REGD . NO . D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003-05 रजिस्ट्रीसं० डी० एल० (एন ) 04/0007/ 2003-05
भारत का राजपत्र The Gazette of India
प्राधिकार से प्रकाशित
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
साप्ताहिक
WEEKLY
सं० 21 ]
नई दिल्ली, मई 15 मई 21 , 2005 , शनिवार/वैशाख 25-वैशाख 31 , 1927
No. 21 ]
NEW DELHI, MAY 15MAY 21, 2005, SATURDAY/VAISAKHA 25- VAISAKHA 31 , 1927 इसभाग में भिन्न पृष्ठ संख्या दी जाती है जिससे कि यह पृथक 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 ) और केन्द्रीय अधिकारियों ( संघ राज्य क्षेत्र प्रशासनों को छोड़कर ) द्वारा विधिके अंतर्गत बनाए औरजारी किए गए साधारण सांविधिक नियम ( जिनमें साधारण प्रकार के आदेश, उप-नियम आदि सम्मिलित हैं ) General Statutory Rules (Including Orders , Bye-laws etc. of a general character) issued by the Ministries ofthe Government of India (other than the Ministry of Defence) and by the Central Authorities (other than the Administrationsof Union Territories)
वित्त मंत्रालय
(राजस्वविभाग )
(केन्द्रीय उत्पाद शुल्क, कोल- VII आयुक्तालय )
कोलकाता, 2 मई , 2005
सं० 01 /2005 -सी०शु० ( एनटी)
का. आ. 1835.- भारत सरकार, वित्त मंत्रालय, राजस्व विभाग, नई दिल्ली की अधिसूचना सं ० 33/94 सी०शु ० ( एनटी ) दिनांक 01-07-94 तथा एम.एफ. ( डी. आर. ) परिपत्र सं० 31/2003 सी० शु० दिनांक 07-04-2003 के साथ पठनीय सीमा शुल्क अधिनियम, 1962 की धारा 9 में प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, यथा भारत सरकार, वाणिज्य मंत्रालय , फलता विशेष आर्थिक क्षेत्र के विकास आयुक्त के द्वारा स्वीकृत, पश्चिम बंगाल के भाषा, डा ० घ० विष्णुपुर, जिला 24 परगना ( दक्षिण ) , को एतद्वारा सीमित प्रयोजनों के लिए 100 % निर्यातोन्मुखी उपक्रम के रूप में एक भण्डारण स्टेशन घोषित किया जाता है ।
[सी.सं. V ( 13 ) 2- सी ई/टेक/कोल-VII/2005/5607 ]
ब्रोजेन थामर, आयुक्त
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(Department of Revenue)
(OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE KOLKATA- VII COMMISSIONERATE)
Kolkata, the 2nd May, 2005
NO. 01/2005- CUSTOMS (NT)
S.O. 1835. In exercise of thepowers conferred under Section 9 of the Customs Act, 1962- read with Notification No. 33/94-Cus (NT) dated 1-7-94 of Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue , New Delhi and 1450 GI/2005
(5021) 5022
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21 , 2005 /VAISAKНА 31 , 1927
[PART II -SEC . 3 ( ii) ] M.F. (D.R. ) Circular No. 31 /2003 -Customs dated 07-04-2003 , Bhasa, P.O. Bishnupur, District South 24 Parganas, in the state ofWest Bengal is hereby declared as a warehousing station for the limited purpose of setting up hundred per cent Export Oriented Undertaking as approved by the Development Commissioner, Flata Special Economic Zone , Ministry of Com- merce and Industry, Government of India, Kolkata.
[ C. No. V( 13 )2-CE -TECH /KOL - VII/2005/5607] BROJEN THAMAR, Commissioner
( आर्थिक कार्य विभाग )
(बैंकिंग प्रभाग )
नई दिल्ली, 16 मई , 2005
का. आ. 1836.- भारतीय लघु उद्योग विकास बैंक अधिनियम, 1989 ( 1989 का 39 ) की धारा 6 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( ङ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार, एतद्वारा , श्रीमती गौरी सिंह, प्रबंध निदेशक , मध्य प्रदेश वित्तीय निगम को श्री आर. पी. वटल, भूतपूर्व प्रबंध निदेशक, एपीएसएफसी के स्थान पर 16 मई, 2005 से तीन वर्ष की अवधि के लिए भारतीय लघु उद्योग विकास बैंक ( सिडबी ) के निदेशक मण्डल में अंशकालिक गैर- सरकारी निदेशक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है ।
[फा० सं. 24/5/2002- आईएफ-1 ]
मार्गरेट गंगटे , अवर सचिव (DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRS)
(Banking Division)
New Delhi , the 16th May , 2005
S.O. 1836. In exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( e ) of Sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 6 of the Small Industrics Development Bank of India Act , 1989 (39 of 1989), the Central Government hereby appoints Smt . Gauri Singh , MD,Madhya Pradesh Financial Corporation vice Shri R.P. Watal , ex-MD , APSFC as part - time non -official director on the Board of Directors of Small Industries and Development Bank of India ( SIDBI) for a period of three years with effect from 16thMay, 2005.
[F. No. 24/5/2002 -I.F- I ]
MARGRET GANGTE, Under Secy.
विद्युत मंत्रालय
नई दिल्ली , 4 मई , 2005
का. आ. 1837.-केंद्रीय सरकार, राजभाषा ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) नियम, 1976 के नियम 10 के उप नियम (4 ) केअनुसरण में पावरग्रिड कारपोरेशन ऑफ इंडिया लि० , गुड़गांव के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन पावरग्रिड कारपोरेशन ऑफ इंडिया लि. के निम्नलिखित कार्यालयों को, जिनके 80 प्रतिशत कर्मचारीवृंद ने हिंदी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है, एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करती है:
1. पावरग्रिड कारपोरेशन ऑफ इंडिया लि० , 400/220 के० वी० जमशेदपुर उपकेंद्र , गांव-रामचंद्रपुर, पो ०- गम्हरिया, जिला-सरायकेला ( खरसवां ) , झारखंड-832108
2. पावरग्रिड कारपोरेशन ऑफ इंडिया लि० , 400/220 के ०वी० सब स्टेशन ( निर्माण ) , गोबरसही चौक, मुजफ्फरपुर -842001
[सं. 11017/5/2005- हिंदी ]
अजय शंकर, अपर सचिव
MINISTRY OF POWER
New Delhi , the 4th May, 2005
S.O. 1837. In pursuance of Sub - rule (4 ) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (use for official purposes of the union ) Rules , 1976 the Central Government hereby notifies the following offices of Powergrid Corporation of India Ltd. , [ [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
5023 भारत का राजपत्र: मई 21 , 2005/वैशाख 31 , 1927
under the administrative control of Powergrid Corporation of India Ltd. , Gurgaon , the staff whereof have acquired 80% workingknowledge ofHindi:
1. Powergrid Corporation of India Ltd. , 400/220 KV Jamshedpur Sub - Station, Village-Ramchandrapur , P.O. Gamharia, Distt . Seraikela (Kharswan) , Jharkhand - 832108
2. Powergrid Corporation of India Ltd. , 400/220 KV Sub -Station ( Construction), Gobarsahi Chowk, Muzaffarpur-842001 .
[No. 11017/5/2005 -Hindi]
AJAY SHANKAR, Addl . Secy .
उपभोक्ता मामले , खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय
(उपभोक्तामामले विभाग )
भारतीय मानकब्यूरो
नई दिल्ली, 19 अप्रैल, 2005
का. आ. 1838.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम, 1987 के नियम 7 के उप- नियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि नीचे अनुसूची में किए गए मानक( कों ) में संशोधन किया गया/किये गए हैं:-
अनुसूची
संशोधित भारतीय मानक की संख्या और वर्ष
संशोधन की संख्या और तिथि
संशोधन लागू होने की तिथि क्रम संख्या
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4) 1.
आई एस 2171 : 1999
4अप्रैल, 2005
30अप्रैल, 2005 इन संशोधनों की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो, मानक भवन, १ , बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली -110002, क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों: नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता, तण्डीगढ़, चेन्नई, मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों : अहमदाबाद, बंगलौर, भोपाल , भुवनेश्वर, कोयम्बतूर, गुवाहाटी, हैदराबाद, जयपुर, कानपुर, नागपुर, पटना, पुणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।
[संदर्भ: सीईडी/राजपत्र]
सतीश कुमार जैन, निदेशक व प्रमुख ( सिविल इंजीनियरी ) MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
(Department of ConsumerAffairs)
BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS
New Delhi , the 19th April, 2005
S.O. 1838.-In pursuance of clause (b ) of Sub - rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that amendments to the Indian Standards, particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been issued :-
SCHEDULE
No. and year of the Indian Standards
Sl. No.
No. and year of the amendment
Date from which the amendment shall have effect
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
1.
IS 2171 : 1999
30thApril, 2005
4thApril, 2005
Copy ofthis Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards , Manak Bhavan , 9 , Bahadur Shah ZafarMarg, New Delhi - 110002 and Regional Offices : New Delhi , Kolkata , Chandigarh, Chennai , Mumbai and also Branch 5024
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21 , 2005 /VAISAKHA 31 , 1927
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii)] Offices: Ahmedabad, Bangalore , Bhopal , Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore , Guwahati , Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur , Patna , Pune, Thiruvananthapuram.
[Ref: CED/Gazette] S. K. JAIN , Director & Head (Civil Engg . )
नईदिल्ली, 11 मई, 2005
का. आ. 1839.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम, 1987 के नियम 7 के उप- नियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए मानक( कों ) में संशोधन किया गया/किये गए हैं :-
संशोधित भारतीय मानक की संख्या और वर्ष क्रम संख्या
(1)
(2)
1. आई एस 15397 : 2003
2. आई एस 4308 : 2003
अनुसूची
संशोधन की संख्या और तिथि
संशोधन लागू होने की तिथि (3)
(4)
1 मार्च, 2005
31मार्च, 2005 1 अप्रैल, 2005
30अप्रैल, 2005 इन संशोधनों की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन, १ , बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली-110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों: नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता, चण्डीगढ़ , चेन्नई, मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों : अहमदाबाद, बंगलौर, भोपाल, भुवनेश्वर, कोयम्बतूर, गुवाहाटी, हैदराबाद, जयपुर, कानपुर, नागपुर, पटना, पुणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।
[संदर्भ: सीईडी 22/राजपत्र ] सतीश कुमार जैन, निदेशक व प्रमुख ( सिविल इंजीनियरी )
NewDelhi , the 11th May , 2005
S.O. 1839.- In pursuance of clause (b) of Sub -rule ( 1 ) of Rule, 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987 , the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that amendments to the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been issued: - Sl . No. and year of the Indian Standards No.
(1) (2)
1. IS 15397: 2003
SCHEDULE
No. and year of the amendment
Date from which the amendment shall have effect
(3)
(4)
1stMarch, 2005
2. IS4308 : 2003
31stMarch, 2005 1stApril, 2005
30thApril, 2005 Copy of this Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards , Manak Bhavan , 9 , Bahadur Shah ZafarMarg, New Delhi - 110002 and Regional Offices : New Delhi , Kolkata , Chandigarh, Chennai , Mumbai and also Branch Offices :Ahmedabad , Bangalore , Bhopal , Bhubaneshwar , Coimbatore , Guwahati, Hyderabad , Jaipur , Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna, Pune, Thiruvananthapuram.
[Ref: CED 22/Gazette] S. K. JAIN , Director & Head (Civil Engg. )
नई दिल्ली , 12 मई, 2005
का. आ. 1840.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम, 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गए हैं:-
स्थापित भारतीय मानक( कों) की संख्या वर्ष क्रम संख्या और शीर्षक
(1)
(2)
1. आई एस 15556 : 2005 लोहे का आयतनी और स्पेक्ट्रोमीटरी आकलन
अनुसूची
स्थापित तिथि
नये भारतीय मानक द्वारा अतिक्रमित भारतीय मानक अथवा मानकों, यदि कोई हो, की संख्या और वर्ष
(3)
(4)
28फरवरी , 2005 आई एस 4284:1967 लोहे का आयतनी आकलन की पद्धति आई एस 4542 : 1968 लोहे का कलरमीटरी आकलन पद्धति 5025 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपन्न : मई 21 , 2005 /वैशाख 31 , 1927
इस भारतीय मानक की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन, १ बहादुर शाह ज़फर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली -110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयोंः नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता, चण्डीगढ़ , चेन्नई, मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों: अहमदाबाद, बंगलौर, भोपाल, भुवनेश्वर, कोयम्बतूर, गुवाहाटी, हैदराबाद, जयपुर, कानपुर, नागपुर, पटना, पुणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।
[संदर्भ: सीएचडी 1 /आई एस 15556]
डॉ. यू. सी. श्रीवास्तव, वैज्ञानिक ई , निदेशक एवं प्रमुख ( रसायन)
NewDelhi , the 12th May, 2005
S.O. 1840, In pursuance of clause (b) of sub -rule (1 ) ofofRRule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each
SCHEDULE
Sl . No. and Year of the Indian Standards
Date of Established No. Established
No. and year of Indian Standards , ifany, Superseded by the New Indian Standards
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4) 1.
28February, 2005 IS 15556 : 2005 VOUMETRIC AND SPECTROPHOTOMETRIC ESTIMATION OF IRON
IS 4284 : 1967 Method for volumetricdetermination of iron
IS4542: 1968 Colorimetric methods for determination of iron
Copy of this Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110002 and Regional Offices: New Delhi , Kolkata, Chandigarh , Chennai, Mumbai and also Branch Offices: Ahmedabad , Bangalore, Bhopal , Bhubaneshwar , Coimbatore , Guwahati , Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna, Pune , Thiruvananthapuram.
[Ref. CHD 1/IS 15556]
Dr. U.C. SRIVASTAVA, Scientist E, Director & Head (Chemical)
नई दिल्ली, 12 मई , 2005
का. आ. 1841.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो निश्रम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) क्रे खंड ( ख) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो सार हैं:-
अनुसूची
स्थापित तिथि क्रम संख्या
स्थापित भारतीय मानक( कों ) की संख्या वर्ष और शीर्षक
नये भारतीय मानक द्वारा अतिक्रमित भास्तीय मानक अथवा मानकों, यदि कोई हो, की संख्या और वर्ष
(2)
(1)
(3)
(4) 1.
30अप्रैल, 2005 आई एस 15573 : 2005 पॉलीऐल्युमिनियम क्लोराइड
इस भारतीय मानक की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन, १ बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग, नई दिल्ली-110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयोंः नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता, चण्डीगढ़, चेन्नई, मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयोंः अहमदाबाद, बंगलौर, भोपाल, भुवनेश्वर, कोयम्बतूर, गुवाहाटी, हैदराबाद, जयपुर, कानपुर, नागपुर , पटना, पुणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।
[संदर्भ: सीएचडी 13/आई एस 15573 ]
'डॉ. यू. सी. श्रीवास्तव , वैज्ञानिक ई , निदेशक एवं प्रमुख ( रसायन) 5026
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA ,: MAY 21 , 2005/VAISAKHA 31 , 1927
[PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii)]
New Delhi , the 12th May , 2005
S.O. 1841. In pursuance of clause (b ) of sub - rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987 , the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each :-
SCHEDULE
Date of Established Sl . No.
No. and Year of the Indian Standard Established
No. and year of Indian Standard, ifany, Superseded by the New Indian Standard
(2)
(3)
(4)
(1)
30April , 2005 1. IS15573 :2005 POLY ALUMINIUM CHLORIDE
Copy of this Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110002 and Regional Offices : New Delhi , Kolkata , Chandigarh , Chennai , Mümbai and also Branch Offices:Ahmedabad, Bangalore , Bhopal , Bhubaneshwar , Coimbatore , Guwahati , Hyderabad , Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur , Patna , Pune , Thiruvananthapuram.
[Ref. CHD 13 /IS 15573 ]
Dr. U. C. SRIVASTAVA, Scientist E , Director & Head (Chemical)
नई दिल्ली, 12 मई, 2005
का. आ. 1842.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए मानक( कों ) में संशोधन किया गया/किये गए हैं :-
अनुसूची
संशोधन की संख्या और तिथि
रोने की तिथि सशा ५
क्रम संख्या
संशोधित भारतीय मानक कीसंख्या और वर्ष
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
1 .
30अप्रैल, 2005
संशोधन कीसंख्या 1 अप्रैल, 2005
आई एस 1381 ( भाग 1 ) : 2003/आई एस ओ 1773 : 1997 प्रयोगशाला काँच सामान- लघु ग्रीवा क्वथन फलास्क ( दूसरा पुनरीक्षण )
इन संशोधनों की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन, १ बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली-110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों : नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता, चण्डीगढ़, चेन्नई, मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों : अहमदाबाद, बंगलौर, भोपाल , भुवनेश्वर , कोयम्बतूर, गुवाहाटी. हैदराबाद, जयपुर, कानपुर, नागपुर, पटना, पुणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।
[संदर्भ: सीएचडी 10/ आई एस 1381 ( भाग 1 ) ]
डॉ. यू. सी. श्रीवास्तव, वैज्ञानिक ई, निदेशक एवं प्रमुख ( रसायन)
New Delhi , the 12th May, 2005
S.O. 1842. In pursuance of clause (b ) of sub - rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of Bureau of Indian Standards Rules . 1987 , the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that amendments to the Indian Standards . particulars of which given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been issued :-
SCHEDULE
Sl. No.
No. and title of the Indian Standards
No. and year of
the amendment
Date from which the amendment shall have effect (1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
1.
30April, 2005
Amendment No.
1.April, 2005
IS 1381 (Part 1) : 2003 /ISO 1773 : 1997 Laboratory glassware-Narrow- necked boiling flasks ( Second Revision )
Copy to these Standards are available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards , Manak Bhavan , 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110002 and Regional Offices: New Delhi , Kolkata Chandigarh , Chennai , Mumbai and also Branch Offices: Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal , Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati , Hyderabad , Jaipur, Kanpur . Nagpur . Patna , Pune , Thiruvananthapuram.
[Ref. CHD 10 /T- 1381 (Part 1) ]
Dr. U. C. SRIVASATAVA, Scientist E. Director & Head ( Chemical ) 5027 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : मई 21 , 2005 /वैशाख 31 , 1927
3
2
1
4
5 पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय
नई दिल्ली, 11 मई, 2005
राय बरेली राय बरेली सिद्धौना 947
0-20-36
948
0-07-54
2324
0-29-27
2323
0-40-36
2328
0-38-20
0-00-22
2352
2353
0-08-72
2351
0-08-74
2356
0-02-53
2357
0-11-21 का.आ. 1843.-केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम, 1962( 1962 का 50 ) ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी भारत सरकारके पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का.आ. 2719 तारीख , 15 अक्तूबर, 2004 और का.आ. 2724 तारीख , 15 अक्तूबर, 2004 , द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में गेल ( इंण्डिया ) लिमिटेड द्वारा उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य में थूलेन्डी से फूलपुर पाइपलाइन परियोजना तक प्राकृतिक गैस के परिवहन के लिए पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी;
2358
0-04-74
2359
0-07-12 और उक्त राजपत्रित अधिसूचना की प्रतियां जनता को तारीख 02दिसम्बर, 2004 से 12 जनवरी , 2005 तक उपलब्ध करा दी गई थीं;
2350
0-02-14
2349
2413
0-00-97 और पाइपलाइन बिछाने के सम्बन्ध में जनता से प्राप्त आक्षेपों पर सक्षम प्राधिकारी द्वारा विचार कर लिया गया है और उन्हें अननुज्ञात करदिया गया है;
2362
0-11-84
2363
0-15-22 और सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन केन्द्रीय सरकार को अपनी रिपोर्ट दे दी है;
2366
0-05-57
2409
0-00-84
2406
0-30-34
2390
0-05-92 और केन्द्रीय सरकार ने, उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् और यह समाधान हो जाने पर कि उक्त भूमि पाइपलाइनें बिछाने के लिए अपेक्षित है , उस में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने का विनिश्चय किया है;
2393
0-14-66
2391
0-16-37
0-16-28
2392
2209
0-30-51
2197
0-15-88 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 पाइपलाइनें बिछाने के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाता है;
2196
0-34-93
सर्वे नं. 2196 0-01-95
में (नाला)
0-06-56
सर्वे नं. 2196
में (कार्ट ट्रेक)
2197
0-33-92
2088
0-41-37 और, केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (4 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, निदेश देती है कि पाइपलाइनें बिछाने के लिए भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार , इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख को , केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने के बजाए, पाइपलाइनें बिछाने का प्रस्ताव करने वाली गेल ( इण्डिया ) लिमिटेड में निहित होगा और तदुपरि, भूमि में ऐसे उपयोग का अधिकार, इस प्रकार अधिरोपित निबंधनों और शर्तों के अधीन रहते हुए, सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त, गेल ( इण्डिया) लिमिटेडमें निहित होगा ।
2087
0-26-36 अनुसूची
4-75-07
कुल
जिला तहसील गाँव सर्वेनं.
0-03-03
धावूड नगर 665
666
0-08-85
667
आर.ओ.यू. अर्जित करने केलिए (हैक्टेयरमें)
0-00-24
0-35-25
668
1
2
3
4
5
679
0-00-92 राय बरेली
0-04-76
राय बरेली सिद्धौना 2335
678
0-01-05 945
0-17-37
680
0-15-19 943 5028
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 21 , 2005/VAISAKHA 31 , 1927
1
3
4
2
5
3
4
1
5
2
0-01-71
0-18-77 राय बरेली 'राय बरेली धावूड नगर 667
राय बरेली राय बरेली बन्दीपुर 266
681
0-19-22
0-02-27
265
682
270
0-10-37
0-00-13
718
0-04-96
0-14-65
278
778
0-00-28
277
0-17-71
0-07-54 777
275
0-09-89
775
0-09-96
276
0-02-45 774
0-17-35
0-37-11
281
764
0-01-90
282
0-19-48 763
0-02-70
0-14-76
295
762
0-07-97
0-14-37
288
764
0-01-80
274
765
289
0-09-95
0-02-42
761
0-01-96
0-02-67
291
749
0-14-17
0-10-51
292
760
0-05-18
2-71-89
कुल
753
0-02-16
0-02-68
23 (रोड़)
धूनावर
752
0-04-75
10
0-05-13 751
0-05-75
0-05-60
9
750
8
0-06-89
0-42-19
737
0-21-81
0-09-93
1
754
7
0-00-15
0-16-51
0-01-97
0-01-35 798
18
736
0-05-59
47
0-05-45 799
0-07-26
212
0-15-90 800
0-26-38
0-00-41
214
0-06-75
803
228
0-05-34 802
0-08-58
0-17-74
227
815
0-10-90
218
0-09-78 814
0-02-04
222
0-23-40 811
0-05-08
222/1126
0-00-18
3-42-78
220
0-02-40 कुल
0-25-44
0-08-13
221
बन्दीपुर 6
7
0-15-17
223
0-31-10 8
0-01-72
358
0-59-21 9
0-02-89
0-10-58
(कच्ची रोड़) 10
0-27-00
सर्वे नं. 358 में 12
0-15-18
359
0-21-28 11
0-09-27
362
0-04-40 14
0-01-83
0-04-99
सर्वे नं. 359 व 264
0-07-05
363के बीच
0-12-50
263
363
0-24-09 262
0-01-56
364 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
5029
भारत का राजपत्र : मई 21 , 2005/वैशाख 31 , 1927
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
0-05-26
365
2136
राय बरेली राय बरेली घूनावर
राय बरेली राय बरेली बावन
0-00-88 366
0-14-03
2142
0-55-24
बुगूर्ज
365
0-20-49
2133
0-14-94
(बल्ला)
383
0-00-83
2127
0-02-73 384
0-08-10
2124
0-17-60 173
0-02-50
2047
0-03-60 172
0-18-72
2048
0-00-41 170
0-03-11
0-27-67
2123
384
2121
0-04-93 168/1127
0-03-38
2050
0-00-44 388
0-27-21
2120
0-20-39 157
0-05-58
2060
0-18-52 156
0-11-20
2108
0-10-59
4-17-92
कुल
2107
0-23-89 1749
0-23-27
बावन
2103
0-22-11 2191
0-12-37
बुगूर्ज
2104
0-05-52 2190
(बेल्ला)
0-30-51
2102
0-10-71 2184
0-10-11
2099
0-07-45
0-05-83
(रोड़) सर्वे नं.
2068
0-44-70 2184 व 2190
2097
0-71-62 2187
0-05-61
2096
0-08-12 2188
0-03-02
3297
0-71-83 2179
0-02-19
6-57-06
कुल
2178
0-00-95
0-25-00
202
थूलवास
2180
0-11-56
536
0-02-88 2176
0-03-71
535
0-03-16 2172
0-30-21
534
0-24-04 2406
0-01-80
203
0-03-34 2396
0-01-51
531
0-02-09 、 2397
0-01-78
532
0-01-35 2305
530
0-09-92 2398
0-13-97
213
0-02-47 2399
0-01-73
527
0-15-34 2400
0-01-63
525
2401
0-18-54
526
0-02-76 2416
0-04-03
0-01-86
522
2415
0-01-22
521
0-50-60 2411
0-01-45
517
2412
0-03-88
516
0-00-49 2413
0-06-26
549
0-04-54 2414
0-05-97
506
0-13-50
495
(कैनाल) 2167 0-09-13
0-11-53 2137
0-00-83
0-04-33
505
1450 G1/2005-2 5030
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21 , 2005 /VAISAKHA 31, 1927
[PART II -SEC. 3 ( ii) ] 1
2
3
5
4
1
2
3
4
5 राय बरेली
0-03-56
राय बरेली थूलवास 496
राय बरेली
0-00-51
राय बरेली थूलवास 836
501
0-07-59
838
0-07-41 504
0-07-55
863
0-11-01 503
0-02-83
839
0-00-23 502
0-02-58
837
0-09-68
0-03-25
सर्वे न. 503 व
0-01-51
(कार्ट ट्रक) 562के बीच
840
0-01-86
826/1678
0-03-09 (कार्ट ट्रक)
562
825
0-07-50
0-00-37
सर्वे नं. 562 व
सर्वे नं. 826/1678 0-00-10 597 के बीच
व 824 के बीच 597
0-18-64
0-10-35
सर्वे नं. 826/1678 594
0-01-80
व 824के बीच 593
0-08-19
824
0-20-63 592
0-03-29
823
0-08-31 591
0-14-41
971
0-07-24 585
0-09-89
980
0-07-94 590
0-05-11
981
0-79-82 :
586
0-03-19
कुल
587
0-00-21
20
लोधवा
0-27-20 584
0-06-82
मऊ
24
581
0-00-11
25
0-01-71 582
0-01-35
0-23-66
40
583
0-04-43
48
0-06-28 658
0-13-72
47
0-17-10 657
0-01-79
49
0-03-08 656
0-05-83
50
0-00-13 655
0-03-17
0-03-53
51
643
0-07-03
52
659
0-06-72
53
0-15-48 660
0-34-57
0-02-24
54
884
0-10-87
63
885
62
0-16-81 883
0-01-11
65
0-02-57 882
97
0-04-53 854
0-16-34
98
0-09-81 855
0-24-03
0-19-88
94
851
0-10-79
91
0-03-70 858
0-15-23
84
0-17-82 859
0-02-42
83
0-00-44 859/1781
0-04-18
85
0-19-29 861
0-03-33
224
0-05-49 842
0-01-45
86
0-00-52 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
5031
भारत का राजपत्र: मई 21 , 2005/वैशाख 31 , 1927
1
2
3
4
5
1 राय बरेली
430
राय बरेली लोधवा
0-11-27 राय बरेली मऊ
434
0-02-72
433
0-07-11
432
0-15-67
447
0-14-45
454
0-17-34
455
0-16-65
453
0-01-09
456
0-04-53
429
0-17-47
463
0-01-39
464
0-07-50
465
0-00-57
3-24-23
कुल
0-12-46 मरदानपुर 28
29
0-03-59
31
0-12-54
32
0-28-40
46
0-00-33
34
0-01-75
35
0-01-91
46
0-40-83
50
0-06-64
51
0-03-35
53
0-01-46
52
0-07-05
61
0-03-31
74
0-19-59
71
0-00-36
72
0-16-64
92
0-05-11
93
0-15-77
109
0-14-82
110
0-02-54
90
0-11-16
146
0-00-95
147
0-00-93
140
0-20-96
114
0-00-54
139
0-00-91
138
0-00-83
137
0-02-17
134.
0-01-59 2
3
4-
5
0-00-87
133
राय बरेली मरदानपुर
141
0-04-61
132
0-09-75
131
0-05-16
204
0-02-56
0-20-87
202
213
0-00-52
0-00-84
201
214
0-00-96
200
0-02-37
215
0-08-62
221
0-26-43
223
0-01-52
224
0-01-41
सर्वे नं. 224 0-13-79
231के बीच
231
0-17-39
232
0-02-07
230
0-03-93
229
0-03-73
228
0-00-75
227
0-22-15
233
402
0-00-15
226
0-00-97
0-15-36
404
0-00-73
405
403.
0-14-37
399
0-05-09
397
0-02-79
396
0-19-38
4-47-83
कुल
रासेहेथा 528
0-24-78
525
0-21-60
524
0-11-76
523
0-03-98
535
0-00-21
520
0-02-93
537
0-03-02
536
0-02-25
519
0-21-31
492
0-15-34
539
0-09-97 5032
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21 , 2005/VAISAKHA 31 , 1927
1
2
4
5
3
1 राय बरेली रासेहेथा 481
राय बरेली
0-03-69
480
0-00-36
540
0-14-73
541
0-45-15
546
0-00-28
548
0-02-69
476
0-04-23
474
0-02-52
475
0-26-21
729
0-00-84
730
0-16-80
731
0-19-20
732
0-00-64
733
0-02-21
735
0-00-35
777
0-15-72
780
0-26-74
784
0-10-05
3-09-56
कुल
चक पीरा 1
0-17-08
3
शाह
0-09-35
2
0-02-01
11
0-00-64
12
0-00-48
13
0-12-42
14
0-12-77
15
0-02-39
16
0-05-41
140
0-17-34
141
0-05-40
142
0-12-78
138
0-05-99
143
0-00-42
144
0-00-44
152
0-00-25
153
0-02-21
160
0-04-94
161
0-28-57
166
0-00-18
167
0-24-88
168
0-12-94
169
0-13-81
171
0-02-95
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] 2
3
4
5 चक पीरा 170
राय बरेली राय बरेली
0-16-29 शाह
2-11-94
-कुल
सन्धेनागीन 332
0-00-55
331
0-19-42
325
0-01-01
330
0-11-63
344
0-20-37
345
0-12-29
305
0-00-36
सर्वे नं. 305 व 0-01-32
346 के बीच
346
0-16-34
347
0-24-96
351
0-01-94
0-06-86
348
349
0-06-58
0-07-71
354
350
0-01-77
250
0-63-58
249
0-21-11
0-01-40
353
398
0-00-87
( रजवाहा कैनाल ) 0-02-03
सर्वेनं. 249
( रजवाहा कैनाल ) 0-00-78
सर्वेनं. 353
( रजवाहा कैनाल ) 0-00-86
सर्वे नं. 398
( रजवाहा कैनाल ) 0-04-00
सर्वे नं. 241
( रजवाहा कैनाल ) 0-01-80
सर्वेनं. 231
231
0-02-77
230
0-05-51
229
0-05-67
228
0-00-83
232
0-03-62
233
234
0-06-63
236
0-00-27
235
0-05-92
238
0-20-50
0-07-46
सर्वेनं. 238
(एसएच
-34) [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
5033 भारत का राजपत्र : मई 21 , 2005 /वैशाख 31 , 1927-
1
3
2
4
5
1
2
3
4
5 458
राय बरेली राय बरेली संधेनागीन
0-16-67
0-00-47
राय बरेली राय बरेली लालपुर 92
459
0-01-46
चौहान 93
0-00-94 457
0-08-15
94
0-14-08 462
0-00-59
96
0-03-18 463
0-16-92
91
0-04-10 464
0-01-51
164
0-00-31 465
0-09-19
165
0-07-46 482
0-04-28
168
0-19-08 480
172
0-01-10 481
0-13-92
177
0-10-02
3-61-61
176
कुल
0-01-46
0-14-79
जलालपुर 218
175
0-11-78 219
0-06-84
173
0-05-76 217
0-05-67
174
0-15-47 216
0-00-49
186
0-01-12 221
0-09-07
188
0-37-47 240
0-05-53
202
0-01-29 241
0-03-98
208
0-17-18 242
0-03-16
210/607
0-17-56 247
0-01-12
245
0-03-16 248
0-04-54
213
0-05-31 249
0-03-29
214
0-06-85 250
0-04-56
216
0-08-53 288
0-09-70
243
0-01-14 251
0-01-59
242
0-01-25 253
0-06-55
227
0-06-70 254
0-09-96
(नाला) सर्वे 0-01-04 255
0-06-98
न. 227
287
0-03-10
228
0-10-03 256
229
0-11-98
0-06-54 284
0-08-97
230
0-02-69 283
0-05-22
231
0-00-94 260
0-00-17
232
0-03-84 282
0-02-30
233
0-01-18
0-07-09
280
234
0-16-57 281
0-01-26
2-45-69
कुल
279
278
0-14-99 277
0-17-24
बुवापुर कला
276
0-08-64
(पक्कीसड़क) 0-02-83 274
0-08-91
सर्वे नं. 278
0-03-56
275
278/409
308
0-28-22
0-03-75
1-80-31
कुल
281
0-01-78 5034
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21 , 2005 /VAISAKHA 31 , 1927
1
2
3
4
5 राय बरेली
0-06-43 राय बरेली बुवापुर 280
कलाँ
390
0-04-79
391
0-20-25
396
0-09-78
388
0-06-41
387
0-29-35
397
0-15-48
383
0-01-84
382
0-18-49
381
0-12-17
1-72-81
कुल
सालोन
0-27-71
कमलपुर 19
बरेला 17
0-01-50
13
0-29-55
9
0-12-72
10
0-04-98
11
325
0-15-11
343
0-01-89
356
0-08-30
344
0-12-58
355
0-00-55
345
0-13-27
346
0-00-85
353
0-11-70
352
0-12-69
351
0-05-15
387
0-01-50
381
0-00-54
382
0-09-39
383
0-06-41
380
0-01-99
384
0-00-15
1-79-33
कुल
0-22-67
प्रधानपुर 80
81
0-10-37
78
77
0-24-15
76
0-17-61
75
0-11-19
98
0-19-22
[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii ) ]
1
2
3
4
5
राय बरेली सालोन
0-01-28 प्रधानपुर 69/499
69
0-08-62
105
0-14-14
104
0-01-56
106
0-26-31
110
0-09-35
109
0-05-54
0-20-67
406
405
0-02-63
409
0-01-19
420
0-05-07
377
0-05-26
421
0-02-08
376
0-09-78
375
0-06-20
374
0-09-10
371
0-00-83
373
0-01-06
462
0-00-15
463
0-07-52
372
0-04-17
368
0-00-21
364
0-01-83
367
0-08-33
366
0-02-79
365
0-01-97
428
0-01-47
369
0-00-44
427
0-06-76
सर्वे नं. 427 व 0-04-22
437के बीच
(पक्कीरोड)
438
0-12-98
437
0-01-16
441
0-06-82
439
0-00-21
440
0-01-36
442
0-06-44
446
0-04-45
448
0-05-76
445/502
0-01-35
447
0-09-71
3-27-98
कुल [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
5035
भारत का राजपत्र: मई 21 , 2005/वैशाख 31 , 1927
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5 राय बरेली सालोन
0-04-19 राय बरेली सालोन
बिकापुर 4
0-04-01
घाटमपुर 35
7
0-24-08
396
0-01-78 8
0-13-52
406
0-11-40 19
0-01-03
405
23
0-02-71
404
0-02-60 25
0-19-89
403
0-02-41 24
410
0-03-14 27
0-02-34
402
0-06-17 28
414
0-25-08 29
412
0-05-47 32
0-37-54
413
0-02-57 31
416
0-02-08
1-07-20
कुल
417
0-04-64
0-68-34
ब्रमजीतपुर 2
415
67
0-29-48
418
0-00-73 68
0-17-28
419
0-01-12 69
0-10-85
420
0-01-18
1-25-95
कुल
421
0-04-61
0-05-59
घाटमपुर 5
सर्वे नं. 421 0-05-35 6
0-02-09
(रजवाहा कैनाल) 8
0-05-72
428
0-00-29 7
2-62-83
कुल
9
0-36-14
[फा. स. एल-14014/4/ '05-जी.पी. ] 77
0-00-56
एस.बी. मण्डल, अवर सचिव 78
0-07-82
MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS 75
0-08-72
New Delhi , the 11th May, 2005 69
0-01-18
70
0-06-77
71
72
0-02-87
64
0-10-73
61
0-06-87
62
0-02-20
54
53
0-00-68
49
0-02-77
S.O. 1843. Whereas by notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O. 2719 dated the 15th October, 2004 and S.O. 2724 dated the 15th October, 2004, issued under Sub-section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act , 1962 (50 of 1962) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land specified in the Scecule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipelines for thetransportation of natural gas from Thulendi to Phoolpur pipeline project in the State of Uttar Pradesh by the GAIL (India) Limited;
48
0-01-03
47
0-01-34
Andwhereas copies of the said Gazette Notification were made available to the public from 02nd December , 2004 to 12th January, 2005;
46
0-00-83
44
0-00-78
13
0-44-38
Andwhereas the objections received from the public to the laying of the pipeline have been considered and disallowed by the competent authority ;
34
0-11-92
33
0-16-01
And whereas the competent authority has , under Sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 6 of the said Act , submitted its report to the Central Government ;
5036
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 21 , 2005/VAISAKHA 31 , 1927
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]
1
2
3
4
5
Rai
Rai
2390
Sidhauna
0-05-92 And whereas the Central Government , after considering the said report and on being satisfied that the said land is required for laying the pipelines , has decided to acquire the right of user therein.
2393
0-14-66
Bareilly Bareilly
2391
0-16-37
2392
0-16-28
2209
0-30-51 Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub - section ( 1) of Section 6 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declared that the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification is hereby acquired for laying the pipelines ;
2197
0-15-88
2196
0-34-93
0-01-95
In SvyNo.
2196(Nala)
0-06-56
InSvy No.
2196(Cart Track)
2197
0-33-92 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 land for laying the pipelines shall , instead of vesting in the Central Government , vest , on the date of the publication of the declaration , in the GAIL (India) Limited, proposing to lay the pipelines and thereupon the right of such user in the land shall , subject to the terms and conditions so imposed, vest in the GAIL ( India) , free from all encumbrances .
2088
0-41-37
2087
0-26-36 SCHEDULE
Total
4-75-07 District Tehsil Village
Dhawud 665
0-03-03 Survey No.
0-08-85
Nagar 666
667
0-00-24
Area to be acquired for ROU (InHectare)
668
0-35-25 1
2
3
4
5
679
0-00-92 Rai
Rai
678
Sidhauna 2335
0-04-76
0-01-05 945
0-17-37
680
Bareilly
0-15-19 Bareilly
943
667
0-01-71 947
0-20-36
681
0-19-22 948
0-07-54
682
0-00-13 2324
0-29-27
718
0-04-96 2323
0-40-36
778
0-00-28 2328
0-38-20
777
0-09-89 2352
775
0-00-22
0-09-96 2353
0-08-72
774
0-37-11 2351
764
0-08-74
0-01-90 2356
0-02-53
763
0-14-76 2357
0-11-21
762
0-14-27 2358
0-04-74
764
0-01-80 2359
0-07-12
765
0-02-42 2350
0-02-14
761
0-01-96 2349
749
0-14-17 2413
0-00-97
760
0-05-18 2362
753
0-11-84
0-02-16 2363
0-15-22
752
0-04-75 2366
0-05-57
751
0-05-60 2409
0-00-84
750
0-42-19 2406
0-30-34
737
0-09-93 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
5037
भारत का राजपत्र : मई 21 , 2005 /वैशाख 31 , 1927
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
5 Rai
Rai
Dhawud 754
0-00-15 Rai
Rai Ghunawar 7
0-16-51
0-01-97
Bareilly
Nagar
Bareilly
798
18
0-01-35
Bareilly Bareilly
736
0-05-59.
47
0-05-45 799
0.07-26
212
0-15-90 800
0-26-38
214
0-00-41 803
0-06-75
228
0-05-34 802
0-08-58
227
0-17-74 815
0-10-90
218
0-09-78 814
0-02-04
222
0-23-40 811
0-05-08
222/1126
0-00-18 Total
3-42-78
220
0-02-40
0-25-44
Bandipur 6
221
0-08-13 7
0-15-17
223
0-31-10 8
0-01-72
358
0-59-21 9
0-10-58
0-02-89
(MudRoad) 10
0-27-00
In Svy . No. 358 12
0-15-18
359
0-21-28 11
0-09-27
362
0-04-40 14
0-01-83
0-04-99
InBet Svy.
264
0-07-05
No. 359 & 363 263
0-12-50
363
0-24-09 262
0-01-56
364
266
0-18-77
365
0-05-26 265
0-02-27
366
0-14-03 270
0-10-37
365
0-20-49
0-14-65
278
383
0-00-83 277
0-17-71
384
0-08-10 275
0-07-54
173
0-02-50 276
0-02-45
172
0-18-72 281
0-17-35
170
0-03-11 282
0-19-48
384
295
0-02-70
168/1127
0-03-38 288
0-07-97
388
0-27-21 274
157
0-05-58 289
0-09-95
156
0-11-20 291
0-02-67
Total
4-17-92 292
0-10-51
1749
Bawan
0-23-27 Total
2-71-89
0-12-37
Bugurg 2191
0-02-68
Ghunawar 23 (Road)
0-30-51
(Balla) 2190
10
0-05-13
2184
0-10-11 9
0-05-75
(Road) In Svy. 0-05-83 8
0-06-89
No. 2184 & 2190 1
0-21-81
2187
0-05-61 1450 Gl /2005-3 5038
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21 , 2005 /VAISAKHA 31 , 1927
[PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii) ] 1
2
3
5
4
1
2
3
4
5 Rai
Rai
Bawan 2188
0-03-02 Rai
Rai
0-71-83
Bawan 3297
0-02-19
Bareilly
Bareilly Bareilly
Bugurg 2179
Bareilly
Bugurg (Balla)
0-00-95
(Balla) 2178.
Total
6-57-06 .2180
0-11-56
0-25-00
Thulwas 202
2176
0-03-71
536
0-02-88 2172
0-30-21
535
0-03-16 2406
0-01-80
534
0-24-04 2396
0-01-51
0-03-34
203
2397
0-01-78
531
0-02-09
532
2305
0-01-35
530
0-09-92 2398
0-13-97
0-02-47
213
2399
0-01-73
527
0-15-34 2400
0-01-63
525
2401
0-18-54
0-02-76
526
2416
0-04-03
522
0-01-86 2415
0-01-22
0-50-60
521
2411
0-01-45
517
2412
0-03-88
0-00-49
516
0-06-26
2413
0-04-54
549
2414
0-13-50
0-05-97
506
495
0-11-53
0-09-13
(Canal)2167
0-04-33
505
2137
0-00-83
0-056
496
2136
0-00-88
0-07-59
501
2142
0-55-24
0-07-55
504
2133
0-14-94
0-02-83
503
2127
0-02-73
502
0-02-58 2124
0-17-60
0-03-25
In Bet Svy.
2047
0-03-60
No. 503 & 562 2048
0-00-41
0-01-86
(CartTrack) 2123
0-27-67
562
0-00-37 2121
0-04-93
InBet Svy.
No. 562 & 597 2050
0-00-44
597
0-18-64 2120
0-20-39
0-01-80
594
2060
0-18-52
0-08-19
593
2108
0-10-59
592
0-03-29 2107
0-23-89
0-14-41
591
2103
585
0-09-89
0-22-11
590
0-05-11 2104
0-05-52
586
0-03-19 2102
0-10-71
587
0-00-21 2099
0-07-45
584
0-06-82 2068
0-44-70
581
0-00-11 2097
0-71-62
0-01-35
582
2096
0-08-12
583
0-04-43 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
5039 भारत का राजपत्र : मई 21 , 2005 /वैशाख 31 , 1927
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5 Rai
Rai
Thulwas 658
Rai
0-13-72
Rai
Lodhwa 52
657
0-01-79
Bareilly
Bareilly
Mau 53
0-15-48
Bareilly Bareilly
656
0-05-83
54
0-02-24 655
0-03-17
63
643
0-07-03
62
0-16-81 659
0-06-72
65
0-02-57 660
0-34-57
97
0-04-53 884
0-10-87
98
0-09-81 885
94
0-19-88 883
0-01-11
0-03-70
91
882
84
0-17-82 854
0-16-34
83
0-00-44.
855
0-24-03
85
0-19-29 851
0-10-79 .
224
0-05-49 858
0-15-23
86
0-00-52 859
0-02-42
430
0-11-27 859/1781
0-04-18
434
0-02-72 861
0-03-33
433
0-07-11 842
0-01-45
432
0-15-67 836
0-00-51
447
0-14-45 838
0-07-41
454
0-17-34 863
0-11-01
455
0-16-65 839
0-00-23
453
0-01-09
0-09-68
837
456
0-04-53
0-01-51
429
(CartTrack)
0-17-47 840
463
0-01-39 826/1678
0-03-09
464
0-07-50 825
0-07-50
!
465
0-00-57
Total
InBet Svy . No. 0-00-10.
3-24-23 826/1678 & 824
Mardan- 28
0-12-46 In Bet Svy . No.
29
0-10-35
0-03-59
pur
826/1678 & 824
31
0-12-54 824
0-20-63
32
0-28-40 823
0-08-31
46
0-00-33 971
0-07-24
34
0-01-75 980
0-07-94
35
0-01-91 981
0-79-82
46
0-40-83 Total
50
0-06-64 Lodhwa 20
0-27-20
0-03-35
51
Mau 24
53
0-01-46 25
0-01-71
52
0-07-05 40
0-23-66
61
0-03-31 48
0-06-28
74
0-19-59 47
0-17-10
71
0-00-36 49
0-03-08
72
0-16-74 50
0-00-13
92
0-05-11 51
0-03-53
93
0-15-77 5040
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21 , 2005/VAISAKHA 31 , 1927
1
5
1 2
3
4
Rai
Mardan- 109
0-14-82 Rai Rai
0-02-54
110
pur
Bareilly
Bareilly
Bareilly
90
0-11-16
146
0-00-95
147
0-00-93
0-20-96
140
114
0-00-54
0-00-91
139
138
0-00-83
137
0-02-17
0-01-59
134
0-00-87
133
141
0-04-61
132
0-09-75
0-05-16
131
0-02-56
204
0-20-87
202
0-00-52
213
201
0-00-84
214
0-00-96
0-02-37
200
215
0-08-62
0-26-43
221
0-01-52
223
0-01-41
224
0-13-79
InBet Svy
No. 224 & 231
0-17-39
231
0-02-07
232
230
0-03-93
229
0-03-73
228
0-00-75
0-22-15
227
233
0-00-15
402
226
0-00-97
0-15-36
404
405
0-00-73
0-14-37
403
399
0-05-09
397
0-02-79
396
0-19-38
4-47-83
Total
0-24-78
Rasehe- 528
0-21-60
525
tha
0-11-76
524
523
0-03-98
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii)]
4
3
5 2
Rai
0-00-21 Rasehe- 535
0-02-93 tha 520
Bareilly
537
0-03-02
536
0-02-25
519
0-21-31
492
0-15-34
0-09-97
539
0-03-69
481
480
0-00-36
540
0-14-73
0-45-15
541
546
0-00-28
548
0-02-69
0-04-23
476
0-02-52
474
475
0-26-21
0-00-84
729
0-16-80
730
0-19-20
731
0-00-64
732
733
0-02-21
735
0-00-35
0-15-72
780
0-26-74
784
0-10-05
3-09-56
Total
0-17-08
1
Chak
Peera 3
0-09-35
2
0-02-01 Shah
0-00-64
11
12
0-00-48
13
0-12-42
14
0-12-77
15
0-02-39
16
0-05-41
0-17-34
140
141
0-05-40
142
0-12-78
0-05-99
138
0-00-42
143
144
0-00-44
0-00-25
152
0-02-21
153
160
0-04-94
161
0-28-57
166
0-00-18
167
0-24-88 5041 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : मई 21 , 2005 /वैशाख 31 , 1927
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
Rai
Sande 459
0-01-46 Rai ChakPeeral 68
0-12-94
457
0-08-15
Rai Bareilly Bareilly nagin
Shah
0-13-81
169
Rai Bareilly Bareilly
462
0-00-59
0-02-95
171
463
0-16-92 170
0-16-29
0-01-51
464
Total
2-11-94
465
0-09-19 Sandhe- 332
0-00-55
482
0-04-28
0-19-42
nagin 331
480
325
0-01-01
481
0-13-92 330
0-11-63
3-61-61
Jalalpur Total
344
0-20-37
218
0-14-79 345
0-12-29
219
0-06-84
0-00-36
305
217
0-05-67
0-01-32
InBet Svy
216
0-00-49 No. 305&346
221
0-09-07 346
0-16-34
240
0-05-53 347
0-24-96
241
0-03-98 351
0-01-94
242
0-03-16 348
0-06-86
247
0-01-12 349
0-06-58
248
0-04-54 354
0-07-71
249
0-03-29 350
0-01-77
250
0-04-56 250
0-63-58
288.
0-09-70 249
0-21-11
251
0-01-59 353
0-01-40
253
0-06-55 398
0-00-87
254
0-09-96 (Minor Canal) 0-02-03
255
0-06-98 InSvyNo. 249
287
0-03-10 (Minor Canal) 0-00-78
256
0-11-98 In Svy No. 353
284
0-08-97 (Minor Canal) 0-00-86
283
0-05-22 In Svy No. 398
260
0-00-17 (Minor Canal) 0-04-00
282
0-02-30 InSvyNo. 241
280
0-07-09 (Minor Canal ) 0-01-80
281
0-01-26 In SvyNo.231
279
231
0-02-77
277
230
0-05-51
0-17-24 229
0-05-67
276
0-08-64 228
0-00-83
274
0-08-91 232
275
0-03-56 233
0-03-62
308
0-03-75 234
0-06-63
Total
1-80-31 236
0-00-27
0-00-47
Lalpur 92
235
0-05-92
0-00-94
Chauhan 93
238
0-20-50
94
0-14-08
0-07-46
InSvyNo.
96
0-03-18 238(SH- 34)
91
0-04-10 458
0-16-67
164
0-00-31 5042
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21 , 2005/VAISAKHA 31 , 1927
1
2
3
4
5
1 Rai
Rai
0-07-46
Rai Lalpur 165
0-19-08 Chauhan 168
Barielly Bareilly Bareilly
172
0-01-10
0-10-02
177
176
0-01-46
175
0-11-78
0-05-76
173
174
0-15-47
186
0-01-12
0-37-47
188
202
0-01-29
208
0-17-18
0-17-56
210/607
245
0-03-16
213
0-05-31
0-06-85
214
216
0-08-53
243
0-01-14
0-01-25
242
0-06-70
227
0-01-04
(Nala) In Svy .
No. 227
228
0-10-03
229
0-06-54
230
0-02-69
231
0-00-94
232
0-03-84
233
0-01-18
234
0-16-57
2-45-69
Total
0-14-99 Buwapur 278
Kalan
0-02-83
(Metalled Road )
In Svy . No. 278
278/409
0-28-22
281
0-01-78
280
0-06-43
0-04-79
390
391
0-20-25
396
0-09-78
388
0-06-41
387
0-29-35
397
0-15-48
383
0-01-84
382
0-18-49
0-12-17
381
Total
1-72-81
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii)] 2
3
4
5
0-27-71 Salon Kamalpur 19
Barela
17
0-01-50
13
0-29-55
0-12-72
9
10
0-04-98
11
325
0-15-11
343
0-01-89
356
0-08-30
344
0-12-58
355
0-00-55
345
0-13-27
346
0-00-85
353
0-11-70
352
0-12-69
0-05-15
351
387
0-01-50
381
0-00-54
382
0-09-39
383
0-06-41
380
0-01-99
384
0-00-15
1-79-33
Total
0-22-67 Pardan- 80
0-10-37
81
pur
78
77
0-24-15
76
0-17-61
75
0-11-19
98
0-19-22
69/499
0-01-28
69
0-08-62
105
0-14-14
0-01-56
104
106
0-26-31
110
0-09-35
109
0-05-54
406
0-20-67
405
0-02-63
409
0-01-19
0-05-07
420
377
0-05-26
0-02-08
421
376
0-09-78
375
0-06-20
374
0-09-10 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : मई 21 , 2005/वैशाख 31 , 1927
5043 1
2
3
4
5
1
3
2
4
5 Rai
Salon
371-
Pardan-
Rai
0-00-83
Salon Ghatam- 8
0-05-72 373
Bareilly
0-01-06
pur
7
Bareilly
pur
462
0-00-15
9
0-36-14 463
0-07-52
77
0-00-56 372
0-04-17
78
0-07-82 368
75
0-00-21
0-08-72 364
69
0-01-83
0-01-18
70
367
0-08-33
0-06-77 366
71
0-02-79
365
72
0-02-87
0-01-97
64
428
0-10-73
0-01-47
61.
