रजिस्ट्री सं०डी एल ( एन ) 04/0007 / 2003-05
REGD . No. DL (N) 04/0007/2003-05 भारत सत्यमेव जयते राजपत्र The Gazette of India
प्राधिकार से प्रकाशित
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
साप्ताहिक
WEEKLY
सं. 18]
नई दिल्ली, अप्रैल 24 अप्रैल 30, 2005 शनिवार /वैशाख 4- वैशाख 10 , 1927
No. 18]
NEW DELHI, APRIL 24 APRIL 30 , 2005 SATURDAY /VAISAKHA 4- VAISAKHA 10 , 1927 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)
कार्मिक , लोक- शिकायत तथा पेंशन मंत्रालय (कार्मिक और प्रशिक्षण विभाग ) नई दिल्ली, 20 अप्रैल, 2005
का. आ. 1576.-केंद्रीय सरकार, एतद्वारा दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना अधिनियम, 1946 ( 1946 का अधिनियम सं० 25 ) की धारा 6 के साथ पठित धारा 5 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए असम राज्य सरकार के गृह एवं राजनीतिक ( ए) विभाग के ज्ञापन सं. पीएलए. 106/ 2004 /पार्ट 35 - ए दिनांक 10 मार्च , 2005 द्वारा प्राप्त असम राज्य सरकार की सहमति से कटलीचेरा, जिला हैलाकांडी, असम के श्री प्रतुल देब पुत्र स्वर्गीय गुरु प्रसाद देब के अपहरण के संबंध में कटलीचेरा पुलिस स्टेशन भारतीय दंड संहिता, 1860 ( 1860 का अधिनियम सं. 45 ) की धारा 364 ए के अधीन दर्ज मामला सं . 19/2004 और उक्त अपराध से संबंधित अथवा संसक्त प्रयत्न, दुष्प्रेरण और षडयंत्र तथा उसी संव्यवहार के अनुक्रम में किए गए अथवा उन्हीं तथ्यों से उद्भूत किन्हीं अन्य अपराधों के अन्वेषण के लिए दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना के सदस्यों की शक्तियों और अधिकारिता का विस्तार संपूर्ण असम राज्य पर करती है ।
[सं. 228 /98/2004- ए.वी.डी.- II ] शुभा ठाकुर, अवर सचिव 1234 GI/ 2005
(4265)
MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL , PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS
(Department of Personnel and Training) New Delhi , the 20th April , 2005
S. O. 1576. In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 5 read with Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act . 1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946) , the Central Government with the consent of the State Government of Assam vide Home and Political (A) Department , Memo No. PLA. 106 / 2004 /Pt . / 35 - A dated 10-03-2005 hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the member of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of the State of Assam for investigation into the case ofkidnapping of Shri Pratul Deb S/ o Late Guruprasad Deb of Katlicherra , District Hailakandi , Assam registered atKatlicherra Police Station Vide Case No. 19/2004 u/ s 364 (A) of the Indian Penal Code , 1860 ( Act No. 45 of 1860 ) and attempt , abetment and conspiracy in relation to or in connection with the said offence and any other offences committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts .
[No. 228 /98/2004- AVD . - II] SHUBHA THAKUR, Under Secy.
4266
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30, 2005 /VAISAKHA 10, 1927
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii)] वित्त मंत्रालय ( आर्थिक कार्य विभाग ) (बैंकिंग प्रभाग ) नईदिल्ली, 11 अप्रैल , 2005
the Reserve Bank of India hereby declares that the provisions of Sub- section (2 ) of Secton 19 of the said Act shall not apply to Bank of Baroda for a period upto 15th August, 2005 , in so far as they relate to its holding of the shares in Nainital Bank Ltd. (NBL) .
[F. No. 13/4/2005 -BOA] D.P. BHARDWAJ, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 20 अप्रैल, 2005
का.आ. 1577.-बैंककारी विनियमन अधिनियम, 1949 ( 1949 का 10 ) की धारा 53 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक की सिफारिश पर, एतद्वारा घोषणा करती है कि उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 19 की उपधारा ( 2 ) के उपबंध पंजाब एंड सिंध बैंक, नई दिल्ली पर 21 जनवरी , 2008 तक की अवधि के लिए लागू नहीं होंगे , जहां तक उनका संबंध गिरवीदार के रूप में मैसर्स डायनामेटिक फॉर्डिंग्स इंडिया लि. की 30 प्रतिशत से अधिक की चुकता शेयर पूंजी में कंपनी के शेयरों में उसकी धारिता से हैं ।
का.आ. 1579.- राष्ट्रीय आवास बैंक अधिनियम , 1987 की धारा 6 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खंड ( च ) द्वारा, प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक से परामर्श करके एतद्वारा , निम्नलिखित व्यक्तियों को इस अधिसूचना के जारी होने की तारीख से तीन वर्ष की अवधिके लिए राष्ट्रीय आवास बैंक के निदेशक के रूप में नियुक्तकरतीहै ।
[फा. सं. 15/1/98- बी ओ ए ] राम मुईवा, निदेशक
के स्थान
मुख्य सचिव ( आवास ) पर आंध प्रदेश सरकार, हैदराबाद
1. वित्तीय आयुक्त (विकास ) एवं सचिव ( कृषि) पंजाब सरकार, चंडीगढ़
MINISTRY OF FINANCE (Department of Economic Affairs) (Banking Division)
New Delhi , the 11th April , 2005
सचिव आवास,
के स्थान पर उत्तर प्रदेश सरकार लखनऊ
2. मुख्य सचिव, कृषि एवं सहकारिता विभाग , गुजरात सरकार, गांधी नगर
[फा. सं. 7/5/2002- बी.ओ -1 ] जी.बी. सिंह, अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 20th April , 2005 S. O. 1577. In exercise of the powers conferredby Section 53 of the Banking Regulation Act , 1949 ( 10 of 1949) the Central Government on the recommendation of the Reserve Bank of India hereby declares that provisions of Sub -section (2 ) of Secton 19 of the said Act shall not apply to Punjab & Sind Bank , New Delhi for a period upto 21st January , 2008 , in so far as they relate to its holding of the shares of M/ s . Dynamatic Forgings India Ltd. in excess of 30% of the paid up share capital of the company as pledgee.
[F.No. 15/ 1 /98 - BOA] RAM MUIVAH, Director
नई दिल्ली, 19 अप्रैल, 2005
S. O. 1579. In exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( f) of sub-section ( 1 ) of Section 6 of the National Housing Bank Act, 1987 , the Central Government , in consultation with Reserve Bank of India , hereby appoints the following persons to be the directors of the National Housing Bank for a period of three years with effect from the date of issue of this notification.
1. Principal Secretary (Housing) Government of Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad.
Vice Financial Commissioner (Development) and Secretary (Agriculture) , Government of Punjab , Chandigarh का.आ. 1578.-बैंककारी विनियमन अधिनियम, 1949 ( 1949 का 10 ) की धारा 53 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक की सिफारिश पर , एतद्वारा घोषणा करती है कि उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 19 की उपधारा ( 2 ) के उपबंध बैंक 'आफ बड़ौदा पर 15 अगस्त, 2005 तक की अवधि के लिए लागू नहीं होंगे , जहां तक उसका संबंध नैनीताल बैंक लि. ( एनबीएल ) में उसकी शेयर धारिता से हैं ।
[फा. सं. 13/4/2005 - बीओए ] डी०पी० भारद्वाज, अवर सचिव
2. Secretary (Housing ) , Government of UttarPradesh, Lucknow
New Delhi , the 19th April , 2005
Vice Principal Secretary , Agriculture and Co- operation Department Government of Gujarat, Gandhinagar.
S. O. 1578.-In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 53 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 ( 10 of 1949) the Central Government on the recommendation of
[F. No. 7/5/2002-BO -I ] G.B. SINGH, Under Secy.
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
4267
भारत का राजपत्र: अप्रैल 30 , 2005/वैशाख 10, 1927
नई दिल्ली, 21 अप्रैल, 2005
का.आ. 1580.- राष्ट्रीय आवास बैंक अधिनियम, 1987 की धारा 6 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खंड ( च ) द्वारा , प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक से परामर्श करके एतद्वारा , निम्नलिखित व्यक्तियों को इस अधिसूचना के जारी होने की तारीख से तीन वर्ष की अवधि के लिए राष्ट्रीय आवास बैंक के निदेशक के रूप में नियुक्तकरती है ।
के स्थान पर
1. आयुक्त/सचिव (आवास ) गुजरात सरकार
मुख्य सचिव ( आवास ) आंध प्रदेश सरकार, हैदराबाद
2. आयुक्त/सचिव (आवास) के स्थान पर उड़ीसासरकार
उत्तर प्रदेश सरकार लखनऊ सचिव ( आवास ) ,
[फा. सं . 7/5/2002- बी.ओ -1 ] जी.बी. सिंह, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 21st April , 2005
S.O. 1580.-In exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( f) of sub- section ( 1 ) of section 6 of National Housing Bank Act, 1987, the Central Government, in consultation with Reserve Bank of India , hereby appoints the following persons to be the directors of the National Housing Bank for a period of three years with effect from the date of issue of this notification .
Vice Commissioner/ 1. Principal Secretary
(Housing)
Government of
Andhra Pradesh
Secretary (Housing) Government of Gujarat
Hyderabad.
2. Secretary (Housing) ,
Government of
Uttar Pradesh ,
Vice Commissioner/ Secretary (Housing ) Government of Orissa
Lucknow
[F. No. 7/ 5/2002 -BO -I] G. B. SINGH, Under Secy .
नई दिल्ली, 25 अप्रैल, 2005
का.आ. 1581.- राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक ( प्रबन्ध एवं प्रकीर्ण उपबंध) स्कीम, 1970 के खण्ड 3 के उपखण्ड ( 1 ) के साथ पठित बैंककारी कंपनी ( उपक्रमों का अर्जन एवं अंतरण ) अधिनियम , 1970 की धारा 9 की उपधारा ( 3 ) के खण्ड ( ख ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार, एतद्वारा वित्त मंत्रालय , आर्थिक कार्य विभाग ( बैंकिंग प्रभाग ) , नई दिल्ली में निदेशक श्री सुदेश कुमार को , श्री आर. रंगनाथन के स्थान पर, तत्काल प्रभाव से और अगले आदेशों तक, देना बैंक के बोर्ड में निदेशक के रूप में नामित करती है ।
[फा. सं. 9/ 11 /2004- बी.ओ -1 ]
जी.बी. सिंह, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 25th April , 2005
S.O. 1581. In exercise of the powers conferredby clause (b) of sub -section (3 ) of section 9 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings ) Act, 1970 read with sub - clause ( 1 ) of clause 3 of the Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970 , the Central Government, hereby nominates Shri Sudesh Kumar, Director in the Ministry of Finance , Department of Economic Affairs ( P - ing Division) New Delhi as a Director on the Board of Dena Bankwith immediate effect and until further orders vice Shri R. Ranganathan.
[F. No. 9/ 11/2004-BO-I] G. B. SINGH, Under Secy.
(राजस्व विभाग )
आयुक्तसीमा शुल्क , पुणे का कार्यालय पुणे, 28 जनवरी, 2005
संख्या 1 /2005 - सीमा शुल्क ( नॉन टॅरिफ ) का.आ. 1582.- सीमा शुल्क अधिनियम 1962 ( 1962 का 52) की धारा 8 के अधीन मुझे प्रदत्त अधिकारों को कार्यान्वित करते हुए तथा सीमा शुल्कअधिनियम 1962 की धारा 8 के अधीन दिनांक 30/9/98 को पहले ही जारी अधिसूचना संख्या 4/98-सीमा शुल्क ( नॉन टॅरिफ ) के सिलसिले में, मैं अधोहस्ताक्षरित , एस. दत्त मजुमदार, आयुक्त सीमा शुल्क, पुणे , एतद्वारा, इन्लैंड कन्टेनर डिपो , सर्वे नं. 76, 78/1 , 78/2 तथा 79 तलेरा नगर, आलंदी रोड, दिघि, पुणे के और विस्तारित क्षेत्र को मुंबई के गेटवे बंदरगाह, न्हावा शेवा बंदरगाह ( जे.एन.पी.टी. ) , एयर कार्गो कॉम्प्लेक्स, सहार, मुम्बई, लोहगाँव एयर पोर्ट पुणे से आयात किए गए कन्टेनर और उनमें रखे माल को रखने ( स्टोरेज ) के लिए तथा इन्लैंड कन्टेनर डिपो , दिघि पुणे से कथित गेटवे बंदरगाह को निर्यात कार्गो के स्टफिंग और कथित बंदरगाहों से आयात कार्गो के डिस्टफिंग के लिए सीमा शुल्क क्षेत्र के रूप में मंजूर करता हूँ ।
अब सीमा शुल्क के जिस क्षेत्र में कथित आई.सी.डी.दिघि, पुणे समाविष्ट है उसकी सीमा का विस्तार कुल 1,58,720 वर्ग मीटर्स के क्षेत्र (सर्वे नं. 76 का 8,820 वर्ग मीटर, सर्वे नं. 78/1 तथा 78/2 का 61,500 वर्ग मीटर तथा सर्वे नं . 79 का 88,400 वर्ग मीटर ) तक बढ़ाया गया है । इस क्षेत्र में सर्वे नं . 76 का 8,820 वर्ग मीटर क्षेत्र , सर्वे नं . 78/1 तथा 78/2का 45,103 वर्ग मीटर तथा सर्वे नं. 79 का 51,320 वर्ग मीटर खुला क्षेत्र भी सम्मिलित है । यह क्षेत्र जो निम्नलिखित के अनुसार है भरे/खाली कन्टेनरों को रखने के लिए तथा स्टफिंग/डिस्टफिंग के लिए 24,677 वर्ग मीटर के आच्छादित ( कवर्ड ) शेड, निर्यात/ आयात/लैंडेड कार्गो रखने के लिए है ।
इस क्षेत्र की परिसीमाएँ निम्नलिखित के अनुसार है:-
उत्तर- सर्वे नं. 79 से श्रीमती डी. चव्हाण की खुली जगह तक और सर्वे नं. 78/1 - उत्तर की तरफ भोसरी- आलंदी रोड का किनारा । 4268
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30 , 2005 /VAISAKHA 10, 1927
दक्षिण- सर्वे नं . 79 पर स्थित इन्लेंड कन्टेनर डिपो से सर्वे नं. 80 तक। श्री पी.एम. वालके, जी.टी. वालके और ए.टी. वालके की जमीनके सर्वे नं. 78/3 , 78/4 और 78/2 को छोड़कर । पूर्व- पुणे- आलंदी रोड का किनारा
पश्चिम- श्री डी. आर. वालके की जमीन का सर्वे नं. 78/1 से सर्वे नं. 75/76 तक, श्री पी.एम. वालके, श्री जी.टी. वालके और श्री ए.टी. वालके की जमीन के सर्वे नं. 78/2 [ कुछ हिस्सा (भाग ) ] , 78/3 , 78/4 को छोड़कर ।
[फा. सं.- VIII ( सीमा शुल्क ) 48-01/टीसी/ 2004 ] सु. दत्त मजुमदार, आयुक्त (Department of Revenue)
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS PUNE
Pune , the 28th January , 2005
No. 1/2005- CUS (NT)
S.O. 1582.- In exercise of the powers conferred upon me under Section 8 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962) and in continuation of earlier Notification No. 4/98 -CUS (NT) dated 30/9/98 issued under Section 8 of the Customs Act , 1962 , 1, the undersigned, S. Dutt Majumdar, Commissioner of Customs , Pune hereby approve the further extended area of the Inland Container Depot , Survey No. 76, 78/1 , 78/2 and 79 Talera Nagar, Alandi Road, Dighi , Pune as the 'Customs Area ' for storage of Containers and the goods contained therein imported through the Gateway Ports ofMumbai, Nhava Sheva ( JNPT) , Air Cargo Complex, Sahar , Mumbai , Lohegaon Airport Pune and for the stuffing ofExport andde- stuffing of Import cargo , Imported/Exported through the Inland Container Depot , Dighi , Pune from/to the said Gateway Ports .
Now, the limit of Customs Area comprising of the said ICDat Dighi , Pune extended to a total area admeasuring 1,58,720 sa meters (8,820 sq. meters of Survey No. 76,61,500 sq. meters survey No. 78/1 & 78/2 and 88,400 sq meters of survey No. 79 ) , including open area measuring 8,820 sq . meters of survey no . 76 , 45,103 sq . meters of survey No.78/ 1 and 78/2 and 51,320 sq. meters of survey No. 79 , for storages of loaded/ empty containers and covered sheds admeasuring 24,677 sq. meters for stuffing/destuffing and storage of Export /Import/Landed cargo as specified asfollows:
Boundaries-
North Survey No. 79 uo -to Open Land belonging to Smt . D. Chavan and Survey No. 78/1 bordering Bhosari -Alandi Road towards North .
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii)]
South Existing Inland Container Depot at Survey No. 79 up -to Survey No. 80 excluding Survey No. 78/3 , 78/4 and 78/2 i.e. , Land belonging to Mr. P.M. Walke ,G.T. Walke and A.T. Walke.
Boardering Pune -Alandi Road. East
West Survey No. 78/1 up-to Survey No. 75/76 belonging to Mr. D.R. Walke and excluding survey No. 78/2 ( part ) , 78/3 , 78/4 i.e. , land belonging to Mr. P.M. Walke ,G.T. Walke & A.T. Walke.
[F.No. VIII (CUS ) 48-01 /TC/2004] S. DUTT MAJUMDAR, Commissioner परमाणु ऊर्जा विभाग मुंबई, 21 अप्रैल, 2005
का.आ. 1583.-केन्द्रीय सरकार परमाणु ऊर्जा विभाग के निम्नलिखित संघटक यूनिटों को, जिनके 80 % से अधिक कर्मचारियों ने हिन्दी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है , राजभाषा ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) नियम, 1976 के नियम 10 के उपनियम ( 4 ) के अनुसरण में अधिसूचित करती है :
1. निर्माण, सेवा एवं संपदा प्रबंध निदेशालय , मुंबई । 2. विकिरण तथा आइसोटोप प्रौद्योगिकी बोर्ड, मुंबई । 3. परमाणु ऊर्जा शिक्षण संस्था, मुंबई ।
[सं. 6/7/94-हिन्दी] व्ही.पी. राजा, संयुक्त सचिव ( आई एंड एम ) DEPARTMENT OF ATOMIC ENERGY Mumbai , the 21st April , 2005
S.O. 1583. In pursuance of sub -rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language ( Use for official purpose of the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies the following constituent Units of the Department ofAtomic Energy , where more than 80 % staff has acquired working knowledge ofHindi .
1. Directorate of Construction , Services & Estate Management, Mumbai .
2. Board of Radiation and Isotope Technology, Mumbai,
3. Atomic Energy Education Society, Mumbai . [No. 6/7/ 94 - Hindi ]
V. P. RAJA, Jt . Secy . ( I&M) [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: अप्रैल 30 , 2005/वैशाख 10 , 192 /
संचार और सूचना प्रौद्योगिकी मंत्रालय
(दूरसंचार विभाग )
(राजभाषाअनुभाग )
नईदिल्ली, 19 अप्रैल, 2005
4269
राजपत्रित अधिकारी की पंक्ति के समतुल्य अधिकरी हैं, उक्त अधिनियम के प्रयोजनों के लिए सम्पदा अधिकारी नियुक्त करती है जो सारणी के स्तंभ ( 2 ) में विनिर्दिष्ट सरकारी स्थानों की बाबत अपनी-अपनी अधिकारिता की सीमाओं के भीतर उक्त अधिनियम द्वारा या उसके अधीन सम्पदा अधिकारियों को प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग और अधिरोपित कर्तव्यों का पालन करेंगे , अर्थात:-
सारणी
अधिकारियों का पदनाम
का.आ. 1584.-केन्द्रीय सरकार, राजभाषा ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) नियम, 1976 ( यथा संशोधित 1987 ) के नियम 10 ( 4 ) के अनुसरण में संचार और सूचना प्रौद्योगिकी मंत्रालय, दूरसंचार विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन निम्नलिखित कार्यालयों को, जिसमें 80 प्रतिशत से अधिक कर्मचारियों ने हिंदी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है, एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करती है ।
मुख्य महाप्रबंधक दूरसंचार, भारत संचार निगम लिमिटेड, राजस्थान परिमंडल, जयपुर
1. महाप्रबंधक दूरसंचार, भारत संचार निगम लिमिटेड, बांसवाड़ा 2. महाप्रबंधक दूरसंचार जिला, भारत संचार निगम लिमिटेड, नागौर 3. दूरसंचार जिला प्रबंधक कार्यालय, भारत संचार निगम लिमिटेड, सवाई माधोपुर
[सं. ई-11016/1 /2004-( रा.भा. ) ]
हरीश चन्द्र जयाल, संयुक्त सचिव MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (Department of Telecommunications) New Delhi , the 19th April , 2005
S. O. 1584. In pursuance of rule 10 (4) of the Official Language ( Use for official purposes of the Union) , rules, 1976 ( as amended - 1987) , the Central Government hereby notifies the following Offices undr the administrative control of Ministry of Communications and Information Technology , Department of Telecommunications whereof more than 80 % staff have acquired working knowledge ofHindi .
Chief General Manager Telecom , BSNL , Rajasthan Circle, Japur
1. General Manager Telecom . , BSNL , Banswara 2. General Manager Telecom Distt. , BSNL, Nagpur 3. Office of Manager, Telecom . Distt . BSNL , Sawai Madhopur
[No. E- 11016/1/2004 (O.L. ) ] HARISH CHANDRA JAYAL , Jt. Secy.
सरकारी स्थानों के प्रवर्ग और अधिकारिता की स्थानीय सीमाएं 1
2
महाप्रबंधक ( राजस्व/पुनर्वास एवं पुनर्स्थापना)
मध्य प्रदेश राज्य व उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य में नार्दर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड के या उसके द्वारा या उसकी ओर से पट्टे पर लिए गए सभी परिसर ।
[ फा. सं. 43022/ 1/2001- पी.आर.आई डब्ल्यू]
बी.के. पण्डा, निदेशक MINISTRY OF COAL
New Delhi , the 29th March, 2005
S. O. 1585. In exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 of the Public Premises ( Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants ) Act , 1971 (40 of 1971 ) and in suppression of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal , number S.O. 682 dated the 20th March, 2001 , published in the Gazette of India Part II, secton 3 , sub - sectin ( ii) , dated the 31st March , 2001 , the Central Government hereby appoints the officers mentioned in column ( 1 ) of the table below , being Officers equivalent of the rank of Gazette Officers of the Government to be Estate Officers for the purposes of the said Act , who shall exercise the powers conferred and perform the duties imposed on the Estate Officers , by or under the said Act, within the limits of their respctive jurisdiction in respect of public premises specified in column (2) of the table , namely: -
Table
Designation of the
Officers
कोयला मंत्रालय
नई दिल्ली, 29 मार्च, 2005
Categories ofpublic premises and local limits ofjurisdiction
2
1
GeneralManager
(Revenue/R and R)
का.आ. 1585.- केन्द्रीय सरकार, सरकारी स्थान ( अप्राधिकृत अभियोगियों की बेदखली ) अधिनियम , 1971 ( 1972 का 40 ) की धारा 3 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, और भारत सरकार के कोयला मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का . आ. 682 , तारीख 20 मार्च, 2001 , जो भारत के राजपत्र, भाग II खंड 3 , उपखंड ( ii ) तारीख 31 मार्च, 2001 में प्रकाशित की गई थी, को अधिक्रान्त करते हुए, नीचे सारणी के स्तंभ ( 1 ) में उल्लिखित अधिकारियों को, जो सरकार के
Allpremises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of Northern Coal- fields Limited in the State ofMadhya Pradesh and UttarPradesh
[F. No. 43022/ 1 /2001 -PRIW]
B.K. PANDA, Director 4270
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: APRIL 30 , 2005/VAISAKHA 10, 1927
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii)] उपभोक्तामामले , खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय
(उपभोक्तामामले विभाग )
नई दिल्ली, 5 अप्रैल , 2005
का.आ. 1586.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात्, यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक ( मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा ;
अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स नवीन इण्डस्ट्रीज, नं. १ ए, टाइप- III , इण्डस्ट्रीयल एरिया कुकापल्ली , हैदराबाद-500072 द्वारा विनिर्मित " एम आर- 1000- एच एस " श्रृंखला के स्वचालित मशीन ( पिस्टन पूरक प्रकार) के मॉडल का , जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09 / 2004 / 491 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण - पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।
उक्तमॉडल स्वचालित अनुमापी भरण मशीन ( पिस्टन पूरक प्रकार का ) है । इसकी क्षमता 2 ग्रा. से 1000 ग्रा. या मि. लीटर में समतुल्य आयतन है । इसकी अधिकतम भरण दर 25 से 35 पाउच प्रति मिनट है । मशीन को वनस्पति तेल, घी, वनस्पति, मारगरीन इत्यादि जैसे द्रव विसकस को पैक करने के लिए डिजाइन किया जाता है । यह तीन फेस ए सी 440 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करती है ।
[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम-21 ( 37 )/2004 ]
पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 4271 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 30 , 2005 /वैशाख 10, 1927
MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS , FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
(Department of Consumer Affairs)
New Delhi , the 5th April, 2005
S.O. 1586. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the models described in the said report (See the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models) Rules , 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;
Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub - sections (7) and ( 8) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of automatic volumetric filling machine (Piston filter type ) of " MR- 1000 -HS " series with brand name " MULTIPACK " (herein referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/ s . Naveen Industries , No. 9A, Type III , Industrial Area Kukapally , Hyderabad- 500072 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/ 2004/491 ;
The said model is an Automatic volumetric filling machine (Piston filler type) . Its capacity range is from 2g to 1000g or equivalent volume in ml . It has a maximum fill rate of 25 to 35 pouches per minute . The machine is designed for packing viscous liquid like vegetable oil , ghee , vanaspati , margarine etc. It operates on three phase AC 440 Volts and 50Hz alternate current power supply.
[F. No. WM - 21 (37)/ 2004 ]
P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 4272
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30, 2005 /VAIŠAKHA 10 , 1927
[PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii) ]
नईदिल्ली, 6 अप्रैल, 2005
का.आ. 1587.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विग्धार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम, 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;
अतः अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स ओरिएन्ट इंजीनियरिंग वे, 7 , नटराज थिएटर कांप्लेक्स , तीरूपुर-641604 ( तमिलनाडु ) द्वारा विनिर्मित उच्च यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- II ) वाले " ओ ई डब्ल्यू- जे पी " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित, अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबल टाप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " जेमिनी " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09 /2004/ 374 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण - पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।
ORIENT ENGINEFRING WEIGH
GEMINI
उक्त मॉडल विकृति गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित ( टेबल टाप प्रकार ) तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 30 कि. ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 100 ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 2 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट, 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।
स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट को मुद्रांकित करने के अतिरिक्त कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए मशीन को खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबन्द भी किया जाएगा । और, केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाणपत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धान्त , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे अनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्मित किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 1 मि. ग्रा. से 50 मि. ग्रा. तक. " ई " मान के लिए 100 से 50,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) और 100 मि.ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 5000 से 50,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मान सहित 50 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10th, 2 × 10 या 5 × 10 , के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।
[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम-21 ( 125 ) /2004] पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 4273 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 30 , 2005 /वैशाख 10 , 1927
New Delhi , the 6th April , 2005
S.O. 1587. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority , is satisfied that the Model described in the said report (See the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 (60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures ( Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub -sections (7) and ( 8) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the Model of non - automatic weighing instrument (Table top type ) with digital indication of " OEW - JP " series of high accuracy (Accuracy class - II ) and with brand name " GEMINI " ( hereinafter referred to as the said Model ) , manufactured by M/s . Orient Engineering Weigh, 7, Nataraj Theatre Complex, Tirupur-641604 (Tamil Nadu ) and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/2004/374;
ORIENT ENGINEERING WEIGH
GEMINI
ZEN
The said Model is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument (Table top type ) with a maximum capacity of 30kg and minimum capacity of 100g. The verification scale interval (e ) is 2g . It has a tare device with a 100 percent subtractive retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diode (LED) display indicates the weighing result. The instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50Hertz alternative current power supply.
In addition to sealing the stamping plate, sealing shall also be done to prevent the opening of the machine for fraudulent practices .
Further , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said Model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make , accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity upto 50kg. with verification scale interval ( n) in the range of 100 to 50,000 for ' e ' value of 1mg . to 50mg and with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 5000 to 50,000 for ' e ' value of 100 mg. or more and with ' e ' value of 1 × 10k, 2 × 10k or 5 × 10k , where k is a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which , the said approved Model has been manufactured .
[F. No. WM -21 ( 125) /2004 ]
P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 1234 GI/05-2 4274
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: APRIL 30 , 2005/VAISAKHA 10, 1927
नई दिल्ली, 8 अप्रैल, 2005
का.आ. 1588.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात्, यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम, 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;
अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स जयको इलेकवे सिस्टम्स, ए-4 , फ्लैटिड फैक्टरी काम्पलेक्स, ओखला, नई दिल्ली -110020 द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता वर्ग ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " जे टी टी " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित, अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबल टाप प्रकार ) के माडल का, जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " जयको " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09 / 2004/404 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।
JILO
उक्त मॉडल विकृति गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित ( टेबल टाप प्रकार ) तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 30 कि. ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 100 ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 5 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आद्येयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यकलनात्मक धारित आद्येयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट, 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।
स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट को मुद्रांकित करने के अतिरिक्त कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए मशीन को खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबन्द भी किया जाएगा । और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण- पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धान्त , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे अनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्मित किया गया है, विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 100 मि. ग्रा. से 2 ग्रा. तक " ई " मान के लिए 100 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में, सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) और 5 ग्रा, या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मान सहित 50 कि. ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 , 2 × 10 या 5 × 10 , के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।
[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम -21 ( 136 )/2002 ]
पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 4275 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 30, 2005/वैशाख 10 , 1927
New Delhi , the 8th April, 2005
S.O. 1588. Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority , is satisfied that the Model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 ( 60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models) Rules, 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub - sections (7) and (8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of non- automatic (Table top type) weighing instrument with digital indication of " JTT " series of medium accuracy (Accuracy class - III ) , with brand name " JICO " (herein referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/ s JICO Elecweigh Systems , A-4 , Flatted Factory Complex, Okhala, New Delhi - 110020 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/2004/404;
The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non -automatic weighing instrument ( Table top type) with a maximum capacity of 30 kg . and minimum capacity of 100g. The verification scale interval ( e) is 5g. It has a tare device with 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The light emitting diode ( LED) display indicates the weighing result. The instrument operates on 230Volts , 50Hertz alternative current power supply.
In addition to sealing the stamping plate , sealing shall also be done to prevent the opening of the machine for fraudulent practices .
Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub- section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make , accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity up to 50 kg . with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 100 to 10,000 for ' e' value of 100mg . to 2g . or with verification scale interval ( n) in the range of500 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 5g or more and with ' e ' value of 1 × 10k, 2 × 10 or 5 × 10k , k being a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which, the said approved model has been manufactured.
[F. No. WM-21 ( 136)/2002 ]
P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 4276
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: APRIL 30 , 2005/VAISAKHA 10, 1927
नई दिल्ली, 8 अप्रैल, 2005
का.आ. 1589.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात्, यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;
अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स जयको इलेकवे सिस्टम्स, ए-4 , फ्लैटिड फैक्टरी काम्पलेक्स, ओखला, नई दिल्ली -110020 द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले "जे पी एस " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित, अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म प्रकार ) के माडल का, जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " जयको " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09 /2004/405 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण-पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।
उक्तमॉडल विकृति गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वच्चालित ( प्लेटफार्म प्रकार ) तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 2000 कि. ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 4 कि. ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 200 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आद्येयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यकलनात्मक धारित आद्येयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी) प्रदर्श परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट, 50 हर्ट्ज प्रश्र, नौ धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।
स्ट म्धग प्लेट को मुद्रांकित करने के अतिरिक्त कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए मशीन को खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबन्द भी किया जाएगा । और, केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण- पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धान्त , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे अनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्मित किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 5 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में , सत्यापन मान सहित 50 कि. ग्रा. से अधिक और 5000 कि. ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10% , 2 × 10 या 5 × 10 , के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।
[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम -21 ( 136 ) /2002 ]
पी. ए . कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 4277 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 30, 2005/वैशाख 10 , 1927
New Delhi , the 8th April , 2005
S.O. 1589. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority , is satisfied that the Model described in the said report ( see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models) Rules , 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub - sections (7 ) and ( 8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of the self indication, non - automatic (Platform type ) weighing instrument with digital indication of " JPS " series of medium accuracy (Accuracy class - III) with brand name " JICO " (herein referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/ s JICO Elecweigh Systems , A -4, Flatted Factory Complex , Okhala , New Delhi - 110010 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/2004/405;
The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based weighing instrument with a maximum capacity of 2000 kg. and minimuın capacity of 4kg . The verification scale interval ( e) is 200g. It has a tare device with 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The light emitting diode ( LED ) display indicates the weighing result . The instrument operates on 230Volts , 50 Hertz alternative current power supply .
In addition to sealing the stamping plate , sealing shall also be done to prevent opening of the machine for fraudulent practices .
Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub - section ( 12) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model is be cover the weighing instrument of same series , with maximum capacity above 50 kg and upto . 5000kg and with number of verification scale interval ( n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 5g . or more and with ' e ' value of 1 × 10k, 2x10 or 5 × 10k, k being the positive or negative whole number or equal to zero manufactured by the same manufacturer with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which , the approved model has been manufactured .
[F. No. WM - 21 ( 136)/2002]
P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 4278
[PART II-SEC. 3( ii )] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30 , 2005/VAISAKHA 10, 1927
नई दिल्ली, 8 अप्रैल , 2005
का.आ. 1590.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात्, यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा ;
अतः , अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, मैसर्स प्रिसिजन इलेक्ट्रानिक्स इंस्ट्रूमेंट्स कंपनी, 77 , स्वर्ण पार्क, मुंडका, नई दिल्ली -110041 द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यर्थाथता वर्ग- III ) वाले " जी टी- एल टी " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबल टाप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " गोल्ड टैक" है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 2004/443 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।
उक्त मॉडल विकृति गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित ( टेबल टाप प्रकार ) तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 30 कि. ग्रा . और न्यूनतम क्षमता 100 ग्रा . है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 5 ग्रा . है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट, 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।
स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट को मुद्रांकित करने के अतिरिक्त कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए मशीन को खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबन्द भी किया जाएगा । और, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण - पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धान्त, डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे अनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्मित किया गया है, विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 100 ग्रा. से 2 ग्रा. तक " ई " मान के लिए 100 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) और 5 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10000 तक की रेंज में मापमान ( एन ) अंतराल सहित 50 कि. ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 , 2 × 10 या 5 × 10 , के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।
[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम -21 ( 35) /2003 ]
पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 4279 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 30 , 2005/वैशाख 10, 1927
New Delhi , the 8th April , 2005
S.O. 1590. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report ( see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 ( 60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures ( Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;
Now , therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub- sections (7) and (8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the Model of non - automatic weighing instrument ( Table top type) with digital indication of " GTLT " series of medium accuracy ( Accuracy class - III ) and with brand name " Goldtech " ( herein referred to as the said Model ) , manufactured by M/ s Precision Electronic Instruments Company , 77 , Swarn Park , Mundaka , New Delhi - 110041 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09 / 2004 /443;
6099
The said Model is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument (Table top type) with a maximum capacity of 30 kg . and minimum capacity of 100g . The verification scale interval ( e) is 5g . It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The light emitting diode (LED ) display indicates the weighing result . The instrument operates on 230 Volts , 50Hertz alternative current power supply.
In addition to sealing the stamping plate , sealing shall also be done to prevent the opening of the machine for fraudulent practices .
Further , in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub - section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said Model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make , accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity up to 50 kg . with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 100 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 100mg . to 2g. or with verification scale interval (n) in the range of500 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 5g or more and with ' e ' value of 1 × 10k , 2 × 10 or 5 × 10k , k being a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which , the said approved Model has been manufactured.
[F. No. WM-21 ( 35)/2003 ]
P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY , Director of Legal Metrology 4280
[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30 , 2005/VAISAKHA 10, 1927
नईदिल्ली, 8 अप्रैल, 2005
का.आ. 1591.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात्, यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;
अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, मैसर्स प्रिसिजन इलेक्ट्रानिक्स इंस्ट्रूमेंट्स कंपनी , 77, स्वर्ण पार्क, मुंडका, नई दिल्ली -110041 द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यर्थाथता ( यर्थाथता वर्ग- III ) वाले " जी टी- पी एल " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित, अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म प्रकार) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " गोल्ड टैक " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/2004/444 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।
GOLDTE
उक्त मॉडल विकृति गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित ( प्लेटफार्म प्रकार ) तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 300 कि. ग्रा . और न्यूनतम क्षमता 1 कि. ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 50 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट, 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।
स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट को मुद्रांकित करने के अतिरिक्त कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए मशीन को खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबन्द भी किया जाएगा । और, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण- पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धान्त , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे अनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्मित किया गया है, विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 5 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में मापमान ( एन ) अंतराल सहित 50 कि. ग्रा. से अधिक और 1000 कि.ग्रा. तक अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 %, 2 × 10 या 5 × 10 * , के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।
[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम-21 (35 ) /2003 ]
पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 4281 भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 30 , 2005 /वैशाख 10, 1927
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
New Delhi , the 8th April , 2005
S.O. 1591.- Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority , is satisfied that the Model described in the said report ( see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub -sections (7) and ( 8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non - automatic weighing instrument (Platform type ) with digital indication of " GTLP " series of medium accuracy (Accuracy class - III ) and with brand name " Goldtech " (hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/ s Precision Electronic instruments Company, 77 , Swarn Park, Mundaka , New Delhi - 110041 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09 / 2004/444;
GOLDTEC
The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument ( Platform type) with a maximum capacity of 300 kg. and minimum capacity of 1kg . The verification scale interval ( e) is 50g. It has a tare device with 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The light emitting diode ( LED ) display indicates the weighing result. The instrument operates on 230 Volts, 50Hertz alternative current power supply.
In addition to sealing the stamping plate , sealing shall also be done to prevent the opening of the machine for fraudulent practices .
Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub - section ( 12) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make , accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity above 50 kg . and up to 1000kg with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 5g . or more and with ' e ' value of 1 × 10k , 2 × 10 * or5 × 10k, is k a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which , the said approved model has been manufactured .
[F. No. WM- 21 ( 35 )/ 2003 ]
P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 1234GI/05-3 4282
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30 , 2005 /VAISAKHA 10 , 1927
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii)]
नई दिल्ली, 8 अप्रैल, 2005
का.आ. 1592.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम, 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;
अतः अब केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स प्रिसिजन इलैक्ट्रानिक्स इंस्ट्रूमेंट्स कंपनी , 77, स्वर्ण पार्क, मुंडका, नई दिल्ली -110004 द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्य यर्थाथता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " जी टी- एस एल " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबल टाप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " गोल्ड टैक " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 2004/442 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण-पंत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है;
00
45.22
उक्त मॉडल विकृति गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित ( टेबल टाप प्रकार ) तोलन उपकरग्म है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 3 कि. ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 10 ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 500 मि. ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत- प्रतिशत व्यकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्द, 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।
स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट को मुद्रांकित करने के अतिरिक्त कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए मशीन को खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबंद भी किया जाएगा । और, केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाणपत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धान्त, डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे अनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्मित किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 100 मि. ग्रा. से 2 ग्रा. तक " ई " मान के लिए 100 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) और 5 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में मापमान ( एन ) अंतराल सहित 50 कि. ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 , 2 × 10 या 5 × 10 , के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।
[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम -21 ( 35 ) /2003 ] पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति , निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 4283 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: अप्रैल 30 , 2005/वैशाख 10 , 1927
New Delhi , the 8th April, 2005
S.O. 1592. Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority , is satisfied that the Model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 ( 60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;
Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub - sections ( 7 ) and ( 8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the Model of non - automatic weighing instrument ( Table top type) with digital indication of " GTSL " series of medium accuracy (Accuracy class - III ) and with brand name " Goldtech " ( hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/ sPrecision Electronic Instruments Company , 77 , Swarn Park , Mundaka , New Delhi - 110041 and which is assigned the approval markIND/09/2004/442;
Ge 45.22
The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument (Table top type) with a maximum capacity of 3 kg . and minimum capacity of 10g . The verification scale interval ( e) is 500mg. It has a tare device with a 100 percent subtractive retained tare effect . The light emitting diode ( LED ) display indicates the weighing result . The instrument operates on 230 Volts , 50Hertz alternative current power supply .
Inaddition to sealing the stamping plate , sealing shall also be done to prevent the opening of the machine for fraudulent practices .
Further , in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub- section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make , accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity up to 50 kg . with verification scale interval ( n ) in the range of 100 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 100mg to 2g . and with verification scale intervel (n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 5g. or more and with ' e ' value of 1 × 10% , 2 × 10 or 5x10 * , where k is a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle, design and with the same materials with which , the said approved model has been manufactured.
[F. No. WM- 21 (35 )/2003 ]
P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY , Director of Legal Metrology 4284
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30 , 2005 /VAISAKHA 10 , 1927
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii )]
नई दिल्ली , 11 अप्रैल, 2005
का.आ. 1593.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;
अतः अब केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स सालिज एंड कं. वेइंग मशीन डिवीजन, एडसन बिल्डिंग, गवर्नाडोर पेस्टाना रोड, पणजी, गोवा-403 001 द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्य यर्थाथता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " एस सी- टी बी" श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित, अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबल टाप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " सालिज " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09 / 2004/464 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है;
उक्तमॉडल विकृति गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित ( टेबल टाप प्रकार ) तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 30 कि. ग्रा . और न्यूनतम क्षमता 100 ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 5 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत - प्रतिशत व्यकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी) प्रदर्श परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।
स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट को मुद्रांकित करने के अतिरिक्त कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए मशीन को खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबंद भी किया जाएगा । और, केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाणपत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धान्त, डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे अनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्मित किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 100 मि. ग्रा. से 2 ग्रा. तक " ई " मान के लिए 100 से 10,000 तक कीरेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) और 5 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान सहित 50 कि. ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 %, 2 × 10 या 5 × 10 , के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।
[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम -21 ( 58 )/ 2004 ] पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 4285 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 30, 2005/वैशाख 10 , 1927
New Delhi , the 11th April , 2005
S.O. 1593. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority , is satisfied that the Model described in the said report ( see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 (60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models) Rules , 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections (7) and ( 8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the Model of non -automatic weighing instrument ( Table top type) with digital indication of " SC - TB " series of medium accuracy (Accuracy class- III) and with brand name " SALIZ " (hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/s Saliz & Co. Weighing Machine Division, EDSAN Building, Governador Pestana Road , Panjim -403 001 , Goa and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 09 /2004/464;
The said model ( see the figure given below) a strain gauge type load cell based non- automatic weighing instrument ( Table top type ) with a maximum capacity of 30 kg . and minimum capacity of 100g . The verification scale interval ( e) is 5g . It has a tare device with a 100 percent subtractive retained tare effect . The light emitting diode (LED) display indicates the weighing result . The instrument operates on 230V , 50Hertz alternative current power supply.
In addition to sealing the stamping plate , sealing shall also be done to prevent the opening of the machine for fraudulent practices .
Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instrument of similar make , accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity up to 50 kg . with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 100 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 100mg to 2g . and with verification scale intervel ( n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' e' value of 5g . or more and with ' e ' value of 1 × 10k , 2 × 10 or 5 × 10k , where k is a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle . design and with the same materials with which , the said approved model has been manufactured.
[ F. No. WM -21 ( 58 )/2004 ]
P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY , Director of Legal Metrology 4286
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: APRIL 30 , 2005/VAISAKHA 10, 1927
नई दिल्ली, 11 अप्रैल, 2005
का.आ. 1594.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम, 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;
अतः अब केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स सालिज एंड कं. वेइंग मशीन डिवीजन, एडसन बिल्डिंग , गवर्नाडोर पेस्टाना रोड, पणजी , गोवा-403001 द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " एस सी- पी टी " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " सालिज " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/ 09/ 2004/465 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है;
उक्त मॉडल विकृति गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित ( प्लेटफार्म प्रकार ) तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 2000 कि. ग्रा . और न्यूनतम क्षमता 10 कि. ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 500 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत - प्रतिशत व्यकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट, 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।
S
स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट को मुद्रांकित करने के अतिरिक्त कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए मशीन को खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबंद भी किया जाएगा । और, केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाणपत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धान्त , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे अनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्मित किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 5 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान सहित 50 कि. ग्रा. से अधिक 5000 कि. ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 , 2 × 10के या 5 × 10 के , के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।
[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम -21 ( 58 ) /2004 ]
पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 4287 [ भाग 11- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 30, 2005/वैशाख 10 , 1927
New Delhi , the 11th April, 2005
S.O. 1594. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority , is satisfied that the Model described in the said report ( see the figure given below ) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 ( 60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures ( Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;
Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections ( 7 ) and (8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the Model of non - automatic weighing instrument ( Platform type) with digital indication of " SC- PT " series of medium accuracy ( accuracy class - III ) and with brand name " SALIZ " (hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/s . Saliz & Co. Weighing Machine Division , EDSAN Building , Governador Pestana Road , Panjim - 403 001 , Goa and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 09/2004/465 ;
The said model ( see the figure given below ) is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument ( Platforın type ) with a maximum capacity of 2000 kg . and minimuin capacity of 10 kg . The verification scale interval ( e) is 500g . It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The light emitting diode ( LED) display indicates the weighing result . The instrument operates on 230 Volts , 50 Hertz alternative current power supply.
In addition to sealing the stamping plate , sealing shall also be done to prevent the opening of the machine for fraudulent practices.
Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instrument of similar make , accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity above 50 kg . and upto 5000 kg. with verification scale interval ( n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 5 g or more and with ' e ' value of 1 × 10k , 2x10 or 5 × 10k , where k is a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which, the said approved model has been manufactured.
[F. No. WM- 21 ( 58 )/2004 ]
P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 4288
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: APRIL 30 , 2005/VAISAKHA 10 , 1927
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]
नई दिल्ली, 11 अप्रैल, 2005
का.आ. 1595.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम, 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;
अतः अब केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स सालिज एंड कं. वेइंग मशीन डिवीजन , एडसन बिल्डिंग , गवर्नाडोर पेस्टाना रोड, पणजी, गोवा -403 001 द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " एस सी - डब्ल्यूबी " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( तोलन पुल प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " सालिज " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 2004/466 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है;
उक्त मॉडल विकृति गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित ( तोलन पुल प्रकार ) तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 40 टन और न्यूनतम क्षमता 200 कि. ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 10 कि. ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत- प्रतिशत व्यकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट, 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।
SALER
स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट को मुद्रांकित करने के अतिरिक्त कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए मशीन को खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबंद भी किया जाएगा । और, केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाणपत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धान्त, डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे अनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्मित किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 5 ग्रा . या उससे अधिक के " ई " भान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान सहित 50 टन से अधिक 100 टन तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई" मान 1 × 10%, 2 × 10 या 5 × 10 , के हैं, जो घनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।
[ फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम -21 ( 58 ) /2004 ] पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 4289 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 30 , 2005 /वैशाख 10, 1927
New Delhi, the 11th April, 2005
S. O. 1595.- Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report ( see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures ( Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;
Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections (7) and ( 8) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the Model of non - automatic weighing instrument ( Weighbridge type ) with digital indication of " SC -WB " series of medium accuracy (Accuracy class - III ) and with brand name " SALIZ" (hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/s . Saliz & Co. Weighing Machine Division , EDSAN Building, Governador Pestana Road , Panjim -Goa 403 001 . and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 09 /2004/466;
The said model ( see the figure given below) is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument ( Weighbridge type ) with a maximum capacity of 40 tonnes and minimum capacity of 200 kg. The verification scale interval (c) is 10 kg . It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The light emitting diode (LED) display indicates the weighing result. The instrument operates on 230 Volts, 50 Hertz alternative current power supply .
In additionto scaling the stamping plate , sealing shall also be done to prevent the opening of the machine for fraudulent practices .
Further , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said Act . the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instrument of similar make , accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity above 5 tonne and upto 100 tonne with verification scale interval (n ) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 5 kg. or more and with ' e ' value of 1 × 10k , 2 × 10 or 5 × 10k , where k is a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which , the said approved model has been manufactured .
[F. No. WM- 21 ( 58 ) /2004 ]
P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY , Director of Legal Metrology 1234 GI/05-4 4290
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30, 2005/VAISAKHA 10, 1927
[PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii) ]
नईदिल्ली, 12 अप्रैल , 2005
का.आ. 1596.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;
अतः अब केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स आर टैक डिजीटल स्केल बिसात काम्प्लेक्स, रेवाभाई एस्टेट रोड, अंबिका होटल सीटी, एम चार रास्ता, अमीराइवाडी, अहमदाबाद -380026 द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्य यर्थाथता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " ए आर टी -230 " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित, अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबल टाप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " आरटैक " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/2004/356 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है;
उक्त मॉडल विकृति गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित ( टेबल टाप प्रकार ) तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 30 कि. ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 100 ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल (ई ) का मान 5 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत - प्रतिशत व्यकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट, 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।
स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट को मुद्रांकित करने के अतिरिक्त कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए मशीन को खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबंद भी किया जाएगा। और, केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाणपत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धान्त , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे अनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्मित किया गया है, विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 100 मि. ग्रा. से 2 ग्रा. तक " ई " मान के लिए 100 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) और 5 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मान अंतराल सहित 50 कि. ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 , 2 × 10 या 5 × 10 , के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।
[ फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम -21 ( 312) /2003 ] पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 30 , 2005/वैशाख 10 , 1927
4291
New Delhi , the 12th April , 2005
S.O. 1596. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority , is satisfied that the Models described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over period of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;
Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections (7) and ( 8) of Section 36 of the said Act . the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the non- automatic weighing instrument ( Table top type) with digital indication ( hereinafter referred to as the said Model ) of " ART - 230 " series belonging to medium accuracy ( accuracy - class III ) and with brand name " ARTECH " manufactured by M/ s . Artech Digital Scale , 11 , Visat Complex, Revabhai Estate Road, Opp . Ambika Hotel C.T.M. Char Rasta , Amraiwadi , Ahmedabad- 380 026 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/2004/356;
The said Model is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument ( Table top type ) working on the principal of load cell with digital indication of maximum capacity 30kg and minimum capacity of 100g. The value of verification scale interval (c) is 5g. The display unit is of Light Emitting Diode ( LED) type . The instrument operates on 230V , 50Hertz alternative current power supply .
In addition to sealing the stamping plate , sealing shall also be done to prevent the opening of the machine for fraudulent practices .
Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the Model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make , accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity up to 50kg with verification scale interval ( n) in the range of 100 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 100mg to 2g and with number of verification scale interval (n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 5g or more and with ' e' value of 1 × 10k , 2 × 10 or 5 × 10 %, k being a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which , the said approved model has been manufactured.
F. No. WM-21 ( 312)/2003 ]
P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 4292
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30 , 2005 /VAISAKHA 10. 1927
[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]
नई दिल्ली, 12 अप्रैल, 2005
का.आ. 1597.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी नीदरलैण्ड्स मीटिन्सटीटूट ( एन एम आई ) , नीदरलैण्ड्स द्वारा जारी माडल अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र के साथ उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम, 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक ( मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;
अतः अब केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स लिक्विड कंट्रोल्स, 105 , एलबर्ट ड्राइव, आई एल -60044 लेक बल्फ, यूनाइटेड स्टेट आफ अमेरिका द्वारा विनिर्मित और मैसर्स लिक्विड कन्ट्रोल्स इण्डिया प्राइवेट लिमिटेड, 231-1 पोर इन्डस्ट्रियल स्टेट , पोर- रामनगमडी, जिला- वडोदरा -391243 , गुजरात द्वारा भारत में बिना परिवर्तन या जोड़ के बिक्रीत " एल सी 3 - सी एस पी एच एल- सी-4 एक्स एक्स- ई " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित टरबाइन मीटर ( जल से भिन्न अन्य द्रव्यों के लिए ) के मॉडल ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/13/ 2004/408 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ;
Turbine Flow Meter Model- LC-X ( Size - 1 /2 " Το 12 " )
मॉडल पेट्रोलियम द्रव उत्पाद जैसे पेट्रोल, डीजल इत्यादि के मापन के लिए टरबाइन प्रवाह मीटर है । माडल की प्रवाह रेंज निम्न प्रकार से है
:
अधिकतम दर क्षमता- 160 मी 3 घण्टे
अधिकतम प्रचालन दाब- +18बार (जी)
:
न्यूनतम दर क्षमता-16 मी 3/घण्टे
:
प्रर्यावरण वर्ग-सी पल्स मूल्य-12.5/ली.
न्यूनतम मापित क्षमता- 500 लीटर यर्थाथता वर्ग-0.3 वोल्टता-6-36 डी सी
प्रदर्श- एल सी डी
माडल संख्या एलपी -714/एसपी-714 सहित स्पैक्ट्रैक द्वारा विनिर्मित पल्स एम्पलाइर
[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम -21 ( 173 )/2002 ] पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 4293 [भाग 11- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 30 , 2005 /वैशाख 10 , 1927
New Delhi , the 12th April, 2005
S.O. 1597. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority along with the Model approval certificate issued by the Netherlands Meetinstituut (NMI ) . Netherlands , is satisfied that the Model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 ( 60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models) Rules , 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions:
Now , therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections (7 ) and ( 8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the Model of the Turbine Meter ( meter for liquids other than water ) with digital indication of series LC3 - CS- PHL - C 4xx - E and manufactured by M/s Liquids Controls, 105 , Albrecht Drive , IL - 60044 Lake Bluff, United States of America and sold in India without any alteration or additions by M /s Liquid Controls India Private Limited , 231-1 , Por Industrial Estate , Por -Ramangamdi , District - Vadodra - 391 243 , Gujarat and which is assigned the approval mark IND/13/04/ 408;
LC
Turbine Flow Meter Model- LC -X ( Size- 1 /2 " To 12 " )
The said model is a Turbine Flow meter for measuring petroleum liquid products like petrol , diesel . etc. The flow range of the model is as under :
160 m3/h
Maximum Rated Capacity
Minimum Rated Capacity 16m3/h
Minimum Measured Quantity 500 litre
0.3
Accuracy Class
6-36 DC
Voltage
Display LCD
Maximum operating pressure +18bar( g)
Environmental class C
12.5/ litre
Pulse Value
Pulse amplier manufactured by spectec with model Nos LP 714 / SP 714
[ F. No. WM - 21 ( 173 ) /2002 /
P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY , Director of Legal Metrology [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] 4294
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: APRIL 30, 2005/VAISAKHA 10 , 1927
पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय
नई दिल्ली, 25 अप्रैल, 2005
का. आ. 1598. केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम, 1962 ( 1962 का 50) (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1 ) के अधीन जारी की गई भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का.आ. 100 तारीख 6 जनवरी, 2005 , जो भारत के राजपत्र तारीख 8 जनवरी, 2005 में प्रकाशित की गई थी, द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में मध्यप्रदेश राज्य में मांगल्या (इंदौर ) संस्थापन से हरियाणा राज्य में पियाला तथा दिल्ली राष्ट्रीय राजधानी क्षेत्र में बिजवासन तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए मुंबई-मांगल्या पाइपलाइन विस्तार परियोजना के माध्यम से भारत पेट्रोलियम कारपोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी ;
और उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियां जनता को तारीख 25 जनवरी, 2005 को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी ;
और सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा ( 1) के अधीन, केन्द्रीय सरकार को अपनी रिपोर्ट दे दी है ;
और केन्द्रीय सरकार ने, उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात और यह समाधान हो जाने पर कि उक्ल भूमि पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिये अपेक्षित है, उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने का विनिश्चिय किया है ;
अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह घोषणा करती है कि अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट उक्त भूमि में पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाता हैं ;
और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (4) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, यह निदेश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख को केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने की बजाए , सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त, भारत पेट्रोलियम कारपोरेशन लिमिटेड में निहित होगा ।
तहसील: उज्जैन
अनुसूची
जिला: उज्जैन
राज्य: मध्यप्रदेश
क्र० ग्राम का नाम
सर्वे नंबर
क्षेत्रफल हैक्टेयर में 1
3
2
4
547
1 पालखंदा
0.0432
544
0.2160
545
0.0684
542
0.2304
505
0.4248
507/574
0.1656
503
0.2520
502
0.0270
0.0666
427 ( शा ० सड़क)
483
0.1262
484
0.0684
485
0.0540
488
0.3520
487
0.1350
466
0.1980
467
0.0720
468
0.1044
444
0.1296
445
0.0090
446
0.0360
0.0576
313 (शा० नाला)
293
0.2250
279
0.5400
297
0.0720
278
0.1080
277
0.2520
257
0.0954
258
0.0756
259
0.0648
260
0.0612 4295
भारत का राजपत्र: अप्रैल 30, 2005/वैशाख 10, 1927
[भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]
2
1
3
254 1 पालखंदा (जारी.....)
252
253
1093 2 पिपलोदा द्वारकाधीश
1087
1084
1085
1075
1074
1073
1050 (शा० सड़क)
1048
1045
1044
1025
1026
1027
1029
1035, 1036
1037
1038, 1039
618
619, 620
617 (शा० सड़क)
573
571, 572
546
538
537
525
526
527
530
528
506(शा०) नाला)
516
517
519
515 (शा० सड़क)
513
512
440 (शा० नाला)
511
474
475
502
500
499
495
496
489 (शा० सड़क)
105
104 (शा० भूमि)
103 (शा० सड़क)
78
77
76 4
0.1620
0.1440
0.0990
0.1275
0.0360
0.1778
0.3096
0.0396
0.3010
0.0924
0.0216
0.2880
0.2050
0.2274
0.0020
0.2196
0.0086
0.1580
0.2268
0.0850
0.0540
0.1345
0.2034
0.2736
0.0360
0.2386
0.0282
0.1728
0.2165
0.0630
0.1326
0.0294
0.0360
0.1530
0.0306
0.1440
0.0054
0.0108
0.0360
0.0054
0.1476
0.0540
0.0540
0.1260
0.3348
0.1296
0.1224
0.0576
0.1350
0.3510
0.0216
0.0854
0.0054
0.0802
0.0565
0.2052
0.1845 4296
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30, 2005 /VAISAKHA 10, 1927
[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ]
3
4 2
1
75
0.0396 2 पिपलोदा द्वारकाधीश (जारी.....)
74
0.3027
73
0.3911
72
0.2824
54
0.2340
55
0.2674
56
0.0360
57
0.0270
0.0108 3 गावडी
671 ( शा० नाला)
0.1494
683
680
0.0720
679
0.0450
677
0.0036
678
0.1440
673
0.1944
647
0.1944
648
0.0270
0.0180
649, 650
646
0.1440
645
0.0612
611 Is 624
0.3600
610
0.0987
609
0.1476
0.0180
406, 408
405
0.1158
404
0.0540
164
0.0150
161
0.1592
159
0.1044
158
0.0720
173
0.0252
116
0.0338
117
0.1800
109
0.0990
118
0.0540
108
0.0684
128
0.0603
127
0.0540
129
0.0612
130
0.2271
128
0.0603
127
0.0540
129
0.0612
130
0.2271
95, 96, 97, 99
0.7200 4 माधोपुर
79
0.0360
0.2160
65 (रेल्वे विभाग)
8
0.0512
6,7
0.1791
27
0.2090
28
0.0360
32
0.0540
31
0.0195
20, 30
0.0180
[फा०सं०आर-31015/66/ 2004-ओ आर- II ]
हरीश कुमार , अवर सचिव 4297 भारत का राजपत्र: अप्रैल 30 , 2005/वैशाख 10, 1927
[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS
New Delhi , the 25th April , 2005
S. O. 1598.- Whereas by a notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum anti Natural Gas number S.O.100 , dated the 6th January, 2005 , issued under sub - section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) , published in the Gazette of India dated the 8th January, 2005, the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land, specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for transportation of petroleum products through Mumbai - Manglya Pipeline Extension Project from Manglya (Indore) terminal in the State of Madhya Pradesh to Piyala inthe State of Haryana and Bijwasan in the NCT of Delhi by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited ;
And whereas the copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on the 25th January, 2005;
And whereas the competent authority has , under sub - section ( 1 ) of section 6 of the said Act , submitted report to the CentralGovernment;
And whereas the Central Government , after considering the said report and on being satisfied that the said land is required for laying the pipeline , has decided to acquire the right of user therein;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub -section ( 1 ) of section 6 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that the right of user in the said land, specified in the Schedule, is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline;
And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub -section (4) of section 6 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby directs that the right of user in the said land for laying the pipeline shall , instead of vesting in the Central Government, vest on the date of the publication of this declaration , in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited , free from all encumbrances .
SCHEDULE
DISTRICT : UJJAIN
STATE : MADHYA PRADESH
TEHSIL : UJJAIN NAME OF VILLAGE
S.No.
SURVEY NO .
AREA IN HECTARE
3
1
2
4
1
547
PALKHANDA
0.0432
544
0.2160
545
0.0684
542
0.2304
505
0.4248
507/574
0.1656
503
0.2520
502
0.0270
0,0666
427(G. Road)
483
0.1262
484
0.0684
485
0.0540
488
0.3520
487
0.1350
466
0.1980
467
0.0720
468
0.1044
444
0.1296
445
0.0090
446
0.0360
0.0576
313 (G. Drain)
293
0.2250
0.5400
279
0.0720
297
0.1080
278
277
0.2520
257
0.0954
258
0.0756.
0.0648
259
1234 GIVON 4298
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30 , 2005 /VAISAKHA 10 , 1927
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] 2
1
3
4
1
260
0.0612
PALKHANDA ( Contd ....... )
254
0.1620
252
0.1440
253
0.0990
2 PIPLODA DWARKADHISH
1093
0.1275
1087
0.0360
1084
0.1778
1085
0.3096
1075
0.0396
1074
0.3010
1073
0.0924
0.0216
1050(G. Road)
1048
0.2880
1045
0.2050
1044
0.2274
1025
0.0020
1026
0.2196
1027
0.0086
1029
0.1580
0.2268
1035, 1036
1037
0.0850
0.0540
1038, 1039
618
0.1345
0.2034
619, 620
0.2736
617(G. Road)
573
0.0360
0.2386
571, 572
546
0.0282
538
0.1728
537
0.2165
525
0.0630
526
0.1326
527
0.0294
530
0.0360
528
0.1530
0.0306
506( G. Road )
516
0.1440
517
0.0054
519
0.0108
0.0360
515(G. Road)
513
0.0054
512
0.1476
0.0540
440(G. Drain)
511
0.0540
474
0.1260
475
0.3348
502
0.1296
500
0.1224
499
0.0576
495
0.1350
496
0.3510
0.0216
489(G. Road)
105
0.0854
0.0054
104(G.L.)
0.0802
103(G. Road)
78
0.0565
77
0.2052
76 .
0.1845
75
0.0396
74
0.3027 4299 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 30 , 2005 /वैशाख 10, 1927
4
2
3
1
2
73
0.3911
PIPLODA DWARKADHISH
72
0.2824
(Contd ....... )
54
0.2340
0.2674
55
56
0.0360
57
0.0270
3' GAVADI
0.0108
671 (G. Drain)
683
0.1494
680
0.0720
679
0.0450
677
0.0036
678
0.1440
673
0.1944
647
0.1944
648
0.0270
0.0180
649, 650
646
0.1440
645
0.0612
611 to 624
0.3600
610
0.0987
609
0.1476
0.0180
406, 408
405
0.1158
404
0.0540
164
0.0150
161
0.1592
159
0.1044
158
0.0720
173
0.0252
116
0.0338
117
0.1800
109
0.0990
118
0.0540
108
0.0684
128
0.0603
127
0.0540
129
0.0612
130
0.2271
4 MADHOPUR
0.7200
95, 96, 97, 99
79
0.0360
0.2160
65(Railway Deptt . )
8
0.0512
6,7
0.1791
27
0.2090
28
0.0360
32
0.0540
31
0.0195
29, 30
0.0180
[F.N. R- 31015/66/2004- OR- II ]
HARISH KUMAR , Under Secy.
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii )] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: APRIL 30 , 2005/VAISAKHA 10, 1927
4300
नई दिल्ली, 26 अप्रैल , 2005
का. आ. 1599.- केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम, 1962 ( 1962 का 50) (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1 ) के अधीन जारी की गई भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का.आ. 3308 तारीख 22 दिसंबर , 2004 , जो भारत के राजपत्र तारीख 25 दिसंबर, 2004 में प्रकाशित की गई थी. द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में मध्यप्रदेश राज्य में मांगल्या (इंदौर) संस्थापन से हरियाणा राज्य में पियाला तथा दिल्ली राष्ट्रीय राजधानी क्षेत्र में बिजवासन तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए मुंबई-मांगल्या पाइपलाइन विस्तार परियोजना के माध्यम से भारत पेट्रोलियम कारपोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी ;
और उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियां जनता को तारीख 21 जनवरी , 2005 को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी ;
और सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा ( 1) के अधीन, केन्द्रीय सरकार को अपनी रिपोर्ट दे दी है ;
और केन्द्रीय सरकार ने, उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात और यह समाधान हो जाने पर कि उक्त भूमि पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिये अपेक्षित है, उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने का विनिश्चिय किया है :
अतः अब. केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, यह घोषणा करती है कि अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट उक्त भूमि में पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाता हैं ;
और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (4) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, यह निदेश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख को केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने की बजाए , सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त, भारत पेट्रोलियम कारपोरेशन लिमिटेड में निहित होगा ।
अनुसूची तहसील: सांवेर
जिला: इन्दौर
क्र ग्राम का नाम
सर्वे नंबर 1
2
3
19 1 मांगल्या
1
250 2 गारी पिपल्या
249
247
245
246
240
242
241
220
200 राज्य: मध्यप्रदेश '
क्षेत्रफल हैक्टेयर में
4
0.1206
0.0756
0.2500
0.2664
0.1944
0.1168
0.1026
0.3060
0.3005
0.2574
0.0594
0.0481
0.0216
248 ( शा० रास्ता)
230 3 रामा पिपल्या
286
290
291
292
293
281
280
274
263
262
260 0.0610
0.1044
0.0870
0.5382
0.1800
0.1750
0.3060
0.0267
0.0216
0.6120
0.1404
0.3365 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
4301
भारत का राजपत्र: अप्रैल 30, 2005/वैशाख 10 , 1927
1
2
3 3
259 रामा पिपल्या (जारी.........
