning it was found that the case of breaking of stone jali at Rambagh monument happened in the night of 31-12-01 when Ain- ud-Din and Sri Ram Khilari were on night duty from 10 P.M. to 6 Α.Μ.

After hearing all the statements of both the persons and the statement of R. K. Dixit, CA, Itmad-ud-Daish , it has been decided that both the charged persons will take the responsibility to repair the broken stone jali on their own cost of about Rs . 5000. Sh . Ain-ud-Din Monument Attendant will pay Rs . 3000 and Sri Ram Khilari , Casual Labour has to bear the cost ofRs. 2000 .

However, Ain -ud -Din ( Monument Attendant) accepted the offer and agreed to pay Rs . 3000 for the repair ofthe above jali but Ram Khilari ( Casual Labour) did not agree to pay Rs . 2000 and in response he started unjustified arguments in a very rude manner. Ram Khilari threatened to file the case against this office. During enquiry, it has been observed that he is in a regular habit of misbehaving with the concerned C.A. and other staff members (Copy ofcomplaint of the concerned C.A. Sri Dixit and Ain -ud- DinMonument Attendant are enclosed herewith for ready reference).

In spite of the fact that C.A, Itmad - ud -Daullah issued Ram Khilari an explanation letter for performing properduties and to behave like a gentleman. Ram Khilari never paid any heed to the counseling of Sh . Dixit. In addition to these he persisted in his habit of absconding from duty and misbehaving with colleauges, seniors and other members of the staff.

Ram Khilari although is being conscious of the implications of bringing outer influence into the functioning of the office yet he had been exerting all kinds of political pressure and threats to this office so as to achieve his aim . Moreover he has been threatening the staffof the circle of dire consequences if they would not keep silence against his unscruptuious and illegal activities and would not help in achieving of his objectives .

The said Ram Khilari had absconded from duty at 4 AM in the night of 31-12-01 and Ist Jan. 2002 after having told to that effect to his colleague Ain- ud-Din . He had categorically told Ain -ud- Din that he would be going to his residence for some urgent personal work . The damage to the stone jali in the night of 31-12-01 at Ram Bagh monument has in all probabilities been caused through the involvement of Ram Khilari as evidence available at the spot indicate to that direction only of the said Ram Khilari and his accomplices . Having observed his mischievous activities , I have a feeling that he may

599

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 15, 2005/पौत्र 25, 1926

again put the national monuments and the national properties at a loss some day if he does not check himself or if a check is not imposed on him . The fact that he has been associating himself with anti- social elements and has been involved in illegal and irresponsible activities would pose a problem to the safety, security and maintenance of the monuments , which are precious National Property. Any kind of loss that may be caused to the national property could not be tolerated. His habits, his activities , his actions and his unjustified demands all go against the interest of the department. In spite of all these, he has so far failed to mend his manners to prove hisworth as a good worker and as a good citizen .

After having gone through the statements , documents and information received in this regard during the enquiry it is hereby suggested that since he is a casual labour he may be discontinued from the engagements of watch and ward duties forthwith in the interest of the safety of the national property. Sh . Ain - ud - Din has been asked to bear a part of the loss so that the jali is repaired and restored. Ram Khilari refused to compensate for the loss to repair the damage so the rest of expenditure may be borne by the concerned C.A. The concerned CA may be asked to restore the jali in its proper shape and at its proper place for which he would not be entitled to any additional funds. Ain-ud -Din may be transferred and adjusted within the same circle .

The management has also filed 3 letters of Ain -ud- Din, Gangaram and Vinod Shankar which respectively paper no . 11/13 to 11/15 , they are in nature of complaints against the conduct of Ram Khilari . There is also photo- copy of letters of Ram Khilaridt. 20-1-02 addressed to Supdt . Archaeologist , Agra . The photocopy of this letter is not denied by Ram Khilari. This letter goes to show that he was not paid the wages and when he went to receive his wages he was not paid and on 3-1-02 he received a false memo in which it was shown that two 'jalis were broken at Rambagh Monument in the night of 31-12-01 which is false . This letter also shows that on 17-1-02 the CA, R. K. Dixit asked him to pay Rs. 2500 for the repairing of stone jalis which he denied with the result that he was removed by oral order on 18-2-02.

From the evidence on record it is fully established that the worker Ram Khilari was a casual worker and during his duty in the night of 31-12-01 and 1-1-02 the stone jalis were broken which required repairs . It is also established that the worker was served with the memo with the allegations and enquiry was conducted by the enquiry officer Dr. A. R. Siddiqui who found him guilty of misconduct . A linient view was taken by the 600

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 15 , 2005 /PAUSA 25 , 1926

3 (ii) ]

[PART II- SEC .

अनुबंध

औद्योगिक विवाद अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, जोधपुर

पीठासीन अधिकारी श्री के. के. गुप्ता, आर.एच.जे.एस.

औद्यौगिक विवाद ( केन्दीय ) संख्या 10/2002

श्रीचौथाराम पुत्र रावताराम, जाति बेलदार निवासी सेलता हाल मूल शंकर,

management and worker was asked to reimburse the loss by pay the proportionate estimated expenditure for repairing ofjali and to tender apology but the worker Ram Khilari did not tender apology nor bothered to reimburse the cost . Therefore the management has no option then to dispense the services of Ram Khilari and the other worker who defaulted in duty paid the proportionate amount of estimated repairs and tender apology and this he was retained .

जिला जैसलमेर ।

-प्रार्थी

बनाम

The worker has not alleged in the statement of claim is that the enquiry conducted was in violation of natural justice.

राजस्थान स्टेट माईन्स एण्ड मिनरल्स

लिमिटेड ( आर.एस.एम.एम. लि. )

-अप्रार्थी

जयपुर ।

उपस्थिति:

( 1 ) प्रार्थी प्रतिनिधि श्री एल.डी. खत्री, उप.

(2) अप्रार्थी प्रतिनिधि श्री खेमाराम चौधरी, उप.

अधिनिर्णय

दिनांक : 29-9-2004

श्रम मंत्रालय, भारत सरकार नई दिल्ली ने अपनी अधिसूचना क्रमांक एल . 29012/92/ 2000/ आई.आर. ( एम.) दिनांक 8-1-2001 से निम्न विवाद वास्ते अधिनिर्णय इस न्यायालय को प्रेषित किया है :

The present case is one which is not covered under the term. of retrenchment but it is one which is termination ofthe services of the workman as result of gross negligence in the work and the management has imposed such punishment after conducting enquiry. The punishment is not excessive as well . The enquiry officer has observed that the worker has been associating himself with anti social elements and has been involved in illegal and irresponsible activities would pose a problem to the safety and security and maintenance of monuments , which precious national property. Any kind of loss that may be caused to the national property could not be tolerated. Hishabits , his activities and his action and his unjustified demands all go against the interest of the department . In the circumstances the discontinuance ofthe casual labour isjustified and also I come to the conclusion that worker is not entitled to any relief. Issue is accordingly answered . Lucknow

1-12-2004 SHRIKANT SHUKLA , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 15 दिसम्बर, 2004

"Whether the termination of Services of Shri Chotharam S / o Shri Rawataram , Ex . Sahayak Karamchari by the management of RSMDC Ltd. , Jaipur by way of Voluntary Retirement Scheme w.e.f. 1-2-1997 is legal and justified ? If not , to what relief is workman concerned entitled ? "

का. आ. 172.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार राज, स्टेट माईन्स एण्ड मिनरल्स लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , जोधपुर के पंचाट को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 15-12-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-29012/92/2000 - आई. आर. ( एम ) ] बी. एम. डेविड, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 15th December, 2004

S.O. 172. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Industrial Tribunal , Jodhpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Rajasthan State Mines & Minerals Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 15-12-2004 .

प्रार्थी ने अपना माँग- पत्र प्रस्तुत करते हुए अभिकथित किया है किअप्रार्थी ने उसकी नियुक्ति आर.एल.डब्ल्यू. के पद पर करीब आठ वर्ष पूर्व की तथा सोनू लाईम स्टोन के प्रोजेक्टर पर कार्य करने हेतु निर्देशित किया उसके पश्चात् उसके कार्य से सन्तुष्ट होकर आदेश दिनांक 12-1-93 से आर. एम. डब्ल्यू. के पद पर 1-10-92 से नियमित कर दिया तथा 750-940 के ग्रेड में स्थिरीकरण किया गया । अप्रार्थी के अधिनस्थ अधिकारियों ने प्रार्थी जो कि अनपढ़ है , को गुमराह करते हुए उससे स्वैच्छिक सेवानिवृत्ति योजना के अन्तर्गत प्रार्थना- पत्र मांगे जिस पर प्रार्थी ने भी अपना प्रार्थना- पत्र अप्रार्थी के समक्ष सशर्त पेश किया व 31-10-97 को कुछ शर्तों पर स्वयं को सेवानिवृत्त करने हेतु प्रार्थना की । प्रार्थी द्वारा पेश किये गये प्रार्थना- पत्र जब अप्रार्थी द्वारा मांगे गये तब प्रार्थी को जो स्वैच्छिक सेवानिवृत्ति से संबंधित अप्रार्थी की पालिसी का आफिस आर्डर बताया गया, उक्त अप्रार्थी द्वारा जारी पालिसी प्रार्थी के मामले में लागू नहीं होती फिर भी प्रार्थी को रोजगार से निकालने हेतु अप्रार्थी द्वारा षड्यंत्र रचा गया जिसकी जानकारी प्रार्थी को 31-10-97 से पूर्व होने पर उसने अपना स्वैच्छिक सेवानिवृत्ति का प्रार्थना- पत्र वापस उठाने हेतु प्रार्थना पत्र दिया, 13-4-98 को भी प्रार्थी ने अन्य कर्मचारियों के साथ एक प्रार्थना पत्र दिया । अप्रार्थी ने प्रार्थी को [No. L - 29012/ 92/2000 - IR(M) ] B.M. DAVID , Under Secy.

[ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

स्वैच्छिक सेवानिवृत्ति योजना के नाम पर प्रार्थना - पत्र लेकर मनमाने ढंग से नौकरी से निकालकर प्रार्थी को संविधान प्रदत्त अधिकारों की अवहेलना की अतः प्रार्थी पुनः सेवा में रखे जाने का अधिकारी है । अप्रार्थी के अधिनस्थअधिकारियों द्वारा प्रार्थी व अनपढ़ कर्मचारियों के खाली पन्नों पर हस्ताक्षर करवा लेने से उसकी नौकरी पर विपरीत प्रभाव डालने की नियत से यह कृत्य किया जो स्पष्टतः अनफेयर लेबर प्रैक्टिसकी तारीख में आता है । अन्त में निवेदन किया है कि प्रार्थी की सेवामुक्तिको अवैध घोषित कर प्रार्थी को पुनः सेवा में लगातार मानते हुए समस्त परिलाभ दिलाये जायें ।

अप्रार्थी की ओर से जवाब प्रस्तुत करते हुए कहा है कि प्रार्थी को शुरू में निगम द्वारा दैनिक वेतन पर रखा गया जिसे 1-10-92 को वेतनमान में नियमित किया गया, निगम द्वारा जारी स्वैच्छिक सेवानिवृत्ति योजना के लाभों व उसके गुण-अवगुण को भली- भांति समझकर प्रार्थी ने अपनी स्वतंत्र इच्छा से स्वैच्छिक सेवानिवृत्ति हेतु प्रार्थना - पत्र अप्राथी निगम के समक्ष प्रस्तुत किया था जिसे अप्रार्थी द्वारा स्वीकार कर प्रार्थी को सेवा मुक्त किया गया , अप्रार्थी द्वारा जारी स्वैच्छिक सेवानिवृत्ति योजना समस्त कर्मचारियों के समक्ष उपलब्ध थी । यह कहा गया है कि स्वैच्छिक सेवानिवृत्ति योजना के तहत होने वाले समस्त आर्थिक लाभों की राशिका भुगतान प्रार्थी को किया जा चुका है तथा प्रार्थी की अप्रार्थी निगम में किसी प्रकार की राशि बकाया नहीं है, अप्रार्थी ने स्वैच्छिक सेवानिवृत्ति प्रार्थनापत्र को स्वीकार करने में कोई षड्यंत्र नहीं किया । सेवा से निवृत्त होने के पश्चात् 13-4-98 को कोई प्रार्थना- पत्र अप्रार्थी संस्थान को नहीं मिला, प्रार्थी ने सेवानिवृत्ति आदेश पारित होने से पहले अपने सेवानिवृत्ति आवेदन को वापस लेने हेतु न तो प्रार्थना - पत्र प्रस्तुत किया न ही आग्रह किया , प्रार्थी की सेवामुक्त किया गया था, सेवा से निकाला नहीं गया , अप्रार्थी के अधीनस्थ अधिकारियों ने न तो प्रार्थी को गुमराह किया न ही खाली पन्नों पर हस्ताक्षर करवाये थे । अप्रार्थी निगम ने उसके द्वारा चाहे गये स्वैच्छिक सेवानिवृत्ति को उसके प्रार्थना- पत्र के आधार पर सेवानिवृत्ति प्रदान कर सेवामुक्त किया था उक्त आदेश पारित करने में औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम के किसी भी प्रावधान का उल्लंघन नहीं हुआ है । अत्तः प्रार्थी का प्रार्थना पत्र सव्यय खारिज किया जावें ।

मांग पत्र के समर्थन में प्रार्थी ने स्वयं का शपथ- पत्र प्रस्तुत किया जिस पर अप्रार्थी प्रतिनिधि द्वारा जिरह की गई तथा अप्रार्थी की ओर से त्रिभुवन राय ठाकोर का शपथ- पत्र प्रस्तुत किया जिस पर प्रार्थी प्रतिनिधि द्वारा जिरह की गई । दोनों पक्षों की ओर से दस्तावेजात की प्रतियाँ पेश की गई ।

दोनों पक्षों के प्रतिनिधिगण की बहस सुनी, पत्रावली का अवलोकन किया ।

प्रार्थी ने तर्क प्रस्तुत करते हुए कहा है कि स्वैच्छिक सेवानिवृत्ति योजना के अन्तर्गत स्वैच्छिक सेवानिवृत्ति हेतु कुछ शर्तों के साथ प्रार्थना- पत्र प्रस्तुत किया जो उसे अप्रार्थी के अधिकारियों ने षड्यन्त्र रचकर गुमराह करके लिया गया, यह योजना उसके मामले में लागू नहीं होती थी । प्रार्थी श्रमिक ने 31-10-97 से पूर्व इसे वापस लेने का प्रार्थना- पत्र भी प्रस्तुत कर दिया था और 13-4-98 को भी अन्य कर्मचारियों

601

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 15, 2005/पौष 25 , 1926

के साथ पुनः उसने इस तरह का प्रार्थना- पत्र प्रस्तुत किया । उनका तर्क है कि सशर्त त्याग - पत्र की शर्तें पूरी नहीं हों तो त्याग- पत्र मंजूर होना नहीं माना जायेगा ।

रेफरेन्स में 1-2-97 सेवानिवृत्ति की दिनांक बतलाई है जबकी प्रार्थी की ओर से प्रस्तुत कार्यालय आदेश की फोटो कापी में दिनांक 1-12-97 से स्वैच्छिक सेवानिवृत्ति प्रभावशील हुई है । सम्पूर्ण पत्रावली व आदेश के अवलोकन से ऐसा प्रतीत होता है कि रेफरेन्स में 1-12-97 के स्थान पर टंकण की त्रुटी से 1-2-97 से टंकित हो गया है व पक्षकारान ने सहवन से 1-12-97 के स्थान पर 31-10-97 मांग- पत्र व जवाब में अंकित कर दिये हैं । जिसका कोई विपरीत प्रभाव दोनों पक्षों पर नहीं पड़ा है ।

अप्रार्थी का तर्क है कि प्राची ने अच्छी तरह से समझबूझकर स्वेच्छा से बिना किसी दबाव के प्रार्थना- पत्र प्रस्तुत किया था जो स्कीम प्रार्थी के मामले में लागू थी उस प्रार्थना- पत्र को स्वीकार करके उसे सेवानिवृत्ति कर दिया और समस्त आर्थिक लाभ उसने प्राप्त कर लिये तथा सेवानिवृत्ति स्वीकृत होने व सेवामुक्त होने से पूर्व उसने कोई प्रार्थना - पत्र विड्रावल का नहीं दिया तथा सेवानिवृत्ति परिलाभ भी प्राप्त कर लिए हैं ।

प्रार्थी ने अपने शपथ- पत्र में मांग - पत्र में कहे गये तथ्यों को दोहराया है किन्तु जिरह में उसने यह बात कही है कि उसने रिटायरमेन्ट कीअर्जी नहीं दी, गवाहान के दस्तखत नहीं कराये, पैसे नहीं मिले , 41 हजार करीब मिले हो व मैंने अंगूठा किया हो गलत है , ग्रेच्युटी के 9368 मिले हों यह गलत है , जी.पी.एफ. 18573 दिये हों यह गलत है, प्रदर्श -1 से 3 पर अंगूठे मेरे नहीं हैं , नौकरी से हटाने की शिकायत नहीं की, केस कर दिया ।

अप्रार्थी के गवाह ने जवाब में अंकित तथ्यों को अपने शपथ- पत्र में दोहराया है तथा जिरह में कहा है कि क्या शर्त थी याद नहीं, यह गलत है कि त्याग - पत्र स्वीकार होने के पहले प्रार्थी ने त्याग- पत्र विड्रो कर लिया था, प्रदर्श -1 से 3 का भुगतान सेवानिवृत्ति होने की तिथि को नहीं हुआ था, जिस तारीख को भुगतान हुआ तारीख प्रदर्श -1 , 2 व 3 पर अंकित है । जिस दिन प्रार्थी ने सेवानिवृत्ति ली उस दिन स्वैच्छिक सेवानिवृत्ति योजना की सभी शर्तें प्रार्थी पूरा करता था, सन् 91 के बाद समय- समय पर स्वैच्छिक सेवानिवृत्ति की योजनाएं अलग-अलग आती रही थी, 1997-98 में योजना जिसमें प्रार्थी को स्वैच्छिक सेवानिवृत्ति स्वीकार की उस समय 10 साल की नौकरी व 40 वर्ष की उम्र वाली कन्डीशन आवश्यक नहीं थी । प्रदर्श -2 के जरिये प्रार्थी को 9368 रुपये का भुगतान किया है, फोरवर्डिंग लेटर प्रदर्श -2 में 93681 रुपये प्रार्थी के नाम के अंकित है यह डेसीमल की गलती के कारण हुआ है, वास्तव में 9368 रुपये ही प्रार्थी के गेच्युटी के बनते हैं । प्रदर्श -2 में क्रम संख्या-3 चौथाराम के भुगतान पर अंगूठा निशानी ए टू बी है उस पर नाम अंकित नहीं है , यह सही है कि भुगतान मैंने स्वयं ने नहीं किया है , कैशियर ने किया है , यह गलत है कि सेवानिवृत्तिके दो माह पहले त्याग- पत्र स्वीकार कर लिया हो । 602

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 15 , 2005 /PAUSA 25 , 1926

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii)] प्रार्थी श्रमिक का यह कथन कि उसने प्रार्थना- पत्र नहीं दिया व गुमराह करके उससे ले लिया उसको साबित करना था उसने इस संबद्ध में कोई साक्ष्य प्रस्तुत नहीं की है कि उसे गुमराह करके और दबाव देकर प्रार्थना- पत्र प्राप्त किया हो, उसने इस तरह का प्रार्थना- पत्र व उसकी फोटो प्रति भी प्रस्तुत नहीं की व रसीद भी प्रस्तुत नहीं की है । सेवानिवृत्ति तिथि के पूर्व उसने सेवानिवृत्ति के प्रार्थना- पत्र को वापस लेने के लिए प्रार्थना- पत्र प्रस्तुत कर दिया था, उसका यह, कहना कि 13-4-98 को अन्य लोगों के साथ उसने प्रार्थना- पत्र प्रस्तुत किया उसकी भी प्रतिलिपी या रसीद प्रस्तुत नहीं की गई है । प्रदर्श-1 के अवलोकन से यह साबित है कि प्रार्थी श्रमिक चौथाराम का 41196 रुपये का एक्सग्रेसिया व अन्य मदों में राशि की डी.डी. नं. 912118 दिनांक 15-1-98 मुख्यालय से भेजा गया था जिसे उसने प्राप्त कर लिया उसका यह कथन है कि उसने यह प्राप्त नहीं किया, उसका अंगूठा निशानी नहीं है, किन्तु उसका मौखिक रूप से कह देना पर्याप्त नहीं है । 98 में डी.डी. के द्वारा उसे यह भुगतान हुआ है , इसी तरह से उसका ग्रेच्युटी का 9368 का भुगतान भी सन् 98 में ही कर दिया जो किप्रदर्श -2 के अवलोकन से साबित होता है । इस संबंध में उसका यह कहना कि उसका अंगूठा निशानी नहीं है और उसे भुगतान नहीं हुआ स्वीकार किये जाने योग्य नहीं है । सन् 98 के भुगतान की शिकायत न तो पुलिस में की और न ही विभाग में किसी को की, यह दोनों ही भुगतान डी.डी. से हुए हैं अतः यह सम्भव नहीं है कि भुगतान पर फर्जी अंगूठा लगाकर डी.डी. को किसी अन्य ने प्राप्त किया हो । यदि उसे भुगतान प्राप्त नहीं होता तो अवश्य ही वह विभाग में व पुलिस में या अन्य कहीं पर इसकी शिकायत करता। इसके विपरीत अप्रार्थी ने अपनी साक्ष्य से यह साबित किया है कि इनका भुगतान प्रार्थी को उनके विभाग के द्वारा किया गया है, इस सभी कार्यवाही को फर्जी व झूठा मानने का कोई युक्तियुक्त विश्वसनीय कारण पत्रावली पर नहीं है । प्रार्थी का अपने मांग- पत्र व शपथ - पत्र में भी इस तरह का कथन नहीं है कि उसे स्वैच्छिक सेवानिवृत्ति से प्राप्त होने वाले लाभ पी.एफ. ग्रेच्युटी का भुगतान नहीं हुआ । अतः उसका यह कथन कतई विश्वास किये जाने योग्य नहीं है और इस तरह से अप्रार्थी की साक्ष्य से यह साबित है कि प्रार्थी ने स्वैच्छिक सेवानिवृत्ति प्राप्त करने के बाद उससे मिलने वाले परिलाभों को भी प्राप्त कर लिया है । प्रार्थी यह साबित नहीं कर पाया है कि उसने कुछ शर्तें सेवानिवृत्ति की दी थी और वह शर्तें पूरी नहीं हुई, प्रार्थी अपने कथनों को साक्ष्य से साबित नहीं कर पाया है । प्रार्थी की ओर से आर.एल.आर. 2000 ( 3 ) पेज 566 गोपीकिशन बनाम स्टेट ऑफ राजस्थान व अन्य, एस.सी.सी. 2002 (3 ) पेज 437 शम्भुगिरी सिन्हा बनाम प्रोजेक्ट एण्ड डेवलपमेन्ट इंडिया लि. व अन्य, डब्लू.एल.आर. ( एस. ) 1992 राजस्थान पेज 756 राजेश व्यास बनाम कोटा ओपन यूनिर्वसिटी, ए.आई.आर. 1987 सुप्रीम कोर्ट पेज 2354 बलराम गुप्ता बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इंडिया के विनिश्चय पेश किये इन सभीन्यायदृष्टान्तों में मुख्य रूप से यह सिद्धांत प्रतिपादित किया है कि त्याग- पत्र स्वीकार होने के पूर्व किसी भी समय वापस लिया जा सकता है, इस सिद्धांत पर कोई विवाद नहीं है । परन्तु प्रस्तुत प्रकरण में प्रार्थी ने सेवानिवृत्ति का प्रार्थना- पत्र स्वीकार होने के पूर्व उसे वापस नहीं लिया वह तो यह भी साबित नहीं कर पाया है कि उसने किसी प्रकार का प्रार्थना पत्र स्वैच्छिक सेवानिवृत्ति को वापस लेने को दिया था ,

13-4-98 का प्रार्थना- पत्र देना तर्क के लिए मान भी लिया जावे तब भी उसका प्रार्थना- पत्र स्वीकार हो गया था और 1-12-97 को उसे सेवा मुक्त कर दिया गया था उसने सारे परिलाभ प्राप्त कर लिये थे । विपक्षी की ओर से एस.सी.टी. 2000 ( 1 ) पेज 745 कंचन कपूर बनाम फेमिली प्लानिंग एसोसिएशन ऑफ इंडिया का विनिश्चय पेश किया जिसमें स्थिति को स्पष्टतौर से प्रतिपादित किया है कि जहां प्रार्थी ने बिना प्रतिरोध किये समय- समय पर परिलाभ प्राप्त किये हैं तो उसके पश्चात् प्रार्थी पुनः नौकरी पाने का अधिकारी नहीं है । विपक्षी के द्वारा ही प्रस्तुत एस.बी. सिविल रिट पिटीशन नं . 3650/98 अम्बावा बनाम आर.एस.एम. डी.सी. का विनिश्चय पेश किया जिसमें स्पष्ट किया गया है कि जहां प्रार्थी ने सेवानिवृत्ति के संबंध में परिलाभों को प्राप्त कर लिया है तो वह सेवानिवृत्ति के आदेश को चुनौती नहीं दे सकता । यह मामला भी प्रस्तुत प्रकरण जैसा ही है , इसमें भी स्कीम के अन्तर्गत प्रार्थी ने सेवानिवृत्ति का प्रार्थना- पत्र दिया था और उसने रिटायरमेंट लिया था । अतः पार्थी द्वारा प्रस्तुत न्यायदृष्टान्त यहां लागू नहीं होते । प्रार्थी का यह कहना कि उसकी शर्तें पूरी नहीं हुई, माने जाने योग्य नहीं है, उसने सेवानिवृत्ति के पश्चात् सभी परिलाभ प्राप्त कर लिये हैं । प्रार्थी ने अन्य न्यायदृष्टान्त डब्ल्यू. एल . एन. 1985( 1 ) पेज 318 एस.एल. सोनी बनाम आर.एस.एम.डी.सी. प्रस्तुत किया इसके तथ्य बिल्कुल भिन्न हैं, इस विनिश्चय में प्रार्थी की सेवाएं टर्मीनेट कर दी गई थीं और उससे कनिष्ठ को सेवा में लगातार रखा गया था, यहां इस तरह का मामला नहीं है । इसी तरह से एस.एल.आर. 1987 ( 5 ) पेज 165 सत्यवीरसिंह बनाम राजस्थान राज्य में नियम 12 के बारे में कहा गया है और यह कहा गया है कि सक्षम अधिकारी द्वारा त्याग - पत्र मंजूर कर लिया गया है किन्तु उसमें यह कहा गया है कि जब तक उसे सेवामुक्त नहीं किया जाए जब तक कि वह अदेयता प्रमाण - पत्र प्रस्तुत नहीं करे और इस दौरान प्रार्थी ने त्याग - पत्र वापस ले लिया था और यह माना गया कि त्याग - पत्र प्रभावशील नहीं हुआ क्योंकि अदेयता प्रमाण- पत्र नहीं दिया गया । यहां इस तरह का मामला नहीं है , यहां त्याग- पत्र सशर्त मंजूर नहीं किया गया था , त्याग - पत्र मंजूर करने के बाद सारे लाभ भी प्रार्थी ने प्राप्त कर लिये थे , उसे सेवामुक्त कर दिया गया था । ऐसी स्थिति में यह न्यायदृष्टांत प्रार्थी को कोई सहायता नहीं पहुंचाते । प्रार्थी की ओर से एस.एल.आर. 1991 ( 3 ) पेज 214 वेदपति दिनेश कुमार बनाम नोर्थ जोन कल्चरल सेन्टर पेश किया इसमें यह कहा गया है कि त्यागपत्र अपने आपसे वापस लिया हुआ माना जायेगा , उसके स्वीकार होने के पहले क्योंकि उसका प्रभावशील होना तब से माना जायेगा जब से उसकी स्वीकृति की सूचना प्रार्थी को दे दी जाए और उसको सेवामुक्त कर दिया जाए, इस मामले के तथ्य भी बिल्कुल भिन्न हैं, यहां इस तरह का मामला नहीं है । यहां तो प्रार्थी का स्वैच्छिक सेवानिवृत्ति का प्रार्थना- पत्र स्वीकार कर लिया गया था उसके बाद उसने सारे परिलाभ प्राप्त कर लिये तब तक उसने कोई प्रार्थना-पत्र सेवानिवृत्ति वापस लेने का नहीं दिया ऐसी स्थिति में यह न्यायदृष्टांत भी प्रार्थी को कोई सहायता नहीं पहुंचाता । एस.एल.आर. 1994( 5 ) पेज 441 तेजबहादुर सिंह बनाम भारत पम्प एण्ड कम्प्रेशर का विनिश्चय प्रस्तुत किया जिसमें स्वैच्छिक सेवानिवृत्ति प्रार्थना - पत्र प्रस्तुत कर 30-6-92 से चाही थी, कम्पनी ने उसे सूचना दी कि उसका स्वैच्छिक सेवानिवृत्ति प्रार्थना- पत्र 31-5-92 को स्वीकार कर लिया गया है तब [भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

603

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 15, 2009/पौष 25; 1926

प्रार्थी ने उसको विड्रो करने की प्रार्थना की तब भी उसे 31-5-92 को ही सेवानिवृत्त कर दिया तो यह निर्णीत किया गया कि उसे प्रार्थना-पत्र कीदिनांक 30-6-92 से ही रिटायर्ड करना चाहिये था अथवा उसका जो सेवानिवृत्ति का प्रार्थना- पत्र है उसके आधार पर रिटायरमेन्ट करना चाहिये था और कम्पनी का 31-5-92 से सेवानिवृत्त करने का आदेश अवैध माना गया । यहां ऐसा मामला नहीं है । प्रार्थी यह साबित नहीं कर पाया है कि उसकी शर्ते मंजूर नहीं हुई , उसको सारे परिलाभ दे दिये गये, उसने सारे परिलाभ प्राप्त कर लिये, जिस स्कीम में उसने प्रार्थना- पत्र दिया उस स्कीम के सारे परिलाभ देते हुए उसका प्रार्थना-पत्र स्वीकार किया गया, अवकाश का भुगतान भी उसको कर दिया गया, उसने यह साबित नहीं किया है कि कौन- सी शर्त की पालना नहीं की गई । अतः प्रार्थी द्वारा प्रस्तुत न्यायदृष्टांत प्रार्थी को कोई सहायता नहीं पहुंचाते हैं ।

अतः उपरोक्त विवेचन के आधार पर प्रार्थी द्वारा प्रस्तुत मांग-पत्र स्वीकार किये जाने योग्य नहीं है ।

अधिनिर्णय

अतः यह अधिनिर्णीत किया जाता है कि राजस्थान स्टेट माईन्स एण्ड मिनरल्स लिमिटेड द्वारा चौथाराम पुत्र श्री रावताराम को उसके प्रार्थना- पत्र के आधार पर सेवानिवृत्त स्कीम के अन्तर्गत सेवानिवृत्त करना किसी भी प्रकार अनुचित और अवैध नहीं है । अतः प्रार्थी अप्रार्थी से कोई अनुतोष प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी नहीं है । इस अधिनिर्णय को प्रकाशनार्थ श्रम मंत्रालय , भारत सरकार, नई दिल्लीको प्रेषित किया जावे ।

यह अधिनिर्णय आज दिनांक 29-9-2004 को खुले न्यायालय में हस्ताक्षर कर सुनाया गया ।

के. के . गुप्ता, न्यायाधीश नई दिल्ली , 15 दिसम्बर, 2004

का. आ. 173.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार राज. स्टेट माईन्स एण्ड मिनरल्स लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में श्रम न्यायालय, जोधपुर के पंचाट को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 15-12-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल.- 29012/62/2000- आई. आर. ( एम ]

बी. एम . डेविड, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 15th December, 2004 S.O. 173. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Industrial Tribunal , Jodhpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Rajasthan State Mines & Minerals Ltd. and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 15-12-2004.

[No. L- 29012 /62/2000 -IR (M) ] B.M. DAVID , Under Secy.

11 GI/05-26

अनुबंध

औद्योगिक विवाद अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, जोधपुर पीठासीन अधिकारी श्री के.के. गुप्ता, आर.जे.एच.एस. औ. वि. ( केन्द्रीय ) संख्या: 17/2001

श्रीमती सिरिया पत्नी श्री अर्जुनराम , जाति बेलदार,

-प्रार्थीनी निवासी बबरा , मगरा, जैसलमेर ( राज. )

बनाम

राजस्थान स्टेट माईन्स एण्ड मिनरल्स

(आर.एस.एम.एम. लि. ) ,

-अप्रार्थी जयपुर ।

उपस्थिति:

( 1 ) प्रार्थीया की ओर से प्रतिनिधी श्री एल.डी. खत्री, उप.

(2) अप्रार्थी प्रतिनिधी श्री खेमाराम चौधरी , उप.

अधिनिर्णय

दिनांक : 29-9-2004

श्रम मंत्रालय, भारत सरकार, नई दिल्ली ने अपनी अधिसूचना क्रमांक एल . 29012/62/2000 [ आई.आर. ( एम. ) ] दिनांक 24-01-2001 से निम्न विवाद वास्ते अधिनिर्णय इस न्यायालय को प्रेषित किया है :

"Whether the termination of Services of Smt . Siriya W/ o Shri Arjunram Beldar , Ex . Sahayak Karamchari by the management of R.S.M.D.C .. Jaipurby way ofVoluntary Retirement Scheme w.e.f. 31-3-98 is legal and justified ? If not , to what relief is workman concerned entitled ?"