0-06-87 369
0-00-44
62
427
0-02-20
0-06-76
54
0-04-22
InBet. Svy.
53
0-00-68 No. 427 & 437
49
0-02-77 (Metalled Road)
48
0-01-03 438
0-12-98
47
0-01-34 437
0-01-16
46
0-00-83 441
0-06-82
44
0-00-78 439
0-00-21.
13
0-44-38 440
0-01-36
34
0-11-92 442
0-06-44
33
0-16-01 446
0-04-45
35.
0-04-01 448
0-05-76
396
0-01-78 445/502
0-01-35
406
0-11-40 447
0-09-71
405
Total
3-27-98
404
0-02-60
0-04-19
Bikapur 4
403
0-02-41 7
0-24-08
410
0-03-14 8
0-13-52
402
0-06-17 19
0-01-03
414
0-25-08 23
0-02-71
412
0-05-47 25
0-19-89
413
0-02-57 24
416
0-02-08 27
0-02-34
417
0-04-64 28
415
29
418
0-00-73 32
0-37-54
419
0-01-12 31
420
0-01-18 Total
1-07-20
421
0-04-61
0-68-34
Bramjit- 2
In Svy . No. 421 0-05-35 67
0-29-48
pur
(MinorCanal) 68
0-17-28
428
0-00-29 69
0-10-85
2-62-83
Total
Total
1-25-95
Ghatam- 5
0-05-59
[F. No. L-14014/4/05 -G.P .]
0-02-09
pur 6
S. B. MANDAL , Under Secy .
5044
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21 , 2005 /VAISAKHA 31 , 1927
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]
2
3
4
1
5 नईदिल्ली, 11 मई, 2005
527
सालोन बरबा
रायबरेली
0-11-66
526
0-00-56
523
0-15-84
528
0-03-59
522
497
0-07-40
0-08-62
498
509
0-04-44
510
0-01-70
508
0-06-08
506
0-05-31
498
0-02-80 का.आ. 1844.-केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पैट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम, 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 3 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी भारत सरकार के पैट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का.आ. 2719 तारीख , 15 अक्तूबर, 2004 और का.आ. 2724 तारीख, 15 अक्तूबर, 2004 , द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में गेल ( इण्डिया ) लिमिटेड द्वारा उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य में थूलेन्डी से फूलपुर पाइपलाइन परियोजना तक प्राकृतिक गैस के परिवहन के लिए पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी;
502
500
0-05-42
501
0-07-35
499
0-10-89
487
0-01-29
488
0-00-23 और उक्त राजपत्रित अधिसूचना की प्रतियां जनता को तारीख 09 फरवरी , 2005 से 17 फरवरी , 2005 तक उपलब्ध करा दी गई थीं; और पाइपलाइन बिछाने के सम्बन्ध में जनता से प्राप्त आक्षेपों पर सक्षम प्राधिकारी द्वारा विचार कर लिया गया है और उन्हें अननुज्ञात करदिया गया है;
478
0-10-63
476
0-03-64 और सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन केन्द्रीय सरकार को अपनी रिपोर्ट दे दी है ;
477
473
0-02-75
475
0-00-98
0-08-26
474
470
0-27-58 और केन्द्रीय सरकार ने, उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् और यह समाधान हो जाने पर कि उक्त भूमि में पाइपलाइनें बिछाने के लिए अपेक्षित है , उस में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने का विनिश्चय किया है;
613
0-00-11
614
0-10-36
467
0-01-64
617
0-01-02
618
0-16-81 अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, यह घोषणा करती है कि इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में पाइपलाइनें बिछाने के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाता है;
620
0-07-38
621
0-22-95
सर्वे नं. 621 व 0-02-39
451के बीच में (पक्कीरोड)
451
0-32-27
441
0-01-56
439
0-18-92
437
0-07-43 और, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप - धारा (4 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, निदेश देती है कि पाइपलाइनें बिछाने के लिए भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार, इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख को, केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने के बजाए, पाइपलाइनें बिछाने का प्रस्ताव करने वाली गेल ( इण्डिया ) लिमिटेड में निहित होगा और तदुपरि, भूमि में ऐसे उपयोग का अधिकार, इस प्रकार अधिरोपित निबंधनों और शर्तों के अधीन रहते हुए, सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त, गेल (इण्डिया ) लिमिटेड में निहित होगा ।
436
0-11-47 अनुसूची
435
0-01-54 जिला तहसील गाँव सर्वे नं.
434
0-01-84
427
0-15-10
आर.ओ.यू. अर्जित करने के लिए (हैक्टेयरमें)
426
0-03-82
428
0-02-14 1
2
3
4
5.
422
0-04-62 557
बरबा
सालोन
रायबरेली
0-08-91
423
0-15-91 558
425
0-00-49 559
0-33-57
424
0-06-88 560
0-01-95
3-79-93
कुल
0-01-33
सर्वे नं. 559 व
0-03-36
रचनापुर 10
530के बीच में
11
0-01-84 530
12
0-14-09 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: मई 21 , 2005/वैशाख 31 , 1927
5045 1
2
3
4
5
2
3
1
4
5 रायबरेली सालौन
0-27-32
2319
रचमापुर 21
सालोन पोथाई
रायबरेली
0-00-77 22
0-00-27
2317
0-01-52 23
0-03-13
2346
0-29-72 24
0-06-93
2348
0-11-98 सर्वे नं. 302में 0-02-45
2349
0-01-56
2276
(रजवाहा कैनाल)
0-04-87 302
0-18-41
2393
0-04-06 309
0-16-98
2394
0-31-98
0-06-35
310
2423
0-01-73 298
0-09-58
2424
0-05-43 294
0-08-77
2408
0-02-51 295
0-01-53
2407
0-00-19 293
0-00-86
2406
0-02-55 326
2405
0-38-85 327
0-15-75
2402
0-07-60 326
2962,
0-00-89 332
0-05-04
2972
0-18-21 331
0-12-55
2972/3303
0-01-04 329
0-00-94
2974
0-35-99 336
0-15-60
2967
0-00-89 335
0-00-67
0-05-57
2975
337
0-01-03
3026
0-18-99 338
0-10-97
3120
0-01-20 339
0-07-25
3029
340
0-06-06
3027
0-05-94 341
0-08-88
3028
0-02-29 342
0-05-96
0-03-37
3030
343
0-08-41
3032
0-00-61 266
0-04-79
3117
0-40-08 267
0-03-60
3116
0-03-04 268
0-20-74
3131
0-00-43 269
0-02-24
3115
0-18-67 263
0-09-22
3111
0-01-75 264
0-07-56
263
3101
0-00-73
0-12-65
258
3100
0-43-53
0-03-25
259
3098
0-11-88
0-04-06
260
0-00-77
3083
0-03-93 257
0-09-49
3249
0-02-79 248
0-10-07
3077
0-22-55 247
0-06-56
3076
0-02-64 246
0-02-52
3074
0-33-61 सर्वे नं. 246 व
0-01-21
0-00-33
3075
वी.बी. के बीच
3250
0-31-84
3254
0-00-21
3-18-94
कुल
0-18-96
3252
275
निनवा
0-02-35
0-00-33
3263
0-02-35
कुल
3262
0-06-98 2295
0-15-20
रायबरेली सालोन पोथाई
3255
2314
0-16-15
0-20-35
3272
2322
0-06-70
3261
0-03-22 2324
0-00-76
3274
0-18-01 2321
0-10-42
2320
5-79-12
0-02-64
कुल
1450 GI/2005-4 5046
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 21 , 2005/VAISAKHA 31 , 1927
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] 4
1
2
3
4
5 3
5
1
2
अटवा
655
0-08-05
सालोन
रायबरेली
0-07-26
सालोन
10
रायबरेली
अटवा
0-10-13
670
0-04-37
11
0-02-90
671
0-19-27
13
0-04-78
669
13/1395
0-12-73
666
17
0-01-44
674
0-00-75
0-00-69
18
0-04-37
675
24
0-08-17
0-03-74
677
23
0-03-16
0-00-79
678
0-03-67
20
0-05-34
679
0-00-95
19
666
0-09-75
0-02-06
21
0-02-24
665
0-05-45
22
0-07-77
682
25
0-14-77
0-04-08
683
33
0-06-24
0-05-28
684
32
0-01-31
0-10-85
685
358
0-17-28
0-08-24
686
357
0-22-30
0-04-33
689
0-00-63
365
0-03-26
690
356
0-03-18
0-09-88
707
35
0-00-46
0-03-10
708
41
0-00-61
706
0-18-28 36
0-00-35
0-00-78
705
355
0-01-96
704
353
0-00-37
0-16-55
703
354
0-03-52
0-01-51
702
0-22-75
352
0-04-53
698
351
0-09-13
0-18-49
699
350
0-02-82
0-03-65
700
378
0-01-81
701
349
0-20-20
0-06-74
714
0-03-19
(रोड़) सर्वे नं.
5-58-08
कुल
349
0-06-44
साराउदौला 97
386
0-07-15
0-17-32 344
0-12-51
98
0-01-11 387
100
0-35-91
0-11-46 388
0-09-30
103
0-00-16
0-09-95
99
485
486
0-01-81
0-02-92
104
0-11-30 487
0-03-68
105
0-03-74 495
75
0-01-61
0-05-16 490
0-00-62
58
0-03-02 488
0-10-23
59
521
0-02-75
60
489
0-05-53
0-19-73
74
520
0-01-47
0-01-13
73
0-21-27
512
0-49-74
70
513
0-01-71
0-03-98
133
514
0-00-92
1-38-85
कुल
516
0-24-74
0-11-74
122
जगतपुर
653
0-03-01
0-67-60
123
515
0-00-28
0-03-20
143
654
0-08-20
0-13-13
137
657
0-00-24
0-12-78
133
656
0-02-37 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
5047 भारत का राजपत्र : मई 21 , 2005/वैशाख 31 , 1927
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5 रायबरेली सालोन
132
जगतपुर
0-06-06 रायबरेली सालोन
216
0-06-81
पदमपुर
124
0-05-45
222
0-02-11 131
0-08-54
223
0-02-94 125
0-04-99
225
0-21-69
0-06-36
(पक्कीरोड)
224
0-18-25 सर्वे नं. 125 व
231
0-01-03 569 के बीच
232
0-21-28 569
233
0-53-20
0-04-04 564
234
0-01-97
0-07-97 562
0-34-94
3-34-87
कुल
0-01-17
रायबरेली सालोन
34
0-16-92
बीरपुर
(जगतपुर रजवाहा कैनाल) सर्वे नं. 562
88
0-06-64 537
0-11-97
89
0-21-05 538
0-07-10
90
0-00-84 539
0-04-81
91
0-07-60 541
0-00-15
93
0-00-53 537
0-04-35
103
0-01-82 540
005-73
105
0-17-92 542
0-03-17
97
0-01-80 536
0-07-54
98
0-00-51 534
0-18-48
99
0-06-04 535
100-
0-02-57 545
0-01-89
101
0-29-68 524
0-34-30
116
0-02-08 528
0-02-14
108
3-32-86
114
कुल
0-01-45
113
0-03-35 रायबरेली सालोन
71
0-10-46
पदमपुर
115
74
0-12-35
0-04-78
279
73
0-11-50
0-04-86
284
0-02-70 70
285
72
0-04-75
278
0-00-34 83
0-02-32
280
0-03-48 68
0-00-19
277
0-22-31 67
0-08-96
297
97
0-05-84
0-36-89
299
0-01-49 98
0-09-99
298
99
0-00-81
0-06-68
302
276
0-34-44
0-24-94
304
0-13-97 275
0-03-11
305
0-00-57 277
0-06-34
275
0-03-46 283
0-07-26
306
280
0-01-01
0-00-18
270
0-03-16 282
0-02-23
271
0-00-45 281
272
0-14-60 288
0-06-83
273
0-09-41 272
0-02-19
274
0-07-49 271
0-10-50
358
0-01-10 294
0-00-96
356/57
0-04-77 270
0-04-93
355
0-07-79 265
0-05-69
356
0-05-86 266
0-20-08
374
0-00-49 (कार्ट ट्रक ) सर्वे नं. 0-02-43
375
0-9-46 266 व 216के बीच 5048
THEGAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21 , 2005 /VAISAKHA 31 , 1927
3
1
4
2
5
1
0-02-37-
376
सलोन
रायबरेली
बीरपुर
379
0-05-10
0-05-66
378
0-00-61
378/396
0-02-34
377
3-15-93
कुल
0-00-81
पाचुवाबारा 19
86
0-15-23
0-15-42
88
0-04-26
89
0-05-61
90
0-04-95
91
92
0-11-80
0-21-67
93
94
0-01-92
95
0-00-24
0-00-54
159
0-21-88
161
160
0-04-44
177
0-02-72
0-01-96
199
0-18-21
198
0-24-54
196
0-02-53
197
0-04-69
195
0-25-26
192
0-01-37
189
186
0-28-49
0-09-01
185
209
0-00-18
2-27-73
कुल
0-10-17
राजुआपुर 1
0-18-60
9
8
0-36-97
0-05-61
7
10
0-00-11
6
0-25-59
11
0-18-60
123
0-03-65
127
0-30-58
121
0-17-89
119
0-12-95
118
0-00-22
117
0-05-92
133
सर्वे नं. 133 व
0-04-46
284(रोड़)
0-09-93
284
0-02-96
277
0-00-46
271
0-02-90
278
281
279
0-04-30
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii )]
4
5 3
2
0-00-17 रायबरेली राजुआपुर 276
रायबरेली
0-11-16
272
0-03-07
270
269
0-04-44
259
0-28-59
301
0-03-73
सर्वे नं. 301 (रोड़)
305
0-18-28
सर्वे नं. 305 व 303
(रजवाहा कैनाल) 0-06-96
303
0-02-83
0-00-17
307
304
0-12-29
256
0-01-12
0-20-45
338
0-12-99
339
0-04-26
337
0-02-19
343
0-30-68
344
0-04-37
342
0-35-70
349
361
0-01-15
362
0-08-40
348
0-00-14
0-03-48
363
4-40-30
कुल
0-39-00
84
महाराज- इंधोरा
0-00-65
81
0-00-72
82
0-02-40
83
0-18-31
80
0-07-82
141
0-02-89
140
139
0-26-04
0-00-21
138
सर्वे नं. 137 व
0-00-22
132के बीच
132
0-00-84
142
0-04-99
144
146
0-09-84
0-04-60
145
0-07-56
152
153
0-15-52
0-02-32
154
0-04-58
155
157
156
0-02-49
173
0-20-27
सर्वे नं. 173 व
168के बीच
0-05-44
0-04-36
168 5049 भारत का राजपत्र : मई 21 , 2005/वैशाख 31 , 1927
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
SCHEDULE
5
2
3
1
4
District Tehsil Village
175
0-01-12
रायबरेली महाराज- इंधोरा
Survey No.
0-00-61
गंज
164
0-00-76
166
Area to be acquired for ROU (In Hectare)
0-02-70
167
Barawa 557
0-08-91
Rai
Salon
0-00-55
340
Bareilly
341
558
0-24-20
342
0-33-57
559
0-32-30
469
560
0-01-95
0-01-33
2-44-71
कुल
In Bet Svy . No. 559& 530
530
[फाः सं. एल-14014/4/05-जी.पी. ( भाग -1 ) ]
0-11-66
527
एस.बी. माडल, अवर सचिव
526
0-00-56
0-15-84
523
New Delhi, the 11th May , 2005
528
0-03-59
522
0-07-40
497
0-08-62
498
0-04-44
509
0-01-70
510
508
0-06-08
0-05-31
506
0-02-80
498
502
0-05-42
500
0-07-35
501
499
0-10-89 S.O. 1844. Whereas by notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O. 2719 dated the 15th October, 2004 and S.O. 2724 dated the 15th October , 2004, issued under sub -section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land ) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962 ) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act ) , the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right ofuser in the land specified in the Schedule appended to that notification forfor the purpose of laying pipelines for the transportation of natural gas from Thulendi to Phoolpur pipeline project in the State of Uttar Pradesh by the GAIL (India) Limited;
487
0-01-29
0-00-23
488
478
0-10-63 Andwhereas copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public from 9th February, 2005 to 17th February, 2005;
0-03-64
476
477
0-02-75
473
Andwhereas the objections received from the public to the laying of the pipeline have been considered and disallowed by the competent authority;
0-00-98
475
0-08-26
474
0-27-58
470
And whereas the competent authority has , under sub -section ( 1 ) of section 6 of the said Act , submitted its report to the Central Government;
0-00-11
613
0-10-36
614
0-01-64
467
617
0-01-02 And whereas the Central Government , after considering the said report and on being satisfied that the said land is required for laying the pipelines , has decided to acquire the right of user therein.
0-16-81
618
0-07-38
620
0-22-95
621
0-02-39
InBet Svy. No.
621 & 451
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub -section ( 1 ) gf section 6 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification is hereby acquired for laying the pipelines;
(MetalledRoad)
451
0-32-27
0-01-56
441
439
0-18-92
437
0-07-43
0-11-47
436
435
0-01-54
434
0-01-84
427
0-15-10 .
0-03-82
426
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 land for laying the pipelines shall , instead of vesting in the Central Government , vest , on the date of the publication of the declaration , in the GAIL (India ) Limited, proposing to lay the pipelines and thereupon the right of such user in the land shall , subject to the terms and conditions so imposed, vest in the GAIL ( India) , free from all encumbrances .
5050
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 21 , 2005 /VAISAKHA 31 , 1927
1
2
3
4
1
5 Rai
Salon Barawa 428
0-02-14
Rai
422
Bareilly
0-04-62
423
0-15-91
425
0-00-49
424
0-06-88
Total
3-79-93
Rachan- 10
0-03-36
11
0-01-84
pur
12
0-14-09
21
0-27-32
22
0-00-27
23
0-03-13
24
0-06-93
In Svy . No. 302 0-02-45
(MinorCanal)
302
0-18-41
309
0-16-98
310
0-06-35
298
0-09-58
294
0-08-77
295
0-01-53
293
0-00-86
326
327
0-15-75
326
332
0-05-04
331
0-12-55
329
0-00-94
336
0-15-60
335
0-00-67
337
0-01-03
338
0-10-97
339
0-07-25
340
0-06-06
341
0-08-88
342
0-05-96
343
0-08-41
266
0-04-79
267
0-03-60
268
0-20-74
269
0-02-24
263
0-09-22
264
0-07-56
263
0-12-65
258
0-03-25
259
0-04-06
260
0-00-77
257
0-09-49
248
0-10-07
247
0-06-56
246
0-02-52
0-00-33
InBet. Svy.
No. 242& V.B.
Total
3-18-94 Ninava 275
0-02-35
Total
0-02-35
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] 2
3
4
5 Salon Pothai 2295
0-15-20
Bareilly
2314
0-16-15
2322
0-06-70
2324
0-00-76
2321
0-10-42
2320
0-02-64
2319
0-00-77
2317
0-01-52
2346
0-29-72
2348
0-11-98
2349
0-01-56
2276
0-04-87
2393
0-04-06
2394
0-31-98
2423
0-01-73
2424
0-05-43
2408
0-02-51
2407
0-00-19
2406
0-02-55
2405
0-38-85
2402
0-07-60
2962
0-00-89
2972
0-18-21
2972/3303
0-01-04
2974
0-35-99
2967
0-00-89
2975
0-05-57
3026
0-18-99
3120
0-01-20
3029
3027
0-05-94
3028
0-02-29
3030
0-03-37
3032
0-00-61
3117
0-40-08
3116
0-03-04
3131
0-00-43
3115
0-18-67
3111
0-01-75
3101
0-00-73
3100
0-43-53
3098
0-11-88
3083
0-03-93
3249
0-02-79
3077
0-22-55
3076
0-02-64
3074
0-33-61
3075
0-01-21
3250
0-31-84
3254
0-00-21
3252
0-18-96
3263
0-00-33
3262
0-06-98
3255
3272
0-20-35
3261
0-03-22
3274
0-18-01
Total
5-79-12 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
5051
भारत का राजपत्र: मई 21 , 2005 /वैशाख 31 , 1927
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
4
3
5 Rai
Rai
Salon Atawa 10
Salon
0-07-26
Atawa 671
0-02-90 11
669
Bareilly
0-04-37
0-04-78
Bareilly
13
666
0-19-27
0-12-73 13/1395
674
0-00-75 17
675
0-01-44
0-04-37
677
18
0-00-69
0-03-74 24
678
0-08-17
0-00-79 23
679
0-03-16
0-05-34
666
20
0-03-67
0-09-75
665
19
0-00-95
0-02-24
682
21
0-02-06
0-07-77
683
22
0-05-45
0-04-08 25
684
0-05-28
0-14-77
685
33
0-06-24
0-10-85
686
32
0-08-24
0-01-31
358
689
0-17-28
0-04-33
690
357
0-03-26
0-22-30
365
707
0-09-88
0-00-63
708
356
0-03-10
0-03-18
706
0-18-28 35
0-00-46
705
0-00-78 41.
0-00-61
704
36
0-01-96
0-00-35
703
0-16-55 355
702
353
0-01-51
0-00-37
698
354
0-04-53
0-03-52
699
0-18-49 352
0-22-75
700
0-03-65 351
0-09-13
701
350
0-01-81
0-02-82
714
0-06-74 378
Total
5-58-08 349
0-20-20
0-03-19
(Road) In Svy.
Saraudula 97
0-06-44 No. 349
98
0-17-32 386
0-07-15
100
0-01-11 344
0-12-51
103
0-11-46 387
0-35-91
99
0-00-16 388
0-09-30
104
0-01-81 485
0-09-95
105
0-11-30 486
0-02-92
75
0-03-74 487
0-03-68
58
0-05-16 495
0-01-61
59
0-03-02 490
0-00-62
60
0-02-75 488
0-10-23
74
0-19-73 521
73
0-01-13 489
0-05-53
70
0-49-74 520
0-01-47
133
0-03-98
0-21-27
512
Total
1-38-85 513
0-01-71
0-11-74
Jagatpur 122
514
0-00-92
123
0-67-60 516
0-24-74
143
0-03-20 653
0-03-01
137
0-13-13 515
0-00-28
133
0-12-78 654
0-08-20
132
0-06-06 657
0-00-24
124
0-05-45 656
0-02-37
131
0-08-54 655
0-08-05
125
0-04-99 670
0-10-13
0-06-36
Metalled Road ) 5052
THEGAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21 , 2005/VAISAKHA 31 , 1927
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] 1
2
3
4
2
3
4
5
5
1
Salon Jagatpur In Bet Svy.No
0-20-08
Rai
Salon Padum- 266
125 & 569
Rai Bareilly
0-02-43
Bareilly
pur
569
0-53-20
564
0-01-97
CartTrack) In BetSvy No. 266 &216
216
0-06-81 562
0-34-94
0-02-11
222
0-01-17
223
0-02-94 Jagatpur Minor Canal) In Svy.
No. 562
0-21-69
225
537
0-11-97
0-18-25
224
538
0-07-10
0-01-03
231
539
0-04-81
232
0-02-28 541
0-00-15
0-04-04
233
537
0-04-35
0-07-97
234
540
005-73
3-34-87
Total
542
0-03-17
0-16-92
Beerpur 34
536
0-07-54
0-06-64
88
534
0-18-48
0-21-05
89
535
90
0-00-84
0-01-89
545
0-07-60
91
0-34-30
524
0-00-53
93
0-02-14
528
0-01-82
103
3-32-86
Total
0-17-92
105
97
0-01-80
0-10-46
Padum- 71
98
0-00-51 pur
74
0-04-78
0-06-04
99
73
0-04-86
0-02-57
100
70
0-29-68
101
72
0-04-75
116
0-02-08
0-02-32
83
108
68
0-00-19
0-01-45
114
0-08-96
67
0-03-35
113
0-36-89
97
0-12-35
115
98
0-09-99
0-11-50
279
99
0-06-68
284
0-02-70
285
276
0-24-94
278
0-00-34 275
0-03-11
0-03-48
280
277
0-06-34
277
0-22-31
0-07-26
283
297
0-05-84 280
0-00-18
0-01-49
299
0-02-23
282
298
0-00-81 281
302
0-34-44 288
0-06-83
304
0-13-97
0-02-19
272
305
0-00-57 271
0-10-50
275
0-03-46
0-00-96
294
306
0-01-01 270
0-04-93
270
0-03-16
0-05-69
265 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: मई 21 , 2005/वैशाख 31 , 1927
5053 1
2
3
4
3
4
51 2
5 Rai
Salon
0-00-45
Beerpur 271
1
0-10-17
Rajua-
Bareilly
272
9
0-14-60
Rai Bareilly
0-18-60
pur
Rai Bareilly
8
273
0-36-97
0-09-41
7
0-05-61 274
0-07-49
10
358
0-01-10
6
0-00-11 356/57
0-04-77
11
0-25-59 355
123
0-07-79
0-18-60
127
0-03-65 356
0-05-86
121
0-30-58 374
0-00-49
119
0-17-89 375
0-09-46
118
0-12-95 376
0-02-37
117
0-00-22 379
0-05-10
133
0-05-92 378
0-05-66
0-04-46
In Svy . No. 133 &284 (Road) 378/396
0-00-61
284
0-09-93 377
0-02-34
277
0-02-96
271
0-00-46 Total
3-15-93
278
0-02-90 Pachuva- 19
0-00-81
281
bara
279
0-04-30 86
0-15-23
276
0-00-17 88
0-15-42
272
0-11-16 89
0-04-26
270
0-03-07 90
269
0-05-61
259
0-04-44 91
0-04-95
301
0-28-59 92
0-11-80
In Svy . No. 301 93
0-21-67
0-03-73
(Road)
94.
305
0-01-92
0-18-28 95
0-00-24
In Svy . No. 305 & 303 (Minor Canal ) 0-06-96 159
0-00-54
303
0-02-83 161
0-21-88
307
0-00-17 160
0-04-44
304
0-12-29 177
256
0-02-72
0-01-12
338
199
0-01-96
0-20-45
339
0-12-99 198
0-18-21
337
0-04-26 196
0-24-54
343
0-02-19 197
0-02-53
344
0-30-68 195
0-04-69
342
0-04-37 192
0-25-26
349
0-35-70 189
0-01-37
361
186
0-01-15
0-28-49
362
185
0-08-40
0-09-01
348
0-00-14 209
0-00-18
363
0-03-48 Total
2-27-73
Totals
4-40-30 1450 Gl /2005-5 [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii )] 5054
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21 , 2005 /VAISAKHA 31 , 1927
5
4
2
3
नई दिल्ली, 11 मई , 2005
0-39-00
Rai
Maharaj Indhora 84
0-00-65
81
Ganj
Bareilly
0-00-72
82
0-02-40
83
80
0-18-31
0-07-82
141
140
0-02-89
का.आ. 1845.- केन्द्रीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम , 1962( 1962 का 50 ) की धारा 2 के खण्ड ( क ) के अनुसरण में, नीचे दीगई अनुसूची के स्तम्भ ( 1 ) में उल्लिखित व्यक्ति को, हरियाणा एवं पंजाब राज्य में, उक्त अनुसूची के स्तम्भ ( 2 ) में उल्लिखित क्षेत्र की बाबत इन राज्यों में अवस्थित विभिन्न उपभोक्ताओं को आर. एल. एन. जी. वितरण के लिए मैसर्स गेल ( इण्डिया ) लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइनें बिछाने के लिए उक्त अधिनियम के अधीन सक्षम प्राधिकारी के कृत्यों का पालन करने के लिए प्राधिकृत करती है ।
0-26-04
139
अनुसूची
0-00-21
138
अधिकारिता का क्षेत्र
व्यक्तिका नाम और पता
InBet Svy. No.
0-00-22
137& 132
(2)
(1)
132
श्रीडी.वी. मित्तल,
सम्पूर्ण हरियाणा एवम्
0-00-84
142
पंजाब राज्य
तहसीलदार,
0-04-99
144
मैसर्स गेल ( इण्डिया ) लिमिटेड में प्रति-
नियुक्तिपर बी- 35-36 , सेक्टर-1 ,
0-09-84
146.
जिला गौतम बुद्ध नगर,
145
0-04-60 नोएडा-2010301 ( उत्तर प्रदेश )
0-07-56
152
[फा. सं . एल-14014/7/05- जी.पी. ] 153
0-15-52
एस. बी. मण्डल, अवर सचिव 154
0-02-32
New Delhi , the 11th May , 2005
0-04-58
155
157
Maharaj Indhora
0-02-49
156
0-20-27
173
0-05-44
InBet Svy. No. 173& 168
168
0-04-36
S.O. 1845.-In pursuance of clause (a ) of Section 2 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipeline (Acquisition of Right of User in Lánd ) Act , 1962 (50 of 1962 ), the Central Government hereby authorize the person mentioned in column ( 1 ) of the enclosed schedule to perform the functions of Competent Authority under the said Act for laying of the pipelines by M/s GAIL ( India ) Limited in the States ofHaryana and Punjab for distribution of RLNG to various consumers located in these states in respect of the area mentioned in Column (2 ) of the said Schedule .
0-01-12
175
SCHEDULE
0-00-61
164
Area of Jurisdiction
0-00-76
Name and Address of
the Person
166
167
0-02-70
(2)
(1)
0-00-55
340
Shri D.V. Mittal ,
Tehsildar,
Whole Haryana and Punjab State 341
On deputation to M/ s GAIL
342
0-24-20 (India) Limited,
B-35-36 , Sector- 1,
0-32-30
469
Distt . Gautam Budh Nagar,
Noida - 2010301 (Uttar Pradesh)
Total
2-44-71
[F. No. L- 14014/4/05 -G.P . (Part-1)
[F. No. L - 14014/7/05 -GP] S. B. MANDAL, Under Secy.
S. B. MANDAL , Under Secy .
[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : मई 21 , 2005/वैशाख 31 , 1927
5055
नई दिल्ली, 13 मई , 2005
का. आ. 1846.- केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि महाराष्ट्र राज्य में लोनी (पुणे) से पकनी (सोलापूर) तक हज़ारवाडी के रास्तें 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 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 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
जिला : सोलापुर
तालूका : मोहोळ
गट नंबर
सर्वे नंबर
गाव का नाम
कम सं.
4
3
2
1
148 कोथाले
1
150
165
168
175
177
374 2 अंकोली
352
323
272
274
क्षेत्रफल उप-खण्ड सं.
हेक्टर एयर वर्ग मीटर
8
6 7
5
75
70
00 02
02
00 03
00
00 09
20
00 01
04
00 01
71
00 17
कुल
43
00 25
20
-00 04
20
00 06
00 12
19
66
00 08 [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)] 5056
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21 , 2005 /VAISAKHA 31 , 1927
राज्य : महाराष्ट्र
जिला: सोलापुर
तालूका : मोहोळ
क्षेत्रफल सर्वे नंबर
गट नंबर उप-खण्ड सं.
गाव का नाम
हेक्टर एयर वर्ग मीटर कम सं.
8
6 7
5
4
3
2
1
62
00 03
273
41
277
00 09
66
00 28
282
00
00 01
276
18
00 06
283
13
00 01
104
00 02
55
110
00 19
82
54
18
90
00
50
64
00 03
48
59
01 51
कुल
10
00 11
3
858
कुरुल
30
00 01
842
30
892
00
00 02
949
46
00 05
1089
58
00 02
22
13
00 02
120
55
00 14
137
56
00 06
138
30
147
34
00 38
141
85
00 07
150
65
00 08
149
01 01
12
कुल
64
00 11
138
4
पोफली
00
10
06
139
00 04
20
117
94
00 21
कुल
85
00 02
28
5 विरखडे खुर्द
74
00 05
43
07
00 08
35
14
00 06
95
56
00 03
96
12
00 02
100
52
00 02
101
54
00 01
103
54
00 32
कुल
[फा. सं. आर-31015/23/2004- ओ. आर-II ]
हरीश कुमार, अवर सचिव भारत का राजपत्र : मई 21 , 2005/वैशाख 31 , 1927
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
5057
New Delhi , the 13th May, 2005
S. O. 1846. 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 CentralGovernment 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 for laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri S.N. Kundetkar, Competent Authority, Mumbai - Pune PipelineExtension Project , Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited , Mega Center , Magarpatta M&N Wing , Hadapsar - 411 028 , Pune District , Maharashtra .
SCHEDULE
State : MAHARASHTRA
District: SOLAPUR
Taluka : MOHOL
GatNo.
Survey No.
Sr. No.
Nameof the Village
4
3
2
1
148 1
KOTHALE
150
165
168
175
177
374 2
ANKOLI
352
323
272
274
273
277
Area
Sub -Division
Sq.mt
Are
No. Hectare
8
7
6
5
00 75
00
02 70
00
03 02
00
00 09 00
00 01 20
00
01 04
17 71
00
Total
25 43
00
04 20
00
20
06
00
19
00 12
66
0008
00 03 62
41
09
00 5058
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21 , 2005/ VAISAKHA 31 , 1927
[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] State : MAHARASHTRA
District : SOLAPUR
Taluka : MOHOL
GatNo.
Survey No.
Sr. No.
Nameofthe Village
4
3
2
1
282
276
283
104
110
54
50
48 3
KURUL
858
842
892
949
1089
22
120
137 $
138
147
141
150
149
138 4 POPHLI
139
117
28 5 VIRVADE KHURD
43
35
95
96
100
101
103 Sub-Division
No. Hectare
Area Are Sq.mt
6
8
7
5
00 28 66
00 01 00
00 06 18
01 13
00
02 55
00
19 82
00
00 18 90
00 03 64
01
51 59 Total
00
10
11
30
00 01
00
30
00
02 00
00
00 05 46
02 58
00
00
02 13
55
00 14
00 06 56
00
00 30
00
38 34
00 07 85
00
08 65
01
01 12 Total
64
00 11
06 10
00
00
04 20
00 21 94 Total
02 85
00
74
00
05
00 08 07
14
00 06
03 56
00
00 02 12
00 02 52
00 01 54 Total
00 32 54 [No. R-31015/23/2004 - O.R. -II ] HARISH KUMAR , Under Secy.
[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
5059
भारत का राजपत्र : मई 21 , 2005/वैशाख 3.1 , 1927
नई दिल्ली , 18 मई , 2005
का. आ. 1847.- 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 उप-धारा (1 ) के अधीन जारी की गई भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का आ• 2733 तारीख 27 अक्तूबर, 2004 , जो भारत के राजपत्र तारीख 30 अक्तूबर, 2004 में प्रकाशित की गई थी, द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में महाराष्ट्र राज्य में लोनी (पुणे) से पकनी (सोलापुर) तक हज़ारवाडी के रास्ते पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए मुम्बई - पुणे पाइपलाइन विस्तार परियोजना के माध्यम से हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉपोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा एक विस्तार पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी ;
और उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियां जनता को तारीख 13 दिसंबर, 2004 को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थीं;
और सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (1 ) के अधीन , केन्द्रीय सरकार को अपनी रिपोर्टदे 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 लिए 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 जाए ;
और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (4) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह निदेश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख से केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने की बजाए , सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त, हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉपोरेशन लिमिटेड में निहित होगा । 5060
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21 , 2005 /VAISAKHA 31 , 1927
अनुसूची
[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ] राज्य : महाराष्ट्र
जिला : सातारा
तालूका : खंडाला
गट नंबर
सर्वे नंबर
गाव का नाम
कम सं.
4
3
2
1
क्षेत्रफल
उप-खण्ड
एयर वर्ग मीटर हेक्टर
सं.
6
8 5
7
गट नंबर 530 मे
1
पिंपरे बु.
निरा नदी
531
529
527
526
525
524
523
522
521
520
519
00 20 51
11 96
00
05
00 22
00 07 08
44
07
00
02 90
00
05
00 02
00 02 49
00 07 63
00 07 67
06
00 07
74
00 10
गट नंबर 519 और
गाँव सीमा पिंपरे बु. के
68
00 19
बीच में दहिने और का
निरा कनाल
2
29 26
01
कुल
गाँव सीमा पिंपरे बु.
वविकलवाडी
और बावकलवाडीं
00 02 80
बीच की भूमि
473
472
471
470
469
468
547
549
548
498
499
500
546
545
544
543
542
541
540
00 03 02
00 03 44
00 02 74
78
00 04
00 04 97
02 14
00
00 17
73
62
00 02
99
00 02
63
00 05
00 03 52
21
00 04
20
00 28
00 18 10
46
00 03
00 02 22
21
00 03
12
00 09
00 08 86 [भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii )]
भारत का राजपत्र : मई 21 , 2005/वैशाख 31 , 1927
5061
जिला : सातारा
तालुका: खंडाला
माव का नाम
सर्वे नंबर
राज्य : महाराष्ट्र
क्षेत्रफल
गट नंबर
कम सं.
1
2
3
4 2
सं.
वर्ग हेक्टर एयर मीटर
6
5
7
8
गट नंबर 539 में
(निरंतर)
बावकलवाडी
03 22
00
अस्फालटेड रस्ता
538
537
531
532
529 }
00 06 29
00 04 96
21 00 21
09 69 888 00
07 25
गट नंबर 529 और
62के बीच में
00 03 46 }
अस्फालटेड रस्ता
62
63
74
73
124
68
125
123
128
129
130
132
133
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
278
149
150
208
225
226
227 3 मरीआईची वाडी
87
88
86
71 1450GI/2005-6
00 04 65 00 08 05 00 11 04 00 15 90 00 10 18 00 00 09 00 02 11
02 04
00
00 01 21 00 00 96 00
06
02
46 00 01
00 04 48 00 01 19 00 03 05 00 05 28 00 05 14 00 09 06
80 00 08
55 00 01
00 08 07 00 22 20
04 30 00
00 05 05 00 11 18.
00 11 91 00 07 36 कुल 03 58 21 00 16 58 00 06 21 00 03 81 00 09 15 5062
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21 , 2005/VAISAKHA 31 , 1927
[PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii) ]
जिला : सातारा
तालूका : खंडाला
माव का माम
सर्वे नंबर
गट नंबर कम सं.
1
2
3
4
70 3 मरीआईची वाडी (निरंतर)
69
68
67
66
93
194
113 राज्य : महाराष्ट्र
क्षेत्रफल
उप-खण्ड
एयर वर्ग मीटर हेक्टर
सं.
6 7
5
8
00 04 35
00 09 42
00 08 88
00 12 08
00 08 05
00 16 85
00 03 56
00 53 57
गट नंबर 113 में
00 01 95
मेटल्क रस्ता
117
118
119 }
00 15 80
00 35 55
17 35
00
गट नंबर 178 में
00 03 81
गाडी रास्ता
175
172
171
169 }
00 23 43
00 07 91
00 19 40
गट नंबर 169 और
167 के बीच में मेटल्ड
रस्ता
180
167
168
00 02 35
00 03 85
00 14 71
00 20 42
गट नंबर 168 और
160 के बीच में मेटल्ड
रस्ता
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
गाँव सीमा
00 04 88 }
00 00 33
00 02 37
00 17 70
00 08 18
00 05 07
00 08 71
00 38 87
मरीआईचीवाडी के पास
का नाला
00 08 62 कुल
04 21 77 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : मई 21 , 2005/वैशाख 31 , 1927
5063
जिला: सातारा
सर्वे नंबर
गट नंबर नाव का बान
2
3
4 लोणंद
गाँव सीमा मरीआईची वाडी और सर्वे मंबर 321 के बीच में नाला
321
322
323
सर्वे नंबर 323 और
गाँव सीमा बाकुपाटलाची वाडी के बीच में
नदीपुडी बाला
326
329
सर्वे नंबर 329 में
मेटल्ड रोड }
328
सर्वे नंबर 328 और
344 के बीच में }
राज्य मार्ग 68
341
334
337
338
339
340
345
346
347
सर्वे नंबर 347 और
}
गाँव सीमा कोरेगाँव के बीच में बाला
राज्य : महाराष्ट्र
सत्रफल
*. हेक्टर एयर वर्ग मीटर
6
5
7 8 00 12 96
42
00
48 00 10 08
76 00 41
00 10 80 00 13 68 00 51 84 00 02 88 :
00 23 '76 00 04 32 00 36 72 00 14 40 00 27 36 00 10 80 00 09 22 00 09 79
32 40 00
00 30 96.
00 56 16 00 07 49 04 49 86 कुल
गाँव सीमा लोणंद और
बालपाटलाची वाडी
00 04 66
बाकूपाटलाची वाडी के
बीच में
नदीपुडी नाला
166
167 00 05 65 00 01 45 5064
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21 , 2005/VAISAKHA 31 , 1927
[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii )] तालूका : खंडाला
जिला: सातारा
राज्य : महाराष्ट्र
क्षेत्रफल गाव का नाम
सर्वे नंबर
गट नंबर
कम सं.
उप-खण्ड सं.
एयर वर्ग
हेक्टर
मीटर 1
2
3
4
5
6 7
8
165
00 15 97
158
00 12 68
157
00 06 99
160
00 47 60
कुल
[फा. सं. आर-31015/31/2004- ओ.आर-II ]
हरीश कुमार, अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 18th May , 2005
S. O. 1847. Whereas by notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O. 2733 , dated 27th October , 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 30th October , 2004, 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 an extension pipeline for transportation of petroleum products through Mumbai- Pune Pipeline Extension Project from Loni (Pune) to Pakni (Solapur) Via Hazarwadi in the State of Maharashtra by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited;
And whereas the copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on the 13th December , 2004 ;
And whereas the competent authority has , under sub- section ( 1 ) of section 6 of the said Act , submitted his report to the Central Government;
And whereas the Central Government, after considering the said report 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 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 Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, free from all encumbrances .
3065
भारत का राजपत्र: मई 21 , 2005/वैशाख 31 , 1927
[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
SCHEDULE
State : MAHARASHTRA
District: SATARA
Taluka : KHANDALA
Area
Sub-Division
Gat No.
Survey No.
No.
Sq.mt
Hectare Are Sr. No.
Nameofthe Village
6
8
5
7
4
3
2
1
Nira River in Gat
20 51
00
1 PIMPRE BK.
No. 530
11 96
00
531
00 22 05
529
08
00 07
527
44
00 07
526
00 02 90
525
02 05
00
524
02 49
00
523
07 63
00
522
07 67
00
521
00 07 06
520
00 10 74
519
NiraRight Bank
00 19 68
Gat No 519 & V.B.
}
Canal in between PimpreBk.
29 26
Total
01
Area between V.B.
2 BAVKALWADI
02 80
00
}
PimpreBk. & Bavkalwadi
00 03 02
473
44
00 03
472
02 74
00
471
00 04 78
470
00 04 97.
469
14
00 02
468
00 17 73
547
00 02 62
549
02 99
00
548
05 63
00
498
03 52
00
499
04 21
00
500
00 28 20
546
10
00 18
545
00 03 46
544
00 02 22
543
03 21
00
542
09 12
00
541
00 08 86
540 5066
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21 , 2005 /VAISAKHA 31 , 1927
Taluka : KHANDALA
District: SATARA
GatNo.
SurveyNo.
Sr. No.
Nameofthe Village
1
2
3
4 2 BAVKALWADI
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ] State : MAHARASHTRA
Area
Sub-Division No. Hectare Are Sq.mt 5
6 7 8
00
22
03
Asphalted Road in
}
(Contd.)
GatNo 539
538
537
531
532
529
00 06 29
00 04 96
00 21 21
00 09 69
00 07 25
00
Asphalted Road in
between Gat No
03 46 '}
529& 62
62
63
74
73
124
68
125
123
128
129
130
132
133
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
278
149
150
208
225
226
227 3 MARIAICHIWADI
87
88
86
71
00 04 65
00 08 05
00 11 04
00 15 90
00 10 18
00 00 09
00 02 11
00 02 04
00 01 21
00 00 96
00 02 06
00 01 46
00 04 48
00 01 19
00 03 05
00 05 28
00 05 14
00 09 06
00 08 80
00 01 55
00 08 07
00 22 20
00 04 30
00 05 05
00 11 18
00 11 91
00 07 36 Total
03 58 21
00 16 58
00 06 21
00 03 81
00 09 15 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : मई 21 , 2005/वैशाख 31 , 1927
Taluka : KHANDALA
5067
District: SATARA
Sr. No.
Survey No.
GatNo.
Nameofthe Village
1
2
3
4
70 3 MARIAICHIWADI (Contd.)
69
68
67
66
93
194
113 State: MAHARASHTRA
Area
Sub -Division No.
Sq.mt
Hectare Are
5
6
7 8
00 04 35
00 09 42
00 08 88
00 12 08
00 08 05
00 16 85
00 03 56
00 53 57
Métalled Road in
00 01 95 }
Gat No 113
117
118
119
00 15 80
00 35 55
00 17 35
CartTrack in Gat
No 175
175
172
171
169
00 03 81 }
00 23 43
00 08 00
00 07 91
00 19 40
00 02 35
Metalled Road in
between GatNo
169& 167
180
167
168
00 03 85
00-14 71
00 20 42
Metalled Road in
between Gat No
00 04 88 }
168& 160
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
00 00 33
00 02 37
00 17 70
00 08 18
00 05 07
00 08 71.
00 38 87
Nala adjacentto
V.B. of
00 08 62
}
Mariaichiwadi
Total
04 21 77 5068
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21 , 2005 /VAISAKHA 31 , 1927
SATARA
District :
Taluka : KHANDALA
Gatito.
Survey No.
Sr. No.
Nameofthe Village
4
3
2
1
4.LONAND
Nala in between V.B. of Mariaichiwadi & Survey No 321
321
322
323
Nadipudi Odha in between Survey No 323 & V.B. of Balupatlachiwadi
326
329
{
Metalled Road in Survey No 329
328
SH - 61 in between SurveyNo 328 & 341 .
341
334
337
338
339
340
345
346
347
Nala in between Survey No 347 & V.B. Koregaon
Nadipudi Nala in between V.B.
5 BALUPATLACHI WADI
[PART II- SEC. 3 (ii ) ] State : MAHARASHTRA
Area
Sub-Division No. Hectare Are Sq.mt
8
7
6
00 12 96
42 48
00 10 08
76
00 41
00
80
10
00 13 68
84
00 51
88
00 02
76
00 23
32
04
00
36 72
00
40
00 14
36
00 27
00
80
10
22
09
00
00
79
09
40
32
00
96
00 30
16
56
00
00 07 49
86
49
04
Total
66
04
00
Lonand &
Balupatlachiwadi
166
167
65
05
00
45
01
00 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
5069 भारत का राजपत्र : मई 21 , 2005 /वैशाख 31 , 1927
Taluka : KHANDALA
District : SATARA
State : MAHARASHTRA
Area
GatNo.
Survey No.
Sr. No.
Nameofthe Village
Sub -Division No.
Sq.mt
Hectare Are 1
2
3
4
5
6
7 8
165
00 15 97
158
00
68
12
157
00
99
06
160
Total
00 47 60
[No. R-31015/31/2004 -O.R. -II ] HARISH KUMAR, Under Secy .
नई दिल्ली, 19 मई , 2005
का. आ. 1848.- 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 . 2734 तारीख 29 अक्तूबर, 2004 , जो भारत के राजपत्र तारीख 30 अक्तूवर, 2004 में प्रकाशित की गई थी, द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में महाराष्ट्र राज्य में लोनी (पुणे ) से पकनी (सोलापुर) तक हज़ारवाडी के रास्ते पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए मुम्वई- पुणे पाइपलाइन विस्तार परियोजना के माध्यम से हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन विछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोपणा कीथी;
और उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियां जनता को तारीख 17 फरवरी , 2005 को उपलव्ध करा दी गई थीं ;
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 विछाने के लिए अपेक्षित है , उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने का विनिश्चिय किया है ;
अतः अव, 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 विछाने के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए ;
हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड में निहित और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (4) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, यह निदेश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख से केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने की वजाए , सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त, होगा ।
1450 GI/2005-7 5070
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21 , 2005 /VAISAKHA 31 , 1927
अनुसूची
जिला : सातारा दालूका : खटाव
गट नंबर
सर्वे नंबर
गाव का नाम
कम सं.
4
3
2
1
148 1
मोल
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii )] राज्य: महाराष्ट्र
क्षेत्रफल
हेक्टर एयर वर्ग मीटर उप-खण्ड सं.
8
6 7
5
16
00 37
94
00 01
}
गट नंबर 148 में
प्रमुख जिला मार्ग 20
159
160
206
205
200
224
199
225
243
242
269
274
273
280
279
276
278
277
357
358
435
434
433
432
431
427
428
429
424
47
14
00
00 48 58
19 06
00
00 52 11
12
00 00
03 25
00
00 44 08
88
00 55
41
00 07
68
00 60
27
00 12
82
00 04
54
00 21
42
00 08
00 15 89
62
00 01
00 06 07
24
00 15
94
00 36
00 03 20
29
00 02
84
00 01
17
05
10
05
86
06
00 5071
भारत का राजपत्र: मई 21 , 2005/वैशाख 31 , 1927
[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
जिला: सातारा
तालूका: खटाव
गाव का बास
सर्वे नंबर
गट नंबर कम सं.
3
2
4 1
386 पै 1 गोल (निरंतर)
389 पै
गट नबर 388 ,
532,533,534,535
,536, 537 और
544 में प्रमुख जिला
मार्ग 20
388 पै
532 पें
533
534
536
538
539
540 पै
544 पै
545 पै
546 पै
547 पै
548 पै
550 पै
551 पै
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
564
565
566
568 पै
572 राज्य: महाराष्ट्र
क्षेत्रफल
एयर वर्ग मीटर उप-खण्ड सं. हेक्टर
5
6 7 8
10
00 07 15
04 67
00
00 12 31
22
00 05
00 01 62
86
00 01 58
60
00 01
85
00 01
85
00 01
29
03
00
75
00 01
99
00 01
00 02 58
51
00 02
04
00
43
37
00 04
41
00 01
00 01 10
00
0001
90
86
00 00 77
00.00 81
00 03. 69
24
00 01
00 01 36
00 03 93
00 02 03 5072
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21 , 2005/VAISAKHA 31 , 1927
जिला : सातारा तालूका: खटाव
सर्वे नंबर
गट नंबर गाव का नाम
कम सं.
4 2
3
1
573 पै 1
(निरंतर)
मौल
574
575
576
579
580
581
582
597
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] राज्य : महाराष्ट्र
क्षेत्रफल
एयर वर्ग मीटर
हेक्टर
उप-खण्ड सं.
6 7
8 5
98
00 01
24
00 01
30
00 01
46
00 01
22
00 02
00 02 87
00 02 16
00 02 51
56
00 10
गट नंबर 581,582 )
और 597 के बीच
का नाला
605 पै
607
608
598
610
611
613
612
गट नबर 614 क
पास का नाला
614
गट नंबर 614
में नाला
615
641
639
638
637
646
647
658
657
656
655
00 01 92
04 45
00
00 04 95
12
00 03
77
00 04
21
00 06
60
00 03
00 19 77
00 12 98
00 02 36 {
00 02 82
00 02 52 }
00 12 80
27
00 11
00 04 83
50
00 07
33
00 17
00 12 07
00 11 31
44
00 06
59
00 01 [भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : मई 21 , 2005/वैशाख 31 , 1927
जिला : सातारा तालूक: खटाव
गाव का नाम
गट नंबर
सर्वे नंबर
कम सं.
1
2
3
4 1
685 (निरंतर)
मोल
684 ललगुण
321 2
320
319
326
325
326
327
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
338
369
5073 राज्य : महाराष्ट्र
क्षेत्रफल
हेक्टर एयर वर्ग मीटर उप-खण्ड सं.
6 7
5
8
80
00.13
0026 19 कुल
07 86 05
00 13 09
04
00 05
00 30 74 1
58
00 05
2
00 03 88
23
00 03
00 07 60
00 01 24
02
00
89
00 01 98
27
00 05
00 10 65
10
00
99
00 07 78
00 08 83
गट नंबर 369 और
374 के बीच
में नाला
373
372
00 02 73 }
00 14 42
00 12 62
गट नंबर 383 में
00 02 27
मेटल्ड रास्ता
383
385
386
387
391
396
835
411 }
00 16 12
05 55
00
35
00 04
65
00 07
90
00 05
00 29 17
00 18 49
00 05 61
409और 410
422
00 13 01
05
00 13 5074
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21 , 2005/VAISAKHA 31 , 1927
जिला : सातारा तालूका: खटाव
गट नंबर
सर्वे नंबर
गाव का नाम
कम सं.
4
3
2
1
423 2 ललगुण (निरंतर)
[PART II - SEC . 3 (ii) ] राज्य : महाराष्ट्र
क्षेत्रफल
एयर वर्ग मीटर
हेक्टर
उप-खण्ड सं.