247
232
273 (शा० रास्ता)
222 4 खाकरोद
290 (शा० रास्ता)
260
265
270
276 (शा० रास्ता)
272
273
274
289
309 (शा० रास्ता)
305
304
293
298
261
299 5 टोडी
432
427
428
421 ( शा० रास्ता) .
420
419
401
404
378
375
367, 433
429
400
409 6 बरलाई जागीर
735
755
754
753
743 (शा० रास्ता)
737
738
739
731
710
711
712
713
714
716
717
* 4
0.1548
0.1948
0.0450
0.0318
0.0360
0.0450
0.3000
0.5847
0.0900
0.0180
0.1602
0.1566
0.2340
0.3834
0.0864
0.3942
0.3468
0.0540
0.2106
0.2569
0.2148
0.0450
0.0050
0.2358
0.0216
0.4140
0.1983
0.0096
0.4788
0.1710
0.0540
0.0990
0.2280
0.0009
0.0072
0.0900,
0.1115
0.2987
0.1392
0.0630
0.1894
0:4021
0.5760
0.6974
0.5130
0.1350
0.0050
0.2700
0.1620
0.3780
0.3060 4302
[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30 , 2005 /VAISAKHA 10, 1927
3
1
2
4
0.0270
6 बरलाई जागीर (जारी...)
702 (शा० रास्ता)
701
0.0396
693
0.3622
695
0.4080
680
0.2610
681
0.0450
682
0.1080
679
0.2929
0.0108
675 (शा० रास्ता)
674
0.2160
665
0.3834
78
0.4757
0.0450
70 (शा० रास्ता)
69
0.2265
68
0.0108
65
0.0445
66
0.1191
12
0.2700
14
0.1980
15
0.2948
20
0.2520
0.0450
22 (शा० रास्ता)
31
0.5762
28
0.0687
688
0.0098
175
0.0540
7 पुवारडा दाई
125
0.5310
133
0.0360
124
0.2880
135
0.2484
139
0.1152
0.0108
141 ( शा० रास्ता)
0.0270
142(शा० रास्ता)
0.0090
85 (शा ० रास्ता)
144/669
0.2520
144
0.1890
145
0.1260
85
0.0720
146
0.0990
66
0:0630
64
0.3960
60
0.0900
0.0180
59 (शा० नाला)
25
0.0450
24
0.1620
13
0.0180
106
0.0065
51
0.0028
22
0.0035
23
0.0100
69
0.0360
8 पुवारडा हप्पा 4303
भारत का राजपत्र: अप्रैल 30 , 2005//वैशाख 10 , 1927
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
3
2
1
76 8 पुवारडा हप्पा (जारी....)
81
57
56 (शा० रास्ता)
51
52
24, 25, 26
11
12
58
119 9 मच्छुखेडी
50
51
52
112
111
110
109
108
105 ( शा० रास्ता)
104
101
266
100
99
97
94 (शा० रास्ता)
92
166
89
90
167 (शा० रास्ता)
173
169
170
173/272
17-2
86
162
96
502 10 माकोडिया
501
500
495
376
499
485
4
0.4050
0.3600
0.4140
0.0540
0.3060
0.2970
0.6570
0.3780
0.0540
0.0078
0.1080
0.4699
0.0100
0.3708
0.0927
0.1422
0.0720
0.0216
0.0864
0.0144
0.2115
0.2935
0.1620
0.0864
0.1292
0.1008
0.0270
0.0270
0.5400
0.0270
0.2227
0.0270
0.1014
0.2070
0.1080
0.1080
0.1440
0.0180
0.0093
0.0241
0.0296
0.1710
0.0810
0.0720
0.0360
0.0480
0.0764
[फा०सं०आर०-31015 /62/ 2004-ओ आर- II]
हरीश कुमार, अवर सचिव [PART II- SEC. 3 (ii ) ] 4304
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30 , 2005/VAISAKHA 10 , 1927
New Delhi , the 26th April , 2005
S. O. 1599.- Whereas by a notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O.3308 , dated the 22nd December , 2004, issued under sub- section ( 1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962 ) , (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), published in the Gazette of India dated the 25th December ,2004, the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land ; specified in the Schedule ap; ended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for transportation of petroleum products through Mumbai - Manglya Pipeline Extension Project from Manglya (Indore) terminal in the State of Madhya Pradesh to Piyala in the State of Haryana and Bijwasan in the NCT of Delhi by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited ;
Andwhereas the copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on the 21st January, 2005;
And whereas the Competent Authority has , under sub - section ( 1 ) of section 6 of the said Act , submitted report to the Central Government ;
And whereas the Central Government , after considering the said report and on being satisfied that the said land is required for laying the pipeline , has decided to acquire the right of user therein ;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 1 ) of section 6 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that the right of user in the said land, specified in the Schedule , is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline ;
And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section (4) of section 6 of the said Act , the Central Government directs that the right of user in the said land for laying the pipeline shall , instead of vesting in the Central Government , vest on the date of the publication of this declaration , in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited , free from all encumbrances .
SCHEDULE
TEHSIL : SANWER
DISTRICT : INDORE
STATE : MADHYA PRADESH NAME OF VILLAGE
S.No.
SURVEY NO .
AREA IN HECTARE
3
2
1
4
MANGLYA
19
1
0.1206
1
0.0756
2 GARI PIPLIYA
250
0.2500
249
0.2664
247
0.1944
245
0.1168
246
0.1026
240
0.3060
242
0.3005
241
0.2574
220
0.0594
200
0.0481
0.0216
248(G. Road)
230
0.0610
286
3 RAMA PIPLIYA
0.1044
290
0.0870
291
0.5382
292
0.1800
293
0.1750
281
0.3060
280
0.0267
274
0.0216
263
0.6120
202
0.1404
200
0.3365
259
0.1548 4305 भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 30, 2005/वैशाख 10, 1927
[ भाग II.- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
1
2
3
4
3
247
0.1948
RAMA PIPLIYA ( Contd ..... )
0.0450
232
0.0318
273(G. Road)
222
0.0360
4 KHAKROD
0.0450
290(G. Road)
260
0.3000
265
0.5847
270
0.0900
0.0180
276(G. Road)
272
0.1602
273
0.1566
274
0.2340
289
0.3834
0.0864
309(G. Road)
305
0.3942
304
0.3468
293
0.0540
298
0.2106
261
0.2569
299
0.2148
432
5 TODI
0.0450
427
0.0050
428
0.2358
0.0216
421(G. Road)
420
0.4140
419
0.1983
401
0.0096
404
0.4788
378
0.1710
375
0.0540
0.0990
367, 433
429
0.2280
400
0.0009
409
0.0072
6 BARLAI JAGIR
735
0.0900
755
0.1115
754
0.2987
753
0.1392
0.0630
743(G. Road)
737
0.1894
738
0.4021
739
0.5760
731
0.6974
710
0.5130
711
0.1350
712
0.0050
713
0.2700
714
0.1620
716
0.3780
717
0.3060
717
0.3060
0.0270
702(G. Road)
701
0.0396
693
0.3622
695
0.4080
1234GI/05-6 4306
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30 , 2005 /VAISAKHA 10, 1927
[PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii) ] J
2
1
3
4
6
680
0.2610
BARLAI JAGIR ( Contd ..... )
681
0.0450
682
0.1080
679
0.2929
0.0108
675(G. Road)
674
0.2160
665
0.3834
78
0.4757
0.0450
70(CartTrak)
69
0.2265
68
0.0108
65
0.0445
66
0.1191
12
0.2700
14
0.1980
15
0.2948
20
0.2520
0.0450
22(G. Road)
31
0.5762
28
0.0687
688
0.0098
7 PUWARDA DAI
175
0.0540
125
0.5310
133
0.0360
124
0.2880
135
0.2484
139
0.1152
0.0108
141 ( G. Road)
142(G. Road)
0.0270
0.0090
85 (G. Road)
144/669
0.2520
144
0.1890
145
0.1260
85
0.0720
146
0.0990
66
0.0630
64
0.3960
60
0.0900
0.0180
59(G. Drain)
25
0.0450
24
0.1620
13
0.0180
106
0.0065
51
0.0028
22
0.0035
23
0.0100
8
PUWARDA HAPPA
69
0.0360
76
0.4050
81
0.3600
57
0.4140
0.0540
56(G. Road)
51
0.3060
52
0.2970
0.6570
24, 25, 26
11
0.3780 4307 भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 30 , 2005/वैशाख 10 , 1927
[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
3
4
2
12
0.0540
8 PUWARDA HAPPA (Contd .. )
58
0.0078
119
0.1080
9 MACHHUKHEDI
50
0.4699
0.0100
51
52
0.3708
112
0.0927
111
0.1422
110
0.0720
109
0.0216
108
0.0864
0.0144.
105(G. Road)
104
0.2115
101
0.2935
266
0.1620
100
0.0864
99
0.1292
97
0.1008
0.0270
94(G. Road)
92
0.0270
166
0.5400
89
0.0270
90
0.2227
0.0270
167(G. Road)
173
0.1014
169
0.2070
170
0.1080
173/272
0.1080
172
0.1440
86
0.0180
162
0.0093
0.0241
96
502
10 MAKODIYA
0.0296
501
0.1710
500
0.0810
495
0.0720
376
0.0360
499
0.0480
485
0.0764
[F.N. R- 31015/62 / 2004- OR - II ]
HARISH KUMAR , Under Secу.
4308
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30 , 2005 /VAISAKHA 10 , 1927
[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ]
नई दिल्ली, 25 अप्रैल , 2005
शुद्धिपत्र
का. आ. 1600.- भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का.आ. 3195 तारीख 13 दिसम्बर , 2004 के हिन्दी रूपान्तर में , जो भारत के राजपत्र, भाग II , खण्ड 3 , उपखण्ड ( ii ) तारीख 18 दिसम्बर , 2004 के पृष्ठों 9607 से 9618 में प्रकाशित हुई थी, पृष्ठ 9607 की पंक्तियों 14 से 16 में " श्री रामकरण शर्मा, सक्षम प्राधिकारी , मुन्द्रा- दिल्ली पेट्रोलियम उत्पाद पाइपलाइन , हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड , मकान सं. 1418 ,सेक्टर-6 , बहादुरगढ़ -124507 , जिला झज्जर (हरियाणा ) " शब्दों के स्थान पर " श्री शिवदत्त गौड़ , सक्षम प्राधिकारी, मुन्द्रा-दिल्ली पेट्रोलियम उत्पाद पाइपलाइन परियोजना , हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड , 16 , कृष्णा विहार, नारायण निवास के पास , गोपालपुरा बाईपास रोड , जयपुर-302018 (राजस्थान) " पढ़ें।
[फा. सं. आर-31015/60/2004- ओ.आर-11 ]
हरीश कुमार, अवर सचिव
नई दिल्ली, 25 अप्रैल, 2005
का. आ. 1601.- केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि महाराष्ट्र राज्य में लोनी ( पुणे ) से पकनी (सोलापुर) तक हज़ारवाडी के रास्ते पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉपोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा एक विस्तार पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी 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 बिछाए 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 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 धिसूचना 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 एस एन कुन्देतकर, सक्षम प्राधिकारी , मुम्बई - पुणे पाइपलाइन विस्तार परियोजना ( लोनी से पकनी तक हज़ारवाडी के रास्ते) , हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, मेगा सेंटर, मागरपटटा - एम व एन विंग , हादापसर-411 028 ( पुणे जिला ) , महाराष्ट्र राज्य को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा । 4309
भारत का राजपत्र: अप्रैल 30 , 2005/वैशाख 10 , 1927
[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
अनुसूची
जिला : सांगली
तालूका : कडेगाँव
सर्वे नंबर
गाव का नाम
राज्य : महाराष्ट्र
क्षेत्रफल
गट नंबर
कम सं.
2
1
3
4 1 उपाले वांगी
143
148
2 : मायणी
157 उपाले
204 3 तोंडॉली
261
284
295
309
318
403
701
700
690
872 4 अमरापुर
862
834
827
958
955
967
974
1015
1016
1017
1018
1030
1032
1033 5 येवलेवाडी
208
211.
191
173
133
हेक्टर एयर वर्ग मीटर उप-खण्ड सं.
5
6 7 8 4 ब
00 06 22
86
00 07 08 कुल
00 01 37
00 07 15
52
00 08
कुल
00 02 87
00 09 34
00 03 94
00 04 67
-00 06 71
03 36
00
00 01 04
00 03 65
00 03 56
00 39 14 कुल
67
00.06
00 02 13
09
00 01
00 00 37
61
38
56
83
72
27
00 01
16
00. 02
00 06 93
00 03 57
00 01 85
00 01 70
00 30 84 कुल
.00 42
00
00 02 76
56
00 01
04 36
00
70 कुल
00 09 4310
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30 , 2005/VAISAKHA 10, 1927
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ]
जिला : सांगली
राज्य : महाराष्ट्र तालूका : कडेगाँव
क्षेत्रफल गाव का नाम
सर्वे नंबर
गट नंबर
मीटर
हेक्टर एयर वर्ग कम सं.
उप-खण्ड सं.
6
2
3
4
5
8 1
7
6 वडिये रायबाग
00
1413
3
01 87
00
18
1413
4
04
1413
6
00
27
01
7
00 02
1413
14
00 02 16
1413
15
1383
50
1250
69
00 02
1117
1116
00 11 37
00 28 18
कुल
7 सेलकबाव
00 02 18
258
00 03 43
372
00 04 84
404
411
00 02 39
00 00 65
389
388
00 04 28
384
00 02 09
382
00 03 77
565
00 24 03
कुल
[फा. सं. आर-31015/29/2004- ओ.आर- II ]
हरीश कुमार , अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 25th April , 2005
S. O. 1601.- Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum products from Loni (Pune) to Pakni (Solapur ) via Hazarwadi in the State of Maharashtra, an extension pipeline should be laid by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited;
And whereas it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose 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 of user therein;
Any person , interested in the land described in the said Schedule may , within twenty one days froin 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 land to Shri S. N. Kundetkar , Competent Authority, Mumbai - Pune Pipeline Extension Project ( from Loni to Pakni via Hazarwadi ) , Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Mega Center , Magarpatta - M & N Wing , Hadapsar - 411 028 , Pune District , Maharashtra.
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
4311
भारत का राजपत्र: अप्रैल 30 , 2005/वैशाख 10, 1927
SCHEDULE
Taluka : KADEGAON
State : MAHARASHTRA
Dist: SANGLI
GatNo.
Survey No.
Sr. No.
Nameof the Village
2
1
3
4 1 UPALE VANGI
143
148
2 UPALE MAYNI
157
204
261 3 TONDOLI
284
295
309
318
403
701
700
690
872 4 AMRAPUR
862
834
827
958
955
967
974
1015
1016
1017
1018
1030
1032
1033
208 5 YEVELEVADI
211
191
173
133
Area
Sub-Division
No. Hectare Are Sq.mt
6
5
7 8
00
4 B
06 22
00 00 86
00
08 Total
07
00 01 37
00 07 15 Total
08 52
00
00 02 87
00 09 34
00 03 94
00 04 67
06 71
00
00 03 36
00 01 04
00
65
03
00 03 56
00
14 Total
39
00 06 67
00 02 13
01 09
00
00 00 37
00 00 61
00 00 38
00 00 56
00
83
00
00 00 72
00 01 27
00 02 16
00 06 93
00 03 57
00 01 85
00 01 70
00
Total
30 84
42
00 00
00 00 60
00 02 76
00 01 56
00 04 36 Total
00 09 70 4312
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30 , 2005 /VAISAKHA 10 , 1927
Taluka : KADEGAON
Dist: SANGLI
GatNo.
Survey No.
Sr. No.
Name of the Village
3
4 1
2
1413 6 VADIYE RAYBAGH
1413
1413
1413
1413
1383
1250
1117
1116
258 7 SHELEGBAV
372
404
411
389
388
384
382
565
[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] State : MAHARASHTRA
Area
Sub-Division No. Hectare Are Sq.mt
6
5
7 8 3
00 01 87 4
00 04 18 6
00 01 27 7
00 02 14
00
15
02 16
00 00 50
00 02 69
00 02 00
00 11 37 Total
00 28 18
00 02 18
00 03 43
00 04 84
00 02 39
00 00 65
00
28
04
00 02 09
03 77
00
00
40
00
Total
03
00 24
[No. R-31015/29/2004-O.R. -II ] HARISH KUMAR, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 25 अप्रैल, 2005
का. आ. 1602. - केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय के का. आ. 3218 दिनांक 16.12.2004 द्वारा पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन्स (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम , 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) की धारा 3 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन अधिसूचना प्रकाशित कर, ब्यावर से चित्तौड़गढ़ तक पैट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए "सिद्धपुर- सांगानेर पाइपलाइन से चित्तौड़गढ़ तक ब्रान्च लाईन " के कार्यान्वयन हेतु एक शाखा पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिये उक्त अधिसूचना में विनिर्दिष्ट तहसील मसूदा , जिला अजमेर , राजस्थान राज्य की भूमि अधिसूचित की थी । और उक्त अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ जनता को दिनांक 10.01.2005 तक उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी । और उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के अनुसरण में सक्षम प्राधिकारी , राजस्थान , ने केन्द्रीय सरकार को अपनी रिपोर्ट दे दी है । और , केन्द्रीय सरकार ने उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् इस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार अर्जित करने का विनिश्चय किया है ।
अतः, अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए घोषणा करती है कि इस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में पाइपलाइन बिछाने के उपयोग का अधिकार अर्जित किया जाता है ।
और केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप- धारा (4) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह निदेश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने की बजाय सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त होकर इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड में निहित होगा । 4313. [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 30, 2005/वैशाख 10, 1927
अनुसूची
जिलाः अजमेर
तहसील : मसूदा
राज्य : राजस्थान
क्षेत्रफल
गांव का नाम
खसरा सख्या
हेक्टेयर
वर्ग मीटर
एयर
1
2
3
4
5 अन्धेरी देवरी
13
0
00
20
11
0
07
00
0
07
1099/1
40
1098
0
00
60
1097
0
09
80
1143
0
00
90
0
1096
04 80
1137
0
02 20
0
1142
04
00
1145
0
06
10
0
1146
05 20
0
1149
10 30
0
1159
02 20
1157
0
02 40
0
1158
04 70
1166/1
0
07
20
1165
0
07
30
0
1160
00 20
0
1169
00
20
0
1168
11
00
0
5351
00 30 श्यामगढ़
0
5398/1
32
10
49/1
0
05 60 खीमपुरा
0
49/2
02 90
0
05 20
49/3
0
75
00
20
06
0
73
50
0
74
20
05
1234GI/05-7 4314
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30 , 2005 /VAISAKHA 10. 1927
PART 11- St . 3 ( ii) ]
जिलाः अजमेर
तहसील : मसूदा
राज्य : राजस्थान
क्षेत्रफल
गांव का नाम
खसरा सख्या
वर्ग मीटर
हेक्टेयर एयर
2
1
3
4
5
81
0
20
00
82
10
0
05
83
0
50
04
0
90/1
08
30
0
89/1
00
20
0
89/2
00
20
90/2
0
00 .20
0
95
05
60
96
0
04
10
0
97
04 40
0
114
02
90
0
113
04
00
112
0
10
50
0
00
110
20
505
0
04
10
506
0
04 30
507
0
00
60
504
0
00
20
0
514
03
10
515
0
40
03
516
0
05
80
520
0
00
20
521
0
00
20
517
0
03
70
0
497
01
50
0
00
518
80
0
496
04
10
0
00
80
539/2
0
02
70
539/1
: 4315 [ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: अप्रैल 30 , 2005/वैशाख 10 , 1927
A
जिलाः अजमेर
राज्य: राजस्थान
तहसील : मसूदा
क्षेत्रफल
गांव का नाम
खसरा संख्या
हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग मीटर
4
2
3
1
5
0
04
540/1
90
0
541
04 20
553
0
04
10
-554/1
50
06
0-
0
00
554/2
70
0
02. 00
335/1
कुमपुरा
0
334/1
02
80
0
04
333/1
20
0
20
00
चौदासिया
398/1
0
400
10
02
0
01
403
00
401
0
00
80
0
402
01
80
0
17
433/765
10
0
02
433/7
60
0
412/2
00
20
415
0
00
30
0
02
433/6
90
0
50
417
02
0
06
418
50
0
01
50
433/5
0
421
09 30
0
00
20
433/4
0
432
08
70
0
431
09 40
0
04
50
435/4
0
05
20
430
0
06 80
428/1
0
01
80
428/2
0
04 60
436/1
4316
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: APRIL 30 , 2005 /VAISAKHA 10 , 1927
[ PART II- SEC. 3 (ii) ]
जिलाः अजमेर
राज्य : राजस्थान
तहसील : मसूदा
क्षेत्रफल
गांव का नाम
खेसरा सख्या
एयर वर्ग मीटर
हेक्टेयर
5
1
4
2
3
0
06
437/2
50
07
10
0 .
438/1
0
01
437/3
60
40
0
439
08
00
0
20
438/2
440
0
03 40
0
04
321
60
0
02
60
324
0
00
20
325
03
0
50
316
317
0
04
90
0
320
04
10
0
02
90
313
0
03
10
312
0
01
30
576
0
80
577
01
0
08
20
578
582
0
01
90
07
10
0
583
0
02
20
584
10
0
04
639
0
30
656
15
0
00
90
655
0
02
50
657
50
0
06
659
0
06
40
660
12
0
40
691/1
0
06
70
693
00
692
0
20
700/1
06
0
60 भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 30, 2005/वैशाख 10 , 1927
[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
4317
जिलाः अजमेर
तहसील: मसूदा
गांव का नाम
खसरा सख्या
1
2
699 राज्य : राजस्थान
क्षेत्रफल
हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग मीटर
3
4
5.
0
40
11
711/1
703
709
710
706
726
725
727 0
03
10
0
20
00.
0
05
00
0
07
50
0
01
10
0
50
01
0
11
00
0
01
60
0
728/1
10
20
728/2
00
0
80
0
5266
लुलवा
5267
2
कांकरनाड़ी
3
4
20
21
18
17
16
80
111
51 प्रतापपुरा . 1
409
देवीपुरा
414
413
412
415
416
00
04
0
12 30
0
20
10
0
08 40
0
12 00
0
00
70
0
00
20
0
00
20
0
00
60
0
14 60
0
03
70
0
03 90
0
22
30
0
00
20
0
04 30
0
40
05
0
00
50
20
0
04
0
06 60 4318
[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30 , 2005 /VAISAKHA 10 , 1927
जिलाः अजमेर
राज्य : राजस्थान
तहसील : मसूदा
क्षेत्रफल
गांव का नाम
खसरा सख्या
हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग मीटर 1
4
5
2
3
0
09
70
418
467
70
0
00
0
419
00
20
00
20
417
0
0
466
06
00
465
0
05
00
457
0
80
02
458
0
02
90
0
00
459
30
0
456
00
40
472
40
0
03
0
04
496
30
0
495
04 30
0
01
00
493
0
60
498
04
04
499
0
50
0
07 40
492
0
00
20
490
0
510
70
00
60
0
509
05
0
90
478
03
533
0
01
80
उत्तमी
0
30
453
00
00
0
13
455
0
01
456मिन
50
0
11
463
30
10
0
487
20
00
03
0
483
0
518
11
50
520
0
02 60 4319 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 30 , 2005/वैशाख 10 , 1927
जिलाः अजमेर
तहसील : मसूदा
राज्य : राजस्थान
क्षेत्रफल
गांव का नाम
खसरा सख्या
हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग मीटर
3
2
1
4
5
0
521
04 40
0
522
04
10
0
523
03
30
0
524
05
10
0
544
07
30
0
543
05
40
0
542
07
50.
0
751
00
05
770
0
00
70
0
00
765
20
0
771
0.3
00
02
772
0
20
0
05
773
70.
0
05
774मिन
60
0
777
11
10.
0
00
50
858
0
03
859
10
0
00
50
860
00
861
0
20
0
01
10
857
0
10
856
02
0
06
50
884
0
02
877
80
00
0
60
882
0
07
880
80
05
50
0
889
0
00
20
881
0
00
09
890
0
02
50
897
0
01
896
90 4320
[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30, 2005/VAISAKHA 10 , 1927
जिलाः अजमेर
तहसील : लसूदा
राज्य: राजस्थान
क्षेत्रफल
गांव का नाम
खसरा सख्या
हेक्टेयर
वर्ग मीटर
एयर
1
2
3
4
5
0
898
80
01
900
60
0
01
895
0
00
20
899
0
02
30
02
901
0
90
840
0
00
30
839
0
10
10
838
0
03
40
23
0
00
20 दौलतपुरा
22
0
70
05
17
0
01
00
21
0
70
04
16
0
02
90
28
01
80
0
27
0
02
30
27/1911
0
02
80
15
0
00
20
31
0
02
20
30
0
40
02
70
137
05
0
135
0
02
20
90
140
0
01
10
142
0
01
70
141
0
08
130
0
01
20
0
02
00
110
15
10
131
0
07
0
115
50
00
116
0
90
0
114
02
50 4321 भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 30 , 2005 /वैशाख 10 , 1927
[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
जिलाः अजमेर
राज्य : राजस्थान
तहसील : मसूदा
क्षेत्रफल
गांव का नाम
खसरा संख्या
हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग मीटर 1
4.
5
2
3
00
02
113
0
112
0
02 20
117
0
04 90
259
0
18
60
191
0
06
10
0
07
196
40
0
197
06
50
0
199
06 30
0
202
20
03
0
203
02
90
205
0
06
80
0
00
208
20
0
04
215
50
0
01
213
50
0
30
09
214
212
0
03
60
0
212
04 20
रेनपुरा
0
213
03 30
03
10
0
214
02
0
50
215
0
02
216
20
00
217
0
04
0
03 20
219
0
02
220.
30
0
223
80
03
0
06 80
234
0
10
00
239
0
01.
00
238
0
00
20
224
0
02 30
272
1234 GJ/05-8 4322
PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30 , 2005 /VAISAKHA 10, 1927
जिलाः अजमेर
राज्य: राजस्थान
तहसील : मसूदा
क्षेत्रफल
खसरा सख्या
गांव का नाम
हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग मीटर
2
4
3
5
1
03
0
271
70
02
00
240
0
03
270
0
50
30
0
06
269
00
0
30
277
0
40
11
274
0
90
20
275
60
07
0
247
कानपुरा
00
0
02
238
20
251
00
0
40
240
0
06
0
04
10
241
00
239
0
05
70
06
0
236
00
60
230
0
00
0
09
232
20
12
0
28
00
0
60
29
00
227
01
0
0
02
10
226
50
0
07
225
70
0
09
191
00
20
0
192
00
0
20
193
12
0
10
194
40
04
0
185
0
00
20
195
00
0
20
180
0
14
30
181
07
20
0
162 4323 भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 30, 2005/वैशाख 10 , 1927
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
जिलाः अजमेर
राज्य: राजस्थान
तहसील : मसूदा
क्षेत्रफल
गांव का नाम
खसरा संख्या
हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग मीटर 1
2
4
3
5
0
00
163
40
0
00
179
20
0
03
161
40
0
06
70
159
566
04
0
40
570
0
09
10
571
0
04
50
0
00
565
60
0
582
03
50
0
00
580
20
0
09
583
10
0
579
02
30
0
00
585
40
0
584
06 30
0
00
587
80
0
20
588
20
0
2169
17
80
जिवाना
0
00
2172
20
0
00
2168
90
0
03
2174
40
2173
0
01
00
0
22
2175
80
0
00
2167
20
2177
0
70
01
0
05
2183
90
0
07
2181
70
0
20
03
2180
0
00
50
2179
0
20
2238
00
0
00
20
2256
1 4324
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30, 2005 /VAISAKHA 10 , 1927
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]
जिलाः अजमेर
राज्य: राजस्थान
तहसील : मसूदा
क्षेत्रफल
गांव का नाम
खसरा सख्या
वर्ग मीटर
हेक्टेयर एयर
5
3
4
1
2
30
2258
0
04
0
20
2383
02
0
40
03
2384
30
04
0
2619
0
30
12
2680/2619
0
11
60
2620
10
0
60
2622
00
0
30
2637
00
30
0
2638
40
09
0
देवास
248
70
0
09
282
00
20
0
281
07
0
50
280
00
0
09
275
03
70
0
273
50
0
03
272
07
0
50
267
70
07
0
266
0
06
50
330
12
0
10
332
20
08
0
336
00
14
0
394
50
01
0
424
50
11
0
425
00
0
90
423
10
01
0
426
0
02
20
427
80
0
03
429
00
0
03
726
70
15
0
727 4325 भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 30, 2005/वैशाख 10 , 1927
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]
जिलाः अजमेर
राज्य: राजस्थान
तहसील: मसूदा
क्षेत्रफल
गांव का नाम
खसरा सख्या
हेक्टेयर
वर्ग मीटर
एयर
2
4
1
3
5
70
729
0
10
0
00
728
20
0
01
724
80
722
01
0
70
721
06
50
0
720
08
60
679
0
01
70
0
70
08
678
0
680
18 40
681
05
30
0
682
0
00
20
0
07
20
759
07
620
50
0
343
50
11
0
0
50
619
01
0
07
10
786
16
0
90
787
0
01
20
351
अमरपुरा
348
0
90
05
0
50
356
05
0
09
50
354
355
0
08 40
0
05
90
480
0
02
479
30
482
0
01
10
0
40
484
04
0
08
60
475
47.6
0
07
80
0
04
50
469
20
06
500
.0 4326
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30 , 2005 /VAISAKHA 10 , 1927
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]
जिलाः अजमेर
राज्य: राजस्थान
तहसील : मसूदा
क्षेत्रफल
खसरा सख्या
गांव का नाम
वर्ग मीटर
एयर
हेक्टेयर
4
5
2
3
1
50
0
08
501
00
10
0
503
00
0
40
468
0
00
20
489
0
07
40
504
09
0
80
570
30
0
08
575
40
00
0
577
20
0
17
576
07
50
0
560
00
20
0
582
0
02
20
585
10
0
19
584
00
0
50
587
0
14
90
586
50
0
06
604
00
20
0
603
00
20
0
618
60
03
0
616
70
10
0
619
00
20
0
623
70
0
04
615
00
05
0
614
50
0
09
613
08
80
0
611
60
10
0
628
40
18
0
641
70
43
0
648
10
13
0
650
60
0
19
663
0
11
657
70
01
0
00
656
0
40
16
14
अकरोल
0
5
30
17 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
4327 भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 30, 2005 /वैशाख 10 , 1927
जिलाः अजमेर
तहसील : मसूदा
राज्य: राजस्थान
क्षेत्रफल
गांव का नाम
खसरा सख्या
हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग मीटर
2
3
4
5
0
18
04
10
0
22
03
50
31
0
00
30
23मिन
04
60
0
29
01
40
0
28
01
40
0
27
03
10
0
00
41
20
0
81
0.1
10
0
82
07
20
0
83
04 40
0
84
01
20
0
85
00 20
[फा. सं. आर-25011/30/2004- ओ.आर-1 ]
एस. के. चिटकारा , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 25th April , 2005
S. O. 1602.- Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas S.O. number 3218 dated 16.12.2004 issued under sub section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines ( Acquisition of Right ofUser in Land) Act , 1962 (50 of 1962), (hereinafter referred to as the said Act ) , the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land in Tehsil : Masuda , District : Ajmer in the State of Rajasthan , specified in the schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation of petroleum products in the State of Rajasthan from Beawar to Chittaurgarh in respect of " Branch Pipeline to Chittaurgarh from Sidhpur - Sanganer Pipeline " by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited
And whereas , copy of the said notification was made available to the general public on 10.01.2005
And whereas , the Competent Authority has under sub- section ( 1 ) of section 6 of the said Act submitted his report to the Central Government ;
And whereas , the Central Government , after considering the said report is satisfied that the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this Notification should be acquired;
Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 1 ) of section 6 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification is hereby acquired ;
4328
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30 , 2005 /VAISAKHA 10 , 1927
PART II- St . 3 ( ii ) | And further , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 4 ) of section 6 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby directs that the right of user in the said land shall instead of vesting in the Central Government , vests from the date of publication of this declaration , in the Indian Oil Corporation Limited free from all encumbrances .
SCHEDULE
State : RAJASTHAN
District : AJMER
Tehsil : MASUDA
Area
Khasara No.
Name of the Village
Are
Hectare
Sq.mtr.
3
5
2
4
1
13
0
00
ANDHERI DEVRI
20
11
07
0
00
1099/1
0
40
07
1098
0
60
00
1097
0
09
80
1143
0
00
90
1096
0
04
80
1137
0
02
20
1142
0
00
04
1145
0
10
06
1146
20
0
05
1149
10
0
30
1159
0
02
20
1157
0
02
40
1158
70
0
04
1166/1
07
0
20
1165
0
07
30
1160
0
20
00
20
1169
00
0
1168
0
11
00
00
30
0
5351
SHYAMGARH
32
5398/1
10
0
49/1
0
05
60 KHIMPURA
49/2
0
02
90
0
49/3
05
20
75
00
20
0
50
73
06
0
20
74
0
05 4329 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
'भारत का राजपत्र: अप्रैल 30, 2005/वैशाख 10, 1927
Tehsil : MASUDA
District : AJMER
State : RAJASTHAN
Area
Khasara No.
Name of the Village
Are
Hectare
Sq.mtr.
2
1
3
4
5
81
0
00
20
82
0
05
10
83
0
04
50
90/1
0
30
08
89/1
0
00
20
89/2
0
00
20
90/2
0
00
20
95
0
05
60
96
0
04
10
97
0
04
40
114
0
02
90
113
0
00
04
112
10
50
110
00
0
20
505
0
04
10
506
04
0
30
507
0
00
60
504
0
00- 20
514
03
10
0
515
0
03.
40
516
0
05
80
520
0
00
20
521
0
20
00.
517
0
03
70
497
01
50
0
518
0
00
80
496
10
0
04
539/2
00
0
80
539/1
02
70
0
1234GI/05-9 4330
[PART 11- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30, 2005 /VAISAKHA 10, 1927
State : RAJASTHAN
District : AJMER
Tehsil : MASUDA
Khasara No.
Name of the Village
Hectare
Area Are Sq.mtr.
4
5
3
1
2
540/1
04
0
90
541
04
20
0
553
04
10
0
554/1
0
06
50
554/2
70
00
0
00
02
KUMPURA
0
335/1
02
80
0
334/1
20
04
0
333/1
00
20
0
398/1
CHAUDASIYA
02
0
400
10
01
00
403
0
0
401
00
80
402
0
01
80
17
10
433/765
0
60
433/7
02
0
412/2
00
20
0
00
30
5
0
02
90
433/6
0
417
02
50
0
50
0
06
418
50
433/5
01
0
30
09
421
0
20
00
433/4
0
70
432
0
08
09
40
431
0
50
04
0
435/4
20
05
430
0
06
428/1
80
0
01
80
428/2
0
60
04
436/1
0 4331
भारत का राजपत्र: अप्रैल 30 , 2005/वैशाख 10, 1927
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
Tehsil : MASUDA
District : AJMER
State : RAJASTHAN
Area
Khasara No.
Name of the Village
Are
Hectare
Sq.mtr .
3
4
1
2
5
437/2
0
06
50
438/1
07
0
10
437/3
0
01
60
439
0
08
40
438/2
0
00
20
440
03
0
40
321
0
04
60
324
0
02
60
325
0
00
20
316
0
03
50
317
0
04
90
320
0
04
10
313
0
02
90
312
0
03
10
576
0
01
30
577
01
0
80
578
0
08
20
582
0
01
90
583
0
07
10
584
0
02
20
639
0
04
10
656
0.
30
15
655
0
00
90
657
0
02
50
659
0
06
50
660
0
06
40
691/1
0
12
40
693
0
06
70
692
0
00
20
700/1
0
06
60 4332
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30 , 2005 /VAISAKHA 10 , 1927
[ PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]
District : AJMER
State : RAJASTHAN Tehsil : MASUDA
Area
Khasara No.
Name of the Village
Hectare Are Sq.mtr.
4
1
2
3
5
699
0
11
40
711/1
0
03
10
703
00
0
20
709
0
05
00
710
07
0
50
706
0
01
10
726
0
01
50
725
0
11
00
727
01
0
60
728/1
10
0
20
728/2
0
00
80 LULWA
5266
0
04
00
12
30
0
5267
0
10
20 KANKADNARI
2
08
40
0
3
12
00
0
4
0
00
70
20
0
00
20
21
00
0
20
18
00
0
60
17
60
0
14
16
03
70
0
80
03
0
90
111
51
0
22
30 PRATAPPURA - I
00
0
20 DEVIPURA
409
30
04
0
414
05
40
0
413
00
50
0
412
20
04
415
0
06
60
0
416 4333 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 30, 2005/वैशाख 10, 1927
District : AJMER
State : RAJASTHAN Tehsil : MASUDA
Area
Khasara No.
Name of the Village
Are
Hectare
Sq.mtr.
2
3
4
1
5
0
418
70
09
467
00
0
70
00
0
419
20
417
00
0
20
466
0
00
06
465
0
05
00
0
457
02
80
458
0
02
90
459
0
00
30
00
456
0
40
472
03
0
40
0
04
496
30.
495
0
04
30
0
01
493
00
498
0
04
60
0
499
50
04
492
0
07
40
0
00
490
20
510
0
00 70
0
05
509
60
478
0
03
90
533
0
01
80
30 UTTAMI
0
00
453
0
13
00
455
456Min
0
01
50
463
0
11
30
487
0
10
20
0
03
483
00
0
11.
518
50
02
520
0
60 4334
[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30 , 2005 /VAISAKHA 10 , 1927
State : RAJASTHAN
District : AJMER
Tehsil : MASUDA
Area
Khasara No.
Name of the Village
Hectare Are Sq.mtr.
4
2
3
5 1
521
0
04
40
04
522
0
10
03
523
0
30
524
0
05
10
30
544
0
07
0
40
543
05
07
50
542
0
00
751
0
05
00
70
770
0
0
00
765
20
0
03
00
771
0
20
772
02
70
773
0
05
0
05
60
774Min
0
10
777
11
0
00
50
858
10
0
03
859
50
00
860
0
20
0
00
861
0
01
10
857
02
10
0
856
0
06
50
884
02
0
80
877
60
00
0
882
80
0
07
880
0
50
889
05
00
20
0
881
0
00
09
890
02
0
50
897
0
01
90
896 4335 भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 30, 2005 /वैशाख 10 , 1927
[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
State : RAJASTHAN
District : AJMER
Tehsil : MASUDA
Area
Khasara No.
Name of the Village
Are
Hectare
Sq.mtr.
3
2
4
5 1
0
80
898
01
0
01
900
60
0
00
20
895
0
02
899
30
0
02
901
90
0
00
30
840
0
10
839
10
0
03
40
838
0
20
00
23
DAULATPURA
0
05
22
70
0
00
17
01
0
04
70
21
0
02
90
16
0
01
28
80
30
0
02
27
02
0
80
27/1911
00
0
20
15
02
0
20
31
02
40
0
30
05
0
70
137
0
02
20
135
01
0
90
140
01
0
10
142
0
08
70
141
01
0
20
130
02
0
00
110
10
0
15
131
07
0
50
115
0
00
90
1.16
0
50
02
114 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30 , 2005 /VAISAKHA 10, 1927
4336
3 ( ii ) |
PART II- St .
State : RAJASTHAN
District : AJMER
Tehsil : MASUDA
Khasara No. Name of the Village
2
1
113
112
117
259
191
196
197
199
202
203
205
208
215
213
214
212
212 RENPURA
213
214
215
216
217
219
220
223
234
239
238
224
272 Area
Are
Hectare
Sq.mtr.
4
5
3
0
00
02
02
20
0
0
04
90
18
60
0
0
06
10
0
07
40
0
50
06
06
30
0
0
03
20
02
0
90
06
0
80
00
20
0
04
0
50
0
01
50
09
0
30
03
0
60
04
20
0
03
30
0
03
0
10
02
0
50
0
02
20
00
0
04
0
03
20
02
30
0
03
0
80
06
0
80
10
0
00
01
00
0
00
20
0
02
30
0 4337 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: अप्रैल 30 , 2005 /वैशाख 10, 1927
District : AJMER
Tehsil : MASUDA
State : RAJASTHAN
Khasara No.
Name of the Village
mtr.
Area Are
Hectare
2
3
4
1
0
271
03
70
240
0
02
00
0
270
50
03
0
269
06
30
0
277
00
30
274
0
40.
11
20
0
275
90
247
0
60 KANPURA
07
0
238
00
02
251
0
00
20
0
240
06
40
241
0
04
10
0
05
00
239
236
0
06
70
230
0
60
00
232
0
09
00
228
0
12
20
229
0
00
60
01
227
0
00
226
0
10
02
225
0
07
50
191
70
0
09.
0
20
00
192
0
00
193
20
0
12
194
10
0
04
40
185
195
0
00
20
0
180
00
20
ว
14
181
30
0
07
162
20 1234 GI/05-10.
4338
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30 , 2005 /VAISAKHA 10 , 1927
PART 11- SE 3 ( ii) ]
State : RAJASTHAN Tehsil : MASUDA
District : AJMER
Area
Khasara No.
Name of the Village
Are
Hectare
Sq.mtr .
4
1
2
3
5
00
163
0
40
00
0
20
179
161
0
03
40
06
70
0
159
04
40
566
0
0
570
09
10
0
04
571
50
00
0
60
565
0
03
50
582
00
20
0
580
0
09
10
583
02
30
579
0
40
0
00
585
06
0
30
584
0
80
587
00
20
20
588
0
0
80
17
JIWANA
2169
00
20
2172
0
00
90
2168
0
0
2174
40
03
00
01
0
2173
22
2175
0
80
00
20
2167
0
01
70
0
2177
2183
0
05
90
70
07
0
2181
20
03
2180
0
00
50
2179
0
20
00
0
2238
00
20
2256
0 4339 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 30 , 2005 /वैशाख 10 , 1927
State : RAJASTHAN
District : AJMER
Tehsil : MASUDA
Area
Khasara No.
1 Name of the Village
Hectare Are Sq.mtr .
3
4
2
5 1
0
04
30
2258
0
2383
02
20
0
03
2384
40
30
0
04
2619
0
12.
30
2680/2619
0
60
2620
11
2622
0
10
60
00
2637
0
30
0
00
30
2638
0
09
40
248
DEVAS
0
282
09
70
0
00
20
281
0
07
50
280
0
00
275
09
0
03
70
273
0
03
50
272
0
50
07
267
07
0
70
266
06
0
50
330
332
0
10
12
0
20
336
08
00
0
14
394
0
01
50
424
50
11
0
425
00
423
0
90
0
01
10
426
20
0
427
02
0
03
80
429
726
0
03
00
15
70
0
727 4340
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: APRIL 30 , 2005 /VAISAКНА 10, 1927.
Tehsil : MASUDA
[PART 11- SEC . 3 (ii) ] State : RAJASTHAN
District : AJMER
Khasara No. Name of the Village
1
2
729
728
724
722
721
720
679
678
680
681
682
759
620
343
619
786
787
351 AMARPURA
348
356
354
355
480
479
482
484
475
476
469
500 Area
Are Sq.mtr. Hectare
3
4.
5
0
70
10
0
00
20
0
01
80
0
01
70
0
06
50
0
60
08
01
0
70
0
08
70
0
18
40
0
05
30
0
00
20
20
0
07
0
07
50
0
11
50
0
01
50
0
07
10
0
16
90
01
20
0
05
90
0
50
05
0
09
50
0
40
08
0
90
05
0
02
30
0
01
10
0
40
04
0
60
08
0
07
80
0
50
04
0
06
20
0 4341 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: अप्रैल 30, 2005/वैशाख 10, 1927
State : RAJASTHAN Tehsil : MASUDA
District : AJMER
Area
Khasara No.
Name of the Village
Are
Hectare
Sq.mtr .
5
2
3
4
1
08
50
501
0
10
503
0
00
00
40
468
0
00
20
489
0
07
40
504
0
09
570
80
0
08
30
575
0
00
577
40
0
17
20
576
0
07
50
560
0
00
20
582
0
02
20
585
0
19
10
584
0
00
50
587
0
14
90
586
0
06
50
604
0
00
20
603
0
00
20
618
0
03
60
616
0
10
70
619
0
00
20
623
0
04
70
615
0
05
00
614
09
50
613
0
08
80
611
0
10
60
628
0
18
641
0
40
43
648
0
70
13
10
650
0
663
60
0
19 11
657
70
0
01
656
0
00
14
40
16
0
AKROL
05
0
30
17 4342
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30 , 2005/ VAISAKHA 10 , 1927
[PART II- SEC. 3 (ii ) ]
District : AJMER
State : RAJASTHAN Tehsil : MASUDA
Area
Khasara No.
Name of the Village
Are
Hectare
Sq.mtr. 1
2
4
3
5
0
10
18
04
22
0
03
50
31
0
00
30
0
23Min
04
60
29
0
01
40
28
0
01
40
27
0
03
10
41
0
00
20
81
0
01
10
82
0
07
20
83
0
04
40
84
0
01
20
85
0
00
20
[No. R -25011/30/2004- O.R. - I ]
S. K. CHITKARA , Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 25 अप्रैल , 2005
का. आ. 1603. - केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय के का. आ . 157 दिनांक 11.01.2005 द्वारा पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन्स (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम , 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) की धारा 3 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन अधिसूचना प्रकाशित कर, ब्यावर से चित्तौड़गढ़ तक पैट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए "सिद्धपुर- सांगानेर पाइपलाइन से चित्तौड़गढ़ तक ब्रान्च लाईन " के कार्यान्वयन हेतु एक शाखा पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिये उक्त अधिसूचना में विनिर्दिष्ट तहसील राशमी, जिला चित्तौड़गढ़ , राजस्थान राज्य की भूमि अधिसूचित की थी ।
और उक्त अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ जनता को दिनांक 02.02.2005 तक उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी । और उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के अनुसरण में सक्षम प्राधिकारी , राजस्थान, ने केन्द्रीय सरकार को अपनी रिपोर्ट दे दी है ।
और , केन्द्रीय सरकार ने उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् इस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार अर्जित करने का विनिश्चय किया है ।
अतः, अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए घोषणा करती है कि इस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में पाइपलाइन बिछाने के उपयोग का अधिकार अर्जित किया जाता है ।
और केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप- धारा (4) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह निदेश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने की बजाय सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त होकर इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड में निहित होगा । 4343 भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 30, 2005 /वैशाख 10 , 1927
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]
अनुसूची
तहसील: राशमी
राज्य: राजस्यान
जिला: चित्तौड़गढ़
क्षेत्रफल
गांव का नाम
खसरा सख्या
हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग मीटर 1
4
2
3
5
00
327
नेवरीया
02
0
0
09
80
328
00
330
0
20
329
0
70
15.
336
0
03
00
0.2
333
0
40
06
0
335
70
0
22
70
338
0
08
10
371
07
0
370
10
0
14
30
478मिन
11
20
0
479
0
16
10
490
0
03
70
492
0
03 40
489
0
17
70
777
0
00
90
764
00
0
11
785
0
00
60
786
0
00
761.
02
05
0
80
762
00
0
20
765
06
0
30
757
02
20
0
758
20
0
03
756
00
0
80
753
05 50
754
0
09
80
821
20: 20
0
823 4344
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30 , 2005 /VAISAKHA 10 , 1927
[ PART 11-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] तहसील : राशमी
जिला: चित्तौड़गढ़
राज्य : राजस्थान
दक्षेत्रफल
गांव का नाम
खसरा संख्या
हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग मीटर 1
2
3
4
5
831
0
10
70
830
0
11
70
834
0
00
20
1163
0
15
50
1162
0
02
20
1088
0
11
20
1103
0
10
10
1129
0
01
20
0
1123
00
40
1128
0
13
40
0
1127
01
00
1124
0
13
60
1116
0
00
40
1117
0
00
20
1125
0
01
30
1290
0
05
20
0
1296
00
20
1295
0
01
90
0
1291
01
40
02
1294
0
20
0
1293
08
40
0
1304
03
30
1303
0
08
90
0
1329
04
50
0
10
13,30
10
0
1837
00
90 माताजी का मण्डपीया
0
1.0
136
80
0
134
24
80
0
146
06
30
0
147
00
20
249
0
27
90 4345 [ भाग II - खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: अप्रैल 30, 2005/वैशाख 10 , 1927
तहसील: राशमी
जिला: चित्तौड़गढ़
राज्य : राजस्थान
क्षेत्रफल
गांव का नाम
खसरा संख्या
हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग मीटर 1
2
3
4
5
0
250
01
40
251
0
07
60
0
258
00 20
0
243
01
10
0
242
11
30
260
0
08 30
259
0
00
20
261
0
23 30
262
0
10
80
0
265
02
50
267
0
00
90
266
0
10
30
415
0
20
02
417
0
14 80
420
0
01
00
419
0
40
09
418
0
17.
50
[फा. सं. आर-25011/31/2004-ओ.आर -1 ]
एस. के. चिटकारा , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 25th April . 2005
S. O. 1603.-. Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas S.O. number 157. dated 11.01.2005 issued under sub section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right ofUser in Land) Act , 1962 (50 of 1962) , (hereinafter referred to as the said Act ) , the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land in Tehsil : Rashmi , District : Chittuargarh in the State of Rajasthan , specified in the schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation of petroleum products in the State of Rajasthan from Beawar to Chittaurgarh in respect of " Branch Pipeline to Chittaurgarh from Sidhpur - Sanganer Pipeline " by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited
And whereas , copy of the said notification was made available to the general public on 02.02.2005
And whereas , the Competent Authority has under sub- section ( 1 ) of section 6 of the said Act submitted his report to the Central Government ;
1234 G1/05-11 [PART II-SC. 3 (ii )] 4346
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30, 2005 /VAISAKHA 10 , 1927
And whereas , the Central Government , after considering the said report is satisfied that the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this Notification should be acquired;
Now , therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 1 ) of section 6 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification is hereby acquired;.
And further , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section (4) of section 6 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby directs that the right of user in the said land shall instead of vesting in the Central Government , vests from the date of publication of this declaration , in the Indian Oil Corporation Limited free from all encumbrances .
SCHEDULE
State : RAJASTHAN
District : CHITTAURGARH
Tehsil : RASHMI
Area
Khasara No.
Name of the Village
Are
Hectare
Sq.mtr .
3
4
5 1
2
00
02
327
NEVERIYA
0
80
09
328
0
20
00
330
0
70
0
15
329
00
03
0
336
02 40
0
33
0
06 70
335
22
70
0
338
10
0
08
371
10
07
0
370
30
0
14
478Min
20
11
0
479
10
16
0
490
70
03
0
492
40
03
0
489
70
17
0
777
00 90
0
764
00
11
0
785
60
00
0
786
00
02
0
761
05 80
0
762
20
0
00
765 4347 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: अप्रैल 30, 2005 /वैशाख 10, 1927
State : RAJASTHAN Tehsil : RASHMI
District : CHITTAURGARH
Area
Khasara No.
Name of the Village
Hectare Are Sq.mtr.
4
3
2
5 1
0
757
06 30
0
758
02 20
756
0
03 20
753
0
00 80
754
05
0
50
821
0 09 80
823
20
20
0
831
0
10 70
830
0
11 70
834
0
20
00
1163
0
50
15
1162
0
02 20
1088
0
11
20
1103
0
10 10
1129
0
01 20
1123
0
00 40
1128
0
40.
13
1127
0
01
00
1124
0
13 60
1116
0
00 40
1117
0
20
00
0
1125
01
30
1290
0
05 20
1296
0
00 20
1295
0
01 90
1291
01
0
40
1294
0
02 20.
0
1293
08 40
1304
0 03 30
1303
0
08 90
0
1329
04 50
1330
0
10 10
1837
0
00 90 4348
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30 , 2005 /VAISAKHA 10 , 1927
Tehsil : RASHMI
[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ]
District : CHITTAURGARH
Khasara No. Name of the Village
2 1
MATA JEE KA MANDPIYA
136
134
146
147
249
250
251
258
243
242
260
259
261
262
265
267
266
415
417
420
419
418 State : RAJASTHAN
Area
Hectare Are Sq.mtr .
3
4
5
0
10 80
0
24 80
0
06 30
0
00
20
0
27 90
0
01 40
07
0
60
00
0
20
01
0
10
0
11
30
0
08 30
0
20
00
0
23 30
10
0
80
0
02 50
0
00 90
10
0
30
02
0
20
0
14 80
0
01
00
0
09 40
0
50
17
[No. R-25011/31/2004-O.R. - I ] S. K. CHITKARA , Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 26 अप्रैल, 2005
का. आ. 1604.- केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि महाराष्ट्र राज्य में लोनी (पुणे) से पकनी (सोलापूर) तक हज़ारवाडी के रास्ते पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा एक विस्तार पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए ;
और केन्द्रीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी भूमि में जो इस से उपाबद्व अनुसूची में वर्णित है, जिसमें उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने का प्रस्ताव है , उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए;
4349
भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 30 , 2005/वैशाख 10 , 1927
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
अतः अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइमलाइन ( 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 , 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 . एस . एन. कुन्देतकर , सक्षम प्राधिकारी , मुम्बई-पुणे पाइपलाइन विस्तार परियोजना , हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड , मेगा सेंटर , मागरपट्टा , एम व एन विंग , हादापसर-411 028 (पुणे जिला) , महाराष्ट्र राज्य को लिखित रुप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।
अनुसूची
राज्य : महाराष्ट्र तालूका: पंढरपुर
जिला : सोलापुर
क्षेत्रफल सर्वे नंबर
गाव का नाम
गट नंबर
उप-खण्ड सं
कम सं.
हेक्टर एयर वर्ग मीटर 2
1
4
6 7
3
8
5
1 आंबे चिंचोली
120
00 07 77
00 02 40
89
00
104
30 10
00 03 20
97
94
00 04 59
105
90
119
00 00 48
00 48 06
कुल
2
पुलूजवाडी
304
00 16 65
318
00 11 80
319
00 06 25
:
320
00 06 25
321
00 04 95
00 45 90
कुल
[फा. सं . आर-31015/ 21/2004- ओ.आर- II ]
हरीश कुमार , अवर सचिव [ PART II- SEC. 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30 , 2005 /VAISAKHA 10 , 1927
4350
New Delhi , the 26th April , 2005
S. O. 1604.- Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum products from Loni ( Pune) to Pakni (Solapur) via Hazarwadi in the State of Maharashtra , an extension 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 of 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 miade 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 S.N. Kundetkar, Competent Authority , Mumbai - Pune Pipeline Extension Project , Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited , Mega Center, Magarpatta M& N Wing, Hadapsar - 411028 , Pune District , Maharashtra .
SCHEDULE
State : MAHARASHTRA
District : SOLAPUR
Taluka : PANDHARPUR
Area
GatNo.
Survey No.
Sub- Division No.
Sr. No.
Are Sq.mt Name of the Village
Hectare
4
5
6
7 8
3
2
00 07 77 1 AMBE CHINCHOLI
120
00 02 40
89
00 30 10
104
00 03 20
97
00 04 59
94
105
00 00 48
119
00 48 06
Total [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
4351
भारत का राजपत्र: अप्रैल 30 , 2005 /वैशाख 10, 1927
1
3
5
4 2 PULUJVADI
304
00
65
16
318
00 11 80.
319
00 06 25
320
00 0625
321
00 04 95
Total
00 45 90
[No. R-31015/21 /2004- O.R. -II ] HARISH KUMAR , Under Secy .
नई दिल्ली, 27 अप्रैल , 2005
का. आ. 1605.- केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेद्रोलियम और खनिज पाईप लाईन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम 1962 (1962 का 50 ) (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी की गई भारत सरकार के पेद्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का . आ . 3038 भोपाल और काकीनाडा हैदराबाद गोवा पाईप लाईन को आपस में जोडने के लिए गैस द्रान्सपोर्टेशन एंड इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर कम्पनी लिमीटेड द्वारा एक पाईप लाईन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उक्त अधिसूचना के संलग्न अनूसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी; 23 नवम्बर 2004 , जामनगर
और , उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ जनता को तारीख 19 जनवरी , 2005 को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी;
और पाईपलाईन बिछाने के संबंध में जनता की ओर से प्राप्त आक्षेपों पर सक्षम प्राधिकारी द्वारा विचार कर लिया गया है और अननुज्ञात कर दिया गया;
और, सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने उक्त अधिनियम की धारा की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन केन्द्रीय सरकार को अपनी रिपोर्ट दे दी है ;
और केन्द्रीय सरकार ने, उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के अश्वात, और यह समाधान हो जाने पर कि उक्त भूमि में पाईपलाईन बिछाने के लिए अपेक्षित है, उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने का विनिश्चय किया है;
अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, यह घोषणा करती है कि इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में पाईप लाईन बिछाने के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाता है ;
और , केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा ( 4 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, यह निर्देश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में पाईप लाईन बिछाने के संबंध मे उपयोग का अधिकार इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख से केन्द्रीय सरकार मे निहित होने के बजाए , सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त, गैस द्रान्सपोर्टेशन एंड इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर कंपनी लिमिटेड में निहित होगा । 4352
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30 , 2005/VAISAKHA 10 , 1927
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]
अनूसूची
खेडा
जिला :
मंडल/तेहसिल/तालुक : नडियाद
गाँव का नाम
राज्य : गुजरात
सर्वे नंबर/ब्लॉक नंबर
1
2
231
1) नवागाम
232
233
234
338
235
236/ पी
236/ पी
329/ पी
329/ पी
328
326/ पी
327
366
323/ पी
365/ पी
367
412/ पी
407
आर.ओ.यु. अर्जित करने के लिए क्षेत्रफल हेक्टर
आर सि-आर 3
4
5 00
03
54 00
22
06
00
11
08 00
32
72
12
75 00
00
24
92
02
00
48
33
96 00
00
00
11 00
03
11
00
05
23
75 00
05
00
13
38 00
09
66 00
23
75
33 00
03
00
00
52 00
38
53
14
00
91
जिला : खेडा
मंडल/तेहसिल/तालुक : मातर
425
1) सिहोलडी
424
430
423
422
432
433
435
401
399
397
396
393
443
392
445/ पी
राज्य : गुजरात
00
24
33 00
10
87
02
40 00
62 00
06
13
00
02
13
31 00
00
23
10
22
00
45 00
38
01 00
08
21 00
00
60 00
38
03 00
16
41 00
08
51
10
00
17 00
14
42 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: अप्रैल 30 , 2005/वैशाख 10, 1927
1
2
367/पी 1 ) सिहोलडी (निरंतर ... )
363
362/पी
361
360
358/ पी
358/ पी
457 /
455
457/ अ
456
459
461/ अ/पी
461/ अ/ पी
465
461/
463
487
488
494
495
501/ अ
501/
500
502
504
503
506/पी
506 /पी
516
508
509
515
514
503 2) मलियाताज
504
502.
507
506/1
508
534/1
534/2
246/2 3) अलीन्द्रा
243/2 1234GI/05-12
4353 3
4
5
07
00
52
41
90 00
37 00
01
10
00
80 00
19
35 00
01
89
08
00
58 00
18
05
00
00
02
32
00
25 00
01
03
25
20
00
11
00
89 00
09
35 00
12
02
21
00
82
19
00
18 00
12
27 00
11
16
39
00
59
01
94 00
14
00
03 00
04
30 00
52
04
16
60 00
00
04
50 00
10
15 00
02
84 00
79
03
02 00
12
00
17
09 00
25
97 00
01
46 00
00
25 00
00
21 00
32
80
02 00
01
00
18
74 00
34
14 00
65
05
00
93
04
00
16
88 00
10
11
25 00
07 4354
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30 , 2005 /VAISAKHA 10 , 1927
2 1
243/1
3) अलीन्द्रा ( निरंतर ...)
244
241
240
228
229
230
224
223
213
214
180
216
179
178
177
176
174
415
417
418
419
425
428
44:
446
711
712
878
875
884
882
885
870
836
857
855
854
837
839
838
827
826
816
[ PART II-- SEC . 3( ii)]
5 3
4
00
10
03 00
08
60
24
95 00
02
44 00
01
46 00
22
53 00
12
00
60
00
00
16
25 00
17
00
05
55 00
22
04 00
34
00 00
08
44
19
00
12 00
10
29
03
74 00
00
30
40 00
06
86 00
01
06 00
10
06
33
00
90
00
85 00
00
35
28
00
16
51
07
85 00
30 00
14
00
26
50
01
00
45
15 00
06
00
70
47
13
41 00
00
01
65 00
71
20
16
01
00
00
03
29
69 00
13
00
04
15 00
02
17
92 00
07
00
04
96 00
46
17
00
03
02
00
19
43
92
17
00 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: अप्रैल 30, 2005/वैशाख 10, 1927
1
2
817
3 ) अलीन्द्रा ( निरंतर ... )
812
810
807
814
813
806
801
800
799
986
987
988
317
4) उंठेला
318
319
314
323
322
324
392
393
395
394
498
499
497/ पी
496
487
486
488
490
489
530
531/ पी
532
533
534
528/ पी
535
536
602
600
1
601
4355 3
4
5 00
00
32 00
18
90
00
00
40 00
09
58 00
00
08 00
70
03
00
01
95 00
01
08 00
12
63 00
09
00.
00
27
89
23
00
32 00
05
80 00
04
34 00
37
13
23 00
00
22 00
17
00
10
67
30 00
06
00
25
97 00
02
20 00
29
49 00
48
08
12
87 00
00
10
78
52 00
03
10
28 00
15 00
01
52 00
04
00
01
30 00
87
11
13
42 00
30 00
01
63
01
00
00
11
58
05 00
01
06 00
18
01
29 00
26 00
17
00
02
74 00
06
99 00
00
35 00
67
16
30
01
00 4356
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30 , 2005/VAISAKHA 10, 1927
1
2
612
4) उंटेला (निरंतर ...)
614
613
611
637
636
698
635
699
700
701
708
709
707
706
704
705
716
717
733
732
731
730
729
728
497/ पी
531/ पी
293
5) उंटाई
296/अ
297
255/1
255/2
256
253/1
221/ 1 / 1अ
252
251
223
224/ पी
224/ पी
226
296/व
1025/1 6)मातर
1025/3 [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] 3
4
5
25
00
19 00
79
07
10
47 00
00
00
55
03
93 00
46
01
00
15
11 00
00
09
43
03
51 00
05
82 00
00
03
92
00 00
25
00
00
01
02
00
71
07
00
31
29
01
00
00
01
97 00
16
18
01 00
00
00
16
29
19 00
11
04
00
50
04
71 00
11
00
14
98 00
02
00
10
49
15
00
51 00
01
13
19
08
00
00
51
08
58 00
07
00
07
69
03
87 00
00
25
18 00
14
54
90 00
17
99 00
02
00
10
05
46 00
19
00
10
98
10
92 00
80 00
33
00
14
16.
09
09 00 4357
भारत का राजपत्र: अप्रैल 30, 2005/वैशाख 10, 1927
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]
1
2
1026/2 6) मातर (निरंतर ...)
1027
1028
1029/1
1029/2
1021/7
4
3
5
84 00
03
15
36 00
07
20 00
00
12
05 00
06
90 00
00
05
20
00.
13
1035/1 / पी
1030/2
1036/2
1036/3
1036/5
1036/4
1089
1087/1
1087/2
1086
1086/अ
1085/ व
1038/अ.
1039
1072
1071/1
1073
1074/ पी
1074/ पी
1075/2
1081
1079
1076
1077/1
1077/2
1077/3
10.62
1117
1118
1119
1121/ पी
1121/ पी
1321
1322
1323
1326
1328
1327
00
00
61 00
00
26 00
03
92 00
02
08
00
13
02 00
16
14 00
10
52 00
12
85 00
00
24/
32 00
03
02
00
88 00
03
36
00
22 00
00
15
94 00
12
87
05
00
05 00
11
56 00
14
03 00
13
98 00
05
50 00
17
90 00
72
00
00
21
68 00
07
36 00
93
06
33 00
00
00
71 00
34
20
62
28 00
00
00
69 00
80
00
00
09
00
00
17
88 00
16
28
67 00
24
00
05
53 00
26
67 :
4358
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30 , 2005 /VAISAKHA 10, 1927
1
2
1416/ पी
6) मातर (निरंतर ...)
1413/1
1413/2
1413/3
1433 / अ / 1
1433/ अ / 2
1433/ अ / 3
1433/ अ / 6
1436
1435
1447
1449
1389/2
1389/5
1389/6
1386/1
1386/2
1385
1382/ पी
1382/ पी
1383/2
1377
1376
1455
1454/1
1454/2
1467/1
1467/3
1467/4
1468/2
1473/1
1472
1471 / पी
1471 / पी
1470
1478
1477
1489
1488/1
1121/पी
189
7) सोखडा
193
197
198
[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ]
3
4
5
00
03
21
00
18
68
00
11
11
00
28
96
00
16
15
00
23
27
00
01
18
00
00
21
00
15
04
00
31
92
24
28
00
00
17
88
00
12
05
05
00
50
00
01
90
05
00
88
00
15
20
95
13
00
00
21
19
00
10
00
00
20
00
00
26
88
00
04
16
00
71
01
00
09
93
00
11
25
00
15
41
00
14
28
00
95
06
00
11
71
00
02
40
00
09
37
00
03
91
04
00
05
07
30
00
00
16
20
30
00
83
00
49
77
00
38
45
00
00
04
00
83
32
:
15
47
00
00 .
25
35
00
96
15 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: अप्रैल 30 , 2005 /वैशाखें 10, 1927
2 1
225
7) सोखडा (निरंतर...)