प्रार्थीया ने अपना मांग - पत्र प्रस्तुत करते हुए अभिकथित किया हैकि उसकी नियुक्तिअप्रार्थी ने अपने अधीन आर.एल.डब्ल्यू. के पद पर करीब आठ वर्ष पूर्व अस्थायी तौर पर की तथा सोनू लाईम स्टोन के प्रोजेक्ट पर कार्य करने हेतु निर्देशित किया । उसके पश्चात प्रार्थीया के कार्य से सन्तुष्ट होकर आदेश दिनांक 12-1-93 को और.एम.डब्ल्यू. के पद पर दिनांक1-10-92 को नियमित कर दिया तथा प्रार्थीया का स्थरीकरण 750-940 रु. के ग्रेड में किया गया । अप्रार्थी के अधिनस्थ अधिकारियों ने प्रार्थीया जो कि अनपढ़ है , को गुमराह करते हुए उससे स्वैच्छिक सेवानिवृत्ति योजना के अन्तर्गत प्रार्थना- पत्र मांगे जिस पर प्रार्थीनी ने भी अपना प्रार्थना- पत्र अप्रार्थी के समक्ष सशर्त पेश किया व 31-3-98 से विभिन्न शर्तों पर सेवानिवृत करने हेतु प्रार्थना की । प्रार्थीनी द्वारा पेश किये गये प्रार्थना - पत्र जब अप्रार्थी द्वारा मांगे गये तब प्रार्थीनी को जो स्वैच्छिक सेवानिवृत्ति से संबंधित अप्रार्थी की पॉलिसी का आफिस आर्डर बताया गया, उक्त अप्रार्थी द्वारा जारी पॉलिसी के प्रार्थीनी के मामले में लागू नहीं होती फिर भी प्रार्थीनी को रोजगार से निकालने हेतु अप्रार्थी द्वारा षड़यंत्र रचा गया जिसकी जानकारी प्रार्थीनी को 30-4-98 पूर्व होने पर प्रार्थीनी ने 7-4-98 को अपना स्वैच्छिक 604

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 15 , 2005/PAUSA 25 , 1926

किया। दोनों पक्षों के प्रतिनिधिगण की बहस सुनी, पत्रावली का अवलोकन सेवानिवृत्ति का प्रार्थना- पत्र वापस उठाने हेतु प्रार्थना पत्र दिया, 13-4-98 को भी प्रार्थीनी ने अन्य कर्मचारियों के साथ एक प्रार्थना- पत्र दिया । अप्रार्थी ने प्रार्थीनी को स्वैच्छिक सेवानिवृत्ति योजना के नाम पर प्रार्थना- पत्र लेकर मनमाने ढंग से नौकरी से निकाल कर प्रार्थीनी को संविधान प्रदत्त अधिकारों की अवहेलना की अतः प्रार्थीनी पुनः सेवामें रखे जाने कीअधिकारिणी है । अप्रार्थी के अधिनस्थ अधिकारियों द्वारा प्रार्थी व अनपढ़ कर्मचारियों के खाली पन्नों पर हस्ताक्षर करवा लेने से उनकी नौकरी पर विपरीत प्रभाव डालने की नीयत से यह कृत्य किया जो स्पष्टतः अनफेयर लेबर प्रेक्टिस की तारीख में आता है । अन्त में निवेदन किया है कि प्रार्थीनी की सेवामुक्ति को अवैध घोषित कर प्रार्थीनी को पुनः सेवा में लगातार मानते हुए समस्त परिलाभ दिलाये जावें ।

प्रार्थीया ने तर्क प्रस्तुत करते हुए कहा है कि स्वैच्छिक सेवानिवृत्ति योजना के अन्तर्गत प्रार्थीया ने स्वैच्छिक सेवानिवृत्ति हेतु कुछ शर्तों के साथ प्रार्थना- पत्र प्रस्तुत किया जो उसे गुमराह करके लिया गया, यह योजना उसके मामले में लागू नहीं होती थी और अप्रार्थी के अधिकारियों ने षड्यन्त्र रचकर उसे नौकरी से निकालने के लिए यह कृत्य किया । प्रार्थीया ने 7-4-98 को अपना स्वैच्छिक सेवानिवृत्ति का प्रार्थना- पत्र वापस लेने हेतु प्रार्थना- पत्र प्रस्तुत कर दिया और 13-4-98 को भी अन्य कर्मचारियों के साथ पुनः उसने इस तरह का प्रार्थना- पत्र प्रस्तुत किया । उनका तर्क है कि सशर्त त्याग- पत्र की शर्तें पूरी नहीं हो तो त्याग - पत्र नहीं माना जायेगा, त्याग - पत्र वापस लेने का प्रार्थना- पत्र भी प्रस्तुत कर दिया था इसलिये भी त्याग- पत्र नहीं माना जायेगा ।

अप्रार्थी का तर्क है कि प्रार्थीया ने अच्छी तरह से समझ बूझकर स्वेच्छा से बिना किसी दबाव के प्रार्थना - पत्र प्रस्तुत किया था जो स्कीम प्रार्थीया के मामले में लागू थी उस प्रार्थना- पत्र को स्वीकार करके उसे सेवानिवृत्त कर दिया और समस्त आर्थिक लाभ उसने प्राप्त कर लिये तथा सेवानिवृत्ति स्वीकृत होने से पूर्व उसने कोई प्रार्थना- पत्र विदड्रावल का नहीं दिया । प्रार्थीया ने पूर्ण रूप से झूठा मामला उठाया है जो न्यायदृष्टान्त प्रस्तुत किये गये हैं वे सेवानिवृत्ति तिथि के पूर्व दिये गये प्रार्थना- पत्रों पर लागू होते हैं । उनका यह भी तर्क है कि प्रार्थीया ने मांग-पत्र या शपथ- पत्र में यह नहीं कहा है कि उसे किसी प्रकार का पी.एफ. ग्रेच्यूटी या अन्य लाभ नहीं मिले हैं, प्रार्थीया ने यह साबित नहीं किया है कि उसकी कौनसी शर्त नहीं मानी गई, उसका सर्शत त्याग- पत्र नहीं था, सभी लाभ उसको नियमानुसार दिये गये हैं और कोई औद्योगिक विवाद उत्पन्न नहीं होता है ।

अप्रार्थी की ओर से जवाब प्रस्तुत करते हुए कहा गया कि प्रार्थीनी को शुरु में निगम द्वारा दैनिक वेतन पर रखा था जिसे 1-10-92 को वेतनमान में नियमित किया गया, निगम द्वारा जारी स्वैच्छिक सेवानिवृत्ति योजना के लाभों व उसके गुण- अवगुण को भली- भांति समझकर प्रार्थीनी ने अपनी स्वतंत्र इच्छा से स्वैच्छिक सेवानिवृत्ति हेतु प्रार्थना- पत्र अप्राथी निगम के समक्ष प्रस्तुत किया था जिसे अप्रार्थी द्वारा स्वीकार कर प्रार्थीया को 31-3-98 को स्वैच्छिक सेवानिवृत किया गया , अप्रार्थी द्वारा जारी स्वैच्छिक सेवानिवृत्ति योजना समस्त कर्मचारियों के समक्ष उपलब्ध थी । यह कहा गया है कि स्वैच्छिक सेवानिवृत्ति योजना के तहत होने वाले समस्त आर्थिक लाभों की राशि का भुगतान प्रार्थीया को किया जा चुका है तथा प्रार्थीया की अप्रार्थी निगम में किसी प्रकार की राशि बकाया नहीं है , अप्रार्थी ने स्वैच्छिक सेवानिवृत्ति प्रार्थना- पत्र को स्वीकार करने में कोई षड़यंत्र नहीं किया । जब प्रार्थीया का स्वैच्छिक सेवानिवृत्ति का प्रार्थना- पत्र 31-3-98 को स्वीकार हो गया तब 7-4-98 को प्रार्थना- पत्र प्रस्तुत करना गलत है । प्रार्थिनी ने इस प्रकार का कोई प्रार्थना- पत्र प्रस्तुत नहीं किया, अप्रार्थी द्वारा प्रार्थिनी के द्वारा प्रस्तुत स्वैच्छिक सेवानिवृत्ति के प्रार्थना- पत्र को स्वीकार करने में किसी प्रकार की कोई वैधानिक भूल नहीं की गई । प्रार्थिया का सेवानिवृत्ति का प्रार्थना- पत्र वैधानिक रूप से स्वीकार किया गया है , प्रार्थीया ने पी.एफ. की राशि प्राप्त कर ली है , स्वैच्छिक सेवानिवृत्ति के प्रार्थना- पत्र को स्वीकार करने में औ. वि. अधिनियम के किसी भी प्रावधान का उल्लंघन नहीं किया गया, राज्य सरकार ने गलत रूप से बिना किसी आधार के प्रार्थी के मामले में रेफरेन्स प्रेषित किया है , इस न्यायालय को उक्तमामला सुनने का क्षेत्राधिकार भी प्राप्त नहीं है । प्रार्थीया ने इस योजना के अन्तर्गत मिलने वाले समस्त लाभ प्राप्त कर लिये हैं , इस प्रकरण में धारा 25 एफ व धारा 25 - एच के प्रावधानों का उल्लंघन नहीं हुआ है अतः प्रार्थीया कोई राहत पाने की अधिकारिणी नहीं है । अन्त में निवेदन किया है कि प्रार्थीया का मांग- पत्र सव्यय खारिज किया जावे ।

मांग- पत्र के समर्थन में प्रार्थीया ने स्वयं का शपथ- पत्र प्रस्तुत किया जिस पर अप्रार्थी प्रतिनिधि द्वारा जिरह की गई तथा अप्रार्थी की ओर से मंगलाराम का शपथ- पत्र प्रस्तुत किया गया जिसपर प्रार्थी प्रतिनिधि द्वारा जिरह की गई । दोनों पक्षों की ओर से दस्तावेजात की प्रतियां पेश की गईं ।

प्रार्थीया ने अपने शपथ- पत्र में मांग पत्र के तथ्यों को दोहराया है उसने स्वयं ने यह स्वीकार किया है कि सेवानिवृत्ति योजना में उसने जो प्रार्थना - पत्र दिया था वह 12-1-98 को प्रस्तुत किया था जिसे 28-3-98 को मन्जूर कर 31-3-98 को सेवानिवृत्त कर दिया गया, 7-4-98 को उसने प्रार्थना- पत्र प्रस्तुत करना बताया है । अतः उसके स्वयं के कथनानुसार ही 31-3-98 के पश्चात् सेवानिवृत्ति तिथि निकल जाने के बाद और उसको सेवामुक्त करने के पश्चात् उसने यह प्रार्थना- पत्र प्रस्तुत किया है, उसका यह कहना है कि दबाव में व गुमराह करके उससे प्रार्थना- पत्र लिया गया , यह प्रार्थीया साक्ष्य से साबित नहीं कर पाई है । उसने जिरह में यह स्पष्ट रूप से कहा है कि रिटायरमेन्ट की अर्जी मैंने नहीं दी, अंगूठा नहीं किया, पैसे न मिलने कीशिकायत की, रिटायर किया उसके पैसे न मिलने की शिकायत की अर्जी नहीं दी यहीं कैस किया । किन्तु उसने अपने मांग - पत्र व शपथ- पत्र के पैरा 4 में यह स्पष्ट रूप से कहा है कि स्वैच्छिक सेवानिवृत्ति योजना के अन्तर्गत प्रार्थना - पत्र मांगा जिस पर प्रार्थीया ने अपना प्रार्थना- पत्र अप्रार्थी के समक्ष श्रीमान महाप्रबन्धक ( खनन ) जैसलमेर के मार्फत 605 [भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 15, 2005/पौष 25, 1926

पूर्व प्रार्थना- पत्र विदड्रो करने के आधार लिये हैं किन्तु यह नहीं कहा है कि गुमराह करके जबरन प्रार्थना - पत्र प्राप्त कर लिया था उनका यह कथन नहीं रहा है कि जो राशि पी.एफ. की या अन्य दी गई वह उन्हें प्राप्त नहीं हुई है । इस तरह से उनका यह कथन कि उसने स्वेच्छा से प्रार्थना - पत्र पस्तुत नहीं किया और गुमराह किया गया, मानने योग्य नहींहै । प्रदर्श-7 10606 रुपये की 19-9-98 की प्रार्थीया सीरिया की रसीद है, यह रसीद ग्रेच्युटी की राशि का भुगतान जरिये चैक नं. 269806 के हुआ है उसको गलत मानने व अविश्वास करने का कोई कारण नहीं है । इसी तरह से अनपेड अर्ल्ड लीव का भुगतान प्रदर्श -8 के द्वारा किया जिस पर भी टिकिट पर सीरिया के अंगूठा निशानी है , स्वंय सीरिया ने प्रदर्श-9 प्रार्थना- पत्र जो 19-9-98 को विभाग को दिया है कि उसकी पी.एफ. के 1609 रुपये उसे दिलाए जाएं प्रस्तुत किया है उसमें भी उसने यह नहीं लिखा है कि उसे अन्य राशियां प्राप्त नहीं हुई हैं । इससे यह साबित होता है कि 19-9-98 के पूर्व तक उसे 10606 रु. ग्रेच्यूटी के, 42576 रुपये पी.एफ व अन्य मदों के प्राप्त हो चुके थे अन्यथा वह प्रदर्श-9 में पी.एफ. की राशि की मांग करने के साथ- साथ इन राशियों की मांग करती । अतः यह साबित होता है कि प्रार्थीया ने सभी परिलाभ प्राप्त कर लिये हैं । अतः प्रार्थीया यह साबित नहीं कर पाई है कि उसका स्वैच्छिक सेवानिवृत्ति का प्रार्थना-पत्र बहकावे से दिया हो, यह भी साबित नहीं कर पाई है कि उसे परिलाभ प्राप्त नहीं हुए हैं, यह भी साबित नहीं कर पाई है कि उसने स्वैच्छिक सेवानिवृत्ति का प्रार्थना- पत्र स्वीकार होने के पूर्व उसे वापस लेने का प्रार्थना- पत्र दे दिया हो और यह भी साबित नहीं कर पाई है कि उसके परिलाभ उसे प्राप्त नहीं हुए हों । इसके विपरीत विपक्षी ने साबित किया है कि सेवानिवृत्ति के सभी परिलाभ उसे दे दिये गये हैं । ऐसी स्थिति में प्रार्थीया द्वारा किये गये तर्क बलहीन होने से स्वीकार किये जाने योग्य नहीं हैं ।

प्रार्थिया की ओर से आर.एल.आर. 2000 ( 3 ) पेज 566 गोपीकिशन बनाम स्टेट ऑफ राजस्थान व अन्य, एस.सी.सी. 2002( 3 ) पेज 437 शम्भुगिरी सिन्हा बनाम प्रोजैक्ट एण्ड डेवलपमेन्ट इण्डिया लि. व अन्य, डब्ल्यू.एल.आर. ( एस. ) 1992 राजस्थान पेज 756 राजेश व्यास बनाम कोटा ओपन युनिवर्सिटी, ए.आई.आर. 1987 सुप्रीम कोर्ट पेज 2354 बलराम गुप्ता बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इण्डिया के विनिश्चय पेश किये इन सभी न्यायदृष्टान्तों में मुख्य रूप से यह सिद्धांत प्रतिपादित किया है कि त्याग - पत्र स्वीकार होने के पूर्व किसी भी समय वापस लिया जा सकता है, इस सिद्धांत पर कोई विवाद नहीं है । परन्तु प्रस्तुत प्रकरण में प्रार्थीया ने सेवानिवृत्ति का प्रार्थना- पत्र स्वीकार होने के पूर्व उसे वापस नहीं लिया । वह तो यह स्वीकार करती है कि उसने स्वैच्छिक सेवानिवृत्ति प्रार्थना- पत्र को वापस लेने का प्रार्थना- पत्र 7-4-98 को दिया था, 13-4-98 का प्रार्थना - पत्र देना भी तर्क के लिए मान लिया जावे तब भी 31-3-98 को उसका प्रार्थना- पत्र स्वीकार हो गया था और उसने सारे परिलाभ प्राप्त कर लिये थे । विपक्षी की ओर से एस.सी.टी. 2000( 1 ) पेज 745 कंचन कपूर बनाम फेमिली प्लानिंग एसोसिऐशन ऑफ इंडिया का विनिश्चय पेश किया जिसमें स्थिति को स्पष्ट तौर से प्रतिपादित किं है कि जहां गया 12-1-98 को सशर्त त्याग- पत्र पेश किया जिसमें प्रार्थीया ने 31-3-98 से विभिन्नशर्तों पर सेवानिवृत करने की प्रार्थना की अतः उसका जिरह में यह कहना कि उसने कोई सेवानिवृत्ति का प्रार्थना-पत्र प्रस्तुत नहीं किया मानने योग्य नहीं है जब कि अप्रार्थी के गवाह मंगलाराम ने अपने बयानों में यह कहा है कि प्रदर्श -1 प्रार्थना- पत्र है , शर्त संख्या-7 की पालना कर दी गई, प्रदर्श-1 प्रार्थना- पत्र की फोटो प्रति स्वयं प्रार्थीया ने प्रस्तुत की है जिसपर प्रार्थीया सीरीया का अंगूठा निशानी है एवं दो गवाह अर्जुनराम व हुकमाराम के हस्ताक्षर हैं, अर्जुनराम स्वयं प्रार्थीया का पतिहै, हुकमाराम अन्य कर्मचारी है, यदि प्रार्थीया ने स्वेच्छा से इस प्रार्थना- पत्र को प्रस्तुत नहीं किया होता तो कम से कम अपने पति को पेश करके यह कहलवाती कि उसने स्वेच्छा से प्रार्थना- पत्र पेश नहीं किया व बहकावे में पेश करवाया था लेकिन प्रार्थीया ने न तो अर्जुनराम को पेश किया न ही हुकमाराम को पेश किया और यह प्रार्थना-पत्र 12-1-98 को प्रस्तुत कर दिया अतः उसका यह कथन कि उसने प्रार्थना- पत्र स्वेच्छा से पेश नहीं करके गुमराह करके पेश किया कतई विश्वास किये जाने योग्य नहीं है । प्रार्थीया ने अपने मांग - पत्र व शपथ- पत्र में यह नहीं कहा है कि उसे परिलाभों की प्राप्ति नहीं हुई है । इसके विपरीत अप्रार्थी ने अपने बयान में सभी तरह के परिलाभ देने का कथन किया है व प्रदर्श -5 से 9 वाउचरों की फोटो प्रतियां हैं जिसके द्वारा प्रार्थीया सीरीया को भुगतान हुआ, प्रदर्श -5 के अवलोकन से स्पष्ट है कि क्रम संख्या 30 पर सीरीया पत्नि अर्जुनराम को 42576 रुपये का भुगतान चैक नम्बर 266551 दिनांक 31-3-98 के द्वारा किया गया है , यह चैक बैंक ऑफ राजस्थान का था और इस चैक के एनकैशमेंट के सम्बन्ध में प्रदर्श -6 बैंक ऑफ राजस्थान का स्टेटमेन्ट प्रस्तुत हुआ है जिसकीफोटो प्रति के पृठ सं. 8 पर चैक संख्या 551 से 42576 रुपये का सैल्फ का भुगतान होना बताया गया है । बैंक के इस स्टेटमेन्ट को झूठा मानने का कोई आधार नहीं है , यह भुगतान बैंक द्वारा वर्ष 98 में प्रार्थीया को कर दिया गया था, यदि प्रार्थीया को यह प्राप्त नहीं हुआ था तो वह अवश्य ही पुलिस व अन्य अधिकारियों को शिकायत करती लेकिनप्रार्थीया ने ऐसी कोई शिकायत पेश नहीं की । जिरह में उसका यह कह देना कि शिकायत करी , सुनवाई नहीं हुई । लेकिन प्रार्थीया ने शिकायत कीकोई प्रति या रसीद पेश नहीं की है । उसके द्वारा 7-4-98 व 13-4-98 को प्रार्थना- पत्र प्रस्तुत किया जाना बताया गया है जिसकी फोटो प्रतियां प्रस्तुत हुई हैं । उन प्रार्थना- पत्रों में यह कथन नहीं है कि उनकी राशियों का भुगतान नहीं किया गया उसमें बीस हजार रुपये अतिरिक्त मांगे हैं वह शर्त पूरी नहीं करने का लिखा है , 13-4-98 को भी अन्य कर्मचारियों के साथ में प्रार्थीया ने प्रार्थना - पत्र दिया है उसमें भी उसने इस तरह का कथन नहीं किया है कि उनकी राशि प्राप्त नहीं हुई है और उसने स्वेच्छा से प्रार्थना- पत्र पेश नहीं किया है और गुमराह करके उनसे लिया है । 25-4-98 को अधिवक्ता श्री एल.डी. खत्री के द्वारा भी प्रार्थीया व अन्यों द्वारा नोटिस दिलाया था जिसमें भी उसने कहा है किस्वैच्छिक सेवानिवृत्ति का सर्शत प्रार्थना पत्र प्रस्तुत कर 31-3-98 से सेवानिवृत्ति चाही थी उसमें सब मांगें स्वीकार करनी है , 20,000 रुपये की राशि नहीं दी, प्रार्थीया के साथ भेदभाव किया तथा सेवानिवृत्ति के किये समय - समय पर परिप्त किये हैं तो उसके पश्चात् गर्थी 606

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 15 , 2005 /PAUSA 25, 1926

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

है । प्रार्थीया यह साबित नहीं कर पाई है कि उसकी शर्ते मंजूर नहीं हुई, उसको सारे परिलाभ दे दिये गये , उसने सारे परिलाभ प्राप्त कर लिये, जिस स्कीम में उसने प्रार्थना - पत्र दिया उस स्कीम के सारे परिलाभ देते हुए उसका प्रार्थना- पत्र जिस दिनांक से सेवानिवृत्ति चाही उसी से स्वीकार किया गया, उसने यह साबित नहीं किया है कि कौन- सी शर्त की पालना नहीं की गई । अतः प्रार्थीया द्वारा प्रस्तुत न्यायदृष्टांत प्रार्थीया को कोई सहायता नहीं पहुंचाते हैं ।

अतः उपरोक्तविवेचन के आधार पर प्रार्थीया द्वारा प्रस्तुत मांग- पत्र स्वीकार किये जाने योग्य नहीं है ।

अधिनिर्णय

अतः यह अधिनिर्णित किया जाता है कि राजस्थान स्टेट माईन्स एण्डमिनरल्स लिमिटेड द्वारा श्रीमति सीरिया पत्नि अर्जुनराम को उसके प्रार्थना- पत्र के आधार पर सेवानिवृत्ति स्कीम के अन्तर्गत सेवानिवृत्त करना किसी भी प्रकार अनुचित और अवैध नहीं है । अतः प्रार्थीया अप्रार्थी से कोई अनुतोष प्राप्त करने की अधिकारिणी नहीं है ।

इस अधिनिर्णय को प्रकाशनार्थ श्रम मंत्रालय, भारत सरकार, नई दिल्ली को प्रेषित किया जावे ।

यह अधिनिर्णय आज दिनांक 29-9-2004 को खुले न्यायालय में हस्ताक्षर कर सुनाया गया ।

के.के. गुप्ता, न्यायाधीश

नई दिल्ली, 15 दिसम्बर, 2004

का. आ. 174.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार राज. स्टेट माईन्स एण्ड मिनरल्स लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में श्रम न्यायालय, जोधपुर के पंचाट को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 15-12-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल.- 29012/93/2000- आई. आर. ( एम ]

बी. एम . डेविड, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 15th December, 2004

S.O. 174. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Industrial Tribunal , Jodhpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Rajasthan State Mines & Minerals Ltd. and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 15-12-2004.

पुनः नौकरी पाने का अधिकारी नहीं है । विपक्षी के द्वारा ही प्रस्तुत एस.बी. सिविल रिट पिटीशन नं. 3650/98 अम्बावा बनाम आर.एस.एम.डी.सी. का विनिश्चय पेश किया जिसमें स्पष्ट किया गया है कि जहां प्रार्थी ने सेवानिवृत्ति के संबंध में परिलाभों को प्राप्त कर लिया है तो वह सेवानिवृत्ति के आदेश को चुनौती नहीं दे सकता । यह मामला भी प्रस्तुत प्रकरण जैसा ही है , इसमें भी सेवानिवृत्ति स्कीम के अन्तर्गत प्रार्थीया ने सेवानिवृत्ति का प्रार्थना- पत्र दिया था और उसने रिटायरमेंट लिया था । अतः प्रार्थीया द्वारा प्रस्तुत न्यायदृष्टान्त यहां लागू नहीं होते । प्रार्थीया का यह कहना कि उसकी शर्तें पूरी नहीं हुई, माने जाने योग्य नहीं है, उसने सेवानिवृत्ति के पश्चात् सभी परिलाभ प्राप्त कर लिये हैं । प्रार्थीया ने अन्य न्यायदृष्टान्त डब्ल्यू.एल.एन. 1985 ( 1 ) पेज 318 एस.एल. सोनी बनाम आर.एस.एम.डी.सी. प्रस्तुत किया. इसके तथ्य बिल्कुल भिन्न हैं , इस विनिश्चय में प्रार्थी की सेवाएं टर्मीनेट कर दी गई थीं और उससे कनिष्ठ को सेवा में लगातार रखा गया था, जहां इस तरह का मामला नहीं है । इसी तरह से एस. एल.आर. 1987 (5 ) पेज 165 सत्यवीरसिंह बनाम राजस्थान राज्य में नियम 12 के बारे में कहा गया है और यह कहा गया है कि सक्षम अधिकारी द्वारा त्याग - पत्र मंजूर कर लिया गया है किन्तु उसमें यह कहा गया है कि तब तक उसे सेवामुक्त नहीं किया जाए जब तक कि वह अदेयता प्रमाण- पत्र प्रस्तुत नहीं करे और इस दौरान प्रार्थी ने त्याग - पत्र वापस ले लिया था और यह माना गया कि त्याग - पत्र प्रभावशील नहीं हुआ क्योंकि अदेयता प्रमाण- पत्र नहीं दिया गया । यहां इस तरह का मामला नहीं है, यहां त्याग - पत्र सशर्त मंजूर नहीं किया गया था , त्याग - पत्र मंजूर करने के बाद सारे लाभ भी प्रार्थीया ने प्राप्त कर लिये थे ऐसी स्थिति में यह न्यायदृष्टांत प्रार्थीया को कोई सहायता नहीं पहुंचाते । प्रार्थीया की ओर से एस.एल.आर. 1991 ( 3 ) पेज 214 वेदपति दिनेश कुमार बनाम नोर्थ जोन कल्चरल सेन्टर पेश किया इसमें यह कहा गया है कि त्यागपत्र अपने आपसे वापस लिया हुआ माना जायेगा , उसके स्वीकार होने के पहले क्योंकि उसका प्रभावशील होना तब से माना जायेगा जब सेउसकी स्वीकृति की सूचना प्रार्थी को दे दी जाए और उसको सेवामुक्त करदिया जाए, इस मामले के तथ्य भी बिल्कुल भिन्न हैं , यहां इस तरह का मामला नहीं है । यहां तो प्रार्थीया का स्वैच्छिक सेवानिवृत्ति का प्रार्थना- पत्र स्वीकार कर लिया गया था उसके बाद उसने सारे परिलाभ प्राप्त कर लिये उसे सेवामुक्त कर दिया गया । उसने कोई प्रार्थना- पत्र सेवानिवृत्ति वापस लेने का सेवामुक्ति से पहले नहीं दिया ऐसी स्थिति में यह न्यायदृष्टान्त भी प्रार्थीया को कोई सहायता नहीं पहुंचाता । एस.एल.आर. 1994 ( 5 ) पेज 441 तेजबहादुर सिंह बनाम भारत पम्प एण्डकम्प्रेशर का विनिश्चय प्रस्तुत किया जिसमें स्वैच्छिक सेवानिवृत्ति प्रार्थना - पत्र प्रस्तुत कर 30-6-92 से चाही थी , कम्पनी ने उसे सूचना दीकि उसका स्वैच्छिक सेवानिवृत्ति प्रार्थना- पत्र 31-5-92 से स्वीकार कर लिया गया है तब प्रार्थीया ने उसको विड्रो करने की प्रार्थना की तब भी उसे 31-5-92 को ही सेवानिवृत्त कर दिया तो यह निर्णित किया गया कि उसे प्रार्थना- पत्र की दिनांक 30-6-92 से ही रिटायर्ड करना चाहिये था अथवा उसका जो सेवानिवृत्ति का प्रार्थना- पत्र है उसके आधार पर रिटायरमेन्ट करना चाहिये था और कम्पनी का 31-5-92 से सेवानिवृत्ति करने का आदेश अवैध माना गया । यहां ऐसा मामला नहीं

[No. L- 29012/ 93 / 2000 - IR (M) ] B.M. DAVID , Under Secy.

[ भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

अनुबंध

औद्योगिक विवाद अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय , जोधपुर पीठासीन अधिकारी: श्री के.के. गुप्ता, आर.एच.जे.एस. औ. वि. (केन्दीय ) संख्या: 19/2001

श्रीमती समधा पत्नी श्री मुल्तानाराम, जाति बेलदार

607

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 15, 2005/पौष 25 , 1926

-प्रार्थीया

निवासी जैसलमेर ( राज. )

बनाम

राजस्थान स्टेट माईन्स एण्ड मिनरल्स (आर.एस.एम.एम. ) लि.

-अप्रार्थी

जयपुर ।

उपस्थिति:

( 1 ) प्रार्थीया की ओर से प्रतिनिधि श्री एल.डी. खत्री, उप.

(2 ) अप्रार्थी प्रतिनिधि श्री खेमाराम चौधरी, उप.

अधिनिर्णय

दिनांक : 29-9-2004

श्रम मंत्रालय, भारत सरकार, नई दिल्ली ने अपनी अधिसूचना क्रमांक एल. 29012/93/2000 [ आई.आर. ( एम. ) ] दिनांक 30-01-2001 से निम्न विवाद वास्ते अधिनिर्णय इस न्यायालय को प्रेषित किया है :

"Whether the termination of services of Smt .

Samdha W/ o Shri Multanaram Ex. Sahayak Karamchari by the management of R.S.M.D.C. Ltd. Jaipurby way of Voluntary Retirement Scheme w.e.f. 31-10-97 is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief isworkman concerned entitled ?"

प्रार्थीया ने अपना मांग- पत्र प्रस्तुत करते हुए अभिकथित किया है कि प्रार्थीया को अप्रार्थी ने अपने अधीन आर.एन.डब्ल्यू. के पद पर करीब आठ वर्ष पूर्व अस्थायी तौर पर नियुक्ति दी तथा सोनू लाईम स्टोन के प्रोजेक्ट पर कार्य करने हेतु निर्देशित किया । उसके पश्चात् प्रार्थीया के कार्य से सन्तुष्ट होकर आदेश दिनांक 12-1-93 को आर.एम.डब्ल्यू. के पद पर दिनांक1-10-92 को नियमित कर दिया तथा प्रार्थीया का स्थिरीकरण 750-940 के ग्रेड में किया गया । अप्रार्थी के अधीनस्थ अधीकारियों ने प्रार्थीया जो कि अनपढ़ है , को गुमराह करते हुए उससे स्वैच्छिक सेवानिवृत्ति योजना के अन्तर्गत प्रार्थना- पत्र मांगे जिसपर प्रार्थिनी ने भी अपना प्रार्थना- पत्र अप्रार्थी के समक्ष सशर्त पेश किया व 31-10-97 से कुछ शर्तों पर सेवानिवृत करने हेतु प्रार्थना की। प्रार्थिनी द्वारा पेश किये गये प्रार्थना - पत्र जब अप्रार्थी द्वारा मांगे गये तब प्रार्थिनी को जो स्वैच्छिक सेवानिवृत्ति से संबंधित अप्रार्थी की पॉलिसी का आफिस आर्डर बताया गया, उक्त अप्रार्थी द्वारा जारी पॉलिसी प्रार्थिनी के मामले में लागू नहीं होती फिर भी प्रार्थिनी को रोजगार से निकालने हेतु अप्रार्थी द्वारा षड्यंत्र रचा गया जिसकी जानकारी प्रार्थिनी को 31-10-97 से पूर्व होने पर प्रार्थिनी ने अपना स्वैच्छिक सेवानिवृत्ति का प्रार्थना- पत्र वापस उठाने हेतु प्रार्थना- पत्र दिया । 13-4-98 को भी प्रार्थिनी ने अन्य कर्मचारियों के साथ एक प्रार्थना- पत्र स्वैच्छिक सेवानिवृत्ति की कार्यवाही रोकने हेतु प्रस्तुत किया । अप्रार्थी ने प्रार्थिनी को स्वैच्छिक सेवानिवृति योजना के नाम पर प्रार्थना- पत्र लेकर मनमाने ढंग से नौकरी से निकाल कर प्रार्थिनी को संविधान प्रदत्त अधिकारों की अवहेलना की अतः प्रार्थिनी पुनः सेवा में रखे जाने की अधिकारिणी है । अप्रार्थी के अधीनस्थ अधिकारियों द्वारा प्रार्थी व अनपढ़ कर्मचारियों के खाली पन्नों पर हस्ताक्षर करवा लेने से उनकी नौकरी पर विपरीत प्रभाव डालने की नीयत से यह कृत्य किया जो स्पष्टतः अनफेयर लेबर प्रेक्टिस की तारीफ में आता है । अन्त में निवेदन किया है कि प्रार्थिनी की सेवामुक्ति को अवैध घोषित कर प्रार्थिनी को पुनः सेवा में लगातार मानते हुए समस्त परिलाभ दिलाये जावें।

अप्रार्थी की ओर से जवाब प्रस्तुत करते हुए कहा गया कि प्रार्थिनी को शुरू में निगम द्वारा दैनिक वेतन पर रखा था जिसे 1-10-92 को वेतनमान में नियमित किया गया, निगम द्वारा जारी स्वैच्छिक सेवानिवृत्ति योजना के लाभों व उसके गुण-अवगुण को भली-भांति समझकर प्रार्थीया ने अपनी स्वतंत्र इच्छा से स्वैच्छिक सेवानिवृत्ति हेतु प्रार्थना- पत्र अप्रार्थी निगम के समक्ष प्रस्तुत किया था जिसे अप्रार्थी द्वारा स्वीकार कर प्रार्थिया को दिनांक 31-10-97 को स्वैच्छिक सेवानिवृत किया गया, अप्रार्थी द्वारा जारी स्वैच्छिक सेवानिवृत्ति योजना समस्त कर्मचारियों के समक्ष उपलब्ध थी । यह कहा गया है कि स्वैच्छिक सेवानिवृत्ति योजना के तहत होने वाले समस्त आर्थिक लाभों की राशि का भुगतान प्रार्थीया को किया जा चुका है तथा प्रार्थीया की अप्रार्थी निगम में किसी प्रकार की राशि बकाया नहीं है, अप्रार्थी ने स्वैच्छिक सेवानिवृत्ति प्रार्थना- पत्र को स्वीकार करने में कोई षड्यंत्र नहीं किया । जब प्रार्थिया का स्वैच्छिक सेवानिवृत्ति का प्रार्थना- पत्र 31-10-97 को स्वीकार हो गया था तब 13-4-98 को प्रार्थना- पत्र प्रस्तुत करना बेतुका प्रतीत होता है । प्रार्थिनी ने इस प्रकार का कोई प्रार्थना-पत्र प्रस्तुत नहीं किया, अप्रार्थी द्वारा प्रार्थिनी के द्वारा प्रस्तुत स्वैच्छिक सेवानिवृत्ति के प्रार्थना- पत्र को स्वीकार करने में किसी प्रकार की कोई वैधानिक भूल नहीं की गई । प्रार्थीया का सेवानिवृत्ति का प्रार्थना- पत्र वैधानिक रूप से स्वीकार किया गया है , प्रार्थीया ने पी.एफ. की राशि भी प्राप्त कर ली है , स्वैच्छिक सेवानिवृत्ति के प्रार्थना - पत्र को स्वीकार करने में औ.वि. अधिनियम के किसी भी प्रावधान का उल्लंघन नहीं किया गया , राज्य- सरकार ने गलत रूप से बिना किसी आधार के प्रार्थी के मामले में रेफरेन्स प्रेषित किया है , इस न्यायालय को उक्त मामला सुनने का क्षेत्राधिकार भी प्राप्त नहीं है । अन्त में निवेदन किया है कि प्रार्थीया का मांग- पत्र सव्यय खारिज किया जावे ।

मांग- पत्र के समर्थन में प्रार्थीया ने स्वयं का शपथ- पत्र प्रस्तुत किया जिस पर अप्रार्थी प्रतिनिधि द्वारा जिरह की गई तथा अप्रार्थी की 608

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 15 , 2005/PAUSA 25 , 1926

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

नहीं हुआ है। जिरह में उसने यह बात कही है कि मुझे तो अंगूठा कराने को कहा सो कर दिया, पैसे मुझे नहीं मिले ।

ओर से मंगलाराम का शपथ- पत्र प्रस्तुत किया गया जिसपर प्रार्थी प्रतिनिधी द्वारा जिरह की गई । दोनों पक्षों की ओर से दस्तावेजात की प्रतियां पेश की गई ।

दोनों पक्षों के प्रतिनिधीगण की बहस सुनी, पत्रावली का अवलोकन किया ।

प्रार्थीनी का तर्क है कि उसने 31-10-97 से कुछ शर्तों पर सेवानिवृत्ति का प्रार्थना- पत्र दिया था, उसका यह कहना है कि उसे गुमराह करते हुए अप्रार्थी के अधिकारियों ने उसके अनपढ़ होने के कारण उससे स्वैच्छिक सेवानिवृत्ति का प्रार्थना- पत्र दिलवा दिया।

अप्रार्थी की ओर से यह कहा गया है कि प्रार्थीनी ने स्वैच्छिक सेवानिवृत्ति स्कीम को अच्छी तरह से समझ लिया था और समझकर पूरे होश हवास में त्याग - पत्र दिया था जिस पर उसने गवाहान के हस्ताक्षर भी करवाये थे और उसने सारे सेवानिवृत्ति के लाभ भी प्राप्त कर लिये हैं उसके पश्चात् उसका यह कहना कि उसका स्वैच्छिक सेवानिवृत्ति का प्रार्थना- पत्र गुमराह करके अधिकारियों ने प्राप्त किया मानने योग्य नहीं है ।

प्रार्थीया ने अपने शपथ- पत्र में मांग पत्र में अंकित तथ्यों को दोहराया है जिरह में उसने यह कहा है कि मैंने अर्जी रिटायर्मेन्ट हेतु गवाह कराकर नहीं दी, मुझे तो अंगूठा करने का कहा सो कर दिया, यह गलत है कि पैसा उठाकर झूठा क्लेम किया हो ।