8
6 7
5
96
00 02
गट नबर 423 और
10
114 के बीच में
09
00
येरला नदी
114
103
100
39
39
39
39
गट नबर 41 में
20 42
00
20 40
00
06 23
00
06 10
00
9
00 14 01 8
00 14 39 7
25. 18
00
6
00 01 60
अस्फालटेड रास्ता
41
39
1158
140
802
801
1142
338 3 पवारवाडी
335
336
356
361
360
359
358
351
गट नंबर 351,391-
}
41
00 13
45
10
00
1
41
05
00
82
00 23
00 27 05
59
00 00
14
00 16
03
04 87
कुल
49
00 68
78
00 10
47
04
00
00 12 12
00 00 22
49
00 08
00 06 02
00 09 97
59
00 11
89
और 393 के बीच
का रास्ता
393
391
392
394
417
00 01
08 83
00
39
00 02
84
00 38
26 35
00
98
00 25 भारत का राजपत्र : मई 21 , 2005 /वैशाख 31 , 1927
[भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii ) ]
जिला : सातारा तालूका: खटाव
गट नंबर गाव का नाम
सर्वे नंबर
कम सं.
1
2
4
3
396 3 पवारवाडी (निरंतर)
416
5075 राज्य: महाराष्ट्र
क्षेत्रफल
उप-खण्ड
सं. हेक्टर एयर वर्ग मीटर
6 7 8 5
34
0038
00 21 73
गट नंबर 416 और
412के बीच का
69
00 01
गाडी रास्ता
412
413
415
453
471
470
472
468
467
525
533
584
534
535
548
546
545
547 4 वर्धनगड
194
195
193
220
218 }
00 02 30
00 00 32
00 17 51
00 19 20
24
00 26
0040 09
02
00
88
72
00 06.
00 12 15
00 32 67
31
00 08
97
00 04
39
28
00
00 26 23
53
00 04
00 05 86
01
00
54
84
00. 12
कुल 05 50 92
48
00 00
00 02 55
00 26 76
00 19 38
00 23 41
गट नंबर 218,217
और 216 के बीच में
अस्फालटेड रस्ता
217
216
215
315
316 ) }
13
00
44
00 01 87
26 11
00
00 42 31
03
00
19 5076
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21 , 2005 /VAISAKHA 31 , 1927
जिला: सातारा तालूकाः खटाव
गट नंबर
सर्वे नंबर
गाव का नाम
कम सं.
4
3
2
1
337 4 वर्धनगड (निरंतर)
336
334
338
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii )] राज्य: महाराष्ट्र
क्षेत्रफल
एयर वर्ग मीटर
हेक्टर
उप-खण्ड सं.
6
8
7
5
91
07
00
04 27
00
48
16
00
गट नबर 338,336
26
और 334 के बीच में
05
00
राज्य मार्ग 74
339
340
341
329
1124 5 पुसेगाँव
1126
1125
1129
1130
1136
1137
994
993
1016
1017
1018
1019
1020
987
986
983
984
985
975
974
976
977
797
774
35 69
00
41
00 13
10 89
00
00 04 57
18
62
कुल 02
29 84
00
15 73
00
00 05 02
00 20 38
00 11 23
33
10
00
67
00 16
99
00 03
48
00 27
39
00 02
00 18 59
29
00 05
00 03 33
47
00 01
05
00 05
15 64
00
54
08
00
12
00 06
17
18
00
05
00 05 07
37 44
00
00 00 64
53
00 38 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत काराजपत मई 21 , 2005/वैशाख 31 , 1927
जिला : सातारा तालूका: खटाव
गाव का नाम
सर्वे नंबर
गट नंबर कम सं.
1
2
3
4
5077 राज्य : महाराष्ट्र
उप-खण्ड
क्षेत्रफल
सं. हेक्टर एयर वर्ग मीटर 5
6 7
8
गट नबर 774 में
5 पुसेगाँव (निरंतर)
00 06 01
प्रमुख जिला मार्ग 20
-778
776
765
764
763
761
760
759 6 विसापुर
777
778
779
785
786
787
894
893
892
891
890
880
858
00 04 01
00 12 84
00 09 93
00 07 03
00 02 07
00 01 78
15.
00
80
00 38 50 कुल
01
04 05
00 08 10
00 09 72
00 21 60
00 08 10
00 15 75
00 13 14
00 09 09
00 09 90
00 06 75
00 03 30
00 07 31, 00 31 59
30
15
00
गट नंबर 858 और
1112 के बीच में
नाला
1112
1115
1110
1117
1103
1116
1134
1135
1139 1450 2005-8
07
00
44 }
00 01 56 00 15 93 00 09 84
15
00
45
46 00 12 37 00 09 71 00 06 09 00 0464 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21 , 2005/VAISAKHA 31 , 1927
5078
जिला: सातारा खटार
गट नंबर
सर्वे नंबर
गाव का नाम
कम सं.
4
3
2
1
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii)] राज्य: महाराष्ट्र
क्षेत्रफल
एयर वर्ग मीटर
हेक्टर
उप-खण्ड सं.
7
8 5
6
गट नंबर 1139 के
6 विसापुर (निरंतर)
04 44
00
}
पास का नाला
1158
1159
1160
1161
952 7 खातगुण
950
947
946
943
942
801
827
828
829
830
842
843
841
845
847
856
861
853
854
855
865
866
867
868
871
787
533
788
786
783
84
15
00
56
00 09
12 37
00
62
00 02
97
87
02
कुल
10 61
00
0003 86
46
00 22
00 00 24
04 28
00
55
00 04
52
00 06
80
00 10 08
48
00 12
12
00
99
00 02 09
23
00 05
20
00 08
84
00 10
23
00 07
53
00 01
04 54
00
00 05 10
00 05 77
40
00 07
12 53
00
59
00 07
68
00 31
27
04
00
82
00 37
00 00 31
39
48
00
62
12
00 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: मई 21 , 2005/वैशाख 31 , 1927
जिला : सातारा तालूका: खटाव
गाव का नाम
सर्वे नंबर
गंट नंबर कम सं.
2
1
3
4 7 खातगुण (निरंतर)
700
5079 राज्य: महाराष्ट्र
क्षेत्रफल
उप-खण्ड
सं. हेक्टर एयर वर्ग मीटर 5
6 7
8
00 12 01
गट नंबर 700 में
नाला
711
710
709
707
706
705
702
704
703
683
664
665
666
589
582
588
583
580 8 जखणगाँव
344
345
348
10
9
8
7
00 02 39 }
00 05 30
00 14 62
00 10 78
00 05 71
00 05. 07.
00 10 41
00 08 51
39
00 09
16
00 00
00 02 85
00 34 67
00 32 68
07 23
00
04.
00
00
22
00 04
00 16 40 कुल
05 02 98
04
00 29
00 07. 13
22
00
54
00 11 40
00 45 82
25
00 01
15
00 00
गट नंबर 9 से 7
और 355 के बीच में
अस्फालटेड रस्ता
355
356
511
510 00 24 44 00 07 43 00 03 47 00 15 92 5080
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 21 , 2005/VAISAKHA 31 , 1927
जिला : सातारा तालूका: खटाव
गट नंबर
सर्वे नंबर
गाव का नाम
कम सं.
4
3
1
509 2 जखणगाँव (निरंतर)
8
512
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii )] राज्य : महाराष्ट्र
क्षेत्रफल
उप -खण्ड
वर्ग मीटर
हेक्टर एयर
सं.
6 7
8 5
56
82
00 05
गट नबर 513 में
76
03
00
अस्फालटेड रस्ता
514
516
515
533
517
518 । }
00 07 63
44
00 06
95
00 00
00 02 11
26
00 01
गट नंबर 532 और
538 के बीच में
94
00 02
}
गाडी रस्ता
538
539
544
00 10 55
64
00 07
गट नंबर 544 और
43
00 03
569 के बीच में नाला
569
568
567
571
731
570
732
729
728
727
696
697
693
692
691
689
698
699
700
701
27
00 04
85
00 08
14
00 04
00 00 11
24
00 15
18
00 02
72
00 02
82
00 17
79
00 11
00 06 40
00 13 10
50
00 08
00 06 17
00 04 75
30
00 12
00 68 86
43
00 04
00 18 91
39 कुल
04 38 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : मई 21 , 2005/वैशाख 31 , 1927
जिला : सातारा तालूका: खटाव
गाव का नाम
सर्वे नंबर
गट नंबर कम सं.
1
2
3
4 9 वडखल
130
126
113
112
111
110
109
108
104
100
101
95
94
93
91
92
12
13
14
16
17
56
18
19
गट नंबर 19 क आग
5081 राज्य: महाराष्ट्र
क्षेत्रफल
उप-खण्ड सं. हेक्टर एयर वर्ग मीटर 5
6
8
7
00 85 14
00 10 76
00 00 92
00 16 32
57
32
00 22
00 03 68
78
00 19 81
00 16 11
70
00 20
00 17 09
00 11 81
17
00
70
16
00
28
88
00 03
00 24 77
00 22 78
74
00 15
90
00 39
00 20 86
00 00 '42
29
00 15
57
00 00
00 02 65
और गाँव वडखळ,
भोसरेके सीमा पर
भूमि 10 भोसरे
कुल
04 06 85
गाँव सीमा भोसरे और
गट नंबर 1147 और
00 02 54
1130 के बीच में
1147
1130
1144
1143
1142
1141
1150
00 07 14
00 11 00
10
00 03 84
00 21 61 00 11 94 00 08 63 5082
[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21 , 2005 /VAISAKHA 31 , 1927
जिला : सातारा
राज्य : महाराष्ट्र तालूका : खटाव
क्षेत्रफल गाव का नाम
गट नंबर
सर्वे नंबर
हेक्टर एयर वर्ग मीटर
उप-खण्ड सं.
कम सं.
3
4
6 7
8 2
5
1
1151
23
00 03
10 भोसरे (निरंतर)
गट नंबर 1151 और
नाला के बीच में
00 02 53
मेटल्ड रस्ता
गट नंबर
1151,1150,1277
27
00 08
और 1278 के बीच
में नाला
1277
00 01 83
1278
00 07 45
1279
69
00 04
1285
00 03 40
10
1291
00 02
1293
00 01 54
1294
00 01 87
गट नंबर 1295 से
11
1308 के बीच
00 04
में नाला
'}
00 08 23
1284
गट नंबर 1311 के
27
बीच में नाला
}
1310
11
00 04
1254
00 26 53
गट नबर 1254 और
30 के बीच में
95
00 00
मेटल्ड रस्ता
30
00 07 24
31
00 02 92
25
00 21 99
13 78
69
00
70
00 06 49
71
90
72
00 06 26
67
71
00 09
65
10
00 19 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
5083
भारत कन राजपत्र: मई 21 , 2005/वैशाख 31 , 1927
जिला : सातारा तालूका: खटाव
गाव का नाम
सर्वे नंबर
गट नंबर कम सं.
2
1
3
4 10 भोसरे (निरंतर)
64 राज्य: महाराष्ट्र
क्षेत्रफल उप-खण्ड सं.
एयर वर्ग मीटर
हेक्टर
5
6 7
8
76
गट नंबर 64 और
146 के बीच में प्रमुख
72
00 04
जिला मार्ग 44
146 }
00 44 95
गट नंबर 146 और
00 04 11
153 के बीच में रास्ता
153
152
150
151
154
172
176
175
174
180
182
183
185 11 लोणी
458
457
455
450
449
448
447
445 12 वरुड
1254
1251
1250
1247
1246
1245
1187 ,
}
00 03 17
00 05 20
00 02 39
00 10 16
00 23 44
00 06 75
00 05 31
00 15 11
00 18 05
00 11 62
20
00
67
00 27 90
00 04 51 कुल
04 45 12
74
00 07
00 16 79
00 03 64
22
00
49
00 04 53
00 06 10
00 26 33
00 43 26
01 30
कुल
88
00 37 78
13
00
48
00 16 25
00 60 74
0750
00
00 01 86
07
00
86 5084
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21 , 2005 /VAISAKHA 31 , 1927
जिला : सातारा तालूका: खटाव
गाव का नाम
सर्वे नंबर
गट नंबर कम सं.
2
1
3
4
1220 12वरुड (निरंतर)
1221
1222
1223
1227
1228
1234
1178
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] राज्य : महाराष्ट्र
क्षेत्रफल
उप-खण्ड
वर्ग मीटर
हेक्टर एयर
सं.
5
6 7 8
00 03 77
00 02 01
00 02 02
00 06 90
00 07 21
13
00
12
62
00 17
00 12 44
गट नंबर 1176 और
31
00 02
852के बीच में नाला
852
851
840
839
756 । }
00 21 11
00 35 40
00. 22 86
00 14 69 अ
00 14 64
गट नंबर 756 अ
में नाला
758
759
748
747
746
747
715
718
717
00:02 64 }
00 08 73
00 22 25
00 13 16
00 03 84
00 03 87
00 06 51
00 69 72
00 18 57
00 36 99
गट नंबर 717
में नाला
723
00 01 07 }
00 57 74
गट नंबर 723 और
724 के बीच में
00 02 32
जिला मार्ग
724 13 औंध
21
57
58
}
00 10 54
52 कुल
79
05
15 22
00
00 37 68
00 42 37 भारत का राजपत्र : मई 21 , 2005/वैशाख 31 , 1927
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
जिला : सातारा तालूको": खटाव
गट नंबर
सर्वे नंबर
गाव का नाम
कम सं.
3
4 2
1.
59
13 औंध (निरंतर)
52
60
61
सवे नंबर 61 और
125 के बीच में
मेहल्ड रस्ता
}
125
124
132
133
134
सर्वे नंबर 134 और
167 के बीच में
अस्फामिटेड रस्ता
}
167
166
सर्वे नंबर 166
}
में नाला
137
165
163
162
184
185
186
187.
188
189
190
192
193
194
338 14 खरशिंगे
335
334 1450 GI/2005-9
5085 राज्य: महाराष्ट्र
क्षेत्रफल
एयर वर्ग मीटर
हेक्टर
उप-खण्ड सं.
6 7 8 5
15
49
00
73 00
00
00
18
00
73 46
00
03 60
00
58 05
00
96
30
00
18 96
00
18 08
00
23
00 18
93
01
00
64
00 34
24 87
00
04 08
00
00 08 61
36 32
00
89
00 31
03
00 41
97
00 01
86
00 37
10
00 29
00 11 01
99
09
00
94
00 18
10
23
00
21
00 21
69
12
00
02
56
00
02
62
08
कुल
00
13
00
00 10 93 5086
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21 , 2005/VAISAKHA 31 , 1927
तालुका: खटाव
जिला : सातारा गाव का नाम
सर्वे नंबर
गट नंबर कम सं.
1
2
3
4 खरशिंगे (निरंतर)
14
333
332
331
104
106
119
120
121
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)] राज्य : महाराष्ट्र
क्षेत्रफल
उप-खण्ड सं.
वर्ग
हेक्टर एयर मीटर 5
6 7 8
00 15 84
21
00 22
00 00 89
92 00 51
87 00 24
00 06 65 00 07 62
गट नंबर 121 में
00 02 29
मेटल्ड रास्ता
122
123
124
126
125
154
153
165
152
164 }
00 02 29 00 03 21
00 01 83 00 02 19
t 00 09 41
05
00 09 11
00 02 70
00 00 37
11
00
08
गट नंबर 164 और
176 के बीच में
178
176
764
05 43
00
}
18
00 15 18
00 19 10
गट नंबर 764 और
776 से 799 के
00 05 18
बीच में मेटल्ड रोड
814
817
816
823 ब
00 11 42
00 08 07
00 20 60
67
00 29
कुल
03 13 98 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : मई 21 , 2005/वैशाख 31 , 1927
जिला: सातारा तालूको: खटाव
गाव का नाम
सर्वे नंबर
गट नंबर कम सं.
1
2
3
4 15 येलीव
252
253
254
255
827 16
924 पंलशी
922
921
951
920
919
870
872
873
5087 राज्य : महाराष्ट्र
उप-खण्ड
क्षेत्रफल
सं. हेक्टर एयर वर्ग मीटर 5
6 7 8
00 12 95.
11 07
00
00 07 68
11.
00
60
00 06 39 कुल
49
00
69
00 02 68
00 22 41
00 09 81
00 12 43
32
00 09
00 09 59
0003 72
00 17 32
00 17 38
गट नंबर 873 में
26
00 04
राज्य मार्ग 69
874
834
835
860
861
862
849
846
847
845 }
00 02 24
00 01 67
42
00 09
00 06 75
13
00
30
11
00
28
00 11 14
08 27
00
15
00
75
00 08 66
गट नंबर 845 और
00 08 33
844 के बीचमें कनाल
844
843 17 लाडेगाँव
33
122
114
113 }
00 06 99
00 02 48 कुल
15 20
02
00 00 59
41
00
43
00 01 78
00 01 74 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21 , 2005 /VAISAKHA 31 , 1927
5088
जिला : सातारा तालूका: खटाव
गट नंबर
सर्वे नंबर
गाव का नाम
कम सं.
4
3
2
1
115 लाडेगाँव (निरंतर)
17
112
107
106
98
90
89
88
85
87
86
83
82
77
75
74
गट नंबर 74 और
149 के बीच में नाला
148
149
167
160
162
161
163
164
245
247
245
गट नंबर 245 और
305 के बीच मेटल्ड
रास्ता
305
306
304
302
311
312
333
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] राज्य : महाराष्ट्र
क्षेत्रफल
एयर वर्ग मीटर
हेक्टर
उप-खण्ड सं.
6 7 8 5
00 02 18
00 02 16
00 02 16
96
00 02
37
00 01
24
00 02
80
00 02
11
42
00 01
33
00 03
63
00 01
03 68
00
92
00 25
01 71
00
65
00 01
69
00 06
}
17
29
00
16
00 01
28
05 79
00
51
04
00
00 10 81
26
06
00
81
00 05
43
00 13
00 16 63
00 03 02 }
09 39
00
17
00 03
29
09
00
93
00 07
28
00 08
19 03
00
02 30
00 भारत का रामबन : मई 21 , 2005/वैशाख 31 , 1927
[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
जिला: सातारा तालूका: खटाव
गट नंबर
सर्वे नंबर
भाव को नाम
कम सं.
A
3
2
1
332 17 लाडेगाव (निरंतर)
331
330
329
312
328
327
324
323
322
382
378
389
388
394
395
396
393
397
399
326 18 वांझोली
327
328
342
344
345
346
गट नंबर 346 और
347 के बीच मेटल्ड
रास्ता
347
348
5089 राज्य : महाराष्ट्र
क्षेत्रफल
एयर वर्ग मीटर
हेक्टर
उप-खण्ड सं.
6 7 8 5
nn 80
An
09
00 01
80
00 01
19
00 02
09
00 01
01
00 04
04
71
00 28
00 11 72
45
00 16
63
81
00 11
05
02
00 30
35
00 02
29
00 04
00 08 01
00 01 07
64
00 02
71 कुल
92
03
14
07
00
15
00 03
02
00 06
00 22 99
69
00 34
54
00 09
61
00 16
02
00 04
}
15 81
00
79
00 29
गट नंबर 348 और
349 के बीच में नाला
349
350
351
05
00
69 }
68 25
00
06
00 22
90
28
00
66 कुल
02 74 5090
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21 , 2005 /VAISAKHA 31 , 1927
जिला : सातारा तालूका: खटाव
सर्वे नंबर
गट नंबर गाव का नाम
कम सं.
1
2
3
4 रहाटणी
613 19
612
गट नंबर 612,651 ,
[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ] राज्य : महाराष्ट्र
क्षेत्रफल उप-खण्ड सं. हेक्टर एयर वर्ग मीटर 5
6 7
8
00 25
01
00 81 45
650 और 610 के
13
00 03
}
बीच में अस्फालटेड
610
588
589
580
590
591
00 06 88
00 14 79
00 30 10
00 40 35
00 23 48
00 07 44
गट नंबर 591 और
05 74
00
580 के बीच में नाला
561 }
00 24 23
गट नंबर 579,580
और 561 के बीच में
83
00 01
अस्फालटेड रस्ता
565
562
563 20चोराडे
1410
1409
1399 }
30
00 04 09
00
00 18
कुल
03 62 06
12 79
00
00 12 81
00 10 52
गट नंबर 1399 और
1398 में राज्य
मार्ग 73
1398
1397
1395
1396
1394
1391
1392
1372
1364
78
00 02
'}
00 07 81 1
00 66 33
00 16 29
64
00 05
00 01 84
00 14 38
00 12 15
00 10 80
15 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : मई 21 , 2005/वैशाख 31 , 1927
जिला: सातारा तालूका: खटाव
गाव का नाम
सर्वे नंबर
गट नंबर कम सं.
1
2
3
4 20चोराडे (निरंतर)
1366
1367
1371
1370
1369
1313
1313
5091 राज्य : महाराष्ट्र
क्षेत्रफल
उप-खण्ड सं. हेक्टर एयर वर्ग मीटर 5
6 7
8
00 08 55
01
00
56
00 23 49
15
00 07 99 1अ
25
00 01
2
05
गट नंबर 1369 और
1315 के बीच
में नाला
1315
1314
970
969
967
964
963
962
78
00 08
83
00 01
00 23 60
00 10 09
00 04 73
00 04 47
50
00 02 87
00 04 73
गट नंबर 962 और
931 के बीच का
44
00 03
मेटल्ड रास्ता
931 }
00 42 58
गट नबर 931 में
15
00 02
मेटल्ड रास्ता
743
779
767
766
763
761
760
762
759
747
747 }
00 16 09
05 63
00
1
00 07 99 00 03 44
06
00
08 00 01 22
34 00 01 01 00 03 76 1
00 15 16 2
00 00 94
गट नंबर 747/1
और 747/2 के बीच
में नाला
748
07 00 03
71 00 12 IPART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] 5092
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21 , 2005 /VAISAKHA 31 , 1927
6
5
8
4
7
2
3
1
00 08 33
750
20 चोराडे (निरंतर)
45
00 09
751
03
00 06
754
24
00 10
755
81
00 02
789
791
93
1
00 20
795
27
2
00 04
795
07 34
00
796
30. 12
00
800
07 01
00
705
17
कुल 05 11
[फा. सं. आर-31015/32/2004- ओ. आर-II ]
हरीश कुमार, अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 19th May , 2005
S. O. 1848.-Whereas by notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O. 2734, dated the 29th October , 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 30th October, 2004 , 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 lyaing an extension pipeline for transportation of petroleum products through Mumbai- PunePipeline Extension Project from Loni (Pune ) to Pakni ( Solapur ) via Hazarwadi in the State of Maharashtra by M / s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited;
And whereas the copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on the 17th February, 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 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 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 M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, free from all encumbrances.
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : मई 21 , 2005/वैशाख 31 , 1927
5093
SCHEDULE
Taluka : KHATAV
District : SATARA
GatNo.
SurveyNo.
Sr. No.
Name ofthe Village
1
2
3
4 1 MOL
148 State : MAHARASHTRA
Area
Sub-Division No.
Hectare Are Sq.mt 5
6 7 8
00 37 16
MDR - 20 in Gat
No 148
159
160
206
205
200
224
199
225
243
242
269
274
273
280
279
276
278
277
357
358
435
434
433
432
431
427
428
429
424 1450 Gl / 2005-10
00 0194 }
00 14 47
00
58
48
00 19 06
00 52 11
00 00 12
00 0325
00 44 08
00 55 88
00 07 41
00 60 68
00 12 27
00 04 82
00 21 54
00 08 42
00 15 89
00 01 62
00 06 07
001515 24
00 36 94
00 04 00
00 03 20
00 02 29
00 01 84
00 00 17
00 00 05
00 00 10
00 00 05
00 06 86 5094
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 21 , 2005 /VAISAKHA 31 , 1927
Taluka : KHATAV
[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii ) ]
District: SATARA
GatNo.
SurveyNo.
Sr. No.
Nameof the Village
2
4 1
3
1 MOL ( Contd.)
386(P)
389 (P) State : MAHARASHTRA
Area
Sub-Division No.
Hectare Are Sq.mt
6
7
5
8
00 00 10
00 07 15
MDR - 20 in Gat No
388,532,533 ,
534,535 , 536,
04
00
67
537 & 544
388(P)
532(P)
533
534
536
538
539
540(P)
544(P)
545(P)
546(P)
547(P)
548(P)
550(P)
551(P)
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
564
565
566
568(P)
572
12
00
31
05 22
00
00 01 62
00 00 86
00 01 58
60
00 01
00 01 85
00 01 85
00 03 29
00 01 75
00 01 99
00 02 58
00 02 51
00 04 43
00 04 37
00 01 41
00 01 10
00 01 00
00 00 90
00 86
00
00 00 77
00 00 81
00 03 69
00 01 24
00 01 36
00 03 93
00 02 03 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii)]
5095 भारत का राजपत्र : मई 21 , 2005/वैशाख 31 , 1927
Taluka : KHATAV
District : SATARA
State : MAHARASHTRA
Area
GatNo.
SurveyNo.
Sub-Division No.
Sr. No.
Nameofthe Village
Hectare Are Sq.mt 2
1
3
4
5
6
7 8
00 01 98 1 MOL ( Contd.)
573(P)
00
574
01 24
575
00 01 30
576
00 01 46
00
579
02 22
580
00 02 87
581
00 02 16
582
00 02 51
597
00 10 56
Nala in between
00 01 92
GatNo 581,
582& 597
00
45
04
605(P)
607
00 04 95
608
00 03 12
598
00 04 77
610
00, 06 21
611
00 03 60
613
19 77
00
612
00 12 98
Nala near Gat
00 02 36
}
No 614
614
00 02 82
00
Nala in Gat No 614
02 52
615
00 12 80
641
639
00 11 27
638
00 04 83
637
00 07 50
646
00 00 -10
647
00 17 33
658
00 12 07
657
11 31
00
656
00 06 44
655
00 01 59 5096
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21 , 2005/VAISAKHA 31 , 1927
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] Tadka : KHATAV
State : MAHARASHTRA
District :
SATARA
Area
GatNo.
SurveyNo.
Sub-Division No.
Sr. No.
Nameof the Village
Hectare Are Sq.mt- 1
2
4
3
6
7 8
5
685
00 13 80 1 MOL ( Contd .)
00
684
26 19
Total
07 86 05 2 LALGUN
00
321
09
13
320
00 05 04
319
00 30 74
326
1
00 05 58
325
00 00 04
326
2
00 03 88
327
00 03 23
329
00 07 60
330
00 01 24
331
00 02 89
332
00 01 98
333
00 05 27
334
00 10 65
335
00 10 99
338
00 07 78
369
00 08 83
00
73
02
Stream in between
GatNo 369 & 374
}
373
00 14 42
372
00 12 62
Metalled Road in
00 02 27
GatNo 383
}
383
00 16 12
00
385
05 55
386
00 04 35
387
00 07 65
391
00 05 90
396
00 29 17
835
00 18 49
411
00 05 61
409& 410
00 13 01
422
00 13 05 5097 भारत का राजपत्र : मई 21, 2005/वैशाख 31 , 1927
[भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii ) ]
State : MAHARASHTRA
District : SATARA
Tadka : KHATAV
Area
GatNo.
SurveyNo.
Sub-Division No.
Sr. No.
Hectare Are Sq.mt Nameofthe Village
6
7
4
8
5
2
3
1
00
423
02 96 2 LALGUN (Contd.)
00
Yerla River in
between Gat No
09. 10
}
423& 114
42
00 20
114
40
20
00
103
00
100
06 23
9
00 06 10
39
01
00
8
14
39
00 14 39
7
39
6
39
00 25 18
00 01 60
}
Asphalted Road in
Gat No 41
00
41
13 41
00
39
45
10
1
00 05 41
1158
140
00 23 82
00
802
05
27
801
00 00 59
00
14
16
1142
04 87 03
Total
00
49
338
68 3 PAWARWADI
78
00 10
335
00 04 47
336
356
00 12 12
361
00 00 22
00
360
08 49
00 06 02
359
00
358
09 97
00 11 59
351
00 01 89
Road in between
Gat Nos 351 ,
391 & 393
393
00 08 83
00
39
391
02
392
00 38 84
00 26 35
394
98
25
417
00 5098
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 21 , 2005 /VAISAKHA 31 , 1927
[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] Tadka : KHATAV
District: SATARA
State : MAHARASHTRA
Area
GatNo.
SurveyNo.
Sr. No.
Sub-Division No.
Nameof the Village
Are
Hectare Sq.mt 1
2
3
4
5
6
7 8
396
3 PAWARWADI ( Contd . )
00 38 34
416
00 21 73
CartTrack in
between Gat No
00 01 69
416& 412
}
412
00 02 30
413
00 00 32
415
00 17 51
453
00 19 20
471
00 26 24
470
00 40 09
472
00 02 88
468
00 06 72
467
00 12 15
525
00 32 67
533
00 08 31
584
00 04 97
534
00 .28 39
535
00 26 23
548
00 04 53
546
00 05 86
545
00 01 54
547
00 12 84
Total
05 50 92 4 VARDHANGAD
194
00 00 48
195
00 02 55
193
00 26 76
220
00 19 38
218
00 23 41
Asphalted road in
between Gat No
00 04 00
218, 217 & 216
217
00 13 44
216
00 01 87
215
00 26 11
315
00 42 31
316
00 03 19 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : मई 21 , 2005 /वैशाख 31 , 1927
5099
District : SATARA
Taluka : KHATAV
Gat No.
SurveyNo.
Sr. No.
Nameofthe Village
2
3
1
4
337 4 VARDHANGAD ( Contd. )
336
334
338 State : MAHARASHTRA
Area
Sub-Division No.
Hectare Are Sq.mt
6 7 8 5
00 07 91
00 04 27
00 16 48
SH - 74 inbetween
00 05 26
GatNo 338 ,
336& 334
339
340
341
329 5 PUSEGAON
1124
1126
1125
1129
1130
1136
1137
994
993
1016
1017
1018
1019
1020
987
986
983
984
985
975
974
976
977
797
774
00 35 69
00 13 41
00 10 89
00 04 57 Total
02 62 18
00 29 84.
00 15 73
00 0502
00 20 38
00 11 23
00 10 33
00 16 67
00 03 99
00 27 48
02 39
00
00 18 59
00 05 29
00 03 33
00 01 47
00 05 05
00 15 64
00 00 05
00 08 54
00 06 12
00 18 17
00 00 05
00 05 07
00 37 44
00 00 64
00
53
38 5100
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( it)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21 , 2005/VAISAKHA 31 , 1927
State : MAHARASHTRA Taluka : KHATAV
District : SATARA
Area
GatNo.
Survey No.
Sub- Division No.
Sr. No.
Nameofthe Village
Hectare Are Sq.mt
6
7 8 2
3
4
5
1
MDR - 20 inGat
5 PUSEGAON ( Contd. )
06 01
00
{
No 774
00 04 01
778
00 12 84
776
765
00 09 93
00 07 03
764
00 02 07
763
00
761
01 78
00
760
15 80
00 38 50
759
04 05 01
Total
00 08 10
777
6 VISAPUR
00 09 72
778
00 21 60
779
00 08 10
785
00
786
15 75
00
14
787
13
00 09 09
894
00
893
09 90
00 06 75
892
00 03 30
891
07 31
890
00
00 31 59
880
00 15 30
858
Nala in between
00 07 44
GatNo 858 & 1112
}
01 56
1112
00
00
1115
15 93
00
1110
09 84
45
00
1117
15
00
1103
00 46
00
1116
12 37
1134
09 71
00
00
1135
06 09
1139
00 04 64 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : मई 21 , 2005/वैशाख 31 , 1927
Taluka : KHATAV
5101
District : SATARA
GatNo.
SurveyNo.
Sr. No.
Nameofthe Village
1
2
3
4 6 VISAPUR ( Contd. )
State: MAHARASHTRA
Area
Sub-Division No.
Hectare Are Sq.mt 5
6
7 8
00 04 44-
Nalaadjacent to
GatNo 1139
1158
1159
1160
1161 7 KHATGUN
952
950
947
946
943
942
801
827
828
829
830
842
843
841
845
847
856
861
853
854
855
865
866
867
868
871
787
533
788
786
783 1450 GI /2005-11
00
84
15
00
56
09
00
37
12
00 02-62 Total
02 87 97
00 10 61
00 03 86
00
46
22
00 00 24
00 04 28
00 04 55
00 06 52
00 00 80
00 10 08
00 10 00
00 12 48
00 12 9,9
00 02 09
00 05 23
00 08 20
00 10 84
00 07 23
00 01 53
00 04 54
00 05. 10
00 05 77
00 07 40
00 12 53
00 07 59
00 31 68
00 04 27
00 37 82
00 00 31
00 48 39
00 12 62 5102
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21 , 2005 /VAISAKHA 31 , 1927
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii)] State : MAHARASHTRA
District : SATARA
Taluka : KHATAV
Gat No.
SurveyNo.
Sr. No.
Nameof the Village
4
3
1
2
700 7 KHATGUN ( Contd . )
Area
Sub-Division
No.
Hectare Are Sq.mt
6
7 8 5
00 12 01
Nala in Gat
No 700
711
710
709
707
706
705
702
704
703
683
664
665
666
589
582
588
583
580
344 8 JAKHANGAON
345
348
10
9
8
7
00
39
02 }
00 00 50
00 05 30
14 62
00
00 10 78
00 05 71
00 05 07
41
00 10
00 08 51
00 09 39
00 00 16
00 02 85
00 34 67
00 00 07
32 68
00
07 23
00
00 04 22
16 40
00
02 98
05
Total
00 29 04
00 07 13
00 22 54
40
00 11
00 45 82
00 01 25
00 00 15
00
Asphalted Road in
between Gat
06 00
No 9 to 7 & 355
355
356
511
510
00 24 44
00 07 43
00 03 47
00 15 92 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : मई 21 , 2005/वैशाख 31 , 1927
5103 State : MAHARASHTRA
District : SATARA
Taluka : KHATAV
GatNo.
SurveyNo.
Sr. No.
Nameofthe Village
4
3
2
1
509 8 JAKHANGAON (Contd. )
512
Area
Sub-Division No.
Sq.mt
Hectare Are
6
7 8 5
00 00 56
00 05 82
00 03 76
Asphalted Road
inGatNo 513
514
516
515
533
517
.518
63
00 07
06 44
00
00 00 95
00 02 11
01 26
00
00 02 94
CartTrack in
between Gat No
532& 538
538
539
544
10 55
00
07 64
00
00
43
03 }
Nala in between
GatNo 544 & 569
569
568
567
571
731
570
732
729
728
727
696
697
693.
692
691
689
698
699
700
701
00 04 27
00 08 85
14
00 04
00 00 11
00 15 24
00 02 18
00
1. 02 72
00 17 82
00 11 79
40
06
00
00 13 10
00 05
00
00 08 50
00 06 17
00 04 75
00 12 30
86
00 68
00 04 43
00 18 91 Total
04 38 39 5104
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21 , 2005/VAISAKHA 31 , 1927
Taluka : KHATAV
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]
District : SATARA
GatNo.
SurveyNo.
Sr. No.
Nameofthe Village
2
1
3
4 9 VADKHAL
130
126
113
112
111
110
109
108
104
100
101
95
94
93
91
92
12
13
14
16
17
56
18
19 State : MAHARASHTRA
Area
Sub-Division No.
Are Sq.mt
Hectare
5
6
7 8
00 85 14
00 10 76
00 00 92
00 16 32
00 00 57
00 22 32
00 03 68
00 00 78
00 19 81
00 16 11
00 20 70
00 17 09
00 11 81
00 17 70
00 16 28
00 03 88
00 24 77
00 22 78
00 15 74
00 39 90
00 20 86
00 00 42
00 15 29
00 00 57
00 02 65
Area next to Gat
No 19 & VB of
Bhosre
10 BHOSRE
04
Total
06 85
00 02 54
Nala on V.B. of
Bhosrevillage&
GatNo
1147 & 1130
1147
1130
1144
1143
1142
1141
1150
00 07 14
00 11 00
00 03 84
00 21 61
00 11 94
00 08 63 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : मई 21 , 2005/वैशाख 31 , 1927
Taluka : KHATAV
5105
District: SATARA
GatNo.
SurveyNo.
Sr. No.
Nameof the Village
1
2
3
4 10 BHOSRE ( Contd. )
1151 State : MAHARASHTRA
Area
Sub-Division No.
Hectare Are Sq.mt 5
6 7 8
00 03 23
00 0253
Metalled Road
between GatNo
1151 & Nala
Nala between Gat
00 08 27
No 1151,1150,
1277 & 1278
1277
1278
1279
1285
1291
1293
1294
00 01 83
00 07 45
00 04 69
00 03 40
00 02 10
00 01 54
00 01 87
Stream in Gat No
00 04 11 {
1295 Το 1308
1284
00 08 23
Stream in Gat
No 1311
1310
1254
00 00 27 }
00 04 11
00 26 53
Metalled Road in
between Gat No
00 00 95
1254& 30
30
31
25
69
70
71
72
67
65 }
00 07 24
00 02 92
00 21 99
78
00 13
00 06 49
00 00 90
00 06 26
71
0009
00 19 10 5106
THE GAZETTEOF INDIA : MAY 21 , 2005/VAISAKHA 31 , 1927
Taluka : KHATAV
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] State : MAHARASHTRA
District : SATARA
GatNo.
SurveyNo.
Sr. No.
Name of the Village
1
2
3
4
64 10 BHOSRE ( Contd . )
Area
Sub-Division No.
Hectare Are Sq.mt 5
6
7 8
00 00 76
00
MDR - 44 in
between Gat No
04 72
64& 146
146
00 44 95
00 04 11
Road in between
Gat No 146 & 153
153
152
150
151
154
172
176
175
174
180
182
183
185
458 11 LONI
457
455
450
449
448
447
445
1254 12 VARUD
1251
1250
1247
1246
1245
1187
00 03 17
00 05 20
00 02 39
00 10 16
00 23 44
00 06 75
00 05 31
00 15 11
00 18 05
00 11 62
00 20 67
00 27 90
00 04 51 Total
04 45 12
00 07 74
00 16 79
00 03 64
00 22 49
00 04 53
00 06 10
00 26 33
00 43 26 Total
01 30 88
00 37 78
00 13 48
00 16 25
00 60 74
07 50
00
00 01 86
00 07 86 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : मई 21 , 2005/वैशाख 31 , 1927
Taldka : KHATAV
5107
District : SATARA
GatNo.
SurveyNo.
Sr. No.
Nameofthe Village
1
2
3
4
1220 12 VARUD ( Contd.)
1221
1222
1223
1227
1228
1234
1178 State: MAHARASHTRA
Area
Sub-Division No.
Are Sq.mt
Hectare
5
6
7 8
00 03 77
00 02 01
00 02 02
00 06 90
00 07 21
00 13 12
00 17 62
00 12
44
00 02 31 }
Nala in between
Gat No 1176 & 852
852
851
840
839
756
00 21 11
00 35 40
00 22 86
14
00
69 A
00 14 64
Nala in Gat
00
64
02 }
No 756/A
758
759
748
747
746
747
715
718
717
00
73
08
00 22 25
00. 13-16
00 03 84
00 03 87
00 06 51
00 69 72
00 18 57
00 36 99
Stream in Gat
No 717
723
00 01 07 }
00 57 74
00 02 32
ODR in between
Gat723 & 724
724 13 AUNDH
21
57
58
}
00 10 54.
05
Total
79 52
00 15 22
00 37 68
00 4237 5108
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21 , 2005 /VAISAKHA 31 , 1927
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]
District : SATARA
Taluka : KHATAV
GatNo.
SurveyNo.
Sr. No.
Nameofthe Village
2
3
4 1
-59
13 AUNDH ( Contd .)
52
60
61
Metalled Road in between Survey
No 61 & 125
}
125
124
132
133
134
Asphalted Road in between Survey No 134 & 167
'}
167
166
}
Nalain Survey
No 166
137
165
163
162
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
192
193
194
338 14 KHARSHINGE
335
334 State : MAHARASHTRA
Area
Sub-Division No.
Are
Hectare Sq.mt
6
5
7 8
00 49 15
00 73 00
00 18 00
00 73 46
00 03 60
00 58 05
00 30 96
00 18 96
00 18 08
00 18 23
00 01 93
00 34 64
00 24 87
00 04 08
00 08 61
00 36 32
00 31 89
00 41 03
00 01 97
00 37 86
00 29 10
00
01
11
00 09 99
00 18 94
00 23 10
00 21 21
00 12 69
00 56 02
08 62 02 Total
00 13 00
00 10 93
00 00 60 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : मई 21 , 2005/वैशाख 31 , 1927
5109 Taluka : KHATAV
District : SATARA
State : MAHARASHTRA
Area
Sub-Division
GatNo.
SurveyNo.
Sr. No.
No.
Nameofthe Village
Are Sq.mt
Hectare
1
2
3
4
6
5
7 8
333
00 15 84 14 KHARSHINGE (Contd . )
332
00 22 21
331
00 00 89
104
00 51 92
106
00 24 87
119
00 06 65
120
09
121
07
00
62
Metalled Road in
00 02 29
{
GatNo 121
122
00 02 29
123
00 03 21
124
00 01 83
126
00 02 19
125
00 09 41
154
00 00 05
153
00 09 11
165
00 02 70
152
00 00 37
164
00 11 08
00 05 43
}
Stream between
Gat.No 164 & 176
178
00 00 18
176
00 15 18
764
00 19 10
00 05 18
Metalled Road in between Gat No 764 & 776 to 799
814
B
00 11 42
817
00 08 07
816
60
00 20
823
00 29 67
03
Total
13 98 1450 G1/ 2005-12 5110
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21 , 2005/VAISAKHA 31 , 1927
[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] State : MAHARASHTRA
District : SATARA
Tarika : KHATAV
GatNo.
Survey No.
Sr. No.
Nameof the Village
4 2
3
1
252 15 YELEEV
253
254
255
827
924 16 PALSHI
922
921
951
920
919
870
872
873
Area
Sub-Division No.
Hectare Are Sq.mt
6
7 8 5
00 12 95
00 11 07
00 07 68
11 60
00
00 06 39
00 49 69 Total
00 02 68
00 22 41
00 09 81
00 12 43
00 09 32
00 09 59
03 72
00
00 17 32
00 17 38
SH - 69 in Gat
No 873
874
834
835
860
861
862
349
846
847
845
Canal in between
04 26
00
}
00 02 24
00 01 67 .
00 09 42
00 06 75
00 13 30
00 11 28
00 11 14
00 08 27
00 15 75
00 08 66
00 08 33
Gat No 845 & 844
844
843
33 17 LADEGAON
122
114
113 }
00 06 99
00 02 48
02 15 20 Total
00 00 59
43
00 41
00 01 78
00 01 74 भारत का राजपत्र : मई 21 , 2005/ वैशाख 31 , 1927
भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
District : SATARA luka : KHATAV
GatNo.
SurveyNo.
Sr. No.
Village Name of the
4
3
2
1
115 17 LADEGAON ( Contd . )
112
107
106
98
90
89
88
85
87
86
83
82
77
75
74
Nala in between Gat No 74 & 149.
148
149
167
160
162
161
163
164
245
247
245
5111 State : MAHARASHTRA
Area
Sub-Division No:
Hectare Are Sq.mt
6
7 8 5
00
00
05
00 02 18
00 02 16
00 02 16
02 96
00
00 01 37
02 24
00
00 02 80
11
00
00
00 01 42
00 03 33
00 01 63
03 68
00
00 25 92
71
00 01
00 01 65
00 06 69 }
00 00 05
00 29 1.7
00 01 16
00. 00 28
00 05 79
00 04 51
10 81
00
00 06 26
00 05 81
00 13 43
00 16 63
03 02
00
Metalled Road in
between Gat No
245 & 305
305
306
304
302
311
312
333 }
09 39
00
00 03 17
00 09 29
00 07 93
00 08 28
00 19 03
00 02 30 5112
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21 , 2005 /VAISAKHA 31 , 1927
uka : KHATAV
[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ]
District : SATARA
GatNo.
Survey No.
Sr. No.
Name of the Village
2
1
3
4
332 17 LADEGAON ( Contd . )
331
330
329
312
328
327
324
323
322
382
378
389
388
394
395
396
393
397
399 18 VANJHOLI
326
327
328
342
344
345
346 State : MAHARASHTRA
Area
Sub-Division No.
Are Sq.mt
Hectare
6
5
7 8
00 00 80
00 01 09
00 01 80
00 02 19
00 01 09
00 04 01
00 00 04
00 28 71
00
72
11
00 16 45
00 00 63
00 11 81
00 00 05
00 30 02
00 02 35
00 04 29
00 08 01
00 01 07
00 02 64
00 00 03
03
Total
92 71
00 07 14
00 03 15
00 06 02
00 22 99
00 34 69
00 09 54
00 16 61
00
Metalled Road in
between Gat No
346& 347
347
348
04 02 }
00 15 81
00 29 79
00 05 69
Nala in between
GatNo 348 & 349
349
350
351 }
00 68 25
00 22 06
00 28 90 Total
02 74 66 भारत का राजपत्र : मई 21 , 2005 /वैशाख 31 , 1927
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
5113 State : MAHARASHTRA
District : SATARA
Muka : KHATAV
Gat No.
Survey No.
Sr. No.
Nameof the Village
4
3
2
1
613 19 RAHATNI
612
Asphalted Road in between Gat No.
Area
Sub-Division No. Hectare Are Sq.mt
7 8 5
6
00 25
01
00 81 45
00 03 13 }
612, 651,
650& 610
610
588
589
580
590
591
00 06 88
79
14
00
00 30 10
00 40 35
00 23 48
00
44
07
Nala in between
00
74
05
}
Gat No 591 & 580
561
00 24 23
00 01 83
Asphalted Road in
between Gat No
579,580 & 561
565
562
563
1410 20 CHORADE
1409
1399 }
00 00 30
00 04 09
00 18 00
03 62 06 Total
00 12 79
00 12 81
00 10 52
SH - 73 between
00 02 78
GatNo
1399& 1398
1398
1397
1395
1396
1394
1391
1392
1372
1364
07 81
00
66 33
00
1
16 29
00
00 05 64
00 01 84
14 38
00
12 15
00
10 80
00
00 15
00 5114
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21 , 2005 /VAISAKHA 31 , 1927
Taluka : KHATAV
District : SATARA
GatNo.
Survey No.
Sr. No.
Name of the Village
1
2
3
4
1366 20 CHORADE ( Contd.)
1367
1371
1370
1369
1313
1313
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] State : MAHARASHTRA
Area
Sub-Division No.
Are
Hectare Sq.mt 5
6
7 8
00 08 55
00 01 56
00 23 49
00 00 15
00 07 99 1A
01 25
00
2
00 00 05
Nala in between
GatNo
00 08 78
1369& 1315
1315
1314
970
969
967
964
963
962
00 01 83
00 23 60
00 10 09
00 04 73
00 04 47
00 02 87
00 04 73
Metalled Road in
between Gat No
00 03 44
962& 931
931
Metalled Road in GatNo 931.
743
779
767
766
763
761
760
762
759
747
747
00 42 58
00 02 15 }
00 16 09
00 05 63 1
00 07 99
44
00 03
00 06 08
00 01 22
00 00 34
00 01 01
00 03 76 1
00 15 16 2
00 00 94
00 03 07
Nala in between
GatNo
747/1 & 747/2
748 }
00 12 71 5115
भारत का राजपत्र: मई 21 , 2005/वैशाख 31 , 1927
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
State: MAHARASHTRA
District : SATARA
juka : KHATAV
GatNo.
SurveyNo.
Sr. No.
Nameofthe Village
4
3
2
1
750 20 CHORADE ( Contd . )
751
754
755
789
791
795
795
796
800
705
Area
Sub-Division No. Hectare Are Sq.mt
6
8
7
5
33
00 08
00
45
09
00 06. 03
00 10 24
00 02 81 1
00 20 93
04 27
00
2
07 34
00
30 12
00
00 07 01
05 11 17 Total
[No. R- 31015/32/2004 -O.R. -II ] HARISH KUMAR , Under Secy .
नई दिल्ली, 19 मई , 2005
का. आ. 1849.- 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 कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा एक विस्तारं 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 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. एम. वी. चिटनिस , विस्तार परियोजना, हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम एम व एन विंग , हादापसर-411 028 , सक्षम प्राधिकारी , मुम्बई-पुणे पाइपलाइन कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, मेगा सेंटर , मगरपट्टा, पुणे जिला, महाराष्ट्र राज्य को लिखित रुप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा । 5116
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21 , 2005/VAISAKHA 31 , 1927
अनुसूची
[PART II -SEC . 3( ii)]
जिला : सातारा
तालूका : खटाव
राज्य : महाराष्ट्र
क्षेत्रफल
गट नंबर
सर्वे नंबर
गाव का नाम
कम सं.
3
1
4 2
1
274 मोल
280
279
278
277
357
436
433
432
431
427
428
429
430
419
414
413
412
411
410
409
408
402
401
400
399
397
396
395
389
418
417
416
415
407
403
388(P)
535
562
599
614 उप-खण्ड सं.
हेक्टर एयर वर्ग मीटर 5
6 7
8
00 01 81
74
00 02
00 07 67
00 05 60
53
00 05 83
60
90
00 01 28
00 05 01
00 01 46
00 01 10
00 01 13
00 10 20
00 04 06
00
43
01
00 01 68
00 03 18
00
56
02
00 03 34.
00 02 96
00 03 93
00 01 73
00 02 17
00 06 94
00 03
52
00
63
01
00 02 79
30
00 05 69
34
31
60
00
30
00
30
95
00 07 86
00 02 09
00 08 04
00 02 51
01 19
07 कुल [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : मई 21 , 2005/वैशाख 31 , 1927
5117
जिला : सातारा
तालूका: खटाव
कम
गाव का नाम
सर्वे नंबर
गट नंबर सं.
1
2
3
4 2
डिस्कल
1302
1310
1311
1312
1314
1316
1318
1317
1319
1320
गट नंबर राज्य : महाराष्ट्र
क्षेत्रफल
उप-खण्ड सं
हेक्टर एयर वर्ग मीटर 5
6 7
8
83
00 19
00. 17 17
44
00 05 99
00 06 89
00 07 16
0004 99
00 09 09
00 27 00
30
1320,1319 और
00 04 23
1321 के बीच
में नाला
1321
1322
1283
1282
1284
1271.
1281
1280
1272
1273
1274
03
00 59
00 01 78
00 03 83
00 08 52
93
40
00 06 50
00 05 69
00
22
11
00 14 60
00 16 88
गट नंबर 1273,1274
और 1141 के बीच
में नाला
1141
1145
1143
00 03 49
31
00 03
00 03 25
42
00 19
गट नंबर 1143 और
1146 के बीच का
मेटल्ड रोड
1146
1147
1148
1149 1450 Gl/ 2005-13
92
00 03
00 06 64
00 08 47
00.05 73
00 06 15 [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] 5118
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21 , 2005 /VAISAKHA 31 , 1927
जिला : सातारा
राज्य : महाराष्ट्र
तालूका : खटाव
क्षेत्रफल
गट नंबर
गाव का नाम
सर्वे नंबर
उप-खण्ड सं
हेक्टर एयर वर्ग मीटर कम सं.
5
6 7
8
4
3
2
1
71
00 01
1150
2 डिस्कात निरंतर)
00 04 54
1154
08
00 05
1155
00 05 64
1156
36
00 08
1157
00 02 97
1158
02 72
00
1159
75
00 02
1160
81
00 05
1161
1162
80
00 07
35
00 03
1163
00 01 42
1164
00 02 85
1165
00 36 81
1166
गट नंबर 1166 और
1030 के बीच में
64
00 02
नाला
00 23 76
1030
79
00 38
982
09 98
00
993
42
00 16
985
24
00 01
987
63
00 12
986
16
00 06
995
56
00 06
996
00 23 81
997
00 03 71
999
36
05 30
कुल
31
372
00 01
3 ललगुण
56
00 02
383
386
00 01 49
30
411-
17
00 10
1101
86
1100
00 08
30
1099
00 21 20
1102
05
1103
00 08
00 04 49
1075
40
1074
00 21 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
5119
भारत का राजपत्र: मई 21 , 2005 /वैशाख 31 , 1927
जिला : सातारा
तालूका : खटाव
राज्य : महाराष्ट्र
क्षेत्रफल गाव का नाम
सर्वे नंबर
गट नंबर उप-खण्ड सं
कम सं.
हेक्टर एयर वर्ग मीटर 1
2
3
4
5
6 7
8
गट नबर 1074
3 ललगुण (निरंतर)
00 01 96
में नाला
1070
36
00 07
1071
00 00 87
1069
37
00 08
1064
00 13
71
1068
00 04 56
1065
00 12 55
1060
00 10 07
कुल
01 39
58 4 नागनाश्वाडी
315
00 27 50
314
00 12 91
310
00 26 13
306
30
307
00 18 47
289
00 10 84
290
53
00 28
280
1
00 35 68
280
2
19
00 18
281
71
00 08
173
63
00 26
176
00 09 78
179
00 27 51
180
00 11 83
181
00 08 95
168
56
00 03
151
00 22
24
125
00 04 36
124
00 26 42
126
30
128
00 33 83
03 62
67
कुल
338
5 पवारवाडी
50
0002
336
00 01 80
359
75
396
32
00 06
413
20
453
00 01 95
467
00 02 89
533
00 01 72
534
00 02 44
548
00 01 51
545
00 02 29
00 24 37
कुल 5120
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21 , 2005/VAISAKHA 31 , 1927
[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] राज्य: महाराष्ट्र
जिला : सातारा
तालूका : खटाव
गट नंबर
सर्वे नंबर
गाव का नाम
कम सं.
