रजिस्ट्रीसं० डी० एल० ( एन ) 04/0007/2003-05
REGD. NO . D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003-05 भारत का राजपत्र The Gazette of India
प्राधिकार से प्रकाशित
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
साप्ताहिक
WEEKLY
सं० 25 ]
नई दिल्ली, जून 12- जून 18 , 2005 , शनिवार /ज्येष्ठ 22 -ज्येष्ठ 28 , 1927
NEW DELHI , JUNE 12-JUNE 18 , 2005, SATURDAY/ JYAISTHA 22- JYAISTHA 28, 1927 No. 25]
इस भाग 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 ) द्वारा जारी किए गए सांविधिक आदेश और अधिसूचनाएं Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India
(Other than the Ministry of Defence)
कार्मिक, लोक शिकायत तथा पेंशन मंत्रालय (कार्मिक और प्रशिक्षण विभाग ) नई दिल्ली, 3 जून , 2005
का. आ. 2103.- केन्द्रीय सरकार, एतद्वारा, दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना अधिनियम, 1946 ( 1946 का अधिनियम संख्या 25 ) की धारा 6 के साथ पठित धारा 5 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए असम राज्य सरकार की दिनांक16-12-2004 की अधिसूचना संख्या पी. एल. ए. (v ) 50/2004/60 द्वारा प्राप्त असम राज्य सरकार की सहमति से भारतीय दंड सहिता की धारा 120ख/379/ 471 के अंतर्गत पुलिस थाना आमगुडी, जिला सिबगर में दिनांक 01-05-2004 को दर्ज प्रथम सूचना रिर्पाट 27/04 के माले के अन्वेषण और उक्त अपराधों से संबंधित प्रयासों, दुष्प्रेरणों तथा षडयंत्रों एवं/अथवा उसी संव्यवहार के अनुक्रम में किए गए अथवा उन्हीं तथ्यों से उद्भूत किन्हींअन्य अपराधों के अन्वेषण के लिए दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना के सदस्यों की शक्तियों और अधिकारिता का विस्तार सम्पूर्ण असम राज्य पर करती है ।
[सं. 228/39/2004- ए.वी.डी.- II (i) ]
चन्द्र प्रकाश , अवर सचिव 1714 GI/ 2005
MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS
(Department of personnel and Training) New Delhi , the 3rd June , 2005
S.O. 2103. In exercise of the powers conferredby Sub - section ( 1 ) of section 5 read with section 6ofthe Delhi Special Police Establishment Act; 1946 (Act No.25 of 1946) , the Central Government with the consent of State Government of Assam, vide Notification No: PLA (V) 50/2004/60 dated 16.12.2004 hereby extends " the powers and jurisdiction of members of the Delhi Spe- alPolice Establishment to the whole of the State of Assam for the investigation of the case FIR 27/04 dated 1/5/2004 U/s 120B/379/471 IPC registered at Police Station Amguri , Distt. Sibsagar and any other offence or offences , attempts, abetments and conspiracy in relation to or in connection with the said offence or offences committed in the course ofthe same transaction arising out of the same facts .
[No. 228/39/2004 -AVD - II (i ) ] CHANDRA PRAKASH, Under Secy.
(5939) 5940
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2005 /JYAISTHA28, 1927
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)] नई दिल्ली, 3 जून , 2005
किए गए अथवा उन्हीं तथ्यों से उद्भूत किन्हीं अन्य अपराधों के अन्वेषण के लिए दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना के सदस्यों की शक्तियों और अधिकारिता का विस्तार सम्पूर्ण असम राज्य पर करती है ।
[सं. 288/39/2004- ए.वी.डी.- II ( iii ) ]
चन्द्र प्रकाश, अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 3rd June , 2005
का. आ. 2104.-केन्द्रीय सरकार, एतद्वारा, दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना अधिनियम, 1946 ( 1946 का अधिनियम संख्या 25 ) की धारा 6 के साथ पठित धारा 5 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए असम राज्य सरकार की दिनांक16-12-2004 की अधिसूचना संख्या पी . एल. ए. ( v ) 50/2004/61 द्वारा प्राप्त असम राज्य सरकार की सहमति से पी.डी.पी.पी. अधिनियम की धारा 3 ( 2 ) के साथ पठित धारा 379/482/411 के अंतर्गत पुलिस थाना, पुलिबोर, जिला जोरहाट में दिनांक 2-5-2003 को दर्ज प्रथम सूचना रिपोर्ट संख्या 0091/03 के मामले में अन्वेषण और उक्त अपराधों से संबंधित प्रयासों, दुष्प्रेरणों तथा षडयंत्रों एवं/अथवा उसी संव्यवहार के अनुक्रम में किए गए अथवा उन्हीं तथ्यों से उद्भूत किन्ही अन्य अपराधों के अन्वेषण के लिए दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना के सदस्यों की शक्तियों और अधिकारिता का विस्तार सम्पूर्ण असम राज्य पर करती है ।
[सं. 228/39/2004 - ए.वी.डी.- II ( ii) ]
चन्द्र प्रकाश, अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 3rd June , 2005
S.O. 2105. In exercise of the powers confered by Sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 5 read with Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act , 1946 (Act No. 25 of1946), the Central Government with the consent of State Government of Assam, vide Notification No. PLA (V) 50/ 2004/62 dated 16-12-2004 hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of the State of Assam for the investigation of the case FIP. No. 0175/2003 dated 22-08- 2003 under Section 120B/ 379/411/468/471/472 IPC read with Section 7 of EC Act and Section 23/24 of Petroleum Actregistered at Police Station, Dergaon, Distt. Golaghat and any other offence or offences , attempts , abetments and conspiracy in relation to or in connection with the said offence or offences committed in the course of the same transactions arising out of the same facts .
[No. 228/39/2004-AVD II (iii) ]
CHANDRA PRAKASH , Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 3 जून, 2005
S.O. 2104. - In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub- section s ( 1 ) of section 5 read with Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Estalishment Act, 1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946) , the Central Government with the consent of State Government of Assam , vide Notification No. PLA(V) 50 / 2004/61 dated 16-12-2004 hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of members of the Delhi Special Police Estab- lishment to the whole of the State of Assam for investiga- tion ofthe case registered at Police Station , Pulibor, Distt . Jorhat vide FIR No. 0091/03 dated 2-5-2003 under Section, 379/482/411 read with Section 3 (2) PDPP Act and any other offence or offences , attempts abetments and conspiracy in relation to or in connection with the said offence or of- fences committed in the course of the same transactions arising out of the same facts .
[No. 228/39/2004-AVD.II (ii)]
CHANDRA PRAKASH , Under Secy.
नईदिल्ली, 3 जून, 2005
का. आ. 2106.-केन्द्रीय सरकार, एतद्वारा , दिल्ली विशे पुलिस स्थापना अधिनियम, 1946 ( 1946 का अधिनियम संख्या 25) की धारा 6 के साथ पठित धारा 5 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए असम राज्य सरकार की दिनांक 16-12-2004 की अधिसूचना संख्या पी. एल. ए. (v ) 50/2004/63 द्वारा प्राप्त असम राज्य सरकार की सहमति से ई.सी. अधिनियम की धारा 7 ( 1 ) और पेट्रोलियम अधिनियम की धारा 22/24 के साथ पठित भारतीय दंड सहिता की धारा 120ख/379/471/472 के अंतर्गत पुलिस थाना, कामर गांव, जिला गोलाघाट में दिनांक 15-04-2004 को दर्ज प्रथम सूचना रिपोर्ट संख्या 0032/04 के मामले में अन्वेषण और उक्त अपराधों से संबंधित प्रयासों, दुष्प्रेरणों तथा षडयंत्रों एवं/अथवा उसी संव्यवहार के अनुक्रम में किए गए अथवा उन्हीं तथ्यों से उद्भूत किन्हीं अन्य अपराधों केअन्वेषण के लिए दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना के सदस्यों की शक्तियों और अधिकारिता का विस्तार सम्पूर्ण असम राज्य पर करती है ।
[सं. 228/39/2004- ए.वी.डी. II ( iv) ]
चन्द्र प्रकाश, अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 3rd June , 2005
S.O. 2106. In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub- section ( 1) of Section 5 read with section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act , 1946 (Act No. 25 का. आ. 2105.-केन्द्रीय सरकार, एतद्वारा , दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना अधिनियम, 1946 ( 1946 का अधिनियम संख्या 25 ) की धारा 6 के साथ पठित धारा 5 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए असम राज्य सरकार की दिनांक 16-12-2004 की अधिसूचना संख्या पी. एल. ए. (v ) 50/2004/62 द्वारा प्राप्त असम राज्यसरकार की सहमति से ई.सी. अधिनियम की धारा 7 और पैट्रोलियम अधिनियम की धारा 23/24 के साथ पठित भारतीय दंड सहिता की धारा 120ख/379/411/468/471 /472 के अंतर्गत पुलिस थाना, डेरगांव, जिला गोलाघाट में दिनांक 22-08-2003 को दर्ज प्रथम सूचना रिपोर्ट संख्या 0175/2003 के मामले में अन्वेषण और उक्त अपराधों से संबंधिय प्रयासों, दुष्प्रेरणों तथा षडयंत्रों एवं/अथवा उसी संव्यवहार के अनुक्रम में
of1946), the Central Governmet with the consent of State 5941
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18 , 2005/ ज्येष्ठ 28, 1927
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
with the said offence or offences committed in the course ofthe same transactions arising out of the same facts .
[No. 228/39/2004-AVD . II (v) ]
CHANDRA PRAKASH , Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 6 जून , 2005
Government ofAssam, vide Notification No. PLA (V) 50/ 2004/63 dated 16-12-2004 hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction ofmembers ofthe Delhi Special Police Estab- lishment to the whole of the State of Assam for the investigation of the case FIR No. 0032/2004 dated 15-04-2004 under Section 120B/379/471/472 IPC read with Section 7 ( 1 ) of EC Act . r/ w 22/24 ofPetroleum Act regis- tered at Police Station, Kamargaon, Distt . Golaghat and any other offence or offences , attempts , abetments and conspiracy in relation to or in connection with the said offence or offences committed in the course of the same transactions arising out of the same facts .
[No. 228/39/2004 -AVD . II (iv) ] CHANDRA PRAKASH , Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 3 जून, 2005
का. आ. 2108.- केन्द्रीय सरकार, एतद्वारा , दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना अधिनियम , 1946 ( 1946 का अधिनियम संख्या 25 ) की धारा 6 के साथ पठित धारा 5 की उपधारा (1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए तमिलनाडु राज्य सरकार की दिनांक 31-12-2004 की जी. ओ. एम. संख्या 1452 गृह ( पुलिस- VII) विभाग द्वारा प्राप्त तमिलनाडु राज्य सरकार की सहमति से पोर्टब्लेयर से चेन्नई में आर्गन पाइप कोरल ( प्रवाल ) , सी क्यूकम्बर जैसे संरक्षित समुद्री वन्यजीवन वस्तुओं के गैर कानूनी नौभार ( शिपमैन्ट) के बारे में वन्यजीवन (संरक्षण ) अधिनियम, 1972 ( 1972 का केन्द्रीय अधिनियम 53 ) की धारा 50 की उप धारा ( 4 ) के अंतर्गत वन्य जीवन निरीक्षक,. क्षेत्रीय उप निदेशक ( वन्य जीवन संरक्षण ) कार्यालय, दक्षिणी क्षेत्र , चेन्नई द्वारा महानगर दंडाधिकारी XVI , जार्ज टाऊन की अदालत में दायर मामला संख्या 732/2003 के संबंध में अपराधों के अन्वेषण और उपर्युक्त मामले से संबंधित प्रयासों, दुष्प्रेरणों तथा षडयंत्रों एवं/ अथवा उसी संव्यवहार के अनुक्रम में किए गए अथवा उन्हीं तथ्यों से उद्भूत किन्हीं अन्य अपराधों के अन्वेषण के लिए दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना के सदस्योंकी शक्तियों और अधिकारिता का विस्तार सम्पूर्ण तमिलनाडु राज्यपर करती है ।
[सं. 228/29/2005 - ए.वी.डी.- II ]
चन्द्र प्रकाश , अवर सचिव का. आ. 2107.- केन्द्रीय सरकार, एतद्वारा , दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना अधिनियम, 1946 ( 1946 का अधिनियम संख्या 25 ) की धारा 6 के साथ पठित धारा 5 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए असम राज्य सरकार की दिनांक16-12-2004 की अधिसूचना संख्या पी. एल. ए. (V) 50/2004/64 द्वारा प्राप्त असम राज्य सरकार की सहमति से लोक सम्पत्ति क्षति निवारण अधिनियम, 1984की धारा 3 (2 ) ( ख ) के साथ पठित भारतीय दंड संहिता की धारा 379/427 और ई.सी. अधिनियम की धारा 7 के अंतर्गत पुलिस थाना धर्मतुल, जिला मोरी गाँव में दिनांक 15-04-2002 को दर्ज प्रथम सूचनारिपोर्ट संख्या 0013/02 के मामले में अन्वेषण और उक्त अपराधों सेसंबंधित प्रयासों, दुष्प्रेरणों तथा षडयंत्रों एवं/ अथवा उसी संव्यवहार के अनुक्रम में किए गए अथवा उन्हीं तथ्यों से उद्भूत किन्हीं अन्य अपराधों केअन्वेषणके लिएदिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना के सदस्यों की शक्तियों और अधिकारिता का विस्तार सम्पूर्ण असम राज्य पर करती है ।
New Delhi , the 6th June, 2005 [सं. 228/39/2004- ए.वी.डी.- II(v) ]
चन्द्र प्रकाश, अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 3rd June, 2005
S.O. 2108. In exercise of the powers conferred under Section ( 1 ) of section 5 read with section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act , 1946 (Act No. 25 of1946), the Central Government with the consent of State Government of Tamil Nadu , vide G.O. Ms. No. 1452, Home (Police-VII) department dated 31-12-2004 , hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi SpecialPolice Establishment to the whole of the State of Tamil Nadu for the investigation of offence (s) relating to the case No. 732 of 2003 in the Court of XVI Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai filed by the Wild Life Inspector, Office of the Regional Deputy Director (Wild LifePreservation), Southern Region, Chennai under Sub- section (4) of Section 50 of the the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (Central Act 53 of 1972) relating to illegal ship- ment ofprotected Marine Wild Life items , such as Organ Pipe Corals, Sea Cucumbers, etc. , from Port Blair to Chennai and other offerice (s) or attempt , abetments and conspiracy in relation to or in connection with the said offence (s) S.O. 2107.-In exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 5 read with section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act , 1946 (Act No. 25 of1946), the Central Government with the consent of State Government of Assam, vide Notification No. PLA (V) 50/ 2004/64 dated 16-12-2004 hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of members of the Delhi Special Police Estab- lishment to the whole of the State of Assam for the investigation of the case FIR No. 0013/2002 dated 15-04- 2002under Section 379/427 IPC read with Section 3 (2) (B) or Prevention of Damaged to Public Property Act, 1984 and Section 7 of EC Act at Police Station, Dharamtul , Distt. Morigaon and any other offence or offences , attempts , abetments and conspiracy in relation to or in connection 5942
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18, 2005/JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
committed in course of the same transactions or arising out of the same fact or facts in relation to the aforesaid case.
[No. 228/29/ 2005 -AVD -II] CHANDRA PRAKASH , Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 9 जून, 2005
का. आ. 2109.-केन्द्रीय सरकार, एतद्वारा , दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना अधिनियम, 1946 ( 1946 का अधिनियम संख्या 25 ) की धारा 6 के साथ पठित धारा 5 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए गोवा राज्य सरकार, सतर्कता निदेशालय, पणजी की अधिसूचना सं. 13-11-87- वीआईजी दिनांक 4 फरवरी , 2005 द्वारा प्राप्त गोवा राज्य सरकार की सहमति से संलग्न सूची में उल्लिखित अपराधों और उपर्युक्त अपराधों से संबंधित अथवा संसक्त प्रयत्न, दुष्प्रेरण और षडयंत्र तथा उसी संव्यवहार के अनुक्रम में किए गए अथवा उन्हीं तथ्यों से उद्भूत किन्हीं अन्य अपराध/ अपराधों के अन्वेषण के लिए दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना के सदस्यों की शक्तियों और अधिकारिता का विस्तार सम्पूर्ण गोवा राज्य पर करती है ।
अपराधों की सूची
(क) भारतीय दंड संहिता 1860 ( 1860 का अधिनियम सं . 45 ) की धारा 34, 114,120- बी, 121 , 121 - ए, 122, 123 , 124, 124 -ए, 128 , 129 , 130 , 131 , 132, 133 , 134, 135 , 136 , 138 , 140 , 143 , 147 , 148 , 149 , 153 -ए, 153-बी , 161 , 162 , 163 , 164 , 165 , 165 - ए, 166 , 167, 168, 169 , 171 -ई , 171 - एफ, 182 , 186 , 188 , 189 , 190 , 193 , 196 , 197 , 198 , 199 , 200 , 201 , 204 , 211 , 212 , 216 , 216- ए, 218 , 220 , 222 , 223 , 224 , 225 , 225 - बी , 231 , 232 , 233 , 234 , 235 , 236 , 237, 238 , 239 , 240 , 241 , 242, 243, 244, 245 , 246 , 247 , 248 , 249 , 250 , 251 , 252, 253 , 254, 255 , 256 , 257 , 258 , 259 , 260 , 261 , 262, 263, 263 -ए, 277 , 279 , 284, 285 , 286 , 292 , 295 , 295 - ए, 302 , 303 , 304, 304 - ए 304- बी , 306 , 307 , 308 , 309 , 323 , 324 , 325 , 326 , 328 , 330 , 332 , 333 , 336 , 337 , 338 , 341 , 342 , 343 , 344, 346 , 347 , 352 , 353 , 354 , 355, 363 , 363 - ए, 364 , 365 , 366 , 367 , 368 , 376 , 376 - ए, 376-बी, 376- सी, 376- डी, 379 , 380 , 381 , 382 , 384 , 385 , 386 , 387 , 388 , 389 , 392, 393 , 394 , 395 , 396 , 397 , 398 , 399 , 401 , 403 , 406 , 407, 408, 409, 411 , 412 , 413 , 414, 417, 418 , 419 , 420 , 426 , 427 , 429 , 431 , 435 , 436 , 440, 447, 448 , 452 , 454, 456 , 457 , 465 , 466 , 467, 468 , 469 , 471 , 472, 473 , 474 , 475 , 476 , 477 - ए, 489, 489- ए, 489- बी, 489-सी, 489-डी, 489-ई , 495 , 498 -ए, 499 , 500, 501 , 502 , 504 , 505 , 506 , 507, 509.
(ख) केन्द्रीय अधिनियम के अन्तर्गत दंडनीय अपराध : -
1. वायुयान अधिनियम, 1934 ( 1934 का अधिनियम सं. 22) तथा उसी अधिनियम के अन्तर्गत कथित अधिनियम
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii)] 2. अपहरण निरोध अधिनियम, 1982 ( 1982 का अधिनियम सं. 65)
3. पुरावशेष तथा बहुमूल्य कलाकृति अधिनियम , 1972 (1972का अधिनियम सं. 52)
पुरावशेष ( निर्यात नियंत्रण ) अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का अधिनियम सं . 31 ) निरस्त 4.
5. शस्त्र अधिनियम, 1959 ( 1959 का अधिनियम सं. 54)
आणविक ऊर्जा अधिनियम , 1962 ( 1962 का अधिनियम सं. 33) 6.
7. केन्द्रीय उत्पाद शुल्क तथा नमक अधिनियम, 1944 (1944 का अधिनियम सं. 1)
8. कम्पनी अधिनियम, 1956 ( 1956 का अधिनियम सं. 1)
9 . आपराधिक बिधि ( संशोधन ) अधिनियम , 1961 (1961 का अधिनियम सं. 23)
10. सीमा शुल्क अधिनियम, 1962 ( 1962 का अधिनियम नं. 52)
11. श्रौषध तथा प्रसाधन अधिनियम, 1940 ( 1940 का अधिनियम सं . 23)
12. आवश्यक वस्तु अधिनियम , 1955 ( 1955 का अधिनियमसं. 10)
13. विस्फोटक अधिनियम, 1884 ( 1884 का अधिनियम सं. 4)
14. विस्फोटक पदार्थ अधिनियम, 1908 ( 1908 का अधिनियम सं. 6 )
15. कर्मचारी, ठेकेदारों या उप ठेकेदारों अथवा उनके प्रतिनिधियों द्वारा केन्द्र सरकार द्वारा जारी किसी आदेश की अवहेलना की जाती है । आपातकाल प्रावधान ( अनुक्रम ) अध्यादेश, 1946 ( 1946 का अधिनियम सं. 20 ) यदि केन्द्र सरकार के 16. विद्युत अधिनियम, 1910 ( 1910 का अधिनियम सं. 9)
17. विदेश अभिदाय (नियमन) अधिनियम, 1976 ( 1976 काअधिनियम सं. 49 )
18. विदेशी अधिनियम , 1946 ( 1946 का अधिनियम सं. 31)
19. विदेश विनिमय ( नियमन ) अधिनियम, 1973 ( 1973 का अधिनियम सं. 46)
20. सामान्य बीमा व्यवसाय ( राष्ट्रीयकरण) अधिनियम, 1972( 1972 का अधिनियम सं. 57)
21. अधिनियम , 1958 (1958 का अधिनियम भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18 , 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28 , 1927
[भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
22. स्वर्ण नियंत्रण अधिनियम, 1968 ( 1968 का अधिनियम सं. 45)
23. आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 ( 1961 का अधिनियम सं.43)
24. आयात एवं निर्यात ( नियंत्रण ) अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का अधिनियम सं. 18 )
25. बीमा अधिनियम, 1938 ( 1938 का अधिनियम सं. 4)
26. उद्योग ( विकास तथा नियमन ) अधिनियम , 1951 (1951 का अधिनियम सं. 65)
27. मोटर गाड़ी अधिनियम , 1939 ( 1939 का अधिनियम सं. 4)
28. स्वापक औषध तथा मनः प्रभावी पदार्थ अधिनियम, 1985( 1985 का अधिनियम सं. 61)
29. शासकीय गुप्त अधिनियम, 1923 ( 1923 का अधिनियम सं. 19 )
30. पारपत्र अधिनियम, 1920 ( 1920 का अधिनियम सं. 24) तथा पारपत्र नियमावली , 1950 का नियम सं. 6
31. पारपत्र ( भारत में प्रवेश ) नियमावली, 1950 ( भारत में प्रवेश) अधिनियम, 1920 ( 1920 का अधिनियम सं. 34 के साथ पठित पारपत्र )
32. पारपत्र अधिनियम, 1967 ( 1967 का अधिनियम सं. 15)
33. भ्रष्टाचार निवारण अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का अधिनियम सं. 2)
34. भ्रष्टाचार निवारण अधिनियम, 1988 ( 1988 का अधिनियम सं. 49)
35. डाकघर अधिनियम , 1898 ( 1898 का अधिनियम सं. 6 )
36. खाद्य अपमिश्रण निवारण अधिनियम, 1954 ( 1954 का अधिनियम सं . 37)
37. लोकसम्पत्ति नुकसान निवारण अधिनियम, 1984 (1984का अधिनियम सं. 3 )
38. स्वापक औषध तथा मनः प्रभावी पदार्थों के अवैध व्यापार संबंधी निवारक अधिनियम , 1988 ( 1988 काअधिनियम.सं. 46)
39 . रेलवे अधिनियम , 1890 ( 1890 का अधिनियम सं. १)
40. रेलवे भंडारण ( अवैध कब्जा ) अधिनियम, 1955 (1955का अधिनियम सं. 51 )
41. लोक अधिनियम अभ्यावेदन, 1950 ( 1950 का अधिनियम सं. 43)
5943 42. लोक अधिनियम अभ्यावेदन , 1951 ( 1951 का अधिनियम सं. 43)
43. विदेशी पंजीकरण अधिनियम , 1939 ( 1939 का अधिनियम से. 16)
44. नागरिक उड्डयन अधिनियम, 1982 ( 1982 का अधिनियम सं. 66 ) की सुरक्षा के लिए गैर- कानूनी अधिनियम का अधिक्रमण
45. धार्मिक संस्थानों ( दुरुपयोग निवारण ) अधिनियम, 1988 ( 1988 का अधिनियम सं. 41 )
46. तार अधिनियम, 1885 ( 1885 का अधिनियम सं. 13) 47. तार और बेतार ( गैर- कानूनी कब्जा ) अधिनियम, 1950( 1950 का अधिनियम सं. 74 )
48 . आतंकवादी तथा विध्वंसकारी गतिविधियां ( निवारक) अधिनियम, 1985 (1985 का अधिनियम सं. 31 ) तथा उसके अन्तर्गत बनाए गए नियम
49. आतंकवादी तथा विध्वंसकारी गतिविधियां ( निवारक) अधिनियम, 1987 ( 1987 का अधिनियम सं. 28 ) तथा उसके अन्तर्गत बनाए गए नियम
50. गैर- कानूनी गतिविधियां ( निवारक ) अधिनियम, 1967 (1967 का अधिनियम सं. 37)
51. बैतार तथा तार अधिनियम , 1933 ( 1933 का अधिनियम सं. 17 )
52. सम्पत्तिकर अधिनियम, 1957 ( 1957 का अधिनियम सं. 27)
(ग) राज्य अधिनियम के अन्तर्गत दंडनीय अपराध
1. असम अफीम प्रतिबंधित अधिनियम , 1947 2. बिहार तथा उड़ीसा उत्पाद शुल्क अधिनियम , 1915 (बिहार तथा उड़ीसा अधिनियम , 1915 का अधिनियम सं. 2)
3. (क) जम्मूतथा कश्मीर राज्य रणबीर दंड संहिता संवत् 1989 ( जम्मू तथा कश्मीर अधिनियम संवत् 1989 का अधिनियम सं. 12 ) की धारा:-
121 , 161 , 162, 163 , 164, 165 , 166 , 167 , 168 , 169 , 182 , 193 , 197, 198 , 201 , 204 , 211 , 218 , 231 , 232 , 233 , 234, 235, 236 , 237, 238, 239 , 240 , 241 , 242 , 243 , 246 , 247, 248 , 249, 250, 251 , 252, 253 , 254 258, 260 , 261 , 259, 262, 263 , 263-ए, 341, 342, 263 , 379 , 380 , 381 , 382, 384 , 385 , 386, 387, 388 , 389 , 392, 395 , 403 , 406 , 407, 408 , 409 , 411 , 412, 413 , 414, 417 , 418, 419 , 420, 465 , 466 , 467 , 468 , 471 , 472, 473 , 474, 475 , 476, 477 -ए, 489 -ए, 489- बी, 489- सी, 489-डी 5944
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2005 / JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
(ख) जम्मू तथा कश्मीर भ्रष्टाचार निवारण अधिनियम संवत्, 2006 ( संवत् 2006 का जम्मूऔर कश्मीर अधिनियम सं. 13)
(ग) 1962का सीमा शुल्क अधिनियम की धारा 132, 133, 135, 136 ( 1962 का जम्मू कश्मीर और अधिनियम सं. 52)
(घ) जम्मूऔर कश्मीर सरकार द्वारा जारी संवत् 2005 का ऊर्जा साधक अधिनियम
4. पंजाब विशेष शक्तियां ( प्रेस ) अधिनियम, 1956 (1956 का पंजाब अधिनियम सं. 38 ) 5. उत्तर प्रदेश भारतीय चिकित्सा अधिनियम, 1939 (1939का उ.प्र. अधिनियम सं. 10) 6. पश्चिम बंगाल सुरक्षा अधिनियम, 1950 ( 1950 का पं.बं. अधिनियम सं. 19 ) जैसाकि पश्चिम बंगाल सरकार द्वारा पुनः अधिनियमन किया गया ( पुनः अधिनियमन तथा वैधता अध्यादेश , 1966 ) तथा उपर्युक्त क , ख , ग में दर्शाए गए अपराधों से संबंधित अथवा संसक्तप्रयत्नों, दुष्प्रेरणों और षडयंत्रों तथा वैसे ही संव्यवहार के अनुक्रम में किए गए अथवा उन्ही तथ्यों से उद्भूत किन्हीं अन्य अपराधों के संबंध में ।
[सं. 228/76/2004- एवीडी- II ]
चन्द्र प्रकाश, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 9th June , 2005
S.O. 2109.- In exercise of the powers conferred by Section ( 1 ) of Section 5 read with Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946) , the Central Governmet with the consent of State Government of Goa Directorate ofVigilance , Panaji, vide Notification No. 13-11-87 - VIG dated 4th February, 2005, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members ofthe Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of the State of Goa for the investigation of offences mentioned in the list enclosed and attempt , abetment and conspiracy in relation to or in connection with the above said offences and any other offence/offences committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts .
LIST OF OFFENCES
A. Offences punishable under Section 34, 114, 120B, 121 , 121A, 122, 123 , 124 , 124A, 128, 129, 130, 131 , 132, 133 , 134 , 135, 136, 138, 140, 143, 147, 148, 149, 153A, 153B, 161 , 162 , 163, 164, 165, 165A, 166, 167, 168, 169, 171E , 171F , 182 , 186, 188 , 189, 190, 193, 196, 197 , 198 , 199 , 200, 201 , 204, 211 , 212 , 216, 216A, 218 , 220 , 222 , 223, 224 , 225 , 225B, 231 , 232, 233 , 234, 235 , 236, 237, 238, 239 , 240, 241 , 242 , 243 , 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249 , 250, 251 , 252, 253 , 254, 255 , 256, 257, 257 , 259 , 260, 261 , 262, 263 , 263A, 277 , 279 , 284 , 285, 286 , 292, 295 , 295A,
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii)] 302, 303, 304, 304A, 304B, 306, 307, 308, 309 , 323 , 324, 325, 326 , 328, 330, 332, 333, 336, 337, 338, 341 , 342, 343, 344, 346, 347, 352,353 , 354, 355 , 363 , 363A, 364, 365 , 366, 367, 368 , 376, 376A, 376B, 376C, 376D , 379 , 380, 381 , 382, 384, 385 , 386, 387, 388 , 389 , 392 , 393 , 394, 395,396, 397, 398, 399, 401 , 403 , 406 , 407, 408, 409 , 411 , 412, 413, 414, 417, 418, 419, 420,426, 427, 429, 431, 435 , 436,440, 447, 448, 452, 454, 456, 457, 465 , 466, 467, 468 , 469, 471 , 472, 473, 474, 475, 476, 477A, 489, 489A, 489B , 489C, 489D, 489E, 495 , 498A, 499 , 500, 501 , 502 , 504 , 505, 506 , 507 , 509 , of Indian Penal Code 1860 (Act No. 45 of1860).
B. Central Acts :
Offences punishable under:
1. Aircraft Act, 1934 ( Act No. 22 of1934) and rules made under the said Act .
2. Anti-Hijacking Act, 1982 (Act No. 65 of 1982).
3. Antiquities and Art Treasures Act , 1972 (Act No. 52 of 1972) .
4. Antiquities (Export Control) Act , 1947 (Act No. 31 of 1947) . Repealed.
5. Arms Act, 1959 (Act No. 54 of 1959 ) .
6. Atomic Energy Act , 1962 (Act No. 33 of 1962).
7. Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (Act No. 1 of1944) .
8. Companies Act, 1956 (Act No. 1 of 1956) .
9. Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1961 (Act No. 23 of1961 ).
10. CustomsAct , 1962 (Act No. 52 of 1962) .
11. Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (Act No. 23 of1940).
12. Essential Commodities Act , 1955 (Act No. 10 of1955) .
13. Explosives Act , 1884 (Act No. 4 of 1884 ) .
14. Explosive Substances Act, 1908 (Act No. 6 of1908
15. Emergency Provisions (Continuance) Ordinance, 1946 ( Ordinance No. 28 of 1946) if committed by the Employees of the Central Government or contractor sub- contractors or their representereves by contravening any order issued by ste Central Government .
16. ElectricityAct, 1910 (Act No. 9 of 1910).
5945
भारत का राजपत्र: जून 18, 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28, 1927
[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
17. Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 1976 (Act No. 49 of 1976) .
18. Foreigners Act (Act No. 31 of 1946) .
19. Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (Act No. 46 of 1973) .
20. General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Act , 1972 (Act No. 57 of 1972).
21. Gift Tax Act, 1958 (Act No. 18 of 1958) .
22. GoldControlAct, 1968 (Act No. 45 of 1968).
23. Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act No. 43 of1961 ).
24. Import and Export (Control ) Act, 1947 (Act No. 18 of1947) .
25. Insurance Act , 1938 (Act No. 4 of 1938) .
26. Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 (Act No. 65 of 1951).
27. Motor Vehicles Act , 1939 (Act No. 4 of 1939).
28. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Sub- stance Act , 1985 (Act No. 61 of 1985) .
29. Official Secrets Act , 1923 (Act No. 19 of 1923).
30: Passport Act , 1920 (Act No. 24 of 1920) and rule 6 ofPassport Rules, 1950.
31. ThePassport (Entry into India) Rules , 1950 r/w Passport (Entry into India) Act , 1920 (Act No. 34 of1920).
32. Passport Act, 1967 ( Act No. 15 of 1967) .
33. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (Act No. 2. of1947).
34. Prevention ofCorruption Act, 1988 (Act No. 49 of 1988).
35. PostOffice Act (Act No. 1898 (Act No. 6 of 1898).
36. Prevention of Food Adultration Act , 1954 (Act No. 37 of1954) .
37. Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 (Act No. 3 of 1984).
38. ThePrevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1988 (Act No. 46 of 1988) .
39. Railways Act , 1890 (Act No. 9 of 1890) .
40. Railways Stores (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1955 (Act No. 51 of1955).
41. Representation ofthe People Act , 1950 (Act No.43 of1950).
42 Representation of the People Act , 1951 ( Act No.43 of1951).
43. Registration of Foreigners Act, 1939 (Act No. 16 of 1939).
44. Suppression ofUnlawful Act against Safety ofCivil Aviation Act, 1982 (Act No. 66 of 1982).
45. The Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988 ( Act No. 41 of 1988 ) .
46. Telegraph Act, 1885 (Act No. 13 of 1885).
47. Telegraph Wires (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1950 (Act No. 74 of 1950).
48. Terrorist and Disruptive Activities. (Preven- tion) Act, 1985 (Act No. 31 of 1985 ) and rules made thereunder.
49. Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Preven- tion) Act, 1987 (Act No. 28 of 1987) and rules made thereunder.
50. Unlawful Activities (Prevention ) Act , 1967 (Act No. 37 of 1967) .
51. Wireless and Telegraphy Act, 1933 (Act No. 17of1933).
52: Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (Act No. 27 of 1957).
C. State Acts:
Offences punishable under:
1. AssamOpium Prohibition Act , 1947 2. Bihar and Orissa Excise Act, 1915 (Bihar andOrissa Act No. 2 of 1915) .
3. (a) Section 121 , 161 , 162 , 163 , 164 , 165 , 166, 167 , 168 , 169, 182, 193, 197, 198 , 201,204 , 211 , 218, 231 , 232 , 233, 234 , 235, 236 , 237 , 238 , 239, 240 , 241 , 242, 243, 246, 247, 248 , 249 , 250 , 251 , 252 , 5946
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2005 /JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]
MINISTRY OF FINANCE (Department of Revenue)
(OFFICEOF THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE) Pune, the 30th May , 2005 NO . 02/2005. C. E. (NT) .
253, 254 258 , 259, 260 , 261 , 262, 263 , 263 -ए, 341 , 342, 363 , 379 , 380 , 381 , 382, 384 , 385 , 386 , 387, 388 , 389 , 392 , 395, 403 , 406 , 407, 408 , 409, 411 , 412 , 413, 414, 417, 418 , 419 , 420 , 465 , 466 , 467, 468 , 471 , 472, 473 , 474 , 475 , 476 , 477-A, 489 - A, 489 - B , 489 - C, 489 - D of Jammu and Kashmir State Ranbir Penal Code Sambat 89 ( Jammu and Kashmir Act No. 12 of Sambat 1989) .
(b) Jammu and Kashmir State Prevention of Corruption Act Sambat 2006 ( J & K Act , No. 13 of Sambat 2006).
S.O. 2110. In exercise of the powers conferred on me by the Notification No. 33/94 -CUS (NT) dated 01-07-1994 of the Government of India, Ministry ofFinance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi , I, Prabhakar Nigam , Commissioner of Central Excise Fune - I Commissionerate , Pune hereby declare Village Tungarli, Teh -Lonavala, Distt . Pune, in the State of Maharashtra to be Warehousing Sta- tionunder Section 9 ofthe Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962) for setting up of 100 % Export Oriented Unit.
(C) Section 132 , 133, 135, 136 of the Custom Act, 1962 ( Jammu and Kashmir Act . No. 52 of1962) .
[F. No. - VGN ( 19) 79/TA/2005 ] PRABHAKAR NIGAM, Commissioner वित्त मंत्रालय
(d) Energy Agents Ordinance of Sambat 2005 issued by Government of Jammu and Kashmir.
4. Punjab Special Powers (Press) Act , 1956 (Punjab Act No. 38 of 1956) .
5. Uttar Pradesh Indian Medicines Act , 1939 (U. P. Act No. 10 of 1939).
(कार्यालय: आयुक्त केन्द्रीय उत्पाद शुल्क आयुक्तालय ) जयपुर, 7 जून, 2005 संख्या 02-सीमा शुल्क ( एनटी ) 2005 सीमा शुल्क
6. West Bengal Security Act, 1950 (W.B. Act No. 19 of 1950) as re- enacted by the West Bengal Security (re -enacted and validation) Ordinance, 1966 .
Attempts , abetments and conspiracies in relation to or in connection with the offences mentioned at A, B , C and any other offences committed in the course of the same transaction arising out of the same facts .
[No. 228/76/2004- AVD-IIJ CHANDRA PRAKASH, Under Secy.
का. आ. 2111.- सीमा शुल्क अधिनियम, 1962 की धारा 152के खण्ड ( ए) के तहत भारत सरकार, वित्त मंत्रालय, राजस्व विभाग , नई दिल्ली की अधिसूचना संख्या 33/94 सीमा शुल्क ( एन टी ) दिनांक प्रथम जुलाई , 1994 के अन्तर्गत प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैं, जयन्त मिश्र, आयुक्त, केन्द्रीय उत्पाद शुल्क, जयपुर- एतद्वारा , शतप्रतिशत ई. ओ. यू. स्थापित करने के उद्देश्य से शुल्क अधिनियम की धारा 9 के अन्तर्गत राजस्थान राज्य के ज जिले की चौमू तहसील में ग्राम जैतपुरा को भण्डारण स्टेशन (वेय हाउसिंग स्टेशन ) घोषित करता हूँ।
( राजस्व विभाग )
(केन्द्रीय उत्पाद शुल्क के आयुक्त का कार्यालय ) पुणे, 30 मई, 2005
[फा. सं.-पंचम( 16) इओयू/ 19/ 2005/1746 ] जयन्त मिश्र, आयुक्त संख्या 02/2005 केन्द्रीय उत्पाद शुल्क ( नॉन टॅरिफ )
(OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER CENTRAL EXCISE)
Jaipur, the 7th June , 2005 NO . 02 / CUS (NT) 2005 CUSTOMS
का. आ. 2110.- भारत सरकार, वित्त मंत्रालंय , राजस्व विभाग , नई दिल्ली की दिनांक 01/07/1994 की अधिसूचना संख्या 33/94- सीमा शुल्क ( नॉन टॅरिफ ) के द्वारा मुझे प्रदत्त अधिकारों का प्रयोग करते हुए, मैं, प्रभाकर निगम, आयुक्त, केन्द्रीय उत्पाद शुल्क, पुणे। आयुक्तालय , पुणे, एतद्वारा सीमा शुल्क अधिनियम 1962 ( 1962 का 52 ) की धारा १ के अधीन महाराष्ट्र राज्य के पुणे जिले के तालुका-लोनावला, के तुंगार्ली गाव को शत-प्रतिशत निर्यात लक्ष्यी यूनिट स्थापित करने के लिए वेअर हाउसिंग स्टेशन घोषित करता हूँ।
[ फा. सं.-व्हीजीएन ( 19 ) 79 /टीए/ 2005 ] प्रभाकर निगम, आयुक्त
S.O. 2111. - In exercise of the powers conferred by Notification No. 33/94 - Customs (NT) dated 01-7-1994 by the Government of India , Ministry of Finance , Department of Revenue, New Delhi , issued under clause (a) of Section 152 of Customs Act . 1962. I , Jayant Misra, Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur- 1, hereby declare, Village- Jaitpura, situated in Tehsil Chomu , District Jaipur , in the State ofRajasthan to be warehousing Station under 5947
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18 , 2005/ ज्येष्ठ 28 , 1927
[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
Section 9 of the Customs Act, 1962 for the purpose of setting up 100% E.O.U.
2. Whereas the Central Government has reasons to believe that the aforesaid person has absconded or is concealing himself so that the order cannot be executed.
[C. No. V (16) EOU/19 /2005/1745 ] JAYANT MISRA, Commissioner
(केन्द्रीय आर्थिक जांच ब्यूरो )
आदेश
3.Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers con- ferred by clause (b) of sub -section ( 1 ) of Section 7 of the saidAct, the Central Government hereby directs the afore- said person to appear before the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai within 7 days of the publication of this order in the Official Gazette.
नई दिल्ली , 7 जून , 2005
[F. No. 673/7 /2005-Cus . VIII ]
V. K. KHANNA, Dy. Secy. (COFEPOSA)
(मुख्यआयकर आयुक्त का कार्यालय )
उदयपुर, 6 जून, 2005
का. आ. 2112.-अतः संयुक्त सचिव, भारत सरकार जिन्हें विदेशी मुद्रा संरक्षण और तस्करी निवारण अधिनियम, 1974 ( 1974 का 52) की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अन्तर्गत विशेष रूप से शक्ति प्रदान की गई है , ने उक्त उपधारा के अधीन आदेश फाइल सं. 673/7/2005- सी.यू.एस. VIII , दिनांक19-04-2005 को जारी किया और यह निर्देश दिया कि श्री अनवर हनीफ खान सुपुत्र श्री हनीफ वाहीद खान, निवासी-103 , प्रथम तल, सहयादि निवास लिल्डिंग , नूर बाग , डा. माहेश्वरी रोड, मुम्बई -400 009 को निरुद्ध कर लिया जाए और केन्द्रीय कारागार, मुम्बई में अभिरक्षा में रखा जाए ताकि उन्हें भविष्य में चीजों की तस्करी करने से रोका जा सके ।
का. आ. 2113.-आयकर अधिनियम, 1961 ( 1961 का 43)की धारा 10 के खण्ड ( 23 ग ) की उपधारा ( vi ) के साथ पतित आयकर नियमावली, 1962 के नियम गक के द्वारा प्रदत्त अधिकारों का प्रयोग करते हुए मुख्य आय आयुक्त, उदयपुर " रोमन कैथोलिक डायोसेसन एजूकेशन सोसाकटी, अजमेर " को उक्त धारा के प्रयोजन हेतु निर्धारण वर्ष 2003-04 से 2005-06 के लिए अनुमोदन करते हैं ।
2. अतः केन्द्रीय सरकार के पास यह विश्वास करने का कारण है कि पूर्वोक्त व्यक्ति फरार हो गया है या स्वयं को छिपा रखा है जिससे यह आदेश निष्पादित नहीं किया जा सकता ।
परन्तु यह तब जब कि सोसायटी आयकर अधिनियम, 1961 की धारा 10 के खण्ड ( 23 ग ) की उपधारा ( vi ) के साथ पठित आयकर नियमावली, 1962 के नियम 2 गक के प्रावधानों की पुष्टि एवं अनुपालना करती है ।
[अधिसूचना सं . 03/24/सं. मु. आ. आ./उदय/आ. अ. (प्रशा.)/2005-06/758 ]
पी. के. मिश्र , मुख्य आयुक्त 3. अतः अब उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 7 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( ख ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्ति का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्रीय सरकार एतदद्वारा पूर्वोक्त व्यषिते को यह निर्देश देती है कि वह शासकीय राजपत्र में इस आदेश के प्रकार होने के 7 दिन के भीतर पुलिस आयुक्त, मुम्बई के सम्मुख उपस्थित हो ।
[फा. सं. 673/7/2005- सी.यू.एस . VIII ]
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
वी. के. खन्ना, उप सचिव ( कोफेपोसा)
Udaipur , the 6th June, 2005 (CENTRAL ECONOMIC INTELLIGENCE BUREAU)
ORDER
New Delhi , the 7th June , 2005
S.O. 2113.-In exercise of the powers conferred by sub -section (vi ) of Clause (23C) of Section 10 of the Income-taxAct, 1961 (43 of 1961) read with rule 2 CA of the Income-taxRules, 1962, the Chief Commissioner of Income- tax, Udaipur hereby approves " Roman Catholic Diocesan Education Society, Ajmer " for the purpose of said Section for the assessment years 2003-04 to 2005-06.
Provided that the society conforms to and complieswith the provisions of sub-section (vi ) of Clause (23C) of Section 10 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 , read with rule 2CA of the Income -tax Rules , 1962 .
[Notification No. 3/24/No. CCIT/UDR/ITO(A)/ 2005-06/758]
P. K. MISRA, Chief Commissioner S.O. 2112. Whereas the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, specially empowered under Sub -sec- tion (1 ) of Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Ex- change and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (52 of 1974) issued order F. No. 673/7/2005 -Cus . VIII dated 19-04-2005 under the said sub -section directing that Shri Anwar Hanif Khan S /o Shri Hanif Waheed Khan , R/o 103, First Floor, Sahyadri Niwas Building, Noor Bagh, Dr. Maheshwari Road Mumbai -400 009 be detained and kept in custody in the Central Prison , Mumbai with a view to preventing him from smuggling goods in future .
1714 G1/05-2 5948
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA JUNE 18 , 2005 /JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
[PART II -SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] उदयपुर, 6 जून, 2005
नियमावली, 1962 के नियम 2 गक के प्रावधानों की पुष्टि एवं अनुपालना करती है ।
[अधिसूचना संख्या: 05/26/सं. मु.आ.आ./ उदय/आ.अ. ( प्रशा. )/2005-06/757 ]
पी. के. मिश्र, मुख्य आयुक्त
Udaipur , the 6th June , 2005 का. आ. 2114. आयकर अधिनियम, 1961 ( 1961 का 43 ) की धारा 10 के खण्ड ( 23 ग ) की उपधारा ( vi ) के साथ पठित आयकर नियमावली, 1972 के नियम 2 गक के द्वारा प्रदत्त अधिकारों का प्रयोग करते हुए, मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त, उदयपुर " प्रभुदासी सिस्टर्स एजूकेशन सोसायटी , अजमेर " को उक्त धारा के प्रयोजन हेतु निर्धारण वर्ष 2003-04 से 2005-06 के लिए अनुमोदन करते हैं ।
परन्तु यह तब जब कि सोसायटी आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 की धा के खण्ड ( 23 ग ) की उपधारा ( vi ) के पठित आयकर नियमावली, 1962 के नियम 2 गक के प्रावधानों की पुष्टि एवं अनुपालना करती है ।
S.O. 2115. In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub -section ( vi ) of Clause (23C) of Section 10 of the Income-tax Act , 1961 ( 43 of 1961 ) read with rule 2 CA of the Income-tax Rules , 1962 , the Chief Commissioner of Income- tax, Udaipur hereby approves " St. Mary's Education Society , Udaipur ( St. Mary's Convent Sr. Secondary School , New Fatehpura , Udaipur and St. Mary'sConvent School , Titardy , Udaipur)" for the purpose of said section for the assessment years 2002-03 to 2004- 05.
[अधिसूचना संख्या: 04/25/सं. मु.आ.आ./ उदय/ आ.अ. ( प्रशा.) /2005-06/759 ]
पी. के. मिश्र, मुख्य आयुक्त
Provided that the society conforms to and complies with the provisions of Sub - section (vi ) of Clause (23C) of Section 10 of the Income- tax Act , 1961 , read with rule 2CA of the Income- tax Rules , 1962 .
Udaipur , the 6th June , 2005
[Notification No. 5 /26/No . CCIT/UDR/ ITO ( A) / 2005-06/ 757]
P. K. MISRA , Chief Commissioner
आर्थिक कार्य विभाग
(बैंकिंग प्रभाग)
नई दिल्ली, 8 जून, 2005
S.O. 2114. In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (vi ) of Clause (23C) of Section 10 of the Income tax Act, 1961 ( 43 of 1961 ) read with rule 2 CA of the Income-tax Rules , 1962 , the Chief Commissioner of Income -tax . Udaipur hereby approves " Prabhudasi Sisters Education Society , Ajmer" for the purpose of said section for the assessment years 2003-04 to 2005-06.
Provided that the society conforms to and complies with the provisions of Sub - section (vi) of Clause (23C) of Section 10 of the Income- tax Act , 1961 , read with rule 2CA of the Income-tax Rules , 1962 .
का. आ. 2116.- केन्द्रीय सरकार, राजभाषा ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग) नियम, 1976 के नियम 10 के उप नियम (4) के अनुसरण में, संलग्न अनुबंध में निम्नलिखित बैंकों/वित्तीय संस्थाओं के सूचीबद्ध कार्यालयों /शाखाओं को , जिनके 80 प्रतिशत से अधिक कर्मचारियों ने हिन्दी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है, अधिसूचित करती है: -
Notification No. 4/25 /No . CCIT/UDR/ITO (A)/ 2005-06/759 ] क्रम बैंक का नाम सं.
कार्यालयों/शाखाओं कीसंख्या P. K. MISRA , Chief Commissioner
1. भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक
05 उदयपुर, 6 जून, 2005
09
2. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ बीकानेर एंड जयपुर
01
3. राष्ट्रीय कृषि और ग्रामीण विकास बैंक
4. आन्ध्रा बैंक
06
5. बैंक ऑफ इंडिया
78
6. पंजाब नैशनल बैंक
52
7. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक
01
02
8. ओरियंटल बैंक ऑफ कामर्स
36
9. बैंक ऑफ महाराष्ट्र
का. आ. 2115.-आयकर अधिनियम, 1961 ( 1961 का 43 ) की धारा 10 के खण्ड ( 23 ग ) की उपधारा ( vi ) के साथ पठित आयकर नियमावली , 1962 के नियम 2 गक के द्वारा प्रदत्त अधिकारों का प्रयोग करते हुए, मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त, उदयपुर " संत मेरिज एजूकेशन सोसायटी, उदयपुर ( संत मेरिज कन्वेन्ट सीनियर सैकेण्डरी स्कूल, न्यू फतेहपुरा , उदयपुर एवं संत मेरिज कन्वेन्ट स्कूल, तितरडी, उदयपुर ) " को उनत धारा के प्रयोजन हेतु निर्धारण वर्ष 2002-03 से 2004-05 के लिए अनुमोदन करते हैं ।
190
कुल
[फा. सं . 11016/5/2004- हिन्दी] परन्तु यह तब जब कि सोसायटी आयकर अधिनियम, 1961 को धारा 10 के खण्ड ( 23 ग ) की उपधारा ४२ ) के पठित आयकर
रमेशबाबू अणियेरी , संयुक्त निदेशक ( राजभाषा ) [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
अनुबन्ध भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक
1. भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक , मुख्य कार्यालय भवन, पो.बा. सं. 15, सिविल लाइन्स, नागपुर-440001
2. भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक , सेन्ट्रल विस्टा, सैक्टर -17, टेलीफोन भवन के सामने , चण्डीगढ़ -160017
3. भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक , गांधी पुल के पास , पो.बा. सं. 1 , आश्रम मार्ग , अहमदाबाद-380001
4. भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक , सीबीडी, बेलापुर, एच एच निर्मला देवी मार्ग, सैक्टर -10, प्लाट नं. 3 , नवी मुम्बई-400614
5. कृषि बैंकिंग महाविद्यालय, भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक, गणेश खिंड रोड (विद्यापीठ मार्ग ) , पुणे-411016
स्टेट बैंक ऑफ बीकानेर एण्डजयपुर प्रधान कार्यालय, जयपुर
कार्यालय जिसे राजभाषा नियम 1976 के नियम 10 (4) के अन्तर्गत राजपत्र में अधिसूचित करना है ।
1. यू. आई. टी. भरतपुर
पता:
यू.आई.टी.
भरतपुर
2. लेखन सामग्री आगार, जोधपुर पता:
लेखन सामग्री आगार, प्रथम तल, चौपासनी रोड,
जोधपुर
3. मार्गदर्शी बैंक , बीकानेर पता:
मार्गदर्शी बैंक,
पब्लिकपार्क,
बीकानेर-334001
4. क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, श्रीगंगानगर पता:
क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय,
गगन पथ , जवाहर नगर, पोस्ट आफिस सं. 90, श्रीगंगानगर -335001
5949
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18 , 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28 , 1927
5. लेखन सामग्री आगार, उदयपुर पता:
हे सामग्री आगार,. 104, पद्मिनी जर्ग, पुराने रेलवे स्टेशन के पास, प्रताप नगर, उदयपुर-313001
6. झालरापाटन
पता: झालरापाटन, जिला-झालावाड़
7. मार्गदर्शी बैंक, हनुमानगढ़ पता: मार्गदर्शी बैंक,
250, नई धान मण्डी, प्रथम तल, हनुमानगढ़-335512
8. लेखन सामग्री आगार, जयपुर पता: लेखन सामग्री आगार, घाटगेटके पास, अंकुर सिनेमा के सामने, जयपुर
9. कलैक्ट्रेट , हनुमानगढ़ पता: कलैक्ट्रेट, हनुमानगढ, हनुमानगढ जंक्शन-335512 ( राजस्थान)
1. राष्ट्रीय कृषि और ग्रामीण विकास बैंक उत्तरांचल क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, 113/2 , रामपुर रोड, देहरादून
आन्ध्राबैंक
नियम 10.4 के अधीन अधिसूचित किये जाने वाला शाखा का पता:-
1. आन्ध्रा बैंक गुरु गोबिंद सिंह रोड, हजारीबाग, झारखंड-825301
2. आध्रा बैंक
राणीनगर शाखा, जगित्याल-505327, करीमनगर, आंध्रप्रदेश
3. आन्ध्रा बैंक
भवानीपुरम शाखा
म.नं. 76-8/1-11 क्रॉम्बे रोड, भवानीपुरम, विजयवाडा-520012 5950
4. आन्ध्रा बैंक सिद्धार्थनगर शाखा म.नं. 59-3-6, अशोकनगर, II क्रॉस रोड, शिर्थनगर, विजयवाडा-520010 . 5. । बैंक श्रीनिवासम कॉम्प्लेक्स शाखा तिरुपति, चित्तूर जिला, आन्ध्र प्रदेश -517501
6. आन्ध्रा बैंक पेटमिट्ट शाखा पेटमिट्ट, चित्तूर जिला, आन्ध्रप्रदेश -517124
बैंक ऑफ इण्डिया 1. बेगुसराय शाखा गुंजन बाजार, टाउन थाना चौक, बेगुसराय, बिहार-851101
2. व्यापार विहार शाखा जोन-1 , प्लॉट नं. 22, व्यापार बिहार मेन रोड, बिलासपुर, जिला: बिलासपुर, छत्तीसगढ़ -495004
3. देवेंन्द्र नगर शाखा राजेन्द्राकाम्प्लेक्स, आई.जी.पी.व्ही.पी. क्लाथ मार्केट, देवेन्द्र नगर, पंढरी , रायपुर, जिला: रायपुर, छत्तीसगढ़
4. पावर हाउस शाखा
पावर हाउस चौक, पुराने बस स्टेंड के पास, जी.ई. रोड, आंबेडकर चौक, भिलाई, जिला दुर्ग
5. संगरूर शाखा
नजदीक होटल मयूर , धूरी गेट के बाहर, संगरूर, पंजाब
6. गोमतीनगर शाखा
" स्टार हाउस " भूतल विभूति खड, गोमतीनगर उत्तर प्रदेश -226010
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2005/JYAISTHA 28 , 1927 [PART II-SEC, 3 ( ii) ] 7. आशियाना रामनगरी शाखा
आर.बी. मार्केट, प्रथम तल रामनगरी मोड़ पो. , आशियाना नगर, पटना-800025
8. धीवर शाखा एनटीपीसी, बाढ़ परिसर, बाढ़ पटना, बिहार-803221
9. सरायकेला शाखा वार्ड नं. 08 मेन रोड, सरायकेला-833219, जिला: सरायकेला-खरसाँवा, झारखंड
10. सैफियाकॉलेज शाखा सैफिया आर्ट , कामर्स और विधि महाविद्यालय अहमदाबाद पेलेस , रोड को-हे. फिजा, भोपाल, मध्य प्रदेश 462001
11. होशंगाबाद शाखा फौजदार भवन, बालागंज, सात रास्ता, हौशंगाबाद-461001
12. झोटवाडाइंडस्ट्रीयल एरिया शाखा 9 (4) झोटवाडा इंडस्ट्रीयल शाखा जयपुर ( राजस्थान)
13. झुंझुनुशाखा रोड नं. 1 , बीडीके होस्पिटल के सामने, झुंझुनु-333001, राजस्थान
14. चुरु शाखा इंद्रमणिनिवास, वार्ड नं. 18, स्टेशन रोड, चुरू, राजस्थान
15. जयपुर सेवा शाखा पूरी भवन, सेवॉय होटल लेन, एम आई रोड, जयपुर-302001 (राजस्थान)
16. हनुमानगढ़ शाखा
राजीव गांधी चौक, दिनार सिनेमाकॉम्प्लेक्स, हनुमानगढ़ टाउन, जिला- हनुमानगढ़ , राजस्थान-335513 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
17. किशनगढ़ शाखा
पुष्पाटा भवन, मेन मार्केट, मदनगंज किशनगढ़ , जिला-अजमेर, राजस्थान-305801
18. पाली शाखा
चन्द्रलोक बिल्डिंग, नजदीक- मंथन सिनेमा, रेलवे स्टेशन रोड, पाली, (राजस्थान)
19. प्रताप विहार शाखा
जीडीपी-5 , सेक्टर 12, प्रताप विहार, गाजियाबाद-201009 उत्तर प्रदेश
20. रोहिणी शाखा
6, विकास टॉवर, कम्यूनिटी सेंटर, सेक्टर -8 , रोहिणी, दिल्ली-110085 21. दिल्लीआवास एवं वैयक्तिक शाखा 26 ए, कम्यूनिटी सेंटर, अशोक विहार, नई दिल्ली-110052 22. कानपुर एसएसआई शाखा 52-ए, दादा नगर, कानपुर पिन-208022
उत्तर प्रदेश
23. फतेहपुर चौक शाखा
सरस्वती शिशु मंदिर के पास, चौक बाजार, फतेहपुर, जिला-फतेहपुर, उत्तर प्रदेश -212601
24. उरई शाखा
गुर्जर काम्पलेक्स, राजमार्ग, उरई, जिला जलांव, उत्तर प्रदेश
25. हजीरा शाखा
नंद निकेतन ( ऐस्सार टाऊनशिप ) शापिंग काम्पलेक्स, 27 कि. मी. सूरत हजीरा रोड, हजीरा जिलाः सूरत , गुजरात-394270 26. नेरूल शाखा
नवी मुंबई, पहली मंजिल, सोशियों वेल्फेयर बिल्डिंग, श्री अयप्पा टेम्पल कॉम्पलेक्स, सेक्टर 17 , नेरूल , नवी मुंबई जिला ठाणे , महाराष्ट्र -400706
5951
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18 , 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28 , 1927
27. खारघर शाखा,
पहली मंजिल, स्वर्ण संकुल, प्लॉट नं. 14, सेक्टर -7 , खारघर, ता. पनवेल, नवी मुंबई-400706
28. विसनगर शाखा
पटेलवाडी के सामने, सवाला दरवाजा, विसनगर-384315 , जिला मेहसाना, गुजरात
29. मालवण शाखा
घर संख्या 487 ( 1 ) सोमवार पेठ, मु.पो. मालवण, जिला सिंधुदूर्ग
30. चण्डीगढ़ सेवा शाखा बैंक स्कवेअर, सेक्टर 17 पो.बा. 2, चण्डीगढ़ -160017
31. पंचकूला सेक्टर -20 शाखा
एससीओ नं. 290, पंचकूला, जिला पंचकूला, हरियाणा
32. एस.वी.जी. मार्केट काम्पलैक्स शाखा
एस.वी.जी. मार्केट काम्पलेक्स, आर.टी.सी. बस काम्प्लेक्स के सामने, राजामंडी-533103 तूर्प गोदावरी जिला ( आंध्रप्रदेश )
33. चेंचुपेटा शाखा
दरवाजा सं. 10-1-73 , चेंचुपेटा, तेनाली-522202 गुंटूर जिला ( आंध्रप्रदेश )
34. पालकोल शाखा
दरवाजा सं. 19-1-15 , पहली मंजिल, मेन रोड, पालकोल 534260, पश्चिम गोदावरी जिला ( आंध्रप्रदेश )
35. भीमवरम शाखा
दरवाजा सं. 24-1-5/1 , पहली मंजिल , दासरी काम्पलेक्स, जुव्वालापालेम रोड भीमवरम 534202, पश्चिम गोदावरी जिला ( आंध्रप्रदेश )
36. पत्तनमतिट्टा शाखा
पहली मंजिल, मंगलम प्लाजा, कुम्वषा रोड, पत्तनमतिट्टा, केरल 5952
37. ओएसआईएल कैम्पस शाखा
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2005 / JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii )] 49. रतनपुर शाखा
ओएसआईएल कैम्पस , ग्राम/पोस्टः पलासपंगा, जिला केन्दुझर , राज्य उड़ीसा, पिन-758031
ग्राम व डाक- रतनपुर, जिला-बांकुड़ा, पश्चिम बंगाल-722 101
50. रघुनाथपुर बाजार शाखा
38. बुगटे-आलूर शाखा
तालुक- हुक्केरी, जिला बेलगांव, कर्नाटक-591 313
टी.एन. मुखर्जी रोड, ग्राम व डाकघर- रघुनाथपुर, हुगली, पश्चिम बंगाल-712 247
51. सांतरागाछी शाखा
39. बाली बाजार शाखा
215, 217, 218 गोस्वामी पाडा रोड, बाली, हावड़ा -711 201
40. बांकुड़ा शाखा
20/1, एस.एन.एन.जी. रोड, सांतरागाछी, हावड़ा, पश्चिम बंगाल-711 014
52. श्रीरामपुर शाखा
52/1 , लाल बाजार, डाक व जिला बांकुड़ा, पश्चिम बंगाल-722 101
41. भादुतला शाखा
89 , जी.टी. रोड, श्रीरामपुर, हुगली, पश्चिम बंगाल-712 201
53. केरानीचाटी शाखा
ग्राम एवं डाकघर- भादुतला,
मिदनापुर-721 129
42. चॉपदानी शाखा
ग्राम-केरानीचाटी, डाकघर- अबाश, मिदनापुर-721101
54. खड़गपुर शाखा
8, जी.टी. रोड, चॉपदानी, वैद्यबाटी, हुगली, पश्चिम बंगाल
43. धात्रीग्राम शाखा
210-ए, खरीदा फाटक बाजार, खड़गपुर, मिदनापुर-721 301 पश्चिम बंगाल
55. अडयार शाखा
जिला-बर्दवान , पश्चिम बंगाल
44. डॉबसन लेन शाखा
पी-4, डॉबसन लेन, हावड़ा-1 , पश्चिम बंगाल
नं. 33/3 , प्रथम मेन रोड, गांधीनगर, अड्यार, चेन्नई, पिन-600 020
56. अलगापुरम शाखा
45. दत्तापुरशाखा
ग्राम व डाक - कृष्णरामपुर, हुगली -712 705 पश्चिम बंगाल
46. गोपालनगर शाखा
नायकरस्ट्रीट,
अलगापुरम डाकघर, उडयारपालयम तालुका, पेरम्बलूर जिला,
तमिलनाडु-608 701
57. आरम्बाक्कम शाखा
ग्राम-गोपालनगर, डाकघर-पर, गोपालनगर, हुगली, पश्चिम बंगाल
47. हल्दिया पोर्ट टाऊन शाखा
जी.एन.टी. रोड,
आरम्बाक्कम, तालुका गुमिडिपूंडी,
(आरम्बा एक्स ),
जिला तिरूवल्लूर,
तमिलनाडु -601 207
ग्राम व डाकघर- खजन चौक, हल्दिया, जिला- मिदनापुर, पश्चिम बंगाल-721 602
58. चेन्नई आंचलिक कार्यालय
48. जयपुर शाखा
ग्राम-जयपुर, डाकघर-महतापुर, मिदनापुर-721516
स्टार हाउस, ओल्ड नं. 17, नया नं. 30, इरीबालु स्ट्रीट, चेन्नई, तमिलनाडु -600 001 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
59. बूचि आतिपेडु शाखा
बाजार स्ट्रीट, डाकघर - बूचि आतिपेडु , बरास्ता रेड हिल्स, चेन्नई, तमिलनाडु, पिन-600 052
60. गिण्डीशाखा
एसपीआईसी सेन्टर, 44-ए, माउंट रोड, गिण्डी, चेन्नई, चेन्नई, पिन-600 032
61. कांचीपुरम शाखा 30-31 , गांधी रोड, कांचीपुरम जिला, तमिलनाडु पिन-631 501
62. चेन्नई कर्मचारी प्रशिक्षण महाविद्यालय नं. 3 , II स्ट्रीट, बालाजी नगर, रोयोपेट्टाह, चेन्नई,
तमिलनाडु-600 014
63. कुमरकुडीशाखा
185, मेन रोड, कुमरकुडी, कत्तुमानर कोईल तालुका, कडुलूर जिला,
तमिलनाडु-608 702
64. कोडम्बाक्कम शाखा
25, दूसरी क्रास स्ट्रीट, ट्रस्टपुरम, चेन्नई , पिन-600 024
65. कोडुंग्य्यूरशाखा
नं. 3 , इथियाराजसामी सालई, कोडुंग्य्यूर, चेन्नई, पिन-600 118
66. चेन्नई कारपोरेट बैंकिंग शाखा 4थी मंजिल, तारापुर टॉवर, 627, अण्णा सालई , पो.बॉ. नं. 2413 , चेन्नई -600 002
67. कुम्भकोणम शाखा
71, मठ स्ट्रीट,
कुम्भकोणम, तंजाऊर जिला,
तमिलनाडु-612001
68. माउंट रोड शाखा
175/1 अण्णासालई, पो.बॉ. नं. 2703, चेन्नई, पिन-600 002
३१. माइलापुर शाखा
174, लज़ चर्च रोड, माइलापुर,
पो.बॉ. नं. 643 , चेन्नई,
पिन-600 004
5953
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18 , 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28 , 1927
70. परिविलागम खाखा
15, केनडीस्ट्रिीट, पोस्टकोथवसल, काहुमण्णार कोइली ( टि के ) , कड्डुलूर जिला, तमिलनाडु-608 702
71. पोंदवाक्कम शाखा
तिरूवल्लूर मेन रोड, ऊत्तुक्कोटटै तालुका-602 026
72. पुरसवाक्कम शाखा
पॅलेस विजेंसी, 1 पहिली मंजिल, 80-93, पुरसवाक्कम हाई रोड, चेन्नई-600 007
73. सांतोम शाखा सं. 1 , सांतोम हाई रोड, चेन्नई -600 004
74. सौकारपेट शाखा 59 , देवराज मुदली स्ट्रीट, चेन्नई-600 003
75. आस्तिवसूली शाखा
4वीं मंजिल, आंचलिक कार्यालय, 17/30, एररबालू स्ट्रीट, चेन्नई -600 001
76. थौजेन्टलाइट्सशाखा
406, लाइट्स रोड, गोपालपुरम , चेन्नई-600 086
77. आरंगलदुर्गम शाखा
ग्राम व डाकघर अरंगलर्दुगम,
वाया तुतिपेट,
जिला वेल्लूर अम्बेडकर-635 811
78. चेन्नई ओवरसीज शाखा
तीसरी मंजिल, 17, एररबालूस्ट्रीट, चेन्नई -600 001
पंजाब नैशनल बैंक
मिदनापुर क्षेत्र द्वारा अनुशंसित शाखाएँ:
1. पंजाब नैशनल बैंक
शा.का: बाखराबाद, पो. बाखराबाद, जिला-मिदनापुर ( पश्चिम) ,
मिदनापुर-721424 5954
2. पंजाब नैशनल बैंक
शा.का: चकरासूल , वाया : ईटाबेरिया, पो.: ललुआ, जिला: मिदनापुर ( पूर्व ) , मिदनापुर -721456
3. पंजाब नैशनल बैंक
शा.का: भीमपुर,
पोस्टः भीमपुर, जिला- मिदनापुर (प० ) मिदनापुर -721 147
4. पंजाब नैशनल बैंक
शा.का: चिलकीगढ़,
पोस्ट-चिलकीगढ़ , वाया: झाड़ग्राम, जिला- मिदनापुर -721 314
5. पंजाब नैशनल बैंक
शा.का: भौदी,
पोस्ट- भौदी, जिला-मिदनापुर (प. ), मिदनापुर -721 147
6. पंजाब नैशनल बैंक
शा.का: नन्दीग्राम , पो- राजारामपुर चौक, पोस्ट- नन्दीग्राम , जिला- मिदनापुर ( प. ) , मिदनापुर-721 631
7. पंजाब नैशनल बैंक
शा.का: बुरामाला,
पोस्ट- केयुशी , जिला- मिदनापुर (प. ) , मिदनापुर-721 126
8. पंजाब नैशनल बैंक
शा.का: देऊलीहाट,
पोस्ट- सागरेश्वर, जिला-मिदनापुर ( पू. ) , मिदनापुर-721446
9. पंजाब नैशनल बैंक
शा.का: हेड़ीया, पोस्ट- हेड़ीया , जिला- मिदनापुर (पू. ) , मिदनापुर-721 430
10. पंजाब नैशनल बैंक
शा.का: गोवर्धनपुर,
पो. गोवर्धनपुर, जिला- मिदनापुर ( प. ) , मिदनापुर-721 446
11. पंजाब नैशनल बैंक
शा.का: जनकापुर,
पो.-मेनकापुर , जिला- मिदनापुर ( प. ) , मिदनापुर-721 435
12. पंजाब नैशनल बैंक
शा.का: नारायणगढ़ ,
पो.- नारायणगढ़ , जिला-मिदनापुर, मिदनापुर-721437
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2005 / JYAISTHA 23 , 1927
[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ] 13. पंजाब नैशनल बैंक
शा.का : जयकृष्णपुर,
पो.- जुनबालदा, जिला-मिदनापुर (प. ) , मिदनापुर-721 132
14. पंजाब नैशनल बैंक
शा.का: गोबिन्दपुर ,
पो.- गोबिन्दपुर, जिला- पुरूलिया, पिन-723 128
15. पंजाब नैशनल बैंक
शा.का: कमलापुर, पो.- मंगलापुर , जिला- मिदनापुर (प. ) , मिदनापुर -721 303
16. पंजाब नैशनल बैंक
शा.का : खाजरा ,
पो.- कुशगेड़िया, जिला- मिदनापुर (प. ),
मिदनापुर-721 133
17. पंजाब नैशनल बैंक
शा.का: कुलबोनी,
पो.-बेनाडिहा , जिला- मिदनापुर (प. ) , मिदनापुर -721 133
18. पंजाब नैशनल बैंक
शा.का: कुकराखुपी, वाया-तापसिया,
पो.- कुकराखुपी, जिला- मिदनापुर (प. ),
मिदनापुर-721517
19. पंजाब नैशनल बैंक
शा.का: केन्दा,
पोस्ट-बालकधी, जिला-पुरूलिया, पिन-723 123
20. पंजाब नैशनल बैंक
शा.का : ललाट,
पो.- ललाट, जिला- मिदनापुर ( प. ),
मिदनापुर-721 443
21. पंजाब नैशनल बैंक
शा.का: मंडलकुपी,
पो.-शालबोनी, जिला-मिदनापुर ( प. ) ,
मिदनापुर-721 147
22. पंजाब नैशनल बैंक
शा.का : महापाल ,
पो.-पेटबिन्धी, जिला- मिदनापुर ( प. ) ,
मिदनापुर-721517
23. पंजाब नैशनल बैंक
शा.का: मेटलडोबा,
पोस्ट- हूमगढ़ , जिला, मिदनापुर ( प. ) ,
मिदनापुर-721 128 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
24. पंजाब नैशनल बैंक शा.का: मुगबासन, पो.- मुगबासन, जिला-मिदनापुर (प. ) , मिदनापुर-721150
25. पंजाब नैशनल बैंक शा.का: मावा, पो.-बड़ाचू, जिला-मिदनापुर (प. ) , मिदनापुर-721301
26. पंजाब नैशनल बैंक शा.का: नाचीपुर, वाया-केशियांरी, पो. सूखारोल, जिला-मिदनापुर (प. ) , मिदनापुर-721133
27. पंजाब नैशनल बैंक
शा.का: पंचगेड़िया, पो.- पंचगेड़िया, जिला-मिदनापुर ( प. ), मिदनापुर-721156
28. पंजाब नैशनल बैंक
शा.का: पिण्दूई, पो.-पिण्ड्रई, जिला-मिदनापुर (प. ), मिदनापुर-721131
29. पंजाब नैशनल बैंक
शा.का: रोगड़ा, पो.-रोगड़ा, जिला-मिदनापुर (प. ) , मिदनापुर-721139
30. पंजाब नैशनल बैंक शा.का: रूपनारायणपुर, पो.-जकपुर, जिला-मिदनापुर (प. ), मिदनापुर-721301
31. पंजाब नैशनल बैंक
शा.का : सरबेरिया , वाया-सेकन्दारी , पो.-हाटसरबेरिया, जिला-मिदनापुर ( प. ) , मिदनापुर-721146
32. पंजाब नैशनल बैंक
शा.का : श्यामचन्दपुर,
पो.-श्यामचन्दपुर, जिला-मिदनापुर (प. ) , मिदनापुर-721147
33. पंजाब नैशनल बैंक
शा.का: श्रीरामपुर, पो.- श्रीरामपुर, जिला-मिदनापुर (पू. ), मिदनापुर-721651
1714 G1/05-3
5955
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18 , 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28 , 1927
34. पंजाब नैशनल बैंक
शा.का: शंकरपुर, वाया : बालिसा, पो.-बोधरा , जिला-मिदनापुर (पू. ) , मिदनापुर-721423
35. पंजाब नैशनल बैंक
शा.का: तेखाली बाजार, पो.- तेखाली बाजार, जिला-मिदनापुर ( पू. ) , मिदनापुर-721139
36. पंजाब नैशनल बैंक
शा.का: सोयाल, पो.-बोयाल, जिला-मिदनापुर ( पू. ) , मिदनापुर-721656
37. पंजाब नैशनल बैंक
शा.का: पाँसकुड़ा, जिला-मिदनापुर ( पश्चिम मिदनापुर-721139
गुवाहाटी क्षेत्र द्वारा अनुशंसितशाखाएं:
38. पंजाब नैशनल बैंक
शाखा: अमायापुर- यज्ञधाम , पोस्ट-जानीगाँव, जिला-नलबारी , पिन-781334 (असम)
39. पंजाब नैशनल बैंक
शाखा : बरनीहाट, 15 माईल, जी.एस. रोड, बरनीहाट, जिला-रिबोई, पिन-793101 (मेघालय ) '
40. पंजाब नैशनल बैंक
क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, मार्केट रोड, कान्वेट जंक्शन ,
40/1461 , एरणाकुलम-682011 (केरल)
41. पंजाब नैशनल बैंक
पहली मंजिल , 102 , बाबूखान एस्टेट, बशीरबाग , हैदराबाद-500001
42. पंजाब नैशनल बैंक
एम-6, मैजेमैन तल, चेनॉय ट्रेड सेंटर,
पार्कलेन, सिकंदराबाद -500003
43. पंजाब नैशनल बैंक
27-2136, कालेश्वर राव रोड, गवर्नरपेट, विजयवाड़ा ( आं. प्र. ) 5956
44. पंजाब नैशनल बैंक
6-21-108, दूसरा क्रास, अरंडलपेट, गुंटूर ( आं प्र. )
45. पंजाब नैशनल बैंक
30-19-169, के एन टावर्स,
डाबा गार्डेन्सरोड़,
विशाखापट्टनम ( आं प्र.)
46. पंजाब नैशनल बैंक
शाखा कार्यालय: बजौरा , जिला-कुल्लु ( हिमाचल प्रदेश) पिन-175125
47. पंजाब नैशनल बैंक
शाखा कार्यालय: सुलतानपुर कुल्लु, कुल्लु (हिमाचल प्रदेश ) पिन-175101 दूरभाष नं . 01902-224080
48. पंजाब नैशनल बैंक
मुख्य बाजार, बाजपुर,
जिला- ऊधम सिंह नगर, उत्तरांचल पिन-262401
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2005 /JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
[PART II SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] 2. ओरियन्टल बैंक ऑफकॉमर्स
कर्मचारी प्रशिक्षण महाविद्यालय,
एस.सी.ओ. 60-61 , दूसरी मंज़िल बैंक स्क्वेयर , सेक्टर -17बी, चंडीगढ़ पिन -160017
भारतीयस्टेट बैंको
राजभाषा नियम 1976 के नियम 10 ( क ) के अंतर्गत अधिसूचित किए जाने वाले शर्यालय की सोची 1. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक
आंचलिक कार्यालय,
38/4, संजय प्लेस, आगरा ( उत्तर प्रदेश ) -282002
बैंक ऑफ महाराष्ट्र
(केन्द्रीय कार्यालय , 1501 , शिवाजी नगर, पुणे-41,1005 ) " क" क्षेत्र
49. पंजाब नैशनल बैंक
विधान सभा मार्ग , देहरादून, उत्तरांचल पिन-248001
50. पंजाब नैशनल बैंक
शाखा कार्यालय : द्वारका, प्रथम एवं द्वितीय तल, वधवा कम्प्लेक्स, द्वारका, नई दिल्ली-110045
51. पंजाब नैशनल बैंक
शाखा कार्यालय : व्यवसाय वित्त शाखा, 942, टकसाली भवन, चौड़ा रास्ता,
जयपुर ( राजस्थान )
52. पंजाब नैशनल बैंक
फालना, कॉलेज रोड, फालना, तहसील बाली, जिला पाली ( राजस्थान )
ओरियन्टल बैंक ऑफ कॉमर्स 1. ओरियन्टल बैंक ऑफ कॉमर्स
कर्मचारी प्रशिक्षण महाविद्यालय,
पहली मंजिल , पी-22 , बंडेल रोड, बालीगंज, कोलकाता पिन-700019 1. बापरोला शाखा
बैंकऑफ महाराष्ट्र
तलबगांव के सामने,
नांगलोई- नजफगढ़ रोड, बापरोला , नई दिल्ली 10043
2. पुष्पांजली एनक्लेव दिल्ली शाखा
बैंक ऑफ महाराष्ट्र,
ए-26 , पुष्पांजली एनक्लेव, पीतमपुरा , नई दिल्ली-110034
3. दयानंद विहार दिल्ली शाखा बैंक ऑफ महाराष्ट्र, 12, दयानंद विहार, नईदिल्ली-110092
4. मयूर विहार दिल्ली शाखा
बैंक ऑफ महाराष्ट्र,
12, प्रतापनगर, मयूर विहार,
नईदिल्ली11.009,1
5. परिमंडल कार्यालय, दिल्ली
बैंकऑफ महाराष्ट्र,
15, एनबीसीसी टॉवर,
तीसरी मंजिल , भिकाजी कामा प्लेस, नई दिल्ली-110066 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
6. माधव महाविद्यालय ग्वालियर शाखा बैंक ऑफ महाराष्ट्र, विवेकानन्द मार्ग , नई सड़क, लश्कर, ग्वालियर-474001 (मध्य प्रदेश)
7. लखनऊ क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय बैंक ऑफ महाराष्ट्र, प्लॉट नं. 12, महानगर नार्थ हाउसिंह कोऑप. सोसायटी, सेक्टर -१ , विकास नगर, लखनऊ-226024
5957
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18 , 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28 , 1927
14. मुजफ्फरपुर शाखा बैंकऑफ महाराष्ट्र, चंद्रलोष टॉवर्स, चंदलोक चौक मुजफ्फरपुर -842003 ( बिहार )
15. राजा बाजार पटना शाखा बैंकऑफ महाराष्ट्र, पटना कल्याण भवन , प्रथम तल, खाजी पुरा , राजा बाजार , पटना-800014 (बिहार)
16. बोरिंग रोड पटना शाखा बैंकऑफ महाराष्ट्र, सावित्री कॉम्प्लेक्स, बोरिंग रोड, पटना-800001 ( बिहार)
"ख" क्षेत्र
8. अलीगंज शाखा बैंकऑफ महाराष्ट्र, बी-22 , सेक्टर-के, अलीगंज, लखनऊ -226024
9. गोरखपुर शाखा बैंक ऑफ महाराष्ट्र, प्रथम मंजिल, केशव मार्केट, गोलाघर, गोरखपुर-273001 (उत्तर प्रदेश)
10. अलीगढ़ शाखा बैंक ऑफ महाराष्ट्र, शॉप नं. 1,2,3 ( यूजीएफ ) शॉप नं. 3 ( एलजीएफ) स्क्वेअर टॉवर्स, मारीस रोड, अलीगढ़ 202002 ( उत्तर प्रदेश)
11. अमीनाबाद शाखा बैंक ऑफ महाराष्ट्र, प्रथम मंजिल, शोभित कॉमर्शियल काम्प्लेक्स अमीनाबाद-226018 लखनऊ (उत्तर प्रदेश)
12. चौक लखनऊ शाखा बैंक ऑफ महाराष्ट्र, हासन एनक्लेव 46 , तुलसीदास मार्ग, चौक लखनऊ-226021 ( उत्तर प्रदेश )
13. विकासनगर लखनऊ शाखा ,
बैंकऑफ महाराष्ट्र, प्लॉट नं. 12 , महानगर नॉर्थ हाउसिंग सोसायटी, सेक्टर -9 , विकास नगर लखनऊ-226024 ( उत्तर प्रदेश)
17. चंडीगढ़ क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय बैंक ऑफ महाराष्ट्र, एससीओ 88-89 , सेक्टर 17 सी चंडीगढ़ संघ शासित क्षेत्र, चंडीगढ़-160017
18. बहादुरगढ़ शाखा बैंक ऑफ महाराष्ट्र, एससीएफ 2 सेक्टर 6 बहादुरगढ़-124507 ( हरियाणा )
19. रोहतक शाखा बैंक ऑफ महाराष्ट्र, 649/19 सर्विसेस क्लब के सामने सिविल रोड, रोहतक-124001 ( हरियाणा)
ةالله
20. भटिंडा शाखा बैंक ऑफ महाराष्ट्र, 10-11 एससीएफ, अर्बन एस्टेट फेज-1 , भटिंडा-151001 ( पंजाब )
21. मंडी गोविंदगढ़ शाखा बैंकऑफ महाराष्ट्र, कोणार्क प्लाजा, मोतिया खान , मंडीगोविंदगढ़ -147301 ( पंजाब )
22. रूपनगर चंडीगढ़,शाखा
बैंक ऑफ महाराष्ट्र, एससीएफ-36, 37 , बेअंत सिंह अमन नगर बेला रोड, रूपनगर, रोपड़ -140001 (पंजाब) 5958
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA JUNE 18, 2005/ JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
23. खन्ना शाखा
बैंकऑफ महाराष्ट्र, सीएफ-36 , पीडीची मार्केट एन्गेस्ट हाउस के स ये १ १९११ लुधियाना-141401 (पंजाब)
[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] 30. डॉ. डी. वाय. पाटील कॉलेज शाखा, पुणे बैंकऑफ महाराष्ट्र, डॉ. डीवाय पाटील लेडीज होस्टेल नं. 8 एचआईजी स्कीम, संत तुकारासनगर, पुणे-411018 ( महाराष्ट्र)
31. खारघर शाखा
24. दयालबाग फरीदाबाद शाखा बैंक ऑफ महारा , शॉप नं. 4 , ॉर्पिन अन्रोक्स , दयालबाग कालोनी, म्यूनिसिपल वार्ड नं. 14 फरीदाबाद -120009
25. महालक्ष्मी मुंबई शाखा बैंकऑफ महाराष्ट्र, मित्तल कैसल, 796 तल मंजिल बी. देसाई रोड व महालक्ष्मी मंदिर रोड जंक्शन मुंबई-400026 ( महाराष्ट्र)
26. पंतनगर घाटकोपर ( पूर्व ) मुंबई शाखा बैंक ऑफ महाराष्ट्र, 185/त्रिशूल को-ऑप हाउ. सोसायटी पंतनगर, घाटकोपर ( पूर्व ) मुंबई-400075 ( महाराष्ट्र)
27. सरस्वती भुवन कॉलेज शाखा
बैंक ऑफ महाराष्ट्र, सरस्वती भुवन एज्यूकेशनल सोसायटी, सरस्वती भुवन कालोनी , औरंगाबाद-431001 (महाराष्ट्र)
28. होटल वेदांत स्टेशन रोड शाखा बैंकऑफ महाराष्ट्र, होटल वेदांत , स्टेशन रोड, औरंगाबाद-431001 (महाराष्ट्र)
29. बालभारती पुणे शाखा
बैंक ऑफ महाराष्ट्र, शॉप नं. 9, 10, 11 , 12, 14 श्रीगणेश समन्वय को-ऑप सोसायटी प्लॉट नं. 13 , सेक्टर नं. 11 , खारघर, नयी मुंबई-410210 (महाराष्ट्र)
32. जयहिंद कॉलेज कैम्पस धुलेशाखा
बैंक ऑफ महाराष्ट्र, जयहिंद कॉलेज कैम्पस , देवपुर- ले वाडी भोकर रोड भुले 242.002 (म )
33. आरपी गोगटे कॉलेज रत्नागिरी शाखा बैंक ऑफ महाराष्ट्र,
स्पोर्टस कॉम्प्लेक्स, 518/सी-5 आरपी गोगटे कॉलेज कैम्प्स, रत्नागिरी -415612 (महाराष्ट्र)
34. पीपल्स कॉलेज कैम्पस नांदेड शाखा बैंक ऑफ महाराष्ट्र,
गांजवे बिल्डिंग, सांइस कॉलेज रोड पीपल्सकॉलेज कैम्पस, नांदेड नांदेड-431601 (महाराष्ट्र)
35. अदजान शाखा सूरत बैंक ऑफ महाराष्ट्र, प्राइम आर्केड, आनंद महाल रोड वार्ड नं . 17बी, जोगनी नगर के पास अदजान सूरत ( गुजरात )
36. ऐरोली शाखा
बैंकऑफ महाराष्ट्र, महाराष्ट्र राज्य पाठ्यपुस्तक महामंडल प्रकाशन भवन, बालभारती, सेनापति बापट मार्ग, पुणे-411004 (महाराष्ट्र)
बैंक ऑफ महाराष्ट्र, राजकमल बिल्डिंग,, प्लॉट नं. 17 सेक्टर-3 , ऐरोली नवी मुंबई -400708 (महाराष्ट्र) 5959 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18 , 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28 , 1927
[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
STATE BANK OF BIKANER AND JAIPUR (Department ofEconomicAffairs)
HEAD OFFICE
(BANKING DIVISION)
JAIPUR
NewDelhi , the 8th June,2005
Office tobe notified in the Official Gazette under Rule 10(4) ofOfficial Language Rules 1976.
1. U.LT. , BHARATPUR
Address:
U.LT.
Bharatpur
S.O. 2116. In pursuance of sub- rule (4) ofrule 10of the Official Languages (Use of official purposes of the Union) Rules, 1976 the Central Government , hereby, notifies the listed offices/branches ofthe following banks/Financial Institution in the attached annexure, more than 80% ofthe staff whereof have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi:-
2. STATIONERY DEPOT, JODHPUR
Name of the Banks
Address:
Number of Offices/ Branches
S. No.
05
Reserve Bank of India
1.
2.
Stationary Depot, 1stFloor, Chopasani Road, Jodhpur
State Bank of Bikaner & 09 Jaipur
01
3. LEAD BANK, BIKANER
NABARD
3.
06
Address:
AndhraBank
4.
LeadBank,
78
Bank of India
5.
52
Punjab National Bank
Public Park, Bikaner-334001
01
State Bank of India
7.
4. REGIONAL OFFICE, SRIGANGANAGAR 8.
Address:
02
Oriental Bank of Commerce
Regional Office,
36
Bank of Maharashtra
9.
Gaganpath
Total 190
Jawahar Nagar,
[F. No. 11016/5/2004-Hindi ]
PostBox No. 90 SrigangaNagar- 335001
RAMESH BABU ANIYERY, Jt. Director (OL)
5. STATIONARY DEPOT. , UDAIPUR
ANNEXURE
Address:
Reserve Bank of India
104, Padmini Marg ,
NearOldRailway Station,
PratapNagar,
Udaipur-313001
1. Reserve Bank of India, Mainoffice Building, P.N.B. - 16, CivilLines, Nagpur-440001
6. JHALRAPATAN
2. Reserve Bank of India ,
Address :
Central Vista,
Sector- 17,
Jhalrapatan
Distt. Jhalawar
Opp .Telephone Building, Chandigarh- 160017
7. LEAD BANK, HANUMANGARH
3. Reserve Bank of India,
Address:
Near Gandhi Bridge,
LeadBank,
P.N.B. - 1 , Ashram Road, Ahmedabad- 380001
250, New Grain Dhan Mandi ,
1stFloor,
4. Reserve Bank of India ,
C.B.D. Belapur,
Hanumangarh- 355512
8. STATIONERY DEPOT, JAIPUR
Address :
H.H. Nirmala Devi Marg, Sector- 10 , Plot No. 3 , Navi Mumbai -400614
5. Collecge of Agricultural Banking
Reserve Bank of India,
Stationary Depot, NearGhatgate, Opp.Ankur Cinema, Jaipur
Ganesh Khind Road, (Vidya Peeth Marg) Pune-411016 5960
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2005/JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)] 9. COLLECTORATE, HANUMANGARH Address :
2. Vyapar Vihar Branch, Zone-1 , Plot No. 22, VyaparVihar, Main Road, Bilaspur, Dist . Bilaspur, Chhatisgarh -495 004.
Colleciorate , Hanumangarh, Hanumangarh Junction - 335512 (Rajasthan)
1. National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development
Uttranchal Regional Office
113/2 , Raj pur Rd; Dehradun
3. Devendra Nagar , Branch, Rajendra Complex, IGVP, Cloth Market, Devendra Nagar, Pandri , Raipur, Dist . Raipur, Chattisgarh
ANDHRA BANK
Address of the branch to be notified under rule 10.4 :-
4. Power House Branch Near Old Bus Stand , G.E. Road, Ambedkar Chowk , Bhilai , Dist.Durg.
1. Andhra Bank, Guru Govind Singh Road, Hazaribag, Jharkhand -625301
2. Andhra Bank
5. Sangrur Branch 444, Friends Colony, Near Hotel Mayur, Outside Dhuri Gate, Sangrur , Dist . Sangrur Punjab- 148001
VaninagarBranch Jagitial-505 327 Karimnagar Andhra Pradesh
6. Gomti Nagar Branch StarHouse , Ground Floor, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, UttarPradesh- 226010
3. Andhra Bank, Bhavanipuram Branch, D. No. 76-8/ 1-11 Crombay Road Bhavanipuram, Vijaywada- 520012.
7. RamNagari Colony Branch, RamNagari More, R. B.Market, 1stAshiana Nagar, Patna -800 025
4. Andhra Bank, Siddharthanagar Branch, D. No. 59-3-6 Ashok Nagar, II Cross Road , Vijaywada - 520010.
8. Dheevar Branch , Barh Super Thermal Power Project, Complex, Barh, Dist. Patna, Bihar-803 221
5. Andhra Bank, Srinivasam Complex Branch , Tirupati, Andhra Pradesh- 517501 .
9. Seraikela Branch, MainRoad, Seraikela, At& P.O. -Seraikela, Dist. Seraikela-Kharsawan, Jharkhand - 833219
6. Andhra Bank , Petmitta Branch, Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh-517124 .
BANK OF INDIA
10. Saifia College Branch, Saifia Arts , Commerce & Law College , Ahmedabad Palace Road, Koh -e-fiza , Zopal , Madhya Pradesh -462 001.