अप्रार्थी ने अपनी जिरह में कहा है कि स्वेच्छा से प्रार्थीनी ने प्रार्थना- पत्र दिया था और सारा भुगतान उसको कर दिया है । आकस्मिक अवकाश का भुगतान भी उसको कर दिया है , पी.एल. का भी भुगतान उसको कर दिया है जो उसने प्राप्त कर लिया है जिन वाउचरों पर अंगूठानिशानी किये उसकी फोटो प्रतियां पेश हुई हैं । प्रदर्श -150,860 रुपये का भुगतान चैक से किया गया इस पर चैक नम्बर 263498 दिनांक 20-11-97 का चैक और इसमें कैशियर के हस्ताक्षर, पुष्करनारायण जोशी के हस्ताक्षरों को अप्रार्थी ने साबित किया है और ई टू एफ एकाउन्टेन्ट व ए.ए. एम. अधिकारियों के हस्ताक्षरों को साबित किया है जिनके समक्ष भुगतान हुआ, उन्होंने इसको वैरीफाई किया है । इसी तरह से ग्रेच्युटी के 11371 रुपये का भी प्रार्थीनी को भुगतान हुआ है वह भी चैक द्वारा भुगतान हुआ है । अतः अब प्रार्थीया का यह कहना कि उसे भुगतान नहीं हुआ, विश्वास किये जाने योग्य नहीं है । यदि उसे 97 में किये गये भुगतान की प्राप्ति अभी तक नहीं हुई है तो इसके संबंध में उसने उच्चाधिकारियों को , पुलिस में शिकायत नहीं की और न ही अपने मांग- पत्र में व शपथ- पत्र इस तरह के तथ्यों का वर्णन किया कि उसे भुगतान नहीं हुआ है । अतः स्वैच्छिक सेवानिवृत्ति के सभी परिलाभ उसने स्वेच्छा से प्राप्त कर लिये हैं यह साबित हुआ है । स्वैच्छिक सेवानिवृत्ति का प्रार्थना - पत्र उसने गवाहों के हस्ताक्षर कराके प्रस्तुत किया है अतः उसका यह कहना कि गुमराह करके प्राप्त कर लिया था नहीं माना जा सकता जब कि उसने स्वैच्छिक सेवानिवृत्ति से मिलने वाली राशि भी प्राप्त कर ली है ।

अप्रार्थी की ओर से शपथ- पत्र में अपने जवाब में कहे तथ्यों को दोहराया है और जिरह में गवाह ने स्पष्ट कहा है कि समदा ने स्वैच्छिक सेवानिवृत्ति का प्रार्थना- पत्र दिया था जिसमें जो शर्तें थी उसका उल्लेख प्रार्थना- पत्र में है , नियमानुसार समस्त लाभ दे दिये थे, सारा भुगतान कर दिया, रसीदों की फोटो प्रतियां पेश कर दी है, उपार्जित अवकाश का भुगतान कर दिया गया था, मेडिकल व आकस्मिक अवकाश का जितना बकाया भुगतान था वो भी कर दिया, स्कीम में जो भुगतान होना था वो सभी कर दिया था, मेरे ऑफिस के कर्मचारियों ने भुगतान किया था चैक उन्होंने समदा को दिये थे । यह गलत है कि 50,860 रुपये समदा को नहीं मिले, वाउचर पर समदा की अंगूठा निशानी उसके नाम के आगे है, प्रदर्श -1 व 2 भुगतान वाउचर की फोटो प्रतियां हैं, प्रदर्श-1 पर ए टू बी हस्ताक्षर आर. आर. पटेल के हैं जो मैं पहचानता हूँ सी टू डीडी. आर. अग्रवाल के, ई टू एफ पुष्करनारायण जोशी के हस्ताक्षर हैं जो मैं पहचानता हूं ।

प्रार्थीनी के द्वारा दिये गये प्रार्थना- पत्र के अवलोकन से ही यह स्पष्ट हो जाता है कि उसने 31-10-97 से स्वैच्छिक सेवानिवृत्ति चाही है और उसपर एस.एस. शेखावत, गुमानाराम व उभाराम तीनों के गवाह के रूप में हस्ताक्षर हैं, उसने यह मना किया है कि उसने गवाह के रूप में हस्ताक्षर कराके प्रार्थना - पत्र नहीं दिया । इन तीनों गवाहों में से उसने किसी को पेश नहीं किया कि यह हस्ताक्षर उसने नहीं करवाये थे और अंगूठा उसे गुमराह करके करवा लिया था एवं साथ ही उसने अपने मांग - पत्र व शपथ- पत्र में यह नहीं बताया है कि उसे भुगतान

प्रार्थीनी का यह कथन कि उसने सेवानिवृत्ति का प्रार्थना- पत्र विड्रो कर लिया था व इस संबंध में अपने मांग- पत्र में कहा है कि स्कीम उसके बारे में लागू नहीं होती थी इसकी जानकारी होने पर 31-10-97 से पूर्व उसने स्वैच्छिक सेवानिवृत्ति का प्रार्थना- पत्र वापस उठाने हेतु प्रार्थना पत्र दिया था किन्तु किस तारीख को दिया था, किसे दिया था, कहां दिया था, यह उसने नहीं बताया है और न ही प्रार्थना- पत्र की प्रतिलिपि प्रस्तुत की है जिससे यह साबित हो सके कि प्रार्थना- पत्र दिया था, कोई रिसीप्ट भी प्रस्तुत नहीं हुई है कि उसने 31-10-97 से पूर्व कोई प्रार्थना- पत्र दिया था । मांग - पत्र में उसने यह कहा है कि 13-4-98 को अन्य कर्मचारियों के साथ प्रार्थना - पत्र दिया था । इस संबंध में अप्रार्थी की ओर से 31-10-97 को सेवानिवृत्ति स्वीकार किये जाने के पश्चात् प्रार्थीनी ने परिलाभ भी प्राप्त कर लिये हैं , तो 13-4-98 को कोई प्रार्थना - पत्र दिया भी है तो उसका कोई महत्व नहीं है, इस तरह का कोई प्रार्थना- पत्र उसने प्रस्तुत किया हो यह साबित नहीं किया है । अतः यह साबित नहीं होता कि प्रार्थीनी ने किसी प्रकार कास्वैच्छिक सेवानिवृत्ति का प्रार्थना- पत्र वापस लेने का कोई प्रार्थना- पत्र प्रस्तुत किया । तर्क के लिए यह मान भी लिया जावे कि 13-4-98 से उसने कोई प्रार्थना - पत्र प्रस्तुत किया तब भी 31-10-97 से ही सेवानिवृत्ति करने का उसका प्रार्थना- पत्र स्वीकार हो चुका था और उसने 30-11-97 और दिसम्बर 97 में समस्त सेवा परिलाभ प्राप्त कर 609 [भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जनवरी 15, 2005/पौष 25, 1926

सहायता नहीं पहुंचाते । प्रार्थिनी की ओर से एस.एल.आर. 1991 ( 3 ) पेज 214 वेदपति दिनेश कुमार बनाम नॉर्थ जोन कलचरल सेन्टर पेश किया इसमें यह कहा गया है कि त्याग- पत्र अपने आपसे वापस लिया हुआमाना जायेगा, उसके स्वीकार होने के पहले क्योंकि उसका प्रभावशील होना तब से माना जायेगा जब से उसकी स्वीकृति की सूचना प्रार्थी को दे दी जाए और उसको सेवामुक्त कर दिया जाए, इस मामले के तथ्य भी बिल्कुल भिन्न हैं, यहां इस तरह का मामला नहीं है । यहां तो प्रार्थिनी का स्वैच्छिक त्याग - पत्र स्वीकार कर लिया गया था उसके बाद उसने सारे परिलाभ प्राप्त कर लिये और उसे सेवामुक्त कर दिया गया तब तक उसने कोई प्रार्थना- पत्र सेवानिवृत्ति वापस लेने का नहीं दिया ऐसी स्थिति में यह न्यायदृष्टान्त भी प्रार्थिनी को कोई सहायता नहीं पहुंचाता। एस.एल.आर. 1994 ( 5 ) पेज441 तेजबहादुर सिंह बनाम भारत पम्प एण्डकम्प्रेशर का विनिश्चय प्रस्तुत किया जिसमें स्वैच्छिक सेवानिवृत्ति प्रार्थना-पत्र प्रस्तुत कर 30-6-92 से चाही थी, कम्पनी ने उसे सूचना दीकि उसका स्वैच्छिक सेवानिवृत्ति प्रार्थना- पत्र 31-5-92 से स्वीकार कर लिया गया है तब प्रार्थी ने उसको विड्रो करने की प्रार्थना की तब भी उसे 31-5-92 को ही सेवानिवृत्त कर दिया तो यह निर्णीत किया गया कि उसे प्रार्थना- पत्र की दिनांक 30-6-92 से ही रिटायर्ड करना चाहिये था अथवा उसका जो सेवानिवृत्ति का प्रार्थना - पत्र है उसके आधार पर रिटायरमेन्ट करना चाहिये था और कम्पनी में 31-5-92 को सेवानिवृत्ति करने का आदेश अवैध माना गया । यहां ऐसा मामला नहीं है । प्रार्थिनी यह साबित नहीं कर पाई है कि उसकी शर्तें मंजूर नहीं हुईं, उसको सारे परिलाभ दे दिये गये, उसने सारे परिलाभ प्राप्त कर लिये, जिस स्कीम में उसने प्रार्थना - पत्र दिया उस स्कीम के सारे परिलाभ देते हुए उसका प्रार्थना- पत्र स्वीकार किया गया , अवकाश का भुगतान भी उसको कर दिया गया, उसने यह साबित नहीं किया है कि कौन-सी शर्त की पालना नहीं की गई । अतः प्रार्थिनी द्वारा प्रस्तुत न्यायदृष्टांत प्रार्थिनी को कोई सहायता नहीं पहुंचाते हैं ।

अतः उपरोक्तविवेचन के आधार पर प्रार्थिनी द्वारा प्रस्तुत मांग- पत्र स्वीकार किये जाने योग्य नहीं है ।

अधिनिर्णय

अतः यह अधिनिर्णीत किया जाता है कि राजस्थान स्टेट माईन्स एण्ड मिनरल्स लिमिटेड द्वारा समदा पतन श्री मुल्तानराम को उसके प्रार्थना- पत्र के आधार पर सेवानिवृति स्कीम के अन्तर्गत सेवानिवृत्त करना किसी भी प्रकार अनुचित और अवैध नहीं है । अतः प्रार्थिनी अप्रार्थी से कोई अनुतोष प्राप्त करने की अधिकारिणी नहीं है ।

इस अधिनिर्णय को प्रकाशनार्थ श्रम मंत्रालय भारत सरकार, नई दिल्ली को प्रेषित किया जावे ।

यह अधिनिर्णय आज दिनांक 29-9-2004 को खुले न्यायालय में हस्ताक्षर कर सुनाया गया ।

के.के. गुप्ता, न्यायाधीश लिये थे जैसा कि प्रदर्श-1 व 2 वाउचरों की फोटो प्रतियों से साबित है । प्रार्थिनी की ओर से आर.एल.आर. 2000 ( 3 ) पेज 566 गोपीकिशन बनाम स्टेट ऑफ राजस्थान व अन्य, एस.सी.सी. 2002( 3 ) पेज 437 शम्भुमुरारी सिन्हा बनाम प्रोजेक्ट एण्ड डेवलपमेन्ट इण्डिया लि. व अन्य, डब्ल्यू.एल.आर. ( एस. ) 1992 राजस्थान पेज 756 राजेश व्यास बनाम कोटा ओपन यूनिवर्सिटी, ए.आई.आर. 1987 सुप्रीम कोर्ट पेज 2354 बलराम गुप्ता बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इण्डिया के विनिश्चय पेश किये इन सभी न्यायदृष्टान्तों में मुख्य रूप से यह सिद्धांत प्रतिपादित किया है कि त्याग - पत्र स्वीकार होने के पूर्व किसी भी समय वापस लिया जा सकता है , इस सिद्धांत पर कोई विवाद नहीं है । परन्तु प्रस्तुत प्रकरण में प्रार्थिनी ने सेवानिवृत्ति का प्रार्थना- पत्र स्वीकार होने के पूर्व उसे वापस नहीं लिया वह तो यह भी साबित नहीं कर पाई है कि उसने किसी प्रकार का प्रार्थना- पत्र स्वैच्छिक सेवानिवृत्ति को वापस लेने का दिया था, 13-4-98 का प्रार्थना - पत्र देना तर्क के लिए मान भी लिया जावे तब भी 31-10-97 को उसका प्रार्थना- पत्र स्वीकार हो गया था उसने सारे परिलाभ प्राप्त कर लिये थे एवं 31-10-97 को पदमुक्त हो गई थी । विपक्षी की ओर से एस.सी.टी. 2000( 1 ) पेज 745 कंचन कपूर बनाम फेमिली प्लानिंग एसोसिएशन ऑफ इंडिया का विनिश्चय पेश किया जिसमें स्थिति को स्पष्ट तौर से प्रतिपादित किया है कि जहां पार्थी ने बिना प्रतिरोध किये समय- समय पर परिलाभ प्राप्त किये हैं तो उसके पश्चात् प्रार्थी पुनः नौकरी पाने का अधिकारी नहीं है । विपक्षी के द्वारा ही प्रस्तुत एस.बी. सिविल रिट पिटीशन नं. 3650/98 अम्बावा बनाम आर.एस.एम.डी.सी. का विनिश्चय पेश किया जिसमें स्पष्ट किया गया है कि जहां प्रार्थी ने सेवानिवृत्ति के संबंध में परिलाभों को प्राप्त कर लिया है तो वह सेवानिवृत्ति के आदेश को चुनौती नहीं दे सकता । यह मामला भी प्रस्तुत प्रकरण जैसा ही है, इसमें भी स्कीम के अन्तर्गत प्रार्थिनी ने सेवानिवृत्ति का प्रार्थना- पत्र दिया था और उसने रिटायरमेंट लिया था । अतः प्रार्थिनी द्वारा प्रस्तुत न्यायदृष्टान्त यहां लागू नहीं होते, प्रार्थिनी का यह कहना कि उसकी शर्तें पूरी नहीं हुईं, माने जाने योग्य नहींहै । प्रार्थिनी ने अन्य न्यायदृष्टान्त डब्ल्यू.एल.एन. 1985 (1) पेज 318 एस.एल. सोनी बनाम आर.एस.एम.डी.सी. प्रस्तुत किया इसके तथ्य बिल्कुल भिन्न हैं , इस विनिश्चय में प्रार्थीनी की सेवाएं टर्मीनेट कर दी गई थीं और उससे कनिष्ठ को सेवा में लगातार रखा गया था , यहां इस तरह का मामला नहीं है । इसी तरह से एस.एल.आर. 1987( 5 ) पेज 165 सत्यवीरसिंह बनाम राजस्थान राज्य में नियम 12 के बारे में कहा गया है और कहा गया है कि सक्षम अधिकारी द्वारा त्याग - पत्र मंजूर कर लिया गया है किन्तु उसमें यह कहा गया है कि जब तक उसे सेवामुक्त नहीं किया जाए जब तक कि वह अदेयता प्रमाण- पत्र प्रस्तुत नहीं करे और इस दौरान प्रार्थी ने त्याग - पत्र वापस ले लिया था और यह माना गया कि त्याग- पत्र प्रभावशाली नहीं हुआ क्योंकि अदेयता प्रमाण- पत्र नहीं दिया गया । यहां इस तरह का मामला नहीं है, यहां त्याग- पत्र सशर्त मंजूर नहीं किया गया था, त्याग - पत्र मंजूर करने के बारे में सारे लाभ भी प्रार्थिनी ने प्राप्त कर लिये थे ऐसी स्थिति में सेवामुक्त कर दिया था । यह न्यायदृष्टांत प्रार्थिनी को कोई 610

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 15 , 2005/PAUSA 25 , 1926

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] नई दिल्ली, 15 दिसम्बर, 2004

Jaipurby way of Voluntary Retirement Scheme w.e.f. 31-3-1998 is legal and justified ? If not , to what relief is workman concerned entitled ?" का. आ. 175.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार राज. स्टेट माईन्स एण्ड मिनरल्स लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय जोधपुर के पंचाट को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 15-12-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल.- 29012/94/2000- आई. आर. ( एम ) बी. एम. डेविड, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 15th December, 2004

S.O. 175. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Industrial Tribunal , Labour Court , Jodhpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Rajasthan State Mines &Minerals Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 15-12-2004.

[No. L- 29012/ 94/2000 - IR(M) ] B.M. DAVID , Under Secy.

अनुबंध

औद्योगिक विवाद अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, जोधपुर पीठासीन अधिकारी श्री के.के. गुप्ता , आर.एच.जे.एस. औद्योगिक विवाद ( केन्द्रीय ) संख्या 14/2001

श्रीमती सायरी देवी पत्नी श्री चौथाराम जाति

बेलदार निवासी सेलता हाल मूल सागर,

-प्रार्थिनी

जिला जैसलमेर

बनाम

-अप्रार्थी

राजस्थान स्टेट माईन्स एण्ड मिनरल्स

प्रार्थिनी ने अपना माँग- पत्र प्रस्तुत करते हुए अभिकथित किया हैकि उसकी नियुक्ति अप्रार्थी के अधीन आठ वर्ष पूर्व अस्थाई तौर पर आर. एम . डब्ल्यूके पद पर की गई तथा सोनू लाईम स्टोन के प्रोजेक्ट पर कार्य करने हेतु निर्देशित किया । उसके पश्चात् प्रार्थीया के कार्य से सन्तुष्ट होकर आदेश दिनांक 12-1-93 को आर.एम.डब्लू. के पद पर दिनांक 1-10-92 को नियमित कर दिया तथा प्रार्थिनी का स्थिरीकरण 750-940 के ग्रेड में किया गया । अप्रार्थी के अधीनस्थ अधिकारियों ने प्रार्थीया जो कि अनपढ़ है , को गुमराह करते हुए उससे स्वैच्छिक सेवानिवृत्ति योजना के अन्तर्गत प्रार्थना- पत्र मांगे जिस पर प्रार्थिनी ने भी अपना प्रार्थना- पत्र अप्रार्थी के समक्ष सशर्त पेश किया व 31-3-98 को कुछ शर्तों पर सेवानिवृत्त करने हेतु प्रार्थना की । प्रार्थिनी द्वारा पेश किये गये प्रार्थना- पत्र जब अप्रार्थी द्वारा मांगे गये तब प्रार्थिनी को जो स्वैच्छिक सेवानिवृत्ति से संबंधित अप्रार्थी की पालिसी का आफिस आर्डर बताया गया, उक्त अप्रार्थी द्वारा जारी पालिसी प्रार्थिनी के मामले में लागू नहीं होती फिर भी प्रार्थिनी को रोजगार से निकालने हेतु अप्रार्थी द्वारा षड्यंत्र रचा गया जिसकी जानकारी प्रार्थिनी को होने पर 1-12-97 से पूर्व ही अपना स्वैच्छिक सेवानिवृत्ति का प्रार्थना- पत्र वापस उठाने हेतु प्रार्थना- पत्र दिया, 13-4-98 को भी प्रार्थिनी ने अन्य कर्मचारियों के साथ एक प्रार्थना - पत्र स्वैच्छिक सेवानिवृत्ति की कार्यवाही रोकने हेतु प्रस्तुत किया । अप्रार्थी ने प्रार्थिनी को स्वैच्छिक सेवानिवृत्ति योजना के नाम पर प्रार्थना- पत्र लेकर मनमाने ढंग से नौकरी से निकालकर प्रार्थिनी को संविधान प्रदत्त अधिकारों की अवहेलना की अतः प्रार्थिनी पुनः सेवा में रखे जाने की अधिकारिणी है । अप्रार्थी के अधीनस्थ अधिकारियों द्वारा प्रार्थिनी व अनपढ़ कर्मचारियों के खाली पन्नों पर हस्ताक्षर करवा लेने से उनकी नौकरी पर विपरीत प्रभाव डालने की नीयत से यह कृत्य किया जो स्पष्टतः अनफेयर लेबर प्रैक्टिस की तारीख में आता है । अन्त में निवेदन किया है कि प्रार्थिनी की सेवामुक्ति को अवैध घोषित कर प्रार्थिनी को पुनः सेवा में लगातार मानते हुए समस्त परिलाभ अप्रार्थी से दिलाये जावें ।

लिमिटेड (आर.एस.एम.एम. लि. )

जयपुर ।

उपस्थिति:

( 1 ) प्रार्थिनी की ओर से प्रतिनिधि श्री एल.डी. खत्री, उप.

(2) अप्रार्थी प्रतिनिधि श्री खेमाराम चौधरी, उप.

अधिनिर्णय

दिनांक : 29-9-2004

श्रम मंत्रालय, भारत सरकार, नई दिल्ली ने अपनी अधिसूचना क्रमांक एल. 29012/94/2000/ आई.आर. ( एम. ) दिनांक 24-1-2001 से निम्न विवाद वास्ते अधिनिर्णय इस न्यायालय को प्रेषित किया है:-

कास्वैच्छिक सेवानिवृत्ति का प्रार्थना पत्र 31-3-1998 को स्वीकार हो गया था तब 13-4-98 को प्रार्थना- पत्र प्रस्तुत करना गलत है , प्रार्थिनी ने इस प्रकार का कोई प्रार्थना - पत्र प्रस्तुत नहीं किया । अप्रार्थी द्वारा प्रार्थिनी के द्वारा प्रस्तुत स्वैच्छिक सेवानिवृत्ति के प्रार्थना- पत्र को स्वीकार करने में किसी प्रकार की कोई वैधानिक भूल नहीं की है । प्रार्थिनी का सेवानिवृत्ति का प्रार्थना- पत्र वैधानिक रूप से स्वीकार किया गया है, स्वैच्छिक सेवानिवृत्ति के प्रार्थना- पत्र को स्वीकार करने में औ. वि. अधिनियम के किसी भी प्रावधान का उल्लंघन नहीं किया गया, राज्य सरकार ने गलत रूप से बिना किसी आधार के प्रार्थिनी के मामले में रेफरेन्स प्रेषित किया है, इस न्यायालय को उक्त मामला सुनने का क्षेत्राधिकार भी प्राप्त नहीं है । अन्त में निवेदन किया है कि प्रार्थिनी का मांग - पत्र सव्यय खारिज किया जावे ।

मांग- पत्र के समर्थन में प्रार्थीया ने स्वयं का शपथ- पत्र प्रस्तुत किया जिस पर अप्रार्थी प्रतिनिधि द्वारा जिरह की गई तथा अप्रार्थी की ओर से मंगलाराम का शपथ पत्र प्रस्तुत किया गया जिस पर प्रार्थिनी प्रतिनिधि द्वारा जिरह की गई । दोनों पक्षों की ओर से दस्तावेजात की प्रतियां पेश की गईं ।

दोनों पक्षों के प्रतिनिधिगण की बहस सुनी, पत्रावली का अवलोकन किया ।

प्रार्थीया ने तर्क प्रस्तुत करते हुए कहा है कि स्वैच्छिक सेवानिवृत्ति योजना के अन्र्तगत प्रार्थीया ने स्वैच्छिक सेवानिवृत्ति हेतु कुछ शर्तों के साथ प्रार्थना - पत्र प्रस्तुत किया जो उसे गुमराह करके लिया गया, यह योजना उसके मामले में लागू नहीं होती थी और अप्रार्थी के अधिकारियों ने षड्यंत्र रचकर उसे नौकरी से निकालने के लिए यह कृत्य किया । प्रार्थी ने 31-3-98 से पूर्व इसे वापस लेने का प्रार्थना- पत्र भी प्रस्तुत कर दिया था और 13-4-98 को भी अन्य कर्मचारियों के साथ पुनः उसने इस तरह का प्रार्थना- पत्र प्रस्तुत किया । उनका तर्क है कि सशर्त त्याग- पत्र की शर्तें पूरी नहीं हो तो त्याग- पत्र स्वीकृत नहीं माना जायेगा, त्याग - पत्र वापस लेने का प्रार्थना- पत्र भी प्रस्तुत कर दिया था इसलिये भी त्याग- पत्र स्वीकृत नहीं माना जायेगा ।

अप्रार्थी का तर्क है कि प्रार्थी ने अच्छी तरह से समझ - बूझकर स्वेच्छा के बिना किसी दबाव के प्रार्थना- पत्र प्रस्तुत किया था जो स्कीम प्रार्थीया के मामले में लागू थी उस प्रार्थना- पत्र को स्वीकार करके उसे सेवानिवृत्त कर दिया और समस्त आर्थिक लाभ उसने प्राप्त कर लिये तथा सेवानिवृत्ति स्वीकृत होने व सेवामुक्त होने से पूर्व उसने कोई प्रार्थना - पत्र विड्रोवल का नहीं दिया । उसने सभी सेवानिवृत्ति के परिलाभ भी प्राप्त कर लिए ।

प्रार्थीया ने अपने शपथ- पत्र में मांग पत्र में अंकित तथ्यों को दोहराया है किन्तु जिरह में उसने कहा है कि पैसे मुझे कुछ नहीं दिये जबरन निकाल दिया इसकी रिपोर्ट नहीं की, 31-3-1998 को प्रदर्श-1 द्वारा 66033 रुपये मुझे नहीं दिये, अंगूठा कराया होगा तो कर दिया होगा । शपथ- पत्र में प्रार्थीया ने कहा कि उसे षड्यंत्र रचकर निकाला गया लेकिन उसने ऐसी कोई साक्ष्य प्रस्तुत नहीं की है कि उसे षड्यंत्र रचकर निकाला हो, उसने अपने शपथ- पत्र में यह बात कही है किन्तु 11 GI/05-27

611

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 15 , 2005/पौष 25, 1926

जिरह में उसने कहा है कि उसने प्रार्थना- पत्र दिया था मेरा अंगूठा कराया था उसमें क्या लिखा था पदा नहीं ।

अप्रार्थी के गवाह ने जवाब में अंकित तथ्यों को अपने शपथ- पत्र में दोहराया है व अपनी साक्ष्य में स्पष्ट रूप से यह कथन किया है कि प्रार्थीया नेस्वेच्छा से प्रार्थना-पत्र दिया उस पर किसी प्रकार का दबाव नहीं था और उस पर यह स्कीम लागू होती थी और 31-3-98 को उसकी सेवानिवृत्ति कर दी उसके परिलाभ भी उसने प्राप्त कर लिये जिसकी रसीद उन्होंने प्रस्तुत की है। गवाह ने जिरह में स्पष्ट रूप से कहा है कि सारे लाभ उसको दे दिये गये थे, सारा भुगतान उसको कर दिया गया था, उपार्जित अवकाश का भी भुगतान कर दिया गया, एक साथ ही भुगतान किया था, भुगतान कैशियर ने किया था मेडिकल अवकाश का भुगतान नहीं होता, आकस्मिक अवकाश काजितना भुगतान बकाया था वह भी कर दिया था, स्कीम में जो भुगतान होना था वो सभी कर दिया था, मेरे ऑफिस के कर्मचारियों ने भुगतान किया था, चैक उन्होंने सायरी को दिये थे, 266554 चैक किस बैंक व शाखा का था आज याद नहीं है, यह गलत है कि 66023 सायरी को नहीं मिले, ग्रेच्युटी की राशि का भुगतान वाउचर पर सायरी का अंगूठा निशानी उसके नाम के आगे है , यह सही है कि अंगूठा निशानी के नीचे नाम व कौन से हाथ का है नहीं लिखा है, प्रदर्श 1 व 2 भुगतान वाउचर की फोटो प्रतियां हैं किन्तु 31-3-1998 के दिन कोई भुगतान नहीं हुआ बाद में हुए थे । प्रदर्श-1 के अवलोकन से स्पष्ट है कि पहले कॉलम में सिरीयल नम्बर, दूसरे कॉलम में नाम, तीसरे कॉलम में एमाउन्ट, चौथे कॉलम में एक्सग्रेसिया राशि, पांचवे कॉलम में टोटल व छटे कॉलम में चैक नम्बर व जिस तारीख का चैक है उसका विवरण दिया गया है । सयारी पत्नी चौथाराम का नाम क्रमांक 33 पर बताया गया है इसको सभी मदों में 66,023 रुपये का भुगतान चैक नं . 266554 दिनांक 31-3-1998 के द्वारा करना बताया गया है इस नाम के आगे ए टू बी अंगूठा निशानी है और इसी वाऊचर पर अन्य कर्मचारियों के भी अंगूठे निशानी व हस्ताक्षर इस स्कीम के तहत सेवानिवृत्ति होने वाले व सेवानिवृत्ति लाभ प्राप्त करने वालों के दिये गए हैं । इसी तरह प्रदर्श-2 ग्रेचयुटी भुगतान के सम्बन्ध में प्रस्तुत किया है इसमें क्रमांक 35 पर प्रार्थीया का नाम है और उसे 11932 रुपये का भुगतान किया है जो चैक संख्या 269808 दिनांक 10-6-98 का है , अन्य कर्मचारियों को भी भुगतान इसी प्रदर्श -2 से किया गया है जिनके भुगतान व अंगूठा निशानी इस पर है , इस पर अविश्वास किये जाने का कोई कारण पत्रावली पर नहीं है । केवल मात्र यह कह देना कि उसे यह राशियाँ प्राप्त नहीं हुईं, विश्वास किये जाने योग्य नहीं है । 98 में उसे यह राशि प्राप्त नहीं हुई उसकी शिकायत उसने न तो पुलिस में की और न ही विभाग में किसी को की, इसलिये ऐसा नहीं माना जा सकता कि उसको इसका भुगतान नहीं हुआ है । जब कि प्रार्थीया के द्वारा प्रस्तुत प्रार्थना- पत्र की फोटो प्रति 3-4-1998 को कार्यालय में रिसीप्ट में देना बताया गया है उसमें 18 कर्मचारियों के नाम अंकित हैं उसमें उन्होंने यह लिखा है कि वे सेवाओं से स्वेच्छा से सेवानिवृत्ति ले चुके हैं परन्तु हमारी शर्त में एक शर्त यह भी थी कि हम 20,000 रुपये के अतिरिक्त ( प्रोत्साहन राशि) दी जाये, जब कि हमारे साथ स्वैच्छिक सेवानिवृत्ति लेने वालों को 10 वर्ष की सेवा पूर्ण करने पर बीस हजार रुपये अतिरिक्त राशि स्वीकृत की गई है इस प्रार्थना- पत्र में प्रार्थीया का नाम 25 पर अंकित है, 612

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 15 , 2005/PAUSA 25 , 1926

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii ) ] कर्मचारियों के हस्ताक्षर नहीं है । यह प्रार्थना- पत्र प्रार्थीया ने पेश किया है जिसके दबाव देने का नहीं है । इस प्रार्थना- पत्र से यह साबित होता है कि वे स्वेच्छा से सेवानिवृत्ति ले चुके थे और कुछ राशि जो अन्य लोगों को मिल चुकी थी उनको नहीं मिली थी के सम्बन्ध में माँग की है । अतः प्रार्थीया का यह कहना कि उन्होंने स्वैच्छिक सेवानिवृत्ति का प्रार्थना- पत्र बहकावे में दिया था एवं उसे उसके लाभ प्राप्त नहीं हुए एवं राशि प्राप्त नहीं हुई, मानने योग्य नहीं है । अतः प्रार्थीया यह साबित नहीं कर पाई है कि उसका स्वैच्छिक सेवानिवृत्ति का प्रार्थना- पत्र बहकावे से दिया हो, यह भी साबित नहीं कर पाई है कि उसे परिलाभ प्राप्त नहीं हुए हैं , यह भी साबित नहीं कर पाई है कि उसने स्वैच्छिक सेवानिवृत्ति का प्रार्थना - पत्र स्वीकार होने के पूर्व उसे वापस लेने का प्रार्थना- पत्र दे दिया हो और यह भी साबित नहीं कर पाई है कि उसके परिलाभ उसे प्राप्त नहीं हुए हों । इसके विपरीत विपक्षी ने साबित किया है कि सेवानिवृत्ति के सभी परिलाभ उसे दे दिये गये । प्रार्थीया ने यह भी साबित नहीं किया है कि उसने कुछ शर्तें रखी थीं जो पूरी नहीं हुई हों । अतः प्रार्थीया अपने द्वारा किये गये कथन को साबित करने में असफल रही है । उसने अपने मांग पत्र व शपथ- पत्र में यह नहीं कहा है कि उसे परिलाभ पेंशन, ग्रेच्युटी या अन्य परिलाभ प्राप्त नहीं हुए हैं, उसका यह कथन कि परिलाभ प्राप्त नहीं हुए हैं कतई मानने योग्य नहीं है , बाद में प्रार्थीया ने सोच - समझ कर जिरह में यह कथन बताये हैं ऐसी स्थिति में प्रार्थीया द्वारा किये गये तर्क बलहीन होने से स्वीकार किये जाने योग्य नहीं हैं ।

प्रार्थीया की ओर से आर.एल.आर. 2000 ( 3 ) पेज 566 गोपीकिशन बनाम स्टेट ऑफ राजस्थान व अन्य, एस.सी.सी. 2002 (3) पेज 437 शम्भुगिरी सिन्हा बनाम प्रोजेक्ट एण्ड डेवलपमेंट इंडिया लि. व अन्य, डब्ल्यू.एल.आर. ( एस) 1992 राजस्थान पेज 756 राजेश व्यास बनाम कोटा ओपन यूनिवर्सिटी, ए.आई. आर. 1987 सुप्रीम कोर्ट पेज 2354 , बलराम गुप्ता बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इंडिया के विनिश्चय पेश किये इन सभी न्यायदृष्टांतों में मुख्य रूप से यह सिद्धांत प्रतिपादित किया है कि त्याग- पत्र स्वीकार होने के पूर्व किसी भी समय वापस लिया जा सकता है इस सिद्धांत पर कोई विवाद नहीं है । परन्तु प्रस्तुत प्रकरण में प्रार्थिया ने सेवानिवृत्ति का प्रार्थना- पत्र स्वीकार होने के पूर्व उसे वापस नहीं लिया वह तो यह साबित भी नहीं कर पाई है कि उसने किसी प्रकार का प्रार्थना- पत्र स्वैच्छिक सेवानिवृत्ति को वापस लेने का दिया था , 13-4-98 का प्रार्थना - पत्र देना तर्क के लिए मान भी लिया जावे तब भी 31-3-98 को उसका प्रार्थना- पत्र स्वीकार हो गया था उसे सेवामुक्त कर दिया था और उसने सारे परिलाभ प्राप्त कर लिये थे । विपक्षी की ओर से एस.सी.टी. 2000 ( 1 ) पेज 745 कंचन कपूर बनाम फेमिली प्लानिंग एसोसिऐशन ऑफ इंडिया का विनिश्चय पेश किया जिसमें स्थिति को स्पष्ट तौर पर प्रतिपादित किया है कि जहां प्रार्थी ने बिना प्रतिरोध किये समय - समय पर परिलाभ प्राप्त किये हैं तो उसके पश्चात प्रार्थी पुनः नौकरी पाने का अधिकारी नहीं है । विपक्षी के द्वारा ही प्रस्तुत एस.बी. सिविल रिट पिटीशन नम्बर 3650/98 अम्बावा बनाम आर.एस.एम.डी.सी. का विनिश्चय पेश किया जिसमें स्पष्ट किया गया है कि जहां प्रार्थी ने सेवानिवृत्ति के संबंध में परिलाभों को प्राप्त कर लिया है तो वह सेवानिवृत्ति के आदेश को चुनौती नहीं दे

सकता । यह मामला भी प्रस्तुत प्रकरण जैसा ही है , इसमें भी स्कीम के अन्तर्गत प्रार्थी ने सेवानिवृत्ति का प्रार्थना- पत्र दिया था और उसने रिटायरमेंट लिया था । अतः प्रार्थीया द्वारा प्रस्तुत न्यायदृष्टांत यहां लागू नहीं होते । प्रार्थीया का यह कहना कि उसकी शर्तें पूरी नहीं हुई, माने जाने योग्य नहीं है , उसने सेवानिवृत्ति के पश्चात् सभी परिलाभ प्राप्त कर लिये हैं । प्रार्थीया ने अम्य न्यायदृष्टांत डब्ल्यू. एल . एन. 1985 ( 1 ) पेज 318 एस.एल.सोनी बनाम आर.एस.एम.डी.सी. प्रस्तुत किया इसके तथ्य बिल्कुल भिन्न हैं, इस विनिश्चय में प्रार्थी की सेवाएं टर्मिनेट कर दी गई थी और उसके कनिष्ठ को सेवा में लगातार रखा गया था , यहां इस तरह का मामला नहीं है । इसी तरह से एस. एल.आर. 1987 ( 5 ) पेज 165 सत्यवीर सिंह बनाम राजस्थान राज्य में नियम 12 के बारे में कहा गया है और यह कहा गया है कि सक्षम अधिकारी द्वारा त्याग- पत्र मंजूर कर लिया है किन्तु उसमें यह कहा गया है कि तब तक उसे सेवामुक्त नहीं किया जाए जब तक कि वह अदेयता प्रमाण- पत्र प्रस्तुत नहीं करे और इस दौरान प्रार्थी ने त्याग - पत्र वापस ले लिया था और यह माना गया कि त्याग- पत्र प्रभावशील नहीं हुआ क्योंकि अदेयता प्रमाण- पत्र नहीं दिया गया । यहाँ इस तरह का मामला नहीं है, यहां त्याग - पत्र सशर्त मंजूर नहीं किया गया था, त्याग- पत्र मंजूर करने के बाद सेवा मुक्त कर दिया गया । सारे लाभ भी प्रार्थी ने प्राप्त कर लिये थे ऐसी स्थिति में यह न्यायदृष्टांत प्रार्थीया को कोई सहायता नहीं पहुचाते । प्रार्थीया की ओर से एस.एल.आर. 1991 ( 3 ) पेज 214 वेदपतिदिनेश कुमार बनाम नार्थ जोन कल्चरल सेन्टर पेश किया इसमें यह कहा गया है कि त्याग- पत्र अपने आपसे वापस लिया हुआ माना जाएगा, उसके स्वीकार होने के पहले क्योंकि उसका प्रभावशील होना तब से माना जायेगा जब से उसकी स्वीकृति की सूचना प्रार्थी को दे दी जाए और उसको सेवामुक्त कर दिया जाए, इस मामले के तथ्य भी बिल्कुल भिन्न हैं, यहाँ इस तरह का मामला नहीं है । यहाँ तो प्रार्थिया का स्वैच्छिक सेवानिवृत्ति को प्रार्थना- पत्र स्वीकार कर लिया गया था, उसे सेवामुक्त कर दिया गया । उसके बाद उसने सारे परिलाभ प्राप्त कर लिये तब तक उसने कोई प्रार्थना - पत्र सेवानिवृत्ति वापस लेने का नहीं दिया ऐसी स्थिति में यह न्यायदृष्टांत भी प्रार्थीया को कोई सहायता नहीं पहुंचाता । एस.एल.आर. 1994 ( 5 ) पेज 441 तेजबहादुर सिंह बनाम भारत पम्प एण्ड कम्प्रेशर का विनिश्चय प्रस्तुत किया जिसमें स्वैच्छिक सेवानिवृत्ति प्रार्थना- पत्र प्रस्तुत कर 30-6-92 से चाही थी, कम्पनी ने उसे सूचना दी कि उसका स्वैच्छिक सेवानिवृत्ति प्रार्थना- पत्र 31-5-92 को स्वीकार कर लिया गया है तब प्रार्थी ने उसको विड्रो करने की प्रार्थना की तब भी उसे 31-5-92 को ही सेवानिवृत्त कर दिया तो यह निर्णित किया गया कि उसे प्रार्थना - पत्र की दिनांक 30-6-92 से ही रिटार्यड करना चाहिये था अथवा उसका जो सेवानिवृत्ति का प्रार्थना- पत्र है, उसके आधार पर रिटायरमेंट करना चाहिये था और कम्पनी का 31-5-92 से सेवानिवृत्त करने का आदेश अवैध माना गया । यहां ऐसा मामला नहीं है । प्रार्थी यह साबित नहीं कर पाया है कि उसकी शर्तें मंजूर नहीं हुई हैं । उसको सारे परिलाभ दे दिये गये , उसने सारे परिलाभ प्राप्त कर लिये , जिस स्कीम में उसने प्रार्थना- पत्र दिया था उस स्कीम के सारे परिलाभ देते हुए उसका प्रार्थना- पत्र स्वीकार किया गया, [ भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

613

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 15, 2005/पौष 25 , 1926

अवकाश का भुगतान भी उसको कर दिया गया, उसने यह साबित नहीं किया है कि कौन सी शर्त की पालना नहीं की गई । अतः प्रार्थीया द्वारा प्रस्तुत न्यायदृष्टांत प्रार्थीया को कोई सहायता नहीं पहुंचाते हैं । अतः उपरोक्तविवेचन के आधार पर प्रार्थीया द्वारा प्रस्तुत मांग- पत्र स्वीकार किये जाने योग्य नहीं है ।

अधिनिर्णय

अतः यह अधिनिर्णीत किया जाता है कि राजस्थान स्टेट माईन्स एण्ड मिनरल्स लिमिटेड द्वारा श्रीमती सायरी पत्नि श्री चौथाराम को उसके प्रार्थना- पत्र के आधार पर सेवानिवृत्ति स्कीम के अन्तर्गत सेवानिवृत्त करना किसी भी प्रकार अनुचित और अवैध नहीं है । अतः प्रार्थीया अप्रार्थी से कोई अनुतोष प्राप्त करने की अधिकारिणी नहीं है । इस अधिनिर्णय को प्रकाशनार्थ श्रम मंत्रालय , भारत सरकार, नई दिल्ली को प्रेषित किया जावे ।

यह अधिनिर्णय आज दिनांक 29-9-2004 को खुले न्यायालय में हस्ताक्षर कर सुनाया गया ।

के.के. गुप्ता, न्यायाधीश नई दिल्ली, 15 दिसम्बर, 2004

का. आ. 176.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, बी.सी.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , आसनसोल ( संदर्भ संख्या 46/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 14-12-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -22012/266/1999- आई. आर. ( सीएम- II ) ] एन. पी. केशवन , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 15th December , 2004 S.O. 176. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award Ref. No. 46/2000 of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Asansol as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s . B.C.C.L. and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 14-12-2004 .