4
3
2
1
316 6 वर्धनगड
340
1019 7 पुसेगाँव
1020
985
778 8 विसापुर
787
895
894
893
892
891
881
1112
1103
1134
952 9 खातगुण
946
943
942
828
829
847
861
853
855
868
709
707
705
664
582
583
580
7 जखणगाँव 10
356
509
513
क्षेत्रफल
उप-खण्ड सं
मीटर
हेक्टर एयर वर्ग
8
6
5
7
02 77
00
00 02 57
00 05 34 कुल
02 40
00
00 03 66
05
00 02
00 08 11 कुल
03
02
00
00 01 50
00 04 95
42
00 03
17
00 18
00 02 25
96
33
00 01
41
00 36
कुल
02
00 01
00 01 20
00 00 65
00 01 05
78
00 02 84
90
00 03
70
00 10
50
90
60
93
00 01
54
00 01
00 03 95
00 01 81
82
00 01
82
00 05
57
00 10
58
00 51
कुल
09
00 01
00 05 19
00 09 51
00 03 64 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
5121
भारत का राजपत्र: मई 21 , 2005/वैशाख 31 , 1927
जिला: सातारा
तालूका : खटाव
गाव का नाम
सर्वे नंबर
राज्य: महाराष्ट्र
क्षेत्रफल
गट नंबर
कम सं.
1
2
3
4 10 जखणगाव (निरंतर)
515
531
533
730
729
693
688
702
703
704 11 वडखल
112
110 12 भोसरे
1141
1151
1278
1285
1286
1288
1290
1300
1309
1311
1291
1293
1310
1254
31
70
72
32
151
176
180
182 13 लोणी
458
447 14 वरुड
1221
1222
1227
747 उप-खण्ड सं
वर्ग
हेक्टर एयर मीटर 5
6 7 8
20
00 08 91
00 03 75
00 03 31
53
00 08
00 02 30
30
00 13 13
00 11
16
00 39 27 कुल
01 10 29
60 कुल
00 01 60
00
63
03
00 02
07
50
00 01 85
30
00 02 20
00 01 15
00 02 20
00 01 20
30
80
35
00 01 96
00 05 26
00 02 62
95
65
00 04 82
00 02 64
00 02 46
00 09 65
00 01 72
00 49
कुल
28
00 01 43
00 01
08
00 02
कुल
51
51
35
00 01
65
52 कुल
00 03
03 5122
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21 , 2005 /VAISAKHA 31 , 1927
[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] राज्य : महाराष्ट्र
जिला : सातारा
तालूका : खटाव
गट नंबर
सर्वे नंबर
गाव का नाम
कम सं.
4
3
1
2
137
15 औध
188
338 16 खरशिंगे
332
104
122
124
154
153
165
780
779
778
785
786
787
789
794
795
796
797
798
799
814
817
823
252 17 येलीव
827
922 18 पळशी पलशी
951
920
874
835
862
847
33 19लाडेगाँव
122
114
क्षेत्रफल
उप-खण्ड सं.
एयर वर्ग मीटर
हेक्टर
8
6 7
5
00 01 10
26
01
00
36
00 02
कुल
39
06
00
41
02
00
79
05
00
00 00 47
00 00 52
30
68
00 01
55
06
00
90
75
03
00
90
00 06
50
00 01
30
01
00
50
02
00
90
00 02
10
00 04
10
00 02
65
00 03
30
40
00 01
35
06
00
01
00 01
20
00 02
13
02
00
10
00 67
कुल
71
01
00
60
00
00
31
00 02
कुल
18 88
00
00
01
00
50
67
07
00 02
69
72
00 01
53
00 25
कुल
30
01 17
00
37
00 01 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : मई 21 , 2005/वैशाख 31 , 1927
5123
जिला : सातारा
तालूका : खटाव
गाव का नाम
सर्वे नंबर
राज्य : महाराष्ट्र
क्षेत्रफल
गट नंबर
कम सं.
1
2
3
4 19 लाडेगाँव (निरंतर)
115
116
99
98
97
91
90
87
83
78
74
164
312
323
382
378
388
394
393
397
399 20वांझोली
344
349
13914 21 रहाटणी
561
569
570
571
562 22चाराडे
1408
1391
1393
1372
1364
1367
1369
964
779
760 उप -खण्ड सं
वर्ग
एयर मीटर
हेक्टर
5
6 7
8
00 00 62
00 00 76
00 03 30
30
00.00 34
42
34
00 03 37
00 02 21
00 00 18
00 02 32
54
56
00. 04 50
00 01 01
88
00 01 46
00 02 13
00 00 64
00 03 61
00 04 30 कुल
00 36 63
00 07 01.
00 01 70
00 01 38 कुल
00 10 09
00 03 64
00 09 30
00 07 30
30 *00 54 90
00 75 44 कुल
00 02 40
00 01 79
00 01 14 -00 01 18
35
72
00 01
88
00 02
32
50
35 00 01 [PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21 , 2005/VAISAKHA 31, 1927
5124
राज्य : महाराष्ट्र
जिला : सातारा
तालूका : खटाव
क्षेत्रफल
उप-खण्ड सं
गट नंबर
सर्वे नंबर
वर्ग मीटर
हेक्टर एयर
गाव का नाम
कम सं.
8
6 7
5
4
3
2
1
02 81
00
754
22चोराडे (निरंतर)
00 01 34
755
29
00 01
789
15 79
00
795
34 86
00
कुल
[फा. सं. आर-31015/32/2004- ओ.आर- ।। ]
हरीश कुमार, अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 19th May , 2005
S. O. 1849. 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 the copies of the Gazette of India containing this notification are made available to the public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri M.V.Chitnis , Competent Authority, Mumbai- Pune Pipeline Extension Project, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited , Mega Center , Magarpatta -M & N Wing , Hadapsar -411 028 , Pune District , Maharashtra .
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : मई 21 , 2005/वैशाख 31 , 1927
SCHEDULE Taluka : KHATAV
District : SATARA
GatNo.
SurveyNo.
Sr. No.
Name of the Village
1
2
3
4
274 1 MOL
280
279
278
277
357
436
433
432
431
427
428
429
430
419
414
413
412
411
410
409
408
402
401
400
399
397
396
395
389
418
417
416
415
407
403
388(P)
535
562
599
614 1450 G1 /2005-14
5125 State : MAHARASHTRA
Area
Sub-Division No.
Are
Hectare Sq.mt 5
6 7 8
00 01 81
00 02 74
00 07 67
05 60
00
00 00 53
00 05 83
00 00 60
00 00 90
00 01 28
05 01
00
00 01 46
00 01 10
01 13
00
10 20
00
04 06
00
00 01 43
00 01 68
00 03 18
02 56
00
03 34
00
00 02 96
00 03 93
01 73
00
02 17
00
06 94
00
03 52
00
01 63
00
02 79
00
00 00 30
00 05 69
00 34
00
00 31
00
00 00 60
00 30
00
00 95
00
00 07 86
00 02 09
00 08 04
00 02 51
19 07
01
Total 5126
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21 , 2005/VAISAKHA 31 , 1927
Taluka : KHATAV
District: SATARA
GatNo.
SurveyNo.
Sr. No.
Nameof the Village
1
2
3
4 2.DISKAL
1302
1310
1311 18
1312
1314
1316
1318
1317
1319
1320
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] State : MAHARASHTRA
Area
Sub- Division No.
Sq.mt
Are
Hectare
6
8 5
7
19 83
00
17
00 17
44
00 05 99
00 06 89
00 07 16
00 04 99
00 09 09
00 27 00
Nala in between
00 04 23 }
GatNo 1320,
1319 & 1321
1321
1322
1283
1282
1284
1271
1281
1280
1272
1273
1274
00 59 03
00 01 78
03 83
00
00 08 52
00 00 93
00 00 40
06 50
00
69
00 05
00 11 22
00 14 60
00 16 88
Nala in between
00 03 49
Gat No 1273,
1274 & 1141
1141
1145
1143 }
00 03 31
00 03 25
19 42
00
Metalled road in
00 03 92
GatNo
1143 & 1146
1146
1147
1148
1149 }
00 06 64
00 08 47
00 05 73
00 06 151 भारत का राजपत्र : मई 21 , 2005/वैशाख 31 , 1927
[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
Taluka : KHATAV
District : SATARA
GatNo.
SurveyNo.
Sr. No.
Name of the Village
1
2
3
4
1150 2 DISKAL ( Contd.)
1154
1155
1156
1157
1158
1159
1160
1161
1162
1163
1164
1165
1166
5127 State : MAHARASHTRA
Area
S -Division No.
Are Sq.mt
Hectare
5
6 7 8
00 0171
04 54
00
00 05 08
00 05 64
00 08 36
00 02 97
00 02 72
00 02 75 :
00 0581
07 80
00
00 03 35
00 01 42
00 02 85
00 36 81
Nala in between
GatNo
00 02 64
1166& 1030
1030
982
993
985
987
986
995
996
997
999 3 LALGUN
372
383
386
411
1101
1100
1099
1102
1103
1075
1074
00 23 76
00 38 79
00 09 98
16 42
00
00 01 24
00 12 63
00 06 16
00 06 56
00 23 81
03 71
00
30 36 Total
05
01 31
00
00 02 56
00 01 49
00 10 17
00 08 86
00 00 30
00 21 20
08 05
00
00 04 49
00 21 40 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21 , 2005/VAISAKHA 31 , 1927
5128
District : SATARA Taluka : KHATAV
Gat No.
SurveyNo.
Sr. No.
Nameofthe Village
4
3
2
1
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii )] State : MAHARASHTRA
Area
Sub-Division No. Hectare Are Sq.mt
7 8
6
5
96
01
00
Nala in Gat No 1074
3 LALGUN ( Contd.)
1070
1071
1069
1064
1068
1065
1060
315 4 NAGNATHWADI
314
310
306
307
289
290
280
280
281
173
176
179
180
181
168
151
125
124
126
128
338 5 PAWARWADI
336
359
396
413
453
467
533
534
548
545
36
07
00
87
37
08
00
71
00 13
56
04
00
00 12 55
10 07
00
39 58
01
Total
27 50
00
91
12
00
13
26
00
30
00
00
00 18 47
84
00. 10
28 53
00
35 68
00
1
19
00 18
2
71
08
00
63
26
00
78
09
00
00 27 51
83
11
00
08 95
00
03 56
00
22 24
00
00 04 36
42
26
00
33 83
00
62 67
03
Total
50
02
00
80
01
00
00 00 75
32
00 06
00 20
00
95
01
00
00 02 89
00 01 72
44
00 02
51
01
00
29
00 02
24 37
00
Total [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : मई 21 , 2005/वैशाख 31 , 1927
Taluka : KHATAV
5129
District : SATARA
GatNo.
Survey No.
Sr. No.
Nameof the Village
2
1
3
4 6 VARDHANGAD
316
340 7 PUSEGAON
1019
1020
985
778 8 VISAPUR
787
895
894
893
892
891
881
1112
1103
1134
952 9 KHATGUN
946
943
942
828
829
847
861
853.
855
868
709
707
705
664
582
583
580
7 10 JAKHANGAON
356
509
513 State : MAHARASHTRA
Area
Sub-Division No.
Are
Hectare Sq.mt 5
6
7 8
02 77
00
00 02 57
00 05 34 Total
00 02 40
00 03 66
00 02 05 Total
00 08 11
00 02 03
00 01 50
00 04 95
00 00 90
00 03 42
00
17
18
02 25
00
00 00 96
00 01 33
41
00 36 Total
00 01 02
00 01 20
00 00 65
00 01 05
00 00 78
00 02 84
00 03 90
00 10 70
00 00 90
00 60
00
00 01 93
00 01 54
00 03 95
00 01 81
00 01 82
00 05 82
00 10 57
00 51 58 Total
00 01 09
00 05 19
00 09 51
00 03 64 5130
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21 , 2005/VAISAKHA 31 , 1927
Taluka : KHATAV
District : SATARA
GatNo.
Survey No.
Sr. No.
Nameof the Village
2
3
4 1
515 10 JAKHANGAON ( Contd . )
531
533
730
729
693
688
702
703
704
112 11 VADKHAL
110
1141 12 BHOSRE
1151
1278
1285
1286
1288
1290
1300
1309
1311
1291
1293
1310
1254
31
70
72
32
151
176
180
182
458 13 LONI
447
1221 14 VARUD
1222
1227
747
137
15 AUNDH
188
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] State : MAHARASHTRA
Area
Sub-Division No.
Hectare Are Sq.mt 5
6 7 8
00 0020
00 08 91
00 03 75 5 ]
00 03 31
08 53
00
00 02 30
13
00 13
11
00
16
00 39 27 Total
01 10 29
00 00 60
00 01 60 Total
00 03 63
00 02 07
00 01 85
00 00 30
00 02 20
00 01 15
00
20
02
00 01 20
00 00 80
00 00 35
00 01 96
00 05 26
02 62
00
00 00 95
00 00 65
00 04 82
00 02 64
00 02 46
00 09 65
00 01 72
00 49 28 Total
00 01 43
00 01 08
00 02 51 Total
00 00 51
00 01 35
00 00 65
00 52
00
00 03 03 Total
00 01 10
00 01 26
00 02 36 Total 5131
भारत का राजपत्र: मई 21 , 2005/वैशाख 31 , 1927
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
District : SATARA Taluka : KHATAV
GatNo ...
SurveyNo.
Sr. No.
Nameof the Village
2
3
4 1
16 KHARSHINGE
338
332
104
122
124
154
153
165
780
779
778
785
786
787
789
794
795
796
797
798
799
814
817
823
252 17 YELEEV
827
922 18 PALSHI
951
920
874
835
862
847
33 19 LADEGAON
122
114
115
116
99
98
97 State : MAHARASHTRA
Area
Sub-Division
No.
Are Sq.mt
Hectare
5
6 7 8
00 : 06 39
00 02 41
00 05 79
00 00 47
00 00 52
00 00 30
00 01 68
00 06 55
00 00 90
00 03 75
00 06 90
00 01 50
00 01 30
02 50
00
00 02 90
00 04 10
02 10
00
00 03 65
00 00 30
00 01 40
00 06 35
00 01 01
00 02 20
00 02 13 Total
00 67 10
00 01 71 Total
00 02 31
1888
00
00 01 00
00 00 67
00 02 07
00 00 69
00 01 72
00 25 53 Total
00 01 17
00
37
01
00
00
62
00 00 76
00 03 30
00 00 30
00 00 34 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21 , 2005/VAISAKHA 31 , 1927
5132
District : SATARA Taluka : KHATAV
GatNo.
Survey No.
Sr. No.
Nameofthe Village
4
3
2
1
91 19 LADEGAON (Contd .)
90
87
83
78
74
164
312
323
382
378
388
394
393
397
399
344 20 VANJHOLI
349
351
561 21 RAHATNI
569
570
571
562
1408 22 CHORADE
1391
1393
1372
1364
1367
1369
964
779
760
754
755
789
795
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] State : MAHARASHTRA
Area
Sub-Division No.
Sq.mt
Are
Hectare
7 8
6
5
00 42
00
00 34
00
00 03 37
02 21
00
00 00 18
00 02 32
00 00 54
00 56
00
04 50
00
01 01
00
00 88
00
01 46
00
02 13
00
64
00 00
03 61
00
04 30
00
63
36
00
Total
01
07
00
00 01 70
00 01 38
10 09
00
Total
03 64
00
30
09
00
00 07
90
54
00
75 44
00
Total
40
02
00
01 79
00
14
01
00
00 01 18
00 35
00
01 72
00
00 88
00
02 32
00
00 50
00
01 35
00
00 02 81
01 34
00
29
01
00
15 79
00
86
34
00
Total
[No. R-31015/32/2004-O.R.
HARISH KUMAR , Under Secy [ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : मई 21, 2005/वैशाख 31 , 1927
5133 श्रममंत्रालय
नई दिल्ली, 26 अप्रैल, 2005
"Whether the action of the management of Chief General Manager , BSNL, Chandigarh in terminating the services of Sh. Ram Saroop Ram, Son of Sh . Gautam Ram , ex . Asstt./Cable Jointer w.e.f. 27-2-1999 without complying with the provisions of the I. D. t is just and legal ? If not to what relief the workman is entitled ?" का. आ. 1850.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार दूर संचार विभाग के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार, औद्योगिक अधिकरण, चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 151/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 26-4-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल -40012/118/2003- आई. आर. (डी. यू. ) ] कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डेस्कअधिकारी
MINISTRY OF LABOUR
New Delhi , the 26th April , 2005
2. Case repeatedly called . None has put up appearance on behalf of the workman . Learned representative ofthe management submitted that workman >appears not to be interested as workman is not appearing in the Court despite several notices and registered notice last sent has been received back with the report that addressee left without address . He submitted that in view ofthis position , the reference may be returned for want of prosecution. In view of the submission of the rep . of the management and the fact that the workman is not persuing his case and also not available on the address given in the reference, the present reference is returned to the Central Govt. for want ofprosecution . Central Govt . be informed Filebe consigned to record.
Announced
15-3-2005
S.O. 1850.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 151/ 2004) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court , Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Deptt. of Telecom and heir workman , which was received by the Central Government on 26-4-2005.
RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer [No. L -40012 / 118/2003 - IR (DU) ] KULDIP RAI VERMA , Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
नई दिल्ली, 26 अप्रैल, 2005
BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT- 1 , CHANDIGARH
Case No. ID 151 of 2004
का. आ. 1851.-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 228/ 98 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25-4-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
Sh . Ram Saroop Ram , Son of Shri Gautam Ram, No. 1903 , Maulijagran Complex, Post Manimajra, Chandigarh.
Applicant
Versus
[.सं. एल-20012/139/98- आई. आर. ( सी. - 1 ) ] एस. एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 26th April , 2005 The Chief General Manager , Telecom , Punjab Circle, Sector 34, Chandigarh. Respondent
APPEARANCES
For the workman : None
For the management : Shri G. C. Babbar .
AWARD
Passed on 15-3-2005
S.O. 1851. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947- ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 228/ 98) 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 25-4-2005 .
Central Govt. vide notification No. L - 40012/118/ 2003/IR (DU) , dated 9-3-2004 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
[No. L-20012/139/98 - IR (C - 1) ] S. S. GUPTA . Under Secv.
1450 GI /2005-15 [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] 5134
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21 , 2005/ VAISAKHA 31 , 1927
ANNEXURE
employment on the ground that the ex-employee was a badli employee .
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL ( No. 2) AT DHANBAD
PRESENT:
They disclosed that Kisto Bauri , ex -employee was a permanent employee and worked as a Fitter Helper upto the last date of service .
Shri B. Biswas , Presiding Officer
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section
10( 1) (d) of the I. D. Act , 1947
Reference No. 228 of 1998
PARTIES :
Employers in relation to the management of Ena Colliery of M/ s . BCCL and their workman.
They submitted that keeping name of the ex- employee in Badli list , is an after thought, as no formality was observed by the management to show cause as per provisions of the Certified Standing Orders . Accordingly they alleged that keeping name of the ex - employee in Badli list was not only false , baseless but also ignored the decision of J. B. C. C. I. They under the circumstances raised an Industrial Dispute for conciliation which ultimately resulted reference to this Tribunal for adjudication.
APPEARANCES :
On behalf of the workman : Mr. S. C. Gaur, Ld. Advocate.
Onbehalf of the employers
They accordingly, submitted prayer to pass award directing the management to provide employment to the petitioner, i.e. dependant son of Kisto Bauri on compassionate ground under clause 9.4.2 of the Certified Standing Order.
:Mr. H. Nath, Ld . Advocate .
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Coal
Dated. Dhanbad, the 7th April, 2005
AWARD
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 on behalf of the petitioner/ workman. They submitted that Kisto Bauri was not a permanent employee of Ena Fire Project under Kustor Area . At the time of his death, i.c. 3-8-94 he was on Badli Roll of the Company.
The Govt . of India , Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred 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/ 139/98-1.R . (C - 1 ) , dated the 1st December , 1998 .
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management in denying the employment of the dependant son of Late Kisto Bauri . Ex - Fitter Helper of Ena Colliery under para 9.4.2 . of NCWA - IV is justified ? If not, to what relief the dependant son of the deceased employee is entitled to ? " .
2. The case of the petitioner/ workman according to written statement submitted by the sponsoring union on his behalf in brief is as follows :-
They submitted that Kisto Bauri was chargesheeted for committing misconduct on the ground of unauthorised absence from his duty . Adomestic enquiry was held against him and he was found guilty to the charge brought against him and he was placed on Badli List on 6-9-93 by the Company. They submitted that there is no provision in the Company's Rule to provide employment to the dependent of Badli worker. Clause 9.4.2 of NCWA -IV provides employment to the dependant of the permanent employees of the Company. In view of this position they submitted that demand for employment of the dependant of Late Kisto Bauri is not legally maintainable and for which the claim of the sponsoring union is liable to be rejected.
4. POINTS TO BE DECIDED :
"Whether the action of the management is denying the employment of the dependant son of Late Kisto Bauri Ex - Fitter Helper of Ena Colliery under para 9.4.2. of NCWA - IV is justified ? If not , to what relief the dependant son of the deceased employee is entitled to ?" .
5. FINDING WITH REASONS :
It transpires from the record that sponsoring union with a view to substantiate their claim examined one The sponsoring union submitted that Kisto Bauri was a permanent employee under the management . He died on 3-8-94 while in service and at the time of his death he was only 47 years old. They submitted that the said employce died leaving his wife and the petitioner Sagar Bawri who submitted application for his employment on compassionate ground under clause 9.4.2 of N. C. W. A. - IV after taking no objection from his mother. In support of his claim he submitted all required papers including death certificates of his father to the management of Ena Colliery on 28-6-95 and again on 25-10-96. They submitted that management regretted [भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : मई 21 , 2005/वैशाख 31 , 1927
5135 witness as W. W. I. They also relied on certain documents which increase of evidence were marked as Exhibit W. 1 to W. 3 .
(c) Suspension without wages as substantive. punishment for not more than 10 days at a time.
2.Major Forties :-
Management also in support of their claim examined two witnesses viz . M. W. 1 and M. W. 2.
(a) Stoppage of increment;
(b) Reduction to a lower grade or post or a stage ina time scale;
(c) Dismissal or discharge from service:
Clause 9: 3 : 2 of N. C. W. A. has made provision for employment to one dependent of the worker who dies while in service .
Clause 9: 3: 3 has pointed who are to be considered as dependent to claim employment on compassionate ground.
Sponsoring union in course of hearing relied on the service excerpts issued to the deceased worker Kisto Bauri by the management which during evidence of W. W.1 was marked as exhibit W-2 . From this service excerpts it isevident that petitioner Sagar Bauri was the only son of Late Kisto Bauri . As per clause 9 : 3 : 3 of N. C. W. A. he was very much eligible to claim employment on compassionate ground as per clause 9 : 3 2 of N. C. W. A.
Considering the facts disclosed in the pleadings of both sides, considering evidence of the witnesses onboth sides and also materials on record there is no dispute to hold that deceased workman Kisto Bauri was Fitter helper under the management. From the death certificate marked as Exhibit - W- I there is no dispute to hold that said Kisto Bauri died in the hospital on 3-8-94 and the cause of death was due to cardio respiratory failure in a case of diarrhoea. It is admitted fact that after death ofKistoBauri his son Sagar Bauri submitted application for his employment on compassionate ground under clause 9: 4: 2 of N. C. W. A. It is the contention ofthe sponsoring union that said Kisto Bauri was a permanent Fitter helper under the management and he died while he was very much in service . The evidence of M. W- I also supported the claim of the sponsoring union that said Kisto Earri was a permanent Fitter under the management. It the specific allegation of the sponsoring union that management illegally , arbitrarily and violating the principle of natural justice refused to provide employment ofthe petitioner taking the plea that there is no provision togive employment to the any legal heir of the deceased who was a Badli worker at the time of his death. The document marked as Exhibit- W-3 has supported the claim ofthe sponsoring union is that regard.
It transpires that claim of the petitioner was turned downby the management taking the plea that the deceased worker was a " Badli worker " and the provision of clause 9: 3 : 2 is not applicable in this case and for which they rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner . Their further contention is that even after imposing punishment in the year 1993 the deceased worker was very much irregular in attending hisjob and for which he could not put in 240 days attendance upto the date when he died. They submitted that as 240 days attendance is a pre -condition for getting back the original post and as the deceased worker failed to fulfil that condition he did not get back his original post and for which the claim of the sponsoring union for providing employment to his son could not be considered.
It is the contention of the management that for committing misconduct on the ground of absertim a charge sheet was issued to the concerned workmars in the year 1993. As the reply to the charge sheet given by him was not satisfactory. Disciplinary Authority decided to hold domestic enquiry against him and for that reason appointed Enquiry Officer. The said Enquiry Officer thereafter conducted domestic enquiry against him in his presence and after completion ofenquiry submitted report holding the concerned workmen guilty to the charges brought against him . Thereafter the Disciplinary Authority as punishment converted him as Badli worker from his original designation, i.e. , Fitter helper. They submitted that as per Company's rule there is no scope to provide employment to any legal heir of the deceased who was badli worker under the management. As per clause 29 : 1 the following penalties may, for good and sufficient reasons and as hereinafter provided be imposed on a worker for misconduct viz .:
1. Minor Penalties :-
(a) Censure
(b) Fine in accordance with P. W. Act, 1936 ;
Considering submission of the management it has been exposed that management imposed major punishment upon the workman now deceased as per sub clause 'b' of clause 29.1 ( ii ) of N. C. W. A. The clause is absolutely silent to the effect that a worker punished under that clause will get back his original post . On putting his attendance of 240 days in a year. Therefore , onus is on the management to establish such fact. It is seen that inspite of getting ample opportunity management have failed to produce any such provision within the four corners of Certified Standing Order and N. C. W. A. that . until and unless a worker is able to prove that he has given240 days attendance the claim for getting back his. original post will not be considered . Therefore , there is 5136
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21 , 2005 /VAISAKHA 31 , 1927
reason to believe that management by taking that plea which they have failed to establish ignored the claim of the petitioner for his employment on compassionate ground.
Again if clause 9 : 3 : 2 of N. C. W. A. is considered it will expose no such bar to reject the claim of the legal heir of the deceased taking the ground that the deceased worker was a ' badly worker ' . Therefore , enire burden was on the management to establish their cıaim but I find no hesitation to say that excepting taking that plea that have lamentably failed to substantiate their claim.
Itisadmitted fact that Kisto Bauri , deceased worker was a permanent ' Fitter helper ' . As for committing misconduct management by way of imposing punishment reduced him to a lower post there is no reason to hold that his right to claim as permanent worker was lost . The claim of the management is that as the said worker was a ' Badli worker ' , there is a bar to provide employment to his dependent on compassionate ground . Considering their submission it is clear that they have created an ambiguity in rejecting the claim of the petitioner. It is to be borne into mind that concerned workman was not a 'badli worker' by virtue of his fresh appointment. He was a permanent . Fitter helper and as part of punishment for committing misconduct his designation was reduced only. Therefore, designation of ' badli worker ' which that worker got as a result of punishment and the designation of' badli worker' by virtue of fresh appointment can not be equated together.
As the designation of Kisto Bauri was reduced by order of the management he can not be treated as a Badli worker like that of a fresh appointee and should be debarred from all benefits which he so far enjoyed before imposing that punishment until and unless any such specific order was issued by the management . It is seen that management outrightly rejected the claim of the petitioner taking the plea that his father was a badli worker but failed to produce a scrap of paper to show that the said worker, i.e. , Kisto Bauri shall be debarred from enjoying all the benefits as permanent worker which he accrued by way of rendering long years of service to the management . Moreover clause 9 : 3 : 2 of N. C. W. A. is absolutely silent in this regard . Therefore , on careful consideration of all the facts and circumstances discussed above I hold that knowing fully well that Kisto Bauri was a permanent staff of the management illegally, arbitrarily and violating the principle of natural justice refused to consider employment of the petitioner who happened to be the only son of Kisto Bauri on compassionate ground under clause 9 : 3 : 2 of N. C. W. A. Just taking the plea that he was a ' badli worker ' . In the result the following award is rendered :-
"That the action of the management in denying employment of the dependent son of Late Kisto
[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] Bauri , Ex- fitter helper of Ena Colliery under clause 9 : 4: 2 of N. C. W. A. - IV was not justified .
Management is directed to provide employment to the deceased son of Kisto Bauri , i.e. , Sagar Bauri on compassionate ground under clause 9 : 3 : 2 of N. C. W. A. - IV within three months from the date ofpublication of this award in the Gazette of India ifhe is not declared unfit as per employment rule of the Company.
B. BISWAS , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 26 अप्रैल , 2005
का. आ. 1852.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार, सी. सी. एल. 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 88/ 2003) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25-4-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था!
[सं. एल-20012/ 14/2003- आई. आर. ( सी. - 1 ) ] एस. एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 26th April , 2005
S.O. 1852. In pursuance of Section 17 of the. Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 88/ 2003) 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 CCL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 25-4-2005 .
[No. L- 20012/ 14/2003 - IR (C - 1 ) ] 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 an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1)(d) of the I. D. Act , 1947 .
Reference No. 88 of 2003
PARTIES :
Employers in relation to the management of Sirka Siding of M/ s . CCL and their workman.
[ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : मई 21 , 2005/वैशाख 31 , 1927
5137 APPEARANCES :
New Delhi , the 26th April , 2005 Onbehalf of the workman :None
Onbehalf of the employers Mr. D. K. Verma , Advocate
State : Jharkhand
Industry: Coal
Dated, Dhanbad, the 4th April , 2005
AWARD
S.O. 1853. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 93/ 2003) 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 CCL and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 25-4-2005.
[No. L- 20012/ 2/ 2002 - IR (C - 1 ) ] S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
The Govt . of India , Ministry of Labour , in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10 (1 ) (d) of the I. D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/14/2003-1 . R. (C- 1 ) , dated the 22nd August, 2003 .
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT SCHEDULE
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (No. 2) AT DHANBAD
PRESENT :
Shri B. Biswas, Presiding Officer
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1)(d) of the I. D. Act , 1947, "Whether the demand of the Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh from the management of CCL , Sirka CHP siding to provide employment of Sri Sudama, dependent son of late Laxmania Devi , Wagon Loader is proper and justified ? If so, to what relief is the said dependent entitled ?"
Reference No. 93 of 2003
PARTIES :
Employers in relation to the management of Kuju Siding of M/s . CCL and their workman .
APPEARANCES :
Onbehalf of the workman : None
Onbehalf of the employers Mr. D. K. Verma ,
Advocate
State: Jharkhand
Industry: Coal
Dated, Dhanbad, the 4th April , 2005
AWARD
2. In this reference neither the concerned workman nor his representative appeared. Management side, however, made appearance through their authorised representative . It transpires from the record that since February, 2004 no Written Statement has been filed by the concerned workman/ sponsoring union. In terms of Rule 10B of the I. D. Central Rules , 1957 submission of Written by the concerned workman/ sponsoring union within 15 days is mandatory one . The concerned workman/sponsoring union not only violated the said provision of the Rules but also did not consider necessary to give any response to the notices issued consecutively by this Tribunal . Gesture of the parties clearly shows that they are not interested to proceed with hearing of this case any further. Hence the case is closed and accordingly a 'No dispute ' Award is passed in this reference presuming non-existence of any industrial dispute between the parties..
B. BISWAS, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 26 अप्रैल, 2005
The Govt . of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise ofthe powers conferred on them under Section 10( 1 ) ( d) of the I. D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012 /2 /2002 - I.R. (C - 1 ) , dated the 22nd August, 2003 .
SCHEDULE
का. आ. 1853.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार, सी. सी. एल. 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 93/ 2003) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25-4-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
"Whether the action of the management of Kuju Siding of M/ s . CC Ltd. , not to regularise the workmen Shri Kiran Kumar Verma, Sri Ananth Kumar, Sri Baijnath Mahto , Shri Hasan Mia and Vijay Kr. Mahali as a Clerk Gr. II is justified ? If not , to what relief are the workmen concerned entitled and from what date ? "
[सं. एल-20012/2/2002- आई, आर. ( सी.- 1 ) ] एस. एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव
2. In this reference neither the concerned workmen nor their representative appeared before this Tribunal .
5138
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21 , 2005 /VAISAKHA 31 , 1927
Management , however, made appearance through their authorised representative . It transpires from the record that since February, 2004 no Written Statement has been filed by the concerned workmen/sponsoring union. In terms of Rule 10B of the I. D. Central Rules , 1957 submission of Written Statement by the concerned workmen/sponsoring union. within 15 days is mandatory one. The concerned workmen/ sponsoring union not only violated the said provision of the Rules but also did not consider necessary to give any response to the notices issued consecutively by this Tribunal . Gesture of the workmen/ sponsoring union clearly shows that they are not interested to proceed with the hearing of this case any further . This Tribunal also finds no ground to adjourn the case suo moto for days together. Hence . the case is closed and accordingly, a ' No dispute ' Award is passed in this reference presuming non - existence of any industrial dispute between the parties .
B. BISWAS , Presiding Officer.
नई दिल्ली, 26 अप्रैल, 2005
का. आ. 1854.- 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 70/ 2002) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25-4-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-20012/34/2002- आई. आर. ( सी-1 ) ] एस. एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 26th April , 2005
S.O. 1854. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 70/ 2002) 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 25-4-2005 .
[No. L - 20012/34/ 2002 - IR (C - 1 ) ] 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 an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1) (d) of the I. D. Act , 1947
[PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] Reference No. 70 of 2002
PARTIES :
Employers in relation to the management of Bhowra Colliery ofM/ s . BCCL and their workman .
APPEARANCES :
: None
Onbehalf of the workman
: Mr. U. N. Lall , Advo- Onbehalf of the employers
cate.
State : Jharkhand
Industry: Coal Dated. Dhanbad, the 4th April , 2005
AWARD
The Govt . of India , Ministry of Labour, in exercise ofthe powers conferred on them under Section 10 ( 1 ) ( d) of the I. D. Act , 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/34/2002 - I.R. ( C - 1 ) , dated the 28th August , 2002 .
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of BCCL Bhowra Colliery in retiring Smt . Bedni Manjhian on superannuation w.e.f. 1-5-2001 is just , fair and legal ? If not ,to what relief is the workman entitled ?"
2. In this reference neither the concerned workman nor her representative appeared . Management , however, made appearance through their authorised representative. Itis seen from the record that since July, 2003 no Written Statement has been filed by the workman/ sponsoring union. Instead of sponsoring union by filing a petition submitted prayer for interim stay order. In terms of Rule 10B of the I. D. Central Rules , 1957 submission of Written Statement by the concerned workman/sponsoring union within 15 days is mandatory one . The concerned workman/ sponsoring union not only violated the said provision of the Rules but also did not consider necessary to give any response to the notices issued consecutively by this Tribunal. As the sponsoring union failed to submit written statement before this Tribunal there is no scope to consider such prayer. There is also sufficient reason to believe that workman/sponsoring union is not interested to proceed with the hearing of this case . Hence , the case is closed and a No dispute Award is passed in this reference presuming non - existence of any industrial dispute between the parties .
B. BISWAS , Presiding Officer.
नई दिल्ली, 26 अप्रैल, 2005
का. आ. 1855.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय भा. को, को. लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, [ भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : मई 21 , 2005/वैशाख 31 , 1927
5139
SCHEDULE
अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार, औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय, धनबाद- II के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 92/ 2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25-4-2005 की प्राप्त हुआ था ।
"Whether the management of BCCL Sudamdih Shaft Mine is justified in dismissing Sri Bhagirath Mahato from service w.e.f. 6-9-2002 ? If not , to what relief is the workman entitled ?"
[सं. एल-20012/62/2003- आई. आर. ( सी. - 1 ) ] एस. एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 26th April , 2005
S.O. 1855. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 92/ 2003 ) 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 25-4-05.
[No. L-20012/62 /2003 - IR (C - 1 ) ] S. S. GUPTA , Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
2. In this reference neither the concerned workman nor his representative appeared . None also appeared on behalf of the management . It transpires from the record that since February, 2004 no Written Statement has been filed by the workman/ sponsoring union. In terms of Rule 10B of the I. D. Central Rules , 1957 submission of Written Statement by the concerned workman/ sponsoring union within 15 days is a mandatory one . The concerned workman/ sponsoring union not only violated the said provision ofthe Rules but also did not consider necessary to give any response to the notices issued consecutively by this Tribunal . Gesture of the parties clearly shows that they are not interested to proceed with hearing of the instant any further. Under the circumstances , this Tribunal also finds no ground to adjourn the case suo moto for days together for taking steps by the parties. Hence the case is closed and accordingly a ' No dispute ' Award is passed in this reference presuming non - existence of any industrial dispute between the parties .
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (No. 2) AT DHANBAD
PRESENT :
B. BISWAS, Presiding Officer.
नई दिल्ली, 26 अप्रैल, 2005
Shri B. Biswas , Presiding Officer
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1)(d) of the I. D. Act , 1947
Reference No. 92 of 2003
PARTIES :
का. आ. 1856.- 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 71 / 2000) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25-4-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
Employers in relation to the management of Sudamdih Shaft Mines of M/ s . BCCL and their workman.
APPEARANCES :
[सं. एल-20012/411/2000- आई. आर. ( सी. - 1 ) ] एस. एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव On behalf of the workman :None
New Delhi , the 26th April, 2005 Onbehalf of the employers : None
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Coal
Dated, Dhanbad, the 4th April , 2005
AWARD
S.O. 1856. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 71 / 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 Govertiment on 25-4-05 .
The Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10( 1 ) (d) of the I. D. Act , 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/62/2003 - IR (C - 1 ), dated the 22nd August , 2003.
[No. L-20012/411 /2000 - IR ( C- 1 )] S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy..
5140
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21 , 2005/VAISAKHA 31 , 1927
[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL ( No. 2) AT DHANBAD
PRESENT :
Under the circumstances they took up the issue with the management on several occasion but to no effect and for which they raised an Industrial Dispute before ALC ( C) , Dhanbad for conciliation which ultimately resulted reference to this Tribunal for adjudication .
Shri B. Biswas , Presiding Officer
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10( 1) (d) of the I. D. Act , 1947
The sponsoring union accordingly submitted prayer to pass ayvard directing the management to regularise the concerned workman as Magazine Clerk with all consequential relief.
Reference No. 71 of 2000
PARTIES :
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 submitted on behalf of the concerned workman.
Employers in relation to the management of Sijua Area of M/ s . BCCL and their workman .
APPEARANCES :
Onbehalf of the workman :Shri C. M. Sharma , Representative of the Union
Onbehalf of the employer : Ld . Advocate Mr. D. K. Verma
State : Jharkhand
Industry: Coal
Dated, Dhanbad, the 1st April , 2005
AWARD
They submitted that the concerned workman is an employec of Kankanee Colliery and working as General Mazdoor. They categorically denied the fact that the concerned workman ever was engaged as Magazine Clerk by order of the management . They disclosed that there is no scope of giving promotion to any worker in cadre Scheme directly from different category. Moreover they submitted that as there is a complete ban on diverting workman from the daily rated category to monthly paid clerical cadre , none of the Colliery Officer is entitled to place any workman of daily rated category to clerical grade . They submitted that as the claim of the sponsoring union is baseless an award may be passed rejecting their claim.
4. POINTS TO BE DECIDED :
The Govt . of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10 ( 1 ) (d) of the I. D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/411 /2000 (C - 1 ) , dated the 2nd Marcht , 2001 .
SCHEDULE
"Whether the management of Sijua Area M/s. BCCL is justified in denying regularisation of Shri Arun Prasad Keshari as Magazine Cler not, to what relief is the concerned workman entitled and from what date ? " if
5. FINDING WITH REASONS :
"Whether the management of Sijua Area M/ s . BCCL is justified in denying regularisation of Shri ArunPrasad Keshari as Magazine Clerk ? If not , to what relief is the concerned workman ntitled and from what date ? "
Ittranspires from record that sponsoring union with a view to substantiate their claim examined the concerned svorkman as W. W. I. Management also in support of their claim examined one witness as M. W. I.
2. The case of the concerned workman according to written statement submitted by the sponsoring union on his behalf in brief is as follows :
Considering the materials on record and also considering evidence of both sides there is no dispute to hold that concerned workman joined at Kankaree Colliery as General Mazdoor in Category I in the year 1990 .
The sponsoring union submitt d that the concerned workman got his appointment as General Mazdoor at Kankanee Colliery. They submitted that on the basis of verbal order of the management of Kankanee Colliery the concerned workman started discharging his duties as Magazine Clerk w.e.f. 12-2-93 and in that capacity he continously worked till 7-8-2000 . They submitted that the magazine in - charge and the then Manager of the said colliery also recommended the name of the concerned workman to the higher authority for his regularisation as Magazine Clerk but instead of giving any importance to that recommendation he was reverted back on 18-7-2000 to work as General Mazdoor illegally , arbitrarily and violating the principles of natural justice .
From the evidence of this workman it transpires that Manager, Kankanee Colliery en 12-2-93 issued an order orally directing him to work as Magazine Clerk . He disclosed that on 9-2-95 , he submitted representation to the management for his regularisation as Magazine Clerk but as that was not considered by them he raised an Industrial Dispute for his relief. In support of his claim in course of evidence concerned workman relied on one document , i.e. , his reversion order which was marked as Ext. W- I.
[ भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
Onthe contrary M. W. I during his evidence admitted. that from 1993 to 1999 concerned workman was posted in the magazine department as General Mazdoor. He further disclosed that in the year 1992 management issued a circular prohibiting diversion of workman from one category to higher category.
Considering the evidence of W.W.I and M.W.I. I find no dispute to hold that concerned workman from 1993 to till passing of reversion order marked as Exhibit W - I was posted in the magazine Deptt . When the concerned workman claimed that in the said Deptt . he worked as Magazine Clerk the claim of the management on the contrary is that he worked there as General Mazdoor . Obviously management is at liberty to post any casual mazdoor at any place on the surface for work. There is no dispute to hold that the post of General Mazdoor comes under category I while the post of Magazine Clerk comes under Cadre post. The job of General Mazdoor while is piece rated/ time rated the job of clerk is monthly rated N.C.W.A. has . clearly mentioned the procedure for engagement of clerks and workmen of different categories . As per provision of N.C.W.A. there is no scope of a workman in category I to get his direct entry in clerical post which is a cadre post without facing interview or selection.
Therefore , onus absolutely rates on the sponsoring union to show that as per order of the competent authority the concerned workman was given special previlage to work as Clerk in cadre post . He has failed to produce a single scrap of paper to show that during the period from 1993 to 2000 he discharged his duties as Clerk . From the document marked as W - I there is no scope at all to arrive into consideration that the concerned workman before issuance of that order continuously discharged his duties as clerk. Excepting the document marked as Exhibit W- 2 the sponsoring union have failed to produce a scrap of cogent evidence to substantiate their claim .
Onthe contrary management relying on the decision reposed in 2004 Supreme Court cases ( L & S ) 264 submitted that the claim of the sponsoring union cannot be acceded to . In the said decision their Lordship of the Hon'ble Apex Court observed :
"It is undisputed that the appellant was not promoted to the post of Public Relations Manager but only took charge and was discharging his duties on the said post . In absence of any order of promotion passed in favour of the appellant to the post ofPublic Relations Manager, he did not have any legal right to continue to hold the said post and not writ of mandamus therefor could be issued .
The contention of the appellant that since the appellant was promoted to E- 2 grade in the year 1987, the circular dated 20-1-1993 was not applicable as the 1450 Gl /2005-16
5141
भारत का राजपत्र : मई 21 , 2005/ वैशाख 31 , 1927
same provided only for promotion from the non- executive cadre to the executive cadre and hence the DPC should have considered his casè for promotion to E -4 grade in the year 1995 cannot be entertained at this stage for the reason that the appellant case before the High Court was that he should be promoted to E - 5 grade , or in the alternative, his services be regularised therein . " N.C.W.A. has clearly pointed out how promotion in clerical grade will be considered . The concerned workman has claimed his regularisation in clerical grade taking the plea that by order of the management he performed duties of magazine clerk continuously from 1993 till his reversion . Apart from the observation made above it is clear that management did not issue any order of promotion to the concerned workman to work as Magazine Clerk which comes under clerical cadre . Accordingly in view of the observation made by the Hon'ble Apex Court . There is no scope to uphold the contention of the sponsoring union to issue order of regularisation in favour of the concerned workman .
In the result the following award is rendered:
"That the management of Sijua Area of M/ s . BCCL is justified in denying regularisation of Sri Arun Prasad Keshari as Magazine Clerk . Consequently, he is not entitled to get any relief. "
B. BISWAS , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 26 अप्रैल, 2005
का. आ. 1857.-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 47/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25-4- 2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-20012/447/2000- आई. आर. (सी. - 1 ) ] एस. एस . गुप्ता, अवर सचिव, New Delhi , the 26th April , 2005
S.O. 1857. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 47/2001 ) 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 managementgement of BCCL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 25-4-2005 .
[No. L -20012 / 447/2000 - IR ( C - 1 ) ] S. S. GUPTA , Under Secv.
5142
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21 , 2005 /VAISAKHA 31 , 1927
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No. 2 , DHANBAD In the matter of a reference under Sec . 10( 1 ) (d ) ( 2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Reference No. 47/2001
PARTIES :
Employers in relation to the management of Bastacolla Colliery of Bastocolla Area of M/s. BCCL .
AND
Their Workman
PRESENT :
Shri B. Biswas , Presiding Officer
APPEARANCES :
On behalf of the employers : Shri U. N. Lal , Ld. Advocate On behalf of the workman : Shri U. P. Sinha , Ld. Advocate .
State : Jharkhand
[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] They submitted that as per practice followed by the management , a piece rated workman is regularised in time rated category workman on his working in Time rated jobs for three years .
They submitted that since 1980 the concerned workman was engaged by the competent authority of the colliery to work as Drillman and in that capacity continuously he discharged his duties in the substantive post of Drillman for more than three years and for which he was entitled to be regularised in time rated category in the year 1984 and was entitled to be designated as Drillman in category IV right from 1984 .
They disclosed that inspite of giving several representations before the management they neither designated him as Drillman nor paid him the wages for the Drillman . As such the concerned workman through sponsoring union raised Industrial Dispute before ALC ( C ) Dhanbad for conciliation which ultimately resulted reference to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The sponsoring union accordingly submitted prayer to pass award directing the management to designate the concerned workman as Drillman in category IV with all consequential benefit from March 1984 .
Industry: Coal
Dated, the 1st April , 2005
AWARD
By Order No. L - 20012/447/2000 ( C - I ) dated 19th February, 2001 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has , in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub - section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 , referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal .
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of M/s. BCCL in denying the designation of Drillman to the workman Sri Yugal Hansda , Chandmari Section ofBastacolla Colliery under Bastacolla Area is justified and legal ? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled and from what date ? " 2. The case of the concerned workman accordingto written statement submitted by the sponsoring union on his behalf in brief is as follows :
The sponsoring union submitted that the concerned workman was initially appointed as piece rated Loader at Chandmari Section of Basta Colliery. However, in the year 1980 he was engaged to work as Drillman in time rated category and put in catgegory IV of time rated scale as per job nomenclature decided by J.B.C.C.I.
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 initially the concerned workman got his appointment as Miner Loader . His name was in the list for conversion/ regularisation from piece rated to time rated job as Drill Helper in Category - II . The consent for the above conversion and acceptance of the wage on conversion to TR Category was asked for from the workman concerned for obtaining approval from the competent authority. The concerned workman did not submit the same in time. However, on pursüation he submitted his consent to accept the wage of Drillman vide his application dated 19-8-98 i.e. of the higher category and not of Drill Helper.
They submitted that the workman concerned is doing the job of Driller Helper and not as Drillman which is higher post in Category - IV. As the concerned workman was in piece rated category option was given to him for his consent whether he was willing to come under Time rated Category II . Until and unless the concerned workman is converted to Time rated category II there is no scope to avail the post of Time rate category IV. Accordingly, they submitted that the claim of the sponsoring union to regularise the concerned workman in Time Rated Category IV is not just, fair, and proper and for which the concerned workman is not entitled to get any relief.
[ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: मई 21 , 2005/वैशाख 31 , 1927
5143 4. POINTS TO BE DECIDED :
each of them as suggested earlier . The name of the concerned workman was also included in the list . Again vide letter No. 1281 dt . 14/ 16-5-98 , as per ALC(C) Record, Project Officer Bastacola Colliery it transpires that the concerned workman was regularised as Drill Helper vide letter No. BCC /9/6 -A/84/C - 1/10815 dated 23-3-84.
"Whether the action of the management of M/s. BCCL in denying the designation of Drillman to the workman Sri Yugal Hansda, Chandmari Section ofBastacolla Colliery under Bastacolla Area is justified and legal ? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled and from what date ?" .
5. FINDING WITH REASONS :
It transpires from the record that the sponsoring union inspite of getting opportunity did not consider necessary to adduce evidence . As the sponsoring union did not adduce any evidence management also declined to adduce any evidence .
It is the contention of the management that as the concerned workman did not give his consent in writing his regularisation as Drill Helper in time rated Category II was held up . But the letter which has been referred to above is exposed that he was regularised as Drill Helper in time rated Category II by order dated 23-3-84 . Therefore , it can be presumed that the said order as referred to above was issued after giving consent by the concerned workman in writing .
Accordingly, considering the pleadings of both sides and also considering ALC( C ) record let it be considered ifthe claim of the sponsoring union as per reference stands oncogent footing or not .
Considering the facts disclosed in the pleadings of both sides there is no dispute to hold that initially the concerned workmen got his appointment as Miner /Loader under the management . It is the contention of the sponsoring union that in the year 1980 management engaged the concerned workman as Drillman under time rated category and in that capacity continuously for more than three years he discharged his duties as Drillman. Accordingly as per provision he was entitled to get his regularisation as Drillman in time rated Category IV from 1984. They alleged that inspite of submitting several representations management refused to regularise him as Drillman in Category IV.
The claim of the sponsoring union is that the concerned workman started discharging his duty as Drillman since 1980 being engaged by the management . However, to substantiate this claim the sponsoring union inspite of getting opportunity have failed to produce a single scrap ofpaper. Accordingly in absence of any cogent proof in support of such claim I find no scope to uphold such contention particularly when the provision as laid down in N. C. W. A. has clearly pointed out the promotional policy relating to regularisation of Drillman . It is admitted fact that the concerned workman got his appointment as piece rated Miner /Loader. Considering material papers submitted , the management before ALC(C) in course of hearing of conciliation matter it has been exposed clearly that he was engaged as Drill Helper and not Drillman . States of Drill Helper and Drillman are not same . From the ALC ( C ) record . I have failed to find out any paper in support of the concerned workman to show that actually he was engaged as Drillman and not Drill Helper . Therefore , the claim of the sponsoring union that the concerned workman being engaged by the management started discharging his duties since 1980 as Drillman finds no basis at all .
Onthe contrary contention of the management is that the name of the concerned workman was listed along with other workman for his regularisation as time rated DrillHelper in Category II from piece rated category and for that reason opportunity was given to him to give him option with a view to obtain approval from the competent authority to regularise him as Drill Helper in time rated Category II . They submitted that inspite of option sought for the concerned workman did not give any such option . They further submitted that his regularisation as Drillman in Category IV would be considered on his conversion from piece rated to time rated job.
From the ALC ( C) record it transpires that vide letter No. BCC /PS - 17/81 / 1658 dt . 15-12-81 the concerned workman was asked to submit his written consent within 48 hours of the receipt of the letter failing which his designation could not be changed and he will be reverted back to his original job .
Again vide letter dt . 21-3-84, as per ALC ( C ) record, it transpires that the competent authority approved the list ofMinor /Loader and requested Dy. C. M. E. , G. O. C. P. to enroll them in time rate after taking consent from
However, considering the papers submitted by the management which have been discussed to above shows clearly that he was regularised as Drill Helper since 1984. It was the contention of the management that after regularisation of concerned workman as Drill Helper in time rated Category II his regularisation as Drillman in Category IV willbe considered. It is clear from the letter BCCL/BA /BC/ P- 1 /98/ 1281 dt . 14/ 16-5-98 that the concerned workman got his regularisation as Drill Helper vide letter BCC/ 9/6 - A/84/C - 1 / 10815 dt . 23-3-84 . Therefore as per contention of the management his regularisation as Drillman in Category IV will be considered after 1984. It is seen that after 1984 inspite of rendering continuous service as Drill Helper in Category II management did not consider his promotion in the post of Drillman in Category IV. On the contrary 5144
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21 , 2005 /VAISAKHA 31 , 1927
they killed time by raising different plea at different time. From ALC ( C ) record I have failed to find out any such material ingredient which could be considered as disqualification on the part of the concerned workman to get his regularisation in the post of Drillman in Category IV after 1984. Accordingly, there is sufficient reason to believe that management exposed their discremination in ignoring his legitimate claim for promotion as Drillman in Category IV on fulfilment of condition as per provision of N. C. W. A. after getting his regularisation as Drill Helper in 1984 .