226/ पी
226/ पी
227
228
229
623
622
621
620
629
641
640/ पी
640/ पी
640/ ची
640/ पी
640/ पी
638
637
636/ पी
636/ पी
636/ पी
636/ पी
जिला: खेडा मंडल/तेहसिल/तालुक : खेडा
192
1 ) हरियाला
206/
205
207 / पी
210/1
210/2
349/पी
351
350
427
428
429
450
449
430
448
447/ पी
447/ पी
444/ पी
444/ पी
4359
4
3
5
00
05
45
37
36
00
74
00
06
75
00
08
34
08
00
00
00
52
00
04
25
31
70
00
24
18
00
12
20
00
00
16
46
25
95
00
12
78
00
00
11
53
00
12
09
00
09
73
00
06
97
04
61
00
15
48
00
05
00
40
00
00
18
05
40
00
00
06
88
राज्य: गुजरात
03
00
41
32
00
32
39
19
00
19
00
14
00
00
20
96
00
33
43
54 00 :
30
00
00
13
00
09
16
01
00
64
09
00
47
02
00
50
00
21
22 00
10
15
23
00
09
01
00
46
15
00
01
00
00
00
24
09
09 00
24 4360
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30 , 2005 /VAISAKHA 10 , 1927
1
2
445
1) हरियाला ( निरंतर ... )
475/ पी
475/ पी
474/ पी
479/ पी
479/ पी
482
518
483
505
504
507
658/ पी
657
656
653/ पी
653/ पी
653/ पी
652
612/ 2 / पी
651/ पी
625/2
625/1
626
627/ 1 / पी
628
630/ पी
631
632
633
634
635
206/ पी
207 / पी
115
2) काजीपुरा
116
114
120
121/ व
127/2
127/3
112/ अ
129
[PART II-SE . 3 ( ii ) ] 3
5
4
06
00
33 00
27
96
27
00
95
15
89 00
00
97
21
15
00
34 00
15
60
25
75 00
11
10 00
00
62
90 00
00
08 00
52
61
07
76 00
00
93
84 00
00
02 00
47
97 00
01
57 00
21
25
76
37 00
07
00
15 00
16
43 00
63
26 00
01
65 00
12
11
00
32
86
53 00
26
00
02
21 00
26
50
50
14 00
00
25
30
36
00
96 00
24
64
04
63 00
00
21
04 00
20
69 00
88
49
21
00
69 00
34
67 00
79
13
00
09
45
16
00
45
56 00
18
78 00
33 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 30, 2005 /वैशाख 10 , 1927
1
2
130/1
2) काजीपुरा ( निरंतर ...)
130/2
131/ 1/ अ
132/1
132/2
149/1
134/ 1/
136/ अ
136/ व
136/
136/ क
856
3) गोभलज
857
858/
858/ पी
707/2
867
866
873
869
871
979
995
994
997
1002
1001
1003
1006
1008
1009
1016
1011
1014
1012
1013
1114
1117/ पी.
1117/ पी
1120
1119
1118
1127
1234GI/05-13
4361 3
4
5
00
17
90 00
18
40 00
15
86
15
00
44 00
03
68 00
06
23 00
02
80
33
76 00
00
31
01
78 00
11
00
05
81 00
00
07 00
36
05
07
45 00
00
15
95 00
00
05 00
40
50 00
11
16 00
18
39
00
64 00
00
36
87
26
00
35
22
64 00
00
83
04
14
00
19 00
00
69 00
47
38 00
12
67
03
00
07 00
09
64
10
62 00
13
14 00
18 00
00
00
00
89 00
05:
98
03
00
90
20
00
34 00
16
10
00
-00
00
18
02
07
54 00
00
28
36
20 00
42 4362
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30 , 2005 /VAISAKHA 10 , 1927
1
2
6/4
4) मलारपुर
26
27
6/1
54/ अ / 1 5) कनेंरा
54/ अ / 2
57
105
109
110
124
111
123
112
122
99
114
113
118
117
135
414
412
413
448
444
443
445
465
447
464
463
448
466
451
468
462
461
460
453
454
404
455
456
[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] 3
4
5
00
17
07
00
06
20
00
85
54
83
02 00
28
16
00
00
29
00
17
00
50
32
00
12
61
15
00
07
00
01
00
03
46
12
34 00
00
06
24
10
47 00
07
00
90
28 00
00
25 00
03
29
00
92 00
11
60 00
28
59 00
20
06
02
00
87 00
04
05
00
15
51
01
00
52
09
72 00
01 00
00
00
03
11
02
00
52
00
07 00
00
06
87
20
06
00
00
01 00
00
00
18
75 00
02
01
26 00
02
00
59
02
00
63
09
00
11
09
92 00
00
07
59
00
95 00
00
04
03 00
01
71 [भांग ] भांग II- खण्ड 3( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: अप्रैल 30, 2005 /वैशाख 10 , 1927
4363 1
2
3
4
5
457
00
35
70 5) कर्नेरा (निरंतर ... )
399
00
03
03
398
00
32
47
385
00
00
44
397
00
04
84
391
00
51
15
386
00
14
69
390
00
00
47
387
00
16
17
[फा. सं. एल-14014/35/2004-जी.पी. ]
एस. बी. मण्डल, अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 27th April , 2005
S. O. 1605.- Whereas by notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O. 3038 dated, 23rd November, 2004, issued under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) (hereafter referred to as the said Act) , the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for transportation natural gas through an interconnection between Jamnagar Bhopal and Kakinada Hydrabad - Goa Pipeline by Gas Transportation and Infrastructure Company Limited;
And, whereas copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public 19th January, 2005
The objection received from the public to the laying of the Pipeline have been considered and dissolved by the Competent Authority;
And whereas the Competent Authority has , under sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Act, submitted report to the Central Government;
And whereas the Central Government, after considering the said report and on being satisfied that the said land is required for laying the pipeline, has decided to acquire the right ofuser therein;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub section (1) of the Section 6 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline ;
And, further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 4) of section 6 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby directs that the right of user in the said land for laying the pipeline shall , instead of vesting in the Central Government, vest, on the date of publication of the declaration, in Gas Transportation and Infrastructure Company Limited freefrom all encumbrances .
4364
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30 , 2005 /VAISAKHA 10, 1927
Schedule Mandal/Thesil/Taluk : NADIAD
District : KHEDA NameofVillage
Survey No./Block No. 1
2
231
1) NAVAGAM
232
233
234
338
235
236/P
236/P
329/P
329/P
328
326/P
327
366
323/P
365/P
367
412/P
407
District : KHEDA Mandal /Thesil /Taluk : MATAR
425
1) SIHOLDI
424
430
423
422
432
433
435
401
399
397
396
393
443
392
[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii )] State : GUJARAT
Area to be acquired
Hectare Are
for ROU C-Are 3
4
5
03
54 00
00
06
22
11
08 00
32
72 00
00
12
75
24
92 00
02
48 00
96 00
33
00
11 00
11
00
03 00
05
23 00
05
75
13
38 00
09
66 00
00
23
75
33 00
03
00
00
52
38
53 00
14
00
91 State : GUJARAT
33
24
00
00
10
87
40
02
00
00
06
62
13
02 00
13
00
31
10 00
23
00
22
45 00
01
38
21
08
00
00
60
00
00
03
38
41 00
16
00
08
51 00
17
10 [भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 30 , 2005/वैशाख 10 , 1927
1
2
445/P
1) SIHOLDI ( Contd.... )
367/P
363
362/P
361
360
358/P
358/P
457/B
455
457 /A
456
459
461/A/P
461/A/P
465
461/B
463
487
488
494
495
501/A
501/B
500
502
504
503
506/P
506/P
516
508
509
515
514
503
2) MALIYATAJ
504
502
507
506/1
508
534/1
4365
4
3
5 00
14
42 00
07
52 00
41
90
01
37 00
00
10
80 00
19
35
01
00
89 00
58
08
00
18
05
00
00
02 00
32
25 00
01
03 00
20
25 00
11
89 00
09
35
12
02 00
21
82 00
00
19
18 00
12
27
11
00
16 00
59
39
01
94 00
00
14
03 00
04
30 00
04
52 00
16
60 00
04
50 00
15
10
00
02
84 00
03
79 00
12
02 00
17
09 00
97
25
00
01
46
25 00
00
00
00
21 00
32
80 00
01
02
74
18
00
14
34
00
05
65 00
00
93
04 4366
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30 , 2005 /VAISAKHA 10. 1927
1
2
534/2
2) MALIYATAJ (Contd....)
246/2
3) ALINDRA
243/2
243/1
244
241
240
228
229
230
224
223
213
214
180
216
179
178
177
176
174
415
417
418
419
425
426
447
446
711
712
876
875
884
882
885
870
836
857
855
854
837
[ PART 11- SEC. 3 ( ii) ] 3
4
5 00
16
88
10
00
11 00
07
25
03 00
10
08
60 00
00
24
95 00
02
44
46 00
01
00
22
53 00
12
60 00
00
16 00
17
25
55 00
05
00
22
04 00
34
00 00
44
08
19
12 00
00
10
29
00
74
03
00
30
40
86 00
06
00
06
01
00
10
06 00
33
90 00
00
85 00
28
35 00
51
16
00
07
85 00
14
30
50
26
00
00
45
01
00
06
15 00
47
70 00
41
13
01
00
65 00
20
71 00
01
16 00
03
29
00
13
69 00
04
15 00
17
02 00
07
92 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: अप्रैल 30, 2005/वैशाख 10, 1927
1
2
839
3) ALINDRA ( Contd ....)
838
827
826
816
817
812
810
807
814
813
806
801
800
799
986
987
988
317
4) UNDHELA
318
319
314
323
322
324
392
393
395
394
498
499
497/P
496
487
486
488
490
489
530
531/P
532
533
4367 3
4
5 00
04
96
17
00
46 00
02
03
43 00
19
17
92 00
00
00
32 00
18
90 00
00
40
09
00
58 00
00
08 00
70
03
00
01
95 00
01
08 00
12
63 00
09
00
00
27
89
32 00
23
05
00
80
04
34 00
00
37
13 00
00
23.
17
00
22 00
10
67 00
30
06
00
25
97 00
02
20 00
29
49 00
48
08
12
87 00
10
00
78
03
00
52 00
1.0
28 00
01
15 00
04
52 00
01
30 00
11
87 00
13
42
01
30 00
00
01
63 00
11
58 00
01
05
06 00
18 4368
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30 , 2005 /VAISAKHA 10 , 1927
1
2
534
4) UNDHELA ( Contd .... )
528/P
535
536
602
600
601
612
614
613
611
637
636
698
635
699
700
701
708
709
707
706
704
705
716
717
733
732
731
730
729
728
497/P
531/P
293
5) UNTAI
296/A
297
255/1
255/2
256
253/1
221/1 /1A [PART II-SEC . 3( ii) ] 3
4
5 00
01
29 00
17
26 00
02
74 00
06
99 00
00
35 00
16
67 00
30
01
00
25
19 00
07
79 00
10
47
00
00
55 00
03
93 00
01
46 00
15
11 00
09
43 00
03
51 00
05
82 00
03
92 00
00
25
00
00
01 00
02
71 00
07
31 00
01
29 00
01
97 00
18
16
00
00
01 00
16
29 00
11
19 00
04
50 00
04
71 00
11
14 00
02
98 00
10
49
15
00
51 00
01
13 00
08
19 00
08
51 00
07
58 00
07
69 00
03
87 00
25
18 00
14
54 भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 30 , 2005 /वैशाख 10, 1927
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
1
2
252
5) UNTAI (Contd .... )
251
223
224/P
224/ P
226
296/B
1025/1
6)MATAR
1025/3
1026/2
1027
1028
1029/1
1029/2
1021/7
1035/1/P
1030/2
1036/2
1036/3
1036/5
1036/4
1089
1087/1
1087/2
1086
1085/A
1085/B
1038/A
1039.
1072
1071/1
1073
1074/P
1074/P
1075/2
1081
1079
1076
1077/1
1077/2
1077/3
1062
1234 GI/05-14
4369 3
4
5
90 00
17
00
99
02
05
00
10 00
19
46
10
98 00
10
92 00
80
33
00
16
14
00
09
09 00
03
84
15
36 00
00
07
20 00
05
12
00
06
90 00
00
05 00
20
13 00
00
61 00
00
26 00
03
92 00
02
08
00
02
13
00
16
14 00
52
10
85 00
12
00
00
24
32
03
00
00
02
88 00
03
36
00
00
22 00
15
94 00
12
87 00
05
05
00
11
56
03. 00
14
13
98 00
00
05
50 00
90
17
00
72 00
00
21
68
36 00
07
93 00
06
33
00
00 4370
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30 , 2005/VAISAKHA 10 , 1927
1
2 6) MATAR ( Contd .... )
1117
1118
1119
1121/ P
1121/P
1321
1322
1323
1326
1328
1327
1416/ P
1413/1
1413/2
1413/3
1433/A/1
1433 /A/2
1433/A/3
1433 /A/ 6
1436
1435
1447
1449
1309/2
13895
1389/6
1386/1
1386/2
1385
1382/ P
1382/ P
1383/2
1377
1376
1455
1454/1
1454/2
1467/1
1467/3
1467/4
1468/2
1473/1
1472
[ PART 11 - SF . 3 ( ii) ] 3
4
5 00
71
11
00
34
20
00
62
28 00
00
69
00
00
80 00
00
09 00
17
88 00
16
28 00
24
67 00
05
53 00
26
67 00
03
21 00
18
68 00
11
11 00
28
96 00
15
16 00
23
27 00
01
18 00
00
21 00
15
04 00
31
92 00
24
28 00
17
88 00
12
05 00
05
50 00
01
90 00
88
05
00
15
20 00
95
13
00
19
21 00
10
00 00
00
20 00
26
88 00
16
04
00
01
71 00
93
09
00
11
25 00
15
41 00
14
28 00
95
06
00
11
71
40 00
02
00
09
37 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 30, 2005/वैशाख 10, 1927
1
2
1471/P
6) MATAR ( Contd .... )
1471 /P
1470
1478
1477-
1489
1488/1
1121/P
189
7) SOKHADA
193
197
198
225
226/P
226/P
227
228
229
623
622
621
620
629
641
640/P
640/P
640/P
640/P
640/P
638
637
636/P
636/P
636/P
636/P
Mandal /Thesil /Taluk : KHEDA
4371 3
4
5 00
03
91 00
04
05
00
07
30 00
16
20 00
30
83 00
49
77 00
38
45 00
00
04
83 00
32
00
47
15 00
35
25
15
00
96 00
05
45
36
00
37 00
74
06
00
08
75 00
08
34 00
00
52 00
04
25 00
31
70 00
18
24
12 00
20
16
00
46 00
25
95 00
78
12
00
11
53 00
12
09
00
09
73
67 00
06
00
04
51
15
00
48
05
00
40
18
00
00 00
40
05
00
06
88
District : KHEDA
192
1) HARIYALA
206/P
205
207/P
210/1
210/2
State : GUJARAT
00
41
03 00
32
32 00
19
39 00
19
14 00
00
20
33
96 00 4372
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: APRIL 30 , 2005/VAISAKHA 10 , 1927
1
2
349/P
1) HARIYALA ( Contd .... )
351
350
427
428
429
450
449
430
448
447/P
447/P
444/P
444/P
445
475/ P
475/ P
474/ P
479/P
479/P
482
518
483
505
504
507
658/ P
657
656
653 /P
653/ P
653/P
652
612/2/ P
651/ P
625/2
625/1
626
627/1 / P
628
630/ P
631
[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] 3
4
5
43
00
54 00
00
30 00
09
13
16
00
01 00
09
64
02
47 00
00
21
50 00
22
10
23
00
15 00
01
09
15
46 00
00
00
01
24
00
09
24
09 00
00
33
06
96 00
27
27
00
95 00
15
89 00
21
97
34 00
15
60 00
15
00
25
75 00
11
10 00
62
90 00
08
00
00
52
61 00
76
07
00
93
84 00
00
02 00
47
97
01
00
57
21
00
25 00
76
37 00
07
15
16
43 00
63
00
26 00
65
01
00
12
11
00
86
32
00
26
53 00
02
21 00
26
50 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: अप्रैल 30 , 2005/वैशाख 10, 1927
1
2
632
1) HARIYALA (Contd ....)
633
634
635
206/P
207/P
115
2) KAJIPURA
116
114
120
121/B
127/2
127/3
112/A
129
130/1
130/2
131/1/A
132/1
132/2
149/1
134/1 /A
136/A
136/B
136/D
136/C
856
3) GOBHLAJ
857
858/ P
858/P
707/2
867
866
873
869
871
979
995
994
997
1002
1001
1003
1006
1008
1009
1016
4373 3
4
5 00
50
14 00
25
30 00
36
96 00
24
64 00
04
63
21
00
04 00
20
69 00
88
49
21
00
69
67 00
34
00
13
79 00
09
45 00
16
45 00
18
56. 00
33
78' 00
17
90
18
40 00
15
00
86
15
00
44 00
03
68 00
06
23 00
80
02
00
33
76
31
00
01
11
78 00
00 .
05
81 00
00
07
05 00
36
07
45 00
00
15
95
05 00
00
00
40
50 00
11
16
18
39 00
00
00
64 00
36
87 00
28
35
64 00
22
00
04
83
19 00
14
00
69
00
00
67 38 67
47 12 42
00
00
03.
07 00
64
09
10
62 00
13
14 00 4374
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30 , 2005 /VAISAKHA 10, 1927
1
2
1011
3) GOBHLAJ (Contd .... )
1014
1012
1013
1114
1117/ P
1117/P
1120
1119
1118
1127
6/4
4) MALARPURA
26
27
6/1
54/A/1
5) KANERA
54/A/2
57
105
109
110
124
111
123
112
122
99
114
113
118
117
135
414
412
413
446
444
443
445
465
447
464
463
448
466
451
468
[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] 3
4
5 00
00
18 00
00
89 00
05
98 00
03
99 00
20
00 00
16
34 00
00
10 00
02
18 00
07
54 00
28
36 00
20
42
17
00
07
20 00
06
85
00
54 00
83
02 00
28
16 00
29
00 00
17
50
32
12 15 12
00 00 00
61 00
01
07 00
03
46
12
34 00
06
00
24 00
10
47 00
07
90 00
00
28 00
03
25 00
29
92
11
60 00
28
59 00
06
20 00
00
02
87 00
05
04
15
00
51 00
52
01
09
72 00
00
00
01
11 00
03
52 00
02
00
07 00
00
87
06
06
00
20 00
01
00
00
18
00
00
02
75
26 00
01 4375 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: अप्रैल 30 , 2005 /वैशाख 10, 1927
1
2
3
4
5
462
5) KANERA ( Contd .... )
00
02
59
461
00
02
63
460
00
11
09
453
00
09
92
454
07
00
59
404
00
00
95
455
04
00
03
456
00
71
01
457
00
35
70-
399
00
03
03
398
00
32
47
385
00
00
44
397
00
04
84
391
00
15
51
386
00
14
69
390
00
00
47
387
00
16
77
[ F. No. L - 14014/35/2004-G.P. ] S. B. MANDAL , Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 27 अप्रैल, 2005
का. आ. 1606.- केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्च्यात उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधिन जारी की गई भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का . आ . 3209 तारीख 15 दिसम्बर , 2004 द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से सलंग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में मेसर्स गैस ट्रान्स्पोर्टेशन एंड इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर कंपनी लिमिटेड की संप्रवर्तक कंपनी मेसर्स रिलाएंस इन्डस्ट्रीज लिमिटेड के गोवा में उत्तरी /दक्षिणी अपतट में खोज ब्लाकों और आंध्रप्रदेश राज्यं की संरचनाओ से महाराष्ट राज्य में पुणे जिले के विभिन्न उपभोक्ताओं तक प्राकृतिक गैस के परिवहन के लिए गैस ट्रान्स्पोर्टेशन एंड इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर कंपनी लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी;
और उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ जनता को तारीख 17 जनवरी, 2005 को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी; और पाइपलाइन बिछाने के संबंध में जनता की ओर से प्राप्त आक्षेपों पर सक्षम प्राधिकारी द्वारा विचार कर लिया गया है और अननुज्ञात कर दिया गया;
और सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन केन्द्रीय सरकार को अपनी रिपोर्ट दे दीहै ;
और केन्द्रीय सरकार ने , उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्च्यात , और यह समाधान हो जाने पर कि उक्त भूमि पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए अपेक्षित है , उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन का विनिश्चय किया है ; अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा ( 1 ) दारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची मे विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाता है ;
और, केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा ( 4 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह निर्देश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में पाइपलाइन बिछानेके संबंध में उपयोग का अधिकार इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख से केन्द्रीय सरकार मे निहित होने के बजाए सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त, गैस ट्रान्स्पोर्टेशन एंड इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर कंपनी लिमिटेड में निहित होगा । 4376
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30, 2005 /VAISAKHA 10, 1927
अनुसूची मंडल/ तेहसिल/तालुकः खेड
जिला : पुणे गाँव का नाम
सर्वे नंबर/ गट नंबर
2
1
225
1 ) साबळेवाडी
219
224
1514(पुराना नंबर)
सर्वे नंबर 1514 (पुराना नंबर ) और 220 के बीच का गाडी रास्ता (सि .
एल.)
220
1511 (पुराना नंबर) 209
214
212
211
213
215
सर्वे नंबर 215 और 13 के बीच का नाला (सि . एल . )
13
17/अ
17/ब (जी . एल.)
16
28 (जी . एल . )
27
36
33
34
415(जी. एल.)
2) बहुळ
सर्वे नंबर 415 और कॅनाल के बीच का नाला (सि . एल .) सर्वे नंबर 415 और 281 के बीच का बीच का कॅनाल (सि.एल.)
281
282/2(जी. एल.)
सर्वे नंबर 282/2 और 276 के बीच का नाला (सि. एल.)
276
275/अ
सर्वे नंबर 275/अ और 275/ब के बीच का गाडी रास्ता (सि. एल .)
275/ब
274
256
1272(पुराना नंबर)
सर्वे नंबर 1272 ( पुराना नंबर) और 284 के बीच का नाला (सि . एल .)
[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] राज्य: महाराष्ट्र
आर. ओ.यु. अर्जित करने के लिए क्षेत्रफल हेक्टर
एर सिएर
4
3
5 00
03
98 00
46
71 00
30
20 00
01
55 00
01
57 00
38
67 00
18
89 00
09
10 00
10
63 00
07
88 00
00
08 00
36
85 00
05
67 00
00
85 00
49
64 00
24
71 00
05
15 00
40
69
01
00
54 00
32
21
00
11
33 00
13
09 01
04
00
01
54 00
00
03
12 00
26
64 00
11
18 00
07
51 00
01
24 00
17
18 00
02
08 00
18
51 00
15
03 00
19
57 00
00
76 00
50
03 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 30 , 2005 /वैशाख 10 , 1927
1
2
284 बहुळ (निरंतर)
सर्वे नंबर 284 और 257 के बीच का नाला (सि. एल.)
257
255
254
253
सर्वे नंबर 253 और 233 के बीच का नाला (सि. एल.)
सर्वे नंबर 253 और 233 के बीच का गाडी रास्ता (सि. एल.)
233
1046(पुराना नंबर)
1048(पुराना नंबर)
सर्वे नंबर 1048 (पुराना नंबर) और 78 के बीच का नाला (सि . एल.)
78
76
765(पुराना नंबर)
75
1256
सर्वे नंबर 1256 और 1257 के बीच का रास्ता (सि. एल.)
1257
सर्वे नंबर 1257 और 530 (पुराना नंबर) के बीच का नाला (सि. एल.)
530(पुराना नंबर)
1029
1031
1030
सर्वे नंबर 1030 और 1050/1 के बीच का रास्ता (सि . एल.)
1050/1
1050/2
सर्वे नंबर 1050/2 और 1054 के बीच का नाला (सि. एल.)
1054
सर्वे नंबर 1054 और 1059 के बीच का नाला (सि. एल.)
1059
1058
961
सर्वे नंबर 961 और 960 के बीच का फिल्ड चॅनल (सि. एल .)
960
959
1847 3) पिंपळगाव तर्फ खेड
1864
सर्वे नंबर 1864 और 1865 के बीच का कॅनाल (सि. एल.)
1865/2
1995 1234 GI/05-15
4377 3
4
5
08
00
99 00
05
39
02
43 00
04
50 00
19
34 00
30
01 00
05
00
99
01
44 00
01
29
67
29
06
00
04
86 00
00
12
16 00
11
00
49
00
00
20
63 00
13
03 00
00
33
38 00
04
34 00
49
08
07
00
68
40 00
06
00
23
65
32
00 00
14
67 00
03
07 00
17
85 00
17
83 00
02
90 00
29
00
09 00
06
45
21
0:0 00
00
00
87
97
73 00
00
00
45 00
18
51
18
49 00
35
50
00
26
31 00
02
69 00
03
00 60,
22 00
54 4378
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30 , 2005 /VAISAKHA 10 , 1927
1
2
1872 पिंपळसव तर्फ खेड (निरंतर)
1858 (जी. एल .)
1873
1874(जी. एल .)
1875
1876
1877
1878
1879(जी. एल .)
1880
1881
सर्वे नंबर 1881 और 1882 के बीच का फिल्ड चॅनल (सि . एल .)
1882
1887
1889
सर्वे नंबर 1889 में बीच का फिल्ड चॅनल (सि . एल.)
1890
1891/1
सर्वे नंबर 1891 और 1892 के बीच का कॅनाल (सि. एल.)
1892
सर्वे नंबर 1892 और 1894 के बीच का रास्ता (सि . एल.)
1894 (जी. एल .)
सर्वे नंबर 1894 में गाडी रास्ता (सि. एल .)
1012
1906
1902
1904
1903
1905
1907
1908
सर्वे नंबर 1906 और 1972 के बीच का नाला (सि . एल .)
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1978
1979
1981
1982
सर्वे नंबर 1978 और 1982 के बीच का फिल्ड चॅनल (सि . एल.)
सर्वे नंबर 1978 और 1982 के बीच का फिल्ड चॅनल (सि. एल .)
[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii)] 3
5
4
13
00
25 00
04
55
21 00
07
00
05
90
18
00
39 00
13
13
04
00
89 00
44
06
00
11
43
25 00
20
00
06
39 00
00
70 00
18
15 00
11
98 00
37
09
00
24
00
00
04
91
13
07 00
01
30 00
01 00
07
04
78 00
00
21
88 00
03
33
01
37 00
00 00
43
00
40
02
02
00
00 00
02
20 00
02
20 00
10
01
00
00
50
04
00
30 00
20
40 00
10
23 00
02
56 00
08
51
46 00
00
00
16
85 00
04
96 00
00
05
07 00
08
00
00
23 00
00
11 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 30 , 2005/वैशाख 10 , 1927
1
2
1983 पिंपळाचं तर्फ खेड
1999 (निरंतर)
1959
1958
1957
1956
1955
1946
1952/1
सर्वे नंबर 1952/1 और रास्ता के बीच का कॅनाल (सि . एल.)
सर्वे नंबर 1952/1 और 1744/1 के बीच का रास्ता (सि. एल.)
1744/1
1744/3
सर्वे नंबर 1744 और 1580 के बीच का फिल्ड चॅनल (सि. एल.)
1743
1580/1/1
1580/ब
1582
1581
सर्वे नंबर 1581 और 1583 के बीच का नाला (सि. एल.)
1583
1584
1579/1
1586
1587
1589
1590/1
1590/2
1591
1592
1593
1594(जी. एल.)
394/1
394/2
393/1 ब
393/1अ (जी . एल.)
सर्वे नंबर 393/1 अ और 393/2 के बीच का कॅनाल (सि. एल.)
393/2
386
388
385/1 ब
385/2
385/1अ (जी. एल .)
4379
4
3
5
10
00
55
01
50 00
02
00
24 00
11
05 00
10
15
00
11
35
04
00
79 00
41
00
28
00
94 00
36
05
00
08
68
36
25 00
00
70 00
02
00
54
00
73 00
43
00
11 00
15
33,
00
55
06
02
82 00
15 00
03
07
13 00
99 00
10
24 00
00
00
05
33 00
60
02
00
02
05
04
00
58
59
06
00
03
00
54 00
08
44
22
50 00
00
07
17 00
01
33
16
00
44
15
00
00 00
00
48
66
05
00
07
00
48 00
03
74 00
03
53 00
04
48 00
05
57 00
04
00 4380
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30 , 2005 /VAISAKHA 10, 1927
1
2
384 पिंपळगाव तर्फ खेड
383 (निरंतर)
382
363/2
363/4 (जी. एल .)
363/3
359
360
357
361
356
354
सर्वे नंबर 354 और 170/2 के बीच का रास्ता (सि . एल. )
170/2(जी. एल .)
171
172/अ
172/ब
173
174
175
सर्वे नंबर 175 और 176 के बीच का नाला (सि . एल.)
176
164
191
192
193
195
196
197
198
210
199
211
212
231
230
232
235
236
237
249
250
258
[PART II -SEC. 3 ( ii) ] 3
4
5 00
08
03 00
09
16 00
10
38 00
36
31 00
07
00 00
01
37 00
27
10 00
17
17
00
02
81 00
38
80
47 00
14
01
00
49 00
05
57 00
14
87 00
20
92 00
12
96 00
23
08
10
42 00
00
12
56
13
82 00
00
07
12 00
15
68
00 00
01
25
00
82 00
33
16
26
13 00
00
20
02
00
01
70 00
11
35 00
05
73
12
00
53
08 00
00
00
05
81 00
07
32 00
16
09
00
15
56 00
04
87 00
26
20
06 00
26
14
00
23 00
14
50 00
58
12
00
02
74 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
4381
भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 30, 2005/वैशाख 10, 1927
1
2
257 पिंपळगाव तर्फ खेड
226 (निरंतर)
255
254
253
252
251
गाव सीमा के पास की नदी (सि. एल .)
582 4). काळूस
580
581
583
577
576
575
574
573
569
524
सर्वे नंबर 524 और 568/अ के बीच का गाडी रास्ता (सि. एल.)
568/अ
567 (जी. एल .)
566(जी. एल.)
565
564
563
562(जी. एल. )
561
560
525
526
527
528
530
529
सर्वे नंबर 529 और 543 के बीच का कॅनाल (सि. एल.)
543
112
111
114
110
109
108 3
4
5
09
00
82 00
06
86 00
04
64
10
33 00
07-
00
59
12
24 00
00
02
00 00
25
35
12
17
51 00
00
00
07
22
00
88 00
10
78
97 00
09
21
00
05 00
07
43
14
00
75
08
10 00
00
72
00
00
24
09 00
01
81
96
96 00
00
22
38 00
08
43 00
06
97 00
07
11
07
53 00
00
05
37 00
03
50 00
01
44 00
26
52 00
21
03
73 00
23
18
00
83
00
35 00
00
10
39 00
45
02
00
35
34
:
17
32 00
76
06
00
00
00
56
05
86 00
06
14 00 .
03
00
56 4382
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30 , 2005 /VAISAKHA 10 , 1927
2 1
105 काकूस (निरंतर)
106
104
115
103
102
101
100
99
96
सर्वे नंबर 96 और 52 के बीच का सरकारी जमीन (सि. एल .)
52
51
60
49
47
45
29
21
20
18
17
16(जी. एल.)
15
सर्वे नंबर 15 और 13 के बीच का कॅनाल (सि. एल .)
13
14
सर्वे नंबर 14 और 1898 के बीच का मुख्य जिला मार्ग 20 (सि . एल .)
1898
1800 (जी . एल . )
सर्वे नंबर 1800 और 2408 के बीच का गाव रास्ता 115 (सि. एल . )
2408
2407
140
1880
1944
सर्वे नंबर 1944 और 1981 के बीच का फिल्ड चॅनल (सि. एल .)
1981 (जी. एल .)
2395/अ
2395/ब
2394
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] 3
4
5 00
29
67 00
00
20 00
02
20
23 00
00
02
00
06 00
11
10
12
43 00
99 00
05
21
65 00
13
00
79
17
96 00
00
31
27
35
10
00
00
07
61 00
01
76
28
38 00
77
15
00
00
58
98.
13
70 00
62 00
08
00
05
03
98 00
07
00
63 00
18
79 00
00
02
03
00
00
04 00
22
11
06
38 00
00
01
10 00
27
43 00
03
05
87
00
00
00
07
32 00
31
01
00
17
52
07
62 00
00
00
82 00
08
46
05
48 00
00
05
52
60 00
13 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
4383
भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 30, 2005/वैशाख 10, 1927
1
2
2393 काळूस (निरंतर)
2392
2391
2390-
2387
2386
2384
2383
2380
2354
सर्वे नंबर 2354 और 1017 के बीच का रास्ता (सि. एल.)
1017
1019
1020
1023
1022
1027
1063 (जी. एल.)
1062
1061
1038
सर्वे नंबर 1038 और 1036 के बीच का गाडी रास्ता (सि. एल .)
1036
1037 (जी . एल. )
1039
1041 (जी . एल.)
1040
1042
1043
1044
1047
1045(जी. एल.)
1130(जी. एल .)
1131 (जी. एल.)
1132(जी. एल.)
1133 (जी. एल.)
सर्वे नंबर 1133 और 1134 के बीच का नाला (सि . एल .)
1134
1135
1136
1137 (जी. एल.)
1138
1139(जी. एल.) 3
4
5 00
18
02 00
09
50 00
08
03 00
05
85 00
06
36 00
04
84 00
03
61
03
93 00
00
11
93 00
11
67 00
06
50
01
24 00
10 00
09
00
12
12
06
00
18 00
48
19
00
11
81 00
31
20
00
15
20 00
12
32 00
21
75 00
04
76
04
45 00
00
06
84 00
15
34 00
08
71 00
04
40
06
41 00
00
01
59 00
06
05 00
04
24 00
28
84 00
25
79 00-
07
94 00
06
37 00
06
18
02
00
39
01 00
04
00
01
00 00
53
06
00
10
89 00
04
72 00
08
26 4384
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30 , 2005 /VAISAКНА 10 , 1927
1
2
1140 काळूस (निरंतर)
1598 (जी . एल .)
सर्वे नंबर 1598 और 1142 के बीच का रास्ता (सि . एल.)
1142
1143
1596
1597
1722 (जी. एल . )
1721
1720/1 (जी . एल .)
सर्वे नंबर 1720 /1 और 1711 के बीच का सरकारी जमीन
1711
1712
1713
1714
1748
1747
964
1746
1745
1744
1743
1741
1742
सर्वे नंबर 1742 में कॅनाल (सि. एल.)
गाव सीमा के पास का इतर जिला मार्ग 32 (सि . एल .)
401 5) वाकी बुदुक
400
399
सर्वे नंबर 399 और 398 के बीच का कॅनाल (सि . एल.)
398
397
402
396
393
394
391
492
389
387
390
520
519(जी . एल . )
PART 11-S 3( ii) ] 3
4
5 00
15
76 00
00
75 00
06
37 00
01
32 00
00
50 00
27
49 00
29
81
11
00
76 00
02
20 00
50
97 00
11
85 00
94
08
00
05
17 00
02
84 00
04
58
04
00
88
11
00
53
02
00
95
03
00
00 00
02
33 00
03
39 00
03
29
16
95 00
00
69
60 00
04
69 00
03
68 00
00
59 00
21
73 00
20
71
07
00
49 00
17
53 00
01
40 00
66
08
00
17
95 00
09
92 00
02
47 00
15
30 00
22
53 00
00
50 00
00
40 00
03
32 00
13
58 00
02
25 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
4385
भारत का राजपत्र: अप्रैल 30 , 2005 /वैशाख 10, 1927
1
2
517 बाकी बुदुक (निरंतर)
518
514
696
700
701
7:13
714
715/अ
719
720
727
726
724
731(जी. एल .)
730(जी. एल.)
739
740
741
742
744
745
746
747
757
758
759
760
761
763
762
सर्वे नंबर 763 और 771 के बीच का नाला (सि. एल.)
771
770
772
सर्वे नंबर 772 और 775 के बीच की सरकारी जमीन (जी. एल .)
775/अ
775/ब
सर्वे नंबर 775/ब और 782 के बीच का गाडी रास्ता (सि . एल.)
782
801/अ
801/ब (जी. एल.)
सर्वे नंबर 801 /ब और 803 के बीच का नाला (सि. एल .)
1234GI/05-16
3
4
5 00 .
04
90 00
02
42
36 00
02
00
25
01
63 00
14
00
10
35 00
07
50 00
08
54
95
06
00
00
08
09
00
64
04
04
73 00
07
00
70
11
00
24
32
00
15 00
07
64
00
18 00
00
03
39 00
02
69 00
03
84
04
24 00
00
03
81 00
00
35
00
00
46 00
07
70
03
00
68
56 00
01
00
03
23
02
95 00
00
08
38 00
30
00
00
06
06
24
77 00
00
05
84 00
00
98 00
63
6.9 00
27
25 00
15
00
03
00
85 00
38
75
29
40 00
00
13
96 00
03
08 4386
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30 , 2005 /VAISAKHA 10 , 1927
1
2
803 वाकी बुदुकै (निरंतर)
806
807
808
811
810
सर्वे नंबर 810 और 813 के बीच का नाला (सि. एल . )
813
815
865
864
सर्वे नंबर 864 और 863 के बीच का नाला (सि . एल.)
863
856
862
867
गाव सीमा के पास की नदी (सि . एल.)
515
562
563
516
513
510
505
504
सर्वे नंबर 504 और 568 के बीच का नाला (सि . एल .)
568
569
570
609
612
सर्वे नंबर 612 और 614 के बीच का नाला (सि. एल. )
614
615
619
620
623
624
सर्वे नंबर 624 और 630 के बीच की सरकारी जमीन (सि . एल .)
630
634
635
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] 3
4
5 00
19
52 00
08
49
07
00
64 00
08
75 00
11
18 00
28
49
05
00
45 00
76
93 00
06
49 00
21
39 00
07
98 00
05
42 00
16
13 00
02
22 00
35
46 00
06
71 00
29
72 00
07
05 00
00
06 00
02
87
05
70 00
00
82
04
00
02
44 00
03
28 00
00
99 00
00
01 00
08
89 00
02
02 00
08
78 00
28
57 00
36
66 00
20
62 00
05
24 00
63
18
00
31
27 00
01
78 00
02
13 00
02
55 00
01
92 00
07
98
10
00
34 00
07
02
00
02
51 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]
4387
भारत का राजपत्र: अप्रैल 30, 2005/वैशाख 10, 1927
2 1
884 बाकी बुवुक (निरंतर)
888
687
689
सर्वे नंबर 689 और 694 के बीच का नाला (सि. एल. ) .
894 6) वाकीखुर्द
सर्वे नंबर 180 और 193 के बीच का नाला (सि. एल .)
193
सर्वे नंबर 180पै और 180 के बीच में राष्ट्रीय मार्ग 50 (सि. एल .)
180
सर्वे नंबर 180 में नाला (सि . एल.)
सर्वे नंबर 179 पै . और गाव सीमा के बीच में रास्ता (सि. एल.)
7) रोहकल्ल
गाव सीमा के पास का रास्ता (सि . एल.)
103/1
109
108
38
36
35
34
33
28
220 (सि. एल. )
सर्वे नंबर 220 में रास्ता (सि . एल.)
सर्वे नंबर 220 में रास्ता (सि. एल.)
207
107
106
सर्वे नंबर 107 और 80 के बीच में रास्ता (सि . एल .)
80/2
81
83
84
71
72
70
67/ब
69
68
63/1/2बी
63/1/3ए
64 3
4
5 00
46
08 00
19
74 00
00
04 00
21
04 00
03
48
28
77 00
04
48 00
00
02
50
04
40 00
73
72 00
04
18 00
00
02
74
00
10 00
09
0.0
91
02
00
05
32
00
25 00
04
92 00
04
73
03
48 00
02
00
13 00
01
16
49
00
81 01
35
76
94 00
07
00
04
11 00
13
73 00
12
38
00
09
00 00
05
06 00
10
54
47 00
10
00
07
02 00
24
00 00
27
12
00
00
31 00
36
14
64 00
01
00
03
75
76 00
25
39
00 00
00
48
38
10 00
00 4388
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30 , 2005/VAISAKHA 10 , 1927
1
2
44 रोहकल्ल (निरंतर)
41
40/3
39
52 8)पिंपरी खुर्द
57
58
59
60
61/1
61/2
61/3
61/4
62
63
64
18 9) गोनवाडी
17
8
9
16
10
11
सर्वे नंबर 11 और 52 के बीच में नाला (सि . एल.)
सर्वे नंबर 52 में रास्ता (सि. एल.)
52(सि. एल.)
53(सि. एल .)
54
51 (सि. एल .)
50
55
56
799 10) आंबे
798
723
722
721
719
717
718
सर्वे नंबर 718 में रास्ता (सि. एल.)
687
688
[PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] 3
5
4
00
24
72 00
71
02
00
12
48 00
13
30 00
07
83 00
45
31 00
17
56 00
11
58 00
11
76 00
09
00
07
00
20
04
00
13 00
08
80
04
00
14 00
88
09
00
15
33
66
00
26 00
80
39 00
08
74
97 00
09
53
37 00
00
14
13
25
00
01
11
00
59 00
02
88
32
02 00
00
13
34 00
54
34
00
00
60 00
02
12 00
78
04 00
43
54 00
75
04
82 00
52
10
00
08
13
58 00
44 00
30
63
30 00
00
04
50 00
20
01
02
00
79
82 00
43
52
17
00 भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 30 , 2005 /वैशाख 10, 1927
[भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
1
2
689 अविठाण (निरंतर)
534
533
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
578
579
580
615
611
610
794
786
529
530
531
532
624
621
620
619
616
614 11) कोरेगाव खुर्द
गाव सीमा के पास का रास्ता (सि . एल.)
102(सि. एल.)
109
110
117
118/1
118/2
119
122
123
128
129
130
4389
5 3
4
00
05
20
04
50 00
02
00
30
03
10 00
00
04
20
03
00
02 00
03
00 00
03
02 00
02
25
01
00
50 00
01
25
01
00
38 00
00
03 00
02
63 00
07
05
62
00
70 00
37
00 00
00
02 00
75
00
00
00
03
00
01
88 00
00
25 00
00
03
00
03
75 00
00
05
03
00
00 00
08
44
11
38 00
15
63 00
00
69
09
00
04
85 00
48
61 00
00
10 00
60
90
31 00
00
83 00
18
00
18
84
10
00
00
22
79 00
00
07
75 00
12
21
02
00
42 00
04
35 4390
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30, 2005/VAISAKHA 10, 1927
2 1
131 कोरेगाव खुर्द (निरंतर)
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
21
17
16
सर्वे नंबर 16 और 169 के बीच में रास्ता (सि . एल.)
170
171
174
169
262
261
264
263
340
331
330
169 12) शेलु
168 (सि. एल. )
143
248
245 (जी. एल .)
249 (जी. एल.)
250 (जी. एल.)
253
254
255
259
260
224
225
218
216
219
215
214
[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] 3
4
5 00
04
46 00
02
89
05 00
07
00
11
85 00
12
32 00
12
05 00
13
74 00
11
48
00
00
14 00
06
22 00
18
26 00
19
56 00
02
78 00
00
10 00
09
89 00
04
57 00
04
39
00
26
68
46
04 00
00
62
52
70
75 00
01
24
66 00
00
23 00
05
98 00
20
48 01
45
35
81 00
00
09
00
25
03
33 00
00
47
13
00
10
00 00
02
79
72 00
32
00
52
09
00
87
04
00
00
15 00
06
09 00
13
01 00
22
99
04
24 00
09
28 00
92 00
01
00
02
16 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
4391
भारत का राजपत्र: अप्रैल 30, 2005/वैशाख 10, 1927
2 1
213 शेलु (निरंतर)
212
211
सर्वे नंबर 211 और 305 के बीच में नाला (सि. एल.)
303
305
306
302
307
308
316
309
310
315
314
312
सर्वे नंबर 314 और 336 के बीच में रास्ता (सि. एल.)
336(सि. एल.)
342(सि. एल.)
363 (सि. एल .)
365 (सि . एल.)
359(सि. एल.)
355
358
357
64 13) असखेड खुर्द
सर्वे नंबर 64 में रास्ता (सि. एल .)
66
158
68
163
162
164
69
74
75
76
84
85
89
91
92 3
4
5
01
00
61 00
83
74 00
12
11
13 00
00
06
92 00
52
09
29
35 00
00
00
89
09
28 00
05
71 00
00
00
41
06
00
61
02
87 00
00
01
37 00
59
19. 00
07
35
22
13 00
75
00
79 01
07
14
07
28 00-
00
17
23
77
34 00
03
00
37
42
00
76 00
01
69 00
30
86 :
00
03
76
39 00
70
00
09
77 00
06
46 00
07
66
41 00
34
34
71 00
51
31 00
00
05
96 00
04
50 00
05
53 00
93
13
00
12
95
35
09 00
00
36
33
00
11
73 4392
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30 , 2005/VAISAKHA 10, 1927
2
1
93
असखेड खुर्द (निरंतर)
156/1
सर्वे नंबर 156 में मुख्य जिला मार्ग 17 (सि. एल. )
157
230
14) करंजविहीरे
229
233
234
256
254
257
258
259
260
281
282
283
मंडल/ तेहसिल/तालुक:मावळ
जिला : पुणे
98
1)मिडेवाडी
97
96
101
95
94
92
91
68
69
सर्वे नंबर 69 और 70 में रास्ता (सि. एल.)
62
28
179
2) बादलवाडी
177
183
184
185
186
195
199
200
217
201
218
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] 3
4
5 00
38
86
00
54
21 00
16
97 00
14
94 00
57
13 00
01
44
36 00
39
00
20
87 00
25
24 00
23
89
28
00
04
32
26
00
00
96
25
00
60
58
00
61
19
00
02
18 00
33
00
राज्य: महाराष्ट्र
09
92 00
00
33
95 00
28
47 00
00
10 00
13
05 00
11
42
14
00
07 00
16
94 00
38
43 00
56
88 00
90
03
00
46
59 00
47
57 00
31
47 00
60
29
00
23
67
00
30
43
21
68 00
00
01
33
00
10
49 00
19
38 00
21
04
30
00
10 00
00
46 00
14
59 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
4393
भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 30 , 2005/वैशाख 10, 1927
1
2
170 बादलवाडी (निरंतर)
171
202
204
207
206
205
717
721
720
723
691
692
693
694
695
665 3
4
5
06
00
88 00
18
41
62 00
45
00
00
43 00
47
48 00
30
22 00
00
12
00
19 00
17
00
07 00
05
05
02
00
29 00
40
00
2.3
02
00
00
02
34 00
02
33 00
07
34 00
17
14 00
08
12
सर्वे नंबर 665 में रास्ता (सि. एल.)
सर्वे नंबर 665 में रास्ता (सि. एल.).
648
644
578
577
568
575
569
570
556
540
539
538
537
536
512
760 3) नवलाक उम्ब्रे
770
771
773
772
769
768
767
766 1234GI/05-17
00
03
30
52
00
60 00
30
16
00
73
17
00
21
30
33
24 00
10
90 00
00
34
40 00
34
94
14
00
47
13
00
58:
62 00
42
03
68 00
29
33 00
59 00
63
13
29
00
00
25
21
00
03
08 00
88
01
70 00
18
36
00
00
00
09
38
23 00
02
13 00
09
00
57 00 4394
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30 , 2005 /VAISAKHA 10 , 1927
1
2
708 नवलाक उम्बे (निरंतर )
707
709
720
721
719
717
718
716
560
559
556
555
577
578
579
580
581
सर्वे नंबर 580 में सरकारी जमीन (जी. एल .)
465(सि . एल.)
463
गाव सीमा के पास सरकारी जमीन (जी . एल .) 4) आंबळे
67
65
64
63
62
30
32
33
26
27
22
5/1
5/2
5/3
6/1
16/1
16/2
16/3
15/1
288 5) निगडे
[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] 3
4
5 00
03
09 00
15
69 00
67
13
00
61
06
00
00
40 00
03
50
03
00
28
04
00
80 00
20
45 00
01
64
23
73 01
00
14
61
00
09
76 00
42
39
16
00
00
05
47 00
00
57
29
00
17
07 00
00
68
01
00
45
29
82 00
00
50
03
00
25
61 00
19
92 00
12
66 00
13
33 00
24
69
15 00
54
00
22
32
30
94 00
00
97
07 00
78
39
64
00
56 00
48
90
25
00
25 00
25
25 00
25
25 00
56
77 00
50
75 00
19
05 00
25
20 00
09
68 00
00
81 4395
भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 30, 2005/वैशाख 10, 1927
[भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
2 1
287 निगडे (निरंतर)
303
295(जी . एल . )
296
305
306
सर्वे नंबर 308 और 825 के बीच में नाला (सि . एल .)
625
486
499
487
498
497
496
508
सर्वे नंबर 306 और 508 में रास्ता (सि. एल .)
509
544
543
542
554
534
555
558
557
453 6) पवलेवाडी
गाव सीमा के पास की सरकारी जमीन (जी. एल . )
13
10
12
14
15
7
16
3
21
2
1
258 7) कल्हाट
सर्वे नंबर 258 और 262 के बीच में नाला (सि. एल . )
261
262
263
4
3
5 00
42
71 00
00
52 00
24
20
01
00
72- 01
02
43 00
16
35
96 00
06
00
05
78
58
00
63
00
30 00
03
10 00
00
26
81 00
32
29 00
05
22
37
77 00
00
03
53
53
57 0.0
00
00
34 00
20
20 00
93
64
01
01
25
45
00
84 00
03
37 00
25
81
00
35
00
00
00
98
27 00
18
06
49 01
02
00
48 00
18
91
18
17 00
00
53
36 00
12
29
64 00
45
00
09
24 00
42
43 00
28
81 00
52
10 00
59
62
33
00
33 00
02
84 00
25
58
06 00
36 4396
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30, 2005 /VAISAKHA 10 , 1927
2 1
470 कल्हाट (निरतर)
469
484
485
500
सर्वे नंबर 485 में रास्ता (सि . एल.)
499
512
511
510
509
513
552
553
554
558
166 8) भोयरे
सर्वे नंबर 165 और 16 के बीच में रास्ता (सि . एल.)
16
17
18
20 (जी. एल.)
11
6बी
6ए
5
4
528
529
525
526
524
530
180 9) कशाळ
179
181
184
210
सर्वे नंबर 210 और 209 के बीच में रास्ता (सि . एल. )
209
208
207
206
[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] 3
4
5 00
53
83 00
64
04
00
65
41 00
53
47 00
21
15 00
03
33
36
00
12
56 00
12
17
37 00
00
20
57
00
11
00
00
36
21 00
00
74
41
00
26 00
40
39
40 00
45
98 00
69
03
00
89 00
29
40 00
02
89
44
56
00
65
00
93
66
35 00
82
22
00
00
32
72 00
10
78 00
15
70 00
56
36 00
05
47
56
21
00
00
00
10
42 00
14
00
45 00
10 00
25
98 00
01
93
44 00
10 00
00
00
37
06
00
05
25
34
00
60
44 00
39
00
66
25
00
15
49 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
4397
भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 30, 2005/वैशाख 10, 1927
2 1
205 कशाळ (निरतर)
204
202
सर्वे नंबर 202 और 421 के बीच में नाला (सि. एल.)
421
422
423
424
404
403
402
400
399
383
384
390
385
391
49 10) किवळे
48
51
52
सर्वे नंबर 52 में रास्ता (सि . एल.)
53
54
55
सर्वे नंबर 55 और 142 के बीच में नाला (सि. एल.)
सर्वे नंबर 55 और 142 के बीच में तालाब (सि . एल .)
142
143
144
140
139
138
137
141
सर्वे नंबर 141 और 134 के बीच में तालाब (जी. एल.)
134
135
133
132
131
130
4
3
5
46 00
02
00
32
38 00
03
59
07
29 00
59 00
55
11
09 00
00
47
45
34
00
15 00
12
45
54
26 00
18
00
60 00
70
09
00
66
00
00
59
48 00
02
30
46
00
06 00
06
98 00
44
39
00
17
37
00
17
63 00
96
73
00
29
06 00
46
08
95
14 00
53
20 00
00
17
48 00
05
70 00
18
70
12
56 00
00
44
25
00
19
31 00
07
88 00
22
15
00
17
19 00
30
77
32 00
13
22 00
35
00
11
45
17 00
15
47
00
18 00
87
58
00
22
33
68 00
09 4398
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30 , 2005 /VAISAKHA 10 , 1927
2 1
48 11 ) इंगळून
47(जी. एल.)
39
38
36
35
सर्वे नंबर 35 में रास्ता (सि . एल.)
30
29
23
25
24
21
20
18
सर्वे नंबर 20 , 330 और 18 बीच में तालाब (सि. एल.)
330
332
325
324
111
109
128
सर्वे नंवर 128 में नाला (सि . एल.)
153
152
160
159
156
158
157
163
164
167
165
247
244
सर्वे नंबर 244 में रास्ता (सि . एल.)
245
240
242
238
236
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)]
4
3
5 00
76
55 00
22
07
02
00
35
02
00 00
00
32
65 00
31
03
03
00
96 00
00
11 00
06
98 00
05
95 00
12
50
09
00
81 00
02
33 00
03
02 00
00
01
00
04
02
23
00
48 00
22
28 00
06
43 00
66
23
00
49
55
21 00
47
00
25
59 00
03
52 00
57
97 00
05
52 00
11
64 00
51
60 00
01
19
38
31 00
78 00
25
00
07
04 00
04
46 00
26
29
19
00
72 00
59
40 00
94
39
00
03
35 00
22
50 00
00
10 00
26
13 00
17
16
41
00
66 4399
भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 30, 2005/वैशाख 10 , 1927
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]
2 1
227 इंगळून (निरंतर)
सर्वे नंबर 236 में रास्ता (सि. एल.) 12) कुणेवाडी
सर्वे नंबर 48 में रास्ता (सि . एल .)
48
49
115
122
121
120
148
149
150
152
सर्वे नंबर 172 और 173 के बीच में तालाब (जी. एल.)
आन्ध्रा लेक में नाला (सि . एल .)
173
175
183
4 13) मालेगाव खुर्द
गाव सीमा के पास सरकारी जमीन (जी. एल .)
24
23
सर्वे नंबर 12 में रास्ता (सि. एल.)
12
28
सर्वे नंबर 20 में नाला (सि. एल.) 14) पिंपरीवाडी
सर्वे नंबर 126 में नाला (सि. एल.)
126
125
123
134
135
101
सर्वे नंबर 100 में नाला (सि. एल.)
100
139
140
सर्वे नंबर 140 में नाला (सि . एल.)
141
142
145
144
143 3
4
5
03
00
58
00
00
27 00
04.
26
62
00
58 00
16
40
21
00
78
28
00
21
40
00
18 00
26
90 00
05
39
10 00
00
29
00
48
62
00
62 00
24
45
00
07
45
30
00
64 00
83
10 00
09
79
11
01
98
75
00
80
12
00
98
08
74 00
03
12 00
03
00
92
50
00
01
05
00
91 00
03
30
86
77 00
17
30
00
39
53 00
01. 00
05
26
00
43
46
77 00
15
00
30
38
00
61
77
36
00
00
45
97
07
00
80
55
00
97
97 00
68
00
26
69 00
00
30
09 00
08 4400
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30, 2005 /VAISAKHA 10, 1927
2 1
169 पिंपरीवाडी (निरंतर)
222
171
221
215
216
220
218
109 15) मालेगाव बुदुक
111
110
107
106
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]
5 3
4
00
75 00
00
46
55
00
00
83
02
65 00
72 00
35
00
11
31
15 00
39
00
48
57
40 00
20
88 00
05
21
01
00
12
05
00
38 00
74
60
40
00
105 (सि. एल.)
104
103
59
सर्वे नंबर 59 और 51 के बीच में तालाब ( सि . एल . )
51
52
55
54
178
179
184
176
182
180
181
173
172
171
सर्वे नंबर 171 और 165 के बीच में सरकारी जमीन (सि. एल.)
165
158
159
51 16) सावळे
50
52
72
97/3
97/2
सर्वे नंबर 97/2 और 97/3 के बीच में रास्ता (सि. एल.)
ト
00
18
42 00
50
19 00
63
00 01
18
94 00
13
87 00
06
32 00
00
10 00
18
68 00
12
40 00
14
46 00
10
43 00
00
18 00
15
02 00
09
22 00
18
32 00
23
17 00
23
08 00
19
43 00
38
30 00
77
55 00
03
76 00
55
41 00
47
45 00
86
11 00
01
20 02
25
55 00
59
49 00
13
32 00
04
82 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
4401 भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 30 , 2005/वैशाख 10 , 1927
1
2
3
4
5
118
सावळे (निरंकर)
00
43
58
97/4
00
14
96
112
00
01
26
114.
00
03
02
113
00
10
10
120/1
00
80
54
00 .
01
54
120/2
106
00
40
00
87/12
00
52
45
120/3
00
50
94
86
14
00
56
122
00
00
99
121
00
11
97
120/10
45
00
76
120/8
00
83
86
156
00
22
91
[फा. सं. एल-14014/50/2004-जी.पी. ]
एस. बी. मण्डल, अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 27th April , 2005
S. O. 1606.- Whereas by notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O. 3209 , dated 15th December 2004, issued under sub- section ( 1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition . ofRight of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) ( hereinafter referred to as the said Act) , the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land, specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for transport of natural gas from exploration blocks in the Northern / Southern Offshore of Goa and structures in Andhra Pradesh of M/ s Reliance Industries Limited, the promoter company of M/ s Gas Transportation and Infrastructure Company Limited to various consumers of District Pune in the State of Maharashtra by Gas Transportation and Infrastructure Company Limited;
And whereas the copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public. on 17th January, 2005;
And whereas the objections received from the public to the laying of the pipeline have been considered and disallowed by the Competent Authority ;
And whereas the Competent Authority has under sub - section (1 ) of section 6 of the said Act, submitted report to the Central Government;
And whereas the Central Government , after considering the said report and on being satisfied that the said land is required for laying the pipeline, has decided to acquire the right of user therein;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification is hereby acquired , for laying the pipeline;
1234 GI/05-18 4402
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30 , 2005 /VAISAKHA 10 , 1927
[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) | And further , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section (4) of section 6 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby directs that the right of user in the said land for laying the pipeline shall, instead of vesting in the Central Government, vest, on this date of publication of the declaration , in Gas Transportation and Infrastructure Company Limited, free from all encumbrances .
Schedule
District : Pune
Mandal / Thesil/ Taluk : Khed
Survey No./ Gat No. Village
2 1
225 1) Sablewadi
219
224
1514 (Old No.)
CartTrack between Survey No. 1514
(OldNo. ) and 220 ( CL)
220
1511 (Old No. ) (209)
214
212
211
213
215
Nala between Survey No. 215 and 13
(CL)
13
17/A
17/B (GL)
16
28(GL)
27
36
33
34
415(GL) 2) Bahul
Nala between Survey No. 415 and
Canal(CL)
Canalbetween Survey No. 415 and
281 (CL)
281
282/2(GL)
Nala between Survey No. 282/2 and
276 (CL)
276
275/A State: Maharashtra
Area to be acquired for ROU
C-Are
Are
Hect.
4
5
3
03
98
00
71
46
00
30
20
00
55
00
01
57
00
01
67
00
38
89
00
18
10
00
09
63
10
00
07
88
00
08
00
00
85
36
00
67
05
00
00
85
00
64
00
49
71
00
24
15
00
05
00
40
69
00
01
54
32
21
00
11
33
00
09
00
13
04
00
01
01
54
00
12
00
03
64
00
26
11
18
00
00
51
07
24
00
01
18
17
00
08
02
00
CartTrack between Survey No. 275/A
and 275/B ( CL )
275/B
18
51
00 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 30 , 2005 /वैशाख 10, 1927
1
2
274 Bahul (Contd...)
256
1272
OldNo:
Nalabetween Survey No. 1272 (OldNo.) and 284 (CL)
284
Nala between Survey No. 284 and 257
(CL)
257
255
254
253
Nala between Survey No. 253 and 233
(CL)
CartTrackbetween Survey No. 253 and 233 (CL)
233
1046
(Old No.)
1048 (Old No.)
Nala between Survey No. 1048 (Old No.) and 78 (CL)
78
76
765
(Old No.)
75
1256
Road between Survey No. 1256 and 1257(CL)
1257
Nala between Survey No. 1257 and 530 (Old No.) (CL)
530(Old No.)
1029
1031
1030
Road between Survey No. 1030 and
1050/1 (CL)
1050/1
1050/2
Nala between Survey No. 1050/2 and.
1054(CL)
1054
Nala between Survey No. 1054 and 1059(CL)
1059
1058
961
FieldChannelbetween Survey No. 961 and960(CL)
960
959
4403 4
5
3
00
15
03
19
57
00
00
76
00
50
00
03
00
08
99
00
05
39
00
02
43
00
50
04
19
00
34
00
30
01
00
05
99
01
00
44
01
67
29
00
06
29
04
86
00
16
00
12
00
11
00
49
00
00
00
63
20
00
13
03
00
33
38
00
34
04
00
08
49
07
00
68
00
06
40
00
23
65
00
32
00
00
14
67
00
03
07
00
17
85
00
83
17
02
90
00
00
09
29
06
00
45
00
21
00
00
00
87
97
73
00
00
00
45. 00
18
51
18
49
00 4404
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30 , 2005 /VAISAKHA 10 , 1927
1
2
1847 3) Pimpalgaon tarf Khed
1864
Canal between Survey No. 1864 and
1865 (CL)
1865/2
1995
1872
1858(GL)
1873
1874(GL)
1875
1876
1877
1878
1879(GL)
1880
1881
FieldChannel between Survey Nc .
1881 and 1882 ( CL )
1882
1887
1889
FieldChannel in Survey No. 1889 (CL)
1890
1891/1
Canalbetween Survey No. 1891 and
1892(CL)
1892
Road between Survey No. 1892 and
1894 (CL)
1894(GL)
CartTrack in Survey No. 1894 (CL )
1912
1906
1902
1904
1903
1905
1907
1908
Nala between Survey No. 1906 and
1972(CL)
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] 3
4
5
50
00
35
00
26
31
00
02
69
00
03
00
00
54
22
00
13
25
00
55
04
07
21
00
00
05
90
00
39
18
00
13
13
00
04
89
00
06
44
00
11
43
00
20
25
00
06
39
70
00
00
00
18
15
11
00
98
00
37
09
00
00
24
00
04
91
00
13
07
00
01
30
00
07
01
00
04
78
00
21
88
00
03
33
00
37
01
00
43
00
00
02
40
00
02
00
20
00
02
00
02
20
00
01
10
00
00
50
30
00
04
00
20
40
00
10
23
00
56
02
00
08
51
00
00
46 4405
भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 30, 2005/वैशाख 10, 1927
[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
1
2
1978
1979 Pimpalgaon tarf Khed (Contd...)
1981
1982
Field Channel between Survey No. 1978 and 1982 ( CL)
Field Channel between Survey No. 1978 and 1982 ( CL)
1983
1999
1959
1958
1957
1956
1955
1946
1952/1
Canal between Survey No. 1952/1 and
Road (CL)
Roadbetween Survey No. 1952/1 and 1744/1 (CL)
1744/1
1744/3
Field Channel between SurveyNo.
1744 and 1580 ( CL)
1743
1580/1/1
1580/B
1582
1581
Nala between Survey No. 1581 and
1583 (CL)
1583
1584
1579/1
1586
1587
1589
1590/1
1590/2
1591
1592
1593
1594(GL)
394/1
394/2
393/1B 3
4
5
16
85
00
04
00
96
00
05
00
00
08
07
00
23
00
00
00
11
10
00
55
00
01
50
00
24
02
00
11
05
00
15
10
00
11
35
00
04
79
41
00
00
00
28
94
00
36
05
00
08
68
00
36
25
00
00
70
00
02
54
00
00
73
00
43
11
00
33
15
00
55
06 00
02
82
03
15.
00
00
07
13
00
10
99
00
00
24
00
05
33
00
02
60
00
02
05
00
04
58
06
00
59
03
00
54
00
08
44
22
00
50
07
00
17
00
01
33
16
44
00
00
00
15 4406
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30 , 2005 /VAISAKHA 10 , 1927
2 1
393/1A (GL) Pimpalgaon tarf Khed (Contd ... )
Canal between Survey No. 393/1A and
393/2( CL)
393/2
386
388
385/1B
385/2
385/1A (GL)
384
383
382
363/2
363/4 (GL)
363/3
359
360
357
361
356
354
Road between Survey No. 354 and
170/2( CL)
170/2(GL)
171
172/A
172/B
173
174
175
Nala between Survey No. 175 and 176
(CL)
176
164
191
192
193
195
196
197
198
210
199
211
212
231
230
[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ] 3
4
5
00
48
00
66
00
05
00
07
48
00
03
74
53
00
03
00
04
48
05
00
57
00
00
04
00
08
03
00
09
16
00
10
38
00
36
31
00
07
00
37
01
00
00
27
10
00
17
17
81
00
02
38
80
00
00
14
47
00
01
49
05
00
57
00
14
87
20
00
92
12
96
00
00
23
08
42
10
00
12
00
56
00
13
82
00
07
12
00
68
15
00
01
00
00
25
82
16
33
00
00
26
13
00
02
20
00
70
01
35
00
11
00
05
73
00
12
53
08
00
00
81
00
05
32
00
07
00
09
16
00
15
56 [भांग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 30 , 2005/वैशाख 10 , 1927
1
2
232 Pimpalgaon tarf Khed (Contd...)
235
236
237
249
250
258
257
226
255
254
253
252
251
River atVillageBoundary(CL)
582 4) Kalus
580
581
583
577
576
575
574
573
569
524
CartTrackbetween Survey No. 524 and 568/A (CL)
568/A
567(GL)
566(GL)
565
564
563
562(GL)
561
560
525
526
527
528
530
529
Canal between Survey No. 529 and 543 (CL)
543
4407 3
4
5
00
04
87
00
26
20
00
26
06
00
14
23
00
14
50.
12
58
00.
00
02
74
00
09
82
00
06
86
00
04
64
00
10
33
00
07
59
00
12
24
00
02
00
00
35
25
00
17
51
00
00
07
:
22
00.
88
00
10
78
09
97
00.
00
21
05
00
07
43
00
75
14
00
08
10
00
00
72
24
00
09
00
01
81
00
96
96
22
38
00
00
08
43
00
06
97
00
07
11
00
07
53
00
05
37
03
00
50
00
01
44
00
26
52
00
03
21-
00
23
73
00
18
83
00
00
35
10
00
39
00
02
45
00
34
35 4408
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30 , 2005 /VAISAKHA 10, 1927
1
2
112 Kalus(Contd... )
111
114
110
109
108
105
106
104
115
103
102
101
100
99
96
Government Land between Survey No. 96 and 52(CL)
52
51
60
49
47
45
29
21
20
18
17
16(GL)
15
Canal between Survey No. 15 and 13 (CL)
13
14
Major District Road -20 between Survey No. 14 and 1898 ( CL)
1898
1800 (GL)
VillageRoad -115 between Survey No.