[No. L - 22012 / 266/ 1999 - IR( CM - II) ] N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM - LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL

PRESENT :

Md. Sarfaraz Khan, Presiding Officer.

Reference No. 46 of 2000

PARTIES :

The Agent , Begunia Project ,

M/ s. B.C.C.L. Ltd. , P.O. Barakar,

Distt . Burdwan.

-Management

Vs..

Sri Ram Kr. Singh, Timber Mazdoor as Security Guard represented by Sri Subhas Kumar Singh , J.M.S.

REPRESENTATIVES :

For the Management : Sri P. K. Das , Advocate .

For the Workman (Union) : Sri Subhas Kr. Singh, President , J.M.S.

State : West Bengal Industry: Coal

Dt. 19-11-2004

AWARD

Sri P. K. Das , Advocate for the management and Shri Subhas Kumar Singh , Area working president of J.M.S. representing the workman are present in the Court . A petition has also been filed on behalf of the workman by the union praying therein to close the case and pass necessary order.

Heard both the sides on the aforesaid petition . Both sides conceeded to the prayer made in the said petition and submitted that the workman concerned has died and his dependent has got employment, so due to the non- existant of the dispute the union does not want to pursue the case.

From perusal of the record it transpires that after receipt ofthe said reference , summons were issued through the registered post to the respective parties and in compliance to the summons , management appeared but the workman did not appear the date . However it is clear from the contents of the petition that the workman has expired and his son was employed in service . In such situation the union does not have any interestto contest the case.

Inview of the above facts circumstances I do not think proper to continue the case which will not serve any purpose rather it will be I sheer wastage of the valuable time of the Court . Its such it is hereby ordered that let the case of the union as prayed be closed and a no dispute award be and in same is passed accordingly. Secretaryto send the copies to the Ministry of Labour for information and needful .

MD. SAR RAZ KHAN , Presiding Officer 614

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 15 , 2005 /PAUSA 25 , 1926

[PART 11-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] नई दिल्ली, 15 दिसम्बर, 2004

Industrial Dispute Act , 1947 , the Govt . of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L - 22012/ 81 / 2002-1R ( CM - 11) dated 24-10-2002 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal :

का. आ. 177.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, बी.सी.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, आसनसोल (संदर्भ संख्या 47/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 14-12-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-22012/81/2002- आई . आर. ( सी एम-11 ) ] एन. पी. केशवन, डेस्क अधिकारी

"Whether the demand of the Janta Mazdoor Sangh from management of Begunia Project of M/ s . BCCL forplacing S/ Shri Ram Bahadur, Santosh Kora and Iswar Bouri in excavation Grade ' C ' w.e.f. 23-10-1997 isjustified ? If so , to what relief are the workmen concerned entitled ? "

New Delhi , the 15th December , 2004

2. Sri P. K. Das , Advocate for the management and Sri S. K. Singh , the Area President , Janta Mazdoor Singh (HMS) are present today. Today was the date fixed for filing written statement by the management . A petition has been filed on behalf of the union praying therein to close the case as the union is not interested to contest the case .

S.O. 177.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award Ref. No. 47/2002 of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Asansol as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s . B.C.C.L. and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 14-12-2004 .

[No. L- 22012/ 81 /2002 - IR (CM - II) ] N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

3. From perusal of the record it transpires that the present reference is to adjudicate as to whether the demand ofthe Janta Mazdoor Sangh from management ofBegunia Project of M/ s . BCCL for placing S/ Shri Ram Bahadur , Santosh Kora and Iswar Bouri in excavation Grade ' C' w.e.f. 23-10-1997 is justified ? If so , to what relief are the workman concerned entitled ?

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM - LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL

PRESENT :

Md . Sarfaraz Khan , Presiding Officer. Reference No. 47 of 2002

PARTIES :

The Agent , Begunia Project of B.C.C.L. Vs. -Management S/ Sh . Ram Bahadur, Santosh Kora & Iswar Bouri . -Workman

4.After request of the said reference both the parties appeared on summons and a written statement on behalf of the workman was filed. But since 27-5-2004 no step was being taken by the side of the union and on 29-10-2004 the union appeared and filed the aforesaid petition. Since the union is not interested to contest the case and no regular steps in this case is being taken on its behalf it is not proper and advisable to continue the case and keep the file pending for no purpose. As such the case is closed and it is hereby ordered that let a " no dispute award" be and the same is passed and the reference is accordingly disposed of.

REPRESENTATIVES :

MD. SARFARAZ KHAN , Presiding Officer For the Management : Sri P. K. Das , Advocate .

नई दिल्ली, 15 दिसम्बर, 2004

For the Workman (Union) : S. K. Singh , Area

President , Janta Mazdoor Sangh (HMS) .

Industry : Coal

State: West Bengal

Dated the 29th October, 2004

का. आ. 178.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, नेशनल इन्स्टीट्यूट आफ आयुर्वेद के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, जयपुर ( संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटी 3/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 14-12-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था । AWARD

[सं . एल-42012/89/2002- आई. आर. ( सी एम- II ) ] एन. पी. केशवन, डेस्क अधिकारी Inexercise of powers confered by clause ( d) of sub- section ( 1 ) and Sub-section 2 (A) of Section 10 of the [ भाग 11- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

New Delhi , the 15th December, 2004 S.O. 178. ln pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award Ref. No. CGIT- 3/2003 of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court , Jaipur as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the management ofNational Institute of Ayurveda , and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 14-12-2004.

[No. L - 42012/ 89/2002 - IR (CM - II) ] N. P. KESAVAN , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR Case No. CGIT - 3/ 2003

Reference No. L -42012/89/ 2002 - IR ( CM - II) 1. Shri Bansidhar Sharma , S/ o . Shri Hanuman Sahai Sharma, R/ o. Village Vimalpura , Post Karanpura via Kaladera , Jaipur.

2. Sh. Yasin Khan , S/ o. Sh. Anwar Khan, R/ o . Bara Mohri , Pathan Colony, House No. 546 , Bharam Puri , Jaipur.

3. Sh . Panna Lal Gurjar , S/o . Sh . Nathulal Gurjar, R/ o . Village Talamod, Tehsil Achrol , Jaipur.

615

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 15, 2005/पौष 25, 1926

industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal which runs as under :-

' क्या श्री बंशीधर शर्मा , श्री यासीन खान एवं श्री पन्ना लाल गुर्जर की सेवा समाप्ति दिनांक 24-05-1997 से प्रबंधन द्वारा किया जाना न्याय संगत एवं वैद्य है ? अगर नहीं तो उक्त तीनों कर्मकार किस लाभ के हकदार हैं और किस तिथि से ? " 2.Theworkman in their respective claim statements have pleaded that they were appointed on 22-5-1996 by the non-applicant establishment on daily wages basis , who had applied for the post in pursuance of the notice and were selectedby the Selection Committee who had worked upto 23-5-1997 . But their services were terminated on 24-5-1997 in violation of Section 25 -F of the Act. They have further averred that at the time of their termination , the junior employees to them were retained by the establishment and that the establishment has also recruited fresh hands after their termination in violation of Sections 25 -G and 25 -H of the Act respectively. They have prayed that their termination order be declared illegal and unjustified and they be reinstated in the service with other consequential benefits as well as back wages .

...Applicants

Versus

The Director, National Institute of Ayurveda , Madhav Vilas Palace , AmerRoad, Jaipur-302001.

3. The non - applicant has resisted the claims filed by the workman by submitting the replies to their respective claims . He has stated that the workmen were employed on 22-5-1996 on daily wages basis for a period of 3 months with a stipulation that their services canbe terminated prior to the stipulated period on completion of the contractual work and further on 24-8-1996 and 14-2-1997 , they were also appointed for a period of 3 months respectively. It is further added that on 23-5-1997 , on the expiry of the contractual period , their services were automatically terminated . The non - applicant has denied that the workman had ever continuously worked under the employment of the establishment and has stated that they had not completed 240 days of continuous work .

...Non-applicant

PRESENT :

Shri R. C. Sharma , Presiding Officer.

For the applicants : Shri R. C. Jain Forthe non - applicant : Shri Anurag Agrawal Date of award

: 30-11-2004

AWARD

1. The Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred under Clause ' D ' of Sub- Section 1 of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the ' Act ' ) has referrred the following 4. The non - applicant has further pointed out that the establishment had advertised the various posts , but no selection could be made on these posts . The workman along with the other petitioners had moved a writ petition No. 492/99 for issuance of the direction to the establishment that they may be permitted to continue till the availability of the regular employees , which was rejected on 4-2-1999 . One Shri Meetha Lal , aggrieved by this order, preferred a DB Special Appeal No. 510/99 which was allowed by the Hon'ble DB and the order dated 4-2-1999 was set aside . The non - applicant establishment had also preferred a DB Special Appeal No. 450/99 against the order dated 4-2-1999 which was also allowed by the Hon'ble Court . Thereafter, the regular 4th Class employees were recruited as per the prescribed procedure, but the workmen were found unsuitable to the post .

5.The non - applicant has added that the termination of the workmen does not amount to retrenchment and 616

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 15 , 2005 /PAUSA 25 , 1926

their case is covered by the provision under Section 2( oo) (bb) of the Act . He has denied that the junior persons to the workmen were retained by the establishment and that fresh hands were recruited after their termination .

provision of Section 2 ( oo) ( bb ) cannot be attracted not being in force . The ld . representative has pointed out that the termination order of the workman was not challenged before the Rajasthan High Court , that it has not been mentioned in the appointment orders that the term would automatically come to end on its expiry and that the workmen were appointed by the Selection Committee and this fact has also not been mentioned anywhere that they were employed for carrying out the pending work .

6. In the evidence , all the 3 workmen have submitted their affidavits , who were cross - examined on behalf of the non - applicant . In defence , the counter- affidavit of Sh. Sitaram , Museum Assistant , has been brought on the record , who was cross - examined on behalf of the workmen .

7. Both the parties have also led the documentary evidence on the record .

8. 1 have heard both the parties and have scanned the record.

9. On the pleadings of both the parties , the following points for determination crop up :-

( i ) Whether the services of the workmen were terminated by the establishment in violation ofSection 25 - F of the Act ?

12. Arguing contra , the Id . representative for the non - applicant has submitted that the workmen have admitted the documents produced on behalf of the non- applicant and the notice Ex . M - 1 for employment of the workmen was pasted on the notice board whereby to carry out the pending work of manufacturing the medicines in the pharmacy, the applications of the daily wagers were invited . They were appointed by the order Ex . M - 3 for a specific period of three months and the contract was renewed by the orders Ex . M -4 , M- 5 and M - 6 respectively. The next contention canvassed on behalf of the Id . representative is that the case of the workmen have been rejected by the Hon'ble High Court and theId. representative in this connection has placed his reliance upon the orders Ex. M - 8 to M - 11 . The Id. representative submits that the case of the workmen falls under Section 2(oo) (bb) since they were employed for a fixed term.

(ii ) Whether at the time of terminating the services of the workmen , the junior employees to them were retained by the establishment in violation of Section 25 -G of the Act and whether subsequent to their termination , the new hands were recruited by the establish- ment ?

13. I have bestowed my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions and have gone through the judicial decisions referred to by both the parties .

10. The point- wise discussion follows as under :-

Point No. I

14. Now, I am called upon to examine as to whether the termination of the services of workmen amounts to retrenchment within the meaning of Section 2 (00 ) of the Actand whether there is a violation of Section 25 - F of the Act. The non - applicant's case is that Section 2( oo ) (bb) alone is applicable to the facts of the present case and , therefore , it is not a case of retrenchment .

15. On behalf ofthe establishment the appointment orders have been brought on the record which are not disputed . Notice Ex. M - 1 and the applications Exs . M - 2 , M- 12 and M- 13 submitted by the workmen before the concerned authority for their employment have also not beendisputed.

11. The Id . representative for the workmen contends that it is the admitted position that all the three workmen had worked for the period from 23-5-1996 to 23-5-1997 , whose services were terminated on 24-5-1997 and they have completed one year of continuous service and has worked over 240 days with the establishment . Prior to their termination , the compliance of the provision under Section 25 - F ofthe Act was not made by the establishment . The Id . representative , therefore , submits that their case falls within the meaning of retrenchment . The next contention advanced on behalf of the workman is that their case is not covered by Section 2( oo) (bb ) . The order appointing the workmen was issued on 22-5-1996 and their period ended on 22-8-1996 . The second order was issued on 24-8-1996 with retrospective effect and by issuing these appointment orders the artificial breaks were given by the establishment . His further contention is that the work performed by the workmen was of the perennial nature , which existed even after their retrenchment and on these grounds , the management's case under Section 2(oo) (bb) is not proved. He has also contended that the amending Act 49 of 1984 has been repealed . As such , the

16. Ex . M - 1 is a notice dated 15-6-96 which was pasted on the notice board whereby the applications of the candidates were invited for their employment as a daily wager for a specified period of 90 days in the pharmacy of the establishment . Pursuantto this notice , application Exs . M- 2 , M - 12 and M- 13 were submitted by the workmen Yashin Khan , Bansidhar Sharma and Panna Lal respectively and the workmen have admitted this fact in their cross - examination. Yashin Khan in his application has stated that as per the notice he is willing to work as a daily wager under the non - applicant establishment .

[भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii) ]

Bansidhar Sharma has mentioned that with reference to the notice he is placing his services to the establishment and Panna Lal Gurjar has stated that he wants to work as adaily wagerwith the establishment . In the first instance, all the workmen were appointed by the order Ex. M-3 dated 22-5-96 which reads as below :-

" रसायनशाला के शोध औषध निर्माण के पेंडिंग कार्य का पूरा करने हेतु निम्नलिखित व्यक्तियों को रसायनशाला (फार्मेसी) में दैनिक श्रमिक के रूप में रु. 32 प्रतिदिन की दर से दिनांक 25-5-96 से तीन माह के लिए नियुक्ति प्रदान की जाती है । इनकी सेवाएं उक्त अवधि से पूर्व किसी भी समय बिना किसी पूर्व सूचना के समाप्त की जा सकती हैं । "

17. Thus , it envisages a term of the employment for three months for a specified work i.e. to carry out the pending work of manufacturing the medicines of the pharmacy in the establishment . Vide order Ex. M- 4 dated 24-8-96, the contract was renewed for a period of3 months w.e.f. 23-8-96 which ended on 22-11-96 . Thereafter the tenure of employment was extended vide order Ex. M-5 dated 26-11-96 for a period of 90 days from 27-11-96, which expired on 24-2-97 and lastly, the contract was renewed vide order Ex . M -6 dated 14-2-97 for a period of 3 months commencing from 25-2-97 which expired on 24-5-97 . Subsequent to it , the employment was not extended and the workmen were terminated . Thus , it appears that the workmen had worked from 23-5-96 to 24-5-97 under the employment of the establishment with a break of only 4 days .

18. Now, I advert to the oral evidence brought on bythe parties on the record . The workmen in their cross- examination have admitted that they have submitted their applications for appointment before the non - applicant in pursuance of the notice Ex. M- 1 . MW- 1 , Sitaram has deposed in his affidavit that the workmen were appointed for a specified period as daily wagers and their term of employment expired on 23-5-97. He has denied that they were regularly appointed . In his cross-examination, he has disclosed that the workmen used to manufacture the medicines in the pharmacy which were supplied to the indoor patients in the establishment. Although he has admitted this fact that the workmen were appointed after holding the interview, but has further clarified that the Committee was not constituted as per the rules and it was constituted by the Director himself. He has admitted this fact that from 23-5-96 to 23-5-97 the workmen have continuously worked under the employment of the establishment and that there is no mention in the office orders Ex . M-3 to M-6 that their services automatically come to an end on the expiry of the term of contract . Further he has explained that it was not mentioned since their employment was for a fixed term of 90 days only at an instance . He has also pointed out that the notice for employment was pasted on the notice board but the

617

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 15, 2005/पौष 25 , 1926

prescribed procedure was not followed while engaging the workmen and has deposed that the Selection Committee was not constituted as per rules because the nominee of the Government of India was not included therein.

19. The workmen's case is that they have completed over 240 days of actual work in the calendar year prior to their termination and that their services were terminated without complying with the requirements under Section 25-F ofthe Act and , therefore , it amounts to retrenchment . Per contra, the ld. representative for the non - applicant contends that firstly, the issue of entitlement of the appointment of the workmen has attained its finality vide orders Ex . M -8 to M - 11 passed by the Hon'ble High Court in the matters between the parties whereby the issue was decided against the workmen and , secondly, the workmen were employed on contractual basis for a specified period and for a specified job , therefore , the provision under Section 2 ( oo) (bb) is attracted in this case .

20. Ex. M -8 is an order passed by the Hon'ble Single Bench in the matter of SB Civil Special writ petition No. 492/99 , Banshidhar Sharma & Ors . v. National Institute of Ayurveda , whereby the Hon'ble Court issued the direction that while making the selection to the post of attendants , the respondents ( NIA) shall keep in mind the fact that the petitioners ( workmen) have served with them and the respondents are expected to expedite the process of selection within a period of 2 months. This order was assailed by filing the DB Special Appeal by Meetha Lal as well as by the National Institute of Ayurveda also . Ex. M- 9 is an order passed by the Hon'ble DB in the DB CivilSpecial Appeal No. 510/99 , Meetha Lal v. Bansidhar Sharma & Ors . whereby it was decided that the direction to hold selection process could not have been given and it is for the employer to fill up the posts or not to fill . After rendering this order the DB Special Appeal preferred on behalf of the NIA was found to be infructuous by the Hon'ble DB vide its order Ex . M- 10 . Ex. M - 11 is an orderdated 4-1-2002 passed in the SB Civil writ petition No. 6558/99 instituted by the present workmen against the establishment whereby they sought to establish their claim for appointment to the post of the attendants . In this case, the grievance of the workmen put forth before the Hon'ble Court was that although 5 posts were advertised but only 2 posts were filled in and their grievances was found to be without any substance by the Hon'ble SB and it has been observed by it that there was no post available with the institute to be filled in by giving appointment to the petitioners after the two posts were filled in and it was concluded by the Hon'ble Court that the petitioners ( workmen) have no right to claim appointment or consideration of their case giving them appointment on the post of the attendants .

618

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 15 , 2005/PAUSA 25 , 1926

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

of Section 2 ( 00) of the Industrial Disputes Act is not attracted . "

21. It appears that on account of the order dated 4-1-2002 passed by the Hon'ble SB , the ld. representative for the non - applicant has contended that the matter has attained its finality with regard to the entitlement of the workmen for their appointment.

22. As against it, on behalf of the workmen a copy ofthe order dated 15-4-2002 of the Hon'ble DB has been placed on the record which was passed in the DB Civil Special Appeal No. 291/2002, Bansidhar Sharma & Ors. v. NIA , preferred by the workmen against the order dated 4-1-2002 (Ex . M - 11 ) , wherein the Hon'ble Court has observed that the order dated 4-1-2002 will not come in the way of the appellants in the procedings of the alternative remedy. In view of the observation made by the Hon'ble DB , the contention advanced on behalf of the ld . representative for the non - applicant that the present controversy had been finally adjudicated by the Hon'ble Single Bench cannot be accepted.

25. In the office- orders Ex . M - 3 to M - 6 , the contractual period of employment has been exhibited as 3 months or 90 days along with a condition that the services ofthe workmen can be terminated prior to the expiry of this term without issuing them prior notice . Thus, these orders contain the two directions , first , that they are employed for a fixed term of 3 months/90 days and, second, that their services can be terminated at any time without prior notice . Under these circumstances , in view ofthe aforesaid observations made by the Hon'ble High Court, the employment in question cannot be construed as contract of employment for fixed term since the subsequent condition is contrary to the first condition . To this extent , that it was not a contract of employment for fixed period , the submission made on behalf of the workmen is also supported by the decision rendered by the Apex court in 2003 ( 97) FLR SC 608 .

23. TheId . representative for the workmen has referred to the ruling 1996 (2 ) WLC Rajasthan 562 in support of his submission that it was not a contract for specified term and, therefore , the provision under Section 2(oo) (bb) cannot be attracted.

26. Apart it , in the instant case the establishment has appointed the workmen vide office order Ex . M - 5 by giving a break of 4 days and vide order Ex . M- 4 , the period of employment was extended with retrospective effect . These factors lead to infer that these orders were issued with an object to deprive the workman of the benefit available under Section 25 - F of the Act .

27. Theld . representative for the workmen has referred to 1994 ( 2 ) RLR 65 wherein the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court has expressed its views as below :-

24. In 1996 (2) WLC 562 , the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court has observed that when there is a specific condition in the order of employment that services of the workmen could be terminated at any time without notice, then it cannot be considered as a contract of employment for fixed period . The relevant observation is quoted as below :-

" It is obvious from the narration of facts that while the work existed and vacancy existed , the successive fixed term job was offered to the petitioner by giving break only for the purpose of avoiding the operation of the provisions of the Act and that too , in many a cases , the reappointments have been given with retrospective effect . This clearly goes to so that appointment when renewed of reappointment was given, it was not a fixed term appointment but was made fixed term appointment after sometime . "

28. On this ground . the workmen's case is also supported by 2001 (91 ) FLR Punjab & Haryana and 1996 ( 3 ) LLJ Punjab & Haryana 1126. The facts of the decision supra are applicable to the present controversy.

29. The Id . representative for the workmen has also placed his reliance upon the following judicial verdicts in support ofhis submission and on a careful survey of these decisions , I find that their facts are dissimilar to the controversy at hand and they are not applicable to it :- 2001 (90) FLR Gujarat 666; 1994 II LLJ Orissa 1127 ; 1997 III LLJ Rajasthan 712 ; 1997 III LLJ MP 536 ;

"We have referred to the order of appointment dated February 29 , 1988 and order of extension dated September 8, 1988 (Annexures I and II of the writ petition) . Stipulation in the order of appointment is that the services of workmen were purely temporary and could be terminated even without notice . In the order of appointment it is nowhere stated that on the expiry of the period of six months the employment would automatically come to an end . In fact second order , dated September 8 , 1988 was passed wherein also it has been stated that services were purely temporary and could be terminated at any time without notice . It may be noted that the clause (bb) of the definition of the term ' retrenchment ' has been added by way of Amendment Act, 1984. It is in the nature of exception to the main clause defining the term ' retrenchment' . Therefore , it has to be construed strictly. In view of the specific condition in the order of appointment that services could be terminated at any time without notice , it cannot be construed as contract of employment for fixed period . Therefore , in facts of the case , clause (bb) 619 [भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 15, 2005/पौष 25, 1926

1995 III LLJ Madras 240; 1994 II LLJ Kerala 373 ; 1987 Lab IC Allahabad 1607; 2001 ( 1) LLN SC 852 & AIR 1968 SC 1413 .

33. Thus, in the ruling supra the condition of employment of the workmen was that they would continue towork till regular selection were made, which is a specific condition. But in the present case there are two conditions in the same order, one relates to specified term of employment and contrary to it , the another which says that their employment can be terminated at any time without notice. As stated earlier, in 1996 (2 ) WLC Rajasthan 562 , such a condition was not considered as fixed term employment . Therefore, the facts of the decision rendered in 2004 Lab IC Punjab & Haryana 459 are not applicable to the present case.

30. It has then been argued by the ld. representative for the workmen that the workmen were selected for the postby regular Selection Committee and on this ground the case is also made out in their favour and they are entitled for their reinstatement. But this contention stands negated on the basis of the evidence of MW - 1 , Sitaram who has categorically deposed in his cross -examination thatthe Selection Committee was not constituted as per rules since the nominee of the Govt. of India was not included therein .

31. Now, I dwell on the submission made on behalf ofthe non-applicant . TheId. representative for the non- applicant in support of his submission that the provision under Section 2 ( 00 ) (bb ) is applicable has placed his reliance upon 2004 Lab IC Punjab & Haryana 459,

34. The another decision relied upon by the Id . representative for the non - applicant on the point is 1999(1) WLC (Rajasthan) 393 , wherein the Hon'ble Court has heldthat if the work is not of a perennial nature and the project is likely to be finished after sometime, then the casedoes not fall within the ambit of Section 2( 00) (bb) of the Act. Obviously, the facts of this case do not bear resemblance with the present one.

35. TheId . representative has also referred to the decision reported in 2003 (2) WLC Rajasthan 16 and on a careful perusal of the ruling , I find that its facts are not similar to the present controversy.

36. The submission put forth by theId. representative for the non - applicant on this point is not supported from the aforesaid decisions and is untenable accordingly.

32. The facts of the aforesaid decision are that one Sh . Satpal was employed as a clerk in the RegistrarOffice ofthe University as a daily wager for a specified period, which was extended from time to time . It was made clear that in case of vacancy having been filled up by a normal procedure before expiry of period of above contract he shall cease to be in position forthwith . The University was making regular appointment to the post of clerks and pending such regular selection some daily wagers had been appointed for the purpose of carrying on the office work and the condition of their employment was that they would continue to work till regular selection were made . The regular selections were subsequently made in which theworkman also participated but he could not be selected. Onthese facts , the Hon'ble Court has observed as below:-

37. The Id . representative for the workmen has also assailed the applicability of sub -clause (bb) by contending that the Act No. 49 of 1984 whereby this clause was inserted under Section 2 (00 ) has been repealed and , therefore , sub -clause (bb ) does not exist . TheId . representative in this context has referred to the Repealing and Armending Act , 1984 whereby the Act No. 49 , the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act , 1984 has been repealed as a whole. The ld . representative has relied upon 2004 ( 100) FLR Kerala 532 in support of his submission .

38. I have reflected over this submission, " In our opinion , if the services of a workman are terminated in terms of the stipulation contained in his letter of appointment , as has been done in the instant case , then the termination does not amount to retrenchment and the provisions of Section 25 - F of the Act are not attracted even if the workman had completed 240 days of service in the 12 months preceding the date of his termination . If the workman is allowed to continue or is ordered to be reinstated, the very purpose of the University making regular selections wouldbe frustrated and unqualified candidates would find back door entries . We are clearly of the view that persons who could not get selected in the regular selection process carried out by the University , had no right to continue on their appointment particularly when there was a stipulation to that effect in their letters of appointment . "

39. It appears that in 2004 ( 100 ) FLR Kerala 532 , the issue relatedto the repealing of the Payment of Gratuity Act , 1948 and the observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court was followed that the normal effect of a repealing statute is to obliterate it as if it has never been passed and the statute mustbe considered as a law that never existed . It is manifest that this decision relates to the repealing of the statute/Act, which falls under Section 6 of the general Clause Act . But here the issue relates to the effect of repealing Industrial Disputes ( Amendment) Act , 1984 whereby sub -clause (bb ) was inserted into Section 2( 00) .

11 GI/05-28 620

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 15, 2005/PAUSA 25 , 1926

This subject matter lies within the ambit of Section 6 -A of the General Clauses Act , which reads as below :-

"6 -A. Repeal of Act making textual amendment inAct or Regulation. Where any ( Central Act) or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act repeals any enactment by which the text of any (Central Act) or Regulation was amended by the express omission , insertion or substitution of any matter, then unless a different intention appears , the repeal shall not affect the continuance of any such amendment made by the enactment so repcaled and in operation at the time of such repeal ."

40. Thus , the purpose of an Amending Act is to plant the necessary amendments in the parent Act and once such planting has been effected , the Amending Act having served its purpose need not any more remain there as the plant has taken root in the main . As such , there is a clear distinction between repealing of the Amending Act and repealing of the main Act . The decision referred to on behalf of the workmen relates to the repealing of the main Act/Statute and not to the Amending Act. 41. 1 may refer to the observation made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in AIR 1960 SC 89 on this point to fortify my view, which is quoted as below :-

" It is , therefore , clear that the main object of the 1952 Act was only to strike out the unnecessary Acts and excise dead matter from the statute book in order to lighten the burden of ever increasing spate of legislation and to remove confusion from the public mind. "

42. The Hon'ble Apex Court has further observed that " As by amending Act of 1949, the text of the Act XVII of 1933 was amended by the insertion of S. 6( 1 -A) therein, the repeal of the amending Act by the 1952 Act did not affect the continuance of the amendment made by the enactment so repealed" and the Hon'ble Court further goes on to say that "When an enactment amends the text of another, it amends the subject or theme of it , though sometimes it may expunge unnecessay words without altering the subject" .

43. The another decision on the point is AIR 1960 Punjab 375 wherein the Hon'ble Court has expressed its views as under :-

" Shri Ram Lubhaya Mal then attempted to suggest that Sec . 33 of the Industrial Disputes

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] Act as it now stands and which provides for permission to be obtained from the Industrial Tribunal , is not applicable to his case . The argument is that the particular section was amended by virtue of the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act (XLVII) of 1950 and that Act , that is the amending as XLVIII of 1950 was itself repealed by the Industrial Disputes (Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions ) Act (XXXVI of 1956) , and in this manner the amendment ceased to exist , and we must go back to the law as it was before the amendment . There is no force in this contention , as the repeal of an amending Act does not have the effect destroying the amendment . "

44. In view of the principle propounded in the decisions supra , the submission made on behalf of the Id . representative cannot be sustained that on account of Repealing and Amending Act , 1984 , the sub- clause (bb) to Section 2 (oo) has ceased to exist .

45. To sum up , on facts of the case the termination of the workmen amounts to retrenchment and the non- applicant establishment has failed to establish that its case is covered by Section 2 (oo) (bb) of the Act .

Point No. II

46. This point has not been pressed on behalf of the workmen which is decided against them .

47. On a careful examination of the oral and documentary evidence available on the record , it is concluded that the claims of the workmen deserve to be allowed and they are entitled to be reinstated in their services . The workmen have also pleaded that since their termination they are out of employment and this fact stands unrebutted . Hence , they are also entitled for the back- wages.

48. Accordingly, the reference is answered in affirmative in favour of the workmen to this effect that their termination order dated 24-5-97 is illegal and unjustified and their claims are allowed . They are entitled to be reinstated in the service with its continuity and with 50 per cent of back- wages . An award is passed in these terms accordingly .

49. Let a copy of the award be sent to the Central Government for publication under Section 17 ( 1 ) of the Act.

R.C. SHARMA , Presiding Officer 621 [भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 15 , 2005 /पौष 25 , 1926

Date of award : 25-11-2004

नई दिल्ली, 15 दिसम्बर, 2004

AWARD

का. आ. 179.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, कस्टम एण्ड सेन्ट्रल एक्साईज प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार , औद्योगिक अधिकरण, जयपुर ( संदर्भ संख्या सी. जी. आई. टी. 9/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 14-12-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

1. The Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred under Clause ' D' of sub -sections 1 & 2( A) to Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the ' Act ' ) has referred the following industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal which runs as under :-

[सं. एल.- 42012/146/2001 - आई. आर. ( सी. एम.- II ] एन. पी. केशवन, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 15th December, 2004

"Whether the action of the management of Customs & Central Excise Department , Jaipur in terminating the services of the workman Sh . Devesh Kumar S/ o Shri R. R. Saran w.e.f. 3-7-98 is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to ? "

S.O. 179. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT- 9/2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court , Jaipur as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Customs & Central Excise , and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 14-12-2004 .