In the result the following award is rendered:
"That the action of the management of M/ s . BCCL in denying the designation of Drillman to the workman Sri Yugal Hansda, Chandmari Section of Bastacolla Colliery under Bastacolla Area was not justified and legal .
Management accordingly is directed to regularise the concerned workman as Drillman with effect from the date since fulfilment of the condition as provided in N.C.W.A. after his regularisation as Drill Helper in time rated Category II , in 1984 within three months from the date of publication of award in the Gazette of India . "
B. BISWAS . Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 26 अप्रैल, 2005
का. आ. 1858.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार, दूर संचार विभाग के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार, औद्योगिक अधिकरण चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 326/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 26-4-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-40012/241/2001-आई. आर. ( डी. यू. ) ] कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 26th April . 2005
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR , PRESIDING OFFICER , CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUS- TRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT - 1 , CHANDIGARH
Case No. I. D. 326 of 2001
Sh . Dileep Ram son of Shri Ram Darbar, Karsan Colony, Phase- II , H. No. 233 , Chandigarh .
Applicant
Versus
The Principal General Manager, Telecom, Tele- phone Department , Sector 18 - A, Chandigarh , .. Respondent APPEARANCES :
: None
: Shri G. C. Babbar .
For the workman For the management
AWARD
Passed on 15-3-2005
Central Government vide notification No. L - 40012/ 241/ 2001 /IR ( DU ) dated 06-11-2001 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :
"Whether the action of the management of Department ofTelecom , Chandigarh in terminating the services of Sh . Dileep Ram son of Sh . Shankar Ram w.e.f. 27-2-1999 is just and legal ? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled ? "
2. Case repeatedly called . None has put up appearance on behalf of the workman Learned representative for the management submitted that workman appears not to be interested as workman is not appearing in the Court despite several notices and registered notice last sent has been received back with the report that addressee left without address . He submitted that in view of this position . the reference may be returned for want of prosecution. In view of the submission of the rep. of the management and the fact that the workman is not persuing his case and also not available on the address given in the reference . the present reference is returned to the Central Government for want of prosecution . Central Government be informed. File be consigned to record.
Announced .
15-3-2005
S.O. 1858. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act . 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 326/ 2001 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal / Labour Court. Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Deptt . of Telecom and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 26-4-2005 .
[No. L -40012/241 / 2001 - IR ( DU ) ] KULDIP RAI VERMA , Desk Officer.
RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 26 अप्रैल, 2005
का. आ. 1859.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार दूर संचार विभाग के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध [ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
5145
भारत का राजपत्र : मई 21 , 2005/वैशाख 31 , 1927
में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केद्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 155/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 26-4-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-40012/126/2003- आई आर ( डीयू) ] कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 26th April , 2005
representative for the management submitted that workman appears not to be interested as workman is not appearing in the Court despite several notices and despite his noting the date on the last date of hearing and not filing the claim statement and also not appearing . He submitted that in view of this position , the reference may be returned for want of prosecution. In view of the submission of the rep. of the management and the fact that the workman is not persuing his case and also not appeared and filed any claim statement , the present reference is returned to the Central Govt . for want of prosecution . Central Govt . be informed. File be consigned to record.
RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer
Announced 15-3-2005
नई दिल्ली, 26 अप्रैल, 2005 S.O. 1859. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 155/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court , Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Deptt. of Telecom . and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 26-4-2005
[No. L- 40012/ 126/ 2003 - IR ( DU) ] KULDIP RAI VERMA , Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
का. आ. 1860.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार दूर संचार विभाग के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केद्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 322/2001 ) कौ प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 26-4-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था । .. BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER , CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM -LABOUR COURT - 1 , CHANDIGARH
[सं. एल -40012/239/2001- आई आर (डीयू) ]
कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डेस्क अधिकारी CASE No. I.D. 155 OF 2004
New Delhi , the 26th April , 2005 Sh. Bhupinder Singh .
Son of Shri Sadhu Singh . Village Chilla, PO Manauli, Teh. Mohali ,
DistrictRopar
Applicant
Versus
The Chief General Manager, Telecom , Punjab Circle , Sector 34 , Chandigarh .
Respondent
S.O. 1860. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 322/ 2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Deptt. of Telecom . and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 26-4-2005
APPEARANCES :
For the workman
: None
[No. L-40012/239 / 2001 - IR (DU ) ] KULDIP RAI VERMA , Desk Officer : Shri G.C. Babbar,
For the management
ANNEXURE
AWARD
Passed on 15-3-2005
BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER , CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM - LABOUR COURT - 1 , CHANDIGARH CASE No. I.D. 322 OF 2001 Central Govt . vide Notification No. L - 40012/ 126/ 2003 /IR (DU) dated 09-03-2004 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :
Sh. Sakaldeep Ram,
Son of Shri Ram Parvesh Ram, Plot No. 705 , Delux Steel Furniture , Phase - II , Industrial Area , Chandigarh .
Applicant
Versus
"Whether the action of the management of Chief General Manager , BSNL , Chandigarh in terminating the services of Sh . Bhupinder Singh Ex . Peon w.e.f. 27-2-1999 without complying with the provisions of the I.D. Act is just and legal ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled ? "
2. Case repeatedly called . None has put up appearance on behalf of the workman . Learned
The Principal General Manager, Telecom, Telephone Department , Sector 18 -A, Chandigarh .
Respondent 5146
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21 , 2005 /VAISAKHA 31 , 1927
APPEARANCES :
For the workman
: None
For the management
: Shri G.C. Babbar,
AWARD
Passed on 15-3-2005
Central Govt . vide Notification No. L - 40012/239/ 2001 /IR (DU) dated 06-11-2001 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :
"Whether the action of the management of Department of Telecom , Chandigarh in terminating the services of Sh . Sakaldeep Ram son of Sh. Ram Parvesh Ram w.e.f. 27-2-1999 is just and legal ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled ? "
[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR , PRESIDING OFFICER , CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT - 1 , CHANDIGARH
CASE No. 1.D. 150 OF 2004
Suman Kumar,
Son of Shri Charan Singh , Ex - Sarpanch , House No. 175,
Village Palsora,
U.T.. Chandigarh .
Applicant
Versus
The Chief General Manager,
Respondent Telecom , Punjab Circle , Sector 34 , Chandigarh .
APPEARANCES :
For the workman
: None
For the management
2. Case repeatedly called . None has put up appearance on behalf of the workman. Learned representative for the management submitted that workman appears not to be interested as workman is not appearing in the Court despite several notices and registered notice last sent has been received back with the report that addressee left without address. He submitted that in view ofthis position , the reference may be returned for want of prosecution. In view of the submission of the rep. of the management and the fact that the workman is not persuing his case and also not available on the address given in the reference , the present reference is returned to the Central Govt . for want of prosecution. Central Govt . be informed. File be consigned to record.
RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer Announced 15-3-2005
नई दिल्ली, 26 अप्रैल, 2005
का. आ. 1861.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरणे में, केन्द्रीय सरकार दूर संचार विभाग के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केद्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 150/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 26-4-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-40012/127/2003- आई आर ( डीयू) ] कुलदीप राय वर्मा , डेस्क अधिकारी
: Shri G.C. Babbar,
AWARD
Passed on 15-3-2005
Central Govt . vide Notification No. L - 40012/ 127 / 2003 /IR ( DU) dated 9-3-2004 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :
"Whether the action of the management of Department of Telecom . Chandigarh in terminating the services of Shri Suman Kumar, Ex . Clerk w.e.f. 27-2-1999 without complying with the provisions ofI.D. Act is just and legal ? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled to ?"
2. Case repeatedly called . None has put up appearance on behalf of the workman despite repeated notices . The regd . Ad notice sent received back with the report that workman is not residing on the address given in the reference . In view of the above , since there is no other address available with this office , therefore , there is no option with this office to return the reference for want of prosecution. Ordered accordingly, Central Govt . be informed. File be consigned to record.
RAJESH KUMAR , Presiding Officer
Announced
15-3-2005
New Delhi , the 26th April , 2005
S.O. 1861. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 150/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum -Labour Court , Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Deptt . of Telecom . and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 26-4-2005
[No. L - 40012/127/ 2003 - IR (DU) ] KULDIP RAI VERMA , Desk Officer नई दिल्ली, 26 अप्रैल, 2005
का. आ. 1862.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार डाक विभाग के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय, भीलवाड़ाके पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 26-4-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं . एल-40012/ 122/96- आई आर ( डीयू) ] कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डेस्क अधिकारी [ भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : मई 21 , 2005/वैशाख 31 , 1927
5147 New Delhi , the 26th April, 2005.
3.दिनांक 8-10-98 को प्रस्तुत स्टेटमेंट आफ क्लेम के मुताबिक आवेदक ने अनावेदक के अधीन बतौर ई.डी. दिनांक 20-1-95 से 31-1-96 तक निरंतर कार्य किया । आवेदक की कार्यावधि एक कलेंडर वर्ष में 240 दिन से अधिक है । दिनांक 31-1-1996 को बिना कोई कारण बताये आवेदक को अवैध रूप से सेवा से पृथक कर दिया । आवेदक ने निवेदन किया कि उसे समस्त लाभ सहित सेवा में पुनः नियोजित किया जाये ।
S.O. 1862. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award of the Industrial Tribunal , Bhilwara 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 26-4-2005.
[No. L -40012/ 122/96 - IR (DU) ] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer
अनुबंध
श्रम न्यायालय, भीलवाड़ा ( राज. )
पीठासीन अधिकारी, एम. एल. शर्मा- प्रथम, आर. एच. जे. एस.
श्रम विवाद प्रकरण संख्या : 12/98
श्री श्याम लाल, पुत्र श्री बाबूलाल शास्त्री, निवासी-ग्राम सुवाणा, तहसील एवं जिला- भीलवाड़ा
आवेदक
बनाम
4. दिनांक 18-2-1999 को प्रस्तुत जवाब में उल्लेख किया गया कि आवेदक को किसी नियमित पद पर कोई नियुक्ति नहीं दी गई । कमलकिशोर अमरवाल सांगानेर ई.डी.एम.सी. के पद पर कार्यरत थे तथा ई.डी.पी.एम. , सांगानेर गबन प्रकरण में लिप्त होने के कारण कमलकिशोर, ई.डी.एम.सी. , सांगानेर को ई.डी.एस.पी.एम. , सांगानेर के पद पर कार्य करने की अनुमति अधीक्षक, डाकघर द्वारा गबन प्रकरण का निस्तारण होने तक दी गई थी । श्री श्याम लाल शर्मा ने एफ.बी. ऐजेन्ट सेवा और आचरण नियमावली, 1964 के नियम 5 के अंतर्गत कमल किशोर की जोखिम एवं जिम्मेवारी पर बतौर ऐवजी दिनांक 20-1-1995 से 31-1-1996 तक कार्य किया । आवेदक ने पूर्ण रूप से अस्थायी नियुक्ति के बतौर कार्य किया तथा नियुक्तिमें यह स्पष्ट उल्लेख था कि पद पद उसका कोई अधिकार नहीं होगा । आवेदक केमामले में अधि. 1947 के तहत प्रावधान प्रभावी नहीं है । आंवेदक कर्मकार की तारीफमें नहीं आता तथा वह कोई राहत पाने का अधिकारी नहींहै । अनावेदक ने निवेदन किया कि आवेदक की तरफ से प्रस्तुत स्टेटमेंट ऑफ क्लेम खारिज किया जाये ।
निरीक्षक, डाकघर, पूर्व उपखंड, भीलवाड़ा
अनावेदक
उपस्थित
5. क्लेमके समर्थन में ओम प्रकाश, बक्षु लाल वः स्वयं आवेदक के शपथपत्र पेश हुए । उनसे अनावेदक की तरफ से जिरह हुई । जवाब के समर्थन में सत्यदेव शर्मा, निरीक्षक, डाकघर, पूर्व- भीलवाड़ा का शपथ पत्र पेश हुआ। उससे आवेदक की तरफ से जिरह हुई । श्री ए.के. व्यास, अधिवक्ता : आवेदक की ओर से
6. बहस अंतिम उभयपक्ष सुनी। आवेदक की तरफ से लिखित बहस भी पेश हुई ।
श्री के. सी कास्ट, अधिवक्ता : अनावेदक की ओर से
पंचाट
दिनांक 31-12-04
1. भारत सरकार के श्रम मंत्रालय द्वारा आदेश दिनांक 10-3-98 के तहत औद्योगिक विवाद अधि. 1947 ( तत्पश्चात् अधि. 1947 से सम्बोधित ) की धारा 10( 1 ) ( ग ) के तहत निम्न विवाद इस न्यायालय को अधिनिर्णयार्थ प्रेषित किया:
" क्या श्री श्याम लाल ई.डी. को प्रबंधकपक्ष निरीक्षक, डाकघर पूर्व उपखंड- भीलवाड़ा के द्वारा दिनांक 31-1-96 को सेवा से पृथक किया जाना उचित एवं वैध है ? यदि नहीं, तो कर्मकार किस राहत का अधिकारी है ? "
2. उपर्युक्तानुसार विवाद दिनांक 30-3-98 को प्राप्त होने पर क्रम संख्या 12/98 पर दर्ज हुआ तथा पक्षकारान को सूचित किया गया ।
7. आवेदक की तरफ से जाहिर किया गया कि अनावेदक ने आवेदक की कार्यावधि 20-1-1995 से 31-1-1996 तक होना स्वीकार किया है तथा पत्रावली पर उपलब्ध साक्ष्य से भी यह सिद्ध है कि आवेदक ने इस अवधि में एक्स्ट्राडिपार्टमेंटल मेल केरियर के पद पर निरंतर कार्य किया । आवेदक को रिक्त पद पर नियुक्ति दी गई थी तथा उसकी कार्यावधि एक कलेंडर वर्ष में 240 दिन से अधिक होने की स्थिति में उसे अधि. 1947 के तहत लाभ देय है । आवेदक को अधि. 1947 की धारा 25 ( एफ ) में निहित प्रावधान के उल्लंघन में सेवा से पृथक किया गया । आवेदक को सेवा से पृथक किये जाने के पश्चात् नई नियुक्तिके वक्त आवेदक को कोई अवसर नहीं दिया गया । आवेदक 'का मामला अधि. 1947 की परिधि में है तथा इस तरह का मामला कैन्द्रीय प्रशासनिक अधिकरण की अधिकारिता में नहीं आता । अनावेदक विभाग अधि. 1947 की धारा 2 (जे ) के तहत उद्योग की तारीफ में आता है । योग्य वकील आवेदक के मतानुसार आवेदक समस्त लाभ सहित सेवा में पुनः नियोजन का अधिकारी है समर्थन में न्यायिक विनिश्चय रामू लाल बनाम सहायक अभियंता, पी. डब्ल्यू. डी. , 5148
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21 , 2005 /VAISAKHA 31 , 1927
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii )] उपखंड-सीकर एवं अन्य आर. एल. आर. 1989 ( i ) पेज 1 , हिमाचल प्रदेश एग्रो इंडस्ट्रीज कार्पोरेशन बनाम राज कुमार एवं अन्य 1001 - II- एल. एल. जे. ( एच. पी. ) पेज 861 व जनरल मेनेजर, टेलीकोम बनाम श्री निवास राव एस. एवं अन्य 1998 (1 ) एल. एल. जे . ( एस.सी. ) पेज 255 पेश किये ।
में उसे कोई अधिकार प्राप्त नहीं होता । अनावेदक गवाह सत्यदेव शर्मा ने भी जिरह में कहा है कि " हमारे विभाग के रिकार्ड से 20-1-1995 से प्रार्थी ने 30-6-1995 तक बतौर आऊट साईडर एवजी व्यवस्था पर कार्य किया था । फिर 1-7-1995 से 31-1-1996 तक अस्थायी व्यवस्थाके तौर पर कार्य करने की अनुमति दी गई । यह सही है कि प्रार्थी ने निरंतर एक कलेंडर वर्ष में 240 दिन से अधिक काम किया था । " इस तरह से यह तो स्वीकृत स्थिति है कि आवेदक ने अनावेदक के अधीन दिनांक 20-1-1995 से 31-1-1996 तक कार्य किया, लेकिन प्रश्न यह है कि क्या यह कार्यावधि अधि. 1947 की धारा 25 ( बी) के तहत आशयित निरंतर सेवा की तारीफ में आती है एवं क्या आवेदक को सेवा से पृथक किया जाना अधि . 1947 की धारा 2 ( ओओ ) के तहत छंटनी की तारीफ में आता है ।
8. अनावेदक की तरफ से जाहिर किया गया कि अनावेदक उद्योग की तारीफ में नहीं आता तथा न ही आवेदक अधि. 1947 के तहत कर्मकार की तारीफ में आता है , अतः यह मामला अधि. 1947 की परिधि के बाहर है । आवेदक को अन्य कर्मचारी की एवज में उसकी जिम्मेदारी व जोखिम पर अस्थायी तौर पर नियोजित किया गया था- जिस स्थिति में उसे नियोजन के संबंध में कोई अधिकार प्राप्त नहीं होता । आवेदक का मामला संबंधित नियमों से शासित है तथा इस न्यायालय को इस तरह के मामले की सुनवाई की अधिकारिता नहीं है । समर्थन में न्यायिक विनिश्चय सब डिवीजनल इंस्पेक्टर ऑफ पोस्ट बनाम थैयाम जोसेफ ए. आई . आर. 1996 ( एस . सी. ) पेज 1271 पेशकिया।
11. आवेदक को अनावेदक के अधीन किसी पद पर नियमित नियुक्ति दिये जाने बाबत पत्रावली पर कोई आधार नहीं है । स्वयं आवेदक ने जिरह में कहा है कि " मुझे कोई नियुक्ति पत्र सीधी भर्ती बाबत नहीं मिला। " आवेदक ने जिरह में यह बतलाया है कि " यह गलत है कि में किसी की एवज में काम करता था बल्किखाली पद पर कार्य करता था" लेकिन उसने यह भी कहा है कि " पोस्ट खाली होने का कारण गबन होना था, गबनकर्ता गोपाल लाल था " तथा " कमल किशोर अमरवाल वहां काम करता था । यह सही है कि मुझे उसकी जगह लगाया था । प्रदर्श एम. 1 में उल्लेखित दिनों में काम किया वो सही है मुझे अमरवाल की जगह लगाया जिसके बाबत प्रदर्श एम.. 2 सही है । " आवेदक के इस कथन से स्पष्ट है कि आवेदक को कमल किशोर अमरवाल के स्थान पर उसकी एवज में नियोजित किया गया था । आवेदक ने अनावेदक की तरफ से प्रस्तुत दस्तावेजात प्रदर्श एम. 1 व एम. 2 सही होना स्वीकार्य किया है । प्रदर्श एम. 1 निरीक्षक, डाकघर द्वारा जारी आदेश दिनांक 27-6-1995 की प्रति है , जो इस तरह से है :
" श्री कमल किशोर अमरवाल, ईडीएमसी, सांगानेर लेखा कार्यालय भीलवाड़ा एचओ को तारीख 20-1-1995 से 31- 5-1995 तक कुल 132 दिन का बिना भत्तों का अवकाश स्वीकृत किया जाता है ।
उक्तअवधि में श्री श्याम लाल शर्मा रिक्त पद पर अनुपस्थित कर्मचारी की जिम्मेदारी पर कार्य करेंगे ।
इनको भत्तों का भुगतान तदनुसार किया जावे ।
9. यह सही है कि न्यायिक विनिश्चय सब डिवीजनल इंस्पेक्टर ऑफ पोस्ट बनाम थैयाम जोसेफ ए.आई.आर. 1996 ( ए.सी. ) पेज 1271 में माननीय उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा यह अभिनिर्धारित किया गया था कि जन- साधारण को दूर संचार सेवाएं प्रदान करना राज्य का एक सार्वभौम कर्तव्य है- परिणामतः डाक व दूर संचार विभाग अधि. 1947 की धारा 2 (जे ) के तहत उद्योग की तारीफ में नहीं आता एवं न ही उस विभाग के कर्मचारीगण अधि. 1947 के तहत कामगार की तारीफ में आते हैं, लेकिन न्यायिक विनिश्चय जनरल मैनेजर , टेलीकोम बनाम श्रीनिवास राव एस. एवं अन्य 1998 ( I ) एल.एल.जे. पेज 255 में माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय की पूर्णपीठ ने न्यायिक विनिश्चय बेंगलोरवाटर सप्लाई एवं सिवरेज बोर्ड बनाम ए. राजप्पा 1978 ( 1 ) एल.एल.जे. पेज 349 ( एस.सी. ) का उल्लेख करते हुए यह अभिनिर्धारित किया कि केन्द्र सरकार का दूर संचार विभाग अधि. 1947 की धारा 2 ( जे ) के तहत उद्योग है तथा इस संबंध में न्यायिक विनिश्चय सबडिविजनल इंस्पेक्टर ऑफ पोस्ट बनाम थैयाम जोसेफ 1996 ( II ) एल.एल.जे. पेज 230 ( एस.सी. ) में प्रतिपादित विधि सही नहीं है । उल्लेखनीय है कि यह अभिनिर्धारण बेंगलोर वाटर सप्लाई एंड सीवरेज बोर्ड बनाम ए. राजप्पा 1978 ( 1 ) एल.एल.जे. पेज 349 में माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय की सात सदस्यीय पीठ द्वारा प्रदत्त निर्णय पर आधारित है तथा इस अभिनिर्धारण के परिपेक्ष्य में विधि की यह स्थिति स्पष्ट है कि अनावेदक विभाग अधि. 1947 की धारा 2 ( जे ) के तहत उद्योग की तारीफ में आता है ।
अनुपस्थित कर्मचारी ने तारीख 20-1-1995 से 31-5-1995 तक आउटसाईडर इडीएसपीएम, सांगानेर के पद पर कार्य किया यदि वे उक्त आउटसाइंडर के रूप में कार्य नहीं करते तो अपने मूल पर ही कार्य करते । अतः उन्हें उक्त अवधि का एक्स ग्रेसिया बोनस देय है । "
प्रदर्श एम. 2 कमल किशोर अमरवाल, ई.डी.एम.सी. द्वारा प्रस्तुत दरखास्त की प्रति है जो इस तरह से है :
10. अनावेदक की तरफ से प्रस्तुत जवाब के पैरा सं. एक में यह स्वीकार किया गया है कि आवेदक ने दिनांक 20-1-1995 से 31-1-1996 तक कार्य किया, लेकिन जवाब के मुताबिक आवेदक ने यह कार्य एफ. वी. एजेन्ट सेवा और आचरण नियमावली, 1964 के नियम-5 के तहत कमल किशोर ई.डी.एम.सी. , सांगानेर के एवज में उसकी जोखिम व जिम्मेदारी पर अस्थायी तौर पर किया- जिस संबंध [भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii) ]
App-45
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE BY EXTRA- DEPARTMENTAL AGENTS
Name of the Extra
Departmental Agent कमल किशोर अमरवाल Designation
इ. डी. एम. सी.
Allowance
420
Period for which leave required
: 1-6-1995 से 30-6-1995 Date from which leave required
Full address while on leave
पी. ओ. सांगानेर, जिला भीलवाड़ा
श्याम लाल शर्मा,
23 वर्ष
Name , age and other particulars of the substitute
Specimen signature of the substitute : श्यामलाल शर्मा 1. I hereby declare that my substitute Shri whose particulars are given above will work on my responsibility during my absence on leave according to the terms of security bond executed by me . Acharge report signed by myself and my nominee will be submitted as prescribed in Rules 45 and 66-Rule 67 of Rules for Branch- Offices P. & T. Manual Vol.IV. - 2. The allowance for the responsibility.
Station Manager 5-8-95
Sd/- KamalKishore इस दरख्वास्त से संबंधित आदेश दिनांक 12-8-95 की प्रति प्रदर्श 2 है जो इस तरह से है :
" श्री कमल किशोर अमरवाल, ईड़ीएमसी सांगानेर लेखा कार्यालय सुवाणा को तारीख 1-6-95 से 30-8-95 तक कुल 30 दिन का बिना भत्तों का अवकाश स्वीकृत किया जाता है ।
उक्तअवधि में श्री श्याम लाल शर्मा रिक्त पद पर अनुपस्थित कर्मचारी की जिम्मेदारी पर कार्य करेंगे ।
इनके भत्तों का भुगतान तद्नुसार किया जावे ।
अनुपस्थित कर्मचारी ने तारीख 1-6-95 से 30-6-95 तक इडीएसपीएम सांगानेर के पद पर कार्य किया । यदि वे उक्त आऊटसाईडर के रूप में कार्य नहीं करते तो अपने मूल पद पर ही कार्य करते । अतः उन्हें उक्त अवधि का एक्सग्रेसिया बोनस देय है ।"
इस परिप्रेक्ष्य में अधीक्षक, डाकघर, भीलवाड़ा द्वारा जारी आदेश दिनांक 4-1-96 की प्रति भी उल्लेखनीय है जिसके तहत गोपाल लाल टेलर के विरुद्ध अनुशासनात्मक कार्यवाही सम्पन्न होने तक कमल किशोर अमरवाल को ईडीएसपीएम, सांगानेर के पद पर अस्थायी तौर पर एक्सट्राडिपार्टमेंटल एजेंट ( कंडक्ट एंड सर्विस ) रूल्स, 1964 के 1450 Gl /2005-17
भारत का राजपत्र : मई 21 , 2005/वैशाख 31 , 1927
5149 तहत नियोजन की व्यवस्था की गई । इसी परिप्रक्ष्य में निरीक्षक डाकघर द्वारा जारी आदेश दिनांक 8-1-96 की प्रति प्रदर्श 1 भी उल्लेखनीय है । यह आदेश इस तरह से है :
Memo No PF/EDMC/Scmgana/ 95dt . 8-1-96 .
Where as Shri Kamal Kisore Amarwal EDMC Sanganer has been provisionally appointed as EDMC Sanganer vide Deptt . of Post Office Bhilwara Dn . Bhilwara Memo no. A-70 dated 4-1-96. As such the need arises to engage a person to look office of the work of EDMC Sanganer as such the undersigned has deeded to make a provisional appointment to the said post.
Shri Shyam Lal Sharma is hereby given provisional appointment at the post of EDMC Sanganer w.e.f. 1-7-95 to 31-1-96 . Shri Shyam Lal Sharma should clearly understood that his provisional appointment to the post ofEDMC Sanganer will be ceased after 31-1-96. These orders are being issued to arrange the payment due to Shri Shyam Lal Sharma w.e.f. 1-7-95 to 31-1-96 .
The Inspector of Post Offices (E) Bhilwara reserves the right to terminate the provisional appointment at any timebefore the period mentioned in para 2 above without reason
Sd/- इस आदेश की प्रति आवेदक श्याम लाल को भी को दिये जाने का उल्लेख है । इन आदेशों से स्पष्ट होता है कि आवेदक को शुरू में दिनांक 20-1-95 से 31-5-95 तथा 1-6-95 से 30-6-95 तक कमल किशोर ईडीएमसी, सांगानेर का अवकाश स्वीकृत होने पर उसकी एवज में उसकी जिम्मेदारी पर अस्थायी तौर पर नियोजित किया गया था तथा बाद में कर्मल किशोर अमरवाल अस्थायी तौर पर ईडीएमसी, सांगानेर के पद पर ( गोपाल लाल टेलर के विरुद्ध अनुशासनात्मक कार्यवाही संपन्न होने तक) नियुक्त होने पर आवेदक को उसके स्थान पर 1-7-95 से 31-1-96 तक अस्थायी तौर पर ईडीएमसी, सांगानेर के पद पर नियोजित किया गया । संबंधित आदेश प्रदर्श 1 दिनांक 8-1-96 में इस आशय का स्पष्ट उल्लेख है कि यह नियोजन दिनांक 31-1-96 को समाप्त हो जायेगा । उल्लेखनीय है कि आवेदक का यह नियोजन एक्स्ट्राडिपार्टमेंटल एजेंट ( कंडक्ट एंड सर्विस ) रूल्स, 1964 के तहत किया गया तथा इन नियमों के नियम 6 के मुताबिक आवेदक एक माह के वेतन के बराबर वेतन राशि प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी हो सकता है , लेकिन आवेदक की नियोजन अवधि दिनांक 31-1-96 को समाप्त होने की स्थिति में उसे पुनः नियोजित नहीं करना या पूर्व संविदा की अवधि नहीं बढ़ाया जाना मेरी राय में अधि. 1947 की धारा 2(ओओ) (बीबी) में निहित प्रावधान के मुताबिक छंटनी की तारीफ में नहीं आता । यह प्रावधान इस तरह से है :
" retrenchment " means the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by the way ofdisciplinary action but does not include :
(b) retirement of the workman on reaching the age of superanuation if the contract of 5150
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21 , 2005 /VAISAKHA 31 , 1927
employment between the employer and the workman concerned contains a stipulation in thatbehalf; or
(bb) termination of the service of the workman as a result of the non - renewal of the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry or of such contract being terminated under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein;
[PART IH- SEC . 3 (ii) ] नई दिल्ली, 26 अप्रैल , 2005
का. आ. 1863.-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 औद्योगिक अधिकरण भीलवाड़ा के पंचाट को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 26-4-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-40012/99/2001-आई . आर. ( डी.यू. ) ] कुलदीप राय वर्मा , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 26th April , 2005
S.O. 1863. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Industrial Tribunal , Bhilwara now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Deptt . of Post and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 26-4-05
[No. L - 40012/ 99 /2001 - IR (DU)] KULDIP RAI VERMA , Desk Officer
अनुबंध श्रम न्यायालय , भीलवाडा ( रजि.)
एल-40012/99/2001-आइ.आर. ( डी.यू. ) पीठासीन अधिकारी, एम. एल. शर्मा- प्रथम, आर. एच. जे . एस. , श्रम विवाद प्रकरण संख्या : 171/01
श्री रफीक खान पठान पुत्र श्री कमरूदीन पठान, निवासी-बनेड़ा,
जिला-भीलवाड़ा (राज.)
आवेदक
बनाम
अनावेदक अधीक्षक, पोस्ट आफिस, भीलवाड़ा डिवीजन , भीलवाड़ा।
उपस्थित
आवेदकस्वयं ।
न्यायिक विनिश्चय हिमांशु कुमार विद्यार्थी बनाम बिहार राज्य ए.आई.आर. 1997 ( एस.सी. ) पेज 3657 में भी माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय ने अभिनिर्धारित किया कि आवश्यकता के आधार पर नियोजित दैनिक वेतनभोगी श्रमिकगण को सेवा से पृथक किया जाना छंटनी की तारीफं में नहीं आता । इसी तरह न्यायिक विनिश्चयं हरियाणा स्टेट एफ.सी.सी.डब्ल्यू. बनाम राम निवास ए.आई.आर. 2002 ( एस.सी. ) पेज 2495 में भी माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा निर्णीत किया गया किविशेष उद्देश्य एवं अवधि विशेष के लिए नियोजित श्रमिकगण का नियोजन उद्देश्य समाप्त होने पर समाप्त हो जाता है तथा इस तरह का मामला अधि. 1947 की धारा 2 ( ओओ ) के तहत छंटनी की तारीफ में नहीं आता । मामले की इन परिस्थितियों में आवेदक की कुल कार्यावधि 240 दिन या अधिक होने की स्थिति में भी मेरी राय में आवेदक को अधि. 1947 की धारा 25 एफ व एच के तहत कोई लाभ देय नहीं है क्योंकि आवेदक का मामला अधि. 1947 की धारा 2 ( ओओ ) के तहत छंटनी की तारीफ में नहीं आता । इस संबंध में आवेदक की तरफ से प्रस्तुत न्यायिक विनिश्चय रामू लाल बनाम सहायक अभियंता, पी.डब्ल्यू.डी. , उपखंड- सीकर आर.एल.आर. 1979 ( 1 ) पेज 1 तथ्यों कीविभिन्नता की वजह से आवेदक को सहायक होना प्रतीत नहीं होता तथा न. ही संविधान के अनुच्छेद 21 के तहत कोई हिदायत जारी करने की अधिकारिता इस न्यायालय को प्राप्त है । आवेदक की तरफ से प्रस्तुत अन्यन्यायिक विनिश्चय हिमाचल प्रदेश एग्रो इंडस्ट्रीज कार्पोरेशन बनाम राज कुमार एवं अन्य 1001-11- एल.एल.जे . ( एच.पी. ) पेज 861 में माननीय उच्च न्यायालय की खंडपीठ द्वारा अभिनिर्धारित किया गया था कि अधि. 1947 की धारा 25 एफ व जी से संबंधित मामले की सुनवाई की अधिकारिता औद्योगिक अधिकरण को है जिससे असहमति का प्रश्न ही नहीं है , लेकिन विचाराधीन मामले में आवेदक का मामला अधि. 1947 की धारा 2 ( ओओ ) के तहत छंटनी की तारीफ में नहीं आने की स्थिति में आवेदक को इस अधि. की धारा 25 एफ व एच के तहत कोई लाभ देय होना नहीं कहा जा सकता ।
12. केन्द्र सरकार द्वारा प्रेषित विवाद निम्न तरह से निर्णीत किया जाता है :
श्री श्याम लाल ई.डी. को प्रबंधकपक्ष निरीक्षक, डाकघर पूर्व उपखंड- भीलवाड़ा के द्वारा दिनांक 31-1-96 को सेवा से पृथक किया जाना उचित एवं वैध है । कर्मकार किसी राहत का अधिकारी नहींहै । उपर्युक्तानुसार पंचाट जारी किया जाता है ।
पंचाट आज दिनांक 31-12-04 को खुले न्यायालय में लिखाया जाकर सुनाया गया।
एम.एल. शर्मा- प्रथम , न्यायाधीश श्री बी.एस. राठौड, प्रतिनिधि : अनावेदक की ओर से
पंचाट
दिनांक 31-12-04
1. भारत सरकार के श्रम मंत्रालय द्वारा आदेश दिनांक 28-6-01 के तहत औद्योगिक विवाद अधि. 1947 ( तत्पश्चात् अधि. 1947 से सम्बोधित ) की धारा 10 ( 1 ) ( ग ) के तहत निम्न विवाद इस न्यायालय को अधिनिर्णयार्थ प्रेषित किया :
"Whether the action of the Suptd . Post Office, Bhilwara , Division Bhilwara in terminating the [भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : मई 21 , 2005 /वैशाख 31 , 1927
5151 service of Sh . Rafeeq Khan Pathan S /o Sh . Kamruddin Pathan w.e.f. 2-2-2000 is legal and justified ? if not what relief the workman concern is entitled to ?
हैं । समर्थन में न्यायिक विनिश्चय प्रभु दयाल जाट बनाम अलवर सहकारी बैंक लि. औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय भीलवाड़ा एफएल.आर. 1989 पेज 9 व हरदेव लाल वर्मा अलवर सीकरी । भूमि विकास बैंक लि. एफ.एल.आर. 1990( 61 ) पेज 254 पेश किये । ) 2.. उपर्युक्तानुसार विवाद दिनांक 1-8-01 को प्राप्त होने पर क्रम संख्या 171/01 पर दर्ज हुआ तथा पक्षाकारान को सूचित किया गया ।
8. अनावेदक की तरफ से जाहिर किया गया कि आवेदक को कोई नियमित नियुक्ति नहीं दी गई थी तथा उसने अलग- अलग समय में अस्थायी तौर पर कार्य किया । जिस संबंध में उसे कोई अधिकार प्राप्त नहीं होता । अनावेदक विभाग उद्योग नहीं है तथा न ही आवेदक कर्मकार की तारीफ में आता है ।
3. दिनांक 31-8-01 को प्रस्तुत स्टेटमेंट आफ क्लेम के मुताबिक आवेदक ने अनावेदक के अधीन वायरमेन के पद पर आऊट साईडर के रूप में दिनांक 2-2-98 से 2-2-2000 तक निरंतर कार्य किया । उसकी कार्यावधि प्रत्येक कलेंडर वर्ष में 240 दिन से अधिक रही । दिनांक2-2-2000 को बिना कोई कारण बताये आवेदक को सेवा से पृथक कर दिया गया । अधि. 1947 के तहत आज्ञापक प्रावधान की पालना नहीं की गई। आवेदक की सेवा से पृथक किये जाने के पश्चात्दिनांक 7-2-2000 को 3 व्यक्तियों को नियुक्ति प्रदान की गई । आवेदक सेवा पृथककरण के वक्त से पूर्ण रूप से बेरोजगार है । आवेदक ने निवेदन किया कि उसे समस्त लाभ सहित सेवा में पुनः नियोजित किया जाये ।
4. दिनांक 23-10-01 को प्रस्तुत जवाब में उल्लेख किया गया कि आवेदक ने दिनांक 10-2-98 से 23-10-98 तक आऊट साईडर वायरमेन के पद पर कार्य किया । उसने दिनांक 10-11-98 से 14-6-99 तक ई.डी.एम.सी. लेबर कोलोनी के पद पर नियमित कर्मचारी के अवकाश के दौरान उसकी जिम्मेदारी पर एवजी के बतौर कार्य किया । दिनांक 25-6-99 से 29-6-99 तक ग्रुप द भीलवाड़ा कोर्ट पदपर नियमित कर्मचारी के अवकाश के दौरान आऊट साईडर के रूप में कार्य किया तथा दिनांक 5-7-99 से 7-2-2000 तक ईडीबीपीएम, बालेसरिया ( रायला गांव ) से पूर्व कर्मचारी की मृत्यु होने पर काम चलाऊ व्यवस्था के तहत कार्य किया । आवेदक को किसी पद पर नियुक्ति'नहीं दी गई तथा उसने अंशकालीन तौर पर अलग-अलग. अवधि में कार्य किया ।
5. क्लेम के समर्थन में आवेदक का शपथपत्र पेश हुआ । उससे अनावेदक की तरफ से जिरह हुई । जवाब के समर्थन में अनावेदक की तरफ से कोई मौखिक सदस्य पेश नहीं हुई ।
6. बहस अंतिम उभयपक्ष सुनी । उभयपक्ष की तरफ से लिखित बहस भी पेश हुई । पत्रावली का ध्यानपूर्वक अवलोकन किया ।
7. आवेदक की तरफ से जाहिर किया गया कि आवेदक ने दिनांक 2-2-98 से 2-2-2000 तक वायरमेन के पद पर अनावेदक के अधीन निरंतर कार्य किया उपर्युक्तानुसार कार्यावधि अधि. 1947 की धारा 25 ( बी ) के तहत निरंतर सेवा की तारीफ में आती है । आवेदक को अधि. 1947 की धारा 25 ( एफ) में निहित प्रावधान के न्यायाधीश से पृथक किया गया । आवेदक को सेवा से पृथक दिये न्यायालय , भीलवाड़ा । व्यक्तियों को नियुक्ति दी गई जिससे अधि. 1947 ( एच ) के तहत पंचाट आज दिनांक 31-12-04 को खुले न्यायानय में लिख दिया सुनाया गया । उल्लंघन हुआ आवेदक के कथानुसार वह समस्तलाभ सहित सेवा में पुनः नियोजन का अधिकारी
9. आवेदक के कथानानुसार उसने दिनांक 2-2-98 से 2-2-2000 तक अनावेदक के अधीन कार्य किया तथा केन्द्र सरकार से रेफरेन्स भी इस आशय का प्राप्त हुआ है कि क्या आवेदक को दिनांक 2-2-2000 से सेवा से पृथक किया जाना उचित एवं वैध है, लेकिन अनावेदक की तरफ से पेश किये गये जवाब दिनांक 23-10- 01 में इस आशय का स्पष्ट उल्लेख है कि आवेदक ने दिनांक 7-2- 2000 तक अलग अलग अवधि में कार्य किया । इस जवाब के मुताबिक "दिनांक 10-2-98 से 23-10-98 तक आऊटसाईडर वायरमेन पद पर बिजली व्यवस्था ठीक करने हेतु लगाया गया था तथा दिनांक 10-11-98 से 14-6-99 तक ईडीएमसी लेवर कालोनी पद पर नियमित कर्मचारी के बीमारी के अवकाश के दौरान उनकी जिम्मेदारी पर एवजी बतौर कार्य किया । दिनांक 25-6-99 से 29-6-99 तक ग्रुप " द " भीलवाड़ाकोर्ट पद पर नियमित कर्मचारी के अवकाश के दौरान अवकाश अवधिके दौरान आऊट साईडर के रूप में कार्य किया तथा दिनांक 5-7-99 से 7-2-2000 तक ईडीबीपीएम , बालेसरिया ( रायला गांव) से पूर्व कर्मचारी की मृत्यु पर तुरंत एवं काम चलाऊ व्यवस्था के रूप में लगाया गया । " इस जवाब में पैरावाईज टिप्पणी के क्रम संख्या एक (चार ) पर भी उल्लेख है कि आवेदक ने दिनांक 5-7-99 से 7-2-2000 तक काम चलाऊ व्यवस्था के रूप में कार्य किया । आवेदक ने जिरह में कहा है कि " मैंने दिनांक 2-2-98 से 2-2-2000 तक हेड पोस्ट आफिस में कार्य किया " लेकिन उसी की तरफ से दिनांक 29-1-02 को प्रस्तुत दरखास्त बाबत तलब दिये जाने अभिलेख के पैरा सं. दी में हवाला है कि " इसके अलावा ता. 10-11-98 से ता. 14-6-99 तक अविभागीय डांक वाहक लेबर कालोनी, भीलवाड़ा में तैनात कर्मचारी के एवज में प्रार्थी द्वारा कार्य निष्पादित दिया गया उसका कार्यालय आदेश तथा ता. 25-6-99 से 28-6-99 तक ग्रुप " द" भीलवाड़ाकोर्ट में नियमित कर्मचारी के अवकाश अवधि में किये गये कार्यों का आदेश एवं ता. 5-7-99 से ता. 7-2-2000 तक ग्राम बालेसरिया में शाखा पोस्ट मास्टर के पद पर कार्य किया उस बाबत आदेश दियां गया । इस तरह से जब आवेदक ने दिनांक 7-2-2000 तक कार्य किया तो उसे दिनांक 2-2-2000 से सेवा से पृथक किये जाने बाबत कथन सही नहीं हो सकता । अधि. 1947 की धारा 10( 4 ) में निहित प्रावधान के मुताबिक न्यायालय का निर्णय विवाद बिन्दूतक सीमित होता है । माननीय राज. उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा दिनांक 11-11-99 को निर्णित एकलपीठ दीवानी रिट याचिका संख्या 4219/99 सुरेश चन्द्र नाई बनाम राज. राज्य व अन्य में यह अभिनिर्धारित किया गया है कि न्यायालय विवाद बिन्दु की सीमा के बाहर नहीं जा 5152
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21 , 2005/VAISAKHA 31 , 1927
सकता । एकलपीठ दीवानी रिट याचिका संख्या 616/02 में भी माननीय राज. उच्च न्यायालय, जोधपुर ने दिनांक19-2-02 को न्यायिक विनिश्चय होचीफ गोमान बनाम औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण , भुवनेश्वर ए.आई. आर. 1964 ( एस.सी. ) पेज 1746 , पोटर मजदूर पंचायत बनाम परफेक्ट पोट्री कं. ए.आई.आर. 1979 ( एस.सी. ) पेज 1356 का हवाला देते हुए अभिनिर्धारित किया कि श्रम न्यायालय रेफरेन्स की शर्त से बाहर नहीं जा सकता । यद्यपि न्यायिक विनिश्चय मै . बक्शी स्टील बनाम राज. राज्य आर.एल.आर. 2004 ( 1 ) पेज 755 में माननीय राज. उच्च न्यायालय, जयपुर पीठ द्वारा यह अभिनिर्धारित किया गया है कि लिपिकीय त्रुटि अधिकरण द्वारा दुरस्त की जा सकती है , लेकिन विचाराधीन मामले में रेफरेन्स में अंकित तिथि लिपिकीय त्रुटि प्रतीत नहीं होती । 10. केन्द्र सरकार द्वारा प्रेषित विवाद निम्न तरह से निर्णित किया जाता है : -
"Termination of the service of Sh . Rafeeq Khan Pathan w.e.f. 2-2-2000 by the action of the Supdt . Post Office, Bhilwara Division - Bhilwara is not proved. " उपर्युक्तानुसार पंचाट जारी किया जाता है ।
पंचाट आज दिनांक 31-12-04 को खुले न्यायालय में लिखाया जाकर सुनाया गया ।
एम.एल. शर्मा, प्रथम- न्यायाधीश नई दिल्ली, 26 अप्रैल, 2005
का. आ. 1864.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, सी . आई. आर. बी. प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक अधिकरण विवाद में केद्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नम्बर -1 , चंडीगढ़ ( संदर्भ संख्या 215/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 26-4-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-42012/72/2002- आई. आर. ( सीएम- II ) ] एस. एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 26th April , 2005
S.O. 1864. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 215/ 2002) of the Central . Govt . Indus . Tribunal - cum-Labour Court No. 1 , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the management of Central Institute for Reserch on Buffaloes , and their workman , received by the Central Government on 26-4-2005 .
[No. L- 42012/ 72 / 2002 - IR (CM- II) ] S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy .
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR , PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT - 1 , CHANDIGARH
[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] CASE No. I.D. 215 of 2002
Sh . Dinesh Kumar ,
S/o Shri Inder Singh, C/o Sh. Darshan Singh , 371/9 , Jawahar Nagar,
Applicant Hissar.
Versus
TheDirector,
Central Institute for
Research on Buffaloes .
Sirsa Road,
Respondent Hissar.
APPEARANCES
: None
For the workman
: Shri R.K. Sharma For the management
AWARD
Passed on 30-3-2005
Central Govt . vide notification No. L - 42012/ 72/ 2002/ IR ( CM - II ) dated 30-10-2002 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
"Whether the action of the management of Central Institute for Research on Buffaloes , Hissar in terminating the services of Shri Dinesh a daily wage Chowkidar w.e.f. 28-3-98 is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled ? " 2.Case repeatedly called . None has put up appearance on behalf of the workman . Awaited up to 4 PM. Learned counsel for the management Shri R.K. Sharma submitted that Court notice was issued to the workman for today through registered A.D. post . But registered envelop and AD not received back and it can be persumed that workman is well served . He is also well served by the competent authority of the Ministry of Labour who sent this reference to this Court as well copy to the workman and other parties . Learned counsel for the management submitted that workman appears not to be interested and not appearing in the Court and also not filed the claim statement .
3. In view of the above submission, it is quite clear that workman is not appearing despite service of court notice issued and no claim statement has been filed he is fairly placed in employment and not interested to persue withthe present reference . In view of the above , the present reference is returned for want of prosecution . Central Govt . be informed. File be consigened to record .
RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer Announced 30-3-2005 [ भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : मई 21 , 2005/वैशाख 31 , 1927
5153 नई दिल्ली, 26 अप्रैल, 2005
का. आ. 1865.-औद्योगिक विवादं अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, एफ. सी. आई. के प्रबंधतंत्रके संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार, औद्योगिक अधिकरण नम्बर-1 , चण्डीगढ़ ( संदर्भ संख्या 183/99 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 26-4-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-22012/169/1999-आई. आर. ( सी. एम.- II ) ] एस. एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 26th April, 2005
2. Briefly stated, the claim of the workman as per his claim statement is that he was appointed by the FCI as sweeper on March 1990 at FCI Depot Bhikhiwind District Amritsar on daily wage basis . As he was paid less but was signing as per DC rates against which he objected and he was victimized. The workman approached the Hon'ble High Court for regularization and Hon'ble High Court gave directions to consider the recommendation of the workman for regularization and to decide the same within two months. The management did not consider his representation favourably and management did not allow him to join duties on 20-9-97 , his services were terminated on 20-9-97 in illegal , arbitrary manner and against the provisions of the I. D. Act , 1947. No retrenchment compensation was given and nó notice was also given . The termination is also bad as junior persons were working at the time of termination and even new appointments have been made.
S.O. 1865. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 183/ 99) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1 , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial dispute between the management of Food Corporation of India, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 26-4-2005 .
[No. L -22012/ 169/ 1999 - IR(CM - II) ] S. S. GUPTA , Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT - 1 , CHANDIGARH
Case No. I. D. 183/99
3. The respondent management filed the written statement wherein they denied the allegations and averred the services of the said workman was arranged from the open market by the Transport contractor to do the work of sweeping on casual basis as and when required, they also denied that workman was employed by the FCI . The workman was never appointed by the management , therefore , there was no question of termination of his services. His services were taken through the Transport Contractor as and when required and he was paid for the days he worked at D. C. rates . There was no violation of any provisions of the I. D. Act . The management also denied that work of sweeper is of a permanent nature .
Bakshish Singh, Village Chhina , Bidi Chand, The Tarntarn, Amritsar (Pubjab)
Applicant
4. Workman filed replication controverting the averments made by the management in written statement and reaffirmed the contents made in the claim statement .
Versus
The District Manager, Food Corporation of India , 86, Rani Ka Bagh, Amritsar, Punjab .
Respondent
APPEARANCES :
For the workman : Shri Hardial Singh
For the management : Shri Santokh Singh
5. In this case in brief claim of the workman based on the basis that he was appointed as a sweeper on daily wage basis in March 1990 and this work was of a permanent nature . On the other hand it is the case of the management that the workman was never employed by the FCI and the services of the workman was arranged from the open market by the transport contractor to do the work of sweeper on casual basis and hence there was no question of any termination or any relation between the workman and the management .
AWARD
Passed on 30-3-2005
Central Govt . vide notification no . L- 22012 ( 169 )/ 99/IR(CM - II ) dated 30/ 31st of August, 1999 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
"Whether the action of the management of FCI in terminating the services of Shri Bakshish Singh, sweeper is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman concerned is entitled ?".
6. In this case workman Bakhshish Singh filed his own affidavit in evidence and management filed affidavit in evidence of one Daljit Singh . The statement of the workman also recorded on oath and the statement for the management was also recorded of MW1 Daljit Singh son ofJai Mal Singh joint manager (vigilance ) FCI . Thereafter after recording the evidence of Daljit Singh , the management desired to move further evidence and was then also - filed affidavit of one Premjit Singh Assistant Manager (D) and examined him as MW2.
5154
[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21 , 2005/VAISAKHA 31 , 1927
7. Workman in his evidence has supported/ corroborated his version as mentioned in the claim statement/ affidavit . In cross - examination he stated that he was not given any appointment letter by the FCI but he was in continuous service of the management since 1990. He was not employed through any contractor but he was employed by the FCI . His attendance was also marked by the FCI and he was paid @ Rs. 97 per day as daily wages as per DC rates. He also denied the suggestion that he was ever appointed by the contractor and FCI by contractor. He also denied that he received full and final wages from the contractor .
the attendance register. Further MW1 Daljit Singh had specifically stated on oath that FCI does not recruit sweeper through contractor . He also submitted that MW2 also stated on oath in cross - examination , who was examined to fill the lacuna; that the job of a sweeper in the office where workman was working is of a permanent nature. He also submitted that person who work as a contractor man is paid through contractor. The management did not pay to the workman directly. No record has been produced that working petitioner was the person engaged by the contractor whose name was not given or disclosed in pleading nor in evidence in court . The workman worked for such a long time and also completed 240 days , it is not denied. He completed all the formalities and continued his service , as the job of a sweeper is of a permanent nature . His services cannot be terminated without any show cause notice or without complying the provisions of Section 25F of the I. D. Act , 1947.
8. On the other hand MW1 first witness of the management stated in his cross- examination that he read the affidavit of the petitioner i.e. Ex..W1 . FCI does not recruit sweeper through contractor although the labour engaged through contractor, the payment is to be made to the contractor. Employees of the FCI are paid salary by the FCI as per scales . As regard the question whether FCI had paid wages to the petitioner for the period 1990 to 1997 this witness MWI replied , " the petitioner was paid for the period Feb. 1996 to August 1996 by the FCI since the workman has refused to receive the pay through contractor . " MW2 the second witness examined for the management in his cross examination on oath that the job of sweeper is of a permanent nature and the appointment is made by the District Manager. We give salary to only permanent employees , it is correct that letter dated 8-4-99 was issued by the office which is marked A and it is correct that FCI calls the tenders to appoint contractor , we have not mentioned the name of the contractor in the affidavit . A person who work through contractor is paid through contractor.