Branches to be notified under Rule 10 (4) ofOfficial
Language Rule , 1976 :-
11. Hoshangabad Branch ,
FauzdarBhawan,
Balaganj , Sat Rasta,
Hoshangabad-461001
1. Begusarai Branch , GunjanBazar, Town Thana Chowk , Begusarai , Bihar 851 101
12. Jhotwara Industrial Area Branch , 9(4) , Jhotwara, Industrial Area, Jairpur, Rajasthan - 302012 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
13. Jhunjhunu Branch , Road No. 1 , Opp .B.D.K. Hospital, Jhunjhunu , Dist . Jhunjhunu , Rajasthan- 333 001.
14. Churu Branch, Indramani Nivas , Ward No. 18 , Station Road, Churu , Dist. Churu , Rajasthan-331001
15. Jaipur Service Branch, Puri Bhawan, Sewai Hotel Lane, M.I. Road, Jaipur- 302 001 (Rajasthan)
16. Hanumangarh Branch, Rajiv Gandhi Chowk , DinarTheatre Complex, Hanumangarh Town, Dist .Hanumangarh, Rajasthan- 335 513
17. Kishangarh Branch, Pushpata Bhavan , Main Market, Madanganj , Kishangarh , Dist.Ajmer, Rajasthan - 305 801
18. Pali Branch , Chandralok Building, NearManthan Cinema, Railway Station Raod , Pali, Rajasthan
19. Pratap Vihar Branch , G.D.P. -5 , Sector- 12 , PratapVihar, Ghaziabad-201009 Uttar Pradesh
20. Rohini Branch , 6, Vikas Tower, Community Centre, Sector- 8 , Rohini , Delhi - 110085
21. Delhi Housing & Personnel Banking Branch, 26 A, Community Centre, Ashok Vihar, New Delhi - 110052
22. Kanpur SSI Branch, 52-ADada Nagar, Kanpur, Pin 208 022 , UttarPradesh
23. Fatehpur Chowk Branch , Near Saraswati Shishu Mandir, Chowk Bazar, Fatehpur, Dist. Fatchpur, Uttar Pradesh -212 601
5961
भारत का राजपत्र: जून 18 , 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28 , 1927
24. Orai Branch, GurjarComplex, Raj Marg, Orai, Dist. Jalaun , UttarPradesh
25. Hazira Branch, Nand Niketan Shopping Complex, Essar Township , 27 k.m. Surat- Hazira Raod, Gujarat
26. Nerul (Navi Mumbai ) Branch, 1st Floor, Socio Welfare Bldg . , Sri Ayyappa Temple Complex, Sector 17 , Nerul , Navi Mumbai , Dist. Thane, Maharashtra -400 706
27. Kharghar Branch, 1st Floor, ' Swarna' Complex, PlotNo. 14, Sector-7 , Kharghar , Tal . Panvel , Dist.Raigad, Maharashtra -410210
28. Visnagar Branch, Ambika Bhavan , Bus Stand Road, Sawala Darwaja, Opp . Patel Wadi , Visnagar,Dist . Mehsana , Gujarat-348315
29. MalvanBranch, House No. 487 ( i ) , Somwar Peth , At/Po/Tal . Malvan , Dist. Sindhudurg . Maharashtra -416606
30. Chandigarh Service Branch, Bank Square, Sector 17 , P.O. 2 , Chandigarh - 160017
31. Panchkula Sector - 20 Branch, SCONo. 290 Sector-20 , Panchkula, Dist . Panchkula , Haryana
32. S.V.G. Market Complex C& P Branch, S.V.G.Market Complex, Opp. RTC Bus Complex , Rajahmundry, East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh -533 103
33. Chenchupeta Branch, D.No. 10-1-73 , Chenchupeta, Tenali , Dist.Guntur, Andhra Pradesh -522 202 5962
34. Palakol Branch, 19-1-15, 1st Floor, Main Road, Palakol , Dist . West Godavari , Andhra Pradesh -534 260 35. Bhimavaram Branch, 1stFloor, Dasari Cor plex, Door No. 24-1-5/2 , Ward No. 35, Juvvalapalam Road, Bhimavaram, Dist . West Godavari , Andhra Pradesh 534 202
36. Pathanamthitta Branch, Building No. 371, Ward No. XXI , 1stFloor, Mangalan Plaza, Kumbazha Road, Pathanamthitta P.O. , Pathanamthitta Dist . , Kerala-689 645
37. OSIL (Palaspanga) Branch, OSIL Campus , A/P Palaspanga, Dist.Keonjhar, State Orissa -758031
38. Bugate Alur Branch, Village & Post Bugate Alur, Taluka: Hukkeri , District : Belgaum, Karnataka - 591 313
39. Bally Bazar Branch , 215 , 217.218 Goswamipara Road, Bally, Howrah-711201
40. Bankura Branch, 52/1, Lal Bazar P.O. & Dist . Bankura , W.B. -722101
41. Bhadutala Branch , Vill& P.O. Bhadutala, Midnapore --721129
42. Champdani Branch, 8, G.T. Road, Champdani , Baidyabati , Hooghly, WestBengal
43. Dhatrigram Branch, At & P.O. Dhatrigram. , Dist. Burdwan , West Bengal
44. Dobson Lane Branch, P-4, Dobson Lane , Howrah- 1, WestBengal
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18, 2005/ JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
[PART II- SEC . 3( ii) ] 45. Duttapur Branch , Vill& P.O. Krishnarampur, Hooghly, Pin-712705 WestBengal .
46. Gopalnagar Branch, VillGopalnagar, Post -Par Gopalnagar, Hooghly, West Bengal - 712 418
47. Haldia Port Town Branch , Vill& PO Khanjan Chowk, Haldia, Dist.Midnapore- , West Bengal - 721 602
48. Jaypur Branch, Vill-Jaypur , Post-Mahatapur , Midnapore-- 721516
49. Ratnapur Branch, At& Post-Ratnapur, Dist.Bankura, WestBengal- 722 101
50. Raghunathpur Bazar Branch, T.N. Mukherjee Road , At & Post- Raghunathpur , Hooghly, West Bengal -712247
51. Santragachhi Branch, 20/1 , S.N.N.C. Road, Santragachhi , Howrah - 711014 WestBengal
52. SrirampurBranch , 89 , G.T. Road, Srirampur, Hooghly, West Bengal pin - 712201
53. Keranichati Branch, Vill -Keranichati , Post -Abash, Midnapore -- 721 101
54. Kharagpur Branch, 210 A, Kharida Fatak Bazar, Kharagpur, Midnapore -- 721 301 West Bengal
55. Adyar Branch , No. 33/3 , 1st Main Road , Gandhinagar, Adyar, Chennair -600 020
56. Alagapuram Branch, Naicker Street , AlagapuramP.O. Udayarpalayam Taluk, Dist. Perambalur, Tamil Nadu, Pin-608701
57. Arambakkam Branch , G.N.T. , Road, Arambakkam, Taluka Gummidipundi , District Tiruva Tamil Nadu -601 207 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
5963
भारत का राजपत्र: जून 18 , 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28, 1927
58. Chennai Zonal Office Bank of IndiaBuilding, 17/30 Errabalu Chetty Street, Chennai -600 001
59. Boochi Atthipedu Branch Bazaar Street, ViaRed Hills,Chennai, Tamil Nadu-600052
60. Guindy Branch SPIC Centre, 44-A, Mount Road, Guindy, Chennai -600 032
61. Kancheepuram Branch : 30-3 , Gandhi Road, Post Box No. 20, Kancheepuram -1 , Dist.Kancheepuram , Tamil Nadu Pin -631 501
62. Staff Training Centre No. 3 , II Street , Balaji Nagar, Royapettah, Chennai -600 014
63. Kumarakudi Branch 185, Main Road, Kumarakudi, Kattumannar Koil Taluk, Cuddalore District, Tamil Nadu -608 702
64. Kodambakam Branch 71, Mutt Street , ThanjavurDist. , Chennai-600 024
65. KodungaiyurBranch No. 3, Ethirajsami Salai , Kodungaiyur, Chennai, Pin 600 118
66. Chennai Corporate Banking Branch 4thFloor, Tarapore Tower, 627, Anna Salai , Chennai-600002
67. Kumbakonam Branch 71, Mutt Street, Kumbakonam, Dist . Thanjavur. Tamil Nadu-612001
68. Mount Road, Branch 175/1 , Anna Salai , Post Box No. 2703 , Chennai -600 002.
69. Mylaporej
174, Luz Mylapore , P.B. No. 643. Chennai -600 004.
1714 G1/054
70. Parivilagam Branch
15, Kennedy Street, Post. Kothavasal , Kattumannar Koil (T.K. ) Dist. Cuddalore, Tamil Nadu-608305
71. Pondavkkam Branch
Tiruvallur Main Road, TalukUthukottai , Dist. Tiruvallur, Tamil Nadu-602 026
72. Purasawalikam Branch Palace Regency, 1st floor, 80-93, Pueasawalkam High Road, Chennai, Chennai -600 004
73. Santhome Branch No. 1, Santhome High Rd , Chennai-600 004
74. Sowcarpet Branch 59, DevarajaMudali Street , Chennai-600003 .
75. Chennai Asset Recovery OldNo. 17, NewNo.30, Errabalu Street, Chennai -600001 .
76. Thousand Lights Branch No.406 LoydsRoad, Gopalapuram, Chennai -600006 .
77. Arangaldurgam Branch Vill& Post Arangaldurgam, ViaThuthipet, Dist. Vellore Ambedkar, Tamil Nadu-635811
78. Chennai Overseas Branch 3rd Floor, 17, Errabalu Street, Chennai -600001 .
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK
Branches Recommended by Midnapore Region for notification under O.L. Rules :-
1. Punjab National Bank B.O. Bakhrabad, P.O.: Bakhrabad, Dist: Midnapore- (West) , Pin- 721 424.
5964
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2005/JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
2. Punjab National Bank
B.O .: Chakrasul , Via; Itaberia, P.O.: Lalua, Dist : Midnapore (East) , Midnapore-721 456
3. Punjab National Bank
B.O.: Bhimpur, P.O.: Bhimpur, Dist : Midnapore (West) , Midnapore -721 147.
4. Punjab National Bank
B.O.: Chilkigarh, P.O.: Chilkigarh, Via Jhargram, Distt . Midnapore-Pin -721 314 .
5. Punjab National Bank
B.O.:Bhoudi, P.O.: Bhoudi, Dist: Midnapore (West) Midnapore -721 147 .
6. Punjab National Bank
B.O.: Nandigram, P.O.: Rajarampore Chowk, Dist: Midnapore (West) , Pin-721631.
7. Punjab National Bank
B.O.: Buramala,
P.O.: Keushi , Dist : Midnapore (West) , Midnapore-721 126
8. Punjab National Bank
B.O.: Deolihat, P.O.: Sagareswar, Dist: Midnapore (E) , Midnapore - 721 446.
9. Punjab National Bank
B.O.:Heria, P.O.: Heria, Dist: Midnapore (East) , Midnapore -721 430.
10. Punjab National Bank
B.O.: Gobardhanpur, P.O.: Gobardhanpur, Dist : Midnapore (West) , Pin-721 446.
11. Punjab National Bank ,
B.O.: Jankapur, P.O .: Menkapur, Dist : Midnapore (West) , Midnapore - 721 435.
12. Punjab National Bank
B.O.: Narayangarh , P.O.: Narayangarh, Dist: Midnapore, Midnapore - 721437 .
13. Punjab National Bank
B.O.: Joykrishnapur, P.O.: Junbalda , Dist : Midnapore (West ), Midnapore - 721 132.
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii )] 14. Punjab National Bank
B.O.: Gobindpur, P.O.:Gobindapur, Dist : Purulia, Midnapore- 723 128 .
15. Punjab National Bank
B.O.:Kamalapur, P.O.:Manglapur, Dist : Midnapore (West ) , Midnapore-721 303 .
16. Punjab National Bank
B.O.:Khajra, P.O.: Kushgeria, Dist : Midnapore (W) , Midnapore- 72 1 133 .
17. Punjab National Bank
B.O.: Kulboni, P.O.: Benadiha, Dist : Midnapore (W), Midnapore -721 133.
18. Punjab National Bank
B.O.: Kukrakhup , Via: Tapsia, P.O.: Kukrakhupi , Dist : Midnapore (W) , Midnapore - 721517.
19. Punjab National Bank
B.O.: Kenda, P.O.: Balakdhi , Dist. Purulia, Midnapore-723 123 .
20. Punjab National Bank B.O .: Lalat, P.O.: Lalat , Dist: Midnapore (West ) , Midnapore - 721 443 .
21. Punjab National Bank
B.O.:Mandalkupi , P.O.: Salboni , Dist : Midnapore (West ) , Midnapore- 721 147.
22. Punjab National Bank
B.O.:Mahapal, P.O.: Petbindhi , Dist : Midnapore (West ) , Midnapore - 721517 .
23. Punjab National Bank
B.O.: Metaldoba , P.O.: Hoomgarh, Dist: Midnapore (West), Midnapore - 721 128 .
24. Punjab National Bank
B.O.: Mugbasan, P.O.:Mugbasan , Dist : Midnapore (West) , Midnapore - 721 150.
25. Punjab National Bank
B.O.: Mawa, P.O.: Barachu , Dist: Midnapore (West) , Midnapore - 721 301.
26. Punjab National Bank
B.O.: Nachipur, P.O.: Sukharol , Via Keshiary, Dist: Midnapore (West) , Pin-721 133 .
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
27. Punjab National Bank
B.O.: Panchgeria, P.O.: Panchgeria, Dist : Midnapore (West), Midnapore -721 156.
28. Punjab National Bank
B.O.: Pindrui,
P.O.: Pindrui , Dist : Midnapore (West) , Midnapore -721 131 ...
29. Punjab National Bank
B.O.: Rogra, P.O.: Rogra, Dist : Midnapore ( West ) , Midnapore -721 139.
30. Punjab National Bank
B.O.: Rupnarayanpur , PO : Jakpur, Dist: Midnapore (West) Midnapore - 721 301 .
31. Punjab National Bank
B.O .: Sarberia, Via ; Sekandari , P.O.: Hatsarberia, Dist : Midnapore (West) , Midnapore -721 146.
32. Punjab National Bank
B.O.: Shyamchandpur, P.O.: Shyamchandpur, Dist : Midnapore (West) Midnapore - 721 147 .
33. Punjab National Bank
B.O.: Srirampur,
P.O.: Srirampur, Dist : Midnapore (East ), Midnapore -721 651 .
34. Punjab National Bank
B.O.: Shankarpur, Via : Balisa, P.O.: Bodhra, Dist : Midnapore (East) , Midnapore -721 423 .
35. Punjab National Bank
B.O.: Tekhali Bazar, P.O.: Tekhali Bazar , Dist: Midnapore (East) , Midnapore - 721 139.
36. Punjab National Bank
B.O.: Boyal , P.O.: Boyal , Dist: Midnapore (East) , Midnapore - 721 656 .
37. Punjab National Bank
B.O .: Panskura, P.O.: Panskura , Dist : Midnapore (West) Midnapore- 721 139
38. Punjab National Bank
B.O.: Amayapur-Yagyadham P.O.: Janigao , Dist : Nalbari, Pin: 781 334 (Assam)
5965
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18 , 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28 , 1927
39. Punjab National Bank B.O.: Byrnihat, 15th Mile, GS. Road, Byrnihat , Dist : Reboi, Pin793 101 Meghalaya).
40. Punjab National Bank,
Regional Office , Market Road, Convent Janction 40/1461 Ernakulam-682011 (Kerala)
41. Punjab National Bank,
1st Floor, 102, Babukhan Estate, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 500001
42. Punjab National Bank,
M-6 , Mezzamine Floor, Chenoi Trade Centre , Parklane, Secunderabad-500003
43. Punjab National Bank, 27-2136 , Kaleswar Rao Road, Governorpet, Vijayawada (AP)
44. Punjab National Bank, 6-21-108, 2nd Cross , Arundalpet, Guntur(AP)
45. Punjab National Bank, 30-19-169, ΚΝ Towers, Daba Gardens Road, Visakhapatnam (AP)
46. Punjab National Bank,
Branch Office , Bajaura, District : Kullu (Himachal Pradesh) 175125 47. Punjab National Bank,
Branch Office: Sultanpur Kullu Kullu (Himachal Pradesh) 175101
48. Punjab National Bank , MainMarket, Bazpur, District -Udham Singh Nagar, Uttaranchal 262401
49. Punjab National Bank,
Vidhan Sabha Marg , Dehradun, Uttaranchal 248001
50. Punjab National Bank ,
Franch Office : Dwarka 1stand IInd Floor, Wadhwa Complex, Dwarka, New Delhi 110045
51. Punjab National Bank ,
Branch Office : Trade Finance Branch , 942, Taksali Bhawan, Chaura Rasta , Jaipur (Rajasthan) 5966
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18, 2005/ JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
52. Punjab National Bank, Falna, College Road, Falna, Tehsil Bali, Distt. Pali (Rajasthan)
SLRK OF INDIA
1. State Bank of India , Zonal Office, 38/4 A, SanjayPlace , Agra (U.P. ) 282002
ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE
1. Oriental Bank of Commerce , ff Training College, First Floor, Ballygunge P-22, Bondei Road, Kolkata 700019
2. Oriental Bank of Commerce StaffTraining College, S.C.O.60-61, IInd Floor, Bank Square, Sector- 17B Chandigarh 160017
BANK OF MAHARASHTRA
(Central Office, 1501 , Shivajinagar, Pune 411005) "A" Region
1. Baprola Branch , Bank ofMaharashtra, Opp. Talabgaon, Nagloi -NazafgarhRoad, Baprola, New Delhi 110043
2. Pushpanjali Enclave Delhi Branch, Bank of Maharashtra, A-26, Pushpanjali Enclave, Pritampura, New Delhi 110034
3. Dayanand Vihar Delhi Branch, Bank of Maharashtra, 12 , Dayanand Vihar, New Delhi 110092
4. Mayur Vihar Delhi Branch , Bank ofMaharashtra, 12, Pratapnagar, Mayur Vihar, New Delhi 110091
5. Circle Office , Delhi , Bank of Maharashtra , 15, NBCC Tower, Third Floor, Bhikaji Kama Place , New Delhi 110066
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] 6. Madhav Mahavidyalaya Gwalior Br. , Bank ofMaharashtra , VivekanandRoad, New Road, Lashkar, Gwalior 474001 (Madhya Pradesh)
7. Regional Office, Lucknow, Bank ofMaharashtra, Plot No. 12, Mahanagar North Hsg . Society, Sector-9 , Vikas Nagar, Lucknow 226004
8. Aliganj Branch, Bank ofMaharashtra . B-22, Sector-K, Aliganj , Lucknow 226024
9. Gorakhpur Branch, Bank of Maharashtra FirstFloor, Keshav Merket Golaghar, Gorakhpur 273001 (U.P. )
10. Aligarh Branch, Bay ofMaharashtra, Sp 1, 2, 3 (UGF) , So. 3 (LGF) , Squar Towers , Moris Road, Aligarh 202002 ( U.P.)
11. Aminabad Branch, Bank of Maharashtra , First Floor, Shobhit Com. Complex, Aminabad 226018 , Lucknow, (U.P. )
12. Chowk Lucknow Branch , Bank ofMaharashtra , HasanEnclave 46, Tulsidas Marg, Chowk , Lucknow 226021 (U.P. )
13. Vikasnagar Lucknow Branch, Bank ofMaharashtra , Plot No. 12 , Mahanagar North Housing Society, Sector-9 , Vikasnagar, Lucknow 226024 (U.P. )
14. Muzaffarpur Branch, Bank ofMaharashtra, Chandralok Towers, Chandralok Chowk, Muzaffarpur 842001 (Bihar)
15. Raja Bazar Patna Branch, Bank ofMaharashtra , Patna Kalyan Bhavan , First Floor, Khaji Pura , RajaBazar Patna 800014 (Bihar)
16. Boring Road Patna Branch , Bank ofMaharashtra , SavitriComplex , Boring Road, Patna 800001 (Bihar ) [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
"B" Region
17. Chandigarh Regional Office, Bank ofMaharashtra, SCO88-89 , Sector 17 -C, Chandigarh Union Territory, Chandigarh 160017
18. Bahadurgarh Branch, Bank ofMaharashtra , SCF 2 Sector 6 , Bahadurgarh 124507 (Haryana)
19. Rohtak Branch, Bank ofMaharashtra , 649/19 , Opp . Services Club , CivilRoad, Rohtak 124001 (Haryana) 20. Bhatinda Branch, Bank ofMaharashtra , 10-11 SCF, Urban Estate, Phase- 1, Bhatinda 151 001 (Punjab)
21. Mandi Govindgarh Branch, Bank ofMaharashtra, Konark Plaza, Motia Khan, MandiGovindgarh 147301 (Punjab) 22. Roopnagar Chandigarh Branch, Bank ofMaharashtra, SCF-36, 37, Baint Singh Aman Nagar, Bela Road, Roopnagar, Ropar 140001 (Punjab) ^
23. Khanna Branch, Bank ofMaharashtra , SCF-36, GTB Market, Near PWD Guest House , Khanna Dist. Ludhiyana 141401 (Punjab ) 24. Dayalbagh Faridabad Branch, Bank ofMaharashtra, Shop No. 4, Shopping Complex, Dayalbagh Colony, Municipal Ward No.14, Faridabad 120009
25. Mahalaxmi Mumbai Branch, Bank ofMaharashtra , Mittal Castle, 796, Ground Floor, B. Desai & Mahalaxmi Temple Road Junction, Mumbai 400026 (Maharashtra)
26. Pantnagar Ghatkopar (E) Mumbai Br. Bank ofMaharashtra, 185/Trishul Coop . Hsg . Society, Pantnagar, Ghatkopar (E) , Mumbai 400075 (Maharashtra)
27. Saraswati Bhuvan College Br. Bank ofMaharashtra , Saraswati Bhuvan Educational Society, Saraswati Bhuvan Colony, Aurangabad 431001 , (Maharashtra )
5967
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18 , 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28 , 1927
28. Hotel Vedant Station Road Br. Bank ofMaharashtra , Hotel Vedant, Station Road, Aurangabad 431001 (Maharashtra)
29. Balbharati Pune Branch, Bank ofMaharashtra, Maharashtra State Pathyapustak Mandal , Publication Bldg. Balbharati , S. Bapat Marg, Pune 411004 (Maharashtra ) 30. Dr. DY. Patil College Pune Branch, Bank ofMaharashtra , Dr. DY Patil Ladies Hostel No. 8 HIG Scheme, Sant Tukaram Nagar, Pune 411018 (Maharashtra)
31. Kharghar Branch, Bank ofMaharashtra , Shop Nos . 9,10, 11, 12, 14 Shriganesh Samanvay Coop . Society, PlotNo. 13 , Sector No. 11 , Kharghar, New Mumbai 410210 (Maharashtra ) 32. Jaihind College Campus Dhule Br. Bank ofMaharashtra , Jaihind College Campus , Deopur Dhule Wadi Bhokar Road, Dhulia 242002 (Maharashtra)
33. RP Gogate College Ratnagiri Br. Bank ofMaharashtra, Sports Complex 518 /C -5 RPGogate College Campus , Ratnagiri415612 (Maharashtra)
34. Peoples College Campus NandedBr . Bank ofMaharashtra , Ganjwe Bldg . Science College Road, PeoplesCollege Campus Nanded, Nanded 431601 (Maharashtra)
35. Adajan Surat Branch, Bank ofMaharashtra , Prime Arcade , Anand Mahal Road , WardNo. 17B , Near Jogani Nagar , Adajan, Surat (Gujrath)
36. Airoli Branch, Bank ofMaharashtra, Rajkamal Bldg. Plot No. 17, Sector-3 ,Airoli , New Mumbai 400708 (Maharashtra) 5968
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18, 2005/ JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] नई दिल्ली, 9 जून , 2005
पहले हो, बैंक आफ इंडिया के अध्यक्ष एवं प्रबंध निदेशक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है ।
[सं. 9/17/2003- बीओ- I ]
सुदेश कुमार, निदेशक
New Delhi , the 9th June , 2005
का. आ. 2117.- राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक ( प्रबन्ध एवं प्रकीर्ण उपबंध ) स्कीम, 1970/1980 के खण्ड 3 के उपखण्ड ( 1 ) खण्ड 5 , खण्ड 6 , खण्ड 7 और खण्ड 8 के उपखण्ड ( 1 ) के साथ पठित बैंककारी कंपनी( उपक्रमों का अर्जन एवं अंतरण ) अधिनियम, 1970/1980 की धारा 9 की उपधारा ( 3 ) के खण्ड ( क) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार, एतदद्वारा भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक से परामर्श करने के पश्चात् श्री टी ० एस ० नारायणसामी , अध्यक्ष एवं प्रबंध निदेशक, आन्ध्र बैंक को पद ग्रहण करने की तारीख से 31-5-2009 अर्थात् उनकी अधिवर्षिता की आयु तक या अगला आदेश होने तक, जो भी पहले हो, इंडियन ओवरसीज बैंक के अध्यक्ष एवं प्रबंध निदेशक के रुप मेंनियुक्तकरती है ।
[सं. 9/20/2003- बीओ-I ]
जी.बी. सिंह, अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 9th June , 2005
S.O. 2118.-In exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( a) of sub-section (3 ) of section 9 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 read with Sub -clause ( 1 ) of clause 3 , clause 5, clause 6, clause 7 and Sub-clause ( 1 ) of clause 8 of the Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions ) Scheme, 1970 , the Central Government , after Consultation with the Reserve Bank of India, hereby appoints Shri M. Balachandran presently Executive Director, Bank of India as Chairman and Managing Director, Bank of India from the date of his taking charge ofthe post and upto 30-04-2007 i.e. date of his attaining the age of superannuation or until further orders , whichever is earlier.
[F.No. 9/17/2003 -BO- I]
SUDESH KUMAR, Director
नई दिल्ली, 9 जून , 2005
S.O. 2117.-In exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( a) of sub - section (3) of section 9 of the Bank- ing Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertak- ings) Act , 1970/1980 read with Sub- clause ( 1) of clause 3, clause 5, clause 6, clause 7 and Sub-clause ( 1 ) of clause 8 of the Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme , 1970/1980, the Cen- tral Government , after Consultation with the Reserve Bank of India, hereby appoints Shri T. S. Narayansami , Chairman and Managing Director, Andhra Bank as Chairman and Managing Director, Indian Overseas Bank from the date of his taking charge of the post and upto 31-05-2009 i.e. date of his attaining the age of superannuation or until further orders , whichever is ear- lier.
[F.No. 9/20/2003-BO- 1 ]
G.B. SINGH , Under Secy.
का. आ. 2119.- राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक ( प्रबन्ध एवं प्रकीर्ण उपबंध ) स्कीम, 1970/1980 के खण्ड 3 के उपखण्ड ( 1 ) खण्ड 5 , खण्ड 6 , खण्ड 7 और खण्ड 8 के उपखण्ड ( 1 ) के साथ पठित बैंककारी कंपनी (उपक्रमों का अर्जन एवं अंतरण ) अधिनियम , 1970/1980 की धारा 9 की उपधारा ( 3 ) के खण्ड ( क) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार, एतदद्वारा भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक से परामर्श करने के पश्चात् श्री के. रामकृष्णन, कार्यपालक निदेशक, बैंक आफ बड़ौदा को पद ग्रहण करने की तारीख से 31 जुलाई, 2008 अर्थात् उनकी अधिवर्षिता की आयु तक या अगला आदेश होने तक, जो भी पहले हो, आंध्रा बैंक के अध्यक्ष एवं प्रबंध निदेशक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है।
नई दिल्ली, 9 जून , 2005
[सं. 9/19/2003 - बीओ- I ]
जी. बी. सिंह, अवर सचिव
NewDelhi , the 9th June , 2005
का. आ. 2118.- राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक ( प्रबन्ध एवं प्रकीर्ण उपबंध) स्कीम, 1970 के खण्ड 3 के उपखण्ड ( 1 ) खण्ड 5 , खण्ड 6 , खण्ड 7 और खण्ड 8 के उपखण्ड ( 1 ) के साथ पठित बैंककारी कंपनी( उपक्रमों का अर्जन एवं अंतरण ) अधिनियम , 1970 की धारा 9 की उपधारा ( 3 ) के खण्ड ( क ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार, एतदद्वारा भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक से परामर्श करने के पश्चात् श्री एम ० बालचन्द्रन , कार्यपालक निदेशक , बैंक आफ इंडिया को पद ग्रहण करने की तारीख से 30-4-2007 अर्थात् उनकी अधिवर्षिता की आयु तक या अगला आदेश होने तक, जो भी
S.O. 2119.- In exercise of the powers curred by clause (a) of sub - section ( 3 ) of Section 9 of the Banking Companies ( Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970/1980 read with Sub- clause ( 1 ) of clause 3 , clause 5 , clause 6 , clause 7 and Sub- clause [ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
5969
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18, 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28 , 1927
(1) of clause 8 of the Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions ) Scheme, 1970/1980, the Central Government , after consultation with the Reserve Bank of India, hereby appoints Shri K. Ramakrishnan, Executive Director, Bank of Baroda as Chairman and Managing Director, Andhra Bank from the date of taking charge ofthe post and upto 31st July, 2008 i.e. date of his attaining the age of superannuation and/or until further orders , whichever is earlier.
[F. No. 9/19/2003 -BO-I] G.B. SINGH, Under Secy.
- नई दिल्ली, 9 जून, 2005
का. आ. 2120.- राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक ( प्रबन्ध एवं प्रकीर्ण उपबंध ) स्कीम, 1970 के खण्ड 3 के उपखण्ड ( 1 ) खण्ड 5 , खण्ड 6 , खण्ड 7 और खण्ड 8 के उपखण्ड ( 1 ) के साथ पठित बैंककारी कंपनी ( उपक्रमों काअर्जन एवं अंतरण ) अधिनियम, 1970 की धारा 9 की उपधारा ( 3 ) के खण्ड ( क) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार, एतद्वारा भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक से परामर्श करने के पश्चात् डॉ. के. सी. चक्रवर्ती, कार्यपालक निदेशक, पंजाब नेशनल बैंक को पद ग्रहण करने की तारीख से पांच वर्ष तक या अगला आदेश होने तक, जो भी पहले हो, इंडियन बैंक के अध्यक्ष एवं प्रबंध निदेशक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है ।
[सं . 9/21/2003- बीओ- I ]
जी. बी
कर सचिव New Delhi , the 9th June , 2005
S.O. 2120. In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of Sub- section (3 ) of Section 9 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings ) Act, 1970 read with Sub-clause ( 1 ) of Clause 3 , Clause 5, Clause 6 , Clause 7 and Sub - clause ( 1 ) of Clause 8 of the Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970 , the Central Government , after consultation with the Reserve Bank of India, hereby appoints Dr. K. C. Chakraborthy, Executive Director, Punjab National Bank as Chairman and Managing Director, Indian Bank for a period of five years from the date of his taking charge of the post or until further orders , whichever is earlier .
[F. No. 9/21/2003-BO-I] G. B. SINGH, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली , 9 जून , 2005
का. आ. 2121.- राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक ( प्रबन्ध एवं प्रकीर्ण उपबंध ) स्कीम, 1970 के खण्ड 3 के उपखण्ड ( 1 ) खण्ड 5 , खण्ड 6 , खण्ड 7 और खण्ड 8 के उपखण्ड ( 1 ) के साथ पठित बैंककारी कंपनी ( उपक्रमों का अर्जन एवं अंतरण ) अधिनियम, 1970 की धारा 9 की उपधारा ( 3 ) के खण्ड ( क ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार, एतद्वारा भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक से परामर्श करने के पश्चात् श्री एम. बी. एन. राव, अध्यक्ष एवं प्रबंध निदेशक, इंडियन बैंक को पद ग्रहण करने की तारीख से 30-6-2008 अर्थात् उनकी अधिवर्षिता की आयु तक या अगला आदेश होने तक, जो भी पहले हो, केनरा बैंक के अध्यक्ष एवं प्रबंध निदेशक के रूप में नियुक्तकरती है ।
[सं. 9/20/2003- बीओ-I ]
जी. बी. सिंह , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 9th June , 2005
S.O. 2121. In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of Sub -section (3 ) of Section 9 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 read with Sub-clause ( 1 ) of Clause 3 , Clause 5, Clause 6 , Clause 7 and Sub -clause ( 1 ) ofClause 8 of the Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions ) Scheme, 1970 , the Central Government, after consultation with the Reserve Bank of India, hereby appoints Shri M.B.N. Rao, Chairman and Managing Director, Indian Bank as Chairman and. Managing Director, Canara Bank from the date of his taking chargeofthe post and upto 30-06-2008 , i.e. the date ofhis attaining the age of superannuation or until further orders , whichever is earlier.
[F. No. 9/20/2003-BO-I]
G. B. SINGH, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 10 जून , 2005
का. आ. 2122.- राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक ( प्रबन्ध एवं प्रकीर्ण उपबंध) स्कीम, 1970/1980 के खण्ड 3 के उपखण्ड ( 1 ) खण्ड 5, खण्ड 6 , खण्ड 7 और खण्ड 8 के उपखण्ड ( 1 ) के साथ पठित बैंककारी कंपनी (उपक्रमों का अर्जन एवं अंतरण ) अधिनियम , 1970/1980 की धारा 9 की उपधारा ( 3 ) के खण्ड ( क ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार , एतदद्वारा भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक से परामर्श करने के पश्चात् सुश्री एच. ए. दारुवाला, वर्तमान कार्यपालक निदेशक, ओरियंटल बैंक आफ कामर्स को 30-6-2005 को या उसके बाद पद ग्रहण करने की तारीख से और 31-12-2008 अर्थात् उनकी अधिवर्षिता की आयु तक या अगला आदेश होने तक, जो भी पहले हो, सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के अध्यक्ष एवं प्रबंध निदेशक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है ।
[सं. 9/20/2003- बीओ- I
सुदेश कुमार, निदेशक 5970
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2005/JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] New Delhi , the 10th June , 2005
11. स्वास्थ्यकेंद्र/ भीमवरम
12. सहायक मंडल इंजीनियर कार्यालय/ बापट्ला
13. सहायक मंडल इंजीनियर कार्यालय/ भीमवरम
14. सहायक मंडल इंजीनियर कार्यालय/ बिट्रगुंटा
15. सहायक मंडल इंजीनियर कार्यालय/एलूरु
16. सहायक मंडल इंजीनियर कार्यालय/ ओंगोल
17. सहायक मंडल इंजीनियर कार्यालय/राजमंड्री
18. सहायक मंडल इंजीनियर कार्यालय/सामलकोटा
S.O. 2122. In exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( a) of Sub - section (3 ) of Section 9 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Under- takings) Act, 1970/1980 read with Sub-clause (1 ) ofClause 3, Clause 5, Clause 6 , Clause 7 and Sub-clause ( 1 ) of clause 8 of the Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions ) Scheme , 1970/1980 , the Central Government, after consultation with the Reserve Bank of India, hereby appoints Ms. H. A. Daruwalla, presently Executive Director, Oriental Bank of Commerce as Chairman and Managing Director, Central Bank of India from the date of her taking charge of the post on or after 30-6-2005 and upto 31-12-2008 i.e. date of her super- annuation , or until further orders , whichever is earlier .
19. सहायक मंडल इंजीनियर कार्यालय/तुनि
20. सहायक मंडल इंजीनियर कार्यालय/टीएम/विजयवाड़ा [F. No. 9/20/2003 -BO-I] SUDESH KUMAR, Director
21. सहायक मंडल इंजीनियर कार्यालय/विका/विजयवाड़ा
22. सहायक मंडल इंजीनियर कार्यालय/पुल/विजयवाड़ा
23. सहायक मंडल विद्युत इंजीनियर कार्यालय/कवि/बापपट्ला रेल मंत्रालय (रेलवे बोर्ड ) नई दिल्ली, 10 मई , 2005
24. सहायक मंडल विद्युत इंजीनियर कार्यालय/कवि/नेल्लूर
25. सहायक मंडल विद्युत इंजीनियर कार्यालय/कवि/राजमंड्री
26. सहायक मंडल विद्युत इंजीनियर कार्यालय/कवि/तुनि
27. सहायक मंडल सिगनल व दूरसंचार इंजीनियर कार्यालय/अनु/ कार्यालय/राजमंड्री
का. आ. 2123.- रेल मंत्रालय (रेलवे बोर्ड ) , राजभाषा नियम , 1976 ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) के नियम 10 के उपनियम ( 2 ) और ( 4 ) के अनुसरण में दक्षिण मध्य रेलवे के विजयवाड़ा मंडल के निम्नलिखित रेल कार्यालयों को, जहां 80 % से अधिक अधिकारियों/कर्मचारियों ने हिंदी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है, को एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है:-
दक्षिण-मध्यरेलवे ( विजयवाड़ा मंडल )
28. सहायक मंडल सिगनल व दूरसंचार इंजीनियर कार्यालय/ कार्यालय/नेल्लूर
1. स्वास्थ्यकेंद्र/बिट्रगुंटा
29. प्रिंसिपल/ईटीटीसी/सत्यनारायणपुरम
2. स्वास्थ्यकेंद्र/एलूर
30. क्षेत्र अधिकारी कार्यालय /का/काकिनाडा
3. स्वास्थ्य केंद्र/गुडूर
31. प्रिंसिपल/आरजेसी/विजयवाड़ा
4. स्वास्थ्य केंद्र/ओंगोल
32. प्रधान अध्यापक/राज/आरएमएचएस/अं.मा. /विजय कड़ा 5. स्वास्थ्यकेंद्र/राजमंड्री
33. प्रधान अध्यापक/राज/आरएमएचएस/ते.मा. /सत्यनारावणपुरम 6. स्वास्थ्यकेंद्र/तेनाली
34. प्रधान अध्यापक/राज/आरएमएचएस/अं.मा./राजमंड्री 7. स्वास्थ्य केंद्र/सामलकोट
35. प्रधान अध्यापक/राज/आरएमएचएस /ते.मा/बिट्रगुंटा
8. स्वास्थ्यकेंद्र/तुनि
36. सहायक सामग्री प्रबंधक/विद्युत लोको शेड/विजयवाड़ा 9. स्वास्थ्य केंद्र/सत्यनारायणपुरम
[सं. हिन्दी-2003/रा. भा. 1/12/2 10. स्वास्थ्य केंद्र/ गुडिवाडा
एम. के. अग्रवाल, सथिल [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
5971
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18, 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28 , 1927
MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS
25. Asst. Divl. Elec . Engineer Office/ O /TRD / Rajahmundry
(RailwayBoard)
26. Asst. Divl. Elec. Engineer Office/O/TRD/Tuni NewDelhi , the 10th May, 2005
27. Asst . Divl. Sig. & Telecom Engineer Office/M/O/ Rajahmundry
28. Asst. Divl . Sig. & Telecom Engineer Office/M/O/ Nellore
29. Principal/ETTC /Satayanarayanapuram S.O. 2123.-Ministry of Railways (Railway Board) , in pursuance of Sub Rule (2) and (4) ofRule 10 of theOfficial Language Rules , 1976 (use for the Official pur- poses of the Union) hereby, notify the following Offices ofVijaywada Division of South Central Railway, where 80% or more Officers/Employees have acquired the work- ing knowledge ofHindi :--
30. Area Officer Office/O/Kakinada
South Central Railway (VijaywadaDivision)
31. Principal/RJC/BZA
1. Health Unit/Bittragunta
32. HeadMaster /Gaz/RMHS /E.M.BZA 2. Health Unit/Eluru
3. Health Unit/Gudur
33. Head Master /Gaz/RHS/TM/ Satayanarayana- puram
34. HeadMaster/Gaz/RMHS/E.M./Rajahmundry 4. Health Unit/Ongole
35. Head Master/Gaz/RM /TM/Bitragunt 5. HealthUnit/Rajahmundry
36. AMM/EWS/BZA
6. Health Unit/Tenali
7. Health Unit/ Samalkot
[No. Hindi -2003/OL 1/12/2 ] M. K. AGGARWAL , Secy.
8. Health Unit/Tuni
संचार और सूचना प्रौद्योगिकी मंत्रालय 9. Health Unit/Satyanarayanapuram
(दूरसंचार विभाग )
10. Health Unit/Gudivada
(राजभाषाअनुभाग )
11. Health Unit Bhimavaram
नई दिल्ली, 6 जून, 2005
12. Asst . Divi . Engineer Office/Bapatla
13. Asst. Divl. Engineer Office/Bhimavaram
14. Asst. Divl . Engineer Office/Bitragunta
15. Asst . Divl . Engineer Office/Eluru
16. Asst . Divl . Engineer Office/Ongole
का. आ. 2124.-केन्द्रीय सरकार, राजभाषा ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) नियम 1976 ( यथा संशोधित 1987 ) के नियम 10(4) के अनुसरण में संचार और सूचना प्रौद्योगिकी मंत्रालय , दूरसंचार विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन निम्नलिखित कार्यालयों को, जिसमें 80 प्रतिशत से अधिक कर्मचारियों ने हिंदी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है, एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करती है ।
17. Asst . Divl . Engineer Office/Rajahmundry
18. Asst. Divl . Engineer Office/Samalkot
मुख्य महाप्रबंधक दूरसंचार, महाराष्ट्र परिमंडल भारत संचारनिगम लिमिटेड, मुम्बई -400001
19. Asst . Divl . Engineer Office/Tuni
1. महाप्रबंधक दूरसंचार, महाराष्ट्र परिमंडल, भारत संचार निगम लिमिटेड, भंडारा-441904
20. Asst . Divl . Engineer Office/TM/BZA
21. Asst . Divl . Engineer Office/ES /BZA
22. Asst . Divl . Engineer Office/Bridge/BZA
2. मुख्य अभियंता ( सिविल ) , महाराष्ट्र परिमंडल , भारत संचार निगम लिमिटेड, प्रशासनिक भवन, पांचवी मंजिल, " ए" स्कंध, सांताकृझ ( प. ) मुम्बई -400054
23. Asst . Divl . Elec. Engineer Office/TR/BPQ
24. Asst. Divl . Elec. Engineer Office/O/TRD /Nellore
[सं. ई. 11016/1 /2004 - रा. भा.] हरीश चन्द्र जयाल, संयुक्त सचिव 1714 G1 /05-5 5972
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18, 2005/ JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]
2. सहायक निदेशक,
MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
(Department of Telecommunications )
( OFFICIAL LANGUAGE SECTION)
गुणता आश्वासन का कार्यालय , पूर्ति तथा निपटान महानिदेशालय, केन्द्रीय सरकार कार्यालय परिसर, बी-ब्लॉक, द्वितीय तल,
संजय प्लेस,
New Delhi , the 6th June , 2005
आगरा
3. सहायक निदेशक, गुणता आश्वासन का कार्यालय , पूर्ति तथा निपटान महानिदेशालय , 11/58, डी. 2 , गली नं. 23 , सदर कैंट,
जबलपुर-482001
S.O. 2124.-In pursuance of rule 10(4) of the Official Language ( Use for Official purposes of the Union ) , rules, 1976 ( as amended- 1987) , the Central Government hereby notifies the following Offices under the administrative control of Ministryof Communications and Information Technology, Department of Telecommunications where of more than 80% of staff have acquired working knowledge ofHindi .
[फा. सं. ई -11016/6/2004 - हिन्दी] C.G.M. Telecom , Maharashtra Circle , BSNL , Bombay- 400001
एम. वि. पि. सि. शास्त्री, संयुक्त सचिव
MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY 1. G.M. Telecom . , Maharashtra Circle , BSNL Bhandara -441904
(Department of Commerce)
( SUPPLY DIVISION)
2. Chief Engineer (Civil ) Maharashtra Circle , BSNL , Prashasnik Bhawan , Fifth Floor, " A " Wing, Santakruj (W.) , Bombay-400054
New Delhi , the 7th June , 2005 [No. E. 11016/1/2004 (O.L. ) ] HARISH CHANDRA JAYAL, Jt . Secy.
वाणिज्य एवं उद्योग मंत्रालय
S.O. 2125. In pursuance of Sub- rule ( 4) of Rule (10) ofOfficial Language ( Use for Official purposes ofthe Union) Rules , 1976 , the Central Government hereby noti- fies the following Offices of the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Department of Commerce (Supply) , where more than 80% of Officers /Employees have attained work- ing knowledge of Hindi:-
(वाणिज्यविभाग)
(पूर्तिप्रभाग )
नई दिल्ली, 7 जून , 2005
1. Office ofDy. Director of Quality Assurance, D.G.S. & D. C-73 , Shyam Marg , Shastri Nagar, Jaipur-302016
2. Office of Assistant Director (Quality Assurance) D.G.S. & D. C.G.O. Complex, B Block, IInd floor, SanjayPlace,
Agra.
का. आ. 2125.-केन्द्रीय सरकार, राजभाषा ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) नियम, 1976 के नियम 10 के उप नियम (4) के अनुसरण में , वाणिज्य एवं उद्योग मंत्रालय , वाणिज्य विभाग ( पूर्ति ) के निम्नलिखित कार्यालयों में हिन्दी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान रखने वाले कर्मचारियों की संख्या 80 % से अधिक हो जाने के फलस्वरूप इन कार्यालयों को एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करती है :-
1. उप निदेशक,
3. Office of Assistant Director ( Quality Assurance) D.G.S. & D. 11/58 , D- 2 , 23 Street, SadarCantt.
गुणता आश्वासन का कार्यालय,
सी-73 , श्याम मार्ग,
Jabalpur-482001
शास्त्री नगर,
जयपुर-302016
[F. No. E - 11016/6/2004-Hindi ] M. V. P. C. SASTRY, Jt . Secy.
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18 , 2005 /ज्येष्ठ 28 , 1927
1 पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय
प्रतापगढ़
नई दिल्ली , 9 जून , 2005
का. आ. 2126.-केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम, 1962 (1962का 50 ) ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है) की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का.आ. 359( अ ) तारीख , 21 मार्च, 2005 द्वारा , उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में गेल ( इंडिया ) लिमिटेड द्वारा , उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य में थूलेन्डीसे 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;
और उक्त राजपत्रित अधिसूचना की प्रतियां जनता को तारीख 30 अप्रैल, 2005 को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी;
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;
और सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन केन्द्रीय सरकार को अपनी रिपोर्ट दे दी है;
और केन्द्रीय सरकार ने, उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् और यह समाधान हो जाने पर कि उक्त भूमि पाइपलाइनें बिछाने के लिए अपेक्षित है , उस में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने का विनिश्चय किया है;
अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, यह घोषणा करती है कि इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में पाइपलाइनें बिछाने के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाता है।
और केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (4 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, निदेश देती है कि पाइपलाइनें बिछाने के लिए भूमिमें उपयोग का अधिकार, इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन कीतारीख को, केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने के बजाय , 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 ।
अनुसूची
5
4
2
3
1
0.4608
खतवारा
258
कुंडा
प्रतापगढ़
0.0886
लोनी नदी
0.1889
257
0.4826
260
0.1429
259
5973
4
3
5 2
253
0.6098 खतवारा
कुंडा
0.2547
250
0.3490
251
0.2455
535
0.1272
544
546
0.1466
558
0,0010
0.0289
557
556
0.0715
0.0259
579
0.0404
578
0.0532
584
0.0202
583
0.0590
582
0,0913
581
0.0333
586
0.3933
631
0.2952
629
0.0108
628
630
0.4271
4.6477
योग
0.0640 सदर
जगदीशपुर 12
0.0011
13
0.1889
14
15
0.1166
0.0954
16
0.0861
18
0.1519
19
0.2877
43
0.2781
52
0.0206
53
0.0010
62
0.0221
63
0.2602
69
0.2131
68
0.0104
67
0.0494
224
0.0047
346
0.1731
342
0.0307
343
0.04703
344
0.0356
341
0.1059
340 5974
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18, 2005/ JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
1
2
3
4
5
1 सदर
प्रतापगढ़
338
0.3365
जगदीशपुर
प्रतापगढ़
334
0.0109
333
0.1821
235
0.0054
332
0.0508
237
0.0135
236
0.0055
318
0.1953
319
0.3168
315
0.3166
314
0.0239
311
0.0040
294
0.0192
295
0.0042
299
0.0959
298
0.0227
296
0.0554
297
0.1009
287
0.0010
290
0.0291
0.0327
जगदीशपुर 289
288
0.0180
275
0.1462
276
0.1504
नाली
0.0173
278
0.3019
280
0.0010
योग 4.6941 गौर
7
0.0560
8
0.0417
9
0.0994
26
0.0069
99
0.0282
106
0.0182
105
0.0353
107
0.0014
108
0.0436
104
0.0335
103
0.0236
102
0.0022
110
0.0584
109
0.0925
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] 2
3
5 सदर
गौर
94
0.0738
111
0.0237
116
0.0203
117
0.0097
118
0.0010
93
0.0040
123
0.2800
0.1997
76
0.1046
72
0.1700
74
0.0214
73
0.0170
63
0.0381
62
0.0501.
61
0.0031
64
0.0010
59
0.2603
177
0.0043
178
0.1627
179
0.0026
382
0.0618
381
0.1585
379
0.0928
380
0.0151
384
0.0083
378
0.0238
377
0.0029
370
0.2430
385
0.0052
374
0.0205
386
0.1796
387
0.0156
391
0.1063
388
0.1525
389
0.0673
390
0.0176
597
0.1552
595
0.0788
594
0.1023
592
0.0238
575
0.0626
576
0.0662
577
0.0048 5975 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18, 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28, 1927
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
4
5
1
2
3
3
4
5
1
2
781
0.0449
0.0053
सदर
गौर
573
ढ़ेमा
प्रतापगढ़
प्रतापगढ़
प्रतापगढ़
782
0.0702 574
0.0122
0.0092
792
0.0128
570
804
0.0641 569
0.0432
0.1884
0.2373
571
योग
0.0555
566
[फा. सं. - एल 14014/04/05- जी.पी . पार्ट-1 ] 565
0.0183
स्वामी सिंह, निदेशक योग 4.0374 MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS
0.0082
स्वरूपपुर 26
New Delhi, the 9th June, 2005
0.1177
बकुल्य नदी
0.0574
27
0.0964
28
0.0047
30
0.0730
31/ए
0.0207
31/बी
32
0.1127
35
0.0075
0.1875
43
S.O. 2126.- Whereas by notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S. O. 359 (E) dated the 21st March, 2005 issued under sub - section (1 ) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) (hereinafter referredto as the said Act) , the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipelines for the transportation of natural gas from Thulendi to Phoolpur pipeline project in the State of UttarPradeshby the GAIL (India) Limited;
0.0019
37
44
0.0111
Andwhereas copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on 30th April , 2005;
45
0,0086
0.0026
59
Andwhereas the objections received from the public to the laying of the pipeline have been considered and disallowed by the competent authority;
0.1148
61
0.1236
62
0.0410
93
And whereas the competent authority has , under sub-section ( 1 ) of Section 6 of the said Act, submitted its report to the Central Government;
92
0.0128
66
0,1300
0.1447
67
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;
0.0076
84
0.0116
73
0.2071
82
75
0.0010
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 6 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification ishereby acquired for laying the pipelines;
0.0045
83
0.2554
81
0.1544
76
177
0.2120
0.0720
178
0,4610
180
0.0847
181
2.7482
योग
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 ofvesting in the Central Government, vest , on the date of the publication of thedeclaration, 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 .
5976
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2005 / JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
SCHEDULE
1 1
2
3
4
5
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] 2
3
4
5
0.1731 Jagdishpur 342
Pratapgarh Pratapgarh
(Sadar)
Khatwara
Pratapgarh Kunda
258
0.4608
Loni River 0.0886
257
0.1889
260
0.4826
259
0.1429
253
0.6098
250
0.2547
251
0.3490
535
0.2455
544
0.1272
546
0.1466
558
0.0010
557
0.0289
556
0.0715
579
0.0259
578
0.0404
584
0.0532
583
0.0202
582
0.0590
581
0.0913
586
0.0333
631
0.3933
629
0.2952
628
0.0108
630
0.4271
TOTAL 4.6477
0.0640 Pratapgarh Jagdishpur 12
(Sadar)
13
0.0011
14
0.1889
15
0.1166
16
0.0954
18
0.0861
19
0.1519
43
0.2877
52
0.2781
53
0.0206
62
0.0010
63
0.0221
69
0.2602
68
0.2131
67
0.0104
224
0.0494
346
0.047
343
0.0307
344
0.4703
341
0.0356
340
0.1059
338
0.3365
334
0.0109
333
0.1821
235
0.0054
332
0.0508
237
0.0135
236
0.0055
318
0.1953
319
0,3168
315
0,3166
314
0.0239
311
0.0040
294
0.0192
295
0.0042
299
0.0959
298
0.0227
296
0.0554
297
0.1009
287
0.0010
290
0.0291
289
0.0327
288
0.0180
275
0.1462
276
0.1504
Nali
0.0173
278
0.3019
280
0.0010
4.6941
TOTAL
Gaur
7
0.0560
8
0.0417
9
0.0994
26
0.0069
99
0.0282
106
0.0182
105
0913
107
0014
108
0.0436
104
0.0335
103
0.0236 5977 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18 , 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28 , 1927
3
4
5
2
1
2
3
4
1
5
574
0.0122
0.0022
Gaur
Gaur
102
Pratapgarh Sadar
Pratapgarh Sadar
570
0.0128
110
0.0584
0.0432
569
0.0925
109
0.2373
571
94
0.0738
0.0555
566
0.0237
111
565
0.0183
0.0203
116
0.0097
117
TOTAL 4.0374
0.0010
118
0.0082
Swarup Pur 26
93
0.0040
0.1177
Bakulya
123
River
0,2800
27
0.0574
77
0.1997
0.0964
28
76
0.1046
30
0.0047
0.1700
72
0.0730
31/A
0.0214
74
0.0207
31/B
0.0170
73
32
0.1127
63
0.0381
0.0075
35
62
0.0501
0.1875
43
0,0031
61
37
0.0019
64
0.0010
0.0111
44
59
0.2603
0.0086
45
0.0043
177
0.0026
59
0.1627
178
0.1148
61
0.0026
179
0.1236
62
0.0618
382
0.0410
93
0.1585
381
0.0128
92
0.0928
379
0.1300
66
0.0151
380
0.1447
67
0.0083
384
0.0076
84
0.0238
378
0.0116
73
0.0029
377
0.2071
82
0.2430
370
75
0.0010
0.0052
385
0.0045
83
0.0205
374
0.2554
81
386
0.1796
76
0.1544
0.0156
387
0.2120
177
0.1063
391
0.0720
178
0.1525
388
0.4610
180
389
0.0673
0.0847
181
0.0176
390
TOTAL 2.7482
597
0.1552
0.0449
781
Dhema
Pratapgarh Pratapgarh
0.0788
595
0.0702
782
0.1023
594
0.0092
792
0238
592
804
0.0641
0
575
TOTAL 0.1888
576
[F. No. L-14014/04/05 -G.P. Part -1 ]
0.0048
577
SWAMI SINGH, Director
0.0053
573 5978
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2005/ JYAISTHA 28, 1927
[PART II-SEC. 3( ii)]
1
2
3
नई दिल्ली, 9 जून , 2005
4
5
54
प्रतापगढ़ कुन्डा
0-10-71
भावनापुर
53
0-24-07
57
0-00-65
67
0-01-61
436
0-00-33
437
0-05-41
438
0-04-69
439
0-04-90
0-36-38
444
का.आ. 2127.-केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम ,. 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 3 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी भारत सरकारके पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का. आ. 2721 तारीख , 15 अक्तूबर, 2004 द्वारा, उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में गेल ( इण्डिया ) लिमिटेडद्वारा 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 कीथी;
452
0-01-17
451
0-29-35 और उक्त राजपत्रित अधिसूचना की प्रतियां जनता को तारीख 30 अप्रैल, 2005 को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी;
453
0-00-11
454
0-05-58
450
0-00-48 और पाइपलाइन बिछाने के सम्बन्ध में जनता से प्राप्त आक्षेपों पर सक्षम प्राधिकारी द्वारा विचार कर लिया गया है और उन्हें अननुज्ञात कर दिया गया है ;
456
0-35-19
466
0-00-35 और सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन केन्द्रीय सरकार को अपनी रिपोर्ट दे दी है;
469
458
457
0-26-27 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, उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने का विनिश्चिय किया है;
884
0-04-26
878
0-04-21
877
0-02-15
876
0-00-21
879
0-12-47 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;
880
883
882
887
899
0-01-71
898
0-25-62-
900
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 बडी तारीख को, केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने के बजाए, पाइपलाइनें विछाने 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 ।
897
0-01-68 अनुसूची
903
0-03-81 जिला तहसील गाँव
914
0-07-42
940
सर्वे न. आर.ओ.यू. अर्जित करने के लिए (हैक्टेयर में)
955
0-25-40 1
2
3
4
5
953
0-01-44 1
0-00-25
कुन्डा
प्रतापगढ़
भावनापुर
954
0-10-89 3
955
0-41-65
0-12-50 46
0-10-11
957
0-02-15 48
0-35-53
958
0-18-01 56
0-00-68
1024 0-07-98 52
0-00-96
1221
0-2366 55
0-20-41
1210 0-40-10 5979 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18, 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28, 1927
3
2
4
4
5
5 2
3
1
1
0-24-23
2198
1211
प्रतापगढ़
0-08-45
कुन्डा
भावनापुर
भावनापुर
कुन्डा
प्रतापगढ़
0-05-59
2186
0-01-30
1218
0-16-60
2185
0-02-26
1217
0-39-85
0-01-17
2184
1216
0-00-33
0-01-50
1215
2183
0-01-74
1225
0-34-55
2182
0-07-57
1224
0-00-55
2248
0-10-62
1618
0-53-09
2262
1205 0-12-59
8-97-37
कुल
1204
36
1203
कानपुर
43
0-01-18
0-06-36
1619
0-07-86
44
0-00-91
1624
0-04-00
1522
46
0-08-13
9-00-11
1629
53
0-22-20
1180
54
0-11-39
0-34-05-
1803
0-13-49
55
1800 0-04-98
63
0-01-30
0-02-39
1801
66
0-00-46
0-01-85
1798
68
000-15
0-02-70
1802
69
1791
76
0-18-36
0-06-76
1804
0-16-49
77
1805 6-05-61
83
0-01-64
1807 0-04-34
0-00-37
82
0-02-04
1811
78
0-01-05
1174
0-15-39
97
0-15-84
1841
99
0-17-64
1840
0-04-36
0-04-75
100
1839 0-08-49
0-06-71
259
0-12-21
1838
0-06-36
896
1837
0-11-32
0-12-29
1834
919
0-03-07
0-06-17
1833
913
0-00-17
0-01-71
1829
914
0-05-24
1830
0-00-68
912
0-03-01
1831
916
0-04-88
2164
0-00-81
917
2165 0-02-95
0-03-22
915
0-01-96
2163
0-30-43
900
0-00-45
2172
1-98-56
कुल
0-22-47
2171
2170
[फा. सं. - एल 14014/04/ '05-जी.पी. भाग -1 ]
0-04-73
स्वामी सिंह, निदेशक
2181
1714 G1/05-6 5980
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18, 2005 /JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
[PART II- SEC. 3 (ii ) ] New Delhi , the 9th June, 2005
1
2
3
4
5
Pratapgarh Kunda
0-00-68
Bhavanapur 56
52
0-00-96
55
0-20-41
54
0-10-71
53
0-24-07
57
0-00-65
67
0-01-61
436
0-00-33
437
0-05-41 S.O. 2127. Whereas by notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S. O. 2721 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 saidAct) , the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right ofuser in the land specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipelines for the transportation of natural gas from Thulendi to Phoolpur piepline project in the State of Uttar Pradesh by the GAIL ( India) Limited;
438
0-04-69
439
0-04-90 And whereas copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on 30th April, 2005;
444
0-36-38
452
0-01-17 And whereas the objections received from the public to the laying of the pipeline have been considered and disallowed by the competent authority;
451
0-29-35
453
0-00-11
454
0-05-58 And whereas the competent authority has , under Sub-section ( 1 ) of Section 6 of the said Act , submitted its report to the Central Government ;
450
0-00-48
456
0-35-19
466
0-00-35 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.
469
458
457
0-26-27
884
0-04-26
878
0-04-21 Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 6 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification is hereby acquired for laying the pipelines;
877
0-02-15
876
0-00-21
879
0-12-47
880
883
0-16-42
882
0-03-99
887
0-00-68
899
And. further, in exercise of the powers conferredby 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 .
0-01-11
898
0-25-62 SCHEDULE
900
District Tehsil Village
Area
Survey No.
897
0-01-68
tobe
903
0-03-81
acquired
914
0-07-42
forROU
940
(InHectare)
1
2
3
955
4
0-25-46
5
953
0-01-44 Pratapgarh Kunda Bhavanapur 1
0-00-25
954
0-10-89 3
0-41-65
955
0-12-50 46
0-10-13
957
0-02-15 43
0-35-53
958
0-18-01 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
5981 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18, 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28, 1927
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
0-07-98
Pratapgarh Kunda
1024
Bhavanapur
0-22-47
Kunda
Pratapgar
Bhavanapur 2171
1221
0-23-66
2170
1210
2181
0-04-73 1211
0-08-45
0-24-23
2198
1218 0-01-30
0-05-59
2186
1217
0-02-26
2185
0-16-60 1216
0-01-17
2184 0-39-85 1215
2183
0-01-50
0-00-33
2182
1225
0-34-55
0-01-74
2248-70 0-00-55 1224 0-07-57
2262
0-53-09 1618 0-10-62
1205 0-12-59
8-97-37
Total
1204
Kanupur 36
1203
43
0-01-18 1619 0-06-36
44
0-00-91 1624 0-07-86
46
0-08-13 1622
53
0-22-20 1629 0-00-11
54
0-41-39 1180
55
0-13-49 1803
0-34-05
63
0-01-30
66
1800
0-04-98
0-00-46
68
1801
0-00-15
0-02-39
69
1798 0-01-85
76
0-18-36
0-02-70
1802
0-16-49 1791
83
0-01-64 1804
0-06-76
82
0-00-37 1805 0-05-61
78
1807
0-04-34
97
0-15-39
0-02-04
1811
99.
0-17-64 1174
0-01-05
0-04-75
100
0-15-84
1841
259
0-06-71 1840 0-04-36
896
0-06-36 1839
0-08-49
919
0-11-32 1838 0-12-21
913
0-03-07 1837
0-01-71
914
1834
0-12-29
912
0-00-68 1833
0-06-17
916
1829
0-00-17
917
0-00-81 1830 0-05-24
915
0-03-22 1831
0-03-01
900
0-30-43 2164 0-04-88
Total 1-98-56 2165
0-02-95
2163
0-01-96
[F. No. L - 14014/04/'05 -G.P. Part -I ] 2172 0-00-45
SWAMI SINGH , Director 5982
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2005/JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
1 नई दिल्ली , 9 जून , 2005
इलाहाबाद
का.आ. 2128.- 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 है की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी भारत सरकार पट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का.आ. 2720 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 का अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा कीथी;
और उक्त राजपत्रित अधिसूचना की प्रतियां जनता को तारीख 30 अप्रैल , 2005 से 01 मई , 2005 तक उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी;
और पाइपलाइन बिछाने के सम्बन्ध में जनता से प्राप्त आक्षेपों पर सक्षम प्राधिकारी द्वारा विचार कर लिया गया है और उन्हें अननुज्ञात कर दिया गया है;
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 पश्चात् और यह समाधान हो जाने पर कि उक्त भूमि पाइपलाइनें बिछाने के लिए अपेक्षित है, उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने का विनिश्चय किया है ;
और 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;
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 घोषणां 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 मुका, गेल (इण्डिया) लिमिटेड में निहित होगा ।
अनुसूची
जिला
गाँव
तहसील
सर्वे नं. आर.ओ.यू. अर्जित करने केलिए
(हैक्टेयर में) 1
2
3
4
5 सोरॉव
इलाहाबाद
0-00-66
मानियमरपुर 386
387
0-04-18
388
0-15-37
389
0-06-22
390
0-19-37
391
0-07-30
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii )] 2
3
4
5
392
मानियमरपुर
0-01-70
393
0-01-53 सोरॉव (जारी)
394/1460 0-01-83
394
0-11-91
395
0-00-92
407
0-02-96
408
0-02-51
424
0-00-27
422
0-00-13
409
0-03-93
413
0-24-15
414
0-34-35
412
6-10-88
0-04-03
494
493
0-00-54
495
0-03-32
496
0-10-18
492
0-01-58
490
0-01-19
491
0-00-18
464
0-03-15
784
0-10-50
785
0-31-42
783
0-02-07
782
787
788
0-05-39
789
0-00-14
779
0-02-37
775
0-05-34
776
0-07-43
0-01-39
LLL
778
0-29-80
763
0-00-23
762
0-00-78
978
0-00-24
979
0-19-64
980
0-05-94
0-00-16
981
0-01-88
980/1462
741
0-03-57
1053
0-00-52
1054
0-05-70 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
5983 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18, 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28, 1927
1
2
3
3
4
5
1
2
4
5
इलाहाबाद
0-06-05
सोरॉव बिसानी
29
सोरॉव
इलाहाबाद
0-10-02
1055
उर्फ
16
0-00-61 1056
0-05-35
मानियमरपुर (जारी)
0-12-05
शिकोहाबाद 28
1058
0-04-82
0-02-44
(जारी) 25
1059
0-00-55
27
0-14-91
0-03-86
1060
26
0-01-17 1252
0-02-10
37
0-01-12 1257
0-01-92
51
0-00-35 1253
0-00-35
48
0-00-12 1254
0-13-09
47
0-04-65 1255
0-10-37
45
0-01-07 1256
0-04-04
46
0-19-70 1243
42
0-03-40 1245
0-04-23
41
0-18-15
0-07-57
1242
40
0-16-13 1244
0-01-71
61
0-01-33 1248
74
0-14-30 1246
0-06-87
75
0-00-14
0-01-56
1230
79
0-15-91- 1208
0-00-37
76
0-00-15 1217
0-00-26 .
77
0-03-31 1225
0-16-67
0-07-72
78
1226
0-01-31
80
0-01-05 1229
0-01-33
0-04-26
81
1188
0-25-66
94
0-02-70 1189
190
0-16-84 1184
0-01-19
191
0-00-52
0-32-56
1181
201
0-04-73 1180
0-03-96
192
0-10-37
0-01-30
1174
193
0-08-52 1179
0-03-95
196
0-04-15 1178
197
0-14-41 1177
0-02-43
198
0-01-70 1175
0-05-83
216
0-00-36 1176
0-01-83
214
0-19-15 1127
0-05-19
208
0-13-37
4-96-90
कुल
210
0-17-36 सोरॉव बिसानी 4
इलाहाबाद
209
0-01-61 उर्फ
9
0-00-15
595
0-01-07
0-06-07
शिकोहाबाद 13
441
0-01-05 14
0-05-60
449
0-12-97 15
0-13-57
450
0-01-78 18
0-00-78
0-02-78
448.
30
0-03-93 5984
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2005 / JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
1
2
3
4
5
1 इलाहाबाद सोरॉव
454
बिसानी उर्फ
0-00-79
इलाहाबाद
453
शिकोहाबाद
0-18-48
457
0-03-78
(जारी)
458
0-06-51
452
0-00-96
459
0-09-12
460
0-04-93
472
0-11-47
571
0-00-61
570
0-01-63
(कार्टट्रेक)
569
0-23-47
567
0-02-63
568
0-26-01
565
0-10-31
564
0-09-38
495
0-08-67
496
0-08-17
498
0-00-81
497
0-30-94
502
0-11-56
547
0-02-19
508
532
0-00-17
544
0-01-64
545
0-00-14
543
0-02-94
542
0-14-35
541
0-05-76
539 (नाला) 0-03-06
540
0-01-96
538
0-13-31
536
0-02-58
537
0-00-55
5-54-71
कुल
इलाहाबाद सोरॉव
5
0-00-21
मदारीपुर
6
0-00-33
562
0-01-39
565
564
0-37-74
560
0-00-11
596
0-03-28
599
0-04-49
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] 2
3
4
5 सोरॉव
601
0-15-19 मदारीपुर
603
0-12-65 (जारी)
611
0-12-28
610
0-03-11
614
0-14-09
615
0-01-12
662
0-21-90
662
0-04-03
710
0-27-00
717
0-01-59
712
0-02-96
711
0-02-92
709
0-09-81
707
0-19-49
706
0-10-80
704
0-08-32
705
0-01-96
703
0-01-15
701
0-10-09
700
0-12-41
697
0-10-57
696
0-08-63
719
756
0-02-73
871
0-02-11
875
0-05-13
873
0-13-06
876
0-12-46
877
0-14-11
879
0-11-68
880
0-00-32
883
0-08-84
884
0-05-14
885
0-11-03
886
0-09-96
887
0-05-23
890
0-02-91
940
0-7366
942
0-11-1
941
0-07-88
4-00-71
कुल [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
5985
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18 , 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28, 1927
1
2
4
5
1
3
4
3
2
5 सोरॉव
0-11-46
इलाहाबाद
सोरॉव
बन्काजलालपुर 490
इलाहाबाद
0-00-38
बन्काजलालपुर 796
487
0-09-90
0-46-70
(जारी) 790
506
0-05-96
791
0-08-59
509
0-04-11
792
0-00-81
510
787
0-02-60
482
0-13-43
0-01-52
789
481
0-00-74
781
0-00-13
512
0-00-34
788
0-30-43
513
0-03-52
0-00-61
1040
480
0-04-44
1041
0-01-44
515
0-19-60
1034
0-05-09
513
0-00-95
1056
0-00-12
517
0-12-63
1057
0-07-80
518
0-13-74
1055
0-01-48
519
0-04-85
0-02-41
1059/1761
520
0-18-70
1059
0-06-88
609
0-09-81
1060
0-19-02
608
0-04-02
1147
0-01-28
607
0-01-53
1065
0-01-81
600
0-01-01
1137
0-03-74
601
0-02-82
1139
0-03-19
593
0-03-39
1140
0-02-50
:0-01-37
603
1136
0-01-64
605
0-08-71
0-03-17
1135
593
1134
0-03-46
592
0-01-39
0-02-25
1133
761
1132
0-03-37
591
0-03-12
0-09-87
1131
0-00-63
764
1130
0-07-93
762
0-12-75
1127
0-08-09
590
0-00-48
1126
0-00-32
763
0-22-71
1124
767
0-07-80
1122
0-03-49
759
0-00-64
1121
0-12-68
752
0-00-11
1117
0-04-88
758
0-07-40
1116
0-04-98
757
0-09-32
0-01-57
1120
756
0-09-39
1118
0-09-29
755
0-11-24
1108
0-00-11
767/1786
0-03-28
1107
0-00-68
783
0-01-70
1119
0-00-51
796
0-14-17
1106
797
0-00-44
0-12-41
1105 5986
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18, 2005/JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii)] 1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5 सोरॉव
इलाहाबाद
0-00-95
1202
बन्का जलालपुर
सोरॉव
0-21-63
बन्का सकरामऊ 980
इलाहाबाद
1200
0-25-53
(जारी)
982
1199
0-01-80
983
0-22-83 1201
0-04-95
957
0-00-68
0-00-82
1198
999
1216
0-00-86
953
0-31-42 1217
0-08-79
955
0-10-07 1210
0-01-70
954
1222
0-00-34
0-21-34
1233
946
0-01-50 1223
0-05-37
0-14-78
1018
1224
0-00-95
945
0-12-29 1225
0-15-68
0-04-94
944
1226
0-09-48
943
0-04-91 1227
0-00-84
1022
0-00-34 1230
0-05-40
1021
0-10-26 1228
0-01-33
942
0-01-19 1229
0-02-36
1753
0-00-42
933
0-00-21 1754
0-02-18
934
0-03-04
6-14-78
कुल
940
0-10-66 सकरामऊ
53
0-00-97
0-02-49
941
54
0-00-52
0-04-26
939
55
0-46-07
938
0-05-05 56
0-00-28
937
60
0-01-81
0-00-41
2-9-35
कुल
68
67
0-01-33
सोरॉव
0-01-25
इलाहाबाद
111
नजारपुर
66
0-02-69
0-25-70
112
65
0-03-67
सर्वे नं. 112 व 0-05-66.
64
0-04-39
211 के बीचमें 63
0-11-41
0-07-45
211
61
0-12-26
208
0-16-54 62
0-05-26
207
0-01-08 89
0-06-04
209
90
0-12-02
0-00-17
206
91
0-00-54
96
0-02-20
0-26-42
205
97
0-05-14
223
0-08-26 94
0-10-55
224
0-00-65 95
0-02-84
225
0-18-49 101
980/1314 0-04-37
17
0-10-24 5987
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18 , 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28 , 1927
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3. (ii) ]
5
4
3
1
2
imposed , vest in the GAIL ( India) , free from all encumbrances .
सोरॉव
सर्वे नं. 227 व 0-01-88
इलाहाबाद
नजारपुर
SCHEDULE
220के बीच में (বাংলা)
Tehsil
District
Village
220
0-02-44
Survey No.
229
0-03-40
0-00-49
221
Area to be acquired forROU (In Hectare)
1-30-72
4
5 कुल
2
3
1
Allahabad Soraon
[फा. सं. एल-14014/04/2005-जी. पी. भाग-1 ]
0-400-66
387
0-04-18
Manium- 386 arpur
स्वामी सिंह, निदेशक
0-15-37
388
0-06-22
389
New Delhi , the 9th June, 2005
0-19-37
390
0-07-30
391
392
0-01-70
0-01-53
393
0-01-83
394/1460
0-11-91
394
0-00-92
395
0-02-96
407
0-02-51
408
S.O: 2128.- Whereas by notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S. O. 2720 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 saidAct) , the Central Government declared its intentionto acquire the right ofuser in the land specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipelines for the transportation of natural gas from Thulendi to Phoolpur piepline project in the State ofUttar Pradesh by the GAIL ( India) Limited;
0-00-27
424
0-00-13
422
409
0-03-93 Andwhereas copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public from 30th April, 2005 to 01stMay, 2005;
0-24-15
413
0-34-35
414
Andwhereas the objections received from the public to the laying of pipeline have been considered and disallowed by the competent authority;
412
0-10-88
494
0-04-03
493
And whereas the competent authority has , under sub-section ( 1 ) of Section 6 the said Act , submitted its report to the Central Government;
0-00-54
495
0-03-32
0-10-18
496
492
0-01-58 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.
0-01-19
490
0-00-18
491
0-03-15
464
784
0-10-50 Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of section 6 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification ishereby acquired for laying the pipelines;
785
0-31-42
783
0-02-07
782
787
0-05-39
788
0-00-14
789
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 ofvesting 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
1714 G1/05-7 5988
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2005 / JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ] 1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5 Allahabad Soraon
0-02-37
Maniumpur 779
Allahabad Soraon
Maniu- 1174
0-01-30 -Contd. 775
0-05-34
1179
0-03-95
marpur
776
0-07-43
-Contd . 1178
777
0-01-39
1177
0-02-43 778
0-29-80
1175
0-05-83 763
0-00-23
1176
0-01-83 762
0-00-78
1127
0-05-19 978
0-00-24
Total
4-96-90 979
0-19-64
Bisani
4
980
0-05-94
urf
b9
0-00-15 981
0-00-16
Shikohabad 13
0-06-07 980/1462 0-01-88
14
0-05-60 741
0-03-57
15
0-13-57 1053
0-00-52
18
0-00-78 1054
0-05-70
30
0-03-93 1055
0-10-02
29
0-06-05 1056
0-05-35
16
0-00-61 1058
0-04-82
28
0-12-05 1059
0-00-55
25
0-02-44 1060
0-03-86
27
0-14-91 1252
0-02-10
26
0-01-17 1257
0-01-92
37
0-01-12 1253
0-00-35
51
0-00-35 1254
0-13-09
48
0-00-12 1255
0-10-37
47
0-04-65 1256
0-04-04
45
0-01-07 1243
0-19-70
46
1245
0-04-23
42
0-03-40 1242
0-07-57
41
0-18-15 1244
0-01-71
0-16-13
40
1248
61
0-01-33 1246
0-06-87
74
0-14-30 1230
0-01-56
75
0-00-14 1208
0-00-37
79
0-15-91 1217
0-00-26
76
0-00-15 1225
0-16-67
77
0-03-31 1226
0-01-31
78
0-07-72 1229
0-01-33
80
0-01-05 1188
0-25-66
81
0-04-26 1189
94
0-02-70 1184
0-01-19
190
0-16-84 1181
0-32-55
191
0-00-52 1130
0-03-96
201
0-04-73 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18 , 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28, 1927
5989 1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5 Bisani urf
Allahabad Soraon
192
0-10-37 Allahabad Soraon Bisani urf 541
0-05-76 Shikohabad 193
0-08-52
Shikohabad 539 (Nala) 0-03-06 -Contd. 196
0-04-15
-Contd. 540
0-01-96 197
0-14-41
538
0-13-31 198
0-01-70
536
0-02-58 216
0-00-36
537
0-00-55 214
0-19-15
Total
5-54-71 208
0-13-37
Allahabad Soraon
5
Madaripur
0-00-21 210
0-17-36
6
0-00-33 209
0-01-61
562
0-01-39 595
0-01-07
565
441
0-01-05
564
0-37-74 449
0-12-97
560
0-00-11 450
0-01-78
596
0-03-28 448
0-02-78
599
0-04-49 454
0-00-79
601
0-15-19 453
0-18-48
603
0-12-65 457
0-03-78
611
0-12-28 458
0-06-51
610
0-03-11 452
0-00-96
614
459
0-14-09
0-09-12
615
0-01-12 460
0-04-93
662
472
0-21-90
0-11-47
662
571
0-00-61
0-04-03
710
570
0-27-00
0-01-63
717
(CartTrack)
0-01-59 569
0-23-47
712
0-02-96 567
0-02-63
711
0-02-92 568
0-26-01
709
0-09-81 565
0-10-31
707
0-19-49 564
0-09-38
706
0-10-80 495
0-08-67
704
0-08-32 496
0-08-17
705
0-01-96 498
0-00-81
703
0-01-15 497
0-30-94
701
0-10-09 502
0-11-56
700
0-12-41 547
0-02-19
697
0-10-57 508
696
0-08-63 532
0-00-17
719
20-03-00 544
0-01-64
756
0-02-73 545
0-00-14
871
0-02-11 543
0-02-94
875
0-05-13 542
0-14-35
873
0-13-06 5990
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18, 2005 /JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
3
4
1. 1
2
5
0-12-46
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]
5 3
4
2
0-12-75
762
Banka
Soraon
Allahabad
Allahabad Soraon Madaripur 876
0-14-11
-Contd. 877
879
0-11-68
0-00-32
880
0-08-84
883
0-05-44
884
885
0-11-03
0-09-96
886
0-05-23
887
0-02-91
890
0-13-66
940
842
0-11-44
0-07-88
941
4-00-71
Total
Banka
490
0-11-46
487
0-09-90
Jalalpur
0-05-96
506
509
0-04-11
510
0-13-43
482
0-00-74
481
512
0-00-34
513
0-03-52
480
0-04-44
0-19-60
515
0-00-95
513
0-12-63
517
518
0-13-74
519
0-04-85
0-18-70
520
609
0-09-81
608
0-04-02
607
0-01-53
0-01-01
600
601
0-02-82
0-03-39
593
0-01-37
603
0-08-71
605
593
0-01-39
592
761
0-03-12
591
764
0-00-63
0-00-48 Jalalpur 590
0-22-71 -Contd. 763
0-07-80
767
0-00-64
759
0-00-11
752
0-07-40
758
0-09-32
757
0-09-39
756
0-11-24
755
0-00-70
767/1786
0-00-68
783
0-00-51
796
0-00-44
797
0-00-38
796
0-46-70
790
0-08-59
791
0-00-81
792
0-02-60
787
0-01-52
789
781
0-00-13
788
(-30-43
0-00-61
1040
1041
0-01-44
0-05-09
1034
1056
0-00-12
0-07-80.
1057
1055
0-01-48
0-02-41
1059/1761
0-06-88
1059
0-19-02
1060
0-01-28
1147
1065
0-01-81
0-03-74
1137
0-03-19
1139
0-02-50
1140
0-01-64
1136
0-03-17
1135
0-03-46
1134
0-02-25
1133
0-03-37
1132
0-09-87
1131
1130
0-07-93 5991
भारत का राजपत्र: जून 18, 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28, 1927
[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
5
4
3
2
1
5
3
2
1
0-03-67
65
Sakramau
Allahabad Soraon
0-08-09
1127
Banka
Allahabad Soraon
0-04-39
-Contd. 64
0-00-32
1126
Jalalpur
0-11-41.
63
1124
-Contd.
0-12-26
61
0-03-49
1122
0-05-26
62
0-12-68
1121
0-06-04
89
0-04-88
1117
0-12-02
90
0-04-98
1116
0-00-54
91
0-01-57
1120
0-02-20
96
0-09-29
1118
0-05-14
97
0-00-11
1108
0-10-55
94
0-03-28
1107
0-02-84
95
0-01-70
1119
101
0-14-17
1106
0-04-37
980/1314
0-12-41
1105
0-21-63
980
0-00-95
1202
982
0-25-53
1200
0-22-83
983
0-01-80
1199
0-00-68
957
0-04-95
1201
999
0-00-82
1198
0-31-42
953
0-00-86
1216
0-10-07
955
0-08-79
1217
0-00-34
954
0-01-70
1210
0-01-50
946
0-21-34
1222
0-14-78
1018
1233
0-12-29
945
0-05-37
1223
0-04-94
944
0-00-95
1224
0-04-91
943
0-15-68
1225
-0-00-34
1022
0-09-48
1226
0-10-26
1021
0-00-84
1227
0-01-19
942
0-05-40
1230
0-00-21
933
0-01-33
1228
0-03-04
934
0-02-36
1229
0-10-66
940
0-00-42
1753
\
0-02-49
941
0-02-18
1754
0-04-26
939
6-14-78
Total
0-05-05
938
0-00-97
Sakramau 53
0-00-41
937
0-00-52
54
2-98-36
Total
0-46-07
55
0-01-25
111
0-00-28
56
Nazarpur
0-25-70
112
0-01-81
60
In Bet Svy. 0-05-66
68
No. 112 & 211
0-01-33
67
0-07-45
211
0-02-69
66 5992
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18, 2005/JYAISTHA 28, 1927
1
2
3
4
5 Allahabad Soraon
0-16-54
Nazarpur 208
-Contd. 207
0-01-08
209
206
0-00-17
205
0-26-42
223
0-08-26
224
0-00-65
225
0-18-49
जिला
227
0-10-24
0-01-88
In Bet Svy. No. 227 & 220
(NALA)
1
220
0-02-44
229
0-03-40 प्रतापगढ़
221
0-00-49
Total
1-30-72
[F. No. L- 14014/04/2005 -G.P. Part-I ]
SWAMI SINGH, Director नईदिल्ली, 9 जून , 2005
का.आ. 2129.-129.-केन्द्रीयवे 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 सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का. आ. 362 ( अ) तारीख , 21 मार्च , 2005 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 का अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा कीथी;
और उक्त राजपत्रित अधिसूचना की प्रतियां जनता को तारीख 01 मई, 2005 को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी;
और पाइपलाइन बिछाने के सम्बन्ध में जनता से प्राप्त आक्षेपों पर सक्षम प्राधिकारी द्वारा विचार कर लिया गया है और उन्हें अननुज्ञात कर दिया गया है;
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 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 विनिश्चिय किया है ;
और 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 ;
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]
(इण्डिया) लिमिटेड में निहित होगा । (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 और केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा अनुसूची
तहसील गाँव
सर्वे नं. आर.ओ.यू.
अर्जित करने केलिए (हैक्टेयरमें) 2
3
4
5 सदर पूरे
199
0-0290
198
बसावनपुर
0-2234
196
0-0143
197
0-1663
194
0-1112
193
0-0265
186
0-1344
(पक्कीरोड़)
185
0-0348
213
0-1580
217
0-2509
218
0-0286
219
0-2190
220
0-2145
223
0-1735
114
0-2300
113
0-0450
112
0-0723
76
0-0796
77
0-0829
80
0-1129
81
0-0453
82
0-2264
108
0-0330
107
0.0101
106
00609
105
0-0027
101
0-2374
100
0.0733
99
0.0015 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
5993
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18 , 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28, 1927
1
2
3
5
4
1 सदर
0.1459
410
प्रतापगढ़
पूरे
प्रतापगढ़
409
0.0608 बसावनपुर
-जारी
0.0388
408(रोड़)
411
0,0380
407
0-0640.
403.
0-1163
402
0-0851
401
0-0169
400
0-0103
467
0-1714
468
0-0042
470
0-0089
466
0-0617
माइनर
9-0173 .
465
0-0783
464
0-0687
463
0-0095
460
0.1408
459
0-0010
451
0-0074
450
0.0085
449
0.2012
445
0.0125
442
0.0612
444
0.0864
0.1918
443
439
0.0083
527
0.3762
435
0.0017
434
0.0499
531
0.1000
नाला
0.0081
530
0.0010
533
0.0414
534
0.0325
5.3887
कुल
गम्भीरा
रास्ता
0-0014
0,0307
1078
1077
0.0322
1080
0.2944
0.0434
1081
1091
0.0165
2
4
5 3
सदर गम्भीरा
1082
0.0868 -जारी
1083
0.0691
0.0413
1084
1089
0.1258
1090
0.2949
1088(तालाब) 0.0011
0.0174
1157(रास्ता)
1155
0.0139
1156
0.2009
1154
0.0138
1235
0.0028
1227
0.1280
0.0010
1241
0.0062
1242 (रास्ता)
1224
0.0339
1243
0.1488
1257
0.0155
1250
0.0698
1244
0.0201
1286(रास्ता) 0.0104
0.1250
1287
1288
0.0466
1289
0.1353
1290
0.0439
1291
0.0346
1292
0.0548
1293 (रास्ता) 0.0010
1384
0.0082
1383
0.0189
1382
0.0537
1381
0.0408
0.2807
1388
1389
0.0405
1437
0.0010
1436
0.0108
1435
0.0299
1434
0.1102
0.0686
1433
1443
0.0641
1444
0.0363
1445
0.0374
1430
0.0064 5994
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18, 2005/ JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
4
3
2
5 सदर
गम्भीरा
0.0317 प्रतापगढ़
District
1446
-जारी
1447
0.0913
0.0734
1448
0,0010
1450
1429
0.1158
1
1453
0.1374
0.0737
1454
[PART II-SEC. 3( ii)] SCHEDULE
Tehsil Village Survey No.
Area to be acquired for ROU (In Hectare) 2
3
4
5 Pure
199
0-0290
Pratapgarh Sadar
3.4931
कुल
[फा. सं. एल-14014/04/2005 जी.पी. भाग -1 ]
स्वामी सिंह, निदेशक.
New Delhi , the 9th June , 2005
S.O. 2129. Whereasby notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S. O. 362( E) dated the 21st March . 2005 issued under Sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act. 1962 (50 of 1962) ( hereinafter referred to as the said Act) , 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 pipelines for the transportation of natural gas from Thulendi to Phoolpur pipeline project in the State of Uttar Pradeshby the GAIL ( India) Limited;
And whereas copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on 01st May . 2005:
And whereas the objections received from the public to the laying of the pipeline have been considered and Bisallowed by the competent authority:
And whereas the competent authority has , under Sub-section ( 1 ) of Section 6 of the said Act, submitted its rport 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 pipelines . has decided to acquire the right of user therein.
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub -section( 1 ) of Section 6 of the said Act. the Central Government hereby declares that the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification is hereby acquired for laying the pipelines:
And. further, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub - section (4) of Section 6 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby directs that the right of user in the land for laying the pipelines shall . instead ofvesting in the Central Government . vest, on the date of the publication of thedeclaration, in the GAIL ( India) Limited. proposingto 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.
(0-2234 Basawanpur 198
196
0-0143
00-1663
197
194
00-1112
193
0-40265
186 (Metalled ( -1344
Road)
185
0-0348
213
0-1580
217
(0-25(0)
218
0-0286
219
(-2190)
220
0-2145
223
001735
114
(0-23000)
00450
113
112
(4)723-
76
04079%
77
80
( 112)
81
040453
82
0-2264
108
040330
107
00101
106
100609
105
(4027
101
10-2374
100
00733
0.0015
410
0,1459
0.0608
(0030
408( Road)
411
0.0388
417
00610
001163 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
5995
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18 , 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28, 1927
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5 Pure
402
Pratapgarh Sadar
0-0851
Gambhira 1155
0.0139
Pratapgarh Sadar
0-0169
1156
401
-Contd.
Basawanpur
0.2009 400
0-0103
1154
0.0138
1235 467
0-1714
0.0028
1227
468
0.1280
0-0042
1241
0.0010 470
0-0089
1242 (Rasta) 0.0062 466
0-0617
0.0339
1224
Minor
9-0173
1243
0.1488 465
0-0783
1257
00:55 464
0-0687
1250
0.0698 463
0-0095
1244
0.0201 460
0.1408
1286(Rasta ) 0.0104 459
0-0010
1287
0,1250 451
0-0074
1288
0.0466 450
0,0085
-1289
0.1353 449
0.2012
1290
0.0439 445
0.0125
1291
0.0346 442
0.0612
1292
0,0548 444
0.0864
1293 (Rasta) 0.0010 443
0.1918
1384
0,0082 439
0.0083
1383
0.0189 527
0.3762
1382
0.0537 435
1381
0.0408
0.0017
1388
0.2807 434
0.0499
1389
0.0405 531
0.1000
1437
0.0010 Nala
0.0081
1436
0.0108 530
0.0010
1435
0.0299 533
0.0414
1434
0.1102 534
0.0325
1433
0.0686 Total
5.3887
1443
0.0641
0-0014
Gambhira Rasta
1444
0.0363 1078
0.0307
1445
0.0374
1430
1077
0.0064
0.0322
1446
0.0317 1080
0.2944
1447
0.0913 1081
0.0434
1448
0.0734
0.0165
1091
1450
0.0010
0.0868
1082
1429
0.1158 1083
0.0691
1453
0.1374 1084
0.0413
1454
0.0737
0.1258
1089
Total
3.4931 1090
0.2949
1088(Pond) 0.0011
[F.No. L - 14014/04/2005 G.P. Part -1]
SWAMI SINGH , Director 1157(Rasta) 0.0174
1714 GI/05-8 5996
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18, 2005/JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
1 नईदिल्ली, 9 जून , 2005
पंच महल का.आ. 2130.-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 सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का.आ. 492( अ ) तारीख 04-04-2005 द्वारा, उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में गेल ( इण्डिया ) लिमिटेड द्वारा गुजरात राज्य में जांबूडी से मैसर्स गुजरात फलोरोकेमिकल्स लिमिटेड पाइपलाइन परियोजना के माध्यम से पेटोलियम गैस के परिवहन के लिए पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी;
और उक्त राजपत्रित अधिसूचना की प्रतियां जनता को तारीख 12-04-2005 तक उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी;
और पाइपलाइन बिछाने के सम्बन्धमें जनता से प्राप्त आक्षेपों पर सक्षम प्राधिकारी द्वारा विचार कर लिया गया है और उन्हें अननुज्ञात कर दिया गया है;
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 पश्चात्और यह समाधान हो जाने पर कि उक्त भूमि पाइपलाइनें बिछाने के लिए अपेक्षित है, उस में 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 इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में पाइपलाइनें बिछाने के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाता है:
और केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप- धारा ( 4 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, निर्देश देती है कि पाइपलाइने बिछाने के लिए भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार, इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख को, केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने के बजाए, पाइपलाइने 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 ।
अनुसूची
जिला
तहसील गाँव
सर्वे नं आर.ओ.यू.
अर्जित करने
के लिए
(हेक्टेयर में ) 1
2
3
+
5
पंच महल हालाल
652
तारखंडा
0-00-48
682
0-00-48
683
0-27-86
684
0-02-80
0-13-95
694
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii )] 2
3
4
5
697
हालोल तारखंडा
0-15-45
698
-जारी
0-15-83
नाला
0-00-96
719
0-10-60
718
0-06-02
725
0-10-80
730
0-11-75
बैलगाड़ी रास्ता0-00-36
731
0-07-32
737
0-14-06
736
0-03-79
नाला
0-00-96
771
0-12-82
773
0-09-31
774
0-407-92
776
0-08-10
777
(0-18-63
778 0-02-85
779
(0-25-66
780
0-04-75
782
0-06-12
783
0-19-03
नाला
0-02-16
योग 02-60-82
34
कटडीया
0-14-93
35
0-05-16
36
0-18-61
37
0-05-56
22पी 8 0-03-60
38/1
0-03-79
38/2
0-21-00
बैलगाड़ी रास्ता0-01-80
38/27
0-06-13
38/26
0-19-50
रास्ता
0-02-88
38/25
0-24-12
38/3
0-23-30
38/7
38/9
0-18-78
01-69-76
योग [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
5997 भारत का राजपत्र: जून 18, 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28 , 1927
1
4
2 3
5
पंच महल हालोल
1/20
0-05-76
रसुलपुर
1/15
0-19-92
appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline fe transport of Natural Gas through Jambudi to M/ s . Gujarat Fluorochemicals Ltd. pipeline project in the State of Gujarat by the GAIL ( India ) Limited:
1/19
0-22-80
1/18
0-23-76
And whereas copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on the 12-04-2005;
0-14-40
1/35
बैलगाड़ी रास्ता0-00-60
And whereas the objections received from the public to the laying of the pipeline have been considered and disallowed by the Competent Authority :
1/37
0-32-32
1/36
0-18-84
1/39
0-13-74
And whereas the Competent Authority has . under sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 6 of the said Act , submitted its report to the Central Government:
बैलगाड़ी रास्ता0-01-20
0-01-20
नाला
And whereas thereas the Central Government has , after considering the said report, decided to acquire the Right of User in the lands specified in the Schedule:
1/41
0-07-80
योग 01-62-34
नाला
0-06-60
नाथकुवा
8
0-09-29 (
1
Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 6 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that the Right of User in the land specified in the Schedule is hereby acquired for laying thepipeline:
9
0-09-10
10
13
0-17-05
घोघंबा
12
0-19-43
नाथकुवा
11
0-09-34
25
And, further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 4 ) of Section 6 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby directs that the Right of User in the said land for laying the pipeline shall , instead of vesting in the Central Government , vest , on this date of the publication of this declaration , in the GAIL ( India ) Limited. free from all encumbrances .
0-02-33
79
0-24-11
SCHEDULE
78
(0-14-19
District Tehsil Village Survey No. Area to be 76
0-12-00
योग 01-12-24
Acquired for ROU (InHectare) 56
रणजीतनगर
0-24-07
1
2
3
5
4
55
0-13-79
652
Tarkanda
Panch Mahal Halol
0-00-48 54
0-16-26
682
0-00-48 30
0-13-68
683
0-27-86 29/1
0-19-54
684
0-02-80 28
0-19-72
694
0-13-95 योग 01-07-06
0-15-45
697
[फा. सं. एल-14014/02/2005 जी. पी. ]
0-15-83
698
स्वामी सिंह, निदेशक
Nala
0-00-96
719
0-10-60 New Delhi , 9th June , 2005
718
0-06-02
725
0-10-80
730
0-11-75
0-00-36
Cart Track
731
0-07-32
737
0-14-06 S.O. 2130.- Whereas by notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O. 492 ( E) dated 04-04-2005 issued under sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines ( Acquisition of Right of Users 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
736
0-03-79 5998
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2005/JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
1
2
3
4
5 Panch Mahal Halol Tarkanda Nala
0-00-96
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] 1
2
3
4
5
Panch Mahal Halol
771
-Contd.