[No. L - 42012/ 146/2001 - IR(CM- II) ] N. P. KESAVAN , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR

Case No : CGIT - 9/ 2002

Reference No. L- 42012/ 146/2001- IR ( CM- II)

Sh . Devesh Kumar, S/o Sh . R. R. Saran , R/ o A- 37 , Malviya Nagar,

Jaipur

Applicant

Versus

2. The workman in his statement of claim has pleaded that he was appointed as daily wager on 19-10-94 by the non - applicant establishment , who continuously worked up to 2-7-98 but his service was terminated w.e.f. 3-7-98 . He had completed 240 days of work in every calendar year. On his termination of the service he unsuccessfully moved an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal and thereafter he filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court , Jaipur Bench , Jaipur, in which vide order dated 15-5-2000- he was directed to approach the competent forum. He subsequently raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer who submitted the failure report to the Central Government . He has further averred that in violation of Section 25 -F of the Act , his service was terminated and at the time of his termination , the junior employees to him , viz . , Ved Prakash , Mukesh Meena , Satyanarayan Meena , Naval Singh and Naveen Brijwasi were retained by the management . He has prayed to set aside his termination order and to reinstate him with consequential benefits:

1. Union of India ,

Through, Secretary, Revenue Department , Ministry of Finance , New Delhi .

3. On 8-10-2002 , a No Dispute Award was passed against him on account of his non - appearance before the Court, which was set aside vide order dated 1-11-2002 after hearing both the parties on the application of the workman.

2. Additional Commissioner,

Customs & Central Excise , Statue Circle, Jaipur.

3. Administrative Officer, Customs & Central Excise, Jaipur- 1 , Jaipur.

Non-applicants

PRESENT :

Sh . R. C. Sharma, Presiding Officer .

4. The non - applicants in their written counter have disputed the claim of the workman on the grounds , inter alia, that the non - applicant establishment is not an industry as defined under the Act and that the workman was never appointed by the establishment . They have pleaded that on contingent basis he was employed as a part -time worker who had not completed 240 days of work in any calendar year. They have also stated that the present dispute falls within the ambit of Section 2 (oo) (bb) ofthe Act.

: None.

For the applicant

For the non - applicants : Sh . T P. Sharma .

5. In the rejoinder be workman has reiterated the facts as stated in the statement of claim.

622

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 15, 2005 /PAUSA 25 , 1926

Point No. III

6. On the pleadings of both the parties , the following points for determination were framed:-

I. Whether the workman was appointed as a part -time employee on 19-10-1994 by the non- applicant management , who continuously worked upto 3-7-1998 ?

12. At para 8 of his affidavit , the workman has disclosed the names of Ved Prakash and others , in total 8 persons , who had been retained by the non - applicant establishment at the time of terminating him. But no documentary evidence could be led on his point to prove it . Therefore , the workman has failed to prove this fact also . This point is accordingly decided against the workman.

II . Whether the service of the workman was terminated in violation of Section 25 - F of the IDAct ?

Point No. IV

III . Whether at the time of terminating the workman, his junior employees named at para 12 of the statement of claim were retained by the non-applicant management in violation ofSection 25 - G of the Act ?

IV. Whether the claimant is not a ' workman' as defined under Section 2 -S of the Act ?

13. The workman in his claim petition has stated that he was employed as a casual worker and it is also admitted on behalf of the non - applicants in their written counter that on contingent basis , his services were hired . He, therefore , appears to be a workman. This point is decided in favour of the workman and against the non- applicants.

Point No. V

V. Whether the non -applicant management is an industry under Section 2 -J of the Act ?

VI . Relief, if any.

14. The 1d. representative for the non - applicants does not press this point.

Relief

15. For the foregoing reasons , no case is made out in favour of the workman and he is entitled to no relief.

7. In the evidence , the workman has submitted his affidavit , who was cross -examined on behalf of the non- applicants . On 26-10-2004 , at the stage of defence evidence , none appeared on behalf of the workman . The case was posted for 17-11-2004 and on this date none appeared on the side of the workman. The non - applicants have chosen not to adduce any evidence .

8. I have heard the Id. representative for the non- applicants and have scanned the record . The point -wise discussion follows as under :-

Point Nos . I & II

16. In the result , the reference is answered in the negative against the workman and in favour of the management and it is held that the action of the management in terminating his service of the workman w.e.f. 3-7-1998 is legal and justified and the claim of the workman is rejected . An award is passed in these terms accordingly.

9. For the sake of convenience, both these points are discussed together.

17. Let a copy of the award be sent to the Central Government for publication under Section 17 ( 1 ) of the Act.

R. C. SHARMA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 15 दिसम्बर , 2004

10. The workman in his affidavit has stated the facts as mentioned in his claim petition . In his cross- examination , he has admitted that no written order of appointment was issued in his favour. Although he has admitted that he was paid the wages on monthly basis , but in support of his submission he has not brought any documentary evidence on the record . His further statement in the cross -examination is that he had completed 240 days of work in the year 1997, but again he could not be able to produce any documentary evidence to substantiate his submission .

का. आ. 180.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, डब्लू. सी. एल. प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार , औद्योगिक अधिकरण , नागपुर (संदर्भ संख्या सी. जी. आई. टी. /एन. जी. पी./120/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 14-12-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल.- 22012/287/2001- आई. आर. ( सी. एम.- II ) ] एन. पी. केशवन, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 15th December, 2004 11. The workman could not be able to adduce any documentary evidence on the record to prove that he had completed 240 days of actual work in the preceding year to his termination . It is a well - settled law that only the affidavit of the workman is not sufficient to prove this fact in his favour. Accordingly, both these points are decided against the workman.

S.O. 180. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central [भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

Government hereby publishes the award Ref. No. CGIT/ NGP/ 120 /2002 of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Western Coalfields Ltd. and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 14-12-2004 .

[No. L- 22012/ 287/ 2001 - IR( CM - II) ] N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR PRESENT :

Shri E. Ismail , Presiding Officer.

Case No : CGIT /NGP/ 120/2002

Date : 16-09-2004

-Petitioner Shri Vithoba Namdeo Atkari

The Sub -Area Manager, W.C.L. -Respondent The Central Government, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub Section( 1) and Sub Section 2( A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute for adjudication vide order No. L- 22012/480/99 /IR (CM - II) dt. 28-06-2000 on following schedule.

This is the reference by the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour "Whether the action of the management in relation to Sasti Colliery of Western Coalfields Ltd. In terminating the services of Shri Vithoba Namdeo Atkari , Loader, Sasti Colliery vide order no . WCL/SC/45 - B/ 122 dated 06-08-2001 is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled ?"

ThePetitioner did not attend the court right from 10-10-2002 inspite of the best efforts of the court . The Ministry also has sent him a copy of the reference dated 10-07-2002 asking him to file the claim statement within 15 days. He is not taking any interest in the matter shows that he is not interested in persuing the matter .

The respondent has been appearing continuously.

Inview of the fact that the petitioner has not evinced any interest in the matter and there is nothing on record in this court to substantiate the case of the petitioner . Hence a ' NIL' Award is passed.

Transmit.

E. ISMAIL, Presiding Officer

623

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 15 , 2005/पौष 25 , 1926

नई दिल्ली, 15 दिसम्बर, 2004

का. आ. 181.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, एस. ई. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार, औद्योगिक अधिकरण, नागपुर (संदर्भ संख्या सी. जी. आई. टी./एन. जी. पी./182/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 14-12-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल -22012/480/99- आई. आर. ( सी. एम.- II ) ] एन. पी. केशवन, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 15th December , 2004 S.O. 181.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award Ref. No. CGIT / NGP/ 182/ 2000 of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court , Nagpur as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of SECL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 14-12-2004.

[No. L- 22012/480/ 1999 - IR( CM- II ) ] N. P. KESAVAN , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL , NAGPUR PRESENT :

Shri E. Ismail, Presiding Officer.

Case No : C.G.LT./NGP/182/2000 Date : 15-09-2004

MPKSS ( CITU) , Kusmunda

Vs. -Petitioner ChiefGeneral Manager, Kusmunda Area . S.E.C.L. -Respondent

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub Section ( 1 ) and Sub Section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 has referred this dispute foradjudication vide order No. L- 22012/480/99/IR (CM- II) dt . 28-06-2000 on the following schedule.

The reference by the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, is "Whether the action of the management of SECL, Kusmunda Area in effecting changes in working hours ofMinisterial employees from six and half hours to eight hours is justified ? If not, to what relief the workman are entitled ? " 624

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 15 , 2005 /PAUSA 25 , 1926

A compromise petition was filed and Shri V. M. Manohar, Area Secretary for the petitioner and Shri N. V. Daniel , Dy. Legal Manager , of the respondent was present and they agreed that they have compromised on working hours and an award may be passed accordingly.

When the award was reserved on 2-7-2004 a petition was received by post from some clerical staff stating that they are not agreeable to the said timing settled by the petitioner and respondent .

It will have no bearing on the award as they are not the petitioners . Even in reference it is marked to Vice- President MPKSS ( CITU) . Hence they cannot have a say in the matter .

Accordingly an award is passed in the following terms :--

( 1 ) The working hours shall be from 10.00 am to 1.30 pm , 2.00 pm to 5.00 pm from Monday to Friday both day inclusive with a lunch break of half an hour between 1.30 pm to 2.00 pm.

(2) The working hours for Saturday shall be 10.00 am to 1.30 pm .

Award passed in the above terms and shall be applicable to Office of the Chief General Manager , Kusmunda Area including Hospital , Civil Section Regional Stores , Kusmunda Project and Laxman Project.

Transmit.

E. ISMAIL, Presiding Officer

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court , Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of ECL and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 14-12-2004 .

[No. L - 22012 /369/ 1997 - IR (CM -II) ] N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL

PRESENT :

Md . Sarfaraz Khan , Presiding Officer. Reference No. 47 of 1998

PARTIES :

Sri Lachchan Harijan ,

The Agent , Shyamsundarpur Coliery, ECL . P.O. Ukhra , Distt . Burdwan. -Management Vrs. represented Sri S. K. Pandey, General Secretary, Koyala Mazdoor Congress ,

-Workman Asansol.

REPRESENTATIVES :

For the Workman : Sri S. K. Pandey,

For the Management :

(Union)

Witness for petitioner-Nil .

Witness for respondent-Nil .

Exhibits for petitioner-Nil .

Exhibits for respondent-Nil .

नई दिल्ली, 15 दिसम्बर, 2004

का. आ. 182.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , ई. सी . एल. प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , आसनसोल ( संदर्भ संख्या 47/1998 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 14-12-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-22012/369/97- आई. आर. (सी. एम.- II) ] एन. पी. केशवन, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 15th December, 2004 S.O. 182. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award Ref. No. 47/1998

General Secretary,

Sri P. K. Das , Advocate . Koyala Mazdoor Congress , Asansol .

State : West Bengal .

Industry:Coal.

Dated : 10-11-2004

AWARD

Sri P. K. Das , Advocate for the management and Sri S. K. Pandey, General Secretary of the Union are present in Court and filed a petition on behalf of the workman praying therein to pass a no dispute award. The copy of this petition has been served upon Sri P. K. Das , Advocate for the Management .

Heard both the sides in the said petition . Both sides submitted that since the workman concerned is not interested to pursue his claim , the case may be closed and a No Dispute Award be accordingly passed.

Perused the record it transpires that the dispute was referred with the following Schedule by the Central Government , Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L -22012 / 369/ 97 /IR ( CM - II ) dated 25-8-98 for adjudication to Central Govt . Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Asansol .

[ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

625

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 15, 2005/पौष 25, 1926

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management by not rectifying the date of birth of Sh . Lachchan Harijan 1-7-39 and not permitting the workman to appear before the Age Determination Committee is legal and justified ? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled ?"

Afterreceipt of the aforesaid reference , summon by registered post were issued to the respective parties for their appearance and accordingly both sides appeared , but in spite of giving them last chance for filing their written statement , none filed their written statement and .10-11-2004 was the date fixed for passing the necessary order ifthe parties failed to file their written statement by the time the aforesaid petition jointly signed by both the representatives of the parties was filed . It is clearly stated in the said petition that the concerned workman has left the company after withdrawing all his dues and he is not atall interested to proceed with his case .

In the aforesaid facts circumstances together with the submission of the union I do not think just and proper to continue the proceeding which will serve no purpose and it will amount to sheer wastage of the valur time ofthe Court . And as such the case is closed and it is hereby ordered that let a NO DISPUTE AWARD be passed and the same is accordingly passed . Secretary to send the copy of the award to the Ministry of Labour for information and needful .

MD. SARFARAZ KHAN , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 15 दिसम्बर, 2004

का. आ. 183.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय विद्यालय प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार, औद्योगिक अधिकरण, जयपुर (संदर्भ संख्या सी. जी. आई. टी. 44/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 14-12-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं . एल-42012/16/2000- आई. आर. ( सी. एम.- II ) ] एन. पी. केशवन, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 15th December , 2004 S.O. 183. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT- 44/2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court , Jaipur as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Kendriya Vidyalaya , and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 14-12-2004.

[No. L-42012/ 16/2000 - IR (CM - II) ] N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR Case No : CGIT -44/ 2003

Reference No. L-42012/ 16/ 2000 (IR (C - II) Sh . Ghisa Lal ,

S/ o Sh . Ramu Ram ,

R/ o Palthana,

-Applicant Teh. & Distt. Sikar (Rajasthan)

Versus

1. The Principal ,

Kendriya Vidyalaya, Shri Hindi Vidya Bhawan ,

Bajaj Road, Sikar (Rajasthan).

2. Assistant Commissioner ,

Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan , Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur.

-Non - applicants PRESENT :

Sh . R. C. Sharma, Presiding Officer .

Sh . Kunal Rawat

For the applicant :

For the non -applicants : Sh . V. S. Gurjar

10-11-2004

Date of award:

AWARD

1. The Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred under Clause ' D ' of sub - section 1 to Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( herein- after referred to as the ' Act' has referred the following industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal which runs as under :-

"Whether the action of the management of Kendriya Vidyalaya, Jaipur in terminating the services of Shri Ghisa Lal S/ o Sh . Ramu Ram is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to ? י

2. Pursuant to the reference , the workman in his statement of claim has pleaded that he was appointedby the non - applicant Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan ( for short , KVS) on 28-8-1996 as a 4th Class who continuously worked up to 8-8-1998 . On 9-8-1998, he suddenly fell ill and when he turned up on 23-12-98 with his sickness certificate and fitness certificate before the institution , he was declined to attend the duty. He thereafter unsuccessfully raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer ( Central) who submitted the failure report to the Central Government . The Central Government declined to refer his dispute to the Industrial Tribunal , whereupon he preferred a writ petition, wherein the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court issued a direction to 626

[PART II- SEC. 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 15 , 2005/PAUSA 25 , 1926

the Central Government to refer the industrial dispute to the competent forum . Assailing his termination , the workman has stated that he had completed over 240 days ofwork in the calendar year with the KVS , whose service was terminated in violation of the provision under Section 25-F of the Act. He has prayed that his termination order dated 23-12-1998 be declared illegal and he be reinstated in service with its continuity and back -wages .

9. The ld. representative for the workman submits that the workman was appointed on 28-8-96 who continuously worked up to 8-8-98 and from 9-8-98 to 23-12-98 he could not attend the duty on account of his- illness . His further contention is that in the calendar year commencing from January 1997 to December 1997 , the workman continuously worked and had completed 240 days of work during this period. In support of his submission , theld . representative has relied upon the documents submitted on behalf of the non - applicants .

3. The non - applicants, in their written counter, have disputed the claim of the workman on the grounds , inter alia , that no cause of action has accrued in favour of the workman , that the non - applicant establishment is an educational institution, the expenditure thereof is born by the Central Government and it is not a commercial establishment . Therefore , it is not covered by the definition . of the industry as defined under Section 2 ( J ) of the Act. They have denied that the workman had ever completed 240 days of service with the establishment and that on contingencies , he was employed by the KVS as a daily wager for a specified period for which the payment was made to him. It has been alleged that the workman ceased working w.e.f. 9-8-1998 without any prior intimation to the concerned authority.

10. Countering the submissions made on behalf of the workman , the ld. representative for the KVS submits that the date of alleged termination is 23-12-98 and in the preceding calendar year from 23-12-98 to 24-12-97 , the workman has not completed 240 days in total .According to the contention ofthe Id . representative, as per the break up given in Ex. M - 21 , the particulars of payment made to the workman , he had completed 111 days of actual service and when the Sundays and Gazetted Holidays are added to it , then the number of days comes to 163 only, falling much short of 240 days . His next contention is that the workman has not placed on record any documentto support his contention and the number ofdays are certain for which he has worked with the KVS .

4. In the rejoinder, the workman has reiterated the facts as narrated by him in his statement of claim.

5. On the pleadings of the parties , the following points for determination were framed :-

11. I have bestowed my thoughtful consideration to the rival cor.tentions and have perused the decisions referred to on behalf of the workman ,

1. Whether the workman was appointed on 28-8-1996 by the non - applicants as Class IV Employee who continuously worked up to 8-8-1998 and whose service was terminated on 23-12-1998 by a verbal order in violation of the provision under Section 25 - F of the Act ? BOA

II. Whether the non - applicant organization does not fall within the definition of Section 2 - J of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ? BONA

III . Whether the workman is entitled to be reinstated in the service with back - wages and all other consequential benefits ? BOA

12. The first question which requires the determination is the date of the alleged termination . As per the averment of the workman , he was ill from 9-8-98 to 23-12-98 and when he put his appearance in the office on 23-12-98 , he was declined to join his duties . Therefore , the alleged date of termination emerges out to be 23-12-98 . For the purpose of calculating the 240 days in a calendar year preceding to the termination , when the number of days are counted from 23-12-98 backward to 24-12-97 , it appears from the break up available at Ex . M- 21 that the workman had worked for six days in December 1997 and in the year 1998 , 24 days in January, 11 days in February, 21 days in March , 4 days in April , 5 days in May, 19 days in June , 16 days in July and 5 days in August . Thereafter he fell ill w.c.f. 9-8-98 to 23-12-98 . Thus , the total number of working days comes to 111 days and when the Sundays and other holidays are included they amount to 163 days only, which fall much short of 240 days .

6. The workman has submitted his affidavit , who was cross - examined on behalf of the non - applicants . On behalf of the non - applicants , the affidavit of MW - 1 , Sh . Ravindra Prakash , the principal , has been brought on the record , who was cross - examined on behalf of the workman . The KVS has also led the documentary evidence, which has been relied upon by the workman too.

7. I have heard both the parties and have scanned the record . The point- wise discussion follows as under :-

Point No. I & III

8. Since both these points involve the identical facts, they are being discussed together hereunder.

13. The workman in support of his contention that he was ill during the period from 9-8-98 to 23-12-98 , could not be able to brought on the record any documentary proof e.g. sickness certificate or fitness certificate . Therefore, the plea of sickness raised on behalf of the workman is falsified on account of the absence of any material to strengthen the submission made in this regard .

[भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

14. Theld . representative for the workman has contended that in the calendar year from January 1997 to December 1997 , the workman had continuously worked with the KVS and had completed 240 days of the actual work. But the contention of the ld . representative cannot be sustained on the ground that the calendar year since the date of the termination on counting backward from the date of the termination appears to be from 23-12-98 to 24-12-97 and during this period he had completed 240 daysofactual work, could not be satisfactorily established byhim. Thereafter the earlier calendar year is to be counted from 23-12-97 backward to 24-12-96 . It is evident that in Ex . M-21 , the working days for which he was paid in the year 1997 commence from 28-11-97 onwards .

Accordingly, on a perusal of the record , it is not established thatthe workman had discharged his duties and had even completed 240 days of actual service in the earlier calendar year commencing from 24-12-96 to 23-12-97 .

15. Theld. representative for the workman has placed his reliance upon 2003 (99) FLR SC 331 , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that it is not necessary for the workman to complete 240 days in the preceding year and since workmen had completed 240 days in earlier calendar years preceding to 12 months on the date of retrenchment , they were deemed to be in continuous service and their termination was considered in violation of the relevant provision of the Act. But theld . representative for the workman has not correctly calculated the earlier calendar year preceding to 12 months on the date oftermination as commencing from January 1997 to December 1997 , which can correctly be reckoned as commencing from 24-12-96 to 23-12-97 . The onus lies upon the workman to further prove that he had completed 240 days ofactual service in the earlier calendar year from 24-12-96 to 23-12-97, which he has failed to discharge . Therefore, the contention of the ld. representative is not fortified by the decision supra and it is of no avail to him.

16. Now, I turn to the oral evidence adduced by both the parties on the record . The workman in his cross- examination has admitted that the Ex. M- 1 , the particulars of the payment, bears his signature from A to B and thereafter he has also admitted that Ex. M- 2 to M-6 , which are also the particulars of payment made to him , bear his signatures respectively. Although the workman has denied in his cross -examination that he had worked for a few days in each month of the calendar year and has stated that he had performed the work in the each full month, yet he could not be able to establish this fact by adducing the cogent evidence on record . Moreover, he has clearly admitted in his cross -examination that he was paid only for the days he had worked. Contrary to it, MW- 1 , 11GI/05-29

627

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 15, 2005/पौष 25, 1926

Ravindra Prakash has emphatically denied in his cross- examination that the workman had ever continuously worked w.e.f. 28-8-96 to 8-8-98 and has succeeded in deposing the number of working days in the particular years when asked in his cross -examination on behalf of theworkman.

17. On a careful scrutiny of the evidence and material present on the record , it is thus clear that the workmanhad not completed 240 days of actual work either in the calendar year preceding to his date of termination i.e. from 23-12-98 to backward 24-12-97 and in the earlier calendar year from 23-12-97 to backward 24-12-96 . Therefore, he is not entitled to avail the protection under Section 25 -F or under Section 25 - B of the Act . Accordingly, both these points are decided against the workman and in favour of the KVS .

Point No. II

18. The ld. representative for the KVS conteeds that the organization does not fall within the definition of Section 2- J of the Act and that KVS being an educational institution is not commercial establishment and in support ofhis contention , he has relied upon (1997) 4 SCC 257 . Inthis case, itwas considered whether ' Physical Research Laboratory ' was an industry within the meaning of Section 2-J of the Act and it was decided that the objective with which the research activity was undertaken by the institution was to obtain knowledge for the benefit of the Department of space and its object was not to render services to others and, therefore , it was not treated to be an industry. Apparently, the facts of the referred case are distinct from the case in hand. Per contra, the workman in support of his submission that the KVS is an industry has placed his reliance upon 1998 (2) JUSC 329 , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the educational institution has to be treated as industry. Therefore , in the light of the judicial pronouncement supra , it is held that the KVS is an industry within the meaning of Section 2- J of the Act and this issue is decided against the non- applicants.

19. For the foregoing reasons , the workman has failed to establish his claim and he is entitled to no relief.

20. In the result, the reference is answered in the negative against the workman and in favour of the management of KVS to this effect that the termination of the workman Shri Ghisha Lal is legal and justified and the claim of the workman is rejected. An award is passed in these terms accordingly.

21. Let a copy of the award be sent to the Central Government for publication under Section 17 ( 1 ) of the Act.

R.C. SHARMA, Presiding Officer 628

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 15 , 2005 /PAUSA 25 , 1926

PRESENT :

नई दिल्ली, 15 दिसम्बर, 2004

Sh . R. C. Sharma , Presiding Officer .

Sh . Satish Sharma .

Forthe applicant :

Sh . V. S. Gurjar.

For the non - applicants :

Date of award : 23-11-2004

AWARD

का. आ. 184.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय विद्यालय प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार, औद्योगिक अधिकरण, जयपुर (संदर्भ संख्या सी. जी. आई. टी. 49/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 14-12-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल.- 42012/141/2001- आई. आर. ( सी एम- II ] एन. पी. केशवन, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 15th December, 2004

1. The Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred under Clause ' D ' of sub - section 1 of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( hereinafter referred to as the ' Act ' ) has referred the following industrial dispute for adjudications to this Tribunal which runs as under :-

"Whether the action of the Principal , Kendriya Vidyalaya, Bharatpur in terminating the services ofShri Surendra Kumar w.e.f. 7-5-2000 is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled ?"

S.O. 184. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT 49/2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court , Jaipur as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Central School, and their workman , received by the Central Government on 14-12-2004.

[No. L -42012/ 141 /2001 - IR (CM - II ) ] N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM - LABOUR COURT , JAIPUR

Case No. CGIT -49/ 2003

Reference No. L-42012/ 141/2001 - IR (CM - II)

Shri Surendra Kumar,

S/o Sh . Naval Singh ,

R/ o Vill . Malipur , Via Sever,

Applicant

Bharatpur.

Versus

Union of India,

1. Through Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development , D/o Secondary Education, Shashtri Bhawan , New Delhi .

2. The workman in his statement of claim has pleaded that he was appointed as a 4th Class by an oral order on 1-1-99 by the Principal , Central School , Bharatpur, who continuously worked up to 6-5-2000 and he discharged the functions similar to that of a 4th Class . But his service was illegally terminated on 7-5-2000 by an oral order without issuing him one month's notice or pay in lieu of notice and retrenchment compensation . He unsuccessfully raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer who submitted the failure report to the Central Government . The workman has further averred that he had completed over 240 days in the calendar year preceding to his termination . He had also applied for his appointment to the said post in pursuance of the circular dated 30-9-99 issued by the non - applicant establishment, but he was declined the employment . He has added that one Sh . Veeri Singh was also appointed as a 4th Class employee on temporary basis like him, who was subsequently confirmed on that post , but he was not permitted to continue on the post . He has prayed that his termination order be set aside and he be reinstated in the service with all consequential benefits .

2 2. Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan, 18, Institutional Area , Shahid Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi .

3. Assistant Commissioner , Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan , 42, Gandhi Nagar Marg , Bajaj Nagar, Jaipur.

3. The non -applicants , in their written counter , have disputed the claim filed by the workman and have stated that the non - applicant no. 1 , Union of India, has wrongly been impleaded as a party to the dispute , which suffers with the defect of misjoinder of the parties and that the non - applicant establishment is not an industry within the definition of ' industry ' as defined under Section 2- J of the Act . They have further denied that the workman was ever appointed by the non - applicant establishment to the post of the 4th Class and have stated that he was only appointed as a daily wager on contingent basis. It has also been disputed that the workman has completed 240 4 Principal , Kendriya Vidyalaya , Bharatpur

Non-applicants [ भाग II- खंड 3 ( 11) ]

days of continuous service in the preceding calendar year to the termination .

4. In the rejoinder, the workman has reiterated the facts as stated in the statement of claim .

5.On the pleadings of both the parties , the following points for determination were framed :-

I. Whether the workman was appointed as class IV employee by an oral order of the non- applicant no . 4 on 1-1-1999 who worked upto 6-5-2000 in the office of the non - applicant no . 4 @Rs . 35 per day as wages ?

II . Whether the service of the workman was terminated by the non- applicant no . 4 in violation of the provision under Section 25 - F of the Act ?

III. Whether the junior employee Shri Viri Singh was retained by the non - applicant no . 4 at the time of terminating the service of the workman in violation of Section 25 -G of the Act ?

IV. Whether the non - applicant no. 1 is not a necessary party in this dispute ?

V. Whether the non - applicant management does not fall within the definition of industry under Section 2 (j ) of the Act ?

VI. Whether the applicant workman does not fall within the definition of the workman as defined under Section 2(s) of the Act ?

VII . Relief , if any.

6. In the evidence, the workman has submitted his affidavit and on behalf of the non - applicants , the counter- affidavit of Sh. A. K. Gupta, Principal , Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan, was brought on the record . The workman has also led the documentary evidence on the record.

7. I have heard both the parties and have scanned the record . The point- wise discussion follows as under:-

Point Nos . I & II

8. Both these points pertain to the provision under Section 25 - F of the Act, which are required to be discussed jointly.

9. Theld. representative for the workman contends that the certificate annexure A- 2 issued by the Principal , Kendriya Vidyalaya , Bharatpur shows that the workman has continuously worked from February, 1999 to 3-4-2000 and has thus completed 240 days in a calendar year preceding to the termination. His next submission is that the workman was engaged against the vacant post of permanent 4th Class and the workman had moved the application before the Principal for payment of wages . His contention is that the workman had worked for 307

629

भारत का राजपत्र : अजनवरी 15, 2005/पौष 25 , 1926

days intotal whose service was terminated in violation of Section 25 - F of the Act .

10. Countering the submissions , the Id . representative for the non- applicants contends that Ex. A-2 is belied on the basis that it is not traceable in the office and it is a wrong certificate given by the Principal. His next submission is that except this document, there is no other document available on the record which shows that he had worked for 240 days continuously in the calendar year preceding his termination. According to the submission of the ld . representative, the burden heavily rests upon the workman to prove that he had completed over240 days of actual work in the calendar year preceding to his termination for which he had to bring out some reliable evidence in addition to his affidavit, but he could not adduce such evidence on record.

11.I havebestowed my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions and have gone through the judicial verdicts referred to on behalf of both the parties .

12. The workman has deposed in his affidavit that he was appointed as a 4th Class on 1-1-99 by the non- applicant school who continuously worked upto 6-5-2000 ,. In support of his deposition , he has brought on record Ex . A - 2 , the experience certificate ; Ex . A - 3 , his application moved for payment of wages and Ex. A -4 , which is stated to be a diary consisting of several parts wherein the workman has noted several transactions he had performed on behalf of the bank showing that he was employed by the non -applicant school .

13. The material document which has been stressed uponby the workman is Ex. A- 2 , a certificate issuedby the Principal . It says that the workman has served the school as a casual labour from February, 1999 to May 1999, for a total period of 32 days , and from 27-6-99 he continues towork at cycle stand. This certificate was issued on 3-4-2000 , which suggest that the workman was under the employment of the non - applicant school from the month of February, 1999 upto 3-4-2000 . Ex. A- 2 is silent on the fact as to whether the workman was employed on contractual basis at the cycle stand or not. When it is read as a whole , it indicates that he was performing his duties as a casual labour with the school in the aforesaid period. Thus , it is clearly established at the strength of this document that the workman was under the employment ofthe non -applicant school as a casual labour from the month of February, 1999 upto 3-4-2000 and in the preceding calendar year to this termination he had completed 240 days of actual service with the non- applicantschool .

14 The workman in his cross - examination has explained that vide application Annexure A- 3 , he has purchased the water ots for the schof and vine Annexure- 4, the payntem i wages to him was made for 630

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 15 , 2005 /PAUSA 25 , 1926

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

supplying of drinking water and attending the call bell in the school , etc. He was cross -examined at length but he could notbe shaken in his cross -examination. MW - 1 , Α.Κ. Gupta has admitted in his cross- examination that the application Ex . A- 3 was filed by the workman for payment ofwages to him and it was the usual practice in the school for payment of wages to the casual workers.

4th Class like his case , who was subsequently confirmed on the post . This fact has been disputed on behalf of the non -applicants and the management witness A.K. Gupta in his counter -affidavit has pointed out that the case of Veeri Singh is entirely different from that of the workman in the manner that he was regularly appointed to the post. In his cross-examination , this witness has deposed that Veeri Singh was selected by the Selection Committee after following the procedure of selection . The workman on this point in support of his submission could not adduce any documentary evidence suggesting that Veeri Singh's case is similar to him . As such , the workman has failed to prove that at the time of his retrenchment the junior employee , viz . , Veeri Singh was retained by the management . Accordingly, this point is decided against the workman and in favour of the non - applicants.

Point No. VI

15. The workman has thus been successful in establishing the fact that he had completed over 240 days of actual work with the school in the preceding calendar year to his termination. It is undisputed that prior to his retrenchment, one month's notice or pay in lieu thereof and retrenchment compensation was not given to him . Thus , the management has acted in violation of Section 25 of the Act and termination of the service of the workman tantamounts to retrenchment and he is entitled to get the protection under the aforesaid provision .

16. The Id. representative for the workman in support of his submission has relied upon 1999 Lab IC Rajasthan 97 and RLR 1995 (2) 730 .

23. It follows from the discussion under points no . I & II that the service of the workman was hired by the non - applicant institution for performing as casual worker . Hence , he falls under the definition of the workman as defined under Section 2 - S of the Act. This point , therefore , is decided in favour of the workman .

Point No. IV

17. In 1999 Lab IC Rajasthan 97, the workman had completed 240 days of continuous employment with the college and the Hon'ble Court has held that if the employer gives an evasive reply, then it shall be treated to be an admission on his part .

18. In RLR 1995 (2) 730, the Hon'ble Court has found that when the workman has completed 240 days of continuous service then the verbal order of retrenchment without complying with the provision of Section 25 is invalid . Therefore , the submission made on behalf of the workman stands fortified by these judicial pronouncements .

24. The Id . representative for the non - applicants contends that non -applicant no . 1 , Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource and Development , is not a necessary party in the suit and , therefore, the reference suffers with the infirmity of misjoinder of the parties . Contrary to it , the workman in his rejoinder has clearly pointed out that non - applicant no . 1 exercises its control and supervision over non- applicants no. 2 to 4 and this fact could not be rebutted on behalf of the non - applicants. As such, the submission made on behalf of the non - applicants cannot be maintained and is rejected. This point is accordingly decided against the non - applicants.

Point No. V

19. Per contra, theld . representative for the non- applicants has placed his reliance upon (2002) 3 SCC 25 and (2002 ) 8 SCC 400 , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held respectively that it is for the employee concerned to prove that he has in fact completed 240 days of service in the last preceding 12 months period.

1 20. From the foregoing analysis , it follows that the workman has succeeded to discharge the burden of proof that he has completed over 240 days of actual service with the school by bring the cogent and reliable evidence on the record. Therefore , the contention canvassed on behalf of the Id . representative for the non - applicants is not supported from these decisions referred to by him.

21. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion , both these points are decided in favour of the workman and against the non - applicants .

Point No. III

22. The workman in his afidavit has stated that ir. the same school one Sh . Veeri Singh was appointed as

25. The Id . representative for the non - applicants submits that it has been held by the Supreme Court that an establishment to be an industry must be producing something which can be utilized by a common man . When assessed on this principle , the imparting of education is not an industrial activity. The Id . representative has relied upon ( 1997) 4 SCC 257. In this case , it was considered whether ' Physical Research Laboratory ' was an industry within the meaning of Section 2(j ) of the Act and it was decided that the objective with which the research activity was undertaken by the institution was to obtain knowledge for the benefit of the Department of Space and its object was not to render services to others and , therefore , it was not treated to be an industry. Apparently, the facts of the referred case are distinct from the case in hand. Per contra, [भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

631

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 15, 2005/पौष 25, 1926

the workman in support of his submission that the Kendriya Vidyalaya is an industry has placed his reliance upon LLN 1978 SC 377 and 1999 Lab IC Rajasthan 97 .

26. In LLN 1978 SC 377 , the Hon'ble Court has observed as below :-

"Our conclusion is that University of Delhi case (A.LR. 1963 S.C. 1873 ) (vide supra) , was wrongly decided and that education can be and is , in its institutional form , an industry. "

27. In 1999 Lab IC Rajasthan 97 , the Hon'ble Court has also expressed its views that college run by Government is an industry and its class IV employee is a workman.

28. Therefore , in the light of the judicial pronouncements supra, it is held that Kendriya Vidyalaya , Bharatpur is an industry within the meaning of Section 2-J of the Act and this issue is decided against the non- applicants.

Relief

29.On account of determination of points nos. I & II infavour of the workman, he is entitled to be reinstated in the service. At para 16 of his claim statement , he has stated that he is out of employment since his termination, which stands unrebutted . Therefore , he is also entitled to get the back -wages .

30. On a careful analysis of the oral and documentary evidence available on the record , the reference is answered in affirmative in favour of the workman and it is held that the action of the non - applicant school in the terminating the services of the workman w.e.f. 7-5-2000 is illegal and unjustified, which is set aside . The claim of the workman is allowed and he is entitled to be reinstated in the service with its continuity and 50 per cent back-wages . An award is passed in these terms accordingly.

31. Let a copy of the award be sent to the Central Government for publication under Section 17 ( 1 ) of the Act.

R. C. SHARMA , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 15 दिसम्बर, 2004

का. आ. 185.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , ई. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, आसनसोल के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 35/1998 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 14-12-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल.- 22012/274/97-आई. आर. ( सी एम- II ) ] 'एन. पी. केशवन, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 15th December, 2004 S.O. 185. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 35/ 1998) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court , Asansol as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of ECL and their workman , received by the Central Government on 14-12-2004.

[No. L - 22012 / 274/ 1997 - IR(CM -II) ] N. P. KESAVAN , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL PRESENT :

Md. Sarfaraz Khan , Presiding Officer. Reference No. 35 of 1998

PARTIES :

The Agent, Shyamsunderpur Colliery of M/s. ECL . , P.O. Ukhra, Distt . Burdwan Management

Versus

Sri Sitwa Bhuiya, Ex -Underground Loader, Bankola Area of ECL. Workman REPRESENTATIVES :

Sri P. D. Das , Advocate .