10. He submitted that as per management's evidence/management's witness , management cannot appoint a workman , or engage services of any workman through contractor. Being a statutory body governed by statutory rules , regulation and law, he submitted that the management when engaged a contractor for engaging services of a workman, for such a long period , there is nothing to prove it on record. The record favouring the workman was not produced by the management . He while summing up his arguments submitted that the workman is poor person having education up to 8th class and was working as a sweeper and his services were illegally terminated by the management without giving any show cause notice or without following the provisions of the I. D. Act , 1947. The workman also completed more than 240 days of service and it is not the case of the management that his services were not required or that he was appointed on a seasonal or temporary basis which was created for a short period of six months and one year. He submitted that workman has proved its case that the management terminated his services on 20-9-97 illegally, arbitrary and against the provisions of the 1. D. Act and the termination isbad as no retrenchment compensation was paid and no notice was given in view of the provisions of Section 25 of the I. D. Act. It is also submitted that some junior persons , new persons were appointed against the right of the workman to be appointed first. No enquiry was conducted before his termination . The workman has successfully proved that he was not the employee of transport contractor as allegedly averred by the management in this case. On the other hand , the management also badly failed to prove its case that the workman was not the employee of the FCI and that management engaged a contractor to further engage a sweeper on contract for the management . MWI has also deposed on oath in the court that the job of a sweeper is of
a permanent nature and the management is not recruiting 9. 1 have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the workman Shri H. S. Hundal and of the management by Shri Santokh Singh . Learned counsel for the workman in arguments submitted that in this case a very serious point is involved and that is whether the workman was working with the FCI as an employee of the FCI or as a workman engaged by the transport contractor of the FCI . In evidence on oath the workman deposed that he worked continuously since 1990 till 1996 and his attendance used to be marked by the FCI officer Shri Swarn Singh AG - I . He submitted that in case workman was employed through contrator , the management should have revealed the name of the contractor and should have produced documents on record about the engagement of the contractor by FCI and further engaging the workman for FCI . The management is a government body and governed by the rules and regulations and statutory provisions . He submitted that the management should have produced on record the attendance register whether the workman was working since 1990 till his termination to prove that he was not working as FCI employee and his name does not exist in [ भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : मई 21 , 2005/वैशाख 31 , 1927
5155 sweeper through contractor . It also stated on oath by the witness of the management " that FCI calls the tenders to appoint contractor . We have not mentioned the name of the contractor in affidavit . " Workman's advocate also referred to 2004 Lab . I.C. page 4387 the judgment of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court Division Bench in Haryana Financial Corporation Vs. Presiding Officer Labour Court and Industrial Tribunal and another . He submitted that workman has proved his claim and / reference may be answered in his favour.
11. On the other hand the management in reply to the arguments of the workman submitted that the management never paid the workman directly and they made the payment for his work through contractor. He also referred to the statement of MW1 and MW2 who supports management. Learned counsel for the management submitted that the service of the workman was engaged through a contractor and he was never paid. directly he also submitted that workman himself admitted that he was not given any appointment order which clearly proves that the workman was appointed by a contractor on daily wage basis and was paid for the days he worked. He also referred to 201 ( ii ) L.L.J. 1087 a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in a favour of the management i.é. Steel Authority of India Ltd. He also submitted that even after abolition of the contract Labour system, the management is not bound to take the employees of the contractor in their regular service and they shall not be deemed to be the employee of the management corporation.
The management has produced two witnesses as MW1 and MW2 whereas the workman appeared himself as WW1 . I have found that as per workman the evidence of MW1 & MW2 supported the case of the workman . MW1 has deposed that FCI does not recruit sweeper through contractor. This is very important that senior official of the management say that FCI does not recruit sweeper through contractor. Entire stand of the management goes that they engaged the services of the workman through contractor because the management is not a shop of a private person . It is a statutory body which runs with rules and regulations. MW2 also supported the case of the workman that job of sweeper is permanent in nature. Further FCI calls tender to appoint contractor. He also admits that name of contractor is not given in affidavit . It isalso admitted by the learned counsel for the management that. name of the contractor is not given in pleadings . I have found that when FCI as per rules and regulations as admitted by MW1 does not recruit sweeper through contractor andjob of sweeper is of permanent nature , how the services of the workman came into existence with the FCI . MW2 also deposed that FCI calls tenders to appoint contractor but the management failed to produce any evidence to show that there was a contractor duly appointed by them and contractor was asked to arrange for the sweeper in the FCI. Another point is that FCI does not recruit sweeper through contractor as deposed by MW1 on oath in the court . Further I have found that there is no evidence brought on record by the management that workman was a man of contractor and the result is that he was working as a daily wager sweeper in FCI and continued from 1990 till his termination of service in 1997 for such a long period . No evidence was produced by the management that he was a contractor man and working in the FCI as sweeper as a man of contractor only and only a irresistible conclusion one can reach is that workman was the employee of the FCI as engaged by the management on daily wages at D.C. rates . The management badly failed to prove that at the request of FCI an unknown contractor arranged the services of the workman for FCI and the FCI made payments to the contractor. In the presence of evidence that FCI does not recruit sweeper through contractor as deposed by the witnesses of the management .
12. In reply, learned counsel for the workman submitted that the plea taken by the learned counsel for the management is not disputed. An employee of the contractor shall not be taken as a matter of right in the service of the management or the establishment as deemed to be taken. But herein this case is the stand of the workman that he was never engaged by any contractor for the management . He was engaged by the management as a casual daily wager and he was paid since 1990. Hence the law referred by the management is not applicable. Management has also concealed the best evidene certainly which was in possession of management and it is not the case that the said evidence is destroyed, when the case of the management is that workman is an employee of contractor and contractor was employed by the management . So it was incumbent upon the management to produce and prove the above said ,record .
13. In view of the above submissions of learned counsel for the parties and my perusal of oral evidence , I found that the workman stand is that he was appointed by the FCI itself and stand of the management is that there is no relationship of employer and employee and he was a man of contractor and never terminated the services of the workman . I have gone through the entire evidence .
14. In view of the above evidence on record ofMW1 and MW2 and that of evidence of the workinan himself as WW1 on oath that he was appointed by the FCI on daily wages and paid D.C. rates . I am of the considered view that workman was an employee of the FCI working on daily wage basis and being paid at D.C. rates . Further in this case management stand is that they never terminated the services of the workman and question does not arise as he was not their employee and he was employed by the contractor not proved by the management but there is no evidence of the management that he worked 5156
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21 , 2005 /VAISAKНА 31 , 1927
after the alleged date i.e. 20-9-97 and he did not work actually in the FCI in view of the statement of the workman which is quite reliable, I am of the considered view that as per workman's claim , his services were terminated by the management on 19-9-97 and he was not allowed to work from 20-9-97 is correct .
15. Therefore , action of the management of FCI in terminating the services of Bakshish Singh , Sweeper from 20-9-97 is not legal and justified as he was not allowed to joinduty w.e.f. 20-9-97 and thereafter .
16. In view of my above decision , action of the management is unjust and not legal as no compliance of Section 25 is made , as a result the workman succeeds and the reference is answered in favour of the workman and against the management holding that the action of the management of FCI in terminating the services of the workman is not legal and justified.
17. As regard relief to which the workman is entitled, learned counsel for the workman has requested that as the workman was working against the permanent vacancy, he may be reinstated as daily wager at D.C. rates with continuity of service and with full backwages as per D.C. rates . I have found that in this case that workman is totally silent on the point that he was not gainfully employed during the relevant period. Therefore , the ends ofjustice will be met if he is allowed 50 % of the backwages as he has no where pleaded in his case that he remained unemployed and was not gainfully employed during all these years from 20-9-97 . Therefore , the workman is ordered to be reinstated as daily wager in service with 50% of backwages at D.C. rates till 30-3-2005 with continuity of service . The reference is answered accordingly. Central Govt . be informed.
Chandigarh 30-3-2005
RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 26 अप्रैल, 2005
का. आ. 1866.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, आर . पी. एफ. सी. प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार, औद्योगिक अधिकरण नम्बर -1 , चण्डीगढ़ ( संदर्भ संख्या 38/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 26-4-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-42012/148/2002- आई. आर. ( सीएम- II ) ] एस. एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 26th April , 2005
S.O. 1866. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 38/2003 )
[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii ) ] of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court No. 1 , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial dispute between the management of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 26-4-2005.
[No. L - 42012/148 /2002 - IR( CM - II) ] S. S. GUPTA , Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR , PRESIDING OFFICER , CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM - LABOUR COURT- 1 , CHANDIGARH Case No. I.D. 38 of 2003
Sh . Prem Chand , S/ o Sh . Mohar Singh , House No. 987 , Ram Darbar, Phase - I , Chandigarh .
Applicant
Versus
The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner , Pb . & UT Region, SCO No. 4-7 , Sector - 17 , Chandigarh. Respondent APPEARANCES :
None
For the workman :
Shri Subhash Singhal For the management :
AWARD
Passed on 21-3-2005
Central Govt . vide notification No. L - 42012/148/ 2002/ IR ( CM - II ) dated 13-2-2003 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :
"Whether the action of the management of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner , Chandigarh in terminating the services of Sh. Prem Chand Ex- Sweeper is legal and justified ? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled ? "
2. Case repeatedly called . None has put up appearance on behalf of the workman. Learned. representavie for the management submitted that workman appears not to be interested as workman is not appearing in the Court despite several notices and no claim statement has been filed in the Court . He submitted that in view of this position, the reference may be returned for want of prosecution. In view of the submission of the rep. of the management and the fact that the workman is not persuing his case , the present reference is returned to the Central Govt. for want of prosecution . Central Govt . be informed. File be consigned to record .
Announced 21-3-2005
RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer [भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
'भारत का राजपत्र मई 21 , 2005/वैशाख 31 , 1927
5157 नई दिल्ली, 27 अप्रैल, 2005
Part Time Sweeper w.e.f. 18-12-1995 is just and legal ? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled to ?"
का. आ. 1867.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार , इंडियन बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार, औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. -1 , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 192/1997) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 26-4-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-12012/57/1997-आई. आर.(बी.- II ) ] सी. गंगाधरण, अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 27th April , 2005
S.O. 1867.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government héreby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 192/1997) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court , Chandigarh No. 1 as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Indian Bank and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 26-4-2005 .
[No. L- 12012/57 /1997 -IR(B - II) ] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
2.Workman filed claim statement submitting that she was in employment of Indian Bank as part time workman at its Sirsa Branch w.e.f. 19-1-1995 continusously and her appointment was against a permanent vacancy. That the bank after completing all the formalities considered the petitioner fit for appointment as sweeper in the said branch and no appointment letter was given to the applicant but the appointment was in the award staff cadre as part time workman and she worked sincerely and diligently and there was no complaint against her service conditions of the workman are governed under the provisions laid down in the Bipartite settlement/ Industrial Disputes Act . That in terms of Award/Bipartite Settlement Industrial Disputes Act, no workman can be terminated from service without following the correct procedure in accordance with the provisions of the I. D. Act . Workman prayed that as the management has wrongly terminated her service without any solid reason , the workman is entitled to the reinstatement with continuity of service with full back wages with all consequential benefits from the date of termination i.e. 18-12-1995 at branch office Sirsa of Indian Bank.
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT- 1 , CHANDIGARH
PRESENT:
3. Learned counsel for the workman also submitted that the workman was appointed through employment exchange when her name was sponsored with other candidates and she was selected by the bank .
Shri Rajesh Kumar, Presiding Officer Case No. L. D. 192/97
Smt . Maya Devi wife of Ram Parshad, resident of Mohallather Noharia Gate, Sirsa ( Haryana) . Applicant
Versus
The Regional Manager, Indian Bank, Regional Office, SCO No. 189 , Sector 7 -C , Chandigarh . .Respondent
APPEARANCES :
For the workman : Shri R. P. Rana
For the management : Shri H. C. Gupta
AWARD
Passed on 17-3-05
CentralGovernment vide Notification No. L- 12012/ 57/97 - IR (B - II) dated 7th of November, 1997 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :
"Whether the action of the management of Indian Bank interminating the services of Smt . Maya Devi
4.Management filed written statement and denied the allegations but stated in Para 1 that the bank opened its branch in Sirsa on 21-1-1995 and it had to make appointment to the post of part time sweeper in the said branch and a requisition was sent for sponsoring the names ofeligible candidates . Employment Exchange then sent the names of various persons including the name of the applicant. As per the information supplied by the said employment exchange , the date of birth of the applicant was given as 1960 as not verified. The applicant furnished an affidavit stating therein the date of birth as 18-10-1964 . It is stated in the written statement that even after her working as part time sweeper, an affidavit can not be a substitute to a date of birth certificate . It was takenher year of birth in 1960 although she was over age at the time of interview and thereafter they did not allow her to work. However, it is admitted that she was engaged by the branch manager on purely casual basis . She concealedthecorrect age and filed a false affidavit which was contrary to the age given by her to the office of the employment exchange . Further she was engaged by the branch manager purely on casual basis and she was not eligible for appointment as she was over age and the bank management has not violated any provisions of law . She 1450 GI/2005-18 [PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21 , 2005 /VAISAKHA 31 , 1927
5158
working for Municipal Committee Sirsa and working part time with the bank, therefore , not entitled to any relief.
5. Thereafter , workman Maya Devi filed her affidavit Ex. W1 in evidence. The management filed the affidavit of Ashok Kumar Dhar AGM Indian Bank but did not prodúce the said witness for cross - examination by the workman. However Maya Devi appeared as her own witness as WW1 and her affidavit as W1 . Detailed cross-examination was done of the workman by the learned advocate ofmanagement Shri Jagmohan Lal . He also made a statement that he does not want to lead evidene on behalf of the management and closed the evidence on behalf of the management without examining any witness . Hence no witness even appeared or examined or cross - examined on behalf of the bank .
the services of workman w.e.f. 18-12-95 is just and legal . In support of their contention the management led no evidence and did not produce any document or any evidence in this Court . On the other hand, workman Maya Devi herself appeared as WW1 and produced her affidavit wherein she deposed that she joined the services of the bank on 19-1-1995 at Sirsa as part time sweeper against the permanent vacancy after completing the required formalities . That the work for which the applicant was appointed was of permanent nature and continued to be available even after the illegal termination on 18-12-1995 .. That the bank has not issued any appointment order . That part time worker according to para 508 of the Sastry Award is a category of worker in the banking industry. The bank has not prescribed any eligibility criteria/ qualification for the part time sweeper and her name was sponsored by the employment exchange . The petitioner also raised the industrial dispute before the ALCO Rohtak and a reference was made to this Court for adjudication. The respondent has taken uncalled for plea that the petitioner was over age at the time of employment in the bank and the petitioner was appointed after considering the eligibility by the competent authority. The manager was competent to appoint a part time sweeper. The petitioner was never employedin any other department including the Municipal Committee, Sirsa . The management has violated the mandatory provisions of law as contained in Sastry Award/ Desai Award read with Bipartite Settlement and her services were terminated in violation of Section 25F, G , H read with 25B of the I. D. Act , 1947 and termination of her service is illegal and that the management should re- instate her with full back wages and continuity of service and other benefits .
6. Arguments heard . Learned counsel for the management in arguments who argued first submitted that in this case the workman badly failed to prove that her termination was illegal . It is quite just and legal . He submitted that when Sirsa Branch was opened on 21-1-1995 , the workman was engaged on part time sweeper in that newly opened branch. She was appointed through employment exchange as her name was sponsored by the employment exchange with other candidates but date of birth given as 1960 in the exchange record which was not verified by the employment exchange and during the employment with the bank she filed an affidavit stating her birth of the year 1964 and the affidavit is not a conclusive proof of age , not a substitute for the date of birth certificate . Relying on the Employment Exchange record on the date of birth of as 1960 and on that date even on the date of interview she was overage and therefore , her services were terminated and she was not given an appointment letter. He also admitted that one affidavit of the management's witness filed but management did not produce this witness in support and therefore , as no witness appeared for the management for cross - examination by the representative of the workman . He submitted that as the workman was overage , therefore , her services were terminated and she is not entitled to any relief.
7. On the other hand, in reply to the arguments of the management , learned counsel for the workman submitted that on the demand notice of the workman, competent authority sent a reference to this Court as under:
"Whether the action of the management of Indian Bank in terminating the services of Smt . Maya Devi Part Time Sweeper w.e.f. 18-12-1995 is just and legal ? If not , to what relief is the workman entitled to ?"
9. Learned counsel for the workman further submitted that the management filed no document against the stand of the workman . They did not file even employment exchange documents to counter her affidavit , wherein the year of birth is shown as of 1960. No notice was given , no enquiry was made , no medical examination was done to ascertain the age of the workman . The workman being lady sweeper is a illiterate person and at the time of her employment and joining the services of the bank, she filed an affidavit wherein she stated her correct year of birth as of 1964 and at that time she was within age as per that affidavit. Even that affidavit has not been filed in the court by the management . The bank led no evidence to rebut the evidence of the workman neither documentary or oral in any manner to prove their stand . Workman is illiterate and has no date of birth certificate , no law has been produced that where there is no age proof, her affidavit will not be considered. It is not the case of the management that she is concealing the date of birth certificate or proof of age. She submitted affidavit only when there was no other proof available with the workman , and if her date of birth was found 8. As per the reference the management is to prove whether the action of the management in termination of [भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : मई 21 , 2005/वैशाख 31 , 1927
5159 incorrect, they should obtained her date of birth from the employment exchange itself. Not filling record of the Exchange of the date of birth as of 1960 by the bank in Court reveals that no such document is with them or in existence and proof of her age i.e. the affidavit filed by the workman at the time of joining the bank is correct. In the circumstances the bank failed to established that her termination was just and legal and right and that she was over age at the time of joining . He submitted that as there is no evidence of the management on record and the workman has proved her case that she worked in the bank w.e.f. 19-1-1995 till 17-12-1995 for more than 240 days and that her selection and appointment was made as part time sweeper when her name was sponsored by the employment exchange with other eligible candidates and shewas duly found fit and appointed on part time basis as sweeper against the permanent vacancy in the bank by the competent authority.
10. Learned counsel for the workman submitting while summing up his arguments that workman has proved its case that her termination was illegal and unjust . There is not an iota of evidence of management to disprove or rebut the evidence of the workman . Hence workman a poor person has fully proved her case . Hence reference may kindly be answered against the management and in favour ofthe workman and give all benefits U/ S 25 of the I. D. Act and may order the management to appoint her as part time sweeper with all consequential benefits .
butas per affidavit filed by her in the bank , the year of her birth is 1964. As per her birth of 1960 , she is overage and as per the year 1964 she is not overage but it is all oral averments of the written statement only. It is also alleged by the management that she was working some where also but the management did not even prove this contention by any evidence . I have found that the management who were having complete record did not file employment exchange record to prove that year of birth of workman was of 1960 and also did not file any document. The management also did not led any oral evidence to rebut evidence of the workman that she was not born in the year 1964 or that her affidavit of age is false. There is no evidence of the management to prove thataction of the management in terminating the services ofMs. Maya Devi part time sweeper w.e.f. 18-12-1995 is just and legal . On the other hand by evidence of the workman' as WW1 it is proved that she was illegally terminated and she was appointed after following proper recruitment procedure after calling her from the employment exchange on a permanent vacancy and that the respondent had also taken an unproved plea that the petitioner was over age at the time of employment in the bank. Had it been so , bank never called the petitioner for interview and at the time ofjoining the service and she might not appointed after considering eligibility and completing all the formalities . She had also denied on oath that she was employed in some other department also as part time.
13. Inview of above submissions and my perusal of the above evidence on record. I am of the considered view that the management have failed to prove that the action ofthe management of the Indian Bank in terminating the services of Smt . Maya Devi part time sweeper w.e.. 18-12-1995 on the ground of her over age isjust and legal . On the other hand the workman has proved that the termination of the services of the workman from 18-12-1995 is illegal and unjustified and there is no evidence brought by the management on record that she was over age at the time of her appointment.
11. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsels for the workman and the management, I found that both the parties are in agreements that in this case there is a short dispute to be solved that whether the workman was over aged at the time of interview and her appointment and that whether she concealed her age and had filed her affidavit to the bank management which is incorrect . The management contentions are that undisputedly as she was over age on the date of interview and appointment as her year of age as per employment exchange is of the year 1960, her services were terminated and she was disengaged and her termination is just and legal.
14. As I have already held above that the management has failed to prove that their action was just and legal on the other hand workman has proved her case, I am of the considered view that workman succeeds . The reference is accordingly answered in favour of the workman. As the reference is answered in favour of th workman holding that her termination was illegal and unjustified w.e.f. 18-12-1995 , the bank management is directed to reinstate the workman as part time sweeper from the date of her termination i.e. 18-12-1995 with full back wages and with all consequential benefits . Central Govt.be informed. File be consigned to record .
Chandigarh 17-3-05
12. Itis also a fact that management did not brought an iota of evidence to prove the termination of the workman as legal on the ground that she was over age and had filed a false affidavit . The management had cross- examined the witness of the workman but did not prefer to lead evidence in defence. The workman proved her affidavit Ex. W1 and there is no evidence in rebuttal against the evidence of the workman . It is also admitted and there is no dispute that workman was appointed through employment exchange and after holding all necessary recruitment process she was appointed part time sweeper workman w.e.f. 19-1-1995 at Sirsa Branch. Management contentions are that workman born in the year 1960 as per the record of the employment exchange
RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer [PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] 5160
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21 , 2005 /VAISAKHA 31 , 1927
नई दिल्ली, 27 अप्रैल, 2005
salary of Shri Ranbir Kumar Bhalla , Special Assistant , Adampur Doaba Branch is just and legal ? If not, what relief the concerned workman is entitled to and from what date ?"
का. आ. 1868.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सिंडिकेट बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार, औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. 1 , चंडीगढ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 141/1999 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 26-4-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-12012/5 /1999- आई. आर. ( बी.- II ) ] सी. गंगाधरण , अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 27th April , 2005
2. Case repeatedly called . None has put up appearance on behalf of the workman Learned counsel for the management Shri Jaiswal submitted that workman federation appears not be interested as the it appears that there is no grievance now of the workman's federation and therefore , they are not persuing it and also not appearing in the Court despite registered notices . He also submitted that workman federation is well aware of the Court proceedings as acknowledgement has been received which shows that the notices was received by them. Court notice was issued to the federation several times but till today on 9 dates federation never put their appearance . Hence as they are not interested, the reference may be returned against the federation .
S.O. 1868. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 141 / 1999) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court , Chandigarh No. 1 as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial dispute between the management of Syndicate Bank , and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 26-4-2005
3. In view of the above submission and the fact that the federation is not appearing to persue with the present reference . The reference is returned vide separate award of even date , against the union/federation . Central Government be informed . File be consigned to record.
[No. L- 12012/5 / 1999 - IR (B- II) ] C. GANGADHARAN , Under Secy. Announced 30-3-2005 .
ANNEXURE
RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer .
नई दिल्ली, 27 अप्रैल, 2005
BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT - 1 , CHANDIGARH
CASE NO . I.D. 141 OF 1999
Applicant
The State Secretary, Syndicate Bank Employees Union, ' C/o . Syndicate Bank , Ballabhgarh , Haryana
Versus
का. आ. 1869.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार पंजाब नेशनल बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार, औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं .1 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 130/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 26-4-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-12011/203/2000- आई. आर. ( बी.- II ) ] सी. गंगाधरण , अवर सचिव
Respondent
The Assistant General Manager, Syndicate Bank , 6. Bhagwan Dass Road , Sarojini House, New Delhi - 110001 .
New Delhi , the 27th April , 2005 APPEARANCES :
: None
For the Workman
Shri A. K. Jaiswal ,
For the Management
Advocate.
AWARD
Passed on 30-3-2005
S.O. 1869. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 130/ 2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court , New Delhi No. 1 as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial dispute between the management of Punjab National Bank , and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 26-04-2005
Central Government vide Notification No. L- 12012/ 5/99 / IR(B - II ) dated 28-05-1999 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :
[No. L - 12011/203 /2000 - IR (B - II ) ] C. GANGADHARAN , Under Secy.
"Whether the action of the management , Syndicate Bank in imposing/ recovery of Rs . 20,000 from the [ भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii) ]
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, NEW DELHI
PRESENT :
S.S. Bal : Presiding Officer
I.D. No. 130/2000
In the matter of dispute between :
Shri Ravindra Kumar, Ex- Waiter, Through P.N.B. Canteen Workers Union , Shri Santosh Kumar Tiwari , C/ o . PNB C.W. Union , A-20 (A- 48) , Ganesh Nagar, Pandav Nagar Complex , Delhi -110092 .
.. Applicant
Versus
The Dy. General Manager ,
Punjab National Bank , 5, Sansad Marg,
New Delhi - 110001 .
Management APPEARANCES :
None for workman .
Shri Anil Kumar Gupta for management .
AWARD
By this Order/ Award I shall dispose of the following reference received from the Ministry of Labour vide Notification No. L - 12011/ 203 /2000 -IR(B - 2 ) dated 24-11-2000 . The terms of reference are as under:
"Whether the action of the Dy. General Manager , Punjab National Bank, 5 , Sansad Marg, New Delhi , as principal employer, in restricting the canteen contractor presently M/ s . Nishu Caterers not to engage Shri Ravindra Kumar, Ex- Waiter who has claimed to have worked for more than six years with the earlier canteen contrator is justified , reasonable and void ? If not, what relief and benefit he is entitled to ?"
2. On receipt of the reference dated 24-11-2000 notices were issued to the parties for appearance and in response to the said workman and respondent management appeared. Workman filed claim statement and the management filed written statement and A/R for the workman appeared on 19-2-2004 and workman was , however, proceeded ex -parte vide order dated 17-1-2005 as he failed to appear despite numerous opportunities and final opportunity. Management filed affidavit of Kulbir Singh in evidence.
3. Case of the workman as disclosed in his claim statement is that workman Shri Ravinder Kumar is that
5161
भारत का राजपत्र : मई. 21 , 2005/वैशाख 31 , 1927
he has been employee of opposite party P.N.B. and M/ s . Nishu Caterers and his last drawn wages were Rs . 1548 P.M. He worked to the satisfaction of the management but management terminated his services w.e.f. 5-6-1994 without any rhyme and reason and any order in writing . It is further stated that the respondent Punjab National Bank , Sansad Marg engaged a contractor for employees . Canteen contractors appointed employees with the consent of the management and workman Shri Ravinder Kumar was working in the canteen to the entire satisfaction of the management . Bank management engaged contractors for a year or more but employees continues on duty without any break. Punjab National Bank Principle Employer is duty bound to make it sure that continuity of service of workmen who have been working for the welfare of the employees should not be disturbed. It is stated that the workman concerned went to his native place on 10-4-1994 after taking leave from the management and he returned on 4-6-1994 and reported for duty on 5-6-1994 but he was not allowed to join duty despite repeated requests . It is further stated that the termination of services of the workman is illegal , unjustified and against the principle of natural justice and fair play. Workman is entitled to reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service and he has accordingly prayed for the same.
4. Claim of the workman has been contested by the management by filing written statement taking preliminary objections that the bank has provided purely by way of welfare activity canteen facility at its offices and one of such- canteens is at 5. Sansad Marg , New Delhi- 110001; that the said canteen is managed by canteen contrator who engages persons to work in execution of the said contract . The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of management of R.B.I. Vs. their workmen ( 1996 Lab . IC 1049 SC ) has held that the persons engaged by a contractor for running the canteen are not the employees of the said bank since there was no statutory obligation on the said bank to provide canteen services . This law has been followed by S.C. in case S.B.I. and others Vs. State Bank Canteen Employees Union ( Bengal Circle ) [ JT 2000 ( 5) SC 63 ] . It is further stated that there is no relationship of employer and employee between the bank and the workman and thus there is no industrial dispute between the workman and the management . It is further stated in I.D. 88/92 captioned as Ichhu Sarkar and Ors . Vide its award dated 20-4-2001 the pre decision of this Tribunal has held that the persons working in the canteens atvarious offices of the bank in Delhi are not the employees of the bank; that the reference is bad in law and suffer from latches . Averments made in the claim statements are wrong and denied. On merits it is admitted that the reference has been referred to this court . However , it is denied that Ravinder Kumar has been in the employment of the bank since 23-6-80 as sweeper against permanent 5162
[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21 , 2005 /VAISAKHA 31 , 1927
अधिनियम के प्रयोजनों के लिए लोक उपयोगी सेवाएं घोषित किया जाना चाहिए ।
post and was drawing a salary of Rs . 1548/- when his services were terminated on 5-6-1994 . It is stated that Ravinder Kumar was never appointed in any capacity whatsoever by the bank and accordingly question of terminating his services does not arise . Rest of the paras are similar in nature formal and denied and is not worth while to repeat them.
अतः अब, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 2 के खण्ड ( ढ़ ) के उप- खण्ड ( 6 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त उद्योग को उक्त अधिनियम के प्रयोजनों के लिए तत्काल प्रभाव से छः मास की कालावधि के लिए लोक उपयोगी सेवा घोषित करती है ।
[फा. सं. एस -11017/2/96- आई आर ( पी. एल. ) ] जे. पी. पति, संयुक्त सचिव
New Delhi , the 27th April , 2005
S.O. 1870.-Whereas the Central Government is satisfied that the public interest requires that the services in the Bhartiya Reserve Bank Note Mudran Limited , Mysore (Karnataka) and Salboni (West Bengal ) which is covered by item 25 of the First Schedule to the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , should be declared to be a public utility service for the purposes of the said Act .
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-clause (vi ) of clause (n ) of Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 , the Central Government hereby declares with immediate effect the said industry to be a public utility service for the purpose of the said Act for a period of six months .
[No. S - 11017 / 2 /96 - IR(P.L . ) ] J. P. PATI , Jt . Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 27 अप्रैल, 2005
का. आ. .-केन्द्रीय सरकार संतुष्ट हो जाने पर कि लोकहित में ऐसा करना अपेक्षित था , औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 2 के खण्ड ( द ) के उप - खण्ड ( vi ) के उपबंधों के अनुसरण में भारत सरकार के श्रम मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का.आ. 3252 दिनांक 8-12-2004 द्वारा ईंधन गैसों ( कोयला गैस, प्राकृतिक गैस और ऐसी अन्य) के प्रसंस्करण एवं उत्पादन में लगे उद्योग में सेवाओं को जो कि औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की प्रथम अनुसूची की प्रविष्टि 29 में शामिल हैं, को उक्त अधिनियम के प्रयोजनों के लिए दिनांक 15-12-2004 से छः मास की कालावधि के लिए लोक उपयोगी सेवा घोषित किया था;
5 Written statement was followed by rejoinder where : the contents of the claim statement reiterated to be correct and those of written statement are denied . Thereafter, case was fixed for evidence of the workman . Workman, however, did not appear and adduced any evidence and was ultimately proceeded exparte . On the contrary management adduced evidence by filling affidavit of Shri Kulbir Singh, Officer of the Bank and his statement was recorded and his affidavit is Ex . MW1 /A. As per evidence of Shri Kulbir Singh MW1 workman has never worked as sweeper in the management as claimed and such he was not employee of the management bank . He has proved his affidavit as Ex . MW1 /A. From his statement on oath compiled with the averments made in the affidavit duly proved as Ex. WI /A , it is proved that the workman Shri Ravinder Kumar was not employee of the bank in the absence of any rebuttal to the contrary and as such as the workman has not appeared and adduced evidence . Thus in the absence of any evidence on the part ofthe workman, I have no opinion but hold that action of the management of P.N.B. in restricting Canteen Contractor not to engage Ravinder Kumar Ex- Waiter is legal and justified . MWI has not deposed a word pertaining to the reference in question . Neither any evidence has come on record that the respondent bank has restricted M/s . Nishu Caterers to engage Mr. Ravinder Kumar ex -waiter ( workman ) . Thus it is apparent on the face of the record that there is no material to show that the respondent bank P.N.B. has ever restricted/ restrained M/s. Nishu Caterers to engage services of Ravinder Kumar ex-waiter. In view of this M/s . Nishu Caterers is free to engage the services of the workman as waiter if so desired. It is worth while to mention here that respondent has no legal right to restrain M/s. Nishu Caterers Canteen contractor from engaging services of any waiter including the workman . The reference is answered accordingly. File be consigned to record room.
Dated : 19-4-2005
और केन्द्रीय सरकार की राय है कि लोकहित में उक्त कालावधि कोछः मास की और कालावधि के लिए बढ़ाया जाना अपेक्षित है;
S. S. BAL , Presiding Officer .
नई दिल्ली, 27 अप्रैल, 2005
अतः अब, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 2 के खण्ड ( ढ़ ) के उप- खण्ड ( vi ) के परन्तुक द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त उद्योग को उक्त अधिनियम के प्रयोजनों के लिए दिनांक 15-6-2005 से छः मास की कालावधि के लिए लोक उपयोगी सेवा घोषित करती है ।
[फा. सं. एस-11017/2/2003- आई. आर. ( पी. एल. ) ] जे. पी. पति, संयुक्त सचिव का. आ. 1870.- केन्द्रीय सरकार संतुष्ट है कि लोकहित में ऐसा अपेक्षित है कि भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक नोट मुद्रण लिमिडेट, मैसूर (कर्नाटक) एवं सालबोनी ( पश्चिम बंगाल ) में सेवाओं को जिसे औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की प्रथम अनुसूची की प्रविष्टि 25 के अन्तर्गत निर्दिष्ट किया गया है, उक्त [भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
5163
भारत का राजपत्र : मई 21 , 2005 /वैशाख 31 ,.1927
PRESENT :
New Delhi , the 27th April , 2005
Shri K. Balasubramanian , B. Com. , LL.B. , PresidingOfficer.
ID (C) No. 6/01
BETWEEN
The Excutive Engineer , C.P.W.D. Calicut Central Division , Calicut-5.
Management
AND
S.O. 1871:-Whereas the Central Government having been satisfied that the public interest so required that in pursuance of the provisions of sub -clause ( vi ) of the clause ( n) of Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) declared by the Notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Labour S.O. No. 3252 dated 8-12-2004 the service in the industry engaged in the Processing or Production of Fuel Gases (CoalGas , Natural Gas and the like ) which is covered by item 29 of the First Schedule to the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) to be a public utility service for the purpose of the said Act , for a period of six months from the 15th December , 2004.
The Secretary, C.P.W.D. Mazdoor Union, Calicut.
Union
REPRESENTATIONS :
Andwhereas , the Central Government is of opinion thatpublic interest requires the extension of the said period by a further period of six months .
Sri M. K. Abdul Basheer,
Advocate, Calicut .
ForManagement
ForUnion
Sri P. S. Murali & K. V. Sandeep , Advocates , Calicut.
AWARD
Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to sub - clause (vi ) of clause (n) of Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 , the Central Government hereby declares the said industry to be a public utility service for the purposes of the said Act for a period of six months from the 15th June , 2005.
E. No. S - 11017/2/ 2003 - IR (PL ) ] J. P. PATI , Jt . Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 27 अप्रैल, 2005
This reference was made by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour as per Order No. L- 42012/84/ 2001 dated 21-11-2001 to consider the justifiability of the action of the management in not counting, the past services ofthe worker for reckoning his eligible service benefits .
2.In pursuance of the notice , both parties appeared through counsel and filed their respective statements .
का. आ. 1872.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, सी. पी. डब्ल्यू. डी. प्रबधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण, कोजीकोडे ( संदर्भ संख्या 6/01) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-4-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल -42012 /84/2001- आई आर ( सीएम- II ) ] एस. एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 27th April , 2005
3. The case of the worker shortly stated is that : He was appointed as Chowkidar at Calicut Karipur Airport by the management as nominee of Zainik Welfare Office . He worked in that post till 30-10-1986 on which day his service was unjustly and illegally terminated by the management . Thereafter he was reinstated in service by the management w.e.f. 8-12-1988 and was posted as Chowkidar at C.P.W.D. stores at Customs House , Calicut . The management has not considered his past services rendered at Karipur Airport and hence this industrial dispute was raised.
S.O. 1872. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 6/01 ) of the Industrial Tribunal , Kozhikode as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the management of CPWD and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 27-04-2005 .
[No. L- 42012/84/ 2001 - IR (CM - II ) ] S. S. GUPTA , Under Secy .
ANNEXURE
IN THE LABOUR COURT, KOZHIKODE , KERALA STATE
Dated , this the 26th day of March, 2005
4. According to the management the worker was offered employment purely on temporary basis as nominee of Zilla Sainik Forum and was posted in the Calicut Airport . Even as per the terms of appointment he has no right of confirmation or permanent absorption in the department . When the project work of the Karipur was handed over , his service was terminated on 2-4-1988 . When a regular post of Chowkidar fell vacant in the C.P.W.D. store , a fresh list of candidates was called from Zilla Sainik Forum and the worker who was one among the list was offered appointment after conducting interview and as per rules . It was a fresh appointment . Accordingly he joined the service on 8-11-1988 . The worker had also [PART II- SEC . 3 (ii ) ] 5164
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 21 , 2005 AISAKHA 31 , 1927
undertaken not to make any claim to include his past services . In the above circumstances the applicant does not deserve any reliefs .
5. The evidence consists of the oral evidence of WW1 and MW1 and Exts . W1 to W2 and Ext . M1 to M3.
6. The points for consideration are:-
(1) Whether the workman is entitled to count his past services rendered at the Karipur Airport from 13-10-1986 to 2-4-1988 for reckoning his service benefits ?
respondent's side . But in this case the worker accepted the termination without any demur.Ext . W2 would show that the worker was given a fresh appointment on the second occasion . There is no mention about his previous service in Ext. W2 . The workman having accepted Ext . M1 conditions and entered the service is estopped from making any claim on the basis of his initial employment . Even assuming that he was unlawfully retrenched at the first instance his remedy is elsewhere. A comparative reading of the various clauses in Ext . Ml and Ext . W2 would also further make it clear that the workman was given regular appointment and posting only in the present post . So, at any rate , his service in the Karipur Airport is not liable to be counted for reckoning his service .
(2) Further relief liable to be granted ?
10. The learned counsel for the worker placing reliance on Regulation No. 21.02 of the C.P.W.D. Manual contended that temporary workman discharged from service on account of the completion of work and who are re-employed in the C.P.W.D. are entitled to count their past service for fixation of pay and retirement benefits in the new unit.
11. Reading of the said clause would make it clear- that it deals with a situation of absorption and transfer of surplus work charged staff of one unit into another. The said clause is not applicable to the case in hand .
12. From the facts and circumstances , I find that the worker has failed to establish his claim .
13. In the result , an Award is passed holding that the worker is not to eligible to count his past services at the Karipur Airport for reckoning his service benefits .
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant , transcribed by her, revised, corrected and passed by me on the 26th day of March, 2005 .
7. Points . The worker while examined as WW1 has given evidence about his eligibility for reckoning his past services whereas the Executive Engineer, C.P.W.D. while examined as MW1 has given counter evidence denying his eligibility. It is in evidence that the worker, an ex - service personnel , was offered employment as a nominee of Zilla Zainik Welfare Board. Initially he was given appointment as temporary Chowkidar as per Ext . M1 office order dated 6-10-1986 issued by the Executive Engineer. Thereafter as per Ext. W1 order dated 29-3- 1988 (Ext . M2 being the same ) he was terminated from service w.e.f. the A.N. of 2-4-1988 . Then again he was given appointment in the present post as per Ext. W2 . Ext . M3 is an undertaking allegedly executed by the worker in favour of the Executive Engineer not to make any claim to include his past services for the purpose of reckoning his service or for any other purposes . When confronted with, the worker admitted his signature in Ext . M3 whereas a suggestion was put to the management witness that Ext . M3 happened to be given under the then prevailing presssing circumstances to get employment on the insistance of the management .
K. BALASUBRAMANIAN , Presiding Officer. APPENDIX
Witnesses examined on the side of the Management :- MW1 P. G. Sivadas .
Witnesses examined on the side of the Union : - WW1 C. K. Narayanan Kutty .
Documents marked on the side of the Management :-
8. Let apart the oral testimonies of the witnesses, Ext. M1 contains a specific stipulation that the offer is purely temporary and that the incumbent has no right of confirmation or permanent absorption in the department . It also contains a clause that the appointment is liable to be terminated at any point of time without assigning any reason and that the appointee will have no right or claim for getting permanent appointment . Ext. W2 also contains similar stipulations.
Ext. M1 The copy of the Temporary Appointment Order isued to Narayanankutty by the Management.
Ext . M2 The copy of the Retrenchment Order issued to Narayanankutty by the Management.
G
Ext . M3 The letter given to the Executive Engineer, CPWD , Calicut by the Worker Narayanankutty.
9. A temporary labourer also falls within the definition of 'workman ' and merely because a worker was temporarily appointed, his services cannot be terminated any point of time without adverting to the provisions of S. 25F of the Act unless he comes within the exempted categories of S. 2 (00 ) of the Act. There is nothing to show that initially the workman was appointed for any specific term or any specific work though such a contention was attempted to be advanced at the time of evidence from the [ भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii) ]
Documents marked on the side of the Union :-
Ext . W1 The Office Order issued by the Management to the worker.
Ext . W2 The True copy of the Appointment Order issued by the Management to the Worker C.K. Narayanankutty .
नई दिल्ली, 27 अप्रैल, 2005
का. आ. 1873.-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./234/97 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-4-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-22012/427/1994- आई. आर. ( सी.- II ) ] एस. एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 27th April , 2005
S.O. 1873. 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/ 234 / 97 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum - Labour Court , Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between eemployers in relation to the management of SECL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 27-04-2005
[No. L -22012/427/ 1994 - IR (C - II) ] S. S. GUPTA , Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO . CGIT/ LC/ R/ 234/ 97
Presiding Officer : Shri C. M. Singh
The Regional Secretary,
Samyukta Khadan Mazdoor Sangh , PostWest Chirimiri Colliery,
Union/workman Distt . Surguja ( MP) .
Versus
The Sub Area Manager ,
N.C.P.H. Colliery. PostHaldibadi ,
5165
भारत का राजपत्र : मई 21 , 2005/वैशाख 31 , 1927
30-7-1997 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by s tribunal:-
"Whether the demands raised by the Samyukta Khadan Mazdoor Sanga, vide their letter dated 28-8-92 over grievances of Shri Radheyshyam Mech . Fitter NCPH Colliery of SECL are legal and justified ? If so, to what relief is the workman entitled and from which date ? "
2.After receiving the reference order , it was duly registered on 26-8-97 and notices were issued to the parties to file their respective statements of claim . Even after sufficient service of notice on the Union/ workman , nobody put in appearanceearance for them . The Union/workman failed to file the statement of claim. The reference proceeded ex-parte against the management . Shri A.K. Shashi , Advocate the learned counsel for the management on 15-4-2005 submitted that since the workman/Union is not interested in the reference and not prosecuting the reference therefore the management is not interested in defending the reference . Under the above circumstances , the reference was closed for Award.
3. It is very clear from the above that neither the workman/Union nor the management is interested in prosecuting the reference . Under the above circumstances , NoDispute Award is passed without any order as to costs .
4. The copy of the Award be sent to the Ministry of Labour as per rules .
C. M. SINGH, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 27 अप्रैल, 2005
का. आ. 1874.-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./40/88 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-4-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-21012/42/86- डी- III ( बी ) ] एस. एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 27th April , 2005
Management
Distt. Surguja ( MP)
AWARD
Passed on this 18th day of April , 2005 1. The Government of India , Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No. L - 22012/427 /94 - IR (C - II) dated 1450 G1 / 2005-19
S.O. 1874.-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/ 40 / 88 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court , Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of WCL and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 27-04-2005
[No. L - 21012/ 42/ 86 - D - III ( B) ] S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.
[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21 , 2005/VAISAKHA 31 , 1927
5166
ANNEXURE
3. Under the above circumstances , No dispute Award is passed without any order as to costs.
C. M. SINGH, Presiding Officer BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
नई दिल्ली, 27 अप्रैल, 2005
NO . CGIT/ LC/R/40/88
Presiding Officer : Shri C. M. Singh
The Secretary,
Rashtriya Koyla Khadan Mazdoor Sangh,
(INTUC) ,
PO Chandametta
का. आ. 1875.-औद्योगिक विवादं 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, औद्यौगिक अधिकरण , जबलपुर (संदर्भ संख्या सी. जी. आई.टी. /एल. सी./आर./41 /86 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-4-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
Union/workman
Distt. Chhindwara (MP)
Versus
[सं. एल-22012/58/85 - डी- V ] एस. एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव The General Manager ,
New Delhi , the 27th April , 2005 Western Coalfields Ltd. ,
PO Parasia ,
.. Management
Distt . Chhindwara (MP)
AWARD
Passed on this 15th day of April , 2005
S.O. 1875. 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/ 41 / 86 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of WCL and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 27-04-2005
1. The Government of India , Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No. 111012/42/86 -D - III (B) , dated 6-4-1988 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal :-
[No. L- 22012/58 /85 -D -V] S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM - LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
"Whether the action of the management ofWestern Coalfields Ltd. , Pench Area , Parasia , Distt. Chhindwara ( MP ) in retiring Shri S.K. Hussain, S/ o Inmanuddin Boiler Fireman of Rawanwara Khas Colliery with effect from 6-8-1984 is justified ? If not , to what relief is the workman concerned enbtitled to ? "
NO . CGIT/LC/R/ 41 / 86
Presiding Officer : Shri C. M. Singh
Union/workman
The Secretary, Rashtriya Koyla Khadan Mazdoor Sangh , (INTUC) . PO Damua . Distt . Chhindwara ( MP)
Versus
The Manager,
Damua Colliery,
PO Damua .
Management
Distt. Chhindwara ( MP)
AWARD
Passed on this 15th day of April , 2005
1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No. L - 22012/ 58 / 85 - D - V, dated 2. After the reference order was received , it was duly registered on 12-4-88 and notices were issued to the parties to file their respective statements of claim . On 6-1-2005 , the date fixed in the case , Shri S.K. Rao , Advocate learned counsel for the late workman in the presence of Shri A.K. Shashi , Advocate learned counsel for the managements intimated this court that the workman is no more. On request being made on the above date 13-4-2005 was fixed for evidence on behalf of legal representatives of the workman if any. On this later date , Shri S.K. Rao , Advocate in the presence of Shri A.K. Shashi , Advocate for management submitted that the legal heirs of the deceased workman do not want to prosecute this reference and he requested that the reference be closed for award . Shri A.K. Shashi , Advocate for the management submitted that he has no objection to the aforesaid submission made by Shri S.K. Rao , Advocate . Under the above circumstances , this reference was closed for Award as the legal representatives of the late workman are not interested in prosecuting this reference.
[भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: मई 21 , 2005/वैशाख 31 , 1927
5167 7-3-1986 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal:-
fair and lawful . I therefore record my award in terms of settlement arrived at between the parties and made no orders as to costs.
4. The copyofthe award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour as per rules.
C.M. SINGH, Presiding Offficer
नई दिल्ली, 28 अप्रैल, 2005
"Whether the action of the management of Damua Colliery of. WCL , PO Damua, Distt. Chhindwara in not fixing S/ Shri Javed Quareshi , Habib Khan, I.P. Sharma, Sulaiman Ahmod , Manicrao, Jalikhan, KrishnaBholarao and Jamir Ahmod, Clerks Grade- II who are performing multifarious duties, in clerks Gr. I is justified ? If not, to what relief the workers are entitled ?
का. आ. 1876.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सिंडिकेट बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औधोगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार, औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय, कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 276/1999 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-4-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-12012/166/1999- आई. आर. ( बीं.- II ) ] सी. गंगाधरण , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 28th April, 2005 2. After the reference order was received, it was duly registered on 14-3-86 and notices were issued to the parties for filing their respective statements of claim . The reference was fixed for argument on 15-4-2005. On this date, the management filed application along with memorandum of settlement on Form -H praying that the Award be passed in terms of settlement . Shri S.K. Rao Advocate counsel for the workman/Union submitted that he has no objection if the award is passed in terms of settlement. The aforesaid application and the memorandum of settlement is accompanied with an affidavit ofShri Gulam Hussain, Personnel Manager, Area Headquarters , WCL , Kanhan Area , I have gone through the memorandum of settlement . It is duly signet and verified by the parties . The terms of settlement are as under:
(i) It has been agreed by RKKMS ( INTUC) Union, Chandametta to withdraw the case from CGIT, Jabalpur.
S.O. 1876. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 276/ 1999) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Kanpur (U.P. ) as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Syndicate Bank , and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 27-04-2005
[No. L - 12012/ 166/ 1999 - IR ( B - II ) ] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SRI SURESH CHANDRA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM - LABOUR COURT SARVODAYA NAGAR, KANPUR , U.P. (ii) It has been agreed by the management grant SLU under the provision of NCWAbefit to the 4 clerks involved in the dispute ( 1 ) Shri Habib Khan (2) Shri Jatil Khan (3 ) Ishwari Prasad and (4) Shri Krishna Bhalerao . Out of remaining 4 clerks viz Shri Javed has acceptedAccounts cadre (2) Shri Suleman , (3) Shri Manikrao and (4) Shri Zamir Ahmad is no more on the Company's roll on account oftheir death ,
Industrial Dispute No. 276 of 99
Inthe matter ofdispute between :-
(iii ) This settlement shall not be cited as a precedence in any other case or at any other time.
The Organising Secretary Syndicate Bank Staff Association U.P. State Office C/o Syndicate Bank 51 ' B ' Block Near Gurudev Palace Kanpur-208 025
(iv) Neither the workman himself nor concerned union or any other union shall raise any dispute relating promotion of these 4 clerks before any authority , statutory or non- statutory,judicial or non-judicial .
AND
SyndicateBank
(v) This settlement is full and final settlement about he deployment of above person in time rated category.
Dy.General Manager, SB, Zonal Office Naval Kishore Road, Skylark IIIrd Floor Lucknow.
3. I have perused the above terms of memorandum of settlement . The terms and conditions appear to bejust, [PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21 , 2005/VAISAKHA 31 , 1927
5168
AWARD
1. Central Government , Ministry of Labour, New Delhi , vide its notification no. L- 12012/ 166/99 - IR (B- II) dated 5-10-99 has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :
1. Whether the action of the management, of Syndicate Bank in imposing the penalty of reduction of basic pay by one stage for one year of Sh Y. K. Jain, Special Astt is just, fair and legal ? if not what relief he is entitled to and from what date ?
2. Whether the action of the management of Syndicate Bank in cancellation of promotion order of Sh . Y. K. Jain Special Assistant for the post of Officer Cadre is just fair and legal ? if not what relief he is entitled to and from what date ?
new cheque book was issued to the account holder on basis of his application dated 19-7-90 in due course and his signature thereon was tallying with his specimen signature on the bank's record; that on 20-7-90 the account holder had himself presented the cheque for Rs . 6,000 from the said new cheque book which was paid in the course without negligence after tallying the signatures therewith his specimen signatures available on bank's record; the hand writing expert also testified that the signatures account holder Murari Lal on the cheque book . and requisitic application for and on the cheque for Rs . 6,000 tallied with the admitted signatures of the Account holder Sri Murari Lal and that the bank made the payment in due course and in good faith without any negligence adopting due care deligence precautions as per norms of the bank. Beside above ground the bank has also denied the claim of the account holder Sri Murari Lal before Consumer Forum Ghaziabad. Ultimately Consumer Forum allowed the complaint of the account holder against the bank by order dated 2-12-1992 directing the bank to credit the amount of Rs . 6,000 to his account .
3. Ithas further been alleged by the workman that about a year after the order of consumer forum, a chargesheet dated 19-1-94 was issued to the workman by the bank, charging him for issue of the cheque book in the account of Sri Murari Lal on 19-7-90 without duly verifying the signature appearing on the cheque book requisition on letter and for passing a cheque dated 20-7-90 for Rs . 6000 without verifying the signature appearing on the cheque with that on the specimen signature of the party. The workman made a request before the disciplinary authority on receipt of said chargesheet for providing him copies of certain document for making effectively reply to the charges , which request was however rejected by the bank vide letter dated 10-2-94 and thereafter the workman submitted his reply dated 21-2-94 which too was rejected by the bank vide letter dated 23-6-94 , The workman during the course of inquiry vide letter dated 12-11-94 raised number of objection regarding validity of the very initiation of inquiry against him which remained unattended . That after receipt of inquiry finding the bank intimated the workman vide letter 4-5-96 that the Asstt . General Manager Lucknow would be the disciplinary authority in his case . The workman was provided with a copy of inquiry report dated 1-5-96 vide letter dated 6-5-96 of Asstt . Gen. Manager. The workman submitted his reply dated 24-5-96 against the finding of the Enquiry Officer .
The workman thereafter vide letter 5-8-97 received a letter from the Dy. General Manager whereby proposing the punishment as mentioned therein and as desired therein the workman appeared before the Dy. General Manager and gave his submissions to him on 14-8-97 against the proposed punishment and thereafter workman received final orders of the disciplinary authority dated 2. The brief facts giving rise to the penalty case of the workman are that the workman was appointed as clerk in Syndicate Bank w.e.f. 24-6-70 and the workman subsequently was promoted as Special Assistant w.e.f. 1-1-81 , a post attacting special allowance . It is alleged by the workman that while posted at Pilkhuwa branch ofthe bank in Ghaziabad an application for issue of new cheque book in the Saving Bank Account No. 14396 of an account holder Sri Murari Lal was received at the braich on 19-7-90 , and after the branch manager had authorised the issual of cheque book under his signatures on the said application , the clerk concerned issued a new cheque book in the said account after the workman had verified the signatures of the applicant account holder on the application with his specimen signature on the bank's record. It has been further alleged by the workman that on 20-7-90 a cheque for Rs . 6,000 issued from the above new cheque book was presented for payment to the branch, which was passed by the workman after duly comparing the signatures of the account holder thereon with his speciman signature on the bank's record and it was duly paid by the department of the branch . The said account holder visited the branch of the bank and complained to the branch manager that he had not withdrawn the amount ofRs . 6,000 from his account on 20-7-90 . The branch manager on receipt of the complaint obtained expert's opinion of hand writing expert on the signatures of Sri Murarilal on the cheque book requisition application dated 19-7-90 and on cheque for Rs . 6,000 with his admitted signatures and after obtaining such report of handwriting expert the branch manager sent a letter dated 1-9-90 to the bank's Divisional Manager at Ghaziabad, there conveying confirming that the signatures of the account holder Sri Murari Lal on his cheque book requisition application dated 19-7-90 and on the cheque for Rs . 6,000 paid on 20-7-90 were tallying with his specimen signature on the bank's record the account holder after lapse of period of 2 years filed a case before the Consumer Forum in which the stand of the management bank was that the 5169
192735
[ भाग II- खंड 3( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: मई 21 , 2005/वैशाख 31,
order dt. 27-6-98 could not have been cancelled , that when the bank knowingly the result of the disciplinary action passed orders of the promotion under these circumstances the bank be estopped from cancelling the promotion order , because the promotion orderdt . 27-6-98 could not be resorted to by the bank unilaterally and arbitrarily without giving to the workman an opportunity of being heard against such action . In any case there was no valid reasons for depriving the workman of promotion by way of cancelling the promotion order .