0-12-82
773
0-09-31
774
0-07-92
776
0-08-10
777
0-18-63
778
0-02-85
779
0-25-66
780
0-04-75
782
0-06-12
783
0-19-03
Drain
0-02-16
TOTAL 02-60-82
34
0-14-93
Katadiya
35
0-05-16
36
0-18-61
37
0-05-56
22P8
0-03-60
38/1
0-03-79
38/2
0-21-00
0-01-80
CartTrack
38/27
0-06-13
38/26
0-19-50
Road
0-02-88
38/25
0-24-12
38/8
0-23-30
38/7
38/9
0-18-78
Total
01-69-76
1/20
0-05-76
Rasulpur
1/15
0-19-92
1/19
0-22-80
1/18
0-23-76
1/35
0-14-40
Cart Track 0-00-60
1/37
0-32-32
1/36
0-18-84
1/39
0-13-74
Cart Track 0-01-20
0-01-20
Drain
1/41
0-07-80
TOTAL 01-62-34 Nathkua Nala 0-406-60
8
0-09-29
9 0-09-40
10
13
0-17-05
12
0-19-43 Ghogamba Nathkua
11
0-09-34
25
0-02-33
79
0-24-11
78
0-14-19
76
0-12-00
TOTAL 01-12-24
0-24-07 Ranjitnagar 56
55
0-13-79
54
0-16-26
30
0-13-68
29/1
0-19-54
28
0-19-72
TOTAL 01-07-06 [F. No. L- 14014/02/20 5 G.P. ]
SWAMI SINGH , Director नई दिल्ली, 9 जून , 2005
2131.- का.आ. 131.-केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम, 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 3 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी भारत सरकारके पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का.आ. 359 ( अ) तारीख , 21 मार्च , 2005 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 का अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा कीथी;
और उक्त राजपत्रित अधिसूचना की प्रतियां जनता को तारीख 27 मार्च , 2005 से 31 मार्च, 2005 तक उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी;
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 ;
और सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन केन्द्रीय सरकार को अपनी रिपोर्ट दे दी है;
और केन्द्रीय सरकार ने, उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् और यह समाधान हो जाने पर कि उक्त भूमि पाइपलाइनें बिछाने के लिए अपेक्षित है , उस में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने का विनिश्चिय किया है;
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
5999
भारत का राजपत्र: जून18, 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28, 1927
1
प्रतापगढ़ और 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;
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) लिमिटेड में निहित होगा ।
अनुसूची
जिला
गाँव
तहसील
सर्वे नं. आर.ओ.यू.
अर्जित करने केलिए (हेक्टेयर में) 1
2
3
4
5
13
0.0546 बारी बोझ
लालगंज
प्रतापगढ़
13
0.0104
11
0.0184
10
0.0449
0.0790
9
23
0.1503
24
0.0012
27
0.0127
28
0.1002
57
0.0129
58
0.0070
56
0.0769
54
0.0089
53
0.1060
52
0.0432
51
0.0044
49
0.0833
48
0.0738
0.0197
47
43
0.1137
44
0.1535
45
0.0588
6
0.0113
46
0.0203
258
0.0554
257
0.2164
284
0.0877 2
3
4
5
256
0.0165 बारी बोझ
लालगंज
255
0.1415
285
0.0113
282
0.0010
302
0.0015
301
0.1302
00170
296
297
00061
298
9.1291
300
0.0056
299
0.0750
307
0.0212
290
0.0070
293
0.0025
292
0.2945
0.0301
291
312
0.0161
315
0.0991
314
0.1569
313
0.1728
397
0.0829
331
0.0273
398
0.0303
437
0.0262
438
0.1064
439
0.1239
440
0.0110
441
0.1451
442
0.0664
443
0.0017
444
0.0137
475
0.0031
474
0.1212
473
0.1696
446
0.0259
445
0.0747
447
0,0579
448
0.1018
452
0.0490
462
0.0343
461
0.1887
483
0.0369
708
0.0282
709
0.1732 6000
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2005/JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
1
2
3
4
5
707
प्रतापगढ़
0.0106 लालगंज बारी बोझ
750
0.2520
(जारी)
748
0.0053
747
0.0138
746
0.0072
745
0.0513
741
0.2665
733
0.0010
734
0.0010
735
0.0163
740
0.0146
739
0.0375
742
0.0110
715
0.0099
716
0.0234
717
0.0628
719
0.0010
718
0.0086
योग
5.4441
305
0.0598
लालूपुर
303
0.1700
304
0.0181
302
0.2798
300
0.0874
331
0.0153
306
0.0221
330
0.0626
329
0.1013
328
0.0882
327
0.1523
340
0.0903
342
0.3647
317
0.1207
346
0.0029
358
0.5664
361
0.0027
357
0.0014
356
0.0010
369
0.0010
366
0.0278
364
0.2247
383
0.1402
0.2050
382
381
0.0068
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)]
1
2
3
4
5
380
प्रतापगढ़
0.1130 लालगंज
412
0.3099 लालूपुर (जारी)
384
0.0257
404
0.0470
413
0.0022
i
414
0.1357
423
0.0862
422
0.0389
424
0.0095
428
0.0834
427
0.2339
451
0.0096
452
0.0051
3,9126
योग
बंकति
85
0.2580
78
0.0102
79
0.0015
80
0.0629
81
0.0674
83
0.0396
84
0.0220
86
0.0087
126
0.0249
योग
0.4952
1834
सदर जेठवारा
0.1347
1835
0.1905
1836
0.2297
0.2127
1838
1840
0.0233
1841
0.1077
1842
0.1244
1843
0.0464
1845
0.0374
1865
0.1839
1847
0.0015
1848
0.0121
1864
0.0434
1866
0.0076
1924
0.0010
1925
1926
0.0070
1932
0.2022
1931
0.0127 6001 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18, 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28 , 1927
3
1
2
4
5
सदर जेठवार
1934
0.0367
प्रतापगढ़
Andwhereas the objections received from the public to the laying of the pipeline have been considered and disallowed by the competent authority;
1945
0,1701
(जारी)
1944
0.0485
1946
0.0012
And whereas the competent authority has , under sub-section (1 ) of Section 6 of the said Act, submitted its reportto the Central Government;
1947
0.0085
0.1208
1943
2283
0.0924
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 toacquire the right ofuser therein.
2284
0.0780
2291
0.1074
2290
0.0924
0.0144
2292
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1 ) of Section 6 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification ishereby acquired for laying the pipelines ;
0.0405
2293
0.0046
2294
2295
0.0899
2296
0.1103
2298
0.0715
0.0287
2297
2295
0.0660
2316
0.1758
And, further, in exercise of the powers conferredby 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 ofvesting in the CentralGovernment , vest, on the date of the publicationof 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 .
3.0056
योग
SCHEDULE
0,0085
112
कुंडा कुसाही
0.0296 District Tehsil
113
Village Survey No.
0.0569
114
0.0097
115
Area to beacquired forROU(In Hectare)
0.0318
117
3
4
5
1
2
212
0.0035
13
0.0546
Pratapgarh Lalganj Bari Bojh
0.1400
योग
13
0.0104 [फा. सं. एल-14014/04/2005-जी.पी. ]
11
0.0184
स्वामी सिंह निदेशक
10
0.0449 New Delhi , the 9th June , 2005
0.0790
9
0.1503
23
0.0012
24
0.0127
27
0.1002
28
57
0.0129
0.0070
58
56
0.0769
54
0.0089
53
0.1060 S.O. 2131. Whereas by notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S. O. 359 (E ) dated the 21st March, 2005 issued under sub -section (1 ) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act , 1962 (50 of 1962) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) , 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 pipelines for the transportation of Natural Gas from Taulendi to Phoolpur pipeline project in the State of Uttar Pradeshby the GAIL (India) Limited;
0.0432
52
0.0044
51
49
0.08.33 Andwhereas copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public from 27th March, 2005 to 31st March, 2005;
6002
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2005/ JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
1
2
3
4
5
1
48
0.0738 Pratapgarh Lalganj
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)] 2
3
4
5
446
0.0259
Pratapgarh
47
0.0107
Bari Bojh (Contd.)
43
0.1137
44
0.1535
45
0.0588
6
0.0113
46
0.0203
258
0.0554
257
0.2164
284
0.0877
256
0.0165
255
0.1415
285
0.0113
282
0.0010
302
0.0015
301
0.1302
296
0.0170
297
0.0061
298
0.1291
300
0.0056
299
0.0750
307
0.0212
290
0.0070
293
0.0025
292
0.2945
291
0.0301
312
0.0161
315
0.0991
314
0.1569
313
0.1728
397
0:0829
331
0.0273
398
0.0303
437
0.0262
438
0.1064
439
0.1239
440
0.0110
441
0.1451
442
0.0664
443
0.0017
444
0.0137
475
0.0031
474
0.1212
473
0.1696 Lalganj
445
0.0747 Bari Bojh (Contd.)
447
0.0579
448
0.1018
452
0.0490
462
0.0343
461
0.1887
483
0.0369
708
0.0282
709
0.1732
707
0.0106
750
0.2520
748
0.0053
747
0.0138
746
0.0072
745
0.0513
741
0.2665
733
0.0010
734
0.0010
735
0.0163
740
0.0146
739
0.0375
742
0.0110
715
0.0099
716
0.0234
717
0.0628
719
0.0019
718
Total
5.4440
305
0.0598 Lalupur
303
0.1700
304
0.0181
302
0.2798
300
0.0874
331
0.0153
306
0.0221
330
0.0626
329
0.1013
328
0.0882
327
0.1523
340
0.0903
342
0.3647
317
0.1207
346
0.0029 6003
भारत का राजपत्र: जून 18 , 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28 , 1927
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
5
2
3
4
1
4
1
3
5
2
1843
0.0464
Jethwara
0.5664
358
Pratapgarh Sadar
Pratapgarh Lalganj Lalupur
1845
0.0374
361
0.0027
0.1839
357
0.0014
1865
0.0015
356
0.0010
1847
0.0121
1848
369
0,0010
0.0434
1864
366
0.0278
0.0076
1866
0.2247
364
1924
0.0010
0.1402
383
0.0097
1925
382
0.2050
0.0670
1926
:0.0068
381
0.2022
1932
380
0.1130
0.0127
1931
412
0.3099
0.0367
1934
384
0.0257
0.1701
1945
404
0.0470
0.0485
1944
0.0022
413
0.0012
1946
0,1357
414
0.0085
1947
423
0.0862
0.1208
1943
0.0389
422
2283
0.0924
0.0095
424
0,0780
2284
0.0834
428
2291
0:1074
427
0.2339
0.0924
2290
0.0096
451
0.0144
2292
0.0051
452
0.0405
2293
3.9126
Total
0.0046
2294
85
0.2580
Bankati
0.0899
2295
0.0102
78
0.1103
2296
0.0015
79
0.0715
2298
0.0629
80
0.0287
2297
0.0674
81
0.0660
2295
0.0396
83
0.1758
2316
0.0220
84
3.0056
योग
0,0087
86
0.0085
112
Kusahi
Kunda
126
0.0249
0.0296
113
0.4952
Total
0.0569
114
0.1347
1834
Jethwara
Sadar
0.0097
115
0.1905
1835
0.0318
117
0.2297
1836
0.0035
212
0.2127
1838
0.1400
योग
0.0233
1840
0.1077
1841
[F. No. L- 14014/04/2005 -G.P. ]
SWAMI SINGH, Director
0.1244
1842
1714 G1 /05-9 6004
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2005/ JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
[PART II SEC . 3 ( ii) ]
नई दिल्ली, 9 जून , 2005
का.आ. 2132.-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 सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का. आ. 2723 तारीख , 15 अक्टूबर, 2004 द्वारा , उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में गेल ( ईण्डिया ) 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;
और उक्त राजपत्रित अधिसूचना की प्रतियां जनता को तारीख 18 मार्च , 2005 से 19 अप्रैल , 2005 तक उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी;
गयाहै; और पाइपलाइन बिछाने के सम्बन्ध मैं जनता से प्राप्त आक्षेपों पर सक्षम प्राधिकारी द्वारा विचार कर लिया गया है और उन्हें अनुज्ञात कर दिया और सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारो ( 1 ) के अधीन केन्द्रीय सरकार को अपनी रिपोर्ट दे दी है ;
और केन्द्रीय सरकार ने, उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् और यह समाधान हो जाने पर कि उक्त भूमि पाइपलाइनें बिछाने के लिए अपेक्षित है, उग्म में 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 इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में पाइपलाइनें बिछाने के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाता है;
और केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा ( 4 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, 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 काप्रस्ताव 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 ।
अनुसूची
गांव
तहसील
जिला
सर्वे नं.
3
4 2
1
284 लालगंज
प्रतापगढ़
पारनीपुर
573 (रोड़)
570
560
568
508
565
563
561
554
553
638
672
668
669
676
670
675
679
680
745
738
739
740
स्क. मी.
आर.ओ.यू. अर्जित करने के लिए हैक्ट. एयर
6
7 5
02
57 0
89 0
02
54 0
07
60 0
01
0
01
99 0
13
11
76 0
34
03
41 0
0
01
11
26
16
0
53 0
01
00
0
10 0
11
51
05
86 0
11
79 0
0
01
29
00
31 0
00
0
78
06 0
04
16
89 0
0
12
09
88 0
07
0
04
22 0
00 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
6005
भारत का राजपत्र: जून 18 , 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28 , 1927
5
3
4 1
2
0
774 लालगंज
प्रतापगढ़
पारनीपुर
0
775
0
786
785
0
0
806
0
807
0
805
0
808
2
कुल
0
4
रूहादा
6
0
6/362
0
58
57 000
0
60
59
56
62
63
00000 0
64
259
0
76
0
261
0
262
0
263
0
264
274
0
0
275
0
273
0
277
0
279
0
283
0
289
0
299
0
307
306
0
0
308
0
309
0
311
310
0
4
कुल
0
6
कालनपुर
0
66
0
68
0
69 6
7
49 21
53 10
17
07 20
89
85 14
36 10
00
10
86 15
50 72
29 07
17
38
78
46
04
100 03
88
52 00
87 18
15 01
96 15
90 22
12 00
50 21
10 00
38
39
44 01
86 01
27 01
13 00
00 18
31 37
32
31
49 44
40 08
07 17
00
59 06
14 03
09 35
07
93 00
54 10
60 06
21 01
19
40
13 03 6006
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18, 2005/ JYAISTHA 28 , 1927 1
2
3
4
5
0
67 लालगंज
प्रतापगढ़
कालनपुर
0
66
0
19
65
0
64
0
0
63
0
56
0
57
60
0
59
0
0
53
0
50
52
0
0
45
51
0
90
0
0
106
92
0
0
105
95
0
0
103
96
0
0
97
0 [PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] 6
7 07
04
42 01
26 00
00
22
50 13
07
51 00
15
68 19
00
22 01
18 20
13 00
13
01 15
02
01 00
19
14 18
94 02
09
54
75 04
06 01
02
34
72 29
45 01
01
69
(रोड़) सर्वे नं. 98
0
400
0
399
398
0
0
401
0
405
404
0
406
0
0
412
0
407
0
411
0
413
0
416
0
417
418
0
0
419
0
422
0
423
0
424
3
योग 12
75 09
37 03
81
25 02
35 06
76 01
39 24
01
37 00
37 00
20
29 24
17 02
00
12
81 27
00
73 03
88 02
79 12
24 27
27 6007 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: जून 18 , 2005 /ज्येष्ठ 28 , 1927
1
2
6
3
5
7
4
0
लालगंज
207
बाछाबल
02
71 प्रतापगढ़
0
12
208
48
0
209
38
10
210
0
15
85
211
0
05
32
212
0
11
49
56
213
0
12
235
16
71
.0
0
236
07
71
234
0
10
60
233
0
14
06
238
00
0
10
232
0
03
08
0
13
14
229
0
17
73
231
55
0
230
09.
19
0
02
228
85
0
04
274
65
51
1
कुल
309
0
01
13
पुरनोता
28
04
0
310
0
08
34
304
0
00
20
300
0
21
299
01
22
0
01
297
0
02
70
291
0
10
29
292
0
09
73
293
65
02
294
0
87
17
0
289
74
287
0
13
41
02
532
0
03
52
0
282
0
51
07
533
95
0
14
552
0
43
14
553
0
65
554
11
01
27
0
558
0
555
05
68
06
15
0
562
60
0
00
565
59
0
01
568
0
00
29
572
53
0
02
574
06
2
33
कुल
[फा. सं. एल-14014/4/2005/-जी.पी. ]
स्वामी सिंह , निदेशक 6008
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2005/ JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
[PART II-- SEC . 3 ( if) ]
New Delhi , the 9th June , 2005
S.O. 2132. Whereas by notification ofthe Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S. O. 2723 dated the 15th October, 2004 issued under sub -section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition ofRight ofUser in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962 ) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act ) , the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for 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;
Andwhereas copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public from 18th March,, 2005 to 19th April , 2005;
And whereas the objections received from the public to the laying of the pipeline have been considered and disallowed by the competent authority;
And whereas the competent authority has , under sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 6 the said Act, submitted its 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 pipelines , 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 ofuser in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification is hereby acquired for laying the pipelines ;
And, further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section (4) of Section 6 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby directs that the right of user in the 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 . -
SCHEDULE Tehsil
District
Village
SurveyNo.
4
284 1 Pratapgarh
3 Paranipur
2 Lalganj
573(Road)
570
560
568
508
565
561
554
553
638
672
668
669
676
670
675
679
680
745 Area to be acquired for ROU Hect.
Are. Sq.Metre 5
6
7 0
57
02
0
02
89 0
54
07
0
01
60
01
0
99 0
13
11
76 0
34
0
01
11 0
16
26
01
0
53 0
00
10 0
51
11
0
86
05
79 0
11
0
29
01
0
00
31 0
00
78 0
04
06 0
89
16
12 0
09 [भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
6009
भारत का राजपत्र: जून 18, 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28, 1927
2
3
4 1
738 Pratapgarh
Lalganj
Paranipur
739
740
774
775
786
785
806
807
805
808
Total
4
Ruhada
6
6/362
58
57
60
59
56
62
63
64
259
76
261
262
263
264
274
275
273
277
279
283
289
299
307
306
308
309
311
310
Total 5
6
7 0
07
88 0
04
22 0
00
77 0
49
21
0
10
53 0
17
07 0
20
89
85 0
14
0
36
10
00
0
10 0
15
86 2
72
50
07
0
29 0
38
17
0
00
78
06
46 0
04
04
43
10 0
0
88
03
0
00
52
87
18
0
15
01
96 0
15
0
90
22
0
00
12
50 0
21
0
10
00
39 0
38
0
01
44
86
01
0
27 0
01
00
13 0
00 0
18
0
37
31
32
0
31 0
44
49 0
40
08
0
17
07 0
00
59 0
06
14 0
03
09
07 0
35
93 0
00
4
10
54 6010
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2005/JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
1
2
3
4
6 Pratapgarh
Lalganj
Kalanpur
66
68
69
67
66
19
65
64
63
56
57
60
59
53
50
52
45
51
90
106
92
105
95
103
%
97
(Road) in Svy. No. 98
400
399
398
401
405
404
406
412
407
411
413
416
417
418
419
422
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]
6
5
7 0
06
60 0
01
21 0
19
40 0
03
13 0
07
04 0
01
42 0
00
26 0
00
22 0
13
50 0
07
51 0
00
15 0
19
68 0
00
22 0
01
18 0
20
13 0
00
13 0
15
01 0
02
01 0
00
19 0
18
14 0
02
94 0
09
54 0
04
75 0
06
01
0
02
34 0
29
72 0
01
45 0
01
69 0
12
75 0
09
37 0
81
03
0
25
02
0
06
35 0
76
01
0
24
39 0
01
37 0
00
37 0
00
20 0
24
29 0
20
17 0
00
12 0
27
81 0
00
0
03 भारत का राजपत्र: जून 18, 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28 , 1927 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
3
2
1
413
Kalanpur
Lalganj
Pratapgarh
424
Total
207
Bachhabal
209
210
211
212
213
235
236
234
233
238
232
229
231
230
228
274
Total
309
Purenota
310
304
300
299
297
291
292
293
294
9
287
532
282
533
552
553
554.
558
555
562
565
568
572
574
Total
6011
6
7 5
79 0
02
24
12
0
27
27
3
71
02
0
48 0
12
0
38
10
85 0
15
05
32 0
49
11
0
56 0
12
71
16
0
71 0
07
60 0
10
06
14
0
10 0
00
08
03
0
14 0
13
73
17
0
55
09
0
19 0
02
0
04
51
65
1
13 0
01
04
28
0
08
34
0
00
20 0
21
01
0
22
01
0
70
02
0
29 0
10
73
09
0
65
02
0
87
17
0
74
13
0
41
02
0
52
03
0
51
07
0
95
14
0
43
14
0
65
11
0
27
01
0
68
05
0
06
15
0
60
00
0
59
01
0
00 0
29
53
02
0
06
33
2
[F. No. L- 14014/04/2005 -G.P. ] SWAMI SINGH, Director 6012
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2005 / JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
नई दिल्ली, 9 जून, 2005
का.आ. 2133.-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 सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का.आ. 2721 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;
और उक्त राजपत्रित अधिसूचना की प्रतियां जनता को तारीख 20 मार्च , 2005 से 24 अप्रैल, 2005 तक उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी;
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।
और सक्षम प्राधिकारी है, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अश्रीम केन्द्रीय सरकार की अपनी रिपोर्ट दे दी है;
और केन्द्रीय सरकार ने, उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात्और यह समाधान ही जाने वर कि उक्त भूमि पाइपलाइनें बिछाने के लिए अपेक्षित है, उस में उधोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने का विनिश्चियकिया है ।
अतः अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तिबों का प्रयोग करते हुए, यह घोषणा करती है कि इस अधिसूचना ही संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में पाइपलाइनें बिछाने के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाता है;
और केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (4 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रधीग करते हुए, निदेश देती है कि पाइपलाइनें बिछाने के लिए भूमि में उपधीग का अधिकार , इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख को , केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने के बजाए, पाइपलाइनें बिछाने का प्रस्ताव करने बाली 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 ।
अनुसूची
गांव सर्वे नं.
तहसील
आर.ओ.यू. अर्जित करने के लिए (हैक्टेयरमें) 1
2
3
4
5
240
सराय
0-02-26 कुन्ন্ডা
प्रतापगढ़
महासिंह 239
0-09-98
241
0-04-49
238
0-00-27
237
0-01-04
260
0-00-54
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] 1 2 3
4
5
259
सराय
0-01-46 प्रतापगढ़ कुन्डा
258
0-09-31
257
0-07-37
256
0-04-20
255
0-04-06
254
0-06-66
253
0-07-19
252
0-12-29
251
0-00-72
250
0-03-85
323
0-21-60
329
0-02-98
0-01-71
343
342
0-06-36
344
0-06-87
335
0-10-89
334
0-15-15
427
0-08-86
425
0-20-91
0-00-78
सर्वे नं. 425 व 448 के बीच में
440
0-06-20
448
449
0-04-21
450
0-05-93
455
0-03-19
456
0-06-46
454
0-05-65
457
0-04-69
458
0-10-21
453
0-00-54
460
0-00-11
459
0-02-59
475
0-05-50
482
0-47-16
515
0-06-08
516
0-03-63
519
0-00-38
521
0-32-59
520
0-04-01
4-01-36
कुल
महियामऊ 243
011-50
248
0-11-12
249
0-31-26
251
0-06-36 6013 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: जून 18 , 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28 , 1927
4
4
1
2
3
2
3
S
5 महियामऊ 254
0-25-96
प्रतापगढ़ सुन्
0-417-52
महियामऊ 583
कुन्डा
प्रतापगढ़
256
002-01
ทิร
0407-55 267
0-15-15
573
( 16
0-01-33
257
576
0-03-55 268
0-04-21
571
0-18-01
0-01-82
269
523
0-09-12 266
0-11-13
517
0-00-13 269
518
600-24 260
0-05-19
0-16-14
519
259
6-00-11
5201
0-17-23 261
6-14-39
1233
0-06-53
0-04-70
199
0-22-83
1232
262
0-03-50
895
0-14-38
894
0-02-02
0-01-64
718
044-78
896
0-00-14 719
0-40-12
898
0-20-34
0-22-54
721
106
0-00-44 720
0-04-56
0-20-70
902
722
0-00-35
XX)
0-403-17 724
0-02-31
0-08-78
903
0-09-52
0-19-92 697
0-06-77
0-09-97
0-04-37
696
0-04-26
(- )-29
913
605
0-04-50
909
0-13-40 685
682
0-01-69
0417-98
910
911
684
009-35
04-03-13
685
1211
686
06947
1202
0-07-64
673
1210
0-01-30
1203
0-06-13
618
0-02-94
0-05-52
1204
620
0-0566
1209
0-04-62
621
0-02-91
1208
0-00-16
0-04-89
593
0-04-62
1205
0-01-74
594
0-07-25
1206
590
1207
0-11-01
0.0746
592
0-01-98
0-04-33
1266
591
0-03-17
1267
0-29-72
589
0-04-56
1275
586
0-05-41
1276
582
0-02-12
0-03-89
1277
0-02-74
585
0-06-38
1278
0-02-11
584
1279
001-14 574
0-00-13
0-02-73
1372
581
0-00-26 6014
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18, 2005/ JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
4
3
5
0-07-69
0-12-58 महियामऊ 1291
लालगंज रहतिकार 2330
प्रतापगढ़ कुन्डा
प्रतापगढ़
0-02-65
1292
0-05-55
2329
0-01-24
2328
0-38-00
कुल
2327
0-03-30 283
0-02-44
रामगढ़
लालगंज
0-31-77
1930
खास
0-02-42
1931
284
0-18-68
0-15-23
1935
282
0-10-89
1934
0-09-02
0-01-09
292
(सर्वे नं. 1935)
04:3-59
298
व 1934 रजवाहा 299
048-25
कैनाल
300
0-01-26
0-29-71
1970
306
0-01-75
1956
0-15-72 305
0-10-54
1957
0-02-14 325
0-12-00
1955
0-07-12 324
0-01-19
1958
0-13-03 319
0-22-23
0-12-69
1601
0-93-91
कुल
0-12-61
1602
0-24-52
0-17-92
1607
बैजालपुर 2
50
0-02-39
1598
0-25-65 51
0-01-04
0-08-83
1591
0-04-07
0-00-59 52
1592
53
0-15-15
0-05-28
1595
1594
54
0-03-28
0-11-82
0-00-85 55
1596
0-01-16
0-01-78
1545
57
0-02-13
1546
0-11-22 58
0-19-67
0-27-84
1547
60
0-03-94
1549
0-07-58 62
0-36-98
1510
0-01-73 65
0-18-47
1512
72
0-19-16
1509
0-00-22 71
0-22-85
1506
0-11-46 84
0-07-50
0-09-87
1508
85
0-07-38
0-04-75
1507
87
0-06-49
1419
0-01-97 88
0-04-32
1415
0-03-95 69
0-16-32
1414
0-00-11
0-89-38
कुल
0-06-26
1413
2410
रहतिकार
0-01-35
0-05-25
1410
2409
0-44-75
0-14-78
1411
2418
0-04-60
1412
2419
0-15-01
0-04-59
1402
2385
0-09-36
1396
0-02-20 2384
0-25-07
0-27-47
1395
2336
0-03-31
0-00-34
1223
2334
0-25-69 6015
भारत का राजपत्र: जून 18 , 2005 /ज्येष्ठ 28 , 1927
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
5
4
2
3
1
5
3
4
2
1
0-23-18
0-17-88
लालगंज रहतिकार 1225
प्रतापगढ़
मुस्ताफाबाद 1697
लालगंज
प्रतापगढ़
0-01-04
1696
0-01-25
1226
1695 "
0-62-97
0-16-72
1202
0-01-60
1694
0-20-21
1200
0-36-00
1691
0-20-23
1199
0-00-85
1709
0-01-17
1197
0-02-79
1750
0-23-46
1195
0-01-82
1690
0-09-01
1192
0-00-94
1689
0-05-21
1191
0-43-84
1742
0-13-14
1157
0-02-39
1741
0-24-93
1158
0-10-51
1739
0-30-45
1159
0-07-19
1743
0-01-44
1144
0-24-72
1738
0-07-37
1139
1735
0-08-16
1140
0-13-55
1737
0-02-47
1141
0-24-49
1778
0-78-57
1111
1776
0-02-98
8-33-69
0-14-92
1789
कुल
1788
0-00-84
190
पुरेमाथादा
0-08-25
1790
0-05-80
192
0-20-75
1793
0-06-02
193
0-03-61
1794
0-02-98
186
0-08-12
1801
0-03-04
194
0-19-93
1795
0-00-71
209
0-07-98
1796
0-06-26
208
01-00-62
सर्वे नं . 1795 ,
0-03-54
210
1796 व 1848
0-15-70
213
में(रोड़)
0-00-51
214
0-46-56
1848
0-03-60
232
0-15-21
1849
0-00-94
233
0-10-51
1851
0-19-47
234
0-16-95
1852
0-14-12
235
0-08-31
1853
236
0-08-81
1858
0-26-49
237
0-07-46
1859
0-01-33
240
0-24-16
1863
0-09-53
241
0-07-64
1864
0-01-69
242
0-03-25
1877
0-29-20
243
0-00-55
1875
0-01-73
244
0-15-16
1874
0-26-28
0-00-99
1891
246
1886
0-44-30 250
0-02-96
1885
0-06-26
249
0-00-51
1883
0-09-43
248
1933
0-00-88
247
05-83-96
कुल
01-71-96
कुल 6016
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA JUNE 18, 2005 /JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
1
2
3
4
5
424
0-01-87 प्रतापगढ़ लालगंज खजूरी
412
0-20-55
418
0-14-94
413
0-01-69
423
0-04-83
417
0-01-21
421
0-08-03
422
0-10-23
486
0-01-82
490
0-08-14
485
0-19-07
484
0-02-25
482
0-07-66
483
03-93
493
492
0-00-89
494
495
0-28-97
479 0-01-88
471
0-13-04
469
468
0-15-44
0-06-53
467
0-05-99
466
465
0-02-66
464
0-05-67
463
0-07-87
563
0-00-73
564
0-03-78
565
0-00-33
2-07-20
कुल
37
इतौला
0-19-29
41
003-91
40
0-04-63
43
52
0-01-74
51
00665
50
0-08-45
49
0-07-04
0-12-63
46
0-02-22
58
0-08-32
0-01-22
101
124
0-00-23
114
0-22-63
123 0-00-36
[PART II SEC. 3 ( ii )] 1
2
3
4
5
प्रतापगढ़
115
इतैला
लालगंज
0-01-86
113
0-18-37
112
0-07-43
110
0-13-79
0-00-24
108
0-00-95
1-45-86
कुल
भेंभौरा 128
0-02-68
77
0-03-63
85
0-02-65
115
0-20-19
114
0-28-18
105
0-14-41
103
0-06-31
99
0-16-08
100
0-00-86
97
0-00-87
96
0-00-11
95
0-16-35
94
0-09-02
92
0-01-58
91
0-18-31
134
0-11-30
214
0-13-07
216
0-21-34
217
0-02-18
218
0-18-71
219
0-01-28
220
0-08-74
213
0-01-24
221
0-01-31
226
0-02-47
230 :
0-07-56
231
0-14-03
239
0-13-78
240
0-07-47
241
0-01-73
250
0-06-16
251
0-19-25
232
0-03-54
256/463 0-11-57
258
0-00-87
0-11-61
256
0-07-32
265
0-02-87
267
0-11-20
268
0-02-96
3-45-39 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
6017
भारत का राजपत्र: जून 18 , 2005 /ज्येष्ठ 28, 1927
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5 395
524
0-03-08
0-10-63 प्रतापगढ़ लालगंज उछापुर
प्रतापगढ़ लालगंज उछापुर
396
0-07-58
536
0-23-97 397
0-06-14
531
0-03-29 405
0-06-84
0-01-54
529
399
532
0-14-83
0-16-02 404
0-08-81
4-87-03
कुल
386
0-01-85
कैथोला 111
430
0-06-39
117
431
118
0-04-63 428
0-31-33
120
0-01-15 437
0-00-74
121
0-08-50 446
0-34-82
122
447
0-25-31
126
219
0-04-70
127
0-05-19 440
0-01-29
128
0-11-88 451
129
0-00-88 453
131
0-09-98
0-01-76
141
454
0-12-45
0-03-23 455
143
0-20-57
144
0-00-15
0-26-87
218
0-22-71
152
459
0-00-86
151
0-02-94
0-21-94
469
460
0-03-98
0-85-59
कुल
462
0-09
पन्डारी 147
0-06-62
0-11-47
463
पन्डारी रजवाहा 0-07-51
0-28-39
597
(सर्वे नं. 47 व) 596
149के बीच में 598
0-00-85
149
0-26-39
167
599
0-02-31
0-25-50
154
0-03-95 581
150
577
0-27-50
153
0-00-21 601
0-00-99
155
0-26-89 576
0-01-89
162
0-00-94 572
0-00-94
163
0-24-57 571
0-16-76
208
564
0-02-19
207
0-17-93 565
0-19-95
206
0-06-97
0-01-37
551
247
0-17-63 550
0-13-85
0-01-44
202
546
0-15-99
201
0-00-78
0-15-51
सर्वे नं . 540 में
258
0-16-86 (पक्कीरोड )
0-00-47
271
540
0-09-62
270
0-01-38 537
0-09-83
269
0-01-19 6018
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2005/JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
1 1
2
3
5
4
0-00-72
264
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii)] 3
5 2
4
771
0-02-02 मेधावान
प्रतापगढ़ लालगंज
लालगंज पन्डारी
प्रतापगढ़
0-27-66
259
0-07-17
262
0-05-66
261
260
0-20-33
0-03-05
261/277
(सर्वे नं.
261/277
मेंरोड़ (एस-
0-01-37
एच-36)
0-46-86
कुल
0-07-98
582
बेल्हा
0-03-17
589
0-02-20
609
0-13-52
594
0-18-54
593
0-00-52
596
0-00-85
597
0-16-47
601
646
0-07-12
0-24-61
654
650
0-01-43
651
0-11-02
0-13-75
660
661
0-12-68
0-05-30
663
765
0-44-35
770
0-02-79
771
0-00-15
(सर्वेनं.
862/3413
व बी.बी. के
बीच में
0-00-33
862/3413
855
0-00-43
864
0-03-34
882
0-12-89
883
0-03-43
879
0-14-91
0-00-72
878
0-25-37
875
876
0-00-34
877
0-05-24
886
2-53-65
कुल
0-05-47
793
792
0-16-35
0-00-12
791
790
0-17-33
0-14-75
सर्वे नं . 790
व 789 के बीच
में
789
0-03-41
785
0-03-75
0-13-99
804
805
0-09-96
806
0-05-82
809
0-10-14
807
0-13-07
808
0-14-00
811
815
0-00-66
812
714
715
0-00-35
731
722
0-12-17
0-34-86
721
719
0-12-08
717
0-00-38
0-42-21
718
708
0-01-55
707
0-12-06
706
0-04-30
705
0-21-08
0-01-44
952
0-04-79
953
0-00-93
954
955
0-02-07
956
0-01-53
0-00-65
970
0-28-69
969
971
0-02-08
0-11-48
972
0-05-98
968
990
0-01-16
991
0-21-40
0-01-77
1319
1324
0-03-33
1322
0-23-65 6019
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18, 2005/8 , 1927
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
4
5
3
2
1
0-11-38
1321
लालगंज मेधावान
प्रतापगढ़
0-09-50
1320
0-00-98
1289
0-12-31
1257
0-32-35
1256
1254
0-11-36
1252
0-34-69
1249
0-01-64
1250
0-17-12
1243
1242
1238
0-00-67
सर्वे नं.
1243व 1169
के बीच में ( रोड़)
0-05-45
1169
0-03-57
1170
0-04-93
1168
0-03-47
1167
0-01-47
1166
0-14-37
1171
0-00-15
1165
0-00-73
1170
1177
0-18-02
0-21-19
1178
0-01-24
1179
0-02-82
1180
0-18-71
1181
0-00-66
1198
0-20-79
1199
0-08-59
1200
0-21-85
1195
0-01-26
1197
0-15-64
1193
6-54-92
कुल
0-20-52
रामगढ़ रैला 220
221 0-01-46
0-21-98
कुल
0-01-18
आजहरा 204
0-17-67
254
0-00-38
255
0-02-43
252
0-00-56
251
0-05-08
256
0-00-55
257
1714 G1/05
4
5 3
2
0-01-15 आजहरा 249
0-18-86
247
0-00-28
267
0-01-44
268
0-01-52
269
0-01-06
270
0-01-13
271
0-02-86
272
0-05-01
273
0-01-96
316
0-07-83
274
0-04-03
275
0-01-86
205
308
0-15-19
0-11-29
276
0-06-02
206
0-10-62
288
0-16-51
289
0-25-35
291
2-09-57
293
0-26-61
295
0-02-27
637
0-01-23
662
0-16-87
660
0-01-01
630
0-07-59
648
0-01-64
641
0-18-40
639
0-01-16
638
0-27-30
636
0-00-79
634
0-25-57
611
0-01-14
614
0-05-68
606
0-01-55
607/113
0-09-19
605
0-09-53
604
0-00-89
603
0-06-61
756
0-02-91
912
0-15-52
911
0-00-37
910
0-14-04
909
0-20-03
915
0-38-71
919
0-01-28
918 6020
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2005/ JYAISTHA 28, 1927
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] 1
1
2
3
3
4
2
4
5
5
सराय
730
0-04-87 895
प्रतापगढ़ लालगंज
प्रतापगढ़ सदर
आजहरा
0-00-45
देवराय
881
731
0-16-27
0-00-38 880
0-00-84
729
0-01-12 876
728
0-05-97
0-06-84 875
727
0-00-67
0-41-58 874
726
0-04-45
0-08-85
0-06-48 894
725
0-01-72
870
0-04-63
1093
882
1092
0-01-50
0-01-64 868
1094
0-04-21
0-00-31
724
890
0-25-43
0-10-28 869
708
0-01-81
0-00-13
1100
891
0-00-16
0-06-18
889
0-04-36
1095
0-10-05 888
1096
0-01-87
1098
0-07-26 883
0-01-53
884
1097
0-20-66
0-11-18
0-01-28
1099
5-30-76
कुल
1101
0-12-97 सदर
सराय
355
0-07-53
3-49-88 देवराय
कुल
सर्वे नं. 355 0-01-47
0-05-16
पूरे बैशनाबा228
व 356 के बीच
231
0-17-07 में (कार्ट ट्रक)
230
0-04-13 356
0-23-79
232
0-03-63 792
0-00-37
264
790
0-29-65
235
789
0-08-30
234
0-18-47 787
0-00-73
271
0-10-93 362
0-24-84
268
0-03-89 786
0-04-03
272
0-08-31 363
0-35-38
269
364
0-33-21
270
0-01-64 754
0-02-02
सर्वे नं. 270 0-03-59 749
0-01-32
व 274के बीच
756
0-00-63
में (रोड़ )
755
0-00-28
274
0-16-25 752
0-10-28
276
0-22-07
0-01-67
1075
275
0-00-39 747
0-00-17
277
0-16-80 1077
0-07-66
293
0-04-18 1074
0-05-18
292
0-14-65 1078
0-00-45
285
0-01-93 1079
0-05-08
1-55-49
कुल
1080
[फा. सं. एल-14014/04/2005- जी.पी. ] 1082
0-09-99
स्वामी सिंह, निदेशक 6021 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: जून 18 , 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28, 1927
2
3
4
5
1
New Delhi , the 9th June , 2005
0-01-46
Pratap- Kunda Saray 259
0-09-31
garh
Mahasingh 258
0-07-37
-Contd. 257
256
0-04-20
255
0-04-06
254
0-06-66
253
0-07-19
0-12-29
252
251
0-00-72 S.O. 2133. Whereas by notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O. 2721 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 Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of layiną pipelines for the transportation of natural gas from Thulendi to Phoolpur pipeline project in the State of Uttar Pradesh by the GAIL (India) Limited;
250
0-03-85
323
0-21-60 Andwhereas copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public from 20th March, 2005 to 24thApril, 2005;
329
0-02-98
343
0-01-71 And whereas the objections received from the public to the laying of the pipeline have been considered and disallowed by the competent authority;
342
0-06-36
344
0-06-87
335
0-10-89 And whereas the competent authority has , under sub- section ( 1) of Section 6 of the said Act , submitted its report to the Central Government ;
334
0-15-15
427
0-08-86
425
0-20-91 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 .
InBet. SurveyNo. 0-00-78
425& 448
440
448
0-06-20 Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 6 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification ishereby acquired for laying the pipelines;
449
0-04-21
450
0-05-93
455
0-03-19
456
0-06-46
454
0-05-65
457
0-04-69
458
0-10-21 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 ofvesting 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 .
453
0-00-54 SCHEDULE
460
0-00-11 District
Area tobe
Tehsil Village Survey
459
0-02-59 No.
475
0-05-50
acquiured forROU
482
0-47-16
(InHectare)
515
0-06-08
5
4
1
2
3
516
0-03-63
0-02-26
Kunda Saray 240
Mahasingh
519
0-00-38 Pratap- garh
0-09-98
239
521
0-32-59
0-04-49
241
520
0-04-01
0-00-27
238
237
0-01-04
Total
4-01-36
0-00-54
260 6022
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18, 2005/JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] 2
1
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
011-50
Pratap Kunda Mahia- 243
0-02-74
Pratap- Kunda Mahia- 585
mau
garh
584
mau
0-02-11
garh
248
0-11-12
0-00-13
-Contd . 574
249
0-31-26
0-00-26
581
251
0-06-36
0-07-52
583
254
0-25-96
0-07-55
575
256
0-02-01
573
267
0-15-15
0-00-46
576
0-03-55 257
0-01-33
0-18-01
571
268
0-04-21
523
0-09-42 269
0-01-82
517
0-00-13 266
0-11-13
518
0-00-24 265
519
0-16-14 260
0-05-19
520
0-17-23 259
0-00-11
1233
0-06-53 261
0-14-39
1232
0-22-83 199
0-04-70
0-14-38
895
262
0-03-50
894
0-02-02 301
0-01-64
896
0-00-14 718
0-04-78
898
0-20-34 719
0-00-12
901
0-00-44 721
0-22-54
902
0-20-70 720
0-04-56
900
0-03-17 722
0-00-35
903
0-08-78 724
0-02-31.
925
0-19-92 723
0-09-52
908
0-09-97 697
0-06-77
0-00-29
913
696
0-04-37
695
0-04-26
909
0-13-40 685
910
0-04-50
0-07-98 682
0-01-69
911
0-09-35 684
0-03-13
1211
0-02-88 685
0-03-71
1202
0-09-47 686
0-07-64
1210
673
0-01-30
1203
0-05-52 619
0-06-13
1204
0-05-66
0-02-94
618
1209
620
0-04-62
1208
0-02-91 621
0-00-16
1205
0-04-62 593
0-04-80
1206
0-07-25 594
0-01-74
1207
0-11-01 590
0-07-46
1266
0-04-33 592
0-01-98
1267
0-03-17 591
0-00-36
1275
0-04-56 589
0-29-72
1276
0-05-41 586
0-05-44
1277
0-03-89 582
0-02-12
1278
0-06-38 6023
भारत का राजपत्र: जून 18 , 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28 , 1927
[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
4
5
2
3
1
4
5
3
1
2
0-25-69
0-01-14
Mahia- 1279
Lalganj Rahatikar 2334
Pratap-
Pratap- Kunda
0-12-58
2330
-Contd .
1272
0-02-73
mau
garh
garh
0-05-55
0-07-69
2329
-Contd. 1291
0-01-24
2328
0-02-65
1292
0-03-30
2327
6-38-10
Total
0-31-77
1930
0-02-44
Lalganj Ramgarh 283
Pratap-
0-02-42
1931
Khas
garh
0-15-23
1935
0-18-68
284
0-09-02
1934
0-10-89
282
InSurveyNo.
0-01-09
292
1935 & 1934
0-03-59
298
0-06-00
Minor Canal
0-08-25
299
0-29-71
1970
0-01-26
300
0-15-72
1956
0-01-75
306
0-02-14
1957
0-10-54
305
0-07-12
1955
0-12-00
325
0-13-03
1958
0-01-19
324
0-12-69
1601
0-22-23
319
0-12-61
1602
0-17-92
1607
0-93-91
Total
0-25-65
1598
0-24-52
2
Baijal-
0-08-83
1591
0-02-39
50
pur
0-00-59
1592
0-01-04
51
0-15-15
1595
0-04-07
52
0-11-82
1594
0-05-28
53
0-00-85
1596
0-03-28
54
0-01-78
1545
0-01-16
55
0-11-22
1546
0-02-13
.57
0-27-84
1547
0-19-67
58
0-07-58
1549
0-03-94
60
0-01-73
1510
0-36-98
62
0-18-47
1512
65
0-00-22
1509
0-19-16
72
0-11-46
1506
0-22-85
71
0-09-87
1508
0-07-50
84
0-04-75
1507
0-07-38
85
0-01-97
1419
0-06-49
87
0-03-95
1415
0-04-32
88
0-00-11
1414
0-16-32
69
0-06-26
1413
1-89-38
Total
0-05-25
1410
0-01-35
Rahatikar 2410
0-14-78
1411
0-44-75
2409
1412
0-04-60
2418
0-04-59
1402
0-15-01
2419
0-02-20
1396
2385
0-09-36
0-27-47
1395
0-25-07
2384
0-00-34
1223
0-03-31
2336 6024
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2005/ JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
1
2
3
4
5
1
0-17-88
1225
Pratap- Lalganj Rahatikar
Pratap-
1226
-Contd .
0-01-25
garh
garh
1202
0-16-72
1200
0-20-21
1199
0-20-23
1197
0-01-17
1195
0-23-46
1192
0-09-01
1191
0-05-21
1157
0-13-14
1158
0-24-93
1159
0-30-45
1144
0-01-44
1139
0-07-37
1140
0-08-16
1141
0-02-47
1111
0-78-57
Total
8-33-69
Purema- 190
0-00-84
thada 192
0-05-80
193
0-06-02
186
0-02-98
194
0-03-04
209
0-00-71
208
0-06-26
210
0-03-54
213
0-15-70
214
0-00-51
232
0-03-60
233
0-00-94
234
0-19-47
235
0-14-12
236
237
0-26-49
240
0-01-33
241
0-09-53
242
0-01-69
243
0-29-20
244
0-01-73
246
0-00-99
250
249
0-06-26
248
0-09-43
247
0-00-88
Total
01-71-96
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii)] 2
3
4
5
0-23-18 Lalganj Mustafa- 1697
bad
1696
0-01-04
1695
0-62-97
1694
0-01-60
1691
0-36-00
1709
0-00-85
1750
0-02-79
1690
0-01-82
1689
0-00-94
1742
0-43-84
1741
0-02-39
1739
0-10-51
1743
0-07-19
1738
0-24-72
1735
1737
0-13-55
1778
0-24-49
1776
0-02-98
1789
0-14-92
1788
1790
0-08-25
1793
0-20-75
1794
0-03-61
1801
0-08-12
1795
0-19-93
1796
0-07-98
In Svy No. 0-00-62
1795, 1796
&1848 (Road)
1848
0-46-56
1849
0-15-21
1851
0-10-51
1852
0-16-95
1853
0-08-31
1858
0-08-81
1859
0-07-46
1863
0-24-16
1864
0-07-64
1877
0-03-25
1875
0-00-55
1874
0-15-16
1891
0-26-28
1886
0-44-30
1885
0-02-96
1883
0-00-51
1933
Total
05-83-96 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
6025
भारत का राजपत्र: जून 18 , 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28, 1927
1
2
3
4
5
1
4
2. 3
5
0-01-87
Pratap- Lalganj Khajuri 424
0-01-86
Itaila 115
Pratap- Lalganj
412
0-20-55
garh
-Contd. 113
0-18-37
garh
112
418
0-14-94
0-07-43
110
413
0-13-79
0-01-69
111
0-00-24 423
0-04-83
108
0-00-95 417
0-01-21-
421
0-08-03
1-45-86
Total
422
0-10-23
Bhebhoura128
0-02-38 486
0-01-82
77
0-03-63
0-08-14
85
490
0-02-65
115
485
0-20-19
0-19-07
114
0-28-18 484
0-02-25
105
0-14-41 482
0-07-66
103
0-06-31 483
0-03-93
99
0-16-08 493
0-00-86
100
0-00-89
492
97
0-00-87 494
96
0-00-11 495
0-28-97
95
0-16-35 477
0-01-88
94
0-09-92 471
0-13-04
92
0-01-58 469
91
0-18-31
0-15-44
468
134
0-11-30 467
0-06-53
214
0-13-07 466
0-05-99
216
0-21-34 465
0-02-66
217
0-02-18
0-05-67
464
218
0-18-71
219
463
0-07-87
0-01-28
220
0-08-74 563
0-00-73
213
0-01-24
0-03-78
564
221
0-01-31 565
0-00-33
226
0-02-47 Total
2-07-20
230
0-07-56 37
Itaila
0-19-29
231
0-14-03 41
0-03-91
239
0-13-78 40
0-04-63
240
0-07-47
0-03-30
43
241
0-01-73 52
250
0-01-74
0-06-16
251
51
0-19-25
0-06-65
252
0-03-54 50
0-08-45
256/463
0-11-57
0-07-64
49
258
0-00-87
0-12-63
48
0-11-61
257
57
0-02-22
256
0-07-32
0-08-32
58
265
0-02-87
0-01-22
101
267
0-11-20 124
0-00-23
268
0-02-96
0-22-63
114
Total
3-45-39
0-00-36
123 6026
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2005/ JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
4
2
1
3
5
0-03-08 Pratap- Lalganj Uchhapur 395
0-07-58
396
garh
397
0-06-14
405
0-06-84
399
0-14-83
404
0-08-81
0-01-85
386
430
0-06-39
431
428
0-31-33
0-00-74
437
446
0-34-82
0-25-31
447
219
0-04-70
440
0-01-29
451
453
0-09-98
454
0-12-45
455
0-26-87
218
0-00-86
459
469
0-21-94
0-03-98
460
0-09-55
462
463
0-11-47
597
0-28-39
596
598
0-00-85
599
0-25-50
581
0-27-50
577
601
0-00-99
576
0-01-89
572
0-00-94
571
564
0-02-19
565
0-19-95
551
0-01-37
550
0-13-85
546
0-15-99
0-15-51
(In Svy. No.
540 (Metalled
Road)
540
0-09-62
537
0-09-83
524
0-10-63
536
0-23-97
[PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii) ]
4
1
2
3
5
0-03-29
Pratap- Lalganj Uchhapur 531
-Contd . 529
0-01-54
garh
532
0-16-02
Total
4-87-03 Kaithaula 111
117
0-04-63
118
120
0-01-15
121
0-08-50
122
126
127
0-05-19
128
0-11-88
0-00-88
129
131
0-01-76
0-03-23
141
0-20-57
143
144
0-00-15
0-22-71
152
151
0-02-94
0-85-59
Total
Pandari 147
0-06-62
Pandri Minor 0-07-51
(InBet Svy.
No. 147 & 149
149
0-26-39
167
0-02-31
0-03-95
154
150
153
0-00-21
0-26-89
155
162
0-00-94
0-24-57
163
0-16-76
208
0-17-93
207
206
0-06-97
247
0-17-63
202
0-01-44
201
0-00-78
258
0-16-86
271
0-00-47
270
0-01-38
269
0-01-19
264
0-00-72
259
0-27-66
262
0-07-17 6027
भारत का राजपत्र: जून 18 , 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28, 1927
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
1
4
5
2
1
3
0-05-66
Pratap- Pratap- Lalganj Pandari 261
garh
0-20-33
260
garh
0-03-05
261/277
In Svy. No.
261/277 Road
0-01-37
(SH-36)
2-46-86
Total
582
0-07-98
Belha
0-03-17
589
609
0-02-20
594
0-13-52
593
0-18-54
596
0-00-52
597
0-00-85
0-16-47
601
646
0-07-12
654
0-24-61
0-01-43
650
651
0-11-02
0-13-75
660
0-12-68
661
0-05-30
663
765
770
0-44-35
0-02-79
771
InBet. Svy..
0-00-15
No. 862/3413
&V.B.
0-00-33
862/3413
0-00-43
855
0-03-34
864
0-12-89
882
0-03-43
883
879
0-14-91
0-00-72
878
0-25-37
875
876
0-00-34
877
0-05-24
886
0-53-65
Total
0-02-02
Medha- 771
0-05-47
793
wan
0-16-35
792
0-00-12
791
1714 GI/05-12
2
4
5 3
0-17-33 Lalganj Medha- 790
wan
0-14-75
InBet. Svy. No. 790 &
789
789
0-03-41
785
0-03-75
804
0-13-99
805
0-09-96
0-05-82
806
809
807
0-10-14
808
0-13-07
811
0-14-00
815
0-00-66
812
714
715
0-00-35
731
0-12-17
722
0-34-86
721
0-12-08
719
0-00-38
717
0-42-21
718
708
0-01-55
0-12-06
707
706
0-04-30
705
0-21-08
952
0-01-44
0-04-79
953
954
0-00-93
955
0-02-07
956
0-01-53
0-00-65
970
969
0-28-69
0-02-08
971
972
0-11-48.
0-05-98
968
990
0-01-16
0-21-40
991
0-01-77
1319
0-03-33
1324
1322
0-23-65
0-11-38
1321
0-09-50
1320
0-00-98
1289
1257
0-12-31 6028
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2005/ JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] 1
2
3
4
5
1
2
4
3
5
0-32-35
0-01-44 Pratap- Lalganj
1256
Medha-
Pratap- Lalganj Ajhara 268
wan
1254
garh
269
0-01-52
garh
1252
0-11-36
270
1249
0-34-69
0-01-06
271
0-01-13
0-01-64
1250
272
0-02-86 1243
0-17-12
273
0-05-01 1242
316
0-01-96 1238
274
0-07-83 InBet. Svy.
275
0-04-03 No. 1243 & 0-00-67
205
0-01-86 1169(Road)
308
0-15-19
0-05-45
1169
276
0-11-29 1170
0-03-57
206
0-06-02 1168
0-04-93
288
0-10-62 1167
0-03-47
289
0-16-51
0-01-47
1166
0-25-35
291
0-14-37
1171
293
0-09-57 1165
0-00-15
295
0-26-61 1170
0-00-73
637
0-02-27 1177
0-18-02
662
0-01-23 1178
0-21-19
660
0-16-87 1179
0-01-24
630
0-01-01 1180
0-02-82
648
0-07-59 1181
0-18-71
641
0-01-64 1198
0-00-66
639
0-18-40 1199
0-20-79
638
0-01-16
0-08-59
1200
0-27-30
636
0-21-85
1195
634
0-00-79 1197
0-01-26
611
0-25-57 1193
0-15-64
614
0-01-14 Total
6-54-92
606
0-05-68
0-20-52
220
Ramgarh
607/113 0-01-55 Raila
605
0-09-19 221
0-01-46
604
0-09-53
0-21-98
Total
603
0-00-89
756
0-06-01
0-01-18
Ajhara 204
254
912
0-02-91
0-17-67
255
0-00-38
911
0-15-52
910
252
0-02-43
0-00-37 251
0-00-56
909
0-14-04 256
0-05-08
915
0-20-03 257
0-00-55
919
0-38-71 249
0-01-15
918
0-01-23
0-18-86
895
247
0-00-45 267
0-00-28
881
0-16-27 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18 , 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28 , 1927
3
4
5
2
1
1
880
0-00-84
Pratap- Lalganj Ajhara
Pratap-
876
0-05-97
garh
garh
0-00-67
875
0-08-85
874
0-01-72
894
870
0-04-63
0-01-50
882
868
0-00-31
890
0-25-43
869
0-01-81
891
0-06-18
889
0-04-36
888
0-01-53
883
0-20-66
884
5-30-76
Total
007-53
355
Sadar Saray
Devray
0-01-47
InBet. Svy. No. 355& 356(Cart- Track)
0-23-79
356
0-00-37
792
0-29-65
790
0-08-30
789
0-00-73
787
0-24-84
362
786
0-04-03
0-35-38
363
0-33-21
364
754
0-02-02
749
0-01-32
756
0-00-63
0-00-28
755
0-10-28
752
0-01-67
1075
0-00-17
747
0-07-66
-1077
0-05-18
1074
0-00-45
1078
0-05-08
1079
1080
0-09-99
1082
6029
4
2
3
5
0-04-87 Sadar Saray 730
0-00-38
731
Devray
0-01-12
729
0-06-84
728
0-41-58
727
0-04-45
726
0-06-48
725
1093
0-01-64
1092
0-04-21
1094
724
0-10-28
0-00-13
708
0-00-16
1100
1095
0-10-05
0-01-87
1096
0-07-26
1098
0-11-18
1097
0-01-28
1099
0-12-97
1101
3-49-88
Total
0-05-16 Pure- 228
0-17-07 Baishnaba 231
0-04-13
230
0-03-63
232
264
235
234
0-18-47
0-10-93
271
0-03-89
268
0-08-31
272
269
270
0-01-64
InBet. Svy.
0-03-59
No. 270 & 274(Road)
0-16-25 .
274
0-22-07
276
0-00-39
275
0-16-80
277
0-04-18
293
0-14-65
292
0-01-93
285
1-55-49
Total
[F. No. L- 14014/04/2005-G.P. ]
SWAMI SINGH, Director 6030
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2005/ JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
[PART II-SEC. 3(ii)]
नई दिल्ली, 9 जून , 2005
का. आ. 2134.- 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 . 2679 तारीख 19 अक्तूबर 2004, जो भारत के राजपत्र तारीख 23 अक्तूबर, 2004 में प्रकाशित की गई थी , द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में महाराष्ट्र राज्य में लोणी (पुणे) से पकनी (सोलापूर ) तक हज़ारवाडी के रास्ते पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए विस्तार पाइपलाइन परियोजना के माध्यम से हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी ;
और उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ जनता को तारीख 24 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 रिपोर्ट दे दी है ;
और केन्द्रीय सरकार ने , उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात , और यह समाधान हो जाने पर कि उक्त भूमि पाइपलाइन बिछाने के 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 इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट उक्त भूमि में पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाता है :
और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (4) द्वारा प्रदत्तः 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 कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड में निहित होगा ;
अनुसूची
तालुका : हवेली
जिला: पुणे
राज्य: महाराष्ट्र
क्षेत्रफल गाव का नाम
सर्वे नंबर
गट नंबर
उप-खण्ड सं
कम सं.
हेक्टर एयर वर्ग मीटर 1
2
3
4
6
5
7
8 1 कदमवाकवस्ती
173
50
174
64
गट नंबर 173 और
252के बीच में
31
00 06
राष्ट्रीय मार्ग नं. 9
252
00 41
40
गट नंबर 252 और
821 के बीच में
00 05
89
मेटल्ड रास्ता
821
00 11
70
820
00 12
88 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
6031
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18 , 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28, 1927
तालुका : हवेली
राज्य : महाराष्ट्र
जिला: पुणे
सर्वे नंबर
गाव का नाम
मट नंबर कम सं.
3
1
2
4
819 1 कदमवाकवस्ती ( निरंतर )
818
817
816
804
810
806
808
807
768
764
769
771
772
773
849
760
758
615
614
613
606
605
602
599
598
597
590
गट नंबर 2314 और 2 लोनी कालभोर
गाँव सीमा
कदमवाकवस्ती के बीच में मेटल्ड रास्ता
2314
2315
2316
2317
2320
2339
2335
2336
2338
गट नंबर 2338
और 1747/26 के बीच में नाला
क्षेत्रफल
उप-खण्ड सं
हेक्टर एयर वर्ग मीटर 5
6 7 8
00 07
74
40
00 05
60
00 03
10
57
00 05
00 04 50
45
00 09
00 01
11
70
00. 11
00 08 69
11
00 04 92
05
00
65
00 07 55
00 02
71
00 12
60
00 19 84
20
00 16
00
00.09
80
00 08
33
00 06
00 06
55
46
00 06
40
00 09
50
00 13
06
00 05
00 12 40
00 06 30 कुल
02 90 56
00 05 46
00 08 61
25
00 02
02
00
88
26
31
00 16
01
00 02
00 08
47
00 15
76
00 05 05
36
00 03 6032
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2005/ JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii)] तालुका : हवेली
जिला : पुणे
राज्य: महाराष्ट्र
क्षेत्रफल
गाव का नाम
सर्वे नंबर
गट नंबर
उप-खण्ड सं
कम सं.
हेक्टर एयर वर्ग मीटर 2
1
3
4
5
6 7
8
नाला और गट नंबर
2.लोनी कालभोर (निरंतर)
1747/26 के बीच
00 03
34
में अस्फालटेड रास्ता
1747
26
50
00 10
27
00 04
1
1789
2
52
1789
00 04
3
1789
30
00 05
4
00 03
58
1789
00 06
06
1789
5
27
63
1747
00 16
79
00 06
1747
28
00 04
58
1790
1747
00 09 29
29
00 04
98
1791
गट नंबर 1791 के
पास में
98
अस्फालटेड रास्ता
गट नंबर 1.6.99 का
00 00 82
अस्फालटेड रास्ता
00 02
03
1699
00 10
54
1696
1694
00 11 68
40
00
08
1693
गट नंबर 1693 और
1529 के बीच का
07
66
00
गाडी रास्ता
87
00 02
1528
91
00 01
1527
00 01
88
1525
03
00 02
1518
46
00 02
1517
00 15
20
1516
00 11
06
1513
46
00 01
1504
30
00 01
1503
00 01
17
1506
25
1505
00 07
40
1502
22
00 04
1500
00 04
58
1499 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
6033
भारत का राजपत्र: जून18, 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28 , 1927
तालुका: हवेली
जिला: पुणे
माव का नाम
सर्वे नंबर
गट नंबर कम सं.
1
2
3
4
1498 2 लोनी कालभोर (निरंतर)
1497
1496
1494
1487
1484
1482
1480
1476
1475
1474
1473
1472
1471
1470
1464
1463
1454
1452
1451
1449
1431
1430
1429
1428
1427
1426
1420
1411
1410
1400
1401 राज्य : महाराष्ट्र
क्षेत्रफल
उप-खण्ड सं
हेक्टर एयर वर्ग मीटर
6 7
5
8
23
00 01
00 03 48
04
00 03
00 06
82 ब
00 07
15
00 04
50
72
00 05
00 02 01
00 03 24
38
00 02
00 03
10
00 02 39
59
00 04
00 01
50
50
00 10
23
00 03
42
00 03
77
00 03
00 03
4.2
00 C3
35
41
00 06
58
00 05
00 03 91
63
00 03
20
18
00 03
00 03 08
67 00 02
67 00 01
20 00 06
00 03 97
62
गट नंबर 1401 और
00 09 89
1409 के बीच
का निकामी कनाल
1409
1407
1406 00 06 91
43 00 03
85 00 04 6034
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2005/ JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
राज्य: महाराष्ट्र
जिला: पुणे
तालुका : हवेली
क्षेत्रफल
गट नंबर
सर्वे नंबर
गाव का नाम
उप-खण्ड सं
एयर वर्ग मीटर
हेक्टर
कम सं.
4
8 3
6 7
5
1
2
00 08 83
1405
2 लोनी कालभोर (निरंतर)
47
12
00
1202
गट नंबर 1202 और
1198 के बीच का
81
00 25
कनाल
00 14
01
-1198
07
07
00
1197
00 07
48
1196
73
00 06
1194
06 73
00
1192
68
00 04
1191
00 04
65
1190
20
00 04
1188
89
00 04
1187
01
05
00
1186
41
00 04
1184
02
00 07
1180
03
06
00
1178
47
06
00 0006
1177
31
00 05
1176
14
00 04
1175
47
00 03
1169
86
00 07
1168
85
1167
30
00 01
1166
72
00 05
1165
15
00 07
1164
88
00 32
1163
78
00 04
1060
34
00 13
1059
00 06
16
1058
00 05 18
1057
66
00 08
1056
71
00 05
1055
13
00 05
1054
गट नबर 1054
00 01
18
में नाला
गट नंबर 1053
00 07
94
में नाला
12
00 06
1053
31
00 32
1052
35
00 04
1072
15
00 01
1071
36
07 34
कुल 6035 [भाग II- खण्ड3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: जून 18 , 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28, 1927
राज्य: महाराष्ट्र तालुका : हवेली
जिला: पुणे
क्षेत्रफल गाव का नाम
गट नंबर
सर्वे नंबर
उप-अण्ड सं
कम सं.
हेक्टर एयर वर्ग मीटर
4
2
6 7
1
3
5
8 3
आलदी
1188
00 02 70
75
1187
म्हातोबाची (निरंतर)
1125
19
00 44
41
00
1123
28
21
1122
00 29
00 11
1147
52
64
1120
00 12
1100
07
00 15
1094
00 09 01
1092
1090
00
14 14
16
00. 27 22
1089
गट नंबर 1089 और
13
00 02
1084 के बीच में
मेटल्ड रास्ता
46
00 23
1084
00 11 18
1066
43
00 26
1065
00 83 22
1026
93
00 13
1054
87
00 21
1055
00 16
86
938
90
01
04
कुल
[फा. सं. आर-31015/24/2004- ओ.आर-II ]
हरीश कुमार, अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 9th June , 2005
S. O. 2134.- Whereas by notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O. 2679 dated the 19th 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 ofIndia dated the 23rd 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 pipeline for transportation of Petroleum products through Mumbai - Pune PipelineExtension Project from Loni (Pune) to Pakni (Solapur) (Via Hazarwadi ) in the State of Maharashtra by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited;
And whereas copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on the 24 December , 2004;
1714 GI/05-13 6036
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2005 /JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii)] And whereas the competent authority has , under sub- section ( 1 ) of section 6 of the said Act, submitted report to the Central Government ;
And whereas the Central Government , after considering the said report and on being satisfied that the said land is required for laying the pipeline , has decided to acquire the right of usertherein;
1 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 conferredby sub- section (4) of section 6 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby directs that the right of user in the said land for laying the pipeline shall, instead of vesting in the Central Government, vest on the date of publication ofthis declaration, in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited , free from all encumbrances .
SCHEDULE
Taluka : HAVELI
District : PUNE
State : MAHARASHTRA
GatNo.
Survey No.
Sr. No.
Nameof the Village
Sub- Division No. Hectare
Area Are Sq.mt 2
1
3
4
5
6
7
8 1 KADAM WAKWASTI
173
00 00 50
174
00 00 64
00
06 31
NH - 9 in
between Gat No
173& 252
252
00 41 40
00
05 89
Metalled Road in
between Gat No
252& 821
821
00
11 70
820
00 12 88
819
00
07 74
818
00 05 40
817
00
03 60
816
00
00 10
804
00 05 57
810
00 04 50
806
00
09 45
808
00
01
11
807
00
11 70
768
00
08 69
764
00
00
11
769
00 04 92
771
00 05 65
772
00
07 55
773
00 02 71
849
00
12 60
760
00
84
19 6037 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18, 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28 , 1927
District : PUNE
Taluka: HAVELI
State : MAHARASHTRA
GatNo.
Survey No.
Sr. No.
Name of the Village
Area Are
Sub- Division No. Hectare
Sq.mt 1
2
3
4
5
6
7 8
758
00 16 20 1. KADAMWAKWASTI ( Contd ..)
615
00 09 00
614
00
80
08
613
00 06 33
606
00
06 55
605
00
06 46
602
40
00 09
599
00 13 50
598
00 05 06
597
00 12 40
590
00
06 30
02
Total
90 56 2 LONI KALBHOR
00 05 46
Metalled Road in between V.B. of Kadam Vakvasti & GatNo 2314
2314
00 08 61
00
2315-
02 25
2316
00 02 88
2317
00
00 26
2320
00 16 31
02 01
2339
00
2335
00 08 47
2336
15 76
00
2338
05 05
00
Nala in between
00 03 36
GatNo 2338 &
1747/26
00 03 34
Asphalted Road in
between Nala &
GatNo 1747/26
00
1747
26
10 50
00 04 27
1
1789
04 52
2
1789
00
3
00 05 30
1789
00
1789
03 58
4
5
00 06 06
1789
16 63
27
00
1747
1747
00
06 79
28
04 58
1790
00
00
29
29
1747
09
00 04 98
1791
00 98
00
Asphalted Road
adjacent to Gat No
1791
82
00 00
Asphalted Road in
Gat No 1699
6038
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2005 / JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
[PART II- SEC.3 ( ii )] Taluka : HAVELI
District : PUNE
State : MAHARASHTRA
Area
GatNo.
Survey No.
Sr. No.
Sub- Division No. Hectare Are Sq.mt Nameof the Village
4
2
3
6
7
8 1
5
1699
00 02 03 2 LONI KALBHOR ( Contd .)
1696
00 10 54
1694
00 11 68
00
40 08
1693
07 66
CartTrack in
between Gat No
00
1693& 1529
1528
00
02 87
01 91
1527
00
1525
00
01 88
00
02 03
1518
46
1517
00 02
20
1516
15
00
1513
00
06
11
1504
00
01 46
30
1503
00 01
17
1506
00
01
00
1505
00 25
1502
00 07 40
1500
00
04 22
00
1499
58
04
00 01 23
1498
00
1497
03 48
1496
00
03 04
00 06 82
1494
1487
B
00
07 15
1484
00
04 50
1482
00 05 72
1480
00 02 01
1476
00
03 24
00
1475
02 38
1474
00 03 10
1473
00
02 39
1472
00
59
04
1471
50
00
01
1470
00 10 50
1464
00
03 23
00
1463
03. 42
1454
00 03 77
1452
00
03 42 6039
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18, 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28 , 1927
[भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]
State : MAHARASHTRA
District: PUNE
Taluka : HAVELI
GatNo.
Survey No.
Sr. No.
Nameofthe Village
4 2
3
1
1451 2 LONI KALBHOR ( Contd. )
1449
1431
1430
1429
1428
1427
1426
1420
1411
1410
1400
1401
Area
Sub- Division No. Hectare Are Sq.mt
6
7
8 5
03 65
00
06 41
00
00 05 58
03
00
91
00 00 63
03 20
00
00 03 18
08
00 03
67
00
02
00
67
01
00 06 20
00 03 97
00 00 62
00 09 89
Canal (Disused) in
between Gat No
}
1401 & 1409
1409
1407
1406
1405
1202
00
06 91
00
03 43
00 04 85
00 08 83
00
12 47
Canal in between
GatNo
1202& 1198 .
1198
1197
1196
1194
1192
1191
1190
1188
1187
1186
1184
00 25 81
14 01
00
07 07
00
00 07 48
73
00 06
06 73
00
04 68
00
65
00 04
04 20
00
04 89
00
00 05 01
04 41
00 6040
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2005 / JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
Taluka : HAVELI
District : PUNE
GatNo.
Survey No.
Sr. No.
Nameof the Village
2
1
3
4
1180 2 LONI KALBHOR ( Contd . )
1178
1177
1176
1175
1169
1168
1167
1166
1165
1164
1163
1060
1059
1058
1057
1056
1055
1054
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii )] State : MAHARASHTRA Sub-
Area
Division No.
Are
Hectare
Sq.mt 5
6
7
8
00
07 02
00
06 03
00 06 47
00 05 31
00
04 14
00
47
03
00
07 86
00 00 85
00 01 30
00
05 72
00
07
15
00
32 88
00
04 78
00
13 34
00
06 16
00
05 18
00
08 66
00
05 71
00
05 13
00
Nala in Gat No 1054
01 18
Nala in Gat No 1053
1053
1052
1072
1071 3
1188
1187 ALANDI (MHATOBACHI )
1125
1123
1122
1147
1120
1100
1094
1092
1090
00
07 94
00
06 12
00
32 31
00 04 35
00
01 15 Total
07
34 36
00 02 70
00 00 75
00
44 19
00
28 41
00
21
29
00
11 52
00
12 64
00 15 07
00
09 01
00
00 02
00
22 14 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18 , 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28 , 1927
Taluka : HAVELI
6041
District : PUNE
GatNo.
Survey No.
Sr. No.
Nameofthe Village
2
1
3
4 3
ALANDI
1089 (MHATOBACHI ) (Contd . )
State : MAHARASHTRA
Area
Are Sq.mt Sub- Division No. Hectare
5
6
7、 8
00
27 16
00
02 13
Metalled Road in
between Gat No
1089& 1084
1084
1066
1065
1026
1054
1055
938
00 23 46
00 11 18
26 43
00
00 83 22
00 13 93
00 21 87
00
16 86 Total
04 01 90 [No. R-31015/24/2004-O.R. - II ] HARISH KUMAR , Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 13 जून, 2005
का. आ. 2135. - केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि महाराष्ट्र राज्य में लोणी से पकनी तक हज़ारवाडी के रास्ते पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा एक विस्तार पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए;
और केन्द्रीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी भूमि में जो इस से 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;
व 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 (लोध्मी से पकनी तक हज़ारवाडी के रास्ते) हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, मेगा सेंटर , मागरपट्टा, एम एन विंग , हादापसर 411 028 , जिला पुणे, महाराष्ट्र को लिखित रुप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा । 6042
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2005 / JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii )]
अनुसूची
तालूका : उ . सोलापुर
राज्य : महाराष्ट्र
जिल्हा: सोलापुर
क्षेत्रफल गाव का बाम
सर्वे नंबर
गट नंबर
उप-खण्ड सं.
कम सं.
वर्ग
हेक्टर एयर मीटर 1
2
3
4
5
6 7
8 1
पकणी
54
00 08 82
58
00 16 02
39
00 10
32
104
84
107
00 06
78
132
00 09 05
131.
00
46
04
137
00 13
14
141
00 07 05
142
00 01
96
146
00 06 06
162
00 05 25
00 89 75
[फा. सं, आर-31015/33/2004- ओ.आर- । ]
हरीश कुमार, अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 13th June , 2005
S. O. 2135.-Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum products from Loni to Pakni via Hazarwadi in the State of Maharashtra , an extension pipelineshould 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 Rightof User in Land) Act , 1962 (50 of 1962) , the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;
Any person, interested in the land described in the said Schedule , may , within twenty one days from the date on which copies of the Gazette of India containing this notification are made available to the public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying thepipeline under the land to Shri S.N.Kundetkar, Competent Authority , Mumbai -Pune Pipeline Extension Project ( from Loni to Pakni via Hazarwadi ) , Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. , Mega Center , Magarpatta , M& N Wing , Hadapsar- 411028 (Pune District) , Maharashtra State.
6043
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18, 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28 , 1927
[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
SCHEDULE
District : SOLAPUR
Taluka : N. SOLAPUR
GatNo.
Survey No.
Sr. No.
Name ofthe Village
2
4
3
1
1
PAKNI
54
58
39
104
107
132
131
137
141
142
146
162. State : MAHARASHTRA
Area
Sub-Division No. Hectare Are Sq.mt 5
6 7 8
00 08 82
00 16 02
00 10 32
00 00 84
00 06 78
00 09 05
00 04 46
14
13
00
00 07 05
00 01 96
00 06 06
00 05 25
00 89 75 [No. R-31015/33/2004- O.R. -II ] HARISH KUMAR , Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 13 जन, 2005
का. आ. 2136.- 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 कंहा 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 . 2731 तारीख 26 अक्तूवर 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 लोणी (पुणे) से पकनी (सोलापूर ) तक हजारवाडी के रास्ते पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए विस्तार पाइपलाइन 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 घोषणा की थी ; और उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियां जनता को तारीख 4 जनवरी , 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, उसनें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने का विनिश्चिय किया है ; अत्तः अव , केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह घोपणा करती है कि इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट उक्त भूमि में पाइपलाइन विछाने के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाता है ;
और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (4 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह निदेश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख से केन्द्रीबू सरकार में निहित होने की वजाए , सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त, हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड में निहित होगा ;
1714 GI /05-14 6044
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2005/ JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]
अनुसूची
तालूका : उ . सोलापुर
राज्य : महाराष्ट्र
जिल्हा: सोलापुर
क्षेत्रफल गाव का नाम
सर्वे नंबर
गट नंबर उप-खण्ड सं .
कम सं.
हेक्टर एयर वर्ग मीटर 1
2
3
4
6
5
8
7
1
पकणी
गट नंबर 53 और
गाँव सीमा विरखडे
40
खुर्द के बीच में
गाडी रास्ता
53
82
C5 26
54
00 06 48
55
00 07 12
56
00 08 79
57
00 16 02
58
13
गट नंबर 57 और
32के बीच में
36
00 11
नंनज नाला
46
00 27 70
52
00 20 66
51
00 15 63
50
37
46
63
47
33
00 29
45
00 20 06
गट नंबर 45 और
102 के बीच की
57
00 04
भूमि
102
00 11 43
103
73
00 08
104
03
00
30
106
00 06 25
108
00 34 08
107
78
00 09
134
00 09 65
135
40
00 04
136
07 85
00
137
04
00 16
141
51
142
36
00 02 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ] .
6045 भारत का राजपत्र: जून 18, 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28, 1927
तालूका : उ . सोलापुर
राज्य : महाराष्ट्र
जिल्हा: सोलापुर
क्षेत्रफल गाव का नाम
सर्वे नंबर
गट नंबर उप-खण्ड सं.
कम सं.
हेक्टर एयर वर्ग मीटर 1
2
3
4
5
6
8
7
1
153
पकणी (निरंतर)
00 00 93
144
00 1.1 45
145
00 21 07
146
00 10 14
157
00 17 02
158
00 20 59
162
00 14 55
गट नंबर 162 के
00 02 55
बीच में
अस्फालटेड रास्ता
कुल
04 08 75
[फा. सं. आर-31015/33/2004-ओ.आर- II ]
हरीश कुमार, अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 13th June , 2005
S. O. 2136.- Whereas by notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Naturai Cas nmber S.O. 2731 dated the 26th 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 referredto as the said Act) , publisheci 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 pipeline for transportation of petroleum products through Mumbai -Pune PipelineExtension Project from Loni (Pune ) to Pakni (Solapur) via Hazarwadi ) in the State of Maharashtra by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited;
And whereas copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on the 4th January, 2005;
Andwhereas the competent authority has , under sub- section ( 1 ) of section 6 of the said Act, submitted report to the Central Government;
And whereas the Central Government , after considering the said report and on being satisfied that the said land is required for laying the pipeline , has decided to acquire the right of user therein;
Now therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of section 6 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that the right of user in the said land specified in the Schedule is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline;
6046
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18, 2005 /JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
[PART II-SEC . 3( ii) ] And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section (4) of section 6 of the saidAct , the Central Government hereby directs that the right of user in the said land for laying the pipeline shall , instead of vesting in the Central Government, vest on the date of publication of this declaration , in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited , free from all encumbrances .
SCHEDULE
Taluka : N. SOLAPUR
District : SOLAPUR
GatNo.
Survey No.
Sr. No.
Narne of the Village
2
1
3
4 1
PAKNI
CartTrack in between V.B. of Virvade Khurd & Gat No 53
53
54
55
56
57
58 State : MAHARASHTRA
Area
Are Sq.mt Sub- Division No. Hectare
6
8 5
7
00 00 40
82
00 26
48
00 06
00 07 12
00 08 79
00 16 02
00 00 13
Nannaj Nala in
GatNo
57& 32
46
52
51
50
46
47
45
00
36
11
00
70
27
00 20 66
00 15 63
00 00 37
00 00 63
00 29 33
00 20 06
Area in between
GatNo
00 04 57
45& 102
102
103
104
106
108
107
134
135
136
137
141
142
00 11 43
00 08 73
00 03 30
00 06 25
00 34 08
00 09 78
00 09 65
00 04 40
00 07 85
00 16 04
00 00 51
00
36
02 6047
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18 , 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28, 1927
[भाग II- खंण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
State : MAHARASHTRA
District: SOLAPUR
Taluka : N. SOLAPUR
Area
GatNo.
Survey No.
Are Sq.mt Sr. No.
Sub- Division No. Hectare
Name of the Village
8
7
5
6.
4
3
1
2
00 00 93
153
1 PAKNI ( Contd. )
45
11
00
144
00 21 07
145
14
10
00
146
02
17
00
157
00 20 59
158
55
14
00
162
55
02
00
Asphalted Road in
08 75
04
Total
[No. R- 31015/33/2004- O.R. -II ] HARISH KUMAR, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 14 जून , 2005
का. आ. 2137.- केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि मुन्द्रा (गुजरात) से दिल्ली तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए ;
और केन्द्रीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक 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 शिवदत्त गौड़ , सक्षम प्राधिकारी, मुन्द्रा-दिल्ली पेट्रोलियम उत्पाद पाइपलाइन, हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, डी-7 , लालबहादुर नगर ( पूर्व ), क्लार्क्स आमेर होटल के सामने, जवाहरलाल नेहरु मार्ग , मालवीय नगर , जयपुर -302017 (राजस्थान ) को लिखित रुप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा । 6048
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2005 /JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]
अनुसूची
तहसील : अजमेर
जिला: अजमेर
राज्य: राजस्थान
क्षेत्रफल
क्रम सं.
गाँव का नाम
खसरा सं.
हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग मीटर 1
2
3
4
5
6
1. सराधना
5517/1 (स.भूमि)
0
02
10
5517/2
5518
0
01
00
5521
0
00
36
5523
0
00
46
5533
0
00
41
5532
0
02
02
5528
0
00
17
5539
0
00
71
5540
0
00
36
5544
0
00
12
5446
0
00
20
5447
0
05
99
5432
0
00
36
5433/1
02
20
5433/2
} 。
5421
0
00
18
5420
0
02
17
0
00
27
5415(पी.डब्ल्यू.डी. सड़क)
5394
0
01
73
1094
0
00
36
1091
0
00
71
1105
0
00
10
1106
0
01
05
1107
0
01
05
1109
0
00
17
1134
0
00
34
1128
0
00
04
0
00
17
1182(पी.डब्ल्यू.डी.सड़क)
0
00
16
1183 (पी.डब्ल्यू.डी. सड़क)
1210
0
01
72
1224
0
00
20
1212
0
00
24
1226
0
00
50
1225
0
02
54
1222
0
01
35
1239
0
01
90
1243
0
00
19 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
6049
भारत का राजपत्र: जून 18 , 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28 , 1927
जिला : अजमेर
तहसील : अजमेर
क्रम सं.
गाँव का नाम
खसरा सं.
1
2
3
1279 1. सराधना (जारी...)
राज्य: राजस्थान
क्षेत्रफल
हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग मीटर 4
5
6
0
00
25
0
01
08
1267(स.पाल)
1287
1376
1512
1514
1524
1525
1526 0
00
95
0
00
14
0
00
54
0
00
76
40
00
0
00
17
0
00
31
0
00
22
1528 (स.भूमि)
0
02
49
1710 (स.बरडा)
1727
1728
1732
1738
1760
4652
4679
4680
4681
4620
4687
4694
4746
4747
4784
4820 0
00
11
0
04
97
0
00
52
0
00
30
0
00
29
0
00
95
0
00
40
0
00
17
0
00
33
0
00
74
0
00
28
0
00
08
0
01
43
0
01
15.
0
02
39
0
01
34
0
00
38
4840 (स.बरडा)
4839
4848
4855
4858
4859
25 2. मियांपुर
17
16
28
27
66मिन
66मिन 0
01
31
00
0
58
0
00
82
0
00
06
0
01
33
0
00
31
0
07
20
0
00
20
0
00
56
0
00
58
00
97
。
} 6050
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2005/ JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]
जिला : अजमेर
तहसील : अजमेर
राज्य : राजस्थान
क्षेत्रफल
क्रम सं.
गाँव का नाम
वर्ग मीटर
हेक्टेयर
खसरा सं.
एयर
2
4
1
3
5
6
70
0
01
31 2. मियांपुर (जारी... )
0
00
27
57(स.बरहा)
361
00
0
53
0
360
01
08
0
359
03
17
0
00
14
315(स.रास्ता)
352
0
01
60
0
353
01
24
0
332
00
32
334
0
00
27
0
01
97
638(स.आबादी)
601
0
00
44
0
557
00
18
0
556
02
06
554
0
07
06
0
551
00
54
03
550
0
72
549
05
0
04 3. ककलाना
100
0
05
20
0
104
07
13
97
0
07
13
96
0
03
56
0
95
92
03
115
0
08
91
125
0
02
16
0
124
00
64
0
126
01
78
0
123
01
88
0
122
03
88
129
01
0
87
0
128
11
24
0
145
02
33
0
146
09
38
153
0
00
84
154
0
37
12
0
158
65
01
159
0
05
48
0
218
01
46
160
0
10
15
0
00
23
188(स.रास्ता)
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
6051
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18, 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28 , 1927
तहसील : अजमेर
जिला : अजमेर
सं.
गाँव का नाम
खसरा सं.
1
2
3
191 3. ककलाना (जारी...)
203
469
469/1
469/2
466
457
442
441
430 राज्य: राजस्थान
क्षेत्रफल
हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग मीटर 4
5
6
0
01
19
0
00
37
0
15
0
00
14
0
01
14
0
00
16
0
00
16
60
07
0
00
71
556/1600 (स.बरडा)
631
628
623 0
100
48
0
00
20
0
00
50
623/1 (स.भूमि)
623/2 0
00
74
731(स.आबादी)
723(स.बरहा)
723मिन 04
33
。
}
0
01
52
1358(स. बरहा)
1366
1366/1
1366/2
1386
1388
1389
1568
1568/1 0
01
47
}
01
0
60
44
0
01
06
06
0
05
1568/2
{
0
03
34
1573(स.माला)
0
00
81
1575(स .बरहा)
4. लच्छीपुरा
430(स.बरडा)
430
219/1
219/2
221
248
250 0
04
24
}
00
12
} 。
0
00
39
0
00
46
0
00
06
0
00
34
249(स .रास्ता)
322 1714 G1/05-15
0
00
23 6052
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2005 / JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] तहसील : अजमेर
जिला: अजमेर
राज्य : राजस्थान
क्षेत्रफल
क्रम सं.
गाँव का नाम
खसरा सं.
हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग मीटर 1
2
4
3
5
6 4.
324
0
लच्छीपुरा (जारी...)
00
35
311
0
00
84
310
0
00
62
00
23
०
298 मिन (ग्रा.पं. आबादी)
298/1 (स. बरडा)
5. बलवंता
0
00
97
573(स. बरडा)
572
0
00
17
578
0
00
26
579
0
00
63
00
57
०
593 मिन (स.भूमि)
593मिन
0
00
16
592(स. बरडा)
0
00
45
652(स.भूमि)
0
00
25
2122(स.बरडा)
2105
0
00
38
1983
0
00
35
0
00
30
1981 (स. रास्ता)
0
00
77
1843(स.बरहा)
0
01
50
1867 (स.भूमि)
1893
0
00
87
1896
00
54
1897
00
54
1904
0
00
05
1905
0
00
45
1883
0
00
31
1655
0
00
41
1658
0
00
37
1657
0
00
20
1654
0
00
85
0
00
35
1606(स.भूमि)
0
00
16
1605 (स.भूमि)
1596
0
00
65
1597
0
00
09
1564
0
01
26 6. जाटिया
0
00
69
1564(स.भूमि)
1576
0
00
51
0
00
39
1562(स.रास्ता)
1559
0
00
13
0
1551
01
33
610
0
00
08 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
6053
भारत का राजपत्र: जून 18, 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28 , 1927
तहसील : अजमेर
जिला : अजमेर
राज्य : राजस्थान
क्षेत्रफल
क्रम सं.
गाँव का नाम
हेक्टेबर
वर्ग मीटर
एवर
1
2
3
4
5
6 6. जाटिया (जारी...)
1715
0
00
16
1715मिन (स.भूमि)
175मिम
1714
0
00
26
1706
0
00
48
1710
0
01
07
00
17
1692(स.भूमि)
16922 )
} ०
1669
0
00
05
1677
0
01
17
1816
0
00
38
1857
0
00
63
0
1858
00
14
0
2169
00
06
2173
0
00
61
2156
0
00
83
2157
0
40
00
2154
0
02
80
2147
0
01
30
2146
0
01
44
2045
0
00
04
2044
00.
15
2044मिन
2044मिन
} 。
2042
0
00
48
0
00
34
2036 (स. रास्ता)
2035
0
00
20
2034
0
00
41
0
00
31
2032(स.भूमि)
0
00
80
2353(स.भूमि)
2007
0
21
00
2007दिल भूमि)
2007मिन (स. )
7. दांता
2161
0
69
00
2162
0
01
03
2165
0
00
18
2166
0
00
05
2042
0
00
68
0
00
40
2039(स. बरडा)
0
2198
00
32 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18.20/JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
[PART II-SEC. 3( ii)] 6054
अजमेर
राज्य : राजस्थान
तहसील : अजमेर
क्षेत्रफल
वर्ग मीटर
खसरा सं.
एयर
हेक्टेयर
क्रम सं.
गाँव का नाम
4
5
6
3
2
0
-00
07
2199
दांता (जारी...)
7.
0
00
10
2211
0
12
00
4644
8. बीर
0
29
01
4645
0
00
53
4653
0
20
00
4655
[फा. सं. आर-31015/74/2004- ओ.आर- ॥
हरीश कुमार, अवर सचिव्ह New Delhi , the 14th June , 2005
S. O. 2137.-Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum products from Mundra (Gujarat) to Delhi , a pipeline should be laid by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited;
And whereas it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying such pipeline , it is necessary to acquire the right of user in land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is described in the Schedule annexed hereto;
Now, therefore, in exercise of powers conferred by sub- section ( 1 ) of section 3 ofthe 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 usertherein;
Any person , interested in the land described in the said Schedule, may, within twenty one days from the date on which copies of the Gazette of India containing this notification are made available to the public , object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri Shivdutt Gaur, Competent Authority, Mundra-Delhi Petroleum Product Pipeline, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, D- 7, Lal Bahadur Nagar ( East ) , Opp . Clarks Amer Hotel , Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur- 302017 ( Rajasthan) 6055
धारत का राजपत्र : जून 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28, 1927
[भाग 11-खण्ड (1) ]
SCHEDULE
State : RAJASTHAN
District : AMER
Təhsil : AJMER
Sr. No.
Khasara No. Name of the Village
3 1
2
1. SARADHANA
Area
Hectare Are Sq.mtr. 4
6
5
5517/1 (CL)
5517/2
5518
5521
5523
5533
5532
5528
5539
5540
5544
5446
5447
5432
5433/1
5433/2
5421
5420 0
02
10
01 00
0
0
00
36
00
46
0
00 41
0
02 02
0
00
17
0
00
71
0
36
00
0
12
00
0
20
00
0
05
99
0
00
36
02 20
。
مله }
0
00
18
02
0
17
0
27
00
5415(P.W.D . Road)
5394
1094
1091
1105
1106
1107
1109
1134
1128 0
01
73
0
00
36
00
71
0
0
10
00
01
0
05
0
01
05
0
17
00
0
00
34
0
00 04
0
00
17
1182( P.W.D . Road)
0
00
16.
1183(P.W.D . Road)
1210
1224
1212
1226
1225
1222
1239
1243 0
01
72
0
00
20
24
0
00
00
50
0
0
02
54
0
01
35
01
0
90
0
00
19 6056
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2005/ JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
Tehsil : AJMER
District : AJMER Sr. No.
Khasara No. Name of the Village
1
2
3
1279 1. SARADHANA ( Contd ... )
[PART II-SEC. 3( ii) ] State : RAJASTHAN Area
Hectare Are Sq.mtr .
4
5
6
0
00
25
0
01
08
1267(G/L Pal)
1287
1376
1512
1514
1524
1525
1526 0
00 95
0
00
14
0
00
54
0
00
76
0
00
40
0
00
17
0
00
31
0
00
22
1528(G/L)
0
02
49
1710(G/ L Barda)
1727
1728
1732
1738
1760
4652
4679
4680
4681
4620
4687
4694
4746
4747
4784
4820 0
00
11
0
04 97
0
00
52
0
00
30
0
00 29
0
00 95
0
00
40
0
00 17
00
0
33
0
00
74
0
00 28
0
00
08
0
01
43
0
01
15
0
02
39
0
01
34
0
00
38
4840(G / L Barda )
4839
4848
4855
4858
4859 2. MIYANPUR
25
17
16
28
27
66Min
66Min 0
01
31
0
00
58
0
00
82
0
00
06
0
01
33
0
31
00
07
20
0
00
20
0
00
56
0
00
58
97
0
} [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
6057
भारत का राजपत्र : जून18, 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28 , 1927
Tehsil : AJMER
District : AJMER
Sr. No.
Khasara No. Name of the Village
1
3
2
70 2. MIYANPUR ( Contd ... )
State : RAJASTHAN Area
Are Sq.mtr. Hectare
4
5
6
0
31
01
0
00 27
57(G/L Barda)
361
360
359 0
00
53
0
01 08
0
03 17
00
0
14
315(G/L Cart Track)
352
353
332
334 0
01 60
0
01 24
0
00
32
0
00
27
0
01
97
638(G/L Abadi)
601
557
556
554
551
550
549 3. KAKLANA
100
104
97
96
95
115
125
124
126
123
122
129
128
145
146
153
154
158
159
218
160 0
00 44
0
00
18
0
02 06
0
07
06
0
00 54
0
03
72
0
05 04
0
05
20
0
07
13
0
07
13
0
03 56
0
03- 92
0
08 91
0
02
16
0
00
64
0
01
78
0
01
88
0
03 88
0
01
87
0
11
24
0
02 33
0
09
38
0
00
84
0
12
37
0
01
65
0
05
48
0
01
46
0
10
15
0
00
23
188(G/L Cart Track)
6058
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2005/ JYAISTHA 28, 1927
[ PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii)]
State : RAJASTHAN
District : AJMER
Tehsil : AJMER
Area
Sr
Khasara No.