1800 and 2408 (CL)
2408
2407
140
1880
1944
PART 11- S3 ( ii ) ] 3
4
5
00
17
32
00
06
76
00
00
56
00
05
86
00
06
14
00
03
56
00
29
67
00
00
20
00
02
20
00
00
23
00
02
06
00
11
10
00
12
43
00
05
99
00
21
65
00
13
79
00
17
96
00
31
27
00
10
35
00
07
61
00
01
76
00
28
38
00
15
77
00
58
98
00
13
70
00
08
62
00
05
03
00
07
98
00
00
63
00
18
79
00
03
02
00
00
04
00
22
11
00
06
38
00
01
10
00
27
43
00
03
05
00
00
87
00
07
32
00
01
31
00
17
52
00
07
62 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
4409
भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 30, 2005/वैशाख 10 , 1927
1
2 Kalus(Contd ... )
Field Channel between Survey No.
5
3
4
00
00
82
1944 and 1981 ( CL)
08
46
00
1981(GL)
2395/A
2395/B
2394
2393
2392
2391
2390
2387
2386
2384
2383
2380
2354 00
05
48
00
05
52
00
60
13
00
18
02
00
09
50
00
03
08
00
05
85
:06
00
36
00
04
84
00
03
61
00
03
93
00
11
93
00
11
67
00
06
50
Road between Survey No. 2354 and
1017(CL)
1017
1019
1020
1023
1022
1027 00
01
24
00
10
09
12
12
00
00
06
18
00
19
48
00
11
81
00
20
31
1063(GL)
1062
1061
1038
20
00
15
00
12
32
00
21
75
00
04
76
CartTrackbetween Survey No. 1038
and 1036(CL)
1036 00
04
45
00
06
84
1037 (GL)
1039 00
15
34
00
08
71
1041(GL)
1040
1042
1043
1044
1047 00
04
40
41
00
06
00
01
59
00
06
05
00
04
24
00
28
84
1045(GL)
79
00
25
1130(GL)
00
07
94
1131 (GL)
00
06
37
1132(GL)
00
06
18
1133 (GL)
00
02
39
Nala between Survey No. 1133 and
1134(CL)
1134 1234 GI/05-19
01
00
04 4410
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30, 2005/VAISAKHA 10 , 1927
2 1
1135 Kalus( Contd ... )
1136
1137 (GL)
1138
1139 (GL).
1140
1598 (GL)
Road between Survey No. 1598 and
1142(CL)
1142
1143
1596
1597
1722(GL)
1721
1720/1 (GL)
Government Land between Survey No.
1720/1 and 1711
1711
1712
1713
1714
1748
1747
964
1746
1745
1744
1743
1741
1742
Canal in Survey No. 1742 (CL)
OtherDistrict Road - 32 at Village
Boundary(CL)
401 5) Waki budurk
400
399
Canal between Survey No. 399 and 398
(CL)
398
397
402
396
393
394
391
492
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] 3
4
5
01
00
00
00
06
53
10
89
00
00
72
04
00
08
26
76
00
15
75
00
00
06
37
00
01
32
00
00
50
00
49
27
00
81
00
29
76
11
00
00
02
20
00
50
97
00
11
85
00
08
94
00
17
05
02
00
84
00
04
58
00
04
88
00
11
53
00
02
95
03
00
00
00
02
33
00
03
39
29
00
03
00
16
95
00
69
60
00
04
69
03
68
00
00
00
59
00
73
21
71
00
20
00
07
49
00
17
53
01
40
00
00
08
66
00
17
95
00
09
92
00
02
47
00
30
15
00
22
53 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]
भारत काराजपत्र : अप्रैल 30, 2005 /वैशाख 10, 1927
1
2
389 Waki budurk (Contd ...)
387
390
520
519(GL)
517
518
514
696
700
701
713
714
715/A
719
720
727
726
724
731(GL)
730(GL)
739
740
741
742
744
:
745
746
747
757
758
759
760
761
763-
762
Nala between Survey No. 763 and 771
(CL)
771
770
772
Government Land between Survey No.
772 and 775 (GL )
775/A
775 /B
CartTrack between Survey No. 775 /B and 782(CL)
4411 3
4
5
00
00
50
00
40
00
00
03
32
00
13
58
00
02
25
00
90
04
00
02
42
00
02
36
00
25
01
00
14
63
00
10
35
00
07
50
00
08
54
00
06
95
00
09
08
00
04
64
00
73
04
00
07
70
00
11
24
00
32
15
00
07
64
00
00
18
03
39
00
00
69
02.
00
03
84
00
04
24
00
03
81
00
00
35
00
00
46
00
07
70
00
03
68
00
01
56
00
03
23
00
02
95.
00
08
38
00
00
30
06
06
00
00
24
77
00
05
84
00
00
98
63
00
69
00
27
25
00
15
00
00
03
85 4412
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: APRIL 30 , 2005 /VAISAKHA 10. 1927
1
2
782 Waki budurk ( Contd ... )
801/A
801/B (GL)
Nala between Survey No. 801 /B and
803 (CL)
803
806
807
808
811
810
Nala between Survey No. 810 and 813
(CL)
813
815
865
864
Nala betweenSurvey No. 864 and 863
(CL)
863
856
862
867
Riverat Village Boundary ( CL)
515
562
563
516
513
511
510
505
504
Nala betweenSurvey No. 504 and 568
(CL)
568
569
570
609
612
Nala betweenSurvey No. 612 and 614
(CL)
614
615
619
620
623
PART 11- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] 3
4
5
00
75
38
00
40
29
13
96
00
00
03
08
00
19
52
00
08
49
00
07
64
00
75
08
00
11
18
00
28
49
00
05
45
00
76
93
00
06
49
00
21
39
00
07
98
00
05
42
00
13
16
00
22
02
46
00
35
06
00
71
00
72
29
00
07
05
00
00
06
00
02
87
05
00
70
00
04
82
00
44
02
00
03
28
00
00
99
00
00
01
00
08
89
00
02
02
00
08
78
00
57
28
00
36
66
00
20
62
05
00
24
00
18
63
00
31
27
00
78
01
13
00
02
00
02
55 4413
भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 30, 2005/वैशाख 10, 1927
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
1
2
624 Wakibudurk (Contd ... )
Government Land between Survey No. 624 and 630( CL)
630
634
635
684
688
687
689
Nala between Survey No. 689 and 694
(CL)
694 6)Waki khurd
Nala between Survey No. 180 and 193
(CL)
193
National Highway-50 between Survey
No. 180P and 180 (CL)
180
Nala in Survey No. 180 (CL)
Road in between Survey No. 180P and 180(CL) 7) Rohakkal
Road at Village Boundary(CL)
103/1
109
108
38
36
35
34
33
28
220(CL)
Road in Survey No. 220 (CL)
Road in Survey No. 220 (CL)
207
107
106
Road between Survey No. 107 and 80
(CL)
80/2
81
83
84
71
72
70 3
4
5
00
01
92
07
00.
98
00
10
34
00
02
07
00
02
51
00
46
08
00
19
74
00
00
04
00
21
04
00
03
48
00
28
77
00
04
48. 00
02
50
00
04
40
00
73
72
00
04
18
00
02
74
00
00
10
1
00
09
91
00
02
05
32
00
25
00
04
92
73
00
04
00
48
03
00
02
13
01
00
16
81
00
49
76
35
01
07
00
94
04
00
11
00
13
73.
12
00
38
00
09
00
00
05
06
00
10
54
00
10
47
00
07
02
00
24
00
27
12
00
31
00
00
36
14
00 4414
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30 , 2005 /VAISAKHA 10, 1927
1
2
67/B Rohakkal ( Contd ... )
69
68
63/1/2B
63/1/3A
64
44
41
40/3
39
52 8) Pimprikhurd
57
58
59
60
61/1
61/2
61/3
61/4
62
63
64
18 9) Gonawadi
17
8
9
16
10
11
Nala between Survey No. 11 and 52
(CL)
Road in Survey No.52 ( CL)
52(CL)
53(CL)
54
51(CL)
50
55
56
799 10) Ambethan
798
723
722
721
719
717
[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ]
5
4
3
00
01
64
00
03
75
00
25
76
00
39
00
00
38
48
00
00
10
00
24
72
00
02
71
00
12
48
00
13
30
07
00
83
45
00
31
00
17
56
00
11
58
76
00
11
09
00
00
00
20
07
00
04
13
00
08
80
04
00
14
00
09
88
33
15
00
66
00
26
39
00
80
00
08
74
00
09
97
53
37
00
00
14
13
01
25
00
00
11
59
00
02
88
00
32
02
34
00
13
00
34
54
00
00
60
00
12
02
00
04
78
00
43
54
00
75
04
00
52
82
00
10
08
00
13
58
00
30
44
00
63
30
00
50
04 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
4415
भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 30, 2005 /वैशाख 10, 1927
1
2
718 Ambethan(Contd ... )
Road in Survey No. 718 (CL)
687
688
689
534
533
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
578
579
580
615
611
610
794
786
529
530
531
532
624
621
620
619
616
614
Road atVillage Boundary (CL)
11) Koregaonkhurd
102(CL)
109
110
117
118/1
118/2
119
122
123
128
129 3
4
5
01
20
00
02
00
79.
43
82
00
00
17
52
20
00
05
00
04
50
02
00
30
10
03
.00
00
04
20
03
00
02
03
00
00
00
02
03
00
02
25
01
50
00
00
01
25
00
01
38
00
00
03
63
00
02
07
05
00
70
62
00
00
37
00
00
02
00
00
00
75
00
00
03
01
00
88
00
00.
25
00
00
03
00
03
75
00
00
05
00
03
00
00
44
08
11
00
38
63
00
15
00
09
69
00
04
85
48
61
00
00
00
10
60
00
90
00
31
00
00
18
83
18
00
84
00
00
10
00
22
79
00
07
75
12
21
00
42
00
02 4416
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30 , 2005/VAISAKHA 10 , 1927
2 1
130 Koregaonkhurd ( Contd ... )
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
21
17
16
Road between Survey No. 16 and Survey No.169 (CL)
170
171
174
169
262
261
264
263
340
331
330
169 12) Shelu
168(CL)
143
248
PART 11-S 3 ( ii) |
4
3
5
00
04
35
00
04
46
00
02
89
07
00
05
00
11
85
12
32
00
00
12
05
00
13
74
00
11
48
00
00
14
00
06
22
00
18
26
00
19
56
00
78
02
00
00
10
00
09
89
00
04
57
00
04
39
26
68
00
46
00
04
00
52
62
00
70
75
66
01
24
00
00
23
05
00
98
00
20
48
01
35
45
00
00
81
00
25
09
245 (GL)
00
03
33
13
249 ( GL )
00
47
250 ( G )
253
254
255
259
260
224
225
218
216
219
215
214
213
00
00
10
00
02
79
00
32
72
00
52
09
04
87
00
00
00
15
06
00
09
13
00
01
00
22
99
00
04
24
00
09
28
01
92
00
02
16
00
00
01
61 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 30 , 2005 /वैशाख 10, 1927
1
2
212 Shelu (Contd...)
211
Nala between Survey No. 211 and 305 (CL)
303
305
306
302
307
308
316
309
310
315
314
312
Road between Survey No. 314 and 336 (CL)
336(CL)
342(CL)
363(CL)
365(CL)
359(GL)
355
358
357
64 13) Ashkedkhurd
Road in Survey No. 64 (CL)
66
158
68
163
162
164
69
74
75
76
84
85
89
91
92
93
156/1 1234 GJ/05-20
4417 3
4
5
00
07
83
00
12
74
11
00
13
00
06
92
00
52
09
00
29
35
00
00
89
00
28
09
05
71
00
00
00
41
00
06
61
00
02
87
00
37
01
00
19
59
00
07
35
00
22
13
00
75
79
01
14
07
00
07
28
00
17.
23
00
77
34
00
37
03
00
42
76
69
00
01
30
86
00
03
00
76
00
70
39
00
09
77
06
00
46
00
07
66
34
00
41
00
34
71
00
51
31
00
05
96
00
04
50
00
05
53
00
13
93
00
12
95
00
35
09
33
00
36
00
11
73
00
86
38
00
54
21 4418
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30 , 2005 /VAISAKHA 10. 1927
1
2 Ashkedkhurd (Contd ... ) Major District Road - 17 in Survey No.
156(CL)
157
230 14) Karanjavihire
229
233
234
256
254
257
258
259
260
281
282
283 Mandal/ Thesil/ Taluk : Maval
District: Pune
98 1)Midewadi
97
96
101
95
94
92
91
68
69
[ PART 11- S 3 ( ii) ] 3
4
5
00
16
97
00
14
94
00
13
57
00
01
44
00
39
36
00
20
87
00
25
24
00
23
89
00
28
04
00
26
32
00
25
96
00
58
60
00
19
61
00
02
18
00
00
33
State: Maharashtra
00
09
92
00
33
95
28
00
47
00
00
10
00
13
05
00
11
42
14
00
07
16
00
94
43
00
38
00
56
88
00
03
90
Road in Survey No. 69 and 70 (CL)
62
28
179 2) Badalwadi
177
183
184
185
186
195
199
200
217
201
218
170
171
202
204 00
46
59
00
47
57
00
31
47
00
29
60
00
67
23
00
43
30
00
21
68
00
33
01
00
10
49
00
38
19
00
04
21
00
30
10
00
46
00
00
14
59
00
06
88
00
18
41
00
45
62
00
00
43 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 30, 2005 /वैशाख 10 , 1927
2
207 Badalwadi (Contd...)
206
-205
717
721
720
723
691
692
693
694
695
665
Road in Survey No. 665 (CL)
Road in Survey No. 665 ( CL)
648
644
578
577
568
575
569
570
556
540
539
538
537
536
512
760 3) Navalakh -Umbre
770
771
773
772
769
768
767
766
708
707
709
720
721
719
717
4419 3
4
5
47
00
48
00
30
22
00
00
12
00
00
19
00
17
07
00
05
05
00
02
29
00
00
40
23
00
02
00
02
34
00
02
33
00
07
34
00
17
14
00
12
08
00
03
30
00
60
52
00
16
30
00
73
17
00
30
21
00
33
24
00
10
90
34
00
40
00
94
34
00
14
47
00
13
58
00
42
62
00
03
68
33
00
29
00
63
59
00
13
29
00
21
25
00
03
08
00
01
88
18
00
70
00
00
36
00
09
38
00
02
23
00
09
13
00
00
57
00
09
03
15
00
69
00
13
67
00
61
06
00
00
40
00
03
50. 00
03
28 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30 , 2005 /VAISAKHA 10 , 1927
4420
2 1
718 Navalakh -Umbre
716
560
559
556
555
577
578
579
580
581
Government Land in Survey No. 580
(GL)
465(CL)
463
GovernmentLand at Village Boundary
(GL)
66 4)Amble
67
65
64
63
62
30
32
33
26
27
22
5/1
5/2
5/3
6/1
16/1
16/2
16/3
15/1
288 5) Nigade
287
303
295(GL)
296
305
306
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii )]
5
4
3
00
04
80
00
20
45
64
00
01
01
23
73
61
00
14
00
09
76
00
39
42
00
00
16
00
05
47
00
29
57
00
17
07
00
00
68
00
01
45
00
82
29
00
03
50
00
25
61
00
19
92
12
66
00
13
00
33
24
69
00
15
00
54
00
22
32
30
00
94
07
00
97
00
78
39
00
64
56
48
00
90
00
25
25
00
25
25
00
25
25
00
56
77
00
50
75
00
19
05
00
20
25
00
09
68
00
00
81
00
42
71
00
00
52
00
20
24
01
00
72
01
02
43
16
00
35 4421
भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 30, 2005/वैशाख 10, 1927
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
1
2 Nigade( Contd... )
Nala between Survey No. 306 and 625
(CL)
625
486
499
487
498
497.
496
508
Road between Survey No. 306 and 508
(CL)
509
544
543
542
554
534
555
558
557
453 6) Pawalewadi
Government Land at Village Boundary
(GL)
13
10
12
14
15
7
16
3
21
2
1
258 7) Kalhat
Nala between Survey No. 258 and 262
(CL)
261
262
263
470
469:
484
4
3
5
00
06
96
00
78
05
00
58
63
30
00
00
00
03
10
00
26
81
00
32
29
00
05
22
00
37
77
00
03
53
00
53
57
00
00
34
00
20
20
00
64
93
01
01
25
00
45
84
00
37
03
00
81
25
00
35
00
00
00
98
27
00
18
01
49
06
00
02
48
00
18
91
00
18
17
00
53
36
00
12
29
00
45
64
00
24
09
00
42
43
00
28
81
00
52
10
62
00
59
00
33
33
02
00
84
00
58
25
00
36
06
00
53
83
64
00
04
65
41
00 4422
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30 , 2005/VAISAKHA 10, 1927
2 1
485 Kalhat( Contd ... )
500
Road in Survey No. 485 ( CL)
499
512
511
510
509
513
552
553
554
558
166 8) Bhoyare
Road between Survey No. 165 and 16
(CL)
16
17
18
20(GL)
11
6B
6A
5
4
528
529
525
526
524
530
180 9) Kashal
179
181
184
210
Road between Survey No. 210 and 209 (CL)
209
208
207
206
205
204
Pak 11- Si 3 ( ii ) | 3
4
5
00
53
47
00
21
15
00
03
33
00
36
12
00
12
56
00
17
37
00
20
57
00
11
00
00
36
21
00
00
74
00
41
26
00
40
39
00
45
40
00
69
98
00
03
89
00
40
29
02
89
00
00
56
44
65
93
00
66
00
35
00
22
82
00
32
72
00
78
10
70
00
15
00
56
36
00
05
47
00
21
56
00
00
10
00
14
42
00
00
45
10
00
25
01
98
00
44
00
93
00
00
10
37
06
00
25
00
05
60
34
00
00
39
44
00
25
66
00
15
49
46
00
02
00
32
38 4423
भारत का राजपत्र: अप्रैल 30 , 2005/वैशाख 10, 1927
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]
1
2
202 Kashal(Contd ... )
Nala between Survey No. 202 and 421
(CL)
421
422
423
424
404
403
402
400
399
383
384
390
385
391.
49 10) Kivale
48
51
52
Road in Survey No. 52(CL)
53
54
55
Nala in between Survey No. 55 and 142(CL)
Pond inBetween Survey No. 55 and
142(CL)
142
143
144
140
139
138
137
141
Pondbetween Survey No. 141 and 134
(GL)
134
135
133
132
131 3
4
5
00
03
59
00
07
29
00
59
55
00
11
09
00
45
47
00
15
34
00
12
45
00
54
26
00
18
60
00
09
70
00
00
66
00
59
48
00
02
30
00
46
06
00
06
98
00
44
39
37
00
17
17
00
63
00
73
96
00
29
06
00
08
46
00
95
14
00
53
20
17
00
48
05
00
70
18
70
00
00
12
56
00
25
44
00
19
31
00
07
88
00
15
22
00
17
19
00
30
77
00
32
13
00
35
22
00
11
45
00
15
17
00
47
18
58
87
00
33
00
22 4424
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30 , 2005 /VAISAKHA 10. 1927
2 1
130 Kivale(Contd ... )
48 11) Ingalun
47(GL)
39
38
36
35
Road in Survey No. 35 (CL)
30
29
23
25
24
21
20
18
Pond in Survey No. 20 , 330 and 18 (CL)
330
332
325
324
111
109
128
Nala in Survey No. 128 ( CL)
153
152
160
159
156
158
157
163
164
167
165
247
244
Road in Survey No. 244 (CL)
245
240
242
238
236
227
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] 3
4
5
09
00
68
00
76
55
00
22
07
00
02
35
00
02
00
32
00
65
00
31
03
00
03
96
00
11
00
00
06
98
00
05
95 00
12
50
09
00
81
00
02
33 00
03
02 00
01
00 00
04
02 00
23
48 00
22
28 00
06
43 00
23
66 00
49
55 00
47
21 00
25
59 00
03
52 00
57
97 00
05
52
11
00
64 00
51
60 00
01
19
38
31 00
00
25
78 00
04
07
00
04
46 00
29
26 00
19
72 00
59
40 00
39
94
03
00
35 00
22
50 00
00
10 00
26
13 00
17
16 00
41
66 00
03
58 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 30, 2005 /वैशाख 10 , 1927
1
2 Ingalun( Contd... )
Road in Survey No. 236 ( CL)
12) Kunewadi
Road in Survey No. 48 ( CL)
48
49
115
122
121
120
148
149
150
152
Pond between Survey No. 172 and 173
(GL)
Nala in Andhra Lake ( CL)
173
175
183
4
Government Land at Village Boundary
13) Malegaon-khurd
(GL)
24
23
Road in Survey No. 12(CL)
12
28
Nala in Survey No. 28 (CL) 14) Pimpriwadi
Nala in Survey No. 126 ( CL)
126
125
123
134
135
101
Nala in Survey No. 100 (CL)
100
139
140
Nala in Survey No. 140 ( CL)
141
142
145
144
143
169 1234 GI/05-21
4425
4
5
3
00
00
27
00
04
26
00
62
58
00
16
40
00
2
78
00
28
21
00
40
18
26
00
90
00
05
39
10
00
00
00
29
48
00
62
62
00
45
24
07
00
45
30
00
64
10
00
83
00
79
09
11
01
98
00
75
80
00
12
98
00
08
74
03
00
12
00
03
92
00
50
01
00
05
91
03
30
00
86
77
00
17
00
30
53
00
39
01
00
05
00
26
43
46
77
00
30
00
15
00
61
38
77
00
36
00
45
97
00
07
80
00
97
55
00
68
97
00
26
69
00
00
30
08
00
09
00
00
75 4426
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: APRIL 30 , 2005 /VAISAKHA 10 , 1927
1
2
222 Pimpriwadi ( Contd... )
171
221
215
216
220
218
109 15) Malegaon-budruk
111
110
107
106
105 (CL)
104
103
59
Pond betweenSurvey . No. 59 and 51
(CL)
51
52
55
54
178
179
184
176
182
180
181
173
172
171
GovernmentLand between Survey No.
171 and 165 (CL)
165
158
159
51 16) Savale
50
52
72
97/3
97/2
PART 11- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] 4
5
3
00
55
46
00
00
83
65
00
02
72
00
35
31
00
11
39
00
15
00
57
48
20
00
40
05
00
88
01
21
00
00
05
12
38
74
00
60
00
40
42
00
18
00
50
19
00
63
00
01
18
94
00
13
87
00
06
32
00
00
10
00
18
68
00
12
40
14
46
00
CO
10
43
18
00
00
00
02
15
09
00
22
00
32
18
17
00
23
00
23
08
00
19
43
00
30
38
77
00
55
00
03
76
00
41
55
00
47
45
00
86
11
20
00
01
02
55
25
00
59
49
00
13
32 4427 [भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: अप्रैल 30 , 2005/वैशाख 10, 1927.
4
3
2
5
82
04
00
Savale(Contd... )
Road between Survey. No. 97/2 and 97/3 (CL)
43
58
118
00
14
96
00
97/4
2.6
01
00
112
02
114
00
03
10
10
00
113
54
00
80
120/1
54
01
00
120/2
00
00
40
106
00
52
45
87/12
50
94
00
120/3
00
14
56
86
122
00
00
99
11
97.
00
121
00
45
76
120/10
83
86
120/8
00
00
22
91
156
[ F. No. L-14014/50/2004-G.P. ] S. B. MANDAL, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 28 अप्रैल, 2005
का. आ. 1607-केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि मुन्द्रा (गुजरात ) से दिल्ली तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉरपोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए;
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 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 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, उस भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन 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 उसनें उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के सम्बन्ध में श्री राम करण शर्मा , सक्षम प्राधिकारी , मुन्द्रा-दिल्ली पेट्रोलियम उत्पाद पाइपलाइन परियोजना , हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, मकान संख्या -1418 , सेक्टर 6, बहादुरगढ़ , जिला झज्जर 124507 (हरियाणा) को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा । [ PART II- S . 3 (ii )| 4428
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30 , 2005/VAISAKHA 10, 1927
अनुसुची
राज्यः हरियाणा
तहसीलः झज्जर
जिलाः झज्जर
श्रेत्रफल
खसरा/ किला
गाँव का नाम
हदबस्त संख्या
वर्गमीटर
मुसतिल संख्या
संख्या हेक्टेयर एयर
34
00
00
70
250
25
1. लुहारी
53
00
35
21
01
41
37
17/2
00
00
13
50
00
00
64
00
18
00
48
43
00
02
11
88
60
21/1
00
00
00
24/1
01
37
119
00
60
24/2
00
13
1/2
00
02
145
00
34
00
11/3
30
00
01
153
5/1
7/1
00
00 68
00
45
14
00
00
63
3
167
00
1/1
54
00
01
174
79
00
00
21
276
27
2. कुतानी
00
00
01
326
25
76
00
11
20
86
00
03
13
24
41 3. दादरी तोए
9
CO
00
275
41
66
01
11
2
00
00
00
60
499
52
136
00
00
18/1
46
00
03
22
48 4. बीड़ दादरी
00
01
40
3
271
00
33 5. बाहमनोला
24
00
270
18
00
01
55
27
5/1/1
00
04
23
95
62
7/2
00
03
25
00
00
23/2
4
11
01
00
31
35
00
00
7/2
58
00
00
44
19
33
00
22
00
00
51
06
10/1
CO
65
60
02
23
00
64
CO
00
86
00
48
00
23 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
4429 भारत का राजपत्र: अप्रैल 30 , 2005/वैशाख 10, 1927
तहसीलः झज्जर
जिलाः झज्जर
राज्यः हरियाणा
श्रेत्रफल
खसरा/ किला
गाँव का नाम
संख्या
हदबस्त संख्या
मुसतिल
संख्या
एयर
हेक्टेयर
वर्गमीटर 6. बाहमनोला (जारी... )
00
11
270
74
00 71 7. लाडपुर
86
3
00
19
05 14
22
00 03
23
10
16
00 00
32
16
00
00
14
59
17
00 04
18
24
00 97
00
27
00
18
00 35
61
25
00
72
00
8. फैजाबाद उर्फ पाहसौर
87
14
18
00
00
84
33
17
00 00 60
287
00 00 88
49
00 00
8
97
12/1
00
00
63
12/2
0001 53.
[फा. सं. आर-31015/36/2004-ओ.आर-II ]
हरीश कुमार, अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 28th April , 2005
S. O. 1607.- Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum products from Mundra (Gujarat) 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 inthe Schedule annexed hereto;
4430
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30, 2005 /VAISAKHA 10 , 1927
PART II- SEC . 3 (ii ) ] Now, therefore , in exercise of powers conferred by sub - section (1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines ( Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act , 1962 ( 50 of 1962) , the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;
Any person , interested in the land described in the said Schedule , may, within twenty one days from the date on which 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 or laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri Ram Karan Sharma , Competent Authority, Mundra - Delhi Petroleum Product Pipeline , Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited , H. No. 1418 , Sector - 6 , Bahadurgarh - 124507 , District - Jhajjar (Haryana) .
SCHEDULE
Tehsil : JHAJJAR
District : JHAJJAR
State : HARYANA
Area
Name of Village
Hadbast No.
Mustil No.
Khasara / Killa No.
Are
Hectare
Square Metre 1. LOHARI
250
34
25
00
00
70
35
21
00
01
53
37
17/2
00
00
41
64
13
00
00
50
18
00
48
00
88
11
00
02
43
21/1
00
00
60
119
24/1
00
01
37
24/2
00
00
60
145
1/2
00
13
02
11/3
00
00. 34
153
5/1
00
01
30
7/1
00
00
68
14
00
45
00
167
3
00
63
00
174
1/1
00
01
54 2. KUTANI
276
27
21
00
00
79
326
00
00
01
76
25
00
11
20
86
24
00
03
13 3. DADRI TOE
41
275
9
00
00
41
66
2
00
11
01 4431 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 30, 2005 /वैशाख 10, 1927
State: HARYANA
District : JHAJJAR
Tehsil : JHAJJAR
Area
Name of Village
Hadbast No.
Hectare Are
Khasara / Killa No.
Mustil No.
Square Metre
00
499
00
60 3. DADRI TOE ( Contd... )
136
52
00
00
18/1
22
00
03
46 4. BIR DADRI
271
40
3
00
01
48 5. BAMANOLA
270
18
24
00
00
33
27
5/1/1
00
01
55
95
00
04
23
00
62
7/2
03
23/2
25
00
00
31
4
00
01
11
7/2
00
00
35
44
19
00
00
58
22
00
00
33
51
10/1
00 06
00
60
00
23
02
65
64
00
00
86
48
23
00 00
270
74
11
00
00
71 6. LADPURA
86
3
19
00
05
14
22
00
23
03
10
16
00
32
00
16
14
00
00
59
00
18
17
0-4
00
97
24
00
27
18
00
35
00
61
25
00
00
72
18
14
7. FAIZABAD ALIAS
87
00
00
84 PASAOR
60
33
17
00
00
287
00
00
88
49
8
00
00
97
12/1
00
00
63
00
12/2
01
53
[No. R-31015/36/2004-O.R. -II ] HARISH KUMAR , Under Secy.
4432
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30 , 2005/VAISAKHA 10, 1927
श्रम मंत्रालय
नईदिल्ली, 30 मार्च, 2005
का.आ. 1608.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भा. को. को. लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय धनबाद- II के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 119/99 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30-3-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल -20012/10/98- आई आर ( सी-1 ) ]
एस. एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव MINISTRY OF LABOUR
New Delhi , the 30th March , 2005
S.O. 1608. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 119/99) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court , Dhanbad- II now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the Management of BCCL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 30-3-2005 .
[No.L -20012/10/98 - IR(C -I) ]
S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (No. 2) AT DHANBAD
PRESENT:
SHRI B. BISWAS, Presiding Officer.
the matter of Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1 )(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947.
REFERENCE No. 119/1999
PARTIES: Employer in relation to the management of Ram Kanali Colliery of M/ s . BCCL and their workman.
APPEARANCES :
On behalf of the workman : Mr. N.G. Arun
Mr. H. Nath Onbehalf of the management :
State: Jharkhand
[PART II-SEC . 3( ii)]
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of Ram Kanali Colliery of M/ s BCCL in dismissing Sri Jai Ram Monia M/ Loader ( on the ground of unauthorised absence from 4-3-1996 to 20-5-1996) w.e.f. 26/27-6-96 from the service of the company is justified? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled ?" .
2. The case of the concerned workman according to written statement submitted by the sponsoring union on his behalf in brief is as follows :
The sponsoring union submitted that the concerned workman was a minor/loader at Ram Kanali Colliery. They submitted that in course of his work he became patient with different diseases and for which his physical condition started deteriorating and for which he failed to attend his duty and the said fact of his sickness was duly reported to the management . They disclosed that after recovery he came tohis place of work alongwith medical certificate of fitness and other medical papers for his treatment with a view to resume his duty. They alleged that management instead of giving any importance to those medical papers started domestic enquiry against him violating the principle of natural justice. They further alleged that the enquiry officer without making proper enquiry to the charges brought against him arbitrarily submitted his report holding him guilty to the charge brought against him by the management . They further alleged that the Disciplinary Authority also just relying on the report of the enquiry officer without giving him any opportunity to make his submission issued the order of dismissal against him illegally, arbitrarily and violating the principle of natural justice.
They submitted that an Industrial Dispute was raised by them before ALC ( C) Dhanbad for conciliation as the management did not accede to their demand for reinstatement of the concerned workman to his service . The sponsoring Union accordingly, submitted prayer to pass award directing the management to reinstate the concerned workman to his service from the date of dismissal with full back wages and other consequential relief.
Industry: Coal
Dated, Dhanbad, the 17th March , 2005
AWARD
TheGovt. of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of powers conferred on them under Section 10 ( 1 ) (d) of the I.D. Act , 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L- 20012 /IR (CM - I ) dated, the 29th January, 1999.
3. Management on the contrary after filing written statement - cum - rejoinder have denied all the claims and allegation which the sponsoring union asserted in the written statement submitted on behalf of the concerned workman.
They submitted that the concerned workman was a permanent Miner /Loader of Ram Kanali Colliery . They disclosed that he started absenting himself from duty with effect from4-3-96 without giving any intimation or taking prior permission from the competent authority. Accordingly, a charge sheet was issued to him vide No. RKC/PO/95-96/33 dated 10-4-96 . After receipt of the said charge sheet he [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
submitted his reply but as the said reply was not found satisfactory, order was issued for holding domestic enquiry against him. They disclosed that for holding domestic enquiry Mr. S.N. Dubey, Personnel Manager was appointed as Enquiry Officer . They disclosed that Enquiry Officer conducteddomestic enquiry against the concerned workman according to the rules of natural justice in which the concernedworkman fully participated to defend his case .
They disclosed that as the Enquiry Officer found the charges against the concerned workman fully established he submitted his report holding him guilty to the said charges brought against him. They further submitted that the Disciplinary Authority considering the report and also all other materials dismissed him from service vide letter dated 27-6-96.
They disclosed that since the concerned workman was dismissed for unauthorised absence , any punishment short of dismissal would have encouraged the other workman of the colliery to indulge in such absentism which would have seriously affected the discipline and production of coal in the mines. Accordingly the punishment of dismissal was fullyjustified and for which he is not entitled to get any relief in view of his prayer .
In the circumstances they submitted prayer to pass award rejecting the claim of the concerned workman.
3. POINTS TO BE DECIDED
"Whether the action of the management of the Ram Kanali Colliery of M/ s . BCCL in dismissing Sri Jai Ram Monia M/Loader (on the ground of unauthorised absence from 4-3-1996 to 20-5-1996) w.e.f. 26/27-6-96 from the service of the company is justified ? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled?" .
4. FINDING WITH REASONS
It transpires from the record that before taking up hearing ofthis case on merit it was taken into consideration as preliminary issue if domestic enquiry held against the concerned workman was fair proper and in accordance with the principle of natural justice . It is seen that the said issue on preliminary point was disposed of vide order No. 12 dated 10-6-2004 in favour of the management .
Now the point for consideration is if the management have been able to substantiate the charge brought against the concerned workman and if so whether concerned workman may be given with any relief under Section 11 -A ofthe Industrial Dispute Act .
Considering the materials on record there is no dispute to hold that the concerned workman was a permanent Miner/ Loader at Ram Kanali Colliery. It is the specific allegation of the management that the concerned workman without giving any intimation or taking any prior permission started remaining himself absent from duty from 4-3-96. Accordingly, they issued a charge sheet vide No. R.K.C./PD/95-96/33 dated 10-4-96 under Para 26 : 1 : 1 of the Certified Standing Order applicable to the employees of 1234 GI/05-22
4433
भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 30, 2005/वैशाख 10, 1927
the management . The said charge sheet during hearing was markedas ExhM/ 1 . By the said charge sheet he was directed to submit his reply within 48 hours on receipt of the same . It is fact that after receipt ofthe said charge sheet the concerned workman submitted his repiy which also during hearing was marked as Exht . M/2. Inthe said reply he admitting his fault disclosed that owing to his serios illes the started remaining himself absent from duty without po intimation to the management. He further submitted that he will submit relevant medical papers lateron . It is seen that as the reply given by the concerned workman was not satisfactory. Disciplinary Authority appointed Enquiry Officer to hold domestic enquiry against him.
There is no dispute to hold that workman fully participated in course of hearing of the domestic enquiry conductedby the Enquiry Officer. The enquiry proceeding papers marked as exhibit M - 5 will definitely support this claim. It is seen that the Enquiry Officer in course of earing recorded statement ofthe concerned workman whenhe clearly admitting his fault of not informing the management before leaving his place of work disclosed that owing to hisillnesshe left for his native village and remained under treatment of local medical practitioner for the period from 4-3-96 to 20-5-96 and in support of his claim he produced required medical papers before the Enquiry Officer .
The enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer during hearing was marked as Exhibit M -6 . The Enquiry Officer also in his report supported the claim of the concerned workman as discussed above . However, the Enquiry Officer found him guilty to charge under clause 26: 1: 1 of the Certified Standing Order . Considering the fact that he left the place of work without giving intimation or taking prior permission from the management . As per the said clause it will be amounted to misconduct , if a workman remains absent from duty without giving intimation or taking prior permission of the management . As violation of clause 26 : 1 : 1 of the Certified Standing Order amounts to misconduct the management was absolutely justified to issue charge sheet to the concerned workman. The concerned workman not only in his reply to the charge sheet but also in his statement which was recorded by the Enquiry Officer categorically admitted his guilt. Therefore , considering all aspects carefully I hold that in course of hearing management have been able to substantiate the charge brought against the concerned workman.
It is seen that the Disciplinary Authority considering the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer and also considering other material aspects dismissed the concerned workman from this service . The letter of dismissal during hearing was marked as Exht. M.7 .
Now the point consideration is whether the order of dismissal passed by the Disciplinary Authority against the concerned workman was justified and proportionate to 4434
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: APRIL 30, 2005/VAISAKHA 10, 1927
the offence committed by him. If not, whether the concerned workman deserves to get any relief under Section II -A of the Industrial Dispute Act .
According to Section II -A of the I.D. Act . " Where an Industrial Dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and in the course of the adjudication proceedings , the Labour Court Tribunal or National Tribunal as the case may be , is satisfied that the order ofdischarge or dismissal was not justified, it may be its award set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terms and conditions , if any, as it thinks fit , or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any severe punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances of the case may require . "
Therefore, as per provision of this section the prime factor which is to be considered here is whether the order of dismissal was justified in relation to the misconduct committed by a workman. Here in the instant case charge sheet was issued to the concerned workman for committing misconduct on the ground of his remaining unauthorised absence . The concerned workman did not deny this allegations but submitted that he was not aware about the provisions of the Certified Standing Order that prior permission is required before going on leave. He further disclosed that actually he was lying seriously ill and remained under treatment of the Doctor at his native village for which he did not get scope to work. From the enquiry proceeding papers it has been exposed that he produced relevant medical papers in relation to his treatment. Enquiry Officer in his report did not make any adverse remark against such claim of the concerned workman about his ailment and treatment . Accordingly I find no cogent ground to disbelieve the claim of the concerned workman that for the reason of his ailment he could not work .
The only misconduct which he committed is that he remained absent from duty without giving intimation or taking prior permission of the competent authority. The charge sheet (Exht . M - 1 ) shows that the concerned workman was given 48 hours time to submit his reply as per clause 27: 1 of the Certified Standing Order. As per this clause minor penalty is imposed upon the workman if charge of misconduct is established against him . What are the minor penalties that has been clearly mentioned in clause 29: 1 of the Certified Standing Order. The order of dismissal comes under major penalties as provided under clause 29 : 1 ( ii ) of the Certified Standing Order. For imposing major penalty asper clause 27 : 2 ofthe Certified Standing Order at least 7 days time should be given to the workman for his reply to the charge sheet . Here in the instant case with a view to impose minor penalty the Disciplinary Authority allowed the concerned workman to submit his reply within 48 hours as per clause 27 : 1 of the Certified Standing Order . The charge of misconduct when established the competent authority instead of imposing minor penalty passed the
[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] order of dismissal which comes under major penalty as per provision of clause 29 : 1 ( ii ) of the Certified standing Order which I consider is not only illegal and arbitrary but also it violated the principle of natural justice. It is true that concerned workman left his place of work without giving intimation or taking prior permission from the management. It is seen that owning to serious illness he remained himself absent from duty from 4-3-96 to 20-5-96 , i.e. about 2 and half months and to that effect he submitted required medical papers which the Enquiry Officer in his finding did not deny. When a person was actually lying seriously ill and for that reason when he had no scope to work the Disciplinary Authority would consider his punishment holding compassionate view. In stead when the concerned workman deserved minor penalty management imposed major penalty on him. I therefore hold that order of dismissal was not only unjustified but it was absolutely disproportionate to the misconduct committed by him. Accordingly the order of dismissal is liable to be set aside and the concerned workman should be reinstated in service . However, he will not be entitled to get any back wages .
In the result the following award is rendered:
"That the action of the management of Ram Kanali Colliery of M/ s BCCL in dismissing Sri Jai Ram Nonia, Miner/Loaderfrom his service with effect from 26 /27- 6-96 on the ground of his unauthorised absence is unjustified . The order of dismissal of the above named workman vide letter dated 26/27-6-96 issued by the management of Ram Kanali Colliery is hereby set aside.
Management is directed to reinstate the concerned workman to his service within one month from the date of publication of the award in the Gazette of India and his seniority though will not be affected. He will not be eligible to claim any wages till the time limit given to the management for implemen- tation of the award . "
B. BISWAS , PresidingOfficer नई दिल्ली, 30 मार्च, 2005
का.आ. 1609.- 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- II के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 51/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30-3-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल -20012/399/99- आई आर ( सी-1 ) ]
एस. एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव New Delhi,the 30th March , 2005
S.O. 1609. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 51/2000 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
4435 भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 30, 2005/ वैशाख 10, 1927
Court, Dhanbad - II 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 received by the Central Government on 30-3-2003,
[No. L-20012/399/99-IR (C -I)]
ofMiner which he was unable to discharge for his illness As a result frequently he had to remain absent from duty and taking the pleaf such absent from duty management issued charge sheet to him which resulted dismissal from his service with effect from 20-5-92 illegally, arbitrarily and violating the principle of naturaljustice.
S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (No. 2)
AT DHANBAD
PRESENT : SHRI B. BISWAS, Presiding Officer
In the matter of Industrial Dispute under Section 10( 1 )(d)
ofthe I.D. Act , 1947 .
REFERENCE NO . 51/2000
After the said illegal order of dismissal the concerned workman submitted representation to the management against the illegal order of dismissal and the sponsoring union took up his matter with the management and thereafter management agreed for his employment though both the union and the management were well aware that due to his physical incapacity he won't be able to continue his job . they submitted that though fresh employment was given to him on the ground of his ailment again he was discharged from his service on medical ground with effect from 2-12-94. The concerned workman , before he was discharged from service on medical ground , submitted representation to the management for providing him alternative job on surface but that was turned down .
PARTIES : Employer in relation to the management of Jamodoba Colliery of M/ s Tisco and their workman.
APPEARANCES :
Onbehalf of the workman : Mr. B. N. Sharma
They alleged that the action of the management was a calculated act of victimisation of the poor and helpless workman and they did so in gross violation of the welfare scheme which they follow for the interest of the workman .
Onbehalf ofthe employer : Mr. D. K. Verma
State: Jharkhand
Industry:Coal
DatedDhanbad, the 17th March, 2005
AWARD
Accordingly, sponsoring union submitted prayer to pass award directing the management to reinstate the concerned workman to his service setting aside the order ofdischarge w.e.f. 2-12-94 with full back wages and other consequential reliefs.
TheGovt . ofIndia Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10 ( 1 ) (d) of the 1.D. Act , 1947 has referred the following dispute to thisTribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/ 399/99-(C- I ) dated, the 7th March, 2000.
3.Management on the contrary after filling written statement -cum -rejoinder have denied all the claims and allegations which the sponsoring union asserted in the written statement submitted on behalf of the concerned workman.
SCHEDULE
They submitted that the concerned workman started absenting from his duty unauthorisedly and he was by nature a habitual absentee. Accordingly on the ground of. unauthorised habitual absence he was dismissed from service w.e.f. 30-5-92 .
"Whether the action of the management of Tisco in dismissing Sri Hira Lal from service w.e.f. 20-5-92 on ground of unfitness/absence and discharging him from service w.e.f. 2-12-94 on medical grounds after re-employing in fresh employment w.e.f. 19-1-93 is just, proper and legal ? If not , to what relief is the workman entitled ? "
After the said order of dismissal the sponsoring union took up his case for his reemployment and after considering the demand of the union fresh employment was given to him as Minor at Jamadoba Colliery w.e.f 19-1-93 .
2. The case of the concerned workman according to written statement submitted by the sponsoring union on his behalf in brief is as follows:
The sponsoring union submitted that the concerned workmanwas employed as Miner at Jamadoba Colliery under the management with effect from 2-5-86 . He was thereafter dismissed from service with effect from 20-5-92.
They submitted that during the course of employment while working as Miner /Loader in the under ground he suffered from various diseases and was under treatment at Tata Central Hospital, Jamadoba . They disclosed that while hewasunder treatment he was allowed to perform hard duty
Thereafter, the concerned workman started reporting sickw.e.f. May 1994 and finally he was referred to the Medical Board inthe month ofNovember, 1994 for ascertaining his fitness for employment . The Medical Board examined him on 23-11-94 and found him unfit for his original job . They submitted that relying on the report of the Medical Board the concerned workman was discharged from his service w.e.f. 2-12-94 . They submitted that no employer can carry a personwho is medically unfit and knowing fully well of this fact the sponsoring union after a lapse of five years raised the present Industrial Dispute which is a state dispute .
4436
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30, 2005 /VAISAKHA 10, 1927
Accordingly, management submitted prayer to pass award rejecting the claim of the sponsoring union for reinstatement of the concerned workman to his service .
3. POINTS TO BE DECIDED
"Whether the action of the management ofTisco in dismissing Sri Hiralal from service w.e.f. 20-5-92 on ground of unfitness/absence and discharging him from service w.e.f. 2-12-94 on medical grounds after re -employing in fresh employment w.e.f. 19-1-93 is just, proper and legal ? If not , to what relief is the workman entitled?"
4. FINDING WITH REASONS
It appears from the record that the sponsoring union in spite of getting ample opportunity did not consider necessary to adduce any evidence with a view to substantiate the claims of the concerned workman .
Management on the contrary in support oftheir claim examined one witness as M.W.1 .
Considering the facts disclosed in the pleadings of both sides and also considering evidence of M.W.1 there is no dispute to hold that initially the concerned workman got his employment under the management at Jamadoba Colliery on 2-5-86 as Miner. It is also admitted fact that he was dismissed from his service w.e.f. 20-5-92 . The allegation ofthe management is that he was in the habit of remaining himself absent from duty and for that reason he was dismissed from his service. On the other hand the contention of the sponsoring union is that due to occupational hazards he started suffering from various diseases and that compelled him to remain himself absent from duty. They further alleged that knowing fully well of this fact management illegally, arbitrarily, violating the principle of natural justice dismissed him from his service and for which they took up his matter with the management .
It isadmitted fact that thereafter management again employed him as Miner /Loader at Jamadoba Colliery as fresh entrants w.e.f. 19-1-93 . It is the contention of the management that w.e.f. May 1994 the concerned workman again started absenting from duty reporting himself sick . As a result they referred him to Medical Board for ascertaining his fitness for employment in the month of November 1994. The report of the Medical Board during evidence of M.W.I was marked as Exhibit M - 4 .
The report of the Medical Board speaks as follows :-A case of seizure disorder which is an anti convulsants . The diagnosis and treatment has also been confirmed from TMH . He is to be under treatment for very long time. He is unfit for original job " .
Relying on the said report management discharged him from service on medical ground w.e.f. 2-12-94 . The order of discharge during ground of M. W.1 was marked as Exhibit M.5 As per written statement it is the specific contention of the sponsoring union that the management
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] had the scope to provide any job on the surface and if it was so done in that case question of his discharge from service would not arise . Accordingly, it is their contention that management illegally, arbitrarily and violating the principle of natural justice discharged him from service.
Before taking into consideration of the fact if the medical report is looked into it will expose that prolong treatment was required for recovery of the ailment which hewas not suffering from. Therefore, it is clear that it was not at all possible for him to work either on the surface or in the mines with such serious illness which he was suffering from. Moreover, when once he was declared medically unfit by the Medical Board it would not be considered proper to allow him to work with such serious illness. It is not the allegation of the sponsoring union that the Medical board in connivance with the management submitted any false report only to discharge the concerned Workman from service .
Moreover , no material evidence is forthcoming on the part of the sponsoring union that he has been fully cured for his ailment and absolutely fit to work to his original job. The sponsoring union submitted prayer for reinstatement of the concerned workman to his service but is not expected that a person who is declared medically unfitwill be allowed to carry his job endangering his life.
Accordingly, on careful consideration of all the facts and circumstances 1 have failed to find out any material ingredient that management illegally, arbitrarily and violating the principle of natural justice discharged the concerned workman from his service and for which he is not entitled to get any relief in view of his prayer.
In the result the following award is rendered :
"The action ofthe management of Jamadoba Colliery ofM/ s Tisco in dismissing Sri Hiralal from service w.e.f. 20-5-92 on ground of unfitness / absence and discharging him from service w.e.f. 2-12-94 on medical grounds after re -employing in fresh employment w.e.f. 19-1-93 is just proper and legal . Consequently, the concerned workman is not entitled to get any relief. "
B. BISWAS , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 30 मार्च, 2005
का.आ. 1610.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बोबा एविएशन सर्विस ( प्रा. ) लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय चेन्नई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 429/2004) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30-3-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-11012/115/98- आई आर ( सी-1 ) ]
एस. एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 30 , 2005/वैशाख 10 , 1927
New Delhi , the 30th March, 2005
S.O. 1610.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 429/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the Management of Bobba Aviation Service (P) Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 30-3-2005 .
[No. L- 11012/115/98-IR (C-I) ] S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI
Tuesday, the 22nd February, 2005
PRESENT :
K.JAYARAMAN, Presiding officer INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 429/2004 (Inthe matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) ofsub-section ( 1) and sub -section 2 (A) of Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), between theManagement ofBobba Aviation Services P. Ltd. , G. S. A. Lufthansa Cargo Airlines and their workmen) BETWEEN :
1. Sri K. Dhanasekaran : I Party/Petitioner 2. Sri K. Krishnamurthy
AND
II Party/Management 1. Bobba Aviation services : Pvt . Ltd. , Chennai .
2. Lufthnansa Cargo India, Chennai.
APPEARANCE :
Forthe Petitioners
: None
: None
For the management
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour vide OrderNo.L- 11012/115/98 - IR(C -I) dated 12-07-2004 has referred this industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication . The schedule mentioned dispute in that order is:-
"Whether the management of M./s . Bobba Aviation Services (P) Ltd. G.S.A. Lufthansa Cargo Airlines is justified in terminating the services of Shri K. Dhanasekaran and Shri K. Krishnamurthy, if not to what relief are the workmen concerned entitled ?" 2. After the receipt of the reference , it was taken on file as I. D. No. 429/2004 and notices were issued to both the parties and both sides . But both sides have not appeared
4437 before this Court either through their advocates or by personal appearance . The second notice was also issued to concerned parties , but they never turned up. But, the 1stRespondent has sent a letter dated 15.2.2005 stating that the matter has been compromised and the Writ Petition filed by the Petitioners have also been withdrawn.
3. In these circusmstances , the point for my consideration is
"To what relief, the Petitioners are entitled? " Point:-
4. Though the dispute was referred to this tribunal for adjudication , neither the petitioners nor the Respondents appeared before this Court to state their contention . On the other hand, the 1st Respondent has sent a letter stating that the matter has been compromised , even in the year 2002. Therefore , I find there is no point in keeping this industrial dispute pending for adjudication . Though two notices were sent to the Petitioners and Respondents , they have not appeared before this Court to state their contention. Under such circumstances , no relief award is passed in this Industrial dispute.
5. As such , I find the Petitioners are not entitled to any relief. No Costs .
6. The reference is disposed of accordingly.
(Dictated to the P.A. , transcribed and typed by him , correctedand pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 22nd February, 2005)
K.JAYARAMAN, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 30 मार्च , 2005
का.आ. 1611.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भा.को. को.लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय , धनबाद-11 के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 78/2000 ) - को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30-3-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-20012/10/2000- आई आर ( सी-1 ) ]
एस. एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 30th March , 2005
S.O. 1611.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 78/2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Dhanbad- II now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the Management of BCCL and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 30-3-2005.
[No.L-20012/ 10/2000 -IR ( C -I)] S. S. GUPTA , Under Sec 4438
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30 , 2005/VAISAKHA 10, 1927
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii)] ANNEXURE
sponsoring union he raised an industrial dispute before ALC(C) Dhanbad for conciliation which ultimately resulted reference to this Tribunal for adjudication.
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (No. 2) AT DHANBAD
PRESENT :
SHRI B. BISWAS, Presiding Officer.
Accordingly sponsoring union on behalf of the concerned workman submitted prayer to pass award directing the management to accept his date of birth as 1949 as per Form B Register.
In the matter of Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1 )(d) ofthe I.D. Act , 1947 .
REFERENCE NO . 78/2000
PARTIES : Employer in relation to the management of Kustore Colliery Kustore Area , BCCL and their workman.
APPEARANCES :
Onbehalf of the workman : Ld . Advocate Mr. P. N. Singh
Ld . Advocate Mr. H. Nath
Onbehalf of the employer :
State : Jharkhand
Industry: Coal
AWARD
Dhanbad , the 17th March , 2005
3. Management on the contrary after filing written statement -cum - rejoinder have denied all the claims and allegations which the sponsoring union asserted in the written statement submitted on behalf of the concerned workman . They submitted that the concerned workman was posted to Kustore Colliery as Mechanical Fitter on his transfer from Lodna. They submitted that previously the date of birth of the concerned workman was not recorded in Form B Register of Kustore Colliery as nothing was communicated from Lodna Colliery at the time of his transfer. Accordingly they decided to assess the age of the concerned workman by the Apex Medical Board and the concerned workman accepting their decision appeared before theApex Medical Board and the said Medical Board assessed the age of the concerned workman as 42 years as on 11-2-87 . they submitted that as per J.B.C.C.1 Circular No. 76 the age assessed by the Medical Board of the concerned workman is final and binding .
The Govt. of India , Ministry of Labour, in exercise ofpowers conferred on them under Section 10( 1) ( d) of the I.D. Act , 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/10/ 2000-(C- I ) dated, the 24th July, 2000.
SCHEDULE
They submitted that in the year 1987 service excerpt was issued to the concerned workman wherein his age was mentioned as 42 years as on 11-2-87 and at that time the concerned workman did not raise any dispute in that regard.
They alleged that the sponsoring union knowing fullywell that the age of the concerned workman was duly assessed by the Apex Medical Board arbitrarily raised an Industrial Dispute before ALC ( C ) challenging the age of the concerned workman duly assessed by the said Apex MedicalBoard which they submitted is not maintainable in the eye of law.
" क्या कुस्तौर कोलियरी मैसर्स भारत कोकिंग कोल लिमि. के प्रबन्धन द्वारा कर्मचारी मो. गुलाम रब्बानी मैकेनिकल फिटर का उम्र जो कि लोदना कोलियरी के फार्म " बी " रजिस्टर में वर्ष 1949 में अंकित की गई थी को न मानते हुए उसकी उम्र पुनः निर्धारित करना संवैधानिक विधिक और न्यायिक दृष्टि से उचित सही एवं ठीक है ? यदि नहीं तो कर्मकार किन लाभों के हकदार हैं ? "
Accordingly management submitted prayer to pass award rejecting the claim of the concerned workman.
3.
POINTS TO BE DECIDED
2. The case of the concerned workman according to written statment submitted by the sponsoring union on his behalf in brief is as follows:
"क्या कुस्तौर कोलियरी मैसर्स भारत कोकिंग कोल लिमिटेड के प्रबन्धन द्वारा कर्मचारी मो. गुलाम रब्बानी , मैकेनिकल फिटर की उम्र जो कि लोदना कोलियरी के फार्म बी रजिस्टर में वर्ष 1949 में अंकित की गई थी को न मानते हुए उसकी उम्र पुनः निर्धारित करना संवैधानिक विधिक और न्यायिक दृष्टिसे उचित सही एवं ठीक है ? यदि नहीं तो कर्मकार किन लाभों का हकदार है ? "
4.
FINDING WITH REASONS
It transpires from the record that the sponsoring union with a view to substantiate their claim examined the concerned workman as W.W. i.
The sponsoring union submitted that the concerned workınan was employed at Lodna Colliery in the year 1969 as Fitter helper. They submitted that at the time of his entry in the service the date of birth of the concerned workman in the Form 'B' Register, which is a statutory register as per Mines Act, as 1949. While he was posted at Lodna Colliery management by order transferred him to Kustore ( BNR) Colliery in the year 1976 on administrative ground. Accordingly, he joined there but unfortunately after 10 years of transfer he come to know from his service excerpt that his date of birth was 1945 and not 1949. Immediately he raised his protest and submitted representation to the management for rectification of his date ofbirth as per Form B Register but management did not pay any importance to his appeal . As a result through
Management also in support of their claim examined three witnesses viz M. W.I to M. W.3 .
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
Considering the facts disclosed in the pleadings of both sides and also considering evidence or record I find no dispute to hold that the concerned workman got his employment at Lodna Colliery in the year 1969 as Fitter helper. It is also admitted fact that in the year 1976 concerned workthanwas transferred to Kustore Colliery as Mechanical Fitter. It is the contention of the management that as the date ofbirth of the concerned workman was not recorded inthe FormB register of Kustore Colliery. It was decided to assess his age through Apex Medical Board for proper recording of his age in the Form-B Register of Kustore Colliery. Accordingly, as per decision of the management the concerned workman appeared before the Apex Medical Board for assessment of his age and the said Medical Board assessed the age of the concerned workman as 42 years as on 11-2-87 . Thereafter in the same year, i.e. , in the year 1987 they issued service excerpt to him wherein also his age wasrecorded as 42 years as on 11-2-87 . It is their specific contention that age of the concerned workman was assessed by the Apex Medical Board based on J.B.C.C.I Circular No. 76.
Itis clear that concerned workman joined Kustore Colliery in the year 1976 on transfer. Actually concerned workman got his initial appointment at Lodna Colliery in the year 1969 as Fitter helper . As per statutory provision not only the age of the worker but also his all particulars are required to be recorded in the Form -B Register by the management at the time of his appointment . It is the specific claim of the concerned workman that the time of his appointment his age along with other particulars was recorded in the Form - B Register of Londa Colliery as 1949. M. W.3 during his evidence not only produced the identity card Register but also the Form -B Register of Lodna Colliery where the concerned workman joined on getting his appointment. Both the collieries, i.e. , Lodna Colliery and Kustore. Colliery are owned by BCCL though they belong to different area .
From the original Form B Register of Lodna Colliery it transpires that the name , age , and other particulars of the concerned workman had been recorded in Sl . No. 91437 Pages No. 64 Book No. 2 (Exht. -5) . It transpires that date ofbirth of the concerned workman therein was recorded as 1949. It further transpires that the concerned workman put his LTI in the specified column of his register. It , therefore, speaks clearly that acknowledging correctness of the entries he put his ITI therein .
There is no dispute to hold that particulars of the workman are recorded in the identity card register based on the particulars recorded in his Form -B Register because ofthe fact that this register opens after joining of a workman . From the original indentity card Register it appears that the name , age and other particulars of the concerned workman hadbeen recorded in Sl . No. 91437 and that serial number
4439
भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 30 , 2005 /वैशाख 10, 1927
was considered as identity card no . of the concerned workman. From this register also the date of birth of the concernedworkman was recorded as 1947 .
It is fact that there is sign of harassment in the portion ofthe paper where the figure 1949 in the said register was written. The figure appears to be very distinct and there was no sign of interpolation therein . Moreover the said figure 1949 distinctly tallies with the figure recorded inhis Form-B Register . Therefore , there is little scope to uphold the contention of the management that the figure 1949 as appearing in the identity card Register is an outcome of interpolatation.
It is the contention of the management that as no age ofthe concerned workman was recorded in the From -B Register maintained by Kustore Colliery they as per implementation instruction No. 76 JBCCI decided to hold his medical test through Apex Medical Board . Accordingly, medical test of the concerned workman was held by the Apex Medical Board and as per report of the said test he was 42 years old as on 11-2-87 from the evidence of M. W. 2 who was a member of the said Medical Board during his evidence disclosed that the concerned workman was examined clinically for assessment of his age and he signed the said report along with other members. Signature ofM. W. 2 in the said report during his evidence was marked asExht. M - 3 /2 while signature of the concerned workman was marked as Exht . M- 3/5 . The medical report itselfduring evidence of MW.1 was marked as Exht . M/3 .
There is no dispute to hold that concerned workman got his initial appointment at Lodna Colliery in the year 1969 as Fitter Helper. As per Form -B Register of Lodna Colliery the date of birth of the concerned workman was recorded as 1949 (Exht.5) . Concerned workman, it is admitted fact was transferred to Kustore Colliery in the year 1976. No satisfactory explanation on the part of the management is forthcoming why the column marked for recording age of the concerned workman in the Form-B Register of Kustore Area was unfilled up . ( Exht . M- 1 ) . It is seen that not only the age column but all the columns viz .. column 3 to 12 also have been left unfilled up . It was within absolute knowledge of the management that the concerned workman notbeing a new appointee joined at Kustore Area. Theyhad all scope to call for service record of the concerned workman from Lodna Colliery where all official papers relating to his service record would be available . Instead of doing so just misconstruing the contents of J.B.C.C.I circular they arranged for medical test of the concerned workman for assessment of his age Clause B (II ) of the said Circularspeaks clearly that " Wherever there is no variation in records , such case will not be reopened unless there is a very glaring and apparent wrong entry brought to the notice ofthe management . The management after being satisfied on the merits of the case will take appropriate action for correction through Age Determination Committee/Medical Board.
4440
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30 , 2005/VAISAKHA 10 , 1927
"Clause 'C ' speaks Age Determination Committee/ Medical Board for the above will be constituted by the management . In the case of employees whose date ofbirth can not be determined in accordance with Procedure mentioned in (B) (i ) ( a) or (B) (i ) ( b) above , his date ofbirth recorded in the records of the company namely Form -B Register , CMPF Records and identity cards ( untampered) will be treated as final . Provided that where there is a variation, in the age recorded in the records mentioned above, the matter will be referred to the Age Determination Committee/Medical Board constituted by the management for determination of age . "
Here in the instant case no age dispute was raised by the concerned workman relying on which he was sent to Apex Medical Board for assessment of his age . Management ignoring the Form-B Register as well as Identity Card Register of Lodna Colliery wherein the age of the concerned workman was duly recorded forced him to face the Medical Board . The decision taken by the management was not only arbitrary but also illegal if clause ' C' of the JBCCI Circular No. 76 which has been referred to above is taken into consideration.
It is seen that the Medical Board without arranging ossification test just holding clinical test arrived into conclusion that the concerned workman was 42 years as on 11-2-87 . Excepting ossification test as per medical juris-prudence there is no scope to assertain the exact age of a person . Clinical test is nothing but an eye wash as it is not accepted by the Medical jurisprudence as the scientific method for determination of the age of a person.
Managementjust relaying on the medical report based ca clinical test in respect of the concerned workman ignored sage recorded in the Form -B Register and Identity Register of Lodna Colliery. Form B Register is a statutory Register and until and unless any sufficient reason is given there is no scope to ignore the veracity of the entries rmade therein . As the concerned workman after receipt of the service excerpt did not raise any dispute about his age recorded therein would not justify that the concerned workman has been estopped from raising his dispute relaying on the age recorded in the Form-B Register of Lodna Colliery where he initially got his appointment . Both the collieries, i.e. , Lodna Colliery and Kustore Coiliery are owned by BCCL . It is not the case of the management that in connviance with the concerned workman the officials of Lodna Colliery recorded date ofbirth as 1949 in the Form - B Register .
Therefore onus absoiutely is on the present management to establish that they were right to send the concerned workman before Apex Medical Board for assessment of his age . I find no hesitation to say that management have lamentably failed tojustify their claim . I have already discussed about the medical report above. I am unable to accept the said report as the age of the concerned workman was not assessed based on scientific method.
[PART II-SEC. 3( ii)] As the Form-B Register is a statutory Register as per Mines Act.I find sufficient ground to accept the date of birth of the concerned workman recorded therein . Accordingly I hold that the date of birth of the concerned workman should be treated as 1949 as per Form -B Register ofLodna Colliery.
Inthe result the following award is rendered .
That management of Kastore Colliery was not justified in reassessing the age of Md. Gulam Rabbani Mechanical Fitter afresh ignoring his year of Birth recorded as1949 in the Form- B Register of Lodna Colliery.
Management accordingly is directed to implement the award holding the year of birth ofMd . Gulam Rabbani as 1949 receded in the Form - B Register of Lodna Colliery within three months from the date of its publication in the gazette of India.
B. BISWAS, Presiding Officer. नई दिल्ली, 30 मार्च , 2005
का.आ. 1612.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भा. को. को.लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय धनबाद-1 के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 172/97 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30-3-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-20012 /251/96- आई आर ( सी-1 ) ] एस. एस. गुप्ता, अवर New Delhi , the 30th March, 2005
S.O. 1612. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 172/97 ) 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 BCCL and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 30-3-2005 .
[No. L - 20012/251 /96 - IR (C - 1 ) ] S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. I , DHANBAD
Inthe matter of a reference U/S . 10 ( 1 ) ( d) ( 2A) ofthe I.D. Act , 1947 .
REFERENCE No. 172 of 1997
PARTIES : Employers in relation to the management of Mohuda Area of M/s B.C.C.Ltd.
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 30, 2005/वैशाख 10, 1927
AND
theirworkman.
PRESENT :
SHRI S. PRASAD , Presiding Officer .
APPEARANCES :
: Shri U.N. Lal , Advocate For the Employers
For the Workmen
: Shri S.C. Gaur,
Vice President, N.C.W.A. State : Jharkhand
Industry:Coal Dated the 16th March, 2005
AWARD
ByOrderNo. L-20012/251 /96-IR(C-I) dated 13-10-1997 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has , in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub- sec. ( 1 ) and Sub - Section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 , referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :
"Whether the action of the General Manager , Mohuda Area No. II of M/ s BCCL P.O. Mohuda in denying to refer Shri Moti Chand Chamar to the Apex Medical Board for the assessment of his age is justified? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled?" .
2. Shri S.C. Gaur, Vice -President , National Coal Workers'sCongress , appearing on behalf of the workman submits that the concerned workman, Moti Chand Chamar isnot interested to proceed with the present case . In such circumstances, he prays for passing of a ' No Dispute ' Award in this case.
3.Accordingly, I render a ' No Dispute ' Award in the present industrial dispute.
S. PRASAD, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 30 मार्च , 2005
का.आ. 1613.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भा.को.को.लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय धनबाद- I के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 194/97 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30-3-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-20012/330/96- आई आर ( सी-1 ) ]
एस. एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 30th March , 2005
S.O. 1613. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central 1234GI/05-23
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 194/97) of the Centra! Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Dhanbaa - now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the Management of BCCL and their workman, whichwas receivedby the Central Goverment on 30-3-2005 .
L-20012/330/96- IR(C-1 ) S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . I, DHANBAD
Inthe matter of a reference U/ S . 10 ( 1 )( d)(2A) ofthe I.D. Act, 1947 .
REFERENCE No. 194 of 1997
PARTIES : Employers in relation to the management of Amlabad Colliery, under Bhowra Area ofM/s B.C.C.L.
Their Worman .