For the Management :

For the Workman Union

: Sri Rakesh Kumar, General Secretary, Koyala Mazdoor Congress , Asansol.

INDUSTRY : Coal

STATE : West Bengal Dated 19-10-2004

AWARD

Inexercise ofpowers conferred by clause ( d) of Sub- section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2 ( A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) Government of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L - 22012/274/ 97 / IR(CM - II) dated 23-7-1998 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by the Tribunal :

"Whether the action of the management of Shyamsunderpur Colliery ofM/s. ECL in dismissing Sh. Sitwa Bhuiya , Ex - Underground Loader is legal and justified ? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled ?"

On receipt of the aforesaid order of reference summons were issued to the respective parties through 632

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 15 , 2005 /PAUSA 25 , 1926

[PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

workman is entirely misconceived one and there exists no Industrial Dispute according to the terms of reference..

the registered post. In pursuance to the summons both the parties appeared through their representatives and filed their written statements respectively in support of their claims.

2. In brief compass the case of the workman as per his written statement is that Sitwa Bhuiya has been working as underground loader at Shyamsunderpur Colliery under Bankula Area , E.C.L. who has been dismissed from his service with effect from 22-12-94 for the alleged misconduct under clause 18 ( 1 ) (n) of the Standing Orders applicable to the establishment .

9. The main defence case of the management is that the workman Sitwa Bhuiya was chargesheeted on 26-11-96 for his unauthorised absence without any prior permission or sanctioned leave since 9-2-94 who failed to submit any explanation even on receipt of this charge sheet and an enquiry officer was appointed to that effect . All reasonable opportunity by the enquiry officer was given to the workman to defend his case and subsequently the Enquiry Officer submitted his enquiry report alongwith all the connected paper to the appointing authority and having been satisfied with the findings of the enquiry officer the workman was dismissed on 11 / 12-12-94 .

3. The main case of the workman is that he was sick and undergoing treatment as an Indoor patient at Bankura Medical College which is Government Establishment and the certificate issued is to be relied upon particularly in case of a indoor patient . In this critical circumstance it is not possible to come physically to inform the management about his absence . The management is also claimed to had the knowledge about the treatment of the workman going on in the said Medical College as the same was intimated through the Co -Worker.

10. It is also the defence case that the management had got no knowledge about the treatment of this workman nor any information in this regard was ever sent to the management . It is further claimed that the order of dismissal has been passed in accordance with the gravity ofmisconduct . So the workman is not entitled to any relief and a no dispute award may kindly be passed.

4. The further case of the workman is that the workman did never participate in the enquiry proceedings and it is false to state that he was given reasonable opportunity by the Enquiry Officer to defend his case . The copies of enquiry report and the enquiry proceedings were not supplied to the workman to submit his explanation in this respect.

11. The records goes to show that on 5-8-2004 a hearing on the preliminary point was made and since the validity and fairness of the enquiry proceedings was not challenged by the union . So the enquiry proceeding was held to be fair and valid and the case was fixed for final hearing of the dispute on merit and accordingly both the parties were heard in detail on merit of the case and thereafter the same was kept reserved for an award.

5. It is also the case of the workman that the total period of absence is with effect from 9-2-1994 to 21-5-1994 i.e. 3 months eleven days for which the quantum of punishment of dismissal is much more than the gravity of the misconduct alleged to have been committed as the punishment of dismissal is extreme one and disproportionate to that extent .

6. It is also claimed that no second show cause notice was ever issued or served upon the workman which is the deliberate violation of the mandate of the Apex Court .

12. The management has taken the plea in para 1 of its written statement that the present reference is bad in the eye of law and the same does not come under the parameter of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947. But this issue was neither raised nor pressed during the course of hearing of the dispute nor any chit of paper or any sorts ofevidence was tendered in the Court by the management. Perused the record pleadings of the parties and other materials available on the record . 1 do not find any defect in the maintainability of the reference and the facts and the circumstances of this referred dispute comes under the scope of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 and the same has correctly been referred to this Tribunal by the Govt . of India, Ministry of Labour for the adjudication of the same. I do not find any merit in this plea taken by the management and accordingly the same is decided against the management .

7. Sitwa Bhuiya is an illeterate poor man of Scheduled Caste who represent the weaker section of the society and it is never expected from such persons to know the rules and regulation of the company. He has already suffered a lot being out of employment for more than three years and his family is on the verge of starvation. A relief has been sought to set aside the order of dismissal directing the management to take him back in the service with full back wages alongwith all their consequential benefits from the date of the dismissal .

8. On the other hand the defence case of the management as per its written statement is that present reference is bad in the eye of law and the alleged dispute as raised by the union on the matter of dismissal of the

13. It is clear from the record that none of the parties has adduced any oral evidence rather both the sides have tendered photo copies of the official letter. Such as the copy of the charge sheet , enquiry proceedings , its report , letters of dismissal , etc. which are admitted one and their genuineness have not been challenged by either side . So I do not think advisable to discuss the same in detail .

[भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

14. On perusal of the record pleadings of the parties andthe enquiry proceedings alongwith its report it is clear that the delinquent workman from his duty with effect from 9-2-94 to 21-5-94 near about four months without any prior permission and without giving any information to the department concerned or without having received any sanction leave . So the findings of the enquiry officer for holding the concerned workman guilty under the clause 17 ( 1 ) of the Model Standing Order applicable for the establishment is quite justified and for the said misconduct the concerned workman is entitled to be awarded punishment for the same as specially provided in the Model Standing Order .

15. Now the only point to be considering and decided bythe Court is to see as to how for the punishment awarded to the delinquent workman by the management is proportionate for this alleged nature of misconduct proved against the workman ?

16. The representatives of both the sides were heard atlength on this point. It was submitted by the side of the union that it is a very simple case of an unauthorised absence for about 4 months which cannot be said to be a very serious or glaring misconduct specially in a case when the workman was undergoing treatment as indoor patient having a B. H. I. No. 192 of the said Hospital w.e.f. 9-2-94 to 25-8-94 and to that effect a discharge certificate has been duly issued from the said hospital . It was further advanced in the argument that no second show cause noticewas issued to this workman . Particularly when such provision has been made compulsory as per the directives of the Supreme Court . It was lastly argued that the quantum ofpunishment of dismissal is much more harsh and disproportionate than the gravity of the misconduct alleged to have been proved.

17. The photocopy of the discharge certificate filed onbehalf ofthe workman goes to show that the delinquent workman was under treatment in the Govt . Hospital M. M. Ward Bed No. 192 unit IC from 9-2-94 to 29-8-94 suffering from Hepatitis ' B ' as indoor patient . The genuineness of the said certificate remains intact as the same has neither been challenged nor any correspondence for its confirmation has been made by the management . So it is very much clear that the workman was confined tobed and in this compelling circumstances he was unable to send any information in this regard to the management . The reasons of his absence from his duty during the relevant period can't be said to be unsatisfactory. Besides this no chit of paper has been filed from the side of the management to show that the workman concerned is a habitual absentee and has ever been held guilty for the misconduct and punishment was awarded to that effect .

18. It is further admittedly clear from this record and the pleading itself that no second show cause notice was ever issued to the delinquent workman before passing the order of dismissal which itself is serious lapses and

633

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 15, 2005/पौष 25, 1926

deliberate violation of the mandate of the Apex Court which amounts to breach of principles of natural justice. I find much force in the argument of the union side on the aforesaid points and come to the findings that even according to the provision of the Model Standing Order applicable to the establishment the extreme sorts of penalty of dismissal can't be imposed in such type of cases.

19. It has been several time clearly observed by the different Hon'ble High Court and the Apex Court as well , that before imposing a punishment of dismissal it is incumbent for the disciplinary authority to consider the family background , economic background of the workman, length of service put in by the employee, his past and other surrounding circumstances including the nature of the misconduct . The workman concerned is an illiterate man and is a member of Scheduled Caste representing the weaker section of the society . He is financially weak and poor who has suffered a lot for about ten years and he had never been gainfully employed any- where during the period after his dismissal.

20. The attention of the Court was drawn toward theprovision U/s . 27( 1 ) (Page- 15) of the Model Standing Order applicable for the establishment where various minor punishment have been prescribed to be awarded according to the gravity of the misconduct . I fail to think as to why only maximum punishment available under the said clause should be awarded in the present facts and circumstances of the case . It has been observed by the highest Court ofjustice that justice must be tempered with mercy and that the delinquent workman should be given an opportunity to reform himself and to be loyal and disciplinary employee of the management . However , I am of the considered view that the punishment of dismissal for an unauthorised absence for a few months under the compelling circumstances and without any mala fide intention is too harsh a punishment which is totally disproportionate to the alleged misconduct proved. Such a simple case should have been dealt with having taken a lenient view by the management . In that view ofthe matter I think it just and proper to modify the same to meet the ends ofjustice . And as such the impugned order of the dismissal of the concerned workman is hereby set aside and he is directed to be reinstated with the continuity of the service. In the light of the facts circumstances and the misconduct for which the punishment of dismissal was imposed on the workman concerned I think it appropriate that the workman be imposed a punishment of stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect . It is further directed that workman will be entitled to get only 50% of the back wages which will serve the ends of justice . Accordingly it is hereby ordered that , let the award be and the same is passed . Secretary is directed to send the copies of award to the Ministry of Labour for information and needful ,

Md . SARFARAZ KHAN , Presiding Officer 634

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 15 , 2005/PAUSA 25 , 1926

[PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

The issue for adjudication is the following:

नई दिल्ली , 16 दिसम्बर, 2004

"Whether the action of the management of Central Bank of India , Trivandrum in relation to their Kalanjoor Branch in not paying 3/4 of the scale wagesof subordinate staff and other benefits to Smt . K. Omana, part - time safai karamchari at Kalanjoor branch is justified ? If not , what relief the workman concerned is entitled to ? "

का. आ. 186.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण , कोल्लम के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 16/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 15-12-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं . एल-12011/227/2000- आई . आर. ( बी . II ) ] सी. गंगाधरण, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 16th December, 2004

S.O. 186.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 16/2001) of the Industrial Tribunal , Kollam as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Central Bank of India and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 15-12-2004.

2. In answer to notice issued from this Tribunal both sides entered appearance and filed statements advancing their respective , contentions . Thereafter, when the case stood posted for evidence of the worker on 14-11-03 , the management and its counsel remained absent . Hence the management was set ex -parte. The worker filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and produced documents . The case was then adjourned to 28-11-03 . On that day also there was no representation on the side of the management . As the worker has already filed proof affidavit and the management remained absent , the documents produced from the side of the workman have beenmarked as Exts . WI to W10 and after hearing counse for the workman , the case was closed for award from that date.

[No. L- 12011 /227/ 2000 - IR (B - II) ] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL , KOLLAM

(Dated, the 3rd day of March 2004)

PRESENT :

Sri C. N. Sasidharan , Industrial Tribunal

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE ΝΟ . 16/01 BETWEEN

The Regional Manager, Central Bank of India , Thyvila Road, Trivandrum . Management ( By Sri R. Kunjukrishnan Potti , Advocate ,

Trivandrum)

AND

The President , Central Bank of India Staff Union , Paramara Shopping Centre , Cochin .Union

(By H. B. Shenoy and Associates , Advocates , Cochin)

AWARD

The Government of India by Order No. L- 12011 / 227/2000 - IR (B - II ) dated 29-12-2000 have referred this Industrial Dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal.

3. The joint secretary of the union representing the workman has filed proof affidavit and the averments are briefly as below : The workman is employed as part-time safai karamchari in Kalanjoor branch of the management bank and is a member of the union . She joined the service of the bank on 22-1-90 and at that time the bank was functioning in the premises measuring less than 1500 square feets which had an exclusive varandha measuring 45 feet in length and 2 feet and 8 inches in width and a staircase measuring 300 feet in length and 2 feet 8 inches in width. At that time she was required to sweep and clean the aforesaid premises , varandha and staircase and required to discharge work from 9.15 A.M. to 12.25 P.M. daily thereby 19 hours a week . The management had fixed her wages at the rate of one half of the scale wages payable to full time workman in the subordinate cadre with other connected benefits . Such fixation was made as per the terms of bipartite settlements prevalent in the banking industry and the circulars issued by the bank . Since 1-9 - '97 Kalanjoor branch of the bank shifted to another premises with about 2800 square feet and also varandha and staircase having total area of 3377 square feets . The workman was required to sweep and clean that much area and to work 9.15 A.M. to 12.45 P.M. daily thereby 21 hours a week. Upon increase of the area to be swept and clean the workman represented the management seeking for increase in the rate of wages . She has made request through her union as well . But the requests were turned down. She was also required by the management to sign the attendance register recording her working hours as from 9.15 A.M. to 12.25 P.M. though she was actually required to work from 9.15 A.M. to 12.45 P.M. daily. As [भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

635

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 15, 2005/पौष 25 , 1926

per clause - 18 of the 5th bipartite settlement dated 10-4-89 wages payable to part- time employees whose normal total working hours per week are more than 19 hours to 29 hours, is fixed as 3/4 of the scale wages with proportionate annual increments . So also as per circular dated 30-7 - '99 part - time safai karamchari required to clean an area measuring 3001 square feet to 4500 square feet are to work for more than 19 hours to 29 hours per week and accordingly to be paid with wages at the rate of 3/4 scale of wages with proportionate annual increments. The further averment is that the workman is entitled to wages as stated above and the action of the management in rejecting the same amounts to unfair labour practice and discrimination . The above averments supported by Exts . Wl to W10 documents remain unchallenged and uncontroverted. There are absolutely no reasons to disbelieve the same . I accordingly accept the same as true nd correct. The union thus established it's claim for the workman. In the light of the above, the workman is entitled to get wages as claimed by the union.

4. In view of what is stated above , an award is passed holding that he action of management of Central Bank ofIndia in not paying 3/4 of the scale wages of subordinate staff and other benefits to Smt . K. Omana , the workman in this case , is unjustified and hence the workman is entitled to get the same as claimed by the union.

C. N. SASIDHARAN, Industrial Tribunal नई दिल्ली, 17 दिसम्बर, 2004

का. आ. 187.- 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 केन्द्रीय सरकार, औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , लखनऊ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 42/2003 और 43/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 17-12-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12011/204/2002- आई. आर. ( बी- II ] [सं. एल.- 12011/209/2002- आई. आर. ( बी- II ) ]

सी. गंगाधरण, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 17th December, 2004 S.O. 187.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 42/2003 & 43/2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court , Lucknow now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Bank of Baroda and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 17-12-2004 .

[No. L- 12011/ 204/2002 - IR(B - II) ]

[No. L- 12011 /209/2002 - IR(B - II )]

C. GANGADHARAN , Under Secy.

11 GI /05-30

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT :

Shri Shrikant Shukla, Presiding Officer . L. D. No. 42/2003

Ref. No. L- 12011/ 209/2002 - IR (B- II) dated : 19-2-2003 BETWEEN

ThePresident,

Bank ofBaroda Employees' Union , C/o Bank ofBaroda, Halwasiya Court , Hazratganj , Lucknow. (Inthe matter of Manni Lal)

AND

TheAsstt. General Manager, Bank of Baroda, Regional Office , 19 Way Road, Lucknow, U.P. - 226001 .

L. D. No. 43/2003

Ref. No. L- 12011 /204/2002 - IR (B - II) dated : 31-10-2003

BETWEEN

The President, Bank of Baroda Employees' Union , C/o Bank of Baroda, Halwasiya Court , Hazratganj , Lucknow. (Inthe matter of Pyare Lal )

AND

The Asstt . General Manager , Bank of Baroda, Regional Office, 19 Way Road, Lucknow, U.P. - 226001 .

AWARD

The Government of India , Ministry of Labour vide its order No. L - 12011 / 209/2002 -IR (B - II) dated: 19-2-2003 referred the following dispute to the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum-Labour Court, Lucknow for adjudication :

"Whether the action of the management of Bank of Baroda , Raebareli in not giving the benefits of annual Increment , subscription to Provident Fund, Uniform to Shri Manni Lal S/o Shri Kallu , PTS as entitledto permanent employees ofthe Bank is legal and justifed ? If not , what relief the concerned workman is entitled to ?" 636

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 15 , 2005 /PAUSA 25 , 1926

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour also referred following dispute for adjudication vide its Order No. L - 12011 /204/2002 - IR (B - II ) dated 31-10-2003 to the Presiding Officer , Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court , Lucknow .

"Whether the action of the management of Bank of Baroda, Raebareli in not giving the benefits of Annual Increment , subscription to Provident Fund , Uniform to Shri Pyare Lal S/ o Shri Babu Lal , as available to permanent employee of the Bank is legal and justifed ? If not, what relief the concerned workman is entitled to ?"

The above two are identical cases and they are taken together and disposed by the common award.

Trade union's case is that Manni Lal was appointed, vide order dated 22-8-90 as Part Time Sweeper , by Regional Manager , Bank of Baroda and Pyare Lal was appointed, vide order dated 22/25-3-91 as Part- Time Sweeper by Regional Manager, Bank of Baroda . Both the workers were appointed by competent authority and they were placed on probation for a period of 6 months . The trade union has further alleged that employees ofBank of Baroda are placed on probation only when they are appointed against permanent vacancy and relevant portion, is reproduced below:

"The employees shall be classified as:

(a) Permanent employee;

(b) Probationer ;

(d) Part -time employee" .

These expression having the following meanings :

(a) "Permanent employee " means an employee who has been appointed as such by the Bank, (b) " probationer" means an employee who is provisionally employed to fill a permanent vacancy or post as has not been made permanent or confirmed in service .

The part-time sweeper has been classified as under:

"Area of floor space Hours per week Wages Upto 750 sq . ft. Upto 3 hours Rs. 440 p.m. 751 to 2000 sq . ft . 6 hours to 13 hrs 1/3rd wage scale

2001 to 2600 sq.ft. More than 13 hrs . 1/2 wages scale to 19 hrs .

2601 to 3500 sq . ft . More than 19 hrs . to 29 hrs .

3 /4th wages scale

3501 to 5000 sq .ft . Beyond 29 hrs . Full wages scale"

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii )) The rates of part-time work has been revised from time to time and the latest one has been given in Bank Circulardt . 11-5-2000 and according to it , the sweepers who were cleaning of area more than 750 sq.ft . to 1500 sq . ft . , they would be entitled for 1 / 3rd wage scale w.e.f. 1-2-2000 . The word scale wage has been defined in Bipartite Settlement dt . 10-4-1989 as under :

"Scale wages shall mean, Basic pay, CCA, if any Special/House Rent/ other allowance , if any and DA payable to full time workmen in subordinate cadre" .

It is alleged by the worker that he is being given 1/3 scale wage , w.e.f. 1-2-2000 , as such , entitled for all benefits , given to permanent part - time employees . According to para 18 of Bi - partite Settlementdt. 10-4- 1989 , the following benefits are to be given to permanent part-time employees , drawing various scale :

"18.2/ 10-4-1989

(a) " Permanent part - time employees drawing scale wages are eligible for leave , medical aid and uniforms .

(b) Permanent part - time employees drawing scale wages are eligible for Provident Fund with effect from 1-9-1978 .

(c) Permanent part - time employees drawing scale wages in Banks other than State Bank of India will be eligible for Gratuity. Those in State Bank of India , will however, be eligible for Gratuity or Pension , as per rules .

(d) Permanent part - time employees drawing scale wages shall be eligible for leave fare concession and leave encashment on pro- rata basis with effect from 1-4-1989 . "

It is alleged by the worker that the opposite party was requested to provide all the benefits of permanent part-time employees to the workman, but they have not provided, without any valid reason . The trade union as therefore prayed to direct the management of Bank of Baroda to provide annual increment , subscription to Provident Fund, Uniform w.e.f. 1-2-2000 along with all the benefits of permanent part- time employees .

The opposite party has filed written statement . It is alleged that Manni Lal and Pyare Lal were engaged as sweeper on consolidated wages of Rs . 175 per month purely on temporary basis . It is also alleged both the workers were never appointed against permanent vacancy. They are working on consolidated wages on Pro - rata basis and he is not on the rolls of the Bank. It is submitted that part- time sweepers cleaning floor space area up to 1500 sq.ft . continue to draw consolidated wages of maximum ofRs . 750 p.m. and Union raising the dispute has wrongly interpreted that the sweepers cleaning the floor space 637 [भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 15, 2005/पौष 25 , 1926

they are entitled. The management has every right to recover the extra wages wrongly paid to them . It has been stated by the opposite party that the request of the union isbaseless and without any basis hence was rightly refused by the Bank and the workers are not entitled to any relief whatsoever.

The workers have filed the photocopies of appointment letters of Manni Lal and Pyare Lal , the numbers of which are detailed as follows :

1. No. UPL / 15 / STF /NF/B - 923 dt . 22-8-90 regarding Manni Lal...

2. No. UPR/ 02 / STF / NF/ S - 1578/ C- 75 dt . 22/25-3-91 regarding Pyare Lal .

The management has filed the Regional Manager (PR) letter No :UPR/ 11 / STF/ 757 / 741 / 1290 dt . 11-5-2000 regarding wages payable to sweepers .

The trade union has filed the letter of General Manager No. CO/PD /KCP/ M - 98/271 dated 24/25-1/2000, regarding wages payable to sweepers .

The trade union has also filed the relevant extract ofBi - partite Settlement of Chapters 18, 19 , 20 and 21 .

The trade union has examined respective workers Manni Lal and Pyare Lal in support oftheir cases whereas the opposite party has examined Sh . D.K. Agarwal .

Heard arguments of learned representatives of parties and perused the written argument filed by the opposite party. It is admitted fact that these workers, Manni Lal and Pyare Lal are part - time sweepers in respective branches.

The photo state copy of appointment letters filed by the workers have not been admitted/denied by the opposite party and no other letter in rebuttal have been filed that any other appointment letter was issued in place of one filed by the workers .

The contents of the appointment letters of both the workers are reproduced below:

"No. UPL/ 15/ STF/NF /B - 923

dt. 22-8-90/ Registered

Mr. Manni Lal ,

S/o Shri Kallu,

Gam & Post: Udwahamrajpur .

Dist. Raebareli .

DearSir,

Re.: Your Appointment in the Bank's Service as a part - time sweeper .

between 751 to 1500 sq . ft . will be paid 1 /3rd of scale wages . The union has in fact concealed the facts in this case as to how the wages of the sweeper who drawing consolidated wages were revised by the Bank ofBaroda. In fact All India Bank of Baroda Employee Federation , which is a recognised Union and affiliated to national confederation of Bank Employees , which is one of the signatories ofthe Bi -partite Settlement and All India Bank of Baroda Employees Coordination Committee had requested to review the existing wages and norms fixed for payment of consolidated wages to sweepers and revise their wages to an amount upto 1/3 of scale wages of subordinate employees . The Bank after considering request of the Union revised the wages of such class of sweepers cleaning floor space between 750 to 1500 sq.ft. up to an amount equivalent to 1/3 of wages on pro - rata basis w.e.f. 1-2-2000 . It was further clarified to the union that these consolidated wage sweepers are/were not on the rolls of the Bank and they would continue to be treated as temporary employees even though they may be paid up to 1/3 of scale wages on pro - rata basis . As the all India Bank of Baroda Employees Federation is a recognised union has got the status to enter into the understanding with the Bank management to bring an improvement in the service condition of the Award Staff members . Hence the understanding reached with them has got legal sanctity and no dispute is maintainable by any regional unit like Bank of Baroda Employees Union . According to the circular mentioned by the worker payment to part time sweeper who cleans area more than 750 sq. ft. to 1500 sq . ft . may be paid upto 1/3 scale on pro - rata basis . The claimant has a very less work to do that is about 6 hours per week but due to benevolent of the office he has been given consolidated wages of 1/3 scale wage by the office for which he was not entitled . The 1/3 consolidate wage paid to the workmen in is much more than the prescribed, hence instead of giving him further facilities , the Bank has every right to refix/ reduce his salary according to antum of work and recover the amount of extra wages wrongly paid to them . It is submitted by the opposite party that the sweepers who are cleaning floor space area between 750-1500 sq . ft . are to be paid 1/3 scale wages on Pro - rata basis but they still remain out of the purview of the part time employee drawing 1/3 scale of wages as mentioned in the Bi - partite Settlement as their total hours of work still about 6 hours a week hence they can not be termed falling within the ambit of part time sweeper of 1/3 scale . Therefore , they are not entitled for any other benefit, which is applicable 1/3 scale wage employee . As such , the workers are not entitled to any relief. The Bank management has stated that the workers are not permanent part time sweepers . The workers are sweepers on consolidated wages and continued to remain on consolidated wages even after enhancement of this wages. They are not entitled for any other benefits as claimed by the union. The workers are getting more wages for which

With reference to your interview daud 25 * 90 are hereby informed that ye are engaged in the Bank's 638

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 15 , 2005/PAUSA 25 , 1926

[PART II- SEC. 3 (ii) ] service as a part- time sweeper on a consolidated salary of Rs. 175 (Rupees one hundred seventy five only) .

service as a part - time sweeper on a consolidated salary of Rs . 175 (Rupees one hundred seventy five only) .

Youwill be on probation for a period of six months during which period your services are liable to be terminated by one month's notice or pay etc. , in lieu of notice. If, however , you leave the service during the period ofprobation, you will have to give 14 days pay in lieu of notice.

You will be on probation for a period for a six months during which period your services are liable to be terminated by one month's notice or pay etc. , in lieu of notice. If, however, you leave the service during the period ofprobation , you will have to give 14 days pay in lieu of notice.

You will, however, not be entitled to subscribe to the staff provident fund .

You will , however, not be entitled to subscribe to the staff provident fund.

Your duties will include the work of sweeping , scrubbing and washing of the building occupied by the Bank and cleaning of latrine and bath rooms and such other duties as may be entrusted to you from time to time. Your working hours will be more than three hours but less than six hours per week .

Your duties will include the work of sweeping, scrubbing and washing of the building occupied by the Bank and cleaning of latrine and bath rooms and such other duties as may be entrusted to you from time to time. Your working hours will be more than three hours but less than six hours per week .

Please note that whenever you remain absent , you will have to provide the Bank with a suitable substitute.

Please note that whenever you remain absent , you will have to provide the Bank with a suitable substitute .

You will be governed by the rules and regulations of the bank in force from time to time .

You will be governed by the rules and regulations ofthe bank in force from time to time .

You will be bound to observe strict secrecy with regard to the dealings of the Bank and its customers .

If the above terms are acceptable to you , please signify your acceptance in writing and report for duty at our Deeh branch dt . Rae Bareli on or before 10th Sept. 90 You are also requested to intimate the Bank any change in your residential address from time to time.

If the above terms are acceptable to you , please signify your acceptance in writing and report for duty at ourDeeh branchdt . Rae Bareli on or before 10th Sept. 90 You are also requested to intimate the Bank any change in your residential address from time to time .

Yoursfaithfully,

Yours faithfully, Sd/-

Sd/-

Regional Manager, Lucknow Region

Regional Manager Rae Bareli Region CC : Head Office , Baroda for information .

CC : Head Office, Baroda for information.

:Gegasson Crossing Br.

: AGM, EUP, Zone for information . " : The Manager, Deeh Branch dt . Rae Bareli- for information. Please get Mr. Manni Lal medically examined and if found allowed him to join the duties . Please return the enclose forms duly filled in by Mr. Manni Lal and verified by You.

Sd/- Manager ( IR) " .

dt. 22/ 25-3-91

" UPR/ 02/ STF/NF / S - 1578 / C -75

Salient features of above appointment letters are that both ofworker's were appointed on probation for 6 months during which period their services were liable to be terminated by one month's notice or pay etc. , in lieu of notice. However, they leave the service during the period of probation, they will have to give 15 days pay in lieu of notice. However , these two workers were deprived of subscribing to the staff provident fund.

Mr. Pyarelal , S/o Babulal, Ambara West (Paschim) RaeBareli

DearSir,

Re.:-Your Appointment in the Bank's Service as a part - time sweeper.

The services of these workers included work of sweeping, scrubbing and washing of the building occupied by the Bank and cleaning of latrine and bath rooms and such other duties as may be entrusted to them from time totime. Their working hours will be more than three hours but less than six hours per week.

With reference to your interview dated 20-3-90 you are hereby informed that you are engaged in the Bank's

It also provided that whenever they remain absent , they will have to provide the Bank with a suitable [भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जनवरी 15, 2005/पौष 25, 1926

substitute . Further providing that they will be governed by rules and regulations of the Bank in force from timeto time. At the endby that letter they were advised to intimate the Bank any change in your residential address from time to time.

In the 5th Schedule of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 there is description of unfair labour practice. Serial No. 10 describes : "To employ workman as ' Badli ' , ' Casual Labour' or ' Temporary' and to continue them as such for years with the object of depriving them of the status and privileges of permanent worker" . Meaning thereby that the legislatures have not encouraged the employer to employ worker as Badli , Casual worker or temporary for years together with the object of depriving them of the privileges of a permanent worker. Para 512 of Sastry Award is as under :

"Para 512 of SastryAward.

512. We direct that on confirmation or permanent appointment an employee shall be entitled to all the privileges enjoyed by and shall be subject to all the liabilities cast upon the other permanent members of the staff and that he should further be entitled to have the period ofhis probation added to the years of his permanent service for the purpose of the grant to him of any gratuity. We make a similar recommendation in respect of pension also .

Notes;

1. To employ a person, the Bank shall give a written appointment order in terms of Para 29.20 of Desai Award . The appointment letter shall contain (a) kind of appointment (b) pay and allowances applicable to the post and (c) wherever needed the specific period of employment . The stipulations in appointment letter must be considered in accordance with service rules . In Central Inland Water Transport Corpn . Ltd. V. Brojo Nath Ganguly, [ ( 1986 ) 3 SCC 156 ] , the Supreme Court held that any unconscionable term in the appointment letter constituted Contract of Employment is void under S. 23 of the Indian Contract of Employment is void under S. 23 of the Indian Contract Act and violative of Art . 14 of the Constitution of India even though the employee had accepted such a term . Any term and/or condition in appointment letter which goes beyond service rules and/or reflects discriminations and / or arbitrariness is unconscionable . This definition of ' unconscionable ' is , however , illustrative and not exhaustive .

2. The temporary employee may be appointed for filling up permanent vacancy for a maximum period

639 ofthree months . During this period the Bank shall have to make arrangements to fill up the said vacancy. If the temporary employee is selected for this post, his period of temporary employment will be taken into account as part of his probationary period in terms of Clause 20.8 of 1st B.P. Settlement dt . 19-10-66 .

In nut shell the Sastry Award and Bi - Partite Settlement discourage the employment of casual labour and temporary employees for longer period . Casual 20.8 of 1st Bi -Partite Settlementdt. 19-10-66 , lays down a restriction for employment of temporary employees and provides relaxation for a maximum period of three months. During this period the Bank shall have to make arrangements to fill up the said vacancy. If the temporary employee is selected for this post, his period of temporary employment will be taken into account as part of his probationary period. Manni Lal S/o Kallu is in employment since last more than 14 years , whereas , Pyare Lal is in employment for more than 13 years according to the evidence on record. From the appointment letter it is made out that both of them were on probation for a period of6 months only. Their probation is not extended till date and at the same time the Bank management has also not issued any confirmation letter with regard to their employment .

The representative of the Bank has tried to argue that in the Gagason branch where Pyare Lal is employed, there is no permanent post of sweeper and there is hardly less than 6 hours work in a week . Similarly, in the case of Manni Lal the representative of managment has contended the same and has further stated that the workers were appointed on fixed wages and the same was increased from time to time . It is argued that the workmen are not permanent employees of the Bank. It is also argued that the Bank has not issued any confirmation letter to workmen and therefore it should be believed that the workmen remained temporary throught out the period and services of the workmen are not permanent and they cannot be allowed annual increment , uniform etc. During the course of oral argument the representative of opposite party has stated that appointment letter filed by the workmen are agreements . I do not agree with the arguments of the opposite party but on the other hand it is clear that said appointment letters are in nature of appointment letter for the indefinite period and the management of the Bank has unitarily fixed the conditions of the service but it is clear that the appointment was for indefinite period and the probation period was only 6 months and it is neither alleged nor proved that the managment extended that probation 640

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 15 , 2005 /PAUSA 25 , 1926

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 20 दिसम्बर , 2004

का. आ. 188.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार डाक विभाग के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार, औद्योगिक अधिकरण, अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 38/04 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-12-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल.- 40011 /23/95- आई. आर. (डी.यू. ] एन.पी. केशवन, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 20th December , 2004

S.O. 188. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 38/04) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court , Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Deptt . of Post and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 20-12-2004 .

[No. L- 4001-1/23/95 - IR(DU) ] N.P. KESAVAN , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT AT AHMEDABAD

PRESENT :

Shri B. I. Kazi , B.Sc. , LL. M. , Presiding Officer

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO . 38/04

(Old ITC No. 9/96 transferred from I.T. Ahmedabad)

The Post Master,

PostOffice Anand Division ,

Anand

... First Party

V/ s.

J.S. Saiyed ,

C/o R.C. Pathak,

Second Party

4, Deeplex Apartment , Nehru Park , Vastrapura , Ahmedabad

Appearances :

period. In the circumstances the question is what is the status of the workmen after they have successfully completed 6 months' of probation . According to the Bi- partite Settlement ( Sastri Award) para 512 it is laid down that on confirmation or permanent appointment an employee shall be entitled to all the privileges enjoyed by and shall be subject to all the liabilities cast upon the other permanent members of the staff and that he should further be entitled to have the period of his probation added to the years of his permanent service for the purpose of the grant to him of any gratuity. It further clarified in the notes that the appointment letter shall contain kind of appointment , pay and allowances applicable to the post and wherever needed the specific period of employment . In para 495 of the Sastry Award it is laid down that in all cases probationers after expiry of the period of six months should be deer.ned to have been confirmed , unless their services are dispensed with on or before the expire of the period of probation . The probationer means an employee who is provisionally employed to fill a permanent vacancy or post as has not been made permanent or confirmed in service. In the present case if the probation period is not extended the workmen shall be deemed to have been confirmed. Conformation in other terms according to Sastry Award amounts to permanent appointment . It is of no consequence to the Bank that there is no permanent vacancy of part time sweeper . This was for the bank management to create permanent post and for the latches ofthe management the workmen cannot suffer. I therefore, come to the conclusion that the part time sweepers have acquired permanent status in the bank service and since they are permanent part time employees , whether on fixed wages or otherwise are eligible for leave , medical aid , uniform etc. It needless to say that according to para 18 ofBi -partite Settlement dated 10-4-89 the permanent part time employee drawing scale wages are eligible for leave , medical aid and uniform and provident fund . It is proved that from February, 2000 the worker , Pyare Lal is getting scale wages . It is also admitted fact that Manni Lal is also on scale wages as is evident from the evidence of Subhash Chadra Srivastava. Therefore , the workmen are eligible for leave, medical aid, uniform , provident fund, gratuity and annual increment . I also come to the conclusion that appointment letter and subsequent employment of the workmen for long 13/14 years as probationers without affording them any leave etc. is unfair labour practice . The issue is therefore , decided in favour of the workmen and in negative . The workmen are therefore, entitled to annual increment , subscription to provident fund , uniform and other benefits available to other permanent part time employees w.e.f. the date when they were paid scale wages.

: Shri Munshi

Firstparty

SHRIKANT SHUKLA , Presiding Officer

Lucknow 10-12-2004

: Shri R.C. Pathak

Second party

[ भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

AWARD

1. The Government of India has referred the Industrial Dispute between the above parties by order dated 9-6-95 to this Tribunal for adjudication . The terms of reference is as under :

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Sr. Supdt. of Post Offices , Anand in terminating the services of Shri J.S. Saiyed legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to ? " 2. A notice was sent to the second party to file SC . The second party (workman) has submitted S.C. by Ex . 3 . The brief facts of SC are that the second party workman was appointed as a Packer in the year 1985 on a clear vacantpost by the first party. The workman was terminated bythe first party with effect from 31-12-1991 . The Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal directed the Government of India to make a reference of the dispute . The workman wasterminated by an oral order with effect from 31-12-91 . The workman has put continuous services during the period from 1985 to 31-12-91 and has completed the services of more than 240 days in each calendar Year . Therefore , the services of the workman cannot be terminated without following the provisions of the I.D. Act. No noticewas issued, no retrenchment compensation was paid to the workman and juniors to the workman were retained in services . Fresh recruitment is also made . No seniority list was prepared by the first party before the terminating the services of second party. Thus action of the first party is in violation of Section 25 -F,G, H of the I.D. Act and Rule - 77 of the Industrial Dispute ( Central) rules. Thus the action of the first party is ex- facie illegal and inoperative in law and void ab - initio . The work of packer is available at present also and it is continuous work . The first party has terminated the service with a view to deprive the second party from the benefit of regularization and temporary status as per the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court . Thus the action of the firstparty amounts to victimization and exploitation . The first party can not misuse powers only because it is dominant employer. Thus he prays for the relief as per para 5 of the S.C.