Hectare Are Sq.mtr. Name of the Village
6
2
4
5
3
0
01
191
19
3. KAKLANA ( Contd ... )
0
37
203
00
469
0
00 15
469/1
469/2
466
0
00 14
0
01
14
457
00
0
442
16
441
0
00
16
0
00 07
438
0
00
71
556/1600(G / L Barda)
00
631
0
48
20
00
628
0
623
0
00
50
623/1(G/L)
623/2
74
0
00
731(G/L Abadi )
723(G/L Barda)
04 33
。
}
723Min
0
01
52
1358(G/L Barda)
1366
0
47
01
1366/1 }
1366/2
60
01
1386
0
0
00
44
1388
0
06
01
1389
1568
06
05
0
1568/1
1568/2
03 34
0
1573 (G/L Nala)
0
00
81
1575(G/L Barda)
4. LACHHIPURA
430(G/L Barda)
24
0
04
430Min(G/P Abadi)
219/1
0
00
12
219/2
39
221
0
00
46
0
00
248
0
06
00
250
0
34
00
249(G/L Cart Track)
00
23
322 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
6059
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18, 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28 , 1927
District : AJMER
Tehsil : AJMER
State: RAJASTHAN
Area
Sr. No.
Khasara No.
Are
Hectare
Name of the Village
Sq.mtr.
3
4
6 1
2
5
324
0
00 35 4. LACHHIPURA ( Contd ... )
0
00
311
84
310
0
00
62
00 23
0
298Min(G/PAbadi )
298/1 (G/L Barda)
0
00
5. BALVANTA
97
573(G/LBarda)
0
572
00
17
0
578
00 26
00
0
579
63
593Min(G/L)
00
57
} 。
593Min
0
00 16
592(G/L Barda)
0
00 45
652(G/L)
0
00
25
2122(G/L Barda)
0
00
2105
38
0
00
1983
35
0
30
00
1981 (G/L Cart Track)
0
00
77
1843(G/L Barda)
0
01
50
1867(G/L)
0
1893
00
87
0
00
1896
54
0
1897
00
54
1904
0
00
05
0
1905
00 45
0
00
1883
31
0
00
41
1655
00
1658
0
37
0
1657
00 20
0
1654
00 85
0
00
35
1606(G/L)
0
00
16
1605(G/L)
1596
0
00
65
0
00
1597
09
01
0
26
1564
0
00
69 6. JATIYA
1564(G/L)
1576
0
00
51
00
0
39
1562(G/L Cart Track)
0
1559
00
13
0
1551
01
33
0
00
08
1610
1714 G1/05-16 6060
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2005 / JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii)]
District : AJMER
Tehsil : AJMER
State : RAJASTHAN
Area
Sr. No.
Are
Khasara No.
Hectare
Name of the Village
Sq.mtr.
3
4
2
5
6
1
1715
6. JATIYA ( Contd...)
0
00
16
1715Min(G/L)
1715Min
00
0
26
1714
0
1706
00
48
0
1710
01
07
1692(G/L)
00
17
} 。
1692Min(G/L)
0
00
1669
05
1677.
0
01
17
0
00
38
1816
0
00
1857
63
1858
0
00
14
0
00
06
2169
2173
0
00
61
2156
0
00
83
0
2157
00
40
2154
0
02
80
0
2147
01
30
2146
0
01
44
0
00
2045
04
2044
0
00
15
2044Min
2044Min
0
2042
00
48
0
00
34
2036(G/L Cart Track)
0
2035
00
20
00
2034
0
41
0
00
31
2032(G/L)
0
00
80
2353 (G/L)
2007
00
0
21
2007Min(G/L)
}
2007Min(G /L)
2161
0
00
7. DANTA
69
2162
0
01
03
2165
0
00
18
0
2166
00
05
0
2042
00
68
0
00
40
2039(G/L Barda)
0
00
32
2198 6061
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18, 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28 , 1927
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
Tehsil : AJMER
District : AJMER
State : RAJASTHAN
Area Sr. No.
Khasara No.
Hectare Are
Name of the Village
Sq.mtr. 2
3
4
6 1
5
0
00 07
2199
7. DANTA ( Contd... )
0
00 10
2211
12
0
00
8. BEER
4644
4645
0
01 29
53
0
00
4653
20
0
4655
00
[No. R- 31015/74/2004- O.R. - II ] HARISH KUMAR , Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 14 जून , 2005
का. आ. 2138.- केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि मुन्द्रा (गुजरात) से दिल्ली तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए ;
और केन्द्रीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी भूमि में, जो इससे उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित है, जिसमें उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने का प्रस्ताव है, उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए ;
अतः अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम, 1962 (1962 का 50) की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , उस भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है ;
कोई व्यक्ति , जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है, उस तारीख से जिसको इस अधिसूचना से युक्त भारत के राजपत्र की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के लिए उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के सम्बन्ध में श्री शिवदत्त गौड़, सक्षम प्राधिकारी , न्द्रा-दिल्ली पैट्रोलियम उत्पाद पाइपलाइन , हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, डी-7 लालबहादुर लगर ( पूर्व ), क्लार्क्स आमेर होटल के सामने, जबाहरलाल नेहरु मार्ग , मालवीय नगर , अयपुर-302017 (राजस्थान) को लिखित रुप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा । 6062
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2005 / JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]
अनुसूची
जिला : पाली
तहसील : रायपुर
राज्य : राजस्थान
क्षेत्रफल
गाँव का नाम
खसरा सं .
हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग मीटर 1
2
3
4
5
6
521
1. चावण्डीया खुर्द
0
04
67
520
00
95
520/1
0
00
10
519(स.वाली)
518
0
00
28
540
02
08
}
540/1
00
37
525(स. चारागाह)
524
0
00
15
0
01
58
502(स. रास्ता)
0
00
08
462(स.रास्ता)
01
62
407(स.भूमि)
390
0
01
95
C
389
55
00
388
0
00
04
373
0
91
01
0
372
00
32
339
0
00
17
340
0
00
38
0
00
18
330(स.वाली)
328
0
00
24
327
0
37
01
63
0
01
288(स.वाली)
297
0
07
11
301
0
00
98 2. खीवल
0
02
75
2751 (स.थरड़ा)
2749
0
00
96
2750
0
19
04
0
2746
07
30
2736
0
00
37
0
00
66
2729(स.वाली)
2602
0
01
82
0
00
11
2603(स.वाली)
2618
0
04
74
2626
0
04
22
2632
0
00
89
2644
0
01
79
2643
0
01
00 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18 , 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28 , 1927
6063
जिला: पाली
तहसील: रायपुर
क्रम सं.
गाँव का नाम
खसरा सं.
1
2
3
2656 2. खीवल (जारी...)
राज्य: राजस्थान
क्षेत्रफल
हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग मीटर 4
5
6
0
02
01
0
01
06
2660 (स.रास्ता)
2516
2514
2511
2509
2512 3. मोहरा खुर्द
0
00
91
0
00
91
0
01 04
0
01
12
0
00
61
0
02
14
119 (स.भूमि)
117 0
56
03
0
00
20
110(स.वाली)
20
15
23 0
01
28
0
00
91
0
00
12
0
09
00
14(स.वाली)
12
1 4. लवाचा
0
01
21
0
03
75
0
00
94
268(स.भूमि)
252
236
237
220/1
45
38
39
68मिन 5. दीपावास
40 0
82
00
0
00
12
0
03
30
0
00
20
0
29
85
0
00
92
0
0.0
34
0
00
87
0
0.3
11.
0
05
65
64(स.नदी)
474/64/1 0
63
0
00
489/64
20
467/64
286
294
131
130
138
135
139
142
149
151 0
67
21
0
00
18
0
00
72
0
01
51
0
04
79
0
0.2
18
0
05
00
0
46
00
0
00
36
0
18
01
00
0
86 6064
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2005/ JYAISTHA 28, 1927
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)]
जिला: पाली
तहसील: रायपुर
राज्य : राजस्थान
क्षेत्रफल
क्रम सं.
गाँव का नाम
हेक्टेयर
खसरा सं.
एयर वर्ग मीटर 2
3
4
6
5
0
57 5. दीपावास (आरी... )
161मिन 01
01
161मिन02
05
11
0
170 (स.भूमि)
0
05
79
174(स.भूमि)
0
175
00
13
0
86
00
6. रायपुर
1025(स.पहाड़)
0
1021
01
69
1017
0
02
26
60
0
7. मेगदड़ा
00
13
27
0
00
19
30
00
24
0
0
31
00
84
21
0
04
11
23
0
00
31
1
0
52
00
0
2
02
58 8. माकडवाली
03
33
0
48
34
00
10
0
36
0
01
90
49
0
00
09
0
00
54
90
56
0.
00
99
0
62
01
04
0
70
13
01
78
0
00
42
0
79
56
00
9. दार
0
592
01
65
0
598
18
00
685
0
01
30
682
0
00
51
709
0
01
00
0
62
01
738मिन
111/2
01
71
0
50
00
114
0
115
28
00
0
00
46
145(स.रास्ता)
0
148
22
00
0
61
147
00
0
86
152
00 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii ) ]
6065
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18, 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28, 1927
जिला : पाली
तहसील: रायपुर
क्रम सं.
गाँव का नाम
खसरा सं.
1
2
3
237 9. बर (जारी...)
257
262
277
279 राज्य : राजस्थान
क्षेत्रफल
हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग मीटर 4
5
6
0
01
29
01
0
51
0
00
39
0
00 49
0
09
00
0
00
41
295(पी.डब्ल्यू. डी.सड़क)
10. बिराटिया कलां
1019
1005
1001
976 0
01
36
0
00
25
0
00
10
0
00
95
00
17
0
971(स.रास्ता)
0
00
25
968(स.रास्ता)
0
932मिन0
02
11
932मिन 01
922
928
835
750 11. बिराटिया खुर्द
701
695
53
56 }
0
13
31
0
00
31
48
0
00
0
02
00
0
00
17
0
01
81-
0
10
77
0
00
09
0
96
00
55(स.रास्ता)
69
86
230 0
01
03
0.
02
66
0
04
06
0
07
11
228(स.वाली)
118
122
123
124 0
01
88
0
00
28
0
00
60
0
00
08
206/2132
0
00
20
0
00
33
205(स.वाली)
200
201 0
36
02
0
03
05
0
00
07
191 (स,वाली)
188
291
'290
289 0
05
22
0
00
20
0
00
23
0
00
21 6066
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2005/ JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]
जिला : पाली
तहसील: रायपुर
राज्य: राजस्थान
क्षेत्रफलं
क्रम सं.
गाँव का नाम
खसरा सं.
हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग मीटर 1
2
4
5
3
6
0
293
00
50 11. बिराटिया खुर्द (जारी...)
0
294
01
85
0
00
71
310(स.वाली)
0
311
00
84
317
0
05
70
0
02
74
316(स.चट्टान)
315
0
00
8-4
0
272
08
23 12.गिरी
0
1333
02
13
0
01
34
1339 (स.रास्ता)
1298
0
01
51
1295
0
32
03
0
1276
00
26
1279
0
00
37
0
00
49
1372(स . नदी)
0
01
22
1376(स. थरहा)
:
1402
0
15
95
0
1421
01
00
0
00
11
1198 (स.रास्ता)
0
1458
02
40
0
00
1139
47
0
00
81
1140 (स. नदी)
0
1141
00
17
0
1142
01
52
0
45
00
926(स.रास्ता)
906
0
02
01
0
04
34
312(स.नदी)
0
82
15
248(स.नदी)
0
270
03
54
271
0
00
72
0
00
34
285
286
0
02
25
287
0
01
79
0
03
51
313(स.रास्ता)
489
0
03
41
13. नारपुरा
482
0
00
16
481
0
00
78
474
00
0
73
475
02
42 6067 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: जून 18 , 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28 , 1927
जिला: पाली
तहसील: रायपुर
राज्य : राजस्थान
क्षेत्रफल
सं.
गाँव का नाम
जसरा सं.
हेक्टेयर
वर्ग मीटर
एयर
2
3
4
5
6
466
0
00
79 13. मारपुरा (जारी...)
466/1
462
01
0.
05
0
89
00
436
0
455
00
36
437
0
20
06
448/6
0
01
00
448/7
0
00
50
422/3
0
02
79
0
401
53
00
0
00
42
391 (स.नदी)
14. रामावास
470
0
00
58
468
0
75
476
0
00
18
0
01
00
479(स.भूमि)
0
00
42
401 (स. रास्ता)
15. बाबरा
0
03
65
1870 (सं.पहाड़)
1871
0
03
27
1805
0
01
29
0
0.1
11
1800(स.वाला)
0
1732
01
19
1731
0
01
69
1739
0
02
08
1743
0
00
14
1747
0
00
43
1770
0
27.
75
17.53
0
00
26
0
00
1754
03
0
03
30
1765
01
0
00
1764
0
1756
02
18
0.
2227
12
03
2232
0
03
00
0
00
80
2235
00
0
56
2239 (स.रास्ता)
0
0.3
2244
0.1
2266
0
00
80
2269
0
01
94
0
2271
51
01
0
00
89
2272(स.रास्ता)
1714 GI/05-17 6068
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2005 / JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]
जिला: पाली
तहसील : रायपुर
राज्य: राजस्थान
क्षेत्रफल
क्रम सं.
गाँव का नाम
खसरा सं.
हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग मीटर 1
2
3
4
5
6
1686
0
16. गोपालपुरा
01
89
1685
0
02
65
0
00
44
1683 (स.पहाड़)
1644
0
02
49
0
93
74
1696 (स.वि.पहाड़)
0
02
65
1701 (स.चारागाह)
0
03
23
1699(स.वाला)
1698
0
01
25
1712
0
01
72 17. रामगढ
905
0
00
40
789
0
00
24
793
0
00
32
816
0
00
81
795
0
01
88
798
0
04
19
804
0
02
55
803
0
00
40
668
0
30
00
679
0
03
94
667
0
00
71
0
669
00
66
2612
0
18. कोलपुरा
02
74
0
01
21
2623(स.वाला)
702
0
02
08
0
00
710 (स.पहाड़)
91
786
0
00
20 19. कोहरा
0
03
60
44(स.भूमि)
18
0
01
51
29
0
03
25
0
01
22
30(स.पहाड़)
0
07
68
32(स.पहाड़)
133/1
0
01
00
136
0
00
50
0
00
19
140(स.वाला)
0
07
68
146(स.पहाड़)
15.0
0
06
44
405
20. सुसेल
0
00
81
372
0
00
32
381
0
00
28
382
0
00
27
1
14
65
1510 (स.भाकर)
6069.
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18, 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28, 1927
[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
जिला: पाली
तहसील: रायपुर
क्षेत्रफल
वर्ग मीटर
एचर
खसरा
क्रम सं.
गाँव का नाम
5
6
3
4
2
1
0
05 35 20. सुमेल (जारी...)
1057 (स.चारागाह)
14
1079
0
03
18
0
00
1068
00
0
93
1063
40
0
00
1064
11
0
00
1059(स.भूमि)
67
04
0
1055
0
78
09
21. नाहरगढ
1042(स.चारामाह)
67
0
02
1379(स.भाकर)
[पत्र. सं. आर-31015/ 51/2004- ओ.आर-11 ]
हरीश कुमार, अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 14th June, 2005
S. O. 2138.-Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum products from Mundra (Gujarat) to Delhi , a pipeline should be laid by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited;
And whereas it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying such pipeline , it is necessary to acquire the right of user in land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is described in the Schedule annexed hereto;
Now, therefore, in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section ( 1 ) of section 3 ofthe Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land ) Act , 1962 (50 of 1962) , the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;
Any person , interested in the land described in the said Schedule, may, within twenty one days from the date on which copies of the Gazette of India containing this notification are made available to the public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri Shivdutt Gaur, Competent Auth rity, Mundra -Delhi Petroleurn Product Pipeline , Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, D- 7 , Lal Bahadur Nagar (East) , Opp. Clarks Amer Hotel , Jawaharlal Nehru Marg , Malviya Nagar, Jaipur- 302017 ( Rajasthan) , 6070
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2005/ JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
[PART II-SEC . 3( ii)]
SCHEDULE
District: PALI
State : RAJASTHAN Tehsil : RAIPUR
Area
Sr. No.
Khasara No.
Hectare Are Sq.mtr. Name of the Village
1
2
3
4
6
5
0
521
67
04
1. CHAVANDIYA KHURD
520
95
00
520/1
。
}
0
00 10
519(G/L Nala)
0
518
00 28
540
02 08
540/1
} 。
00 37
525(G/ L Pasture)
00
524
15
0
01 58
502(G/L Cart Track)
0
00 08
462(G/L Cart Track
0
01
62
407(G/L).
390
01 95
00
389
لوم
55
0
00 04
388
373
0
01
91
0
372
00 82
0
00
339
17
0
340
00
38
0
00 18
330(G/L Nala)
328
0
00
24
327
0
37
01
0
01
63
288(G/L Nala)
297
0
07 11
0
301
00
98
02
0
75 2. KHEEWAL
2751 (G/L Tharda)
0
00
2749
96
04
2750
0
19
2746
07
0
30
0
00
2736
37
0
00 66
2729(G/L Nala)
2602
0
01
82
0
00
11
2603(G/L Nala)
2618
0
74
04
2626
0
22
04
0
00 89
2632
0
01
2644
79
0
01
2643
00 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii ) ]
6071
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18 , 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28, 1927
State : RAJASTHAN
District: PALI
Tehsil : RAIPUR
Sr. No.
KhasaraNo.
Name of the Village
3
2
1
2656 2. KHEEWAL(Contd...)
2660(G/L. Cart Track)
2516
2514
2511
2509
2512 3. MOHRA KHURD
119(G/L)
11.7
110(G/L Nala)
20
15
23
14(G/L Nala)
12
1 4. LAWACHA
268(G/L)
252
236
237
220/1
45
38
39
68Min 5. DEEPAWAS
40
64(G/L River)
474/64/1
489/64
467/64
286
294
131
130
138
135
139
142
149
151 Area
Hectare Are Sq.mtr.
5
6
4
02
0
01
0
01
06
00
0
91
0
00 91
04
0
01
0
01
12
00
0
31
0
02
14
56
0
03
00
0
20
0
01 28
0
00 91
0
00 12
0
00 09
21
01
0
0
75
03
0
00 94
0
00 82 0
00 12
0
03 30
0
00 20
0
29 85
00 92 0
0
00
34 0
00 87 0
11
03
65
0
05
14 63 0
0
00 20
21
0
67 0
00 18
72 0
00
0
01 51
0
04 79 0
18
02
00
05 0
00
0
46 0
00
36
0
01 18 0
00 . 86 6072
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2005 / JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
[ PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ] Tehsil : RAIPUR
District: PALI
State: RAJASTHAN
Area
Sr. No.
Khasara No.
Name of the Village
Are
Hectare
Sq.mtr. 1
2
3
4
5
6
161Min01
5. DEEPAWAS (Contd... )
0
01
57
161Min02
0
05
11
170(G/L)
0
05
79
174(G/L)
0
175
00
13 6. RAIPUR
0
00
86
1025(G/ L Pahad)
1021
0
01
69
0
1017
02 26 7. MEGDARA
60
0
00
13
27
0
00
19
30
0
00 24
31
0
00
84
21
0
04
11
23
0
00
31
1
00
0
52
2
0
02
58 8. MAKARWALI
33
0
03
48
34
0
00
10
36
0
01
90
49
0
00 09
54
0
00 90
56
0
00
99
62
0
01
04
70
0
01
13
78
0
00 42
79
0
00
56 9. BAR
592
0
01 65
598
0
00 18
685
0
01
30
682
0
00
51
709
0
01
00
738Min
0
01
62
0
111/2
01
71
114
0
00
50
115
0
00
28
0
00
46
145(G/L Cart Track)
148
0
00
22
147
0
00
61
152
0
00
86 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
6073
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18, 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28, 1927
Tehsil : RAIPUR
District: PALI
Sr. No.
Khasara No. Nameof theVillage
1
2
3
237 9. BAR ( Contd ... )
257
262
277
279 State: RAJASTHAN
Area
Are
Hectare
Sq.mtr. 4
5
6
01
0
29
0
01 51
0
00 39
0
00 49
0
00 09
0
00 41
295(P.W.D. Road)
10. BIRATIYA KALAN
1019
1005
1001
976 0
01
36
0
00 25
0
00 10
0
00 95
0- 00 17
971(G/L: Cart Track)
0 00 25
968(G/L Cart Track)
932Min0
02
11
932Min01
922
928
835
750 11. BIRATIYA KHURD
701.
695
53
56 } 。
0
13 31
0
00 31
0
00
48
0
02 00
0
00
17
0
01 81
0
10
77
0
00 09
0
00 96
55(G/L Cart Track)
69
86
230 0
01
03
0
02 66
0
04
06
0
07 11
228(G/L Nala)
118
122
123
124 0
01 88
0
00 28
0
00 60
0
00 08
206/2132
0
00
20
0
00
33
205(G/L Nala)
200
201 0
02
36
0
03 05
0
00
191(G/L Nala)
188
291
290
289
07
0
05 22
0
00 20
0
00
23
0
00 21 [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2005 /JYAISTHA 28. 1927
6074
District: PALI
State : RAJASTHAN
Tehsil : RAIPUR
Area
Are
Sr. No.
Hectare
Khasara No.
Sq.mtr. Name of the Village
5
4
6
3
2
1
00
0
50
293
11. BIRATIYA KHURD ( Contd ...)
0
01
85
294
00
71
0
310(G/L Nala)
0
00
84
311
70
05
0
317
0
02
74
316(G/L Rock)
00 84
0
315
08
23
272
0
02
0
13
1338
12.GIRI
01
0
34
1339 (G/L Cart Track)
0
01
51
1298
0
32
1295
03
0
1276
00 26
0
00 37
1279
0
00 49
1372(G/L River)
0
01
22
1376(G/L Tharda)
0
15
1402
95
00
0
01
1421
0
11
00
1198 (G/L Cart Track)
02
0
40
1458
00
0
47
1139
OC
0
81
1140(G/L River)
0
00
17
1141
01
0
52
1142
00
0
45
926(G/L. Cart Track)
01
0
02
906
34
04
0
312(G /L River)
0
15
82
248(GA River)
0
270
03 54
00
72
0
271
0
00
34
285
0
286
02 25
0
01
79
287
0
03
51
313(G/L CartTrack)
03
41
489
0
13. NARPURA
0
00
16
482
0
00
78
481
0
00
73
474
42
02
475 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18 , 2005 /ज्येष्ठ 28 , 1927
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
6075 State: RAJASTHAN
District: PALI
Tehsil : RAIPUR
KhasaraNo.
Sr. No. Name of theVillage
3
2
1
466 13. NARPURA (Contd...)
466/1
462
436
455
437
448/6
448/7
422/3
401 Area
Are Sq.mtr. Hectare
5
6
4
79
0
00
01
05
0
00
0
89
36
0
00
20
0
06
01
00
0
50
0
00
02 79
0
00 53
0
42
00
0
391(G/L.River)
470 14. RAMAWAS
468
476
58
00
0
00
0
75
0
18
00
0
01
00
479(G/L)
00 42
0
401(G/L Cart Track)
15. BABRA
03 65
0
1870(G/L Pahad)
1871
1805
27
03
0
01
29 0
01
11
0
1800(G/L Nala)
1732
1731
1739
1743
1747-
1770
1753
1754
1765
1764
1756
2227
2232
2235
19
01
0
69 0
01
08
02
0
00 14 0
43 0
00
27 75 0
0
00 26
00
0
30 0
03
do 0
01
18
02
0
12
03
0
00
03
0
0
00 80
00 56 0
2239(G/L Cart Track)
2244
2266
2269
2271
2272(G /L Cart Track)
1714 GI/05-18
0
03
01
00 80 0
01
0
94
01
51 0
00
0
89 6076
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2005 /JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)] Tehsil : RAIPUR
District: PALI
State : RAJASTHAN
Area
Sr. No.
Khasara No.
Name of the Village
Hectare Are Sq.mtr .
1
2
3
4
5
6 16. GOPALPURA
1686
0
01
89
1685
0
02
65
0
00
1683(G / L Pahad)
44
1644
0
02 49
0
93
74
1696( Forest Deptt. Pahad )
0
02
1701 (G/ L Pasture)
65
0
03
1699(G /L Nala)
23
1698
0
01
25
1712
0
01
72 17. RAMGARH
905
0
00
40
789
0
00
24
793
0
00
32
816
0
00 81
795
0
01
88
798
0
04 19
804
0
02 55
803
0
00
40
668
0
00
30
679
0
03 94
667
0
00
71
669
0
00 66 18. KOLPURA
2612
0
02
74
0
01
2623(G/L Nala)
21
702
0
02
08
0
00
710(G/L Pahad)
91
786
0
00
20
19. MOHARA
0
03
44(G/L)
60
18
0
01 51
29
0
03
25
0
01
30(G/L Pahad)
22
0
07
32(G/L Pahad)
68
133/1
0
01
00
136
0
00 50
0
00
140(G/L Nala)
19
0
146(G/L Pahad)
07 68
150
0
06
44
20. SUMEL
405
0
00 81
372
0
00 32
381
0
00
28
382
0
00
27
1
14
1510(G / L Bhakar)
65 6077
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18 , 2005/ ज्येष्ठ 28, 1927
[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
State : RAJASTHAN
District : PALI
Tehsil : RAIPUR
Ama
KhasaraNo.
Sr. No.
Hectare Are Sq.mtr. Name of theVillage
4
5
6
3
1
2
0
05 35
1057(G/L Pasture)
20. SUMEL ( Contd...)
0 03 14
1079
00
0
18
1068
0
00
1063
93
00
0
40
1064
0
00.
11
1059(G/L)
0
04 67
1055
0
78
09
21. NAHARGARH
1042(G/L Pasture)
0 02 67
1379(G/L Bhakar)
[No. R- 31015/51/2004-O.R. -II ] HARISH KUMAR, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 15 जून , 2005
का. आ. 2139.- केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि मुन्द्रा से दिल्ली तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए ;
और केन्द्रीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि उस भूमि में, हे इससे उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित है , जिसमें उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाएँ जाने का प्रस्ताव है, उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए ;
अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम , 1962 (1962 का 50 ) की धारा 3, 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 के हितबद्ध है, उस तारीख से जिसको इस अधिसूचना से युक्त भारत के राजपत्र की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती है, इक्की दिन के भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के लिए उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन सम्बन्ध में श्री एफ. ए. बाबी, सक्षम प्राधिकारी , मुन्द्रा-दिल्ली पेट्रोलियम उत्पाद पाइपलाइन परियोजना, हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड , एच.पी.सी.एल. , कंडला टर्मिनल -2 , बंग्लो -1 , खारी रोहर , गांधीद्याम-370 240 , कच्छ, (गुजरात) को लिखित रुप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा । 6078
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2005 /JYAISTHA 28, 1927
अनुसूची तालूका : कांकरेज
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii )]
जिला : बमासकांव
गाँव का नाम
खसरा सं.
सं.
1
2
3 1. मांडला
591
146 2. नाना जामपुर
3. आंगनवाडा
201
201
115 4. लक्ष्मीपुरा
146 5. कम्बोइ
116 6. रानेर
1148
1149
1135
1136
1120
1119
1117
1112
1113
1078
1077
684
696
695
698
699
699
699
699
706
705
709
710
रास्ता खसरा संख्या 710
और 715 के बीच मे
715
716
617
616 राज्य: गुजरात
उप खण्ड
क्षेत्रफल
सं.
हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग मीटर 4
5
6
7 पी1
0
25 89 पी2
0
26
01 1
0
07
48 2
0
00
20
0
00
70
0
01
69
0
01
54 पी:
00
79
0
60
04
00
50
19
34
0
02
36
22
07
0
11
45
0
17
93 पी1
0
05
32
0
93
10
पी 1
0
18
53 पी1
0
15
10 पी2
0
21
38
0
15
67
0
16
67 1पी1
0
09
26 3
0
09
26 4पी4
0
12
11 2पी2
0
10
98
0
17
10
0
0.0
28
0
15
96 0
88
18
0
00
10 0
22 95 0
11
40 पी1
0
12
82 0
17
82 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18, 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28, 1927
6079 तालुका : काकरेज
जिला : बनासकाव
राज्य: मुजरात
क्षेत्रफल गाँव का नाम
खसरा सं.
सं.
उप खण्ड सं.
हेक्टेयर एथर वर्ग मीटर 2
3
4
5
6
7
615
6. रामेर (जारी...)
1
0.
06
55
602
0
02
35
607
0
13 54
604
0
19 24
605
0
40 62
[फा. सं. आर-31015/38/2004- ओ.आर-1 ]
हरीश कुमार, अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 16th June , 2005
S. O. 2139.-Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum products from Mundrà to Delhi , a pipeline should be laid by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited;
And whereas it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying such pipeline , it is necessary to acquire the right of user in land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is described in the Schedule annexed hereto;
Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) , the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the rightof user therein;
Any person, interested in the land described in the said Schedule, may, within twenty one days from the date on which copies of the Gazette of India containing this notification are made available to the public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri . F. A. Babi , Competent Authority, Mundra-Delhi Petroleum Product Pipeline Project, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, HPCL Kandla Terminal -2 , Bungalow No. - 1 , Khari Rohar , Gandhidham -370 240, Kutch (Gujarat).
6080
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2005/JYAISTHA 28, 1927
[PART II-SEC . 3(ii)]
SCHEDULE
Taluk : KANKREJ
District : BANASKANTHA
Name of Village
Survey no. Sr. No.
1
2
3 1. MANDLA
591 2. NANA JAMPUR
146 3. ANGANWADA
201
201 4. LAXMIPURA
115
146 5. ΚΑΜΒΟΙ
116 6. RANER
1148
1149
1135
1136
1120
1119
1117
1112
1113
1078
1077
684
696
695
698
699
699
699
699
706
705
709
710
Carttrack in between
survey no.710&715
715
716
617
616 State : GUJARAT
Area
Hectare Are Sq.mtr. Sub- Division No.
4
6
5
7 P1
0
25 89 P2
0
26 01 1
0
07 48 2
0
00
20
0
00
70 1
0
01
69
0
01
54 P1
0
00 79
0
04 60
0
00
50
0
19 34
0
02 36
0
22 07
0
11 45
0
17 93 P1
0
05
32
0
10 93 P1
0
18 53 P1
0
15 10 P2
0
21
38
0
15 67
0
16 67 1P1
0
09
26 3
0
09 26 4P4
0
12 11 2P2
0
10
98
0
17 10
0
28
00
0
15 96
0
18 88 0
00 10 0
22 95 0
11 40
82 P1
12
0
0
17
82 [भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18, 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28 , 1927
6081 Taluk : KANKREJ
District : BANASKANTHA
State : GUJARAT
Area Nameof Village
Surveyno.
Sr. No.
Hectare Are
Sub- Division No.
Sq.mtr. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
615
6. RANER ( Contd ...)
1
0 06 55
602
0
02 35
607
0 13 54
604
0
19 24
605
0
40 62
[No. R-31015/38/2004-O.R. -II ] HARISH KUMAR, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 16 जून, 2005
शुद्धिपत्र
का. आ. 2140.- भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का.आ . 3147, तारीख 7 दिसम्बर, 2004 में, जो भारत के राजपत्र, भाग II , खण्ड 3 , उपखण्ड ( ii ) तारीख 11 दिसम्बर, 2004 को प्रकाशित हुई थी के पृष्ठों 9405 तथा 9406 , स्तम्भ 2 , क्रम संख्या 3 में "सीतारामपुरा" शब्द के स्थान पर "सीतापुरा" पढ़ें ।
[फा. सं. आर-31015/54/2004-ओ.आर.- ।। ]
हरीश कुमार, अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 16th June , 2005
Amendment
S. O. 2140 .-- In the notification of the Government of India, in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O. 3147 dated the 7th December , 2004 published in the Gazette of India, Part II , Section 3 , Sub - section ( ii ) dated the 11th December , 2004 at pages 9413 and 9414 under column 2 , S.No.3 for the word " SITARAMPURA " read " SITAPURA" .
[No. R- 31015/54/2004- O.R. -II ] HARISH KUMAR , Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 10 जून , 2005
का. आ. 2143.- केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्ज ) अधिनयम , 1962 ( 1962 का 50) ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी और भारत के राजपत्र में प्रकाशित भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का० आ० 560 तारीख 15 फरवरी , 2005 द्वारा उड़ीसा राज्य में पारादीप से पश्चिमी बंगाल राज्य में हल्दिया तक इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा कच्चे तेल के परिवहन के लिए पाइपलाइन विछाने के प्रयोजन हेतु उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची मे विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि मे उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के अपने आशाय की घोषणा की थी । 6082
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2005/ JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
[ PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii)] और, उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ जनता की तारीख 13-4-2005 को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी । और उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अनुसरण में सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने केन्द्रीय सरकार को अपनी रिपोर्ट दे दी है ।
और केन्द्रीय सरकार का उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात यह समाधान हो गया है कि इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाना है ।
अतः , अव, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , घोषणा करती है कि इश अधिसूचना की अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार पाइपलाइनें विछाए जाने हेतु अर्जित किया जाता है ।
और केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा6 की उपधारा (4) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह निर्देश देती है कि उक्त भुमि के उपयोग का अधिकार इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख से केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने के बजाय सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त होकर इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड मे निहित होगा।
अनुसूची
पुलिसथाना: एगरा
राज्य: पश्चिमी बंगाल
जिला : पूर्व मिदनापुर
गाँव का नाम
क्षेत्रफल
वर्ग मीटर हेक्टेयर
प्लॉट संख्या
अधिकारिता सूचि संख्या
(2)
(3) (1)
538
203
पानिपारुल
539
540
542
543
550
551
563
564
565
566
609
610
611
612
621
623
624
636
640
642
647
650
655
657
659 एयर
(6)
(5)
( 4)
78
00
03
06
00
03
20
00
00
00
20
00
07
94
00
09
00
00
11
00
06
03
00
01
00
00
00
00
00
06
00
00
06
09
00
03
00
00
02
02
00
00
05
18
00
16
00
07
00
00
12
00
00
02
86 70 12 31 39 30 35 59 13 52 29 32 95 52 63 33 55 34 50 61
00
00
20
00 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii ) ]
6083
भारत काराजपत्र : जून 18 , 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28 , 1927
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
735
00
745
00
750
00
751
00
752
00
-00
754
755
00
784
00
790
00
791
00
792
00
793
00
808
00
1273
00
1274
00
2794
00
2795
00
2795/8973
00
00
745/8901
00
794/8911
00
8881
8891
00
8893
00
202
176
00 लालपुर
180
00
181
00
182
00
183
00
185
00
00
192
193
00
185/1027
00
201
361
00 खुरुटियां
00
363
364
00
367
00
368
00 .
370
00
371
00
00
373
00
397
398
00
401
00
00
362/1471
191
00
9629
दुबदा
11501
00
2120
259
00 बासुदेबपुर
2121
00
3847
00
3848
00
00
3849
1714 Gl/05-19
(5)
(6)
20
88 00
17
03
83
02
24
00
83
01
64
06
89
06
56
02
57
02
05
35
02
00
91
00
02
00
03
03
42
01
31
17
08-
01
84
03
05
01
16
06
82
00
05
04
00
65
02
41
01
78
01
2035
02
03
56
03
56
₩85
00
62
06
01
00
20
00
70
09
01
00
40
01
00
00
20
00
20
00
20
08
01
01
89 00
41
55
74
06
00 01 ৪৭৪৪৪
63
49 6084
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2005/JYAISTHA 28, 1927
[PART II-SEC. 3( ii)] (1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5 )
(6)
पुलिस थाना - रामनगर
वाधिया
6
694
00
02
15
695
00
01
50
696
00
05
40
697
00
01
79
701
00
00
27
88
710
DO
00
701/4341
00
00
2024 34
पुलिस थाना - मारिशदा
हाटियारी
134
55
00
00
57
00
67
00
68
01
69
00 8888 00 00 00
00
36
40209035
[फा. सं . आर-25011/13/2005- ओ.आर-1 ]
एस. के. चिटकारा, अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 10th June , 2005
S. O. 2141. Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O. 560 dated the 15th February , 2005 , issued under sub - section (1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act , 1962 (50 of 1962) ( hereinafter referred to as the said Act ) , the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land , specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation of crude oil from Paradip in the State of Orissa to Haldia in the State of West Bengal by Indian Oil Corporation Limited;
And whereas , the copies of the said notification were made available to the public on 13-4-2005 And whereas , the competent Authority in pursuance of sub - section ( 1 ) of section 6 of the said Act, has submitted his report to the Central Government ;
And whereas , the Central Government , after considering the said report, is satisfied that the right of user in the land specified in the schedule appended to this notification should be acquired;
Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of section 6 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that the right of user in the said land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline;
And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by the sub- section (4) of section 6 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby directs that the right of user in the said land shall instead of vesting in the Central Government , vest from the date of publication of this declaration , in Indian Oil Corporation Limited free from all encumbrances [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
6085
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18, 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28, 1927
Schedule PoliceStation :Egra
State:West-Bengal
District: PurbaMidnapur
NameofVillage
Jurisdiction List No.
Hectare
Plot. No.
(2)
(3)
(1)
(4)
00
203
538
Paniparul
00
539
00
540
542
00
543
00
550
00
551
00
00
563
564
00
565
00
00
566
609
00
610
00
611
00
612
00
621
00
623
00
00
624
636
00
640
00
642
00
647
00
650
00
655
00
657
00
659
00
735
00
745
00
750
00
751
00
752
00
754
00
755
00
784
00
00
790
791
00
00
792
793
00
808
00
1273
00
00
1274
00
2794
00
2795
2795/8973
00
745/8901
00
794/8911
00 Area Are SquareMetre
(6)
(5)
03
78
03
06
00
20
20
00
94
07
09
86
70
11
06
12
03
31
01
39
00
30
00
35
06
59
06
13
52
09
03
29
02
32
95
02
05
52
63
18
33
16
55
07
12
34
00
50
61
02
00
20
00
20
04
17
03
83
24
02
83
00
01
64
06
89
06
56
02
57
02
05
02
35
00
91
00
02
00
03
42
03
31
01
17
08
01
84
05
03
16
01 6086
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2005 /JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
(4)
(3)
(1)
(2)
8881
00
00
8891
00
8893
00
176
202
Lalpur
00
180
181
00
00
182
00
183
00
185
00
192
00
193
00
185/1027
00
361
201
Khurutia
363
00
00
364
367
00
00
368
00
370
00
371
00
373
00
397
00
398
00
401
00
362/1471
00
9629
191
Dubda
00
11501
00
2120
259
Basudebpur
00
2121
3847
00 00 88
3848
00
3849
PoliceStation - Ramnagar
6
00
694
Badhia
695
00
00
696
697
00
00
701
710
00
00
701/4341
Police Station - Marishda
00
55
134
Hatiari
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)]
(6)
(5)
82
06
20
00
43
05
38
04
65
00
41
02
78
01
20
01
35
02
56
03
56
03
01
00
77
06
19
01
20
00
70
00
09
01
40
00
00
01
20
00
20
00
00
20
08
01
01
01
00
06.
200000
49
57466644 55 06
15
02
50
01
05
40
79
01
27
00
20
00
00
34
44
00 6087 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18, 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28, 1927
(6)
( 5)
(4)
(3)
(2)
(1)
00
01
00
57
20
00
00
67
01
00
99
68
00
36
00
69
[No. R-25011 /13/2005 - O.R. -I ] S. K. CHITKARA , Under Secy.
नईदिल्ली , 10 जून , 2005
का. आ. 2142.- केन्द्रीय सरकार को यह प्रतीत होता है कि लोकहित में यह आवश्यक है कि तमिलनाडु राज्य में चेन्नई से तिरुच्चि, मदुराई और शंकरी तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादन के परिवहन के लिये इंडियन ऑयल कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए ;
और ऐसा प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए इस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्व अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करना आवश्यक है ;
अतः अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम , 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) की धारा 3 की उप- धारा(1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शतिक्यों का प्रयोग करते हुए , उनमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है ;
उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध कोई व्यक्ति उस तारीख से , जिसको भारत के राजपत्र में यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं , इक्कीस दिन के भीतर , भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन या भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रति लिखित रुप में आक्षेप श्री आर. वज्रवेलू, संक्षम प्राधिकारी , चेन्नई-तिरुच्चि मदुराई उत्पाद पाइपलाइन परियोजना और आसनूर से शंकरी तक ब्रांच पाइपलाइन परियोजना , 12/30 , एफ ब्लाक , मार्क रेसिडेन्सी , वी . ओ . सी. रोड , कन्टोन्मेन्ट ,तिरुच्चिराप्पल्ली - 620 001 (तमिलनाडू) को कर सकेगा । 6088
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2005/ JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)]
अनुसूची
राज्य: तमिलनाडु
जिला: पेरम्बलूर
तालूका: कुन्नम
गॉव का नाम
सर्वे नंबर हिस्सा नंबर 1
2
3
1
171
नं. 52/1 . सित्तलि (वेस्ट)
171
5अ
193
4ब
193
5
6
193
193
7
199
1अ
2अ
199
201
2
201
6
206
2अ
206
2ड
207
2
222
3
222
4ड
क्षेत्रफल
वर्ग मीटर
आर
हेक्टर
6 4
5
0
42
17
0
56
01
0
07
48
06
19
03
52
13
74
06
15 0
02
34 0
03
84 0
00
69 0
64
04
0
02
64 0
02
28 0
00
06
0
00
40 [फा. सं. आर-25011/29/2004-ओ .आर -1 ] एस. के. चिटकारा , अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 10th June, 2005
S. O. 2142.- Whereas , it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum products from Chennai to Trichy, Madurai and Sankari in the State of Tamilnadu , a pipeline should be laid by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited;
And , whereas , it appears that for the purpose of laying such pipeline , it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the land described in the Schedule annexed to this notification;
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii ) ]
6089
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18, 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28, 1927
Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act.1962 (50 of 1962) , the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;
Any person , interested in the land described in the said Schedule may within twenty one days from the date on which the copies of this notification as published in the Gazette of India , are made available to the general public , object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein or laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri. R.Vajravelu , Competent Authority , Indian Oil Corporation Limited , Chennai- Trichy- Madurai Product Pipeline Project with a branch pipeline from Asanur to Sankari , 12/30 , F Block , Mark Residency, VOC Street, Contonment , Tiruchirappalli-620 001 , Tamilnadu .
SCHEDULE
District : Perambalur
Taluk : Kunnam
Sub-Division no.
Survey no. Name of the Village
3 1
2
171
1 NO.52/ 1 CHITTALI (WEST)
171
5A
4B
193
5
193
193
67 6 7
193
199
1A
199
2A
201
2
201
6
206
2A
206
2D
207
2
222
3
222
4D State : Tamil Nadu
Area
Are
Hectare
Sq.mtr.
5
4
6
0
17
42 0
01
56 0
07
48
06
0
19 0
52
03 13
0
74 0
06
15 0
02
34 0
03
84
00
0
69 0
04
64 0
02
64 0
02
28 0
06
00
00
0
40 [No. R-25011/29/2004-O.R. - I ] S. K. CHITKARA, Under Secy.
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] 6090
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18, 2005/JYAISTHA 28, 1927
नई दिल्ली, 14 जून , 2005
का. आ. 2143.- 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. 778 तारीख 3 मार्च , 2005 , जो भारत के राजपत्र तारीख फरवरी 27 मार्च 5 , 2005 , में प्रकाशित की गई थी, द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में बूमालीगद (असम राज्य) से शिलिगुरी (पश्चिम बंगाल राज्य) तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए बूमालीगद शिलिगुरी पाइपलाइन प्रसारण परियोजना के माध्यम से आयॅल इंडिया लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन के अपने आशय की घोषणा कीथी
थी ; और उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियां जनता को तारीख 02.05.2005 को उपलब्ध करा दी गई 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, ओर यह समाधान हो जाने पर कि उक्त भूमि पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए अपेक्षित है, उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने का 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 निर्देश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख से केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने के बजाए, सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त, आयॅल इंडिया लिमिटेड में बिहित होगा।
अनुसूची
सर्कल : मायेंम
जिला : मोरिगाव
राज्य: असम
क्षेत्रफल
क्रम सं.
गाँव का नाम
दाग सं.
हेक्टेयर
एयर वर्ग मीटर 1
4
2
3
5
6 1 बिहिता गाँव
0
35
02
88
40
0
11
96
[फा. सं. ओ-12016/6/2004- ओ.एन.जी/डी.ओ.- IV ]
ओ. पी. बनवारी, अवर सचिव 6091 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18, 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28 , 1927
New Delhi , the 14th June , 2005
S. O. 2143.- Whereas by notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O 778, dated the 3rd march 2005, issued under sub-section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) , published in the Gazette of India dated the February 27 March 5, 2005, the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right. of user in the land, specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for transportation of petroleum products through Numaligrah Siliguri Pipeline Expansion Project from Numaligarh in the State of Assam to Siliguri in State of West Bengal by Oil India Limited;
And whereas the copies of the said Gazette noification were made available to the public on the 02-05-2005.
Andwhereas the competent authority has , under sub-section (1 ) of section 6 ofthe said Act, submitted his report to the Central Government;
And whereas the Central Government , after considering the said report and onbeing satisfied that the said land is required for laying the pipeline, has decided to acquirethe right of user therein;
Now therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section ( 1 ) of section 6 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that the right of user in the said land specified in the Schedule is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline;
And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (4) of section 6 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby directs that the right of user in the said land for laying the pipeline shall , instead of vesting in the Central Government, vest on the date of the publication of this declaration , in Oil India Limited, free from all encumbrances.
SCHEDULE
State: Assam
District: Morigaon
Circle:Mayong
Area Are
Hectare
Sq.mtr.
Dagno.
Sr. No
Name of theVillage
6
5
4
3
2
1
88
02
0
35
1 Bihita Gaon
96
11
0
40
[F. No. O-12016/6/2004- O.N.G./D.O. - IV ]
O. P. BANWARI , Under Secy.
1714 G1/05-20 [PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2005/ JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
6092
नई दिल्ली, 14 जून , 2005
का. आ. 2144.- केब्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम, 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) (ज़िसे 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. 3204 तारीख 14 दिसम्बर , 2004, और का . आ. 774 तारीख 03 मार्च , 2005 जो भारत के राजपत्र तारीख दिसम्बर 12- दिसम्बर 18 , 2004 और तारीख फरवरी 27 मार्च 5 , 2005 , में प्रकाशित की गई थी, द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में नूमालीगद (असम राज्य) से शिलिगुरी (पश्चिम बंगाल राज्य) तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए नूमालीगद शिलिगुरी पाइपलाइन प्रसारण परियोजना के माध्यम से आयॅल इंडिया लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी ;
और उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियां जनता को तारीख 04.02.2005 और 05.05.2005 को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी ;
और सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन केन्द्रीय सरकार को अपनी रिपोर्ट दे दी है ;
और केन्द्रीय सरकार ने , उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात , ओर यह समाधान हो जाने पर कि उक्त भूमि पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए अपेक्षित है, उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने का विनिश्चय किया है ;
अतः अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की 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 निर्देश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख से केन्द्रीय सरकार में बिहित होने के बजाए, सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त, आयॅल इंडिया लिमिटेड में निहित होगा ।
अनुसूची
जिला : बरपेटा
सर्कल : बरनगर(सरभोग)
राज्य : असम
क्षेत्रफल
क्रम सं.
गाँव का नाम
दाग सं .
हेक्टेयर एयर
वर्ग मीटर 1
3
2
4
5
6 1
170
0
30
चेंगेलीया(भाग 1 )
18
169
0
08
82
168
0
04
85
167
0
05
48
166
0
02
92
165
0
00
83
564
0
02
14
556
0
00
25 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
6093
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18 , 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28 , 1927
जिला: बरपेटा
राज्य : असम
सर्कल: बरमगर(सरभोग)
क्षेत्रफल
क्रम सं.
गाँव का नाम
दाग सं.
हेक्टेयर
वर्ग मीटर
एयर
1
3
4
5
6 2
2
297
0
00
25 बन्दरखोवा(भाग 1 )
296
0
00
42.
295
0
05
46
293
0
04
19
292
0
04
13
0
294
04
16
316
1
32
64
0
315
12
02
248
0
01
22
249
0
05
23
0
351
10
44
352
16
.0
03
353
0
13
66
250
0
84
06
354
0
04
70
0
254
03
16
357
0
00
28
0
181
00
35 3 बन्दरखोवा(भाग 2)
384
0
03
00
180
0
03
45
0
03
179
33
178
0
02
78
0
378
02
70
0
01
-382
29
0
381
01
57
0
01
380
86
0
177
01
89
0
176
24
01
0
03
379
01.
01
41
00
InBein Svy. No.379 &175
३ बन्दरखोवा(भाग 2)
51
0
02
175
13
10
0
140
46
0
27
515
4 भुलुकामेबा
31
0
00
533
28
00
534
0
97
0
71
517
71
86
0
560
77
01
561
0
0
03
15
706
14
0
01
707 6094
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18, 2005 /JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
6 2
4
3
5
0
5
363
01
कलबारी (भाग 1 )
09
0
6
25
504
00
कुलबारी (भाग 2)
23 7
0
04
577
दहलापारा
77
0
578
02
0
01
64
579
55
576
0
00
[फा. सं. ओ-12016/9/2004- ओ.एन.जी/डी.ओ.- IV ]
ओ. पी. बनवारी, अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 14th June , 2005
S. O. 2144.- Whereas by notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O. 3204, dated the 14 December, 2004 and S.O 774 , dated the 03 March , 2005 issued under sub -section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land ) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) ( hereinafter referred to as the said Act ) , published in the Gazette of India dated the December 12 December 18 , 2004 and dated February 27 March 05, 2005 the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land , specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for transportation of petroleum products through Numaligrah Siliguri Pipeline Expansion Project from Numaligarh in the State ofAssam to Siliguri in State of West Bengal by Oil India Limited;
And whereas the copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on the 04-02-2005 and 05-05-2005.
Andwhereas 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 the said and 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 Oil India Limited , free from all encumbrances.
6095
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18 , 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28, 1927
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
SCHEDULE
District: Barpeta Circle: Barnagar(Sorbhog)
Dagno.
Sr. No
Nameof the Village
3
2
1
170 1. Chengeliya(Part 1)
169
168
167
166
165
564
556
297 2 Bandarkhowa(Part1)
296
295
293
292
294
316
315
248
249
351
352
353
250
354
254
357
181 3 Bandarkhowa(Part2)
384
180
179
178
378
382
381
380
177
176
379
In Betn Svy. No.379 &175
3 Bandarkhowa(Part2)
State : Assam
Area
Are
Hectare
Sq.mtr.
6 4
5
30
18 0
82 0
08
85 0
04
0
05
48 0
02
92
83 0
00
14 0
02
25 0
00
25 0
00
42 0
00
46
05
0
19
04
0
13
04
0
16 0
04
64 1
32
12
02 0
01
22 0
23
05
0
44 0
10
16
03 0
13
66 0
84
06
0
70
04
16
03
0
28
00
0
35
00
0
00
03
0
45
03
0
33
03
0
78
02
0
70
02
0
29
01
0
57
01
0
86
01
0
89
01
0
24
01
0
01
03 0
41
01
00 6096
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2005/JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)]
Area
No
Nameof the Village
Dag no.
Hectare Are Sq.mtr. 1
2
3
4
5
6
175
3 Bandarkhowa(Part2)
0
02
51
140
0
13
10 4 Bhulukadoba
515
0
27
46
533
0
00
31
534
0
00
28
517
0
71
97
560
0
71
86
561
0
01
77
706
0
03
15
707
0
01
14 5 Kalbari (Part 1 )
363
0
이
09 6 Kalbari ( Part 2)
504
0
00
25 7 Dahalapara
577
0
04
23
578
0
02
77
579
0
01
64
576
0
00
55
[F. No. O-12016/9/ 2004- O.N.G ./D.O. - IV ]
O. P. BANWARI , Under Secу.
नई दिल्ली, 14 जून , 2005
का. आ. 2145.- 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. 3202 तारीख 14 दिसम्बर, 2004, और का. आ. 777 तारीख 03 मार्च, 2005 , जो भारत के राजपत्र तारीख दिसम्बर 12- दिसम्बर 18 , 2004 और तारीख फरवरी 27 मार्च 05, 2005, में प्रकाशित की गई थी, द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में बूमालीगद (असम राज्य) से शिलिगुरी (पश्चिम बंगाल राज्य) तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए बूमालीगद शिलिगुरी पाइपलाइन प्रसारण परियोजना के माध्यम से आयॅल इंडिया लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी ;
और उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियां जनता को तारीख 03.02.2005 और 05.05.2005 को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी ;
और सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन केन्द्रीय सरकार को अपनी रिपोर्ट दे दी है ;
और केन्द्रीय सरकार ने, उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात , ओर यह समाधान हो जाने पर कि उक्त भूमि पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए अपेक्षित है, उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने का विनिश्चय किया है ;
[ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18 , 2005 /ज्येष्ठ 28 , 1927
6097 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 निर्देश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख से केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने के बजाए , सभी विल्लंगों से मुक्त, आयॅल इंडिया लिमिटेड में निहित होगा ।
अनुसूची सर्कल : बिजमी
राज्य : असम
जिला : बंगाईगायें
क्रम सं.
गाँव का नाम
दाग सं.
1
3
2
1.
4 धुपुरी
13
14
43
194
196
212
211
197
213 2 फागुना गाँव
247
246 245 3
165 सौरगुरी(भाग 1 )
दाउतिझार
4
105
104
470
98
111
112
113
114
118
116
120
534
122
673 क्षेत्रफल
हेक्टेयर
वर्ग मीटर एयर
4
5
6
0
19
71
0
23.
88
0
03
76
0
03
37
0
13
73
0
54
58
0
16
94
0
07
31
0
13
48
0
11
80
0
03
97
46
08 00
40
0
00
70
0
03
88
0
12
61
0
04
00
0
00
53
0
10
14
0
11
98
0
09
34
0
10
41
0
06
40
00
03
57 59
0
04
17
0
09
16
0
02
84
0
99
73 6098
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2005 / JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
राज्य : असम
सर्कल : बिजनी
जिला : बंगाईगावें
क्षेत्रफल
वर्ग मीटर
हेक्टेयर एयर
दाग सं.
गाँव का नाम
सं.
4
5
6
3
1
2
03
35 दाउतिझार
577
0
4
18
0
67
574
10
0
19
137
00
25
0
127
0
00
29
115
28
0
00
116
[फा. सं. ओ-12016/8/2004- ओ.एन.जी/डी.ओ.- IV]
ओ. पी. बनवारी , अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 14th June , 2005
S. O. 2145.- Whereas by notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O 3202 , dated the 14 December , 2004 , and S.O. 777 dated the 03 March , 2005 issued under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land ) Act , 1962 (50 of 1962) ( hereinafter referred to as the said Act ) , published in the Gazette of India dated the December 12 December 18 , 2004 , and dated February 27 March 05, 2005 the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land , specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for transportation of petroleum products through Numaligrah Siliguri Pipeline Expansion Project from Numaligarh in the State ofAssam to Siliguri in State of West Bengal by Oil India Limited;
And whereas the copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on the 03-02-2005 and 05/05/2005
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 of user therein;
Now therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of section 6 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that the right of user in the said land specified in the Schedule is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline ;
And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section (4) of section 6 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby directs that the right of user in the said land for laying the pipeline shall , instead of vesting in the Central Government , vest on the date of the publication of this declaration , in Oil India Limited , free from all encumbrances .
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
6099
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18, 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28, 1927
SCHEDULE
Circle:Bijini
State:Assam
District: Bongaigaon
Sr. No
Name of the Village
Dag no. 1
2
3
4 1. Dhupuri
13
14
43
194
196
212
211
197
213
247 2 Phagunagaon
246
245
165 3 Sauraguri (Part 1)
105 4 Dauthijhar
104
470
98
111
112
113
114
118
117
119
120
534
122
673
577
574
137
127
115
116
Area Are
Hectare
Sq.mtr. 4
5
6 0
71
19
0
23
88 0
03
76 0
03
37 0
13
73 0
54
58
16
0
94 D
07
31 0
13
48 0
11
80 0
97
03
0
08
46 0
40
00
0
70 0
03
88 0
12
61 0
54
00 0
200
53 0
10
14 0
11
98 0
09
34 0
10
41 0
06
40
03
57 0
0
25
59 0
04
17 0
09
16 0
02
84 0
99
73 0
03
35 0
18
67 0
10
19
0
00
25 0
00
29 0
00
28 [F. No. O-12016/8/2004- O.N.G ./D.O. - IV ] O. P. BANWARI , Under Secy.
6100
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2005/ JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
[PART II-SEC . 3( ii) ]
नई दिल्ली, 14 जून , 2005
का. आ. 2146.- 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. 3203 तारीख 14 दिसम्बर, 2004 और का. आ. 776 तारीख 03 मार्च , 2005 , जो भारत के राजपत्र तारीख दिसम्बर 12- दिसम्बर 18 , 2004 और तारीख फरवरी 27 मार्च 05 , 2005 , में प्रकाशित की गई थी, द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में नूमालीगद (असम राज्य) से शिलिगुरी (पश्चिम बंगाल राज्य) तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए नूमालीगद शिलिगुरी पाइपलाइन प्रसारण परियोजना के माध्यम से आयॅल इंडिया लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी ;
और उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियां जनता को तारीख 04-02-2005 और 05-05-2005 को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी ;
और सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन केन्द्रीय सरकार को अपनी रिपोर्ट दे दी है ;
और केन्द्रीय सरकार ने, उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात , ओर यह समाधान हो जाने पर कि उक्त भूमि पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए अपेक्षित है , उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने का विनिश्चय किया है ;
अतः अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की 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 निर्देश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख से केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने के बजाए , सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त, आयॅल इंडिया लिमिटेड में निहित होगा ।
अनुसूची
सर्कल :: बंगाईगावॅ
जिला : बंगाईगावॅ
राज्य : असम
क्षेत्रफल
क्रम सं.
गाँव का नाम
दाग सं .
हेक्टेयर
वर्ग मीटर
एयर
1
3
4
5
2
6 1
29
0
00
38 नयापारा ( भाग 2)
30
0
00
29
31
0
01
38
32
0
01
77
33
0
06
15 6101 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18, 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28 , 1927
1
3
4
2
5
6
0
36
02
42 1. क्यापारा ( भाग 2) ( जारी)
0
37
03
63
0
35
07
75
38
0
09
07
34
0
00
29 2 खारिजा दलायगाँव
503
0
09
12
502
0
12
74
0
501
10
78
0
498
01
80
[फा. सं. ओ-12016/8/2004- ओ.एन.जी/डी.ओ.- IV]
ओ. पी. बनवारी , अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 14th June , 2005
S. O. 2146.- Whereas by notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O 3203 , dated the 14 December, 2004 , and S.0.776 dated the 03 March , 2005 issued under sub- section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in , Land ) Act , 1962 (50 of 1962) ( hereinafter referred to as the said Act ) , published in the Gazette of India dated the December 12 December 18 , 2004 , and dated February 27 March 05, 2005 the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land , specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for transportation of petroleum products through Numaligrah Siliguri Pipeline Expansion Project from Numaligarh in the State ofAssamto Siliguri in State of West Bengal by Oil India Limited;
And whereas the copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on the 04.02.2005 and 05/05/2005.
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 of user therein ;
Now therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of section 6 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that the right of user in the said land specified in the Schedule is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline;
And further , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (4) of section 6 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby directs that the right of user in the said land for laying the pipeline shall , instead of vesting in the Central Government , vest on the date of the publication of this declaration , in Oil India Limited , free from all encumbrances, 6102
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2005 / JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)]
SCHEDULE
Circle : Bongaigaon
State: Assam
District: Bongaigaon
Area
Sr. No
Name of the Village
Hectare
Dag no.
Are Sq.mtr. 1
2
3
4
5
6
29
1 Nayapara ( Part 2)
0
00
38
30
0
00
29
31
0
01
38
32
0
01
77
33
0
06
15
36
0
02
42
37
0
03
63
35
0
07
75
38
0
09
07
34
0
00
29 2 Kharija Dalaigaon
503
0
09
12
502
0
12
74
501
0
10
78
498
0
01
80
[F. No. O-12016/8/2004-O.N.G ./D.O. - IV ]
O. P. BANWARI , Under Secy.
नईदिल्ली, 14 जून, 2005
का. आ. 2147.- 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. 3208 तारीख 14 दिसम्बर , 2004, जो भारत के राजपत्र तारीख दिसम्बर 12 दिसम्बर 18 , 2004 में प्रकाशित की गई थी, द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में नूमालीगद (असम राज्य) से शिलिगुरी (पश्चिम बंगाल राज्य) तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए नूमालीगद शिलिगुरी पाइपलाइन प्रसारण परियोजना के माध्यम से आयॅल इंडिया लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी ;
और उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियां जनता को तारीख 05-02-2005 को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी :
और सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन केन्द्रीय सरकार को अपनी पोर्ट दे दी है ;
और केन्द्रीय सरकार ने , उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात , ओर यह समाधान हो जाने पर कि उक्त भूमि पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए अपेक्षित है, उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने का विनिश्चय किया है ;
अतः अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की 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 निर्देश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख से केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने के बजाए, सभी विल्लंगों से मुक्त, आयॅल इंडिया लिमिटेड में निहित होगा । [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
6103
भारत का राजपत्र: जून 18, 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28 , 1927
अनुसूची
सर्कल :: गोसाईगाँव
राज्य : असम
जिला : कोकराझार
क्रम सं.
गाँव का नाम
दाग सं .
1
3
2
1
4 रीमीझिमि घाट ( भाग 2)
3 2
390 रीमीझिमि घाट (भाग 1 )
389
370
369
368
371
312
313
361
360
315
299
316
317
298
318
296
294
295
297
285
282
284
283
225
224
226
231
227
230
130
505 3 श्रीरामपुर
504
503
502
501
22
21
436
435
434
9
432 4 डामरा
187 क्षेत्रफल
हेक्टेयर
वर्ग मीटर
एयर
4
5
6 0
22
74 0
17
17 0
27
55 0
02
61 0
09
05 0
13
28 0
06
37 0
05
93 0
07
31 0
15
53 0
29
34 0
11
02 0
02.
98 0
00
07
0
03
04 0
01
17 0
02
70 0
06
20 0
00
56 0
05
86 0
00
43 0
03
11 0
01
32 0
03
32 0
04
26 0
04
92 0
07
93 0
02
53 0
02
42 0
00
25 0
01
84 0
00
63 0
08
52 0
01
65 0
01
10 0
17
27 0
05
52 0
07
27 0
00
25 0
05
64 0
08
16 0
09
47 0
17
09 0
27
75 0-
26
60 0
44
73 6104
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2005/ JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
-3- सफूल :: गोसाईगाँव
जिला : कोकराझार
क्रम सं.
गाँव का नाम
दाग सं .
1
3
2
84 5 सिमुलटापु (भाग 3)
19
82
60
69
18
13
49
12
123 6 सिमुलटापु ( भाग 2)
121
120
101
261
127
100
258
257
70
36
255
34
195
254
253
252
251
41
24
26
35
247
103 7 सिमुलटापु ब्लाक
104
101
105
107
108
190
122
123
121
140
120
118
117
141
142
143
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii)] राज्य : असम
क्षेत्रफल
हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग मीटर 4
6
5
0
00
60 0
60
01 1
28
59
0
00
83 0
07
25 0
00
25 0
03
41 0
01
22 0
02
07 0
06
37 0
25
95 0
05
89 0
39
09
0
08
05 0
64
01
0
11
08
0
57
24
0
02
20
10
66 0
0
37
12
25 0
00
20 0
10
0
27
16
10
79 0
0
03
03
41 0
07
0
02
94
07 0
03
22
02
0
03 0
02
27
00
0
74 0
01
0
73
14
23
08
0
04
11
0
02
13
0
49
04
0
06 0
08
33 0
01
93
09
ว
47
02
0
29
11
0
85
03
0
65
01
0
82
03
0
35
03
0
43
00
0
0
68
09
62 0
03 6105 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18 , 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28, 1927
राज्य : असम
जिला : कोकराझार
सर्कल :: गोसाईगाँव
क्षेत्रफल
वर्ग मीटर
एयर
दाग सं.
हेक्टेयर
क्रम सं.
गाँव का नाम
6
4
5
3
1
2
0
12
66
155.
7. सिमुलटापु ब्लाक
0
86
22
154
0
72
20
153
05
50
0
152
0
00
57
150
4
13
0
151
0
47
05
255
[फा. सं. ओ-12016/10/2004- ओ.एन.जी/डी.ओ.- IV ]
ओ. पी. बनवारी, अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 14th June , 2005
S. O. 2147.- Whereas by notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O 3208 , dated the 14 December , 2004, issued under sub- section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act , 1962 (50 of 1962) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act ) , published in the Gazette of India dated the December 12 - December 18 , 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 pipeline for transportation of petroleum products through Numaligrah Siliguri Pipeline Expansion Project from Numaligarh in the State of Assam to Siliguri in State of West Bengal by Oil India Limited;
Andwhereas the copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on the 05.02.2005.
And whereas the competent authority has , under sub- section ( 1 ) of section 6 of the said Act , submitted his report to the Central Government ;
And whereas the Central Government , after considering the said report and on being satisfied that the said land is required for laying the pipeline , has decided to acquire the right of user therein;
Now therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 1 ) of section 6 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that the right of user in the said land specified in the Schedule is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline;
And further , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section (4) of section 6 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby directs that the right of user in the said land for laying the pipeline shall , instead of vesting in the Central Government , vest on the date of the publication of this declaration , in Oil India Limited , free from all encumbrances .
6106
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18, 2005 / JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]
SCHEDULE
State : Assam
District : Kokrajhar
Circle : Gossaigaon
Sr. No
Hectare
Area Are
Name of the Village
Dag no.
Sq.mtr. 1
2
3
4
6
5
4
0
22
74 1 Rimijhimi Ghat ( Part- II )
0
3
17
17
390
0
27
55 2 Rimijhimi Ghat ( Part- 1 )
0
389
02
61
0
370
05
09
369
0
13
28
0
06
368
37
0
371
05
93
312
0
07
31
313
0
15
53
361
0
29
34
360
0
11
02
315
0
02
98
0
299
07
00
316
0
03
04
0
317
01
17
298
0
02
70
318
0
06
20
0
296
00
56
0
294
05
86
295
0
00
43
297
0
03
11
285
0
01
32
282
0
03
32
0
284
04
26
0
283
04
92
225
0
07
93
224
0
02
53
226
0
42
02
0
231
00
25
227
0
01
84
0
230
00
63
130
0
08
52
505
0
01
65 3 Shri Rampur
504
0
01
10
0
503
17
27
502
0
05
52
501
0
07
27
22
0
00
25
21
0
05
64
436
0
08
16
0
435
09
47
434
0
17
09
9
0
27
75
0
432
26
60
187
0
4 Damra
44
73 6107
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18 , 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28, 1927
[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
Dag no. Sr. No
Name of the Village
3
2
1
84 Simultapu (Part-III)
5
19
82
60
69
18
13
49
12
123 6 Simultapu ( Part-II )
121
120
101
261
127
100
258
257
70
36
255
34
195
254
253
252
251
41
24
26
35
247
103 7 Simultapu Block
104
101
105
107
108
190
122
123
121
140
120
118
117.
141
142
143 1714 GI/05-22
Area Are
Hectare
Sq.mtr. 4
5
6
00
60 0
0
60
01
28 1
59
0
83
00
0
25
07
0
00
25
03
41 0
0
22
01
0
02
07
37 0
06
0
95
25
05
89 0
0
39
09
05 0
08
0
01
64
11
08
0
57
24
0
0
02
20 0
10
66 0
37
12
0
25
00
08
10
0
0
27
16
0
10
79 0
03
03
07
41 0
94 0
02
0
03
07
22 0
02
02
03 0
0
27
00
0
74
01
73 0
14
0
23
08
0
04
11
02 0
13
0
49
04
0
06
08
33
01
0
93 0
09
47
02
0
0
11
29
85
03
0
0
65.
01
82
-03
35 0
03
43
00
0
09
0
68 0
62
03 :
[PART II-SEC . 3( ii)] 6108
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2005/JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
Hectare
Area Are Sq.mtr. Sr. No
Dag no.
Name of the Village
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
12
66
155
7 Simultapu Block
0
86
22
154
0
20
72
153
0
05
50
152
57
0
00
150
0
04
13
151
0
47
05
255
[F. No. O-12016/10/2004- O.N.G ./D.O. - IV ]
O. P. BANWARI , Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 14 जून, 2005
का. आ. 2148.- 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. 3205 तारीख 14 दिसम्बर, 2004, जो भारत के राजपत्र तारीख दिसम्बर 12 दिसम्बर 18 , 2004 में प्रकाशित की गई थी, द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में नूमालीगद (असम राज्य) से शिलिगुरी (पश्चिम बंगाल राज्य) तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए नूभालीगद शिलिगुरी पाइपलाइन प्रसारण परियोजना के माध्यम से आयॅल इंडिया लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी ;
थी ; और उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियां जनता को तारीख 04.02.05 को उपलब्ध करा दी गई 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 , ओर यह समाधान हो जाने पर कि उक्त भूमि पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए अपेक्षित है, उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने का विनिश्चय किया है ;
अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की 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 निर्देश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख से केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने के बजाए , सभी विल्लंगों से मुक्त, आयॅल इंडिया लिमिटेड में निहित होगा । i
6109
भारत का राजपत्र: जून 18, 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28, 1927
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]
अनुसूची सर्कल :: कोकराझार-
राज्य : असम
जिला : कोकराझार
क्रम सं.
गाँव का नाम
दाग सं .
1
3
2
383 1 बासुगाँव टाउन (भाग 2)
384
386
405
343 2 भुटियापारा
358
37 3 बन्दरचारा
553
40
39
38
41
33
31
30
86
87
88
89
27
90
91
93
200
199
198
197
196
194
94
193
97
190
188
170
99
102
103
549
106 क्षेत्रफल
वर्ग मीटर
एयर
हेक्टेयर
4
5
6 0
60
01
0
10
30
00
.0
31 0
25
00
14
0
51 0
91
06
0
25
00
0
11
20 0
99
09
50 0
02
0
01
34
84 0
16
72 0
11
31
0
87
17 0
14
0
60
03
0
94
02
0
55
01
05
0
90
25
00
0
47
01
0
11
10
0
12
15
0
28
00
0
25
00
0
80
00
0
51
03
0
30
02
0
84
03
0
25 0
00
56
08
0
14
39
0
28
00
0
86 0
00
01 0
02
42
06
0
52 0
08
95
19
0
62
05
0
28
00
0 6110
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2005/ JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ] सर्कल : कोकराझार -
राज्य : असम
जिला : कोकराझार
क्षेत्रफल
क्रम सं.
गाँव का नाम
दाग सं .
हेक्टेयर
वर्ग मीटर
एयर
1
3
2
4
5
6 3 बन्दरचारा
107
0
00
61
105
0
02
06
109
0
06
06
110
0
08
59
111
0
01
89
0
113
18
72
114
0
02
86
0
115
03
53 4 दोलोगाँव
0
55
16
20
0
57
00
78
0
56
01
57
0
58
04
57
0
54
02
28
0
50
10
69
0
64
00
57
0
65
01
88
0
49
19
64
0
43
04
85
0
42
03
96
0
41
48
94
5
0
04
70
0
39
03
88
6
0
02
12
0
7
08
43
0
8
04
73
0
10
01
47
0
13
07
53
14
0
09
03
15
0
07
80 5 फुकागाँव
0
185
08
55
186
0
04
73
0
188
04
34
0
187
01
85
0
189
03
92
0
534
01
30
0
190
09
78
0
191
08
53
0
192
02
81 6111
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18 , 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28 , 1927
[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
राज्य असम
जिला : कोकराझार
सर्कल : कोकराझार -
क्षेत्रफल
वर्ग मीटर
एयर
हेक्टेयर
दाग सं.
गाँव का नाम
क्रम सं.
6
4
5
3
1
2
0
06
49
178
5 फुकागाँव
0
07
45
177
0
74
13
180
0
02
04
4
कोकराझार गाँव
6
0
72
75
3
0
27
06
2.
0
27
56
1
0
07
06
719
7 कोकराझार बगिचां
0
97
10
712
0
15
80
713
0
21
06
714
0
00
69
715
0
10
75
710
0
51
04
708
0
86
01
707
0
37
22
691
0
64
10
689
[फा. सं. ओ-12016/10/2004-ओ.एन.जी/डी.ओ.- IV]
ओ. पी. बनवारी, अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 14th June , 2005
S. O. 2148.-Whereas by notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O 3205, dated the 14 December, 2004 , issued under sub-section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals.Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act , 1962 (50 of 1962) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act ) , published in the Gazette of India dated the December 12 - December 18, 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 pipeline for transportation of petroleum products through Numaligrah Siliguri Pipeline Expansion Project from Numaligarh in the State ofAssam to Siliguri in State of West Bengal by Oil India Limited;
Andwhereas the copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on the 04-02-05..
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;
6112
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2005/ JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
[ PART II- SEC . 3( ii) ] 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 Oil India Limited , free from al : encumbrances .
SCHEDULE
Circle: Kokrajhar
State : Assam
District : Kokrajhar
Sr. No
Area Are
Hectare
Sq.mtr. Name of the Village
Dag no.
1
2
3
4
5
6
0
383
01
1 Basugaon Town (Part- II )
60
0
384
10
30
0
386
00
31
0
405
00
25
343
0
14
51 2 Bhutiyapara
358
0
06
91 3 Bandarchara
37
0
00
25
0
553
11
20
40
0
99
09
39
0
02
50
38
0
01
34
0
41
16
84
33
0
11
72
0
31
31
87
30
0
14
17
86
0
03
60
87
0
02
94
0
88
01
55
89
0
05
90
0
27
00
25
0
90
01
47
91
0
10
11
93
0
15
12
200
0
00
28
199
0
00
25
198
0
00
80
197
0
03
51
0
196
02
30
194
0
03
84
94
0
00
25
0
193
08
56
97
0
39
14
0
190
00
28 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
6113
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18, 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28, 1927
Sr. No
Hectare
Area Are Sq.mtr.
Dag no.
Name of the Village
4
1
2
3
6
5
0
188
00
86 3 Bandarchara
0
170
02
01
0
99
06
42
0
102
08
52
0
103
19
95
0
549
05
62
0
106
00
28
0
107
00
61
0
105
02
06
0
109
06
06
0
110
08
59
0
111
01
89
0
113
18
72
0
114
02
86
0
115
03
53
0
55
16
20 4 Dologaon
0
57
00
78
0
56
01
57
0
58
57
04
0
54
02
28
0
50
10
69
0
64
00
57
0
65
01
88
0
49
19
64
0
43
04
85
0
42
03
96
0
41
48
94
0
5
04
70
0
39
03
88
0
6
02
12
0
7
08
43
0
8
04
73
0
10
01
47
0
13
07
53
0
14
09
03
0
15
07
80
0
185
5 Fukagaon
08
55
0
186
04
73
0
188
04
34
0
187
01
85
0
189
03
92 6114
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2005 /JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] Sl. No
Area Are
Hectare
Name of the Village
Dag no.
Sq.mtr. 1
2
3
4
5
6
0
534
01
30 5 Fukagaon
0
190
09
78
0
191
08
53
0
192
02
81
0
06
49
178
0
177
07
45
0
13
180
74
0
4
04
02 6 Kokrajhar Gaon
0
75
3
72
0
2
06
27
0
1
56
27
0
719
06
07 7 Kokrajhar Bagisha
0
712
10
97
0
713
15
80
0
714
06
21
0
715
00
69
0
710
10
75
0
708
04
51
0
707
01
86
0
691
22
37
0
689
10
64
[ F. No. O-12016/10/2004-O.N.G ./D.O. - IV ]
O. P. BANWARI , Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली , 14 जून , 2005
का. आ. 2149.-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. 3207 तारीख 14 दिसम्बर, 2004, जो भारत के राजपत्र तारीख दिसम्बर 12 दिसम्बर 18 , 2004 में प्रकाशित की गई थी, द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में नूमालीगद (असम राज्य) से शिलिगुरी (पश्चिम बंगाल राज्य) तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए नूमालीगद शिलिगुरी पाइपलाइन प्रसारण परियोजना के माध्यम से आयॅल इंडिया लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी ;
और उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियां जनता को तारीख 07-02-2005 को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी ;
और सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन केन्द्रीय सरकार को अपनी रिपोर्ट दे दी है ;
[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
6115
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18, 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28, 1927
और केन्द्रीय सरकार ने, उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात, ओर यह समाधान हो जाने पर कि उक्त भूमि पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए अपेक्षित है, उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने का विनिश्चय किया है ;
अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम के बास 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 निर्देश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख से केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने के बजाए , सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त , आयॅल इंडिया लिमिटेड में निहितं होगा ।
अनुसूची
राज्य : असम
जिला: कोकराझार
सर्कल:: भौरागुरी
दाग सं .
गाँव का नाम
क्रम सं.
3 1
2
295 पटियाल पारा
1
63 2 पटियाल पत्रा अहम्मदपुरं
64
61
60
59
54
53
52
39
40
38
36
35
25
24
23
22
21
20
11
5
108
4
109
110 1714 GI/05-23
क्षेत्रफल
वर्ग मीटर हेक्टेयर एयर
6
5
4
0
83
00
0
13
88 0
25
00
0
87
07
0
93
13
0
91
09
74 0
11
24 0
10
0
03
42 0
68
03
53
00
44 0
07
05 0
04
39 0
04
75 0
03
0
64
19
0
92
05
61 0
02
0
25
00
79 0
02
61
00
0
70
05
0
25
00
0
56 0
13
55 0
12
33 0
00 6116
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2005/ JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] राज्य: असम
जिला : कोकराझार
भौरागुरी
सर्कल
दाग सं.
क्रम सं.
गाँव का नाम
3 1
2
31 घोनापारा
3
30
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
48
50
51
52
56
39
80
166 4 टोकियामरी (भाग 1 )
263
269
268
172
256
255 क्षेत्रफल
वर्ग मीटर
एयर
हेक्टेयर
6 4
5
46 0
00
0
14
92 0
00
27 0
86
12
0
30
00
0
13
11
0
03
06 0
13
26 0
25
00
0
93
01
0
87
09
0
24
25
26 0
00
0
25
00
0
00
25 0
04
84
09 0
38
42 0
70
71
0
0
0
50
00
0
00
25
16 0
11
13
0
82 [फा. सं. ओ-12016/10/ 2004-ओ.एन.जी/डी.ओ.- IV ]
ओ. पी. बनवारी , अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 14th June , 2005
S. O. 2149.- Whereas by notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O 3207 , dated the 14 December, 2004 , issued under sub- section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act , 1962 (50 of 1962) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) , published in the Gazette of India dated the December 12 December 18 , 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 pipeline for transportation of petroleum products through Numaligrah Siliguri Pipeline Expansion Project from Numaligarh in the State ofAssam to Siliguri in State of West Bengal by Oil India Limited ;
And whereas the copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on the 07.02.2005.
And whereas the competent authority has , under sub- section ( 1 ) of section 6 of the said Act , submitted his report to the Central Government;
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
6117
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18, 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28, 1927
And whereas the Central Government , after considering the said report and on being satisfied that the said land is required for laying the pipeline , has decided to acquire the right of user therein;
Now therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of section 6 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that the right of user in the said land specified in the Schedule is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline;
And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section (4 ) of section 6 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby directs that the right of user in the said land for laying the pipeline shall , instead of vesting in the Central Government , vest on the date of the publication of this declaration , in Oil India Limited , free from all encumbrances .
SCHEDULE
State:Assam
District : Kokrajhar
Circle : Bhowraguri
Dag no. Sr. No
Name of the Village
3
2
1
295 1 Patiyal Para
63 2 Patiyal Para Ahammadpur
64
61
60
59
54
53
52
39
40
38
36
35
25
24
23
22
21
20
11
5
108
4
109
110
Area Are Sq.mtr. Hectare
6
5
4
83
00
0
88 0
13
25 0
00
87 0
07
93 0
13
91 0
09
74
11
0
24 0
10
42
03
0
68
03
0
53
00
0
44
07
0
05
04
0
39 0
04
75
03
0
64 0
19
92
05
0
61 0
02
25 0
00
79 0
02
61
00
0
70 0
05
25
00
0
56
13
0
55 0
12
33 0
00 6118
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2005/ JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
Sr. No
Dagno.
Nameof the Village
1
2
3
31 3 Ghonapara
30
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
48
50
51
52
56
39
80
166 4 Tokeyamari ( Part-1)
263
269
268
172
256
255
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]
Area Are
Hectare
Sq.mtr. 4
5
6 0
46
00
0
92
14
0
27
00
0
86
12
0
30
00
13 0
11
06 0
03
0
26
13
25 0
00
0
93
01
0
87
09
0
24
25
26 0
00
00
25 0
25 0
00
84 0
04
09 0
38
42
70
0
71 0
00
50 0
00
25 0
00
16 0
11
82 0
13
[ F. No. O-12016/10/2004- O.N.G ./D.O. - IV ] O. P. BANWARI , Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 14 जून, 2005
का. आ. 2150.- 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. 3206 तारीख 14 दिसम्बर, 2004 जो भारत के राजपत्र तारीख दिसम्बर 12 दिसम्बर 18, 2004 में प्रकाशित की गई थी, द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में नूमालीगद (असम राज्य) से शिलिगुरी (पश्चिम बंगाल राज्य) तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए नूमालीगद शिलिगुरी पाइपलाइन प्रसारण परियोजना के माध्यम से आयॅल इंडिया लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी ;
और उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियां जनता को तारीख 04.02.2005 को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी ;
और सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन केन्द्रीय सरकार को अपनी रिपोर्ट दे दी है ;
6119
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18 , 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28, 1927
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
और केन्द्रीय सरकार ने, उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात , ओर यह समाधान हो जाने पर कि उक्त भूमि पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए अपेक्षित है, उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने का विनिश्चय किया है ;
अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की 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 निर्देश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख से केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने के बजाए, सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त , आयॅल इंडिया लिमिटेड में बिहित होगा ।
अनुसूची
राज्य : असम
जिला : कोकराझार
सर्कल : दोटमा
दाग सं .
गाँव का नाम
क्रम सं.
3 1
2
450 1 प्रतापखाटा (भाग 1 )
451
453
452
-455
677
328 2 महिष बथान
324
323
320
319
318
317
316
315
314
313
New Delhi , the 14th June , 2005
क्षेत्रफल
वर्ग मीटर
एयर
हेक्टेयर
6 4
5
59 0
14
0
25
21
66 0
02
0
63
06
99 0
00
25 0
00
25 0
00
0
43
03
07
05
0
0
82
07
40
04
0
0
02
62 0
19
01
0
01
11
13
0
79
00
51 0
10 0
16
[फा. सं. ओ-12016/10/2004- ओ.एन.जी/डी.ओ. - IV.]
ओ. पी. बनवारी , अवर सचिव
S. O. 2150.-Whereas by notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O 3206, dated the 14 December , 2004 , issued under sub-section (1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act , 1962 (50 of 1962) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) , published in the Gazette of India dated the December 12 - December 18, 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 pipeline for transportation of petroleum products through Numaligrah Siliguri Pipeline Expansion Project from Numaligarh in the State ofAssam to Siliguri in State of West Bengal by Oil India Limited;
6120
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2005 /JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] Andwhereas the copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on the 04-02-2005.
Andwhereas 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 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 ofthe 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 Oil India Limited , free from all encumbrances .
SCHEDULE
Circle : Dotma
State : Assam
District : Kokrajhar
Area
Are
Sr. No
Hectare
Dag no .
Sq.mtr. Name of the Village
2
3
4
5
1
6
0
59
450
14
1 Pratapkhata ( Part- 1 )
0
451
25
21
0
453
02
66
0
63
452
06
0
455
00
99
0
677
00
25 2 Mahish Bathan
328
0
00
25
324
0
03
43
0
323
05
07
0
320
07
82
0
319
04
40
0
318
02
62
0
317
01
19
316
0
01
11
315
0
13
79
0
314
00
51
313
0
16
10
[ F. No. O - 12016/10/2004- O.N.G./D.O. - IV ]
O. P. BANWARI , Under Secy.
6121 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18 , 2005 /ज्येष्ठ 28 , 1927
पर्यावरण एवं वन मंत्रालय
नई दिल्ली, 17 जून, 2005
का. आ. 2151.- जल गुणता मूल्यांकन प्राधिकरण का गठन, पर्यावरण (संरक्षण) अधिनियम 1986 (1986 का 29) की धारा 5 के अधीन प्रदत शक्तियों का प्रयोग करने के लिए केन्द्रीय सरकार द्वारा तारीख 29 मई, 2001 की का.आ. संख्या 583 (अ) और तारीख 27 अक्तूबर, 2004 की का.आ. संख्या 635 (अ) के अधीन निदेश जारी करने और उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 3 की उप धारा (2) के खण्ड (ix) , (xi ) , (xii) और (xiii) में उल्लिखित विषयों के संबंध में उपाय करने और जल गुणता मानीटरिंग के लिए प्रणालियों को मानकीकृत करने और उनके उपयोग हेतु आंकड़े तैयार करने और कतिपय अन्य प्रयोजनों को सुनिश्चित करने के लिए किया गया था ।
और सभी मानीटरिंग अभिकरणों, विभागों, प्रदूषण नियंत्रण बोर्डों और ऐसी अन्य अभिकरणों द्वारा जल गुणता मानीटरिंग तंत्र की पद्धति में एकरूपता बनाए रखने के लिए जल गुणता मानीटरिंग प्राधिकरण के निदेशानुसार जलगुणता निर्धारण'और मानीटरिंग प्रोटोकाल तैयार करना आवश्यक और समीचीन है ताकि जल संबंधी कार्य योजनाओं को विश्वसनीय आंकड़ों के आधार पर तैयार किया जा सके । और जल गुणता मानीटरिंग की एक समान प्रक्रिया, से सतही और भूमिगत जल दोनों हेतु मानीटरिंग की अवधि, नमूने लेने की प्रक्रिया, विश्लेषण के मापदण्ड, विश्लेषण की तकनीक गुणता आश्वासन और गुणता नियंत्रण प्रणाली, प्रयोगशालाओं के लिए अवसंरचना संबंधी आवश्यकता, आकड़ा प्रसंस्करण की प्रक्रिया, रिपोर्ट करना और सूचना के प्रसार और ऐसे अन्य विषय जिन्हें उक्त प्रयोजन के लिए केन्द्रीय सरकार आवश्यक समझती है, उपलब्ध करेगी ।
और नदी जल गुणता के हास के कारण अधोप्रवाह में रहने वाले लोगों के स्वास्थ्य और आजीविका पर प्रतिकूल प्रभाव पड़ रहा है और समय - समय पर चिन्ता व्यक्त की गई है ।
और नदी जल गुणता की 'सम्पूर्णगुणता " का तुरन्त अनुरक्षण और पुर्नरूद्धार जल (प्रदूषण निवारण और नियंत्रण) अधिनियम 1974 ( 1974 का 6) के अधीन आवश्यक है और भूमिगत जल गुणता अनुरक्षण का कार्य, वन ( संरक्षण) अधिनियम 1986 के अधीन गठित केन्द्रीय भूमि जल प्राधिकरण का है ।
और पर्यावरण (संरक्षण) अधिनियम, 1986 के नियम 5 के उप- नियम (4) में ये उपबंध है कि जब केन्द्रीय सरकार को ऐसा प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसा करना लोकहित में है तो वह उक्त नियम के खण्ड (क) के उप-नियम (3) के अधीन सूचना की अपेक्षा से छूट दे सकेगी ।
और केन्द्रीय सरकार की यह राय है कि उक्त नियम के नियम 5 के उप नियम (3 ) के खण्ड (क) के अधीन सूचना को अपेक्षा से छूट देने के लिए आदेश जारी करना लोकहित में है;
अतः अब केन्द्रीय सरकार, पर्यावरण ( संरक्षण) अधिनियम, 1986 की धारा 3 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए निम्नलिखित आदेश करती है, अर्थात
1. संक्षिप्त नाम और प्रारम्भ
(क) इस आदेश का संक्षिप्त नाम ' जल गुणता मानीटरिंग पर समान प्रोटोकाल, आदेश , 2005 " है । 6122
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2005/ JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii )] (ख) यह राजपत्र में प्रकाशन की तारीख को प्रवृत होगा ।
2. लागू होनाः- यह जल गुणता मानीटरिंग पर समान प्रोटोकाल अनुपालन के लिए सतही और भूमिगत जल गुणता की मानीटरिंग करने वाले सभी संगठनों, एजेंसियों और कई अन्य निकायों पर लागू होगा ।
3. परिभाषाः इस आदेश में जब तक संदर्भ में अन्यथा अपेक्षित न हो -
(1 ) ' अभिकरणों " से सतही और भूमिगत जल की जलगुणता से अतंर्वलित जल गुणता मानीटरिंग अभिकरण ( सरकारी या गैर- सरकारी , स्थानीय निकाय) और अन्य संगठन अभिप्रेत है जिनमें अनुसंधान और शैक्षणिक संस्थाएं सम्मिलित हैं ।
(2) 'प्राधिकरण ' से पर्यावरण (संरक्षण) अधिनियम, 1986 की धारा 3 की उप धारा ( 1 ) और उपधारा (2) के अधीन गठित जल गुणता निर्धारण प्राधिकरण अभिप्रेत है ।
(3) 'बेसलाइन स्टेशन ' से ऐसे मानीटरिंग अवस्थान से है जहां जल गुणता पर मानव क्रियाकलापों का कोई प्रभाव नहीं है ।
(4) 'फ्लक्स स्टेशन अथवा प्रभाव स्टेशन ' से मानव हस्तक्षेप किसी भौगोलिक बातों के कारण प्रदूषण की सीमा को मापने के लिए मुख्य नदी की धारा पर विशिष्ट प्रदूषक भार को मापने के लिए अवस्थान अभिप्रेत है, और अपनाए गए प्रदूषण नियंत्रण उपायों के प्रभाव को मापना आवश्यक है । (5) ' मानीटरिंग " से जल गुणता की प्रास्थिति और प्रवृति को परिभाषित करने के लिए परिलक्षित मानदण्डों के मानकीकृत माप ।
(6) 'प्रोटोकाल ' से पर्यावरण (संरक्षण) अधिनियम, 1986 की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) और उप धारा (3 ) के अधीन गठित जल गुणता निर्धारण प्राधिकरण द्वारा विकसित समान जल गुणता मानीटरिंग तंत्र की प्रणाली अभिप्रेत है ।
(7) " गुणता आश्वासन कार्यक्रम ' से इस आदेश के पैरा 12 में वर्णित कार्यक्रम अभिप्रेत है ।
(8) "प्रवृति स्टेशन " से सामान्यतया मानवीय कार्यकलाप प्रभावित करने के लिए स्थल विशेषों पर विभिन्न समय पर जल निकायों में क्या भिन्नता होती है ।
(9) " जल गुणता मानीटरिंग नेटवर्क ' से जल नमूनों के संग्रहण, परिरक्षण और परिवहन, भण्डारण और विश्लेषण के लिए और देश में सतही और भूमिगत जल तक निर्बंधित निकायों के लिए आंकड़ों का प्रसार अभिप्रेत है ।
4. मानीटरिंग स्टेशन और नमूने लेने का अन्तराल
(1 ) सतही जल के नमूने एकत्र करने का अन्तराल निम्नलिखित प्रकार का होगाः- 6123 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: जून 18 , 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28, 1927
(क) सभी स्टेशन, बेसलाइन, प्रवृति और फ्लक्स अथवा प्रभाव स्टेशनों का एक संयोजन होगा । (ख) बेसलाइन स्टेशनों की बारहमासी नदियों और झीलों के लिए वर्ष में चार बार और मौसमी नदियों की वर्ष में तीन से चार बार तक मानीटरिंग की जाएगी । प्रवृति स्टेशनों की अन्तराल में वृद्धि करके मास में एक बार अर्थात वर्ष में बारह बार मानीटरिंग की जाएगी । फ्लक्स और प्रभाव स्टेशनों की प्रदूषण क्षमता या जल प्रयोग के महत्व के आधार पर वर्ष में बारह से चौबीस बार तक मानीटरिंग की जाएगी ।
(ग) सभी अभिकरण नीचे सारणी । में यथाउल्लिखित सतही जल के नमूनों अन्तराल और मापन का पालन करेंगे ।
सारणी - ।
सतही जल नमूनो के विश्लेषण के लिए अंतराल और मापमान
3
2
1
मापमान
अंतराल
स्टेशन का प्रकार
बेस लाइन
बारहमासी नदियां और झीलें: (अ) मानसून पूर्वः वर्ष में एक बार नीचे सूचीबद्ध 25 मापमान का विश्लेषणः वर्ष में चार बार ( मौसमी)
मौसमी नदियां:
बहाव की अवधि के दौरान 3 - 4
(क) साधारणः रंग , गंध, तापमान, पी एच, विद्युत प्रवाह (ई सी) , घुली आक्सीजन (डी ओ) , गंदलापन कुल घुलित ठोस (टी डी एस) बार (समान अंतर पर) -
झीलः वर्ष में चार बार ( मौसमी) (
ख) पोषक तत्वः अमोनियाकल नाईट्रोजन (एन एच 4 - एन) , नाईट्रेट एंड नाइट्रेट नाईट्रोजन (एन ओ 2 + एन ओ 3) कुल फास्फेट (कुल पी)
(ग) जैव आक्सीजन मांग (बी मांग मापमानः ओ डी) , रसायन आक्सीजन मांग (सी ओ डी)
(घ) मुख्य आयनः (सोडियम (एनए) , पोटाशियम (के) , कैल्शियम (सीए) , मैग्निजियम (एमजी) , कार्बोनेट(सीओ₃ ) , बाय- कार्बोनेट(एचसीओ ) , क्लोराइड(सीएल) , सल्फेट (एसओ )
(ड. ) अन्य अकार्बनिकः फ्लुराइड, बोरोन और अन्य स्थल विशेष के मापमान यदि कोई हो तो
(च) सूक्ष्म जीवाणु कुल कोलीफार्म और फीकल कोलीफार्म
(आ) शेष वर्ष में ( मानसून पूर्व के नमूने के बाद) प्रत्येक तीन मास अन्तराल पर
10 मापमान का विश्लेषणः रंग , गंध, तापमान, पी एच, ई सी, डी ओ, एन ओ 2 + एन ओ 3, बी ओ डी, कुल कोलीफार्म और फीकल कोलीफार्म
1714 GI/05-24 6124
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2005/JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
[PART II-SEC. 3(ii ) ]
(अ)
पद्धति या प्रभाव या फलक्स
करके प्रत्येक मास में एक बार अर्थात् वर्ष में 12 बार अप्रैल - मई (मानसून पूर्व) से शुरू मानसून पूर्व बेस लाइन मानीटरिंग के लिए सूचीबद्ध के समान 25 मापमानों का विश्लेषण
(आ) अन्य मासः निम्न लिखित 15 मापमान का विश्लेषण
(क) साधारणः रंग , गंध , तापमान, पी एच , ई सी, डी ओ और गंदलापन
(ख) पोषकतत्वः एन एच 3- एन, एन ओ 2 + एन ओ 3 , कुल पी
कार्बनिक पदार्थः बी ओडी, सी ओ डी
(ग)
(घ) मुख्य आयनः क्लोराइड
(ड.) सूक्ष्मजीवाणुः कुल और फीकल कोलीफार्म
(इ) सूक्ष्म प्रदूषकः वर्ष में एक बार/ मानसून से पूर्व
(i) कीटनाशी-अल्फा बेंजीनहेक्साक्लोराइड ( बी एच सी) , बीटा बी एच सी, गामा बी एच सी
(लिन्डेन) , ओ पी- डायक्लोरोडायफिनाइलट्राय क्लोरोथेन ( ओपी- डीडीटी ) , पी पी-डीडीटी, अल्फा
इंडोसलफेन, बीटा इंडोसलफेन, एल्ड्रिन,
डिल्ड्रिन, कारबराइल (कार्बामेट),
मलेथियन, मिथाइल पैराथियान, अनिलोफोस, क्लोरोपायरिफोस (ii) विषाक्त धातु-आर्सेनिक (एएस) , कैडमियम (सीडी) , मरक्यूरी (एच जी) , जिंक (जेड एन ) , क्रोमियम (सीआर) , लेड (पीबी) , निकेल (एन आई) , आयरन (एफ ई)
(स्थानीय आवश्यकता के आधार पर मापमानों का चयन किया जा सकता है)
टिप्पणः (1 ) उपर्युक्त सारणी में वर्णित मापमानों की न्यूनतम अपेक्षा होगी । तथापि यह विश्लेषण अभिकरण और उसकी उपलब्ध मानवशक्ति की विशिष्ट आवश्यकता के आधार पर अधिक मापमानों के विश्लेषण को निर्बंधित नहीं करता है ।
(ii) झीलों अथवा जलाशयों के लिए कुल केलदल नाइट्रोजन, क्लोरोफिल, कुल प्लैंकटन काउन्ट और उत्पादकता जैसे अतिरिक्त मापमानों को मानीटरिंग के मापमानों की सूची में शामिल किया जाएगा। (iii) यदि नदी या झील या जलाशय की जैव मानीटरिंग की जाती है तो अतिरिक्त विशिष्ट मापमानों पर विचार किया जाएगा ।
(2) भूमिगत जल
भूमिगत जल के संबंध में नमूने लेने का अन्तराल निम्नलिखित हैं:
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
6125 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18 , 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28 , 1927
(क) सभी स्टेशनों को बेसलाइन स्टेशन के रूप में वर्गीकृत किया जाएगा ।
(ख) 20-25 % बेसलाईन स्टेशनों को प्रवृति स्टेशन के रूप में वर्गीकृत किया जाएगा जहाँ अनुभूत समस्या है।
(ग) सभी अभिकरण नीचे दी गई सारणी-2 में यथा वर्णित भूमिगत जल के विश्लेषण के लिए नमूना अन्तराल एवं मापमानों का अनुपालन करेंगे
सारणी-2
भूमिगत जल के नमूनों के विश्लेषण के लिए अन्तराल और मापमान
1
2
3
स्टेशन का प्रकार आवृत्ति
मापमान
बेसलाइन
(क) मानसून के पहले और बादः नीचे सूचीबद्ध 20 मापमानों का विश्लेषण
क. सामान्यः रंग, गंध, तापमान, पी एच, ई सी , टी डी एस वर्ष में दो बार (मानसून के पहले और बाद में)
ख. पोषक तत्वः एन ओ 2 + एन ओ 3 , आर्थोफास्फेट
ग. मांग मापमानः सी ओ डी
घ. प्रमुख आयनः एनए , के , सीए , एम जी , सी ओउ , एच सी ओ 3-, सी आर, एस ओ 4 % एन ए और एस ए आर
ड. अन्य अकार्बनिकः एफ, बी और अन्य स्थल विशिष्ट मापमान यदि कोई हो ।
प्रवृत्ति
अप्रैल -मईः बेसलाइन मानीटरिंग के लिए यथा सूचीबद्ध 20 मापमान का विश्लेषण । क.