PRESENT :
SHRI S. PRASAD , Presiding Officer.
APPEARANCES :
: Shri H. Nath , Advocate .
Forthe Employers
For the Workmen
: Shri S.C. Gaur. Advocate State : Jharkhand
Industry: Coal.
Dated the 16th March, 2005
AWARD
By Order No. L -20012/330/ 96 - IR(Coal - I ) dated 20-11-97 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-sec. ( 1) and Sub - Section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 , referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:
"Whether the demand of the union for the reinstatement of Sh . Gobardhan Mochi claiming that his actual date of birth is 2-7-1948 is legal and justified? Ifso , to what relief is the workman entitled?" .
2. Shri S.C. Gaur, appearing on behalf of the workmen submits that neither the sponsoring union nor the concerned workmen is interested to proceed with the present industrial dispute. He also prays for passing of a 'no dispute ' award in this case .
3. Accordingly, I render a ' No Dispute ' Award in the present industrial dispute .
S. PRASAD , Presiding Officer 4442
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: APRIL 30 , 2005 /VAISAKHA 10, 1927
नईदिल्ली, 30 मार्च, 2005
का.आ. 1614.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , डब्ल्यू. सी. एल. प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, जबलपुर (संदर्भ संख्या सी. जी. आई . टी./एल.सी./आर/46/ 94 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30-03-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं . एल-22012/71 / 1994- आई आर ( सीएम- II ) ]
एन. पी. केशवन, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 30th March, 2005
S.O. 1614. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT/LC/R/46/94) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court , Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the Management of WCL and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 30-03-2005.
[No. L- 22012/ 71 / 1994- IR (CM-II) ]
N. P. KESAVAN , Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/ R/46/ 94
SHRI C. M. SINGH , Presiding Officer
Union/workman The General Secretary, Lalzanda Coal Mines Mazdoor Union , CITU , P.O. Damua , Distt. Chhindwara
VERSUS
The General Manager, W. C. L , Kanhan Area, P.O. Dungaria , Distt. Chhindwara. .......Management
AWARD
Passed on 15-3-2005
1. The Government of India , Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No. L - 22012/ 71 /94 - IR(C.II) dated 28-4-94 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal:
"Whether the action ofthe management ofManager, Nandan Mine No. II ofWestern Coal Fields Limited,
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] Kanhan Area is justified in not allowing duties to Shri Srichand S/ o Shri Janak Lal helper from 17-1-92 to 23-4-92 . If not, what relief the workman concerned isentitled?"
2.After the reference order was received, it was duly registered on 5-5-94 and notices were issued to the parties . In response of the notice , authorised representative of the workman for the first time put in appearance on 4-10-94 and thereafter the workman remained present on several dates fixed in the reference till 5-2-96 . Thereafter he absented himself on several dates fixed in the case . Fresh notice was issued to the workman for his appearance . Lastly on 18-2-2005, Shri D. N. Tripathi , President of the Union , the authorised representative of the workman appeared . He submitted that he does not want to press this reference .He also made endorsement to the above effect on the margin oforder sheet .
3. From the above , it appears that the workman has no interest in prosecuting the 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 नईदिल्ली, 30 मार्च , 2005
का.आ. 1615.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 की 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, एस. ई. सी. एल. प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, जबलपुर (संदर्भ संख्या सी. जी. आई. टी. /एल.सी./आर/50/2004 ) को प्रकाशितं करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30-03-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-22012/104/2002 - आई आर ( सी एम- II ) ]
एन..पी. केशवन, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 30th March, 2005
S.O. 1615.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CGIT/LC /R/ 50 /2004 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum - Labour Court , Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the Management of SECL and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 30-03-2005 .
[No. L- 22012/104/2002 - IR (CM - II) ]
N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer [ भाग II- पृष्ठ 3 (ii) )
4443
भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 30 , 2005/वैशाख 10, 1927
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM - LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/50/2004
SHRI C. M. SINGH, Presiding Officer ThePresident,
Samyukta Koyla Mazdoor Sangh (AITUC) , P.O. Jamuna Colliery,
Union/workman Shahdol
VERSUS
The Sub AreaManager, Amadand Sub Area of SECL , P.O. Amadand, Shahdol
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 16th day of March, 2005 1. The Government of India , Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No. L- 22012 / 104/ 2002 - IR( C.II) dated 21-5-2004has referred the following dispute for adjudication bythisTribunal:
"Whether the action of the management of Sub Area Manager, Amadand Sub Area of Jam & Kotma Area indenying promotion to Shri S. P. Mishra to the post of Sr. Fabricator (W) in 1977, highly skilled category VI in 1980, in grade " C" in 1984 , Cafe " B " in 1987 , Grade " A" in 1990 and consegnently as Foreman Incharge in 1992 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to ? "
2.After the reference order was received, it was duly registered on 24-5-2004 and notices were issued to the parties. Lastly the notice was issued to the workman by registered post . This notice was received back with the endorsement of postal department that the address of the addressee is incomplete . I perused the record of this reference as well as the address mentioned on the postal envelope. The same address is mentioned in the postal envelope as is mentioned in the reference order. It is to be noted here that this case was registered on 24-5-2004, and since then on several dates, the notices have been issued to the workman. The workman neither cared to put in appearance nor to intimate this court the change of his address. It is clear from the obove that the workman/ Union haslost interest in the case and does not want to prosecute thisreference.
3. Under the above 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 नईदिल्ली, 30 मार्च , 2005
का.आ. 161 औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, एस. ई . सी. एल. प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , जबलपुर ( संदर्भ संख्या सी. जी. आई. टी./एल.सी./आर/343/99 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30-03-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-22012/243/99-आई आर ( सीएम- II ) ]
एन. पी. केशवन, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 30th March, 2005
S.O. 1616.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT/LC/R/343/99) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the Management of SECL and their workmen , receivedby. the CentralGovernment on 30-03-2005 .
[No. L- 22012/ 243 /99 - IR ( CM - II) ] N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/343/99
SHRI C. M. SINGH, Presiding Officer The Secretary,
Rashtriya Koyla Khadan Mazdoor Sangh ( INTUC) , Qtr.No. B/29 , Indira Vihar Colony,
.....Union/workmen Bilaspur
VERSUS
The Chairman Cum Managing Director, South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. , Seepat Road, Bilaspur (MP)
..Management
AWARD
Passed on this 15th day of March , 2005 1. The Government of India , Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No. L- 22012/243 / 99 - IR ( CM.II ) dated 22-11-99 has referred the following dispute for adjudication bythis Tribunal:
"Whether the action of the management of SECL in not issuing free coal for domestic use or not reimbursing the cost of one LPG cylinder to their employee posted at Bilaspur -HQ is justified ? If not , to what relief the workmen are entitled ? " 4444
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30, 2005/VAISAKHA 10, 1927
2. After the reference order was received , was duly registered on 13-12-99 and notices were issued to the parties. The order sheet dated 11-5-04 reveals that the case was taken up at camp court , Bilaspur. The notice for that date was issued to the workmen/Union by registered post and inspite of it no body put in appearance for workmen/ Union . Thereafter again notice was issued to the workmen/ Union by registered AD post for filing the statement of claim at camp court , Bilaspur on 23-2-2005 . The order sheet dated 23-2-2005 reveals that the case was taken up at camp court , Bilaspur. The notice issued to the workmen/Union by registered AD post was received back un- served with the endorsement of postal department that the addressee does not reside at the given address . Since the date of registration of this case , several dates have been fixed in this case for filing statement of claim by workmen/Union . Butthe workmen/Union did not at all care to intimate this court regarding change of their address .
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/ 26/99
PRESENT:
Shri C. M. Singh, Presiding Officer The Area General Secretary,
Rashtriya Koyla Khadan Mazdoor Sangh (INTUC) , C - 121 , Subhash Block , SECL, POKorba Colliery,
Union/workman Distt. Bilaspur (MP)
VERSUS
The Sub Area Manager,
SECL, Rajgamar Colliery,
P.O. Rajgamar,
Distt.Bilaspur,
..Management Bilaspur (MP)
3. From the above circumstances , it is very clear that the workmen/Union have no interest in the case and they do not want to prosecute this reference . 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, PresidingOfficer नई दिल्ली, 30 मार्च, 2005
का.आ. 1617.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, एस. ई. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण जबलपुर ( संदर्भ संख्या सी. जी. आई.टी. /एल.सी./ आर/ 26/99 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30-03-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल -22012/17/98- आई आर ( सी एम- II ) ]
एन . पी. केशवन, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 30th March , 2005
S.O. 1617. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT/LC/R/26 / 99 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court , Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the Management of SECL and their workman, received by the Central Government on 30-03-2005.
[No. L- 22012/ 17/98 - IR ( CM - II) ]
N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer
AWARD
Passed on 15th day of March , 2005 1. The Government of India , Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No. L-22012/17/98 - IR (CM - II ) dated 14-12-98 has referred the following dispute for adjudication bythisTribunal :
"Whether the action of the management of SECL , Rajgamar Colliery, Distt. Bilaspur ( MP) in removing from the services of Shri Govind Das , Ex. Loader is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to ? "
2. After the reference order was received, it was duly registered on 11-1-99 and notices were issued to the parties . In response of notice, the authorised representative of workman/Union put in an appearance , On 8-5-04 , the date fixed in the reference the workman sought adjournment for filing statement of claim. Thereafter on several dates fixed in this reference , the workman absented himself. Again the notice was issued to the workman by Registered AD post . Inspite of sufficient service of notice , the workman did not appear to file the statement of claim .
3.It appears from the above that the workmen has no interest in prosecuting this reference . 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, 30 मार्च, 2005
का.आ. 1618.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, एस. ई. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
4445
भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 30, 2005/वैशाख 10, 1927
संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण जबलपुर (संदर्भसंख्या सी. जी. आई.टी./एल.सी./आर/ 39/99 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30-03-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-22012/28/98- आई आर ( सीएम- II ) ]
एन. पी. केशवन, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 30th March , 2005
S.O. 1618.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT/LC/R/ 39/99 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum -Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the Management of SECL and their workman , received by the Central Government on 30-03-2005 .
[No. L-22012/28/98 -IR (CM- II)]
N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/ 39/99
PRESENT :
Shri C. M. Singh , Presiding Officer The Asstt . General Secretary,
Rashtriya Koyla Khadan Mazdoor Sangh ( INTUC) , C- 121 , Subhash Block, SECL ,
P.O. Korba Colliery,
..Union/workman Distt. Bilaspur(MP)
VERSUS
The Sub Area Manager ,
P.O. Rajgamar,
Distt. Bilaspur ,
.....Management SECL, Rajgamar Colliery, Bilaspur(MP)
AWARD
Passed on 15th day of March 2005 1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No. L -22012/ 28 / 98 - IR ( CM.II ), dated 24-29/ 12 /98 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal:
"Whether the action of the management of SECL , Rajgamar Colliery, Distt. Bilaspur (MP) in terminating the services of Shri Dharmadas S/o Shri Ganesh Das, Ex. Pump Khalasi of 6-7 Inclines of Rajgamar Colliery (SECL) w.e.f. 14-5-90 is justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to ? " 2..After the reference order was received, it was duly registered on 11-1-99 and notices were issued to the parties. Lastly the notice was issued to the workman by registered AD post. Inspite of sufficient service of notice , the workman did not appear to file the statement of claim.
3. It appears from the above that the workmen does not want to prosecute this reference . Under the circumstances , No Dispute Award is passed without any order as to costs.
4.The copy ofthe award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour as per rules .
C. M. SINGH, Presiding Officer नईदिल्ली, 30 मार्च , 2005
का.आ. 1619.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , एस. ई. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण जबलपुर (संदर्भ संख्या सी. जी. आई.टी. /एल.सी./आर/127/99 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30-03-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल -22012/ 171/98- आई आर ( सीएम- II ) ]
एन. पी. केशवन, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 30th March, 2005
S.O. 1619.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947); the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT/LC/R/ 127 /99 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the Management of SECL and their workman , received by the Central Government on 30-03-2005 .
[No. L-22012/ 171 /98 - IR ( CM-II)]
N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/127/99
PRESENT :
Shri C. M. Singh , Presiding Officer The Secretary,
Union/workman KoylaMazdoor Sabha (UTUC) , At& PO Dhanpuri , Distt. Shahdol (MP) VERSUS
The Sub Area Manager, Amlai Chachai of SECL , POAmlai ,
.Management Distt. Shahdol (MP) 4446
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30, 2005 /VAISAKHA 10, 1927
[PART II-SEC . 3( ii)] AWARD
ANNEXURE
Passed on this 16th day of March , 2005
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/ R/ 250/99
PRESENT:
1. The Government of India , Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No. L -22012 / 171 / 98 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 23-03-99 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal:
SHRI C. M. SINGH, Presiding Officer "Whether the action of the management of Amlai Sub Area of SECL in not regularising Shri Loknath Verma as clipman is justified? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled ? "
Union/workınan
The President , M. P. Koyla Shramik Sabha (HMS ) , NaveenNagar , PO Amlai colliery, Distt. Shahdol (MP)
Management
VERSUS The Sub Area Manager , Sarda O.C.M. of SECL , PO Amlai PaperMill , Distt. Shahdol (MP)
AWARD
2.After the reference order was received , it was duly registered on 1-4-99 and notices were issued to the parties. Lastly the notice was issued to the workman by registered ADpost . In spite of sufficient service of notice , the workman did not care to put in appearance and to file the statement ofclaim. This clearly indicates that the workman has no interest in the case and does not want to prosecute this reference.
Passed on 17th day of March, 2005
3. Under the above circumstances , No Dispute Award is passed without any order as to costs .
1. The Government of India , Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No. L - 22012/ 381 / 98 - IR( CM - II ) dated 7-7-99 has referred the following dispute for adjudication bythis tribunal :
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, 30 मार्च, 2005
"Whether the action of the Sub Area Manager of SECL Sharda Opencast Mines, PO Amlai Paper Mill , Distt Shahdol in not promoting Shri Iqbal Khan from Auto Fitter category VI to Asstt . Supervisor (Transportation T& S Gr. ' C' is legal and justified? If not, towhat relief the workman concerned is entitled? "
2.After the reference order was received , it was duly registered and notices were issued to the parties . Lastly the notices were issued to the workman by registered AD post . In spite of sufficient service of notice , the workman/ Union failed to put in appearance and to file the statement ofclaim. It clearly indicates that the workman has no interest in prosecuting this reference .
का.आ. 1620.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, एस. ई. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, जबलपुर (संदर्भ संख्या सी. जी. आई.टी./एल.सी./आर/ 250/99 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30-03-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-22012/381/98- आई आर ( सीएम- II ) ]
3. Under the above circumstances , No Dispute Award is passed without any order as to costs .
एन. पी. केशवन, डैस्क अधिकारी
4.The copy ofthe award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour as per rules .
New Delhi , the 30th March, 2005
C. M. SINGH, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 30 मार्च, 2005
S.O. 1620. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT/LC/R/ 250 /99 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum - Labour Court , Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the Management of SECL and their workman, received by the Central Government on 30-03-2005 .
का.आ. 1621.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , एस. ई. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , जबलपुर (संदर्भ संख्या सौ. जी. आई.टी./एल.सी./आर/ 130/99 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30-03-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल -22012/173/98- आई आर ( सी एम -11 ) ] एन. पी . केशवन, डैस्क अधिकारी [No. L- 22012/381/98 - IR (CM - II) ] N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
4447
भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 30, 2005/वैशाख 10, 1927
New Delhi , the 30th March, 2005
S.O. 1621. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT/LC/R/ 130/99) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court , Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the Management of SECL and their workman , which was received by. the Central Government on 30-03-2005.
[No. L-22012/ 173 /98 - IR (CM -II) ] N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/130/99
PRESENT:
SHRI C. M. SINGH, Presiding Officer The Area President ,
.. Union/workman M. P. Koyla Mazdoor Sabha (HMS ) , Naveen Nagar, PO Amlai , Distt. Shahdol (MP)
Versus
The SubAreaManager, Amlai & Chachai Sub Area of SECL , Sohagpur Area, PO Amlai , Distt. Shahdol
.. Management
AWARD
Passed on this 16th day of March, 2005 1. The Government of India , Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No. L - 22012/ 173/ 98 - IR (CM - II ) dated 22-03-99 has referred the following dispute for adjudication bythis tribunal:
"Whether the action of the Sub Area Manager Amlai and Chachai Sub Area of SECL, Sohagpur Area for non regularisation of Shri Bhikam as clerk is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled? " 2. After the reference order was received, it was registered on 1-4-99 and notices were issued to the parties. Lastly notices were issued to the workman by registered ADpost which were served personally on the workman/ Union. In spite of sufficient service of notice , the workman/ Union failed to put in appearance and file statement of claim. This clearly indicates that the workman/ Union has no interest in prosecuting this reference.
3. 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, 30 मार्च, 2005
का.आ. 1622.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, एस. ई. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , जबलपुर ( संदर्भ संख्या सी. जी. आई.टी. /एल.सी./आर/76/96 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30-03-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-22012/392/95 - आई आर ( सी- II ) ]
एन. पी. केशवन, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 30th March, 2005
S.O. 1622. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. CGIT/LC/R/ 76 / 99 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum - Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the Management of SECL and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 30-03-2005 .
[No. L- 22012/392/95 - IR (C-II)] N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/76/96 PRESENT:
SHRI C. M. SINGH, Presiding Officer
Workman Shri Mohan Singh , S/ O Lahuva, GramHarand, Post Jamuna, Distt. Shahdol (MP)
VERSUS
Management TheGeneral Manager, Jamuna & Kotma Area of SECL , Post Jamuna Colliery, Distt. Shahdol (MP)
AWARD
Passed on 17th day of March , 2005 1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No. L - 22012/392/95 - IR( C - II ) dated 13-03-96 has referred the following dispute for adjudication bythis tribunal:
"Whether the action of the Suptd. Of Mines/ Manager , Kotma Colliery of Jamuna & Kotma areas of SECL , in dismissing Shri Mohan Singh, Loader, T. No. 1500 w.e.f. 20-1-90 is legal and andjustified? If what relief the workman is entitled ? " not, 4448
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30 , 2005/VAISAKHA 10, 1927
2. After the reference order was received, it was duly registered on 18-3-96 and notices were issued to the parties. Lastly the notice was issued to the workman by registered AD post , which was received back with the endorsement of postal department that the address of the addressee is incomplete . I perused the reference order as well as the address written on the postal envelope . The same address is written on the postal envelope which is mentioned in the reference order. This reference order was registered in the year 1996. Several dates were fixed for filing statement of claim by the workman but the workman did not care to put in appearance or to file the statement of claim. It clearly indicates that the workman has no interest in this case and he does not want to prosecute this reference.
3. Under the above 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, PresidingOfficer नई दिल्ली, 30 मार्च , 2005 .
का.आ. 1623.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , एस . ई. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्रके संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण जबलपुर ( संदर्भ संख्या सी. जी. आई.टी. /एल.सी./आर/ 110/96 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30-03-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-22012/365/ 95- आई आर ( सी एम- II ) ]
एन. पी. केशवन, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 30th March , 2005
S.O. 1623. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT/LC/ R/ 110 /96) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court , Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the Management of SECL and their yorkman , which was received by the Central Government on 30-03-2005.
[No. L- 22012/365 /95 - IR ( CM- II) ]
N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC /R/ 110/96
PRESENT :
Shri C. M. Singh , Presiding Officer
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] ThePresident,
M.P. Keyla Shramik Sangh ( CITU) ,
AreaHead Office ,
PostWest Chirimiri Colliery,
....Workman/Union Distt. Surguja (MP)
VERSUS
TheGeneral Manager, Chirimiri Area SECL,
PostWest chirimiri Colliery,
Distt. Surguja (MP)
.....Management
AWARD
Fassed on this 16th day of March , 2005 1. The Government of India , Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No. L - 22012/ 365/95 - IR ( CM.II ) dated 29-03-96 has referred the following dispute for adjudication bythisTribunal:
"Whether the action of the General Manager , Chirimiri Area of SECL, in denying extra wages and relevant benefits to the Monthly Rated Staff posted atG. M. Office for paid holidays falling on Sunday or weekly day of rest is legal and justified ? If not , what relief the workmen are entitled?"
2.After the reference order was received, it was duly registered on 15-4-96 and notices were issued to the parties. The order sheet dated 6-2-04 indicates that on the said date, the case was taken up at camp court , Bilaspur and on this date, the workmen/Union did not put in appearance and failed to file statement of claim in spite of sufficient service of notice on them . Therefore on the said date, the management was directed to file WS by the next date, Thereafter a few more dates were fixed in the reference for filing WS by the management but the management failed to file WS . It shall be worthwhile to mention here that since 6-2-04, the case was proceeding exparte against the workmen/ union . The order sheet dated 2-3-05 indicates that on this date fixed in the case , no one was present for the workinen and Shri A. K. Shashi , Advocate was present for the management . On this date oo , the management failed to file WS . Thus in this case , in spite of several opportunities awarded to the parties , they failedto file their respective statements of claim. It clearly means that the workmen/ Union as well as the management have no interest in the reference and they do not want to prosecute this reference .
3. Under the above 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, PresidingOfficer 4449 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 30 , 2005/वैशाख 10, 1927
नई दिल्ली, 30 मार्च , 2005
का.आ. 1624.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947(1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, एस. ई. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्रके संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण जबलपुर (संदर्भ संख्या सी.जी.आई.टी./एल.सी./आर/245/98 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30-03-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल -22012/389/1997- आई. आर. ( सीएम- II ) ]
Instead an application was moved on behalf of workmen/ Union requesting therein that the Union does not want to pursue the case. Thereafter no one appeared on several dates for workmen/Union and lastly on 22-2-05 , the case was taken up at camp court , Bilaspur. The authorised representative of the workmen and Shri A. K. Shashi , Advocate for the management submitted before the court that the dispute has been compromised between the parties and now there exists No. dispute between them. It was prayed fromboth the side that the reference be closed and award be passed accordingly.
एन. पी. केशवन, डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 30th March, 2005
3. It is very clear from the above that the parties are not interested in prosecuting this reference as no dispute is left between them. 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, PresidingOfficer.
नई दिल्ली, 30 मार्च, 2005
S.O. 1624.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. CGIT/LC/ R/245/98 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum -Labour Court Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of SECL and their workman , received by the Central Government- on 30-03-2005.
[No. L-22012/389/ 1997 -IR (CM -II) ] N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer
का.आ. 1625.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, एस. ई. सी. एल. प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण जबलपुर (संदर्भ संख्या सी.जी.आई.टी./एल.सी./आर/9/99 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30-03-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था । ANNEXURE BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
[सं. एल-22012/409/1997 - आई. आरः ( सीएम- II ) ]
एन . पी. केशवन, डेस्क अधिकारी No. CGIT/LC/R/245/98 SHRI C. M. SINGH, Presiding Officer
New Delhi, the 30th March, 2005 ... Union/workmen
TheSecretary, M.P. Koyla Mazdoor Sabha (HMS ) , Br.Gevra project, PO Gevra, Distt. Bilaspur(MP)
Versus
S.O. 1625.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. CGIT/LC/ R/9/99 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of SECL and their workman, received by the Central Government on30-03-2005.
The Chief General Manager, SECL Gevra Area, PO Gevra Project, Distt. Bilaspur (MP)
...Management
AWARD
[No. L-22012/409/ 1997 - IR (CM - II) ] N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer Passed on this 15th day of March, 2005
ANNEXURE
1. The Govt of India, Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No. L- 22012/389 / 97 /IR(CM- II) dated 11-11-98 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal:
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC /R/ 9 /99
"Whether the action of management of SECL, Gevra Area, Distt . Bilaspur ( MP) in deducting Rs . 30/- per month from the salaries of employees is justified ? If not, what releif the workers are entitled to ?"
SHRI C. M. SINGH, Presiding Officer
The Area General Secretary,
Rashtriya Koyla Khadan Mazdoor Sangh ( INTUC) , C-121 , Subhash Block, SECL, POKorba colliery,
2. After the reference order was received , it was duly registered on 23-11-98 and notices were issued to the parties . The order sheet dated 11-5-04 reveals that at camp court, Bilaspur, no body appeared for workmen/Union.
1234 GI/05-24 4450
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30 , 2005/VAISAKHA 10, 1927
...Union/workmen Distt. Bilaspur(MP)
Versus
The Sub AreaManager, SECL Rajgamar Colliery, PO Rajgamar, Distt . Bilaspur, Bilaspur (MP) ...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 15th March , 2005
1. The Govt of India , Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No. L -22012/409/ 97/IR( C - II) dated 27--11-98 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal:
"Whether the action of management of SECL , Rajgamar Colliery Distt . Bilaspur (MP) in terminating the services of Shri Kishnu Lal , S/ o Thomaram , Ex . Loader of 6-7 Incline w.e.f. 19/ 20th April 1995 is justified ? Ifnot, to what relief is the workman entitled to ?"
2. After the reference order was received, it was duly registered on 11-1-99 and notices were issued to the parties. In response of the notice , authorised representative for the workman put in appearance on 8-5-04 and sought adjournment for filing statement of claim . Thereafter the workman absented himself on several dates fixed in the reference . Again the notice was issued to the workman by registered AD post . Inspite of sufficient service of notice , the workman did not appear to file the statement of claim .
3. It appears from the above that the workman has no interest in prosecuting this reference . 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, PresidingOfficer नई दिल्ली, 30 मार्च, 2005
का.आ. 1626.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , एस. ई. सी. एल. प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण जबलपुर ( संदर्भ संख्या सी.जी.आई.टी./एल.सी./आर/ 222/ 99 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30-03-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [ सं. एल-22012/248/1998- आई. आर. ( सीएम- II ) ]
एन. पी. केशवन, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 30th March, 2005
S.O. 1626. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. CGIT/LC/ R/ 222 / 99 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure , in
[PART II-SEC. 3( ii) ] the Industrial Dispute between the management of SECL and their workman , received by the Central Government on 30-03-2005.
[No. L -22012/248/ 1998 - IR ( CM -II) ] N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/ 222/99
SHRI C. M. SINGH , Presiding Officer
...Union/workmen The Secretary, I.N.M.O.S.S.A, B -74, PO Jamuna colliery, Distt. Shahdol (MP)
Versus
...Management The General Manager, Jamuna & Kotma Area of SECL , P.O. Jamuna Colliery Distt. Shahdol ( MP) .
AWARD
Passed on this 16th day of March , 2005 1. The Govt . of India, Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No. L - 22012 / 248 / 98 / IR( CM - II ) dated 26/27-5-99 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal :-
"Whether the action of the General Manager Jamuna and KotmaArea of SECL , PO Jamuna Colliery, Distt . Shahdol (MP) in giving notional seniority without the monetary benefits to the 21 workmen ( list enclosed) is legal and justified ? If not , to what releif are the workmen entitled ? "
2. After the reference order was received, it was duly registered on 14-6-99 and notices were issued to the parties . Lastly notice was issued to the workmen/Union by registered post . This notice was received back with the endorsement of Postal department that the address of the addressee is incomplete . I peruse the record of this reference as well as the envelope sent by registered post . The same address is written on the postal envelope as is mentioned in the reference order .
3. This reference was registered in the year 1999 and since the , the workmen/Union did not care to put in appearance and file the statement of claim . Workmen/Union did not care to intimate this court the change of the address if any. Under the circumstances , it is very clear that the workmen/Union donot want to prosecute this reference .
4. Under the above circumstances , No Dispute Award is passed without any order as to costs .
5. The copy of the award be sent to the Government ofIndia , Ministry of Labour as per rules .
C. M. SINGH, Presiding Officer [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
4451 भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 30, 2005/वैशाख 10, 1927
नई दिल्ली , 31 मार्च , 2005
Bai asCompulsorily retired w.e.f. 28th October 1998 / Ifnot, what releif she is entitled ?"
का.आ. 1627.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार के नरा बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, बैंगलोर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 2004-05/89 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 31-3-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[ सं. एल -12012 /122 /2000- आई. आर. ( बी.- II ) ] सी. गंगाधरण , अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 31st March, 2005
S.O. 1627. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 2004- (05/89) ofthe 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 Canara Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 31-3-2005.
2. The case of the first party on merits (pleadings with regard toDomestic Enquiry are omitted, there being a separate finding on this issue) in brief is that she has been performing her duties honestly with due diligence and has gotblemish less service record except for a minor penalty imposed on her during the year 1990; that while she was working at Vivekanand Nagar Branch of the Second Party atBangalore, disciplinary action was taken against her by. issuing a charge sheet dated 9-6-97 on the allegations that on 18-9-96 when she was working as a cashier, an amount ofRs . 14,981 was remitted to the current account No. 253 ofM/s .Mariam Nivas School but she has accounted only for Rs . 14.581 and thereby misappropriated a sum of Rs .400 and on 27-10-96 she has made good the above said amount and that on 5-10-96 while she was working as Cashier did not account for Rs . 10,000 credited to SB Account No. 2353 in the cash book and when this fact was brought to her notice she remitted the amount of Rs . 10.000 on8-10-96 and thereby she committed gross misconduct of misappropriation under the Canara Bank Service Code. At para 5 of the claim statement she averred as under:-
[No. L- 12012/ 122/2000- IR (B- II) ] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT, "SHRAM SADAN", III MAIN, III CROSS, II PHASE, TUMKUR ROAD, YESHWANTHPUR, BANGALORE -560022.
Dated: 9thMarch, 2005
PRESENT:
SHRI A. R. SIDDIQUI , PresidingOfficer
C. R. No. 73/00
IPARTY
IPARTY
The Deputy General Manager,
Canarabank,
CirculeOfficer,
86-MG, Road,
Bangalore-560001
Smt . G. SharadaBai , W/o V. Anbalagan , No. 15, 1st Cross , Munikallappa Block, M. S.Nagar,
Bangalore-560033
AWARD
1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferredby clause (d) of sub - section 2A of the Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vide order No. L- 12012/ 122/2000/IR (B- II) dated 18-10-2000 foradjudication on the following schedule :
SCHEDULE
That so far as the charge pertaining to M/ s . Mariam Nivas School is concerned , every day large number of challans pertaining to the fee collected from the students isbrought to the Bank and deposited . Having regard to the large number of challans and small and odd amounts of each of these challans there was a mistake of Rs . 400 in totaling and the actual cash received by the first party was only Rs . 14,581 . Even the checking official in the bank who had a duty to check and bring any mistake to the notice of the first party had confirmed the amount as Rs . 14.581 . When the mistake was brought to the notice of the first party, she had volunteered to make up the loss . There was neither any misappropriation nor any other offence committed by the first party. So far as the second charge is concerned, it is submitted that there was a bonafide error on 5-10-1996 due to heavy rush of work . At the end of the day the cash was tallied which was confirmed by the controlling officers. Thereafter the first party left the Branch . Itwas only on 8-10-96 after the Bank hours when the first partywas at home attending to her sick child, the Branch Manager telephoned her and told that there was a cash shortage ofRs . 10,000. The first party immediately rushed to the Branch and on finding out that there is a cash shortage of Rs . 10,000 she paid up the amount and has not misappropriated it. At para 8 , she contended that the Enquiry Officer submitted the findings dated 28-11-97 holding her guilty of both the charges and the representation made by her to the Disciplinary Authority against the findings was rejected and she was dismissed from service by his order dated 21-3-1998 . In her appeal against the dismissal order , the Appellate Authority "Whether the action of management of Canara Bank isjustified in treating the services of Smt . G. Sharada 4452
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30, 2005/VAISAKHA 10, 1927
modified the punishment of dismissal to one ofCompulsory Retirement . At para 10 she contended that grave injustice has been caused to her as he has got another 16 years of service and that the punishinent imposed on her is disproportionate to the charges leveled against her. It is a measure of victimization and unfair labour practice and therefore, the punishment is liable to be set aside.
3. The Management by its Counter Statement with regard to the charge No. 1 contended that the first party wasworking as a Cashier on 18-9-96 , received an amount ofRs . 14981 was remitted to the Current Account No. 253 ofM/ s . Mariam Nivas School , but she accounted for only Rs . 14581 instead of Rs. 14981 and thereby misappropriated a sum ofRs . 400 pertaining to the customer . When this fact was brought to her notice she contacted the customer on 27-10-1996 and made good the amount which she had misappriated on 18-9-96.
4. With regard to Second Charge the management contended that on 5-10-96 the first Party working as a Clerk in the SB Department was to pass a withdrawal order from draw on SB Account No. 2383 for Rs . 10,000 and as there was no balance in SB Account , Smt. Datchayani did not pass the same. However, the first party then brought a credit challan for Rs . 10,000 for the said SB Account in which cash received ' seal was already affixed with her signature as a Cashier and requested Smt . Datchayani to make entries in the SB Ledger and pass the withdrawal order form for Rs . 10,000 . The first party had directly brought the credit slips for posting the same in the SB Ledger Sheet and the same was not entered in the cash chest . On verification of cash chest was found that the alleged credit of Rs . 10,000 on 5-10-96 was not entered in the cash scroll/ cash waste and it was found that said credit slip was prepared and signed by the first party without any corresponding cash remittance . On 6-10-96 the branch observed after verifiacation of the records that an amount of Rs . 10,000 alleged to have been credited on 5-10-96 to the said account Number was not accounted for in the Cash Books of the account and when this fact was brought to the notice of the first party she remitted Rs . 10,000 on 8-10-96 to make good the loss . Therefore , by her above action, the first party misappropriated the funds of Rs . 400 and Rs . 10,000 and thereby committed gross misconduct within the meaning of Chapter XI , Regulation 3 clause (j) &(m) of Canara Bank Service Code . The management further contended that thereupon a detailed investigation was done in the case and having found prima facie case against the first party, a Domestic Enquiry was conducted against her and on the basis of the Domestic Enquiry findings holding the first party guilty of the charges , the Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of dismissal and on an appeal preferred by the first party, punishment of dismissal was replaced by an order of Compulsory Retirement. Therefore, the management contended that the misconduct committed by the first party being grave in
[PART II- SEC. 3 (ii) ] nature, the punishment given by way of Compulsory Retirement is very much proportionate and in commensurate to the charges of misconduct committed by the first party and therefore , need not be interfered at the hands of this Tribunal.
5. Keeping in view the respective pleadings of the parties with regard to fairness and validity or otherwise of the enquiry proceedings , Doestic Enquiry issue was taken up inthe first instance and during the course of trial of the said issue , the management as well as the first party adduced their oral and documentary evidence .
6. After hearing the learned counsels for the respective parties, this court by its order dated 24-12-2004 recorded the finding on the said issue holding that the enquiry conducted against the first party by the Second partywas fair and proper. Thereupon learned counsels for the respective parties have been heard on merits of the case as well as on the point as to whether the enquiry findings suffered from any perversity and that punishment ofCompulsory Retirement was justified or not .
7. Learned Counsel for the first party, vehemently, argued that the case on hand was a case of shortage ofthe fund and not the case of misappropriation of the funds as alleged by the management . Therefore , learned cousel submitted that the punishment of dismissal was not proportionate to the gravity of the charge of misconduct namely shortage of the funds which at the most amounts some negligence on the part of the first party in discharging her duties . Learned counsel further submitted that as soon as the shortage of sum of Rs . 400 as per first charge and shortage of Rs . 10,000 as per Second Charge was brought to the notice of the first party, she immediately made good ofthe amount in question and that shows that she had no intention to misappropriate the funds belonging to the bank. He further submitted that there was no case made out against the first party to suggest that she misappropriated the said amount so to cause unlawful gain to herself and unlawful loss to the management bank.
8. Learned counsel for the Second Party on the other hand argued that voluminous oral and documentary evidence was brought on record during the course of enquiry to suggest that the first party infact misappropriated the funds belonging to the management bank and based on the above said evidence , sufficient and valid reasonings have been assigned by the Enquiry Officer inholding the first party guilty ofthe charges of misconduct and therefore , it cannot be said that findings of the Enquiry Officer in any way suffered from perversity. On the point of quantum of punishment, learned counsel submitted that the Appellate Authority has already taken lenient view by replacing the punishment of dismissal by an order of Compulsory Retirement and therefore , keeping in view the gravity of the misconduct committed by the first party and so also taking into consideration the fact admitted by the [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: अप्रैल 30, 2005/वैशाख 10, 1927
firstparty herself that she had been punished earlier to this also for similar misconduct.
9. After having gone through the records, I find substance in the arguments advanced by the Second Party. Keeping in view the finidng of the tribunal holding the Domestic Enquiry proceedings to be fair and proper, a very short question not to be gone into would be as to whether the findings of the Enquiry Officer suffered from any perversity. It is very interesting to note that nowhere in the Claim Statement the first party even whispered that the findings of the Enquiry Officer suffered from any perversity. No case was made out in the Claim Statement as to why the findings of the Enquiry Officer were not acceptable and how they suffered from any perversity or illegality. The only averment at para 9 of the Claim Statement was to the effect that the first party preferred an appeal on the ground thatadverse findings recorded against her were not justified and they were perverse . Here again she did not disclose as to on what grounds the findings were not justified and they were perverse.
10. Learned counsel for the first party in his argument before this tribunal was at loss and failed to convince this tribunal as to why the findings of the Enquiry Officer are notjustified and on what grounds they suffered from perversity. A perusal of the enquiry findings would make it abundantly clear that there was sufficient and legal oral as well as documentary evidence brought on record during the course of enquiry to establish the charges of misconduct against the first party. The management examined as many as six witnesses and pressed into service as many as 31 documents at Ex. M1 to M31 . In this context it will be worthwhile to bring on record the observations made and reasonings assigned by the Enquiry Officer in holding the first party guilty of both the charges of misconduct leveled against her.
11. With regard to the Charge No. 1 , his reasonings on pages 5 & 6 of the findings run as under :-
"On analyzing the documentary evidence , oral depositions of the witnesses , submissions of Presenting Officer and submissions of defence , I find that Smt . Sharada Bai had accounted for Rs . 14,581 /- as against the actual credit of Rs. 15,981 in the Current Account ofM/ s . Mariam Nivas School on 18-9-1997 . Had it been an error whilearriving at the total , Smt . Sharada Bai should have arrived at an excess of Rs . 400 in the total cash. However, no such excess was reported by Simt. Sharada Bai . The defence has not placed anything on record to say as to why shortage of Rs . 400 was not noticed on the same day, if the same were to be a genuine mistake on her part . It may be further observed that Smt . Sharada Bai had remitted Rs . 400 to the Current Account No. 253 ofM/ s . Mariam Nivas School on 27-10-1996 .
4453 The Presenting Officer had further placed on record to say that Smt . Sharada Bai had called on the Principal ofM/ s . Mariam Nivas School and requested the School authorities to receive Rs.400. However, school authorities informed her to credit the said amount by herself, which she did on 27-10-96 , In this regard, the Presenting Officerhad also produced Ex. M31 which is a letter written by M/s . Mariam Nivas School . However , the Presenting Officer could not produce the Principal or School authorities and he had informed in the enquiry that a notice was sent to the Principal ofM/s . Mariam Nivas School , which was acknowledged by them . However, the school authorities did not turn up to depose in the enquiry. The defence has not placed anything on record to say that the casting error ofRs . 400 was a genuine mistake and hence I have no hesitation in holding Smt. Sharada Bai guilty ofmisappropriating a sum of Rs . 400 pertain- ing to the Current Account No. 253 of M/s . MarianmNivas School on 18-9-96 . " 12. As far as the Second Charge leveled against the first party with regard to misappropriation of funds of Rs . 10,000, the Enquiry Officer examined the matter and gave his reasonings vide pages 8 & 9 of the Enquiry Report run as under :-
"On analyzing the evidence of management and defence, it is found that there was a shortage of Rs . 10,000 on 5-10-96 . The allegation of the management was that the said amount was misappropriated by Smt . Sharada Bai . The Presenting Officer had produced witnesses to say that Smt . Sharada Bại had produced paying - in- challan for Rs . 10.000/- to the Counter Clerk Smt .Datchayani to enable her to pass a withdrawal order form for Rs . 10,000 drawn on SB Account of Smt . Jayamma. The said credit challan was shown to Smt . Datchayani by Smt . Sharada Bai only after the receipt ofwithdrawal order from at the counter by Smt . Datchayani . Smt. Datchayani debited the withdrawal order form only after verifying the challan produced by Smt . Sharada Bai . The said credit challan was not entered in the shroffbook by Smt . Sharada Bai through the same was given Sl . No.8 . In the waste , Smt . Shakunthala Subramanian had entered Rs . 100 as against SI.No.8 which pertains to credit entry of Rs . 100 to the SB Account of another customer. The credit slip for Rs . 10,000 was prepared and signed by Smt . Sharada Bai Smt . Jayamma , who is a close relative of Smt . Sharada Bai has deposed in the enquiry that Rs . 10,000 was prepared and signed by Smt. Sharada Bai Smt. Jayamma, who is a close relative of Smt . Sharada Bai has deposed in the 4454
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30 , 2005 /VAISAKHA 10 , 1927
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii )] enquiry that Rs . 10,000 was handed over to Sınt. Sharada Bai by her son on 5-10-96 . However, on going through the records , it is observed that the said Rs . 10,000 was withdrawn on the same day. Had Smt. Jayamma was in need of funds , there was no necessity to deposit the like sum in her account on same day. It is pertinent to note that defence has not brought anything on record to say that DWI has brought the cash and handed over the same to Chargesheeted employee without the knowledge of Smt . Jayamma. Under such circumstances , the deposition of DWI and Smt . Jayamma cannot be accepted as correct . In the written brief, the Defence Representative has contended that the receipts , payment and cash was tallied on 5-10-96 . However, on perusing the evidence , it is observed that the cash was not tallied on 5-10-96 and the same was done only on the next day evening which was brought to the notice of Smt . Sharada Bai on 8-10-96 . The defence has contended that the mistake of not accounting for a challan of Rs . 10,000 is not intentional and the main cause for all these allegations is the Branch Manager who hates Smt . Sharada Bai . However, defence has not placed anything on record to substantiate the said allegation . The evidence produced by the Presenting Officer clearly establishes that Smt . Sharada Bai with an intention to get an instrument of Rs . 10,000 drawn on SB Account of Smt . Jayamma was passed in the ledger, had prepared and affixed her signature on the paying- in -challan for Rs. 10,000 and allotted Sl.No.8 without accounting for the same in the shroff book . When the same was pointed out, she made good the loss by crediting Rs . 10,000 on 8-10-1996 . The defence has not placed anything on record to say that as to how the shortage of Rs . 10,000 had occurred due to non- accounting of challan ofRs . 10,000 wlich Smt . Sharada Bai had produced before Smt . Datchayani for passing the withdrawal order form for Rs . 10,000 in the SB Account of Smt. Jayamma.
of enquiry and discussed in detail by the Enquiry Officer in his findings supported by his reasoning , by no stretch of imagination it can be said that it was a case of ' no evidence' or a case of ' in sufficient evidence' . The only possible and probable conclusion to be drawn on the basis of the record made available during the course of enquiry was to conclude that the first party committed misconduct misappropriating the funds belonging to the management . It cannot be said to be a case of shortage of fund arising out of negligence committed by the first party in discharging her duties. In her own words as brought out in Para 5 of her Claim Statement , referred to supra , as far as first party is concerned , a sum of Rs.400 was not accounted to the Current Accounts of above said M/ s . Mariam Nivas School on 18-9-96 , it is only on 27-10-96 the first party remitted Rs . 400 to the aforesaid current account of said M/s . Mariam Nivas School , that too , when this fact was brought to notice on the above said date . Likewise, Shortage of Rs . 10,000 came to be detected as on 5-10-96 and she made good of the amount with the bank on 8-10-96 . In her letter to the Sr. Manager of the branch in question dated 8-10-96 marked asEx.M2 during the course of enquiry, she never disputed the shortage ofRs . 10,000 as on 5-10-96 taken place on her hand while working as a Cashier in the Bank . She readily came froward and expressed her willingness making good the shortage of the said amount of Rs . 10,000 by paying in cash, requesting the management to adjust the same towards cash shortage . She said nothing in the said letter that the shortage resulted due to some negligence on her part while discharging her duties but had in an audacity to say that she was not aware of the said shortage. The fact that on both the occasions she made good that amount of shortage without any protest and without offering any proper explanation , would tell tale upon her intention suppressing the said shortage using the said money as her unlawful gain causing unlawful loss to the bank. This conduct of the first party amounts to misappropriation of the funds belonging to the bank. Therefore , going through the evidence and reasonings given by the Enquiry Officer in his findings , this tribunal has got no hesitation in its mind to come to the conclusion that charges of misconduct ofmisappropriation of the funds have been proved against the first party.
For all the reasons stated above , I hold Smt. Sharada Bai guilty of misappropriation of Rs . 10,000.
Findings:
The analysis made above had clearly established that Smt .Sharada Bai is guilty if misappropriating Rs . 400 from the credits made to the Current Account No. 253 of M/ s . Mariam Nivas School and also for misappropriation of Rs. 10,000 on 5-10-96 . For the said reasons , I hold Smt . Sharada Bai Guilty ofboth the charges .
14. Coming to the question of quantum of punishment , it was rightly submitted by the management that already a lenient view has been taken against the first party by converting the punishment of dismissal into the punishment of Compulsory Retirement . No more sympathy can be shown against the first party keeping in view the gravity of the misconduct committed by her and so also taking into consideration her past record . In the past also she was punished for a similar misconduct withholding her increment for a period of 4 years with cumulative effect as contended by the management in the counter 'Statement and not denied by the first party. In fact she 13. Therefore,from a careful scrutiny of the oral and documentary evidence brought on record during the course [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
4455
भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 30, 2005/वैशाख 10, 1927
admitted the minor penalty imposed on her during the ycar 1990.
15. In the result I was to hold that the reference merits no consideration and liable to be dismissed accordingly. Hence the following Award.
AWARD
The reference is dismissed. No order to cost .
(Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected and signed by me on 9th March 2005)
A.R. SIDDIQUI, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 31 मार्च, 2005
का.आ. 1628.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंकिंग सर्विस रिक्रूटमैन्ट बोर्ड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय गोहाटी के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या आई.टी. / 12(सी )/2001 /117 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 31-03-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-12011/ 87/2001- आई. आर. ( बी- II ) ]
सी. गंगाधरण , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 31st March, 2005
S.O. 1628. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.IT 12 (C) 2001/117 ) of the Industrial Tribunal -cum - Labour Court, Guwahati as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Banking Service Recruitment Board and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 31-03-2005 .
[No. L- 12011/87/2001 - IR(B - II) ]
C. GANGADHARAN , Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL GUWAHATI, ASSAM
REFERENCE NO.12( C) OF 2001
PRESENT :
SHRI B. BORA, Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal , Guwahati .
In the matter of a Industrial Dispute between:
The management of
Banking Service Recruitment Board, Guwahati.
Versus
Their workman represented by the President United Bank of India Employees Association , Panbazar, Guwahati .
APPEARENCE :
Shri S. Dutta, Advocate : For the management .
Shri K.K. Dey, Advocate
Shri B. Choudhury,
: For the workman .
President, U.B.Ε.Α.
Date of Award 19-2-2005
AWARD
The Govt. of India , Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by anotification No. L- 12011 /87/2001 /IR(B - II) dated 24-8- 2001 referred an Industrial Dispute between the management ofBanking Service Recruitment Board and the workman represented by President United Bank Employees Association, Guwahati on the following issue:
"Whether the action of the management ofBanking Service Recruitment Board , Guwahati in terminating Shri Deben Kakati , temporary sub- staff w.e.f. 1-8-1998 is justified? If not, what relief is the disputant entitled to? "
On receipt of reference , a reference case was registered and notices were issued both parties calling upon them to file their written statement/addl . written statement and document if any. In response to the notices both parties appeared in this Court and filed their written statement . Both parties also adduced evidences both oral and documentary in support of their respective case .
The case of the workman Shri Deben Kakati in breief is that, since 2-5-92 there was a resultant permanent vancancy of sub - staff due to promotion ofChandra Kanta Das a sub - staff and then Ajit Das in the Banking Service Recruitment Board (N.E. Group) Guwahati against which ultimately Deben Kakati was provided and engaged by the management of United Bank of India through the management ofB.S.R.B. to work as sub -staff in the B.S.R.B. (N.E.Group) w.e.f. 2-5-92 to 1-8-98 .
That , work of permanent nature in B.S.R.B. (N.E.Group) Guwahati is performed by the permanent employees of United Bank of India deputed to B.S.R.B. (N.E.Group) for the purpose . The manpower requirement of the B.S.R.B. ( N.E. Group ) is assessed by the co- ordinating Bank in consultation with the Chairman.B.S.R.B. (N.E.Group ). as assessed by the United Bank of India, the number of subordinate staff in B.S.R.B. is more than the actual requirement and the Bank is considering withdrawal ofsurplus subordinate staff from the B.S.R.B.
That , the management continued to engage the workman permanently against unfilled vacancies but illegally denying him the continuation as permanent and regularised sub - staff and consequent wages , benefit. He was paid monthly wages arbitrarily at a lump - sum rate only.
That the management violates the provisions ofthe Sastry Award, Desai Award and the Bipartite Settlement 4456
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: APRIL 30, 2005/VAISAKHA 10, 1927
dtd. 19-10-66 by not providing the workman any appointment letter as required .
That , most illegal is the fact that the management arbitrarily terminated the workman from service w.e.f. 1-8-98 without any written order and they illegally terminated his job violating various Awards , provisions of the Bipartite Settlement dtd . 19-10-66 and Industrial Dispute Act , 1947 ( Sec . 76) .
That , in the present case the workman was engaged to work continuously for more than 6 ( six) years illegally and against the provisions of the Bipartite Settlement dtd . 19-10-66.
That, his termination after completing 6 ( six) years of regular engagement against a permanent vacancy is an act ofvictimisation under the Industrial Disputes Act and he iscligible for regularisation of service w.e.f. 2-5-92 as per Bipartite Settlement .
According to the certificate dtd. 25-8-01 from R.K. Srivastava, the last Chairman of the Board " all the officers and clerical staff of the Board are on deputation from the United Bank of India and they would be reversing to their parent organisation" .
But the management has not complied with any statutory provisions , Awards and settlements at all uptill now.
As the engaged employee concerned Deben Kakati is aworkman under Section 2 ( s) of I.D. Act , 1947.
As the management has been resorting to unfair labour practices under Section 2( ra) of I.D. Act , 1947.
As the workmen Deben Kakati is entitled as per law , it is prayed for regularisation of his service with retrospective effect i.e. w.e.f. 2-5-92 and all the status and benefits of permanent sub - staff including amount of differences of wages , Bonus . Medical aid and all the privilegesprovided under Bipartite Settlement and law of the Land.
On the other hand the case of the management in brief is as follows :
That , the case is not maintainable both on facts and law. United Bank Employees ' Association (hereinafter called the Union ) has raised this dispute on behalf of Shri Deben Kakati only to harass the management of United Bank of India with the false hope of making wrongful gains for Shri Kakati.
That , the dispute was raised by the Union without any valid and reasonable ground and without any cause of action .
That . Shri Kakati was never employed by the management or the BSRB . There was no employer- employee relation between Shri Kakati and the management, Shri Kakati never worked as subordinate staff at BSRB .
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] That, the BSRB does not have any employee of its own in employment/ muster roll . The BSRB did not appointment any employee on any cadre in any bank or in its office . It could not therefore terminate the employment of any employee. The question of terminating the services of Shri Kakati by the BSRB does not arise at all .
That, the real fact is that Shri Kakati was exclusively engaged by the previous Chairman of the BSRB as a personal bearer. Shri Kakati was engaged by the then Chairman on purely personal basis and he used to receive remuneration in cash on daily basis to the debit of P/L examination expenses which fell within the ambit of allowances/ entitlement being granted to the Chairman . Shri Kakati stopped working as personal peen to the then Chairman after the expiry of his tenure in 1998.
That, Recruitment in the bank in subordinate cadre can only be made through employment exchange depending on eligibility criteria and other terms and conditions set by the bank . There is no provision/ scheme for regularisation of a peon working as personal basis .
That , the issue referred by the appropriate Govt . for adjudication is misconceived and deserves no consideration or adjudication . Shri Kakati was never a temporary sub- staff and his employment was never terminated by BSRB as it has no authority or power to appointment or terminate. Shri Kakati was never a temporary sub - staff and his employment was never terminated by BSRB as it has no authority or power to appoint or terminate. Shri Kakati was also not an employee of coordinating bank i.e. United Bank of India. Hence this dispute is not an Industrial Dispute and does not come within the jurisdiction ofthe Hon'ble Tribunal for adjudication .
favour. The management has prayed for an award in its Let me now discuss the evidence on record before arriving at my decision-
Witness No. 1 for the workman Shri Siba Prasad Suwari deposed that he worked in the Board from 1984 to 2001 and during his tenure he found 4 Nos . of permanent Sub - Staff besides a part time Sweeper . Out of the 4 Sub- Staff one Chandrakanta Das was promoted to Clerk and one Ajit Das was absorbed as Sub- Staff. Workman Deben Kakati worked as a canteen boy of the canteen of the Board. He was engaged as Sub - Staff by the Management from May '92 and he worked in that capacity upto 1-8-98 and he was discharged from service since 1-8-98 . Ext . H is that report of conciliation , Ext. I is that Photocopy of the report sent to the Secy. of the Govt . of India , Ext . J letter to the Public Sector Bank Guwahati. Ext . K( 1 ) to K ( 5 ) are the proceeding of the ASLC. Ext . L letter of the workman dt . 26-8-98 to the Board . Ext . M is the letter of the Secy. UBIEA, Assam . Ext . N letter ofthe ALC ( Central ) . Ext . O is the letter ofthe workman to the ALC ( Central) . Ext . P is that letter of [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
4457 भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 30, 2005 /वैशाख 10, 1927
theBoard to the ALC (Central) . Ext . Q is the letter the ALC (Central ) . Ext . R is the letter to the Chairman & Managing Director of UBI.
This witness in his cross - examination stated that the Management of the Bank did not issue any appointment letter to the workman for working as sub - staff in place of AjitDas . Further he stated that the canteen Committee in formed out of the Staff of the Bank and the expenditure of the canteen is done from the subsidiary and contribution of the staff.
Witness No. 2 for the workman Shri Deben Kakati deposed that he worked as canteen boy since 1987 to April 92 and from May' 92 he worked as sub - staff till 1-8-98 . He further stated that he was not given any appointment for working as Sub- Staff. The Board assured him to make his service permanent but he was retrenched by the Secy. of the Board from 1-8-98 .
In his cross - examinations he stated that he never applied for working as a Canteen Boy nor he has appointed by the Board . He stated that he was paid Rs . 600 by the office and canteen management . Further he stated that he did not apply for sub - staff along with Ajit Das .
Witness No. 1 for the management Shri Abhijit Baruah deposed that he had been working in the BSRB since 15-2-97 to 30-8-2001 and he was the Asstt . Secretary. The letter No. BSR -NE/REC/MISC / ALC /DK/ 75 /6/2001 was addressed by the Chairman of the BSRB to the Asstt.
management of the UBI through the management BSRB (N.E. Group) to work in the BSRB (N.E. Group ) as sub - staff w.e.f. 2-5-92 and while he was working in that capacity his service was terminated by the management w.e.f. 1-8-98 without anywritten order. But workman Deben Kakati could not produce any appointment letter as a sub - staff as claimed by him. The workman is totally silent regarding his working as a canteen boy from 1987 to 1992 though he stated in his evidence in this regard . His version is also corroborated by evidence of W.W. 1 Shri S.P. Suwari . The workman admitted in his evidence that he was never given any appointment letter by the Bank. The only materials that support his case are the Ext . A and Ext . B the payment vouchers in favour of Deben Kakati by the UBI but these vouchers also do not prove the claim of Deben Kakati that he ever worked as sub - staff of the UBI . The vouchers Ext . A & B do not speak as to in what capacity Deben Kakati worked in the BSRB . The management of the Bank stated in the written statement and in evidence of W. No. 1 for the management that D. Kakati work as personal peon of the Chairman and he was paid from the Head of P/N examination expenses . This assertion of the Bank or management finds corroboration from the Ext . A & B proved by the workman. The other documents proved by the workman . is Ext. C , a certificate issued by Shri Deben Kakati worked with him as office peon for over 4 years . Ext. D on the other hand, which was issued by Jatin Hazarika former Chairman of BSRB (N.E.Group ) shows that D. Kakati worked in the BSRB , Guwahati as temporary employee but Ext . D does not spell out as to in what capacity Deben Kakati worked him for4years.
Labour Commissioner ( Central ) . Ext . 1 is the said letter. Ext . 1 ( 1) is the signature of Shri Ramakanta Srivastab . Ext . 2 is another letter from the BSRB . Ext.. 2 ( 1 ) is the signature of Secretary D. Sarma. Ext . 3 is another letter to the Asstt. Labour Commissioner ( Central ) . Workman Deben Kakati did not obtain any photocopy of ext . 4 to 6. He stated that he know workman Deben Kakati while he worked as personal peon to the Chairman. He further stated that Deben Kakati was never appointed by Board . Ext . - 4 was issued by the Secretary of the canteen committee and the Board has no relation with the canteen committee . This witness stated that the workman Deben Kakati was neither an employee ofthe UBI of that of the BSRB . He further stated that the BSRB was abolished since 31-8-01 and the employees of the BSRB have been reverted back to the UBI . Ext . A & B are the payment vouchers by which Deben Kakati was paid his wages for the Month of May and June 98. Ext . C is the certificate of Shri Achyut Kr . Saikia, Chairman of the Bank in favour of the Deben Kakati. Ext. D is another certificate of Chairman Shri Jatin Hazarika. Only these much of evidence are available on the record .
Ona carefull scrutiny of the materials before me it is seen that the point of reference was whether the termination of workman Deben Kakati . a temporary sub - staff by the management of the BSRB (N.E. Group) was justified. But it is seen that the workman Shri Deben Kakati coul i not prove to the satisfaction ofthis Tribunal that he was ever appointed as sub- staff by the management of the UBI, Guwahati. It has beenalleged that workman Deben Kakati was not given any appointment letter by the management of the BSRB in violation ofthe various Awards , Provisions of the Bi - partite settlement and industrial Dispute Act , 1947. But in my view the question of issuance of any appointment letter does not arise in such as case where the workman could not prove his claim that he was ever engaged as sub - staff by the management of the Bank. Had he been able to prove his claim in that case only the question of non - issuance of appointment letter could have arose in violation of various awards and provisions of the Bi- partite settlement etc. Considering all the materials before me I am constrainted to hold that this reference is without any merit and therefore , answered in the negative and decided in favour ofthe management .
Learned advocate for both the parties has submitted their written arguments and also argued their respective cases verbally.
2005. Givenunder my hand and seal on this the 19th Feb ' Now on carefull perusal on the materials on record I find that theworkman claimed that he was engaged by the
B. BORA, Presiding Officer 1234GI/05-25 4458
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30 , 2005 /VAISAKHA 10, 1927
नई दिल्ली , 31 मार्च , 2005
का.आ. 1629.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार सैन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इण्डिया प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय, संख्या -1 , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 241/2000/294 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 31-03-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-12011/61 / 2000 - आई आर ( बी- II ) ] सी. गंगाधरण, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 31st March , 2005
S.O. 1629. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 241 / 2000/294) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court , No. I , Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Central Bank of India and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 31-03-2005.
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)] Shri Birendra Kumar, Shri Hari Sharma and Shri Akhtar isjustified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled ? "" 2. After receipt of the reference both parties were called upon to file their written statements in respect of their claim which they have put in.
[No. L- 12011 /61 /2000- IR (B-JI) ]
C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy. ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . I, DHANBAD In the matter of a reference U/ S . 10 ( 1 ) ( d) of the I.D. Act , 1947
Reference No. 241 of 2000
Parties : Employers in relation to the management of Central Bank of India. AND Their Workmen
PRESENT:
Shri S. Prasad. Presiding Officer.
APPEARANCES :
For the Employers
: Shri R.N. Ganguly, Advocate.
For the Workmen
: Shri D. Ram , General Secretary, Central Bank of India Staff's Union .
State : Jharkhand
Industry: Coal
Dated , the 14th March , 2005
AWARD
By Order No. L - 12011/ 61/ 2000 - IR (B - II ) dated 24-8-2000 the Central Government in the Ministry ofLabour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 , referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :
Whether the action of the management of Central Bank of India Branch at Bettiah in terminating the services of the workman Shri Binod Kumar Gupta on 5-5-1998 and not considering him for re -employment before appointing fresh hands like Rajesh Kumar , 3. According to the written statement of the sponsoring union it has been asserted that Binod Kumar Gupta, the concerned workman was appointed orally w.e.f. 7-4-1992 to discharge the duties of a Peon upto 4-5-1998 and thereafter he hasbeenterminated w.e.f. 5-5-1998. According to him, during, the period from 7-4-92 to 4-5-98 he was performing theduties of sweeping the Branch Premises , cleaning the counters, chairs , tables, taking out ledgers , registers from the Almirah and placing the same on the table , counter and vice-versa, carrying token book, scroll book from Cash Department to Accounts Department and vice- versa. Posting of mails to post office, serving water/tea to the members of the staff and customer and taking out Bank's files/records and other sundry jobs of a peon from 9 A.M. to 6 P.M. daily and even beyond thatfor certain period. But he was paid wages @ Rs . 15/- per day through vouchers . According to him sometime he was made payment in his own name and sometime irt the name of others, like, Sunil Kumar Bharat Thakur, K.P. Gupta, Toofani Routh and so on and so forth . Thus, he has worked over 240 days in 12 calendar months during the aforesaid period but he has been illegally stopped from performing duty w.e.f. 5-5-98 without any notice, notice pay or retrenchment compensation as required under Sec . 25-F ofthe I.D. Act . According to him, some other persons who were working as casual , like, Rajesh Kumar, Birendra Kumar, Hari Sharma and Akhtar were regularised as permanent employees of the Bank. But the concerned workmen who was senior to them has been denied employment as permanent employee. According to him, he was performing permanent and perennial nature of job that also for more than 240 days in a calendar year, therefore, he is entitled for regularisation as permanent employee and other benefits .
4. The management too has filed its written statement- cum - rejoinder in which it has been clearly asserted that the concerned workman, Binod Kumar Gupta was temporarily engaged on casual basis in performing temporary and casual nature ofjob from time to time and he has performed casual nature ofjob for 70 days in the year 1995 , 5 days in the year 1996, 58 days in the year 1997 and in the year 1998 he has worked for 94 days only. Thus , he has not performed 240 days work on casual basis also in any calendar year not he was engaged in perennial nature ofjob . The Central Bank of India , Bettiah has already permanent sweeper and it is he who does the job of sweeping and cleaning . The concerned workman has never done the job of sweeping and cleaning.
5. Further, according to the management, there is no person by name Akhtar and so for employment of Rajesh Kumar, Birendra Kumar , Hari Sharma are concerned they were not doing any casual on in Bettiah Branch of Central [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 30, 2005/वैशाख 10, 1927
Bank of India, rather they were working in some other Branch in the district of East Champaran and West Champaranwithin Matihari Region of the Central Bank of India and they have been regularised after adopang due process of appointment . According to the management, theBank has got its own circula : regarding appointment of permanent employee and a permanent employee is employed only with due observation of such procedure. Therefore , according to the management , the concerned workmanhas been terminated within the meaning of Sec. 2(00) ofthe Industrial Disputes Act and therefore it is not a case of illegal termination , rather it is a case for not providing casual nature of job . Such job was not in existence and therefore , the concerned workman is not entitled to any relief whatsoever.
6. In view of the pleadings of the parties , the first question tobe decided in this case is whether the concerned workman has performed casual or permanent nature ofjob for 240 days in a calendar year and if so , whether the concerned workman has been illegally terminated from duty with effect from 5-5-1998 ? The second point to be considered is whether the concerned workman is entitled for any relief? If so , to what relief ?
FINDING
7. It is the settled principle of law that the onus is upon the concerned workman to prove that he has pcrformed work for 240 days in a year preceding his termination . For this a reference may be made to the case of Range Forest Officer Vs. S.T. Hadimani reported in 2002 Lab. I.C. 987 .
8. Therefore, in view of the settled principle of law, let us see whether the concerned workman/ sponsoring union has been able to prove that the concerned workman has performed work for 240 days in a calendar year preceding his termination on 5-5-98.
9. The concerned workman/sponsoring union has not brought on record any document nor they have called for any documents from which it can be proved that the concerned workman had worked for 240 days in a calendar year preceding his termination , apart from oral evidence of the concerned workman.
The management , on the other hand, has examined MW- 1 -Ramanand Bharti , who has clearly stated that from the record of the Bank it appears that the concerned workman has worked for 70 days in the year 1995, 5 days in the year 1996 , 58 days in the year 1997 and 94 days in the year 1998 and for that he has produced the attested copies of vouchers through which payments were made to the concerned workmen which have been marked Ext . M-2 series . There are altogether 21 such vouchers which support the oral evidence of MW - 1 . He has also proved photo copies of attendance sheets , marked Ext. M -3 and the circular of the Bank for sending list of such casual workers who have worked for 90 days in a calendar year for being regularised. This letter is dated 25-4-1999 (Ext . M- 1 ).
The sponsoring union or the concerned workmen apart from oral evidence of WW - 1-Binod Kumar Gupta
4459 has not made any attempt to show that the concerned workmanhas performed work for 240 days in a calendar yearprecedinghis termination. Therefore , I find that there is absolutely no material to prove that the concerned workman has worked for 240 days in a calendar year preceding his termination.
10. Since the concerned workman/sponsoring union has failedto prove that the concerned workman has worked for 240 days in a calendar year preceding his termination on 5-5-1998 it cannot be held that he has been illegally terminated and consequently he cannot claim and benefit for not providing himjob w.e.f. 5-5-1998 .
11. In theresult, I render the following award- That the action of the management of Central Bank of India,Bettia innot providing service to the concerned workman, BinodKumarGupta w.e.f. 5-5-1998 and not considering him for re-employmentbefore appointing fresh hands like Rajesh Kumar, Birendra Kumar, Hari Sharma who have been appointed on different branches of the Bank is justified and the concerned workman is not entitled to any relief.
S. PRASAD , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 4 अप्रैल, 2005
का.आ. 1630.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार भा.को.को.लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय धनबाद । के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 92/94 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 31-03-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-20012/412/93- आई आर ( सी-1 ) ] एस.एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव NewDelhi , the 4th April, 2005
S.O. 1630. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 92/94) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, No. I , Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the Management of BCCL and their workman , which was receivedby the Central Government on 31-03-2005.