3. A notice was issued to the first party to file a written statement and by Ex. 5 the first party has submitted its written statement . The brief facts of the written statement are that the reference is illegal not tenable and the Hon'ble Court has no jurisdiction because the postal department is not an industry. What is stated in statement of claim is not admitted and it should be proved by the second party. It is not true that the second party was

641

भारत का राजपत्र: जनवी 15, 2005/पौष 25, 1926

appointed as a packer in the year 1985 on clear vacant post . He was provisionally appointed from 4-5-88 to 19-10-88 and from 13-7-91 to 31-12-91 the services were terminated after appointment of regular candidate sponsored by the Employment Exchange as per departmental rules . The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the department of the post is not an industry and I.D. Act is not applicable to extra departmental agents . On an appointment of suitable regular incumbent on the post of ED stamps vendor, the second party was discharged. It is not true that the second party has completed his services of more than 240 days in each calendar year since 1985 to 31-12-91 . Second party was not entitled for any notice pay and retrenchment compensation hence he was not paid. It is not true that the juniors than second party have been retained in service and no seniority list is required to be prepared and published for termination of services of the provisionally appointed persons . The claim of the second party is false , fabricated, incorrect and therefore not accepted. The second party had worked on different post and different categories and at different post offices as substitute provided by the regular incumbents was proceeding on leave for limited periods and provisionally appointed for short period. The workman was employed till the regular incumbent resumed his duty and till the regular appointment for the post was made from the candidates sponsored by Employment Exchange. The question of awarding temporary status does not arise . The second party iswilfully employed somewhere and therefore it is not admitted that the second party was unemployed hence first party is not liable to pay back wages to the second party. Thus he prays for the rejection of the reference with cost.

4. By Ex . 18 the second party workman has submitted a list of document which marked as 18/1 to 18/11 . There was no objection by the first party for the Exhibition . Hence mark 18/1 to 18/11 is accepted as Ex . 19 to Ex . 27. The first party has submitted a documentary list by Ex . 6 it is mark 6/1 to 6/7 . Mark 6/1 has proved in evidence . Hence it was accepted as Ex. 11 .

5. The workman has been examined as per Ex . 10 and by Ex. 12 the second party has closed his evidence . No oral evidence has been taken by the first party and by Ex. 14. The First party has closed their evidence .

6. The parties have submitted written arguments . The written arguments were taken on record.

7. Looking to the terms of reference and lookingto the evidence on record the following issues are to be decided in this reference:

( A) Whether the action of the first party in terminating the services of the workman Shri J.S. Saiyed is legal and justified ?

642

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 15 , 2005/PAUSA 25, 1926

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] (B) Whether the workman is entitled for reinstatement to his original post with continuity of service ?

(D) What final order ?

My Answer to the above issues are as under as per reasons given below :

(A) No.

(B) Yes .

3SCR 160 ( 2 ) Robert D'Souza V/ s. Executive Engineer Southern Railway. If the retrenchment is in violation of Section 25 - F workman is entitled for the reinstatement to his original post with continuity of service and also with back wages . It is clear that no notice or notice pay was givento the workman at the time of retrenchment and no compensation was paid though the workman has completed 240 days of continuous services in the years 1988 , 1989 and 1990. Thus the workman is entitled for the reinstatement to his original post with continuity of service and back wages . Looking to the evidence of the workman that he has earned Rs . 500 to 600 per month it is not just to saddle the burden of full back wages on the first party. However , looking to this evidence workman is entitled for 30% of back wages from the date of termination till the date of award. And after publication ofaward the workman is entitled for full back wages till the first party reinstate the workman to his original post.

(C) The first party management i.e. , Senior Supdt. PostOffices , Anand shall pay 30% back wages from the date of termination till the reinstatement of the workman . And if the workman is not reinstated , the first party shall pay the full wages to the workman from the date of the publication of the award .

(D) As per the final order .

REASON

10. Looking to the above observation it is clear that the action of the Senior Supdt. Post Offices , Anand in terminating the services of Shri J.S. Saiyed is illegal and unjust . The workman Shri J.S. Saiyed is to be reinstated to his original post with the continuity of services by Sr. Supdt. Post Offices , Anand and to pay the workman 30% backwages from the date of termination till the publication of the award . And if the first party does not reinstate the workman to his original post then a full pay prevailing at the time of award shall be paid to the concerned workman Shri J.S. Saiyed till the date of reinstatement. Looking to the above observation , 1 hereby pass the following order .

ORDER

Reference is partly allowed . The action of the management i.e. , Sr. Supdt . of Post Offices , Anand in terminating the services of Shri J.S. Saiyed is hereby declared as illegal and unjust . The first party Sr. Supdt . of Post Offices is hereby ordered to reinstate Shri J.S. Saiyed to his original post with continuity of service and to pay 30% back wages to the workman from the date of termination i.e. , 31-12-90 till the date of order of the reference. Ifthe workman is not reinstated within 30 days of the publication of the award , the first party shall pay full back wages prevailing at the time of award to the workman. The first party shall also pay Rs . 1000 as a cost to the second party. The order shall be implemented within 30 days of the publication of the award.

8. As per the evidence at Ex . 10. The second party workman was working with the first party since 1985 and he has worked till 31st December 1991. He has also worked as ED Messenger and lastly he was working as a ED stamp vendor. The first party has produced a document by Ex . 6 , 6/1 as a letter and a statement showing the working of the second party . Thus looking to this document it is clear that at the time of termination the second party hasworked for more than 240 days in 12 calendar months preceding the date of termination. Not only that the workman has worked for 341 days in the year 1990. Thus itisclear that the second party has completed 240 days in the calendar year . The first party's document Ex. 21 also proves the same fact which has not been rebutted by an evidence through documentary evidence was in their possession . Thus this Tribunal come to the conclusion that the workman has worked for more than 240 days in a 12 calendar months preceding a termination . It was an obligatory on the part of the first party to follow provision of the I. D. Act before the termination of the workman . The first party has violated Section 25 - F of the I.D. Act which is a mandatory provision . The termination of the workman is nothing but a retrenchment. Thus the action of the first party is in violation of Section 25 - F while terminating the services of the second party workman which is illegal and unjust .

B. I. KAZI , Presiding Officer

Ahmedabad Date : 22-09-04 .

9. Looking to the various decision of the Apex Court namely ( 1 ) Sunder Mani V/s. State Bank of India 1976 [भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

643

भारत का राजपत्र: जनवरी 15, 2005/पौष 25 , 1926

नई दिल्ली, 20 दिसम्बर, 2004

का. आ. 189.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार आर्मामेन्ट रिसर्च डेवलपमेंट एस्टेब्लिशमेन्ट के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में श्रम न्यायालय, पुणे के पंचाट को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को20-12-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -14012/ 11 /2003- आई. आर. (डी यू) ] एन. पी. केशवन, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi, the 20th December, 2004 S.O. 189.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award of Labour Court, Pune as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Armament Research Deve . Estt . and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 20-12-2004 .

[No. L - 14012 /11 /2003 - IR(DU) ] N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE MRS . S. S. SAWANT, PRESIDING OFFICER, FIRST LABOUR COURT, PUNE REFERENCE IDA NO . 343/2003 The Commandant, Armament Research Development Establishment, Pashan, Pune -411008 I Party

AND

II Party Shri Karna Vinayak Swamy, Naathu Kadam Building, Shivaji Chowk, Opp . PCMC School , Near Water Tank, Pimple Gurav, Pune -411027

AWARD

This reference is made by Dy. Commissioner of Labour, Pune for adjudication of industrial dispute under I. D. Act between above referred parties .

"Second party has demanded reinstatement with continuity of service and full backwages for the intervening idle period."

Today second party called out Absent . No S. C. is filled till date . Hence reference stands disposed off for default of second party and for want of prosecution by secondparty.

Pune: Mrs. S. S. SAWANT, Presiding Officer Date : 20-10-2004

11GI/05-31

नई दिल्ली, 22 दिसम्बर, 2004

का. आ. 190.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ मैसूर के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय, बंगलौर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 35/01 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-12-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/90/ 2001-आई. आर. ( बी. I ) ] सी. गंगाधरण , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 22nd December, 2004 S.O. 190. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 35/01 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank of Mysore and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 21-12-2004 .

[No. L - 12012/ 90/ 2001 - IR(B - I) ] C. GANGADHARAN , Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, " SHRAM SADAN " , ΙΙΙ ΜΑΙΝ , ΙII CROSS , II PHASE , TUMKUR ROAD , YESHWANTHPUR, BANGALORE - 560022

Dated: 3rd December, 2004

PRESENT :

Shri A. R. Siddiqui , Presiding Officer

C. R. No. 35/01

I PARTY :

Shri S. Gurubasavaraja ,

Door No. 6/379 ,

Behind Banashankari Kalyana, Mantap , Govt . Hospital Road, Kudligi (Tq) ,

Bellary (Dist) ,

Kottur-583134

II PARTY :

Head Office,

The General Manager (Operations) , State Bank of Mysore, Kempe Gowda Road , Bangalore-9 644

[PART II-SEC . 3( ii) THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 15 , 2005 /PAUSA 25, 1926

AWARD

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub - section 2A of the Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 has referred this dispute vide Order No. L- 12012/90/2001 /IR (B - 1 ) dated 14th May 2001 for adjudication on the following schedule:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of Mysore in terminating the services of Shri S. Gurubasavaraja w.e.f. 8-2-1998 is justified ? If not, what relief the workman is entitled ?"

done to him. Therefore , the first party filed writ petition No. '25448/99 and the High Court passed an order with a direction to the management to consider his case for appointment . However, his case was not considered. In his amended Claim Statement , the first party contended that he was called for interview held by the management regarding absorption of temporary employees as permanent sub - staff and he appeared for an interview held on 3-7-1986 and 23-11-91. He was given an understanding after the interviews were held that the management will inform him about the posting orders and he has to wait for some time but no such appointment orders were issued though the first party was under the bona fide impression that he would get letter of regular employment. However, he continued in service on temporary basis . He contended that his services having utilized from 1982 to 1995 and from December 1988 to February 1989 continuously. All the days including Sundays first party had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year . However, the first party has been refused work by the management from March 1998 for the reason best known to it that he made representations from time to time to consider his case but there was no response from the management . He contended that many of his Junior colleagues who were not at all fit and eligible have been permanently appointed though they have not fulfilled the conditions of the circular dated 18-1-94 . Therefore , he requested this court to pass an order to assign him the temporary job with immediate effect and to include his name in the list at the appropriate place oftemporary employees and to consider his case for regular absorption immediately with all consequential benefits.

3. The management by its Counter Statement denied the allegation that the first party had worked from 1982 to 1988 for a total number of 1070 days . It was contended that the first party worked between 1984 and 1988 intermittently on casual / temporary basis without completing 240 days in any block period of 12 months . The management gave the details of the number of days the first party worked with it during the said period as under :-

Year& Month

Branch

No. of days

1984-October

Jagalur

November

172

December

1985-January

February

232

Hagari Bommanallai 1986 from October 26th to 1-9-97

2. The case of the first party, as made out, in the Claim Statement, briefly stated is that he had been in the employment of the management since 16 years and worked for a total number of 1070 days as temporary Peon from 1982 to 1998 ; that before the implementation of the circular dated 18-1-1994 which provided compulsory service of 240 days to be performed within a block period of 12 months in order to seek the permanent appointment , the first party had fulfilled the conditions of earlier requirement by working for 90 days in the year 1984 and 1993. But the management has not regularized his services as permanent employee; that there being a dispute between the management and the union employees , the management provided the temporary duty to the first party with a promise to regularize his appointment in future; that the name of the first party has been included in the panel list after he wrote a letter dated 1-6-94 as he had worked already for a period of 512 days as on the said date. In a list of 57 candidates , the candidates who were junior to the first party and had worked for lesser number ofdays , than the days of the first party, they got permanent appointment and whereas the first party was ignored; that the contention of the management now is that the first party has not got through in interview held on 31-7-1986 and 23-11-91 but the first party was not informed about the results of the interview; that after the above said circular dated 18-1-1994, the first party has been prevented from continuing his service as a temporary Peon and whereas , the management had allowed the other two candidates for more than a period of 240 days . He was denied employment though he was all along willing to continue in service ; that during the year 1995 he worked for 181 days and whereas during the period from July 1995 till July 1996 he worked for a period of more than 200 days and if Sundays and Central Govt . Holidays are tobe taken into account , the period of service rendered by the first party would come to 240 days and more; that as soon as he was removed from the service in 1998 he brought to the knowledge ofthe management the injustice 645 [भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 15, 2005/पौष 25, 1926

Branch

Year& Month No. ofdays

Kottur:

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

128

1994

157

1995

1996

1997

1998

1995

Kudligi:

1996

4. The management further contended that with a view to provide an opportunity for casual/ temporary workmen to seek permanent employment , all such workmen who had put in 90 days service during the year between 1984 and 1989 were called for interview and the candidates who were successful in the said interview were considered for appointment on permanent basis . Therefore , question of any junior or senior in the service as a casual temporary employee does not arise . It was contended that first party was also accordingly called for interview and he was not selected as he was not found suitable and as such question of his appointment on a permanent basis does not arise . Therefore , the first party having not been selected in the interview, cannot make any grievances against the selection of other temporary employees on permanent basis. It was contended that only the persons selected in the interview will be informed on their selection and since the first party did not get through the interview, there was no question of intimating him the results of the interview.

employing him on temporary/causal basis on his request andwhen he is not selected in the interview for permanent employment, he has to only thank himself and cannot blame the management. It further contended that the first party never worked continuously for a period of 240 days or more in any block period of 12 months . He was called for interview only for the reason that he had worked for more than 90 days during the aforesaid prescribed period. It was further contended that the first party was not found suitable for absorption in the permanent service in the interviews held in 1986 and again in 1981 , however, it is opento the first party to take his chance once again if he is still eligible to be called for interview and he may be absorbed as a permanent employee if selected in the interview which is the basis for appointment to the permanent cadre . Therefore, there was no question of violation ofprinciples of natural justice or going against the aforesaid circular dated 18-1-1994 . In their additional Counter Statement filed by the management in reply to the amended claim statement , it contended that no temporary employee like the first party will be automatically request after completing 90 days or 240 days service . They have to apply for absorption in terms of the circular issued from time to time and after they are interview, the successful candidates will be appointed against the available permanent vacancy. It was contended that when admittedly the first party worked only for 200 days between July 1995 and July 1996 there is no question of he being absorbed permanently, in the service of the bank. It was contended that the temporary employees who worked on daily wages will have no benefit of holidays falling on Sundays and other public holidays . The management denied the contention of the first party that he was removed from service in 1998 , contending that question of removal of first party from service does not arise when there was no casual vacancy so as to provide work to the first party. Therefore , the first party according to the management is not entitled to any relief and the reference is liable to be rejected.

6. In order to justify its action the management on its behalf, examined one witness as MW1 and got marked six documents at Ex . M1 to M6 and Ex. M7 was marked during the course of cross examination of the first party. His statement in Examination Chief is as under :-

" I know the facts of this case based on records . I have been working as Deputy Manager of Industrial Relations Department of the Second Party Management for the last 4 years . The first party was working as a Casual Employee of the Second Party. Casual Employees services will be utilized whenever the permanent employee or any sub - staff goes on leave . As per records the first party was working with the Second Party durin the vear 1984 and 1985 i.e. fio at 1984 till : bruary 1985. During the mor. 10. October 1984 and December 5. That , the first party filed Writ Petition 25448/99 contending that the representations given by him were not considered by the management and the management was directed by the High Court to consider his two representations dated 20-4-98 and 6-7-98 . Those representations were duly considered by the General Manager (O) and he rejected those representations on the ground that the first party was not selected during the interview called for permanent appointment . He passed an order rejecting the representations accordingly on 30-9-2000 and the first party was also communicated of the said order . While , admitting the fact that the first party appeared twice for interview in 1986 and in 1991 , the management contended that there was no assurance given to the first party that posting orders will be issued to him and that he must wait for some time ; that the several Branch Managers just to hold the first party were 646

[PART II-SEC. 3 (іі) ) THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 15 , 2005/PAUSA 25, 1926

1984 the first party was worked 65 and Half days . During the months of February and January he worked for a period of 24 and 2 days . I have produced two extracts of payment sheets of Temporary employees from October 1984 till February 1985. From January 1989 to February 1998 and June 1995 to July 1996 for 3 separate branches namely Jagalur branch , Kottur branch and Kudalgi branch respectively. They are marked as exhibits Ex . Ml to Ex . M3 respectively. He also worked in Hagaribommanahalli branch from 16-4-1984 till 1-9-1984 i.e. for a total period of 93 and 2 days . Extract of Attendance Register of Temporary employees is marked as Ex. M4 series consisting of 10 pages . In 1989 at Kottur Branch he worked for 38 days , he worked for 58 days in 1990. In 1991 he worked for 67 days. In 1992 he worked for 76 days . In 1993 he worked for 90 days . In 1994 he worked for 128 days . In 1995 he worked for 157 days . In 1996 he worked for 90 days . In 1997 he worked for 84 days . In the year 1998 he worked for 8 days. In Kudalgi branch he worked as under : 24 days in the year 1995, 70 days in 1996. The first party was being paid his salary through cheques , copies of those cheques (5) marked as Ex . M5 series . He was also issued one DD and its copy is marked as Ex , M6 . It was only in respect of Kudalgi branch for other branches he was paid in cash and payment sheets referred to above are at Ex . Ml to Ex . M3 . We conducted interview for Temporary workers who had completed 90 days service once in the year 1984 and another in the year 1993 so as to absorb them for permanent service . First party was also called to attend those interviews . He attended the interviews but was not selected. First party has not worked for a period of 240 days in a particular calendar year in any one of our said branches . Therefore , I pray the court to reject the reference . "

7. The first party, as a rebuttal filed his affidavit by way of evidence and in his futher Examination Chief got marked the documents at Ex. W1 to W11 . I would like to refer to their statements in cross examination as and when found relevant and necessary.

management once in the year 1986 and another in the year 1981 and since in both the interviews the first party did not fare well , was not selected for regular posting as a sub staff and therefore now he cannot make any grievance against the management. It was contended that on the very same set of facts , the first party approached the Hon'ble High Court in WP No. 25448/99 for a relief to direct the Respondent/Management to assign him the temporaryjob with immediate effect and his Writ Petition came to be disposed off with a direction that the two representations he made with the management shall be considered by the management and his grievance must be redressed. Learned , counsel contended that in the light ofthe direction of Hon'ble High Court , in the said Writ Petition, the management had considered the two representations of the first party dated 20-4-98 and 6-7-98 and rejected those representations by assigning sufficient and valid reasonings and the order passed on those representations was also communicated to the first party as per the forwarding letter at Ex. M7 ( Order enclosed) . Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that the present reference once again raising the same dispute by the first party on the very same set of facts cannot be maintained and is liable to be rejected. Learned, counsel in support of his contention that in no calendar year the first party worked continuously for a period of 240 days and more , not only relied upon the testimony of MW1 coupled with the documentary evidence produced by the management but also the very averments made in the Claim Statement, the deposition of first party itself and the various documents marked on his behalf. Whereas , the learned counsel for the first party argued that the present case is a case of unfair labour practice , inasmuch as , the first party was in the employment of the managements for a long period of 16 years and was denied employment abruptly for no good reasons . Therefore , learned counsel submitted that keeping in view the length of period of service rendered by the first party, the management atleast must provide temporary job to the first party, if not, a job on regular basis . He contended that the result of the aforesaid two interviews held by the management were not at all communicated to the first party and there is no evidence also produced before this tribunal as to how many marks he secured in the interview and how many marks were secured by the candidates who were held successful in the interview. He contended that in the light of the circular referred to supra issued by the head office of the management , the first party was prevented from completing his continuous service for a period of 240 days , even otherwise , if Sundays and holidays are taken into account, it can be seen that the first party has completed continuous service of 240 days and more and therefore , his removal from service amounts to retrenchment . Both the learned counsel for the respective parties have cited various rulings in support of

their respective contentions.

8. Learned counsel for the Second Party argued that the first party was being engaged on casual /temporary basis in case of exigency of work and in the place of employee going on leave , intermittently, during the period from 1982 to 1988 but in none of the year he worked continuously for a period of 240 days and therefore, there was nothing wrong on the part of the Management in not providing work to the first party when the work itself was not available . He argued that the name of the first party being included in the panel of the list of casual workers maintained by the Second Party Bank , he was given an opportunity to appear in the interviews held by the 647

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 15 , 2005/पौष 25 , 1926

[ भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

9. After having gone through the records , I find substance in the argument advanced by the second party. First of all as argued for the Second Party Management , the present reference loses its importance and significance for the simple reason that on the very set of facts and for the very same relief, the first party had approached the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid Writ Petition and his WritPetition came to be disposed of with the following directions found at Para 6 :

"Under these circumstances , the respondents are directed to consider the grievance of the petitioner in the list of the representations given as per Annexures El and E2 within a period of three months from the date of certified copy of this order isproduced or given and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law . Accordingly, this writ petitions isdisposed of directing the parties to bear their own costs."

respective parties , it is not in dispute that the first party though was in the service of the management between the years 1982 and 1988 , never completed his continuous service of 240 days in a particular calendar year , much less, in a calendar year preceding the denial of employment to him said to have taken place in the month of March , 1998. The first party has produced before this tribunal in all nine original certificates issued by the management marked at Ex. W7 series before this tribunal and they would reveal that during the period from 26th October , 1982 to 1st September, 1984 he worked as a temporary Peon/Watchman for a period of 932 days as per the certificate dated 18-8-96 . The certificate dated 10-5-91 would show that he worked totally for a period of 90 days during the months of October , November and December, 1984 and in the month of January and February, 1985 . The certificate dated 27-2-97 shows that during the period from 3-1-1989 to 1-1-93 the first party worked for a period of 329 days , he worked for 38 days from 3-1-89 to 23-12-1989 . For 58 days from 17-1-90 to 13-12-90 from 7-1-91 till 31-12-91 he worked for 67 days . From 10-1-92 to 29-12-92 he worked for 76 days . From 1-1-93 to 10-12-93 he worked for 90 days . Certificate dated 25-3-96 shows that the first party worked for 128 days from 3-1-94 to 30-12-94 . From 1-1-95 to 30-12-95 he worked for 157 days . From 1-1-96 to 24-3-96 he worked for 32 days . Certificate dated 13-5-96 shows that from 1-2-95 to 30-9-95 the first party worked for 29 days and from 1-3-96 to 31-3-96 he worked for 11 days . The certificate dated 27-2-97 shows that the first party worked for a period of 58 days in between 8-4-96 and 20-12-96 . As per certificate dated 2-3-98 he worked for a period of 84 days during the period from 1-1-97 to 31-12-97 . The last certificate dated 24-3-98 shows that he hardly worked for 8 days during the period from 1-2-98 to 7-2-1998 . These are the original certificates issued by the management in favour of the first party and they have been produced before this tribunal by the first party himself and he relied upon those certificates in support of his claim also . Like wise the management also produced various documents marked during the course of statement ofMW1 andthey also spoke to the very same facts suggesting that in none of the year in between 1982 to 1998 the first party worked continuously for a period of 240 days and more . Therefore, undisputedly the first party having not worked with the management for a period of 240 days and more continuously in between the period from 1982 to 1998 much less in a calendar year, immediately, preceding his removal from the service , it cannot be said that there was a case retrenchment or unfair labour practice committed by the management in denying first party the temporary job of Peon/Watchman.

11. Learned Counsel for the first party made a reference of certain decisions of their Lordship Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Court on the point that apart 10. Now, it is not in dispute that in the light of the directions of the High Court the General Manager (O) , StateBank ofMysore Head Office by its order dated 13-9-2000 , rejected the request of the first party by considering his representations dated 20-4-1998 and 6-7-98 . The main reasonings assigned by the learned officer in passing the said order again were based on the fact that in none of the year in between 1982 and 1988 , the first party worked continuously for a period of 240 days and more and that he being given an opportunity to participate in the two interviews held by the management could not get through those interviews and therefore , the grievance made out by him in his aforesaid two representations will not be tenable in law and on facts . Therefore , as argued for the management when the management had considered the above said two representations made by the first party and passed a detailed and considered order in rejecting the relief asked for by the first party, that too , under the orders of the High Court in the said Writ Petition , the present reference cannot be maintained by the first party, again, on the very same set of facts and for the same relief withouttherebeing any change in circumstances . He was , according to him , was denied temporary job somewhere in the month of March , 1998 and in the year 1999 he approached the Hon'ble High Court in the said Writ Petition . It is not the case of the first party that subsequent toMarch, 1998 he was again engaged by the SecondParty and that he was in continuous service of the Second Party for a period of 240 days and more . Therefore , there was absolutely no cause of action for the first party in the face ofthe orders of Hon'ble High Court and the order passed by the management rejecting his request by considering the aforesaid two representations without there being any change in circumstances . In the result, on this count itself the reference is liable to be dismissed . Even otherwise , coming to the merits of the case and going into oral and documentary evidence pressed into service by the 648

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 15 , 2005 /PAUSA 25 , 1926

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

taken by it was very much justified . However, before parting with the case on hand I feel it proper and in the interest ofjustice to refer to the submission made on behalf of the first party, he should atleast be given a job of temporary Peon if not made a permanent employee . Undisputedly the first party is with the management for a sufficiently long period of 16 years and it will be just fair on thepart of the management to see that his services are taken by it atleast on temporary basis and he is given when more opportunity to participate in the interview to be held by the management for the permanent post of its sub-staff. Accordingly the reference is answered and the following Award is passed.

AWARD

TheManagement is directed to consider the request of the first party to engage him on casual basis as and when the exigency of the work demanded . It shall also give one more opportunity to the first party to participate in the immediate next interview to be conducted by the management for the purpose of selection of permanent sub staff and to select the first party in accordance with rules if found otherwise eligible . No order to cost .

(Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected and signed by me on 3rd December 2004) . A. R. SIDDIQUI , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 22 दिसम्बर , 2004

का. आ. 191.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय स्टेट बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय 1 , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 66/ 95 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-12-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं . एल.-12012/101/1994- आई. आर. ( बी. 1 ) ] सी. गंगाधरण, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 22nd December , 2004

S.O. 191. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 66/95 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , 1 , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 21-12-2004.

from the actual working days , the days against Sundays and other holidays also shall be taken into account to count the period of 240 days and if that were to be done, the first party is deemed to have completed the statutory period of240 days as contemplated under section 25 (B) of the ID Act . Even assuming for a moment , days against the holidays are to be taken into account, then, again the period of 240 days is not to be made up when we look into the aforesaid two certificates for the year 1997 & 1998. From the period from 1-1-97 to 31-12-97 , as seen above, the first party hardly worked for 84 days and whereas from 1-1-98 to 7-2-98 he worked just for 8 days . Therefore, even if the holidays are to be considered as working days in favour of the first party they will not improve his case. The contention of the first party that he could have completed the period of 240 days , had the management not prevented him from continuing in service in the light ofthe aforesaid circular of the year 1984 , has no substance , again. If there is a circular issued by the head office not to allow the temporary workers to complete the period of 240 days , the Second Party bank cannot be held responsible or blamed in not allowing the first party to complete the period of 240 days . The first party or any such workman might be prevented from continuing the above said period of 240 days for the above said reason or for any other reason but when he has not completed the continuous service of the said period, he cannot have any grievance against the management concerned raking up the case of retrenchment . Therefore , the action of the management in denying work to the first party also on temporary basis cannot be said to be the result of unfair labour practice or a case of illegal retrenchment for the reason that he failed to get himself selected during the above said two interviews held by the management and for the reason he never worked continuously for a period of 240 days and more. The contention of the first party that he was not communicated about the results of the interview and that he was given assurance by the management that after the interview he will be given a posting order appears to be without any basis . The very fact that he was not communicated with the results of the interview and that other candidates who participated in the said interview along with him were selected and given posting orders , must be a circumstance sufficient to draw a presumption that he was not communicated with the results of the interview as he failed to got through the said interview. In the result and for the foregoing reasons I have no hesitation in my mind to come to the conclusion that the first party fails to establish before this tribunal the action taken by the management in terminating his services was illegal and unjustified. On the other hand the management has produced sufficient oral and documentary evidence in support of his case that the action

[No. L - 12012/ 101 / 1994 - IR( B - I) ] C. GANGADHARAN , Under Secy.

[ भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT - I , CHANDIGARH Shri Rajesh Kumar , Presiding Officer

Case No. L. D. 66/95

Inderjit Sud .. House No. 190. Sector - 15A,

Applicant Chandigarh.

VERSUS

1 The Management of State Bank of India , Sector - 17, Chandigarh . Respondent APPEARANCES :

For the workman

649

भारत का राजपत्र: जनवरी 15 , 2005 /पौष 25, 1926

his termination in the Civil Court on 17-4-1980 and the suit of the workman was dismissed with the findings that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute and the remedy is under the Industrial Disputes Act. The appeal of the workman was also dismissed on 19-1-1993 confirming the findings of the Civil Court . After accepting the above findings on the basis of the objection taken by the management during the proceedings , the workman has raised a demand notice to refer the matter to the Labour Court under the Industrial Disputes Act , and the competent authority has been pleasedto refer the dispute to this Court for adjudication .

: Shri O. P. Batra

For the management : Shri A. K. Khunger

Dated 8-12-2004

AWARD

Exercising the powers conferred u/ s 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act ) , the Central Govt vide No. L - 12012/ 101 / 94/ IR (B - I ) dated 19th of July 1995 has referred the following dispute 10 this Tribunal for adjudication

"Whether Shri Inderjit Sud , is stopped from raising an 1. D. in view of the findings of Addl . District Judge , Chandigarh , in Civil appeal No. 34 of 2-1-1991 in case tiled Shri Inderjit Sud Vs. Chief General Manager, SBI and 3 others ? If not, then whether action of the management of State Bank of India, in terminating the services of Shri Inderjit Sud, w.e.f. 12-1-1976 is legal and just . If not then to what relief the workman is , entitled to and froni which date ? "

2. In the claim statement it is pleaded by the workman that on 3-6-1975 he applied for two months leave w.c.f 1-8-1975 to 1-10-1975 which was duly got sanctioned by the Branch Manager from the Regional Office on 5-7-1975 . It is the case of the workman that after proceeding on two months leave duly got sanctioned by him, he further extended his leave and sent applications which were never rejected and he remained on leave up 10 31-12-1978 and submitted his joining report on 1-1-1979 to the Branch manager , Air Force Station , Chandigarh who did not allow him to resume his duties on the ground that matter of his joining will be referred to the Regional Manager .

3 The workman was visiting the branch manager regularly but was not allowed to resume his duty . He had wratten several letters and to his surprise vide letter dated 14-4-1979 , the workman was informed that the Regional Office . Chandigarh has advised that the services of the workman have been voluntarily abandoned we.f 12-1-1976, On receipt of this letter from the branch manager , the workman represented and also challenged the order of 4. In the written statement the management raised preliminary objection that the workman is estopped from raising a dispute as the Civil Suit dated 17-4-1980 filed by the workman was dismissed and so his appeal . That the petition in the present form is not maintainable .

The management admitted that in the year 1975 the workman was transferred and posted at Air Force Station. Chandigarh and that Shri A N. Chopra was the then Branch Manager. The workman applied for leave for two months froin 1-8-75 to 30-9-75 for going to Srimagar and gave a local address at which he would be available during the leave period . The workman on 1-10-1975 applied for further leave for a period of two months . The reason given was that he was 10 look after his sick mother and that his marriage was likely to take place within short period . That application was rejected and the workman was informed that his request can not be entertamed The workman duly acknowledged the receipt of this letter as it apparent from the communication addressed by him to the bank on 16-10-1975 The workman made another application to the branch manager He again requested to grant him further leave . He was duly informed that his plea for further extension can not be entertained.

In the meantime information was received by the bank that the workman had left for Canada without disclosing this fact to the bank The workman was sent numerous conmmunications by Regd . AD at the address which were received by the persons other than the workman or those were returned as the addressee was not available Further notices were sent by Regd A.D. post instructing him to report for duty within 10 days of receipt failing whichit would be presumed drat he is not interested in the bank's service and has vacated the post voluntarily A notice to the effect that workman has failed to report for duty, he would be deemed to have abandoned the employment with the bank by 7-1-1976 was published in the Tribune dated 28-12-1975 . After the publication , the branch manager waited for the worktuan tull 7-1-1976 as he never came to report for duty. The branch manager sought advice from the Regional Manager who was also the appointing authority of the workman . The appointing authority took a decision that as the workman has not 650

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii )] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 15 , 2005 /PAUSA 25 , 1926

and holding that only this Court has the jurisdiction.

reported for duty, the services of the workman be treated as have been voluntarily abandoned. Accordingly this decision was communicated to the workman as the address given by him to the bank on 12-1-1976 . A notice advising voluntarily abandonment of service was sent to local address which was received back undelivered . However a copy of the notice was got pasted at the residence of the workman by a clerk of the bank .

It may be mentioned that the workman without permission he left the country and was in Canada. It may also be mentioned that the workman did not present himself for duty after the period of two months was expired. The workman was also informed that his request for extension cannot be entertained and he is not entitled to receive any communication from the bank in this regard.

5. The workman filed replication reiterating the cliam made in the statement of claim .

6. In the evidence the workman produced himself as WW1 , the only witness . At the same time the management also examined one witness MWI S. K. Walia . Dy. Manager , SBI , Region - 1 , Punjab . In the evidence both the parties filed affidavits along with documents . The workman filed his own affidavit with documents and similarly the management also filed affidavit with documents . Both the witnesses were cross- examined in detail .

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the workman Shri O. P. Batra and learned counsel for the management Shri A. K. Khunger and have gone through the evidence on record of the case .

8. During the course of arguments learned counsel for the management submitted that the reference as under :

9.As regard second part , that whether the action of the management of State Bank of India in terminating the services of Inderjit Sud w.e.f. 12-1-1976 is legal and just, in this regard learned counsel for the workman Shri O. P. Batra submitted at length that by evidence and documents filed by the workman he has proved his case that his services were not terminated in accordance with the law and he was continuously sending applications for the grant of leave and the management did not reject his applications . He has also submitted that by his affidavit and evidence the workman has proved his claim and stated that he proceeded on duly sanctioned leave on 1-8-75 for two months up to 1-10-1975 which was duly sanctioned by the branch manager . Thereafter he extended his leave by sending his leave applications and these applications were never rejected and he was never informed that his services have been terminated as abandoned . Learned counsel for the workman also submitted that even otherwise punishment is harsh being a minor misconduct . He only absented from duty for some period and he also sent applications. Sub Clause A of clause 6 of the circular of bank also provides that absence without leave or overstaying sanctioned leave without sufficient ground is only a minor misconduct . He submitted that therefore , he inay not be punished so severely and minor punishment can be imposed by this Hon'ble court . He submits that order of termination of services may be set aside as submitted in the statement of claim as well as in his affidavit and it is minor misconduct and minor punishment may be imposed and he may be reinstated from the date of his joining i.e. from 1-1-1979 . He also submitted that the management did not prove that it is not a case of minor punishment and it is not a case of overstaying . He also referthe Service Cases Today 1999 ( 2 ) 667 regarding delay but the learned counsel for management has conceded to itand admittedthat there is no delay in filling the Demand Notice.