ख. अन्य समयः नीचे यथा सूचीबद्ध 14 मापमानों का विश्लेषण वर्ष में दो बार (मानसून से पहले और बाद में )
च. सामान्यःरंग , गंध , तापमान, ई सी , पी एच , टी डी एस, % एन ए और एस ए आर
क. पोषक तत्वः एन ओ एन ओ, आर्थोफास्फेट
ख. मांग मापमानः सी ओ डी
ग. प्रमुख आयनः सी एल
घ. अन्य अकार्बनिकःएफ, बी
ड. सूक्ष्मजीवःकुल कोलीफार्म और फीकल कोलीफार्म
इ. सूक्ष्म प्रदूषक (स्थानीय आवश्यकता के आधार पर मापमानों का चयन किया जा सकता है)
(2) कीटनाशीः अल्फा बी एच सी, बीटा बी एच सी, गामा बी एच सी (लिन्देन) , ओ पी-डीडीपी, पी पी-डी डीडी, अल्फा-इन्डोसल्फन, बीटा इन्डोसल्फम, एल्ड्रिन, डिल्ड्रिन, 2, 4- डी, कारबराइल (कार्बोमेट) , मलेथियम, मिथाइल, पैराथियान, अनिलफोस, क्लोरोपायरिफोस । [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] 6126
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2005 /JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
(3) विषाक्त धातु- ए एस, सी डी, एच जी, जेंड एन, सी आर, पी बी, एन आई , एफ ई,
(कीटनाशकों और विषाक्त धातुओं का चयनित अवस्थानों पर मानसून से पहले वर्ष में एक बार विश्लेषण किया जा सकता है ।)
टिप्पणः (1) उपर्युक्त सारणी में वर्णित मापमान की अपेक्षा न्यूनतम होगी । तथापि यह विश्लेषण अभिकरणों और इसकी उपलब्ध मानवशक्ति की विशिष्ट आवश्यकता के आधार पर अधिक मापमानों के विश्लेषण को निर्बंधित नहीं करता है ।
(ii) यदि रासायनिक आक्सीजन मांग का मूल्य 20 मि.ग्रा. 1 ली. से अधिक होता है तो जैव रसायन आक्सीजन मांग के लिए भी नमूने का विश्लेषण किया जाएगा।
5. नमूनों का संग्रहण
(1) सतह जल के संबंध में नमूना का संग्रहण करने की प्रक्रिया निम्नलिखित होगीः
क) बेसलाइन और प्रवृत्ति स्टेशनों के लिए नमूने , घुली आक्सीजन नमूना लेनेवाले अथवा भारित बोतल का प्रयोग करते हुए नदी के उचित मिश्रित खंड से एकत्र किए जाएंगें ।
ख) नमूनें प्रभावी स्टेशनों के लिए स्नान घाट, निस्तारण बिन्दु के अधोप्रवाह जल पूर्ति क्षमता और अन्य स्रोतों जैसे हितकर बिन्दु से एकत्र किए जाएंगे ।
ग) नमूनों में घुली आक्सीजन का निर्धारण संग्रह के बाद किया जाए और धुली आक्सीजन विश्लेषण या तो क्षेत्र में या प्रयोगशाला में किया जाए ।
(2) भूमिगत जल के संबंध में नमूनों के संग्रहण की प्रक्रिया निम्नलिखित प्रकार से होगीः
क) ऐसे खुले कुओं, जिनका उपयोग नहीं हो रहा है अथवा जिनका प्रयोग बंद कर दिया गया हो, पर जल गुणता मानीटरिंग स्टेशन के रूप में विचार नहीं किया जाए । तथापि, ऐसे कुओं पर जल स्तर मानीटरिंग के लिए विचार किया जा सकता है ।
ख) खुले कुओं के जल सतह से लगभग 30 सें.मी. नीचे से नमूने के संग्रहण के लिए भारित अमूना बोतल का उपयोग किया जा सकता है । प्लास्टिक बाल्टी , जिससे सतह पर काछ बनने की संभावना हो , का उपयोग नहीं किया जाए ।
चल रहे ट्यूबवेलों से नमूनों का संग्रहण ट्यूबवेल को पांच मिनट चलाने के बाद किया जाए । घ) डूब पम्प का उपयोग करने वाला नान-प्रोडक्शन पिजयोमीटर को शुद्ध किया जाएगा। नमूने के संग्रहण से पहले शुद्ध किए गए जल का आयतन स्थिर जल के आयतन के 4 से 5 गुणा के बराबर होगा । 6127
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18 , 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28, 1927
[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
ड.) सूक्ष्म जीवाणु संबंधी नमूनों का, जब ट्यूबवेल या हैंडपंप से संग्रहण किया जाए तो आधान में संग्रहण से पहले पंप की धार या निकास को स्पिरिट लैंप की लौ में निर्जर्म किया जाए । :
6. नमूना संरक्षण और परिवहन
(1) आधान की किस्म और अपनाए जानेवाले नमूना संरक्षण नीचे दी गई सारणी-3 के अनुरूप होंगे;
तालिका-3
3.
2.
1.
संरक्षण
आधान
विश्लेषण
4° सी, डार्क सामान्य
ग्लास, पी ई
4° सी, डार्क
ग्लास, पी ई
बी ओडी
ग्लास, पी ई
एच एस ओ पी एच <2 सी ओ डी, एन एच , एन ओ,,
एन ओ
4° सी, डार्क कोलीफार्म
ग्लास , पी ई निर्जर्म
डी ओ निर्धारित रसायन
बी ओ डी बोतल
डीओ
कोई नहीं
पी ई
फ्लुराइड
कोई नहीं पी
ग्लास
4° सी, डार्क कीटनाशी
ग्लास , टेफलान
ग्लास, पी ई
एच एन ओ पी एच <2 विषाक्त धातु
(2) नमूने को यथाशीघ्र संबंधित प्रयोगशाला में संग्रहण करने के अड़तालीस घंटे के भीतर पहुंचाया जाएगा।
(3) नमूने के संग्रहण के चौबीस घंटे के भीतर कोलीफार्म का विश्लेषण शुरू कर दिया जाए। (4) माइक्रोग्राम प्रति ली. धातु स्तरवाले नमूनों को 4 सेंटीग्रेड पर भंडारण किया जाएगा और यथाशीघ्र विश्लेषण किया जाना चाहिए । यदि सांद्रता मि.ग्रा. /ली. स्तर का है तो इसका भंडारण छः महीने के लिए किया जा सकता है। मरकरी की दशा के मामले में इसकी समय सीमा 5 सप्ताह की है।
(5) सतह और भूमिगत जल नमूनों के जल नमूना विश्लेषण के लिए नमूना अभिनिर्धारण को प्ररूप- । और प्ररूप- ॥ में किए गए उल्लेख के अनुसार किया जाए ।
7. नमूना अभिलेख
(1 ) के लिए उपयोग किया जाएगा । नमूना प्राप्ति रजिस्टर के लिए एक प्रपत्र प्ररूप III में संलग्न है। प्रत्येक प्रयोगशाला में एक जिल्द बंद रजिस्टर होगा जिसका नमूना प्राप्त होते ही रजिस्टर में दर्ज करने (2) प्रयोगशाला प्रभारी विश्लेषक विशिष्ट को सौंपे गए कार्य का ब्यौरा एक रजिस्टर में रखेगा । 6128
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2005 / JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii)] 8. विश्लेषणात्मक तकनीकें
प्रत्येक अभिकरण को अमेरिकन पब्लिक हेल्थ एसोसिएशन (नवीनतम संकलन) के द्वारा प्रकाशित जल तथा अवशिष्ट जल विश्लेषण के लिए मानक पद्धतियों द्वारा निर्धारित विश्लेषणात्मक तकनीकों अथवा जल परीक्षण की विधियां और अपशिष्ट जल की जांच के लिए नमूनें ( भौतिक और रसायन) (आई एस: 3025) का अनुसरण करना होगा ।
9. विश्लेषण अभिलेख और आंकड़ा विधिमान्यकरण
विषैली धातुओं और सूक्ष्म जीवों को छोड़कर सभी पैरामीटरों को शामिल करते हुए आंकड़े रिकार्ड करने के लिए संस्तुत प्रपत्र प्ररूप iv में उल्लिखित है। सारणी -2 के अनुसार भारी धातुओं और सूक्ष्म जीवों की रिपोर्ट अलग से रिकार्ड की जाएगी । विश्लेषण पूरा होने पर विधिमान्यकरण जांच प्रयोगशाला में किया जाएगा । प्रयोगशाला विश्लेषण के परिणाम विधिमान्यकरण के लिए प्ररूप ।। में प्रदत्त प्रारूप में प्रविष्टि किए जाएं ।
10. प्रयोगशालाओं में मानव शक्ति की अपेक्षाएं
विश्लेषण को समय पर पूरा करने के लिए श्रम दिवसों का भरपूर उपयोग करने के लिए संबंधित मानीटरिंग अभिकरणोंद्वारा कर्मचारियों की संख्या इष्टतम की जाएगी।
11. आंकड़ा प्रसंस्करण , रिपोर्ट करना और प्रचार
प्रत्येक मानीटरिंग अभिकरण विश्लेषणात्मक आंकड़े तैयार करेगी और विधिमान्यकरण के बाद आंकड़े केन्द्रीय प्रदूषण नियंत्रण बोर्ड के आंकड़ा केन्द्र को भेजे जाएंगे । केन्द्रीय प्रदूषण नियंत्रण बोर्ड आंकड़ों का भण्डारण करेगा और वेब साइट के द्वारा प्रचार प्रसार करेगा अथवा विभिन्न उपयोगकर्ताओं की मांग पर इलेक्ट्रानिक डाक द्वारा भेजेगा ।
12. गुणवत्ता आश्वासन और प्रयोगशालाओं का प्रत्यायन
विभिन्न अभिकरणों की प्रयोगशालाओं के लिए गुणवत्ता आश्वासन कार्यक्रम में संचालन सिद्धांतों का समूह, संगणकों द्वारा लिखित और सहमत, विशिष्ट कार्यों को रेखांकित करते हुए शामिल प्रत्येक व्यक्ति का उत्तरदायित्व, निहित होना चाहिए। जल गुणता मानीटरिंग अभिकरणों की प्रत्येक प्रयोगशाला को उनकी संबंधित केन्द्रीय प्रयोगशाला अथवा मुख्यालय द्वारा निर्धारित गुणता आश्वासन कार्यक्रम के दिशानिर्देशों का अनुसरण करना चाहिए और उनके अथवा किसी अन्य अभिकरण द्वारा नियमित आधार पर आयोजित आन्तरिक प्रयोगशाला गुणता आश्वासन कार्यक्रम जैसे कुशलता जांच (पी टी) में भाग लेना । जल गुणता प्रयोगशालाओं को पर्यावरण और वन मंत्रालय भारत सरकार से मान्यता अथवा विज्ञान और प्रौद्योगिकी मंत्रालय , भारत सरकार के अन्तर्गत नेशनल एक्रेडीएशन बोर्ड फार टेस्टिंग एण्ड वेलीवरेशन बोर्ड से प्रत्यायन प्राप्त करना होगा ।
[फा.सं. जे -15011/8/2004-एनआरसीडी ] एम सेनगुप्ता, सलाहकार 6129
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18 , 2005 /ज्येष्ठ 28 , 1927
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
प्ररूप - ।
सतही जल नमूनों के विश्लेषण और नमूना पहचान और अभिलेख
नमूनाकोड
परियोजना
प्रेक्षक
अभिकरण
तिथि समय
स्टेशन कोड
परिरक्षण
शोधन
मापमान कोड
आधान
फिल्टर
निस्तारण ग्लास पीवीसी पीई टेफलून
ठंढ़ा अम्ल अन्य कोई नहीं
कोई नहीं
(1) सामान्य
(2)जीवाणु-विज्ञान
(3)बी ओ डी
(4)सी ओ डी, एन एच एन ओ
(5)विषैलीधातुएं
(6) सूक्ष्म जीव
नमूने के स्रोत
मध्यम
जल
प्वाइंट
मैट्रिक्स
दृष्टिकोण
० स्वच्छ
0 जल
0 नदी
० पुल
0 मुख्य धारा
0 खारा
0 नाव
० निलम्बित पदार्थ
0 दायां किनारा
0 नाला
0 लवण
0 बी ओटा
0 वायां किनारा
0 वाडिग
0 नहर
० बहिस्राव
0 सेडिमैन्ट
० जलाशय
(झील/कुण्ड/तालाब)
0 फ्लोकाम्प
0 चौड़ाई इन्टैंग
० ग्रेव
0 गहराई इन्टैंग
0 टाइम-काम्प
नमूना प्रकार
० भारित बोतल ० पम्प 0 गहराई के नमूने लेनेवाला
नमूना उपकरण
क्षेत्र अवधारण
डीओ मिग्रा/लीटर
ई सी माइक्रोहोम्स/सेमी
तापमान सी
पी एच
कलर कोड
6) गहरा हरा गंध कोड
1) हल्का भूरा
6) विषाक्त
1) गंधमुक्त
7) साफ
2) भूरा
7) सुगन्धित
2) सड़े अंडे
3) गहरा भूरा 8) अन्य 3) जलीचीनी 8) क्लोरोनियस
विशिष्ट
4) हल्का हरा
9) मादक
4) साबुनी
5) हरा
10) अप्रिय
5) मछली की
टिप्पणी
० धूप ० बादल ० वर्षाकाल ० हवादार
जलवायु
जलस्तर
0 उच्च (> 0.5) 0 मध्य (0.1-0.5) 0 कम (< 0.1 ) 0 स्थायी
0 कोई नहीं ० खेती 0 स्नान और कपड़े धोना 0 मवेशी नहलाना
प्रयुक्त जल
0 नदीतल में खरबूजा वनस्पतियों की खेती ० व्यवस्थित जल आपूर्ति 6130
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2005/JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]
प्ररूप- II
सतही जल नमूनों के लिए नमूना पहचान
नमूनाकोड
प्रेक्षक
अभिकरण
परियोजना
तारीख
समय
स्टेशन कोड
०पाइज़ोमीटर
हैण्डपम्प ०ट्यूब वैल
कुआं, 0
नमूने का स्रोतः ० खुला गहरा
मापमान कोड
परिरक्षण
आधान
उपचार
ग्लास
निस्तारण फिल्टर
अम्ल अन्य
पीई टेफलोन कोई नहीं ठंडा
पीवीसी
कोई नही
(1)सामान्य
(2)जीवाणु-
विज्ञान
(3)बीओडी
(4)सीओडी, एनएच३, एनओ 3
(5) विषैली धातुएं
(6) सूक्ष्म जीव
क्षेत्र निर्धारण
से०
तापमान
डीओ
एमजी 1
पी एच
ईसी
माइक्रोहोमस/सेमी
गंध कोड
कलर कोड
(6) गहरा हरा
(1) हल्काभूरा
(6) विषाक्त
(1 ) गंध मुक्त
(7) सुगन्धित
(2) भूरा
(2) संडे अंडे
(7) साफ
(8) क्लोरोनियस
(3) जली चीनी
(3) गहरा भूरा (8) अन्य
(विशिष्ट)
(4) हल्का हरा
(4) साबुनी (9) मादक
(5) मछली (10)अप्रिय
(5) हरा
निम्नलिखित भरें
यदि कुआं परिष्कृत है तो
कार्यालय कुआं आंकड़े
व्यास
सीएम
क्यू
डी
गहराई
एम
एम
एस डब्ल्यू एल
स्थायी जल स्तर (औसत)
एच
एम
वाटर कालम (डी एस डब्ल्यू एल)
वी
एल
कुएं का मूल आयतन
प्रक्षेपित पम्प बहिस्राव
एल/एस
पीक्यू
पीटी
परिष्करण के लिए प्रक्षेपित समय
एम आई एन
क्षेत्र . बहाव अवधारण
आगमन पर स्थिर जल स्तर
एम
एस डब्ल्यू एल
वास्तविक पम्प व्यवस्था
एम
परिष्करण अवधि
मिनट
एल/मिनट
नमूने से पहले पम्प बहिस्त्राव क्यू
वी
एल/मिनट
नमूने के बाद पम्प बहिस्राव
वी
एल
परिष्कृत आयतन
गतिशील जलस्तर
एम
डी डब्ल्यूएल
क्षेत्र रसायन माप
पी एच
तापमान (सेल्सियस )
ई सी (माइक्रोम हो/सीएम)
नमूने लेना शुरू करने के
शुरूआत में समय
+ 10मिनट
+20लिन्ग्ट
+30मिनट
+40 मिनट 6131 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18, 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28, 1927
प्ररूप ।।।
विश्लेषण के लिए नमूने अभिलेख
संरक्षण
परियोजना
मापमान कोड
स्टेशन कोड
संग्रह
अभिकरण/संग्रहकर्ता
संग्रहण की तारीख/समय
प्रयोगशाला नमूना संख्या प्रयोगशाला में प्राप्ति की तारीख/समय
7
8
6
2
3
4
5
1
नमूना प्राप्ति रजिस्टर
टिप्पणीः-
स्तंभ (3) मानीटरिंग अभिकरण द्वारा अपनाए गए परम्परागत स्टेशन कोड को दर्शाता है ।
स्तंभ (4) परियोजना को दर्शाता है जिसके अंतर्गत नमूना संग्रहण किया जाता है ।
स्तंभ (7) नमूना अभिनिर्धारण फार्म में दिए गए पैरामीटर के अनुरूप है ।
स्तंभ (8) प्रयोगशाला में जैसे ही नमूने की प्राप्ति होती है नमूने को दी गई प्रयोगशाला नमूने को दर्शाता है । यह उल्लेख करना कि संख्या के दो भाग होते हैं जो हाइफन से अलग होते हैं। प्रथम भाग को श्रंखलाबद्ध ढंग से दिया गया है क्योंकि नमूने विभिन्न स्टेशनों से प्राप्त होते हैं । यदि किसी स्टेशन से विश्लेषण के विभिन्न सेटों के लिए एक ही समय में दो नमूने एकत्र किए जाते हैं तो संख्या का. प्रथम भाग एक समान ही होगा । दूसरा भाग नमूना में दिए गए मांपमान कोड के अनुरूप होगा ।
कोड के एक समान प्रथम भाग वाले सभी नमूनों के विश्लेषण के परिणाम को आंकड़ा प्रविष्टि प्रणाली में प्रविष्ट किया जाएगा क्योंकि एक नमूना में नमूना संग्रहण एक ही स्टेशन कोड और समय हो सकता है । 1714 G1 /05-25 7519
बायल
क्लोरोफिल-ए, मिग्रा./ली.
एमपीएन/100मिली.
फीकल,
*कुलएमपीएन/100मिली
कालीफार्म
५बी,मिग्रा./ली.
३.एफ,मिग्रा./ली.
अन्यअकार्बनिक
एसआई,मिग्रा./ली.
४एचसीओ,मिग्रा./ली.
४सीओ,मिग्रा./ली.
४एसओ,मिग्रा./ली.
योगशालाकोड
सीआर,मिग्रा./ली.
५
४के',मिग्रा./ली.
एनए',मिग्रा./ली.
५
एम",मिग्रा./ली.
प्रमुखआयन
४सी",मिग्रा./ली.
सीमिग्रा.सी,सीओ/ली
3
कडापन
22
कु.मिग्रा.सीसीओ/ली
कुलमिग्रा.सीसीओ/ ४ली.
प्रपत्र-IV
क्षारीय
फेन,मिग्रा.सीसीओ, ली.
ळसीओडी,मिग्रा./ली.
प्रयोगशाला/संगठन
कार्बनिकतत्व
बीओडी,मिग्रा./ली.
कुलमि.ग्रा./ली.
एनआई
5
एन/ओ,एनओ,मिग्रा.
पोषक
एनएच,मि.ग्रा.
टीएसएस,मि.ग्रा./ली.
टीडीएस,मि.ग्रा./ली.
ईसी,अम्हो/सीएम
सामान्य
डाटारिकार्ड
पीएच.
७गंध,कोड
∞रंगकोड
तापमान,०°से.
डीओ,नि.ग्रा./ली.
5
ईसीमाइक्रोमोस/सीएम
क्षेत्रनिर्धारण
4
पीएच
3
संग्रहकीतारीख
2
1 टिप्पणियां
5455
केद्वाराजांचागया
जांचमानदंड
सीओ,संतुलन
51
पीएच,वीएस, क्षारीयअनुपात
(19)=0? If(10)<8.3 <8.3is
अनुपात
(17)/(18)
बीओडी/सीओडी
अनुपात
(12) 12)/(11)
टीडीएस/ईसी
(39)/(42)
आयनसंतुलन
(41)+(47) (47)/(41)
{(41)-
क्यू/ली.
कुल ऋणायनएमई
एमईक्यू/ली.
एनओ एनओ,एनओ
एचसीओ,एमईक्यू ली.
ली.
एसओ,एमईक्यू/
एसओ,एमईक्यू/ लो.
ऋणायन
सीएल,एमईक्यू/ ली.
4
कुलधनायन
क",एमईक्यू/ ली.
एनए,एमईक्यू/ ली.
४४एमजी,एमइक्यू/ ली.
धनायन
ली.
सीए,एमईक्यू/
237
स्टेशनकोड
डाटावैधता
प्रभो.नमूनासं.
6133 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18, 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28 , 1927
MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS
New Delhi , the 17 June, 2005.
S. O. 2151.- WHEREAS the Water Quality Assessment Authority ( WQAA ) was constituted by the Central Government vide Order No. S.O. 583 (E) dated the 29th May, 2001 and No. S.O. 635 (E) dated the 27th October , 2004 to exercise powers under section 5 of the Environment (Protection ) Act, 1986(29 of 1986) for issuing directions and for taking measures with respect to matters referred to in clauses( ix) , (xi) , (xii ) and (xiii) of sub - section (2) of section 3 of the said Act and to standardise method(s ) for water quality monitoring and to ensure quality of data generation for utilization thereof and certain other purposes ;
AND WHEREAS it is necessary and expedient to evolve water quality assessment and monitoring protocol as directed by the Water Quality Assessment Authority in order to maintain uniformity in the procedure for water quality monitoring mechanism by all monitoring agencies , departments , Pollution Control Boards and such other agencies so that water related action plans may be drawn up on the basis of reliable data;
AND WHEREAS the uniform process on water quality monitoring shall provide frequency of monitoring , procedure for sampling , parameters for analysis , analytical techniques , quality assurance and quality control system , infrastructure requirement for laboratories , procedure for data processing , reporting and dissemination and such other matters as the Central Government deems necessary for the said purpose, both for surface and ground water;
AND WHEREAS due to the deterioration of the river water quality , health and livelihood of the downstream people are being severely affected and concerns are raised time and again;
AND WHEREAS the immediate maintenance and restoration of ' wholesomeness of the river water quality is the mandate under the Water ( Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act , 1974 ( 6 of 1974 ) and that of maintenance of the ground water quality by the Central Ground Water Authority constituted under the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act , 1986;
AND WHEREAS sub - rule (4) of rule 5 of the Environment ( Protection ) Rules , 1986, provides that whenever it appears to the Central Government that it is in public interest to do so , itmay dispense with the requirement of notice under clause ( a) of sub - rule ( 3 ) of the said rules " ;
AND WHEREAS the Central Government is of the opinion that it is in public interest to dispense with the requirement of notice under clause( a) of sub - rule (3 ) of rule 5 of the said rules to issue the Order .
NOW , THEREFORE , in exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 of the Environment ( Protection) Act, 1986 , the Central Government hereby makes the following order, namely: - 6134
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18, 2005/ JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
[PART II-SEC. 3( ii)] 1. Short title and commencement.-
(a) 2005" . This order may be called the Uniform Protocol on Water Quality Monitoring Order , (b) It shall come into force on the date of its publication in the Official Gazette .
2. Application . It shall apply to all organizations , agencies and any other body monitoring surface and ground water quality for observance of uniform protocol on water quality monitoring.
3. Definitions.-
In this Order , unless the context otherwise requires , -
(1 ) " agencies " means water quality monitoring agencies (government or non - government , local bodies) and other organizations including research and academic institutions involved in water quality monitoring of surface and ground waters ;
(2) " Authority " means the Water Quality Assessment Authority ( WQAA ) constituted under sub - sections ( 1 ) and (2 ) of section 3 of the Environment ( Protection ) Act , 1986 ;
(3) " Baseline stations " means the monitoring location where there is no influence of human activities on water quality;
(4) " Flux stations or Impact stations " means the location for measuring the mass of particular pollutant on main river stem for measuring the extent of pollution due to human interference or geological feature at any point of time and is necessary for measuring impact of pollution control measures adopted;
(5) " monitoring " means standardised measurements of identified parameters in order to define status and trends of water quality ;
(6)" protocol " means a system of uniform water quality monitoring mechanism developed by the Water Quality Assessment Authority constituted under sub - sections ( 1 ) and (3 ) of section 3 of the Environment ( Protection ) Act, 1986 ;
(7) "Quality Assurance Programme " means a programme described in paragraph 12 of thisOrde
(8) "Treng station " means the monitoring location designed to show how a particular point on a watercourse varies over time due , normally , to the influence of man's activities;
(9) "water quality monitoring network " means a systematic planning for collection, preservation and transportation , storage , analysis of water samples and dissemination of data for national water bodies restricted to surface and ground water in the country .
4. Monitoring station and frequency of sampling.- [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
6135 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18, 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28, 1927
(1) The frequency of sampling in respect of surface water shall be as follows: -
all the stations shall be a combination of Baseline , Trend and Flux or Impact (a) stations .
(b) the Baseline stations shall be monitored four times a year for perennial rivers and lakes and three to four times a year for seasonal rivers . Trend stations shall be monitored with an increased frequency of once in a month i.e. twelve times in a year . Flux or Impact stations shall be monitored twelve to twenty - four times in a year depending upon pollution potential or importance of water use .
(c) all agencies shall follow the sampling frequency and parameters for analysis of surface water as mentioned in the Table - I given below: -
Table - I
Frequencies and parameters for analysis of surface water samples
1
2
3
Parameters
TypeofStation
Frequency
Baseline:
(A) Pre-monsoon: Once a year
Perennial rivers and Lakes:
Analyse 25 parameters as listed below..
Four times a year (seasonal)
(a)General: Colour, odour , temperature , pH, Electrical Conductivity ( EC ) , Dissolved Oxygen( DO ), Turbidity, Total Dissolved Solid (TDS)
Seasonal rivers:
(b) Nutrients: Ammoniacar Nitrogen ( NH4 - N ) , Nitrite & Nitrate Nitrogen ( NO2 + NO3 , Total Phosphate ( Total P )
3-4 times (at equal spacing) during period. flow
(c) Demand parameters : Biological Oxygen Demand ( BOD ) , Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD )
Lake:
4 times a year (seasonal )
(d)Major ions : Sodium (Na) , Potassium ( K) , Calcium ( Ca ) , Magnesium (Mg) , Carbonate ( CO3), Bicarbonate ( HCO3) , Chloride ( CI ) , Sulphate (SO4 )
(e)Other inorganic: Fluoride ( F ) , Boron ( B ) and other location specific parameter , if any
(f) Microbiological: Total coliform and Faecal.Coliform
(B) Rest of the year ( after the pre - monsoon sampling ) at every three months' interval :
Analyse 10 parameters : Colour , Odour , Temperature , pH , EC , DO , NO2 + NO , BOD , Total coliform and Faecal Coliform .
(A) Pre- monsoon: Analyse 25 parameters as listed for baseline monitoring
Flux: Trend or Impact or Once every month starting April-May (pre- monsoon) , i.e. 12 times a year
(B)Other months : Analyse 15 parameters as listed below
(a)General: Colour , Odour , Temp , pH , EC , DO
and Turbidity
(b)Nutrients : NH - N, NO + NO , Total P
(c)Organic Matter: BOD , COD
(d) Major ions : Cl
(e)Microbiological : Total and Faecal coliforms
(C)Micropollutant Once in a year / pre monsoon 6136
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2005/ JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
[PART II-SEC. 3( i)]
(i)Pesticides-Alpha Benzenehexachloride ( BHC) , Beta BHC , Gama BHC
(Lindane), OP-Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (OP - DDT) , PP -DDT, Alpha
Endosulphan, Beta Endosulphan , Aldrin ,
Dieldrin, Carbaryl ( Carbamate),
Malathian , Methyl Parathian , Anilophos ,
Chloropyriphos
(ii )Toxic Metals -Arsenic ( As ) , Cadmium ( Cd ) , Mercury ( Hg ) , Zinc ( Zn ) , Chromium (Cr) , Lead(Pb), Nickel ( Ni) , Iron (Fe)
( The parameters may be selected based on local need ) .
Note: ( i ) The parameters mentioned in the above Table shall be the minimal requirement . This does not, however, restrict analysis of more parameters depending upon the specific requirements of the analysing agency and its manpower availability .
( ii ) For lakes or reservoirs , monitoring of additional parameters , like total Kjeldhal Nitrogen , Chlorophyll , total Plankton count and productivity , shall be included in the list of parameters .
(iii) If biomonitoring is done in river or lakes or reservoirs , additional specific parameters are to be considered .
(2) Ground Water
The frequency of sampling in respect of ground water shall be as follows:
(a) all stations shall be classified as Baseline stations .
(b) 20-25 % of Baseline stations shall be classified as Trend stations where there is a perceived problem .
(c) all agencies shall follow the sampling frequency and parameters for analysis of ground water as mentioned in the Table - 2 given below: -
Table-2
Frequencies and parameters for analysis of Ground Water samples
1
2
3
Type of Station
Frequency
Parameters
Baseline
Twice a year
(A) Pre and Post Monsoon Season: Analyse 20 parameters as listed below: -
(a) General : Colour , odour, temperature , pH , EC , TDS
(Pre and Post monsoon season)
(b) Nutrients: NO2 + NO3 , orthophosphate
(c) Demand Parameter: COD
(d) Major lons: Na + , K + , Ca++ , Mg ++ , CO3 , HCO3 , CI , SO4 %Na & SAR ( e) Other inorganics : F, B and other location - specific parameter, if any.
Trend
Twice a vear
(A) April - May: Analyse 20 parameters as listed for Baseline monitoring. (B) Other times : Analyse 14 parameters as listed below: -
and
nost ( भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]
6137 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18, 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28, 1927
monsoon)
(f) General : Colour , odour , temp, EC , pH, TDS , % Na & SAR
(a) Nutrients . NO2+ NO3 , orthophosphate
(b) Demand parameter: COD
(c) Major ions : CI
(d) Other inorganics : F ,B
(e) Microbiological : Total coliform and faecal coliform
(C)Micropollutant (parameters maybe selected based on local need):
(2) Pesticides Alpha BHC , Beta , BHC , Gama BHC (Lindane), OP-DDT, PP- DDT, Alpha Endosulphan , Beta Endosulpham , Aldrin , Dieldrin , 2 , 4 -D , Carbaryl (Carbamate ) , Malathian , Methyl , Parathian , Anilphos , Chloropyriphos.
(3) ToxicMetals - As , Cd , Hg , Zn , Cr , Pb , Ni , Fe
(Pesticidesand Toxic metals may be analysed once a year in pre monsoon on selected locations ) .
Note: - ( i) The parameters mentioned in the above Table shall be the minimal requirement . This does not, however , restrict analysis of more parameters depending upon the specific requirements of the analysing agency and its manpower availability.
( ii ) If Chemcial Oxygen Demand( COD ) value exceeds 20 mg/ l , the sample shall be analysed for Biochemical Oxygen Demand ( BOD ) also .
5. Sample Collection .
( 1 ) The procedure for sample collection in respect of surface water shall be as under :
(a) samples for Baseline and Trend stations shall be collected from well - mixed section of the river or main stem 30 cm below the water surface using a Dissolved Oxygen ( DO) sampler or weighted bottle .
(b) samples for Impact stations shall be collected from the point of interest , such as bathing ghat , down stream of point discharge , water supply intakes and other sources.
(c) the Dissolved Oxygen ( DO) in the sample shall be fixed immediately after collection and Dissolved Oxygen ( DO) analysis shall be done either in the field or in laboratory.
(2) The procedure for sample collection in respect of ground water shall be as under:
(a) open dug wells , which are not in use or have been abandoned , shall not be considered as water quality monitoring station . However , such well could be considered for water level monitoring.
(b) weighted sample bottle to collect sample from an open well about 30 cm below the surface of water may be used . The plastic bucket , which is likely to skim the surface layer only , shall not be used .
6138
[PART II-SEC. 3( ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2005/ JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
(c) samples from the production tube wells shall be collected after running the well for about five minutes .
(d) non -production piezometers shall be purged using a submersible pump . The. purged water volume shall equal 4 to 5 times the standing water volume , before sample iscollected.
(e) for bacteriological samples , when collected from tube wells or hand pump, the spout or outlet of the pump shall be sterilized under flame by spirit lamp before collection of sample in container .
6. Sample preservation and transportation .
(1) The type of containers and sample preservation to be adopted shall be as mentioned in the Table -3 below:
Table-3
3
2
1
Container '
Preservation
Analysis
General
Glass, PE
4°C, dark
Glass, PE
4°C, dark
BOD
H2SO4 , PH<2
Glass, PE
COD , NH3 ,NO2 , NO3
4°C, dark
Coliform
Glass, PE , Sterilised
BOD. bottle
DO
DO fixing chemicals
Fluoride
PE
None
Glass
None
P
Pesticides
4°C, dark
Glass, Teflon
Toxic metals
Glass, PE
HNO3 , PH<2
(2) Samples shall be transported to concerned laboratory as soon as possible , preferably within forty - eight hours of collection .
(3) Analysis for coliforms shall be started within twenty - four hours of collection of sample . If time is exceeded , it should be recorded with the result .
(2) Samples containing microgram / l metal level should be stored at 4 °C and analyzed as soon as possible . If the concentration is of mg / l level , it can be stored for up to 6 months , except mercury, for which the limit is 5 weeks .
( 5) Sample Identification for the water sample analysis for surface and ground water samples shall be as mentioned in the Form - l and Form - II .
7. Sample records .
(1) Each laboratory shall have a bound register , which shall be used for registering samples as they are received . A format for sample receipt register is annexed as Form - III.
(2) The Laboratory Incharge shall maintain a register for assignment of work to specific analyst .
6139 भारत का राज्जपत्र : जून 18 , 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28 , 1927
[भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]
8. Analytical techniques .
Each agency shall follow the analytical techniques prescribed in the Standard Methods for Analysis of Water and Wastewater published by American Public Health Association ( Latest Edition) or Bureau of Indian Standards ( BIS ) Methods for Testing Water and Wastewater - methods of sampling and testing ( physical and chemical ) (IS:3025)
9. Analysis records and data validation .
A recommended format for recording data including all parameters except toxic metals and trace organics is enclosed as Form - IV . Report of heavy metals and trace organics as per Table 2 may be recorded separately . Validation checks should be performed in the laboratory on completion of the analysis . The results of laboratory analyses shall be entered in the format provided in Form - II for validation .
10. Manpower requirements in laboratories .
The manpower requirements shall be optimised by the concerned monitoring agencies in order to get the maximum utilization of mandays , for timely completion of analysis.
11. Data Processing , Reporting and Dissemination .
Each monitoring agency shall process the analytical data and report the data after validation to the Data Centre at the Central Pollution Control Board. The Central Pollution Control Board shall store the data and disseminate through website or electronic mail to various users on demand.
12. Quality Assurance and Accreditation of Laboratories .
The Quality Assurance Programme for the laboratories of various agencies shall contain a set of operating principles , written down and agreed upon by the organization , delineating specific functions and responsibilities of each person involved. Each laboratory of water quality monitoring agencies shall follow the guidelines of Quality Assurance Programme prescribed by their respective Central Laboratory or Headquarters and shall participate in Inter Laboratory Quality Assurance Programme like Proficiency Testing (PT) organized by them or any other agency on regular basis . The Water Quality Laboratories shall seek recognition from, the Ministry of Environment and Forests , Government of India or accreditation from National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratories (NABL) under the Ministry of Science and Technology , Government of India .
[F. No. 15011/8/2004 -NRCD ] M. SENGUPTA, Adviser 1714 GI/05-26 6140
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2005 / JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]
FORM- I
Sample identification for surface water samples analysis and record.
Samplecode
Observer
Agency
Project
Date
Station code
Time
Container
Parameter code
Preservation
Treatment
Glass PVC PE
None Cool Acid Other
Decant Filter
None
Tef- lon
(1) General
(2) Bacteriology
(3)BOD
(4) COD , NH3 , NO3
(5) Toxic Metals
(6) Trace Organics
Source of sample
Water
Point
Medium
Matrix
Approach
0 River
0 Main current
0 Water
0 Fresh
0Bridge
0Drain
0 Beat
0 Right bank
0 Brackish
0 Suspended matter
0 Canal
0 Left bank
0 Biota
0 Salt
0Wading
0Reservoir
0 Sediment
0 Effluent
(lakes/tank/ pond)
0 Grab 0 Time- comp
Sample type
0 Flow-comp
0 Width- integ
0Depth-integ
Sample device
0weighted bottle
0 Depth sampler
0Pump
Field determinations
PH
Temp
DO
EC
mg/ l
micromhos/cm
Odour Code
( 1) Odour free
Colour code
(6) Septic
( 1) Light brown ( 6 ) Dark green (2) Rotten eggs (7) Aromatic
(2) Brown
(7) Clear
(8) Chlorinous
(3) Burnt sugar
(3) Dark brown ( 8 ) Other
(9)Alcoholic
(4) Soapy
(4) Light green (specify) (5) Fishy
(10) Unpleasant
(5) Green
Remarks
Weather
0 Rainy 0
0 Sunny 0 Cloudy
Windy
Water vel . M/ s
0 High ( > 0.5 )
0 Low ( < 0.1 )
0 Medium ( 0.1-0.5 )
0 Standing Water use
0 None 0 Cultivation 0 Bathing & washing 0 Cattle washing 0 Melon/ vegetable farming in riverbed. 0 Organised water supply [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
6141
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18 , 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28, 1927
FORM- II
Sample identification for ground water samples .
Sample code
Observer
Agency
Date
Time
Station code Source of sample : 0 Open dug well 0 Hand pump 0 Tube well 0 Piezometer
Parameter code
Container
Glass PVC PE Tef- lon (1) General
(2) Bacterlogical
(3) BOD
(4) COD , NH3 , NO3
(5)ToxicMetals
(6) Tr. Organics
Field determinations
°C PH
Temp
Project
Preservation
Treatment
None Cool Acid Other None Decan Filter
t
DO
mg/l
EC
micromho/cm
OdourCode
( 1 ) Odour free (6) Septic
(7) Aromatic
(2) Rotten eggs
(3) Burnt sugar (8) Chlorinous
(9) Alcoholic
(4) Soapy
(5) Fishy
(10) Unpleasant
IF WELL IS PURGED , COMPLETE BELOW: -
Office Well Data
Diameter
Q
D
Depth
SWL
Static water level ( avg)
H
Water column (D -SWL)
V
Initial volume well
PQ
Projected pump discharge
PT
Projected time of purging (V/PQ)
Field Flow Measurement
Static water level on arrival
SWL
Actual pump setting
Purging duration
Q
Pump Discharge before
sampling
Q
Pump Discharge after
sampling
V
Volume purged
DWL
Dynamic water level
Field Chemical Measurement
T(°C)
Colour code
( 1 ) Light brown ( 6 ) Dark green (2) Brown
(7) Clear
( 8 ) Other
(3) Dark brown
(4) Light green (specify)
(5) Green
cm
m
m
L
L/ s
min
M
m
Min
L/min
L/min
L
M
pH
EC (micromho/cm)
Time at start of sampling started
+10 min
+20 min
+30 min
+40min 6142
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2005/ JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
[PART II--SEC . 3 (ii) ]
FORM- III
Sample Record for Analysis
Project
8
7
6
2
3
4
Sample receipt register
Note:-
Column 3 gives the station code conventionally followed by the monitoring agency.
Column (4) gives the project under which the sample is collected .
Column (7) corresponds to the parameter(s ) code given in the sample identification form.
Column ( 8 ) gives the laboratory sample assigned to the sample as it is received in the laboratory . Note that the numbering has two parts separated by a hyphen . The first part is assigned in a sequential manner as samples are received from various stations . If two samples are collected at the same time from a station for different sets of analysis , the first part of the number is the same . The second part corresponds to the parameter code عده ven in the sample .
The results of the analyses of all the samples having the same first part of the code would be entered in the data entry system as one sample having the same station code and time of sample collection [(!!)-11lbs]
Biol
36.Chlorophyll-A, mg
MPN/100ml
35.
Faecal,
ml
34.Total,MPN/100
Coliforms
33.
B,mg/l
32.
F,mg/l
31.
Si,mg/l
Other inorganics
30.
HCO3,mg/l
29.
CO₂,mg/l
28.
SO4,mg/L
27.
Cr,mg/l
26.
K*,mg/l
25.
Na,mg/L
Laboratorycode
24.
Mg",mg/l
23.
Ca,mg/l
Majorions
C₂CO₃
22.
C++,mg
21.
Total,mg
Hardness
CCO
FORM-IV
20.
Total,mg
C₂CO₃
19.
Phen,mg
Alkalinity
18.
COD,mg/l
17.
BOD,mg/l
Orgmatter
Laboratory/organization
16.
Total,mg/l
N/I
15
NO2,NO3,mg
14.
NH3,mp mgN/I
Nutrients
13.
TSS,mg/l
12.
TDS,mg/l
11.
EC,umho/cm
10.
PH
General
9.
Odour,code
8.
Colour,code
7. Datarecord
Temp,°C
6.
DO,mg/l
micromohs/cm
5.
EC,
4.
PHFielddetermination
3.
Dateofcollection
2.
1.
5 Remarks
55 Check eckedby
55 Verification criteria
CO3.bal
5
If(10)<8.3,is (19)-0?
PH,Vs, AlkalinityRatio
(17)/(1 (18)
BOD/CODRatio
(12)/(11) (1)
TDS/ECRatio
4
(39)/(42)
Ionbalance
(47)/(41)+(47)
{(41)-
Totalanionsmeq
NO₂+NO3,meq
Anions
HCO3,meq/
CO3,meq/
SO₄,meq/
C1,meq/
L
cations
meq/
Total
야
K**meq/l
Cations
Na,meq/l
38
Mg,meq
5
Ca**meq/
2 Stationcode
LabsampleNo.
Datavalidation 6144
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18, 2005/JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] श्रम मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली, 25 मई , 2005
"Whether the action of the management of BSNL, Bahraich in terminating the services of Sh. Prem Chandra, daily wager w.e.f. 31-7-2001 is just and legal ? If not , what relief the workman is entitled ? " का०आ ० 2152.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार दूर संचार विभाग के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय लखनऊ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 122/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25-05-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं० एल-40012/75/2004- आईआर (डीयू) ]
कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डैस्क अधिकारी
MINISTRY OF LABOUR New Delhi , the 25th May, 2005
S.O. 2152.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 122/ 2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court Lucknow now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of D/ o Telecom and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 25-05-2005.
[No. L-40012/75/2004 - IR (DU) ]
The reference order was endorsed to Smt . Premlata , the workman and the Telecom District Manager, Telecom Deptt . , BSNL , Bahraich and the Chief General Manager, Telecommunication, East , Lucknow/The Principal General Manager, Pee Kay Bhawan, Lucknow - 226001 . The reference order was received in Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court , Lucknow on 31-12-2004 but the workman did not file statement of claim till 28-1-2005 . Thereafter , the Presiding Officer ordered the issuance of registered notice to the workman with direction to file statement of claim complete with relevant documents , list of reliance and witnesses by 25-2-2005 . The registered notice was issued to the workman on 31-1-2005 vide receipt No. 44 dated 7-2-2005 . The office has informed that the registered article containing notice to the workman did not return, un -served in the Tribunal till 4-3-2005 as such , service of notice upon the workman was presumed and the Presiding Officer ordered to issue notice to the opposite party to file written statement . The registered notices were issued to opposite parties No. 1 and 2 vide receipt Nos . 2805 and 209 dtd . 9-3-2005 .
KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW
PRESENT:
SHRIKANT SHUKLA , Presiding Officer
I.D. No. 122/2004
Ref. No. L-40012/ 75 /2004 - IR (DU) dated : 29-10-2004
None appeared from the opposite parties , though the registered article containing notice to the opposite party No. 2 was received back in the office on 15-3-2005 with remark " Left " whereas , in case of opposite party No. 1 , the office has informed that the registered article containing notice to the workman did not return , un - served inthe Tribunal till 16-5-2005 as such , service of notice upon the workman was presumed and this Court has no option but to proceed with the case.
BETWEEN
Smt . Premlata W/ o Sh . Ram Murti R/o Vill . and Post Gyaghat , Tehsil Nanpara, Bahraich
AND
Itwas for the worker Shri Prem Chandra to prove that he was daily wager in the department of telecom , BSNL , Bahraich and he was illegally terminated on 31-7-2001 . Since theworker has not appeared , therefore, I have no alternative than to pass no claim award in the present case .
1. The Telecom District Manager , Telecom Deptt . BSNL , Bahraich
Lucknow 18-5-2005 SHRIKANT SHUKLA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 25 मई, 2005
2. The ChiefGeneral Manager, Telecommunication, East, Lucknow/The Principal General Manager Lucknow - 226001
AWARD
का०आ ० 2153. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार यूको बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 114/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24-05-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं० एल-12011 /135/ 2000- आईआर ( बी- II) ] The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide their Order No. L -40012 /75 /2004 - IR (DU) dated: 29-10-2004 has referred following dispute for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court , Lucknow for adjudication.
सी. गंगाधरण, अवर सचिव [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
New Delhi , the 25thMay, 2005
S.O. 2153. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 114/ 2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court Kanpur (U.P. ) as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the manage- ment of UCO Bank and their workman , received by the Central Government on 24-05-2005 .
[No. L- 12011/ 135/2000- IR (B- II) ]
C. GANGADHARAN , Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SURESH CHANDRA, PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT, SARVODAYA NAGAR, KANPUR, U.P. Industrial Dispute No. 114 of 2000 Inthe matter of dispute between:
The Joint General Secretary, UCO Bank Employees Association C/o Shri B. P. Saxena, 426-W-2, Basant Vihar, Kanpur-208021
AND
UCOBank ZonalManager, ZonalOffice, 23, Vidhan SabhaMarg , Lucknow -226001
AWARD
1. Central Govt . Ministry of Labour, New Delhi vide its notification No. L - 12011 / 135 / 2000 - IR (B - II) dt. 15-9-2000 , has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :----
"Whether the action of the Regional Manager UCO Bank Lucknow in imposing the penalty on Sri Murari Lalvide order dated 15-12-98 is justified and legal ? If not what relief is the concerned workman entitled to ?"
2.. In the present case after exchange of pleadings between the parties , the workman was debarred from adducing his evidence in support of his case as he failed to puthis appearance before the tribunal on the date ofhearing ofthe case on 21-1-04 . In view of it the representative for the management also made a statement before the tribunal on 18-1-05 that since the workman has not adduced any evidence in support of his case, the management is also not inclined to adduce any evidence in the case.
3. In view of position discussed above , it appears that virtually it is a case of no evidence . It is also settled legal position of law that if workman failed to adduce evidence his claim must fail . As the workman failed to prove his case by adducing occular testimony, the claim of the workman is liable to be rejected.
6145
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18 , 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28 , 1927
4. Accordingly it is held that the action of the Regional Manager of management of UCO Bank Lucknow in imposing the penalty on Sri Murari Lal vide order dated 15-12-98 isjustified and legal. The result is that the workman is not entitled for any reliefpursuant to the present reference made to this Tribunal.
5. Refernce is decided accordingly.
SURESH CHANDRA, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 25 मई , 2005
का.आ. 2154.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय जयपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 8/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24-05-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल -12012/93/ 2003 - आईआर ( बी- II ) ]
सी. गंगाधरण, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 25th May, 2005
S.O. 2154.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 8/2004 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court, Jaipur, as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Bank of Baroda and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 24-05-2005.
[No. L- 12012/93/2003 - IR (B - II) ] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR
Case No. CGIT-8/ 2004
Reference No. L- 12012/93 /2003 - IR (B -II) Sh . Ramesh Kumar Nama, S/o Sh . Mohan Lal Nama, R/o Ghati Walo Ka Mohalla, NearBalajiMandir,
Applicant Niwai, Tonk (Rajasthan)
Versus
..Non-applicant The Deputy General Manager, Bank ofBaroda, Anand Bhawan, 4th Floor, Sansar Chandra Road, Jaipur-302001
PRESENT:
SH. R.C. SHARMA : Presiding Officer
Sh. M.F. Baig.
Fortheapplicant :
Sh. T.P. Sharma
For the non-applicant :
Dateofaward: 26-4-2005 6146
[PART II- SEC . 3( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18, 2005/ JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
AWARD
III. Relief , if any.
1. The Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred under Clause ' D ' of sub - section 1 to Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act ') has referred the following Industrial Dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal which runs as under:
6. In the evidence , the workman has submitted his affidavit and on behalf of the non -applicants , the counter- affidavit of MW - 1 , Sh. Hazari Lal Bairwa, the Branch Manager, has been placed on the record . Both these witnesses were cross - examined by the opposite representatives respectively. The workman has also brought on the record as many as 12 documents , whereas the non - applicant has chosen not to adduce any documentary evidence before the Court .
7. I have heard both the parties and have scanned the record. The point - wise discussion follows as under:- Point No. I
"Whether the contention of the workman Sh . Ramesh Kumar, S/o Shri Mohan Lal that he has worked continuously for more than 240 days in the consecutive 12 months during the period from 1984 to August 2002 , is correct and justified ? If yes , whether the action of the Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda, Niwai Branch , Distt . Tonk in terminating the service of the workman is legal and justified ? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date ? "
2. The claimant in his statement of claim has pleaded that he was employed as a 4th Class in the year 1984 at Niwai branch of the Bank of Baroda , who continuously worked there and had completed 240 days of work in each calendar year, but his service was terminated on 27-8-2002 in violation of Section 25 -F of the Act. He has further stated that at the time of terminating his service the junior persons to him were retained by the bank in violation of Section 25 -G of the Act . He has urged that his termination order be declared as unjust and illegal and he be reinstated in the service with its continuity and back -wages .
8. The ld. representative for the workman contends that the workman was employed as a 4th Class in the year 1984, who continuously worked till his termination on 17-8-2002. The Id . representative has placed his reliance upon the experience certificates Ex. W- 1 to W- 3 , the record sheet Ex . W - 4 and the passbook Ex. W- 12 and with the asistance of these documents he has contended that in the each year from 1993 to 1996 , the workman has completed more than 240 days of actual work. Countering these submissions , the ld. representative for the bank contends that the workman was not appointed by the bank by following the prescribed procedure which renders his appointment as invalid and he was only engaged on casual basis on the need of the urgent work. His contention is that the controversy is covered by the Section 2 (00)(bb) ofthe Act and the provision under Section 25 - F of the Act is not applicable to it.
9. I have bestowed my anxious consideration to the rival contentions .
10. Now, the first question which arises for consideration is whether the claimant was engaged as a 4th Class on daily wages basis by the bank ?
3. Resisting the claim the non - applicant in his written counter has averred that the workman was employed as a part-time/casual labour to discharge the contingent work, whose employment automatically came to an end on cessation ofthe work, that he was not regularly appointed after following the prescribed procedure and that he had not completed 240 days of actual work in the calendar year preceding to his termination . The non- applicant has further denied any contravention under Section 25 - G of the Act to the part of the bank .
4. In the rejoinder, the workman has stated that he was performing the duties similar to that of a 4th Class as per the direction of the bank and has also mentioned that he was appointed against the vacant post of the 4th Class .
5. On the pleadings ofboth the parties. the following points for determination were framed :-
I Whether the workman was appointed by the non- applicant bank to the post of 4th Class in the year 1984 , who continuously worked up to 16-08-2002 and whose service was terminated on 17-08-2002 in violation of Section 25 -F of the Act?
11. The plea set forth on behalf of the workman is that he was employed as a 4th Class in the year 1984 who continuously worked till his date of termination i.e. 17-8-2002 . Contrary to it , the stand of the bank is that the disputant was engaged intermittently for attending casual nature ofduties in the branch on contractual basis , but no such contract/ agreement could be placed on the record on behalfof the bank. However, it is focused from Ex. W- 5 , the list of empanelled temporary peons , whereby all those termpory employees who had worked for more than 90 daysduring the period commencing from 1982 to 1990 with the bank were empanelled for future engagement and at its serial number 9 figures the name of the workman . Its forwarding letter addressed by the Regional Manager to theBranch Manager directs the concerned authorities that the termporary peons be engaged only out of the empanelled temporary employees . Thus , on the basis of this document alone , this fact is established that the workman was employed as a 4th Class in the temporary IL Whether at the time of terminating the services of the workman his juniors were retained by the non- applicant bank in violation of Section 25 -G of the Act and Rule 77 of the Industrial Disputes Rule , 1957 ?
6147 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18, 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28, 1927
inthe cross-examination. No fact has surfaced on the record which could result in disbelieving his testimony.
capacity and it dilutes the submission advanced on behalf of the bank that the workman was engaged on: contract basis for a specified term and the contract came to an automatic end after the expiry of its term.
12. Now, I am faced with the question whether the workman has completed 240 days of actual service in a calendar year during the period commencing from 1984 to August, 2002 preceding to his termination ?
15. As against it , the testimony of MW- 1 , Sh . Hazari airwa is not trustworthy since he has admitted in his examination that from 1984 โอ August, 2002 he had never been posted in the Niwai branch , which suggests that he is not acquainted with the facts of the controversy. Hecould not point out the duration for which the workman was engaged and has further admitted that record sheet , Ex. W-4, passbook Ex. W- 12 and other documents Ex . W- 5 and W-6 pertain to the bank . On the analytical examination of the materials and the oral evidence available on the record, the workman has succeeded in establishing that he had completed over 240 days of actual service in the each calendar year from 1993 to 1995 prior to this termination, who was undoubtedly not served with one monts's notice norhewas paid the pay in lieu thereof, nor the retrenchment compensation before his termination . Therefore , his termination tantamounts to the retrenchment and he is entitled for the protection under Section 25 -F of the Act , The ld. representative for the management has referred to the followingdecisions in support of his submission, which I have carefully gone through, but their facts are quite dissimilar to the present controversy and theld . representative does not derive any assistance from them. 2002 SCC (L & S) 367, 2003 (1) LLJ Mad. 1015 , 1997 SCC (L & S ) 478 and 2001 (1) WLC 592. This.point, therefore, is decided in favour of the workman and against thebank.
Point No. II
16. The ld. representative for the workman contends that the workman has stated in his affidavit that junior persons to him were retained at the time of his termination and on this point he has not been cross -examined .
17. The onus to prove this fact lies upon the workman, who has not disclosed the names of such junior persons in his pleadings who were retained by the bank at the time ofhis termination . Therefore , no evidence could be led to substantiate this plea , raised on behalf of the workman. This point is accordingly decided against the workman.
RELIEF
13. The workman besides his oral evidence has placed his reliance upon the experience certificates, the record sheet and the passbook placed by him oft the record. The experience certificates Ex . W- 1 and W- 2 do not carry so much weight in this controversy since as per Ex. W- 1 the workman has completed 135 days in between the years 1984 to 1988 and in accordance with Ex . W-2 , he had completed 200 days in the spell of November , 1991 to 26-12-92. However, the experience certificate Ex. W-3 and the record sheet Ex. W- 4 are the material documents in this context. Ex . W-3 contains the details of the working days performed by the workman from the year 1992 to the year 1994 which come to 670 days in total . It discloses that the workman had continuously worked in the 12 consecutive months in the year 1993 and the days on calculation come to 305 days in total . Another pertinent documents is Ex . W-4, the record sheet including the biodata of the workman duly verified on the basis of the record . It contains the number of working days form the year 1984 to 1988 and thereafter from 1991 to 1996. It discloses that in the year 1993, the workman had completed 305 days of actual work, inthe calendar year 1994, he worked for 312 days and in the year 1995 , he discharged his duties on 358 days . This fact is also further fortified on the basis of the passbook Ex . W- 12 consisting ofvarious parts and a peep at it reveals that the workman was paid the wages for the work discharged by him. Thus , during the employment under the bank in the period from 1984 till the date of his termination in the each calendar year commencing from 1993 to 1995 , the workman had completed over 240 days of actual service preceding to his termination . As such, he has fulfilled the requirement envisaged under Section 25- , B(2) (a) of the Act whereby he will be deemed to be in continuous employment under the bank and thus he is entitled to get the benefit under this provision .
18. On account of the decision of point number I in favour ofthe workman, his claim deserves to be allowed .
19. I have also considered on the aspect of the back- wages. The workman has pleaded his unemployment since the date of his termination, but in his cross -examination he has admitted that is earning his livelihood by working as a labourer and is earning-nearly Rs . 1800-2000 per month . Thus , he appears to be gainfully employed and does not deserve to be awarded with the back -wages .
20. In the result , the. reference is answered in the affirmative in favour ofthe workman and against the bank 14. Now, I advert to the oral evidence led by both the parties on this point. The workman in his deposition has testified all these material facts as stated in his claim statement . In this cross -examination , he has stated that Ex. W- 1, certificate was issued to him by Sh . Naval Kishor Maheshwari , Manager and has named Sh. Radhey Shyam and Sh . Harish Karnani , the bank- authorities who issued theexperience certificate Ex. W - 2 and W- 3 respectively.He has stated that the amount of wages was credited in his account per month and has disclosed his account number as 3790. He has satisfactorily answered all the questions put to him on behalf of the bank and has stood unshaken
1714 G1/05-27 6148
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2005/ JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
to this effect that the workman during the period from 1984 to August , 2001 , has continuously worked over 240 days in each calendar year commencing from 1993 to 1995 and his claim deserves to be allowed. It is further held that the action of the management of Bank of Baroda in terminating his service is illegal and unjustified and the workman is entitled to be reinstated in the service with its continuity, but without back- wages . An award is passed in these terms accordingly.
21. Let a copy of the award be sent to the Central Government for publication under Section 17 ( 1 ) of the Act .
R.C. SHARMA, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 25 मई , 2005
का.आ. 2155.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ बीकानेर एंड जयपुर के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , जयपुर के पंचाट ( केस नं. सी जी आई टी -28 /2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24-05-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं . एल -12012/88/ 2002- आईआर( बी- I ) ]
अजय कुमार, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 25th May, 2005
S.O. 2155. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Case No. CGIT- 28/2003 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court , Jaipur, now as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank ofBikaner and Jaipur and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 24-05-2005 .
[No. L- 12012/ 88/2002 - IR (B -I)] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR
Case No. CGIT- 28/2003
Reference No. L - 12012/88/ 2002- IR (B - I) Smt. Koshlaya Devi ,
W/o Sh . Lal Chand,
Plot No. 9 , Poultry Farm ,
Khatipura, Sirsi Road ,
Distt.Jaipur
Applicant
Versus
1. The General Manager (Operations) State Bank ofBikaner & Jaipur , Head Office , TilakMarg, Jaipur.
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] 2. The Dy. General Manager, State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, Zonal Office , Sarojini Marg , C-Scheme, Jaipur.
3. The Assistant Gen. Manager ( I ) , State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur , Zonal Office, Sarojini Marg , C-Scheme, Jaipur.
4. The Branch Manager,
State Bank ofBikaner & Jaipur, Khatipura Branch ,
Jaipur.
....... Non -applicants PRESENT:
Presiding Officer : SH. R.C. SHARMA
: Sh . C.D. Chaturvedi .
Fortheapplicant
Forthe non- applicant : Sh . Anurag Aggarwal Date of award : 26-4-2005
AWARD
1. The Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred under Clause ' D ' of sub - section 1 &2( A) to Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the ' Act' ) has referred the following Industrial Dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal which runs as under :
"Whether the demand of the workman Smt . Koshalya Devi , Safai Karmachari through All Bank Safai Karmachari Sangh to grant full scale wages by the management of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur is justified and fair? If yes , to what relief Smt . Koshalya Devi is entitled to and from what date ? " 2. The applicant- union in its claim statement has pleaded that the workman Smt . Koshalya Devi joined the services of the Bank w.e.f. September , 1985 as a part -time sweeper at its Khatipura branch , Jaipur who was drawing the salary@ Rs. 100/ - per month from September, 1985 to July, 1989 and@ Rs . 175/ - per month w.e.f. August , 1989 to 31-5-92 but w.e.f. 1-6-92 , one half pay scale was sanctioned to her by the Regional Manager of the bank. It has been further averred that by the circular dated 29-4-92 , the working norms were prescribed which say that the working hours of the sweepers are to be fixed as per the cleaning area of the concerned branch and in case the area is exceeding 5001 sq .ft . , it will require more than 29 hours of working during every week which would entitled the employee to full scale wages . It has been stated that the workman is cleaning 5673 sq. ft. area in the branch, which led her to represent to the bank and the General Manager vide his letter dated 20-8-97 had recommended her case to the higher authorities confirming this fact. The Union has pointed out that in this regard few letter were also addressed by the Branch manager to the concerned higher authorities verifying the cleaning area to be more than 5001 sq. ft . and that she has to work for about 30 hours per 6149 भारत का राजपत्र: जून 18 , 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28 , 1927
[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
IV. Whether the applicant union is not a registered one and the workman is not its member and on these grounds , the claim in question is not maintainable? BONA
V Relief, ifany.
week. It has been categorically stated that the workman was performing the job at the branch from 7 am to 12 pm everyday and that the bank management had revised her pay scale from ½ to¼ with prospective effect, whereas in terms of the aforestated circular , she was entitled to receive the full -scale wages w.e.f. 1-3-92 . The Union has urged. thatthe pay - scale of the workman be revised@ full scale wages w.e.f. 1-3-92 and the arrears of difference of salary from 1-3-92 onwards be paid to her along with the interest @12per cent per annum.
6. In the evidence , the Union has examined the workman Smt . Koshalya Devi and on behalf of the non- applicants, the Counter -affidavit ofMW- 1 , Sh. Chauthmal Aheer has been brought on the record . Both these witnesses were cross - examined by the opposite representatives respectively. The union has led the documentary evidence also , whereas the non - applicants have chosen not to adduce the documentary evidence .
7. I have heard both the parties and have scanned the record. The point- wise discussion follows as under:- Point No. I & IL
8. Since both these points involve the identical facts , these are being discussed together.
9.The ld . representative for the Union cotends that the workman joined the services of the bank w.e.f. September, 1985 and from this period she was being paid the consolidated monthly wages . However, w.e.f. 1-3-92 , she was given ½ of the scale wages . The management of thebank issued a circular dated 29-4-92 wherein it is stated that scale of wages are to be fixed on carpet area along with the working hours. Theid. representative further contends that in view of the norms prescribed in this circular the workman is entitled to get the full -scale wages w.e.f. 1-3-92 and the Union in support of its contention has brought the documentary evidence on record which proves that she was cleaning around 5674 sq .ft . of carpet area and was working for 30 hours per week . The Id . representative has also contended that the statement of the workman is alsq corroborated by the management witness, and therefore , she is entitled for full scale wages .
3.Resisting the claim, the non - applicants in their written statement have averred that the workman is not a member of the Union, that the workman was not employed as a part - time sweeper but was engaged as a casual labour w.e.f. September , 1985, but she was engaged on payment of consolidated monthly wages @ Rs . 100/- per month from September, 1985 to July, 1989 and on payment of Rs. 175 consolidated monthly wages from August , 1989 to February, 1992. It is stated that thereafter she was appointed in the ½ pay- scale w.e.f. 1-3-92. The non- applicants have pointed out that the carpet cleaning area of the bank was 5674.90 sq. ft. including the garage , parking, locker room at basement, strong room,etc , which do not require cleaning . According to the averments of the non- applicants , the total cleaning area comes to 3376.87 sq. ft . only and that the workman is devoting 17- 18 hours per week , who has been awarded the pay -scale in the category admissible to her in accordance with the circular dated 29-4-92 . They have admitted that pay-scale ofthe workman has been increased from ½ to ³¼ and that vide order dated 3-10-2002 , she was transferred from Khatipura Branch to the Malviya. Nagar Branch, where she is performing her duty from 26 to 29 hours per week and looking to the cleaning area of the branch at Malviya . Nagar, her wages were hiked to the pay- scale . The non- applicants have further disclosed that the cleaning area of the Malviya Nagar Branch is 3000 sq. ft . in total and the workman is being paid ¼ pay - scale which is justified as perthe aforesaid circular.
4. In the rejoinder , the Union has reiterated the facts as stated in the statement of claim.
5.On the pleadings of both the parties , the following points for determination were framed:-
10. Countering these submissions , the Id . representative for the bank contends that the Union has belatedly raised the demand and the area shown in the letter ofBranch Manager is the total area, but the carpet. areawhichwas being cleaned by the workman is less than 5000 sq . ft . and that she was not performing for 30 hours perweek. The ld. representative further contends that the workmanwas transfered on 3-10-92 from Khatipura Branch to Malviya Nagar Branch, where she has been granted scale wages and she had not protested it.
11. I have bestowed my thoughful consideration to the rival contentions .
BOA
I. Whether the Smt. Koshalya Devi joined the service ofBank w.e.f. September, 1985 as a part- time sweeper and from this period to July, 1989 she was drawing the salary @ Rs . 100 per month, from August, 1999 to 31-5-1992 @ Rs . 175 per month andfrom 1-6-1992 half pay scale was sanctioned to her by the Bank?
II. Whether the workman is entitled for revision of herpay scale from 1-3-92 at the rate of full scale wages per month and to get the arrears of difference ofsalary from 1-3-92 onwards ? BOA
III. Whether in the absence of the conciliation proceedings , the reference is invalid ?, BONA
12. Ex. W- 10 is the circular dated 29-4-92 which prescribes the norms for revisions of the pay scale of safaiwalas and it stated that a safai employee who is cleaning 5001 sq .ft . area and is devoting 29 hours per week will be entitled to get the full scale wages w.e.f. 1-3-92. On behalf of the bank, it has been categorically pleaded in the written counter that the workman was provided ½ scale of wages w.e.f. 1-3-92 and it has been further exhibited that from 3-10-92 , she was transferred 6150
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2005/ JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]
working hours at Malviya Nagar. Apparently, on behalf of the union no document indicating the total area of the Malviya Nagar branch cleaned by the workman could be exhibited. On behalf of the bank, it has been categorically pointed out that after the transfer of the workman from Khatipura Branch to the Malviya Nagar Branch, looking tothe nature ofher duties i.e. where nearly 26-27 hours are being devoted by her at the Malviya Nagar branch , 3/4 scale of wages was granted to her , which was accepted by her without raising any protest . Furthermore, the area of the Malviya Nagar branch as shown on behalf of the bank is nearly 3000 sq.ft . , which is lesser than the prescribed norm.
from Khatipura branch to the Malviya Nagar, branch. Both these facts have been admitted by the workman in her deposition . Thus , the factual position emerging out ofthe record is that the workman was getting ½ scale wages w.e.f 1-3-92 and that she had perfomred her duties up to 2-10-92 at Khatipura branch and thereafter she was transferred to the Malviya Nagar branch . Now, the questions which crop up for determination are ( i) whether the workman was cleaning the carpet area of more than 5000 sq . ft . at Khatipura branch and was performing her duties for more than 29 hours per week and (ii ) whether she was also cleaning the carpet area of 5000 sq . ft . at Malviya Nagar branch and was devoting 29 hours'or more inthis branch.
16. In the cross - examination, the workman could not be able to point out the cleaning area of the Malviya Nagar branch and has pleaded ignorance from the fact that it could be around 3000 sq. ft . Thus, the union has not succeeded to bring on the record any cogent evidence on this point and has failed to justify the grant of the full- scale wages to the workman since 3-10-1992 onwards on herbeing transferred to the Malviya Nagar branch .
17. To sum up, the main question is partly determined infavour of the workman to this effect that she is entitled for revision of her pay scale from 1-3-1992 to 2-10-1992 @ full scale wages per month during her employment at Khatipura Branch. But for the remaining period she is not entitled to get the full - scale wages . In this manner, these points are partly decided in favour of the workman.
Point No. III
18. The Id. representative for the bank does not press this point. Point No. IV
19. On behalf of the union , it has been contended that it is a registered union and the workman is its member. In support , of this submission, the registration certificate ofthe union Ex . 9 has been placed on the record . The non- applicants have failed to rebut this fact . Accordingly, this point is decided in favour of the workman and against the non-applicants.
Relief
13. First, I will dwell on the workman's entitlement at Khatipura branch. The Union to substantiate its plea has led the documentary as well as oral evidence on these points . The workman has exhibited the documents in her deposition . Ex. W - 1 is a letter dated 27-9-2000 intimating by the Branch Manager to the workman that as per the lease deed the area of the Khatipura branch is 5674.90 sq . ft. Ex. W- 4 is the reply dated 8-11-2001 rendered by the Chief Manager during the proceedings before the Assistant Labour Commissioner wherein at para 2 the bank has exhibited the area of the Khatipura branch as 5674.90 sq .ft . Ex . W- 5 is the another letter dated 20-8-97 addressed by the Branch Manager to the Assistant General Manager wherein the same area of the Khatipura branch has been shown. In this sequence , the material letter is Ex. W-6 dated 1-1-99 whereby the Assistant General Manager has enquired about the area of Khatipura branch, which has been shown as 5024 sq.ft . on behalf of the Branch Manager. The next much emphasized letter is Ex. W-7dated 22-1-99 which sheds the light on the controversy by describing the area of the branch as 5024 sq .ft . and the time consumed in cleaning as nearly 30 hours per week. This letter has been addressed by the Branch Manager to the Assistant General Manager recommending that the workman is cleaning around 6000 sq. ft . area including the parking area and that the scale of wages of the workman be accordingly revised . Thus , on the strength of these documents , it stands established that the workman was cleaning more than 5000 sq. ft . of carpet area and was performing her duties nearly 30 hours per week . These documents fal 51 the requirements for the grant of the full- scale wages ar aid down in the circular Ex . W - 10 .
20.As a result of the decision of points No. I & II , partly in favour of the workman , the workman is entitled for revision of her wages for the period from 1-3-1992 to 2-10-1992 only @ full scale wages per month .
21. In consequence , the reference is answered in the manner that the workman Smt . Koshalaya Devi is entitled for the revision of her pay scale from 1-3-1992 to 2-10-1992 @ full - scale wages per month and to get the arrears of difference of salary of this period . Her demand for the said revision of pay scale at the rate of full scale wages for the remaining period is not justified. An award ispassed in these terms accordingly.
14. Turning to the oral evidence , the workman in the cross -examination has clearly stated that the cleaning area of the Khatipura Branch was around 6000 sq .ft . , where she was devoting nearly 36 hours per week . She has categorically stated that from 7 a.m. to 2/3 p.m. , she used to perform her duties at the Branch . Contrary to it , the management could not be successful to rebut the evidence adduced on behalf of the union. Thus , the contention advanced on behalf of the union is fortified from the record of the bank as well as from the oral evidence of the workman onthe point.
15. Now, I switch to the another question whether the similar was the position of the cleaning area and
22. Let a copy of the award be sent to the Central Government for publication under Section 17 (1 ) of the Act. R.C. SHARMA, Presiding Officer 6151
भारत का राजपत्र: जून 18 , 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28 , 1927
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
AWARD
:
नई दिल्ली, 25 मई, 2005
1.The Central, Government is exercise of the powers conferred under Clause ' D ' of Sub- sections 1 & 2 (A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the ' Act ') has referred the following industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal which runs as under:-
का.आ. 2156.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार दी ओरिएंटल इन्श्योरेंस कम्पनी लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , जयपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सी.जी.आई.टी. 39/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को24-5-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-17012/7/2004- आई आर ( बी- I ) ]
"Whether the action of the management of Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Jaipur in discontinuing the services of Shri Dilip Kumar S/o Shri Banwari Lal w.e.f. 4-2-2003 is legal and justified? Ifnot, what relief the claimant is entitled to and from which date ? " अजय कुमार, डैस्कअधिकारी
NewDelhi , the 25th May, 2005
S.O. 2156.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT- 39/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court , Jaipur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 24-5-2005.
2.The workman in his statement of claim has pleaded that he was initially appointed in the Oriental Insurance Company (for short the company ) in its stationary department situated at B- 34 , Vijay Path , Tilak Nagar, Jaipur. He has further stated, that along with him four other sweepers , viz . , Pramod, Umed, Amarchand and Madan were also employed in the same office , but his service was terminated on 4-2-2003 in violation of Section 25 -F ofthe Act.He has further averred that he is a workman as defined under Section 2 - S of the Act and has also alleged that the impugned termination in is contravention of Section 25 -G oftheAct . He has urged that his termination be declared illegal and he be reinstated in the service with full back wages and other consequential benefits .
[No. L- 17012/7/2004- IR(B-I) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR
Case No. CGIT-39/2004 Reference No. L- 17012/7/2004- IR (B - I)
Sh.Dilip Kumar, S/o . Sh. Banwari Lal , R/ o A-397 , Shiv Colony, Phase - IV, Baiji Ki Kothi , Jhalana Doongari ,
Applicant
Jaipur.
Versus
3. Resisting the claim of the workman, the non- applicants in their written - counter have averred that the -workman was never appointed as a sweeper, that the non- applicant company had its stationary godown situated at B-34, Vijay Path, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur having carpet area of 2318 sq. ft . in which four rooms along with open space were used for the storage of stationary and the services of theworkman were undertaken in May, 1996 to clean and weep the area of around 500 sq.ft. on contractual basis on payment of Rs . 200/- per month . It has been further stated that Mr. Pramod Kumar, Umed, Amarchand and Madan, the four sweepers were appointed on regular basis as part -time sweepers and after following the prescribed procedure for recruitment , who were subsequently appointedas full -time sweepers w.e.f. 31-1-2003 . They have denied the claimant to be a workman falling under Section 2-S ofthe Act and have stated that his services were of the nature of contract for service .
1. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. , Through The Regional Manager, Regional Officer, Sansar Chandra Road , Jaipur.
4. In the rejoinder, the workman has reiterated the facts as stated in the statement of claim and has further added that he was continuously working since May, 1996, which shows that there was a clear willingness of the non- applicants to hire his services for full- time. , Non-Applicants
2. BranchManager, TheOriental Insurance Company Ltd. , StationaryDepartment , B-34, Vijay Path, TilakNagar, In front ofMaheshwari School , Jaipur.
PRESENT:
5. On the pleadings of the parties , the following points for determination were frameti:-
: Sh. R.C. Sharma
PresidingOfficer
: Sh. B.D. Bhardwaj
Forthe applicant
Sh . R.K. Salecha
:
For the Non- applicants
: 15-4-2005
L Whether the workman was appointed as sweeper inMay, 1996 by the non -applicant company, who continuously worked up to 3-2-2003 and whose service was terminated on 4-2-2003 in violation of Section 25 -F of the Industrial Disputes Act ?
Date of award 6152
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2005 / JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] II. Whether at the time of terminating the service of the workman his junior employees named at para- 2 of the Statement of Claim were retained by the non -applicant Co. in violation of Section 25 -G of the Industrial Disputes Act?
III . Whether the applicant falls under the definition ofworkman as defined under Section 2 - S of the Industrial Disputes Act?
IV. Relief, ifany?
6. In the evidence , the workman has examined himself asWW- 1 and on behalf of the non - applicants , the counter- affidavits of MW - 1 , Ashok Kumar Gupta , MW - 2 , Mrs. Neelam Seth and MW- 3 , Arjun Raj Rao were submitted . All the witnesses were cross - examined by the opposite representatives respectively. Both the parties have also led the documentary evidence .
he was being paid Rs . 200 per month , which he voluntarily accepted . The main emphasis of the ld . representative is that he was an independent entrepreneur. That theId . representative has also contended that the attending circumstances show that why he would continue to work for 7 years on the stipulated amount and on these grounds he is not a workman within the sweep of Section 2 - S of the Act . The ld. representative has vehemently denied that the workmanwas employed as a sweeper by the company on the counts that no appointment letter was issued to him, that it was a rented premises , that it was shut down on shifting to the another building where the company had no need of sweeper and the contract for service was not renewed accordingly and , therefore , Section 25 - F of the Act is not attracted in the present case . Both theld. representatives in support of their submissions have referred to the judicial pronouncements which find discussion hereunder .
7. I have heard both the parties and have scanned the record . The point- wise discussion follows as under:--
Point No. I & III
11. Now, the prime question which arises for consideration is whether the claimant was employed as a sweeper by the company or whether sweeping and cleaning work was assigned to him by the company on contractual basis? In other words , whether it was a contract of service ora contract for service?
8. Since both these points involve the identical facts and question of law, they are being discussed together hereunder.
12. Admittedly , no contract/agreement in writing couldbe adduced by either side to show that the workman was either employed on contractual basis as a sweeper or the work of sweeping and cleaning was assigned to him. In this context, although it has been emphatically contended onbehalfofthe company that the workman was providing the services of cleaning and sweeping , yet no documentary evidence e.g. floating of the tenders could be brought on the record on behalf of the company.
9. The ld. representative for the workman contends that in May, 1996 , the claimant joined the office of non- applicant No. 2 as a sweeper and continued to work upto 4th February, 2003. He has submitted the applications before the concerned authority for his regular appointment and Sh. Arjun Raj Rao (MW - 3 ) had forwarded it along with the recommendation letter Annexure 4 to higher authorities for his appointment . But after a lapse of 7 years in service ofthe claimant was terminated simply on the ground that thenon-applicants have shifted their office at another place . The ld representative further submits that the management witnesses have admitted the continuous working of the workman.
13. Now, I switch to the oral evidence adduced by the rival parties. The workman in his affidavit has reiterated his stand by stating that he was appointed as a sweeper in May, 1996 on the consolidated monthly payment of Rs . 200 and a recommendatory letter dated 28-11-2002 was forwarded on behalf of the company to the competent authority for appointing him as a regular safaiwala in the company. He has stated that for 6 or 7 years , he performed his duties as a safaiwala under the company . In his cross- examination , he has further deposed that he had not received any appointment letter from the company, that he wasperforming the work of cleaning , mopping and dusting inthe stationary department of the company and in addition to this work, he also discharged the task of a 4th Class such as filling the drinking water and serving tea to the employees . His deposition is that from 10 am to 1 pm, he used to perform his duties in the office.
10. Controverting these submissions , theld . representative for the management has first assailed the submission made on behalf of the claimant that he is a workman as defined under Section 2 - S of the Act on the ground that the non - applicant company transits the business of insurance , that the stationary was housed in thatbuilding and the utilization of that building was simply for storing the stationary. His submission is that the claimant had volunteered that he would provide the services ofcleaning the area and that no appointment letter were issued by the company. The ld . representative adds that to come in the sweep of Section 2 - S of the Act , it is required to be decided as to whether it was a contract for service or a contract of service and whether a master - servant relationship was ever created . The Id. representative further contends that it has not been pleaded by the workman nor any evidence has been brought about that he was working under the supervision of the company. His assertion is that it was a contract for service, that the company never agreed and accepted the workman as its employee and that
14. As against it , the management witnesses in their testimony respectively have deposed that the workman was providing his services for sweeping and cleaning of the premises where the area under sweeping and cleaning was 500 sq. ft . for which he was being paid Rs. 200 per monthfrom May, 1996. MW- 1 , A.K. Gupta , the then in- charge of the stationary department , MW- 2 , Mrs. Neelam 6153 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18 , 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28 , 1927
clear, the calendar years of the aforestated period may be shown as below :-
(i) from 4-2-97 to 3-2-98
(ii) from 4-2-98 to 3-2-99
(iii) from 4-2-99 to 3-2-2000
(iv) from 4-2-2000 to 3-2-2001
(v) from 4-2-2001 to 3-2-2002.
16.Admittedly, neither one month's notice nor pay in lieu thereof may the retrenchment compensation were paid to theworkman in violation of Section 25 -F oftheAct . Thus , on the overall assessment of the evidence , documentary as well as oral , these facts stand proved that the workman performed his duties as a part - time sweeper in the company under its direct control and supervision who was paid the consolidated monthly wages worth Rs. 200 and that their existed a nexus ofemployer -employee between the contesting parties . The ld . representative for the workman has referred to the decision report in 1977 LLR Punjab & Haryana 476. wherein the Hon'ble Court hasobserved that a part - time workman is also included in the definition of workman as defined under Section 2 - S of the Act . Thus , the workman is entitled to get the protection under Section 25 - F of the Act .
Seth is the in -charge of the personnel department andMW- MW 3 , Arjun Raj Rao , the Assistant Manager had been posted as in -charge of the stationary in the relevant time.' The management witnesses have deposed in their cross- examinations respectively that the workman was working on the hourly basis who attended the office only for half an hour for cleaning and sweeping the premises . MW- 1 , A.K. Gupta has admitted in his cross -examination that only one peon and record keeper were posted in their branch, where the workman was performing the work ofsweeping MW - 2 , Mrs. Neelam Seth has pleaded ignorance to the fact as to how the payment of wages was made to the workman. MKW- 3 , Arjun Raj Rao has failed to reply to a question put on behalf of the workman as to whether it was necessary under the rules of the company to engage a person as part -time sweeper prior to his appointment in the company. Thus , it sounds from the aforestated facts which emerge from the oral evidence gathered on the record that the claimant was performing the work of a sweeper as a part-time employee . The case set up by the non - applicants that the claimant volunteered himself to provide the service of sweeper is not supported even from the oral evidence . Rather, it is reflected that he was working under the control and supervision of the company. It can be safely presumed that the connected record for payment of the wages was lying with the company and by producing it, it could enable the Court to record a finding that the payment of wages was made to the workman for providing his services to the company. But even no such document e.g. pay voucher or ledger account can be brought on the record on behalf of the company. Obviously, there was also economic control ofthe company and the payment of wages was made to the workman on account of his engagement as a safaiwala .
17. The ld. representative for the non - applicants has also referred to the decision reported in 1997 (II) LLJ Punjab & Haryana 959 , whereof the facts are that the respondent corporation was supplying materials to weavers for weaving carpets and providing market facilities. There was no control and supervision over the work of the weavers of the company, who did their work according to their own convenience and supplied their carpets to another respondent corporation. On these facts , it was held that there was no control whatsoever over the work of the weavers and no relationship of master and servant existed between them. Apparently, the facts of the referred to decision are dissimilar to the controversy on hand and the Id. representative does not derive any assistance from it .
18. To conclude, the workman has succeeded to establish his plea that he was engaged as a part -time employeewho performed the duties of cleaning and dusting inthe premises of the company and whose services were hired by it on the payment of consolidated monthly wages which tantamounts to a contract ofservice: The relationship ofemployer -employee existed between both the parties . Accordingly, both these points are decided in favour of theworkman.
PointNo. II
19. The onus to prove that at the time of terminating the workman's service, the junior persons to him named at para 2 ofthe claim statement were retained by the company in contravention of Section 25 -G of the Act, lies upon workman. The ld. representative for the workman contends thatUmed Kumar joined on 29-8-96 and Pramod Kumar on 21-12-98 after the workman had joined the company. But 15. Turning on the documentary evidence available onthe record, the workman has relied upon the applications Exts . 1 and 2 whereby he had applied for his appointment as a sub -staff in the company. In his application Ex . 3 dated 28-11-2002 , addressed to the Regional Manager of the company, he has urged that for the last 6 or 7 years he has working as a safaiwala on the temporary basis on payment ofRs . 200 per month, which is smaller amount for his livelihood and that he may be regularly appointed to this post. Ex. W-4 is a recommendatory letter dated 28-11-2002, admittedly addressed by MW - 3 , Arjun Raj Rao , the Assistant Manager to the personnel department suggesting thatDilip Kumar is regularly and satifactorily working as a safaiwala in this office for the last several years merely on the payment ofRs . 200 per month, who is industrious and honest and is recommended for his appointment as a part- time inthis office. This document goes to establish that on 28-11-2002, the workman was continuously working for the last several years with the company and on the strength of this document , it can be safely assumed that from the month ofhis employment i.e. from May, 1996 to 28-11-2002, the workman had completed 240 days of actual work in each calendar year falling in between this period and thus he will be deemed to be in continuous service of the employer in view of Section 25 B2 (a) ofthe Act . To be more 6154
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18, 2005 /JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
these two persons were subsequently appointed in regular cadre w.e.f. 31-1-2003 , who were given preference over senjor workman while the nature of the job was the same .
20. Arguing contra, the ld . representative for the company submits that admittedly during the years from 1996 to 1998 , four persons were employed by the company but only after following the requisite procedure and the workman never agitated this issue of their appointment before the company.
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] NewDelhi , the 25th May, 2005
S.O. 2157. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 107/2000 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court Dhanbad - I now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of BCCL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 24-5-2005.
[No. L- 20012/466/95 - IR( C- I) ] S.S. GUPTA, Under Secy. ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . I , DHANBAD In the matter of a reference U/ s . 10 ( 1 ) ( d) (2A) of I.D. Act . REFERENCE NO . 107 OF 2000
PARTIES:
Employers in relation to the management of C. V. Area of M/s. B.C.C.I. Ltd. And Their Workmen
PRESENT : Shri S. Prasad, Presiding Officer APPEARANCES :
Forthe Employers
21. The workman at para 2 ofhis claim statement has named 4 other sweepers , viz . , Pramod, Umed, Amarchand &Madanwho were appointed along with him . It has been categorically stated by the non - applicants in their written- counter that these workmen were regularly appointed by the company after following the prescribed procedure. The workman has failed to bring on record any evidence that these workmen were employed as part -time employees along with him on contractual basis . In his affidavit, he is silent on this point . It , therefore , appears that the workman has not led any evidence to substantiate his plea on this count , whereas the non - applicants have emphatically denied this fact and have clearly stated their plea that these persons were recruited through the prescribed procedure. Hence , the case of the claimant cannot be equated with these employees and the submission made on his behalf cannot be maintained . I find force in the submission made on behalf ofthe company in this context . Accordingly, this point is decided against the workman and in favour of this non- applicants.
RELIEF
Shri B.M. Prasad, Advocate
For the Workman
: None
State: Jharkhand
22. On account of the decisions on point No. I & III infavour of the workman , his claim deserves to be allowed.
23. In the result , the reference is answered in the affirmative in favour of the workman and against the company and it is held that the action of the company of discontinuing the services of claimant, Dilip Kumar w.e.f. 4-2-2003 is illegal and unjustified. His claim is allowed . It is further held that the workman Sh. Dilip Kumar is entitled to be reinstated in the service with its continuity and 50 per cent of back -wages . An award is passed in these terms accordingly.
24. Let a copy of the award be sent to the Central Government for publication under Section 17 ( 1 ) of the Act. R.C. SHARMA, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 25 मई, 2005
का. आ. 2157.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भा.को.को.लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय धनबाद 1 के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 107/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24-5-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [ सं. एल-20012/466/ 95- आई आर ( सी- I ) ] एस.एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव
Industry: Coal Dated, the 9th May, 2005
AWARD
ByOrder No. L-20012 /466/ 95 - IR (Coal - I ) dated 2-1- 1997 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has , in exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( d ) of Sub.sec . ( 1) and Sub - section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 , referred the following dispute foradjudication to this Tribunal:
"Whether the statement of Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh , that the date ofbirth as recorded in the Form ' B ' Register in respect of the Sri Dharu Bouri , S.T. Loader is incorrect and his correct date of birth is 15-10-45 is correct ? Ifyes , to what relief the concerned workman is entitled ?"
2.This reference is pending for adducing evidence on behalf of the workman since 2-8-2002 , but even today none appears to take any step, though several adjournments were granted . Therefore , it appears that neither the sponsoring union nor the concerned workman is interested to contest the case .
3. In such circumstances , I render a ' No Dispute' Award in the present reference case.
S. PRASAD , Presiding Officer [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
नई दिल्ली, 25 मई , 2005
का. आ. 2158.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार आई. बी. पी. लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 111/96) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24-5-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल -20040 /78/95- आईआर ( सी-1 ) ]
एस.एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 25th May, 2005
S.O. 2158.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 111/96) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court , Kanpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of IBP Ltd. , and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 24-5-2005.
[No. L-20040/78/ 95 - IR(C - I) ] S. S. GUPTA , Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT, SARVODAYA NAGAR, KANPUR SRI SURESH CHANDRA ,
Presding Officer:
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO . 111 OF 96 In the matter of dispute between :
Shri Antoney Das , S/ o Sri Sarpi Lal House No. 5/215 , Refinary Nagar, Mathura.
AND
DepotManager, I.B.P. Limited Mathura Refinery, Mathura .