5. On the basis of above allegations it has been prayedby the workman that the action of the management referred to in schedule of reference order is liable to be set aside and the workman be allowed his promotion and consequential benefits and also that the punishment awarded to the workman be quashed .
10-1-98 whereby proposed punishment was confirmed and imposed upon the workman which was in the nature of .. reduction of basic pay by two stages but the management while implementing the said punishment reduced the basic pay of the workman by five stages in time scale and it was after the long correspondence with the management the bank rectified the said punishment . The said punishment on appeal; was modified by the appellate authority to the extent that of reduction in basic pay by on stage for one year. The said action of the management bank was challenged on variety of grounds ie . that the action of the management was grossly vitiated for the reasons of abnormal delay and being in flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice; that eproceedings of inquiry. was illegal and unjustified also because the signatures of the account holder on the cheque book requisition application and the cheque for Rs. 6000 used thereon were not his signatures, as, alleged by him and the said allegations have already been falsified by the expert's report ; action against the workman is wholly illegal merely because the bank lost its case before consumer forum ; that the workman have not been furnished with the copies of the relevant documents which prevented the workman from making his effectively reply in his defence; refusal to supply the documents by the concerned officers of the bank has caused great prejudice to the workman in his defence and that the Deputy General Manager and Assistant General Manager both could not have acted as disciplinary authority which is in violation of the provisions of the bipartite settlement .
4. On the second part of the reference order the case of the workman in short is that on 2-8-97 bank had issued a circular for promotion of eligible members of clerical staff to officer cadre and in response thereto Sh . Y. K. Jain the workman concerned herein had submitted an application dt . 9-9-97 for his promotion to officer's cadre . The said application was forwarded to the D. B. M. office Lucknow, certifying thereon that the workman is eligible for promotion in terms of circular dt . 2-8-97. The bank vide letter dt . 28-1-98 informed the workman to participate in the selection process on 9-2-98 and thereafter the bank vide letter dt . 27-6-98 issued promotion order of the concerned workman . The bank again vide order dated 6-7-98 without saying any thing cancelled the aforesaid promotion order dt . 27-6-98. The workman lodge his protest vide his appealdt . 16-7-98 before the Chairman - cum - Managing Director of the bank against cancellation of his promotion order dt . 27-6-98 , which was reject by the bank vide order 12-10-98 . The action of the management in rejection of his promotion has also been challenged inter alia on the ground that though the promotion order dt . 27-6-98 stated that the promotion was subject to disciplinary action pending but since the disciplinary proceedings concluded vide punishment orderdt. 10-1-98 the said promotion
6. The management of syndicate bank appeared and contested the case of the workman by way of filing written statement where it has been alleged by the bank that the concerned workman issued a cheque book in the account of Sri Murari Lal S/B Account No : 14396 at Pilkhawa branch ofthe bank and from the said account the workman passed a cheque for Rs . 6000 without proper verification and authentication of the signature of the account holder resulting fraudulent withdrawal from the account . resulting the answering bank into financial loss of Rs . 6300.00 paid to the account holder as per judgement of District Consumer Forum Ghaziabad dated 21-12-92 , who has held the said official negligent in his service and thus the answering bank has suffered pecuniary loss due to negligence act of the applicant . For the above lapse and negligence committed by the applicant a chargesheet was served upon him on 19-1-94 and a departmental inquiry was conducted and report was submitted by the inquiry officer on 5-1-96 holding the applicant guilty of charges levelled in the chargesheet and finally the punishment of reduction in basic pay by two stages for one year was proposedby the disciplinary authority on 21-7-97 and after giving personal hearing and proper opportunity ofdefence to the applicant on 18-4-97 the disciplinary authority vide its order dated 10-1-98 has awarded the aforesaid punishment to the workman . The workman preferred an appeal before the appellate authority against the order passed by disciplinary authority who after going through the entire facts and circumstances and also material available has taken a lenient view and reduce the punishment to the reduction of basic pay for one year instead of two years and in this way the appeal of the workman was disposed off finally by the appellate authority. It has been alleged that the workman has committed gross misconduct for which he has been issued a chargesheet in terms of para 19.5 (j ) of First Bipartite Settlement dated 19-10-66. The workman was provided with all relevant documents required by him and after providing full opportunity to defend his case and also after [PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21 , 2005 /VAISAKHA 31 , 1927
5170
১
the principles of natural justice and fair play. It has been alleged by the bank that during the inquiry proceedings each and every documents were presented the genuineness ofwhich has been admitted by the applicant . The applicant oncomplaint of account holder. Sri Murari Lal rather the findings of guilt was based on the investigation report documents on record and the witnesses examined during the course of inquiry proceedings , hence it was not deemed necessary by the management to examine the account holder from whose account wrong withdrawal was allowed by the applicant. The delay in concluding in the inquiry proceedings was due to the applicant as he sought. unnecessary adjournment . It is also alleged by the bank thatvide Circular No. 137/97 dated 2-8-97 the applicant was not eligible for promotion as per promotion policy communicated vide the said circular, the applicant knowing fully well that he was not eligible for consideration in the said promotion process being charge sheeted for misconduct and punishment was proposed vide letter dt . 31-7-97 has applied for the said promotion though he was finally punished for the said charges . However, due to oversight the fact of punishment imposed upon the applicant could not be brought to the notice of the competent authority while the promotion process was considered and completed and by mistake the promotion was released to the applicant . Subsequently the said mistake was discovered and the mistake was rectified by withdrawing the promotion mistakely granted to the applicant against the provisions of promotion policy dated 2-8-97 circulated by the bank . In this way the action of the competent authority. Under these circumstances the decision of the competent authority in withdrawing the promotion of the applicant is perfectly in accordance with the promotion policy and as per well settled law of the land it is always open to the management to undone the mistake at any time if it is committed bonafidely and such type of mistake does not confor any legal right to the concerned employee likewise applicant and thus the action ofthe competent authority is fully legal just and proper in the eye of law.
7. On the basis of above pleadings it has been prayed by the management that the claim of the applicant is liable tobe rejected and the reference be answered in their favour.
L
8. Workman filed rejoinder but nothing new has been stated therein.
9. After exchange of pleadings between the parties and after documents being filed by the parties , tribunal framed a preliminary issue vide order dated 27-12-2000 which is as under :-
"Whether the domestic inquiry conducted by the management was not fair and proper ?"
10. My learned predecessor vide order dated 27-3-2002 held that the management has violated the considering the reply submitted by the workman the inquiry officer has found him guilty of the misconduct and he submitted his report before the disciplinary authority, who after providing personal hearing to the workman vide letter dt. 31-7-97 has passed final order of punishment against the applicant on 10-1-98 ordering reduction in basic pay by two stages for one year with immediate effect. It has also been pleaded by the bank that the inquiry was conducted in consonance with the principles of natural justice and the applicant was provided with full and proper opportunity to put forth his defence and as such the allegations made in para under reply are vague, wrong and also against the material available on the record of the bank . The allegation of delay in passing final order of punishment by the disciplinary authority are totally wrong and true fact is that the delay if any, was attributed due to the charge of disciplinary authority and the allegation in this regard taken by the applicant is after thought as this plea was never raised by him before the Appellate authority who has taken a lenient view and reduce the punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority. It is further alleged by the bank that as the matter was subjudice before the Consumer Forum parallel departmental inquiry was not instituted by the management. The bank has denied the fact that report of the handwriting expert was ever produced before the enquiry officer during the course of inquiry by the applicant nor the same, has been relied upon by the applicant before the domestic inquiry by the applicant as the same has not been authorised by the bank. It has also been categorically stated by the bank that the applicant has admitted before the investigating officer that he has committed slip and mistake on his part by not tallying the signature of the account holder on the cheque in question with the specimen signature card and thus there remains nothing to prove the guilt of the application . The contention of the workman regarding non disclosure of evidence the chargesheet does not hold good as there is no provision for indicating the evidence in the chargesheet . However the relevant documents relied upon by the management were made available to the applicant by the inquiry officer during the departmental inquiry. It is further alleged that the reply to the chargesheet submitted by the applicant was not found satisfactory and that the management has decided to get the matter departmentally inquired into the charges and decision in this regard was communicated to the workman and that during the course of inquiry the applicant was provided proper opportunity todefend his case. The management representative during the course of inquiry has submitted the list of witnesses and documents relied upon and the inquiry officer extended full opportunity to the applicant to examined the documents to enable him to defend his case properly. The management produced witnesses who were duly cross examined by the applicant before the inquiry officer . The inquiry proceedings were conducted in accordance with [ भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : मई 21 , 2005/वैशाख 31 , 1927
5171' principles of natural justice by denying material evidence to the delinquent employee as sought by him during the course of inquiry and preliminary inquiry held against the delinquent employee as well as report of inquiry stand vitiated being made in violation of principles of natural justice. The learned predecessor held that the domestic inquiry against the employee was not fair and proper . The preliminary issue was therefore decided against the management.
11. The management thereafter called upon to adduce evidence to substantiate the alleged charge against the workman . The management reiterated their stand and examined Sri P. N. Umamaheshbaran , Retired Senior Manager, in support of the charges who states that he had conducted the inquiry ofwrongful withdrawal of amount ofRs. 6000 on the basis of complaint filed by the account holder Sri Murari Lal on July 19, 1990. The workman examined himself. Both parties have also filed the documents pertaining to complaint made by the complainant account holder, the application for issue of cheque book and the presentation of cheque on the basis ofwhich the alleged amount of Rs . 6000 was paid . The management relies on inquiry proceedings and the documents contained therein .
the sake of reiteration the documents sought by the workman was never supplied during the inquiry which prevented the workman to defend him properly. Consequently the domestic inquiry held to be unfair and improper. Consequently the domestic inquiry has been held to be unfair and improper by my learned predecessor being in violation of principle of natural justice. In the above circumstances it has to be seen whether on the sole testimony and statement of the inquiry officer berelied and the deliquent employee can be held guii. of the charges levelled against him . The management has failed to adduce any cogent evidence in support of the charges levelled against the workman . At best it can be accepted that a fraud has been committed with the bank but in no circumstances it can be presumed that the fraud was committed with the negligent working or in connivance ofthe workman Sri Y. K. Jain in the absent ofthe cogent evidence. In the normal course in working of the bank deligence is expected as that of a common man . From the record it is borne out that the workman in early stand submitted that he has taken due care in discharging his duties while tallying the signatures of the accourft holder with the signatures appearing on the chque leaf. Even one step ahead to it this fact is proved by the representation ofthe hand writing expert that these signatues tally with each other .
12. Heard the parties at length through their authorised representative and also perused the entire record carefull .
14. Another circumstance leads to conclusion in favour of the workman is that all exercise of conducting the inquiry and levelling charges against the delinquent official was made after the judgment passed by District Consumer Forum against the bank. On going through the record it is also clear that the bank in utter disappointment moved an application for allowing opportunity to adduce further evidence before the District Consumer Forum, Ghaziabad, even after passing of the judgment . This fact clearly showes that the complaint pending before the District Consumer Forum was not properly contested on behalf of the management though their stand in favour of the delinquent official as having not committed and negligence and that the signature on the specimen card fully tally with the signatures appearing on the cheque book leaf on which the payment was made. The management even did not care to prosecute further against the saidjudgment of the District Consumer Forum which again exhibits the dialatory tactics adopted by the management . The management , therefore, cannot be allowed to take advantage of their own fault to shift its burden on the poor workman by holding him guilty ofthe negligence.
13. As far as the domestic inquiry whereby delinquent employee Sri Jain has been held to be guilty of the negligent duties which resulted in a loss of Rs . 6000 to the bank on account of payment made to an unauthorised person is concerned the said domestic inquiry has already been held to be improper and unfair by my learned predecessor by order mentioned above . The management on being given another opportunity to substantiate the charge levelled against the delinquent employee has only relied on the report of the inquiry officer andthe oral testimony of the officer Sri Umamaheshbaran who has conducted the preliminary inquiry/investigation. The stand of the management is that from the oral testimony of the investigating officer it is proved that the signatures of the person who presented the application for issue of cheque book and also the signatures appearing on the cheque for withdrawaldo not tally with the signatures ofthe specimen card of account of Sri Murarilal . In this connection it may be pointed out that the bank chose to obtain hand writing expert's opinion to ascertain the alleged fraud . Expert's opinion filed by the management are also the workman goes to show that the signatures, appearing on the cheque tallies with the signatures appearing on specimen card of the account holder. If this is the circumstances the contention of the workman cannot be brushed on the ground that the management does not rely on the expert's opinion . For
15. After setting aside the domestic inquiry and holding it unfair and improper there is nothing on record to substiate the charges levelled against the delinquent official . The management has not even examined the complainant account holder Sri Murari Lal during the inquiry conducted by the management nor even cared to 5172
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21 , 2005 / VAISAKHA 31 , 1927
produce him before the tribunal to prove the fact that he has never moved for issue of cheque from his saving bank account or that he has never issued cheque leaf for Rs. 6000 on the basis of which payment was made . Thus there is virtually no evidence to prove the charges levelled against the workman and the only conclusion which can be drawn is that the poor workman, Sri Jain special assistant has been made an scapegoat by imposing a penalty of reduction of basic pay for one year. The action ofthe management is therefore held to be unjust and unfair and illegal . The workman is, therefore, entitled for the increment withheld by the management from the date it falls due .
16. So far the second part of the reference which reads as under :-
Whether the action of the management of Syndicate Bank in cancellation of promotion order of Sh. Y. K. Jain Special Assistant for the post of Officer Cadre is just & fair and legal ? If not what relief he is entitled to and from what date ?
is concerned no evidence by either party has been adduced in this behalf. The facts are not disputed that the bank allowed the workman to apply for his promotion and consequent upon required procedures the management was of the opinion that the workman deserves promotion to the officer cadre . But later on withdrew said promotion order without showing any reason . The said order of promotion to the officer cadre was duly communicated to the workman by the management and admittedly on that date no inquiry was pending against the workman . The ontention of the management is that some how it escape while deciding the promotions order in favour of the workman, that the workman was held guilty of the charges levelled against him earlier . Even this contention is accepted for the sake of arguments it is against the principles of natural justice that no opporturuty was given to the workman for hearing before the said order of promotion was withdrawn unilaterally by the management.
17. The action of the management on this count also is held to be unfair and illegal. The workman is , therefore, held entitled for his promotion to the officer cadre from the date of promotion order passed by the management and the workman is therefore entitled for all consequential benefits on account of his promotion to the officer cadre from the date of promotion order .
18. Reference is therefore answered in favour of the workman and against the management .
SURESH CHANDRA , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 29 अप्रैल, 2005
का. आ. 1877.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मैं. ओ. एन. जी.
[PART II--SEC. 3 ( ii ) ]
सी. के तंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार, औद्योगिक अधिकरण अहमदाबाद के पचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 53/04 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-4-05 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-30025/61/2005 आई. आर. ( विविध ) ] बी. एम. डेविड, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 291 April , 2005
S.O. 1877. In pursuancemance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act . 1947 (14 of 1947 ) the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 53 / 04) of the Central Government industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Count Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s . ONGC and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 20-4-2005.
[No. L - 30025 /61 / 2005 - IR ( M) ] B. M. DAVID , Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM - LABOUR COURT AT AHMEDABAD
PRESENT :
Shri B. I. Kazi (B. Sc. , L. L. M. ) Presiding Officer Com. C.G.I.Τ.Α. No. 53/04 In Reference No. C.G.I.T.A No. 201/04
(Old Com . NO . 7/03 in Reference ( I.T.C. ) No. 1299) N. M. Shahe sac
C/o ONGC Electrical & Allied Staff Association , 19. Pushpkunj Society, Near Sahkar Nagar, ..... Mehsana - 384002 . Complainant
V/s.
The Director, ( Personnel /HR) ONGC Ltd. , Telbhavan .
Dehradun -248003 .
Opponent APPEARANCES :
Complainant: Shri R. C. Shukla . Opponent : Shri K. V. Gadhia.
ORDER
1. The complainant has filed this complaint Under Section 33A of the Industrial Dispute Act . praying that the opponent shall not change time bound promotion policy, in which a workman who completes six years of service in one post will get the promotion to next lhigher post. It is the say of the complainant that change of time bound promotion policy is a change of service condition .
[ भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
Hence prays that the opponent should be ordered to desist from any action of modifying R. & P. rules for electrical category and the service condition should not be change till the pending of reference case.
5173
भारत का राजपत्र : मई 21 , 2005/वैशाख 31 , 1927
I. D. Act . Thus it is prayed that the complaint should be dismissed with cost.
5. During the course of adjudication the representative of the complainant submitted a purshis by Ex. 6 and it is stated that the matter is settled with the management . Hence the present complaint may be disposed of accordingly.
6.Looking to the facts of this purshis Ex . 6 it is clear that the matter has been settled amicably and there is no grievance of the complainant regarding changing the R. & P. policy. Not only that the opponent has not committed any breach of Section 33. Thus there is no violation of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act by the opponent . Looking to the Ex . 6 this complaint become infructuous and does not survive in law. Hence I pass the following order :
ORDER
In view of the fact of Annexure of the parties have amicable settlement regarding the subject matter of the complaint. Hence this complaint is hereby disposed of. No order as to cost.
Ahmedabad
Date : 19-12-04
2. The brief facts of the complainant is that the Reference is pending before the Hon'ble Tribunal C. G. I. T. A. No. 201/04 as a Old I. T. C. No. 120/99 for adjudication . The management of O. N. G. C. trying to modify R. & P. rules without the consent of Electrical & Allied StaffAssociation. The action will change the service condition ofElectrical category workman who are involved in the reference . As per the present R. & P. rules after completing of six years , the workman is getting promotion to next higher post and it is the time bound promotion policy and it is also service condition of the workman. The management have intimated their intention ofchange of time bound policy to the union through conciliation officer vide file No. RLC/ AH/50 ( 1 )/2002 on 15-05-2002 a copy is enclosed as Annexure " B " . Thus the intention of change of time bound promotion policy is change of service condition as per Section 9 -A and Schedule - IV of I. D. Act , 1947. Thus it is prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal shall issue an order to opposite party to desist for any action of modifying R. & P. rules for Electrical category workman without the consent of Electrical & Allied Staff Association and not to change the service condition till the Reference 120/99 is finalized .
3. A notice was issued to the opponent to file the Written Statement.
4. By Ex. 5 the opponent has filed the Written Statement . The brief facts are that complaint is not maintainable at law and the Hon'ble Tribunal has no jurisdiction. The complaint is ill founded and made on assumption . The opponent has not contravened any provisions of Section 33 of the I. D. Act . The complainant is not concerned workman and alleged dispute is not connected with the main reference . Hence the complaint is required to be dismissed . The complaint is not maintainable at law, as it is filed on the ground of apprehension-assumption . The subject matter ofpresent complaint is not connected with the pending Reference (ITC ) No. 120/99 . There is no such demand promotion in the main reference . The averments and contention made in the complaint are not true , hence denied by the opponent. It is denied that the management is trying to modify recruitment and promotion rules with the other union . It is the privilege of the management to change any rule . It is denied that there will be change of any service conditions of the complainant . The management calls recognized unions and ASTD for the discussion for changing the R. & P. regulations and the union is not recognized union and their union has not a legal right to say anything about R. & P. The complainant has not produced any proof of contravention of Section 33 of the 1450 Gl/2005-20
B. I. KAZI , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 29 अप्रैल , 2005
का. आ. 1878.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मै . ओ. एन. जी. सी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार, औद्योगिक अधिकरण , अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 54/04 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-4-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-30025/62/2005- आई . आर. ( विविध ) ] बी. एम. डेविड, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 29th April , 2005
S.O. 1878. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) . the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 54/ 04) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure . in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s . ONGC and their workman. which was received by the Central Government on 20-4-2005.
[No. L- 30025/62 / 2005 - IR ( M ) | B. M. DAVID , Under Secy .
5174
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21 , 2005 /VAISAKHA 31 , 1927
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM- LABOUR COURT AT AHMEDABAD
PRESENT:
Shri B. I. Kazi (B. Sc . , L. L. M. ) , Presiding Officer.
Com . C. G. I. T. A. No. 54/04 in Reference No. C. G. I. T. A. No. 201/04
[ Old Com. No. 8/03 in Reference ( I. T. C. ) .
No. 120/99 ]
S. K. Prajapati ,
C/o ONGC Electrical & Allied Staff Association , 19, Pushpkunj Society, Near Sahkar Nagar, Mehsana -384002
[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] service condition as per Section 9 -A and Schedule- IV of I. D. Act , 1947. Thus it is prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal shall issue an order to opposite party to desist for any action of modifying R. & P. rules for electrical category workman without the consent of Electrical & Allied Staff Association and not to change the service condition till the Reference No. 120/99 is finalized .
3. A notice was issued to the opponent to file the Written Statement .
Complainant
Versus
The Director , ( Personnel/HR) .
ONGC Ltd. , Telbhavan , Dehradun - 248003.
Opponent
APPEARANCES :
Complainant : Shri R. C. Shukla.
: Shri K. V. Gadhia .
Opponent
ORDER
1. The complainant has filed this complaint Under Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act , praying that the opponent shall not change time bound promotion policy, in which a workman who completes six years of service in one post will get the promotion to next higher post. It is the say of the complainant that change of time bound promotion policy is a change of service condition . Hence prays that the opponent should be ordered to desist from any action of modifying R. & P. rules for electrical category and the service condition should not be changed till the pending of reference case .
2. The brief facts of the complainant is that the Reference is pending before the Hon'ble Tribunal C. G. I. T. A. No. 201/04 as a Old I. T. C. No. 120/99 for adjudication . The management of O. N. G. C. trying to modify R. & P. rules without the consent of Electrical & Allied Staff Association. The action will change the service condition ofElectrical category workman who are involved in the reference . As per the present R. & P. rules after completing of six years , the workman is getting promotion to next higher post and it is the time bound promotion policy and it is also service condition of the workman . The management have intimated their intention of change of timebound policy to the union through conciliation officer vide file No. RLC/ AH/50 ( 1 )/ 2002 on 15-05-2002 a copy is enclosed as Annexure " B " . Thus the intention of change of time bound promotion polics is change of 4. By Ex. 5 the opponent has filed the Written Statement . The brief facts are that complaint is not maintainable at law and the Hon'ble Tribunal has no jurisdiction. The complaint is ill founded and made on assumption . The opponent has not contravened any provisions of Section 33 of the I. D. Act . The complainant is not concerned workman and alleged dispute is not connected with the main reference. Hence the complaint is required to be dismissed . The complaint is not maintainable at law, as it is filed on the ground of apprehension-assumption . The subject matter of present complaint is not connected with the pending Reference (ITC) No. 120/99 . There is no such demand promotion in the main reference . The averments and contention made in the complaint are not true , hence denied by the opponent . It is denied that the management is trying to modify recruitment and promotion rules with the other union. It is the privilege of the management to change any rule. It is denied that there will be clange of any service conditions of the complainant . The management calls recognized unions and ASTD for the discussion for changing the R. & P. regulations and the union is not recognized union and their union has not a legal right to say anything about R. & P. The complainant has not produced any proof of contravention of Section 33 of the I. D. Act . Thus it is prayed that the complaint shouldbe dismissed with cost .
5. During the course of adjudication the representative of the complainant submitted a purshis by Ex. 6 and it is stated that the matter is settled with the management . Hence the present complaint may be disposed of accordingly.
( 6. Looking to the facts of this purshis Ex. 6 it is clear that the matter has been settled amicably and there is no grievance of the complainant regarding changing the R. & P. policy. Not only that the opponent has not committed any breach of Section 33. Thus there is no violation of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act by the opponent. Looking to the Ex . 6 this complaint become infructuous and does not survive in law. Hence I pass the following order :
ORDER
In view of the fact of Annexure the parties have amicable settlement regarding the subject matter of the [ भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : मई 21 , 2005/वैशाख 31 , 1927
5175
APPEARANCES :
complaint . Hence this complaint is hereby disposed of. No order as to cost .
Complainant : Shri R. C. Shukla .
Ahmedabad
Dated: 19-12-04
Opponent : Shri K. V. Gadhia .
ORDER
B. I. KAZI, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 29 अप्रैल, 2005
का. आ. 1879.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मै. ओ. एन. जी. सी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार, औद्योगिक अधिकरण, अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 55/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-4-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
1. The complainant has filed this complaint Under Section 33A of the Industrial Dispute Act , praying that the opponent shall not change time bound promotion policy, in which a workman who complete six years of service in one post will get the promotion to next higher post. It is the say of the complainant that change of time bound promotion policy is a change of service condition . Hence prays that the opponent should be ordered to desist from any action of modifying R. & P. rules for electrical category and the service condition should not be change till the pending of reference case .
[सं . एल-30025/63/2005- आई. आर. (विविध) ] बी. एम. डेविड, अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 29th April , 2005
S.O. 1879. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 55/ 2004) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s . ONGC and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 20-4-2005.
[No. L-30025/63/2005 - IR(M) ] B. M. DAVID , Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM -LABOUR COURT AT AHMEDABAD
PRESENT :
Shri B. I. KAZI (B. Sc . , L. L. M. ) , Presiding Officer
2. The brief facts of the complainant is that the Reference is pending before the Hon'ble Tribunal C. G. I. T. A. No : 201/04 as a Old I. T. C. No. 120/99 for adjudication. The management of O. N. G. C. trying to modify R. & P. rules without the consent of Electrical & Allied StaffAssociation . The action will change the service condition ofElectrical category workman who are involved in the reference. As per the present R. & P. rules after completing of six years , the workman is getting promotion to next higher post and it is the time bound promotion policy and it is also service condition of the workman. The management have intimated their intention of change of time bound policy to the union through conciliation officer vide file No. RLC/AH/50 ( 1 )/2002 on 15-05-2002 a copy is enclosed as Annexure "B " . Thus the intention of change of time bound promotion policy is change of service condition as per section 9 - A and Schedule- IV of I. D. Act , 1947. Thus it is prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal shall issue an order to opposite party to desist for any action of modifying R. & P. rules for electrical category workman without the consent of Electrical & Allied Staff Association and not to change the service condition till the Reference 120/99 is finalized...
Com . C. G. I. T. A. No : 55/04 in Reference No. C. G. I. T. A. No. 201/04
3. A notice was issued to the opponent to file the Written Statement .
[Old Com. No. 9/03 in Reference (I. T. C. ) No. 120/99]
V. A. Patel .
C/ o ONGC Electrical & Allied Staff Association , 19 , Pushpkunj Society, Near Sahkar Nagar,
Mehsana - 384002
Complainant
Versus
The Director, (Personnel /HR) ,
ONGC Ltd. , Telbhavan ,
Dehradun- 248003 .
Opponent
4. By Ex, 5 the opponent has filed the Written Statement . The brief facts are that complaint is not maintainable at law and the Hon'ble Tribunal has no jurisdiction . The complaint is ill founded and made on assumption . The opponent has not contravened any provisions of Section 33 of the I. D. Act . The complainant is not concerned workman and alleged dispute is not connected with the main reference . Hence the complaint is required to be dismissed . The complaint is not maintainable at law, as it is filed on the ground of apprehension-assumption. The subject matter of present complaint is not connected with the pending Refcrence [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21 , 2005 /VAISAKHA 31 , 1927
5176
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 56/ 2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court , Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s . ONGC and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 20-4-2005.
[No. L - 30025/64/ 2005 - IR(M) ] B. M. DAVID , Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT AT AHMEDABAD (ITC) No. 120/99 . There is no such demand promotion in the main reference . The averments and contention made in the complaint are not true , hence denied by the opponent . It is denied that the management is trying to modify recruitment and promotion rules with the other union . It is the privilege of the management to change any rule . It is denied that there will be change of any service conditions of the complainant. The management calls recognized unions and ASTD for the discussion for changing the R. & P. regulations and the union is not recognized union and their union has not a legal right to say anything about R. & P. The complainant has not produced any proof of contravention of Section 33 of the I. D. Act . Thus it is prayed that the complaint should be dismissed with cost.
PRESENT :
Shri B. I. KAZI ( B. Sc. , L. L. M.) , Presiding Officer Com. C. G. I. T. A. No. 56/04 In Reference No. C. G. I. T. A. No. 201/04
5. During the course of adjudication the representative of the complainant submitted a purshis by Ex. 6 and it is stated that the matter is settled with the management . Hence the present complaint may be disposed of accordingly.
(Old Com. No. 10/03 in Reference (L. T. C.) . No. 120/ 99)
S. K. Sharma ,
C/o ONGC Electrical & Allied Staff Association, 19, Pushpkunj Society, Near Sahkar Nagar ,
Mehsana -384002
Complaint
Versus
6. Looking to the facts of this purshis Ex. 6 it is clear that the matter has been settled amicably and there is no grievance of the complainant regarding changing the R. & P. policy. Not only that the opponent has not committed any breach of section 33. Thus there is no violation of section 33 of the Industrial Dispute Act by the opponent. Looking to the Ex . 6 this complaint become infructuous and does not survive in law. Hence I pass the following order :
ORDER
The Director, (Personnel/HR) , ONGC Ltd. , Telbhavan ,
Opponent
Dehradun -248003 .
APPEARANCES :
: Shri R. C. Shukla .
In view of the fact of Annexure the parties have amicable settlement regarding the subject matter of the complaint . Hence this complaint is hereby disposed of. No order as to cost .
Complainant
: Shri K. V. Gadhia .
Opponent
Ahmedabad Date : 19-12-04
ORDER
B. I. KAZI , Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 29 अप्रैल, 2005
का. आ. 1880.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मै . ओ . एन. जी. सी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार , औद्योगिक अधिकरण , अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 56/04 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-4-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
1. The complainant has filed this complaint Under Section 33A of the Industrial Dispute Act , praying that the opponent shall not change time bound promotion policy, in which a workman who complete six years of service in one post will get the promotion to next higher post. It is the say of the complainant that change of time bound promotion policy is a change of service condition. Hence prays that the opponent should be ordered to desist from any action of modifying R. & P. rules for electrical category and the service condition should not be change till the pending of reference case .
[सं. एल-30025/64/2005- आई आर ( विविध ) ] बी. एम. डेविड, अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 29th April , 2005
2. The brief facts of the complainant is that the Reference is pending before the Hon'ble Tribunal C. G. I. T. A. No. 201/04 as a Old I. T. C. No. 120/99 for adjudication . The management of O. N. G. C. trying to modify R. & P. rules without the consent of Electrical & S.O. 1880. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central 5177
भारत का राजपत्र: मई 21 , 2005/वैशाख 31 , 1927
[ भाग II-खंड 3( ii ) ]
is no grievance of the complainant regarding changing the R. & P. policy.. Not only that the opponent has not committed any breach of Section 33. Thus there is no violation of section 33 of the Industrial Dispute Act by the opponent . Looking to the Ex. 6 this complaint become infructuous and does not survive in law. Hence I pass the following order:
ORDER
In view of the fact of Annexure the parties have amicable settlement regarding the subject matter of the complaint . Hence this complaint is hereby disposed of. No order as to cost.
Ahmedabad Date : 19-12-04 .
Allied StaffAssociation. The action will change the service condition ofElectrical category workman who are involved in the reference. As per the present R. & P. rules after completing of six years , the workman is getting promotion to next higher post and it is the time bound promotion policy and it is also service condition of the workman . The management have intimated their intention ofchange oftime bound policy to the union through conciliation officer vide file No. RLC/AH/50 ( 1 )/2002 on 15-05-2002 a copy is enclosed as Annexure "B " . Thus the intention of change of time bound promotion policy is change of service condition as per Section 9 - A and Schedule - IV of I. D. Act , 1947. Thus it is prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal shall issue an order to opposite party to desist for any action of modifying R. & P. rules for electrical category workman without the consent of Electrical & Allied Staff Association and not to change the service condition till the Reference 120/99 is finalized.
B. I. KAZI , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 29 अप्रैल, 2005
3. A notice was issued to the opponent to file the Written Statement.
का. आ. 1881.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मै . ओ. एन. जी. सी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार, औद्योगिक अधिकरण, अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 57/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-4-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-30025/65/2005- आई. आर. ( विविध ) ] बी. एम. डेविड, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 29th April, 2005
S.O. 1881.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 57/ 2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum - Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s . ONGC and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 20-4-2005 .
[No. L- 30025 /65 /2005 - IR(M) ] B. M. DAVID , Under Secy.
ANNEXURE BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM - LABOUR COURT AT AHMEDABAD 4. By Ex. 5 the opponent has filed the Written Statement. The brief facts are that complaint is not maintainable at law and the Hon'ble Tribunal has no jurisdiction . The complaint is ill founded and made on assumption . The opponent has not contravened any provisions of Section 33 ofthe I. D. Act. The complainant is not concerned workman and alleged dispute is not connectedwith the main reference . Hence the complaint is required to be dismissed. The complaint is not maintainable at law, as it is filed on the ground of apprehension-assumption . The subject matter ofpresent complaint is not connected with the pending Reference (ITC) No. 120/99 . There is no such demand promotion in the main reference . The averments and contention made in the complaint are not true , hence denied by the opponent. It is denied that the management is trying to modidy recruitment and promotion rules with the other union. It is the privilege of the management change any rule. It is denied that there will be change of any service conditions of the complainant . The management calls recognized unions and ASTD for the discussion for changing the R. & P. regulations and the union is not recognized union and their union has not a legal right to say anything about R. & P. The complainant has not produced any proof of contravention of Section 33 of the I. D, Act. Thus it is prayed that the complaint should be dismissed with cost.
PRESENT :
Shri B. I. KAZI (B. Sc. , L. L. M. ) , Presiding Officer Com . C. G. L. T. A. No. 57/04 In Reference No. C. G. L. T. Á. No. 201/04 5. During the course of adjudication the representative of the complainant submitted a purshis by Ex. 6 and it is stated that the matter is settled with the management . hence the present complaint may be disposed of accordingly.
[Old Com . No. 11/03 in Reference (L. T. C.) No. 120/99]
6. Looking to the facts of this purshis Ex . 6 it is clear that the matter has been settled amicably and there 5178
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21 , 2005 /VAISAKHA 31 , 1927
[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] A. G. Dodiyar,
C/ o ONGC Electrical & Allied Staff Association, 19 , Pushpkunj Society, Near Sahkar Nagar,
Mehsana - 384 002 .
Complainant
Versus
The Director, (Personnel/HR) ,
ONGC Ltd. , Telbhavan , Dehradun- 248 003 .
Opponent
APPEARANCES :
: Shri R. C. Shukla .
Complainant
: Shri K. V. Gadhia .
Opponent
ORDER
provisions of Section 33 ofthe I. D. Act . The complainant is not concerned workman and alleged dispute is not connected with the main reference . Hence the complaint is required to be dismissed. The complaint is not maintainable at law, as it is filed on the ground of apprehension-assumption . The subject matter ofpresent complaint is not connected with the pending Reference (ITC) No. 120/99 . There is no such demand promotion in the main reference . The averments and contention made in the complaint are not true , hence denied by the opponent . It is denied that the management is trying to modify recruitment and promotion rules with the other union. It is the privilege of the management change any rule. It is denied that there will be change of any service conditions of the complainant . The management calls recognized unions and ASTD for the discussion for changing the R. & P. regulations and the union is not recognized union and their union has not a legal right to say anything about R. & P. The complainant has not produced any proof of contravention of Section 33 of the I. D. Act . Thus it is prayed that the complaint should be dismissed with cost .
1. The complainant has filed this complaint Under Section 33A of the Industrial Dispute Act, praying that the opponent shall not change time bound promotion policy, in which a workman who complete six years of service in one post will get the promotion to next higher post. It is the say of the complainant that change of time bound promotion policy is a change of service condition . Hence prays that the opponent should be ordered to desist from any action of modifying R. & P. rules for electrical category and the service condition should not be change till the pending of reference case.
5. During the course of adjudication the representative of the complainant submitted a purshis by Ex. 6 and it is stated that the matter is settled with the management . Hence the present complaint may be. disposed of accordingly.
6. Looking to the facts of this purshis Ex. 6 it is clear that the matter has been settled amicably and there is no grievance of the complainant regarding changing the R. & P. policy. Not only that the opponent has not committed any breach of Section 33. Thus there is no violation of Section 33 of the Industrial Dispute Act by the opponent . Looking to the Ex. 6 this complaint become infructuous and does not survive in law. Hence I pass the following order :
ORDER
In view of the fact of Annexure the parties have amicable settlement regarding the subject matter of the complaint . Hence this complaint is hereby disposed of. No order as to cost.
Ahmedabad Date : 19-12-04 .
B. I. KAZI , Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 29 अप्रैल , 2005
2. The brief facts of the complainant is that the Reference is pending before the Hon'ble Tribunal C. G. I. T. A. No. 201/04 as a Old I. T. C. No. 120/99 for adjudication . The management of O. N. G. C. trying to modify R. & P. rules without the consent of Electrical & Allied Staff Association . The action will change the service conditionofElectrical category workman who are involved in the reference . As per the present R. & P.. rules after completing ofsix years , the workman is getting promotion to next higher post and it is the time bound promotion policy and it is also service condition of the workman . The management have intimated their intention of change of time bound policy to the union through conciliation officer vide file No. RLC/ AH/ 50 ( 1 )/2002 on 15-05-2002 a copy is enclosed as Annexure " B " . Thus the intention of change of time bound promotion policy is change of service condition as per Section 9 - A and Schedule - IV of I. D. Act , 1947. Thus its prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal shall issue an order to opposite party to desist for any action of modifying R. & P. rules for electrical category workman without the consent of Electrical & Allied Staff Association and not to change the service condition till the Reference 120/99 is finalized .
3. A notice was issued to the opponent to file the Written Statement .
का. आ. 1882.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मै. ओ . एन . जी. सी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार , औद्योगिक अधिकरण, अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 58/04 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-4-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
' [ सं . एल-30025/66/2005- आई . आर. ( विविध ) ] 4. By Ex. 5 the opponent has filed the Written Statement . The brief facts are that complaint is not maintainable at law and the Hon'ble Tribunal has no jurisdiction . The complaint is ill founded and made on assumption . The opponent has not contravened any
बी. एम. डेविड, अवर सचिव [ भाग II- खंड 3( ii ) ]
New Delhi , the 29th April , 2005 S.O. 1882. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 58/ 2004) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court , Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure , inthe Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s . ONGC and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 20-4-2005 .
[No. L - 30025/66 /2005 - IR(M) ] B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT AT AHMEDABAD
PRESENT :
Shri B. I. KAZI (B., Sc . , L. L. M. ) , Presiding Officer Com. C. G. I. T. A. No. 58/04 In Reference No. C. G. I. T. A. No. 201/04
[Old Com. No. 12/03 in Reference (IL. T. C. ) No. 120/99]
R. M. Jaysival ,
C/ o ONGC Electrical & Allied Staff Association, 19 , Pushpkunj Society, Near Sahakar Nagar , Mehsana -384002
Complainant
Versus
TheDirector, (Personnel/HR) , ONGC Ltd. , Telbhavan, Dehradun- 248003 .
Opponent Appearances :
: Shri R. C. Shukla .
Complainant
Opponent
: Shri K. V. Gadhia.
ORDER
1. The complainant has filed this complaint Under Section 33A of the Industrial Dispute Act, praying that the opponent shall not change time bound promotion policy, in which a workman who complete six years of service in one post will get the promotion to next higher post. It is the say of the complainant that change of time bound promotion policy is a change of service condition. Hence prays that the opponent should be ordered to desist from any action of modifying R. & P. rules for electrical category and the service condition should not be change till the pending of reference case .
2. The brief facts of the complainant is that the Reference is pending before the Hon'ble Tribunal C. G. I. T. A. No. 201/04 as a Old I. T. C. No. 120/99 for
5179
भारत का राजपत्र : मई 21 , 2005/वैशाख 31 , 1927
adjudication . The management of O. N. G. C. trying to modify R. & P. rules without the consent of Electrical & Allied StaffAssociation . The action will change the service conditionofElectrical category workman who are involved in the reference. As per the present R. & P. rules after completing of six years , the workman is getting promotion to next higher post and it is the time bound promotion policy and it is also service condition of the workman. The management have intimated their intention of change of time bound policy to the union through conciliation officer vide file No. RLC/ AH/50( 1)/2002 on 15-5-2002 a copy is enclosed as Annexure "B " . Thus the intention of change oftime bound promotion policy is change of service condition as per Section 9 - A and Schedule - IV of I. D. Act, 1947. Thus it its prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal shåll issue an order to opposite party to desist for any action of modifying R. & P. rules for electrical category workman without the consent of Electrical & Allied Staff Association and not to change the service condition till the Reference 120/99 is finalized.
3. A notice was issued to the opponent to file the Written Statement .
4. By Ex. 5 the opponent has filed the Written Statement . The brief facts are that complaint is not maintainable at law and the Hon'ble Tribunal has no jurisdiction. The complaint is ill founded and made on assumption. The opponent has not contravened any provisions of Section 33 of the I. D. Act . The complainant is not concerned workman and alleged dispute is not connected with the main reference. Hence the complaint is required to be dismissed . The complaint is not maintainable at law, as it is filed on the ground of apprehension-assumption . The subject matter of present complaint is not connected with the pending Reference (ITC ) No. 120/99. There is no such demand promotion in the main reference . The averments and contention made in the complaint are not true , hence denied by the opponent. It is denied that the management is trying to modify recruitment and promotion rules with the other union. It is the privilege of the management to change any rule . It is denied that there will be change of any service conditions of the complainant. The management calls recognized unions and ASTD for the discussion for changing the R. & P. regulations and the union is not recognized union and their union has not a legal right to say anything about R. & P. The complainant has not produced anyproof of contravention of Section 33 of the I. D. Act. Thus it is prayed that the complaint should be dismissed with cost.
5. During the course of adjudication the representative of the complainant submitted a purshis by Ex. 6 and it is stated that the matter is settled with the management . Hence the present complaint may be disposed of accordingly.
5180
[PART II- SEC: 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21 , 2005 /VAISAKHA 31 , 1927
G. S. Vadodavia ,
C/o ONGC Electrical & Allied Staff Association, 19, Pushpkunj Society, Near Sahkar Nagar,
Mehsana-384 002 .
Complainant
Versus
The Director , (Personnel/HR) , ONGCLtd. , Telbhavan ,
Dehradun - 248003.
6. Looking to the facts of this purshis Ex. 6 it is, clear that the matter has been settled amicably and there is no grievance of the complainant regarding changing the R. & P. policy. Not only that the opponent has not committed any breach of Section 33. Thus there is no violation of section 33 of the Industrial Dispute Act by the opponent. Looking to the Ex. 6 this complaint become infructuous and does not survive in law. Hence I pass the following order:
Opponent ORDER
Appearances :
: Shri R. C. Shukla .
Complainant
: Shri K. V. Gadhia .
Opponent
In view of the fact of Annexture of the parties have amicable settlement regarding the subject matter of the complaint . Hence this complaint is hereby disposed of. No order as to cost .
ORDER
Ahmedabad Date : 19-12-04
B. I. KAZI , Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली , 29 अप्रैल, 2005
का. आ. 1883.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मै . ओ. एन. जी. सी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार , औद्योगिक अधिकरण , अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 59/04 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-4-2005 को प्राप्त हुआं था ।
1. The complainant has filed this complaint Under Section 33A of the Industrial Dispute Act , praying that the opponent shall not change time bound promotion policy, in which a workman who complete six years of service in one post will get the promotion to next higher post. It is the say of the complainant that change of time bound promotion policy is a change of service condition. Hence prays that the opponent should be ordered to desist from any action of modifying R. & P. rules for electrical category and the service condition should not be change till the pending of reference case .
[सं. एल-30025/67/2005- आई. आर. ( विविध ) ] बी. एम. डेविड, अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 29th April , 2005
S.O. 1883. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 59/2004 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum - Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s . ONGC and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 20-4-2005 .
[No. L- 30025/ 67/ 2005 - IR (M ) ] B. M. DAVID , Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT AT AHMEDABAD
PRESENT :
2. The brief facts of the complainant is that the Reference is pending before the Hon'ble Tribunal C. G. I. T. A. No. 201/04 as a Old I. T. C. No. 120/99 for adjudication . The management of O. N. G. C. trying to modify R. & P. rules without the consent of Electrical & Allied StaffAssociation . The action will change the service conditionofElectrical category workman who are involved in the reference . As per the present R. & P. rules after completing of six years, the workman is getting promotion to next higher post and it is the time bound promotion policy and it is also service condition of the workman . The management have intimated their intention of change of time bound policy to the union through conciliation officer vide file No. RLC/AH/50 ( 1 )/2002 on 15-5-2002 a copy is enclosed as Annexure " B " . Thus the intention of change oftime bound promotion policy is change of service condition as per section 9 -A and Schedule - IV of I. D. Act, 1947. Thus it its prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal shall issue an order to opposite party to desist for any action of modifying R. & P. rules for electrical category workman without the consent of Electrical & Allied Staff Association and not to change the service condition till the Reference 120/99 is finalized .
Shri B. I. KAZI (B. Sc. , L. L. M. ) , Presiding Officer
3. A notice was issued to the opponent to file the Written Statement .
Com . C. G. I. T. A. No. 59/04 In Reference No. C. G. L. T. A. No. 201/04
[Old Com. No. 13/03 in Reference ( I. T. C. ) No. 120/99]
4. By Ex . 5 the opponent has filed the Written Statement . The brief facts are that complaint is not [भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
maintainable at law and the Hon'ble Tribunal has no jurisdiction. The complaint is ill founded and made on assumption. The opponent has not contravened any provisions of Section 33 of the I. D. Act. The complainant is not concerned workman and alleged dispute is not connectedwith the main reference . Hence the complaint is required to be dismissed . The complaint is not maintainable at law, as it is filed on the ground of apprehension-assumption. The subject matter of present complaint is not connected with the pending Reference (ITC) No. 120/99. There is no such demand promotion in the main reference. The averments and contention made in the complaint are not true , hence denied by the opponent . It is denied that the management is trying to modify recruitment and promotion rules with the other union. It is the privilege of the management of the change any rule. It is denied that there will be change of any service conditions of the complainant . The management calls recognized unions and ASTD for the discussion for changing the R. & P. regulations and the union is not recognized union and their union has not a legal right to say anything about R. & P. The complainant has not produced any proof of contravention of Section 33 of the I. D. Act . Thus it is prayed that the complaint should be dismissed with cost.
5. During the course of adjudication the representative of the complainant submitted a purshis by Ex. 6 and it is stated that the matter is settled with the management . Hence the present complaint may be disposed of accordingly.
6. Looking to the facts of this purshis Ex. 6 it is clear that the matter has been settled amicably and there is no grievance of the complainant regarding changing the R. & P. policy. Not only that the opponent has not committed any breach of section 33. Thus there is no violation of section 33 of the Industrial Dispute Act by the opponent. Looking to the Ex . 6 this complaint become infructuous and does not survive in law. Hence I pass the following order:
ORDER
In view of the fact of Annexure parties have amicable settlement regarding the subject matter of the complaint. Hence this complaint is hereby disposed of. No order as to cost.
Ahmedabad
Date : 19-12-04
B. I. KAZI, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 29 अप्रैल, 2005
का. आ. 1884.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मै. ओ . एन. जी. सी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार, औद्योगिक 1450 Gl /2005-21
भारत का राजपत्र : मई 21 , 2005/वैशाख 31 , 1927
5181 अधिकरण , अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 60/04 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-4-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-30025/68/2005-आई. आर. ( विविध) ] बी. एम. डेविड, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 29th April , 2005
S.O. 1884. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 60/ 2004) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court , Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure , inthe Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s . ONGC and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 20-4- 2005,
[No. L- 30025/68 /2005 - IR (M) ] B. M. DAVID , Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT AT AHMEDABAD
PRESENT:
Shri B. I. KAZI (B. Sc. , L. L. M. ) , Presiding Officer Com . C. G. I. T. A. No. 60/04 In Reference. No. C. G. L. T. A. No. 201/04
[Old Com . No. 14/03 in Reference (L. T. Ç .) No. 120/99]
R. N. Thoria,
C/o ONGC Electrical & Allied Staff Association, 19 , Pushpkunj Society , Near Sáhkar Naagar, Mehsana - 384002 Complaintant
Versus
The Director, (Personnel/HR) , ONGC Ltd. , Telbhavan, Dehradun- 248003 .
Opponent Appearances :
: Shri R. C. Shukla.
Complainant
: Shri K. V. Gadhia .
Opponent
ORDER
1. The complainant has filed this complaint Under Section 33A of the Industrial Dispute Act, praying that the opponent shall not change time bound promotion policy, in which a workman who completes six years of 5182
[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21 , 2005 /VAISAKHA 31 , 1927
recognized union and their union has not a legal right to say anything about R. & P. The complainant has not produced any proof of contravention of Section 33 of the I. D. Act . Thus it is prayed that the complaint should be dismissed with cost .
service in one post will get the promotion to next higher post. It is the say of the complainant that change of time bound promotion policy is a change of service condition. Hence prays that the opponent should be ordered to desist from any action of modifying R. & P. rules for electrical category and the service condition should not be change till the pending of reference case.
5. During the course of adjudication the representative of the complainant submitted a purshis by Ex. 6 and it is stated that the matter is settled with the management. Hence the present complaint may be disposed of accordingly.
6. Looking to the facts of this purshis Ex . 6 it is clear that the matter has been settled amicably and there is no grievance of the complainant regarding changing the R. & P. policy. Not only that the opponent has not committed any breach of section 33. Thus there is no violation of section 33 of the Industrial Dispute Act by the opponent . Looking to the Ex . 6 this complaint become infructuous and does not survive in law. Hence I pass the following order:
ORDER
In view of the fact of Annexure of the parties have amicable settlement regarding the subject matter of the complaint . Hence this complaint is hereby disposed of. No order as to cost .
Ahmedabad Date : 19-12-04
B. I. KAZI , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 29 अप्रैल, 2005
2. The brief facts of the complainant is that the Reference is pending before the Hon'ble Tribunal C. G. I. T. A. No. 201/04 as a Old I. T. C. No. 120/99 for adjudication . The management of O. N. G. C. trying to modify R. & P. rules without the consent of Electrical & Allied StaffAssociation . The action will change the service condition ofElectrical category workman who are involved in the reference. As per the present R. & P. rules after completing of six years , the workman is getting promotion to next higher post and it is the time bound promotion policy and it is also service condition of the workman. Themanagement have intimated their intention of change oftime bound policy to the union through conciliation officer vide file No. RLC/AH/50 ( 1 )/2002 on 15-05-2002 a copy is enclosed as Annexure "B " . Thus the intention of change of time bound promotion policy is change of service condition as per Section 9 - A and Schedule - IV of I. D. Act , 1947. Thus it its prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal shall issue an order to opposite party to desist for any action of modifying R. & P. rules for electrical category workman without the consent of Electrical & Allied Staff Association and not to change the service condition till the Reference 120/99 is finalized .
3. A notice was issued to the opponent to file the Written Statement .
का. आ. 1885.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मै. ओ . एन. जी. सी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार, औद्योगिक अधिकरण, अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 61/04 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-4-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-30025/69/2005- आई. आर. ( विविध ) ] बी. एम. डेविड, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 29th April , 2005
S.O. 1885. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 61/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum - Labour Court , Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s . ONGC and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 20-4-2005 .
[No. L - 30025 /69/2005 - IR (M) ] B. M. DAVID , Under Secy.