"Whether Shri Inderjit Sud , is stopped from raising an I. D. in view of the findings of Addl . District Judge , Chandigarh , in Civil appeal No. 34 of 2-1-1991 in case tiled Shri Inderjit Sud Vs. Chief General Manager, SBI and 3 others ? If not , then whether action of the management of State Bank of India, in terminating the services of Shri Inderjit Sud, w.e.f. 12-1-1976 is legal and just . If not then to what relief the workman is , entitled to and from which date ? "

در

10. On the other hand the learned counsel for the management submitted in reply to the submissions of the learned counsel for the workman that notices were given to the workman on the local address as left with the management . He submitted that no prior permission was taken by the workman for leaving India and without getting the leave sanctioned as he did earlier when he proceeded on two months leave . He submitted that admittedly he applied for two months leave and he got this leave for two months sanctioned w.e.f. 1-8-75 to 30-9-75 and thereafter he remained absent without getting his leave further sanctioned . He took leave on the ground thathe wanted to go to Srinagar and gave a local address . The workman admitted that he came to join his duty on is having two parts . One part relates to whether the workman is estopped from raising an I. D. in view of the findings of the civil court at Chandigarh . In this regard the learned counsel for the management submitted that he is not pressing and conceding that this Court has the jurisdiction and that workman is not estopped from raising the industrial dispute which is the present one Learned Counsel for the workman also submitted that his earlier filing civil suit will not operate as res judicata and the workman is not estopped in raising this industrial dispute . Therefore , this first part may be answered in favour of the workman as not contested by the management at bar

1-1-1979 i.e. from 1-10-1975 to 31-12-1978 he did not join his duty and he was not in India. On calculation it comes to long three years , three months he remained out ofIndia and simply his plea is that he has submitted his application for the grant of leave to the bank is no ground [ भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

that his leave will be sanctioned when he is not in India .

Further it is not simple overstaying , he did not come to India for three years three months and came only on 1-1-1979 . It amounts to deliberate voluntary abandoning his service of bank . He knows that he is absent without sanction of leave for such a long period of 3 / 1-4 years from India and his service . It does not amount to overstay. Itamounts to deliberate voluntary abandoning his services as he is not willing to work. He has not shown any sound reasons of his 3 / 1-4 years abroad . His services were terminated on 12-1-1976 and thereafter there was no need ofconsidering his applications . It is not an overstay case . It is a case certainly of voluntarily abandoning service or leaving service. Therefore there is no question of imposing minor punishment on him. He was not serious for his service . Further the management has proved its case by affidavit and by workman's cross - examination, it destroyed his case totally. In cross -examination of the workman who was examined as WW1 . He admitted in his cross -examination when he appeared in the witness box first time as under :

" It is correct that I filed a civil suit which was dismissed . The appeal was also dismissed. It is correct that I gave a local address to the bank for correspondence . It is correct that bank made correspondence with me on the address given by me. I can not say whether the letters sent by the bank have been received by the person who was residing at that place . It is correct that I wilfully did notjoin the bank duties and remained absent for a very long period. It is further correct that when I did not join duty the bank after completing the requisite formalities terminated my services".

11. When workman who examined himself as WW1 his only witness, admitted in this Court that he wilfully did not join the bank duty and remained absent for a very long time . It is further admitted that he did not join the bank after remaining absent from the service . Thereafter there remains nothing to prove by the management when the workman himself adrnitted the case of the management that he was correctly terminated from the service as he wilfully abandoned the duty for a long time i.e. , about 39 months and this admission of the workman itself proved the case of the management . Learned counsel for the management submitted that the workman has failed to prove its case . On the other hand the management has proved in view of the evidence of workman as above and ofmanagement that action of the management of the SBI in terminating the services of Shri Inderjit Sud workman w.e.f. 12-1-1976 is legal and just as workman has himself abandoned voluntarily his services and it is not a case of overstay hence workman is not entitled to any relief or for minor punishment .

12. In view of the above submissions of both the parties and my perusal of oral evidence of both parties and documents I found that the present reference is made 11 GI /05-32.

651

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 15, 2005 /पौष 25, 1926

intwo parts. First part is with regard to whether workman Inderjit Sud is stopped from raising an ID in view of the findings of Addl . District Judge , Chandigarh , in Civil Appeal No. 34 of2-1-1991 in case filed Shri Inderjit Sud Vs. Chief General Manager , SBI and three others . In that regard learned counsel for the management has conceded fairly and further that as per law I am of the view that as this Court has the jurisdiction , workman Inderjit Sud is not stopped and therefore , this part of reference is answered in favour of the workman as he is not stopped and only this Court has the jurisdiction.

13. As regard 2nd part of reference whether action of the management of State Bank of India, in terminating the services of Shri Inderjit Sud, w.e.f. 12-1-1976 is legal andjust, I am ofthe considered view that workman Inderjit Sud himself has admitted the case of management and replied on oath in his coss - examination that:-

" It is correct that I wilfully did not join the bank duties and remained absent for a very long period. It isfurther correct that when I did not join duty the bank after completing the requisite formalities , terminated my services . "

14. When workman has admitted in Court that he wilfully did not join for a long period his duties , therefore bank after completing the formalities terminated his services , workman has himself shattered his case and helped in proving the case of the management . Learned counsel for the management submitted that it is settled law that admitted facts need not to be proved . Workman has admitted management's case.

15. I have found that workman proceeded on sanctioned leave for two months w.e.f. 1-8-75 to 30-9-75 and did not join duty thereafter till 1-1-1979 i.e. up to 39 months without getting his leave sanctioned . This long absence does not amount to overstay. It is voluntary abandoning the services of his own mean of his evidence . He did not join his duties of his own and also left the country without permission . As his non joining up to 1-1-1979 for 39 months is not a overstay , the plea of the workman for lenient view also not tenable . He has also not made a case that due to unseen or uncontrolled reasons , he could not join his dues for 39 months . Therefore, request of the workman for lenient view is also opposed cannot be accepted .

16. Further as workman himself has admitted in evidence that he was rightly terminated by the bank and deposed in court against his own case , I hold that the management has proved that the action of the management of SBI in terminating the services of Shri Inderjit Sud w.e.f. 12-1-1976 is just and legal therefore the workman is not entitled for any relief. This part of reference is answered accordingly. Central Govt . be informed. File be consigned to record keeper.

RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer Chandigarh 8-12-2004 652

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 15 , 2005 /PAUSA 25 , 1926

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ] नई दिल्ली, 21 दिसम्बर, 2004

Complex, A -Block, Patna and their workman Shri Subodh Kumar for adjudication to this Tribunal:

का. आ. 192.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार यूको बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण, पटना के पंचाट [ संदर्भ संख्या 30 ( C) /2003 ] को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-12-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल. - 12011/170/2003 - आई. आर. ( बीं- II ) ] सी. गंगाधरण, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 21st December , 2004

(1) "Whether the plea of the management of UCO Bank that Shri Subodh Kumar was engaged intermittently as generator operator against the claim of the union that he has performed the job of a peon w.e.f. 15-11-1996 to 30-6-2002 is correct or not ? (2) Whether the action of the management of UCO Bank in terminating the services of Shri Subodh Kumar w.e.f 30-6-2002 while the conciliation was ending before the Conciliation Officer ignoring the claim of the union to regularise him in the post of Peon for his continuous service is legal and justified ? If not , what relief Shri Subodh Kumar is entitled to ? "

S.O. 192. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award [Ref. No. 30 (C) / 2003 ] of the Industrial Tribunal , Patna (Bihar) as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the inanagement of UCO Bank , and their workmen received by the Central Government on 21-12-2004.

[No. L - 12011 /170/2003 - IR (B - II) ] C. GANGADHARAN , Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, PATNA

Reference No. 30 (C) of 2003

Management of UCO Bank , Regional Office , Maurya Lok Complex , A- Block , 4th Floor, Patna (Bihar) and their workman represented by the State Secretary, UCO Bank Employees Association, C/ o . UCO Bank , Exhibition Road, Patna (Bihar) .

For the Mangement :Mr. P.K. Chatterjee , A.C.O. , UCO Bank

For the Workman

2. Both the parties filed their written statement and contested the case . Worker's claim is that he was orally appointed to discharge the duties of a peon at Sarai Branch of UCO Bank with effect from 15-11-96 . He carried ledgers , Token Book, Scroll Register etc. besides posting mails and stitching vouchers and currency notes , from 10 A.M. to 6 P.M. He was initially paid Rs . 25 per day and lastly Rs . 60 per day towards his wages . On some occasions, he was compelled to accept payment in different names under threats of losing his job . On manager's advise he purchased a Generator which was installed in theBank but he himself was never engaged as its operator. When he did not see any scope of his regularisation an Industrial Dispute was raised by the Union vide letter dated 27-6-2002 in this context and the Conciliation Officer thenissued notice to the management . On knowing about all above , the management terminated his services w.c.f. 30-6-2002 . Neitlier notice nor notice pay nor retrenchment compensation was paid to him . Management's action in not regularising his services and termination is illegal and unjustified for having violated the provisions of Sec . 33 and 25F of the Act besides being unfair labour practice. Prayer has accordingly been made for reinstatement with back wages and regularisation as peon with consequential benefits .

:Sri B. Prasad , State Secretary, UCO Bank Employees Association , Patna .

Present

: Priya Saran, Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal , Patna

AWARD

Patna, dated the 14th day of December, 04

3. Management's case , in short , is that no relationship of Master and servant ever existed between the parties , the worker was not a workman u/ s . 2S of the Act , the reference is illegal and the present dispute is not anIndustrial Dispute . Management's further case is that the worker is a Bank's loanec . He took three loans , first, on 9-3-99 under K.C.C. category for starting business , Second , on 13-10-2000 of Rs . 25,000 for purchasing Generator and the third , on 12-6-2001 of Rs . 12,000 for Galla Shop . He signed an agreement to install Generator Set at Sarai Branch of the Bank . He remained present in the Bank from 9.30 A.M. to 6 P.M. as he himself operated the generator. Sometimes the Bank utilised his services forMisc . Works such as bringing materials , Stationeries, By adjudication order No. L - 12011 / 170/ 2003 - IR- (B - II) dated 21-10-2003 the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi has referred, under Clause ( d) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub - section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( hereinafter to be referred to as ' the Act ' ) , the following dispute between the management of UCO Bank , Regional Office , Maurya Lok [भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

wateretc. for which he was paid through vouchers from contingency as labour/Coolie charges. He never performed thework ofa peon nor is entitled for the wages as claimed. Management further states that the worker was never a workman under the Act nor there was any termination nor any conciliation proceeding was pending as claimed. He was instead running business and can not be treated either as a temporary peon or casual worker. In view of facts stated above , the management has prayed to answer the reference in their favour.

4. The reference is under two parts , first, whether the worker Subodh Kumar was engaged as a Generator Operator or he performed a job of peon from 15-11-1996 to 30-6-2002 and secondly, whether the action of the management in terminating the services of the worker during the pendency of conciliation proceeding to regularise his service is legal and justified . The reference further speaks as to what reliefs the worker is entitled.

5. The principal dispute between the parties is whether the worker was a Generator Operator running his own generator in the Bank or he was engaged as a peon or casual worker to work as peon . Management has examined two witnesses namely MW1 Vijay Kumar, Asstt . Chief Officer, Regional Office , UCO Bank, Patna and MW2 Jiya Lal Pd. Dinakar, Deputy Chief Officer, Regional Office, Patna. MWI says that in view of agreement on 12-10-89 between staff unions and the management, the casual workers were to be empanelled and absorbed. The union went before Calcutta High Court where direction was issued under concerned Writ Petition not to make any fresh recruitment unless casual workers were absorbed. The process of their regularisation is under progress in phased manner. Above referred agreement (Ext . M/9) and Hon'ble High Court's Judgement (Ext. M/ 11 ) have also been filed. I must say that above fact is not of any relevance so far the present case is concerned as the worker was allegedly engaged in the Bank w.e.f. 15-11-1996. Neither the agreement nor Hon'ble Court's judgement cover his case as he was not a party therein.

6. MW1 further states that the worker purchased the generator set against Bank's finance and supplied electrical energy to the Branch . He was never engaged as a casual worker by the management . During cross- examination, it is admitted by the witness that he never remained posted at Sarai Branch . He neither knows about the terms of reference nor he ever participated in conciliation proceeding . He exhibited letter of the then Branch Manager addressed to Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) Patna as Ext. W and papers regarding complaint by the worker as Exts . W/ 1 and W/2 . He also admits that he has deposed on the basis of record and the worker was neither given notice nor compensation in lieu thereof.

7. MW2 simply says about three loans which were advanced to the worker by the Bank . During cross- 11 GI/05-33

653

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 15, 2005/पौष 25, 1926

examination, he however admits that there is no Circular for not granting loan to a daily rated worker. He does not know whether the worker was engaged in the Bank or not.

8. The management has filed some documents as well . Ext.M is Union's letter dated 27-6-2002 to A.L.C. (C) Patna regarding dispute and seeking his intervention in the matter . Ext.M/ 1 is notice dated 28-6-2002 to the concerned parties in the conciliation proceeding and Ext.M/2 is failure report of the A.L.C. ( Central) , Patna . Ext. M/ 3 is worker's application for loan to purchase generator set , Ext.M/ 4 is undertaking to install generator and supply electricity at Sarai Branch , Ext . M/6 is agreement relating to loan, Ext. M/7 is the statement of concerned account of the worker and Ext . M/8 is worker's application for agriculture credit . The management has also filed Ext. M/ 10 Chief General Manager's letter dated 16-12-97 with certain directions including continuance ofno further recruitment . Ext . W/ 12 is refusal by the Govt . to refer dispute of another man, which is not relevant for this case.

9. The worker has not disputed about different loans he took from the Bank . This fact does not concern the present dispute particularly in view of a clear statement made by MW2 that there is no Circular in the Bank to deny loan or debar a workman from taking any loan from the Bank . We can not lose sight of the fact that the worker was never in a permanent job . He was at best a casual worker and could have taken any number of loans provided the Bank did not object to the same . I therefore do not find any substance in this part of Bank's contention, nor the management has produced any evidence to show that the worker was totally engrossed in his own business . A casual worker presumably might install a generator in theBank and run the same by some labourer.

10. As against above , the worker has examined three witnesses namely WWI Ram Ekbal Giri , a retired Official ofUCO Bank , Sarai Branch , WW2 Arun Kumar , Special Asstt . , UCO Bank , Sarai Branch , and WW3 Subodh Kumar, the worker himself. WW1 and WW2 both have made specific statement that the worker was engaged as a peon in Sarai Branch and never operated the generator . WW2 says during cross- examination that the generator was operated by two boys namely Mukesh and Ratnesh .

11. WW3 has stated all what is there in his W.S. He was orally appointed on daily wage basis as a peon and worked as such in Bank's Sarai Branch from 15-11-96 to 29-6-2002 . As regards generator set , he clarifies in para 5 and 6 of his deposition that as the previous owner of the generator had shifted the set elsewhere and nobody was agreeable to install the generator at a lower rate , the manager requested him to take a loan and purchase the generator set and he did 654

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 15 , 2005 /PAUSA 25 , 1926

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] accordingly. He further mentions that the generator was though purchased in his name , he was not any way connectedwith its operation. He further states that he was paid through vouchers Ext . W/ 5 series for the work done by him in the Bank.

12. The statements of different witnesses of the worker look quite convincing and go to establish that the worker was performing all the jobs of a peon in Sarai Branch . Although a generator in his name was installed in the Bank but he remained engaged as a peon , which is well suggested and established by the consistent statement of three WW's and different vouchers in Ext . W/ 5 series .

conciliation officer vide letter dated 27-6-2002, whereupon cognizance was taken by the authority concerned and notice was sent to the management , which was very well received in the office of A.G.M. , UCO Bank , Regional Office, Patna and from there the Branch was instantly advised to send details of the work done . All above unfailingly indicate that a conciliation proceeding had started and notice of the same had been received by the management on 28-6-2002 . The evidence on record shows that the worker was disengaged one day thereafter. It is thus well established by the evidence that the worker was disengaged or terninated from service w.e.f. 30-6-2002 during the pendency of conciliation proceeding . This aspect ofthe reference also goes against the management .

13. Apart from all above , some documents which have been filed by the worker appear having much worth Ext .W is a letter under the signature of Senior Manager, Sarai Branch to the labour Enforcement Officer ( C) Patna sending vouchers as desired . This letter describes the worker Sri Subodh Kumar as a daily rated worker . It is annexed with photo copies of paid vouchers , the last voucher being of 29-6-2002 . Still other documents i.e. Ext. W/3 and Ext. W/ 6 describe the worker as a daily rated employee in the Branch. Ext . W/6 is a written report to the Officer Incharge , Sarai P.S. as regards theft in the Bank, wherein it is stated that the Branch Manager entered the Bank with the worker who has been designated as daily rated employee . Ext. W/3 is a letter of Sarai Branch to the Regional Office regarding dispute, wherein the worker has been noted as daily rated casual worker. Above three documents i.e: Exts . WW/ 3 and W/6 coupled with different vouchers in W/ 5 series stand in firm support of Worker's case that he had been working as a peon on daily ngebasis .

16. In view of discussions above , materials on the recordand the findings on both the points under reference, I am of firm opinion and accordingly hold as such that the worker Subodh Kumar had been working on daily wage basis and performed the job a peon w.e.f. 15-11-1996 till 29-6-2002 and he is " workman " as defined u/ s.2S of the Act . The management admitedly neither gave him any notice nor any notice pay, nor any sort of compensation preceding retrenchment . There has been thus gross violation of provisions as contained in Sec. 25F of the Act. I further find and hold as such that the worker was terminated from service after the commencement of conciliation proceeding which was pending before A.L.C. (C ) Patna, which was well within the knowledge of the manageraent . The management has thus violated the provisions of Sec . 33 of the Act as well . The termination is thus quite illegal and unjustified . The worker is quite entitled to his reinstatement with back wages at rate he was last paid and also regularisation in services as a peon with all allied benefits.

14. The evidence discussed above both oral and documentary amply confirm worker's case and goes to establish without any doubt that the worker Subodh Kumar had performed the job of a peon w.e.f. 15-11-1996 to 29-6-2002. The evidence totally dispels management's case that he was a generator operator at any point of time . The first part of the reference is accordingly decided in worker's favour .

17. In the result , the management is directed to reinstate the worker Subodh Kumar in service with back wagesas indicated above and absorb him in regular service as a peon from the date he joins the Bank with all benefits . The management is further directed to implement the direction aforesaid without fail within two months of notification of the Award .

18. Award accordingly.

PRIYA SARAN, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 23 दिसम्बर, 2004

का. आ. 193.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार टिस्को के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय, धनबाद -1 के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 219/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 17-12-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-20012/311/2001- आई . आर. ( सी -1 ) ] एस.एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव 15. As regard Second part of the reference , the management has claimed that there was no conciliation proceeding ever . The evidence on record rather suggests otherwise. Ext . W/ 1 is the letter of Union dated 27-6-2002 to A.L.C. (C) Fatna regarding dispute between the parties and seeking his intervention in the matter. This document has been filed by the management as well as Ext.M. The management has fi . d another document Ext.M/ 1 which is a notice dated 28-2002 from A.L.C. ( C) Patna as regards dispute between the parties . There is an endorsement of even date find at the bottom , about the Branch having been advised tod details of the work performed by the worker. These two Exts . above referred clearly point out that the Union referred the dispute between the worker and the management to the [ भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

655

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 15, 2005/पौष 25, 1926

New Delhi , the 23rd December, 2004 S.O. 193.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 219/ 2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court , Dhanbad I , now as shown in the Annexure inthe Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of TISCO and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 17-12-2004 .

[No. L - 20012/ 311 / 2001 - IR(C - 1) ] S.S. GUPTA, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . I, DHANBAD

In the matter of a reference U/ s . 10( 1 ) ( d) (2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947

Reference No. 219 of 2001

Parties : Employers in relation to the management of WestBokaro Colliery of M/ s . TISCO .

AND

Their Workmen

PRESENT :

Shri S. Prasad , Presiding Officer.

APPEARANCES :

: Shri D.K. Verma, Advocate .

For the Employers

For the Workman : Shri Md . Seraj Khan, Workman concerned.

State : Jharkhand .

Industry:Coal.

Dated, the 9th December , 2004

AWARD

By Order No. L- 20012/ 311 / 2001-1.R. ( C- I) dated 24-9-2001 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has , in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub- section ( 2A) of Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :

"Whether the action of the management of West Bokaro Colliery of M/ s . TISCO Ltd. to dismiss Shri Md. Seraj Khan , Store Mazdoor from service is justified ? If not, to what relief is the workman concerned entitled ?"

2. By filing memorandum of settlement jointly it has been submitted on behalf of the parties that the dispute has already been settled outside the Court on the terms and conditions as contained in the body of the said settlement and in view of such development there is no dispute in existence for being adjudicated . Prayer has been made for passing necessary order and disposal of the instant reference in terms of the said settlement arrived at between the parties .

3. In view of the aforesaid developments brought to the notice of this Tribunal nothing is left to be adjudicated on merit of the dispute.

4. Accordingly, the award is passed in terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties . The memorandum of settlement shall form part of the award.

S. PRASAD , Presiding Officer .

FORM-H

[Rules 58 of Industrial Disputes ( Central ) Rules 1957 ] MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT

For the Workman :

For the Employers:

1. Mr. Arun Kumar,

M/ s. Tata Iron & Steel

1. Mr. Md . Seraj Khan , Ex - P. No. 267616 , Ex-Store Mazdoor, West Bokaro Chief(HR/IR) Co. Ltd. , West Bokaro

2. Mr. M. Das ,

Manager ( HR/ IR) ,

M/ s . Tata Iron & Steel ,

Co. Ltd. , West Bokaro

SHORT RECITAL OF THE CASE The concerned workman Shri Md . Seraj Khan , Ex- P. No. 267616, Ex- Store Mazdoor was issued with a charge sheet No. WBC/ DDM ( P & S ) / 297 / AKT/ 99 dt . 4-9-99 under Clause 27 (2 ) of the Standing Order i.e. dishonesty in connection with the Company's business . An enquiry into the charge sheet was conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice and the charges levelled against the concerned workman were established . He was subsequently dismissed from Company's service with effect from 16-01-2001 .

After his dismissal Sri Md. Seraj Kahan raised on Industrial Dispute under Section 2A of the I.D. Act . The dispute has been referred by the Central Government to Industrial Tribunal No. 1 at Dhanbad for adjudication vide Notification No. L - 20012 /311/ 2001 IR ( CI ) dated 24-09-2001 . The dispute has been registered as reference case No. 219/2001 . While the dispute is pending , before the Industrial Tribunal , the concerned workman has represented to the Management through the recognized Union i.e. Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh for an amicable , out of Court , sttlesnent .

The dispute ha eenicably s . tled on the following terms and con itions :

656

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 15 , 2005/PAUSA 25 , 1926

Terms of Settlement

01. That the concerned workman Shri . Md . Seraj Khan, Ex-P.No . 267616 will be re - appointed as General Mazdoor Cat- I at the initial basic rate .

02. The concerned workman Shri Md . Seraj Khan will not be entitled for back wages or any other monetary benefits for the period he was not in employment .

03. On his re- appointment , he will be placed in any Department of West Bokaro Division other than Purchase & Stores .

04. The concerned Ex- workman will be allowed to resume duty after acceptance of the settlement and passing the Award by the Hon'ble Tribunal .

05. This joint compromise petition will be filed before. the Hon'ble Tribunal with a prayer to dispose of the case in terms of the above settlement .

06. With the filing of the settlement, the dispute has been amicably settled and the concerned workman will not raise any dispute in future in any forum.

For the Workman :

For the Employers :

Sd/-

Sd/- 1. (Arun Kumar)

1. (Md. Seraj Khan) Ex-P. No. 267616, Ex -Store Mazdoor, WestBokaro Chief(HR/ IR) M/ s . Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. , West Bokaro

Sd/-

2. (M. Das)

Manager (HR/IR ), M/ s . Tata Iron & Steel , Co. Ltd. , West Bokaro

Witness

Sd/-

(Mahendra Singh) Sd/- (Manoj Kumar Sinha) Manager ( HR/ IR) M/s . Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. West Bokaro

Secretary Rastriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh , West Bokaro Branch Cc: The Secretary to the Government of India , Ministry ofLabour, New Delhi .

Cc: Chief Labour Commissioner ( Central) , New Delhi .

Cc: Regional Labour Commissioner ( Central ) , Dhanbad.

Cc: Asstt . Labour Commissioner ( Central) , Hazaribagh. नई दिल्ली, 23 दिसम्बर, 2004

का. आ. 194.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार टिस्को के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केंन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ] न्यायालय, धनबाद- I के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 160/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 17-12-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-20012/161/2001- आई. आर. ( सी-1 ] एस.एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 23rd December, 2004

S.O. 194. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 160/ 2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court, Dhanbad I, now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of TISCO and their workman,which was receivedby the Central Government on 17-12-2004.

[No. L - 20012/ 161/ 2001 - IR( C- 1) ] S.S. GUPTA , Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . I, DHANBAD

In the matter of a reference U/ s . 10 ( 1 ) (d) (2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 .

Reference No. 160 of 2001

Parties : Employers in relation to the management of West Bokaro Colliery of M/ s . TISCO Ltd.

AND

Their Workmen

PRESENT :

Shri S. Prasad , Presiding Officer

APPEARANCES :

For the Employers : Shri D.K. Verma , Advocate .

For the Workman : Shri Md . Ismail , Workman concerned.

State : Jharkhand .

Industry : Coal .

Dated, the 9th December, 2004.

AWARD

د By Order No. L - 20012/ 161/2001 - I.R. (C - 1 ) dated 11-7-2001 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has , in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 , referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :

"Whether the action of the management of the West Bokaro Colliery of M/ s . TISCO Ltd. to dismiss the service of Shri Md. Ismail is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief is the workman concerned entitled ? " 657

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 15 , 2005/पौष 25, 1926

[ भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

2. By filing momorandum of settlement jointly it has been submitted on behalf of the parties that the dispute has already been settled outside the Court on the terms and conditions as contained in the body of the said settlement and in view of such development there is no dispute in existence for being adjudicated . Prayer has been made for passing necessary order and disposal of the instant reference in terms of the said settlement arrived at between the parties .

3. In view of the aforesaid developments brought to the notice of this Tribunal nothing is left to be adjudicated on merit of the dispute.

4. Accordingly, the award is passed in terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties . The memorandum of settlement shall form part of the award.

S. PRASAD , Presiding Officer .

FORM- H

[Rules 58 of Industrial Disputes ( Central) Rules 1957 ] MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT

For the Workman :

For the Employers :

1.Md . Ismail , Ex- P. No. 264608 , Ex-D.G . Attendant , West Bokaro 1. Mr. Arun Kumar, Chief (HR/ IR) M/s . Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. , West Bokaro

2. Mr. F. Hembrom , Manager (HR/ IR) , M/ s . Tata Iron & Steel , Co. Ltd. , West Bokaro

SHORT RECITAL OF THE CASE The concerned workman Md. Ismail , Ex.-P. No. 264608 , Ex -D.G . Attendant was issued with a Chargesheet No. WBC/DM ( PE)/ 9732/ 262/ 99 dt . 2-2-1999 under Clause No. 27 ( 2 ) of the Standing Order i.e.theft of Company's property. An enquiry into the chargesheet was conducted in accordance with the Principle of Natural Justice and the charges levelled against the concerned workman were established . He was subsequently dismissed from Company's service with effect from 21-6-1999 .

After his dismissal Md . Ismail raised an Industrial Dispute under Section 2A of the I.D. Act . The dispute has been referred by the Central Government to Industrial Tribunal No. 1 at Dhanbad for adjudication vide Notification No. L - 20012/ 161 / 2001 - IR ( C - 1 ) dt. 11-7-2001 . The dispute has been registered as reference case No. 160/2001 . While the dispute is pending , before the Industrial Tribunal , the concerned workman has represented to the Management through the recognized Union i.e. Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh for an amicable , out of court, settlement.

The dispute has been amicably settled on the following terms and conditions :

Terms of Settlement

01. That the concerned workman Md. Ismail , Ex-P.No . 264608 will re -employed at the initial step of Category - V, as DG Attendant at West Bokaro Colliery.

02. The concerned workman Md . Ismail will not be entitled for back wages or any other monetary benefits for the period he was not in employment .

03. His conduct , thereafter, will be watched for a period of two years , and if found satisfactory, he will be considered for grant of continuity of service .

04. The concerned Ex - workman will be allowed to resume duty after acceptance of the settlement and passing the Award by the Hon'ble Tribunal .

05. This joint compromise petition will be filed before the Hon'ble Tribunal with a prayer to dispose of the case in terms of the above settlement .

06. With the filing of the settlement , the dispute has been amicably settled and the concerned workman will not raise any dispute in future in any forum.

For the Employers :

Sd/-

For the Workman : Sd/-

1. Md . Ismail Ex-P. No. 264608 , Ex-D.G. Attendant , West Bokaro 1. Mr. Arun Kumar Chief(HR/IR) M/ s . Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. , West Bokaro Sd/-

2. Mr. F. Hembrom Manager (HR/ IR) , M/s . Tata Iron & Steel , Co. Ltd. , West Bokaro Witness

Witness

Sd/-

Sd/- (Manoj Kumar Sinha) Manager ( HR/IR) M/ s . Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd., West Bokaro

(Mahendra Singh ) Secretary Rastriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh , West Bokaro Branch Cc: The Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry ofLabour, New Delhi .

Cc: Chief Labour Commissioner ( Central) , New Delhi .

Cc: Regional Labour Commissioner ( Central ) , Dhanbad .

Cc: Asstt. Labour Commissioner (Central ) , Hazaribagh .

आदेश

नई दिल्ली, 24 दिसम्बर, 2004

का. आ. 195.- जबकि यहां संलग्न अनुसूची के मामले में एफ.सी.आई. प्रबंधन और उनके कर्मकारों के संबंध में नियोक्ताओं के बीचके औद्योगिक विवाद को दिनांक 28-10-2004 के समसंख्यक 658

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 15 , 2005/PAUSA 25 , 1926

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] आदेश द्वारा न्यायनिर्णयन हेतु केन्द्रीय सरकार, औद्योगिक अधिकरण- सह - श्रम न्यायालय सं. 1 को भेजा गया था;

And whereas the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi while hearing the petition in W.P. No. 3809/2004 has directed the government to consider the request of the petitioners.

और जबकि संघ ने न्यायनिर्णयन हेतु मामले को राष्ट्रीय अधिकरण के पास भेजने के लिए सरकार को अभ्यावेदन दिया था;

And whereas the management intimated that they have no objection in referring the dispute to a National Industrial Tribunal .

और जबकि माननीय दिल्ली उच्च न्यायालय ने डब्ल्यू. पी. सं. 3809/2004 में याचिका की सुनवाई करते हुए सरकार को याचिकाकर्ताओं के अनुरोध पर विचार करने का निदेश दिया था;

And whereas the Central Government is also of the opinion that the said dispute should be adjudicated by a National Tribunal .

और जबकि प्रबंधन ने सूचित किया कि उन्हें विवाद को राष्ट्रीय औद्योगिक अधिकरण को संदर्भित किए जाने पर कोई आपत्ति नहीं है;

और जबकि केन्द्र सरकार भी मानती है कि उक्त विवाद का न्यायनिर्णयन राष्ट्रीय अधिकरण द्वारा किया जाना चाहिए;

Now, therefore , the Central Government , in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 7B of the I.D. Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) read with Section 10 ( 1A) hereby constitutes a National Industrial Tribunal with the Head Quarters at Kolkata and appoint Sh . H. Bannerjee , presently Presiding Officer, CGIT, Kolkata as its Presiding Officer. The National Tribunal will give its award within a period of six months .

अतः , अब केन्द्र सरकार औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 7ख द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए एतद्वारा राष्ट्रीय औद्योगिक अधिकरण की स्थापना करती है जिसका मुख्यालय कोलकाता में होगा और फिलहाल सी जी आई टी. कोलकाता केपीठासीन अधिकारी श्री एच. बनर्जी को इसका पीठासीन अधिकारी नियुक्त करती है । राष्ट्रीय अधिकरण छह माह की अवधि के भीतर अपना पंचाट देगा।

Asregards the existing reference of the dispute made by the government vide this Ministry's order of even number dated 28-10-2004 to Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1 , New Delhi , the provisions of Sub- section 6 ( a ) of Section 10 of the I.D. Act , 1947 will apply.

SCHEDULE

सरकार द्वारा इस मंत्रालय के दिनांक 28-10-2004 के समसंख्यक आदेश द्वारा विवाद के वर्तमान संदर्भ को केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण सं. 1 , नई दिल्ली के संबंध में , औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 की धारा 10 की उपधारा 6 ( क ) के उपबंध लागू होंगे ।

अनुसूची

"Whether the action of the management of Food Corporation of India in issuing Circular No. 7/2002 dated 4-4-2002 changing the working hours of departmental and DPS Handling workers from 6½ hours to 7 hours is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief they are entitled and from which date ? "

[No. L - 22012/ 11 / 2004 - IR( C - II) ]

N.P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer " क्या विभागीय और डी पी एस हैंडलिंग श्रमिकों के कार्यघंटों को 6½ घंटे से बदलकर 7 घंटे करने के लिए भारतीय खाद्य निगम प्रबंधन द्वारा दिनांक4-4-2002 को जारी परिपत्र सं . 7/2002 विधिसम्मत और न्यायोचित है ? यदि नहीं, तो वे किन राहतों के पात्र हैं और किस तिथिसे ? "

श्रम एवं रोजगार मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 5 जनवरी, 2005

[ सं. एल.- 22012/11/2004- आई . आर. ( सी- II ) ]

एन. पी. केशवन, डेस्क अधिकारी

ORDER

New Delhi , the 24th December, 2004

का. आ. 196. कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम , 1948 (1948का 34 ) की धारा-1 की उपधारा ( 3 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा 01 फरवरी , 2005 को उस तारीख के रूप में नियत करती है , जिसको उक्त अधिनियम के अध्याय -4 ( 44 व 45 धारा के सिवाय जो पहले से प्रवृत्त हो चुकी है ) अध्याय -5 और 6 [ धारा 76 की उपधारा ( 1 ) और धारा -77, 78 , 79 और 81 के सिवाय जो पहले ही प्रवृत्त की जा चुकी है । के उपबन्ध केरल राज्य के निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रों में प्रवृत्त होंगे , अर्थात्:-

S.O. 195. Whereas an industrial dispute between employers in relation to management of Food Corporation of India and their workmen in respect to the schedule hereto annexed was referred for adjudication to Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court No. 1 , New Delhi vide order of even number dated 28-10-2004.

" जिला कोल्लम के पत्तन्नापुरम तालुक में राजस्व ग्राम पुन्नाला में आने वाले क्षेत्र । "

[सं. एस.- 38013/02/2005 - एस.एस. - 1 ] And whereas the union made a representation to the governmentvernment for referring the matter for adjudication to National Tribunal .

के.सी. जैन , निदेशक [ भाग 11- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

MINISTRY OF LABOUR & EMPLOYMENT New Delhi , the 5th January, 2005

S.O. 196.- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 3 ) of Section 1 of the Employees ' State Insurance Act , 1948 (34 of 1948 ) the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st February, 2005 as the date on which the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force) and Chapter V and VI [ except sub- section ( i) of Section 76 and Sections 77 , 78 , 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force ] of the said Act shall come into force in the following areas in the State of Kerala namely :-

"The areas within the Revenue village of Punnala in Pathanapuram Taluk of Kollam District . "

[No. S - 38013/02/2005 - S.S.I ]

K.C. JAIN, Director नई दिल्ली, 5 जनवरी , 2005

का. आ. 197.-कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम , 1948 (1948 का 34 ) की धारा-1 की उपधारा ( 3 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा 01 फरवरी , 2005 को उस तारीख के रूप में नियत करती है , जिसको उक्त अधिनियम के

659

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 15, 2005 /पौष 25 , 1926

अध्याय -4 [ 44 व 45 धारा के सिवाय जो पहले से प्रवृत्त हो चुकी है ) अध्याय -5 और 6 ( धारा 76 की उपधारा ( 1 ) और धारा -77 , 78 , 79 और 81 के सिवाय जो पहले ही प्रवृत्त की जा चुकी है । के उपबन्ध केरल राज्य के निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रों में प्रवृत्त होंगे , अर्थात्:-

" जिला कोट्टायम के वैकम तालुक में कोतानल्लूर क्षेत्र । "

[सं. एस. - 38013/01/2005 - एस.एस. - 1 ] के.सी. जैन, निदेशक New Delhi , the 5th January, 2005

S.O. 197. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (3 ) of Section 1 of the Employees ' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st February, 2005 as the date on which the provisions of Chapter IV ( except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force) and Chapter V and VI [ except sub-section ( i) of Section 76 and Sections 77 , 78 , 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force ] of the said Act shall come into force in the following areas in the State of Kerala namely :-

"Village Kothanalloor in Vaikom Taluk in Kottayam District ."

[No. S - 38013 /01/ 2005 - S.S.I ] K.C. JAIN , Director

Printed by the Manager , Govt . of India Press , Ring Road , Maya Purı , New Delhi - 110064 and Published by the Controller of Publications , Delhi - 110054 , 2005