AWARD
1. Central Government, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi , Vide notification No. L - 20040/78 /95 UR (Coal- 1) dated 7-11-1996 has referred the following dispute foradjudication :
"Whether the claim of Sri Antoney Das that he was illegally removed from the services in voilation of 1714 G1/05-28
6155
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18, 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28 , 1927
provisions of I. D. Act by the Management of IBP Ltd. , Mathura, is legal and Justified ? If so, to what relief is Sri Antoney Das entitled ? "
2. Brief facts giving rise to the presenty claim as ed by the claimant Antony Das in his statement of wam are that the claimant started working under the Management of IBP Ltd. , Mathura, as a peon w.e.f. 1-9-90 and that the management discontinued his services w.e.f. 1-6-93 without assigning any reasons . It has been alleged by the claimant that during the course of his employment with the management he used to get the challan passed from IOC Mathura , he also used to clean the Office , bring drinking water, tea for the staff Claimant has further alleged that he used to prepare excise slips , used to fill up the Tank Lorry from TTL also used to put seal on tank lorry. Claimant used to remain on duty w.e.f 8.00 A.M. to 5 P.M. Claimant has further alleged that first Depot Manager was Vijay Sethi and Operation Officer was Sri Chand Kishore and that after Vijay Sethi Shri Trivedi Joined whereafter Shri Sanjay Mathur Operation Officer joined Claimant has further alleged that Rs. 1308/-was being paid to him as wages . It has also been alleged by the claimant that the Management used to educt providend fund from his wages , regularly. The Managment used to deposit the same with Personne . Manager New Delhi . It is further alleged by the claimant that according to the Management the services of the workman were used due to excess work . In the end it has been alleged by the workman that justice be done with him .
3. Management of IBP Limited contested the claim ofthe claimant and filed written statement alleging therein thatthe concerned workman in all had worked for a total period of 120 days between 1st September, 1990 and 30th June, 1993 and that the services of the workman were engaged purely on temporary and adhoc basis for the first tiime between 1st September, 1990 and 30th September, 1990 . Thereafter his services were once again availed of during theperiod 10th July, 92 and 8th August, 1992. It has further been alleged by the management that similarly on third occasion, the services of the workman were availed of between 1st April, 1993 and 30th April , 1993, and that finally the services of the workman were utilised by the management during the period 1st June, 1993 to 30th June , 1993 , and in this way the workman has rendered services for only 120 days during a period of four years. the claim of the workman is perverse incorrect and that the workman is not entitled for any relief. It has further been alleged that during the limited period of services rendered the workman as unskilled workman he was entrusted with the duties of having the challans deposited with the concerned authority. The management in its reply has admitted fact that the workman performed the duties of peon and has also admitted the fact that the workman maintained the challans as the same are the part of the duties of a peon . It has also been admitted by the management that during the period 6156
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2005 /JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii)]
and 5 sought to be produced by the management for inspection have not been produced and that the attendance register which was produced lateron does not bear the name of the company who maintained it . No doubt voliminous record was made available by the management during the course of arguments . From the very nature of the reference received for adjudication and also the claim petition filed onbehalf of the workman it is to be adjudicated whether the workman had continuously worked for more than 240 days and that the services of the workman were illegally removed in violation of provisions of Industrial Disputes Act by the management .
oftemporary service the workman used to accompany the tank lorries to the filling shed . Management has also admitted the fact that the responsibilities entrusted to the workman was in the unskilled category, hence the workman was required to affix company's seal before the tank lorry left the depot. It has been alleged by the management that as and when the workman performed his duties beyond normal working hours he was paid overtime wages . Management has admitted the fact that the workman was paidhis wages at Rs . 1318 instead of Rs . 1308 as alleged by the workman . It is further stated by the management that the workman contributed to the Provident Fund and that from the redcord it is obvious that an amount of Rs . 117 was deducted towards provident fund and Rs . 15 towards family pension fund and the same was duly deposited with the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner alongwith Company's Contribution thereon . Managment has further alleged that during exigencies of work the services of the workman were used on temporary and adhoc basis. In the end it has been alleged by the management that the claim ofthe workman is not liable to be allowed and the workman is not entitled for any relief.
4. The workman has filed rejoinder in which it has been alleged that in the month of September 1993 , management engaged fresh hands by name S/ Sri Banwari Lal Saini , Pooran Singh, Banmali Das , Kalishah Tiwari , Asit Kumar Das , Mohan Singh and Vinod Prakash Sharma . Except above nothing new has been stated by the workman inhis rejoinder.
7. The case of the management as enshrined in their written statement is that the workman was employed on temporary and adhoc basis only for the period 1-9-90 to 30-9-90, 10-7-92 to 8-8-92, 1-4-93 to 30-4-93 and finally from 1-6-93 to 30-6-93 . The contention put forward on behalf of the management is that the workman has been engaged for the above adhoc period only and has never worked continuously with the management for more than 240 days in a calendar year. The status of the workman as temporary employee has been admitted by the management even during the course of arguments . As against it the workman's claim is that he was engaged as temporary peon on 1-9-90 and worked continuously without break upto 1-6-93 . The contention ofthe workman further goes to show that since thedate of termination from the services of the management he is jobless and has never employed . The workman therefore claims that his services be regularised with the management with full back wages and with other benefits of continuity of service etc.
5. Contesting parties have led oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their respective case. Whereas workman examined himself as W.W. 1 , management examined Sri Harjeet Singh as M.W.1 and Sri Anil kumar as M.W. 2
8. The management submits that M/ s . I.B. P Company Limited is a Central Government enterprise and as a public sector undertaking the company is required to comply with all statutory and other directions of the government issued fromtimeto time. The management by emphasing on this contended that no workman shall be employed without strictly adhering the provisions of Employment Exchange Act, 1959. It is further contended on behalf of the management that the onus lies on the claimant to show and prove that he had infact worked for 240 days or more in a year. Mere filing of an affidavit by the workman in this respect in the absence of proof of receipt of salary or wages or record of employment it woult not be sufficient to substantiate the claim of the workman that he had worked for more than 240 days in a year. The management has placed reliance on the law reported in 2002 Lab IC 987 Range Forest Officer versus S. T. Hadimani alongwith State ofKarnataka and another appellants versus S.T. Hadimani wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has no doubt lays down clearly that the onus lies upon the claimant to show that he had in fact worked for 240 days or more in a year . So far as the documents filed by either party in support of their respective claims and counter claims it is abundantly clear that the workman Mr. Antony Dass worked with the 6. Heard the management's authorised representative Sri M. Dias and also Sri O. P. Mathur representing the workman . Management has also filed written arguments in support of their contention. also perused the records filed by either party in support of their respective claims and counter claims. It is worth while to note that learned predecessor vide his order dated 23-1-01 directed the management to produce documents detailed at serial No. 1 , 2, 3 and 5 on the application dated 21-3-01 moved by workman for production of the documents allegedly in possession of the management . Further inspection on the ground that the coliminous registers/ documents may not be filed but to be produced for inspection by the parties . The workman's authorised representative prepared the alleged inspecton report dated 1-6-01. Learned predecessor passed the order that the report shall form part of the record and shall be read subject to the evidence of the parties . It is worth while to note that in this inspection report which is neither signed by the auth . representative for the management nor by the P.O. of the tribunal mention only to the effect that documents 1 , 2 , 3 6157 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18 , 2005 /ज्येष्ठ 28 , 1927
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
10. The management having not taken any action against the workman for the alleged manupulations weakens the stand taken by the management that the workman had put his signatures lateron though he never worked during period of his alleged employment . The documents filed by the workman goes to prove that the workman had been present during the period of ceiling of the tanks etc work was discharged by him during the period of his alleged employment . Thus the workman has been able to prove against the management that he has discharged his duties unintrruptly for more than 240 days in a year as alleged by the workman.
11. The management has also taken shelter of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in2002 Part 2 CIR 1009 Haryana State FCCW Store Limited and another versus Ram Bilas and another wherein the Hon'ble court was pleased to hold that the disengagement referred under clause (bb ) of Section 2 ( oo) of I.D. Act did not amount to retrenchment and held the workman not entitled for any relief. In the present case either party has not takenplea that the engagement of the workman was for fixedperiod or for some specific period . Therefore it cannot be covered within the clause of definition mentioned above . In the present case the workman's retrenchment without following statutory provisions of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is held to be illegal and unjustified. The workman is, therefore, entitled to his reinstatement in service from 30-6-93.
management as temporary peon and this fact is also admitted to the management . Now the only controversey remains to be adjudicated as to whether workman has been able to prove that he had worked for more than 240 days in a year. From the documentary as well as occular testimony produced by the management it is admitted by the management that the workman was engaged for limited period for 120 days in total during the period September 90 , 10-7-92 to 8-8-92 in the month of April; 93 and again in the month of June 93. Contrary to it the case of the workman is that he worked continuously from the year 1990 to 93. The management affidavit swornin by deponent Harjeet Singh Sr. Manager Operation in para 15 of his affidavit alleged tempering of documents so as to make it a plausible case that Mr. Antony Dass had been in the employment of their company as he had access with the company's record onaccount of his father who was an employee of Indian OilCorporation during those days at Mathura. Sri Singh in his statement on oath before the tribunal also stated that he was not posted at Mathura Refinery during the period 1990 to 1993 but he used to come Mathura Refinery in conneciton with furnishing oil which used to be loaded from Mathura . He further admitted the fact that the claimant had never worked under him but he had seen him working with the management when ever he visited Mathura Refinery Depot . On being questioned it is borne of it that no action was taken against Mr. Antony, Dass who allegedly signed the documents lateron but it goes to prove beyond imagination that in fact Mr Antony Dass worked with the management continuously during the period 1990 to 1993 as alleged byhim.
12. So far as the back wages are concerned the management has been able to prove by documents and also by evidence of public officer of the Postal Department that Sri antony Dass had been employed with them. Therefore, this is not a case where the award of payment of back wages from the date of retrenchment be passed in favour ofthe workman . Therefore , the relief of payment of backwages from the date of retrenchment of the workman cannot be given to the workman .
13. For the above reasons the award in favour of the is given, the workman is held entitled for his reinstatement in service . The workman will not be entitled for any other relief such as back wages and continuity of service .
14. It is held that the termination of the services of the workman by the management without following statutory provisions of Industrial Disputes Act is held to be illegal and unjustified and the workman will be entitled forhis reinstatement .
15. Reference is answered accordingly.
SURESH CHANDRA , Presiding Officer 9. The admitted case of the management as born out from the evidence filed by the management is that even his GPF Contribution and Family Pension Contributions were debitted form his salary. This is unbelievable that GPF contribution as well as family pension contribution of the employee be debitted from his salary who had been appointed on adhoc basis for few days only or the workman was required to work for about a few hours in a day as stated by the management witness in his cross examination. The said documents summoned by the workman and directed to be produced before the tribunal by the management undoubtedly reveal that during the relevant period signatures of workman find place on the relevant record during the alleged period ofemployment therefore it cannot be accepted that the workman who had access to the records of the management has only affixed his signatures lateron in order to create evidence in his favour. For the sake of arguments if it is believed that the workman who is a lowest grade employee had any access of the said document the management cannot be expected to have not taken any action against the workman having any manupulations in the record.
6158
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18, 2005/JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
[PART II- SEC . 3( ii) ]
AWARD
नई दिल्ली, 25 मई, 2005
Passed on 04-05-2005
Central Govt . vide Notification No. L -40011/ 14/98/IR (DU) dated 16th ofFebruary 1999 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
का०आ ० 2159.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार डाक विभाग के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक/ अधिकरण श्रम न्यायालय नं. 1, चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 62/99 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25-05-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं ० एल -40011 /14/98- आईआर ( डीयू) ]
"Whether the demand of the Bhartiya Dak Karamchari Sangh Haryana Parimandal , Ambala to continue the payment ofHouse rent allowance @ 15% of Basic Pay to the postal staff posted at Panchkula beyond 31-11-1997 is legal and justified? If not , to what relief the Union/Workmen are entitled ?"
कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डैस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 25th May, 2005
2. Brief facts of the case are that workmen Union filed the claim statement that they are demanding the payment ofHRA@ 15% instead of7-1/2% to the concerned workers oftheir union, the employee concerned were given HRA @15% which was made effective as per Ministry ofFinance OM dated 27-11-1965 and the management stopped this award ofHRA w.e.f. 1-12-1997 by reducing HRA from 15% to 7 and 2 % . The meeting with the Regional Labour Commissioner in conciliation proceedings ended in failure and hence the resent reference .
S.O. 2159. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 62/99 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court No. I, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of D/ o Post and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 25-05-2005.
[No. L -40011 / 14/98 - IR (DU) ]
KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT -I, CHANDIGARH
Presiding Officer: Shri Rajesh Kumar
Case No. ID 62/1999
Circle President,
Bhartiya Das Karamchari Haryana Parimandal , 89 , Jawahara Nehru Marg, Ambala Can 1. Haryana
Applicant
Versus
3. The management filed written reply submitting that postal staff posted at Panchkula was granted HRA at the rate as applicable to the similar staff posted at Chandigarh up to 30-11-1997 in terms of Ministry of Finance Deptt. of Expenditure OM No. F -2 (37) E II (D )/64 dated 27-11-1965 . The management submitted that for this purpose the Deputy Commissioner Panchkula used to issue the prescribed dependency Certificate for a period of three years at a time and the staff was regularly paid HRA accordingly up to 31-8-97. After this the D.C. Panchkula started giving dependency certificate in piece means sometime for three months and some time for six months saying that the notification for creation ofMunicipal council has been issued on 12-9-97 and can be constituted at any moment , therefore validity of dependency certificate after 30-11-1997 cannot be quantified. The municipal council at Panchkula has not been constituted up till now and the dependency certificate is issued in piece meals causing inordinate delay in obtaining approval of the concerned authorities. Now the case up to 31-12-1999 stands referred for the purpose and payment @ 15% HRA will be made within a week up to 31-3-1999 and the case for further approval of the same is being persued properly with the departmental authorities .
The Chief Postmaster, General Haryana Circle , Ambala (Haryana)
Respondent
APPEARANCES :
4. To prove its case the management filed the affidavit ofN.K. Sharma and Union filed affidavit of Mr. R.K. Rahal Circle President.
Forthe workman : Shri Tajinder Joshi
Shri Namit Kumar Advocate
For the management
5. Inhis affidavit the Union through the Circle President admitted that respondent gave benefit of 15 % HRA in [भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]
piece meal and now payment has been made up to the period 31-12-1999 . The Panchkula is dependant city on Chandigarh as per Finance Department and as such the employees working in Postal Department are entitled to get 15% HRA on basic pay.
6. Inthis case both parties and their respective counsels were in agreement that no oral evidence is required as affidavits are already on record.
7. Heard arguments of the learned counsel for the parties . Learned counsel for the Union Shri Tajinder Joshi submitted that this is case where the workmen of the present union are suffering due to their bad luck . The management is agreed in principle to give HRA @ 15% to all members of the Union but for some period they are not making payment on the ground that for this period there is no dependency certificate issued by the government officers i.e. Deputy Commissioner Panchkula . It is argued that HRA @ 15% of the pay was paid up to 31-8-97 and thereafter in affidavit filed by Shri N.K. Sharma Sr. Supdt . ofPost Officers , Ambala Division have admitted that HRA @15% shall be paid up to 31-12-1999 and the HRA @ 15% has been paid upto 31-12-1999 .
8. As per affidavit it is submitted by the counsel of Union that as the payment of the period 31-12-1999 has been made, and it is reduced and is to be made by the management not due to the fault of the workman at any rate and it is the fault of the management officers who did not repeatedly requested and made efforts with the concerned authorities to issue dependency certificate not the officer ofthe Panchkula Municipal Council suo moto issued certificate in favour of the workmen residing in Panchkula. Therefore, it is admitted that payment was not made for the reasons explained i.e. non issue ofdependency certificate by the concerned authorities which is a government officer, his non - issuing certificate and HRA not paid is not a fault of the workmen. Hence the workmen are entitled to payment of HRA @ 15% of the basic pay for a limited period w.e.f. 1-1-2000. It is admitted that earlier the payment was made up to 31-8-97 and now the payment has been made up to 31-12-1999 and only a short period is left. The learned counsel has submited that workmen union has proved that the demand of the Bhartiya Dak Karamchari Sangh Haryana Parimandal , Ambala to continue HRA @ 15% of Basic Pay to the postal staff posted at Panchkula beyond 31-11-1997 is legal and justified and they are entitled to claim made in the claim statement .
9. On the other hand the learned counsel for the management submitted that in this case the management filed the affidavit of Shri N.K. Sharma and the above affidavit is quite clear. In the above affidavit in para 3 the position has been made clear and also gave the decision and made the payment up to 31-12-1999 . He submitted that management worked according to the guidelines and there
6159
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18, 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28 , 1927
was a delay in issuance of dependency certificate due to the reasons that despite proposal.for issuance of dependency certificate for three years after issuance of notification for the creation of Municipal Council on 12-9-97 , though it has not been created, dependency certificate is being issued by the Deputy Commissioner Panchkula in piece meals which is not acceptable to the Director General Department of post , New Delhi . He submitted that management is also making efforts and they have been paidup to 31-12-2000 and for remaining short period it will be paid accordingly as and when compliance ofthe rule is complete . Hence the demand is not just and legal , workman should not raise it , and the reference may be answered in favour of the management and the claim statement of the Union may be rejected.
10. Inview of the above submissions of both the parties andmy perusal of the oral evidence and documents . I have found that at the time arguments the contest was restricted for a short period 1-1-2001 to 15-6-03 as after 15-6-03 the workmen are being paid regularly @ 15% HRA . It is also not disputed by the parties that now HRA @ 15 % was not paid for the limited period 1-1-2001 to 15-6-03 only as the Deputy Commissioner Panchkula has not issued the dependency certificate. Therefore , in this case , the parties are in agreement that now the dispute is for a short period 1-1-2001 to 15-6-03 for which the HRA was not paid @ 15% ofthe basic pay. I have heard the arguments in support of both the parties and also perused the affidavits , I have found that the management has not denied in any manner the claim/demand of the workmen union. The management has shown its inability to make the payment of HRA @ 15% from 1-1-01 to 15-6-03 and it is admitted that after 15-6-03, the management is making payment @ 15 % HRA to the Basic pay.
11. I have found that the demand of the postal staff posted at Panchkula for the payment of HRA @ 15% of the basic pay as genuine as they were paid earlier and were being paid after 15-6-03 regularly in future and during the pendency of the case they were paid from 31-8-97 to 31-12-2000 . It is proved that the demand of the postal staff posted at Panchkula is genuine and accepted by the management that they should be paid @15% of the basic pay and that the management is unable to pay for the short period 1-1-01 to 15-6-03 due to non issuance of dependency certificate by the Deputy Commissioner Panchkula . It is also requested by the management that issuance of certificate of dependency is not in their hands and is in the hands of an officer of other State. I have also found from the perusal of the record that postal staff responsible for and dealing with the case of grant of HRA @ 15 % and considering the demand of the Union , the management had not made elaborate efforts and not pressing the Deputy Commissioner heard or requesting the Ministry of 6160
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18, 2005/ JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ]
of this award with interest @ 8% per annum till its payment. The reference is answered accordingly. Central Govt. be informed. File be consigned to record.
Chandigarh.
4-5-2005
RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 25 मई , 2005
का०आ ० 2160.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार डाक विभाग के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. I, नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 88/98 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25-05-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं ० एल-40012/1/96- आईआर ( डीयू) ] कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डैस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 25th May, 2005 Finance to issue an order to give HRA @ 15% for the period 1-1-01 to 15-6-03 . It is well known that management staff responsible for making efforts regarding payment to workman become lethargic and it is also admitted during the arguments by senior officer appearing in the court and that the learned counsel for the management that although demand was genuine and they should have been paid but the HRA @ 15% was not paid to the postal staff posted at Panchkula because of non - issuance of certificate . Therefore , I am of the considered view that in view of the above submission ofboth parties that the demand of the Bhartiya Dak Karamchari Sangh Haryana Parimandal , Ambala to continue the payment of House rent allowance @ 15% of Basic Pay to the postal staff posted at Panchkula beyond 31-11-1997 is legal andjustified. I have also found that the management earlier accepted the demand as just and legal and the management started paying regularly the HRA @ 15% w.ef. 15-6-03 and paid arrears during the pendancy of this case and the disputed period remains from 1-1-01 to 15-6-03 . Accordingly I hold that demand of Bhartiya Dak Karamchari Sangh Haryana Parimandal . Ambala to continue the payment ofHouse rent allowance @ 15 % of Basic Pay to the postal staff posted at Panchkula beyond 31-11-1997 is legal and justified as the management also not opposed in arguments and as per documents and paid for some period and ready to make any payment as discussed above of remaining period , the present reference is answered in favour of the Union .
S.O. 2160. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 88/98 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court No. I, New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of D/ o Post and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 25-05-2005 .
[No. L-40012/ 1/ 96- IR (DU) ] KULDIP RAI VERMA , Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT NEW DELHI
Presiding Officer : Shri S.S. Bal I.D No. 88/98
Inthe matter of dispute between :
Shri Naresh Kumar, House No. 464, Village & P.O. Mitraon, NewDelhi - 110043
Applicant
Versus
The Asstt . Supdt. of Post Office , 4/6 , New Delhi West , IstSub Division , A-3, Janakpuri , NewDelhi - 110058
Management 12. Now the most important part is that if their demand isjustified and legal as held above by me , what relief the workmen are entitled . In this regard I am of the considered view that as the management has paid arrears as demanded for most of the period and for future and willing to pay HRA @ 15% of the basic pay P.M. for which they can not pay for a short period due to non issuance of dependency certificate by D.C. Panchkula . Unless D.C. order is there or Ministry of Finance removes the rider, the payment as done now, management is unable to make the payment as desired . Management is willing and there is not fault of workmen now, it is the duty of the management to take immediate necessary steps to obtain Deputy Commissioner Certificate or orders from Ministry of Finance as there are orders for future payments by Ministry of Finance New Delhi . Therefore , in order to make payment of the HRA for the period due as the system is coming in way of workman and the management and there is no dispute also to the entitlement of the workman to the payment of HRA @ 15% of the basic pay to the postal staff posted at Panchkula and they are entitled for the period 1-1-01 to 15-6-03 also . I further order that the management shall make all out effortsto get HRA sanctioned @ 15 % of Basic pay and shall make payment to the staff within four months from the date of passing [भाग, II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
6161
भारत का राजपत्र : जून18 , 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28 , 1927
APPEARANCES : None for the workman.
Shri Dalpat Singh, Public Relation Inspector for management.
AWARD
The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L -40012/ 1 /96 - IR (DU) dated 9-3-98 has referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal foradjudication :
"Whether the action of the management of Asst . Supt . of Post Office , Janakpuri , New Delhi in terminating the services of Shri Naresh Kumar is legal andjustified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to ?"
2. After receipt of the reference notices were sent to the parties on 2-4-98 and the workman claimant filed an application on 30-4-2001 and written statement was filed on 14-9-2001 and then rejoinder was filed on 7-1-2001 .
3. Brieffacts as called from the record are that Sh . Naresh Kumar workman claimed that he took charge of EDDA- cum-MC on 28-4-81 and he was appointed and entrusted with thejob ofEDDA -cum -MC on 28-4-81 and worked in Post Office Mitraun and he used to carry and deposit bag ofdak (dak bag) from Post Office Najafgarh to Post Office for Mitraon and vice-versa and deposit back the same in Najafgarh to Post Office for about a period of one year and after 29th months during the year 1982 he was transferred. He used to take carry dak from Mitraun Post Office to Surehra Post Office and used to distribute the dak there and deposit back in Mitraun Post Office . His post is designated/called as EDDA- cum-MC . He has worked on this post for 7 years and during this period of 7-8 years much has happened with him . He has given the detail of the same in the application filed in the case. He has filed an application of this case . he has also filed photo copy of the same which is there. It is further averred that departmental enquirywas conducted against him and he is hiling photo copy of the conclusion of the same which is not available which may be accepted . He requested to initiate action on the basis of the previous enquiry. He is a poor. He does not have any means of living . He has been deprived ofhis job and facing difficulty. He requested to be reinstated in the job alongwith adequate compensation .
4. Management contested the claim by filing reply in Hindi , where in it is stated that Naresh Kumar was working on the post ofEDDA- cum - MC in the post office of Surehra during the year 1988-89 and he remained absent without any information and permission from the competent authority on 19-1-88 to 24-1-88 , 21-4-88 to 23-4-88 , 26-4-88 to 27-7-88, 9-9-88 to 4-10-88 and 23-4-88 to 6-10-89 . He was charge sheeted under the Department of Post E.D.A. (Service & Conduct ) Rule 1964, Rule 8 on 10-6-89 and the matter was enquired into by the officer and the employee was deprived/debarred of the permission to take up or appear in the examination of postman for two years . i.e. to sayhe was debarred from taking up the examination . Naresh Kumar Dak Ticket Vendor remained absent from duty from 29-10-91 continuously without previous permission and the employee (he) was given show cause notice dated 9-9-92, 29-9-92, 3-12-92 to which he filed no reply and he was again issued charge sheet dated 30-4-93 for misconduct about his conduct for intervening/ disturbance inthe work of the Post Office under the Service and Conduct Rules 1964. Photo copy is enclosed herewith and the allegations levelled in the charge sheet were proved in the report ofthe enquiry officer (Janch Adhikari ) and thereafter he was the employee removed vide order dated 20-1-94 . It is further stated that the employee Naresh Kumar was given opportunity again and again to improve his conduct but he failed intentionally to improve upon his mistake and always disregarded by remaining absent which resulted in the disturbance/ intervention of the smooth working of the government and as such matter be decided in favour ofthe management and against the workman .
5. In the rejoinder workman reiterated the averments made in the claim statement and denied the allegations/ averments made in the written statement and termed the action of termination as unjustified, improper wrong but the workman failed to adduce his evidence by way of filing affidavit despite as many as 14 opportunities . Therefore he was proceeded exparte on 12-5-05 . From the averments in his claim statement it is apparent that the workman- claimant has claimed that the action of termination of this services is not justified . Hence the burden to prove the same was on the workman but he failed to adduce any evidence. It appears that the workman is not interested the prosecution in of this case and in the absence of any evidence . I am unable to hold that the termination of service ofthe workmanby the management is unjustified & illegal as claimed by him. Hence ' No dispute' award is hereby passed and file be consigned to record room.
Dated: 12-5-2005
S. S. BAL , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 27 मई, 2004
का०आ ० 2161.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भा . को.को. लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय धनबाद 1 के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 19/94) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24-05-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं० एल-20012/39/93- आई.आर. ( सी-1 ) ] एस. एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव 6162
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2005 / JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] New Delhi , the 27th May, 2005
S.O. 2161. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 19/94) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court Dhanbad - I now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of BCCL and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 24-05-2005 .
[No. L-20012/39/93 - IR (C-I) ]
S. S. GUPTA , Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . I , DHANBAD
In the matter of a reference U/s . 10( 1 ) ( d) (2A) of I.D. Act .
Reference No. 19 of 1994 .
PARTIES: Employers in relation to the management of Kankanee Colliery ofM/s . B.C.C. Ltd. and their Workman
PRESENT : Shri S. Prasad, Presiding Officer
APPEARANCES :
For the Employers Shri D. K. Verma, Advocate.
Forthe workman
Identity Card Number is 225002. In the year 1980 he opted for Voluntary Retirement and allowed the concered workman, Jogeshwar Das to be appointed in his place under Voluntary Retirement Scheme of the management being his son- in -law. The concerned workman was accordingly appointed by the management and he was serving in Tetulmari Colliery as Loading Clerk. Later on he was transferredto Kankanee Colliery. He worked there for seven years when a complaint was received purported to be made by aforesaid Chhota Jitan Manjhi to the D.C. , Dhanbad, with copies to S.P. , Dhanbad , General Manager, Sijua Area , Superintendent , Kankanee colliery and others , alleging therein that the concerned workman , Jogeshwar Das , who is son of Rameshwar Das , Village- Jamri , P.S. Budhgaya, adopted coereive method and took his Identity Card and managed to enter into the service of the management of M/s . B.C.C. Ltd. in his place as his dependant son - in - law, but he is not his actual son - in - law. Thus , he has obtained employment under M/s . B.C.C. Ltd. by practising fraud . Onthe said complaint a criminal case was instituted against the concerned workman for commission of fraud, forgery and impersonation. The management also issued a letter to him calling for an explanation to the allegation levelled in the aforesaid complaint of Chhota Jitan Manjhi . The concerned workman submitted his reply on 15-7-87 asserting that Badamia Devi daughter of Chhota Jitan Manjhi ofVillage-Amara , P.S. Adityapur, District Giridih, ishis legally married wife and the marriage was performed and duly registered under the Hindu Marriage Act. In support of that he has also produced photo copy of marriage' certificate. The management held preliminary enquiry in view of the stand taken by the concerned workman and thereafter issued a chargesheet and ultimately dismissed the concerned workman from service .
: Shri B. N. Singh , Secretary, National Coal Workers Congress .
State : Jharkhand.
Industry: Coal.
AWARD
The concerned workman was also arrested in the criminal case on same set of allegation and was prosecuted and ultimately he has been acquitted.
Dated, the 2nd May, 2005
3. The sponsoring union thereafter made a demand for reinstatement of the concerned workman with continuity of service and all back wages which was refused by the management then the present industrial dispute has been raised.
By Order No. L -20012/ 39/ 93 - I.R. (Coal -I) , dated , the 16th February, 1994, the Central Government in the Ministry ofLabour 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 :
4. The case of the sponsoring union is that the concerned workman was given employment under Voluntary Retirement Scheme in place ofhis father- in-law, Chhota Jitan Manjhi as the concerned workman is the son- in- law of Chhota Jitan Manjhi . He had been married with the daughter of Chhota Jitan Manjhi and the same has been registered before Marriage Officer , Dhanbad. According to him, he has not committed any fraud.
"Whether the action of the management of Kankanee Colliery ofM/ s . BCCL in refusing re - instatement with continuity of service and all back wages to Shri Jogeshwar Das , Loading Clerk is justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled ?"
2. The brief facts giving rise to this industrial dispute is that one Chhota Jitan Manjhi was a Miner working at Tetulmari Colliery of Area No. V of M/s . B.C.C.Ltd. His
5. The management has contended that after the receipt of the complaint made by Chhota Jitan Manjhi a preliminary enquiry was held in presence of the concerned workman inwhich Chhota Jtan Manjhi had stated that the
1 6163 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18 , 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28 , 1927
8. Now, since the domestic enquiry has been held to be unfair, therefore the management will succeed or fail only on the evidence adduced on merit and the evidence celected during domestic enquiry cannot be looked therefore , now let us see whether the management as been able to prove that the concerned workmar, Jogeshwar Das was not the son - in - law of Chhota Jitan Manjhi , yet he obtained employment under Voluntary Retirement Scheme by practising fraud.
concerned workman is not his son -in -law and he has obtained employment by practising fraud . The further case of the management is that after preliminary enquiry a chargesheet was issued to the concerned workman to which he has made his reply. The reply was not found satisfactory then an enquiry was constituted and in the domestic enquiry the witnesses were examined by the management and the Enquiry Officer held guilty of the charges levelled against him for having comitted misconduct and ultimately the concerned workman has been dismissed by letter dated 19/26-12-1988 .
Findings:
6. The sponsoring union has disputed the fairness andpropriety of the domestic enquiry. The fairness of the domestic enquiry was subsequently conceded by the sponsoring union, but there was no specific finding ofthe Tribunal regarding fairness of the domestic enquiry. Therefore, the then Presiding Officer of this Tribunal by Award dated 28-11-1996 considering the domestic enquiry found that the domestic enquiry as well as preliminary enquiry was not fairly conducted because the entire domestic enquiry was conducted behind the back of the concerned workman when he was in jail custody. The concerned workman was taken into custody on 20-8-1988 and the entire domestic enquiry was held in three sittings when the concerned workman was in jail custody and therefore he was unable to take part in the domestic enquiry. In para 11 ofthe said award at page 8 it was further held that the contention of the management that the preliminary enquiry was held on 20-8-87 in presence ofthe concernedworkman cannot be relied upon because he was injail custody in connection with G.R. Case No. 669/87 from 20-8-87 to 19-10-87 . Finding the domestic enquiry having not been conducted fairly and properly by Award dated 28-11-96 the concerned workman was directed to be reinstated in service with full back wages . The aforesaid award was challenged by the management by filing writ petitionbefore the Hon'ble High Court . The Hon'ble Court vide order dated 18-11-98 passed in CWJC No. 2012/97 (R) set aside that award with a direction to allow the management to adduce evidence on merit to justify its action which was not done by the then Presiding Officer of the Tribunal . The Hon'ble Court clearly held that it is the settled principle of law that when domestic enquiry is not found fair and proper then the management must be given an opportunity to adduce evidence in support of the justification ofaction taken by the management . After the receipt of the order of the Hon'ble Court the management as well as the workman have been given opportunity to adduce evidence on merit to justify the action of the management.
hota 9. The management has examined two witnesses as mentioned above after the case was remanded by the order ofthe Hon'ble High Court . MW- 1-A.N.P. Ambastha , who was Personnel Manager in Kankanee Colliery: He has stated that one Chhota Jitan Manjhi was working at Tetulmari Colliery as a Minor/Loader, who opted for retirement under V.R.S. of the company and the concerned workman appeared before the company and claimed employment in place of Chhota Jitan Manjhi claiming himself to be his son - in - law. He has further stated that one notice was received by the management from the office of District Collectorate said to be a complaint/iled by Jitan Manjhi in which it was alleged that the concerned workmanhad fraudulently projected himself as the son -in- law of Chhota Jitan Manjhi and got employed in the company. He has produced a copy of the said complaint which has been marked Ext . M -6/ 1 . he has further stated that a preliminary enquiry was held by R.B.P. Sahi and thereafter the management submitted a chargesheet dated 24-3-88 (Ext . M-7) to the concerned workman. He has further said that a copy of another petition submitted by said Chhota Jitan Manjhi before the Deputy Commissioner which was forwarded to the management for needful . The complaint hasbeen marked Ext . M-6/7 . He has also produced one letter dated 10-7-87 by which explanation was sought from Jogeshwar Das and he has also proved the preliminary enquiry report of R.B.P. Sahi , Sr. Personnel Officer, marked Ext.M-9 . He has also produced a letter showing that initially theconcerned workman was appointed at Tetulmari Colliery and subsequently he was transferred to Kankanee Colliery. He has also produced the paper cutting of which notice of enquiry was published. He has said that during preliminary enquiry Chhota Jitan Manjhi had taken the name of his two daughters who are aged about 12 years and 8 years and has stated that he has no daughter by name Badamia Devi . From the cross - examination it appears that he had notconducted the preliminary enquiry nor the said enquiry wasconducted in his presence . He has tried to conceal the fact that the concerned workman had been acquitted in the criminal case for the same set of allegation. Thus , we find that the evidence of MW- 1-A.N.P. Ambastha is not atall helpful in proving the allegation against the concerned workman that he has obtained employment by practising fraud.
7. The management after that has examined two witnesses on merit and the workman has adopted the evidence of two witnesses already recorded at the time of preliminary issue.
1714 GI/05-29 6164
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18, 2005 / JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
10. Another witness is R.B.P. Sahi (MW - 2 ) who is Personnel Manager at Basuria. He has conducted preliminary enquiry as well as domestic enquiry. He stated the things about the preliminary enquiry and domestic enquiry which has already been held to be unfair having been conducted when the concerned workman was in jail custody. Therefore , the evidence of MW- 2 is not at all helpful to show that the concerned workman has committed any fraud. At best the evidence of MW - 1 and MW -2 goes to show that a complaint was received by the management having been committed fraud by the concerned workman . The management has not produced any documentary evidence to show that Chhota Jitan Manjhi had no daughterby name Badamia Devi . The management has not even filed the Medical Card of said Chhota Jitan Manjhi nor they have filed original application for voluntary retirement submitted by Chhota Jitan Manjhi opting for giving employment to the concerned workman . The management has not adduced any evidence to show that at that time any enquiry was made to know about the genuineness of the relationship between Chhota Jitan Manjhi and the concerned workman , Jogeshwar Das . They have not examined any person of the village who would have been competent to say whether the concerned workman is the son- in - law of Chhota Jitan Manjhi or not . Onthe contrary, from the judgement of the criminal case which has been filed by the concerned workman it appears that Chhota Jitan Manjhi has clearly stated that the concerned workman , Jogeshwar Das is his son- in-law. Chhota Jitan Manjhi has appeared in this Court and has given his statement on oath that the concerned workman is his son -in - law who has been married with his daughter, Badamia Devi .
11. From the materials available on record, I find that the management has not even led any material evidence from which an inference can be drawn that the concerned workman was not the son - in - law of Chhota Jitan Manjhi and by practising fraud he has obtained employment . On the other hand , Chhota Jitan Manjhi himself has stated before this Tribunal as well as in the Criminal Court that the concerned workman Jogeshwar Das is his son - in - law. In such circumstances I find that the action of the management in dismissing the concerned workman cannot be justified and the demand of the concerned workman to reinstate him after the acquittal in criminal case with full back wages should not have been refused by the management .
12. In the result, I render the following award:-- That the action of the management of Kankanee Colliery of M/ s . B.C.C. Ltd. in refusing to reinstate the concerned workman , Jogeshwar Das , in employment as Loading Clerk with continuity of service and all back wages is not justified and the concerned workman is entitled for reinstatement with full back wages and other consequential
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] benefits . The management is directed to reinstate the concerned workman within 30 days from the date of publication of the award.
S. PRASAD, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 27 मई , 2005
का०आ ० 2162.- 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 194/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24-05-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं ० एल-20012/166/2000- आईआर ( सी-1 ) ] एस. एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 27th May, 2005 S.O. 2162. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 194/2000 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court . Dhanbad - II now as shown in the Annexure , inthe Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of BCCL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 24-5-2005 .
[No. L -20012/ 166/2000- IR (C - I) ]
S. S. GUPTA , Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO . 2) AT DHANBAD
PRESENT:
Shri B. BISWAS, Presiding Officer In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1)(d) of I.D. Act ,. 1947
REFERENCE NO . 194 OF 2000
PARTIES :
Employers in relation to the Management of M/ s . BCCL and theirworkman .
APPEARANCES :
Onbehalf of the workman : Mr. N. N. Rawani , Advocate
:
Onbehalf of the employers
Mr. D. K. Verma , Advocate. State : Jharkhand
Industry: Coal Date , Dhanbad, the 19th April, 2004 6165 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18, 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28 , 1927
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10(1) (d) of the I.D. Act . , 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication Vide their Order No. L- 20012 / 166/2000 (C - I ) , dated , the 29th November, 2000.
SCHEDULE
"KYA B. C. C. L. , LODNA COLLIERY POWER HOUSE KEY PRAVANDHTANTRA DWARA SHRI KEDAR NATH PRASAD KO JANM TARIKH UNKAY MATRIC CERTIFICATE MEY DI GAI TARIKH ARTHAT 1-1-47 SAHI NAHI MANNA UCHIT EVAM NAYA SANGAT HAI ? YADI NAHI TO KARMKAR KIS RAHAT KEY PATRA HAI ? "
2. The case of the concerned workman according to written statement submitted by the sponsoring union on his behalf in brief is as follows:
Register is a statutory register maintained under the Mines Act as well as Coal Mines Regulations . They disclosed that as the age of the concerned workman has already been recorded in the statutory register, at this stage there is no scope to change his date of birth in view of prayer made by the sponsoring union . They submitted that at the time of appointment the concerned workman did not produce his educational certificate to the Management for the reasons best known to him. They disclosed that at the time of appointment in the year 1963 if date of birth of the concerned workman is considered as 1947 in that case his age would be 16 ears and that being the position he could not be appointed as minimum age for appointment in Mines is 18 years . They further submitted that in the year 1988 service excerpt was issued to the concerned workman but the concerned workman did not raise objection as regards to his age recorded therein . He has also failedto produce any authentic document prior to raising industrial dispute that his date of birth is 1-1-47. Accordingly management submitted that date ofbirth recorded in the Form B Register is correct and genuine for the purpose of employment and for which he is not entitled to get any review in view of his prayer . years
3. POINTS TO BE DECIDED.-
" KYA B.C.C.L. LODNA COLLIERY POWER HOUS KEY PRAVANDHTANTRA DWARA SHRI KEDAR NATH PRASAD KO JANM TARIKH UNKEY MATRIC CERTIFICATE MEY DI GAI TARIKH ARTHAT 1-1-47 SAHI NAHI MANNA UCHIT EVAM NAYA SANGAT HAI ? YADI NAHI TO KARMKAR KIS RAHAT KEY PATRA HAI?
4. FINDING WITH REASONS
It transpires from the record that the sponsoring Union with a view to substantiate their claim examined the concerned workman as WM- 1 . Management also with a view to establish their claim examined one witness as MW- 1 .
The sponsoring union submitted that the concerned workman had been working as permanent Asstt . Foreman under the . Management . They disclosed that the concerned workman passed Matriculation examination in the year 1962. At the time of his appointment he submitted that Matriculation certificate for recording his date of birth in the official record . They disclosed that as per matriculation certificate date of birth of the concerned workman was 1-1-1947 . Instead of recording the said date of birth Management illegally and arbitrarily recorded his date of birth as 1944 and he came to know this fact from the service excerpt when it was handed over to him. They submitted that immediately after receipt of the said service excerpt he raised his objection and requested the management to correct his date of birth as 1-1-1947 instead of 1944 as per Matriculation certificate but as the Management refused to rectify his date of birth he raised anindustrial dispute for conciliation which ultimately resulted reference to this Tribunal for adjudication. Sponsoring union accordingly submitted prayerrayer for passing Award directing the management to record the date of birth of the concerned workman as 1-1-47 instead of 1944 which has been appearing in their official register along with other consequential benefits which he is entitled to get.
3.Mangement on the contrary after filing written Statement-cum - rejoinder have denied all the claims and allegations which the sponsoring union asserted in the written Statement submitted on behalf of the concerned workman. They submitted that the concerned workman got his appointment in the year 1963 and at that time his date of birth was recorded as 1944 in the Form B Register of the Colliery. They disclosed that Form B
Considering the facts disclosed in the pleadings , evidence of both sides and materials on record I find no dispute to hold that the concerned workman got his appointment in the month of June , 1963 as Khalasi (Trainee) . There is also no dispute to hold that at the time ofentry in service his date ofbirth in the Form B Register was recorded as 1944. Management in course of hearing relied on the Form B Register marked as Ext . M- 1 which obviously has supported their claim. On the contrary submission of the concerned workman is that he passed Matriculation examination in the year 1962 and as per Matrication certificate his date of 6166
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2005/ JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ]
40. Employment of persons below eighteen years of age.-
(1) After the commencement of the Mines (Amendment ) Act, 1983 , no person below eighteen years of age shall be allowed to work in any Mine or part thereof.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- section ( 1 ) apprentices and other trainees , not below sixteen years of age , may be allowed towork , under proper supervision, in a Mine or part thereof by the manager:
Provided that , in the case of trainees , other than apprentices , prior approval of the Chief Inspector or an Inspector shall be obtained before they are allowed to work.
As per clause ( 1 ) of Section 40 it transpires that the said age barrier came into existence after commencement of the Mines Amendment Act , 1983 . Management have failed to produce the Mines Act , prior to its Amendment to show what was the minimum age earmarked for entry in service under Mines Act. However, considering clause 2 of Section 40 of the Mines Act there is no scope to say that the concerned workman suppressed his age for getting his employment particularly when he was 16 years ofold at the time of his getting appointment as Khalasi (Trainee) . Clause (A) ( 1 ) of JBCCI Circular No. 76 speaks as follows :-
(A) Determination of the age at the time of appointment.-
(i) In the case of appointees who have passed Matriculation or equivalent examinations , the date of birth recorded in the said certificate shall be treated as correct date of birth and the same will not be altered under any circumstances .
Again clause B ( i ) ( a) of the said Circular speaks as follows:-
In the case of the existing employees Matriculation Certificate or Higher Secondary Certificate issued by the recognised Universites or Board or Middle Pass Certificate issued by the Board of Education and /or Department of Public Instruction and admit cards issued by the aforesaid bodies should be treated as correct provided they were issued by the birth was 1-1-1947 . He further disclosed that at the time of his appointment he produced his matriculation certificate but management without giving any importance to the date of birth recorded his date of birth as 1944 which was without his knowledge. He admitted that in the year 1988 Management issued service excerpt wherein his date of birth was recorded as 1-1-47 but Management after striking it recorded his date of birth as 1944 as per Form B Register. He disclosed that after receipt of the said service excerpt he raised objection and requested the management to correct his date of birth as 1947 instead of 1944 but management did not take any step for correction of his date of birth . It is the contention of the management that at the fag end of his service the concerned workman raised industrial dispute for rectification of his date of birth which could not be acceeded to . Their futher contention is that in the year 1994 the sponsoring union on behalf of the concerned workman raised an industrial dispute but the same was dropped by the Ministry as there was no merit in the same . Again same dispute was raised by another union for rectification of his date of birth but that too was dropped in the year 1999. Thereafter the sponsoring union again has raised another industrial dispute which resulted reference to this Tribunal without any basis. Therefore , considering the submission of the management it is clear that not at the fag end of service of the concerned workman but long before ending his service career he raised industrial dispute for rectification of his date of birth but the same was not entertained . As the previous LC ( C ) records are not available it is not possible to draw any conclusion under which circumstance prayer of the concerned workman was not acceeded to. Considering matriculation certificate marked as Ext . W- 1 , I Find no dispute to hold that he passed the said examination in the year 1962 and as per this certificate his date of birth was recorded as 1-1-1947 . It is the contention of the management that at the time of his entry in the service in the year 1963 the concerned workman was only 16 years old . They further submitted that as per Mines Act Minimum age for entery in the Coal Mine is 18 years . Accordingly they subnoi that the concerned workman suppressing his matriculation certificate entered into service last he was disqualified for employment due to his under age. From the I.D. Card produced by the concerned workman in transpires that he got his appointment as Khalasi ( Trainee ) . Referring Section 40 of the Mines Act Ld . Advocate for the concerned workman submitted that Minimum age for entry in service as trainee was not below 16 years . The concerned workman as Khalasi (Trainee) entered in the service while he was 16 years of age and therefore question of his suppressing age for getting employment did not arise . Clause 1 and 2 of Section 40 of the Mines Act speaks as follows :-
6167
भारत का राजपत्र: जून 18 , 2005 /ज्येष्ठ 28 , 1927
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
said Universities/Boards/Institutions prior to the date of employment.
(i ) (b) Similarly, Mining sirdarship, Winding Engine of Similar other statutory certificates where the manager had to certify the date ofbirth will be treated as authentic .
Provided that where both documents mentioned in (i ) (a) and (i ) (b ) above are available , the date of birth recorded in (i) (a) will be trated as authentic .
produced by the workman . At that time if the workman fails to produce any such authentic document it is obligatory on the part of the management to assess the age of the concerned workman through Medical Board for its recording in the Form B Register. The JBCCI Circular came into effect at a last Stage . Therefore , obviously there was no scope for application of the instruction as given in the JBCCI Circular when the concerned workman entered into service in the year 1963. It is the specific claim of the concerned workman that at the time of his entry in the service he produced his matriculation certificate for recording his qualification and age but that was not adhered to by the erstwhile owner. Therefore , until and unless management is able to establish the basis how the age ofthe concerned workman as 1944 was recorded in the Form B Register. They cannot ignore the date of birth of the conmcered workman recorded in the Matriculation certificate which he obtained prior to his entry inthe service . As Clause (B) ( i ) of JBCCI Circular No. 76 is applicable to existing employees , I hold that the management arbitrarily ignored the matriculation certificate produced by the concerned workman for rectification of his date of birth in the Form B Register . Such arbitrary and illegal act on the part of the Management caused serious injustice to the concerned workman for getting proper justice . Considering all facts and circumstances discussed above I hold that the age of the concerned workman as 1944 recorded in the Form B Register had no basis and for which the same should not be considered as basis for determination of his age in connection with his service. Onthe contrary I hold that relying on JBCCI Circular No. 76 in the Form B Register the date of birth should be recorded as 1-1-1947 instead of 1944 and the concerned workman is entitled to get his service benefit relying on the date ofbirth as mentioned above.
In the result, the following Award is rendered.- Therefore , considering the circular as referred to above it is clear that age recorded in the Matriculation certificate has been accepted as authentic date ofbirth of aworkman and it should be accepted by the management subject to the condition that the said matriculation certificate/school leaving certificate should be obtained prior to his entry in service. Here in the instant case it is seen that the concerned workman passed matriculation examination in the year 1962. He got his entry in service under the management in the year 1963 as Khalasi (Trainee), Therefore , as per JBCCI Circular the age recorded in the Matriculation certificate is binding on the part of the Management . Clause (b) (i ) (a) is applicable to the existing employees and not in respect of the fresh entrants. Here the specific claim of the concerned workman is that after receipt of the service excerpt he raised.objection relating to his date ofbirth recorded in the Form B Register but as the management did not consider his prayer for rectification of his date birth relying on Matriculation certificate issued by the competent authority, he through the sponsoring union raised industrial dispute in the year 1994 but that was turned down . Again in the year 1999 he raised same dispute through another union but that too was also turned down. In the year 1994 JBCCI circular was very much in existence and operation . Therefore, I have failed to understand how the provision as laid down in clause (b ) (i) (a) of JBCCI Circular No. 76 was not considered.
"The action of the management of Lodna Colliery ofM/s . BCCL in not accepting the date ofbirth of Sri Kedarnath Prasad as 1-1-1947 as per matriculation certificate is not legal and justified . Accordingly, Management is directed to record the date of birth of the concerned workman as 1-1-19947 and to give him consequential relief on the basis of the same within three months from the dateofpublication of the Award in the Gazette of India.
B. BISWAS , Presiding Officer There is no dispute to hold that Form B Register which is binding on both sides is statutory register . Relying on this fact management submitted that when once date ofbirth of the concerned workman in the Form B Register was recorded as 1944 is binding and cannot be rectified at all . Before taking into consideration of this fact management is to satisfy the Tribunal how the date of birth of the concerned workman was recorded as 1944 in ther Form B Register . As per JBCCI Circular at the initial stage of appointment date of birth of the concerned workman in the From B Register has to be recorded on the basis of authentic document to be 6168
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2005 / JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
नई दिल्ली, 27 मई, 2005
का.आ. 2163.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार ई सी एल के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , धनवाद II के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 125/96 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24-05-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-20012/283/95- आईआर ( सी- I ) ] एस. एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 27thMay, 2005
S.O. 2163.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 125/ 96) ofthe 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 ECL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 24-05-2005.
[No. L - 20012/283/ 95 - IR (C - I) ] S. S. GUPTA , Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL ( NO . 2) AT DHANBAD PRESENT :
SHRI B. BISWAS , Presiding Officer Inthe matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10 (1) (d) ofthe I.D. Act, 1947
Reference No. 125 of 1996
PARTIES :
Employers in relation to the management of Shyampur Colliery of M/s . E.C.L. and theirworkman.
APPEARANCES :
Onbehalf of the Workman : Mr. D. Mukherjee , Advocate and Mr. Κ. Chakravorty, Advocate Onbehalf of the employers : Mr. B.M. Prasad, Advocate State : Jharkhand Industry: Coal Dated, Dhanbad, the 20th April, 2005
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]
AWARD
TheGovt . of India , Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10 ( 1 ) ( d ) of the I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order no. L-20012/283/ 95- IR (Coal- I) , dated, the 7-10-96/ 14-10-96
SCHEDULE
"Whether the demand by the Union for employment to Shri Anand Kumar Singhania as a dependent son ofLate J.P. Singhania by the management of Nirsha Area of M/ s . E.C.L. in terms of the C.G.I.T. award in reference no. 310/1968 is justified? If so , to what relief isthe said workman entitled ?"
2. The case of the petitioner/ workman accordingto written Statement submitted by the sponsoring union on his behalf in brief is as follows : -
The sponsoring union submitted that late J.P. Singhania was Cashier of Shyampur ' A' Colliery under M/s. E.C.L. Nirsachatti , Dhanbad. They submitted that management dismissed the said workman illegally with effect from 3-8-82 and as a result of which the said workman raised an Industrial dispute for adjudication and subsequently which ended in reference and transferred to this Tribunal with the following schedule:-
SCHEDULE
"Whether the demand of Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union that Shri J.P. Singhania, Cashier, Shyampur 'A' Colliery of Messrs . Eastern Coalfields Limited, who was dismissed from service by the management from 3-8-1982 for alleged defalcation of the management's money, should be reinstated in service keeping in view of his acquittal by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class , Dhanbad on 20-2-1984, is justified? If so to what relief is the said workman entitled and from what date ? "
After receipt of the said order of reference it was registered as Ref. No. 310/86 . The said reference case was disposed of by the predecessor in office vide Award dated 27-2-1992 in the following manner :-
" For the reason stated above , I am to hold that the concerned workman was not guilty of any embezzlement and he deserved to be reinstated in his service with full back wages , but since he had already died the management may take a compassionate view of the matter and give employment to his dependent son as per rules and procedure . The management will pay all the back wages and other consequential benefits to Smt . UrmilaDevi wife of late J.P. Singhania, the concerned workmanfrom the date of his dismissal to the date of 6169
भारत का राजपत्र: जून 18, 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28 , 1927
[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
his expiry within one month from the date of publication of the Award. "
The said award was published in the Gazette of India vide Notification dated 24-3-92.
3. Thereafter the dependent of late J.P. Singhania filed application as per terms of Award. Said J. P. Singhania they submitted died on 13-4-1990 leaving behind the following legal heirs:-
(i) Urmila Devi-Wife
(ii) Anand Kumar Singhania- Son
(iii) Arun Kumar Singhania-Son
before the management . They disclosed that the Award of Hon'ble Tribunal was not implemented by the management so far as providing employment to the son of late J.P. Singhania was concerned and the matter was discussed between the legal heir of J.P. Singhania at the instance of the sponsoring union and ultimately the settlement was arrived at on 28-2-96 . They submitted that the settlement was legal and binding on the concerned person who put his signature on the settlement in the capacity of dependent son of late J.P. Singhania. As per the settlement , they accepted that they are gainfully employed in the family business and the widow of J.P. Singhania and two sons did not press for their employment under the management . They disclosed that after said settlement money was paid to the widow oflate J.P. Singhania in terms of the settlement and inspite of that settlement the petitioner workman filed the present case with the motive of getting employment as an after thought and they approached the sponsoring union for making out a case on their behalf. They submitted that the settlement which entered into between the parties isbinding and accordingly the instant refrence case which has been initiated has to be treated as invalid, illegal and without any jurisdiction and accordingly the same has to be rejected summarily.
5. Points to be decided
The widow of J.P. Singhania i.e. Mrs. Urmial Devi filed an application for substitution before this Tribunal in connection with reference case referred to above for her substitution and that petition was duly allowed . They submitted that inspite of submitting appliction for employment on compassionate ground by the petitioner Anand Kumar Singhania Management did not consider such prayer. Accordingly they raised an industrial dispute for conciliation which ultimately resulted reference to this Tribunal for adjudication . The sponsoring union submitted prayer for passing Award directing the management to provide employment to Anand Kumar Singhania i.e. the petitioner dependent son of late J.P. Sinhania in terms of Award passed by this Tribunal in Ref. Case No. 310/86 .
"Whether the demand by the union for employment to Shri Anand Kumar Singhania as dependent son. of late J.P. Singhania by the management of Nirsa Area ofM/s . E.C.L. in terms of CGIT award in Ref. No. 310/1986 is justified ? If so , to what relief is the said workman entitled?"
4.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 petitioner workman.
6. It transpires from the record that the sponsoring union with a view to substantiate their claim examied one witness as WW - 1 Management too in support of their claim examined one witness as MW- 1 . Considering the facts disclosed in the pleadings of both sides, evidence of WW- 1 , MW- 1 and also considering the documents marked as Ext . M - 1 , M -2, W- 1 , W-2 to W- 2/2 I find no dispute to hold that one J.P. Singhania was Cashier of Shyampur ' A' Colliery ofM/s . E.C.L. He was dismissed from his service by the Management with effect from 3-8-92 for alleged defalcation of the management's money. Being aggrieved with the said order of dismissal said workman i.e. J.P. Singhania raised an industrial dispute for conciliation which ultimately resulted reference before this Tribunal by the management for its adjudication . After receipt of the said reference it was registered as Ref. No. 310/86. Said reference case was ended in Award by my predecessor in office dt. 27-2-92 with the following observations :-
"For the reason stated above , I am to hold that the concerned workman was not guilty of any embezzlement and he deserved to be reinstated in his service with full back wages, but since he had They submitted that this Tribunal on 27-2-92 passed Award inRef. No. 310/86 in favour of the deceased workman. Thereafter the said Award was replaced by the settlement dt. 28-2-96 and the aforesaid Award got automatically terminated as per provision of Section 19 of the I.D. Act . , 1947. They submitted that an Award remain valid for a period of one year and continues to remain valid till the same is replaced by another Award or settlement . The Award may be terminated after expiry of one year in accordance with the provisions of Section 19 of the I.D. Act. , 1947. They submitted that this Tribunal going beyond terms of reference not only passed the Award but also directed the management to provide employment to the dependent son of late J.P. Singhania as per rules and procedure. They disclosed that no right can be conferred on an employee in a public sector undertaking to provide employment to his sons and relatives after his retirement or death . Such employment can only be given on compassionate ground considering all materials placed 6170
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18, 2005/ JYAISTHA 28, 1927
already died the management may take a compassionate view of the matter and give employment to his dependent son as per rules and procedure . The management will pay all the back wages and other consequential benefits to Smt . Urmila Devi wife of late J.P. Singhania, the concerned workman from the date of his dismissal to the date of his expiry within one month from the date ofpublication of the Award . "
Copy ofthe Award during evidence of WW- 1 was marked asExt. W- 1 . It is the contention of the management that during pendency of the implementation of the said Award on being approached by widow Mrs. Urmila Devi and her two sons for amicable settlement of the dispute they did not prefere any Writ Petition against the Award passed by the Ld . Tribunal . On the contrary they entered into amicable settlement with widow Urmila Devi , son Anand Kumar Singhania and Arun Kumar Singhania in presence of the union leaders as per terms and conditions of settlement . As the said settlement was agreed upon , the signed copies of the same will be filed before the ALC ( C ) , Dhanbad , Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1 , Dhanbad and the copies of the settlement will also be handed over to the legal heirs of Late J.P. Singhania and other concern . The said settlement during evidence of MW - 1 was marked as Ext . M- 1 . It is the contention of the management that as per terms of the said settlement they have cleared up all the dues in favour of Mrs. Urmila Devi through voucher No. 779 dt . 11-7-97 . The said voucher was marked as Ext . M- 2 . After that settlement the petitioner workman raised an industrial dispute as the management failed to comly with the directions of the Award passed by this Tribunal dt. 27-2-92 .
I have carefully considered the Written Statement submitted on behalf of the petitioner workman and the written statement is absolutely silent about the existence of any settlement which was entered into between the management and widow and two sons of deceased J.P. Singhania. WW - 1 during his evidence admitted existence of the settlement in question which they signed and their signatures during evidecne were marked as Ext . M- 1 , M - 1 / 1 and M - 1 /2 . No reason has been assigned on the part of the sponsoring union about the reasons for concealment of the existence of that settlement in the Written Statement submitted by them . However, this is not the point to be considered . The representative of the sponsoring union in course of hearing submitted that in violation of Section 19 as well as Rule 58 (4) of the I.D. Act the said settlement was entered into and for which it has no effective value and in support of that claim they relied on the decisions reported in 1971 , BLJR page 854, FLR Vol . 20 , 1970 page 308. In the decision reported in FLR Vol . 20 , 1970 page 308 Their Lord ships
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]
of the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that non- compliance ofRule 58 (4 ) the settlement in regard to the dispute referred to the Tribunal must be held to be illegal. As per Rule 58 ( 1 ) a settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings or otherwise shall be in Form 'H' . Rule 58(4) on the contrary speaks where a settlement is arrived at between an employer and his workmen otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceeding before a Board or a Conciliation Officer, the parties to the settlement shall jointly send a copy thereof to the Central Government , Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) New Delhi , and the Regional Labour Commissioner, New Delhi and to the Conciliation Officer (Central ) concerned . It is the contention of the representative of the sponsoring union that the parties asdid not comply with the direction given in clause 4 of Rule 58 , the settlement is to be considered illegal in view of the decision referred to above . Apart from this fact the representative of the union further referring a decision reported in 1971 B.L.J.R. Page 854 submitted that so long the award of the Industrial Tribunal does not terminate or is not terminated in accordance with Section 19 of the Act , there cannot be a settlement between the employer and the employees in regard to matters covered by the Award . Now let us consider Section 19 of the I.D. Act, 1947. Sub-clause 3 of Section 19 speaks as follows :-
"An award shall , subject to the provision of this section, remain in operation for a period of one year (from the date on which the award becomes enforceableunder Section 17A) ;
Provided that the appropriate Government may reduce the said period and fix such period as it thinks fit;
Provided further that the appropriate Government may, before the expiry of the said period , extend the period of operation by any period not exceeding one year at a time as it thinks fit so , however that the total period of any award does not exceed three years from the date on which it came into operation.;
Again sub - clause ( 6 ) of Section 19 speaks Notwithstanding the expiry of the period of operation under sub - section ( 3) the award shall continue to be binding on the parties until a period of two months have elapsed from the date on which notice is given by any party bound by the award to the other party or parties intimating its intention to terminate the Award."
No evidence is forthcoming on the part of the management if any notice under clause (6 ) was given or not .
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
6171
भारत का राजपत्र: जून 18 , 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28 , 1927
dependent of the deceased worker. I have gone through the Award passed by my predecessor - in - office and it has been exposed clearly under which circumstance my cessor- in- office made such observation in the Ard. Therefore , the management had ample scope to consider whether any employment to one dependent son of the deceased workman may be given in view of observation made by my Ld . predecessor- in- office . As management entered into that settlement in violation of Section 19 and Rule 58(4) of the I.D. Act 1947 the same has no binding force and should be treated as illegal .
Inthe result, the following Award is rendered :--
"The demand by the Union for employment to Shri Anand Kumar Singhania as a dependent son of Late J.P. Singhania by the management of Nirsha Area ofM/ s . E.C.L. in terms of the CGIT Award in reference No. 310/1968 is justified. Consequently management is directed to consider employment to the dependent son of deceased worker J.P. Singhania in view of observation made in the Award passed by my predecessor -in-office in Ref. Case No. 310/86 within three months from the date of publication of the Award in the Gazette of India . "
B. BISWAS , PresidingOfficer
नई दिल्ली, 27 मई, 2005
का.आ. 2164.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भा०को० को ० लि० के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय धनबाद II के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 55/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24-05-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
.[सं. एल-20012/462/2000- आईआर ( सी-1 ) ]
एस. एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 27th May, 2005
S.O. 2164.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 55/2001 ) 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 management of BCCL and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 24-05-2005.
In the said decision Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Apex Court observed in para 9 of the Judgement "After due consideration of the matter I have come to the conclusion that so long the award of the Industrial Tribunal does not terminate or is not terminated in accordance with Sec . 19 of the Act , there cannot be a settlement between the employer and the employees in regard to matters covered by the Award . The remedy of theManagement was to approach the Government under Sec. 19 (4) of the Act for getting rid of the award first and than to arrive at a settlement . It seems under some wrong advice , but bona fide , the Management entered into an agreement with the Union representing the workmen and in pursuance of this agreement parted with a sum of Rs . 1,00,000 also , as we were informed at the Bar. But we have to take a legal view of the matter, and I think public policy and industrial truce demand that so long as the award of a competent authority remains in operation,. parties by their mutual agreement should not be permitted to change the award . " Therefore , observation ofthe Hon'ble Apex Court as referred to above it is clear that in no circumstance ignoring the provision as laid down in Section 19 of the I.D. Act , 1947 parties are absolutely in competent to enter into any agreement to change the terms and conditions given in the Award as of their choice. On the contrary Ld . Advocate for the management referring the decision reported in BLJR 1978 (26) page 105 submitted that parties even when the Award remains valid are competent to enter into any settlement . I have carefully considered the decision of the Hon'ble Court as referred to above . Here the fact which is to be considered with all importance is that after entering into settlement during pendency of the Writ Petition management brought the matter to the notice of the Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble High Court passed order that Award of the Tribunal stands substituted by settlement . Therefore , in the instant case itis clear that the said settlement got its legal value by order of the Hon'ble High Court as it was placed before the Hon'ble Court . Here the picture is quite different one. It is seen that during pendency of the said award parties entered into an amicable settlement and ignoring the award in question for its implementation. Even the parties did not consider to comply the strict guideline of Rule 58 (4) of the Industrial Dispute Act . It is seen that the management for the reasons best known to them intended to by pass the Award passed by my predecessor- in- office . It is fact that as per settlement they have paid all dues to the widow of J.P. Singhania but did not consider other observation of the Ld . Tribunal . Ld . Tribunal in the said Award made observation to the effect that the management may take a compassionate view and give employment to the dependent son as per rules and procedure Instead of using the word " Shall " Ld . Presiding Officer used the word "May" in considering employment of one of the
[No. L -20012/462/2000 - IR (C - I) ] S. S. GUPTA , Under Secy.
1714 GI/05-30 6172
[PART II SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18, 2005/ JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL ( NO . 2) AT DHANBAD
PRESENT :
Choubey regularised him in the said post . It has been alleged by the sponsoring union that management illegally, arbitratrily and violating the principle of natural justice refused to regularise him in the post of Transport Supervisor and for which he raised an Industrial Dispute before ALC (C) for conciliation which ultimately resulted refernce to this Tribunal for adjudication:
SHRI B. BISWAS , PresidingOfficer
Inthe matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1)(d) ofthe I.D. Act, 1947
The sponsoring union accordingly submitted prayer to pass award directing the management to change the designation of the concerned workman as Transport Supervisor inplace ofMunshi in Technical and Supervisory Grade 'C'.
REFERENCE NO . 55 OF 2001
PARTIES : Employers in relation to the management of M/s . BCCL and their workman
APPEARANCES :
Onbehalf of the employers : Mr. H. Nath , -Advocate
Onbehalfof the workmen Mr. B.B. Pandey, Advocate.
State : Jharkhand
Industry: Coal.
Dated, Dhanbad, the 29th 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 submitted on behalf of the concerned workman. They submitted that the concerned workman by designation was a Munshi. They further submitted that as there was no existence of the post of Transport Supervisor as per job nomenclature formulated by JBCCI question of his giving authorisation to work as Transport Supervisor never arose . They disclosed that the concerned workman hasbeen upgraded in Clerical Grade- I which is equivalent to Grade ' C' provided to Assistant Foreman . Knowing fully well of all these facts the sponsoring union without any basis raised an Industrial Dispute before the ALC ( C) Dhanbad which is not tenable in the eye of law. Accordingly, they submitted prayer to pass award rejecting the claim of the concerned workman .
4. POINTS TO BE DECIDED
TheGovt . of India , Ministry of Labour, in exercise of -the powers conferred on them under Section 10 ( 1 ) (d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L -20012/ 462/2000 (C - I ) , dated, the 19th February, 2001 .
SCHEDULE
"Whether the demand of the union for change of designation of Sri Ayodhya Mahato , Munshi as Transport Supervisor is proper and justified ? If so, to what relief is the concerned workman entitled ? "
5. FINDING WITH REASONS "Whether the demand of the Union for change of designation of Sri Ayodhya Mahato , Munshi as Transport Supervisor is proper and justified ? If so , to what relief is the concerned workman entitled?"
It transpires from the record that the sponsoring union with view to substantiate the claim of the concerned workman examined him as WW- 1 . Management also in support oftheir claim examined one witness as MW - 1 .
2. The case of the concerned workman according to Written Statement submitted by the sponsoring union on his behalf in brief is as follows :-
Herethepoint for consideration is whether the claim of sponsoring union for change of designation of the concerned workman as Transport Supervisor stands on cogent footing or not.
Considering the facts disclosed in the pleadings of both sides , evidence and materials on record there is no dispute to hold that concerned workman was posted at Nichitpur Colliery as Munshi :
WW- 1 i.e. the concerned workman during his evidence disclosed that by order dt . 1-6-85 issued by the management he is discharging his duties as Transport The sponsoring union submitted that the concerned workman was posted as Nichitpur Colliery as Munshi . Thereafter by order of the management he was authorised to work as Transport Supervisor w.e.f. 1-6-85 and in that capacity he started working there . They submitted that after rendering continuous service as Transport Supervisor for a long period he submitted his representation to the management for his regularisation in the said post but the management did not consider his prayer though they considering the case of another workman Ramesh Kumar [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
6173 भारत का राजपत्र: जून 18, 2005 /ज्येष्ठ 28, 1927
that from the initial stage as the concerned workman was designated as Munshi in clerical grade he has got his promotioninclerical Grade- I . Question of considering his promotion inclerical Grade- I definitely would not arise if he was not a Munshi in Clerical Grade .
Supervisor. He disclosed that another workman Ramesh Kumar Choubey also got his posting as Transport Supervisor and subsequently by another office order he was regularised in the said post. In support of his claim the concerned workman relied on three office orders marked as Ext. W- 1 , W- 2 and W-3 respectively. It is further contention ofthe concerned workman that after rendering long years of service continuously as Transport Supervisor when he submitted his representation to the management for his regularisation in the said post his claim was refused by the management though supporting the claim of Ramesh Kumar Choubey they regularised him as Transport Supervisor. WW- 1 is an office orderdt. 11-6-85 by which Colliery Engineer Nichitpur Colliery authorised the concerned workman to work as Transport Supervisor . Similarly by office order (Ext . W-2) issuedby Area Manager, Transport dt. 19-12-89 Ramesh Kumar Choubey was also authorised to work as Transport Supervisor. Again by office order dt . 22-6-92 (Ext . W-3 ) Dy. Chief Personnel Manager, Sijua Area the service of said Ramesh Kumar Choubey was regularised as Transport Supervisor with immediate effect onhis existing scale of pay and other terms and conditions of service . It is the contention of the concerned workman whenmanagement considering the case of Ramesh Kumar Choubey regularised him as Transport Supervisor they without any cogent reason refused to regularise him in the postof Transport Supervisor.
On the contrary from the evidence of MW- 1 a different picture comes in. This witness during his evidence disclosed that there is no post in existence like Transport Supervisor at their colliery. He further disclosed that NCWA also has not provided any such post . He submitted that Colliery Engineer who issued the office order (Ext . W - 1 ) was not at all competent to issue such order in favour of the concerned workman . He disclosed that the said Colliery Engineer issued that illegal order knowingfully well that there was no existence of such post . He further disclosed that Area Manager (Transport ) also had no authority to issue office order (Ext . W- 2) designating Ramesh Kumar Choubey as Transport Supervisor. Similarly he submitted that Deputy Chief Personnel Manager was not the competent authority to regularise the said workman as Transport Supervisor ( Ext . W-3) . He categorically submitted that these office order were issued illegally. He further disclosed that when the concerned workman through sponsoring union raised Industrial Dispute before ALC ( C) they submitted reply in details which during his evidence was marked as Ext . M - 1 .
Therefore , before considering his claim for designating him and Transport Supervisor it is to be looked into firstly whether any such post is in existence under the management and secondly the Engineer who issued the office order had any competency to issue such order. Evidence ofMW- 1 and reply given by the management to ALC( C) (Ext . M - 1) which has already been discussed above will expose clearly that neither as per job nomenclature issued by JBCCI nor as per N.C. W.A. there is existence of any post of Transport Supervisor. In course of hearing Ld. Advocate and representative of the sponsoring union as well as of the concerned workman admitted this fact which the management asserted. Therefore , it is clear considering submissions of both sides that there is no éxistence ofany post of Transport Supervisor under ,the management . As per N.C.W.A. neither Colliery Engineer nor Area Manager (Transport ) and Dy. Chief Personnel Manager of Sijua Area were competent enough to issue any such order. Therefore, there is sufficient reason to believe that these officers exceeding their limit and keeping thecompetent authority in the dark issued such order as of their choice for the reason best known to them . It is unbelievable to consider that these officers were not aware oftheir competency which order they can issue . They also were not unaware if there is any post of Transport Supervisor in existance under the management . If it is considered the existence of any such post in that case it is obvisous that the said post carries the scale . If office order dt . 22-6-92 (Ext . W-3 ) issued by Dy. Chief Personnel Manager, SijuaArea is taken into consideration it will expose that in spite of alleged regularised of Ramesh Kumar Choubey in the post of Transport Supervisor no scale of wages was offered to him for the said post . On the contrary he was regularised in the existing pay, scale of pay and other terms and conditions of service which absolutely appears to be ambiguous and illegal . There is sufficient reason to believe that these officers cxceeding their limit arbitrarily and whimsically as of their choice issued orders in favour of the workman for the reasons which they knew very well . Their such acts not only invites resentment in the industry between the employer and employees but also invites unnecessary litigation and harassment on both sides . There was no scope of raising such Industrial Dispute if the competent authority would intercept such action ofthe local management at the earlist possible time.
However, on careful consideration of all the facts and circumstances discussed above it is clear that there is no post of Transport Supervisor in existence as per job nomenclature declared by JBCCI under the management . Accordingly, when ther ac existence of such post Inthe said reply management categorically submitted that as perjob nomenclature formulated by JBCCI there is no existence of the post Transport Supervisor. Further in the said reply it has also been disclosed that concerned workman was by designation a ' Munshi' and has got his promotion in clerical grade I and discharging his duties in thatcapacity. Considering the reply it comes into picture 6174
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2005/ JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]
Versus
The Senior Manager,
AirIndia, Himalaya House,
question of designating the concerned workman as such does not arise and for which relying on illegal order issued by an Engineer who had no competency at all to issue such order, he is not entitled to get any relief.
K.G. Marg, New Delhi
....Management In the result, the follwoing Award is rendered:-
APPEARANCES :
Shri M.A. Niyazi A/R for the workman
AWARD
"The demand of the Union for change of designation of Shri Ayodhya Mahato , Munshi as Transport Supervisor is not proper and justified. Consequently, the concerned workman is not entitled to get any relief."
B. BISWAS , PresidingOfficer
The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L- 11012/9 /97 - IR (Coal- I ) dated 10-3-98 has referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal foradjudication:
नई दिल्ली, 26 मई, 2005
का.आ. 2165.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एअर इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध मेंनिर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नई दिल्ली- I के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 85/98 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25-05-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं . एल-11012/9/97- आईआर ( सी-1 ) ]
एस. एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव
"Whether Sh . Onkar Nath , Casual Loader was covered within the provisions of the scheme published in the Gazette of India dated 11-5-91 for absorption / regularisation of casual employees who wasworkingwith the management of Air India w.e.f. 23-3-81 and whether the action by the management ofAir India by not regularising the services of Shri Onkar Nath , casual loader as per the scheme published in the Gazette of India dated 11-5-91 for regularisation of casuals is justified ? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to and from what date ?"
New Delhi , the 26th May, 2005
S.O. 2165. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 85/98 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, NewDelhi - I now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Air India and their workman , which was receivedby the Central Government on 25-05-2005.
[No. L- 11012/9 /97 - IR (C -I) ]
S.S. GUPTA, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT NEW DELHI
Shri S. S. Bal , Presiding Officer
I. D. No. 85/98
In the matter of dispute between :
Shri Onkar Nath S/o Shri Dhan Prakash,
R/oA - 15 , North Gonda,
NewDelhi - 110053
.... Workman
2. Brief facts of this case as culled from record are that the workman has been working with the management AirIndia w.e.f. September, 1981 during the year 1985 he alongwith other casual employees was not allowed to continue in the service by the managementmana of Air India for reasons best known to it and the concerned officers of the management turned down his request to continue his services after 1985 on the ground that case is pending in court and they cannot be allowed to join service till the judgment is given. It is further stated that in the year 1989 he was called by the management Air India to join the duty and accordingly on receipt of letter he met Personnel Manager who took his letter and asked him to come again and his appointment was postponed on one pretext or the other and he was not reinstated. It is further stated that he iseligible to be reinstated in service as he has worked for more than 240 days during entire span in service and fulfilled the requirements of having worked for more than 240 days as per direction of CGIT. However he was not allowed to resume duty. He has come to know that respondent/ Management he agreed to re -employ or reinstate casual workers who had actually worked with Air India after 1-1-86 for total period of not less than 240 days during their entire span of service on 31-12-87. It is further averred that the claimant has come to know that the management respondent has called back some of the casual labourers who did not fulfil the conditions stipulated by Air India to the effect that they have not worked after 1-1-86 , such as [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18 , 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28 , 1927
6175
consideration under the above scheme . This is as per the order passed by the Hon'ble Presiding Officer of the CGIT on 5th January, 1988 ;
(5) The casuals would be regularised as per the corporation recruitment procedure . including the interviews , pre -employment , medical examination and verification of character and antecedents by thePoliceAuthorities etc. Age relaxation would be given; and
Jhamman Lal and Jai Singh . Shri Jhamman Lal have not worked with the management in the year 1985. Name of Jai Singh did not find place in the list furnished by Air India and Jhamman Lal and he ( Claimant ) are placed in similar situation . Thus the action of the management in not calling him and reinstating him in thejob is not only discriminatory but also violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. He therefore, prayed to take him back in the job and regularize period of service retrospectively w.e.f. the date of the judgment of the Court.
(6) In terms of the above procedure, 112 writ petitioners wouldbecome eligible for regularisation/absorption subject to Air India Recruitment Procedure , over the period ofnext three years in phased manner. " 3. The claim of the workman has been contested by the management by filing written statement raising pleas/ preliminary objections namely that the claim being devoid of merits is not maintainable and the claimant has misrepresented the facts . As such he is not entitled to any relief.
4. On merits it is stated that claimant had worked as casual loader with the management only during the years 1981 to 1985. Thereafter, he abandoned the work and never turnedupto perform any work with the management . Some casual workers filed the petition before the Supreme Court in 1987 for regularisation of their service . The Supreme Court directed the Central Government to refer the matter for adjudication to CGIT. Accordingly the matter was adjudicated upon and award dated 4-3-91 was passed holding that the regularisation of the workman shall be done in accordance with the scheme prepared by the management . The award was challenged by filing S.L.P. before the Supreme Court but the award was found to be fair and reasonable by the Hon'ble Supreme Court .
5. The scheme proposed by the management and approvedby Central Government Industrial Tribunal, New Delhi is mentioned as under:
"We propose to draw out a list of petitioners who had been working with us on casual basis alongwith other casuals in order of seniority of number of days actually worked in descending order as per the following criteria:-
6. The scheme was approved and duly published in the Gazette. It is further stated that the claimant Onkar Nath was not found eligible as he has not worked with Air India after 1-1-86 in view of clause 3 of the above scheme which states that such casuals who have not worked with Air India after 1-1-86 would not be eligible for consideration in the scheme. It is further stated that the present claim also suffers from delay and latches as the same has been preferred after 7 years and as such liable to be rejected. It is also stated that claimant cannot be regularised as the same would affect adversely the other employees regularised with the management complying with the provisions approved by the court in the said scheme of 1991. It is denied that Personnel Manager took any documents or appointment letter from him and he was asked to come again and again on one pretext or the other as stated. It is also denied that any arbitrary promotion has been given to other candidates namely Jhamman Lal & other as mentioned above. Jhamman Lal and Jai Singh had fulfilled allthe eligibility criteria for appointment with Air India and as such no discriminatory attitude was adopted in case of workman and/or that Jhamman Lal and claimant arè similarly situated. There is no violation of the provisions of Constitution of India . In view of the above submissions /pleas , the claim is sought to be dismissed , for the claimant is not entitled to relief of regularisation and reinstatement as claimed and award is sought to be passed in favour of the management .
(1) Total number of days would be calculated as on 31-12-87 since the reference was made by the Central Government for referring the dispute to the Central Goverriment Industrial Tribunal on 23-9-1987;
7. In rejoinder the claimant denied the controverted pleas/ averments and reiterated the contents of his claim statement and claimed that he worked upto year 1986 and hewas refrained from working as casual loader by Air India.
(2) Only such of the casuals would be eligible for employment who had actually worked for a total period or not less than 240 days during their entire spanof service in Air India as on 31-12-1987;
(3) Such of the casuals who have not worked with Air India after 1-1-1996 would not be eligible for consideration under the above scheme;
8. Evidence of both the parties was recorded. Management examined Shri Azeem Akbar in support of its case as MW1 while workman examined himself as WW1 to prove his case . Then arguments were addressed and written submissions were furnished by both the sides . I have heard A/R of both the parties and perused the record meticulously.
(4) Such of the casuals against whom there are cases of misconduct would not be eligible for 6176
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18, 2005 / JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)] 9. The contention of the workman is that he had worked as loader after appointment with the management w.e.f. 23-3-81 till the year 1987 and continued to work for more than 240 days and as such he has fulfilled the requisite criterion of the scheme adopted by the management according to which the workman who worked for more than 240 days after I - 1-86 is entitled to regularisation. As such he is entitled to be regularised but this contention of the workman is refuted by the management contending thathe did not work till after 1-1-86 and as such he failed to fulfil criterion of the approved scheme adopted by the management as mentioned above. The stand of workman inclaim statement , affidavit and evidence before the court as to the year during which he worked is inconsistent .
Gonda, Delhi -51 and his date of appointment as 21-3-84 and designation has been shown as Casual Loader and period of service from 21-5-81 to March , 1986 and number ofdays have been shown as he has claimed that as per this Gazette at Sl. No. 57 it is apparent that he has worked w.e.f. 23-5-81 to March , 1986 and worked for 990 days in all but entry at Sl./col . No. 57 does not appear to pertain to the claimant the same pertains to Onkar Wasu . His name is not Onkar Wasu and that his father's name Shri Dharam Parkash isalso not correct . As per his affidavit his father's name is Dhan Parkash . However his residential address has been mentioned as A- 15 , North Gonda, near Govt . Higher Secondary School , Delhi -53 . Thus there is discrepancy in the name mentioned at Sl . No. 57 of Gazette as surname Wasu has not been mentioned . Even the father's name is different. The father's name of the claimant is Dhan Parkash whereas Onkar Wasu at Sl . No. 57 in Gazette is S/o Dhram Prakash though address appears to be same of the claimant and thus particulars mention at Sl . No. 57 in the Gazette does not appear to be the same of the claimant and thus it isnot proved conclusively that the entry at Sl . No. 57 with name Onkar Nath Wasu S /o Dharam Parkash pertains to theworkman Onkar Nath . Therefore , in my view the claimant has failed to prove that he has worked till 1-1-86 as required and fulfilled the criterion of clause 3 of the above scheme .
10. The claim of the claimant that he worked w.e.f. 23-3-81 till the year 1987 as mentioned in affiavit Ex. WW1 /1 in his evidence for the first time, does not appear to be correct . In his claim statement he has stated that he has worked with management during the period w.e.f. the year 1981 till the year 1985. In his cross - examination he has stated that he has worked as casual labourer w.e.f. 23-5-81 till the year 1987. He has not so mentioned in his claim statement , however, he admits in evidence that he has stated in his claim statement in para 1 that he had been working with Air India w.e.f. 1981 till 1985. He identified hissignatures on the claim statement but he was unable to state about the contents of the same. He was also unable to state that when he filed his claim statement or when he presented his claim or if it was presented by himself or through someone else . Thus it is apparent that the fact thathe worked till 1987 does not find mention in the claim statement where it is mentioned that he worked only till year 1985 ( i.e. from September, 1981 to 1985 ) . He has also relied upon Ex. WW1 / 3 extract from list of 17 workmen including him wherein workman Onkar Nath is shown to have worked as at Sl . No. 57 and date of his joining has been shown as 25-3-81 and days of work yearwise from 1981 to 1985 has been shown as under:-
11. It is worth while to mention here that after the conclusion of arguments while the award was being dictated, the workman moved two applications one dt. 20-10-2004 under Order 19 Rule ( 1 ) read with Section 151 CPC for placing certain documents such as ration card etc. and driving Licence on record and the other applicationdt. 25-2-05 under Order 11 Rule 14 read with section 165 of Evidence Act r/ w Section 151 CPC for seeking direction to the management/ respondent to produce the record of his attendance & employment for the period during 1986/87 to prove that he has worked till during the month of March , 1986/1987 but the said applications have been disposed by me vide separate order dt.06-05-2005.
1981-151
1982-131
1983-145
1984-024
1985-039
12. It is not out of place to mention that the aforesaid scheme of absorption and regularisation of casual employees who were working with the management of Air India w.e.f. 23-1-81 published in the Gazette of India dated 11-5-91 was proposed by the management and approved by the Central Govt . Industrial Tribunal and found practicable and reasonable by the Hon'ble Supreme Court ofIndia. This fact is not disputed by the applicant - claimant Onkar Nath . He is not covered under the said scheme and the action ofthe management of Air India by not regularising his service as casual loader as per the said scheme is justified . Reference is answered in the affirmative . Accordingly award is passed . File be consigned to Record Room.
Dated: 20-05-2005
and thus he has worked for 490 days in all or in total during the year 1981 to 1985. This document which is relied upon by him does not show or mention that he (workman) has worked till the year 1987 as claimed by him, in his affidavit filed in his evidence as mentioned above . The workman has also shown copy of the Gazette of India dated 11-5-1981 wherein details of service of Air India workers have been mentioned at page 2192 onwards till pages 2200 and atpage 2195 at Sl . No. 57 name of Onkar Nath S/ o Dhan Parkash R/ o A- 15 , near Govt . Hr. Secondary School North
S. S. BAL, Presiding Officer [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
6177
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18, 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28 , 1927
नई दिल्ली, 26 मई, 2005
का. आ. 2166.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सेंट्रल बैंक आफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 265/1997 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25-5-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-12012/356/96 - आई आर ( बी- II ) ]
सी. गंगाधरण, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 26th May, 2005
S.O. 2166.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 265/1997) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum - Labour Court , Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the Management of Central Bank of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 25-5-2005.
[No. L- 12012/356/ 1996 - IR(B - II) ]
C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM - LABOUR COURT JABALPUR
NO . CGIT/LC/ R/265/ 97
Presiding Officer : Shri C. M. Singh
Workman Shri Rajesh Kumar Khobragade , S/o Madhukarrao Khobragade , 300 Rahul Nagar, Pampapur, MACT Road, Bhopal .
Versus
The Regional Manager, Central Bank of India , Regional Office , Arora Colony, Bhopal
Rajesh Kumar Khobragade from 20-11-95 is legal andjustified? If not what relief the said workman is entitled to ? "
2. After the reference order was received , it was duly registered on 17-9-97 and notices were issued to the parties to file their respective statement of claims . The casewastaken up at camp court , Bhopal on 3-5-2005 . On this date, the workman Shri Rajesh Khobragade and Shri R. K. Srivastava, Law Officer for management were present . The workman moved an application (Paper No. 8) with the prayer that this matter be closed as no dispute is left between him and the management . Shri R. K. Srivastava , Law Officer for management made an endorsement on this application to the effect that matter has been compromised and he has no objection if the aforesaid application of the workman is allowed. Under the above circumstances , the reference was closed for Award.
3. It is very clear from the above that No Dispute is left between the parties and the parties do not want to contest this reference . Under the above circumstances , No Dispute Award is passed without any order as to costs .
4. The copy of the Award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour as per rules ..
C. M. SINGH, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 27 मई, 2005
का. आ. 2167.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सी० सी ० एल ० 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 277/99 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24-5-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[ सं. एल-20012/22/96- आई आर ( सी- I ) ]
एस० एस० गुप्ता , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 27th May, 2005
Management
AWARD
Passed on this 16th May, 2005
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No.L - 12012/ 356/ 96 /IR (B - II ) dated 29-8-97 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal :-
"Whether the action of the management of Central Bank of India in terminating the services of S.O. 2167. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 277/99 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court , Dhanbad - II , now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of CCL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 24-05-2005 .
[No. L-20012/22/ 96 - IR (C- I) S. S. GUPTA , Under Secy.
6178
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18, 2005/ JYAISTHA 28, 1927
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT NDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO . 2)
AT DHANBAD
PRESENT
relating to his date of birth returned back the same to the management . They alleged that thereafter in the name of alleged medical examination on 21-9-94 the age ofthe concerned workman was determined as 60 years as on 21-9-94 and relying on the alleged medical report management illegally and arbitrarily superannuated him from his 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. 277 of 1999
Parties:
Employers in relation to the management of Jharkhand Colliery of M/s . CCL and their workman .
Appearances:
Onbehalf of the workman : Mr. K. Chakravorty, Advocate .
Onbehalf of the employers : Mr. D. K. Verma Advocate
State : Jharkhand
Industry: Coal
Dhandbad, the 29th April, 2005
AWARD
They submitted that being aggrieved by the said decision the concerned workman raised an Industrial Dispute before ALC ( C ) for conciliation but as the said conciliation proceeding ended in failure the matter was referred to the Ministry. They submitted that unfortunately the appropriate Govt. without appreciating the fact ofthe case rejected the dispute for reference . The concerned workman against that order filed a Writ Petition before Hon'ble High Court, Ranchi which was registered as C.W.J.C. No. 3742/97 (R) and the Govt. referred the dispute for adjudication in view of order dated 10-5-99 passed by the Hon'ble Court . They alleged that action of the Management superannuating the concerned workman from service w.e.f. 15-4-95 was not only illegal and arbitrary but also it violated the principle of natural justice as the Medical Board neither examined him clinically not conducted any ossification test . Accordingly, they submitted prayer to pass award withdirection to the management to reinstate the concerned workman in service with full back wages and consequential relief.
3.Management on the contrary after filling Writtern Statement-cum- rejoinder have denied all the claims and allegations which the sponsoring union asserted in the Written Statement .
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/ 22/ 96 -IR ( C - I) , dated, the 15th July, 1999.
SCHEDULE
" KYA C.C.L. , JHARKHAND COLLIERY KEY PRABANDHTANTRA DWARA DINANK 15-4-1995 SEY SHRI RIJHU RAVIDAS TYNDAL KO SEVA NIVRIT KIYA JANA VIDHIVAT, NIYAMANUSAR EVAM NAYOCHIT HAI ? YADI NAHI TO KARMKAR KIS RAHAT KEY PATRA HAI TATHA KIS TARIKH SEY?
2. The case of the concerned workman according to Written Statement submitted by the sponsoring union on his behalf in brief is as follows :
They submitted that as per service record date of birth of the concerned workman was recorded as 11-12-42 . They disclosed that in the year 1987 service excerpt was issued to him wherein also his same date of birth was recorded. They submitted that after receipt of the service excerpt concerned workman raised objection against his date ofbirth recorded therein. Accordingly, after receipt of the said objection they referred him to Medical Board for assessment of his age but the said Medical Board again referred him to Apex Medical Board for assessment of his age. They disclosed that the Appellate Medical Board examined the concerned workman on 21-9-94 and found him more than 60 years as on 21-9-94 . However, the area management received letter to that effect on 14-4-95 and accordingly, they superannuated him from his service with effect from 15-4-95 although the workman concerned workman attained the age of superannuation on 21-9-1994 .
as The Sponsoring union submitted that the concerned workman got his appointment as a permanent workman on 18-11-73 and at the time of his entry in the service management recorded his date of birth 11-12-42. They submitted that thereafter management issued identity card to him wherein his date of birth also was recorded as 11-12-1942 . Thereafter Management issued service excerpt to him wherein also his date of birthwas recorded as 11-12-42 . They submitted that as date of birth was correctly recorded in the service excerpt concerned workman without raising any objection
They submitted that after his superannuation the concerned workman through sponsoring union raised an Industrial Dispute for conciliation which ended in failure. They further submitted that as the said Medical examination of the conerned workman was conducted as [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
6179 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18, 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28 , 1927
perinstruction given in J. B.C. C. I Circular No. 76 the appropriate Govt . also refused to make any reference over the said dispute . However, subsequently by order of the Hon'ble Court the instant reference was initiated .
They susmbitted that order of superannuation of the concerned workman from service was legal and justified and accordingly he is not entitled to get any relief.
Management without raising any objection as his age was topperly recorded the claim of the management is Receipt of the service excerpt he raised his against the date of birth recorded therein and tuch they referred him to medical board for aetermision of his age. It is not the claim of the concerned workman that neither he was referred to the Medical Board nor he was examined there in connection with determination of his age . When Management in their written statement categorically submitted that date of birth of the concerned workman in the service record as well as in the service excerpt was recorded as 11-12-42. it should be presumed that they had no doubt about his date ofbirth recorded in the official papers .
4. POINTS TO BE DECIDED.-" Whether the action of the Management of Jharkhand Colliery in superannuating Sri Rijhu Rabidas Tyndal w.e.f. 15-4-95 is legal proper andjustified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled and from what date?"
5. FINDING WITH REASONS .-It transpires from the record that neither the sponsoring union nor the Management adduced any evidence in support oftheir respective claim. Therefore, relying on the facts disclosed in the pleadings of both sides it is to be taken into consideration how far the claim of the sponsoring union stands on cogent footing .
Considering the facts disclosed in the pleadings of both sides there is no dispute to hold that in the service record date of birth of the concerned workman was recorded as 11-12-42 . It is the contention of the sponsoring Union that in the year 1987. Management issued service excerpt to the concerned workman wherein as the same date of birth was recorded he did not consider necessary to raise any dispute in that regard. They alleged thatManagement on the basis of Medical examination report superannuated the concerned workman from his service. They alleged that neither any clinical test nor any ossification test of the concerrned workman was held for assessment of his age .
In natural course the question which has been cropped up is what was the reason for referring the concerned workman to Medical Board for determination of his age particularly when they accepted his date of birth recorded in the official papers . Considering submission of the Management as per written statement it transspires that practically on the insistance of the concerned workman they had to take that decision It is their specific claim that the concerned workman vas not satisfied with the date of birth recordedin the service excerpt he raised obection which led them to refer him to MedicalBoard for his medical examination with a view to determine his age. Therefore, the plea taken by the concerned workman is not all tenable . Inspite of getting ample opportunity the sponsiring union did not consider necessary to adduce evidence . Onus absolutely rests on the concerned workman to establish that Management illegally and arbitrarily superannuated from his service. It should be taken into consideration that facts disclosed in the Written Statement cannot be considered as substantive piece of evidence until and unless the same are substantiated by cogent evidence either oral or documantary. As the concerned workman failed to .substantiate his allegation inspsite of getting sufficient opportunity I find no score to upheld his claim just relying on the facts disclosed in the Written statement and for which he is not entitled to get any relief.