[No. L-20012/412/93 - IR ( C-I ) ] 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 I. D. Act
Reference No. 92 of 1994
Parties: Employers in relation to the management of ROCP/South Jharia Colliery of M/s . B.C.C. Ltd. AND
Their Workmen 4460
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: APRIL 30 , 2005/VAISAKHA 10, 1927
PRESENT :
SHRI S. PRASAD , Presiding Officer APPEARANCES :
For the Employers
: Shri H. Nath, Advocate
For the Workmen :
Shri D. K. Verma,
Advocate
State: Jharkhard
Industry: Coal
Dated, the 21st March , 2005
AWARD
By Order No. L -20012 ( 412 )/93 - IR ( Coal - I) dated 8-4-94 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has . in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d ) of Sub- section ( 1 ) and Sub - section ( 2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :
"Whether the action of the management of ROCP/ South Jharia Colliery under Kustore Area No. VIII of M/ s BCCL in dismissing Shri Shiyaram Gope, Miner w.c.f. 18-4-1988 is justified ? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled ? "
2. After receipt of the reference parties were directed to file written statements in support of their claim .
3. The sponsoring union has filed its written statement alleging that the concerned workman, Shiyaram Gope was working as Wagon Loader in ROCP/ South Jharia Colliery under Kustore Area No. VIII since April , 1980.He was appointed under Voluntary Retirement Scheme in place of miner / loader , Bijan Gope on 14-4-1980. According to him, he is adopted son of Bijan Gope . Further , according to him, the concerned workman was working faithfully when he was issued a chargesheet dated 24-2-88 to which he submitted his reply dated 6-4-88 . According to him , he being illiterate was unable to understand the chargesheet which was in English and therefore he could not prepare his reply properly. According to the sponsoring union the concerned workman was illegally dismissed from his work by order dated 18-4-1988 .
4. The management has filed its written statement- cum - rejoinder to the written statement of the concerned workman in which it has been asserted that the concerned workman , Shiyaram Gope is the son of Ram Chit Gope of Village Jogbir, P.S. Bihia , P.O. Banahi, District Bhojpur. He entered into an arrangement with Bijan Gope who was enmployed as Overburden Remover of South Jharia Colliery with the active help and connivance of S /Sri Bijag Kumar Yadav. Patiram Yadav and K.P. Biswas and managed to enter into employment as dependant son of Bijan Gope who opted for voluntary retirement under V.R.S. Scheme. Thus, although the concerned was son of Bijan Gope yet he managed to obtain employment by practicing fraud. In the year 1988 the concerned workman himself lodged an
[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] F.I.R.. before the Police that Bijay Kumar Yadav. Patiram Yadav and K.P. Biswas forced him to sign some paper declaring his as son Bijan Gope so that he can get employment under BCCL under V.R.S. Scheme. In the course of enquiry the concerned workman also disclosed that he was paying half of his wages to Bijan Gope and still continuing demanding money and therefore the concerned workmanprayed to the police to take action against those persons . The concerned workman was issued a chargesheet dated 24-2-88 and was directed to file his reply. The concerned workman submitted his reply in which he has admitted that he is the son of Ramchit Gope but on being forced by the aforesaid persons he had put his signature claiming himself to be son of Bijan Gope in order to get employment under V.R.S. The reply of the concerned workman was found not satisfactory, therefore, an enquiry was ordered to be made relating to the charges levelled against the concerned workman and in the departmental enquiry the concerned workman participated and in enquiry proceeding also he had admitted that he is son of Ranichit Gope, but has got employment as dependent son of Bijan Gope is convenience with the persons name above . The management has pleased that the departmental enquiry was conducted fairly and properly.
5. The issue relating to fairness and propriety of the domestic enquiry was taken up as preliminary issue and after exainination of witness and production of papers relating to enquiry proceeding the learned lawyer for the concerned workman, Shri D.K. Verma had fairly conceded that hedomestic enquiryhas been held fairly and properly. Therefore, the matter was placed for hearing on merit under Sec . 11 -A of the I.D. Act. In the meantime the concerned workman died, and in his place his legal representative filed a petition for substitution, but subsequently left taking step in this reference .
6. I have gone through the entire proceeding of the departmental enquiry and the evidence led by the management as well as the reply submitted by the concerned workman and his statement made before the Enquiry Officer. It is clear that the concerned workman has himself admitted thathe is son of Ramchit Gope of Village Jogbir . P.S. Bihia . P.O. Banahi , Distt. Bhojpur, but he has obtained employment as a dependent son of Bijan Gope , miner / loader as his dependant son . Although in the written statement of the concerned union it was asserted that he is adopted son of Bijan Gope but no such evidence has been led during the course of domestic enquiry neither there is such plea in the reply of the chargesheet submitted by the concerned workman . Therefore , I find that the concerned workman got employment by falsely representing that he is the son of Bijan Gope, a miner/loader who opted for voluntary retirement and appointment of the concerned workman in his place as his dependent son . The employment provided to the concerned workman was result to fraud practice by BijanGope as well as the concerned workman . Shiyaram Gope.
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
4461
भारत का राजपत्र: अप्रैल 30, 2005/वैशाख 10, 1927
Therefore , I find that the management is perfectly justified that the concerned workman has committed a misconduct of fraud in getting employment and therefore he must be dismissed from service . Therefore , I find that the action of the management is perfectly justifed.
7. In the result, I render following award- That the action of the management in dismissing the concerned workman , Shiyaram Gope w.e.f. 18-4-1988 is perfectly justified and the concerned workman is not entitled to any benefit.`
S. PRASAD, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 4 अप्रैल, 2005
का.आ. 1631.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भा. को. को.लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय धनबाद 1 के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 99/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 31-3-05 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-20012/434/99- आई आर ( सी-1 ) ]
एस. एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 4th April , 2005
S.O. 1631.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 99/2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court , No. I , Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the Management of BCCL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 31-3-05.
[No. L- 20012/434/99 - IR (C - 1 ) ] S.S. GUPTA , Untler Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . I, DHANBAD In the matter of a reference U/s . 10( 1 ) ( d)(2A ) of
I. D. Act
Reference No. 99 of 2000
Parties : Employers in relation to the management of Simlabahal Colliery ofM/s . B.C.C. Ltd.
AND
Their Workmen
PRESENT :
Shri S. Prasad, Presiding Officer
APPEARANCES :
Shri H. Nath,
Forthe Employers
Advocate
Forthe Workmen
: Shri D. Mukherjee, Advocate .
State : Jharkhand
Industry: Coal
Dated, the 18th March , 2005
AWARD
By Order No. L- 20012/434/ 99 - IR ( C - 1 ) dated 2-2-2000 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in exercise of the powers confered by clause (d ) of Sub-section ( 1 ) and Sub - section (2A) of Industrial Dispute Act , 1947 , referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :
" Whether the action of the management of Simlabahal Colliery of M/ s BCCL in not referring Md . Sahabuddin to Area Medical Board for age determination and superannuating him is justified ? If not , to what relief the concerned workman is entitled? "
2. After receipt of the reference partics were directed to file written statements in respect of their claim which they have filed.
3. From the written statement of the concerned workman filed by the sponsoring union it appears that he has alleged that he was appointed as Componder by the erstwhile owner of Simlabahal colliery on 1-10-1971 when his date if birth was recorded as 9-5-1942 . Subsequently the said colliery was nationalised and M/s.B.C.C.Ltd. became the owner of the colliery. He has further pleaded that in Form ' B' register , C. M. P. F. register in which records hisdate ofbirth has been mentioned as 9-5--42 , but in the Form ' B ' Register of M/ s. B.C.C. Ltd. his age has been recorded as 34 years in the year 1971 and on 8-9-74 an Identity card was issued to him in which his date of birth has been mentioned as 13-5-38 by cutting actual date of birth 9-5-42 . He has further stated that he received a letter from the management that he is to superannuate w.e.f. 1-7-1997 , then he made representation to correct his date of birth which was refused by the management and the concerned workman was superannuated w.e.f. 1-7-1997 .
3. The case of the management , on the other hand . is that the date of birth/age of Md . Sahabuddin has been recorded as 34 years in the year 1971 in Form ' B ' Register of the colliery which has been maintained in ordinary course of business under sec . 48 of the Mines Act and relevant rules thereunder . As per Instruction No. 76 of JBCCI of NCWA - IV when the age of an employce is mentioned in a particular year then the date of birth of an employee is to be taken at middle of the year i.e. Ist . July. Therefore, the concerned workman on attaining 60 years has been superannuated w.e.f. 1-7-1997.
4. Although the concerned workman has pleaded that in Form 'B ' register of erstwhile owner and in C. M. P. F. register his date ofbirth has been recored as 9-5-42 but he has not made any attempt to call for C.M.P.F. record from 4462
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30 , 2005/VAISAKHA 10 , 1927
[PART II- SEC. 3 (ii) ]
different entries in its statutory register of the company or appears to be tampered with . Therefore, I find that the management is justified in not referring the concerned workman to Apex Medical Board for determination of his age.
6. In the result , I render the following award-
The action of the management in superannuating the concerned workman w.e.f. 1-7-1997 and not referring him to Apex Medical Board is justified . The concerned workman is not entitled to any relief.
S. PRASAD , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 6 अप्रैल, 2005
the Coal Mines Provident Fund office . The concerned workman has further admitted in para 10 of his written statement that he had received Identity Card on 8-9-74 in which his date of birth was mentioned as 13-5-38 in place of 9-5-42 . Thus , the concerned workman was aware that his date of birth has not been mentioned in official record ofthe colliery as 9-5-42 , which is his correct date of birth according to him . But he did not raise any dispute in the year 1974 , rather he kept mum for so many years and has raised the dispute after he was served with a notice of superannuation. He has stated in his written statement that as per school leaving certificate his actual date of birth is 9-5-42 , but he has not filed original school leaving certificate , rather a xerox copy has been filed. When the school leaving certificate was with him there is no reason why original school leaving certificate has not been filed to prove that his date of birth is 9-5-42. The concerned workman has not made any attempt to call for the School Admission Register to prove that his actual date of birth is 9-5-42. Thus , I find that the concerned workman has not brought on record any clinching evidence to prove that his date of birth is 9-5-42.
का. आ. 1632,- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार गवर्नमेन्ट अफीम एण्ड अल्कालोईड वर्कस के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट, औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 82/99 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 6-4-05 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-42011/52/ 98- आई आर ( डी यू) ] कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 6th April , 2005 .
S.O. 1632. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) . the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 82/99) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum - Labour Court , Kanpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the Management of Govt . Opium and Alkaloid works and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 6-4-05 .
[No. L-42011 / 52 / 98-1R ( DU ) ] KULDIP RAI VERMA , Desk Officer ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHIR SURESH CHANDRA , PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT/LÓK ADALAT, SARVODAYA NAGAR KANPUR Industrial Dispute No. 82 of 1999
In the matter of dispute between:
Balrup Sharma, President, Opium Factory, Labour Union, Gazipur. U. P. AND
GeneralManager,
Government Opium &
Alkaloid works ,
Gazipur-233001
5. The management , on the other hand , has brought on record the original Form ' B ' Register which is a statutory register maintained under Rule 48 of the Mines Rules and inpage 15 of the said register at serial no . 119 the entries of the particulars of the concerned workman have been mentioned (Ext . M- 1 ) , in the original register itself and the original register is before me in which the age of the concerned workman has been recorded as 34 years in the year 1971 which has been duly signed by the concerned workman also . The management's witness has stated that the concerned workman has been superannuated on attaining 60 years of age . The management has filed the original representation filed by the converned workman which is dated 25-2-97 and has been marked as Ext . M -3. The management has replied to this representation by letter dated 28/30-3-97 , Ext . M -4 , refusing his representation . The management has also filed another letter of Personnel Manager, Kustore Area which is Ext . M - 5 by which the dispute regarding date of birth has been closed. The concerned workman has filed a service excerpt of the year 1987 in which , no doubt , the date of birth of the concerned workman has been shown as 9-5-42 , but this service excerpt does not find signature of any authority of M/ s . B.С.С. Ltd. Therefore correctness of his service excerpt cannot be vouched safe . Since in the statutory register itself which has been duly signed by the concerned wokman the age of the concerned wokman has been shown as 34 years in the year 1971. Therefore , as per Instruction No. 76 of JBCCI of NCWA - IV the date of birth of the concerned workman has been rightly assessed as 1-7-1937 and he has been rightly superannuated w.e.f. 1-7-1997 . The case of only those workmen is to be referred to Apex Medical Board for examination of age where their age/date of birth is not mentioned at the time of appointment and when there is [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 30 , 2005/वैशाख 10 , 1927
AWARD
1. Central Government , Ministry of Labour, New Delhi , vide its notification no . L -42011/52 /98/IR(DU) dated 20-4-99 has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-
"Whether the action of the management of Govt . opium Factory for not paying hazardous allowance to seasonal and casual employees at par with the other employees working at the similar working condition is legal andjustified ? Ifnot what relief the workmen are entitled ?"
2. In the instant case after exchange of pleadings between the parties , the case was taken up for evidence of the parties . But unfortunately both the contesting parties failed to adduce their respective evidence in support of their claim. Therefore , virtually the present case is a case of no evidence . It is settled principle of law that party raising dispute first to lead evidence in support of his case and in çase lhe fails to lead evidence in support of his case, his claim must fail and he cannot be held entitled to claim any relief. Needless to mention that on failure to put appearance on the date fixed parties were debarred from adducing their respective evidence by the tribunal .
3. In the facts and circumstances stated above, the ( ribunal is left with no other option but to hold that the claimant of the present dispute is not entitled for any relief for want of evidence. Reference is answared accordingly against the workman and in favour of the management .
SURESH CHANDRA, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 6 अप्रैल , 2005
का.आ. 1633.- 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/ श्रम न्यायालय, कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 7/2001.) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 6-4-05 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-40012/67/2001- आई आर ( डीयू) ]
कुलदीप राय वर्मा , डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 6th April, 2005
S.O. 1633. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 7/ 2001 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal / Labour Court , Kanpur 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 6-4-05 .
No. L- 4901267/2004-4R (DUA)
KULDIP RAI VERMA, Dests Officer
4463
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SRI SURESH CHANDRA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT/LOK ADALAT, SARVODAYA NAGAR, KNANPUR, UTTAR PRADESH
Industrial Dispute No. 7 of 2001
In the matter of dispute between :
Sri Satyapal @ Chote Singh S/ o Late Puran Lal Thakanpurwa
POBhugpur
KanpurDehat
UttarPradesh
AND
Kanpur (West) Panki
Assistant Suptd. of Post Offices Kanpur.
AWARD
1. Central Government , Ministry of Labour , New Delhi , vide its notification no . L - 40012/67/2001 /IR(DU) dated 30-5-2001 , has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :-
"Whether the action of the management of Postal Suptd. Department of Posts District Kanpur in terminating the services of Sri Satyapal alias Chote Singh , Ex-waterman -cum - gardner w.e..f. 12-2-99 is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?
2. In the instant case was identified for deciding the same througth LOK ADALAT and for this purposes the casewas taken up for hearing in the pretrial meetings . From the records of the case it is borne out that after exchange of pleadings between the parties both the parties stopped putting their respective appearance in the case. The claimant was debarred when he was found absent on the date his evidence from adducing evidence in support of his case . Thereafter management also stoppod coming in the case. Therefore it appears that virtually it is a case of no evidence . In such circumstances , the tribunal is left with no other option but to hold that the workman is not entitled for any relief for want of evidence pursuant to the present reference made to this tribunal . Moreover having regard to the settled principle that if claimant fails to adduce evidence in support of his case , his case must fail for want of evidence. From this point of view also the workman is not entitled to any relief.
3. Therefore , the reference is answered in above terms and against the workman holding that the workman as not entitled to claim any relief in the present dispute.
SURESH CHANDRA , Presiding Officer.
4464
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30, 2005/VAISAKHA 10, 1927
[PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii) ] नई दिल्ली, 6 अप्रैल , 2005
3. Having aggrieved by this refusal the first party filed awritepetition in W.P. No. 3848/84. A learned Single Judge ofHigh Court of Karnataka by the order dated 3-10-89 allowed the writ petition and directed the Union of India to refer the dispute for adjudication as the jurisdiction to decide this controversy is on the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal . Thereafter the above reference is referred to this tribunal .
का.आ. 1634.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार कर्नाटका बैंक लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , बैंगलोर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 93/89 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 5-4-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-12012/40/83- डीआईवीए- आई आर ( बी- I ) ]
सी. गंगाधरण , अवर सचिव
New Delhi, the 6th April , 2005
4. On a reading, the reference is in two parts . First part required the first party to prove that he was a workman when his services are terminated . After giving a finding on this question the tribunal is asked to give a finding regarding the justification of the Second Party in terminating the services of the first party.
S.O. 1634.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 93/89) 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 Karnataka Bank Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 5-4-2005 .
[No. L- 12012/40/ 83 -DIVA- IR (B -I) ] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE
Dated: 11th March, 2005
Present : Shri A.R. Siddique PresidingOfficer
Cr . No. 93/89
II PARTY
5. The contention of the first party as regard to the first question is that he was appointed as a Clerk in the year 1957 and was in the continuous employment of the bank till 21-11-81 , the day on which his services are terminated . He was handling correspondence with the Head office and branches of the bank . He was entering in Ledgers the different statement received from various branches of the bank. As he was exclusively doing the work of Clerk he was a workman within the meaning of Section 2 ( s ) of the act. The designation of "Officer " was of no consequence in determining his status as an employee and he was a workmen within the meaning of Section 2 ( s ) of the Act . His further contention is that his termination amounts to retrenchment and therefore , he is entitled for all benefits including back wages . The first party, as it regards to the first part of the schedule , placed materials stated above only. Second Part in the pleadings confined to the question related to his removal from the service and connected incidents .
The Chairman,
Karnataka Bank Limited,
6. The Second Party filed their counter Statement on 14-6-90. Later they have filed an additional counter Statement on 7-3-91 .
Head Office , Kodiabail , Mangalore-575003
IPARTY Shri M.B. Ghorpade , Near Datta Temple amkandi , japurDist . -587 301
AWARD
7. Inthe first statement they have contended that the first party who was an accountant in the Bank of Karnataka was given grade of an Officer when the said Bank marged with the Second Party bank. He was transferred to the Regional Office , Hubli in Septembetr 1980. His duties were specifically were described as follows:
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- 12012/40/83 - DIVA datca 11-12-89 for adjudication on the following schedule :
SCHEDULE
"1 (a) Scrutiny of Lead Bank Statement received from branches and fixing individual targets for advances to priority sectors ;
"Whether Shri M.B. Ghorpade whose services have beenterminated w.e.f. 21-11-1981 by the management ofKarnataka Bank Limited is a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 and if so whether the action of the management of Karnataka Bank Limited in terminating his services is justified ? If not , to what relief the workman concerned is entitled ? "
(b) Controlling , supervising and follow- up of the branches in respect of timely submission of the statements to Lead District office of the Bank . Preparing Draft letters and reminders in consultation with the Regional Development Manager and forwarded the same for his signature;
2. Initially the Govt . of India refused to make a reference to the dispute raised by the first party on the ground that the first party was not a workman as defined under Section 2(s) ofthe Industrial Dispute Act 1947 , herein after shortly referred as " Act " .
2. Reviewing the performance of the brances in deposit mobilization and appraise the Regional Development Manager from time to time and 4465 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 30, 2005/वैशाख 10, 1927
follow up of the matters concerned with deposits with the branches ;
3. To scrutinize the loan proposals received from branches for sanction of loans to the applicants and preparing office notes and place them before the Regional Development Manager for sanction orotherwise;
4. Attending to day to day correspondence and initialing letters etc. to Head Office and branches ;
5. Preparing statements for Manager's conference; and
6. Checking Report on Advances received from Branches.
According to the Second Party the duties mentioned above are Supervisory and Administrative . First party was drawing more than Rs . 1,600 p.m. as an Officer . He was promoted as a Grade II Officer . At Hubli Office there were 3 officers and 2 Clerks . His nature of work was once again high lighted by the Second Party.
In the additional Counter Statement the Second Party made the points raised by the first party as it regards to his termination.
8. Keeping in view the points of reference, my learned predecessor in the first instance took up the issue of *Workman' and by his award dated 20-8-1999 recorded the finding that first party was not a workman and threrfore, this tribunal had no jurisdiction and rejected the reference .
9. It is seen from the records that aggrieved by the said award, the first party approached the Hon'ble High court in Write Petitioner No. 44281/99 and the Hon'ble High court by its order dated 21-2-03 set aside the above said award and remitted back to this tribunal with a direction to dispose of the matter afresh permitting the parties to adduce further evidence, if any. It is further to be seen that aggrieved by the above said order of the High court in the Writ Petition , the management preferred an appeal in Writ Appeal No. 3190/03 (L -TER) and that appeal came to be dismissed by the Division Bench of Hon'ble High court vide order dated 4-8--04 .
10. It is to be noted that during the course of trial of the said issue before the above said award was passed by this Tribunal , the first party examined himself as WW ! and got marked 3 documents in his support .
office at Mangalore, somewhere , in the month of December 1968 and at the time of merger he has been promoted to the Officer Grade III by the Second Party . His cadre was upgraded to the Officer Grade -III in the year 1978. He stated that while he was working as Grade II Officer in Jamkhandi Branch he was posted as subordinate to the Branch Manager who was t. Grade III Officer . He was working as Grade II Officer in the same branch and was attending only Clerical work. Or. 10-10-1980 he was posted inRegional Office, Hubli as Officer Grade II till he was discharged from service on 21-11-1981 . He stated that during that priced he was working under Regional Development Manager. He stated that no employee was working under him. He further stated that on many occasions Grade II and Grade III Officers were directed to do Clerical jobs and no officer in his cadre was doing independent work . He stated that he has not signed any document in official capacity but was preparing documents to place the same for approval and signature before the Regional Development Manager . He used to prepare consolidated statement from the particulars given by other various branches to be placed for approval and signature of the Regional Development Manager. He further stated. that throughout he was doing clerical job while working in the Divisional Officer and has not signed any other letter independently and he was only drafting letters and then putting them to the approval of the Regional Development Manager . He was checking the request of advances on the basis of the circulars and the instructions received from RDM and was also looking after the inward outward registers , maintenance of postage and writing of reservation books which job was been done by the clerks . One Shri G.B. Desai and one Mr. Katgari were either two officers working in the said office . Mr .. Desai was Grade II Officer and Katgari was Grade III Officer. In his further examination chief he denied that two Clerks and one Peon were working under him. In his Cross Examination he admitted that his pay scale was above Clerical Grade . He admitted that he was upgraded in his job in accordance with Ex.M1 and was sent for training as per Ex.M3 being relieved as per Ex.M2 . He admitted that bank had issued the power of Attorney at Ex.M5 in his favour. He denied the suggestion that his work included monitoring . checking , drafting letters . Scrutinizing of Bank Statements and fixing of individual targets for priority Sector Advances . He admitted that as per Ex.M18 he was entitled for Class 1 Traveling Allowances .
11 . Whereas the management examined two witnesses as MWI and MW2 and in all got marked 32 documents at Ex . Ml to M32 . After the remand , the first party filed an aflidavit by way of his further examination chief and was cross examined on behalf of the management. There was no fresh evidence led by the management .
13. under: Statement of MW1 in his examination chief is as
" I know the first party Chorpade . In 1970 I was working at Haveri as Branch Manager . In 1980 I was Regional Manager ofHubli Division . In 1980 first party was working atHubli as officer . Before coming to Hubli . He was working 12. The statement of first party, WW1 in his earlier examination chief relevant for the purpose of decision on the above said issue is that he joined the services of the bank as a Clerk in the year 1957 and his services were confirmed in the year 1958. The Bank of Karnataka was subsequently merged with Karnataka Bank Ltd. with head
1234 GI/05-26 4466
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30 , 2005/VAISAKHA 10 , 1927
at Jamakandi , as Officer. When he was working under me, he was drawing salary more than Rs . 1,600/-. Ex.M1 is the order showing that the first party was promoted to grade II Officers cadre . Ex . M2 shows the salary particulars of first party (now produced) . M2 is a relieving certificate, which shows the particulars .
Ex.M3 shows that first party was sent for training . Ex M4 is the memorandum showing that first party was relieved after paying 3 months salary. Ex.M5 is the Power of Attorney issued to first party by Second Party . POA are issued only to officers .
M6to M17 are the documents showing the nature of duties performed by first party. All these have been initialled by the first party below MBG/BV. Ex .M12is signed by first party and is in the handwriting of first party and also M. 13 and M14 and M15 are initialled by the first party on the reverse after checking .
First party was doing supervisory duties like monitoring, checking . drafting letters , scrutining the lead bank statements , fixing of individual targets for priority sector advances and etc. Ex . M18 shows that first party was entitled to first class travel allowance .
"As I remember two clerks and one peon were working under the first party. First party is not a workman as defined under the ID Act . Ex.M3 ( a) is the report given by the first party for having attended the training . "
His statement in Cross examination relevant for the purposes is that Ex.M6 to Ex.M13 and Ex.M16 and M17 have gone under his signature . Ex.M14 & 15 are received from the Manager , Mahalingapur branch at Hubli . By monitoring he means reports and advances sent by branches are checked . Scrutinising and checking is momtoring . He denied the suggestion that it was the job of the clerks and also the suggestion that drafting of letters is a clerical job . He denied the suggestion that checking , scrutinizing and drafting by the person is at the responsibility of the boss who signed the documents . He further stated that by scrutinising he meant tallying the figures in the reports and the registers in the lead bank. Statement and denied the suggestion that it is absolutely clerical work. He admitted that individual target for different branches for priority sector advances etc. are done by the Regional Manager. He admitted that first party was working at Hubli for more than a year before his services were terminated but denied the suggestion that he was doing exclusively clerical work. In his further cross examination MWI admitted that all the functions of first party referred to by him in the WS ( Counter ) were done by first party under his direct guidance and instructions . He stated that first party was controlling other employees and he can produce documents to show that clerks were working under him and denied the suggestion that no Clerk or Peon was working under the first party. He denied the suggestion that drafting letters , checking statements received from branches is a sheer Clerical work . He then stated that the documents at Ex . M7 , M14 , M15 and M10 are some of the
[PART 11- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] documents showing that first party was doing Supervisory Work . He admitted that every report checked by the first party was put to him for approval.
15. In the statement of MW2 further documents at Ex. M19 , M32were marked mostly concerning to the other part of the reference point i.e. the termination of the services of the first party by the Second Party. His statement also mainly was to speak about the alleged misconduct committedby the first party, therefore need not be brought on record on this stage.
16. After the remand as noted above , the first party filed his affidavit by way of further examination chief and the averments in his affidavit at paras 3 to 5 relevant for the purpose are as under:-
" I once again respectfully submit that irrespective ofthe designation given by the Second party Bank, I did not enjoy any managerial or supervisory powers . I was not supervising the work any of the staff working in the branch at the relevant time . 1 submit that I had no power either to reconimend or sanction leave to any of the staff working in the branch. I was required to sign the attendance every day. Whenever I was on leave , I used to submit the leave letter to the Branch Manager and get it recommended/ sanctioned . I did not enjoy any independent powers .
I further respectfully submit that I was not having and financial powers . I was required to act according to the instructions of my official superiors. I also further submit that I was not vested with any disciplinary powers . Accordingly, I had no power to issue any memo or charge sheet or take any action against any of the employee working in thebank. I further state that at the time of merger of Bank of Karnataka with the Karnataka Bank limited. I did not enjoy any supervisor or managerial powers. Even after merger of the bank and when my duties came to be assigned in the second party bank 1 continued to discharge my duties as before without change.
17. In his cross examination he was confronted with a letter of allotment of duties given to him by the Second party and was marked at Ex. W3 ( it was filed by the first party himself). It was elicited from his mouth that General Manager was the Disciplinary Authority for the sub staff of the bank and so also the other officers of the bank having an authority to issue the charge sheet and to take the disciplinary action . In his further cross examination, his reply notice was marked at Ex.M33 .
18. Learned counsel for the first party Shri V. S. Naik argued that the aforesaid statement of the first party in his Examination Chief made earlier to the remand as well as subsequent to the remand speaking to the fact that he was all along doing the job of the clerk having no control or supervision over any of the staff members , has gone very much unchallenged there being nothing brought in [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
4467
भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 30, 2005/वैशाख 10, 1927
the Clerks and in the result under the definition of the workman.
21. Learned Counsel for the first party supporting his arguments relied upon the following citations :
1. 1994 ILLIP. 597
2. 1984 ILLJP. 546
3. 1981 IILLJP. 401
4.1983 IILLJP. 293
5. 1996 ILLJP. 228
his cross examination to doubt the veracity of his statement . He submitted that the various functions cnumerated in the above said allotment letter at Ex. W3 themselves will read to the effect that there the functions to be carried out at a clerical level at nome of those functions can be said to be done in a managerial capacity or in a supervisory capacity. Coming to the Power ofAttorney at Ex. M5 relied upon by the management to show that he was discharging duties in a managerial and supervisory capacity, learned counsel submitted that the powers or the functions conferred by way of Power of Attorney cannot be said to be the powers being exercised bythe Power of Attorney holder in his independent official capacity. Moreover it was executed in the year 1966 and admittedly it was not in operation when the first partywas working at jamkhandi and then in Regional Office , hubli when his services were terminated. Coming to the Documents at Ex. 6 to 18, once again relied upon by the management to show the supervisory powers of the first party, learned counsel submitted that none of these documents would help the management to establish the said fact as many of those documents admittedly were under the signature of MW1 , himself. His next argument was that the designation held by the first party of Grade II Cadre or Grade III. Cadre and the salary drawn by him above the pay scale of clerks cannot be the factor to determine that the first party was doing managerial or supervisory work . Going on training as ar Officer as per Ex. M3 ordrawing first class fare as per Ex. M18 again is of no significance. lastly learned counsel argued that the statement of MW1 in the cross examinatu smitting certain vital facts about the functions being discharged by the first party itselfwill be sufficient enough to dislodge the case of the management that the first party is not a workman as defined under the provisions of ID Act .
19. Whereas , learned counsel for the second party vehemently argued that undisputedly the first party has beenpromoted as Grade II officer in 1968 and as Grade III Officer in theyear 1978, which is the grade of the manager havingmanagerial and supervisory capacity. The first party all along claimed himself as an officer and has drawn TA/ DA as an officer going on training vide Ex. M3 andM18 respectively, Learned counsel then referred to the above said allotment letter at Ex. W3 to point out that the duties enumerated therein would reflect upon the fact that first party was discharging managerial and supervisory functions. He also took support of the Power ofAttorney atEx. M5 to show that such a power of Attorney will be executed in favour of the officer of a managerial grade exercising managerial powers . He also referred to the documents at Ex. M16 , M 17 in support of his arguments .
20. Lastly he submitted that by designation and grade the first party was the officer to be posted as a Manager and if he had discharged the duties of a Clerk occasionally he cannot he brought under the category of 22.Likewise learned counsel for the Second Partyto support his arguunent took shelter under the following decisions:-
1. 1995 ILLJ. 214(SC)
2. 1995 ILLJ. 264 Kar (DB)
3. 1996 IILLJ. 1140 (Ker) (DB)
4. 1994 IILLJ . 1153 (SC)
5. 1996 ILLJ . 55 (Bom)
6. 1993 IILLJ. 224 (P & H) (DB)
7. 1996 IILLJ . 573 (Delhi ) (DB)
8. 1994 ILLJ. 1035 (All) (DB)
9. 1994 ILLJ. 712 (SC)
10. 1994 IILLJ . 411 (SC)
11. 1988 (7) SLR Page 677 (CAT, Calcutta) 12. 1995 ILLJ. Page 243 (Bom)
23. after having gone through the records . I do not find much substance in the arguments advanced for the Second Party. First of all the statement of the first party in his examination chief earlier to the remand and then subsequent to the remand as argued for the first party has remained unshakan on the material aspects of the case . The statement of the management witness MW1 who was mainly examined on the point in question , as argued for the first party once again would lend support to his case rather the case of the management . i would like to come to it a little later. The management in order to establish the fact that the first party does not fit in the definition of the workmanvide Section 2(s) ofthe ID Act relied upon various documents as well as the statement of MWI and the statement of the first party in his cross examination as noted above. The first and foremost argument advanced bythe Second Party was the undisputed fact that the first party was promoted as Grade II Officer in 1968 and as Grade III Officer in the year 1978 which is the grade of the Manager having managerial and supervisory capacity. Therefore, the management contended that he being an officer of the cadre of the Manager not bound by the terms ofthe Bipartite Settlement governing the sub staff cannot knock the door of this tribunal as a workman coveredunder the provisions of the ID Act . I do not acceed to this contention of the management . Their Lordship of 4468
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30, 2005 /VAISAKHA 10, 1927
[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ] Supreme Court in a decision reported in LLR 1996 page while he was working in the Regional Office , Hubli therefore , Ex. M5 will not cut much ice in favour of the management . The management then takes the help ofthe documents at Ex . M6 to M18 to counter the case of the firstparty. MW1 in his Examination Chief at Para 4 stated that Ex. M6 to M17 are the documents showing the duties performed by the first party and they have been initiated bythe first party. In his cross examination at Para 9 he was to admit that Ex. M6 to M13 and Ex . M16 and Ex. M17 have gone under his signature and Ex. M14 and M15 are received from the Manager of Mahalingapur Branch at Hubli . A perusal ofEx . M6 to M17 would disclose that these are all the letters under the signature of MWI sent to various branches under Regional Office. Hubli for mobilisation of deposit funds . Some of them have been initialed by the first party and his case that he has just drafted them under the directions of MWI cannot be rejected . Merely, because he drafted those letters and put initials on some of them will not give rise to the presumption that he did it in his managerial or supervisory capacity. Ex . M18 was to show that first party was entitledto first class Travelling Allowance . No doubt first party was an officer entitled to first class Travelling Allowance and it is also not in dispute that he was drawing the safary more than the salary drawn by the Clerk but it is now well settled principles of law that the salary drawn by the official is not a criteria to jump to the conclusion that he was not a workman . Likewise Travelling Allowance drawn by the first party on the same analogy will not be a point negative in his favour. The other two documents relied upon by the management were atEx . M3 , a letter showing that the first party was drafted for officers training and a memorandum showing that he was relieved from the duties being paid three months salary as it should be in the case of officers . Here again I am not very much convinced to say that this two documents will go against the first party as a workman. Now comes trum card namely, the document at Ex . W3 which was filed before this tribunal by the first party and was marked on behalf of the management in his cross examination . The learned counsel for the management commenting upon the said document vehemently argued that this is a letter issued by the management enumerating the duties and functions to be discharged by the first party. The letter showing the duties allotted to the first party is as under :-
"Allotment of work with effect from 1-4-75 " Shri M. B. Ghorpade , Officer, Staff No. 158
"Checking of Cash with Bankers . Sundry Assets , Sundry Liabilities , suspense registers , All deposit ledgers , subday books , Balance checking , tallying ofdeposits , postage and outward register checking, inspection , returns and any other work that may be entrusted from time to time . "
620 at Para 7 have dealt this position of law thread bare while answering the question raised by the management in the said case that official concerned was holding a Class- I post in the bank. Their Lordship made it clear that the onus to establish the fact that official was performing the managerial duties is on the management anak and not vice versa. It was ruled that mere nomenclat to the post is not enough for the purpose of holding whether a particular person falls within the definition of workman or not . It was further held that the crux of the matter wouldbe the type of duties a particular person performed during the course of his employment under his employer and that themselves to be determined with reference to principal nature of duties and functions. Therefore , merely because the first party was promoted as Grade II Officer or Grade III Officer in the Bank , his nomenclature will not get him out of the category of workman as long as it is not established by the management that his principal duties were managerial and supervisory in nature . Their Lordship of Supreme Court in a decision reported in 1964 SC 1522 made it clear that the designation of an official such as an Accountant again will not take the official concerned out of the definition of the workman considering the duties being performed by him . Thus the contention of the management that the first party was an officer of Grade II and then of Grade III meant for Manager doing managerial and supervisory functions cannot be accepted in the light of the above said principles laid down by their Lordship of Supreme Court . The management then relied upon a Power of Attorney executed by it in favour of the first party to support its contention that such a Power of Attorney will be executed only in favour of the Officer as it authorizes to carry out the various managerial and supervisory functions . This Power of Attorney is marked in this tribunal at Ex . M5 and it is not disputed by the first party that it was is his favour . However, I find substance in the arguments advanced by the first party that it will not help the case of the management to show that this document would lead to an inference to suggest that first partywas working in managerial and supervisory capacity. Firstof all it is the document executed in the year 1966 when the first party neither was promoted as Grade II Officer or as Grade III Officer, Secondly it is in no uncertain terms MW2 admitted in his cross examination that this Power of Attornoy was not in existence when the first party was working in the Regional Office at Hubli , Moreover ; simply because some Power of Attorney is executed in favour of somebody actually having no powers to be exercised as enumerated in the Power of Attorney, those powers will not elevate the status of the official for all that times to come . Such a Power of Attorney will be for a limited purpose MW2 at Para 12 of his cross examination admitted that first party had no occasion to use his Power of Attorney
24. It is interesting to note that this is the letter dated 1-4-75 while the first party was working at Bijapur.
4469 [ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: अप्रैल 30, 2005/वैशाख 10, 1927
Undisputedly, he was yet to be promoted as Grade III OfficerfromGrade II Officer Cadre at that time. Moreover, as argued for the first party none of the duties mentioned in the said letter would reflect upon the managerial or supervisory capacity of the first party. Certainly, as could be seen from the nature of duties shown therein they are justclerical in nature to be discharged at a clerical level by the Clerks concerned . The management laid much emphasis on one of the duties mentioned in the said letter namely, the checking of cash with bankers . First of all I do not know as to how it amounts to a function of supervisory nature . his Lordship of High Court of Judicature at Bombay in a decision reported in 2000 ( 3) LLN 179 while dealing a question like on hand held that Supervision includes supervision over subordinates not over the computers , further holding that checking of ledgers , statements , registers , records or computer print outs only, cannot by any stretch of imagination held to be a supervisory or managerial function. The above principle laid down by the High Court of Bombay must be a fitting reply to the management contentions with regard to the aforesaid dutics mentioned in the letter at Ex . W3 . Their Lordship of Supreme Court in a decision reported in AIR 1967 SC page 428 even went to the extent of holding that Clerks doing work of checking in Audit Department cannot be held to be supervisors . Their Lordship in a decision reported in AIR 1998 SC 329 held the view that the official who just do checking up as an internal auditor in company on behalf of the employer and had no independent right or authority to take decision must be held to be workman within the meaning of Section 2(s ) of the ID Act . Holding further thatwhile determining the powers of the official concerned, it is to be kept in mind that whether such a person infact was doing supervisory or managerial work and not his work of checking done on behalf of the employer. Now therefore , almost all the aforesaid documents relied upon by the management will not take its case any further to cstablish the fact that first party was not a workman .
those drafted letters were placed before MW1 for his approval . That shows that the first party had absolutely no independent right or authority to send those letters to the respective branches under the regional Office , Hubli by taking his own decision and under his own signatures . MW 1 in his cross examination though claimed that he has got documents to show that some two clerks and peon were working under the first party but unfortunately no such documents are produced before this Tribunal . If really the first party was exercising managerial and supervisory functions after he being promoted in Grade II orGrade III Officer cadre , then, it was not very difficult for the management to have produced some oral or documentary evidence to the above effect . Not a scrap of paper was produced to suggest that at any point of time the first party was appointed or posted as an independent Manager of any independent branch of the Bank under the control of management so as to suggest that he had control over the staff working in the said branch . It is no where the case of the management that he worked as a manager of the branch at Jamkhandi or thereafter in any managerial capacity in the Regional Office at Hubli when his services were terminated . No staff or sub staff was produced before this tribunal to speak to the fact that at any point of time they worked under the first party. Therefore, merely because first party held the post ofOfficer and had drawn salary much more the clerks were drawing and that he availed first class Travelling facilities , under went certain officers training will not be the circumstance sufficient enough to draw the conclusion that he was discharging the duties in managerial or supervisory capacity. The various decisions noted above and cited on behalf of the management would speak to certain settled position of law and such a position of law cannot be disputed in my humble opinion but what the principle laid down in those decisions is that while determining the status of the official as a workman or otherwise the court must bestow its attention in taking into consideration the main, rather , the principal duties the official concerned was carrying out at the relevant point of time. Here , unfortunately, there is no sufficient and legal evidence produced by the management to arrive at the conclusion that the first party was performing mainly or substantially the duties of managerial and supervisory capacity. In fact the aforesaid duty allotment letter at Ex. W3 would tell tale upon the fact that the duties assigned to him were exclusively clerical in nature . These duties by no stretch of imagination can be said to be the duties to be performed by the cadre of the Officer, much less , the Manager of a particular bank branch having managerial or supervisory capacity.
25.Now coming to the testimony of MW1 himself. It was well argued for the first party that his statement in cross examination must put an end to the controversy Taised on behalf of the management . MW1 , as noted above , in his cross examination in no uncertain terms comes to say that all the functions of the first party referred to by him in the WS ( Counter ) are done by the first party under his direct guidance and instructions . While stating that the documents at Ex. M7 , M10 , M14 , M15 are some of the documents showing that the first party was doing Supervisory work . He admitted that every report checked by the first party was put before him for approval . Therefore , from the above statement of MW1 coupled with Document Ex . M6 to M17 which were relied upon by the management it can be very much clear that these are all the documents at the most drafted by the first party but
26. In the result I am of the considered view that the first party in this case has been able to establish that he is a ' workman ' as defined under Section 2 ( s) of the ID Act 4470
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30 , 2005/VAISAKHA 10 , 1927
[PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii)]
AWARD
and as such can very well maintain the present reference against the management . Hence the following Order.
ORDER
1. The Central Government, Ministry ofLabour, New Delhi , vide its Notification No. L- 12012/602 /98 - IR (B - 1 ) dated 22-4-99 has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :-
The first part of the reference is here by answeredto the effect that first party is a workman within the meaning of 2( s) of the ID Act. No order to cost .
(Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected and signed by me on 11th March 2005)
"Whether the action of the management of State Bank ofBikaner & Jaipur violating the order of Ministry of Finance Government of India of August , 1998 and terminating the services of Sri Kamlesh Kumar w.e.f. 28-5-84 is legal andjustified.
It not, to what relief the workman is entitled?
A. R. SIDDIQUI , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 6 अप्रैल, 2005
का.आ. 1635.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक आफ बीकानेर और जयपुर के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 116/99 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 05-04-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
2. In the instant case after exchange of pleadings between the parties, the case was taken up for evidence of the parties. But unfortunately both the contesting parties failed to adduce their respective evidence in support of their claim. Therefore, virtually the present case is a case of no evidence . It is settled principle of law that party rasing dispute first to lead evidence in support of his case and in case he fails to lead evidence in support of his case, his claim must fail and he cannot be held entitled to claim any relief. Needless to mention that on failure to put appearance onthe date fixed parties were debarred from adducing their respective evidence by the tribunal.
[सं. एल-12012/602/1998 - आई आर ( बी-I ) ] सी. गंगाधरण, अवर सचिव NewDelhi , the 6th April, 2005
3. In the facts and circumstances stated above , the tribunal is left with no other option but to hold that the claimant ofthe present dispute is not entitled for any relief for want of evidence . Reference is answered accordingly against the workman and in favour of the management .
SURESH CHANDRA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 6 अप्रैल , 2005
S.O. 1635.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 116 of99 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal -Cum- Labour Court , Kanpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 05-04-2005 .
[No. L - 12012/602/ 1998 -IR (B -I) ] C. GANGADHARAN , Under Secy. ANNEXURE
BEFORE SRI SURESH CHANDRA PRESIDING
का.आ. 1636.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बीजापुर ग्रामीण बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय बैंगलोर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 11/2001 ) कोप्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 05-04-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-12012/479/ 2001- आई आर ( बी-1 ) ] सी. गंगाधरण , अवर सचिव OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT/LOK ADALAT, SARVODAYA NAGAR KANPUR
New Delhi , the 6th April , 2005
Industrial Dispute No 116 of 99
In the mattar of dispute between ; Sri Kamlesh Kumar C/ o Sh B. P. Pandey 186/371 Heeraganj KanpurU. P. Pin208001 AND
S.O. 1636.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) . the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 11/2001 ) ofthe 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 Bijapur Gramina Bank, and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 05-04-2005.
[No. L- 12012/479/2001 - IR (B -I) ] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.
The Branch Manager State Bank ofBikaner & Jaipur Branch office SantNagar Kanpur.
[ भाग Il- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 30, 2005/वैशाख 10, 1927
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM- LABOUR COURT,
BANGALORE
Dated: 18th March, 2005
PRESENT: Shri A.R. Siddique Presiding Officer
Cr. No. 11/2001
IPARTY
II PARTY
4471. Thus you mis-utilised an amount of Rs . 1,200/- received from the party for your personal use and falsified the bank records.
Para 3 : That on or about 08-06-1998 and 08-07-1998 you received Rs . 200/- each from Sri N.G. Handral for crediting to P.D. Account No. 458 of Kumari Anusuya . After receiving the said amount you made entry in the P.D. Pass Book No. 458 in the respective months unauthorisedly. But did not credit the said amount to Bank cash account and mis - utilised the said amount for your personal use.
The Chairman,
BijapurGraminaBank,
ViveknagarWest ,
Bijapur (PO) -586101
Karnataka
Shri B. S.Kirangi , Yankachi P. O. , Sindagi Taluk, BijapurDistrict, Bijapur-586101.
APPEARANCES :
I party:
M. RamaRao General Secretary [ 1 Party:
K. G. N. Prasad/ BC Prabhakar Advocate
AWARD
1 . The Central Government by exercising the powers conferredby clause (d) of sub - section ( 1 ) and Sub -section 2A of the Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 has referred this dispute vide order No. L - 12012/479/2001- IR(B - I ) dated 05-02-2001 for adjudication on the following schedule:
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action ofBijapur Gramin Bank, Head Office,Bijapur isjustified in imposing the punishment of dismissal from service on Shri B.S. Kirangi applicant is justified? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled ?"
2. A Charge Sheet dated 08-10-1998 was issued to the I party workman as under :-
"Para 1 : That while working in our Golageri branch since 29-06-1944 as Messenger- Cum- Sweeper, on or about 06-07-1998 you received cash ofRs.2,000from Sri G.C. Math for crediting to hisS.B. Account No. 2543. But you did not credit the said amount to Bank cash account and mis- utilised Rs . 2000 for your benefits . Thus you mis- utilised the customers money for your personal use by falsifying bank records.
Para2: That on or about 01-08-1998 you received cash ofRs. 1,200/-from Sri C.D. Bure for crediting tohis S.B. Account No. 62. After receiving the cash you entered in the Pass Book No. 62 unauthorisedly and raised the balance . But you did not credit the cash to S.B. Account No. 62 and retained with you unauthorisedly and mis- utilised the said amount for your personal use .
Thus you misappropriated the depositors money for your personal use, by falsifying Bank records .
Para4 : That on 11-06-1998 and 01-07-1998 you received Rs . 200 and Rs . 300 respectively from Sri S.S. Kori for crediting to his Loan Account No. RT 22/96 . After receiving the said amount you issued counter foil , unauthorisedly. You prepared the counter foil, affixed 'Cash Received' seal and signed in the place provided for the signatures of Cashier and Manager. After forging Cashier and Manager's signature and affixing 'Cash Received' seal you issued counter foil to Sri S.S.Kori , for having credited the amount to party's loan account. You have not credited the said amount to loan account soon after receiving the same and mis -utilised for your personal benefit. The said amount was credited by you loan account No. 22/96 on 22-08-1998 .
Thus you mis -utilised an amount of Rs . 500 received from Sri S.S.Kori for your personal benefit . You issued counter foil by forging Cashier and Manager's signatures and affixing Cash Received' seal and falsified the records of the Bank .
Para 5 : That you received Rs . 500 from Sri Shivanna R. Moodalbai R/ o Golageri for crediting to his P.D.Account No. 414 towards the instalments of June and July 1998 ofRs . 250 each . But you did not credit the said amount to the party'sP.D. Account No. 414 immediately in the respective months . You temporarily mis -utilised said amount for your personal use and credited the same to Bank Account on 14-08-1998 .
Thus you mis-utilised an amount of Rs . 500 given by the party for your personal benefit.
Para 6 : That on 17-07-1998 you received cash of Rs . 1100 from Sri Vishnu Malakappa Bailapattar R/o Golageri to credit to his P.D. Account No. 451.After receiving the cash neither you credited the same to his PD A/ c . nor Bank's cash account . You retained the said amount with you unauthorisedly and temporarily mis - appropriated for your personal use.
4472
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30, 2005/VAISAKHA 10 , 1927
[PART 11- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] You received an amount of Rs . 1100/- from Sri V.M. Railapattar on 17-07-1998 and retained with you un - authorisedly and credited the same to party'sP.D. Account No. 451 on 22-08-1998 . Thus you temporarily mis - appropriated said amount for your personal use .
clean service with a clean record and therefore the Management has caused injustice to him in removing him from service by way of dismissal order . He contended that the Domestic Enquiry was conducted against the established principles of law and against the principles of natural justice and that his suspension during the course of enquiry was illegal . He contended that due to the impugned punishment order he and his family members are suffering and that he has not been gainfully employed though made efforts to seek the after he his dismissal from service. Therefore , the I parv requested this tribunal to set the dismissal order and to reinstate him into service without consequential benefits
That in the process , you failed to observe , comply with and obey all orders and directions of the Bank . You also failed to serve the Bank honestly and faithfully and use your utmost endeavour to promote the interest of the Bank and conducted yourself in a manner in violation of Regulation No. 17 and 19 of the Bijapur Grameena Bank Staff Service Regulations 1983. "
3. After the reply given by the I party to the said charge sheet , the Domestic Enquiry was ordered against him and on the basis of the findings recorded by the Enquiry officer holding the I party guilty of the aforesaid charges, the Disciplinary Authority dismissed the I party from his services .
4. Aggrievedby the aforesaid dismissal order, the I party appears to have preferred an appeal and that came to be rejected by the Appellate Authority. Then he raised an Industrial Dispute and the reference on hand came to be made to this tribunal by the Government of India.
5. Before this tribunal , the I party filed his claim statement with the averments that the order of dismissal passed against him is liable to be set aside for reasons that he did not know English Language and whereas the Enquiry Proccedings were conducted against him in English turning down his request to conduct the same in Kannada Language though all along he made representation to the management in Kannada Language only. He contended at he was placed under suspension unilaterally and his quest to pass an order of suspersion in Kannada anguage was not considerd . He cod that the anager threatened him and demanded resignation from m in case he did not act as per his directions that lieving the words of the Manager that he will be continued in the employment he put the signature as per Isdirections . Therefore , the admission of guilt by the I party by taking his signature was under the threats given by the Management . He contended that charge sheet was issued to him in English Language and on the assurance given by the Management he alone attended the enquiry not knowing that he could have taken the assistance of Defence Representative . He signed the Enquiry Proceedings believing the words of the Manager and he was furnished with the findings of the Enquiry Officer , which were again in English Language , and therefore he could not understand the findings of the Enquiry Officer. He was not permitted to take the assistance of Defence Representative and therefore he was not given an opportunity to cross- examine the Management witness. The I party further stated that he has rendered 14 years of
6. The management by its coer statement , however, domed almost all the aforesaid averments made by the i par his claim statement however not disputing the fact thatthe I party was placed under suspension during the course of enquiry and suspension order was in English . It also did not dispute the fact that the charge sheet was issued in English, proceedings of enquiry were conducted in English and findings of the enquiry was also were rendered in English. The Management however, disputed the fact that the I party did not know English Language and that he made a request either with the Management nor with the Enquiry Officer to pass suspension order in Kannada Language to conduct the enquiry in Kannada Language order to furnish enquiry findings in Kannada Language . The Management contended that the I party in the very first instance while giving his reply to the charge sheet in his own words admitted the charges of mis- appropriation of funds belonging to the bank and therefore question of I party not understanding the charges made in English did not arise . The Management contended that despite the admission of guilt by the I party it thought it proper to give reasonable opportunity to the I party to riefend himself and therefore ordered an Domestic Enquiry against him; that the I party was read over and explained with the charges by the Enquiry Officer once again admitted the misconduct committed by him and just to afford fair and reasonable opportunity to the I party, the Enquiry Officer thought it proper to call upon the Management to lead ora and documentary evidence in support of the charges leveled against the I party: hat the Management to be on the safer side therefore lead oral evidence ofthree witnesses , examined as MW 1 to MW 3 and go marked in all 35 documents at Ex MD 1 to MD 35 : that the I partywas called upon to cross - examine those witnesses but declined to do so once again admitting the charges of misconduct. It is for the same reason he also did not lead any evidence on his part though opportunity was given to him by the Enquiry Officer . Therefore on the conclusion of the enquiry. Enquiry Officer submitted his findings holding the workman guilty of the charges and based on the findings , the 1 party was dismissed from service. His appeal against the dismissal order was rejected. Therefore, the Management contended that Enquiry Proceedings conducted against the I party is [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
4473 भारत का राजपत्र: अप्रैल 30, 2005/वैशाख 10, 1927
In accordance with the principles of natural justice giving fair and proper opportunity to him to defend himself and therefore it cannot be said that enquiry was in violation of principles of natural justice of that findings of the enquiry suffered from any perversity much less , to contend that order of dismissal was illegal and punishment was disproportionate .
7. Keeping in view the pleadings of the respective parties with regard to the validity and fairness or otherwise ofthe Enquiry Proceedings , my learned predecessor in the first instance tool up the above said question by way of preliminary issue . The management examined the Enquiry Officer as MW 1 and got marked 5 documents at Ex M - 1 to Ex M- 5. On his part the I party exaimned himself as WW I ind in his cross - examination other 3 documents namely Ex M6 to Ex M - 8 were marked on behalf of the Management . After hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties my learned predecessor on 21-03-2003 answered by the above said issue in favour of the Management holding that the enquiry is fair and proper.
8. I have heard the learned Shri M.R.R, representing the I party and learned counsel for the management Shri K.G.N. Prasad for B.C. Prabhakar on merits of the case including the perversity of the findings and quantum of punishment.
proved against the I party not only in the admissions made by him as per bis letter at Ex M -6 and Ex M- 7 , but also during the course of enquiry before the Enquiry Officer. Those charges were also established by the management by adducing very cogent ana sufficient evidence in the statements of MW 1 and MW 3 and documents at Ex. MD1 to MD 35. Therefore , the 1 party now cannot be allowed to contend that the whole process of enquiry was bereft of legal sanctity or in voilation of principles of natural justice taking an after thought contention that he knew only Kannada and not English Language . Particularly when he admitted the guilt in his own writting and signatures that 100 made in Kannada Language itself. Learned counsel further argued that keeping in view the documentary and oral evidence produced in the enquiry and cogent and valid reasonings given by the Enquiry Officer holding the workman guilty of the charges , it can never be said that the findings of the Enquiry Officer suffered from any perversity. He further contended that keeping in view the gravity of the misconduct committed by the I party not on one occasion but on several occasions misappropriating the funds of the bank , punishment of dismissal was the only the way out for the Management and therefore no sympathy could be shown to the party keeping in view the fact that the Management bank is supposed to be the custodian of the public money to be taken care of by the Officials of the Management itself. After having gone through the records . I find substance in the arguments advanced on behalf of the Management.
9. Shri M.R.R. vehemently argued that the entire process of issuing of the charge sheet to the I party, holding of the enquiry, adducing oral and documentary evidence during the course of enquiry and the findings passed there on were all in violation of principles of natural justice in as much as , I party was victimized by the management taking undue advantage of his illiteracy and his sub -ordination to the then Manager of the branch obtaining his signature over certain papers amounting to admission of guilt by the I praty . Learned Representative submitted that the proceedings conducted by the Management from the date of issuing the charge sheet and culmination of the Enquiry Proceedings resulting into the impugned punishment order were all done in English language not understood by the I party and thereby there was a miscarriage ofjustice crept In rendering the I party jobless after he served the Management with all honesty and sincerity for about a period of 14 years . His next contention was that the I party has nothing todo with the charges of misconduct levelled against him as he was not an official supposed to deal with cash transactions of the Bank so as to receive amounts from various customers of the bank and to be accounted for in the records maintained by the Bank , he being a 4th grade employee working as a Messenger . Therefore , when the I party was not at all the custodian of the cash transactions, it was wrong for the Management to hold responsible for the alleged charges of misconduct that too, letting off the cashier and other staff members of the bank involved in the matter .
11. Keeping in view the findings recorded by this tribunal holding that the domestic enquiry conducted against the I party by the II party is fair and proper, the scope available to the I party to come out of the clutches ofthe impugned dismissal order was by way of establishing before this tribunal that findings of the enquiry on fact suffered from any perversity. The argumen's advanced for the I Party once again challenging the Enquiry Proceedings are not at all available to him after finding was recorded by this tribunal on the said point. As far as perversity of the findings is concerned it is very much Interesting to note that no where in the claim statement , the I Party has challenged or attacked the findings of the enquiry as suffering from any sort ofillegality or perversity. Through out the claim statement he was very much content with the averments challenging the Enquiry Proceedings . The learned representative of the 1 party in his arguments also could not highlight or point out any defect with the findings of the Enquiry Officer either on the ground that there was no sufficient and legal evidence available on record or that the reasonings assisgned by the Enquiry Officerwere not cogent and valid having reference to the evidence brought on record. In order to see whether the findings of the Enquiry Officer are supported by sufficient and legal evidence , it appears to me worthwhile to bring on record the observations and the reasoning given by 10. Whereas , learned counsel for the management vehemently argued that the charges of misconduct were
1234G1/05-27 4474
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30, 2005 /VAISAKHA 10 , 1927
the Enquiry Officer on each of the charge of misconduct levelled against the I party, as under :-
"CHARGE NO. 1 :-
In support of the Charge , the Presenting Officer has filed seven documents MD1 to MD7 and two witnesses . Shir B. S. Kirangi has not produced any documents and witnessess in defence .
The deposition by the MW 1 and MW 2 goes on record unrebutted as the charge sheeted employee . Has not coross-examined the MW 1 and MW 2. The deposition by the MW 1 is supported by the documents MD 1 to MD 3 and MD 5 to MD 7. The deposition by MW 2 is also supported by MD 4 to MD 7. The Management documents MD 1 & MD 2 are the letters given by Sri B. S. Kirangi dated 03-08-1998 and 24-10-1998 respectively confessing the misappropriation by him . MD 3 confirms that Sri P. C. Hunakunti received to SB 2543 the cash of Rs . 2,000 only on 24-8-1998. The slip is signed by Sri B. S. Kirangi for having credited Rs.2,000 to SB A/c No. 2543 on 24-8-1998 . MD 6 is the Pass Book of SB 2543 , wherein there are scratches on the credit entry of Rs. 2,000 and outstanding balance. MD 7 shows no entry after 07-8-1998 MD 4, the letter dated 13-8-1998 by MW2 supports the deposition of MW 2. Therefore the contents of the documents MD 1 to MD 7 and the desposition by MW 1 and MW 2 corroborate and goes on record . The same is unrebutted by the defence. In turn, Shri B. S. Kirangi has voluntarily agreed for having misutilised Rs . 2,000 cash of Sri G. C. Math . Therefore Sri B.S. Kirangi has misappropriated the cash of Rs . 2,000 of the Bank's customer .
CHARGE NO . 2.-
The Presenting Officer has filed 5 documents (MD8 to MD 12) and produced one witness ( MW1 ) in support of the charge . Sri B. S. Kirnagi has not produced any document/ witnesses in defence.
The deposition by MW I goes on record unrebutted as the MW 1 was not cross - examined by Sri B. S. Kirangi . The Management documents MD 8 to MD 12 support the deposition of the MW 1. MD 8 is the letter by Shri C.D. Bure , account holder of SB 62 , which state that he had given cash to Sri B.S. Kirangi for crediting to SB A/ C . and he had not credited, but given credit later. MD 9 is the letter dated 13-8-1998 of MW 1. The contents of this document corroborate the deposition by MW 1. It states that Sri B. S. Kirangi took Rs . 1,200from Sri C. D. Bure on 1-8-1998 for crediting to his SB A/ c No. 62 but did not credit upto 22-8-1998 . Sri B. S. Kirangi has made scraches in the Pass Book ( MD 11 ) . He credited Rs . 400 on 22-8-1998 ( MD 10) MD 12 is the ledger sheet . The deposition of MW 1 , is corroborated by the
[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ] Managernment documents MD 8 to MD 12.. Since there is no cross - examination of MW 1 by Sri B. S. Kirangi, the depostion by MW 1, goes on record to support the charge No. 2. In turn , Sri B. S. Kirangi has agreed for misapporopriating eash of Rs . 1,200/-received from Sri C. D. Bure .
CHARGE NO . 3.-
> The Management documents MD 13 to MD 21 (eight documents ) are filed by the Presenting Officer in support of the charges. The Presenting Officer has also produced three witnesses , MW I to MW 3 in support of the charge . There is no witness and no document produced by Sri B. S. Kirangi in defence.MD 13 , MD 15 and MD 14 are the letters dated 13-8-1998 made and signed by the Management witnesses MW 1 , MW2 and MW3 respectively: The contents of MD 13 support the deposition ofMW 1. Likewise the contents of MD 15 and MD 14 support the deposition by MW 2 and MW 3 respectively. MD 16 and MD 17 are credit slips dated 8-8-1998 and MD 18 is the credit slips dated 22-8-1998 . MD 19 is the PD Pass Book , MD 20 À, B, C, are the cash scrolls and MD 21 is the certified copy of the PD Ledger (A/ c . No. 458 ) . The transactions appearing in the documents MD 16 to MD 21 reveal that Sri B.S. Kirangi credited Rs . 400 to PD 458 on 22-8-1998 . Sri B.S. Kirangi has not credited the amount on 8-6-1998 and 8-7-1998 these two entries made in the PD Pass book and Ledger are false. In Pass book he has forged the initials.
Therefore the deposition by MW 1 , MW2 , and MW 3, goes on record unrebutted as there was no cross examination of these witnesses by Sri B. S. Kifangi , The deposition of witnesses and documents corroborate and confirm the misappropiration of Rs . 400 of Sri N. G Handrala by Sri B.S. Kirangi . Sri B.S. Kirangi has not denied the misappropriation and in turn has agreed for having misappropriated Rs . 400/- of Sri . N.G. Handrala . He has recredited Rs . 400/- to Bank on 22-8-1998 .
CHARGE No. 4.-
Five documents (MD 22 to MD 26) were filed and 3 witnesses were produced by the Presenting Officer in support of the Charge . The charge sheeted employees has not produced any document/ witness indefence.
The deposition by MW 1 , MW 2 and MW 3 corroborate each other . MD 22 is a letter of Sri B.S. Kori . The contents of this letter, is supported by the deposition by MW 1 and MW 2. MD 23 , MD 24 are the counterfolios for Rs . 200/- & Rs . 300/- each and show the signatures of Cashier and Manager which are forged by Shri B.S. Kirangi . MD 25 is credit slip [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: अप्रैल 30, 2005/वैशाख 10, 1927
for Rs . 500 dated 22-8-1998 signed by Sri B.S. Kirangi forhaving recredited the amount to RT 22/96. MD 26 is a ledger extract of RT 22/96 account. The contents ofManagement documents MD 22 to MD are corroboratedby the deposition of MW 1 , MW 2 and MW 3. Therefore Sri B.S.Kirangi misappropriated Rs . 500 of Sri B.S. Kori .He forged the signatures on counter folios. From the above , it leads to believe that Sri B.S. Kirangi has misappropriated Rs . 500 of Sri B.S. Kori which he recredited to RT A/c . No. 22/96 only on 22-08-1998 .
CHARGE NO . 5.-
The Presenting Officer has produced one witness (MW 1) and 5 documents ( MD 27 to MD 31 ) in support of the charge . Sri B.S. Kirangi has not produced any witness documents in defence. MD 27 is the letter dated 14-8-1998 by Sri S.R. Marabhavi alleging that his amount of Rs . 500 given to Sri B.S. Kirangi not credited to his PD A/ c . No. 414. MD 29 is another letter dated 22-8-1998 by Sri S.R. Mahalabhavi stating that his PD Account recredited on 14-8-1998 . MD 28 is credit slip dated 14-8-1998 showing credit ofRs . 500 to PD 414. MD 30 is cash scroll dated 14-8-1998 and MD 31 the certified copy of PD 414 , showing credit of Rs . 500 on 14-8-1998 . The deposition by MW , corroborate the contents of MD 27 to MD 31.
The deposition of MW 1 goes on record to confirm thatRs . 500 received by Sri B.S. Kirangi Sri S.R. Mahalbhavi was not credited to PD 414 upto 14-8-1998 and he recredited only on 14-8-1998 . The deposition goes on record unrebutted as there was no cross - examination by the charge sheeted employee. In turn , Sri B.S. Kirangi has agreed for misutilising the said amount . The deposition of MW 1 corroborate MD 27 to MD 31. Hence it leads to believe that Sri B. S. Kirangi has misutilised Rs . 500 of the customer .
CHARGE NO . 6.-
The Presenting officer has filed 4 documents (MD 32 to MD 35) and produced one witness (MW1 ) in support of the charge. Sri B. S. Kirnagi has not produced any witnesses/documents in defence .
MD 32 shows the credit of Rs. 1,100 to PD 451 on 22-08-1998 . The slip is singed by Sri B.S. Kirangi . MD 33 letter by Sri V. M. Bailapattar States what he had paid Rs . 1,100 on 17-7-1998 to Sri B. S. Kirangi for crediting to his PD 451 but he credited it only on 22-8-1998 . MD 34 is certified copy of PD 451 , shows credit of Rs . 1.100 on 22-8-1998 . MD 35 , the cash scroll also show the credit of Rs.1,100 on 22-8-1998 .
The deposition by MW 1 corroborate the contents of MD 32 to MD 35. The deposition of MW 1 goes on
4475 record as there was not cross-examination by the Charge Sheeted employce . The deposition of MW 1 unrebutted by the defence . The deposition of MW 1 and the documents MD 32 to MD 35 confirm that Sri B. S. Kirangi has misutilisedRs. 1,100 of Sri V. M. Bailapattar from 17-7-1998 to 22-8-1998 . Sri B. S. Kirangi has also voluntarily disclosed the matter to MW 1 and agreed and recredited the amount misutilised by him. Therefore it leads tobelieve that Sri B.S. Kirangi misutilised Rs. 1,100 of Sri V. M. Bailapattar.
16. The written arguments ofPresenting officer and the charge- sheeted employee are received.
17. On appreciation of all the oral and documentary evidences and the admittance of charges by the Charge Sheeted employee on the foregoing pages , the reply to the issues framed by me is positive :
(1) Sri B. S. Kirangi has misutilised the amounts received by him for crediting to the accounts SB 2543 , SB 62 , PD 458 , PD 414 , PD 451 and RT22/96 .