4. By Ex. 5 the opponent has filed the Written Statement . The brief facts are that complaint is not maintainable at law and the Hon'ble Tribunal has no jurisdiction . The complaint is ill founded and made on assumption . The opponent has not contravened any provisions of Section 33 of the I. D. Act . The complainant is not concerned workman and alleged dispute is not connected with the main reference . Hence the complaint is required to be dismissed. The complaint is not maintainable at law, as it is filed on the ground of apprehension-assumption . The subject matter of present complaint is not connected with the pending Reference (ITC) No. 120/99 . There is no such demand promotion in the main reference . The averments and contention made in the complaint are not true, hence denied by the opponent . It is denied that the management is trying to modify recruitment and promotion rules with the other union. It is the privilege of the management of the change any rule . It is denied that there will be change of any service conditions of the complainant . The management calls recognized unions and ASTD for the discussion for changing the R. & P. regulations and the union is not 5183 [ भाग II- खंड 3 ( it ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : मई 21 , 2005/वैशाख 31 ; 1927
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM - LABOUR COURT AT AHMEDABAD
PRESENT :
Shri B. I. Kazi (B. Sc. , L. L. M. ) , Presiding Officer
ofchange of time bound promotion policy is change of service condition as per section 9 -A and Schedule-IV of I. D. Act , 1947. Thus it its prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal shall issue an order to opposite party to desist from any action of modifying R. & P. rules for electrical category workman without the consent of Electrical & Allied Staff Association and not to change the service condition till the Reference 120/99 is finalized..
Com . C. G. L. T. A. No. 61/04 In Reference No. C. G. I. T. A. No. 201/04
3. A notice was issued to the opponent to file the Written Statement .
[Old Com . No. 15/03 in Reference (L. T. C.) .
No. 120/99]
D. K. Patel , C/o ONGC Electrical & Allied Staff Association, 19, Pushpkunj Society, Near Sahkar Naagar, Mehsana- 384002
Complaint
Versus
The Director, (Personnel/HR) ,
ONGC Ltd. , Telbhavan ,
Dehradun-248003 .
Opponent
Appearances :
: Shri R. C. Shukla
Complainant
: Shri K. V. Gadhia
Opponent
ORDER
4. By Ex. 5 the opponent has filed the Written Statement . The brief facts are that complaint is not maintainable at law and the Hon'ble Tribunal has no jurisdiction . The complaint is ill founded and made on assumption . The opponent has not contravened any provisions of Section 33 ofthe I. D. Act. The complainant is not concerned workman and alleged dispute is not connected with the main reference. Hence the complaint is required to be dismissed. The complaint is not maintainable at law, as it is filed on the ground of apprehension-assumption. The subject matter ofpresent complaint is not connected with the pending Reference (ITC) No. 120/99 . There is no such demand promotion in the main reference . The averments and contention made in the complaint are not true , hence denied by the opponent. It is denied that the management is trying to modify recruitment and promotion rules with the other union. It is the privilege of the management to change any rule. It is denied that there will be change of any service conditions of the complainant. The management calls recognized unions and ASTD for the discussion for changing the R. & P. regulations and the union is not recognized union and their union has not a legal right to say anything about R. & P. The complainant has not produced anyproof of contravention of Section 33 of the I. D. Act . Thus it is prayed that the complaint should be dismissed with cost.
1. The complainant has filed this complaint Under Section 33A of the Industrial Dispute Act, praying that the opponent shall not change time bound promotion policy, in which a workman who completes six years of service in one post will get the promotion to next higher post . It is the say of the complainant that change of time bound promotion policy is a change of service condition . Hence prays that the opponent should be ordered to desist from any action of modifying R. & P. rules for electrical category and the service condition should not be changed till the pending of reference case .
5. During the course of adjudication the representative of the complainant submitted a purshis by Ex. 6 and it is stated that the matter is settled with the management . Hence the present complaint may be disposed of accordingly.
6. Looking to the facts of this purshis Ex. 6 it is clear that the matter has been settled amicably and there is no grievance of the complainant regarding changing the R. & P. policy. Not only that the opponent has not committed any breach of Section 33. Thus there is no violation of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act by the opponent . Looking to the Ex. 6 this complaint becomes infructuous and does not survive in law. Hence I pass the following order ;
ORDER
In view of the fact of Annexure the parties have amicable settlement regarding the subject matter of the 2. The brief facts of the complainant is that the Reference is pending before the Hon'ble Tribunal C. G. I. T. A. No. 201/04 as a Old I. T. C. No. 120/99 for adjudication . The management of O. N. G. C. trying to modify R. & P. rules without the consent of Electrical & Allied StaffAssociation . The action will change the service conditionofElectrical category workman who are involved in the reference . As per the present R. & P. rules after completing of six years , the workman is getting promotion to next higher post and it is the time bound promotion policy and it is also service condition of the workman. The management have intimated their intention ofchange of time bound policy to the union through conciliation officer vide file No. RLC/AH/50 ( 1 )/2002 on 15-05-2002 a copy is enclosed as Annexure " B" . Thus the intention 5184
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21 , 2005 /VAISAKHA 31 , 1927
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]
Appearances :
complaint . Hence this complaint is hereby disposed of. No order as to cost .
: Shri R. C. Shukla
Complainant
Ahmedabad
Opponent
: Shri K. V. Gadhia Date : 19-12-04
B. I. KAZI , Presiding Officer
ORDER
नई दिल्ली, 29 अप्रैल, 2005
का. आ. 1886.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मै. ओ . एन. जी. सी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार, औद्योगिक अधिकरण, अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 62/04 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-4-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[ सं . एल -30025/ 70/2005- आई. आर. ( विविध ) ] बी. एम. डेविड, अवर सचिव
1. The complainant has filed this complaint Under Section 33A of the Industrial Dispute Act , praying that the opponent shall not change time bound promotion policy, in which a workman who completes six years of service in one post will get the promotion to next higher post. It is the say of the complainant that change of time bound promotion policy is a change of service condition . Hence prays that the opponent should be ordered to desist from any action of modifying R. & P. rules for electrical category and the service condition should not be changed till the pending of reference case.
New Delhi , the 29th April , 2005
S.O. 1886. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 62/ 2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court , Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure , inthe Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s . ONGC and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 20-4-2005 .
[No. L- 30025/ 70/2005 - IR(M) ] B. M. DAVID , Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM - LABOUR COURT AT AHMEDABAD
PRESENT :
Shri B. I. Kazi (B. Sc. , L. L. M. ) , Presiding Officer
2. The brief facts of the complainant is that the Reference is pending before the Hon'ble Tribunal C. G. I. T. A. No. 201/04 as a Old I. T. C. No. 120/99 for adjudication . The management of O. N. G. C. trying to modify R. & P. rules without the consent of Electrical & Allied StaffAssociation . The action will change the service conditionofElectrical category workman who are involved in the reference . As per the present R. & P. rules after completing of six years , the workman is getting promotion to next higher post and it is the time bound promotion policy and it is also service condition of the workman. The management have intimated their intention of change of time bound policy to the union through conciliation officer vide file No. RLC/ AH/ 50 ( 1 )/2002 on 15-05-2002 a copy is enclosed as Annexure " B " . Thus the intention of change of time bound promotion policy is change of service condition as per Section 9 -A and Schedule - IV of I. D. Act , 1947. Thus it is prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal shall issue an order to opposite party to desist from any action of modifying R. & P. rules for electrical category workman without the consent of Electrical & Allied Staff Association and not to change the service condition till the Reference 120/99 is finalized.
Com . C. G. I. T. A. No. 62/04 In Reference
No. C. G. I. T. A. No. 201/04
3. A notice was issued to the opponent to file the Written Statement .
[Old Com. No. 16/03 in Reference (I. T. C.) . No. 120/99]
H. N. Sharma ,
C/o ONGC Electrical & Allied Staff Association , 19, Pushpkunj Society, Near Sahkar Naagar,
Mehsana - 384002
Complainant
Versus
The Director, (Personnel/HR ) , ONGC Ltd. , Telbhavan ,
Dehradun - 248003 .
Opponent
4. By Ex. 5 the opponent has filed the Written Statement . The brief facts are that complaint is not maintainable at law and the Hon'ble Tribunal has no jurisdiction. The complaint is ill founded and made on assumption. The opponent has not contravened any provisions of Section 33 of the I. D. Act. The complainant is not concerned workman and alleged dispute is not connected with the main reference . Hence the complaint is required to be dismissed . The complaint is not maintainable at law, as it is filed on the ground of apprehension-assumption. The subject matter of present complaint is not connected with the pending Reference [ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : मई 21 , 2005/वैशाख 31 , 1927
5185
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 63/ 04) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure , inthe industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s . ONGC and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 20-4-2005.
[No. L- 30025/71 /2005 - IR (M) ] B. M. DAVID , Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT . INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT AT AHMEDABAD (ITC) No. 120/99. There is no such demand promotion in the main reference. The averments and contention made in the complaint are not true , hence denied by the opponent . It is denied that the management is trying to modify recruitment and promotion rules with the other union. It is the privilege of the management to change any rule. It is denied that there will be change of any service conditions of the complainant . The management calls recognized unions and ASTD for the discussion for changing the R. & P. regulations and the union is not recognized union and their union has not a legal right to say anything about R. & P. The complainant has not produced any proof of contravention of Section 33 of the I. D. Act . Thus it is prayed that the complaint should be dismissed with cost .
PRESENT :
Shri B. I. Kazi (B. Sc. , L. L. M. ), Presiding Officer
Com. C. G. L. T. A. No. 63/04 In Reference No. C. G. I. T. A. No. 201/04 5. During the course of adjudication the representative of the complainant submitted a purshis by Ex. 6 and it is stated that the matter is settled with the managememt. Hence the present complaint may be disposed of accordingly.
[Old Com . No. 17/03 in Reference (L. T. C. ) No. 120/99 ]
H. N. Rathwa,
C/o ONGC Electrical & Allied Staff Association, 19 , Pushpkunj Society, Near Sahkar Naagar,
Mehsana - 384002
Complainant
Versus
6. Looking to the facts of this purshis Ex. 6 it is clear that the matter has been settled amicably and there is no grievance of the complainant regarding changing the R. & P. policy. Not only that the opponent has not committed any breach of Section 33. Thus there is no violation of Section 33 of the Industrial Dispute Act by the opponent. Looking to the Ex. 6 this complaint becomes infructuous and does not survive in law. Hence I pass the following order:
ORDER
TheDirector , (Personnel/HR) ,
ONGC Ltd. , Telbhavan, Dehradun- 248003 .
Opponent
Appearances :
Inview of the fact of Annexure the parties have amicable settlement regarding the subject matter of the complaint . Hence this complaint is hereby disposed of. No order as to cost .
Complainant
: Shri R. C. Shukla.
Ahmedabad
: Shri K. V. Gadhia .
Opponent
Date : 19-12-04
B. I. KAZI, Presiding Officer
ORDER
नई दिल्ली, 29 अप्रैल, 2005
का. आ. 1887.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मै. ओ. एन. जी. सी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार, औद्योगिक अधिकरण , अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 63/04) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-4-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं . एल-30025 /71/2005- आई. आर. ( विविध ) ]
1. The complainant has filed this complaint Under Section 33A of the Industrial Dispute Act, praying that the opponent shall not change time bound promotion policy, in which a workman who completes six years of service in one post will get the promotion to next higher post . It is the say of the complainant that change of time bound promotion policy is a change of service condition. Hence prays that the opponent should be ordered to desist from any action of modifying R. & P. rules for electrical category and the service condition should not be changed till the pending of reference case.
बी. एम. डेविड, अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 29th April , 2005
S.O. 1887. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947 ) , the Central
2. The brief facts of the complainant is that the Reference is pending before the Hon'ble Tribunal C. G. I. T. A. No. 201/04 as a Old I. T. C. No. 120/99 for adjudication. The management of O. N. G. C. trying to modify R. & P. rules without the consent of Electrical & [PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] 5186
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21 , 2005 /VAISAKHA 31 , 1927
is no grievance of the complainant regarding changing the R. & P. policy. Not only that the opponent has not committed any breach of Section 33. Thus there is no violation of Section 33 of the Industrial Dispute Act by the opponent . Looking to the Ex. 6 this complaint becomes infructuous and does not survive in law. Hence I pass the following order :
ORDER
In view of the fact of Annexure the parties have amicable settlement regarding the subject matter of the complaint . Hence this complaint is hereby disposed of. No order as to cost .
Ahmedabad
Date : 19-12-04
B. I. KAZI , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 29 अप्रैल, 2005
Allied Staff Association . The action will change the service condition ofElectrical category workman who are involved in the reference . As per the present R. & P. rules after completing of six years , the workman is getting promotion to next higher post and it is the time bound promotion policy and it is also service condition of the workman. The management have intimated their intention of change of time bound policy to the union through conciliation officer vide file No. RLC/AH/ 50 ( 1 )/2002 on 15-05-2002 a copy is enclosed as Annexure " B " . Thus the intention of change of time bound promotion policy is change of service condition as per section 9 - A and Schedule - IV of I. D. Act , 1947. Thus it is prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal shall issue an order to opposite party to desist from any action of modifying R. & P. rules for electrical category workman without the consent of Electrical & Allied Staff Association and not to change the service condition till the Reference 120/99 is finalized ..
3. A notice was issued to the opponent to file the Written Statement .
का. आ. 1888.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार मै. ओ. एन. जी. सी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार, औद्योगिक अधिकरण श्रम न्यायालय , अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 64/04) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-4-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-30025/72/2005- आई आर ( विविध ) ] बी. एम. डेविड, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 29th April , 2005
S.O. 1888. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 64/ 2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court , Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure , inthe Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s . ONGC and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 20-4- 2005.
[No. L- 30025/ 72/ 2005 - IR ( M) ] B. M. DAVID , Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT AT AHMEDABAD 4. By Ex . 5 the opponent has filed the Written Statement . The brief facts are that complaint is not maintainable at law and the Hon'ble Tribunal has no jurisdiction . The complaint is ill founded and made on assumption . The opponent has not contravened any provisions of Section 33 of the I. D. Act . The complainant is not concerned workman and alleged dispute is not connected with the main reference . Hence the complaint is required to be dismissed . The complaint is not maintainable at law, as it is filed on the ground of apprehension -assumption . The subject matter of present complaint is not connected with the pending Reference (ITC) No. 120/99. There is no such demand promotion in the main reference. The averments and contention made in the complaint are not true , hence denied by the opponent . It is denied that the management is trying to modify recruitment and promotion rules with the other union. It is the privilege of the management to change any rule. It is denied that there will be change of any service conditions of the complainant . The management calls recognized unions and ASTD for the discussion for changing the R. & P. regulations and the union is not recognized union and their union has not a legal right to say anything about R. & P. The complainant has not produced any proof of contravention of Section 33 of the I. D. Act . Thus it is prayed that the complaint should be dismissed with cost.
PRESENT :
Shri B. I. Kazi (B. Sc . , L. L. M. ) , Presiding Officer
Com . C. G. I. T. A. No. 64/04 In Reference No. C. G. I. T. A. No. 201/04 5. During the course of adjudication the representative of the complainant submitted a purshis by Ex. 6 and it is stated that the matter is settled with the managememt . Hence the present complaint may be disposed of accordingly.
[Old Com. No. 18/03 in Reference (I. T. C. ) No. 120/99 ]
6. Looking to the facts of this purshis Ex . 6 it is clear that the matter has been settled amicably and there 5187
भारत का राजपत्र : मईं 21 , 2005/वैशाख 31 , 1927
[ भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
D. S. Patel ,
C/o ONGC Electrical & Allied Staff Association ,
19, Pushpkunj Society, Near Sahkar Naagar ,
Mehsana - 384002
Complainant
Versus
The Director, (Personnel/HR) ,
ONGC Ltd. , Telbhavan,
Dehradun - 248003 .
Opponent
Appearances :
Complainant : Shri R. C. Shukla .
: Shri K. V. Gadhia .
Opponent
ORDER
maintainable at law and the Hon'ble Tribunal has no jurisdiction . The complaint is ill founded and made on assumption . The opponent has not contravened any provisions of Section 33 of the I. D. Act . The complainant is not concerned workman and alleged dispute is not connected with the main reference . Hence the complaint is required to be dismissed . The complaint is not maintainable at law, as it is filed on the ground of apprehension-assumption . The subject matter of present complaint is not connected with the pending Reference (ITC) No. 120/99 . There is no such demand promotion in the main reference . The averments and contention made in the complaint are not true , hence denied by the opponent . It is denied that the management is trying to modify recruitment and promotion rules with the other union . It is the privilege of the management to the change any rule. It is denied that there will be change of any service conditions of the complainant . The management calls recognized unions and ASTD for the discussion for changing the R. & P. regulations and the union is not recognized union and their union has not a legal right to say anything about R. & P. The complainant has not produced any proof of contravention of Section 33 of the I. D. Act . Thus it is prayed that the complaint should be dismissed with cost .
1. The complainant has filed this complaint Under Section 33A of the Industrial Dispute Act , praying that the opponent shall not change time bound promotion policy, in which a workman who completes six years of service in one post will get the promotion to next higher post. It is the say of the complainant that change of time bound promotion policy is a change of service condition. Hence prays that the opponent should be ordered to desist from any action of modifying R. & P. rules for electrical category and the service condition should not be changed till the pending of reference case .
5. During the course of adjudication the representative of the complainant submitted a purshis by Ex. 6 and it is stated that the matter is settled with the managememt . Hence the present complaint may be disposed of accordingly.
6. Looking to the facts of this purshis Ex. 6 it is clear that the matter has been settled amicably and there is no grievance of the complainant regarding changing the R. & P. policy. Not only that the opponent has not committed any breach of Section 33. Thus there is no violation of Section 33 of the Industrial Dispute Act by the opponent. Looking to the Ex . 6 this complaint becomes infructuous and does not survive in law. Hence I pass the following order :
ORDER
In view of the fact of Annexure the parties have amicable settlement regarding the subject matter of the complaint . Hence this complaint is hereby disposed of. No order as to cost .
Ahmedabad
Date : 19-12-04 B. I. KAZI , Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 29 अप्रैल, 2005
2. The brief facts of the complainant is that the Reference is pending before the Hon'ble Tribunal C. G. I. T. A. No. 201/04 as a Old I. T. C. No. 120/99.for adjudication . The management of O. N. G. C. trying to modify R. & P. rules without the consent of Electrical & Allied Staff Association . The action will change the service condition ofElectrical category workman who are involved in the reference . As per the present R. & P. rules after completing of six years , the workman is getting promotion to next higher post and it is the time bound promotion policy and it is also service condition of the workman . The management have intimated their intention of change of time bound policy to the union through conciliation officer vide file No. RLC/ AH/50 ( 1 )/2002 on 15-05-2002 a copy is enclosed as Annexure " B " . Thus the intention of change of time bound promotion policy is change of service condition as per section 9 - A and Schedule - IV of I. D. Act , 1947. Thus it is prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal shall issue an order to opposite party to desist for any action of modifying R. & P. rules for electrical category workman without the consent of Electrical & Allied Staff Association and not to change the service condition till the Reference 120/99 is finalized .
3. A notice was issued to the opponent to file the Written Statement.
का. आ. 1889.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मै . ओ. एन. जी. सी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार, औद्योगिक 4. By Ex . 5 the opponent has filed the Written Statement. The brief facts are that complaint is not 5188
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21 , 2005 /VAISAKHA 31 , 1927
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] अधिकरण , अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 65/04 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-4-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
bound promotion policy is a change of service condition. Hence prays that the opponent should be ordered to desist from any action of modifying R. & P. rules for electrical category and the service condition should not be changed till the pending of reference case .
[सं. एल-30025/73/2005- आई. आर. ( विविध ) ] बी. एम. डेविड, अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 29th April , 2005
S.O. 1889. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 65 / 2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s . ONGC and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 20-4-2005.
[No. L - 30025 /73 / 2005 - IR(M) ] B. M. DAVID , Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM - LABOUR COURT AT AHMEDABAD
PRESENT :
Shri B. I. Kazi (B. Sc . , L. L. M. ) , Presiding Officer
2. The brief facts of the complainant is that the Reference is pending before the Hon'ble Tribunal C. G. I. T. A. No. 201/04 as a Old I. T. C. No. 120/99 for adjudication . The management of O. N. G. C. trying to modify R. & P. rules without the consent of Electrical & Allied StaffAssociation . The action will change the service conditionof Electrical category workman who are involved in the reference. As per the present R. & P. rules after completing of six years, the workman is getting promotion to next higher post and it is the time bound promotion policy and it is also service condition of the workman . The management have intimated their intention of change of time bound policy to the union through conciliation officer vide file No. RLC/AH/50 ( 1 )/2002 on 15-05-2002 a copy is enclosed as Annexure " B " . Thus the intention of change of time bound promotion policy is change of service condition as per Section 9 - A and Schedule - IV of I. D. Act , 1947. Thus it is prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal shall issue an order to opposite party to desist from any action of modifying R. & P. rules for electrical category workman without the consent of Electrical & Allied Staff Association and not to change the service condition till the Reference 120/99 is finalized.
Com. C. G. I. T. A. No. 65/04 In Reference No. C. G. I. T. A. No. 201/04
3. A notice was issued to the opponent to file the Written Statement .
[ Old Com . No. 19/03 in Reference (I. T. C. ) No. 120/99]
M. P. Pandya,
C/ o ONGC Electrical & Allied Staff Association, 19 , Pushpkunj Society, Near Sahkar Naagar, Mehsana -384002
Complainant
Versus
The Director, (Personnel/HR) , ONGC Ltd. , Telbhavan , Dehradun - 248003 .
Opponent
Appearances :
: Shri R. C. Shukla .
Complainant
: Shri K. V. Gadhia .
Opponent
ORDER
4. By Ex. 5 the opponent has filed the Written Statement . The brief facts are that complaint is not maintainable at law and the Hon'ble Tribunal has no jurisdiction. The complaint is ill founded and made on assumption . The opponent has not contravened any provisions of Section 33 of the I. D. Act . The complainant is not concerned workman and alleged dispute is not connected with the main reference . Hence the complaint is required to be dismissed . The complaint is not maintainable at law , as it is filed on the ground of apprehension-assumption . The subject matter of present complaint is not connected with the pending Reference (ITC) No. 120/99 . There is no such demand promotion in the main reference. The averments and contention made in the complaint are not true , hence denied by the opponent . It is denied that the management is trying to modify recruitment and promotion rules with the other union. It is the privilege of the management to change any rule. It is denied that there will be change of any service conditions of the complainant . The management calls recognized unions and ASTD for the discussion for changing the R. & P. regulations and the union is not recognized union and their union has not a legal right to say anything about R. & P. The complainant has not 1. The complainant has filed this complaint Under Section 33A of the Industrial Dispute Act , praying that the opponent shall not change time bound promotion policy, in which a workman who completes six years of service in one post will get the promotion to next higher post. It is the say of the complainant that change of time [भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : मई 21 , 2005/वैशाख 31 , 1927
5189
ANNEXURE
produced any proof of contravention of Section 33 of the I. D. Act . Thus it is prayed that the complaint should be dismissed with cost.
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM -LABOUR COURT AT AHMEDABAD
PRESENT :
Shri B. I. Kazi (B. Sc. , L. L. M. ), Presiding Officer 5. During the course of adjudication the representative of the complainant submitted a purshis by Ex. 6 and it is stated that the matter is settled with the management . Hence the present complaint may be disposed of accordingly.
Com. C. G. L. T. A. No. 66/04 In Reference
No. C. G. L. T. A. No. 201/04
[Old Com. No. 20/03 in Reference (L. T. C.) No. 120/99]
V. N. Thakor,
C/o ONGC Electrical & Allied Staff Association, 19, Pushpkunj Society, Near Sahkar Nagar,
Mehsana-384002
Complainant 6.Looking to the facts of this purshis Ex . 6 it is clear that the matter has been settled amicably and there is no grievance of the complainant regarding changing the R. & P. policy. Not only that the opponent has not committed any breach of Section 33. Thus there is no violation of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act by the opponent. Looking to the Ex. 6 this complaint becomes infructuous and does not survive in law. Hence I pass the following order:
Versus
ORDER
The Director, (Personnel/HR) , ONGC Ltd. , Telbhavan, Dehradun - 248003 .
Opponent
Appearances:
Inview of the fact of Annexure the parties have amicable settlement regarding the subject matter of the complaint . Hence this complaint is hereby disposed of. No order as to cost.
: Shri R. C. Shukla.
Complainant
: Shri K. V. Gadhia .
Opponent
Ahmedabad Date : 19-12-04
B. I. KAZI , Presiding Officer
ORDER
नई दिल्ली , 29 अप्रैल, 2005
का. आ. 1890.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मै. ओ. एन. जी. सी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार, औद्योगिक अधिकरण, अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 66/04 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-4-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
1. The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, praying that the opponent shall not change time bound promotion policy, in which a workman who completes six years of service in one post will get the promotion to next higher post. It is the say of the complainant that change of time bound promotion policy is a change of service condition . Hence prays that the opponent should be ordered to desist from any action of modifying R. & P. rules for Electrical category and the service condition should not be changed till the pending of reference case .
[सं. एल-30025/74/2005- आई. आर. ( विविध ) ] बी. एम. डेबिड, अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 29th April, 2005
S.O. 1890.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 66/ 2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, inthe Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s . ONGC and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 20-4-2005 .
[No. L-30025/74 /2005 - IR (M) ] B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.
2. The brief facts of the complainant is that the Reference is pending before the Hon'ble Tribunal C. G. I. T. A. No. 201/04 as a Old I. T. C. No. 120/99 for adjudication. The management of O. N. G. C. trying to modify R. & P. rules without the consent of Electrical & Allied StaffAssociation . The action will change the service conditionofElectrical category workman who are involved in the reference. As per the present R. & P. rules after completingofsix years , the workman is getting promotion to next higher post and it is the time bound promotion policy and it is also service condition of the workman. The management have intimated their intention ofchange of time bound policy to the union through conciliation officer vide file No. RLC/AH/50 ( 1 )/2002 on 15-05-2002 acopy is enclosed as Annexure " B" . Thus the intention 1450 G1 /05-22 5190
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21 , 2005 /VAISAKHA 31 , 1927
of change of time bound promotion policy is change of service condition as per Section 9 -A and Schedule - IV of I. D. Act, 1947. Thus it is prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal shall issue an order to opposite party to desist from any action of modifying R. & P. rules for Electrical category workman without the consent ofElectrical & Allied Staff Association and not to change the service condition till the Reference 120/99 is finalized.
3. A notice was issued to the opponent to file the Written Statement.
4. By Ex. 5 the opponent has filed the Written Statement. The brief facts are that complaint is not maintainable at law and the Hon'ble Tribunal has no jurisdiction. The complaint is ill founded and made on assumption. The opponent has not contravened any provisions ofSection 33 of the I. D. Act . The complainant is not concerned workman and alleged dispute is not connected with the main reference. Hence the complaint is required to be dismissed. The complaint is not maintainable at law, as it is filed on the ground of apprehension-assumption. The subject matter of present complaint is not connected with the pending Reference (ITC) No. 120/99 . There is no such demand promotion in the main reference. The averments and contention made in the complaint are not true , hence denied by the opponent . It is denied that the management is trying to modify recruitment and promotion rules with the other union. It is the privilege of the management to change any rule . It is denied that there will be change of any service conditions of the complainant. The management calls recognized unions and ASTD for the discussion for changing the R. & P.. regulations and the union is not recognized union and their union has not a legal right to say anything about R. & P. The complainant has not produced any proof of contravention of Section 33 of the I. D. Act . Thus it is prayed that the complaint should be dismissed with cost .
5. During the course of adjudication the representative of the complainant submitted a purshis by Ex. 6 and it is stated that the matter is settled with the managememt . Hence the present complaint may be disposed of accordingly.
6. Looking to the facts of this purshis Ex. 6 it is clear that the matter has been settled amicably and there is no grievance of the complainant regarding changing the R. & P. policy. Not only that the opponent has not committed any breach of Section 33. Thus there is no violation of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act by the opponent. Looking to the Ex . 6 this complaint becomes infructuous and does not survive in law. Hence I pass the following order:
ORDER
In view of the fact of Annexure the parties have amicable settlement regarding the subject matter of the
[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ] complaint.Hence this complaint is hereby disposed of. No order as to cost.
Ahmedabad Date : 19-12-04 B. I. KAZI , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 29 अप्रैल, 2005
का. आ. 1891.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मै. ओ. एन. जी. सी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार, औद्योगिक अधिकरण, अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 67/04 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-4-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-30025 /75/2005 - आई. आर. ( विविध ) ] बी. एम. डेविड, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 29th April , 2005
S.O. 1891. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 67/ 2004) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court , Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Disputes between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s . ONGC and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 20-4-2005 .
[No. L-30025/75 / 2005 - IR (M) ] B. M. DAVID , Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT AT AHMEDABAD
PRESENT :
Shri B. I. Kazi (B. Sc. , L. L. M. ), Presiding Officer Com. C. G. I. T. A. No. 67/04 in Reference No. C. G. L. T. A. No. 201/04
(Old Com. No. 21/03 in Reference (L. T. С. ) .
No. 120/99)
S.D. PARMAR C/o ONGC Electrical & Allied StaffAssociation , 19, Pushpkunj Society, Near Sahkar Nagar, Mehsana - 384002 Complainant
Versus
TheDirector, (Personnel/HR) , ONGC Ltd. , Teibhavan , Dehradun - 248003 .
Opponent [ भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii) ]
5191 भारत का राजपत्र : मई 21 , 2005 /वैशाख 31 , 1927
Appearances :
Shri R. C. Shukla .
Complainant
: Shri K. V. Gadhia .
Opponent
ORDER
( ITC) No. 120/99 . There is no such demand promotion in the main reference. The averments and contention made in the complaint are not true , hence denied by the opponent. It is denied that înc management is trying to modify recruitment and promotion rules with the other union . It is the privilege of the management to change any rule. It is denied that there will be change of any service conditions of the complainant . The management calls recognized unions and ASTD for the discussion for changing the R. & P. regulations and the union is not recognized union and their union has not a legal right to say anything about R. & P. The complainant has not produced anyproof of contravention of Section 33 of the I. D. Act . Thus it is prayed that the complaint should be dismissed with cost .
1. The complainant has filed this complaint under section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, praying that. the opponent shall not change time bound promotion policy, in which a workman who completes six years of service in one post will get the promotion to next higher post. It is the say of the complainant that change of time bound promotion policy is a change of service condition . Hence prays that the opponent should be ordered to desist from any action of modifying R. & P. rules for electrical category and the service condition should not be changed till the pending of reference case .
5. During the course of adjudication the representative of the complainant submitted a purshis by Ex . 6 and it is stated that the inatter is settled with the management. Hence the present complaint may be disposed of accordingly.
6. Looking to the facts of this purshis Ex. 6 it is clear that the matter has been settled amicably and there is no grievance of the complainant regarding changing the R. & P. policy. Not only that the opponent has not committed any breach of section 33. Thus there is no violation of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act by the opponent . Looking to the Ex. 6 this complaint becomes infructuous and does not survive in law. Hence I pass the following order:
ORDER
In view of the fact of Annexure the parties have amicable settlement regarding the subject matter of the complaint . Hence this complaint is hereby disposed of. No order as to cost .
Ahmedabad
Date : 19-12-04
B. I. KAZI , Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 29 अप्रैल, 2005
2. The brief facts of the complainant is that the Reference is pending before the Hon'ble Tribunal C. G. I. T. A. No. 201/04 as a Old I. T. C. No. 120/99 for adjudication. The management of O. N. G. C. trying to modify R. & P. rules without the consent of Electrical & Allied StaffAssociation . The action will change the service condition of electrical category workman who are involved in the reference . As per the present R. & P. rules after completing of six years , the workman is getting promotion to next higher post and it is the time bound promotion policy and it is also service condition of the workman. The management have intimated their intention ofchange of time bound policy to the union through conciliation officer vide file No. RLC/ AH/ 50 ( 1 ) /2002 on 15-05-2002 a copy is enclosed as Annexure "B" . Thus the intention of change of time bound promotion policy is change of service condition as per section 9 -A and Schedule - IV of I. D. Act , 1947. Thus it is prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal shall issue an order to opposite party to desist for any action of modifying R. & P. rules for electrical category workman without the consent of Electrical & Allied Staff Association and not to change the service condition till the Reference No. 120/99 is finalized .
3. A notice was issued to the opponent to file the Written Statement .
का. आ. 1892.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मै . ओ. एन. जी. सी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार, औद्योगिक अधिकरण, अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 68/2004) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-4-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-30025/76/2005- आई. आर. ( विविध ) ] बी. एम. डेविड, अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 29th April , 2005 4. By Ex. 5 the opponent has filed the Written Statement. The brief facts are that complaint is not maintainable at law and the Hon'ble Tribunal has no jurisdiction . The complaint is ill founded and made on assumption . The opponent has not contravened any provisions of Section 33 of the I. D. Act. The complainant is not concerned workman and alleged dispute is not connected with the main reference. Hence the complaint is required to be dismissed . The complaint is not maintainable at law , as it is filed on the ground of apprehension-assumption . The subject matter of present complaint is not connected with the pending Reference
S.O. 1892. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central 1450 GI /2005-23 5192
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21 , 2005 /VAISAKHA 31 , 1927
[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ] Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 68/ 2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s . ONGC and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 20-4-2005 .
[No. L - 30025/ 76/2005 - IR (M ) ]
B. M. DAVID , Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM - LABOUR COURT AT AHMEDABAD
PRESENT :
condition ofElectrical category workman who are involved in the reference . As per the present R. & P. rules after completing of six years , the workman is getting promotion to next higher post and it is the time bound promotion policy and it is also service condition of the workman . The management have intimated their intention of change of time bound policy to the union through conciliation officer vide file No. RLC/ AH/ 50 ( 1 ) /2002 on 15-05-2002 a copy is enclosed as Annexure " B " . Thus the intention of change of time bound promotion policy is change of service condition as per section 9 - A and Schedule - IV of I.D. Act , 1947. Thus it is prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal shall issue an order to opposite party to desist for any action of modifying R. & P. rules för electrical category workman without the consent of Electrical & Allied Staff Association and not to change the service condition till the Reference 120/99 is finalized .
Shri B.I. Kazi (B.Sc. , L.L.M. ) : Presiding Officer
3. A notice was issued to the opponent to file the Written Statement .
Com . C.G.LT.A. No. 68/04 In Reference No. C.G.L.T.A. No. 201/04
[ Old Com. No. 22/03 in Reference ( I.T.C. )
No. 120/99 ]
S.L. Prajapati ,
C/ o ONGC Electrical & Allied Staff Association, 19 , Pushpkunj Society, Near Sahkar Naagar, Mehsana - 384002 .
Complainant
Versus
The Director, (Personnel/HR) ,
ONGC Ltd. , Telbhavan , Dehradun - 248003 .
Opponent
APPEARANCES :
: Shri R. C. Shukla .
Complainant
: Shri K. V. Gadhia.
Opponent
ORDER
4. By Ex. 5 the opponent has filed the Written Statement . The brief facts are that complaint is not maintainable at law and the Hon'ble Tribunal has no jurisdiction . The complaint is ill founded and made on assumption . The opponent has not contravened any provisions of Section 33 of the I. D. Act . The complainant is not concerned workman and alleged dispute is not connected with the main reference . Hence the complaint is required to be dismissed. The complaint is not maintainable at law, as it is filed on the ground of apprehension-assumption . The subject matter of present complaint is not connected with the pending Reference (ITC) No. 120/99 . There is no such demand promotion in the main reference . The averments and contention made in the complaint are not true , hence denied by the opponent. It is denied that the management is trying to modify recruitment and promotion rules with the other union . It is the privilege of the management to change any rule. It is denied that there will be change of any service conditions of the complainant . The management calls recognized unions and ASTD for the discussion for changing the R. & P. regulations and the union is not recognized union and their union has not a legal right to say anything about R. & P. The complainant has not produced any proof of contravention of Section 33 of the I. D. Act . Thus it is prayed that the complaint should be dismissed with cost .
1. The complainant has filed this complaint Under Section 33A of the Industrial Dispute Act , praying that the opponent shall not change time bound promotion policy, in which a workman who completes six years of service in one post will get the promotion to next higher post . It is the say of the complainant that change of time bound promotion policy is a change of service condition. Hence prays that the opponent should be ordered to desist from any action of modifying R. & P. rules for electrical category and the service condition should not be changed till the pending of reference case .
5. During the course of adjudication the representative of the complainant submitted a purshis by Ex. 6 and it is stated that the matter is settled with the managememt . Hence the present complaint may be disposed off accordingly.
6. Looking to the facts of this purshis Ex. 6 it is clear that the matter has been settled amicably and there is no grievance of the complainant regarding changing 2. The brief facts of the complainant is that the Reference is pending before the Hon'ble Tribunal C. G. I. T. A. No. 201/04 as a Old I. T. C. No. 120/99 for adjudication. The management of O. N. G. C. trying to modify R. & P. rules without the consent of Electrical & Allied Staff Association. The action will change the service [भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : मई 21 , 2005/वैशाख 31 , 1927
5193
The Director, (Personnel/HR), ONGC Ltd Telbhavan ,
Dehradun-2003 .
Opponent
APPEARANCES :
the R. & P. policy. Not only that the opponent has not committed any breach of Section 33. Thus there is no violation of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act by the opponent , Looking to the Ex. 6 this complaint become infructuous and does not survive in law. Hence I pass the following order:
Complainant
: Shri R. C. Shukla .
ORDER
: Shri K. V. Gadhia .
Opponent
ORDER
Inview of the fact of Annexure of the parties have amicable settlement regarding the subject matter of the complaint . Hence this complaint is hereby disposed of. No order as to cost .
Ahmedabad Date : 19-12-04
B. I. KAZI , Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 29 अप्रैल, 2005
1. The complainant has filed this complaint Under Section 33A of the Industrial Dispute Act, praying that the opponent shall not change time bound promotion policy, in which a workman who completes six years of service in one post will get the promotion to next higher post. It is the say of the complainant that change of time bound promotion policy is a change of service condition . Hence prays that the opponent should be ordered to desist from any action of modifying R. & P. rules for electrical category and the service condition should not be changed till the pending of reference case .
का. आ. 1893.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मै . ओ. एन . जी. सी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार, औद्योगिक अधिकरण , अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 69/2004 ) को प्रकशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-4-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ की।
[सं. एल-30025/77/2005- आई. आर. (विविध) ] बी. एम . डेविड, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 29th April, 2005
S.O. 1893. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 1), 59/ 2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribuna-cam- Labour Court , Ahmedabad as shown in the Arnt xure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers ination to the management of M/ s . ONGC and their woman, which was received by the Central Government on 20-4-2005 .
[No. L - 30025/77 /2005 - IR( M) ] B. M. DAVID , Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR. COURT AT AHMEDABAD
2. The brief facts of the complainant is that the Reference is pending before the Hon'ble Tribunal C. G. I. T. A. No. 201/04 as a Old I. T. C. No. 120/99 for adjudication . The management of O. N. G. C. trying to modify R. & P. rules without the consent of Electrical & Allied StaffAssociation . The action will change the service condition ofElectrical category workman who are involved in the reference. As per the present R. & P. rules after completing of six years , the workman is getting promotion to next higher post and it is the time bound promotion policy and it is also service condition of the workman . The management have intimated their intention of change of time bound policy to the union through conciliation officer vide file No. RLC/ AH/50 ( 1 )/ 2002 on 15-05-2002 a copy is enclosed as Annexure " B " . Thus the intention of change of time bound promotion policy is change of service condition as per section 9 - A and Schedule - IV of I.D. Act, 1947. Thus it is prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal shall issue an order to opposite party to desist from any action of modifying R. & P. rules for electrical category workman without the consent of Electrical & Allied Staff Association and not to change the service condition till the Reference 120/99 is finalized.
PRESENT :
3. A notice was issued to the opponent to file the Written Statement .
Shri B.I. Kazi (B.Sc. , L.L.M. ) : Presiding Officer Com . C.G.L.T.A. No. 69/04 In Reference No. C.G.L.T.A. No. 201/04
(Old Com. No. 23/03 in Reference (L.T.C. ) No. 120/99)
Sharad. B. Patel
Mehsana- 384002 .
C/ o ONGC Electrical & Allied Staff Association , 19 , Pushpkunj Society, Near Sahkar Naagar, Complainant
Versus
4. By Ex. 5 the opponent has filed the Written Statement. The brief facts are that complaint is not maintainable at law and the Hon'ble Tribunal has no jurisdiction . The complaint is ill founded and made on assumption . The opponent has not contravened any provisions of Section 33 of the I. D. Act. The complainant is not concerned workman and alleged dispute is not connected with the main reference. Hence the complaint is required to be dismissed . The complaint is not 5194
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21 , 2005/VAISAKНА 31 , 1927
:
maintainable at law, as it is filed on the ground of apprehension-assumption. The subject matter of present complaint is not connected with the pending Reference (ITC) No. 120/99 . There is no such demand promotion in the main reference . The averments and contention made in the complaint are not true, hence denied by the opponent . It is denied that the management is trying to modify recruitment and promotion rules with the other union. It is the privilege of the management of the change any rule . It is denied that there will be change of any service conditions of the complainant. The management calls recognized unions and ASTD for the discussion for changing the R. & P. regulations and the union is not recognized union and their union has not a legal right to say anything about R. & P. The complainant has not produced any proof of contravention of Section 33 of the I. D. Act . Thus it is prayed that the complaint should be dismissed with cost .
5. During the course of adjudication the representative of the complainant submitted a purshis by Ex. 6 and it is stated that the matter is settled with the managememt. Hence the present complaint may be disposed off accordingly.
6. Looking to the facts of this purshis Ex. 6 it is clear that the matter has been settled amicably and there is no grievance of the complainant regarding changing the R. & P. policy. Not only that the opponent has not committed any breach of section 33. Thus there is no violation of section 33 of the Industrial Dispute Act by the opponent. Looking to the Ex . 6 this complaint become infructuous and does not survive in law. Hence I pass the following order:
ORDER
In view of the fact of Annexure the parties have amicable settlement regarding the subject matter of the complaint. Hence this complaint is hereby disposed of. No order as to cost.
Ahmedabad Date : 19-12-04
B. I. KAZI , Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 29 अप्रैल, 2005
का. आ. 1894.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मै . ओ. एन. जी. सी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार, औद्योगिक अधिकरण, अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 70/04 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-4-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-30025/78/2005 - आई. आर. (विविध ) ] बी. एम. डेविड, अवर सचिव
[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] New Delhi , the 29th April , 2005
S.O. 1894. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 70/ 04) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court , Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s ONGC and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 20-4-2005.
[No. L - 30025 /78/ 2005 - IR ( M) ] B. M. DAVID , Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM -LABOUR COURT AT AHMEDABAD
PRESENT :
Shri B. I. Kazi (B. Sc . , L. L. M. ) Presiding Officer Com . C.G.I.T.A. No. 70/04 In Reference No. C.G.LT.A. No. 201/04
[Old Com. No. 24/03 in Reference ( L.T.C. ) No. 120/99 ] P. R. Choudhary C/o ONGC Electrical & Allied Staff Association, 19, Pushpkunj Society, Near Sahkar Naagar, Mehsana -384002 . V/s. Complainant The Director, (Personnel /HR, ONGC Ltd. , Telbhavan , Dehradun-248003 .
Opponent APPEARANCES :
Complainant: Shri R. C. Shukla . Opponent : Shri K. V. Gadhia.
ORDER
1. The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 33A of the Industrial Dispute Act , praying that the opponent shall not change time bound promotion policy, in which a workman who completes six years of service in one post will get the promotion to next higher post. It is the say of the complainant that change of time bound promotion policy is a change of service condition . Hence prays that the opponent should be ordered to desist from any action of modifying R. & P. rules for electrical category and the service condition should not be change till the pending of reference case .
2. The brief facts of the complainant is that the Reference is pending before the Hon'ble Tribunal [ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : मई 21 , 2005/वैशाख 31 , 1927
5195
6. Looking to the facts of this purshis Ex. 6 it is clear that the matter has been settled amicably and there is no grievance of the complainant regarding changing the R. & P. policy. Not only that the opponent has not committed any breach of Section 33. Thus there is no violation of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act by the opponent. Looking to the Ex. 6 this complaint becomes infructuous and does not survive in law. Hence I pass the following order:
ORDER In view of the fact of Annexure the parties have amicable settlement regarding the subject matter of the complaint. Hence this complaint is hereby disposed of. No order as to cost .
Ahmedabad
Date : 19-12-04
B. I. KAZI , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 29 अप्रैल, 2005 C. G. I. T. A. No. 201/04 as a Old I. T. C. No. 120/99 for adjudication . The management of O. N. G. C. trying to modify R. & P. rules without the consent of Electrical & Allied StaffAssociation. The action will change the service conditionofElectrical category workman who are involved in the reference . As per the present R. & P. rules after completing ofsix years , the workman is getting promotion to next higher post and it is the time bound promotion policy and it is also service condition of the workınan. The management have intimated their intention of change of time bound policy to the union through conciliation officer vide file No. RLC/AH/50 ( 1 )/2002 on 15-05-2002 a copy is enclosed as Annexure " B " . Thus the intention of change of time bound promotion policy is change of service condition as per Section 9 -A and Schedule - IV of I. D. Act, 1947. Thus it is prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal shall issue an order to opposite party to desist from any action of modifying R. & P. rules for electrical category workman without the consent of Electrical & Allied Staff Association and not to change the service condition till the Reference 120/99 is finalized.
3. A notice was issued to the opponent to file the Written Statement .
का. आ. 1895.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार इण्डियन इंस्टिट्यूट ऑफ पेट्रोलियम के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार, औद्योगिक अधिकरण, चण्डींगढ़ नं. 1 के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 43/ 2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-4-2005 कोप्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-30012/34/2002- आई. आर. (विविध) ] बी. एम. डेविड, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 29th April , 2005
S.O. 1895. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 43/ 2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court , Chandigarh No. 1 as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Indian Institute of Petroleum and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 27-4-2005 .
[No. L- 30012/34/ 2002 - IR(M) ] B. M. DAVID , Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
4. By Ex . 5 the opponent has filed the Written Statement . The brief facts are that complaint is not maintainable at law and the Hon'ble Tribunal has no jurisdiction . The complaint is ill founded and made on assumption. The opponent has not contravened any provisions of Section 33 of the I. D. Act . The complainant is not concerned workman and alleged dispute is not connected with the main reference . Hence the complaint is required to be dismissed . The complaint is not maintainable at law, as it is filed on the ground of apprehension-assumption. The subject matter of present complaint is not connected with the pending Reference (ITC) No. 120/99 . There is no such demand promotion in the main reference . The averments and contention made in the complaint are not true , hence denied by the opponent. It is denied that the management is trying to modify recruitment and promotion rules with the other union . It is the privilege of the management to change any rule. It is denied that there will be change of any service condițions of the complainant . The management calls recognized unions and ASTD for the discussion for changing the R. & P. regulations and the union is not recognized union and their union has not a legal right to say anything about R. & P. The complainant has not produced any proof of contravention of Section 33 of the I. D. Act . Thus it is prayed that the complaint should be dismissed with cost .
BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIALTRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT- 1 , CHANDIGARH Case No. L.D. 43 of 2003
Sh. Satish Kumar C/o Shri Murli ,
House No. 760/18 ,
Om Nagar , Gurgoan.
Applicant
Versus
5. During the course of adjudication the representative of the complainant submitted a purshis by Ex. 6 and it is stated that the matter is settled with the managememt . Hence the present complaint may be disposed of accordingly.
5196
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21 , 2005 /VAISAKHA 31 , 1927
1. M/ s Indian Institute of Petroleum Management, Plot No. 83 , Sector - 18 , Gurgoan
2. M/ s A. K. Rekhi & Co. , Indian Oil Petroleum Management , Plot No. 83 , Sector- 18 , Gurgoan .
Respondents APPEARANCES :
For the workman
: None
: Shri Latit Thakur .
For the management
AWARD
Passed on 30-3-2005
Central Govt . vide notification No. L-30012/34/ 2002/ IR (M) dated 27-2-2003 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
"Whether the action of the management of Indian Institute of Petroleum management in terminating the services of Shri Satish Kumar justified ? If not , what relief the workman is entitled to ?" 2. Case repeatedly called . None has put up appearance on behalf of the workman. Awaited up to 4 PM . Court notice was issued to the workman for today and on earlier two dates by registered A.D. Post . As per report of the postal authorities , Satish Kumar workman has left his home. Learned counsel for the management submitted that workman appears not to be interested and not appearing in the Court . On earlier notices also , the same report was found that Satish Kumar workman has left his residence and gone to unknown place .
3. In view of the above submission , it is quite clear that workman is not residing on the address given and has left and there is no address of the workman and it appears that he is fairly placed in employment and not interested to persue with the present reference. In view of the above , the present reference is returned for want of prosecution. Central govt . be informed . File be consigned to record.
RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer Announced 30-3-2005
नई दिल्ली, 29 अप्रैल, 2005
का. आ. 1896.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मै. ओ . एन. जी. सी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार, औद्योगिक अधिकरण , अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 52/04 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-4-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-30025/60/2005- आई. आर. ( विविध) ]
बी. एम. डेविड, अवर सचिव
[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] New Delhi , the 29th April , 2005
S.O. 1896. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 52/ 2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court , Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. ONGC and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 20-4-2005 .
[No. L-30025/60/ 2005 - IR(M ) ] B. M. DAVID , Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT AT AHMEDABAD
PRESENT :
Shri B. I. Kazi (B. Sc . , L. L. M. ) , Presiding Officer Com. C. G. I. T. A. No. 52/04 In Reference No. C. G. I. T. A. No. 201/04
[Old Com . No. 6/03 in Reference (L., T. C. ) No. 120/99]
N. G. Bhalja
C/o ONGC Electrical & Allied Staff Association, 19, Pushpkunj Society, Near Sahkar Nagar, Mehsana- 384002
Complainant
Versus
The Director, (Personnel/HR), ONGC Ltd. , Telbhavan ,
Dehradun - 248003 .
Opponent APPEARANCES :
: Shri R. C. Shukla .
Complainant
: Shri K. V. Gadhia .
Opponent
ORDER
1. The complainant has filed this complaint Under Section 33A of the Industrial Dispute Act, praying that the opponent shall not change time bound promotion policy, in which a workman who completes six years of service in one post will get the promotion to next higher post . It is the say of the complainant that change of time bound promotion policy is a change of service condition . Hence prays that the opponent should be ordered to desist from any action of modifying R. & P. rules for electrical category and the service condition should not be change till the pending of reference case .
5197 भारत का राजपत्र : मई 21 , 2005/वैशाख 31 , 1927
[ भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
the main reference . The averments and contention made in the complaint are not true , hence denied by the opponent . It is denied that the management is trying to modify recruitment and promotion rules with the other union. It is the privilege of the management to change any rule. It is denied that there will be change of any service conditions of the complainant. The management calls recognized unions and ASTD for the discussion for changing the R. & P. regulations and the union is not recognized union and their union has not a legal right to say anything about R. & P. The complainant has not produced any proof of contravention of Section 33 of the I. D. Act . Thus it is prayed that the complaint should be dismissed with cost .
5. During the course of adjudication the representative of the complainant submitted a purshis by Ex. 6 and it is stated that the matter is settled with the managememt. hence the present complaint may be disposed of accordingly.
2. The brief facts of the complainant is that the Reference is pending before the Hon'ble Tribunal C. G. I. T. A. No. 201/04 as an Old I. T. C. No. 120/99 for adjudication . The management of O. N. G. C. trying to modify R. & P. rules without the consent of Electrical & Allied StaffAssociation . The action will change the service condition ofElectrical category workman who are involved in the reference . As per the present R. & P. rules after completing of six years , the workman is getting promotion to next higher post and it is the time bound promotion policy and it is also service condition of the workman. The management have intimated their intention of change of time bound policy to the union through conciliation officer vide file No. RLC/AH/ 50 ( 1 )/2002 on 15-05-2002 a copy is enclosed as Annexure " B " . Thus the intention of change of time bound promotion policy is change of service condition as per Section 9 - A and Schedule- IV of I. D. Act , 1947. Thus it is prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal shall issue an order to opposite party to desist from any action of modifying R. & P. rules for electrical category workinan without the consent of Electrical & Allied Staff Association and not to change the service condition till the Reference 120/99 is finalized .
3. A notice was issued to the opponent to file the Written Statement .
6. Looking to the facts of this purshis Ex. 6 it is clear that the matter has been settled amicably and there is no grievance of the complainant regarding changing the R. & P. policy. Not only that the opponent has not committed any breach of Section 33. Thus there is no violation of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act by the opponent . Looking to the Ex . 6 this complaint becomes infructuous and does not survive in law. Hence I pass the following order:
ORDER
Inview of the fact of Annexure the parties have amicable settlement regarding the subject matter of the complaint. Hence this complaint is hereby disposed of. No order as to cost .
Ahmedabad
Date : 19-12-04
B. I. KAZI , Presiding Officer 4. By Ex. 5 the opponent has filed the Written Statement . The brief facts are that complaint is not Maintainable at law and the Hon'ble Tribunal has no jurisdiction . The complaint is ill founded and made on assumption . The opponent has not contravened any provisions of Section 33 ofthe I. D. Act . The complainant is not concerned workman and alleged dispute is not connected with the main reference . Hence the complaint is required to be dismissed . The complaint is not maintainable at law, as it is filed on the ground of apprehension-assumptioni . The subject matter of present complaint is not connected with the pending Reference (ITC) No. 120/99 . There is no such demand promotion in
Printed by the Manager, Govt . of India Press , Ring Road , Maya Puri , New Delhi - 110064 and Published by the Controller of Publications , Delhi- 110054 , 2005