In the result, the following Award is rendered .-
"The action of the management of Jharkhand Colliery in superannuating Sri Rijhu Rabidas Tyndal w.e.f. 15-4-95 is legal , proper and justified . Consequently. , the concerned workman is not entitled to get any relief. "
B. BISWAS , Presiding Officer Onthe contrary a different picture comes in fróm the statement of the management . They disclosed that in the year 1987 service excerpt was issued to the concerned workman wherein his date ofbirth and other particulars were recorded. They submitted that on receipt of the said service excerpt concerned workman raised his objection over his date of birth recorded therein and for which to determine the correctness of his claim in respect of his age he was referred to Medical Board. The said Medical Board then referred him to Apex Medical Board for determination of his age . The said Apex Medica Board examined him on 21-9-94 and found him more than 60 years of age as 21-9-94. Thereafter, they received the letter from the Head Quarter on 14-4-95 and accordingly they superannuated him w.e.f. 15-4-95 .
नई दिल्ली , 27 मई, 2005
का. आ. 2168.-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 Now considering the submissions of both sides as perWritten statement it is clear that date of birth of the concerned workman in the service excerpt was recorded as 11-12-42 . While the claim of the concerned workman is that he returned back the service excerpt to the
1714 GI/05-31 6180
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2005/ JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii )] औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय धनबाद- I के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 33/95 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24-5-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
referring the case of Shri G. K. Sahay twice to Medical Board and deny employment of the dependent of Shri G. K. Sahay is justified ? If not towhat relief Shri G. K. Sahay is entitled to and from which date ?
[सं. एल-20012/113/94- आई आर ( सी-1 ) ] एस ० एस० गुप्ता, अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 27th May, 2005
2. In this case though written statement was filed onbehalf of the concerned workman but since 12-8-2003 neither the sponsoring union nor the concerned workman isappearing before this Tribunal to take any further step. Therefore , it appears that the concerned workman is not interested to proceed with the case.
3. In such circumstances , I render a ' No Dispute' Award in this reference case .
S. PRASAD , Presiding Officer S.O. 2168.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 33/95 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court , Dhanbad I, now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of BCCL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 24-05-2005 .
नई दिल्ली, 30 मई , 2005
[No. L-20012/113/94 -IR(C-I) S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.1) DHANBAD
का. आ. 2169.-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, धानबाद- II के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 23/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 26-5-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
In the matter of a reference under Section 10 (1) ( d) (2A) of the I. D. Act . , 1947 .
[सं. एल-20012/570/2001- आई आर ( सी -1 ) ] Reference No. 33 of 1995
PARTIES:
एस ० एस० गुप्ता, अवर सचिव Employers in relation to the management of M/ s . B.C.C.L.
New Delhi , the 30th May, 2005 AND
TheirWorkmen.
PRESENT :
SHRI S. PRASAD Presiding Officer .
APPEARANCE :
For the Employers
S.O. 2169.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 23/2002) 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 26-05-2005 .
: Shri D. K. Verma Advocate .
For the Workman
: None
[No. L-20012/570/2001 -IR (C -I) S. S. GUPTA , Under Secy.
State : Jharkhand
Industry: Coal
ANNEXURE
Dated, the 3rd May, 2005
AWARD
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO . 2) , AT DHANBAD
PRESENT :
Shri B. Biswas , Presiding Officer By Order No. L- 20012( 113) /94-I.R. ( Coal -I) dated, the . 29th March, 1995 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 Indistrial Dispute Act , 1947 referred the dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10 (1) (d) (2A) of the I. D. Act , 1947 .
Reference No. 23 of2002
" Whether the action of the Management of BCCL Koyala Bhawan, Koyala Nagar, Dhanbad in 6181 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18 , 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28, 1927
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
PARTIES:
The sponsoring union accordingly submitted prayer to pass award directing the management to release three days wages out of four days sanctioned leave from 20-11-2000 to 23-11-2000.
Employers in relation to the management of Western Washery Zone of M/ s BCCL, Dhanbad and their workman.
APPEARANCES :
Onbehalf of the Workman : Mr. B. N. Singh, Ld. Advocate.
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.
Onbehalfofthe Employers : Mr. R. N. Ganguli, L.d. Advocate
State : Jharkhand
Coal
Industry:
Dated, Dhanbad, the 13th May, 2005
AWARD
They submitted that the concerned workman submitted application for casual leave from 20-11-2000 to 23-11-2000 through his Controlling Officer who forwarded the same to the Project Officer, Mahuda Coal Washery for sanction, but the said leave was not sanctioned by the Project Officer as there was a strike notice served by Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union along with others to go on strike from 20-11-2000 to 22-11-2000.
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-20012/570/2001/I.R. (C- 1) dt. 28-2-2002.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the Management of Western JhariaArea of M/s BCCL in cancellation of duly granted leave to Shri Surendra Prasad Foreman Incharge of Mehuda Coal Washery from 20-11-2000 to 22-11-2000 and not paying him wages for this period is proper and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled ?"
They submitted that keeping in view of the aforesaid strike notice various steps were taken by them to run the project during strike period . As part of such steps all leave already sanctioned to different workmen and rest days during strike period mentioned above were cancelled by anoffice order no . 2031 dt . 19-11-2000 . The copies of the said office order was prominently displayed on Notice Board and also endorsed to all Shift Engineers , Departmental HeadsAttendance clerks , Office Superintendent and others who in turn had informed every body about the same . They submitted that despite cancellation of leave , the concerned workman did not attend his duties and absented from 20-11-2000 to 22-11-2000 indicating that he participated in the strike.
2. The case of the concerned workman according to written statement submitted by the sponsoring union on his behalf in brief is as follows:
Accordingly, they submitted that as the concerned workman inspite of getting proper information about cancellation of his casual leave remained himself absent from duty they did neither take any arbitrary decision nor committed any illegality in not releasing payment of three days wages as mentioned above to him. In view of the facts and circumstances they submitted prayer to pass award rejecting the claim ofthe concerned workman .
They submitted that the concerned workman is a permanent workman and posted at Mahuda Coal Washery as Foreman Incharge . They disclosed that management granted causal leave from 20-11-2000 to 23-11-2000 on 13-11-2000 on receipt of his application dt . 13-11-2000 and after getting sanctioned he proceeded on leave .
4. Points to be decided:
"Whether the action of the management of Western Jharia Area of M/s . BCCL in cancellation of duly granted leave to Shri Surendra Prasad Foreman Incharge ofMahuda Coal Washery from 20-11-2000 to 22-11-2000 and not paying him wages for this period is proper and justified? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled? "
5.Finding with reasons:
It transpires from the record that the sponsoring union inspite of getting efficient opportunity did not They alleged that management illegally and arbitrary withheld wages for three days out of four days sanctioned leave and paid wages for one day leave without assigning any reason. Accordingly, he submitted application to the Project Officer, Mahuda Area with request to release wages forthree days which was arbitrarily and illegally not paid to him but of no avail . As such he submitted application dt. 5-3-2001 to the General Manager, Western Washery Zone inthat regard but that too did not yield any fruitful result inthe matter of releasing his wages for three days and for which he raised an Industrial Dispute before ALC( C) for conciliation which ultimately resulted reference to this Tribunal by the Ministry for adjudication .
6182
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2005 /JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] consider necessary to adduce any evidence on their part with a view to substantiate their claim .
by the union or about cancellation of leave to all workman on issuing office order by the Superior Authority.
Management on the contrary examined one witness asMW- 1 in support of their claim .
TheOffice Order marked as Exhibit M - 1 has exposed clearly that not only all leave sanctioned to the workman were cancelled but also the rest days for the workmen fell during the strike period also were cancelled and the said office order was communicated to all concern on the previous days of the strike . Therefore , there is no scope to any that concern workman was not aware about cancellation of the leave if at all sanctioned by the management .
Considering the facts disclosed in the pleading of both sides and evidence of MW1 , I find no dispute to hold that the concerned workmen was Foreman incharge at Mahuda Washery. It is admitted fact that he submitted an application for sanctioning of casual leave for four days from 20-11-2000 to 23-11-2000 . It is the contention of the sponsoring union that after getting sanction of casual leave for the period in question the concerned workman enjoyed the same but management illegally and arbitrarily did not pay wages for three days, i.e. for 20-11-2000 to 22-11-2000.
It transpires that in spite of getting sufficient opportunity the sponsoring union have failed to produce any order to show that on getting his leave sanctioned the concerned workman proceeded on lave and management illegally deducted his wages for three days . On the contrary considering all facts and circumstances , there is sufficient reason to believe that knowing fully well about cancellation of his leave and also about the strike called by Union he did not attend to his duty. As the concerned workman remained absent from duty without any sanction leave there is no scope to say that management illegally and arbitrarily refused to pay wages for three days , i.e. from 20-11-2000 to 22-11-2000 . In view of the facts and circumstances discussed above I hold that the concerned workman is not entitled to get any relief according to his prayer.
Inthe result the following award is rendered ex-parte:
On the contrary management without raising any dispute about submission of leave application by the concerned workman for the period in question submitted that his leave was not at all sanctioned by the Project Officer . MW1 who was controlling Officer of the concerned workman during his evidence disclosed that the said workman when submitted his leave application he forwarded the same to the Project Officer for its sanction but he was not aware to that leave was sanctioned . On the contrary, this witness disclosed that as Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union served strike notice to the management to observe strike for the period from 20-11-2000 to 22-11-2000 . The Superior Authority as per clause 17 : 6 of the Certified Standing Order cancelled all leave already sanctioned to the workman for the period in question and issued an order to that effect which was communicated to all concern . The said office order during evidence ofMW1 wasmarked as Exhibit M- 1 .
"Thataction of the management of Western Jharia Area of M/ s. BCCL in cancellation of duly sanctioned leave to Surendra Prasad, Foreman Incharge, Mahuda CoalWashery from 20-11-2000 to 22-11-2000 and in not paying wages for this period is proper and justified.
Consequently, the concerned workman is not entitled to get any relief. "
Clause 17 : 6 of the Certified Standing Order speaks that leave already granted to the workman may be revoked or modified in the interest of the work by the sanctioning authority.
B. BISWAS , Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 30 मई, 2005
It is the contention of the management that as a strike notice was issued they as a precautionary measure for operatis the plant during strike period cancelled leave granted to the workman so that their service during that period could be procured. MW1 during his evidence disclosed that the said strike was on from 20-11-2000 to 22-11-2000 and during that period the concerned workman did not attend to his duty knowing fully well of the fact that no leave was sanctioned to him .
का. आ. 2170.-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 घनबाद 2 के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 10/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 26-5-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
In the circumstances onus is on the sponsoring union to establish that the concerned workman enjoyed four days casual leave duly sanctioned by the management and he was not at all aware either about the strike called
[सं. एल-20012/504/2001- आई आर ( सी-1 ) ] एस ० एस० गुप्ता, अवर सचिव [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
6183
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18 , 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28, 1927
New Delhi , the 30thMay, 2005
Mallick from service ? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled?"
2.The case of the concerned workman according to WrittenStatement submitted by the sponsoring union on his behalf in brief is as follows :-
They submitted that the concerned workman got his appointment as Minor/Loader on 11-5-79 at Joyrampur Colliery under the management .
S.O. 2170.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 10/2002 ) 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 26-05-2005.
[No. L- 20012/504/2001 - IR(C-I)
S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO . 2) AT DHANBAD
PRESENT :
Shri B. Biswas , Presiding Officer
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10 (1) (d) (2A) of the I. D. Act. , 1947 .
They alleged that with the allegation of committing misconduct on the ground of absentism management issued a chargesheet to the concerned workman. Thereafter, in a very arbitrary way a domestic enquiry was held against him. The enquiry offier also without considering all material aspects and merits of the chargesheet submitted his report to the Disciplinary Authority and thereafter Disciplinary Authority dismissed him from service . They alleged specifically that management illegally, arbitrarily and violating the principle of natural justice dismissed the concerned workman from his service and for which he submitted representation to the management for his reinstatement but to no effect which compelled him to raise Industrial Dispute before ALC( C ) for conciliation . They submitted that instant reference case has been initiated for adjudication due to failure of the conciliation proceeding .
REFERENCENO : 10 OF 2002
PARTIES:
The sponsoring union accordingly submitted their prayer to pass award directing the management to reinstate the concerned workman to his service with full backwages and other consequential relieve .
Employers in relation to the management of Joyrampur Colliery of M/ s BCCL, and their workman.
APPEARANCES :
3.Management on the contrary after filing written Statement -cum- rejoinder have denied all the cliams and allegation which the sponsoring union asserted in the Written Statement submitted on behalf of the concerned workman.
Onbehalf of the Workman : None
: Mr. D. K. Verma
Onbehalf of the Employers
Advocate
State : Jharkhand
Industry: Coal
They submitted that the concerned workman was a habitual absentee and for his absence on different unauthorised occasions they issued chargesheet to him though they took lenient view at the time of imposing punishment on him when he was found guilty to the charge brought against him.
Dated, Dhanbad, the 13th May, 2005
AWARD
In the instant case management issued chargesheet to him bearing No. 1285 dt . 25-9-97 for his remaining unauthorised absence from 16-1-97. After receipt of the chargesheet he submitted his reply as the same was not found satisfactory the Disciplinary Authority arranged for holding domestic enquiry against him .
TheGovt. 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/ 504/2001 /I.R. (C- 1 ) dt. 20th February, 2002 .
SCHEDULE
Whether the Management of BCCL Jealgora Colliery is justified in dismissing Sri Kali Pado
The enquiry officer after holding the enquiry in accordance with the principle of law submitted his report to the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority aftercareful consideration ofthe report and other material aspects dismissed him from service w.e.f. 19-3-99 vide dismissal letterdt. 19-3-99 . They submitted that neither 6184
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18, 2005 / JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] theycommitted any illegality nor took any arbitrary decision indismissing the concerned workman from his service and accordingly, they submitted their prayer to pass award rejecting the claim of the sponsoring union.
4. POINTS TO BE DECIDED.-
"Whether management of BCCL Jealgora Colliery isjustified in dismissing Sri Kali Pado Mallick from service ? If not , to what relief is the workman entitled ?"
5. FINDING WITH REASONS
Before taking up hearing this case on merit it was taken into consideration if domestic enquiry held against the concernedworkman was fair, proper and in accordance with the principle of natural justice. From the record it transpires that the said issue on preliminary point was disposed ofvide Order No. 10 dt. 22-11-04 in favour of the management .
full opportunity was given to the concerned workman to defend his case through his co-worker. After completion ofdomestic enquiry the said Enquiry Officer submitted his report to the Disciplinary Authority holding the concerned workman guilty to the charges sheet brought against him. the enquiry report during evidence of MW - 1 was marked as Ext . M- 8 . It transpires from the report that inspite of giving opportunity the concerned workman did not consider necessary to adduce any evidenc in support of his claim. Inthe reply to the chargesheet he took specific pela that he could not attend to his duty as he fell ill suddenly at his native village . It is seen that concerned workman remained absent from duty continuously for a period of over nine months. It was his bounden obligation to produce necessary medical papers before the Enquiry Officer to establish that he was actually lying ill and for that reason he did not get scope to attend his duty. As he failed to produce a single medical paper in support of his ailment in course ofhearing before the Enquiry Officer there is sufficient person to believe that the plea of his ailment which he took was not correct and he took so with a view to evade the charge brought against him.
Clause 26.1.1 of the Certified Standing Order speaks that late attendance or wilful or habitual absence from duty without sufficient cause amounts to misconduct .
Now on merit the point for consideration is if the management have been able to substantiate the charge brought against the concerned workman and if so is there any scope to review the punishment imposed upon him invoking Section 11A of the I.D. Act .
During evidence of MW- 1 the copy of chargesheet issued to the concerned workman was marked as Ext . M.2 . The chargesheet speaks that the same was issued to him with the allegation of committing misconduct for violation ofClause 26.1.1 of the Certified Standing order. The ground ofcharge is as follows :-
" It has been found from our record that you were allowed to resume duty on 16-1-97 but you did not resume your duty on 16-1-97 and remain absence from your duty since 16-1-97 to till date without informationto the competent authority. "
As the concerned workman remained himself absent from duty for over nine months continuously without giving any intimation to the management there is sufficient scope to say that management was justified in issuing chargesheet to the concerned workman on the ground of committingmisconduct for violation of clause 26.1.1 of the Certified Standing orders applicable to the employees ofthe management. I have carefully considered all material papers of the enquiry proceeding marked as Ext . M- 7 . series . Considering all these papers it has been established clearly that the concerned workman absolutely failed to justify the reason of his long absence from duty without giving any information to them . After careful consideration of all materials on record I find no dispute to hold that management have been able to substantiate the charge brought against the concerned workman under clause 26.1.1 of the Certified Standing order with all reasonable certainty.
It is the specific claim of the management that disciplinary Authlority considering report of the Enquiry Officer as well as considering past service record of the concerned workman decided to dismiss him from service and accordingly the order of dismissal was issued against him. The order of dismissal during evidence of MW - 1 was marked as Ext . M - 10 . It is admitted fact that as concerned workman was dismissed from service the sponsoring union raised industrial dispute challenging the validity and legality of the said order . In view of my discussion above I find no dispute to hold that management have been able to substantiate the charge brought against him .
The chargesheet was issued vide Ref. No. BCCL/ JCY/ A/ 97 / CS/ 1285 dt . 25-9-97. Therefore , it speaks clearly that management issued chargesheet to him after remaining absent continuously for more than a period of nine months without giving any further intimation to the management from 16-1-97 i.e. the date when he was supposed to join his duty. No doubt the concerned workman after reciept ofthe chargesheet submitted his reply. In the reply he took the plea that while he was at his native village he fell ill suddenly and for which he could not get scope to resume his duty. He however, expressed his faults for not giving intimation to the management about his reason of his absence from duty. During evidence of MW - 1 the reply submitted by the concerned workman is marked as Ext . M-3 . As the Disciplinary Authority was not satisfied with his reply they initiated a domestic enquiry against him appointing an Enquiry Officer. MW- 1 during his evidence disclosed that 6185 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जून18 , 2005 /ज्येष्ठ 28 , 1927
Now the point for consideration is if there is any scope to review the said order of dismissal issued against the concerned workman by the management invoking the provision as laid down in Section 11A of the I.D. Act . , 1947 Section 11A of the Industrial Dispute Act speaks as follows:-
"Where an Industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings , the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal , as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman onsuch terms and conditions , if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances of the casemay require. "
workman is involved directly for the purpose of production and any deviation definitely will hamper in operating the production smoothly. Apart from this fact for the interest ofadministration it is expected that a workman not only shouldbe duly bound in discharging his duties but also he cannot avade his responsibility to maintain discipline at his place of work . The conduct of the concerned workman iflooked into will speak clearly that he did not care not only to perform his duty properly but also was very much indisciplined. It is not expected that he will be allowed to work as ofhis choice ignoring the discpline at his place of work. It is seen that he misused the opportunity for his rectification in future which was given to him by the management. As such after careful consideration of all the facts and circumstances I hold that the punishment which management imposed upon him wasjustified . There is no scopeto say that it was disproportionate to the misconduct committedby him. Accordingly there is no reason to say that management illegally, arbitrarily violating the principle ofnaturaljustice dismissed him from service and for which he is not entitled to get any relief. In the result, the following Award is rendered :-
Therefore, according to the provision of law it is to be taken into consideration if the said order of dismissal issued against the concerned workman was justified and it was proportionate to the misconduct committed by him.
"The management of BCCL Jealgora Colliery is justified in dismissing Sri Kali Pado Mallick from service. Consequently, the concerned workman is not entitled to get any relief. "
B. BISWAS, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 30 मई , 2005
का. आ. 2171.-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 घनबाद II के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 52/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 26-5-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-20012/454/99- आई आर ( सी- I ) ] एस० एस ० गुप्ता, अवर सचिव
NewDelhi, the 30th-May, 2005 It is the specific allegaiton of the management that the concerned workman was in the habit of committing such misconduct . They disclosed that in the year 1995 a chargesheet was issued against the concerned workman for committing misconduct on the ground of absentism under clause 26.1.1 of the Certified Standing Order. Again similar chargesheet was issued in the year 1996. The said two chargesheets during hearing were marked as Ext . M-6/5 and M - 6 /3 respectively. It is the contention of the management that in both the cases domestic enquiry were held against the concerned workman and he was found guilty to the charges brought against him. They submitted that instead of imposing major punishment order for stoppage of one S.P. RA was was issued only with a view togive him an opportunity for his rectification in future so that he could prove himself to a disciplined worker. The sponsoring union could not deny this fact . Therefore , it is seen that the concerned workman was in the habit of committing such type of misconduct and indoing so he did not care to maintain discipline at his place ofwork .
S.O. 2171. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 52/2000 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court , Dhanbad- II , now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of BCCL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 26-05-2005.
Theallegation of the management is that it was the third consecutive occasion when they compelled to issue chargesheet to the concerned workman for committing misconduct on similar ground . No doubt in the present case the concerned workman took the plea that owing to his illness he could not attend to his duty. In view of my discussion above it has been exposed clearly that the concerned workman has absolutely failerd to justify his claim. Therefore, it has been exposed clearly that the opportunity which management gave was absolutely missed by him. It is to be borne into mind that every
[No. L -20012/454/99 - IR(C-I) S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.
6186
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2005 /JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] 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.
Ganesh Tiwary is entitled to get employment under the management as per provisions of NCWA . They alleged that knowing fully of this fact management refused to provide him employment illegally and arbitrarily and for which they raised an industrial dispute for conciliation which ultimately resulted reference to this Tribunal for adjudication . The sponsoring union accordingly submitted prayer to pass an Award directing the management to provide employment to the concerned petitioner with all other benefits as per the provisions of NCWA .
REFERENCE NO . 52 OF 2000
3. Management on the contrary after filing W.S. -cum- rejoinder have denied all the claims and allegations which the sponsoring union asserted in their Written Statement submitted on behalf of the petitioner.
PARTIES: Employers in relation to the management of North Tisra Colliery of M/s BCCL and their workman.
APPEARANCES :
Onbehalf of the Workman : Mr. D. Mukherjee, Advocate
On behalfofthe Employers : Mr. S. N. Sinha, Advocate
State : Jharkhand
Industry: Coal
Dated, Dhanbad, the 10th May, 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 -20012/454/99 /I.R. ( C- 1 ) dated, the 7th March, 2000.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the demand of the Bihar Pradesh Collier Mazdoor Congress from the Management of North Tisra Colliery, Jeenagora for employment of Sri Ganesh Tiwary, the dependant of late Deobali Tiwary isjustified ? If so , to what relief is the dependant of the workman entitled ? "
They submitted that Deobali Tiwary died in the year 1989 while the sponsoring union raised the present dispute inthe year 1999 for employment of the petitioner describing him as dependant of the aforesaid deceased workman is barred by limitation not only but also it cannot be considered an industrial dispute . They submitted that as per Clause 9.4.2 of NCWA IV it has been specifically mentioned that the dependant for the purpose of employment can be unmarried daughter, son and legally adopted son . There is no provision for employment of the son ofa married daughter as dependant . As the concerned person on the face of the record does not come within the provision of clause 9.4.2 for his employment, the competent authority could not accept the concerned person as dependant of late Deobali Tiwary. They further submitted that the provisions of NCWA do not confer any vested right on the relatives of deceased workman to demand for employment 10 years after his death. They further submitted that any rule or scheme providing employment inthe Public Sector Undertaking by virtue of relationship with a workman is ultravires of the Constitution of India and as such, no vested right can exist . Moreover, the concerned person failed to produce any authentic document that he needed compassionate employment in terms of clause 9.4.2 of NCWA IV. Accordingly, the present demand of the sponsoring union is without any merit and for which they are not entitled to get any relief in view of theirprayer.
2. The case of the petitioner workman according to Written Statement submitted by the sponsoring union on his behalf in brief is as follows:
4. Points to be decided.-
"Whether the demand of the Bihar Pradesh Colliery Mazdoor Congress from the Management of North Tisra Colliery, Jeenagora for employment of Sri Ganesh Tiwary, the dependant of late Deobari Tiwary is justified ? If so , to what relief is the dependant of the workman entitled ? "
5. Finding with reasons .--
It transpires from the record that the sponsoring union with a view to substantiate their claim examined the petitioner workman as WW- 1 . Management also in The sponsoring union submitted that late Deobali Tiwary was surface Munshi at North Tisra Colliery who died on 14-5-89 while he was in employment under the management. They submitted that as per clause 9.4.2 and 9.4.3 of NCWA the dependant of deceased employee is entitled to get employment and accordingly Shri Ganesh Tiwary i.e. the petitioner applied for employment under the management and submitted all relevant papers in support of his claim. They disclosed that late Deobali Tiwary nominated the name of Ganesh Tiwary as a nominee both for the purpose of C.M.P.F. and Gratuity being his dependant. Accordingly they submitted that the petitioner 6187 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18 , 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28, 1927
support of their claim examined one witness as M.W- 1 . his claim for employment under clause 9.4.3 of NCWA. In course of hearing a copy of deed of adoption marked as Ext. M-2 came into existence which was executed on 30th day of January, 1988 by Joyram Tiwary father of the petitioner workman in favour of Deobali Tiwary. In course of hearing the sponsoring union did not consider necessary either to examine Joyram Tiwary and widow of Deobali Tiwary to establish the fact that the petitioner workman was actually adopted by the said deceased worker. On the contrary WW- 1 during his evidence disclosed categorically that his father deserted them when he was child. When the father ofthe petitioner workman deserted the petitioner workman and his family members longyears back I have failed to understand how he executed that deed of adoption in favour of Deobali Tiwary. Accordingly question of genuinity of this deed comes into light and in the circumstances it was the responsibility of the sponsoring union to establish its genuinity with all proof.
There is no dispute to hold that the petitioner workman submitted application before the management for his employment being dependant grandson of Deobali Tiwary. I have already discussed above that there is no provision of NCWA to provide employment to the grandson of the deceased worker . The concerned petitioner workman took attempt to identify himself as adopted son ofDeobali Tiwary during his evidence though he did not make such story in his Written Statement . However , inspite of getting opportunity he also has failed to establish that he accepted Deobali Tiwary as his father and identified himself to be his adopted son. Therefore, the story made by the petitioner workman i.e. he was adopted son of Deobali Tiwary cannot be supported . As the petitioner workman declared himself dependant relying on service excerpt he is not entitled to claim employment because of the fact that NCWA has clearlypointed out who can be considered for employment on compassionate ground after the death of deceased workman . In view of the facts and circumstances discussed above I hold that the petitioner workman has failed to substantiate his claim before this Tribunal reasonably and for which he is not entitled to get any relief.
In the result, the following Award is rendered:-
"The demand of the Bihar Pradesh Colliery MazdoorCongress from the management of North Tisra Colliery, Jeenagora for employment of Sri Ganesh Tiwary, the dependant of Late Deobali Tiwary is not justified. Consequently, the petitioner workman is not entitled to get any relief."
B. BISWAS , Presiding Officer Considering the facts disclosed in the pleadings of both sides and also considering the evidence of WW- 1 , MW- 1 and material papers on record I find no dispute to hold that Deobali Tiwary was Surface Munshi at North Tisra Colliery. There is also no dispute to hold that said Deobali Tiwary expired on 14-5-89 while he was in employment. It is seen that about 10 years after the death of said Deobali Tiwary the present sponsoring union raising the industrial dispute claimed employment ofthe petitioner Ganesh Tiwary as per clause 9.4.2 of NCWA. Clause 9.4.3 of the NCWA speaks that the dependant for this purpose means the wife/husband as the case may be , unmarried daughter , son and legally adopted son. If no such direct dependant is available for employment , younger brother , widowed daughter/ widowed daughter - in -law or son - in - law residing with the deceased and almost wholly dependant on the earnings ofthe deceased may be considered to be the dependant of the deceased. It is admitted fact that the present petitioner workman was the grandson ( daughter's son) of Deobali Tiwary. Clause 9.4.3 of NCWA has not provided any room for the grandson who claim employment on compassionate ground. It is the claim of the sponsoring union that Deobali Tiwary nominated the petitioner workman to draw all benefits relating to gratuity and P. F. Disclosing this fact they submitted that when the deceased workman nominated the petitioner workman he should be considered as dependant ofthe deceased and accordingly he is entitled to get his employment on compassionate ground as per clause 9.4.3 of NCWA . A workman can nominate any person to draw all his benefits in case of his death but for that reason there is no scope to say that the said nominee should be considered as dependant . The service excerpt marked as Ext .. M - 1 shows clearly that the deceased worker disclosed the name of the petitioner workman as nominee under C. M. P. F. being his grandson. He alsodisclosed that said Ganesh Tiwary i ,e. the petitioner workman wasdependant on him. From the service excerpt I do not find any whisper at all if the petitioner workman was his adopted son. On the contrary it is clear that he wasthe son ofhisdaughter. In course of evidence WW- 1- made a new story disclosing the fact that Deobali Tiwary before his death adopted him as his son and executed a deed to that effect . The said deed of adoption was maked as Ext : M-2 . WW- 1 while deposing before this Tribunal disclosed his father's name as Joyram Tiwary and not as Deobali Tiwary. In the Written Statement submitted by the sponsoring union on his behalf there is also no whisper to the effect that during life time said Deobali Tiwary adopted the petitioner workman as his son . WW - 1 has claimed so in course ofhis evidence . Actually he intended to create a new story claiming himself tobe the adopted son of Deobali Tiwary with a view to place
1714 GI/05-32 6188
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18, 2005/JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
नई दिल्ली, 30 मई, 2005
का. आ. 2172.- 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 110/ 98 ) को प्रकाशित करती हैं , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 26-5-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-20012/597/ 97-आई आर ( सी- I ) ] एस. एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 30th May , 2005
S.O. 2172.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 110/98) 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 26-5-2005.
[No. L -20012/597/97 -IR(C-I) ] S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2 AT DHANBAD
PRESENT :
Shri B. BISWAS , PresidingOfficer
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1)(d) of the I. D. Act , 1947
REFERENCE NO . 110/98
PARTIES : Employers in relation to the management ofSendraBansjora Colliery of M/ s . B.C.C.L. and their workman .
APPEARANCES:
Onbehalf of the workman : Mr. K. Chakraborty, Ld. Advocate .
Onbehalf of the employers : Mr. D.K. Verma, Ld . Advocate .
State : Jharkhand . :Industry: Coal .
Dhanbad, Dated, the 10th May, 2005
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]
AWARD
TheGovt . of India , Ministry of Labour, in exercise ofthe powers conferred on them under Section 10 (1 ) (d) ofthe I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to thisTribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/ 597/97 -I.R. (C -I), dated the 13th April, 1998 .
SCHEDULE
" Whether the action of the management of Sendra Bansjora Colliery of M/s . BCCL in dismissing Shri Dhaneshwar Bhuia, Ex - M/Loader w.e.f. 13-3-1996 from the services of the Company only on the ground ofunauthorised absence from duty from 20-10-95 is justified ? If not , to what relief is the workman concerned entitled ?" .
2. The case of the concerned workman, according to written statement submitted by the sponsoring union on his behalf in brief is as follows:
The sponsoring union submitted that the concerned workman who was a Minor/Loader at Sendra Bansjora Colliery. They alleged that the concerned workman neither received any charge- sheet nor was provided with any opportunity to submit his explanation before he was dismissedfrom his service w.e.f. 13-3-96 .
They disclosed that owing to serious illness the concerned workman could not attend to his duty and he informed the matter to the management only with prayer forgranting leave. They submitted that after recovery when the concerned workman came to his place of work with a view to resume his duty instead of allowing him to work handed over to him his order of dismissal from service. Thereafter he challanged his illegal and arbitrary order of dismissal before the management but to no effect . Accordingly, he raised an Industrial Dispute before ALC(C) , Dhanbadfor conciliation which ultimately resulted reference to this Tribunal for adjudication .
The sponsoring union accordingly, submitted prayer to pass award directing the management to reinstate the concerned workman to his service with full back wages and other consequential relief after setting aside the order ofdismissal .
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 the part of the concerned workman.
They submitted that the concerned workman started himselfabsenting from duty w.e.f. 20-10-95 without giving any information or obtaining any permission . As such they issued a chargesheet dtd . 1-2-96 to the concerned workman for committing misconduct on the ground of absentism. After receipt of the chargesheet concerned workman 6189 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18 , 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28, 1927
submitted his reply but as his reply was not satisfactory the Disciplinary Authority decided to hold domestic enquiry against him and for which appointed Mr. Amit Bhusan, Senior Personnel Officer, Bansjora Colliery as Enquiry Officer to that effect. They disclosed that in course ofholding domestic enquiry the concerned workman not only remained present althrough but also participated fully to defend his case, They submitted that the concerned workman was a habitual absentee and during 1993 , 1994 and 1995 he made his attendance for 24 days , 118 days and 75 days respectively and this fact was placed before the Enquiry Officer during hearing. The Enquiry Officer after completing Enquiry submitted his reports holding the concernedworkman guilty to the charges . The Disciplinary Authority thereafter considering the report and also considering all aspects dismissed him from service with effect from 13-3-1996.
They submitted that the Disciplinary Authority neither took any arbitrary decision nor committed any illegality in dismissing the concerned workman from service and for which he is not entitled to get any relief.
4. POINTS TO BE DECIDED
the workmen ofthe management. It is the specific allegation ofthe management that the concerned workman without giving any intimation or taking prior permission from the management started remaining himself absent from duty with effect from 20-10-95 . By this charge sheet he was asked to submit his reply within 48 hours on receipt of the same. The concerned workman submitted his reply which during evidence ofMWI was marked as exhibit-M-3 . In his reply. he disclosed that as he remained busy in connection with the treatment of his mother who was lying seriously ill at his native village he could not attend to his duty and expressed his sorrow for his remaining absent from duty unintentionally. This very reply speaks clearly that the facts which the sponsoring union exposed in the written statement submitted on his behalf finds no truth at all . The reply givenby him has exposed clearly that without giving any intimation or taking prior permission from the management he started remaining himself absent fromduty. During hearing the enquiry officer recorded his statement . At the time of giving statement concerned workman repeated the same fact which he ventilated in his reply. Considering his statement and reply it has been exposed clearly that on the ground of ailment of his mother he remained himself absent from duty. It is also clear that he started remaining himself absent from duty without giving any intimation or taking any prior permission from the management.
" Whether the action of the management of Sendra Bansjora Colliery of M/s . BCCL in dismissing Shri Dhaneshwar Bhuia, Ex- M/Loader w.e.f. 13-3-1996 from the services of the Company only on the ground ofunauthorised absence from duty from 20-10-95 is justified ? If not, to what relief is the workman concerned entitled ? "
5. FINDING WITH REASONS
It transpires from the record that before taking up hearing ofthis case on merit it was taken into consideration if domestic enquiry held against the concerned workman was fair, proper and in accordance with the principle of naturaljustice.
Inspite of getting scope he also failed to produce any medical paper to show that his mother was actually lying ill during the period in question . Therefore , the plea which he took finds no basis at all . On the contrary it has been established beyond all reasonable doubt by the management that he wilfully violated the provision as laid downunder clause 26: 1: 1 of the Certified Standing Order. Therefore , there is sufficient reason to believe that management was justified in issuing chargesheet to the concerned for committing misconduct on the ground of absentism for violation of clause 26 : 1: 1 of the Certified Standing Order. I am also satisfied that management in course of hearing also have able to establish the charge brought against the concerned workman.
The said hearing on preliminary point was disposed of vide Order No. 13 dtd . 23-6-2004 in favour of the management.
It is the contention of the management that Disciplinary Authority after considering Enquiry Report (Exhibit. M -6) and also considering other material aspects dismissed the concerned workman from service w.e.f. 13-3-96 . The letter of dismissal during evidence of MW- 1 was marked as Exhibit.M-8 .
Nowthe point for consideration is ' if the management have been able to substantiate the charge brought against the concerned workman and if so , whether in the matter of punishment imposed upon him, there is any scope to invoke the provision of Sec. II -A of the Industrial Dispute Act .
Now the point for consideration is if the concerned workman is entitled to get any relief u/s II -A of the Industrial DisputeAct.
Sec . II-A of the Industrial Dispute Act speaks as follows : "Where an Industrial Dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court , Tribunal or National Tribunal for During evidence of MW1 the chargesheet issued to the concerned workman was marked as exhibit-M- 2 . According to charge sheet the allegation of committing misconduct has been brought against him for violation of clause 26: 1: 1 of the Certified Standing Order applicable to 6190
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2005/JYAISTHA 28, 1927
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]
seenthat the Disciplinary Authority instead of giving him anopportunity for his rectification decided to dismiss him from service which I consider is absolutely injustified . I hold that the punishment inflicted upon him is absolutely disproportionate to the misconduct committed by him and as such it violated the principle of natural justice .
adjudication , and in the course of the adjudication proceedings , the Labour Court , Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied , that the order of discharge or dismissal was notjustified it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatment of the workman on such terms and conditions, ifany, as thinks fit or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances of the case may require."
I, therefore, hold that there is a fit case where it will be befitting to issue an order of reinstatement of the concerned workman in service invoking the provision of Sec. II -A of the Industrial Disputes Act after setting aside the order ofdismissal. In the result, the following Award is rendered:-
Therefore , before taking into consideration of Sec. II -A it requires to be booked into ifthe order ofdismissal issued against the concerned workman was justified and if it was proportionate to the misconduct committed byhim.
"That the action of the management of Sendra Bansjora Colliery of M/s . BCCL in dismissing Shri Dhaneshwar Bhuia , Ex - M/Loader w.e.f. 13-3-1996 from the services of the Company is not justified.
The order of dismissal issued against Shri Dhaneshwar Bhuia by the management dated 13-3-96 is hereby set aside. Management is directed to reinstate the concerned workman Sri Dhaneshwar Bhuia in service as Minor/Loader within three months from the date of publication of his award in the Gazette of India . However , from the date of dismissal till the date of reinstatement in service he will neither be entitled to get any S.P.R.A. nor any back wages .
According to charge sheet it has been exposed that the concerned workman started remaining himself absent from duty without prior intimation or taking permission from the management with effect from 20-10-1995 . The charge sheet was issued on 1-2-96 and he was directed to submit his reply by 10-2-96 . It is admitted fact that after receipt of the charge sheet he submitted his reply and assigned the reason of his absence though he failed to substantiate the reason by cogent evidence inspite of getting opportunity. However, not only in his reply but also at the time of giving statement before the Enquiry Officer he expressed. his sorrow for the misconduct committedby him . His reply as well as his statement exposed that he is repentant for the misconduct committed by him and practically has begged apology for the same.
He also will be debarred from SPRA for a period of two years from the date of his reinstatement in service. However, his continuity in service will not be affected for the purpose ofhis retirement benefit .
B. BISWAS , Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 30 मई, 2005
का. आ. 2173.- 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 संख्या162/ 2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 26-5-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-20012/1/ 2001- आई आर ( सी- I ) ] एस. एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव
New Delhi, the 30th May , 2005
The Disciplinary Authority did not consider his repentance for the misconduct committed by him on the ground that he was in the habit of remaining himself absent from duty on previous occasions also . In support of this claim it has been submitted that during 1993 , 1994 and 1995 theconcerned workman remained on duty for only 24 days , 118 days and 75 days respectively. No evidence on the part of the management is forthcoming to show if such absence amounted to misconduct and also if any disciplinary action was taken against him or not . In the charge sheet also there is no whisper to this effect . Therefore, there is no scope to take cognizance of said absence in considering his dismissal from service . It is seen that the Disciplinary Authority dismissed the concerned workman from his service for his remaining absent from duty for a period of about three and halfmonths approximately. There is no dispute to hold that the concerned workman committed misconduct. It is to be looked into if the misconduct committed by him was so greivious which attracted his dismissal from service . The workman not only in his reply to the charge sheet but also incourse of his giving statement before enquiry officer expressed his sorrow for the misconduct committed by him. He also expressed his repentance for the same. It is
S.O. 2173. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 162/ 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 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]
6191
भारत का राजपत्र: जून 18, 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28, 1927
themanagement of BCCL and their workman, which was receivedby the Central Government on 26-5-2005.
[No. L-20012/1/2001 -IR(C-I)]
S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2 AT DHANBAD PRESENT:
Shri B. Biswas, PresidingOfficer
Inthe matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1)(d) of the I. D. Act, 1947
REFERENCE NO . 162/2001
PARTIES : Employers in relation to the management of Sijua Area of M/ s . B.C.C.L. and their workman.
APPEARANCES:
Onbehalf ofthe workman : Mr. S.C. Gaur, Advocate.
Onbehalf ofthe employers : Mr. R.N. Ganguly,
Advocate.
State: Jharkhand.
Industry: Coal.
Dhanbad, Dated, the 3rd May, 2005
AWARD
TheGovt . 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/ 1/2001 - IR (C-I) , dated the 22nd May, 2001 :-
SCHEDULE
"Whether the demand of the union to regularise Sri Bankim Chand Permanik, Blacksmith, Grade-D as Welder, Grade-C with differential wages and consequential benefits is proper and is justified ? If so, what reliefis the concerned workman is entitled to and from what date ? "
2. In this reference both the parties appeared and filed their respective written statement . Subsequently at the stage of filing documents learned Advocate for the concerned workman by filing a petition submitted to pass a 'No dispute' Award as the concerned workman involved inthis reference is not interest to proceed with the hearing ofthecase. Learned Advocate for the management raised no objection in view of the prayer made by the Learned Advocate for the concerned workman . Heard both sides . As the concerned workman is not interested to proceed with the hearing of this case it is needless to drag on the case for further period. Accordingly a ' No dispute ' Award ispassed in this reference presuming non -existence of any industrial dispute between the parties.
B. BISWAS , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 30 मई , 2005
का. आ. 2174.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सी. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्रके 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 72/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 26-5-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल-20012/80/2003- आई आर ( सी- I ) ]
एस. एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 30th May, 2005
S.O. 2174.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 72/2003) ofthe 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 receivedby the Central Government on 26-5-2005 .
[No. L-20012/80/2003 -IR (C-I) ]
S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2 AT DHANBAD PRESENT :
Shri B. Biswas, Presiding Officer
Inthe matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1)(d) of the I. D. Act, 1947
REFERENCE NO . 72 OF 2003
PARTIES : Employers in relation to the management ofSirka Colliery ofM/ s . C.C.L. and their workman.
6192
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2005/JYAISTHA 28, 1927
APPEARANCES :
Onbehalf of the employers : Mr. D.K.Verma, Advocate.
None
Onbehalf of the workman :
State : Jharkhand .
Industry: Coal .
Dated, Dhanbad, the 3rd May, 2005
AWARD
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- 20012/80/ 2003 - I.R. (C - I ) , dated the 18th August, 2003 :-
SCHEDULE
" Whether the action of the management of Sirka Colliery under of M/s . CCL to dismiss Sri Harun Rashid workman from service w.e.f. 14-9-02 is justified ? If not, to what relief is the workman concerned entitled ? "
2. In this reference neither the concerned workman nor his representative appeared . Management, however, made appearance through their authorised representative. It is seen 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 ofWritten Statement by the concerned workman/ sponsoring union within 15 days is a mandatory one . The concernedworkman/ 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 consecutivelyby this Tribunal . Therefore , there is sufficient reason to believe that the concerned 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 , PresidingOfficer नई दिल्ली, 30 मई , 2005
का. आ. 2175. 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 मेंनिर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय धनबाद 11 , के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 75/2004) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 26-5-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-20012/74/2004- आई आर ( सी-1 ) ] एस. एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 30th May , 2005
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] New Delhi , the 30th May, 2005
S.O. 2175. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 75 / 2004) 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 receivedby the Central Government on 26-5-2005 .
[No. L-20012/74/2004- IR(C-I)]
S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.2 AT DHANBAD
PRESENT
ShriB. Biswas, PresidingOfficer
Inthe matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10 ( 1 ) (d) of the I. D. Act , 1947 REFERENCE NO . 75 OF 2004
PARTIES : Employers in relation to the management ofM/ s . B.C.C.L. and their workman.
APPEARANCES:
Onbehalf ofthe workman : Mr. Jamaluddin Ansari ,
himself Concerned workman
Onbehalf ofthe employers : Mr. U.N. LAL, Advocate .
State: Jharkhand .
Industry: Coal .
Dated, Dhanbad , the 3rd May, 2005
AWARD
TheGovt. of India , Ministry of Labour, in exercise ofthepowers conferred on them under Section 10 (1) (d) ofthe I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/74/2004 - IR (C- I), dated the 22nd July, 2001 :-
SCHEDULE
" KYA NATIONAL COAL WORKERS CONGRESS ΚΑ ΚΑΤHAN KI KARMKAR SHRI JAMALUDDIN ANSARI APNEY SEY KANISTH KARMAKARO S / SHREE A.K. MAJUMDAR EVAM R.S. SINGH SEY KAM VETAN PA 6193 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18, 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28, 1927
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2 AT DHANBAD RAHEY HAI JATHA UNKE VETAN NIRDHARAN MEY APABAD HAI ? SHAI HA TO VADI KARMAKAR KIS RAHAT KEY PATRA HAI TATHA KIS TARIKH SEY ? "
PRESENT
ShriB. Biswas, PresidingOfficer
Inthe matter ofan Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1)(d) of the I. D. Act, 1947
REFERENCE NO . 48 OF 2004
PARTIES : Employers in relation to the management ofAmlabad Colliery ofM/s . B.C.C.L. and theirworkmen.
APPEARANCES:
Onbehalfofthe workman : None
Onbehalfofthe employers : None
State:Jharkhand.
Industry: Coal.
2. In thiscaseboth the parties appeared but did not file Written Statement on their behalf. However, apetition hasbeensubmitted by the workman stating therein that the dispute as per reference has already been settled with the management and for which he is not willing to proceed with the hearing of this case and accordingly a 'No dispute' Awardmaybe passed. Ld. Advocate for the management supported the facts disclosed in the petition submitted by the concerned workman. He also further submitted that the matter indispute has already been settled. In view ofthe facts and circumstances stated above it transpires clearly that the claim of the concerned workman to pass a 'No dispute' Award stands on cogent footing . Accordingly it is redundant toproceed with further hearing ofthis case. Hence , ' No dispute' Award is passed in this reference prsuming non-existence of any industrial dispute between theparties.
Dated, Dhanbad, the 4th May, 2005 B. BISWAS, Presiding Officer
AWARD
नई दिल्ली, 30 मई , 2005
TheGovt. of India , Ministry of Labour, in exercise ofthe powers conferred on them under, Section 10 (1 ) (d) ofthe I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to thisTribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/ 228/2003 -I.R. (C- I), dated the 26th March, 2004 :-
SCHEDULE
का. आ. 2176.-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 48/ 2004) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 26-5-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल-20012/ 228/2003- आई आर ( सी- I ) ]
" Whether the management of BCCL, Amlabad Colliery is justified in dismissing Shri Yudhisthir Mahato from service w.e.f. 21-1-2003 ? If not , to what relief is the workman entitled ?" एस. एस. गुप्ता , अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 30th May, 2005
S.O. 2176. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 48/2004) 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 workmen, which was receivedby the Central Government on 26-5-2005 .
[No. L-20012/228/2003 - IR(C-I)]
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 April, 2004 no Written Statement has been filed bythe workman/ sponsoring union. In terms ofRule 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 oftheRules 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 theyare not interested to proceed with hearing of the instant reference any further . Under the circumstances , this S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.
6194
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18, 2005 /JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
[PART II-SEC. 3( ii) ]
Onbehalfofthe Manage : Mr. S. C. Gaur.
ment
Ld. Advocate.
State:Jharkhand.
Industry: Coal.
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 ofany industrial dispute between the parties.
Dhanbad, Dated, the 5thMay, 2005 B. BISWAS , Presiding Officer
AWARD
नई दिल्ली , 30 मई, 2005
TheGovt. of India , Ministry of Labour, in exercise ofthe powers conferred on them under Section 10 (1) (d) ofthe I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L- 20012/ 413/99- I.R. (C-I ) , dated the 2nd February, 2000:-
SCHEDULE
का. आ. 2177.- 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 36/ 2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 26-5-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-20012/413/99- आई आर ( सी- I ) ]
"Whether the action of the management of M/s . BCCL , Tetulmari Colliery of Sijua Area in not regularising Sri Ram Nath Prasad as Clerk Grade- III isjustified ? If not, to what relief is the concerned workman entitled ?"
एस. एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 30th May, 2005
2. The case of the concerned workman according to written statement submitted by the sponsoring union on hisbehalf in brief is as follows:
S.O. 2177. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 36/2001) 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 management of BCCL and their workmen, which was receivedby the Central Government on 26-5-2005.
[No. L-20012/413/99 -IR (C-I) ]
S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL NO.2 AT DHANBAD
PRESENT:
Shri B. Biswas , PresidingOfficer
The sponsoring union submitted that the concerned workmanwas appointed as General Mazdoor in category I underVRS(F) scheme of Tetulmari Colliery in the year 1990. They submitted that as the concerned workman pass IntermediateArts Examination the management offered him thejob of TripMunshi in Clerical grade and in that capacity he discharged his duties to their entire satisfaction. Thereafter, in the year 1994 management authorised him to work asReceiving Munshi in the siding of Goreria under Tetumari Colliery.Again in the year 1996, the Project Officer ofTetulmari Colliery authorised him to work in the Tetulmari CoalDump asMunshi in Clerical Grade III . They submitted that since 1994 the concerned workman started placing his claim forpayment ofdifferences ofwages for discharging hisduties as clerk in clerical grade III but to no effect . They further submitted that during this period he worked for more than 240days in each year as clerk in clerical grade III and accordingly as per provision of Certified Standing Orderhe is entitled to get his regularisation in clerical grade III on clear vacancy.
Inthe matter ofan Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1)(d) of the I. D. Act , 1947
REFERENCE NO . 36 OF 2001
PARTIES :
They alleged that in spite of submitting representation to that effect the management refused to considerhis claim and for which he raised Industrial Dispute forconciliation which ultimately resulted reference to this Tribunal for adjudication.
Employers in relation to the management of Tetulmari Colliery of M/ s . B.C.C.L.
APPEARANCES :
Onbehalfofthe workman Mr. D. K. Verma,
Ld. Advocate .
The sponsoring Union accordingly submitted prayer topass award directing the management to regularise him asMunshi in Clerical Gr. III from 1994 alongwith other consequential reliefs .
6195 भारत का राजपत्र: जून 18, 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28 , 1927
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]
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.
contention ofthe sponsoring union that being authorised by the management as the concerned workman time to time discharged his duties in different sphere under clerical grade III continuously he submitted representation to the management for his regularisation in clerical grade III but the management when ignored his such prayer he raised an Industrial Dispute for his relief.
Onthe contrary management categorically denying the claim ofthe concerned workman submitted that he was never authorised by the officials of the management to work as Munshi or so under clerical grade III . It is their specific contention that the post of clerk comes under clerical cadre and the mode of their engagement has been specifically mentioned in N.C.W.A. They further submitted that there is ne provision at all to post any general mazdoor ofcategory I in the post of clerk which comes under clerical grade which is a cadre post . Moreover, the Director Personnel of BCCL vide letter dt. 1-7-92 has completely banned on engagement oftime rated or piece rated worker in any clerical job w.e.f. 1-7-92.
They submitted that the concerned workman was appointed and designated as General Mazdoor Category I and subsequently posted at Tetulmari Dump vide Office Orderdt. 29-1-96 as General Mazdoor and since then he is working there in that capacity. They submitted that the workman concerned was never authorised to work as Clerk Gr.III by the competent authority and as such question of his regularising as clerk in clerical grade III does not arise. They further submitted that Director General (Personnel ) vide letter dt . 1-7-92 has completely banned on engagement oftime rated or piece rated worker in clerical grade w.e.f. 1-7-92. Accordingly, since that date no body is competent to engage any time rated worker or piece rated worker in any clerical job . They further disclosed that as per cadre scheme the Cadre Controlling Authority only can regularise any person in a particular cadre in case of vacancy and recommendation of the D.P.C. duly constitutedby the Cadre Controlling Authority.
Accordingly, the sponsoring union had no locus standi to raise any Industrial Dispute based on vague demand and for which they submitted prayer to pass award rejecting the claim of the concerned workman.
4. POINTS TO BE DECIDED
The provision as laid down in NCWA is clear how thepost ofclerk in clerical grade III will be filled up . It is the contentionofthe concerned workman that being authorsed by the management, he was engaged to perform different jobs time to time under clerical grade III . In spite of claiming so incourse ofhearing neither the concerned workman nor his sponsoring union was able to produce a single authorisation order by virtue of which he was deputed to work in the post which comes under clerical grade III .
"Whether the action of the management of M/s . BCCL, Tetulmari Colliery of Sijua Area in not regularising Sri Ram Nath Prasad as Clerk Grade III is justified ? If not, to what relief is the concerned workman entitled ? "
5. FINDING WITH REASONS
Here qualification I consider is not sufficient enough to consider the claim of the concerned workman . It is admitted fact that he got his appointment as general mazdoor in category I under V.R. (F) Scheme. As the job nomenclature of general mazdoor and clerk are quite different there is no scope for a general mazdoor in category I to get hisdirect access to clerical grade without following the process as laid down in NCWA.
It transpires from the record that the sponsoring union with a view to substantiate their claim did not consider necessary to adduce any evidence. Management on the contrary examined one witness as MW- 1 .
Onus absolutely was on the sponsoring union to substantiate the claim of the concerned workman but I find no hesitation to say that they have lamentably failed to establish the claim in question . Without any substantial evidence just relying on the facts disclosed in the written statement there is little scope to uphold such contention of the sponsoring union.
Considering the facts disclosed in the pleadings of both sides and also considering evidence of MW - I and materials on record there is no dispute to hold that the concerned workman was appointed as General Mazdoor in category II at Tetulmari Colliery in the year 1990 under V.R. Scheme for the females .
Accordingly, in view of the facts and circumstances discussed above I hold that the concerned workman is not entitled to get any relief in view of his prayer. In the result the following award is rendered:
"That the action of the management of M/ s. BCCL Tetulmari Colliery of Sijua Area in not regularising Sri Ram Nath Prasad as Clerk Grade III is justified. Consequently he is not entitled to get any relief. "
B. BISWAS , Presiding Officer It is the specific contention of the concerned workman that as he passed I.A. examination management authorised himto work as Trip Munshi under clerical grade atRly. siding and subsequently authorised him to monitor movement of coal as a clerk. Again in the year 1994 management authorised him to work as Receiving Munshi inthe siding ofGoreria under Tetulmari Colliery. Thereafter, inthe year 1996 they authorised him to work in the Tetulmari Coal Dump as Munshi in clerical grade III . It is the
1714 G1 /05-33 6196
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2005 /JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] नई दिल्ली, 30 मई, 2005
This petition coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri . S. Bhagavantha Rao , Advocate for the petitioner and of Sri D. Krishna Murthy , Advocate for the respondents and having stood over for consideration till this date , the court passed the following :-
AWARD
का.आ. 2178.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, एस.सी.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण , गोदावरीखानी (संदर्भ संख्या 15/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30-05-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
1. The petitioner filed the petition to set aside the dismissal Order dt . 26-3-2003 and to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service , other attendant benefits and full back-wages.
[सं. एल-22013/1/ 2005- आई आर ( सी- II ) ] एन.पी. केशवन , डेस्क अधिकारी
2. The averments of the petition are as follows :-
New Delhi , the 30th May, 2005
S.O. 2178. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 15/ 2004) of the Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court , Godavarikhani as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of SCCL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 30-5-2005.
The petitioner was appointed as an employee , on 25-12-1988 . The petitioner was given appointment , after the retirement of his father on voluntary grounds . Charges were framed against the petitioner for his absence . No domestic enquiry was conducted . The signatures of the petitioner were taken by the respondents , on white paper. The termination order was served on him on 1-4-2003 , at his native place . His termination is illegal , arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice . Hence, he filed the petition for the above said relief.
[No. L-22013/ 1 /2005 - IR (C- II) ] N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN , INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT, GODAVARIKHANI
PRESENT :
SMT. K. SUVARCHALA , M.A. , B.L. , Chairman -cum- Presiding Officer.
Monday, the 11th Day of April , 2005
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO . 15 OF 2004
3. To this , the 1st respondent filed counter, Respondent No. 2 & 3 filed memo adopting the counter filedby the 1st respondent . The averments of the petition were denied . It is further stated that the respondent company is Coal Mining Industry. It is a Central Government subject and the appropriate Government is Central Government . The Central Government established an Industrial Tribunal - cum-Labour Court at Hyderabad from 29-12-2000 , for adjudication of the Industrial Disputes . The petitioner ought to have approached the said Tribunal , but he conveniently avoided to file his petition before that Tribunal , for the reasons best known tohim. Hence , the petition is not maintainable before this Hon'ble Court .
BETWEEN :
Chandrapalakala Swamy, S/o . Bheemaiah, Age about 36 yrs . , Occ. Coal Filler, R/ o . Jangaom, Mandal Ramagundam, Distt. Karim Nagar. Petitioner
AND
The Colliery Manager, 1. VIncline, Godavarikhani ,
2. The Chief General Manager , Ramagundam Area- I, Godavarikhani .
The petitioner was appointed as Floating Badli Filler atKK. 5 Incline of Mandamarri area . Later on , he was transferred to GDK. No. 5 Incline . The petitioner had attended for his duties only 62 days in the year 2001. He was issued with a charge sheet under Clause No. 25.25 of Company's approved standing orders , for his mis- conduct . The petitioner did not submit his explanation to the charge sheet . The petitioner participated in the domestic enquiry. During enquiry, he stated that he does not require the assistance of any of his co - workers . He also voluntarily admitted the charges levelled against him and pleaded guilty of the charges . He did not chose to cross-examine the management witnesses . In the enquiry, the petitioner stated that he went to Bombay, due to the death of his father. Later , he became sick and due to other domestic reasons , he did not attend to his duties and admitted his guilt . He never produced any documentary proof regarding his ill - health and he never reported to the 3. The Managing Director, Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd. , (Administration) , Post: Kothagudem, Distt. Khamam .
Respondents [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
company hospital for treatment. A show -cause notice was issued to the petitioner, duly enclosing a copy of the procds . of enquiry and enquiry report . The petitioner submitted his representationdt . 9-12-2002. The petitioner worked for 132 days in 1998; for 112 days in 1999; for 102 daysin 2000; for 62 days in 2001 and for 81 days in 2002. The performance of the petitioner prior to the charge sheet and after the charge sheet is very poor and the charges levelled against him were proved . Since he failed to improve his attendance during the observation period , his services were terminated. Hence, the petition may be dismissed with costs .
4. Onbehalf of the petitioner, Ex . W - 1 and Ex. W-2 aremarked.
Onbehalfof the respondent, Ex . M - 1 to Ex . M - 10 aremarked.
5. Heard both sides .
6. The 1st foremost point raised by the respondent company is that this Industrial Tribunal is having jurisdiction to entertain the I.D. , raised by the employees working in the Coal Mines and the respondent company is a Central Government Organization.
The point for consideration is whether this court is havingjurisdiction over the dispute or not ?
7. The Advocate for the petitioner argued that Sec. 2 -A(2 ) is applicable to the workman working in Coal Industry also and this petition is maintainable before this court . While arguing so , he cited I.L. Naidu and others Vs. Union of India and others reported in 2003 (2) ALT- 470. Their Lordships held :-
" the contention that Sec . 2-A(2) of I.D. Act , is not applicable to a Government of India undertaking is wholly mis -conceived. In view of the provisions of Art . 254 (2) of the Constitution, the provisions of Sec. 2 A(2) incorporated by A.P. , Amendment Act, 32/87 are valid and operative. It is not limited to the " State Industries " as contended by the petitioner. The State Legislature was competent to enact the entirety of the Industrial Disputes Act, for its operation within the territory of A.P. The provisions of Sec. 2 -A(2 ) having received the assent of the President , the workman of Central Government Industry also can raise the dispute U/Sec . 2 - A ( 2) of the I.D. Act . Therefore , the contention ofthe respondent's company that Sec. 2-A(2) is not applicable to the petitioner, is without merit or force " .
8. The Advocate for the petitioner also cited U. Chinnapa Vs. Cotton Corp. of India and others , reported in 1998 (5 ) ALD 16 (DB) . Their Lordships held that:-
"there is no warrant to restrict this scope and amplitude of the wide phraseology " any workman "
6197
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18 , 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28, 1927
employed in sub-section (2 ) of Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act , to the employees working in the State Government Industries and it is also applicable to the employees of the Central Government Industries and the industries carried- onunder the authority of the Central Government" .
In the light of the above decisions , it is quite clear that the petitioner can raise the dispute U/Sec . 2 - A (2 ) of I.D. Act, though he worked in the Coal Mine . Hence , the point is answered in favour of the petitioner .
9. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was appointed as Floating Badli Filler in the respondent company, from 27-12-88 at KK. 5 Incline of Mandamarri area . Later, he was transferred to GDK. 5 Incline . The petitioner has attended to his duties only 62 days in the year 2001. A charge sheet was issued under clause No. 25.25 of the company's standing orders , for his absenteeism.
The charge sheet is marked as Ex . M- 1 . Domestic enquirywas conducted. The enquiry notice is marked as Ex. M-2 . The office order appointing the petitioner as floating badly filler is marked as Ex . M - 3 . The enquiry procds. , are marked as Ex. M -4 . The enquiry report is marked as Ex . M- 5 . The respondent issued show cause notice to the petitioner i.e. , marked as Ex. M - 6 . The petitioner had given reply to the show -cause notice , which is marked as Ex . M -7 . The respondent passed the order removing the petitioner from service i.e. , marked as Ex . M-8 = Ex. W-2 .
The petitioner is now agitating before the court that the enquiry proceedings were recorded in English language-A foreign language to him. Hence, he was not inaposition tounderstand the proceedings . Sri V. Vasudev, Special Grade Clerk, GDK- 5 Incline gave his evidence.He stated that he gone through the pay sheets and attendance registers of the petitioner and noticed that the C.S.W. has remained absent from duties from 1-1-2001 to 31-1-2001 , without any leave or intimation . He worked only for 62 daysduring the entire calendar year, 2001. He also stated that the CSW did not obtain any prior permission from the competent authority or inform anything to his superior officers regarding the cause of his absence.
Sri G. Shanthaiah , Office Superintendent of GDK- 5 Incline was examined as MW- 1 . He also stated the same facts.
The petitioner had given his statement before the enquiry officer stating that due to the sudden shock news regarding the death of his father, he rushed to Bombay with his wife and children . At that time, his wife was carrying 9th month . After completion of religious rituals ofhis departed father at Bombay, his wife gave birth to a dead baby. She underwent tubectomy operation. He was forced to stay at Bombay and could not attend to his 6198
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2005/ JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]
Ex. M -7 Dt. 9-12-2002 Reply to show cause notice
Ex. M-8 Dt. 26-3-2003 Office order
Ex. M-9 Dt. 27-3-2002 Lr. issued to petitioner by SOM. GDK-5 incline.
duties during the months of January, 2001 , March, 2001 to June , 2001. He had fallen ill in September, 2001 , due to malaria fever . The absence was due to his family problems and due to his ill -health . The reasons and circumstances are beyond his control .
Ex. M- 10Dt. 24-7-2003 Application of petitioner, X-copy.
नई दिल्ली , 30 मई, 2005
The petitioner did not cross -examine the MW - 1 and MW- 2 . It is clear from the evidence of MW - 1 and MW- 2 thatthe petitioner was absent from his duties , without obtaining prior permission from any of his superior officers . The charges levelled against the petitioner were proved , beyond any reasonable doubt .
The grounds stated by the petitioner for his absence is sick of his family members and death of his father . But , he was so negligent that he could not even inform his office about his absence .
का.आ. 2179.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, एस.सी.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण , गोदावरीखानी (संदर्भ संख्या 62/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30-05-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-22013/1 /2005- आई आर ( सी- II ) ] However, considering the difficulties faced by the petitioner during that period , I feel that a lesser punishment will meet the ends ofjustice .
एन.पी. केशवन, डैस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 30th May, 2005
In the result , the petition is partly allowed. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner into service as afresh Floating Badli Filler. He shall be kept under observation for a period of one year. If he repeats the same, the respondents are at liberty to take action against him . There shall be no order as to cost .
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this , the 11th day of April, 2005.
S.O. 2179. 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 Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court , Godavarikhani as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in the relation tothe management of SCCL and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 30-5-2005 .
[No. L-22013/ 1 /2005 - IR (C-II) ] Smt . K. SUVARCHALA, Chairman -cum -Presiding Offcer
Appendix ofEvidence
N. P. KESAVAN ; Desk Officer ANNEXURE
Witnesses Examined
BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, INDUSTRIAL ForWorkman
TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT, GODAVARIKHANI
-Nil -
PRESENT :
Formanagement :-
-Nil-
SMT. K. SUVARCHALA , M.A. , B.L. , Chairman -cum- PresidingOfficer .
Exhibits
Tuesday, the 12th Day of April, 2005 ForWorkman:---
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO . 62 OF 2004 Ex. W- 1 D 7-3-2003 Lr . issued to petitioner, Х- сору.
BETWEEN :
Ex. W-2 Dt. 26-3-2003 Dismissal order, X-copy.
SathaBanaiah,
ForManagement :-
S/o . Mallaiah, 48 yrs . ,
Occ. Tendol , Engineering Dept. ,
Ex. M- 1 Dt . 12-2-2002 Charge Sheet
R/ o. Kasipet , Mdl Tandoor ,
Ex. M-2 Dt. 28-6-2002 Enquiry notice with ack . receipt
Petitioner
Distt . Adilabad
And
Ex . M -3 Dt. 19-12-1998 Office order as a Floating Badli Filler.
Ex. M-4 Dt . 01-07-2002 Enquiry proceedings
1. The Colliery Manager , Goleti No. 1.
Ex .M -5 Dt. 2-7-2002 Enquiry report
Ex . M-6 Dt. 3-12-2002 Show cause notice
2. The General Manager , S.C. Co. Ltd. Bellampally.
6199 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18, 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28, 1927
TheManaging Director,
3. Singareni Collieries Kothagudom,
Distt. Khamam.
Respondents
This petition coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri S. Bhagavantha Rao , Advocate for the petitioner and of Sri D. Krishanamurthy, Advocate for the respondents and having stood over for consideration till this date , the court passed the following:-
AWARD
1. The petitioner filed the petition to set - aside the termination Order passed by the respondent No. 2 and to direct the respondents to reinstate him into service with continuity of service , other attendant benefits and full back-wages .
2. The averments of the petition are as follows:-
leave . He was issued charge sheet on 13-3-2003 for his misconduct under clause No. 25.25 . The petitioner gave reply to the charge sheet stating that he was irregular to hisduties due to ill -health and requested the management to save him. As the explanation given by the petitioner is not satisfactory , domestic enquiry was conducted . The proceedings of the enquiry were read over to him in Telugu and advised him to take the assistance of any of his co-worker. The petitioner admitted the charges levelled against him and declined to cross - examine the management witnesses . The charges levelled against him were proved and he was issued Letter. dt . 1-7-2003 , advising him to submit his representation against the enquiry findings . The petitioner failed to submit his explanation . He has not improved his attendance even after issuing charge sheet and he worked only for 95 days upto the date of his dismissal , during the year, 2003. The petitioner was dismissed from the services of the company w.e.f. ,6-10-2003 . As the petitioner failed to attend to his duties, copy of dismissal order was affixed on the notice board . The petitioner received the dismissal order sent byRegd. Post on 11-11-2003. The petitioner had already submitted his application for payment of his terminal . benefits , which clearly shows his intention of not to continue his services in the company. Hence , the petition maybe dismissed.
4. On behalf of the petitioner, Ex . W- 1 to Ex. W-31 aremarked.
Onbehalf of the respondent , Ex . M - 1 to Ex . M - 11 aremarked.
5. Heard both sides .
The petitioner was appointed in the respondent company on 1-11-1976 at Boyapalli , as Coal Filler . His services were regularised. The petitioner worked up to 10-10-2003 . After that , he was removed from service on 11-10-2003 by the 2nd respondent on the ground of absenteeism to his duties in the year, 2002. The petitioner was not served the termination order dt. 11-10-2003 , but it was affixed on the notice board . He came to know about the termination of his services in January, 2004. He worked for 100 musters in 2001. The petitioner's daughter was expired and he was not in good condition . His health was affected , during the period . No reasonable opportunity was given to the petitioner to proceed with fair enquiry. The petitioner worked for 28 years , but he was arbitrarily removed from service . Hence , he filed the petition for the above said relief.
6. The first and foremost point raised by the respondent company is that this Industrial Tribunal is having jurisdiction to entertain the I.D. , raised by the employees working in the Coal Mines and the respondent company is a Central Government organization .
The point for consideration is whether this court is having jurisdiction over the dispute or not ?
7. The Advocate for the petitioner argued that Sec. 2-A( 2) is applicable to the workman working in Coal Industry also and this petition is maintainable before this court . While arguing so , he cited I.L. Naidu and others Vs. Union of India and others reported in 2003 (2 ) ALT- 470. Their Lordships held:-
3. To this , the 2nd respondent filed counter, Respondent No. 1 & 3 filed memo adopting the counter filed by the 2nd respondent . They denied the averments of the petition. It is further stated that the respondent company is a Coal Mining Industry. It is a Central Government subject and the appropriate Government is Central Government . The Central Government established an Industrial Tribunal -cum - Labour Court at Hyderabad from 29-12-2000 , for adjudication of the Industrial Disputes . The petitioner ought to have approached the said Tribunal , but he conveniently avoided to file his petition before that Tribunal, for the reasons best known to him . Hence , the petition is not maintainable before this Hon'ble Court .
"the contention that Sec . 2 -A(2 ) of I.D. , Act , is not applicable to a Government of India undertaking is wholly mis -conceived. In view of the provisions of Art. 254 (2) of the Constitution , the provisions of Sec. 2 A(2) incorporated by A.P. , Amendment Act , 32/87 are valid and operative . It is not limited to the "State Industries " as contended by the petitioner. The State Legislature was competent to enact the entirety of the Industrial Disputes Act , for its The petitioner was appointed in the respondent company on 9-8-1976 as Voluntary casual worker at Boyapalli mine . Later, he was appointed as Tyndal from 1-3-85 and transferred to Goleti 1 Incline during the year 1997. The petitioner remained absent unauthorisedly for 213 days during the year, 2002 , without any sanctioned 6200
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2005 / JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii)]
years , 2002 & 2003. But , he is saying that due to ill -health, he could not attend to his duties. In support of his oral version, he filed Ex . W- 1to Ex. W- 31 i.e. the reports givenby the various Doctors and the bills paid by him , to the medical department . Ex. W- 1 to Ex . W -31 shows thatthe petitioner was roaming around all the medical departments during that period.
operation within the territory of A.P. , The provisions of Sec . 2 -A(2) having received the assent of the President , the workman of Central Government Industry also can raise the dispute U/ sec . 2 - A ( 2 ) of the I.D. , Act . Thereafter , the contention ofthe respondent's company that Sec. 2-A(2) is not applicable to the petitioner, is without merit or force " .
8. The Advocate for the petitioner also cited U. Chinnapa Vs. Cotton Corp. , of India and others , reported in 1998 (5 ) ALD 16 (DB) . Their Lordships held that:-
The contention of the respondent is that the petitioner had applied for his retirement benefits also and hence, he has no intention to work in the company. But now the petitioner is agitating before the court that due to ill - health , he could not attend to his duties and now he is ready to work in the company.
Hence, the petition is partly allowed.
"there is no warrant to restrict this scope and amplitude of the wide phraseology " any workman " employed in Sub- section (2 ) of Section 2 -A of the Industrial Disputes Act , to the employees working in the State Government Industries and it is also applicable to the employees of the Central Government Industries and the industries carried- onunder the authority of the Central Government " .
In the result , the petition is partly allowed . The respondents are directed to re - instate the petitioner into service, as a fresh candidate , (Tyndal ) , on production of physical fitness certificate duly issued by the Medical Board. The petitioner shall be kept under observation for a period of one year. If he repeats the same , the respondent company is at liberty to take action against the petitioner . There shall be no order as to costs.
In the light of the above decisions , it is quite clear that the petitioner can raise the dispute U/ Sec . 2 - A( 2 ) of I.D. Act , though he worked in the Coal Mine . Hence, the point is answered in favour of the petitioner.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this , the 12th day of April , 2005.
Smt . K. SUVARCHALA , Chairman- cum- Presiding Officer
9. The petitioner worked in the respondent company. Priorto issuing the chargesheet , the petitioner was absent for 213 days in the year, 2002. Even after issuing charge sheet, the petitioner worked only 95 days in the year , 2003. Domestic enquiry was conducted.
Appendix of Evidence Witness Examined
ForWorkman: -NIL-
ForManagement : -NIL-
EXHIBITS
ForWorkman :---
Ex. W- 1 Dt. 25-04-2002
Appollo Hospital Microbiology Rs . 1595
Ex. W-2 Dt . -do-
Immuno Haematology bill for Rs . 1595
Ex. W-3 Dt . -do-
10. Now the petitioner is agitating before the court that opportunity was not given to him to present his case before the enquiry officer . The respondent company filed theappointment order of the petitioner dt . 9-8-1976 i.e.marked asEx. M- 1 . Hisjob was confirmed on 14-3-1986 i.e. , marked as Ex. M -2 . Chargesheet is marked as Ex. M-3 , The petitioner had given explanation to the charge- sheet stating that due to ill -health , he could not attend to his duties i.e. marked as Ex. M-4. The enquiry notice is marked as Ex . M -5 . The enquiry proceedings are marked as Ex. M-7. A notice was issued to the petitioner on 1-7-2003 i.e. marked as Ex.M-8. The petitioner was dismissed from service, through proceedings . ,dt . 22-9-2003 i.e. marked as Ex. M- 9. The office memo is marked as Ex . M- 10 .
Cardiology bill for Rs . 1595
Cash bill for Rs . 4500
Ex. W-4 Dt. -do-
Ex . W-5 Dt .-do-
Cash bill for Rs . 1435
Ex . W-6 Dt. -do-
Bio - chemistry bill for Rs. 1595
O.P. counter bill 2500/ -
Ex. W-7 Dt . -do-
Ex. W-8 Dt .
Radiology bill for Rs. 6360
Ex. W-9 Dt . -do-
11. The enquiry proceeding were signed by the petitioner and there is a clause that the proceedings were read over and explained to the petitioner in Telugu . the petitioner refused to cross - examine the management witnesses . The charge against the petitioner is that he was absent for 213 days in the year, 2002 and it was admitted by the petitioner. The enquiry proceedings were sent to the petitioner and he acknowledged the proceedings.
Haematology bill for Rs . 1595
12.Now the petitioner filed the petition before this court admitting that he was absent for his duties in the Ex. W- 10 Dt . 30-5-2002 Appolo Hospital bill for [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
Rs.2000
Ex. W- 11 Dt. 30-5-2002 Out patient counter report Ex. W- 12 Dt . 25-4-2002 O.P. counter radiology Ex . W- 13 Dt . -do-
Doctor consultation fee Rs. 200
Ex . W- 14 Dt. 29-11-2003 Investigation form Ex. W- 15 Dt . -do-
Cash bill Rs . 340
Ex . W- 16 Dt. 9-6-2003 Invoice cum cash memo Ex. W- 17 Dt. 5-10-2003 Prescription ofDr. N. Ragupathi Rao , M.S. Ex. W- 18 Dt. 29-4-2002 Medical bill particulars
Cash bill for Rs . 727 Ex. W-19 Dt . 29-11-2003
Ex. W-20 Dt. 25-4-2002 Radiology Sheet
Ex. W-21 Dt. -do-
ECGReport
Ex. W-22 Dt . -do-
X-Ray chest PA Report Ex. W-23 Dt. -do-
MRI LUMBAR Spine report Ex. W-24 Dt. -do-
Dept. of Orthopaedics Report
Ex. W-25 Dt. -do-
Dept. of Immuno Serology report
Ex. W-26 Dt . -do-
Biochemistry and therapautic drugmonitoring report Ex. W-27 Dt . -do-
Dept.of Immuno haematology report Ex: W-28 Dt . 5-10-2002 Dept. of Bio -chemistry and therapautic drug monitory report
Ex. W- 29 Dt. 25-4-2002 Dept. of Haematology and clinical pathology report Ex. W-30 Dt. -do-
Haematology and clinical pathology result
Dismissal 1r.
Ex. W-31 Dt . -do-
ForManagement :-
Ex. M- 1 Dt. 9-8-1976 Copy ofAppointment 1r.
Ex. M-2 Dt. 14-3-1986 Copy of confirmation 1r.
Ex. M-3 Dt. 24-3-2003 Chargsheet
Ex. M-4 Dt . -Do-
Explanation to Chargesheet
Enquirynotice .
Ex. M-5 Dt. 25-4-2003
-do-
Ex. M-6 Dt. 3-5-2003
Ex. M-7 Dt. 5-5-2003 Enquiry proceedings Ex. M-8 Dt. 1-7-2003 Notice issued to petitioner with ack. ,
Dismissal order copy.
Ex. M-9 Dt. 22-9-2003 01-10-2003
Office memo
Ex. M- 10 Dt. 6-10-2003
6201
भारत का राजपत्र: जून 18 , 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28 , 1927.
Ex. M- 11 Dt. 20-9-2003 Lr. to Chairman & Managing Director, APRTANSCO , Hyd. , and others by Prl . Secretary to Govt . EnergyDept. , A.P. Secretariat.
नई दिल्ली, 30 मई, 2005
का.आ. 2180. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, एस.सी.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण, नम्बर -1 , हैदराबाद ( संदर्भ संख्या 8/1980 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30-05-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-22013 /1/2005- आई आर ( सी- II ) ] एन.पी. केशवन, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 30th May, 2005
S.O. 2180.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 8/ 1980) of the Industrial Tribunal No. 1 , Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of SCCL and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 30-5-2005 .
[No. L -22013 / 1 /2005 -IR (C- II) ] N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- L, HYDERABAD
Present : SRI M.E.N. Patrudu,
Chairman, Industrial Tribunal - I Dated: 16th day of February, 2005
Miscellaneous Petition No. 7/2003
in
Industrial Dispute No. 8/1980
BETWEEN :
PasikaRayamallu ,
Petitioner S/o. Sri Rajam Occ. Making Mazdoor, Aged 51 years , Yellandu Nor Basti , Yellandu, Khammam District
And
1. Dy. General Manager (P)
CorporateOffice, The Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. , (AGovt . Company) Kothagudem Collieries , Kathagudem.
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] 6202
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2005 /JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
2. The Superintending Engineer (E & M) , AreaWorkshop, The Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. , (AGovt . Company ) , Ellandu Khammam District.
3. The General Manager,
4.01 It is further stated that when the matter is pending for further consideration the petitioner was transferred from Yellandu to Mandamarri area and he was relieved on 15-5-2003 but subsequently the transfer order was kept in abeyance and later on the petitioner was permitted to report on 14-7-2003 and he reported accordingly.
The Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. ,
(AGovt . Company) ,
Mandamarri Area , KarimnagarDistrct .
4.02 The contention of the petitioner is that in terms of Section 33 ( 1 ) (a) of I.D. Act when there is any I.D. ispending the condition of service of the workman shall not be altered .
4. The Collerie Manager ,
Manda Marri Area ,
KK V-A Incline , Mandamarri.
Adilabad District . Respondent/Respondents
Appearances :
4.03 It is seriously contended that the management has no right to transfer him and it is nothing but alteration of the service of conditions . It is further stated that the management has transferred the petitioner alone and it is unfair labour practice and it is an Act of victimisation as he is a trade unionist and it is not on administrative grounds .
M/ s. G. Vidyasagar and P. Sudheer Rao , Advocates for the Petitioner.
5.00 CASE OF THE RESPONDENTS :
M/s. K. Srinivas Murthy,
Ms. Uma Devi and C. Vijayasekhar Reddy,
Advocates for the Respondents .
***
AWARD
The respondent filed counter denying all the material allegations . It is admitted that the petitioner was a workman of the respondent and I.D. 8/1980 was returned and award was pronounced and again it was remitted and is now pending.
1.00 PETITION:
This is a petition under 33A of I.D. Act .
2.00 PETITIONER :
Pasika Rayamallu , is the petitioner
3.00 RESPONDENTS :
The four respondents are :
5.01 It is clearly stated that the petitioner was transferred from Ylllandu to Mandamarri purely on administrative grounds and it is in accordance with the condition mentioned in the appointment order of the petitioner that the petitioner service are liable tobe transferred in any Mine/Department ofthe company.
(1) Dy. General Manager (P ) Corporate Office,
(2) The Superintending Engineer (E & M) , Area Workshop,
(3) The General Manager the Singareni Collieries CompanyLtd.
(4) The Collerie Manager, KK V- A Incline , Manda MarriArea.
4.00 CASE OF THE PETITIONER :
5.02 The contention of the respondent is that an order of transfer of any employee is a part of service conditions and it is not an alteration of service and ifthe employees are not allowed to transfer from one post to another post or from one place to another palce on the ground of some dispute the management will be helpless . There is no malafide Act and if there is malafide then the court is competent to verify and there is no such malafide Act in the instant case .
6.00 EVIDENCE :
Onbehalf of petitioner WW1 was examined and 3 documents are marked .
Onbehalfof respondent RW 1 was examined and 4 documents are marked .
7.00 ARGUMENTS :
The case of the petitioner is that he raised an Industrial Dispute and same was registered as I.D. 8/1989 and an award was pronounced in his favour and the said award was challenged by the Management of Singareni Collieries in W.P. 299/ 94 and it was allowed and the union filed an appeal in Writ Appeal 268/98. and it was allowed and the Hon'ble High Court has set aside the orders in Writ Petition 299/94 as well as the award 268/98 and remitted the matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration.
Heard arguments of both sides. Both sides filed written arguments also .
6203 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: जून 18 , 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28 , 1927
8.00 POINT :
Point for my determination is whether the order of transfer ofpetitioner is liable to be set aside.
prohibitedunder Section 33 what is prohibited is a alteration and condition of the service in regard to any matter connected with the disputre. Thus the main important work is "connected with the dispute . "
9.00 DISCUSSION ON POINTS :
The contention of the petitioner is when the ID is pending he was transferred and it is a contravention . His case is that he is one of the workmen in Industrial Dispute .
10.00 Perused the dispute referred for adjudication in I.D. 8/80 .
14.00 in the instant case the dispute is with regard to placing tub repairing mazdoor and tub repairing making mazdoor in category II in tub repairing and making section. Thus the dispute is with regard to placing of the tub repairing and making mazdoor in the category II and that is main dispute which has to be verified in I.D. 8/80 and the said dispute is nothing to do with transfer of workmen or payment ofwages and salary of the workmen or initiating an action in case ifa workman violates discipline.
33Aempowers an employee to move a complaint before the authorities when ever there is a contraventionof the provisions of Section 33.
It is " whether the action of the management of M/ s. Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd. , in placing in category II Tub - repairing/making mazdoor in Tub repairing/making section at Yellandu workshop is justified. If not, to what relief are the concerned workman entitled ?"
11.00 Thus the dispute is with regard to the Tub repairing and making mazdoor working with the manage- ment .
Butifthe service ofthe workman has been altered inaccordance with standing orders or as per usual procedure or on regular administrative action , such alteration can never be treated as the contravason of the provisions of the Section 3 even if such alteration is unreasonable or unjustified .
11.01 Ex-P1 established that the petitioner was working as Tub repairing mazdoor so he is one of the workman concerned with the dispute .
Court has to examine closely the surrounding circumstances.
12.00 Whether the transfer of a workman amounts to contravention attracting section 33 of I.D. Act is a core question to be decided.
The standing order 21 deals with transfer of employees .
13.00 Section 33 of I.D. Act is as follows : (a)
conditions of service , etc. , to remain unchanged under certain circumstances during pendence of proceedings.
Close perusal of the said standing order discloses that a workman can be transferred from one place to another place depending on the necessity ofthe work . If further clarifies that when the salaries or the condition of the service of such workman is not be effected due to transfer it is not violation. It is further stated that the workman should be transferred to the same department to maintain the uniformity ofthe work.
(a) in regard to any matter connected with the dispute , alter to the prejudice of the workmen conccerned in such dispute , the conditions of service applicable to them immediately before the commencement of such proceedings ; or
The respondent cited the following decision in support oftheir contention . In Union of India and otherVs. Janardhan Debanath and another .
In para 9 their lordship observed as follows:-
Abare reading of Rule 37 shows that officials of theDepartment are liable to be transferred to any part of India unless it is expressly ordered otherewise for any particular class or classes of officials . Transfers were not to be ordered except when advisable in the interests ofpublic service . The transfers can be made subject to conditions The object behind communicating Section 33 is a break the workman in dispute against victimization by the employer on account of raising ID or continuing the said proceedings . It is with an intention to restrain further disputes and to maintain cordial relation between the employer and the workman and it is with a view to provide clam and peaceful atmosphere in dispute by any other I.D. Plain and effective reading of the provisions disclosed that it is not every alteration i.e..
1714 GI/05-34 6204
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2005 /JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
laid down in FRs 15 and 22. The appellant has indicated as to why and under what circumstances the transfers were thought proper in the interests ofpublic service . The High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India had gone into the question as to whether the transfer was in the interest of public service . That would essentially require factual adjudication and invariably depend upon the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case concerned.
No Government servant or employee of a public undertaking has any legal right to be posted forever at any one particular place or place of his choice since transfer of a particular employee appointed to the class or category of transferable posts from one place to another is not only an incident , but a condition of service , necessary too in public interest and efficiency in the public administration .
Unless an order of transfer is shown to be an out come ofmalafide exercise or state to be in violation of statutory provisions prohibiting any such transfer, the Courts or the Tribunals normally cannot interfere with such orders as a matter of routine , as though they were the appellate authorities substituting their own decision for that of the employer/ management , as against such orders passed in the interest of administrative exigencies of the service concerned .
This position was highlighted in National Hydroelectric Power Corpn . Ltd. , Vs. Shri Bhagwan AIR 2001 SC 3309 : 2001 ( 8) SCC574 : 2001-II-LLJ- 1243 .
15.00 Therefore the Hon'ble Supreme Court clearly held that transfer unless they involve adverse impact on the concerned workman with any penal consequence they are not required to be scrutiny by the Court as in the case of discharge or termination.
15.01 And utmost latitude should be left with the department concerned to enforce discipline decency and decorum in public service it is indisputably essential to maintain quality ofpublic service and when it is made towards administration exigency to ensure smooth functioning of the administration .
15.02 The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the question whether the workman could be transferred to a different division is a matter of the employer to consider demanding upon the administrative necessities and the extent of solution for the
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] problems faced by the administration and it is not for the court to interfere .
16.00 The learned counsel for the respondent also cited the decision delivered by High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
Inwrit petition 12150/89 between
S. Malleshwariah-petitioner Vs. The Chairman & ManagingDirector Singareni Colleries and other- respondent.
It is a case of transfer and the said petitioner was transferred from 18M Power House Ramagundam to Bhoopetpalli and it was challenged by way of writ.
The Hon'ble High Court discussed in detail and referred various judgments and held that there is noviolation of statutory rule if person is transferred from one place to another place since they are not malafide.
17.00 Thus the amanagement has a right to transfer any employee either on administrative grounds or in the case of necessity.
17.01 In the instant case whether as act of transfer of petitioner by the respondent amounts to contravention of the condition of the service .
18.00 Section 33A applicable only when the employer has contravenedthe provisions of 33 .
Under section 33 it is specifically said that the condition of service should remain unchanged in the matter connected with the dispute.
I already held that the main dispute is nothing to dowith transfer of the petitioner.
In this case the petitioner was transferred as per standing orders and as per the impugned order . and there is no alteration of his condition ofservice as he is posted in the same department and as he is getting the same salary and the only change'is work place. Instead of Yellandu he was asked to work at Mandamarri . Except this there is no other change hence it is not a contravention and it is not an alteration and it is not violation of any of the provisions.
Therefore, there are no merits in the petitioner and the petition is liable to be dismissed .
19.00 In the result the petitioner is dismissed .
Dictatedto the Shorthand Writer, transcribed by him corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 16th day of February, 2005 .
M.E.N. PATRUDU , Chairman [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
6205
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18, 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28 , 1927
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
REFERENCE NO . 15 OF 1995 .
PARTIES:
Witness examined for Petitioner:
...Management PW1 : Pasika Rayamallu
Witness examined for Respondent :
TheAgent, TilaboniColliery, P.O. Ukhra, Distt. Burdwan (WB) .
RW1 : R.K. Prabhu
Vrs.
Documents marked for the
..Workman
Sri ChaudhuryMardi,
Ex-P1 : Xerox copy of office order (Administrative ) dated 13-3-2003 transferring the PW1 .
Dresser represented by President, CollieryMazdoor Union, CinemaRoad, Ukhra, Distt. Burdwan(WB) .
Ex-P2 : Xerox copy ofRelieving Order dated 2-7-2003 issued to PW1 .
REPRESENTATIVES :
:
FortheManagement
Ex -P3 : Xerox copy of office order dated 17-7-2003 posting PW1 at KK. 5A incline .
SriP.D Das, Advocate .
For the Workman
None.
Coal
Industry
Ex. P4: Xerox copy of the letter dated 13-4-2003 to PW1 allowing him for dutyfrom 3-4-2003 .
State
WestBengal .
Documents marked for the Respondents
Nil
Dated 18-2-2005 AWARD
नई दिल्ली, 30 मई, 2005
Inexercise ofthe powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub -section ( 1) and Sub - section 2(A) ofthe Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Government of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L-22012/507/94 -IR (C.II) dated 2-3-1995 has beenpleased to refere the following dispute for adjudication bythis Tribunal .
SCHEDULE
का.आ. 2181.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, ई.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, असनसोल ( संदर्भ संख्या 15/1995 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30-05-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-22012/507/94- आई आर ( सी- II ) ]
एम.पी. केशवन, डैस्क अधिकारी
"Whether the action of the management of Tilaboni Colliery, Bankola Area of M/s . Eastern Coalfields Ltd. , P.O. Ukhra, Distt . Burdwan (W.B. ) indismissing Sri Chaudhury Mandi , Dresser w.e.f. 12-10-91 is justified? If not , to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to ? "
New Delhi , the 30th May, 2005
2. After receipt of the aforesaid order of reference summons were issued to the respective parties through the registered post and after having received the summons boththeparties appeared and filed their respective written statement in support of their claims:
S.O. 2181.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 15/ 1995) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of ECL and their workman, which was receivedby the Central Government on 30-5-2005 .
[No. L- 22012/507 /94- IR (C-II)]
N.P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL.
PRESENT:
3. On persual of the record it transpires that since 21-10-2002 no step is being taken onbehalf of the union. It is further clear from the record that registered notice was issued to the union which was duly served upon the union . The service report of the registered notice is also attached withthe record but unfortunately even after due service of the notice like union did neither appear nor take any steps . The order sheet itself go to show the regular absence of the union indicating that the union has get no interest and does not want to proceed with the case . This reference is pending since the year 1995. No purpose is to be served in keeping the record pending . As such it is hereby ordered that let a " NO DISPUTE AWARD " be passed and the same ispassed. Send the copy of the award to the Ministry of Labour for information and needful. The reference is accordingly disposed of.
Md. SARFARAZ KHAN, Presiding Officer Sri Md. Sarfaraz Khan, PresidingOfficer.
6206
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18, 2005/JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
नईदिल्ली, 30 मई, 2005
2. Brief facts of the case are that workman filed claim statement claiming in this court that workman was appointed as security guard in the FCI , Depot Dhand, now Teh. and District Kaithal on 3-12-87, since then the workman was in service in the FCI Depot Dhand as chowkidar . The fact that workman was employed as chowkidar by the FCI depotDhand and working there as such is fully borne out from the following records of the FCI Depot Dhand as well:
का. आ. 2182.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार, एफ. सी.आई. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , नम्बर-1 , चण्डीगढ़ ( संदर्भ संख्या 1/95 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30-5-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
(1) The workman presence is marked in the log books for the year 1988 , 1989 and 1990 .
[सं. एल-22012 /246/एफ/93- आई आर ( सी- II ) ] एन. पी. केशवन, डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 30th May , 2005
(ii) The workman presence is also marked in the Pucca registers alongwith that of regular employees for the year 1988 and 1989 .
(iii) Theworkman name is also included in the order filesregarding appointment.
(iv) The workman name is also borne on the pay rolls of the FCI , one copy of the pay roll is retained in the office of the FCI .
S.O. 2182. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 1/95) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court, No. I , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of FCI and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 30-5-2005.
(v) The workman photo was pasted on the registers of the FCI of the year 1988 .
[No. L- 22012/246/F/ 93 - IR (C-II) ] N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT- I, CHANDIGARH
3. That the workman has already actually worked for about three years as chowkidar in the FCI . Depot Dhand and he was in continuous service of the FCI ignoring the notional and permissible breaks , which were not due to any fault on his part . The workman was making requests to the management for regularization of his services .
Presiding Officer: Shri Rajesh Kumar
Case No. ID 1/95
Shri Ram Kumar
S/o Sh . Anant Ram ,
V & P. O. ChuharMajra, Tehsil & Distt . Kaithal
Applicant
(Haryana) .
Versus
4. That there is relationship between FCI and workman interse, was directly of master and servant and the workman was not the servant of any contractor . Thus the workman was the direct employee of the FCI and the management instead of regularizing the services of the workman, terminated his services without giving any opportunity of hearing and without payment of retrenchment compensation.
TheDistrict Manager , Food Corporation of India, Kothi No. 16, Urban Estate, Sector 13 , Kurukshetra .
Respondent
APPEARANCES :
For the war nan : Shri Raj Deep Singh Tacoria
Shri Pramod Kumar
For the management:
AWARD
Passed on 26-04-2005
5. That since the workman come within the definition of workman as defined under the I.D. Act 1947 , the management has not complied Section 25F of the I.D. Act before removing the workman. In other words , the workman was entitled to be treated in regular service of FCI Depot Dhand and he is also entitled to draw wages equivalent to other chowkidars working on regular basis as he was also performing the same duties as being performed by the regular chowkidars . The principle of last come first go has not been followed by the management and his services were illegally terminated.