(ii) Sri B. S. Kirangi committed misutilisation, Cheating, forgery falsification of Bank records , misuse of official postion . He violated Regulation Nos . 17 and 19 of Staff Service Regulations of the bank .
I find that all the charges vide Charge sheet No. BGB / PER/ 468 / 98/dated 8-10-1998 are established against Sri B. S. Kirangi . By establishing all the charges , the management has proved that Sri B. S. Kirangi has shown derelication of duty, acted detrimental to the interest of the Bank , cheated the customers and the bank, misutilised customers and Bank'smoney, committed forgery, falsifiedBank records, misused official position, revealing lack ofsincerity, honesty and integrity. He violated Regulation No. 17 and 19 of Staff Service Regulations of the Bank .
Hence, I hold Sri B.S. Kirangi, Messenger-cum- Sweeper (Under suspension ) , guilty of all the charges vide Charge Sheet No. BGB/PER/ 468 / 98 dated 8-10-1998 . "
12. Now therefore , in the light of the above , by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the findings suffered from perversity. To show that findings suffered from perversity it is to be substantiated by the I party that itwas a case of ' No Evidence ' or was a case of ' Insufficient Evidence' . In the instant case , as noted above , Management examined three competent witnesses including the Manager ofthe concerned Branch as MW 1 to MW 3 and as many as35 documents were marked for the Management . As can be read from the Enquiry Proceedings at Ex M 4 and the Enquiry Report at Ex M -5 , three management witnesses 4476
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30, 2005 /VAISAKHA 10, 1927
[PART 11- SEC, 3 ( ii ) ]
" 1. 1994 (2) KLJ 425 -Bank of India -Regional Office . Bangalore, Vs. D. Padmanabhudu & anr .
2. 1998 LAB IC 2514-Union Bank of India Vs. Vishwa Mohan."
insupport of his arguments not to disturb the punishment ofdismissal . Our Hon'ble High Court in the case referred to supra made it abundantly clear that when an act of misappropriation has been proved by overwhelming the evidence and admissions , interest of an individual cannot over ride or be compromised and that court should not lightly consider the said fact while granting the relief. Moreover, their lordship of Supreme Court in a Catena of decisions have all along ruled that in case of proved misconduct ofmisappropriation of the funds , no linenancy can be shown to the delinquent concerned , In the instance case also charges of misconduct as noted above have been proved by overwhelming sufficient and legal evidence. Further , misappropriation was done by the I party not on a single occasion but on six occasions that too within a period of six months. He went on misutilising funds belonging to the Management oblivious of the consequences and admitted the misconduct only when a charge sheet was issued to him. The arguments advanced- forthe I party that he is a illiterate and was doing a job of Messenger only and therefore , cannot be held responsible in the cash at transactions , in my opinion are baseless . Whether a Messenger or a Manager working in aBank they are all the custodian of the public moncy. The I party as a Messenger in a small village like one on hand went on collecting certain amount from various customers who reposed faith in him that the amount will go to the bank in their accounts and therefore , he cannot disown his liability by saying that he was just a messenger nothing to do with the cash dealing . However, keeping in view the poor status for the I party, his unblemished services rendered and the length of service of 14 years he rendered with the Management , in my opinion ends of justice will be met if the dismissal punishment order is to be replaced with an order terminating his services so as to enable the I party to get his terminal benefits . In the result , reference is answered accordingly and following award is passed:
ORDER
The punishment of dismissal is hereby modified into punishment of termination of the services of the I party .He shall be entitled to the terminal benefits for the services he rendered with the Management till the impugned punishment order was passed.
were examined in the presence of the I party with reference to the documents at Ex MD 1 to Ex MD 35. At the end ofthe everydeposition of the Management witnesses , the I party was called upon by the Enquiry Officer to cross -examine the Management witnesses if he wanted , but he declined to do so on the ground that he is admitting the charges itself. He also failed to adduce any evidence on his part on the same ground. Therefore , from the penisal on the cvidence brought on record before the Enquiry Officer and the aforesaid reasonings assigned by him based on the said evidence, it cannot be said that the Enquiry Officer acted against the principles of natural justice either to conduct the Enquiry Proceedings or he committed any illegality in giving the findings holding the workman guilty of the charges. That a part it is not in dispute that the I party admitted the charges of misconduct by submitting his letters dated 13-08-1998 and 24-10-1998 . In his cross- cxamination , the I party without any hesitation admitted that he gave those letters at Ex M 6 and Ex M7 . However , he added to say that they were taken by force. As argued for the Management , this plea of the 1 party is an after thought one as he made no such grievance either during the course of enquiry or while making the representation to the Disciplinary Authority in response to the findings of the Enquiry Officer supplied to him . Infact, the I party preferred an appeal challenging the dismissal order (Memorandum of Appeal ) has been marked at Ex M - 8 in his cross -examination, wherein in many words he once again not only admitted the charges of misconduct but also made it clear that he admitted those charges of misconduct while giving reply to the charge sheet itself and even then enquiry was ordered against him . He further stated that even during the enquiry he pleaded guilty making a request for lesser punishment . He then stated that the misused amount is very small i.e. Rs . 5,200.00 ( Rupees five thousand two hundred only ) and that is also repaid by him and that he himself misused the money only within a span of 6 to 8 months and therefore, the misutilisation of funds by him was for a temporary period and therefore , punishment of dismissal was not proportionate. Therefore with all these unequivocal and unambiguous admissions made by the I party in his appeal memo wherein he also admitted the fact of pleading guilty of the charges on the earlier occasions , now it is too much for the I party to contend otherwise by saying that he gave the said letters at Ex M- 6 and ExM- 7 under threat or force . It is certainly an after thought and an improved defence taken by the I party to over come the charges of misconduct leveled against him. In the result , I am of the considered view that charges of misconduct against the I party have been proved beyond any shadow of doubt .
(Dictated to the LDC, transcribed by him, corrected and signed by me on 18th March 2005)
A. R. SIDDIQUI , Presiding Officer 13. Now coming to the quantum of punishment , learned counsel for the Management cited that the two decisions namely [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
नई दिल्ली, 7 अप्रैल, 2005
का.आ. 1637.--औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार ख़ौद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. II , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 3/99 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 7-04-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल -42011 / 25/98- आई आर ( डी यू) ] कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 7th April, 2005
S.O. 1637. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 3/99) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court No. II , New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of CPWD and their workman, which was reccivedby the Central Government on 7-4-2005 .
4477
भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 30, 2005/वैशाख 10, 1927
in allowing Sh . Mahinder Pal , casual hand receipt , Beldar to work as typist and despatch clerk , since 1989 is justified and denying him the benefit of regularisation as typist and despatch clerk is legal and justified ? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled ?"
The claimant has filed statement of claim . In the statement of claim , it has been stated that the appropriate Government has referred the Industrial Dispute for adjudication to the effect that whether the workman is entitled to be regularised and if so what is the effect and consequences of such regularisation .
That the workman is the member of the CPWD Karamchari Union ( Regd. ) Plot No. 1 , Aram Bagh, Near Udasin Mandir , Pahar Ganj , Delhi and it is the same union which has espoused the cause of the workman for his regularisation .
[No. L-42011/25/ 98 - IR (DU) ]
KULDIP RAI VERMA , Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER : CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT- IL, NEW DELHI PRESIDING OFFICER : R. N. RAI
L.D. No. 3/99
In the matter of:
Sh . Mahender Pal ,
Through CPWD Karamchari Union (Regd.) , Plot No. 1 , Aram Bagh , Near Udasin Mandir,
PaharGanj , Delhi .
Versus
The Excutive Engineer,
N.S.G.P./Div. No. IV,
CPWD, Manesar (Haryana ) ,
Gurgaon (Haryana) -122001
The ChiefEngineer (Outer) , CPWD, B-Block, CurzonRoadBarracks, NewDelhi -01
AWARD
The Ministry of Labour by its letter No. L-42011/25/ 08 - IR (DU) Central Government Dt . 13-11-1998 has referred the following point for adjudication .
The point runs as hereunder :
"Whether the action of management of CPWD , Executive Engineer , NSCP Div. IV, Manesar , Gurgaon That the workman has joined the management No. 2 as a Beldar on February 1989 but he worked in the post of typist cum despatch clerk from the date of joining since February 1989 , the certificate is enclosed with the main petition and since his joining he has been continuously working as typist despatch clerk on casual labour under the control and supervision of the said management .
It issubmitted that the workman and his union had raised an Industrial Dispute under section 10 of the ID Act which rendered in failure . It is stated that in the said proceedings of conciliation , the management had also filed its reply. However settlement could not be possible and the management was not agreeable for any kind of settlement. It is pertinent to submit here that in similar circumstances the same management had given enhanced salaries to workman who discharged duties of a higher post though placed lower than that .
It is submitted that the management intentionally and deliberately has with held the legal entitlements ofthe workman.
Thatit is stated that the workman is a causal labour employee and has completed 240 days each year of working and is not being absorbed in the department for which he is entitled to. That it is stated that though the job performed by him are equal to that of regular typist/despatch clerk and he is getting the salary ofjob of Beldar, less wages are paid to him. So doctrine of equal pay for equal work should come to play in respect the above said workman, moreover he is entitled for regular posting as a clerk/ despatch clerk/ typist and he is being deprived of all such rightful claim which are extended to regular employees doing the similar job.
That it is stated that persons who are junior to the workman herein have been regularised at the intervention of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble Central Tribunal and the workman herein has been deprived of his rights 4478
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30, 2005 /VAISAKHA 10, 1927
[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] rather punished for not having approached the courts of law:
It issubmitted that NSGP is project circle created for limited period for NSG's works which is going to be closed in March 2000. Therefore are no such sanctioned posts in this project . The claim of the applicant is beyond permitted rules and regulations ect . and cannot be accepted .
That the workman is liable to be regularised as typist/ despatch clerk since his Ist entry in the management keeping in view the judicial pronouncements in similar matters and his seniority should be counted from that date only.
That the para 5 of the claim petition is wrong and denied. However it is submitted that the workman as stated above was engaged as a daily rated casual beldar and being paid accordingly. It is being paid at par to these workers who had been engaged for the similar job .
The management has filed written statement. In the written statement it has been stated that the present refcrence is bad in law without application of mind and in a stereotype manner hence liable to be dismissed. That the claim petition is not maintainable as there arises no cause of action against the management and in the favour of the workman.
It is submitted that the workman had never been engaged as a clerk typist . He was engaged as daily rated beldar on hand receipt and is still working as beldar . The recruitment of clerk typist are being done on direct recruitment basis through staff selection commission and from amongst departmental regular ' D ' class employed as perrules.
That the claim is not maintainable as the workman has not come with clean hands and concocted the material facts before the Hon'ble Tribunal . The claim appears to be less substantiated with facts . Hence the claim deserves dismissal being a misplaced ere - supposition .
The workman applicant has filed rejoinder . In his rejoinder he has reiterated the averments of his claim statement and has denied most of the paras of the written statement . The management has also denied most of the paras of the claim statement .
The workman applicant is not turning up . Notices has been sent to him, despite services of the notices he has not turned up . However, both the parties have filed written arguments . Evidence by both the partics has been adduced. Heard arguments from both the sides and perused the papers on the record .
That the present reference is bad in law without application ofmind and in a stereotype manner hence liable to be dismissed. It is absolutely wrong and vehemently denied that he worked in the post of typist cum clerk from he date ofjoining since February 1989 and since hisjoining has been continuously working as typist clerk on casual labour under the control and supervision of the said management . However it is submitted that in fact the workman has been performing his duties as daily wager worker on hand receipt . It is specifically mentioned that the workman does not fulfill the terms and condition for recruitment as typist cum clerk .
It was submitted from the side of the workman applicant that he was Casual labour employce and has completed 240 days each year of working and has not been absorbed in the department for which he is entitled to . The job performed by him is equal to that of regular Typist/ Despatch Clerk and he is getting salary of Beldar so less wages are paid to him . Doctrine for " Equal Pay for Equal Work" should be followed in respect of the workman . He is being deprived of his original claim. Workmen junior to him have been regularised at the intervention of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble Central Tribunal . The workman isbeing deprived of his rights. He deserves to be regularised at the post of Typist-Despatch clerk since his first entry in the management .
It is stated that even if it is presumed that the workman sometimes performed duties of typist clerk such assignment of job was neither lawful nor had the same sanction of competent authority if he had done such type ofjob it is made clear that the same as done be him at his own will to improve work experience which could have been beneficial to him to get a regular job later on in the Govt. or private body . Therefore while doing the job of a beldar it appears that he must have tried his best to get a regular job during this period when he could not qualify inspite of his best efforts to get a job of a typist etc. he had raised this dispute .
Itwas submitted from the side of the management that he was not appointed on the post ofTypist cum Clerk from the date ofjoining since February 1989 and since his joining he has not been continuously working as Typist cum Clerk. The workman has been performing his duties as daily wager worker on hand receipt . He does not fulfill the terms and conditions for recruitment as Typist cum Clerk. Even if it is admitted that he performed duty of Typist cum Clerk such assignment of job has no sanction of the competent authority. If he has done such type of work he has done out of his own will . He wanted to work there to get regular job later on in the Government or Private Body so while doing the job of Beldar did some job of typing .
It is stated that there is no provision for engaging the typist on muster roll basis in the department of CPWD and the fact has very well been in knowlege of the workman . It is specifically wrong and denied that in similar circumstances the same management had given enhanced salaries to workman who discharged duties of a higher post though placed lower than that . However it is submitted that the department had not intentionally and deliberately with held the legal entitlements of the workman . All dues have been paid and are being paid as per the rules and regulation. Rest of the para is a matter of record hence needs no reply.
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
4479
भारत का राजपत्र: अप्रैल 30 , 2005/वैशाख 10 , 1927
It was further submitted that there was no provision for engaging Typist on muster roll basis in the department ofCPWD and the workman was in the knowledge of this fact. No workman has been given enhanced salary for discharging duties of higher post . The department had not intentionally and deliberately withheld the legal entitlement of the workman .
It was further submitted from the side of the management that NSGP is a Project Circle created for limited period for NCG'swork, which is going to be closed in March 2000. There are no such sanctioned post in this project , since he was working at the project and the project is going to be closed in March 2000 he cannot be regularised at the postofTypist cum Clerk .
The workman applicant admitted in his cross- cxamination that he has no certificate of typing . In casehe has no certificate of typing he cannot be given the post of Typist . He has further admitted in his cross -examination that when he applied in other departments for appointment he got certificate of typing from the management . He has also admitted that he has worked on project and compensation has been paid to him vide letter dated. 31-01-2004 and he has received the compensation ofRs. 35.709 so as per the provision of the Industrial Dispute Act . 1947 he has been paid compensation as he was working on project and when the project came to an end his services also came to an end and he has been paid legitimate wages as such there is no force in the case ofthe workman applicant and he is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.
The reference is replied thus :-
The action of the management of CPWD , Executive Engineer, NSCP Div. IV, Manesar, Gurgaon in allowing Sh . Mahinder Pal , Casual Hand Receipt, Beldar to work as Typist and Despatch Clerk , since 1989 is justificed and denying him the benefit of regularisation as Typist and Despatch Clerk is legal and just . He is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.
The Award is given accordingly.
Dated: 01-04-2005
R. N. RAI , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 7 अप्रैल, 2005
का.आ. 1638.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का. 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार केन्द्रीय दूर संचार विभाग के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय अजमेर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 7-04-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था। [सं. एल -40012 /54/98- आई आर ( डीयू) ]
कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 7th April, 2005
S.O. 1638.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ofthe Industrial Tribunal Ajmer as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Deptt . of Telecom and their workman , which received by the Central Government on 7-4-2005.
[No. L-40012/54/98- IR (DU) ]
KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer
अनुबंध
न्यायालय श्रम एवं औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण, अजमेर ( राज. )
पीठासीन अधिकारी श्री जी. एस. शेखावत, आर एच जे एस प्रकरण संख्या-सीआईटीआर-03/99
[रेफरेंस नं. एल. - 40012 / 54/98/ आई आर ( डीयू) दिनांक 30-11-981
......प्रार्थी भंवरलाल पुत्र श्री नैना जी नायक, ग्राम दहामली, तहसील मारवाड़ा, जिला पाली
बनाम
अप्रार्थी उपखंड अधिकारी (फोन्स) पाली
उपस्थित: श्री पी.डी. खन्ना, विद्वान अधिवक्ता, प्रार्थी: श्री अशोक माथुर, विद्वान अधिवक्ता, अप्रार्थी
दिनांक: 31-3-2005
अवार्ड
केन्द्र सरकार द्वारा प्रेषित विवाद निम्नानुसार है :-
"Whether the action of the Sub Divisional Officer (Phones) Pali in terminating the services of Sh. Bhanwarlal S/o Sh . Nainji Ex . Casual Labour is legal and justified ? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to ?"
नोटिस के उपरांत उभय पक्ष उपस्थित आये । प्रार्थी ने अपने क्लेम के विवरण में अंकित किया है कि प्रार्थी ने प्रतिपक्षी के अधीन श्रमिक के पद पर प्रथम नियुक्तिकी दि. 10-7-72 से 1986 तक लगातार नियमित रूप से कुल चौदह वर्ष तक कार्य किया है । प्रार्थी की मस्टर रोल पर हाजरी करते तथा वेतन भुगतान वाऊचरों के द्वारा करते थे । उक्त अवधि में कार्य करने का प्रतिपक्षी ने प्रमाण पत्र भी जारी किये । प्रतिपक्षी ने दिसम्बर, 87 को मौखिक आदेश से प्रार्थी की सेवायें बिनाकिसी नोटिस के, बिना किसी वेतन के, बिना किसी आरोप और जांच के अवैध रूप से समाप्ति कर दी । प्रतिपक्षी ने 11-3-97 से 14-3-97 के मध्य नियमित श्रमिकों की भर्ती की । किंतु प्रार्थी के आवेदन को अनदेखा कर दिया । प्रार्थी की सेवा समाप्ति के पश्चात् तोलाराम, भंवरलाल, दायाराम, जनवानमल और संपतलाल को नियमित किया । प्रार्थी के 4480
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: APRIL 30, 2005/VAISAKHA 10, 1927
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii)]
4. 2004 सुप्रीम कोर्ट 855 ,
5. 2004 एल आई सी ( बांबे ) 2505,
6. 2003 ए आई आर सुप्रीम कोर्ट 3553,
7. 1998 ए आई आर सुप्रीम कोर्ट 656 ,
प्रतिपक्षी के विद्वान अधिवक्ता ने निम्न दृष्टांत प्रस्तुत किये :- 1. 2005 ए आई आर एस सी डब्ल्यू301 ,
2. 2000 आर एल डब्ल्यू राज, 522,
3. 2002 ए आई आर सुप्रीम कोर्ट 1147,
4. 2004 ए आई आर एस सी डब्ल्यू5476 ,
5. 2004 ए आई आर एस सी डब्ल्यू5134 ,
विवाद उठाने पर वार्ता विफल होने पर भारत सरकार ने यह विवाद प्रेषित किया । प्रार्थी का सेवा पृथककरण आदेश अवैध है क्योंकि प्रार्थी के एक वर्ष में एवं बारह माह में 240 दिन से अधिक नियमित रूप से कार्य करने पर भी औद्योगिक विवाद अधि. की पालना किये बिना नोटिस एवं वेतन और क्षतिपूर्ति दिये बिना प्रार्थी की सेवा समाप्त नहीं की जा सकती । प्रार्थी से कनिष्ठ श्रमिकों को सेवा में रखते हुए स्थाई कर दिया वरिष्ठता सूची जारी नहीं की। सेवा समाप्ति का आदेश अनफेयर लेबर प्रैक्टिस की परिभाषा में आता है और प्राकृतिक एवं न्याय के सिद्धांत के विरुद्ध है । प्रार्थी बेरोजगार बैठा है । प्रतिपक्षी ने धारा 25 एफ, जीएच, आई आदि का स्पष्ट उल्लंघन किया है । अंत में सेवा समाप्ति के दिसम्बर 87 के आदेश को निरस्त करते हुए निरंतर सेवा मानते हुए स्थाई चतुर्थ श्रेणी कर्मचारी के पद पर गत वेतन भत्तों सहित पुनस्थापित करने की प्रार्थना कीहै ।
मैंने उध्यपक्ष द्वारा प्रस्तुत सभी दृष्टांतों का ससम्मान अध्ययन
किया।
प्रतिपक्षी ने उत्तर में अंकित किया है कि प्रार्थी 10-7-72 से कार्यरत नहीं है और न ही कोई नियुक्ति दी गयी । प्रार्थी 10-7-72 से 1986 तक प्रतिपक्षी के यहां कार्यरत नहीं रहा । प्रार्थी ने प्रतिपक्षी के यहां पर सितम्बर 85 में पांच दिवस , अक्टूबर 85 में 23 दिवस, नवम्बर 85 में 25 दिवस, दिसम्बर 85 में 26 दिवस , जनवरी 86 में 27 दिवस, फरवरी 86 में 24 दिवस, मार्च 86 में 22 दिवस, अप्रैल 86 में 26 दिवस, मई 86 में 17 दिवस, जून 86 में 17 दिवस तथा अगस्त 86 में चौदह दिवस कार्य किया है । प्रार्थी ने जब- जब दैनिक वेतन भोगी के रूप में कार्य किया तब - तब उसे वेतन अदा कर दिया । प्रार्थी ने कभी भी पंद्रह वर्ष तक सेवा नहीं की है । यह गलत है कि दिसम्बर 87 में मौखिक आदेश से प्रार्थी की सेवा समाप्त कर दी हो । प्रार्थी बारह वर्ष तक मौन बैठा रहा न उसने कोई नोटिस दिया न ही बारह वर्ष तक सेवामुक्ति को चुनौती दी न कोई नाराजगी प्रकट की । इस प्रकार बारह वर्ष पश्चात्यह विवाद उठाना अवैध है । प्रतिपक्षी ने किसी भी नियमित श्रमिक की "र्को नहीं की है । प्रार्थी ने कभी भी बारह माह में 240 दिवस तक कार्य नहींकिया है । प्रार्थी को प्रतिपक्षी ने सेवामुक्त ही नहीं किया तो नोटिस, हन और क्षतिपूर्ति दिये जाने की आवश्यकता नहीं है । प्रार्थी ना किसी सूचना के स्वयं छोड़कर चला गया । प्रार्थी एक पिटीशन - 38294 केंद्रीय प्रशासनिक अधिकरण के समक्ष प्रस्तुत की थी जो 23-10-86 को निरस्त हो गयी और वह आदेश अंतिम हो चुका है , अत : यह विवाद चलने योग्य नहीं है ।
प्रार्थी ने अपने क्लेम की संपुष्टि में स्वयं का शपथ पत्र प्रस्तुत कर प्रतिपरीक्षण करवाया है प्रलेखीय साक्ष्य में प्रदर्श डब्ल्यू 1 से 12 प्रलेखों की प्रतियां प्रदर्शित करवाकर प्रस्तुत की । प्रतिपक्षी ने लोकेन्द्र प्रसाद शर्मा उपमंडल अधिकारी का शपथ पत्र प्रस्तुत कर प्रतिपरीक्षण करवाया है और प्रलेखीय साक्ष्य में प्रदर्श एम -1 से 4 प्रलेखों की प्रतियां प्रदर्शित करवा कर प्रस्तुत की है ।
उभयपक्ष का श्रवण किया, पत्रावली का अवलोकन किया । प्रार्थी केविद्वान अभिभावक ने निम्नांकित दृष्टांत प्रस्तुत किये:-
1. 1996 डब्ल्यूएल सी ( यू.पी. ) राज. 368 ,
जहां तक साक्ष्य का संबंध है , उभयपक्ष के साक्षियों ने अपने शपथपत्र में अपने-अपने अभिवचनों में अंकित कथनों की ही पुनरावृत्ति कीहै । अतः उसकाविस्तृत उल्लेख किये जाने की आवश्यकता नहीं है । प्रार्थी भंवरलाल ने प्रतिपरीक्षण में कथन किया है कि उसने 10-7-72 से अक्टूबर 87 तक काम किया है । प्रदर्श डब्ल्यू 1 सही पेश किये हैं । प्रदर्श डब्ल्यू. 2 भी सही पेश किया है । यह सही है कि उसने 85 में 148 दिन, 86 में 188 दिन, काम किया है । आगे कथन किया है कि उसने बाकी भी काम किया है । 1987 में 63 दिन, काम किया है यह बात सही है । जब तक उसने काम किया उसे वेतन मिल चुका है । प्रतिपक्षी विभाग में नियुक्ति के नियम बने हुए हैं । तोलाराम , भंवरलाल, दयाराम, जनवानमल, संपतलाल की नियुक्ति की तारीख वह नहीं बता सकता लेकिन उसके बाद में आये हैं । प्रतिपक्षी साक्षी लोकेन्द्र प्रसाद शर्मा ने प्रतिपरीक्षण में कथन किया है कि प्रार्थी वर्ष 1972 से 1986 तक निरंतर नियमित रूप से श्रमिक के पद पर कार्य किया हो यह गलत है । प्रार्थक वेतन भुगतान मस्टर रोल से ही होता था । उपस्थिति का प्रमाण पत्र प्रार्थी को जारी कर दिया जाता था । सन् 1972 से 1986 के मस्टर रोल अब विभाग में उपलब्ध नहींहै क्योंकि पांच वर्ष पश्चात्अभिलेख समाप्त कर देते हैं । यह सही है कि प्रार्थी को वर्ष 1972 से 1986 के समय में कार्य करने के प्रमाण दिये हैं । उसे यह पता नहीं कि दिसम्बर 1987 से मौखिक आदेश से हटाया हो । प्रार्थी रिकार्ड के अनुसार स्वेच्छा से नौकरी पर नहीं आया । उन्होंने न कोई आरोप पत्र दिया न कोई स्पष्टीकरण मांगा । दैनिक वेतनभोगी कर्मचारियों की कोई वरिष्ठता जारी नहीं हुई । तोलाराम , भंवरलाल, दानाराम, झब्बरमल, संपतलाल प्रार्थी से कनिष्ठ नहीं थे बल्किसीधी भर्ती नियोजन कार्यालय से आये थे और पांचों एस.टी. जाति के थे । यह कहना गलत है कि प्रार्थी ने एक वर्ष या बारह महीने में 240 दिन से अधिक कार्य किया हो। पैरा नं. 6 में बतायी गयी अवधिमें रविवार नहीं जोड़े गये हैं । प्रदर्श डब्ल्यू 1 प्रदर्श डब्ल्यू10 तक केविभाग द्वारा जारी प्रमाण पत्र सही हैं । प्रदर्श डब्ल्यू 1 में 10-7-72 से अवधि बतायी गयी है । यह गलत है कि जनवरी 86 से अगस्त 86 तक 249 दिन प्रार्थी ने कार्य किया हो ।
2. 1999 ( 1 ) आर एल आर 250 ,
3. 2004 एल आई सी एन ओ सी ( 2 ) देहली,
इस प्रकार यह स्वीकृत तथ्य है कि प्रार्थी की सेवा समाप्ति के पूर्व प्रार्थी को धारा 25 एफ औद्योगिक विवाद अधि के अंतर्गत न कोई नोटिस 4481 भारत का राजपत्र: अप्रैल 30, 2005/वैशाख 10 , 1927
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
दिया, न कोई वेतन या क्षतिपूर्ति की राशि दी । यह भी स्वीकृत तथ्य है कि प्रदर्श डब्ल्यू 1 से 10 तक के प्रलेख प्रतिपक्षी द्वारा जारी किये गये हैं । प्रतिपक्षी की प्रतिरक्षा है कि प्रार्थी ने बारह माह में 240 दिन किसी भी वर्ष में कार्य नहीं किया और वह स्वयं ही कार्य पर नहीं आया इसीलिए बारह वर्ष तक मौन बैठा रहा और उसके पश्चात् यह विवाद उठाया है ।
के अनुसार मेरे विनम्र मत में धारा 25 बी ( 2 ) के अंतर्गत मामलों में ही सेवा समाप्ति से पिछले एक वर्ष की अवधि में ही 240 दिन तक कार्य करने को एक वर्ष की निरंतर सेवा माना गया है । सेवा समाप्ति से गत वर्ष के अतिरिक्त अन्य वर्षों में 240 दिन कार्य करने के एक वर्ष की निरंतर सेवा नहीं माना गया है । सेवा समाप्ति से गत वर्ष के अतिरिक्त अन्य वर्षों के संबंध में धारा 25बी( 1 ) के प्रावधान आकर्षित होते हैं । धारा 25 एफ एवं धारा 25 बी( 1 ) एवं ( 2 ) के प्रावधानों से यह स्पष्ट है कि अन्य वर्षों के संबंध में प्रार्थी को किसी भी एक वर्ष की निरंतर सेवा धारा 25बी( 1 ) के अंतर्गत सिद्ध करना आवश्यक है , जो बिमा बिघ्न के और उक्त धारा में वर्णित प्रावधानों के अवकाशों को सम्मिलित करते हुए मानी जावेगी । यदि 1-7-85 से जून 86 के कार्य दिवसों की गणना की जावे तो उक्त प्रलेखों के अनुसार 270 दिन ही होती है । 270 से अन्य दिवसों के संबंध में प्रार्थी ने ऐसा कोई विवरण या अभिलेख प्रस्तुत नहीं किया है जिसमें धारा 25वी( 1 ) में वर्णित अवकाशों को सम्मिलित किया जा सके । धारा 25 बी( 1 ) के अंतर्गत प्रार्थी को निरंतर एक वर्ष की अवधि तक निरंतर सेवा करना सिद्ध करना आवश्यक है । प्रार्थी द्वारा उक्त प्रलेखों से स्पष्ट है कि कार्य दिवसों में अनेक दिन के गेप है और ये गेप क्यों है यह प्रार्थी ने स्पष्ट नहीं किया । अतः प्रार्थी की धारा 25बी( 1 ) के अंतर्गत निरंतर एक वर्ष की सेवा उक्त अवधि में नहीं मानी जा सकती । अन्य वर्षों के संबंध में प्रार्थी ने समुचित विवरण प्रस्तुत नहीं किये हैं ।
जहां तक विलंब का प्रश्न है, प्रार्थी ने सन् 1994 में केट में पिटीशन प्रस्तुत कर दी थी जो लगभग सात वर्ष पश्चात् थी । अतः यह विलंब घातक नहीं माना जा सकता । जहां तक प्रतिपक्षी के उद्योग होने के प्रश्न का संबंध है , माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय ने 96( 2 ) जे.टी. (एस.सी. ) 457 के दृष्टांत को उलटते हुए एआईआर 98 एस.सी. 656 में यह प्रतिपादित कर दिया है कि पी. एंड टी विभाग उद्योग है । प्रार्थी द्वारा सेवा स्वतः छोड़ देना प्रतिपक्षी को सिद्ध करना है । प्रार्थी सेवा समाप्तिके पश्चात् पांच वर्ष तक चुप बैठा रहा । प्रार्थी ने अप्रैल 86 से दिसंबर 87 के मध्य कोई कार्य किया हो यह भी प्रार्थी ने कोई प्रलेख से प्रमाणित नहीं किया है न ही कोई ऐसा अभिवचन अंकित किया है । प्रार्थी दैनिक वेतन भोगी कर्मी था अतः उसका कर्तव्य पर आना या नहीं आना उसकी इच्छा पर निर्भर करता था । लगभग सात वर्ष तक प्रार्थी ने प्रतिपक्षी को न कोई नोटिस दिया न कोई कार्यवाही की, न कोई अवकाश का प्रार्थना पत्र प्रस्तुत किया इससे प्रकट होता है कि प्रार्थी स्वयं कार्य छोड़कर चला गया ।
अंत में मैं इस निष्कर्ष पर पहुंचता हूं कि प्रार्थी की सेवा समाप्ति विधि- सम्मत् है , प्रार्थी कोई अनुतोष प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी नहीं है । प्रार्थी ने निरंतर एक वर्ष तक सेवा करना सिद्ध नहीं किया है, अतः प्रतिपक्षी द्वारा औद्योगिक विवाद अधि. के धारा 25 एफ.जी. एच के प्रवधानों का उल्लंघन करना प्रमाणित नहीं है ।
आदेश
फलतः प्रस्तुत विवाद का उत्तर इस प्रकार से दिया जाता है कि उपमंडल अधिकारी ( फोन्स ) पाली द्वारा श्रमिक भंवरलाल नैना जी की सेवा समाप्ति उचित एवं वैध है , प्रार्थी कोई अनुतोष प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी नहींहै ।
जी. एस. शेखावत, न्यायाधीश प्रस्तुत प्रकरण में यह निर्धारित करना है कि क्या प्रार्थी ने प्रतिपक्षी के यहां धारा 25 एफ संगठित 25 बी औद्योगिक विवाद अधि. के अंतर्गत एक वर्ष तक निरंतर सेवा की । धारा 25 एफ के अंतर्गत किसी श्रमिक के एक वर्ष तक निरंतर सेवा करने पर उसकी सेवा समाप्ति से पूर्व एक माह का नोटिस या एक माह का वेतन और क्षतिपूर्ति की राशि दिया जाना आवश्यक है । एक वर्ष तक की निरंतर सेवा के संबंध में धारा 25बी( 1 ) एवं (2 ) में प्रावधान है । धारा 25 बी ( 2 ) में यह प्रावधान है कि जो मामले धारा 25बी( 1 ) में नहीं आते है उनमें कोई श्रमिक सेवा समाप्ति से पूर्व गत बारह माह में 240 दिन कार्य कर लेता है तो उसका वह कार्य एक वर्ष तक की निरंतर सेवा माना जावेगा । प्रस्तुत विवाद में सेवा मुक्ति 'की कोई दिनांक अंकित नहीं है । प्रार्थी ने अपने क्लेम में दिसंबर 1987 के मौखिक आदेश से सेवा समाप्त करना अंकित किया है किंतु उसने प्रकट किया है कि उसने सन् 1972 से 1986 तक चौदह वर्ष तक नियमित कार्य किया है । इस प्रकार उसने यह अंकित नहीं किया कि उसने जनवरी 1987 से दिसंबर 1987 तक बारह माह में कोई कार्य किया हो । किंतु सेवा समाप्ति दिसंबर 87 में करना अंकित किया है । दिसंबर 87 से गत बारह माह में प्रार्थी ने कोई कार्य किया हो इसकी कोई प्रलेखीय साक्ष्य भी प्रस्तुत नहीं की । केवल प्रदर्श डब्ल्यू10 में प्रार्थी का जनवरी 1987 में 21 दिन फरवरी 87 में 23 दिन और मार्च 87 में 19 दिन कुल 63 दिन ही कार्य करना बताया गया है । सेवा समाप्ति से गत एक वर्ष में प्रार्थी ने 240 दिन तक कार्य किया हो इस संबंध में प्रार्थी के अभिभावक ने भी कोई बहस नहीं की है । इससे स्पष्ट है कि प्रार्थी का यह मामला धारा 25 बी( 2 ) के अंतर्गत नहीं आता है । जहां तक धारा 25बी( 1 ) सपठित 25 एफ का संबंध है , प्रार्थी द्वारा एक वर्ष तक बिना सेवा किया जाना आवश्यक है जिसमें बीमारी , स्वीकृत अवकाश या दुर्घटना या हड़ताल जो अवैध नहीं हैं या लॉक- आउट जिसमें श्रमिक का कोई दोष नहीं हो, की अवधि भी सम्मिलित मानी जावेगी । प्रार्थी के विद्वान अभिभावक का तर्क है कि प्रार्थी ने 1-7-85 से 6-6-86 तक एक वर्ष कीअवधिमें 270 दिन अर्थात् 240 दिन से अधिक कार्य किया है । उनका तर्क है कि प्रदर्श डब्ल्यू 4 के अनुसार जुलाई, अगस्त, सितंबर 85 में कुल 69 दिन ( एम-1 ) सितंबर, अक्टूबर, नवंबर, दिसंबर 85 में 79 दिन , प्रदर्श डब्ल्यू 6 ( एम-3 ) के अनुसार जनवरी, फरवरी 86 में 51 दिन, प्रदर्श डब. 9 ( एम -4) के अनुसार मार्च 86 में 22 दिन, प्रदर्श डब्ल्यू 8 ( एम -2 ) अप्रैल से जून 86 तक 49 दिन कुल 270दिन कार्य किया है । इस प्रकार उनका तर्क है कि 96 डब्ल्यूएल सी (राज० ) यू. सी. 368 दृष्टांत के अनुसार प्रार्थी ने उक्त एक वर्ष की अवधिमें 240 दिन से अधिक कार्य किया है । उनका यह भी तर्कहै कि प्रार्थी को केवल किसी भी एक वर्ष में 240 दिन तक कार्य किया जाना सिद्ध करना आवश्यक है, प्रत्येक वर्ष में 240 दिन तक कार्य किया जाना सिद्ध करना आवश्यक नहीं है । मैंने इस तर्क पर विचार किया । उक्त दृष्टांत में प्रतिपादित सुंदर सिद्धांत से मैं पूर्णतः सहमत हूं । उक्त दृष्टांत
1234 GI/05-28 4482
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30 , 2005/VAISAKHA 10 , 1927
नई दिल्ली, 7 अप्रैल , 2005
का.आ. 1639.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय, अजमेर के पंचाट को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 7-4-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-42011/112/ 99- आई आर (डी यू) ] कुलदीप राय वर्मा , डैस्कअधिकारी New Delhi , the 7th April , 2005
S.O. 1639.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Industrial Tribunai , Ajmer as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of CPWD and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 7-4-2005 .
[No. L-42011/ 112/99 - IR (DU) ] KULDIP RAI VERMA , Desk Officer
अनुबंध
श्रम न्यायालय एवं औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण , अजमेर ( राज. )
पीठासीन अधिकारी : श्री अतुल कुमार जैन, आर एच जे एस प्रकरण संख्या-सीआईटीआर-08 /2000 (केंद्र सरकार का रेफरेंस पत्र क्र. ए- III - 8 (37) 28999- एएलसी दिनांक 1-8-00
1. रणसिंह पुत्र केसरसिंह
2. मोहनलाल पुत्र देवाराम
3. सिंहासन शाह पुत्र भगवान शाह
4. अशोक कुमार पुत्र राधेश्याम
5. धर्म सिंह नेगी पुत्र पदम सिंह नेगी
6. जोगीराम पुत्र रामचरण सभी चौकीदार, सीपीडब्ल्यूडी जरिये सेंट्रल पीडब्ल्यूडी शाखा अजमेर जरिये सचिव श्री रामगोपाल शर्मा, सीपीडब्ल्यूडी, ऑफिस कचहरी रोड, अजमेर
...प्रार्थीगण
बनाम
1. सहायक इंजीनियर अजमेर केंद्र उपमंडल केंद्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग , अजमेर
2. कार्यपालक इंजीनियर, अजमेर केंद्रीय मंडल , केंद्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग , अजमेर
...अप्रार्थीगण
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] उपस्थित: श्री बी.डी. गुप्ता, एडवोकेट, प्रार्थीगण की ओर से । : श्री टहल बुलानी , एडवोकेट, अप्रार्थीगण की ओर से । दिनांक: 5-2-2004
निर्णय अवार्ड
इस प्रकरण में केन्द्र सरकार से प्राप्त श्रम विवाद निम्न प्रकार थाः- क्या इंसपेक्शन बेंग्लो में तैनात चौकीदारों से नित्य आठ घंटे से अधिक ड्यूटी ली गयी तथा साप्ताहिक, राजपत्रित एवं राष्ट्रीय अवकाशों पर ली गयी ड्यूटी की एवज में ओवरटाइम भत्ता अदा नहीं करके सीपीडब्ल्यूडी, अजमेर में कोई अवैधानिक या अनुचित कार्य किया है एवं यदि हां तो प्रार्थी यूनियन किस अनुतोष को पाने की अधिकारी है । " उक्त रेफरेंस न्याय /निर्णयन प्राप्त होने पर दिनांक 19-5-2000 को सीपीडब्ल्यूडी मजदूर यूनियन अजमेर के तत्कालीन सचिव श्री रामगोपाल शर्मा ने अपना स्टेटमेंट ऑफ क्लेम श्री डी.डी. गुप्ता, एडवोकेट के माध्यम से पेश किया था । विपक्षीगण की ओर से दि. 15-11-2000 को क्लेम का जवाब पेश किया गया है । क्लेम के समर्थन में गवाह सिंहासन शाह के हलफनामे दि. 24-12-03 तथा दि. 21-10-03 को पेश हुए हैं । उक्त गवाह के विपक्षीगण ने 7-4-03 को तथा दि. 2-12-03 को जिरह पूरी की है । प्रार्थीगण के दूसरे गवाह धर्मसिंह नेगी का हलफनामा दि. 18-4-02 को पेश हुआ है तथा उसने 4-9-02 को विपक्षीगण ने जिरह पूरी की है । प्रार्थीगण के तीसरे गवाह जोगीराम का इलफनामा 18-4-02 को पेश हुआ था तथा 9-10-02 को उसने विपक्षीगण से जिरह पूरी की थी । प्रार्थीगण के चौथे गवाह अशोक कुमार का हलफनामा 18-4-02 को पेश हुआ था तथा 9-10-02 को उससे विपक्षीगण ने जिरह पूरी की है । प्रार्थी का गवाह पांचूलाल तथा मोहनलाल जिरह के लिए हाजिन नहीं आया है । अतः उनके हलफनामा शहादत में नहीं पढ़े जायेंगे । प्रार्थीगण के पांचवें गवाह कर्णसिंह दि. 5-8-02 को पेश हुआ था तथा दि. 29-10-02 को उससे विपक्षीगण ने जिरह की है । विपक्षीगण की ओर से प्रकरण में केवल मात्र एक गवाह मोहनलाल सहायक अभियंता को पेश किया गया है उसका शपथ पत्र दि. 17-6-03 को पेश हुआ था तथा प्रार्थीगण ने उससे दि. 24-9-03 को जिरह पूरी की है ।
दस्तावेजी सबूत में श्रमिक पक्ष की ओर से प्रदर्श डब . - 1 लगायत प्रदर्श डब.54 दस्तावेजात् शहादत में पेश किये गये हैं । विपक्षीगण ने केवल मात्र दो दस्तावेजात् ही क्रमशः प्रदर्श एम-1 एवं प्रदर्श एम -2 ही प्रदर्शित कराये हैं ।
मैंने उभयपक्ष की बहस सुनी, उनके द्वारा प्रस्तुत बहस के लिखित सारांश का भी मैंने अवलोकन किया । पत्रावली में उपलब्ध समस्त दस्तावेजात् का मैंने पूर्ण अध्ययन किया , मेरा विवेचन निम्न प्रकार है :-
प्रार्थी पक्ष के सभी पांच गवाहों एडव. 1 सिंहासन शहा. , एडव. 2 धर्म सिंह नेगी, एडव. 3 जोगीराम , एडव . 4 अशोक कुमार तथा एडव. 5 रणसिंह के बयानों से यह तो साबित होता है कि सीपीडब्ल्यूडी के इंसपेक्शन बेंगलो में तैनात चौकीदार को सामान्यतः रात और दिन [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
4483 भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 30, 2005/वैशाख 10, 1927
में दिया है लेकिन उहद नक्षीर अवलोकनार्थ हव्दारे समक्ष पेश नहीं अती है।
अब हम इस संद्धा में प्रार्थी पक्ष की ओर से दी गयी अट्ठाईस पृष्ठोंकी लिखित बक्ष्क्ष का विवेचन करेंगे । :-
लगातार ड्यूटी देनी होती है । दो अथवा तीन कमरों के इन डाक बेंग्लो/ इंसपैक्शन बेंग्लो में चौकीदार का काम केवल मात्र आने वाले आगंतुकों का नाम रजिस्टर में दर्ज करके कमरे की चाबी देमा होता है । दो कमरों के डांक बेंग्लों के लिए आठ- आठ पट ३५६ ऐमे वाले तीन चौकीदार रखना सामान्य तौर पर सरकार को विधीय हालत को देखते हुए संभव नहीं होना बाया गया है । इस संबंध में केंद्र सरकार के पत्रों की फोटो कॉपियां प्रदर्श एम -1 एवं प्रदर्श एम -2 पेश की गयी है । पत्र प्रदर्श एम-1 में सीपीडब्ल्यूडी के डायरेक्टर ने बतलाया है कि इंसपैक्शन बेंग्लो के चौकीदारों पर मिनिमम वेजेज एक्ट लागू नहीं होता हैअतः उन्हें ओवरटाईम भत्ता दिया जाना संभव नहीं है । इस पत्र में यह भी बताया गया है कि सामान्यतः चौकीदारों को डाक बेंग्लो में रहने के लिए मुफ्त काम चलाऊ व्यवस्था भी दी जाती है । पत्र प्रदर्श एम -2 में भी सीपीडब्ल्यूडी के डिप्टी डायरेक्टर ने बताया है कि इंसपैक्शन डाक बेंग्लो के चौकीदारों को ओवरटाईम भत्ता दिया जाना संभव नहीं है हालांकि एस.ई. /एक्स ई एन के कार्यालयों में काम करने वाले चौकीदारों को ओवरटाईम भत्ता दिया जा सकता है ।
कर्मचारियों को ओवरटाईम भत्ता दिये जाने का प्रावधान सामान्यतः फैक्ट्रीज एक्ट अथवा मिनिमम वेजेज एक्ट में होता है । फैक्ट्रीज एक्ट की धारा 69 वर्तमान प्रकरण में लागू नहीं होती है क्योंकि सीपीडब्ल्यूडी के इंसपैक्शन बेंग्लो को फैक्ट्री की परिभाषा में शामिल नहीं किया जा सकता है । इसी प्रकार मिनिमम वेजेज एक्ट की धारा 14 के तहत भी केवल मात्र उन कर्मचारियों को ओवरटाईम भत्ता मिल सकता है जो मिनिमम वेजेज एक्ट के तहत न्यूनतम वेतन प्राप्त कर रहा हो । न्यूनतम वेतनसे अधिक वेतन प्राप्त करने वाले कर्मचारियों को कम भत्ता देय नहीं होता है । इस संबंध में म्युनिसिपल काउंसिल सिंह 1998 एलएलजे सुप्रीम कोर्ट 815-1998 एलएलसार सुप्रीम कोर्ट पेज 298 उल्लेखनीय है । उक्त नजीर में माननीय कर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने मगरपालिका के उन कर्मचारियों को ओवर टाईम भक्षा देने से इंकार कर दिया था जोन्यूनतम वेतन से अधिक वेतन पहले से ही प्राप्त कर रहे थे ।
एआईआर 1987 सुप्रीम कोर्ट पेज 820 आबिद/ यूनियन ऑफ इंडिया में रेलवे में समान कार्य करने वाले एक कोच अटेंडेंट को ओवर- टाईम भत्ता मिल रहा था जबकि दूसरे को नहीं मिल रहा था तो माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने समानता के आधार पर सभी कोच अटेंडेंट्स को ओवर टाईम भत्ता दिलाया था । उक्त नज़ीर वर्तमान प्रकरण में लागू नहीं होती है क्योंकि इंसपैक्शन बेंग्लो में काम करने वाले चौकीदार फैक्ट्रीज़ एक्ट अथवा मिनिमम वेजेज एक्ट के तहत नहीं आते हैं एवं सीपीडब्ल्यूडीको मिनिमम वेजेज एक्ट के तहत अनुसूची में भी शामिल नहीं किया गया है ।
प्रार्थीगण की बहस के मुताबिक प्रार्थी नं. 1 ने ओवरटाईम आदि के 6,56,000 रु. से अधिक का क्लेम किया है अन्य प्रार्थीगण ने भी इसी प्रकार भिन्न-भिन्न राशियां उक्त मद में क्लेम की है । प्रार्थी अशोक कुमार ने खुद का क्लेम 2,61,000 रु. होना बताया है । इनमें से प्रार्थी सं. 2 पांचूलाल तथा प्रार्थी सं. 3 मोहनलाल साक्षी कक्ष में ही हाजिर नहीं आये हैं उनका क्लेम केवल मात्र उक्त कारण से ही खारिज होने योग्य है। जहां तक शेष पांच प्रार्थीगण का प्रश्न है, उनके बारे में भी अट्ठाईस पृष्ठों की लिखित बहस में प्रार्थीगण के विद्वान अधिवक्ता यह स्पष्ट नहीं कर सके हैं कि प्रार्थीगण कौन से प्रवधानों के तहत ओवरटाईम भत्ता क्लेम कर रहे हैं । जहां तक साप्ताहिक अवकाश, राष्ट्रीय अवकाश अथवा राजपत्रित अवकाश पर प्रार्थीगण से काम लेने का प्रश्न है , सेवा नियमों में ऐसा प्रावधान है कि अवकाश के दिन प्रार्थी को ड्यूटी पर बुलाया जाता है तो एक माह के भीतर वह उस ड्यूटी की एवज में कंपंसेटरी लीव ले सकता है । प्रार्थीगण ने अवकाश पर ड्यूटी की होगी तो निश्चय ही उसने निर्धारित एक माह की अवधि में कंपंसेट्री लीव का उपभोग कर लिया होगा । एक माह की अवधि गुजरने के बाद पिछले पांच- सात साल की कंपंसेटरी लीव को इकट्ठा करने का कोई प्रावधान सेवा नियमों में नहीं होता है । उक्त वजह से प्रार्थीगण इस विलंबित स्टेज पर विपक्षीगण से कंपंसेटरी लीव भी इकट्ठी प्राप्त करने के हकदार नहीं है। हमें बताया गया है कि उक्त ड्रेसपैक्शन बेंग्लो में अब सैनिक बोर्ड से दैनिक वेतन भोगी कर्मचारी मंगाकर चौकीदार के पद पर उनसे आठ घंटे प्रतिदिन के हिसाब से कार्य लिया जा रहा है । सरकारी कर्मचारी काम में ढिलाई बरतेंगे तथा काम से जी चुरायेंगे तो फिर सरकार को दैनिक वेतन भोगी कर्मचारियों से ही काम चलाना पड़ता है । सरकारी कर्मचारी दिन के पूरे चौबीस घंटे के लिए सरकारी कर्मचारी होता है , आठ घंटे के अलावा अतिरिक्त कार्य करने पर भी जिस प्रकार अधिकारियों, निजी सहायकों एवं सुपरवाईज़री कर्मचारियों को कंपंसेट्री लीव भी नहीं मिलती है, उसी प्रकार निम्न वेतन भोगी कर्मचारियों को भी आठ घंटे से अधिक कार्य करने पर केवल मात्र कंपंसेटरी लीव दिये जाने का प्रावधान होताहै, ओवरटाईम भत्ता केवल मात्र फैक्ट्रीज एक्ट एवं मिनिमम वेजेज एक्टके प्रावधानों के तहत कतिपय कर्मचारियों को ही देय होता है एवं केंद्र सरकार का प्रत्येक कर्मचारी ओवरटाईम भत्ता प्राप्त करने का हकदार नहीं कहला सकता है । इस व्यवस्था के विपरीत यदि विपक्षीगण के किसी अधिकारी ने किसी कर्मचारी को ओवरटाईम भत्ता नियमों के विरुद्ध यदि दे भी दिया है तो ऑडिट ऑब्जेक्शन आने पर निश्चय ही विपक्षीगण उस भत्ते को वसूली संबंधित कर्मचारी से कर सकेंगे और इस संबंध में प्रार्थीगण के पक्ष में कोई समानता का अधिकार भी लागू नहीं किया जा सकता है ।
एआईआर 1989 सुप्रीम कोर्ट पेज 1347 डी.एन. पनीकर/ एस.ए.आई.सी. में भी केवल मात्र उन्हीं कर्मचारियों को ओवरटाईम भत्ता माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने दिलाया है , जिन पर फैक्ट्रीज एक्ट अथवा मिनिमम वेजेज एक्ट लागू होता था ।
विपक्षीगण द्वारा उल्लेखित एआईआर 1966 सुप्रीम कोर्ट पेज 1284 वर्कमैन ऑफ बांबे पोर्ट ट्रस्ट बनाम ट्रस्टीज वर्तमान प्रकरण पर किस प्रकार लागू होगी यह विपक्षीगण ने नहीं बताया है । विपक्षीगण ने 1983 दिल्ली एफजेआर पेज 667 का हवाला भी अपनी लिखित बहस
उक्तविवेचन के आधार पर सभी सात प्रार्थीगण का क्लेम एतद्वारा खारिज किया जाकर अवार्ड इस प्रकार पारित किया जाता है कि प्रार्थीगण ओवरटाईम के मद में एवं अवकाशों में काम करने के बदले में विपक्षीगण से वेतन के अतिरिक्त अन्य कोई भत्ते प्राप्त करने के हकदार नहीं हैं । 4484
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30 , 2005/VAISAKHA 10 , 1927
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]
AWARD
The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L-42012/290/94 - IR (DU) daterd 20-7-95/ 4-8-95 has referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication .
अवकाश पर प्रार्थीगण से ऐसी ड्यूटी से एक माह क्ली अवधि में कंपंसेट्री लीव दी जाने के लिए विपक्षीगण से अपेक्षा की जाती है । एक पखवाड़े में कम से कम एक दिन का रेस्ट भी चौकीदार का कार्य करने वाले कर्मचारी को दिया जाना अपेक्षित होता है । इस संबंध में समय-समय पर सरकार द्वारा बनाये गये नियमों की पालना विपक्षीगण द्वारा की जानी भीअपेक्षितहै ।
अतुल कुमार जैन, न्यायाधीश
नई दिल्ली, 7 अप्रैल, 2005
"Whether the action of the management of CPWD , Executive Engineer, (Aviations Division) by not regularising the services of Shri Ram Chander and thereafter terminating the services w.e.f. 21-3-94 is just, fair and legal ? Ifnot, to what relief the workman is entitled ? "
) का.आ. 1640.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. I, नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 83/95 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 7-4-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-42012/290/94- आई आर ( डी यू) ]
कुलदीप राय वर्मा , डैस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 7th April , 2005
2. Brief facts of this case as called from record i.e. statement of claim and written statement/ management's reply are that the workman Shri Ram Chander was appointed asM.L.D. (Driver) on daily rated basis on work order in May, 1989 by management and he had been working as full timeDriver till his illegal termination . His salaries were paid through cheque except one payment was made in cash. The workman made complaint against the management regarding regularisation of his services to the A.L.C. New Delhi on 27-12-93 and on account ofthat his services were terminated on 21-3-94 during the course of conciliation proceedings . The workman has completed 240 days and he was entitled to be regularised as per dated 18-8-93 . The termination of his services is in violation of the order of the Supreme Court and under Section 22 of the I.D. Act and orderofD. G. dated 18-8-93 workman claims full wages with all benefits w.e.f. date of his termination till reinstatement .
S.O. 1640.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 83/95 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court No. 1. New Delhi as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of CPWD and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 7-4-2005 .
[No. L -42012/290/94 - IR (DU) ]
KULDIP RAI VERMA , Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM -LABOUR COURT NEW DELHI
PRESIDING OFFICER : SHRI S. S. BAL
I.D. No. 83/1995
In the matter of dispute between:
Sh . Ram Chander S/ oShri Sumer Chand ,
R/ o 21/126 , Trilokpuri , Delhi -91 , through
Adhyaksh , C.P.W.D. Karamchari Union .
C -26. Bhai Veer Singh Marg
Gole Market , New Delhi .
Workman
Versus
The Executive Engineer,
Delhi Aviation Division ,
East Block Level VII, CPWD ,
3. The case has been contested by the management by filing reply wherein it was admitted that workman worked asM.L.D. (Driver ) in the department wherein it was stated that workman appointed as M.L.D. Driver on contract basis onwork order. He was never appointed by the department as claimed. The payment of the work done on work order was generally paid by cheque by the department while salaries of the workers are paid in cash . The services of the workers were discontinued on 21-3-93 on the expiry of work order (contract period ) as the services were not required further, the same were not discontinued on any complaint ofthe worker to the A.L.C. The workman is not employee of C.P.W.D. Hence the question of terminating services done not arise and as such there is no violation of the provisions contained in section 33 of the I.D. Act, 1947. He has been paid full amount as per work order and nothing is due to him from the department . It is further stated that Director General , CPWD , New Delhi vide letter dated 18/25-5-94 , D.G. (Works) CPWD New Delhi has conveyed no worker on work order shall be regularised even prior to 19-11-1985 . Workman is not entitled to regularisation in service as claimed and he is also not entitled to the relief claimed.
R.K. Puram, New Delhi .
.Management
APPEARANCES : Shri H.A. Khan , Advocate with
workman in person . Shri B.K.
Aggarwal for management.
4. Written statement was followed by rejoinder wherein the contents of the written statement were refuted controverted and those of the claim statement were reiterated to be correct .
4485 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 30, 2005/वैशाख 10, 1927
NewDelhi , the 7th April, 2005
5. Thereafter adducing of evidence by the both the parties arguments were addressed on behalf of the parties .
6. I have heard arguments addressed by A/Rs at length and perused the record carefully.
S.O. 1641. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 206/99) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court No. I, NewDelhi now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Deptt . of Telecom and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on7-4-2005.
[No. L-40012/225/99 -IR(DU) ]
KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT, NEW DELHI
PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI S. S. BAL
LD . No. 206/99
In the matter of dispute between:
Shri Pitamber Dutt Uniyal,
C/o Lt. Col. Jagdish Prasad Joshi, 134/1 , Suman Nagarm Dharampur,
Workman
Dehradun -248001 .
Versus
The Sub Divisional Officer ,
Telecom-Gopeswar,
Distt. Chamoli - 246424 .
....Management
APPEARANCES : Workman in person. None for management
AWARD
7. The point which requires determination in this dispute is whether the workman was daily rated employee ofthe management ofCPWD or whether he was on contract basis. According to the workman-claimant it is stated that he worked as Driver with the CPWD and was its employee while management CPWD denies it and claims that he worked on contract basis as Driver and he was not a regular employee . But worked on daily basis on contract as claimed. Perusal of his cross -examination shows that in his cross -examination workman has stated that he was not issued any appointment letter in May, 1989, he does not know if he was working on contract basis or not . He used to be made payment partly by cheque and partly by cash . The perusal of cross -examination of the workman shows that workman himself is not aware whether he was appointed/working on- contract basis . On the other hand in cross - examination MW1 Shri Akhilesh Kumar has stated thatworkman was not appointed . He was given a contract and on contract he worked up to 1992. Work order was takenfor contract . There is no suggestion that the workman was not employed on contract. The perusal of the statement of workman in cross-examination who was examined as WWI and the statement of MWI go to show that the workman appointed on contract and not on daily rated basis and in view of the above discussions I am of the view that there is no material on record to show that the workman was appointed a Driver on daily rated basis or that he was employee of the CPWD as claimed and the possibility of workman's being employed on contract basis cannot be ruled out as he himself was unable to state in his cross- examination that he was employed on contract or not . In my view the workman is, therefore , not entitled to any relief clamied . The action of the management is legal andjustified. Reference is answered accordingly .
Dated: 16-03-2005
S. S. BAL, Presiding Officer
The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L-40012/225/99 - IR (DU) dated 21-10-99 has referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:-
नई दिल्ली, 7 अप्रैल, 2005
का.आ. 1641.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947
"Whether the action of the management of Telecom Department, Gopeswar in terminating the services for Shri Pitamber Dutt w.e.f. 19-7-87 is legal and justified? Ifnot , to what relief the workman is entitled and from which date ? "
(1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार दूर संचार विभाग के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकारऔद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय. नं . 1 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 206/99 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 7-4-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-40012 /225/99- आई आर (डी यू) ]
2. The case ofthe workman as per his claim statement is that he was appointed in the management of S.D.O. Telecom, Gopeswar, District Chamoli on 1-9-1986 as Daily wages worker and he worked continuously and regularly till 19-7-87 for 280 days ; that the work to be done in the management was of regular nature ; that suddenly his services were discontinued and that no notice was given to him nor any retrenchment compensation was given to him; that the workman has filed reconciliation proceedings कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डैस्क अधिकारी 4486
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30 , 2005/VAISAKHA 10 , 1927
[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] before the ALC (C) Dehradun which is pending; that workers Junior to the workman are still working and after discontinuation of services of workman , other workers have been appointed and the workman has not been taken back on duty; that the management has not complied with the provisions of Section 25 -F, G and H of the I.D. Act . It is prayed that the action of the management be declared illegal and the workman be reinstated in service with full back wages , continuity of service with all consequential benefits .
م 3. In the written statement filed by the management it is alleged that the management has not issued any appointment letter. He started working as daily wager on his own , that the work to be done was not of regular nature . It is denied that the services of the workman were discontinued suddenly on 19-7-87; that the orders of higher authorities were received to terminate the daily wages but no written order to terminate the workman was received and he left on his own. The Management neither admitted nor denied that the conciliation proceedings are pending before A.L.C. (C) Dehradun. It is denied that any junior to workman has been kept and provisions of Section 25 - F, G and H are not complied with Hence the management has stated that claim is liable to be dismissed as it has been filed on worng facts .
4. In the rejoinder the workman denied the facts stated by Management and reiterated his averments made in the claim statement .
5. Evidence of workman recorded and despite several opportunities given to the management, workman was not cross-examined and opportunity to management to cross -examine the workman was closed and then case was fixed for management evidence on 2-12-2003 , 8-3-2004, 19-5-2004 and on 6-7-2004 when the management was procecded ex -parte and then for ex -parte evidence of and arguments case was adjourned to 12-10-2004 thẹn 19-10-2004 ex-parte evidence of workman was recorded and arguments also heard.
6. In his affidavit/evidence workmaan has stated that he was appointed in the office of S.D.O. Telecom Gopeswar on 1-9-86 and worked till 19-7-87 as causal labour for 281 days . He was terminated on 19-7-87 illegally and was not paid retrechment compensation whereas his junior were given temporary status and regularised but he was not taken back on work . He prayed for reinstatement with full back wages .
7. I have heard authorised representative for the workman at length and perused the record . The workman
in his statement recorded on 19-10-04 stated that facts mentioned in his affidavit Ex . WW1 / A are true and correct and his affidavit is duly proved as Ex. WWI / A. He also placed reliance on documents copies of which are exhibited as Ex . WW/ 1 / 1 and 2 documents . Ex . WW1 /2 is the copy of certificate dt. 18-8-98 purported to be issued under the signatures of S.D.O Telecom showing that the workman Pitamber Dutt has worked as C.L. ( Casual Labour) under the Division , District Tehru under this Sub Division for LIT for 280 days month wise. Ex . WW1 / 2 is copy of certificate dated 18-8-98 from September , 86 to July 87. The management respondent has also not denied that he has so worked in the Division of management as casual worker for 281 days . Thus the management has also not denied the averments of the claim statement that the workman claimant has not been given any notice or notice pay/ retrenchment compensation . The case of the management is that the workman joined management Division himsellf ascasual labour and abandoned the job of his own accord. This according to the managemant it is a case of abandonment of duties of job by the workman himself however, it is proved on record that from the affidavit of workman and from claim statement and reply of the management that workman worked at Sub Divisional Office Gopeshwar as casual labour on daily rated basis for 281days w.e.f. 1st September, 86 to 19-7-87 and that he was not given any notice nor paid any retrenchment compensation as claimed by the workman. The plea of the abandonment of work by workman himself taken by the management is not substantiated. The respondent has failed to substantive the plea that the workman abandoned the job of his own volition as stated in written statement . On the contrary there is nothing on record to show in the form of letter written by management respondent addressed to the workman asking him to join the duties. The plea of abandonment of job appears to be after thought and is misconceived and devoid of any merits and appears to have been taken to defeat the claim of the workman . In the absence of any notice and payment of any retrenchment compensation I am of the opinion that the workman has worked for 281 days in a year as casual labour under the Management department at Gopeshwar and as such he can be said to have worked for one year continuously and he has been retrenched without notice and payment of compensation and as such action of the Management of Sub Divisional Officer , Telecom is not legal andjustified and workman being a casual labour in the Telecom Department which is an' Industry' is a workman and the action of the management in terminating and not allowing the workman to work after 19-7-87 is in violation of the provisions contained in Section 25 - F & G of the 1. D. Act .
[ भांग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
4487
भारत का राजपत्र: अप्रैल 30, 2005/वैशाख 10 , 1927
The workman has stated in his affidavit that he is entitled to unemployment compensation or wages during the period of his unemployment but he has nowhere speci- fically stated that he was not working gainfully during the period w.e.f. 1987. Therefore , in my opinion he is entitled to reinstatement with full back wages w.e.f. the date ofhis award. In view of the above discussions award is hereby passed.
Dated 17-3-2005
S. S. BAL, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 7 अप्रैल, 2005
का.आ. 1642.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सैन्ट्रल रेलवे के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय, जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सी. जी. आई. टी./एल.सी./296/99 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 06-04-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-41012/129/99- आई. आर. ( बी-1 ) ]
बी.एम. डेविड, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 7th April , 2005
S.O. 1642. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.CGIT/ LC/ R/ 296/ 99 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal /Labour Court Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the ' employers in relation to the management of Central Railway and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 06-04-2005
[No. L-41012 / 129/99 -IR(B.1 )]
B. M.DAVID , Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT JABALPUR
NO . CGIT/LC/R/296/99
PRESIDING OFFICER : SHRIC. M. SINGH Shri Kanchhedi Lal ,
S/o Shri Sukhandi Lal ,
Vill: Ratanpura, PO Patori
...Workman Tehsil Sihora, Distt Jabalpur (MP)
VERSUS
..Management The Divisional Railway Manager, Central Railway, Jabalpur(M.P. )
AWARD
Passed on this 17th day of March , 2005 The Govt . of India , Ministry of Labour , vide its Notification No. L-41012/ 129/99 IR( B- 1 ) dated 30-8-99 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal :-
"Whether the action of the management of the Divisional Railway Manager , Central Railway, Jabalpur in terminating the services of Shri Kanchhendi Lal S/o Shri Sukhandi Lal , MRCL (Gangman) vide order No. E- 22/DMO " E " / 732 dated 4-12-1993 is legal and justified ? If not to what relief the workman is entitled ? "
2 After the reference order was received, it was duly registered on 13-9-1999 and notice were issued to the parties. The order sheet dated 26-4-03 reveals that the case proceeded ex -parte aganist the management and 24-7-03 was fixed for ex -parte evidence of workman . Thereafter several dates were fixed for ex-parte evidence of workman but the workman failed to adduce ex-parte evidence and ultimately absented himself on 22-6-04 the date fixed in the case. Lastly on 31-1-2005 , one more opportunity was provided to the workman to adduce ex -parte evidence on 9-3-2005 . But on 9-3-2005 , nobody appeared for the parties. Thus ample opportunities have been provided to the workman to produce ex -parte evidence but the workman did not care to adduce ex-parte evidence . In this manner , it is quite clear from the above that the workman does not want to prosecute this reference .
3. Under the above circumstances , No Dispute Award is is without auy order as to costs .
4. C. the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour as per rules .
C. M. SINGH, PresidingOfficer 4488
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30 , 2005/VAISAKHA 10 , 1927
नईदिल्ली, 7 अप्रैल, 2005
का.आ. 1643.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार साउथ सैन्ट्रल रेलवे के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय, बगंलौर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सी.आर. 44/03) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 6-4-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-41012/83/2003- आई आर ( बी. I ) ]
बी.एम. डेविड, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 7th April , 2005
S.O. 1643. ln pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( C.R. No. 44/03 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum-Labour Court, Bangalore now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the entployers in relation to the management of South Central Railway and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 6-4-2005 .
[No. L-41012/83 /2003 - IR (B. I) ]
B. M. DAVID , Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE
Dated : 1st March , 2005
PRESENT
Shri A. R. SIDDIQUI , Presiding Officer
C. R. NO . 44/03
IParty
IIParty
Shri G. V. Mahalhavaldar, P.B. No. 136 , Devarajnagar, Heggeri , OldHubli.
The Chief Personnel Officer South Central Railway, RailNilayam Secunderabad
AWARD
1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferredby clause ( d) of sub - section 2A of the Section 10 ofthe Industrial disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute videOrder No. L- 41012/83/ 2003 - IR (B - I) dated 22/28th August 2003 for adjudication on the following schedule:
[PART 11 -SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]
SCHEDULE
"Whether the management of Railways is justified in delaying the issue of promotion Orders to Shri G.V. Mahalhavaldar on refusal of promotion by Shri N.J. Krishna? If not to what relief the workman is entitled to ? "
2. In response to the notices issued by this Tribunal, the first party sent his Claim gatement through post whereas, Shri S.N. Sali advocate undertook to file vakalat for Second Party Management . Despite several opportunities given to the management , said advocate failed to file the Vakalat and failed to file any Counter Statement in response to the Claim Statement filed by the first party. Therefore , as per the order sheet dated 29-9- 2004, the matter came to be posted for evidence to lead on behalf ofthe first party. On 15-10-2004 when the case was taken up for hearing , the first party remained absent . He also remained absent on 18-1-2005 and there will be no representation on their behalf. The proceedings were taken close for the purpose of evidence and case is posted for award.
3. The case of the tirst party as made out in the Claim Statement at Paras 1 to 4 runs as under :-
" That the seniority list is maintained by the department pertaining to Electrical department and copy is annexed herewith as Annexure ' A' . As per the Annexure ' A' my seniority is " . S. No. 64. During promotion as per seniority list annexure ' A' the S. No. 63 is Shri N.J. Krishna. Shri . N. J. Krishna was not willing for promotion and rejected promotion. Hence 1 applied for promotion byletter dated 22-6-1994 to give promotion since Shri N. J. Krishna has given unwillingness letter for promotion. The promotion is to the AEF from i , e. Assistant Electrical Foreman to the scale of Rs . 1600-2660 as per promotion orderbearing No. H.P. 535 /VI/2 /Vol . 4 dated 17-6-93 . Copy attached herewith as annexure ' A' . The promotion is tobe effective from 17-6-1993 since Shri N.J. Krishna was unwilling; 1 was entitled to said promotion as 1 am next senior in seniority list . Hence 1 applied for promotion in place of Shri N.J. Krishna. My application is kept pending and I am given promotion to said post on 31-5-1996 as promotion order bearing No. 1 /P. 535 /Sup/Elec ./Vol . IV and copy is attached herewith as Annexure -A'3 . 1 am promoted to said post w.e.f. 16-5-1996 at the scale 1600-2660 .
Therefore till 16-5-1996, 1 was not promoted and post was kept vacant. Actually as per seniority list 1 would have beengiven promotion as on 17-6-1993 in place of Shri N.J. Krishna ( resultant vacancy). Thus I am Deprived of Salary benefits of promotion post from 17-6-1993 to 16-5-1996.
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]
4489
भारत का राजपत्र: अप्रैल 30, 2005 /वैशाख 10 , 1927
As per new scale the said promotion post has pay scale Rs . 5,500 to Rs . 9,000/- from 1-1-1996 . For my pay scale my basic pay of old scale ofRs. 1900/ - , the new scale should be Rs . 6025/ -from 1-1-1996. Copy attached as Annexure ' 2' . Therefore , I am entitled to scale of Rs . 6025/- w.e.f. 1-1-1996. So also I am entitled to difference of pay from 17-6-93 to 16-5-1996 .
4. Therefore , as per the averments in the Claim statement , it was incumbent on the part of the first party to have entered into the witness box or else to produce some oral or documentary evidence in support of his claim that there was delay in promoting him to the post of AEF and that he was entitled to difference of pay w.e.f. 17-6-93 to 16-5-96 treating him as promoted as on 17-6-1993 . His main contention was that one Mr. Krishna who was promoted to the said post expressed his unwillingness to the said promotion to be given effect from 17-6-93 and therefore, the management was not justified in delaying his promotion to the said post from 17-6-93 till 16-5-96 on which date he was promoted to the said post being senior to the said Krishna . These were all the contentions to be established by the first party by adducing evidence on the point. It was for the first party to establish before this tribunal as whether he had right to seek promotion to the said post w.e.f. 17-6-93 and that the management was not justified withholding his promotion till 16-5-96. Since the first party has not come forward to substantiate his claim and the averments made in the Claim Statement , this tribunal has no alternative but to hold that there is no merit in the claim ofthe first party and accordingly the reference deserves to be rejected . Hence the following Award.
AWARD
The reference is rejected . No. order to cost . ( Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected and signed by me on 1stMarch, 2005)
A.R. SIDDIQUI, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 7 अप्रैल, 2005
का.आ. 1644.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार पूर्वी रेलवे 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 आई.डी. 115/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 6-4-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-41012/29/2002- आई आर ( बी. I ) ]
बी.एम. डेविड, अवर सचिव 1234G1/05-29
New Delhi , the 7th April , 2005
S.O. 1644.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) . the Central Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 115/2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal / Labour Court Lucknow now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Eastern Railway and their workman,which was received by the Central Government on6-4-2005.
[No. L-41012/29/2002-IR ( B. I) ] B. M. DAVID . Under Secy. ANNEXURE
CENTRALGOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM - LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW PRESENT
SHRIKANT SHUKLA , Presiding Officer I.D. NO . 115/2002 L-41012/29 /02 /IR ( B - 1 ) Dated 28-6-2002 Between Sh. Mashook S/ o Late Nabi Bakash C/ o Sh . Parvez Alam, 283/63 B Garhi Kannora ( Premwati Nagar ) Post Manak Nagar, Lucknow - 226002 The Sr. D.M.E. ( S.M.D. ) Eastern Railway, DRM Office . Ashok Mary, Lucknow/Sr . C.D.O. Lucknow - 226001
AWARD
The Government of India , Minstry of Labour referred the following dispute for adjudication to Presiding Officer . CGIT -cum- Labour Court , Lucknow:
" क्याप्रबन्धक, पूर्वोत्तर रेलवे लखनऊ द्वारा कर्मकार श्री माशूक पुत्र स्व. नबी बकश को दिनांक 13-11-96 से नौकरी से निकाला जाना उचित एवं न्याय संगत है ? यदि नहीं तो कर्मकार किस अनुतोष पाने का अधिकारी है ।"
The workman's case in brief' is that he was employed as Safaiwala , Ticket No. 698 wie i 6-12-1965 in the office of C.D.O ( Coaching Depot Officer ) Gorakhpur . The worker's allegations is that he was removed from the service by order dt . 13-11-96 without any show cause notice , charge sheet and the opportunity of defence violating the Railway's Regulations and I.D. Act. 1947 4490
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30, 2005 /VAISAKHA 10, 1927
and without observing principle of natural justice . It is also alleged that the worker preferred an appeal against the said removal order and he continued sending reminders but the appeal has not yet been disposed. Worker has stated that the worker was physically sick and after the removal he has become more sick with the result that his family is subjected to condition where in it is not possible to arrange meal . He has further submitted that he has always been obident during the course of his service and has been performing his duties without any complaint . He has therefore requested that his order of removal dt . 13-11-96 be set aside and should be reinstated with full back wages .
[PART II -SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] According to the workman he moved an application the contents of which are re - produced below:
श्रीमान मडंल रेल प्रबन्धक,
पू. उ. रे. लखनऊ
द्वारा सुनाई अधीक्षक पू.उ.रे. गोरखपुर
विषय : स्वैच्छिक सेवा निवृत्ति का प्रार्थना पत्र हेतु सविनय निवेदन है कि प्रार्थी दिनांक 6-12-65 के अधीन समनि अधीक्षक लखनऊ में सफाई वाला के पद पर कार्य करता था प्रार्थी ने 65 से 1992 में अपना स्थानान्तरण गोरखपुर खुद कराया था क्योंकि प्रार्थी की औरत हमेशा-2 बीमार रहती थी फिर भी प्रार्थी की औरत की तबीयत ठीक न होने के कारण प्रार्थी न तो कार्य कर पाता है जिससे प्रार्थी का दिमाग काभ नहींकरता है जिससे प्रार्थी की किसी भी वक्त दुर्घटना हो सकती है इसलिये श्रीमान जी से प्रार्थना है कि प्रार्थी के बच्चों पर ध्यान देकर प्रार्थी को सेवानिवृत्ति करने की कृपा करें आप की महान कृपा होगी ।
प्रार्थी
ह.माशूक CWS R.K. गुप्ता
CDO मयुरसाहन
The Sr. Divisional Mechnical Engineer has filed written statement on behalf of employer where in it has been alleged that the worker absented without any prior intimation w.ec.f. 18-11-94 to 20-10-96 . For this unautnorised absence the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and during the disciplinary procceding the worker was afforded full opportunity to defend himself and accordingly he has been removed from service . It has also been alleged that the worker has not submitted any appeal before the Appellatte Authority . It is also alleged that the case is time barred and accordingly worker's statement of claim is liable to be dismissed.
सफाई वाला टिकट नं. 698 गोरखपुर The worker's representative has stated that the worker is illeterate person who hardly writes his name preferred the original copy of this CWS Sri R.K. Gupta who received on behalf of CDO , NER, Gorakhpur .
The worker's representative has also stated that the worker sent another letter to DRM, NER , Lucknowdt. 1-9-97 paper No. 13/4 and 13/5 which reads as under :
सेवामें,
श्रीमान डी. आर.एम. महोदय,
पूर्वोत्तर रेलवे
Worker has filed rejoinder and has stated that the worker on 17-11-94 requested DRM. NER , Lucknow through Coaching Depot Officer , NER , Gorakhpur for voluntary retirement due to mental sickness and domestic problems . It is also alleged that Coaching Depot . Officer. NER, Gorakhpur verbally denied the worker to take him on job and assured that his application will be forwarded to DRM, Lucknow. It is also stated that the worker is uneducated person and he is not aware of the rules and laws. He has also stated that on 13-11-96 he was orally informed that he was removed from service but no show- cause notice were served to him nor any punishment order was sent to him . The worker has filed photocopy of 2 applications paper No. 13/3 and 13/4 .
Opposite party has filed the photocopy of enquiry proceeding paper No. C- 15/ 1 to 15/8.
Opposite party has also filed paper No. C - 19 to C- 19/4 the other documents of disciplinary proceeding .
Worker has examined himself and closed his evidence .
The management has examined one carpenter III CDO, Gorakhpur namely Sohrat Prasad.
Heard learned representative of the parties and perused on record.
लखनऊ
संदर्भ : दण्डादेश स.एन.आई.पी.स.एम. /सी.डी.ओ./नन/96 दिनांक 22-7-97 विषय : प्रार्थी को वालीनटेरी रिटायरमेन्ट हेतु प्रार्थना पत्र महोदय,
प्रार्थी विनम्रता पूर्वक निम्नलिखित निवदेन करना चाहता है :
( 1 ) यह कि प्रार्थी दि. 6-12-65 को माननीय सी.डी.ओ. पूर्वोत्तर रेलवे गोरखपुर के अधीन सफाई वाले के पद पर नियुक्त हुआ था तथा दि. 17-11-94 तक लगातार कार्यरत रहा ।
(2 ) यह कि प्रार्थी एक अनपढ़ एवं गंवार व्यक्ति है उसे विभागीय नियमों का कोई ज्ञान नहीं है प्रार्थी अत्याधिक गरीब व्यक्ति है [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
उसके पास अपने परिवार के भरण पोषण का कोई साधन नहीं है।
(3 ) यह कि प्रार्थी आर्थिक तंगी के कारण अत्याधिक बीमार रहने लगा तथा पीलिया से ग्रसित हो गया । कुछ समय बाद मानसिक रूप से अस्वस्थ्य हो गया जिसकी सूचना एक प्रार्थना पत्र के माध्यम से अपनी पत्नी के द्वारा अपने अधिकारी महोदय को दि. 17-11-94 को प्रस्तुत करके सेवानिवृत्ति करने का प्रार्थना पत्र दी थी । प्रार्थना पत्र साथ में संलग्न है ।
(4 ) यह कि प्रार्थी इलाज कराने के बाद कुछ स्वस्थ होने पर अपने कार्यालय में अपनी पत्नी के साथ जाकर पता किया तो मालूम हुआ कि मुझे अनाधिकृत रूप से अनुपस्थित रहने के कारण एन.आई.पी.स.एम/सी.डी.ओ/नवम्बर/ 96 दिनांक 22-7-97 के अनुसार नौकरी से निकाल दिया गया है प्रार्थी इससे पूर्व भी कार्यालय गया था वहां उससे कुछ कागज हस्ताक्षर करा लिये थे परन्तु अनपढ़ होने के कारण व मानसिक अस्वस्थहोने के कारण उसके विषय में कुछ समझ नहीं सका ।
(5 ) यह कि प्रार्थी अपने इलाज के कारण अत्यधिक कर्जदार हो गया है तथा भुखमरी के कगार पर पहुंच गया है व जीवन में अंधेरा ही अंधेरा दिखाई दे रहा है तथा पेंशन के अतिरिक्त अन्य कोई सहारा नहीं हैं प्रार्थी को एक पैसे का भुगतान आज तक नहीं हुआहै । एक पढ़े लिखे व्यक्ति से प्रार्थना पत्र लिखवा कर प्रस्तुत कर रहा हूं ।
अतः आपसे करबद्ध प्रार्थना है कि प्रार्थी की पूर्व की सेवाओं को ध्यान में रखते हुये तथा दयनीय स्थिति से उबारते हुये उसे सेवानिवृत्त करते हुए पेंशन आदि का भुगतान करने हेतु आदेश प्रदान करने का कष्ट करें महान कृपा होगी ।
प्रार्थी दिनांक 9-9-97
ह. माशूक
4491
भारत का राजपत्र: अप्रैल 30 , 2005 /वैशाख 10, 1927
From the evidence on record it is proved that during the enquiry proceeding against the worker in respect of alleged charge sheet , Mashook worker participated in the said enquiry on 12-7-97 however , he absented on 14-7-97.
Itis evident from the statement of R. K. Srivastava on 14-7-97 that there is error in the statement of R. K. Srivastava who has stated that Mashook absented from 27-11-93 to 12-11-96 . This shows that R. K. Srivastava has no knowledge of the case because according to him management case Sri Mashook absented from 18-11-94 to 20-10-96 . It appears that R. K. Srivastava was not aware of the facts for which he was deposed.
Itis true that worker is not educated person who is illeterate who hardly puts his name while signing it .
The worker representative has not challenged enquiry proceeding as a whole and he has admitted absent from 18-11-94 to 20-10-96 but at the same time he has also point out that the worker sought voluntary retirement vide his letter No. 13/3 and it is also argued by him that since the worker was not aware of the rules and regulations and therefore the application was not noticed at the time of enquiry but at the same time he has stated that the punishment order is to harsh and shocking . The representative of the workınan has stated that the worker puthis satisfactory services from 6-12-65 to 18-11-94. Thus the worker has successfully completed about 29 years of service and he was unable to continue in service i.c. the reason he wanted voluntary retirement so that worker could manage his family with the meager pens on which he could get . But unfortunately his application was put in dustbin by the office and the worker was deprived by legitimate pension and gratuity.
सफाई वाला विट. नं . 698
सी. डी. ओ. गोरखपुर
The worker has been served the charge sheet dt. 8-11-96 on the charge of worker absenting himself from duty from 18-11-94 to 20-10-96 without information. According to the workman Sri Mashook the worker who has served more 20 years service in railways is entitled to the voluntary retirement benefits but his demand of voluntary retirement has been denied by the railways and according he has stated in examination in chief that he is entitled to retiral benefits . On the other hand the management witness carpenter Sohrat Prasad stated that Mashook never gave any application for retirement .
Sohrat Prasad has also stated that the worker did not stated during the enquiry proceeding that he at all requested for voluntary retirement .
Opposite party representative Sri Rahul Nigam has argued the management case and stated that the worker was given opportunity to defend his case before enquiry officer but the worker himself opted to remain absent on 14-7-97. In case he brought the said facts before the enquiry officer the enquiry officer must have give his report accordingly to the disciplinary authority and disciplinary authority could have considered worker's case . He has stated that the worker has not been able to give application before the enquiry officer and before this court and therefore this facts does not lie in mouth of the worker's representative that he wanted voluntary retirement i.e. why heabsented from duty. In totality of the fact that the worker after putting more than 25 years of service has been removed from service depriving him of pension and other retiral benefits due to his long absence . The question therefore arises whether in the circumstances of the case the removal of the service is dispropertionate to mis- conduct . The worker's representative has stated that it may be looked that the worker is illeterate person he thought he has given application seeking lus retirement 4492
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30 , 2005/VAISAKHA 10, 1927
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] and therefore he will not removed from ' the service . According to the Worker's representative there are in all 3 punishment which could not awarded to a employee who absents from duty without information:
1. Dismissal from service
2. Removal from service
3. Compulsary retirement
Learned representative of the worker has stated that the said case is proper case law in the case of present worker Sri Mashook . The second case law referred above is a constable of CRPF who over stayed the sanctioned leave and remain absent from duty for 49 days . The Hon'ble High Court Allahabad came to the conclusion that the punishment of dismissal is too harsh and replaced by minor punishment . The 3rd case referred above is about government servant who was dismissed after 20 years of service . Punishment of dismissed converted into compulsory retirement on compassionate grounds to enable the applicant to earn retirement benefits .
The worker's representative has stated that in present case Mashook rendered blotless service in the railway w.e.f. 6-12-65 to 28-11-94 . The worker does not pray that he should be reinstated with back wages . He only prays that his case should be given sympathetic consideration for compulsary retirement from service so that he could get some amount to enable his family members to get meal twice a day. Worker representative says that the punishment inflicted to the worker is disproportionate .
4th case law stated is Scooters India Ltd. Lucknow and Labour Court , Lucknow and refers to the U. P. I.D. Act 47. In the said case law it has been laid down that despite findings management's enquiry against the workman to be fair and lawful , iabour court setting aside the order of dismissal and order reinstatement with back wages having regard to the circumstances of the facts . On facts non- interference calls . Thatjustice must be tempered with mercy and that the erring workman should given an opportunity to reform himself and prove to be a loyal and disciplined employee of the petitioner company.
The management representative Sri Rahul Nigam has stated that the worker has not put forth his appeal before the Appellattte Authority he ought to have file his appeal and since he has not filed the appeal issue is not maintainable . However, he has not been able to show any law to the fact that if the appeal is not filed then the dispute referred shall stand not maintainable .
laws: The worker's representative has filed following case
1. 2001 ( 89 ) FLR 435 of Hon'ble High Court , Allahabad between Union of India and Bishwanbhran TH Misra and another.
2. 2001 ( 91 ) FLR 613 of Hon'ble High Court . Allahabad between L /NK Musafir Adav and Commandant 47 Bn. CRPF, Gandhi Nagar and others .
3. 1984 ( SC ) page 481 of Hon'ble Supreme Court , betweenHussaini vs Hon Chief Justice ofHigh Court of Judicalini at Allahabad and others .
All the case law cited above give me guidelines that in such cases the when worker has been absented without intimation should not be dealt with harsh punishment like that from the removal from service . 1 also come to the conclusion that the punishment inflicted on the workman is shocking and I also come to the conclusion that the court should be mercyful in dealing with case when a worker completed 25 years of service. Therefore I come to the conclusion that punishment inflicted to the workman is shocking and harsh . It will meet the end of justice if the worker is ordered to be compulsory retired from the service so that he may get the retiral benefits as per rules of railways . The issue is therefore answered accordingly against the management and in favour of the worker. The order of removal from service dt . 13-11-96 is therefore illegal and improper and the worker is entitled to relief of compulsory retirement from the date mentioned above . 20-3-2005
Lucknow
4 1989 ( SCC ) ( L& S ) page 180 Scooters India Ltd. Lucknow vs. Labour Court , Lucknow.
SHRIKANT SHUKLA, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 7 अप्रैल, 2005
5. 1984 AIR SC page 215 Union of India and others vs. Girraj Sharma.
का.आ. 1645.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एन. एफ. रेलवे के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय गुहाटी के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 9/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 06-04-2005 कोप्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-41011/27/ 2002- आई आर ( बी. [ ) ]
बी.एम. डेविड, अवर सचिव I have carefully gone through the above case laws . The first case law refers to our own High Court . Allahabad where in respondent Bishwanbharn TH Misra was in railway service . He was removed from service or his absence without leave . Central Administrative Tribunal substituted by punishment of compulsary retirement and then enabled him to get pensionary benefits . Hon'ble Allahabad High Court ruled there is no reason to interfere with no crror illegality committed by Tribunal.
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii). ]
New Delhi , the 7th April, 2005
S.O. 1645.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 9 of 2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court Guwahati now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of N. F. Railway and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on06-04-2005.
[No. L-41011 /27/2002- IR(B. I) ]
B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, GUWAHATI REFERENCE NO . 9 OF 2004
PRESENT:
Shri H. A. Hazarika, LL. B. PRESIDING OFFICER
CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT , GUWAHATI In the matter of an Industrial Dispute between:
The General Manager (P) , N.F. Railway, Guwahati .
-vrs-
TheWorkman,
Represented by the General Secretary, RailMazdur Union, N.F. Railway,
27/B, Rest Camp. , Pandu.
Date of Award : 14-03-2005
AWARD
1. The Government of India, Ministry ofLabour, New Delhi vide its Notification No. L -41011 /27 /2002 - IR (B-1 ) dated 10-12-2002 referred this Industrial dispute arose between the Management of N. F. Railway and the workman Sri T. K. Baishya and Abul Naser for adjudication and to pass an order by exercising power conferred under Clause -D of Sub- Sec . ( 1) and Sub- Sec . (2 A) of Section 10 of the I. D. Act , 1947 on the basis of the following Schedule .
SCHEDULE
" Whether the action of the management of N.F. Railway in not granting the Group -C post/category to Shri Tapan Kr. Baishya and Abul Naser at the time ofabsorption to another Deptt . as surplus staff w.e.f. February 1998 is justified ? If not , what relief Shri Tapan Kr. Baishya and Abul Naser are entitled to ? "
4493
भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 30, 2005 /वैशाख 10, 1927
2.On receipt of referred matter the State Industrial Tribunal, Guwahati issued notice to both the Parties.Having receipt the Notices both the parties appeared before the State Tribunal .
3. Itis partinent to note here that after establishment of CGIT - Cum-Labour Court for North East Region at Guwahati , record of proceeding is received by the CGIT- cum-Labour Court at Guwahati .
4. Meanwhile both the parties have submitted their written Statements , etc.
5. The case ofthe Workman briefly from their Written Statement is that they were appointed in Group -D category post in N. F. Railway's Security Department of Fire Service Wing in the year 1998 with all the benefits till their transfer in the Accounts Department on being rendered surplus due to freezing of the Fire Services Wing and at this stage their actual status was of Group -C Category. According to Board's revised policy and list of Group-C staff surplus was not available to them because of the non publishing of listbyManagement . As per Railway Board's policy relating to redeployment importance should be given to senior staff for absorption in the same pay and Scale Comparison to their junior staff. But in case of the workmen the Management has done whimsically violating the Railway Board's categorical instruction . They were Group- C employees enjoying the Scale of 4th as well as 5th Pay Commission but they were absorbed in Group -D category though their status was upgraded to Group -C and Scales witheffect from 1-1-96. Both the workmen were working in the Fire Service Wing at Pandu and Guwahati respectively and those bases were closed in the year 1995. When an establishment is closed there ought to have been modelity of redeployment. The Management has not complied of modelity as a result of that they had to apply for their redeployment in the Accounts Department in Group -D Posts .
6.That for closure or freezing of particular Section of service the permanent employees are not responsible but Management is responsible.
7. That the Management did not try to settle all the claims of the workmen . Even beforce the Labour Commissioner the Management did not try to settle it .
8. That the inaction of the Railway Management has violated the principle ofNatural Justice.
9.Hence, the workmen prayed to pass award to give them benefit of status of Group - C category with full protection of seniority and Pay and Allowances .
10. The case of the Management in brief is that the claim of the workmen is not maintainable in law:
4494
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30 , 2005/VAISAKHA 10 , 1927
11. That this Tribunal has got no jurisdiction to adjudicate the referred matter as it ought to have been before the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal u/ s 14 (A) of the CAT's Act 1985 .
12. That the workmen namely Sri Tapen Kr . Baishya and Abul Naser applied to absorb them respectively in Group -D category Post and Junior Clerk in the Accounts Department in Maligaon .
13. That the applications of the workmen were accepted by the Competent authority for absorption in Scale of Rs . 2550-3200 for the Post of Peon vide office order No. G/ 454 dated 13-5-1999 and G/459 dated 13/14-05-98 with certain terms and conditions such as :-
(i) That there seniority will be assigned (ii ) They can not seek retransfer to their parent (iii) Their lien will be maintained in their Parent (iv) Their option to seek transfer as Peon in scale (v) No T.A. , D.A. , Transfer grant..
(vi) Their pay will be fixed as per extent Rules (vii) They can not seek transfer within one and 14. That the above terms and conditions are accepted by the workmen and there is no scope to reopen the matter as such Management prayed to dismiss the claim of the workmen.
15. The workmen Abul Naser appeared as W.W.1 and Tapan Kr . Baishya appeared as W. W. 2. Both of them are cross examined by the learned Advocate Mr. S. N. Choudhury, for the Management .
16. Both the workmen deposed that at the time of their transfer to Accounts Section they were working in Group- C category having scale of 4th and 5th Pay Consmission.
17. That they were told by the Management that Fire Wing will be abolished and to apply elsewhere as on abolition they will be surplus. Finding no other alternative they were compelled to apply in Group -D category but no surplus list was shown by the Management .
[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ] 18. That their names are apparent in the seniority list .
In cross-examination W.W.I deposed that he has not received any letter about abolition of Fire Wing ofRPF. That in his application he has not mentioned that for being surplus in Fire Wing RPF, he had to apply for the post of Junior Clerk.
So also in cross-examination W.W. 2 deposed as regards the surplus , he was getting information from his office, but he has not received any written notices . He knows 6 workers junior to him were absorbed in Category -C which he objected . They denied in their deposition that Management has not committed any injustice to them by giving them Group-D post .
19. Heard the argument submitted by learned Advocate Mr. K. K. Biswas for the workman and Mr. S. N. Choudhury for the Management. Perused the evidence recorded by me and all other documents in the record.
20. The workmen claimed that they were enjoying the benefits of scale etc. of Group-C of 4th and 5th Pay Commission prior to their absorption in Category - D in Accounts Department . Afrading the abolition of RPF Fire Wing and to be defuncted they complied the direction of the Management and under compelled circumstances they applied to get absorption in Accounts Department . Accordingly under compelled circumstances they joined.
21. The Management denied the ground agitated by the workmen that due to abolishment and being surplused they were absorbed in the Accounts Department .
22. On perusal of evidence of solitary Management Witness I find the MW is evasived about the abolition of Railway Fire Wing and about surplus . The M. W. is also evasive about the exect status of workman at the stage of absorption from RPF Security to Accounts Department . Categorically the MW could not say that there was no question of abolishment , surplus and that they were not theworkmen under Group-C category.
23. What I find both the workmen were enjoying the benefits of Pay and Status of the Category -C at the time of their absorption in Accounts Department . Admittedly they were absorbed in Category -D in Accounts Department .
24. 1 find there was question of abolition of RPF Fire Wing and to be surplused. Being afraid to be surplused due to abolition of RPF Fire Wing the Workmen joined in the Category D of the Accounts Department . Hence . the ground forwarded by the workmen about compelled circumstances has got force because no workman will select to be defuncted at the stage while they are carning their monthly salaries . On the other hand it is to be seen that no workman who is enjoying benefit of Pay of 4th and 5th Pay [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
4495
भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 30, 2005/वैशाख 10 , 1927
Commission will choose to come to join in Category of law salary. So the ground of compelled circumstances is quite natural. During these sky high price rising days no workman will prefer to join in law salary leaving the high salary.
25. There ought to have been modelity for abolition ofa Wing for redeployment . I find no such procedure is followed by the Management . So also there is no list of surplus . The workmen claimed that 6 persons junior to them were promoted to Group -C . The answer of the MW in this connection is also evasived . So what I find the claim of the workmen has got legal force that they are deprived from legitimate entitlement . As per the MW there is presently no existence of vacancy in Group - C . What I find workmen are in continous service in the N. F. Railway Management, Maligaon . For ends of natural justice , the Management can not deny the legitimate claim of the workman in present circumstances of the case. It is the responsibility of the Management to give proper justice for the welfare of the workmen by way of promotion. I find both the workmen are entitled to get the promotion to Category - C. The Management is to arrange for their promotion . Accordingly this Schedule (issue) is decided in favour of the workmen. Prepare the Award and transmit it to the Government urgently as per procedure.
H. A. HAZARIKA , Presiding Officer, नई दिल्ली, 7 अप्रैल, 2005
का.आ. 1646. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार उत्तरी रेलवे के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय, कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या आई. डी. 77/99 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 6-4-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल -41012/ 139 /98- आई आर ( बी. I ) ]
बी.एम. डेविड, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 7th April , 2005
S.O. 1646. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( I.D. No. 77/99) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum -Labour Court Kanpur now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Northern Railway and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 6-4-2005 .
[No. L-41012/ 139/98- IR (B. I) ]
B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SRI SURESH CHANDRA PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT/LOKADALAT, SARVODAYA NAGAR, KANPUR
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO . 77 Of 99 In the matter of Dispute between :
Sri Surendra Kumar S/o Ram Swarup , VillageNaralaAmhaar, PostJhugiri , District Etawah , UttarPradesh
AND
The Divisional Power Engineer,
Parichalan, NorthernRailway, Allahabad, U.P.
AWARD
1. Central Government , Ministry of Labour, New Delhi , vide its notification No. L -41012/ 139/98 - IR (BI ) dated has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :-
Whether the action of the Divisional power Engineer Parichalan Northern Railway , Allahabad in terminating the services fo Sri Surendra Kumar w.e.f. 11-12-91 is legal and justified? If not to what relief the workman is entitled?
2. In the instant case after exchange of pleadings between the parties , the case was taken up for evidence of the parties . But unfortunately both the contesting parties failed to adduce their respective evidence in support of their claim . Therefore , virtually the present case is case of no evidence . It is settled principle of law that party raising dispute first to lead evidence in support of his case and in case he fails to lead evidence in support of his case, his claim must fail and he cannot be held entitled to claim any relief. Needless to mention that on failure to put appearance onthe date fixed parties were debarred from adducing their respective evidence by the tribunal .
4496
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30 , 2005 /VAISAKHA 10, 1927
3. in the facts and circumstances stated above , the tribunal is left with no other option but to hold that the claimant ofthe present dispute is not entitled for any relief for want of evidence . Reference is answered accordingly against the workman and in favour of the management .
SURESH CHANDRA , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 8 अप्रैल, 2005
का.आ. 1647.- 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 20/1994 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 07-04-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-22012/335/94- आई आर ( सी. II ) ]
एन. पी. केशवन, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 8th April , 2005
S.O. 1647.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref . No. 20/ 1994) 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, which was received by the Central Government on 07-04-2005 .
[No. L - 22012/ 335/ 94 - IR ( C. II) ]
N. P. KESAVAN , Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL
Present : Sri Md . Sarfaraz Khan , Presiding Officer.
REFERENCE NO . 20 OF 1994
Parties :
The Agent, Bhanora Colliery of M/ s ECL P.O. Chabdrapur, Dist . Burdwan (WB)
....Management
Vrs .
Sri Krishna Prasad Sinha , Pit Clerk representedby West Bengal Coalfields Shramik Congress , Asansol .
.....Workman
[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] REPRESENTATIVES :
Sri P. Goswami , Advocate .
:
Forthe Management
For the Workman ( Union) : Sri S. A. Vakil , Advocate .
INDUSTRY: COAL
STATE : WEST BENGAL Dated the 4th March, 2005
AWARD
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section ( 1 ) and Sub- section 2 (A) of the Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act . 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , Government of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L - 22012/335/ 94 - IR ( C II ) dated 15-11-1994 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by thisTribunal .
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of Bhanora Colliery ofEastern Coalfields Ltd. in stopping the payment of underground allowance to Shri Krishna Prasad Sinha . PitClerk w.e.f. December, 1987 is legal andjustified?" If not to what relief is the workman entitled to? "
In pursuant to the receipt of the order of the aforesaid reference from the Ministry of Labour, Govt. of India summons were issued through the registered post to the respective parties and both the parties having received the summons appeared in the Court throguh their respective representatives and filed the written statement in support of their claims .
3.On perusal of the record it transpires that the case was fixed for evidence of the union on 7-1-2003 and on the subsequent date i.e. on 10-3-2003 a death certificate alongwith a time petition to file a petition of substitution ofthe heirs of the deceased workman concerned was filed which was allowed but unfortunately the lawyer of the workman concerned left taking any step for the substitution ofthe heirs of the deceased workman . again summon was issued to the Secretary of the Union representing the workman concerned but unfortunately even after due service no step was taken by the side of the union. This reference is pending for disposal since the year 1994 and the same could not be disposed off due to lack of interest of the union . Now no useful purpose to be solved in keeping this record pending in obeyance . It appears that the union has got no interest to pursue the record. As such in the prevailing facts and circumstances of the case let a "No Dispute Award" be and the same is passed. Send the copies ofthe award to the Ministry of Labour for information and needful . The reference is accordingly disposed off.
MD. SARFARAZ KHAN . Presiding Officer [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
4497
भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 30, 2005/वैशाख 10 , 1927
नईदिल्ली, 8 अप्रैल, 2005
का.आ. 1648.-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 ( संदर्भ संख्या 37/1997 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को7-04-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल -22012/126/96- आई आर ( सी- II ) ]
एन.पी. केशवन, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 8th April , 2005
S.O. 1648.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 37/1997) 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, which was received by the Central Government on 7-4-2005.
[No. L -22012/126/96- IR ( C- II) ] N.P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL
PRESENT :
SRI . MD. SARFARAZ KHAN, Presiding Officer .
REFERENCE NO . 37/1997
PARTIES:
The Agent, Parascola Colliery, P.O. Kajoragram,
Distt. Burdwan .
Management
Versus
Sri H.B. Parmar,
Clerk represented by
National Coal Workers Congress ,
P.O. Ukhra,
Workman.
Distt. Burdwan .
REPRESENTATIVES :
For the management
: Sri D.P. Mukherjee ,
Dy. P.M.
For the Workman
(Union)
: Sri K. Chatterjee, Addl . General Secretary of the Union .
: Coal.
Industry
State
: West Bengal .
Dated : 18-02-2005 .
1234673..
AWARD
Inexercise of the powers conferred by caluse ( d) of Sub-Section ( 1 ) , and Sub -Section 2 (A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , Government ofIndia through the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L-22012/ 126/96- IR ( C - II) dated 05-06-1997 has beenpleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribuanl .
SCHEDULE
"Whether the demand of the National Coal Workers Congress for payment of salary for the period 9-11-90 to 26-4-92 to Sh. H.B. Parmer, Clerk, Parascola Colliery under Kajora Area of ECL is legal and Justified? Ifso, to what relief is the workman entitled ? " 2. Having received the order of the above reference from the Government of India through the Ministry of Labour, summons were issued to the respective parties through the registered post and after having received the summons both parties appeared through their representatives and filed their written statement in support oftheir claims .
3. From perusal of the record it transpires that the last step was taken by the union on 7-2-2002 and thereafter left taking any step in this case . The record further goes to show that again notice was sent to the union to appear in the court in order to take suitable steps in this on its behalf ofbut unfortunately inspite of receipt of the notice due service of the summons no body turned up to safeguard the interest of the delinquent workman . The reference is pending since the year 1997 and due to irregular and casual appearance of the union the reference could not be disposed of.
4. In the prevailing facts and circumstances of the case I do not think proper to keep the proceeding pending any more as no furitful purpose is to be solved .
5.Accordingly it is hereby
ORDER
that let a " No Dispute Award " be and the same is passed. Send the copies of the reference to the Ministry of Labour for information and needful . The reference is accordingly disposed of.
MD. SARFARAZ KHAN , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 8 अप्रैल, 2005
का.आ. 1649.-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 4498
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30 , 2005 /VAISAKHA 10 , 1927
[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]
AWARD
(संदर्भ संख्या 93/1999 ) को प्रकाशिते करती है , 'जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 7-04-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं . एल-22012 /425/98- आई आर ( सी- II ) ]
एन.पी. केशवन, डैस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 8th April , 2005
In exercise of the powers conferred by caluse ( 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- 22012/425/ 98 - IR ( C- II) dated 09-07-1999 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
" Whether the action of the management of Bejdih Colliery of M/ s . E.C. Ltd. , in dismissing Sh. Tapan Bouri , U/G . Loader from services is Justified ? Ifnot , to what relief is the workman concerned entitled? " S.O. 1649. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 93/1999 ) 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, which was reccived by the Central Government on 07-04-2005.
[No. L-22012/425/ 98 - IR ( C -II) ]
N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
2. After the receipt of the aforesaid order of refcrence from the Govt . of India through the Ministry of Labour summons were issued to the respective parties through the registered post and in pursuant to the summons both the parties appeared in the Court and filed their written statement in support of their respective claims .
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM- LABOUR COURT
ASANSOL
PRESENT:
3. The case of the delinquent workman in brief compass as set- forth in the written statement is that Sri Tapan Bouri was a permanent employce of Bejdih Colliery having his designation as U/ G . Loader and U/Man No. 128748 .
SRI . Md . SARFARAZ KHAN , Presiding Officer.
REFERENCE No. 93/1999
PARTIES:
The Agent ,
Bejdih -Methani Collieries,
M/ s . E.C. Ltd. ,
P.O. Methani ,
Distt . Burdwan.
Management
4. The main case of the workman concerned is that Tapan Bouri was absent from his duty with effect from 4-12-96 and he was served with a charge - sheet for absenteesim . It is claimed that he was absent due to the reason that he was sick and admitted at Sanctoria Hospital and was under treatment as an Indoor patient . It was a referred case by the Colliery to Sanctoria Hospital as no workman can avail treatment at Kalla/ Sanctoria Hospital unless it is a referred case but the fact of his illness was ignored during the course of enquiry.
Versus
Sri TapanBouri ,
U.G. Loader,
Represented by Org . Secretary,
Koyala Mazdoor Congress ,
Gorai Mansions ,
G.T. Road.
Workman.
Asansol (West Bengal) .
5. The further case of delinquent employee is that in his case second show cause notice was also not issued to the workman which is against the direction of Supreme Court. The punishment of dismissal is claimed to be too harsh and disproportionate to the nature of offence alleged to have been committed by him , so a relief has been sought for his reinstatement in his service with full back wages.
REPRESENTATIVES :
: Sri P. K. Goswami ,
For the Management
Advocate.
Forthe Workman
: Sri R. K. Tripathi,
ChiefOrg. Secretary of
K.M.C. Asansol .
6. Similarly on the other hand the case of the management as per its written statement is that the concerned workman had absented himself from his regular duties without any sanction or authorised leave and even no information showing any reason for his absence was sent to the management prior to the date appointment of departmental enquiry.
: Coal .
Industry
State
: West Bengal .
Dated : 21-12-2004.
7. Mr. Bouri was served with a copy of the charge- sheet for his being on an unauthorised absence and he had activity participated in the enquiry proceeding [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
personally. The charge of unauthroised absence was duly establish during the enquiry proceeding and accordingly the report was submitted to the competent authority and the disciplinary authority after due consideration of the charges and the enquiry report awarded punishment of dismissal.
8. It is also the defence of the management that the grounds of ailment has been raised at the very belated state by the union to shield the misconduct of unauthorised absence or absenting from duty is said to be the reason for reduction of production of Coal which can not to taken in a casual manner . So the stern action against the offender is the demand of the day. The dismissal of Tapan Bouri is also claimed to be just and proper and accordingly the reference is pet to the dismissed.
9. The record goes to show that on 4-6-2002 a hearing on the preliminary point was made . The validity and fairness of the enquiry proceeding was not challenged by the side of the union as the workman concerned had dulyparticipated in the enquiry proceeding . So the enquiry proceeding was held to be fair and valid and accordingly the date for final hearing of the dispute on merit was fixed. The final hearing of the dispute was taken up on 21-12-2004 and after concluding the argument the case was fixed for award.
10. In view of the pleadings of the parties and the material available in the record I find certain facts which are admitted one, so before entering into the discussion of the dispute on merit of the case 1 would like to mention the following facts which are admitted by the side of both the parties.
11. It is the admitted fact that Tapan Bouri U.G. Loader is the permanent employee of Bejdih Colliery of M/ s . E.C. Ltd.
12. It is the further admitted fact that the delinquent workman was absent from his duty with effect from 4-12-96 to 7-6-97 without any prior permission and information of the management and he was charge- sheeted for his un - authorised absence .
13. It is the next admitted fact that a domestic enquiry was conducted by an enquiry officer and the workman concerned had duly participated in his enquiry proceeding and suflicient opportunity was given to defend himself and is the domestic enquiry the delinquent employee was held to be gulty for the misconduct under clause 17 ( n) of the Model Standing Order applicable to the establishment . It is also clear from the record itself that there is no charge- sheet against the workman for his being habitual absentee. As per the settled principles of law the facts admitted need not be proved since these all facts are admitted by the parties. I do not want to discussion those facts in details .
14. On perusal of the record it transpires that none of the parties has examined any oral witness in support 1234GI /05-31
4499
भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 30 , 2005 /वैशाख 10, 1927
oftheir case . Some X- erox copies of the charge-sheet , enquiry proceeding its report along with the evidence taken during the enquiry proceeding and the order of dismissal have been filed . The all documents are common and admitted one and their genuineness also has not been challenged.
15. It is obvious from the enquiry proceedings and its report that the delinquent employee had received the charge - sheet and had participated in the enquiry proceedings. He has clearly admitted in his statement that he did not send any information to the management about his illness and was absent from his duty since 4-12-26 to 7-6-97 due to illness and was under the treatment of SanctoriaHospital where he was admitted for seven days . The enquiry officer has reported that the workman did not produce any medical certificate or any document in support of his statement whereon the workman concerned has claimed that he had produced all the medical certificate before the enquiry officer . However a photo copy of the O.P.D. paper duly forwarded by the Colliery Management for treatment of the concerned workman at Sanctoria Hospital dated 3-1-97 has been filed . A Xerox copy of the discharge certificate of Sanctoria Hospital showing date ofadmission as 4-1-97 and date ofdischarge as 7-1-97 has been filed. Even if these documents are relied upon and taken for consideration, the same do not justify the absence ofthe workman with effect from 4-12-96 to 7-6-97 . These certificate at best can justify the absence from his duty since 3-1-97 to 7-1-97 .
16. Having gone through the entire prevailing facts circumstances , enquiry proceeding along with its report and other material fact available in the record I find that the workman concerned was admittedly absent from his duty since 4-12-96 to 7-6-97 continuously without any prior permission and information to the management and he has rightly been held guilty by the enquiry officer for committing misconduct of unauthorised absence under clause 17( 1 ) (n ) of the Model Standing Order applicable 10 the establishment and in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances the delinquent employee deserves suitable punishment for the alleged proved misconduct as provided in the Model Standing Order .
17. Now let us see as to how for the punishment of dismissal awarded to the workman by the management in the proper and proportionate to the alleged nature of misconduct proved?
18. Heard both the side on the aforesaid point in question. It was submitted by the side of the workman concerned that it is a simple case of an unauthorised absence and he got himself admitted in the Hospital and he was treated about a week as an Indoor patient and during the period of absence he could not send any information to the management due to illiteracy. It was also submitted that it was within the knowledge of the 4500
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30, 2005 /VAISAKHA 10, 1927
management that the workman was under the treatment in Sanctoria Hospital as indoor patient as O.P.D. paper was duly forwarded by the Colliery management for treatment at Sanctoria Hospital.
19. It was further submitted that the case of unauthorised absence can't be said to be a gross misconduct warranting the punishment of dismissal . The attention of the Court was also drawn towards the provision oftheModel Standing Order where the extreme punishment prescribed is dismissal as per the gravity of the misconduct and it was claimed that the extreme sorts of penalty cannot be imposed in such a miner case of alleged misconduct of unauthorised absence .
20. It was also submitted during the course of argument that the delinquent workman has got unblemish record during the tenure of his service and there has not been any complain of previous misconduct of any sorts. The management has also not chargesheeted him for habitual absence nor any chit of paper in this regard has been filed in the Court nor there is any pleading in this regard as well so it can very well be concluded that it is the first offence of the workman which deserves sympathetic consideration .
21. It was lastly submitted by the side of the workman concerned that different Hon'ble High Courts and the Apex Court as well have clearly observed several times that before imposing punishment of dismissal it is necessary for the disciplinary authority to consider the Socio- economic background of the workman bis family back- ground length of service put in by the employce his past records and other surrounding circumstance including the nature of the misconduct and lastly the compelling circumstance to commit the misconduct . These are the relevant factors which must have to be kept in mind by the authority at the time of imposing the punishment which is not done by the management in this case. I find much force in the argument of the union side.
22. Admittedly the workman concerned is an illiterate man of Scheduled Caste . He is no doubt financially weak and poor who has suffered a lot for more than six years and he had never been gainfully employed any where during the period after his dismissal in course of argument the attention of the Court was drawn towards the provision of the Model Standing Order laid down under clause 27 ( i ) (page 15) where various miner 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 Apcx Court that justice must be imposed with mercy and that the delinquent workman should be given an opportunity to reform himself and to be loyal and disciplinary employce of the management. However I am of the considered view that the punishunent
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] ofdismissal for an unauthorised absence without any mala fide intention is not just and proper rather it is too harsh a punishment which totally disproportionate to the alleged misconduct proved such a simple case should have been dealth with leniently by the management . In this view of the matter I think it just and proper to modify and substitute the same exercising the power under Section 11 ( A ) of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 too meet the ends of justice and as such the impugned order of dismissal of the delinquent employee is hereby set - aside and he is directed to be reinstated with the continuity of the service and 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 delinquent workman be imposed a punishment of strict warning along with a stoppage of two increment without any cumulative effect . It is further directed that the workman will be entitled to get only 30% of the back wages which will serve the ends of Justice. Accordingly itishereby
ORDER
That let an award be and the same is passed . Send the copies of the awardto the Ministry of Labour for information and needful . The reference is accordingly disposed of.
MD. SARFARAZ KHAN , PresidingOfficer.
नई दिल्ली, 8 अप्रैल, 2005
का.आ. 1650.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, दूरदर्शन के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नम्बर- II. नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 21/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 07-04-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल -42012/160/2002 - आई आर ( सी- II ) ] एन. पी. केशवन, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 8th April , 2005
S.O. 1650.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 21/2003 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court - II , New Delhi as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Doordarshan and their workman , received by the Central Government on 07-04-2005 .
[No. L -42012/ 160/2002 - IR ( C - II ) ] N.P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
4501
भारत का राजपत्र: अप्रैल 30, 2005/वैशाख 10, 1927
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER : CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT- II NEWDELHI
PRESENT:
R. N. RAI , Presiding Officer
L.D. NO . 21/2003
In the Matter of:-
Shri Kunal Kumar,
S/o. Shri Amar Singh, C/o . P-2/264 , Sultanpuri , Delhi .
Versus
The Director General ,
Delhi Doordarshan Kendra ,
M/ s. Prasar Bharti ,
(Broadcasting Corporation of India) ,
Mandi House , New Delhi - 110001 .
AWARD
TheMinistry of Labourby its letter No. L-42012/160/ 2002- IR(CM-II) CENTRAL GOVERNMENT DT.17-02-2003 has referred the following point for adjudication .
The point runs as hereunder :-
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of Prasar Bharti Broadcasting Corporation, Doordarshan Kendra , New Delhi in terminating the services of Shri Kunal Kumar, S/o . Shri Amar Singh , Ex . Casual Labour w.e.f. 01-02-2001 is legal and justified ? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date ? "
Notices have been issued to the workman applicant and it has been served. Despite that the workman applicant has not turned up . He has not filed statement of claim.
There remains no dispute .
No. dispute Award is given .
Dated: 31-03-2005.
R. N. RAI , Presiding Officer.
नई दिल्ली, 8 अप्रैल, 2005
का.आ. 1651.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, दूर - दर्शन के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नम्बर- II , नई दिल्ली (संदर्भ संख्या 15/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को07-04-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल -42012 /162/ 2002- आई आर ( सी. -II ) ]
एन.पी. केशवन, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 8th April , 2005
S.O. 1651.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 15/2003 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour, Court - II , New Delhi as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Doordarshan and their workman , received by the Central Government on 07-04-2005 .
[No. L -42012/162/2002 - IR ( C- II ) ] N.P. KESAVAN , Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER : CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT- II, NEW DELHI
I. D. No. 15/2003
R. N. RAI , Presiding Officer
In the matter of:
Shri Sewa Singh , S/ o Shri Krishan, C/o. P-2/264, Sultanpuri , Delhi.
Versust
The Director General ,
M/s. Prasar Bharti ,
Delhi Doordarshan Kendra , (Broadcasting Corporation of India) , Mandi House , New Delhi - 110066
AWARD
TheMinistry of Labour by its letter No. L -42012/ 162/ 2002- IR (CM - II ) Central Government Dt. 11-2-2003 has referred the following point for adjucation :
The point runs as hereunder :-
"Whether the action of the management of prasar Bharti Broadcasting Corporation , Doordarshan Kendra, New Selhi in terminating the services of Shri Sewa Singh, S/ o Shri Krishan , Ex Casual Labour w.e.f. 01-02-2001 is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date ?. " Notices have been sent to the workman applicant but he has not turned up . He was not present on 28-04-2003 . The workman applicant was present on 21-07-2003 but thereafter he has not turned up so he has knowledge of the date.
He has not filed claim statement . There remains no dispute to be adjudicated .
No dispute Award is Given .
Date: 31-03-2005
R. N. RAI , Presiding Officer 4502
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30 , 2005 /VAISAKHA 10 , 1927
नई दिल्ली, 8 अप्रैल, 2005
का.आ. 1652.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, इंडियन मैटरोलोजिकल डिपार्टमेन्ट के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण पुणे (संदर्भ संख्या 2/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 7-04-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-42012/ 81/2003- आई आर ( सी- II ) ] एन.पी. केशवन, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 8th April , 2005
S.O. 1652. - In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 2/2004 ) of the Industrial Tribunal - Pune (Maharashtra) as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Indian Mateorology Department and their workman , received by the Central Government on 7-4-2005.
[No. L -42012/81 /2003 - IR ( CM - II) ]
N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
SHRIS.N . KOLHE , INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL , MAHARASTRA, PUNE .
REFERENCE (IT) NO . 2 of 2004
BETWEEN :
Director General,
Indian Meteorological Department FirstParty
AND
The workman employed in the workshops of the IndianMeteorological Department At Pune, New Delhi & Agra (Through : The All India Meteoroligical Workshop Union)
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii )]
AWARD
1. This Reference is made as per Section 10 sub- sections ( 1 ) and ( 2A) clause (d) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
2. In brief, the facts are as under .
Director General , Indian Meteorological Department is the First Party. Second Party is the workman employed in the workshop of Indian Meteorological Department at Pune . New Delhi and Agra. Second Party is represented by all IndiaMeteorological Workshop Union .
1 IndianMeteorological Department of the Government of India is having the workshop at Pune , New Delhi and Agra.All the workshops are an industry as per Section 2 (j ) ofIndustrial Disputes Act , 1947. Central Government is the Appropriate Government of the workshop under provisions of 1.D.Act , 1947. Manufacturing activities carried out in the workshop are governed by Factories Act, 1948 and workshops are registered as factories under the said Act. The workman as per Annexure 'B ' are working in the workshopsand are workers within the meaning of Factories Act, 1948 .
Meteorological instruments required for meteorological observation , are manufactured in the workshops at Pune and New Delhi . In the workshop at Agra , 30,000 cu.mtrs . of hydrogen gas is produced every year. Apart from process of manufacture , technical work like brass enamel painting , metal spraying , gas welding are also carried out in the workshops . Machines in the workshops are maintained and serviced by the workmen in the workshops .
Second Party
In the matter of
R the den: ace for adjudication of the dispute whether of All India Meteorological workshop union that the workshop employee employed at Delhi , Agra & Pune workshop be paid extra wages for O.T. twice the ordinary rate of wages according to their revised scale of pay w.e.f. 1-1-1996 under Section 59 of the Factories Act . 19-48 is legal andjustified ? Ifyet , to what relief the concerned employees are entitled to and from which date (As mention in the Schedule to the Order of the Reference) .
APPEARANCES:
Shri Salvi , Advocate for the First Party.
Shri A. Y. Shikarkhane , Advocate for the Second Party.
3. As per the recommendations of Fifth Pay Commission for Central Government employees , wage- scales and allowances of the employes have been revised w.e.f. 1-1-1996 . Arrears of wages and allowances are also paid to the employces from 1-1-1996 . However, the arrears of over -time wages on the basis of revised wage - scales and allowances , are not paid to the employees w.e.f. 1-1-1996 . Over -time wages are payable as per Section 59 of the Factories Act, 1948 at twice the ordinary rates of wages. Once the ordinary rates of wages are revised . the workmen are entitled to get the over - time wages as per the revised oirdinary wages . First Party has refused to pay revised over - time wages after revision of wage scales as per recommendations of Fifth Pay Commission w.e.f. 1-1-1996 .
TheAmmunition Factory, High Explosive Factory at Kirkee and CPWD which are registered as a factory under Factories Act, 1948 and of which Appropriate Government isCentral Government , have given the banefit of revised wages for over-time wages w.e.f. 1-1-1996, to their workman . So, as per principle of region- cum - industry, employees , as per Annexure 'B ' of First Party, are entitled for the said demand. Accordingly Statement of Claim is filed by the [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
Second Party Union on behalf of their employees whose names are mentioned in Annexure ' B ' .
4. The First Party has filed written statement at Exb. C-6 and resisted the demands . It is mainly contended that Fifth Pay Commission has discouraged the system of engaging employees on over time basis , and to pay the over time allowance to the employees of Central Government . It is contended that Fifth Pay Commission has recommended for discontinuance of the scheme of over time work . It is further contended that consequent upon the above mentioned recommendation of Fifth Pay Commission, Government has issued order DOPT O.M. No. 21017 /3 /97 -Esstt. (Allowances) dt . 21-11-97, in respect of payment of over time allowance to the employees ofthe Central Government . It is denied that the employees of the Central Government are entitled to get the over time at the double rate of ordinary wage after revision of the pay- scales by Fifth Pay Commission . It is further contended that the above mentioned order issued by the Nodal Authority i.e. DOPT, has been followed by the First Party. It is also contended that " region - cum - industry " policy cannot be made applicable to the present dispute and First Party has no authority to pay such over time allowance at double the rate of ordinary wages after revision of the wage - scales by Fifth Pay Commission w.e.f. 1-1-1996 . So , the First Party has prayed for rejection or the demand on the point of payment of over time allowances , as made by Second Party Union.
5. Both parties have adduced oral as well as documentary evidence in support or their respective stand . Arguments of advocates for both the sides are heard.
Relevant provisions of the Factories Act , 1948 are perused.
6. The following points arise for my determination :
( 1) Whether the employees mentioned in Annexure 'B ' filed alongwith Statement of claim , are entitled to get over time allowance twice the ordinary rates of wages as per Section 59 of Factories Act , 1948 w.e.f. 1-1-1996 , in view of revision of their wage - scales by Fifth Pay Commission ?
(2) Whether the demand is just and legal ?
(3) What order ?
7. My findings on the above points for the reasons stated below, arc as under :
(1) Affirmative
(2) Affirmative
(3) As per final order.
REASONS
8. In this matter, employce Krishna Bapu Sawant has filed affidavit in support of Statement of Claim . On behalf offirst party, Mr. R. R. Mali , Director has filed the affidavit
4503
भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 30, 2005/वैशाख 10 , 1927
in support of contentions raised in written statement . Moreover, First Party has filed Para . 118 of Report of Fifth Pay Commission on the point of over time allowance as well as order dt . 21-11-97 issued by Central Govt . on the subject of over time allowance to its employees. Second Party adduced documentary evidence vide Exb. O- 16 and O-17, to show the manner , in which over time wages to the employees were paid by other factories after 1-1-96 in view oftheir revised pay - scales as per recommendation of Fifth Pay Commission .
Admittedly, the employees of the First Party working in their workshops , were paid over time allowance twice the ordinary rate of the wages as per Section 59 of the Factories Act , 1948 till 1-1-1996. As per revision of wage - scales and allowances , in view of recommendation ofFifth Pay Commission , arrears are paid to the employees w.e.f. 1-1-1996.
Whether the employees are entitled to get arrcars of over time wages - in accordance with their revised scales w.e.f. 1-1-1996 , in view of Section 59 of Factories Act , 1948 , is the dispute involved for adjudication in this matter. As perSection 59 of Factories Act, worker is entitled to get the over time allowance twice the ordinary rate of his wages .
It isnot in dispute that the employees of First Party have been paid over time wages at double the rate of ordinary wages as per Section 59 ofFactories Act, 1948 till 1-1-1996 . After wage scales and allowances are revised by Fifth Pay Commission, employees are demanding the arrears in respect of their over time work at a rate of twice their revised ordinary rate of wages w.e.f. 1-1-1996 . Since overtime allowance has a nexus with ordinary rate ofwages while deciding over time allowances , it is necessary to take into consideration the ordinary rate of wages . As per the recommendation of Fifth Pay Commission , ordinary rate of wages of the employees are revised and so , consequently their over time allowances will have to be revised in accordance with revised ordinary rate ofwages . I reiterate that once ordinary rate of wages are revised. over time allowances will have to be revised by calculating the same at double the rate as mentioned in Section 59 of Factories Act, 1948. In such circumstances , revision of ordinary rate of wages of the employees as per recommendations of Fifth Pay Commission will automa- tically give rise the revision of over time allowances to be paid to the employees .
First Party has made out a case that in Para . 118 of Report of Fifth Pay Commission, system of engaging employees on over time basis , was to be discouraged and discontinued. It is also the case of first party that Government issued order DOPTO.M . No. 21017/ 3797 - Estt . (Allowances) , dt. 21-11-97 in respect of payment of over time allowances after considering the above recommendations of Fifth Pay Commission in its report . Para. 118.13 ofReport of Fifth Pay commission is as under :
" In the circumstances , we are of the view that there is no justification for the continued payment of 4504
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30, 2005/VAISAKHA 10, 1927
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)]
on the strength of orderdt . 21-11-1997 issued by the Government on the point of dispute , is not applicable to the present employees who are working in workshops of the First Party and who are industrial employees and not the employees working in the offices of the Gentral Government .
overtime allowance in the Central Government, offices and we recommednd its discontinuance . In lieu of cash compensation in the form of overtime allowance, staff deployed on weekly off days may be entitled only to compensatory leave . Staff car drivers, operational staff and industrial Employees may, however, continue to be governed by the existing rules and instructions on the subject. "
Orderdt . 21-11-1997 issued by the Central Government on the subject of overtime allowance to Central Government empoyees in view of above mentioned Para .
118.13 of the Report of Fifth Pay Commission, is as under:
Onbehalf of Second Party, documentary evidence vide Exh . 0-16 and Exh . 0-17 is adduced to show that other similar establishments of the Central Government governed by the Factories Act , have paid arrears of over time allowance to their industrial employees at double the rate of revised ordinary wages after application of Fifth Pay Commission w.e.f. 1-1-1996 . Defence Industrial Establishments as well as High explosive Factory at Kirkee (Pune) have paid the over time allowance at double the rate of ordinary wages to their employees w.e.f. 1-1-1996 , after ordinery wages were revised as per recommendation of Fifth Pay Commission .
9. The learned Advocate for the Second Party correctly pointed out , by referring case law reported in 1979 -LAB . I.C. 45 , Bombay High Court , that the principle which must apply for fixing the wage structure in an industry, is the well settled principle of " Industry- cum- Region" .
"The undersigned is directed to say that the Fifth Central Pay Commission have observed (Para 118.13 oftheir Report ) that, there is no justification for the continued payment of overtime Allownance in the Central Govt . Offices , and have recommended its discontiunance. It has also been recommended by the commission that in lieu of cash compensation in the form of OTA staff deployed on weekly off days may be entitled only to compensatory leave . However, the Staff Car Drivers , Operational Staff and Industrial Employees have been recommended to be governed by the existing rules and instructions on the subject.
2. The Government two , however , decided to contiune. inthe existing orders.
3. These instructions will apply under these instructions .
10. In view of the above mentioned evidence , the principle of " Region -cum -Industry, " will have to be applied to the present dispute and the employees of the second party union are entitled to get over time allowance at double the rate of revised ordinary wages as per reommendations ofFifth Pay Commission w.e.f. 1-1-1996 .
4. Hindi version is enclosed . "
1
11. The learned Advocate for the Second Party vehemently argued that the demand of employees is legal and just . I find substance in this submission . I reiterate thatSection 59 of Factories Act , 1948 speaks about payment of over time allowence twice the rate of ordinary wages . Once ordinary wages are revised , consequently, over time wages will have to be revised as per ordinary wages . So , over - time allowances are totally dependent on ordinary rates of wages of the empoyees . Since ordinary rates of wages of the employees of the Second Party Union. are revised by Fifth Pay Commission , they are entitled to get over-time allowance as per the said revised ordinary rates oftheir wages w.e.f. 1-1-1996 i.e. the date from which entire arrears arising out of revisions of pay - scales and allowances are paid to the employees . As the present demand is made by industrial employees and not by employees working in the office of Central Government , it is legal andjust demand . Moreover, the said demand is also supported by principle of "Region - cum- Industry" .
1 have carefully gone through Para . 118 of Fifth Pay Coinmission Report as well as the said order dt . 21-11-1997 issued by the Government as mentioned above . It is pertinent to note that the system of overtime work and payment of over time allowances in Central Government Offices was discouraged and recommended to be discontinued by Fifth Pay Commission . It is pertinent to note that only the employees working in Government Offices , are governed by the above mentioned recommendation and consequently, the order dt . 21-11-1997 issued by the Government on that point. In- fact , order dt . 21-11-1997 itself is very clear on the point that it applies to the employees working in Government Offices . As far as Industrial Employees of the Gentral Government are concerned , neither the above mentioned recommendation in the report of Fifth Pay Commission nor the order dt . 21-11-1997 issued by the Government on the point of payment of over time allowance , will apply to them.
Thus, we cannot treat the employees working in offices at a par with industrial employees of the Cental Government . So , whatever stand taken by the First Party
12. As far as calculation of overtime wages is concerned, the learned Advocate for the Second Party has relied on case law reported in 1996 - I - CLR - 371, Hon'ble Supreme Court . Wherein Their Lordship have observed thatordinary rates of wages means basis wages plus such 4505
भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 30, 2005/वैशाख 10, 1927
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
allowances as the worker is entitled to and inclusion of any allowance ' notionally' is prohibited.
13. In view of the above discussion, I am of the opinfon that industrial employees whose names are mentioned in Annexure ' B ' filed along with Statement of Claim, are entitled to get arrears towards overtime allowances twice the ordinary rate of their revised wages as per recommendation of Fifth Pay Commission w.e.f. 1-1-1996 and such demend is legal and just . So, I answer the points accordingly.
14. In the demand is substantiated and proved, I pass the Award as under.
AWARD
1. The Industrial Employees of Indian Meteorological Department working in the workshops at Pune , New Delhi and Agra and whose names are mentioned in Annexure ' B ' filed along with Statement of Claim in this matter, are entitled to get arrears ofvoertime allowances twice the ordinary rates of their revised wages according to recommendation of Fifth Pay Commission w.e.f. 1-1-1996 as per Section 59 of Factories Act , 1948 and the demand to that effect is legal andjustified.
2. Awardbe prepared accordingly. PUNE. Date: 17-3-2005
S.N. KOLHS , Industrial Tribunal नई दिल्ली, 20 अप्रैल, 2005
का.आ. 1653.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार इस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या एल-42012/ 137/ 99- आई आर ( डी यू) दिनांक 7-2-2005 (संदर्भ सं. 202/99 ) के अनुक्रम में भारतीय पुरातत्व सर्वेक्षण के प्रबंधन और उनके कर्मकारों के संबंध में नियोजकों के बीच औद्योगिक विवाद में अनुबंध में दर्शाए गए अनुसार केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण-सह- श्रम न्यायालय सं. 2 नई दिल्ली द्वारा दिए गए पंचाट का शुद्धि पत्र प्रकाशित करती है ।
[सं. एल -42012/137/99- आई आर (डी यू) ] कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डैस्कअधिकारी NewDelhi, the 20th April, 2005
S.O. 1653. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government in continuation of this Ministry notification No. L-42012/ 137/99 -IR(DU) dated 7-2-2005 (ReferenceNo. 202/99 ) publishes a corrigenda to the award passed by Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court No. 2New Delhi, as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Archeological Survey of India and their workman.
[No. L-42012/ 137/99 -IR (DU) ] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT II, RAJENDRA BHAWAN , GROUND FLOOR, RAJENDRA PLACE NEW DELHI Presiding Officer: R. N. Rai Inthe mattter of:- Sh. Upender Chaudhary Versus Archeological Survery of India . I.D. No. 202/99
CORRIGENDUM The date (20-01-2004) mentioned at the last page of Award may be replaced with 20-01-2005. Dated: 04-04-2005 . R.. N. RAI, PresidingOfficer
Printed by the Manager , Govt . of India Press , Ring Road, Mayapuri , New Delhi - 110064 and Published by the Controller of Publications , Delhi - 110054 .