Central Govt . vide Notification No. L- 22012 /246/F / 93 - IR (C -II) dated 9th of December, 1994 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:-
6. The management filed the written statement raising preliminary objection that there is no relationship of servant and master between the workman and the FCI . On merits the management submitted that the workman was never employed by the management and as such workman allegedly calling himself to be workman cannot derive any benefit under the I.D. Act 1947, rather workman employed assecurity guard are not the employed by the management Whether the action of the management of Food Corporation of India Kurukshetra, in terminating the services of Shri Ram Kumar, w.e.f. 2-3-90 is just, fair and legal ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to ? " 6207
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18 , 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28 , 1927
[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
10. Final arguments heard. Both the parties are in agreement that all six, one is cases ofRam Kumar and five others are similar and similar facts , evidence and law is referred by the parties . The management has filed copy of a document Ex . M2 , agreement alleged to be between the management of FCland M/s . Ex-servicemen Security Service Kurukshetra dated 3-1-1986 . This agreement executed on3-1-1986 is for 89 days and was extendable by the parties for further period if required by the corporation . As per clause 8 of this agreement, the security guards posted in the depots will obey the instructions of AM (D)/Depot . In charge and will not have any objection for posting at any particular unit/watch point . Ex . M3 is the letter dated 6-7-88 ofGovt . of India, Ministry of Labour granting license on the above date 6-7-88 when FCI filed an application dated 23-2-1988, Ex. M4 is the license, Ex. M4 is the license granted to Ex-servicemen Security Service on 8-7-88 which was validupto 7-7-89.
rather their services were hired through a contractor in accordance with the provisions of law. The deployment of chowkidars depends upon the contingency of work and when the procurement is heavy, the watch and ward staff is increased and when the stock liquidate, the watch and ward staff is decreased and deployment of watch and ward staff depends upon the stock position in the depot . And the work done by a chowkidar does not form an integral part of the business of the corporation . It is further submitted that the workman was never appointed as security guard in the FCI Depot. , Dhand , District Kaithal on 2-3-1990 and he is not in the service of the corporation since that date as chowkidar . In fact, the District Manager. FCI , Kurukshetra entered into an agreement with M/ s . Ex- Servicemen Security Service , Kurukshetra on 3-1-1986 to provide security guards in the various depots of FCI under the District Manager FCI Kurukshetra. The District Manager , FCI Kurukshetra got registation under Section 7 ofthe Contract labour (R & A) Act, 1970 vide certificate No. 46 (R- 5)/88 -ALR dated 4-7-88 from the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central ) Rohtak and the security agency got Licence under Section 12 of the said act vide Licence No. 46 (L -45)/ 88 ALR, dated 8-7-88 .
11. The management in this case did not file copy of orderofposting of workman Ram Kumar and affidavit of contractor M. L. Jindal shown as M6 whereas, filed in other similar cases . Perhaps the management was not having a copies to place in this case . This I have noticed at the time ofjudgment and as both the parties are in agreement and submitted that evidence in reference to other five cases including this one as led by both the parties in case of Roshan Lal and in case of Roshan Lal this posting order as well as affidavit has been filed are the same and has been discussed by me in that case at length. Both parties argued at length in Roshan Lal's case and requested to consider the same in other five cases of both the parties . I am, therefore, of the view that even these two documents non- existence taken as existed on this file even then the case of the management will have no effect at these documents are discussed by me in case of Roshan lal .
7. The claim of the workman is not correct as workman is not the employee of the FCI and he was the employee of the contractor who was deputed by the above contractorto perform his duties at FCI depot at Dhand . It is further submitted that as the time of opening and closing of godowns are not in the log book of each sheet, hence it has been signed by the Security guard as his duty. It is further submitted that every workman has to sign his arrival/ departure on duty in the duty register whether he is permanent or employed through contractor and he has to put his signatures in the register kept for the purpose. It is also submitted that appointment letters are issued by the specific agency informing the Assistant Manager Depot regarding the deployment of workers. These letters were addressed to the Assistant Managers Depot and the same are kept in the file for records . And the management never issued appointment letters to the workman. The name ofthe workman is not borne in the pay role ofthe management and as such the question of retaining one copy of the pay rolls as alleged does not arise . In fact the pay rolls are prepared by the Security Agency and the workman are paid by the said Security agency and the record pertaining to payments madeto the workmen are maintained by the Security agency and no register as alleged in maintained by the FCI .
8.Workman filed replication wherein he controverted the contents of the written statement and reiterated the claim made in the claim statement.
12. Learned counsel for the workman Shri R. S. Tacoria in arguments submitted that it is a simple case where workman was removed from service and his services were terminated without any notice , an no enquiry was held and no compensation as required U/ S 25 of the I.D. Act, 1947 was paid. Undoubtedly the workman worked for more than 240 days and it is not disputed that Ram Kumar was appointed on 3-12-1987 and other five workmen namely Bhag Singh, Maman Singh , Randhir Singh, Roshan Lal and Krishan Lal whose cases are separate were appointed on sometime on 12-1-1987, 31-8-1986, 31-8-1986, 1-4-1988, 18-5-1987 respectively. They all were removed from service on 2-3-1990. No appointment letter was given to them i.e. the workmen that they were appointed as security guards at depots and gave duty from the date of appointment till the date of their termination as contractor did not file a document showing receipt of appointment letter by the workmen. Without receipt of delivery to workmen it can be said to be fabricated . The workmen worked for almost two years at a stretch continuously and it is not disputed by 9. In support of his case, in evidence the workman filed his own affidavit, whereas the management has filed two affidavits Ex. Ml of R. K. Bansal , District Manager and another affidavit Ex . M6 of Mr. M. L. Jindal as contractor ofthe management for supply of guards to the management.
6208
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2005 /JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
[PART II SEC . 3 ( ii) ]
He also submitted that it is duty of the workman to call for the record and to prove his claim by calling the documents . By not calling any document of the contractor or that of the FCI the workman has failed to prove his case . The counsel further submitted that the management has proved onrecord from copy of agreement Ex . M2 between the FCI and the contractor and the management that the management was in possession of license to engage a contractor who will provide security guards for the FCI . That document is Ex. M3 . He further submitted that management also proved Ex . M4 which is also a license granted to the contractor. He also submitted that workman has not proved any document . They were not issued any appointment letter by the FCI nor they were in the service of the FCI . To prove their documents as well as their contentionand pleadings, the management has examined two witnesses Mr. R. K. Bansal , District Manager andM. L. Jindal and also proved documents Ex. M2 to M4 and affidavit Ex. M1 . He further submitted that there was no relationship of employer and employees between the management and the workmen and the services of the workmen were utilized by the FCI through contractor as per copy of agreement Ex. M2 . Learned counsel for the management Shri Pramod Jain submitted that the management has proved its case fully and workman failed to prove his claim and the reference may be answered in favour of the management.
the management . The only defense of the management is that workman is not their employee , being not appointed by the FCI and his services were taken by M/ s . Ex-servicemen Security Service Kurukshetra and that there is no relationship of employer and employee between them. He submitted that workman by his own affidavit and cross- examination on oath has deposed that he was directly employed by the FCI and that his services were terminated without any notice or compensation in violation of Section 25F of the I.D. Act, 1947. He also submitted that undisputedly the management is a Govt . statutory body and governed by the statutory rules and regulations . The management staff is a staff which is also governed by the rules and regulations . He submitted that the workman is illiterate and poor person and the management officials has exploited their weakness and terminated the services of the workman without complying the mandatory provisions of the I.D. Act . It is submitted that the documents filed by the management are itself show that these are not trustworthy documents and submitted that copy of agreements dated 1-3-1986 and license of the FCI granted on 6-7-88 for postings of guards/chowkidars through contractor on their application dated 23-2-1988 and it is story of the management that as per copy of written agreement Ex . M2 , the contractor provided services of the workman as chowkidars - cum - guard to the FCI and FCI posted them in different godowns , offices and a per agreement the workmen will work under the direction of the management and they will not raise any objection of posting etc. It is also submitted that workman on oath has proved his case and denied the case of the management that he was not the employee of the FCI Depot Dhand or that his services were taken by the FCI through contractor mentioned above .
15. Inview of the above submissions , oral evidence ofboth the parties and documents filed by the management, I have found that in nutshell , as not disputed by the parties , a short point to be resolved is that whether workmen are the employees of the FCI or that workers were provided by theEx -servicemen Security Service Kurukshetra to the FCI for engagement and utilizing their service as chowkidars in accordance with the copy of agreement Ex. M2 .
16. I have found that in this case , the management has filed copy of agreement Ex. M2 which is the base of the case of the management in all cases . Other document is ExM3 , letter granting permission for the engagements of workmen through contractor and order of contractor deputing workman for duty with FCI. On perusal of the entire documents , evidence on record and pleading of the parties, I found that there is copy of agreement Ex . M2 dated 3-1-1986 entered into between the contractor and the management . Para 2 of this agreement is reproduced below:
"Whereas the SSS has offered to supply security guards to the Corporation for a period of 89 days initially, extendable by the period if required by the corporation for the purposes of securty under the terms and conditions set forth hereunder . " 13. On the other hand , except copy of document Ex. M2 the management has not filed any document which could prove that Ex . M2 was executed for workmen i.e. list of total workmen supplied to the management , payment received by the contractor from the FCI or that such appointments order were also given to workmen . The management miserably failed to prove that workman was not appointed by the management . Rather by evidence of the poor workman as WW1 himself on oath be stated in his affidavit that he was employed by the FCI and he has denied the suggestion that he was the employee of the contractor and it is also a case of the workman and that it is for the management to prove that the workman was appointed by the contractor as per agreement which the management miserably failed to prove . Accordingly the case of the workman may be allowed and he may be ordered to be reinstated in service with full back wages with all consequential relief.
14. On the other hand the learned counsel for the management submitted that claim is false and the management has proved by the evidence of the contractor.
17. I have found that at the most case of the management could be that on 3-1-1986 , the FCI management had made an agreement that the SSS Kurukshetra shall supply chowkidars - cum - guards to the FCI and the [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
6209
भारत का राजपत्र: जून 18 , 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28, 1927
document was produced that workmen were appointed by contractor and appointment letters were given to the workmen.
19. On the other hand by simple perusing evidence of the workman who is poor and illiterate person by uncontroverted and unshakable oral evidence that he was the employee of the FCI and FCI has engaged him. He denied all the suggestions and thereafter FCI filed a copy of agreement to prove its case which agreement is expired agreement and not applicable for the relevant period. I therefore , hold and decide the reference in favour of the workman that he was appointed by the FCI and he was not theemployee of the contractorM/s. Ex- servicemen Security Service Kurukshetra. I further hold that as the workmen were the employees of the FCI and their services were terminated on 2-3-1990 without any notice and retrenchment compensation and it is a violation of Section 25F of the I.D.Act, 1947 .
agreement was extendable by the period if required by the corporation. This agreement Ex. M2 exhausted after 89 days i.e. on 1-4-1986 itself. This document whose photocopy wasfiled in the Court compel to think whether it is genuine document because why only this document i.e. copy of agreement was filed. This document as per its contents expired on 1-4-1986 and the management has not filed any other copy of further agreements in original . As the agreement Ex . M2 expires on 1-4-1986 itself and there is no words to say that it was extended further or during the period in dispute or in the relevant period there existed a agreement between the Ex- servicemen Security Service Kurukshetra and the FCI. Neither management led any oral evidence nor filed any further agreement that there were further agreements after 1-4-1986 to supply the security guard/chowkidars through the contractor to the FCI. Further more the affidavit of the contractor M.L. Jindal is dated 8-2-02 , it is a affidavit which have been filled in the blanks as columns were left blank when it was prepared and not a typed affidavit .
20. Therefore, the present reference is decided in favour of the workman holding that the action of the management of FCI Kurukshetra in terminating the services ofRam Kumar Ex -chowkidar/ watchman w.e.f. 2-3-90 is not just, fair and legal . Accordingly claim of the workman is allowed. He is entitled to be engaged on the same post which he was holding on 2-3-1990 on the date of his termination on the same terms and conditions with continuity of service.
21. As regards back wages , the workman neither in his affidavit nor in claim statement has claimed that he remained unemployed during the relevant period after his termination to date . Therefore, in the circumstances he is not entitled to any back wages from 2-3-90 to the date of award . The reference is answered in favour of the workman. Central Govt . be informed. File be consigned to record.
Chandigarh. 26-4-2005
RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 30 मई , 2005
का. आ. 2183.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एफ. सी. आई. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नम्बर -1 , चण्डीगढ़ ( संदर्भ संख्या 5/94 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30-5-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल -22012/77/एफ/93- आई आर ( सी- II ) ] एन. पी. केशवन , डैस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 30th May, 2005
S.O. 2183.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial. Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 5/94) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court , No. I, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the 18.As per agreement Ex .M2 , it is clear that it expired after 89 days on 1-4-1986 and only this copy was filed by the management in the court for the consideration and thereafter no agreement was in existence as not filed. This is the only agreement and there is no agreement for the relevant period for which the workman worked and the management is alleging that during this period the workman was employed by the contractor. Had the management was having relevant executed agreements for the relevant period, they must have produced the same in the court . Non-production of the agreements between the parties for the relevant period to prove that services of the workman were engaged by the FCI through the contractor, I am of the considered view that as there is no agreement appears to be in existence as not produced by the management in the Court to prove their contentions when the management could prove that the workman worked in the service of the contractor M/ s . Ex - servicemen Security Service Kurukshetra for the relevant period . It further make strong the case of the workman as the management failed to produce any document which can corroborates the existence and execution of agreement beetween the above contractor andthe FCI that the workmen was engaged by the FCI through contractor during the relevant period . An office order ofthe contractor to the management of FCI showing postings of a workman for the FCI cannot prove appointment anything in the absence of any agreement to this effect also or any correspondence like appointment letter handed over to the workman by the contractor. I therefore, hold that the management failed to prove that the workman of this case and other five cases mentioned above which are similar are the employees of the contractor M/s. Ex-servicemen Security Service Kurukshetra and are not the employees of the FCI . The management failed to prove that contractor appointed the workmen as no [PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ] 6210
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18, 2005 / JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
(iv) The workman name is also borne on the pay rolls of the FCI, one copy of the pay roll is retained in the office of the FCI .
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of FCI and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 30-5-2005 .
[No. L- 22012/77 /F/93 - IR (C -II)]
N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer
(v) The workman photo was pasted on the Registers of the FCI of the year 1987 & 1988 .
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL -CUM - LABOUR COURT - I, CHANDIGARH
Presiding Officer : SHRI RAJESH KUMAR
Case No. ID 5/94
3. That the workman has already actually worked for about four years as chowkidar in the FCI , Depot Dhand and he was in continuous service of the FCI ignoring the notional and permissible breaks , which were not due to any fault on his part. The workman was making requests to the management for regularization of his services.
Shri Randhir Singh
S/o Sh . Sadhu Ram ,
V& P. O. Chuhar Majra, Tehsil & Distt. Kaithal
Applicant
(Haryana).
Versus
TheDistrict Manager ,
FoodCorporation of India ,
4. That there is relationship between FCI and workman interse, was directly of master and servant and theworkman was not the servant of any contractor . Thus the workman was the direct employee of the FCI and the management instead of regularizing the services of the workman, terminated his services without giving any opportunity of hearing and without payment of retrenchment compensation.
Kothi No. 16,
Urban Estate,
Respondent
Sector 13 , Kurukshetra .
APPEARANCES :
Shri Raj Deep Singh Tacoria
Forthe workman:
し Shri Pramod Kumar
For the management:
AWARD
Passed on 26-04-05
5. That since the workman come within the definition of workman as defined under the I.D. Act 1947 , the management has not complied Section 25F of the I. D. Act before removing the workman. In other words, the workman was entitled to be treated in regular service of FCI , Depot Dhand and he is also entitled to draw wages equivalent to other chowkidars working on regular basis as he was also performing the same duties as being performed by the regular chowkidars . The principle of last come first go has not been followed by the management and his services were illegally terminated.
Central Govt. vide notification No. L-22012/77 /F/93 - IR (C- II) dated 4th of January, 1994 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :-
Whether the action of the management of Food Corporation of India Kurukshetra , in terminating the services of Shri Randhir Singh , Ex - chowkidar/ watchman w.e.f. 2-3-90 is just, fair and legal ? If not, to what benifits the workman is entitled to and from what date ? "
2. Brief facts of the case are that workman filed- claim statement claiming in this court that workman was appointed as security guard in the FCI , Depot Dhand, now Teh . & district Kaithal on 31-8-86 , since then the workman was in service in the FCI Depot Dhand as chowkidar. The fact that workman was employed as chowkidar by the FCI Depot Dhand and working there as such is fully borne out from the following records of the FCI Depot Dhand as well:
(1) The workman presence is marked in the log books for the year 1987, 1988 , 1989 and 1990.
6. The management filed the written statement raising preliminary objection that there is no relationship ofservant and master between the workman and the FCI . Onmerits the management submitted that the workman was never employed by the management and as such workman allegedly calling himselfto be workman can not derive any benefit under the I.D. Act 1947, rather workman employed as security guard are not the employed by the management rather their services were hired through a contractor in accordance with the provisions of law. The deployment of chowkidars depends upon the contingency ofwork and when the procurement is heavy, the watch andward staff is increased and when the stock liquidate, the watch and ward staff is decreased and deployment of watch and ward staff depends upon the stock position in the depot. And the work done by a chowkidar does not form an integral part of the business of the corporation . It is further submitted that the workman was never appointed (ii) The workman presence is also marked in the Pucca registers alongwith that of regular employees for the year 1986, 1987 & 1988 .
assecurityguard in the FCI Depot, Dhand, District Kaithal on 2-3-1990 and he is not in the service of the corporation since that date as chowkidar. In fact, the District manager, FCI , Kurukshetra entered into an agreement with M/s . Ex-ServicemenSecurity Service , Kurukshetra on 3-1-1986 (iii) Theworkman name is also included in the order filesregarding appointment .
6211
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18 , 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28 , 1927
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
on the above date 6-7-88 when FCI filed an application dated 23-2-1988 , Ex. M4 is the license, Ex. M4 is the license grantedto Ex-servicemen Security Service on 8-7-88 which wasvalid upto7-7-89 . Ex. M5 is a photocopy of the Office Order dated 29-8-86 showing that director has appointed workman and it is information to the management which reads as under:
to provide security guards in the various depots of FCI under the District manager FCI Kurukshetra . The district manager, FCI Kurukshetra got registration under Section 7 ofthe Contract labour (R &A) Act , 1970 vide certificate No. 46 (R- 5) /88 -ALR dated 4-7-88 from the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central ) Rohtak and the security agency got Licence under Section 12 of the said act vide Licence No. 46 (L-45)/88 ALR, dated 8-7-88.
"The following personal are hereby appointed as security guards in Ex - servicemen Security Services Kurukshetra and are directed to report to AM( D) Buffer GodownDhand for duties:
1. Moman Singh S /o Mughla Ram V.P. O. Chuhar Majra Distt . Kurukshetra. (replacement of Sher Singh)
2. Randhir Singh S/o Sadhu Ram V.P. O. Chur Majra Distt . Kurukshetra. (replacement ofRoop Chand) .
Ex- servicemen Security Service reserves the right to terminate the services of security guards at any time without giving any notice or reason.
Sd/- MD, SSS
Distribution:
1.
AM (D) BG Dhand
2. D. M. FCI Kurukshetra "
7. The claim ofthe workman is not correct as workman is not the employee of the FCI and he was the employee of the contractor who was deputed by the above contractor toperform his duties at FCI depot at Dhand . It is further submitted that as the time of opening and closing of godowns are not in the log book of each sheet, hence it has been signed by the Security guard as his duty. It is further submitted that every workman has to sign his arrival/ departure on duty in the duty register whether he is permanent or employed through contractor and he has to put his signatures in the register kept for the purpose. It is also submitted that appointment letters are issued by the specific agency informing the Assistant Manager Depot regarding the deployment of workers . These letters were addressed to the Assistant Managers Depot and the same arekept in the file for records . And the management never issued appointment letters to the workman . The name of theworkman is not borne in the pay role of the management and as such the question of retaining one copy of the pay rolls as alleged does not arise. In fact the pay rolls are prepared by the Security Agency and the workman are paidby the said Security agency and the record pertaining to payments made to the workmen are maintained by the Security agency and no register as alleged is maintained bythe FCI.
11. This office order appears to be a document prepared by the Contractor showing appointment of a security guard and copy sent to the management Food Corporation of India three offices . It does not bear the signatures in token of receipt by the workman in any manner or that he was ever shown this office order .
8.Workman filed replication wherein he controverted the contents of the written statement and reiterated the claim made in the claim statement.
9. In support of his case, in evidence the workman filedhis own affidavit, whereas the management has filed two affidavits Ex. Ml of R. K. Bansal , district manager and another affidavit Ex . M6 of Mr. M. L. Jindal as contractor of the management for supply of guards to the management .
12. The management also filed Ex. M1 the affidavit of R.K. Bansal District Manager and Ex . M6 the affidavit of M.L. Jindal who was stated to be the contractor. As regard the affidavit ofM.L. Jindal Ex. M6 it appears that relevant entries are filled in it including dates as it is preparedby someone and thereafter fill in the blanks were made . The workmanhas filed his own affidavit in evidence as Ex. W1.
13. Learned counsel for the workman Shri R. S. Tacoria in arguments submitted that it is a simple case where workman was removed from service and his services were terminated without any notice , and no enquiry was held and no compensation as required U/s . 25 of the I.D. Act1947 was paid. Undoubtedly the workman worked for more than 240 days and it is not disputed that Randhir Singh was appointed on 31-8-1986 and other five workmen namely Bhag Singh, Ram Kumar, Moman Singh, Roshan Lal & Krishan Lal whose cases are separate were appointed onsome time as on 12-1-1987, 3-12-1987, 31-8-86, 1-4-1988 , 18-5-87 respectively. They all were removed from service Randhir Singh on 2-3-90 . No appointment letter 10. Final arguments heard. Both the parties are in agreement that all six cases is one is Randhir Singh and fiveothers are similar and similar facts , evidence and law is referred by the parties . The management has filed copy of a document Ex. M2 , agreement alleged to be between the management of FCI and M/s . Ex - servicemen Security Service Kurukshetra dated 3-1-1986. This agreement executed on 3-1-1986 is for 89 days and was extendable by theparties for further period if required by the Corporation. As per clause 8 of this agreement, the security guards posted in the depots will obey the instructions of AM (D)/ Depot In charge and will not have any objection for posting atany particular unit/watch point . Ex. M3 is the letter dated 6-7-88 ofGovt . of India, Ministry of Labour granting license
1714 GI/05-35 6212
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18, 2005/ JYAISTHA 28, 1927
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]
miserably failed to prove. Accordingly the case of the workman may be allowed and he may be ordered to the reinstated in service with full back wages with all consequential relief.
15. On the other hand the learned counsel for the management submitted that claim is false and the management has proved by the evidence of the contractor andhis office order of appointment of the workman which is Ex. M5 . He also submitted that it is duty of the workman to call for the record and to prove his claim by calling the documents . By not calling any document of the contractor or that ofthe FCI the workman has failed to prove his case . The counsel further submitted that the management has proved on record from copy of agreement Ex . M2 between the FCI and the contractor and the management that the management was in possession of licence to engage a contractor who will provide security guards for the FCI . That document is Ex . M3 . He further submitted that management also proved Ex . M4 which is also a licence granted to the contractor. He also submitted that workman has not proved any document. They were not issued any appointment letter by the FCI nor they were in the service of the FCI . To prove their documents as well as their contention and pleadings , the management has examined two witnesses Mr. R. K. Bansal , District Manager and M. L. Jindal and also proved documents Ex. M2 to M5 and affidavit Ex . M1 and M6 . He further submitted that there was no relationship of employer and employees between the management and the workmen and the services of the workmen were utilised by the FCI through contractor as per copy of agreement Ex . M2 . Learned counsel for the management Shri Pramod Jain submitted that the management has proved its case fully and workman failed to prove his claim and the reference may be answered in favour of the management .
was given to them i.e. the workmen that they were appointed as security guards at depots and gave duty from the date ofappointment till the date oftheir termination as contractor did not file a document showing receipt of appointment letter by the workmen. Without receipt of delivery to workmen it can be said to be fabricated. The workmen worked for almost two years at a stretch continuously and it is not disputed by the management . The only defense of the management is that workman is not their employee, being not appointed by the FCI and his services were taken by M/ s . Ex - Servicemen Security Service Kurukshetra and that there is no relationship of employer and employee between them . He submitted that workman by his own affidavit and cross - examination on oath has deposed that he was directly employed by the FCI and that his services were terminated without any notice or compensation in violation of Section 25F of the I.D. Act 1947. He also submitted that undisputedly the management is a Govt . statutory body and governed by the statutory rules and regulations . The management staff is a staff which is also governed by the rules and regulations . He submitted that the workman is illiterate and poor person and the management officials has exploited their weakness and terminated the services of the workman without complying the mandatory provisions of the I.D. Act. It is submitted that the documents filed by the management are itself shows that these are not trustworthy documents and submitted thatcopy of agreements dated 1-3-1986 and licence ofthe FCI granted on 6-7-88 for postings of guards /chowkidars through contractor on their application dated 23-2-1988 and it is story of the management that as per copy ofwritten agreement Ex . M2 , the contractor provided services ofthe workman as Chowkidars-cum-Guard to the FCI and FCI posted them in different godowns , offices and as per agreement the workmen will work under the direction of the management and they will not raise any objection of postingetc. It is also submitted that workman on oath has proved his case and denied the case of the management that he was not the employee of the FCI Depot Dhand or that his services were taken by the FCI through contractor mentioned above .
14. On the other hand, except copy of document Ex .
16. In view of the above submissions , oral evidence ofboth the parties and documents filed by the management, Ihave found that in nutshell , as not disputed by the parties, a short point to be resolved is that whether workmen are the employees of the FCI or that workers were provided by theEx -servicemen Security Service Kurukshetra to the FCI for engagement and utilising their service as chowkidars in accordance with the copy of agreement Ex .M2.
17. I have found that in this case, the management hasfiled copy of agreement Ex. M2 which is the base ofthe case ofthe management . Other document is Ex M3 , letter granting permission for the engagements of workmen through contractor and order of contractor deputing workman for duty with FCI . On perusal of the entire documents , evidence on record and pleading of the parties, I found that there is copy of agreement Ex. M2 dated 3-1-1986 entered into between the contractor and the management. Para 2 of this agreement is reproduced below:
M2 the management has not filed any document which could prove that Ex. M2 was executed for workmen i.e. list of total workmen supplied to the management , payment , received by the contractor from the FCI or that such appointments orders were also given to workmen . The management miserably failed to prove that workman was not appointed by the management . Rather by evidence of the poor workman as WW1 himself on oath he stated in his affidavit that he was employed by the FCI and he has denied the suggestion that he was the employee of the contractor and it is also a case of the workman and that it is for the management to prove that the workman was appointed by the contractor as per agreement which the management
"Whereas the SSS has offered to supply security guards to the Corporation for a period of 89 days [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: जून 18 , 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28, 1927
6213 initially, extendable by the period if required by the corporation for the purpose of security under the terms and conditions set forth hereunder . "
handed over to the workman by the contractor. I, therefore, hold that the management failed to prove that the workman ofthis case and other five cases mentioned above which are similar are the employees of the contractor M/s . Ex- servicemen Security Service Kurukshetra and are not the employees of the FCI . The management failed to prove that contractor appointed the workmen as no document wasproduced that workmen were appointed by contractor and appointment letters were given to the workmen.
20. On the other hand by simple perusing evidence of the workman who is poor and illiterate person by uncontroverted and unshakable oral evidence that he was the employee of the FCI and FCI has engaged him . He denied all the suggestions and thereafter FCI filed a copy ofagreement to prove its case which agreement is expired agreement and not applicable for the relevant period. I therefore, hold and decide the reference in favour of the workman that he was appointed by the FCI and he was not the employee ofthe contractor M/s . Ex- servicemen Security Service Kurukshetra. I further hold that as the workmen were the employees of the FCI and the services of Randhir Singh were terminated on 2-3-1990 as alleged without any notice and retrenchment compensation and it is a violation ofSection 25F of the I.D. Act 1947 .
18. I have found that at the most case of the management could be that on 3-1-1986, the FCI management had made an agreement that the SSS Kurukshetra shall supply chowkidars - cum-guards to the FCI and the agreement was extendable by the period if required by the corporation. This agreement Ex. M2 exhausted after 89days i.e. on 1-4-1986 itself. This document whose photocopy wasfiled in the Court compel to think whether it is genuine document because why only this document i.e. copy of agreement was filed . This document as per its contents expired on 1-4-1986 and the management has not filed any other copy of further agreements in original . As the agreement Ex. M2 expires on 1-4-1986 itself and there is no words to say that it was extended further or during the period in dispute or in the relevant period there existed a agreement between the Ex- servicemen Security Service Kurukshetra and the FCI . Neither management led any oral evidence nor filed any further agreement that there were further agreements after 1-4-1986 to supply the security guard/chowkidars through the contractor to the FCI . Further more the affidavit of the contractor M.L. Jindal is dated 8-2-2002, it is a affidavit which have been filled in the blanks as columns were left blank when it was prepared and not a typed affidavit.
21. Therefore, the present reference is decided in favour of the workman holding that the action of the management of FCI Kurukshetra in terminating the services ofRandhir Singh Ex -Chowkidar/Watchman w.e.f. 2-3-1990 isnotjust, fair and legal . Accordingly claim of the workman isallowed. He is entitled to be engaged on the same post which he was holding on 2-3-1996 on the date of his termination on the same terms and conditions with continuity of service.
22.As regards backwages, the workman neither in hisaffidavit nor in claim statement has claimed that he remained unemployed during the relevant period after his terminationto date. Therefore, in the circumstances he is not entitled to any back wages from 2-3-1990 to the date of award. The reference is answered in favour ofthe workman . Central Govt. be informed . File be consigned to record.
Chandigarh. 26-4-2005
RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 30 मई, 2005
का. आ. 2184.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, एफ. सी. आई . के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नम्बर-1 , चण्डीगढ़ ( संदर्भ संख्या 6/94 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30-5-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
19.As per agreement Ex. M2 , it is clear that it expired after 89 days on 1-4-1986 and only copy was filed by the management in the court for the consideration and thereafter no agreement was in existence as not filed. This is the only agreement and there is no agreement for the relevant period for which the workman worked and the management is alleging that during this period the workman was employedby the contractor. Had the management was having relevant executed agreements for the relevant period, they must have produced the same in the court . Non-productionof the agreements between the parties for the relevant period to prove that services of the workman. were engaged by the FCI through the contractor , I am of the considered view that as there is no agreement appears to be in existence as not produced by the management in the Court to prove their contentions when the management could prove that the workman worked in the service ofthe contractor M/ s . Ex - servicemen Security Service Kurukshetra for the relevant period . It further make strong the case of the workman as the management failed to produce any document which can corroborates the existence and execution of agreement between the above contractor andthe FCI that the workmen were engaged by the FCI through contractor during the relevant period .An office order of the contractor to the management of FCI showing appointment of a workman for the FCI cannot prove anything in the absence of any agreement to this effect also or any correspondence like appointment letter
[सं. एल-22012/73/एफ/93- आई आर ( सी- II ) ] एन. पी. केशवन, डैस्क अधिकारी [PART II SEC. 3 (ii)] 6214
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2005 /JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
New Delhi , the 30th May, 2005
fact that workman was employed as chowkidar by the FCI Depot Dhand and working there as such is fully borne out from the following records of the FCI Depot Dhand as well :
(1) The workman presence is marked in the log books for the year 1987 , 1988, 1989 and 1990.
(ii) The workman presence is also marked in the Pucca Registers along with that of regular employees for the year 1986 , 87 and 1988.
S.O. 2184.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 6/94) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum - Labour Court, No. I, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of FCI and their workman, which was receivedby the Central Government on 30-5-2005 .
[No. L- 22012/73/F/93 - IR (C-II)]
(iii) The workman name is also included in the order filesregarding appointment.
N. P. KESAVAN , Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
(iv) The workman name is also borne on the pay rolls of the FCI , one copy of the pay roll is retained in the office of the FCI .
(v) The workman photo was pasted on the Registers of the FCI of the year 1987 and 1998 .
CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT-I , CHANDIGARH
Presiding Officer: Shri Rajesh Kumar
Case No. ID 6/94
Shri Krishan Lal
S/o Sh . Risal Singh.
3. That the workman has already actually worked for about three years as chowkidar in the FCI Depot Dhand and he was in continuous service of the FCI ignoring the notional and permissible breaks , which were not due to any fault on his part. The workman was making requests to the management for regularization of his services.
......Applicant
V& P. O. Chuhar Majra, Tehsil & Distt. Kaithal (Haryana).
Versus
TheDistrict Manager ,
FoodCorporation of India,
Kothi No. 16,
4. That there is relationship between FCI and workman inter se , was directly of master and servant and the workman was not the servant of any contractor . Thus the the workman was the direct employee of the FCI and the management instead of regularizing the services ofthe workman, terminated his services without giving any opportunity of hearing and without payment of retrenchment compensation.
.....Respondent
UrbanEstate, Sector 13 , Kurukshetra .
APPEARANCES
For the workman: Shri Raj Deep Singh Tacoria
Shri Pramod Kumar
For the management:
AWARD
Passed on 26-04-05
5. Thatsince the workman come within the definition of workman as defined under the I.D. Act 1947, the management has not complied Section 25F of the I. D. Act before removing the workman . In other words, the workman was entitled to be treated in regular service of FCI. Depot Dhand and he is also entitled to draw wages equivalent to other chowkidars working on regular basis as he was also performing the same duties as being performed by the regular chowkidars . The principle of last come first go has not been followed by the management and his services were illegally terminated.
Central Govt . vide notification no . L-22012/73/F/ 93- IR(C-II) dated 4th ofJanuary 1994 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :-
Whether the action of the management of Food Corporationof India Kurukshetra, in terminating the services of Shri Krishan Lal son of Risal Singh, Ex- chowkidar/watchman w.e.f. 2-3-90 is just , fair and legal? If not, to what benefit is the workman entitled to and from what date ? "
6. The management filed the written statement raising preliminary objection that there is no relationship ofservant and master between the workman and the FCI . On merits the management submitted that the workman was never employed by the management and as such workman allegedly calling himself to be workman can not derive any benefit under the I.D. Act 1947, rather workman employed assecurity guard are not the employed by the management rather their services were hired through a contractor in accordance with the provisions of law. The deployment of chowkidars depends upon the contingency of work and whenthe procurement is heavy, the watch and ward staff isincreased and when the stock liquidate, the watch and 2. Brief facts of the case are that workman filed claim statement claiming in this court that workman was appointed as security guard in the FCI , Depot Dhand , now Teh. & district Kaithal on 18-5-87, since then the workman was in service in the FCI Depot Dhand as chowkidar. The 6215
भारत का राजपत्र: जून 18 , 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28 , 1927
[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
document Ex . M2 , agreement alleged to be between the management of FCI and M/s . Ex - servicemen Security Service Kurukshetra dated 3-1-1986 . This agreement executed on 3-1-1986 is for 89 days and was extendable by theparties for further period if required by the Corporation. As per clause 8 of this agreement, the security guards posted in the depots will obey the instructions of AM(D)/ Depot In charge and will not have any objection for posting at any particular unit watch point . Ex.M3 is the letter dated 6-7-88 ofGovt . of India , Miistry of Labour granting licence on the above date 6-7-88 when FCI filed an application dated 23-2-1988 . Ex.M4 is the licence , Ex.M4 is the licence grantedto Ex-servicemen Security Service on 8-7-88 which was valid up to 7-7-89, Ex. M5 is a photocopy of the Office Order dated 18-5-1987 showing that director has appointed workmen and it is information to the management which reads as under :
ward staff is decreased and deployment of watch and ward staff depends upon the stock position in the depot . And the work done by a chowkidar does not form an integral part of the business of the corporation. It is further submitted that the workman was never appointed as securityguard in the FCI Depot. Dhand, District Kaithal on 18-5-1987 and he is not in the service of the corporation since that date as chowkidar. In fact, the District Manager, FCI, Kurukshetra entered into an agreement with M/s Ex- Servicemen Security Service , Kurukshetra on 3-1-1986 to provide security guards in the various depots of FCI under the District Manager FCI Kurukshetra . The District Manager, FCI Kurukshetra got registration under Section 7ofthe Contract Labour (R& A) Act, 1970 vide certificate No. 46 (R-5)/88 -ALR dated 4-7-88 from the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central ) Rohtak and the security agency got Licence under Section 12 ofthe said Act vide Licence No. 46 (L-45 )/88 ALR, dated 8-7-88 .
"the following personel are hereby appointed as security guards in Ex - servicemen Security Services Kurukshetra and are directed to report to AM (D) ' s for duty : FSD Kurukshetra.
I. Amrit Pal Son of Madan Lal
BG DHAND 1. Krishan Lal son of Risal Singh, VPO Churmajra, Distt. Kurukshetra. BGKKR Narata Singh-
Ex-servicemen Security Service reserves the right to terminate the services of security guards at any time without giving any notice or reason.
Sd/- MD, SSS
Distribution:
1. DM, FCI Kurukshetra 2. AM(D) FCI Kurukshetra AM (Comp) DM Office KKR"
7. The claim ofthe workman is not correct as workman is not the employee of the FCI and he was the employee of the contractor who was deputed by the above contractor toperform his duties at FCI depot at Dhand. It is further submitted that as the time of opening and closing of godowns are not in the log book of each sheet, hence it has been signed by the Security guard as his duty. It is , further submitted that every workman has to sign his arrival/ departure on duty in the duty register whether he is permanent or employed through contractor and he has to put his signatures in the register kept for the purpose. It is also submitted that appointment letters are issued by the specific agency informing the Assistant Manager Depot regarding the deployment of workers . These letters were addressed to the Assistant Managers Depot and the same arekept in the file for records . And the management never issued appointment letters to the workman. The name of theworkman is not borne in the pay roll ofthe management and as such the question of retaining one copy of the pay rolls as alleged does not arise. In fact the pay rolls are prepared by the Security Agency and the workman are paid by the said Security agency and the record pertaining to payments made to the workmen are maintained by the Security agency and no register as alleged is maintained bytheFCI.
11. This office order appears to be a document prepared by the contractor showing appointment of a security guard and copy sent to the management Food Corporation of India three offices . It does not bear the signatures in token ofreceipt by the workman in any manner or that he was ever shown this office order.
8.Workman filed replication wherein he controverted the contents of the written statement and reiterated the claimmade in the claim statement.
9. Insupport of his case , in evidence the workman filed his own affidavit, whereas the management has filed two affidavits Ex. Ml of R. K. Bansal, District Manager and another affidavit Ex. M6 of Mr. M. L. Jindal as contractor ofthe management for supply of guards to the management.
12. The management also filed Ex.M1 the affidavit ofR.K. Bansal District Manager and Ex.M6 the affidavit of M.L. Jindal who was stated to be the contractor. As regard the affidavit ofM.L. Jindal Ex . M6 it appears that relevant entries are filled in it including dates as it is prepared by some one and thereafter fill in the blanks were made. The workman has filed his own affidavit in evidence as Ex. W1 .
13. Learned Counsel for the workman Shri R.S. Tacoria in arguments submitted that it is a simple case where workman was removed from service and his services 10. Final arguments heard. Both the parties are in agreement that all six cases of Krishanlal and five others are similar and similar facts , evidence and law as referred by the parties . The management has filed copy of a 6216
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18, 2005/JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ]
appointments order were also given to workmen . The management miserably failed to prove that workman was not appointed by the management . Rather by evidence of the poor workman as WW1 himself on oath he stated in his affidavit that he was employed by the FCI and he has denied the suggestion that he was the employee of the contractor and it is also a case ofthe workman and that it is for the management to prove that the workman was appointed by the contractor as per agreement which the management miserably failed to prove . Accordingly the case of the workman may be allowed and he may be orderded to be reinstated in service with full back wages withall consequential relief.
15. On the other hand the learned counsel for the management submitted that claim is false and the management has proved by the evidence of the contractor andhis office order of appointment of the workman which isEx.M5 . He also submitted that it is duty of the workman tocall for the record and to prove his claim by calling the documents . By not calling any document of the contractor orthat of the FCI the workman has failed to prove his case. The counsel further submitted that the management has proved on record from copy of agreement Ex. M2 between the FCI and the contractor and the management that the management was in possession of license to engage a contractor who will provide security guards for the FCI . That document is Ex . M3 . He further submitted the management also proved Ex . M4 which is also a license granted to the contractor . He also submitted that workman has not proved any document . They were not issued any appointment letter by the FCI nor they were in the service of the FCI . To prove their documents as well as their contentionand pleadings , the management has examined twowitnesses Mr. R.K. Bansal , District Manager and M.L. Jindal and also proved documents Ex . M2 to M5 and affidavits Ex . M1 to M6 . He further submitted that there was no relationship of employer and employees between the management and the workmen and the services of the workmen were utilized by the FCI through contractor as percopy of agreement Ex.M2 . Learned counsel for the management Shri Pramod Jain submitted that the management has proved its case fully and workman failed to prove his claim and the reference may be answered in favour of the management .
were terminated without any notice, and no enquiry was held and no compensation as required U/s . 25 of the I.D. Act 1947 was paid . Undoubtedly the workman worked for more than 240 days and it is not disputed that Roshan Lal was appointed on 18-5-87 and other five workmen namely Bhag Singh, Ram Kumar, Moman Singh, Randhir Singh & Roshan Lal whose cases are separate were appointed on some time on 12-1-1987, 3-12-1987, 31-8-86, 31-8-86 & 30-3-88 respectively. They all were removed from service Krishanlal on 2-3-90 . No appointment letter was given to them i.e. the workmen that they were appointed as security guards at depots and gave duty from the date of appointment till the date of their termination as contractor did not file a document showing receipt of appointment letter by the workmen. Without receipt of delivery to workmen it can be said to be fabricated. The workmen worked for almost two years at a stretch continuously and it isnot disputedby the management. The only defence of the management is that management is not their employee, being not appointed by the FCI and his services were taken byM/ sEx- servicemen Security Service . Kurukshetra and that there is no relationship of employer and employee between them . He submitted that workman by his own affidavit and cross - examination on oath has deposed that he was directly employed by the FCI and that his services were terminated without any notice or compensation in violation of Section 25F of the I.D. Act 1947. He also submitted that undisputedly the management is a Govt . statutory body and governed by the statutory rules and regulations . The management staff is a staff which is also governed by the rules and regulations. He submitted that the workman is illiterate and poor person and the management officials has exploited their weakness and terminated the services of the workman without complying the mandatory provisions of the I.D. Act . It is submitted that the documents filed by the management are itself show that these are not trustworthy documents and submitted thatcopy of agreements dated 1-3-1986 and license of the FCI granted on 6-7-88 for appointment of guards/ chowkidars through contractor on their application dated 23-2-1988 and it is story of the management that as per copyofwritten agreement Ex. M2 , the contractor provided services of the workman as chowkidars -cum - guard to the FCI and FCI posted them in different godowns , offices and as per agreement the workmen will work under the direction of the management and they will not raise any objection ofposting etc. It is also submitted that workman on oath has proved his case and denied the case of the management that he was not the employee of the FCI Depot Dhand or that his services were taken by the FCI through contractor mentioned above .
16. In view of the above submissions , oral evidence ofboth the parties and documents filed by the management . Ihave found that in nutshell , as not disputed by the parties , a short point to be resolved is that whether workmen are the employees of the FCI or that workers were provided by theEx-servicemen Security Service Kurukshetra to the FCI for engagement and utilizing their service as chowkidars in accordance with the copy of agreement Ex.M2 .
14. On the other hand , except copy of document Ex.M2 the management has not filed any document which could prove that Ex . M2 was executed for workmen i.e. list of total workmen supplied to the management , payment received by the contractor from the FCI or that such
17. I have found that in this case , the management has filed copy of agreement Ex.M2 which is the base of the case ofthe management . Other document is Ex.M3 , letter [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: जून 18 , 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28, 1927
6217 granting permission for the engagements of workmen through contractor and order of contractor deputing workman for duty with FCI. On perusal of the entire documents, evidence on record and pleading of the parties. I found that there is copy of agreement of Ex. M2dated 3-1-1986 entered intobetween the the contractor and the management . Para 2 of this agreement is reproduced below:
"Whereas the SSS has offered to suply security guards to the Corporation for a period of 89 days initially, extendable by the period if required by the corporation for the purpose of security under the terms and conditions set forth hereunder . "
period. It further make strong the case of the workman as the management failed to produce any document which cancorroboratesthe existence and execution of agreement between the above contractor and the FCI that the workmen were engaged by the FCI through contractor during the relevant period. An office order of the contractor to the management of FCI showing appointment of a workman for the FCI can not prove anything in the absence of any agreement to this effect also or any correspondence like appointment letter handed over to the workman by the contractor. I therefore, hold that the management failed to prove that the workman of this case and other five cases mentioned above which are similar are the employees of the contractor M/ s Ex - servicemen Security Service Kurukshetra and are not the employees of the FCI . The management failed to prove that contractor appointed the workmen as no document was produced that workmen were appointed by contractor and appointment letters were given to theworkmen.
20. On the other hand by simple perusing evidence of the workman who is poor and illiterate person by uncontroverted and unshakable oral evidence that he was the employee of the FCI and FCI has engaged him. He denied all the suggestions and thereafter FCI filed a copy of agreement to prove its case which agreement is expired agreement and not applicable for the relevant period . I therefore , hold and decide the reference in favour of the workman that he was appointed by the FCI and he was not the employee of the contractor M/s Ex -servicemen Security Service Kurukshetra . I further hold that as the workmen were the employees of the FCI and the services of Krishan Lalwas terminated on 2-3-1990 without any notice and retrenchment compensation and it is a violation of Section 25F of the I.D. Act 1947.
18. I have found that at the most case of the management could be that on 3-1-1986 , the FCI management had made an agreement that the SSS Kurukshetra shall supply chowkidars - cum - guards to the FCI and the agreement was extendable by the period if required by the corporation. This agreement Ex.M2 exhausted after 89 days i.e. on 1-4-1986 itself. This document whose photocopy was filed in the Court compel to think whether it is genuine document because why only this document i.e. copy of agreement was filed. This document as per its contents expired on 1-4-1986 and the management has not filed any other copy of further agreements in original . As the agreement Ex.M2 expires on 1-4-1986 itself and there is no words to say that it was extended further or during the period in dispute or in the relevant period there existed a agreement between the Ex - servicemen Security Service Kurukshetra and the FCI . Neither management led any oral evidence nor filed any further agreement that there were further agreements after 1-4-1986 to supply the security guard/chowkidars through the contractor to the FCI . Further more the affidavit of the contractor M.L. Jindal is dated 8-2-02 , it is a affidavit which have been filled in the blanks as columns were left blank when it was prepared and not a typed affidavit .
21. Therefore , the present reference is decided in favour of the workman holding that the action of the management of FCI Kurukshetra in terminating the services ofKrishan Lal Ex -chowkidar/ watchman w.e.f. 2-3-90 is not just, fair and legal . Accordingly claim of the workman is allowed. He is entitled to be engaged on the same post which he was holding on 2-3-1990 on the date of his termination on the same terms and conditions with continuity of service . Therefor Krishan Lal shall be reinstated as a chowkidar to the same capacity as he was working on 2-3-90 forth with.
22. As regards back wages , the workman neither in his affidavit nor in claim statement has claimed that he remained unemployed during the relevant period after his termination to date . Therefore , in the circumstances he is not entitled to any back wages from 2-3-90 to the date of award. The reference is answered in favour ofthe workman . Central Govt .be informed . File be consigned to record. Chandigarh,
26-4-05
19. As per agreement Ex.M2 , it is clear that it expired after 89 days on 1-4-1986 and only copy was filed by the management in the court for the consideration and thereafter no agreement was in existence as not filed . This is the only agreement and there is no agreement for the relevant period for which the workman worked and the management is . alleging that during this period the workman was employed by the contractor. Had the management was having relevant executed agreements for the relevant period, they must have produced the same in the Court , Non - production of the agreements between the parties for the relevant period to prove that services of the workman were engaged by the FCI through the contractor. I am of the considered view that as there is no agreement appears to be in existence as not produced by the management in the Court to prove their contentions when the management could prove that the workman worked in the service of the contractor M/ s Ex-servicemenSecurity Service Kurukshetra for the relevant
RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2005/JYAISTHA 28, 1927
6218
नई दिल्ली, 30 मई, 2005
का. आ. 2185.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, एफ.सी.आई. प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नम्बर- I, चण्डीगढ़ (संदर्भ संख्या 4/94 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30-5-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-22012/76/एफ/93- आई आर ( सी- II ) ]
एन.पी. केशवन, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 30th May, 2005
S.O. 2185.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 4/94) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal /Labour Court No. 1 , Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of FCI and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 30-5-2005.
[No. L-22012/76/F/93 - IR (C -II) ]
N.P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL -CUM - LABOUR COURT- I CHANDIGARH
Presiding Officer : Shri Rajesh Kumar
Case No. ID 4/94
Shri Maman Singh,
S/o Sh . Mugla Ram ,
Applicant V& P. O. Chuhar Majra, Tehsil & Distt . Kaithal (Haryana) .
Versus
The District Manager,
Respondent Food Corporation of India , Kothi No. 16, Urban Estate, Sector 13 , Kurukshetra .
APPEARANCES
Shri Raj Deep Singh Tacoria For the workman:
For the management : Shri Pramod Kumar
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]
AWARD
Passed on 26-04-05
Central Govt. vide notification no . L-22012/76/F/93- IR(C-II) dated 4th of January 1994 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :-
" Whether the action of the management of Food Corporation of India , Kurukshetra, in terminating the services of Shri Maman Singh , Ex -chowkidar/ watchman w.e.f. 2-3-90 isjust, fair and legal ? If not, to what benefits the workman is entitled to and from whatdate? "
2. Brief facts of the case are that workman filed claim statement claiming in this court that workman was appointed as security guard in the FCI , Depot Dhand, now Teh. and district Kaithal on 31-8-86 , since then the workman was in service in the FCI Depot Dhand as Chowkidar . The fact that workman was employed as Chowkidar by the FCI DepotDhand and working there as such is fully borne out from the following records of the FCI Depot Dhand as well:
(i) The workman presence is marked in the log books for the year 1987, 1988, 1989 and 1990 .
:
(ii) The workman presence is also marked in the Pucca registers alongwith that of regular employees for the year 1986 , 1987 and 1988 .
(iii) The workman name is also included in the order filesregarding appointment .
(iv) The workman name is also borne on the pay rolls of the FCI , one copy of the pay roll is retained in the office of the FCI .
(v) The workman photo was pasted on the Registers of the FCI ofthe year 1987 and 1988.
3. That the workman has already actually worked for about four years as Chowkidar in the FCI , Depot . Dhand and he was in continuous service of the FCI ignoring the notional and permissible breaks , which were not due to any fault on his part . The workman was making requests to the management for regularization of his services.
4. Thatthere is relationship between FCI and workman interse, was directly of master and servant and the workman was not the servant of any contractor. Thus the workman was the direct employee of the FCI and management instead of regularizing the services of the workman , terminated his services without giving any opportunity of hearing and without payment of retrenchment compensation.
5. That since the workman come within the definition of workman as defined under the I.D. Act 1947 , the 6219
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18, 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28 , 1927
[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
management has not complied Section 25F of the I. D. Act before removing the workman. In other words, the workman was entitled to be treated in regular service of FCI Depot, Dhand and he is also entitled to draw wages equivalent to other Chowkidars working on regular basis as he was also performing the same duties as being performed by the regular Chowkidars . The principle of last come first go has notbeen followed by the management and his services were illegally terminated.
addressed to the Assistant Managers Depot and the same are kept in the file for records. And the management never issuei appointment letters to the workman . The name of the workman is not borne in the pay role ofthe management and as such the question of retaining one copy of the pay colls as alleged does not arise . In fact the pay rolls are prepered by the Security Agency and the workman are paidbythe said Security Agency and the record pertaining topayments made to the workmen are maintained by the Security Agency and no register as alleged in maintained bythe FCI.
Workman filed replication wherein he controverted the contents of the written statement and reiterated the claimmade in the claim statement .
9. In support ofhis case , in evidence the workman filed his own affidavit , whereas the management has filed two affidavits Ex . Ml of R. K. Bansal , District Manager and another affidavit Ex . M6 of Mr. M. L. Jindal as contractor of the management for supply of guards to the management.
6. Themanagement filed the written statement raising preliminary objection that there is no relationship of servant and master between the workman and the FCI . On merits the management submitted that the workman was never employed by the management and as such workman allegedly calling himself to be workman can not derive any benefit under the I.D. Act 1947 , rather workman employed assecurity guard are not the employed by the management rather their services were hired through a contractor in accordance with the provisions of law. The deployment of Chowkidars depends upon the contingency of work and whenthe procurement is heavy, the watch and ward staff is increased and when the stock liquidate , the watch and ward staff is decreased and deployment of watch and ward staff depends upon the stock position in the depot . And the work done by a Chowkidar does not from an integral part of the business of the corporation . It is further submitted that the workman was never appointed as security guard in the FCI Depot. Dhand , District Kaithal on 2-3-1990 and he is not in the service of the corporation since that date as Chowkidar . In fact , the District Manager . FCI , Kurukshetra entered into an agreement with M/s Ex- Servicemen Security Service , Kurukshetra on 3-1-1986 to provide security guards in the various depots of FCI under the District Manager FCI Kurukshetra . The District Manager, FCI Kurukshetra got registration under Section 7ofthe Contract labour (R & A) Act , 1970 vide certificate No. 46 (R-5)/88 -ALR dated 4-7-88 from the Assistant Labour Commissioner ( Central ) Rohtak and the security agency got Licence under Section 12 of the said act vide Licence No. 46 (L -45)/88 ALR, dated 8-7-88 .
10. Final arguments heard. Both the parties are in agreement that all six, cases one is of Maman Singh and fiveothers are similar and similar facts , evidence and law is referredby the parties . The management has filed copy of a document Ex. M2 , agreement alleged to be between the management of FCI and M/s Ex- servicemen Security Service Kurukshetra dated 3-1-1986 . This agreement executed on 3-1-1986 is for 89 days and was extendable by the parties for further period if required by the corporation. As per clause 8 of this agreement , the security guards posted in the depots will obey the instructions of Am ( D) /Depot In- charge and will not have any objection for posting at any particular unit/watch point . Ex. M3 is the letter dated 6-7-88 ofGovt . of India , Ministry of Labour granting license on the above date 6-7-88 when FCI filed an application dated 23-2-1988 , Ex. M4 is the license , Ex. M4 is the license granted to Ex - servicemen Security Service on 8-7-88 which was valid up to 7-7-89 . Ex . M5 is a photocopy of the Office order dated 29-8-86 showing that director has appointed workman and it is information to the management which reads as under:
"the following personal are hereby appointed as security guards in Ex - servicemen Security Services Kurukshetra and are directed to report to AM (D) Buffer Godown Dhand for duties :
1. Maman Singh S /O Mughla Ram , V.P.O. Chur Majra , Distt. Kurukshetra . (replacement of Sher Singh )
2. Randhir Singh S/ o Sadhu Ram, V.P.O. Chur Majra , Distt . Kurukshetra: (replacement of Roop Chand )
7. The claim of the workman is not correct as workman is not the employee of the FCI and he was the employee of the contractor who was deputed by the above contractor to perform his duties at FCI depot at Dhand . It is further submitted that as the time of opening and closing of godowns are not in the log book of each sheet, hence it has been signed by the Security guard as his duty. It is further submitted that every workman has to sign his arrival/ departure on duty in the duty register whether he is permanent or employed through contractor and he has to put his signatures in the register kept for the purpose . It is also submitted that appointment letters are issued by the specific agency informing the Assistant Manager Depot regarding the deployment of workers . These letters were
1714 G1/05-36 [PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] 6220
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2005/ JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
Ex-servicemen Security Service reserves the right to terminate the services of Security guards at any time without giving any notice or reason.
Sd/-
MD, SSS
Distribution:
1. AM (D) BGDhand
2. D.M. FCI Kurukshetra "
11. This office order appears to be a document prepared by the Contractor showing appointment of a security guard and copy sent to the management Food Corporation of India three offices . It does not bear the signatures in token of receipt by the workman in any manner or that he was ever shown this office order.
violation of Section 25F of the I.D. Act 1947. He also submitted that undisputedly the management is a Govt . statutory body and governed by the statutory rules and, regulations . The management staff is a staff which is also governed by the rules and regulations . He submitted that the workman is illiterate and poor person and the management officials has exploited their weakness and terminated the services of the workman without complying themandatory provisions of the I.D. Act . It is submitted that the documents filed by the management are itself show that these are not trustworthy documents and submitted that copy of agreements dated 1-3-1986 and license of the FCI granted on 6-7-88 for postings of guards / chowkidars through contractor on their application dated 23-2-1988 and it is story of the management that as per copy of writtenagreement Ex. M2 , the contractor provided services ofthe workman as chowkidars -cum- guard to the FCI and FCI posted them in different godowns , offices and as per agreement the workmen will work under the direction of the management and they will not raise any objection of posting etc. It is also submitted that workman on oath has proved his case and denied the case of the management that he was not the employee of the FCI Depot Dhand or that his services were taken by the FCI through contractor mentioned above .
12. The management also filed Ex . M1 the affidavit of R.K. Bansal District Manager and Ex. M6 the affidavit ofM.L. Jindal , who was stated to be the contractor. As regard the affidavit of M.L. Jindal Ex. M6 it appears that relevant entries are filled in it including dates as it is prepared by some one and thereafter fill in the blanks were made . The workman has filed his own affidavit in evidence as Ex. W1 .
14. On the other hand, except copy of document Ex . M2 the management has not filed any document which could prove that Ex . M2 was executed for workmen i.e. list of total workmen supplied to the management , payment received by the contractor from the FCI or that such appointments order was also given to workmen. The management miserably failed to prove that workman was not appointed by the management. Rather by evidence of the poor workman as WW1 himself on oath he stated in his affidavit that he was employed by the FCI and he has denied the suggestion that he was the employee of the contractor and it is also a case of the workman and that it is for the management to prove that the workman was appointed by the contractor as per agreement which the management miserably failed to prove . Accordingly the case ofthe workman may be allowed and he may be ordered to be reinstated in service with full back wages with all consequential relief.
15. On the other hand the learned counsel for the management submitted that claim is false and the management has proved by the evidence of the contractor andhis office order of appointment of the workman which is Ex. M5. He also submitted that it is duty of the workman tocall for the record and to prove his claim by calling the documents . By not calling any document of the contractor or that of the FCI the workman has failed to prove his case. The counsel further submitted that the management has proved on record from copy of agreement Ex . M2 between the FCI and the contractor and the management that the management was in possession of license to 13. Learned counsel for the workman Shri R. S. Tacoria in arguments submitted that it is a simple case where workman was removed from service and his services were terminated without any notice , and no enquiry was held and no compensation as required U/s 25 of the I.D. Act 1947was paid. Undoubtedly the workman worked for more than 240 days and it is not disputed that Roshan Lal was appointed on 31-8-1986 and other five workmen namely Bhag Singh, Ram Kumar, Randhir Singh, Roshan Lal & Krishan Lal whose cases are separate were appointed on some time on 12-1-1987, 3-12-1987, 31-8-86, 1-4-1988 , 18-5-87 respectively. They all were removed from service Maman Singh on 2-3-90 . No appointment letter was given to them i.e. the workmen that they were appointed as security guards at depots and gave duty from the date of appointment till the date of their termination as contractor did not file a document showing receipt of appointment letter by the workmen. Without receipt of delivery to workmen it can be said to be fabricated . The workmen worked for almost two years at a stretch continuously and it is not disputed by the management. The only defense of the management is that workman is not their employee , being not appointed by the FCI and his services were takenbyM/ s. Ex- servicemen Security Service Kurukshetra and that there is no relationship of employer and employee between them. He submitted that workman by his own affidavit and cross -examination on oath has deposed that he was directly employed by the FCI and that his services were terminated without any notice or compensation in 6221 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18 , 2005 /ज्येष्ठ 28, 1927
onlyhis document i.e. copy of agreement was filed . This document as per its contents expired on 1-4-1986 and the management has not filed any other copy of further agreements in original . As the agreement Ex . M2 expires on 1-4-1986 itself and there is no words to say that it was extended further or during the period in dispute or in the relevant period there existed a agreement between the Ex-servicemen Security Service Kurukshetra and the FCI. Neither management led any oral evidence nor filed any further agreement that there were further agreements after 1-4-1986 to supply the security guards/ chowkidars through the contractor to the FCI . Further more the affidavit ofthe contractor M.L. Jindal is dated 8-2-02 , it is a affidavit which have been filled in the blanks as columns were left blank when it was prepared and not a typed affidavit..
engage a contractor who will provide security guards for the FCI . That document is Ex. M3 . He further submitted that management also proved Ex. M4 which is also a license granted to the contractor . He also submitted that workman has not proved any document . They were not issued any appointment letter by the FCI nor they were in the service of the FCI . To prove their documents as well as their contentionand pleadings , the management has examined twowitnessesMr. R.K. Bansal , District manager andM.L. Jindal and also proved documents Ex . M2 to M5 and affidavits Ex. M1 and M6 . He further submitted that there was no relationship of employer and employees between the management and the workmen and the services ofthe workmen were utilized by the FCI through contractor as per copy of agreement Ex . M2 . Learned counsel for the management Shri Pramod Jain submitted that the managment has proved its case fully and workman failed to prove this claim and the reference may be answered in favour of the management .
16. In view of the above submissions , oral evidence of both the parties and documents filed by the management, Ihave found that in nutshell, as not disputed by the parties , a short point to be resolved is that whether workmen are the employees of the FCI or that workers were provided by the Ex- servicemen Security Service Kurukshetra to the FCI for engagement and utilizing their service as chowkidars in accordance with the copy of agreement Ex. M2.
17. I have found that in this case , the management has filed copy of agreement Ex. M2 which is the base of the case ofthemanagement . Other document is Ex. M3 , letter granting permission for the engagements of workmen through contractor and order of contractor deputing workman for duty with FCI . On perusal of the entire documents, evidence on record and pleading of the parties , I found that there is copy of agreement Ex. M2 dated 3-1-1986 entered into between the contractor and the management. Para 2 of this agreement is reproduced below:
"Whereas the SSS has offered to supply security guards to the Corporation for a period of 89 days initially, extendable by the period if required by the corporation for the purpose of security under the terms and condition set forth hereunder."
19. As per agreement Ex. M2 , it is clear that it expired after 89 days on 1-4-1986 and only the copy was filed by the management in the Court for the consideration and thereafter no agreement was in existence as not filed. This is the only agreement and there is no agreement for the relevant period for which the workman worked and the management is alleging that during this period the workman was employed by the contractor. Had the management was having relevant executed agreements for the relevant period , they must have produced the same in the Court . Non -production of the agreements between the parties for the relevant period to prove that services of the workman were engaged by the FCI through the contractor, I am of the considered view that as there is no agreement appears to be in existence as not produced by the management in the Court to prove their contentions when the management could prove that the workman worked in the service of the contractor M/S . Ex-servicemen Security Service Kurukshetra for the relevant period. It further make strong the case of the workman as the management failed to produce any document which can corroborates the existence and execution of agreement between the above contractor and the FCI that the workmen was engaged by the FCI through contractor during the relevant period . An office order ofthe contractor to the management of FCI showing appointment of a workman for the FCI can not prove anything in the absence of any agreement to this effect also or any correspondence like appointment letter handed over to the workman by the contractor. I therefore , hold that the management failed to prove that the workman of this case and other five cases mentioned above which are similar are the employees of the contractor M/ s . Ex - servicemen Security Service Kurukshetra and are not the employees of the FCI . The management failed to prove that contractor appointed theworkmen as no document was produced that workmen were appointed by contractor and appointment letters were given to the workmen .
18. I have found that at the most case of the management could be that on 3-1-1986, the FCI management had made an agreement that the SSS Kurukshetra shall supply chowkidars -cum -guards to the FCI and the agreement was extendable by the period if required by the corporation . This agreement Ex. M2 exhausted after 89 days i.e. on 1-4-1986 itself. This document whose photocopy was filed in the Court compel to think whether it is genuine document because why 6222
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2005 /JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
20. On the other hand by simple perusing evidence of the workman who is poor and illiterate person by uncontroverted and unshakable oral evidence that he was the employee of the FCI and FCI has engaged him. He denied all the suggestions and thereafter FCI filed a copy of agreement to prove its case which agreement is expired agreement and not applicable for the relevant period. I therefore , hold and decide the reference in favor of the workman that he was appointed by the FCI and he was not the employee of the contractor M / s Ex- servicemen Security Service Kurukshetra . I further hold that as the workmen were the employees of the FCI and the services of Maman Singh were terminated on 2-3- 1990 or as alleged without any notice and retrenchment compensation and it is a violation of Section 25F of the I.D. Act , 1947.
21. Therefore , the present reference is decided in favour ofthe workman holding that the action of the management of FCI Kurukshetra in terminating the services ofMaman Singh Ex - Chowkidar/ watchman w.e.f. 2-3-90 is notjust , fair and legal . Accordingly claim of the workman is allowed. He is entitled to be engaged on the same post which he was holding on 2-3-1990 on the date of his termination on the same terms and conditions with continuity of service. Therefore , Maman Singh shall be reinstated as chowkidar in the same capacity as he was working as on 2-3-1990 forthwith.
22. As regards back wages , the workman neither in his affidavit nor in claim statement has claimed that he remained unemployed during the relevant period after his termination to date . Therefore , in the circumstances he is not entitled to any back wages from 2-3-90 to the date of award. The reference is answered in favour of the workman . Central Govt . be informed . File be consigned to record .
Chandigarh,
26-4-05
RAJESH KUMAR , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 30 मई, 2005
का. आ. 2186.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एफ.सी.आई. प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नम्बर- 1 , चण्डीगढ़ ( संदर्भ संख्या 3/94 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30-5-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-22012/75/एफ/93- आई आर ( सी- II ) ]
एन.पी. केशवन, डैस्क अधिकारी
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] New Delhi , the 30th May, 2005
S.O. 2186. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 3/94) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court No. 1 , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of FCI and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 30-5-2005.
[No. L-22012/75 /F/ 93 - IR (C - II) ]
N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM - LABOUR COURT- L, CHANDIGARH PresidingOfficer : Shri Rajesh Kumar
Case No. L.D. 3/95
Applicant
Shri Bhag Singh, S/o Sh. Nar Singh , VillageBadwana, Tehsil & Distt . Kaithal (Haryana).
Versus
Respondent
TheDistrict Manager, FoodCorporation of India, Kothi No. 16, UrbanEstate, Sector 13 , Kurukshetra.
APPEARANCES:
Forthe Workman : Shri Raj Deep singh Tacoria
For the Management: Shri Pramod Kumar
AWARD
Passed on 26-04-05
Central Govt . vide notification No. L-22012/ 75/F/93- IR (C- II ) dated 31st of December, 1994 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:-
"Whether the action of the management of Food Corporation of India Kurukshetra, in terminating the services of Shri Bhag Singh , Ex-chowkidar/watchman w.e.f. 30-3-90 is just , fair and legal ? If not , to what benefits the workman entitled to and from what date יי?
2 Brief facts of the case are that workman filed claim statement claiming in this court that workman was appointed as security guard in the FCI , Depot Dhand, now Teh. & District Kaithal on 12-1-1987 , since then the workman 6223
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18 , 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28, 1927
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
was in service in the FCI Depot, Dhand as Chowkidar. The factthatworkman was employed as Chowkidar by the FCI Depot Dhand and working there as such is fully borne out from the following records of the FCI Depot, Dhand as well:
(1) The workman presence is marked in the log books for the year 1987, 1988 , 1989 .
(ii) Theworkman presence is also marked in the Pucca Registers alongwith that of regular employees for the years 1988 and 1989 .
(iii) The workman name is also included in the order files regarding appointment .
(iv) The workman name is also borne on the pay rolls of the FCI , one copy of the pay roll is retained in the office of the FCI .
rather their services were hired through a contractor in accordance with the provisions of law . The deployment of chowkidars depends upon the contingency of work and whenthe procurement is heavy, the watch and ward staff is increased and when the stock liquidate, the watch and ward staff is decreased and deployment ofwatch andward staff depends upon the stock position in the Depot . And the work done by a chowkidar does not form an integral part of the business of the Corporation. It is further submitted that the workman was never appointed as security guard in the FCI Depot . Dhand, District Kaithal on 12-1-1987 and he is not in the service of the corporation since that date as chowkidar . In fact , the District Manager. FCI, Kurukshetra entered into an agreement with M/s Ex- Servicemen Security Service , Kurukshetra on 3-1-1986 to provide security guards in the various Depots of FCI under the District Manager, FCI Kurukshetra . The District Manager, FCI , Kurukshetra got registration under Section 7ofthe Contract Labour (R & A) Act , 1970 vide certificate No. 46 (R- 5 )/ 88 - ALR dated4-7-88 from the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central ) Rohtak and the Security Agency got Licence under Section 12 of the said Act vide Licence No. 46 (L -45 )/ 88 ALR, dated 8-7-88 .
3. That the workman has already actually worked for about two years as Chowkidar in the FCI Depot, Dhand and he was in continuous service of the FCI ignoring the notional and permissible breaks , which were not due to anyfault on his part. The workman was making requests to the management for regularization of his services .
4. That there is relationship between FCI and workman interse, was directly of master and servant and the workman was not the servant of any contractor. Thus the workman was the direct employee of the FCI and the management instead of regularizing the services of the workman , terminated his services without giving any opportunity of hearing and without payment of retrenchment compensation.
5. That since the workman come within the definition of workman as defined under the I.D. Act, 1947, the management has not complied Section 25F of the I. D. Act before removing the workman . In other words , the workman was entitled to be treated in regular service of FCI Depot , Dhand and hie is also entitled to draw wages equivalent to other chowkidars working on regular basis as he was also performing the same duties as being performed by the regular chowkidars . The principle of last come first go has not been followed by the management and his services were illegally terminated.
7. The claim of the workman is not correct as workman is not the employee of the FCI and he was the employee of the contractor who was deputed by the above contractor to perform his duties at FCI Depot at Dhand . It is further submitted that as the time of opening and closing of godowns are not in the log book of each sheet , hence it has been signed by the Security Guard as his duty. It is furthersubmitted that every workman has to sign his arrival/ departure on duty in the duty register whether be is permanent or employed through contractor and he has to puthis signatures in the register kept for the purpose . It is also submitted that appointment letters are issued by the specific agency informing the Assistant Manager, Depot regarding the deployment of workers . These letters were addressed to the Assistant Managers Depot and the same are kept in the file for records . And the management never issued appointment letters to the workman. The name of theworkman is not borne in the pay role of the management and as such the question of retaining one copy of the pay rolls as alleged does not arise. In fact the pay rolls are prepared by the Security Agency and the workman are paidby the said Security Agency and the record pertaining to payments made to the workmen are maintained by the Security Agency and no register as alleged is maintained bythe FCI.
8. Workman filed replication wherein he controverted the contents of the written statement and reiterated the claim made in the claim statement .
9. In support of his case , in evidence the workman filed his own affidavit , whereas the management has filed two affidavits Ex . M1 of R. K. Bansal, District Manager and 6. The management filed the written statement raising preliminary objection that there is no relationship of servant and master between the workman and the FCI . On merits the management submitted that the workman was never employed by the management and as such workman allegedly calling himself to be workman cannot derive any benefit under the I.D. Act, 1947 , rather workman employed as security guard are not employed by the management 6224
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2005/ JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
another affidavit Ex. M6 of Mr. M. L. Jindal as contractor of the management for supply of guards to the management .
India three offices . It does not bear the signatures in token of receipt by the workman in any manner or that he was ever shown this office order .
12. The management also filed Ex. M1 the affidavit of R.K. Bansal District Manager and Ex . M6 the affidavit of M.L. Jindal who was stated to be the Contractor. As regard the affidavit of M.L. Jindal Ex. , M6 it appears that relevant entries are filled in it including dates as it is prepared by some one and thereafter fill in the blanks were made . The workman has filed his own affidavit in evidence as Ex . W1 .
10. Final arguments heard . Both the parties are in agreement that all six cases , one is of Bhag Singh and five others are similar and similar facts , evidence and law is referred by the parties . The management has filed copy of a document Ex. M2 , agreement alleged to be between the management of FCI and M/s Ex-servicemen Security Service , Kurukshetra dated 3-1-1986. This agreement executed on 3-1-1986 is for 89 days and was extendable by the parties forfurther period if required by the Corporation . As per clause 8 of this agreement , the security guards posted in the depots will obey the instructions of AM (D) /Depot In- charge and will not have any objection for posting at any particularunit/watch point. Ex . M3 is the letter dated 6-7-88 ofGovt . of India , Ministry of Labour granting license on the above date 6-7-88 when FCI filed an application dated 23-2-1988 , Ex. M4 is the license . Ex. M4 is the license granted to Ex - servicemen Security Service on 8-7-88 which was valid up to 7-7-89 . Ex . M5 is a photocopy of the Office Order dated 9-1-87 showing that director has appointed workman and it is information to the management which reads as under :
"the following personnel are hereby appointed as security guards in Ex -servicemen Security Services, Kurukshetra and are directed to report to AM ( D) ' s forduty:
BG DHAND
No. BC 2038/3346 Bhag Singh Son of Nar Singh , Village Dadwana , P.O. Kaul, DistrictKurukshetra .
BG Kurukshetra
1. Harvinder Singh S/ o Gurdial Singh , Faridkot House , Kurukshetra.
Ex- servicemen Security Services reserves the right to terminate the services of the Security Guards at any time without giving any notice or reason .
Sd/-
MD, SSS
Distribution :
1. D.M. (FCI) Kurukshetra"
2. AM (D) BG Dhand
13 . Learned counsel for the workman Shri R.S. Tacoria in arguments submitted that it is a simple case workman was removed from service and his services were terminated without any notice , and no enquiry was held and no compensation as required U/ s 25 of the I.D. Act , 1947 was paid. Undoubtedly the workman worked for more than 240 days and it is not disputed that Roshan Lal was appointed on 12-1-1987 and other five workmen namely Roshan Lal , RamKumar,Moman Singh, Randhir Singh, & Krishan Lal whose cases are separate were appointed on some time on 12-1-1987 , 3-12-1987, 31-8-86, 31-8-1986 & 18-5-87 respectively. They all were removed from service on different dates Bhag Singh on 30-3-89 . No appointment letter was given to them i.e. the workmen that they were appointed as security guards at depots and gave duty from the date of appointment till the date of their termination ascontractor did not file a document showing receipt of appointment letter by the workmen. Without receipt of delivery to workmen it can be said to be fabricated. The workmen worked for almost two years at a stretch continuously and it is not disputed by the management . The only defense of the management is that workman is not their employee , being not appointed by the FCI and his services were taken by M/ s Ex -Servicemen Security Service Kurukshetra and that there is no relationship of employer and employee between them . He submitted that workman by his own affidavit and cross - examination on oath has deposed that he was directly employed by the FCI and that his services were terminated without any notice or compensation in violation of Section 25F of the I.D. Act 1947. He also submitted that undisputedly the management is a Govt . statutory body and governed by the statutory rules and regulations . The amanagement staff is a staff which is also governed by the rules and regulations . He submitted that the workman is illiterate and poor person and the management officials has exploited their weakness and terminated the services of theworkman without complying the mandatory provisions ofthe I.D. Act. It is submitted that the documents filed by the management are itself show that these are not trustworthy documents and submitted that copy of agreements dated 1-3-1986 and license of the FCI granted on6-7-88 for appointment of guards/ chowkidars through contractor on their application dated 23-2-1988 and it is 11. This office order appears to be a document prepared bythe Contractor showing appointment of a security guard and copy sent to the management Food Corporation of 6225 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18 , 2005/ज्येष्ठ 20, 1927
per copy of agreement Ex.M2 . Learned counsel for the management Shri Pramod Jain submitted that the management has proved its case fully and workman failed to prove his claim and the reference may be answered in favour ofthe management .
story of the management that as per copy of written agreement Ex . M2, the contractor provided services ofthe workman as chowkidars - cum - guard to the FCI and FCI posted them in different godowns , offices and as per agreement the workmen will work under the direction of the management and they will not raise any objection of posting etc. It is also submitted that workman on oath has proved his case and denied the case of the management that he was not the employee of the FCI Depot Dhand or that his servies were taken by the FCI through contractor mentioned above .
16. In view of the above submissions , oral evidence of both the parties and documents filed by the management , Ihave found that in nutshell , as not disputed by the parties, ashort point to be resolved is that whether workmen are the employees of the FCI or that workers were provided bythe Ex- servicemen Security Service Kurukshetra to the FCI for engagement and utilizing their service as chowkidars in accordance with the copy of agreement Ex.M2.
17. I have found that in this case , the management has filed copy of agreement Ex. M2 which is the base of the case ofthe management . Other document is Ex M3 , letter granting permission for the engagements of workmen through contractor and order of contractor deputing workman for duty with FCI . On perusal of the entire documents , evidence on record and pleading of the parties , I found that there is copy of agreement Ex.M2 dated 3-1-1986 entered into between the contractor and the management . Para 2 of this agreement is reproduced below:
,
14. On the other hand , except copy of document Ex.M2 the management has not filed any document which could prove that Ex.M2 was executed for workmen i.e. list of total workmen supplied to the management , payment received by the contractor from the FCI or that such appointments order were also given to workmen . The management miserably failed to prove that workman was not appointed by the management . Rather by evidence of the poor workman as WW1 himself on oath he stated in his affidavit that he was employed by the FCI and he has denied the suggestion that he was the employee of the contractor and it is also a case of the workman and that it is for the management to prove that the workman was appointed by the contractor as per agreement which the management miserably failed to prove . Accordingly the case ofthe workman may be allowed and he may be ordered to be reinstated in service with full back wages with all consequential relief.
"Whereas the SSS has offered to supply security guards to the Corporation for a period of 89 days initially, extendable by the period if required by the Corporation for the purpose of security under the terms and condition set forth hereunder . "
18. I have found that at the most case of the management couldbe that on 3-1-1986 , the FCI management had made an agreement that the SSS Kurukshetra shall supply chowkidars -cum -guards to the FCI and the agreement was extendable by the period if required by the Corporation. This agreement Ex.M2 exhausted after 89 days i.e. on 1-4-1986 itself. This document whose photocopy was filed inthe Court compel to think whether it is genuine document because why only this document i.e. copy of agreement was filed. This document as per its contents expired on 1-4-1986 and the management has not filed any other copy offurther agreements in original . As the agreement Ex.M2 expires on 1-4-1986 itself and there is no words to say that it was extended further or during the period in dispute or inthe relevant period there existed a agreement between theEx-servicemen Security Service Kurukshetra and the FCI . Neither management led any oral evidence nor filed any further agreement that there were further agreements after 1-4-1986 to supply the security guard/chowkidars through the Contractor to the FCI . Further more the affidavit ofthe Contractor M.L. Jindal is dated 8-2-02 , it is a affidavit which have been filled in the blanks as columns were left blank when it was prepared and not a typed affidavit.
15. On the other hand the learned counsel for the management submitted that claim is false and the management has proved by the evidence of the contractor and his office order of appointment of the workman which isEx.M5 . He also submitted that it is duty of the workman to call for the record and to prove his claim by calling the documents .By not calling any document of the contractor or that of the FCI the workman has failed to prove his case.The counsel further submitted that the management has proved on record from copy of agreement Ex . M2 between the FCI and the contractor and the management that the management was in possession of license to engage a contractor who will provide security guards for the FCI . That document is Ex.M3 . He further submitted that management also proved Ex.M4 which is also a license granted to the contractor. He also submitted that workman has not proved any document . They were not issued any appointment letter by the FCI nor they were in the service of the FCI . To prove their documents as well as their contention and pleadings , the management has examined twowitnesses Mr. R.K. Bansal, District Manager and M.L. Jindal and also proved documents Ex.M2 to M5 and affidavits Ex.M1 and M6. He further submitted that there was no relationship of employer and employees between the management and the workmen and the services ofthe workmen were utilized by the FCI through contractor as 6226
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2005/ JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
ofFCI Kurukshetra in terminating the services of Bhag Singh Ex - Chowkidar/Watchman w.e.f. 30-3-89 is not just , fairand legal . Accordingly claim ofthe workman is allowed. He is entitled to be engaged on the same post which he was holding on 30-3-1989 on the date of his termination on the same terms and condidtions with countinuity of service. Therefore Bhag Singh shall be reinstated as a chokidar in the same capacity as he was working as on 30-3-1989 for with.
22. As regards backwages , the workman neither in his affidavit nor in claim statement has claimed that he remained unemployed during the relevant period after his termination to date . Therefore , in the circumstances he is not entitled to any back wages from 30-3-89 to the date of award. The reference is answered in favor of the workman. Central Govt . be informed. File be consigned to record . Chandigarh,
26-4-05 RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 30 मई, 2005
का. आ. 2187.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , एफ.सी.आई. प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नम्बर- I , चण्डीगढ़ (संदर्भ संख्या 1/94 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30-5-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-22012/72/एफ/93 - आई आर ( सी- II ) ] एन.पी. केशवन, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 30th May, 2005
19. As per agreement Ex.M2 , it is clear that it expired after 89 days on 1-4-1986 and only the copy was filed by the management in the Court for the consideration and thereafter no agreement was in existence as not filed . This is the only agreement and there is no agreement for the relevant period for which the workman worked and the management is alleging that during this period the workman was employed by the contractor. Had the management was having relevant executed agreements for the relevant period, they must have produced the same in the Court . Non-production of the agreements between the parties for the relevant period to prove that services of the workmanwere engaged by the FCI through the contractor, I am of the considered view that as there is no agreement appears to be in existence as not produced by the management in the Court to prove their contentions when the management could prove that the workman worked in the service of the contractor M/ s . Ex - servicemen Security Service Kurukshetra for the relevant period. It further make strong the case of the workman as the management failed to produce any document which can corroborates the existence and execution of agreement between the above contractor and the FCI that the workmen was engaged by the FCI through contractor during the relevant period . An office order of the contractor to the management of FCI showing appointment of a workman for the FCI can not prove anything in the absence of any agreement to this effect also or any correspondence like appointment letter handed over to the workman by the contractor. I therefore , hold that the management failed to prove that the workman of this case and other five cases mentioned above which are similar are the employees of the contractor M/s . Ex- servicemen Security Service Kurukshetra and are not the employees of the FCI . The management failed to prove that contractor appointed the workmen as no document was produced that workmen were appointed by contractor and appointment letters were given to the workmen .
S.O. 2187.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 1/94) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court No. 1, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure inthe Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of FCI and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 30-5-2005 .
[No. L-22012/72/F/93 - IR ( C -II) ] N.P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM - LABOUR COURT- I CHANDIGARH PresidingOfficer: Shri Rajesh Kumar Case No. ID 1/94
20. On the other hand by simple perusing evidence of the workman who is poor and illiterate person by uncontroverted and unshakable oral evidence that he was the employee of the FCI and FCI has engaged him. He denied all the suggestions and thereafter FCI filed a copy ofagreement to prove its case which agreement is expired agreement and not applicable for the relevant period . I therefore, hold and decide the reference in favor of the workman that he was appointed by the FCI and he was not the employee of the contractor M/ s. Ex- servicemen Security Service Kurukshetra. I further hold that as the workmen were the employees of the FCI and the services ofBhag Singh was terminated on 30-3-1989 or as alleged without any notice and retrenchment compensation and it is a violation of Section 25F ofthe I.D. Act, 1947.
Applicant
ShriRoshan Lal S/o Sh . Surjan Singh, VPO ChujarMajra, Tehsil & Distt. Kaithal , (Haryana).
21. Therefore, the present reference is decided in favour ofthe workman holding that the action of the management 6227
भारत का राजपत्र: जून 18 , 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28, 1927
[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
Versus
The District Manager ,
Food Corporation of India ,
Kothi No. 16,
UrbanEstate,
the workman was not the servant of any contracstor. thus theworkman was the direct employee of the FCI and the management instead of regularizing the services of the worketan , terminated his services without giving any opportunity of hearing and without payment of retrenchment compensation.
Respondent
Sector 13 , Kurukshetra .
APPEARANCES
Shri Raj Deep Singh Tacoria
For the workman:
5. Yast since the worman come within the definition of workman as defined under the I.D. Act 1947 , the management has not complied Section 25F of the I.D. Act before removing the workman. In other words, the workma For the management : Shri Pramod Kumar
AWARD
Passed on 26-04-05
Central Govt. vide notification no . L- 22012/72/F/93- IR (C - II) dated 31st December, 1993 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
was entitled to be treated in regular service of FCI, De Dhand and he is also entitled to draw wages equivalento other chowkidars working on regular basis as he was also performing the same duties as being performed by the regular chowkikiars . The principle of last come first go has not been followed by the management and his services were illegally rminated.
Whether the action of the management of Food Corporation of India, Kurukshetra, in terminating the services of Shri Roshan Lal , S/o Suraj Singh Ex- Chowkidar/Watchman w.e.f. 8-3-90 is just , fair and legal? If not, to what benefits the workman is entitled to and from what date ? "
2. Brief facts of the case are that workman filed claim statement claiming in this court that workman was appointed as security guard in the FCI , Depot Dhand , now Teh. & District Kaithal on 1-4-1988 , since then the workman was in service in the FCI Depot Dhand as chowkidar . The fact that workman was employed as chowkidar by the FCI Depot Dhand and working there as such is fully borne out from the following records of the FCI Depot Dhand as well:
(1) The workman presence is marked in the log books for the year 1988 , 1989 and 1990 .
(ii) The workman presence is also marked in the Pucca Registers alongwith that of regular employees for the year 1988 and 1989.
(iii) The workman name is also included in the order files regarding appointment .
(iv) The workman name is also borne on the pay rolls of the FCI , one copy of the pay roll is retained in the office of the FCI.
(v) The workman photo was pasted on the 'Registers of the FCI of the year 1998.
6. The management filed the written statement raising preliminary objection that there is no relationship of servant and master between the workman and the FCI . On merits the management submitted that the workman was never employed by the management and as such workman allegedly calling himself to be workman can not derive any benefit under the I.D. Act 1947, rather workman employed as security guard are not the employed by the management rather their services were hired through a contractor in accordance with the provisions of law. the deployment ofchowkidars depends upon the contingency ofwork and when the procurement is heavy, the watch and ward staff is increased and when the stock liquidate, the watch and ward staff is decreased and deployment of watch and ward staff depends upon the stock position in the depot. And the work done by a chowkidar does not form an integral part of the business of the corporation. It is further submitted that the workman was never appointed assecurity guard in the FCI Depot, Dhand, District Kaithal on 1-4-1988 and he is not in the service of the corporation since that date as chowkidar. In fact, the District Manager . FCI , Kurukshetra entered into an agreement with M/s . Ex- Servicemen Security Service . Kurukshetra on 3-1-986 to provide security guards in the various depots of FCI under the District Manager FCI Kurukshetra . The District Manager , FCI Kurukshetra got registration under Section 7of the Contract labour (R & A) Act . 1970 vide certificate No.46(R- 5)/88 -ALR dated 4-7-88 from the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central ) Rohtak and the security agency got licence under Section 12 of the said act vide Licence No. 46(L -45 )/88 ALR, dated 8-7-88 .
3. That the workman has already actually worked for about three years as chowkidar in the FCI . Depot Dhand and he was in continuous service of the FCI ignoring the notional and permissible breaks , which were not due to any fault on his part . The workman was making requests to the management for regularization of his services .
7. The claim of the workman is not correct as workman is not the employee of the FCI and he was the employee of the contractor who was deputed by the above contractor to perform his duties at FCI Depot at Dhand. It is further submitted that as the time of opening and closing ofgodowns are not in the log book of each sheet, hence it 4. That there is relationship between FCI and workman interse , was directly of master and servant and 6228
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2005/ JYAISTHA 28, 1927
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]
1. Sat Pal son of Raja Ram
VillageGaocharand, P.O. Pehewa, District Kurukshetra.
BGDHAND
1. Roshan Lal son of Surjan Singh , VPO Churmajra, Distt . Kurukshetra .
Ex- servicemen Security Service reserves the right to terminate the services of security guards at any time without giving any notice or reason.
Sd/-
MD, SSS
Distribution:
1. AM (D) PAHEWA
has been signed by the Security guard as his duty. It is further submitted that every workman has to sign his arrival/departure on duty in the duty register whether he is permanent or employed through contractor and he has to put his signatures in the register kept for the purpose. It is also submitted that appointment letters are issued by the specific agency informing the Assistant manager Depot regarding the deployment of workers . These letters were addressed to the Assistant managers Depot and the same arekept in the file for records . And the management never issued appointment letters to the workman . The name of theworkman is not borne in the pay role of the management and as such the question of retaining one copy of the pay rolls as alleged does not arise . In fact the pay rolls are prepared by the Security Agency and the workman are paid by the said Security agency and the record pertaining to payments made to the workmen are maintained by the Security agency and no register as alleged is maintained by the FCI .
2. AM (D) BG Dhand
3. DM FCI Kurukshetra "
8. Workman filed replication wherein he controverted the contents of the written statement and reiterated the claim made in the claim statement .
11. This office order appears to be a document prepared by the Contractor showing appointment of a security guard and copy sent to the management Food Corporation of India three offices . It does not bear the signatures in token of receipt by the workman in any manner or that he was ever shown this office order.
9. In support of his case , in evidence the workman filed his own affidavit , whereas the management has filed two affidavits Ex. Ml of R.K. Bansal , District Manager and another affidavit Ex: M6 of Mr. M.L. Jindal as contractor of the management for supply of guards to the management .
12. The management also filed Ex . M1 the affidavit ofR.K. Bansal District Manager and Ex. M6 the affidavit of M.L. Jindal who was stated to be the contractor. As regard the affidavit of M.L. Jindal Ex . M6 it appears that relevant entries are filled in it including dates as it is prepared by some one and thereafter fill in the blanks were made . The workman has filed his own affidavit in evidence as Ex . W1 .
10. Final arguments heard . Both the parties are in agreement that all six cases one of Roshan Lal and five others are similar and similar facts , evidence and law is referred by the parties . The management has filed copy of a document Ex . M2 , agreement alleged to be between the management of FCI and M/ s Ex- servicemen Security Service Kurukshetra dated 3-1-1986 . This agreement executed on 3-1-1986 is for 89 days and was extendable by the parties for further period if required by the Corporation. As per clause 8 of this agreement , the security guards posted in the depots will obey the instructions of AM(D) /Depot in charge and will not have any objection for posting at any particular unit/ watch point . Ex. M3 is the letter dated6-7-88 of Govt . of India , Ministry of Labour granting license on the above date 6-7-88 when FCI filed an application dated 23-2-1988 . Ex. M4 is the licence , Ex. M4 is the license granted to Ex - servicemen Security Service on8-7-88 which was valid upto 7-7-89 , Ex . M5 is a photocopy of the Office Order dated 30-3-1988 showing that director has appointed workman and it is information to the management which reads as under :
13. Learned counsel for the workman Shri R.S. Tacoria in arguments submitted that it is a simple case where workman was removed from service and his services were terminated without any notice , and no enquiry was held and no compensation as required U/ s . 25 of the I.D. Act1947 was paid. Undoubtedly the workman worked for more than 240 days and it is not disputed that Roshan Lal was appointed on 30-3-1988 and other five workmen namely Bhag Singh , Ram Kumar , Maman Singh, Randhir Singh and Krishan Lal whose cases are separate were appointed on same time on 12-1-1987, 3-12-1987, 31-8-86, 31-8-86 & 18-5-87 respectively. They all were removed from service Roshan Lal on 8-3-90. No appointment letter was given to them i.e. the workmen that they were appointed as security guards at depots and gave duty from the date of appointment till the date of their termination as contractor did not file a document showing receipt of appointment letter by the workmen. Without receipt of delivery to workmen it can be said to be fabricated . The workmen "the following personnel are hereby appointed as security guards in Ex - servicemen Security Services Kurukshetra and are directed to report to AM (D) ' s forduty : FSD PAHEWA [ भाग. II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
worked for almost two years at a stretch continuously and it is not disputed by the management . The only defense of the management is that workman is not their employee, being not appointed by the FCI and his services were taken byM/s . Ex - Servicemen Security Service Kurukshetra and that there is no relationship of employer and employee between them. He submitted that workman by his own affidavit and cross -examination on oath has deposed that he was directly employed by the FCI and that his services were terminated without any notice or compensation in violation of Section 25F of the I.D. Act, 1947. He also submitted that undisputedly the management is a Govt. statutory body and governed by the statutory rules and regulations . The management staff is a staff which is also governedby the rules and regulations. He submitted that the workman is illiterate and poor person and the management officials has exploited their weakness and terminated the services of the workman without complying the mandatory provisions of the I.D. Act . It is submitted that the documents filed by the mariagement are itself show that these are not trustworthy documents and submitted that copy of agreements dated 1-3-1986 and licence of the FCI granted on 6-7-88 for posting of guards /chowkidars through contractor on their application dated 23-2-1988 and it is story ofthe management that as per copy ofwritten agreement Ex. M - 2, the contractor provided services of the workman as chowkidars-cum-guard to the FCI and FCI posted them in different godowns , offices and as per agreement the workmen will work under the direction of the management and they will not raise any objection of posting etc. It is also submitted that workman on oath has proved his case and denied the case of the management that he was not the employee of the FCI Depot Dhand or that his services were taken by the FCI through contractor mentioned above .
14. On the other hand , except copy ofdocument Ex . M2 the management has not filed any document which couldprove that Ex. M2 was executed for workmen i.e. list of total workmen supplied to the management , payment received by the contractor from the FCI or that such appointments order were also given to workmen. The management miserably failed to prove that workman was not appointed by the management. Rather by evidence of the poor workman as WW1 himself on oath he stated in his affidavit that he was employed by the FCI and he has denied the suggestion that he was the employee of the contractor and it is also a case of the workman and that it is for the management to prove that the workman was appointed by the contractor as per agreement which the management miserably failed to prove. Accordingly the case of the workman may be allowed and he may be ordered to be reinstated in service with full back wages with all consequential relief.
6229
भारत का राजप्प्रत्र : जून 18, 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28, 1927
15. On the other hand the learned counsel for the management submitted that claim is false and the management has proved by the evidence of the contractor and his office order of appointment of the workman which is Ex. M5 . He also submitted that it is duty of the workman to call for the record and to prove his claim by calling the documents . By not calling any document of the contractor or that of the FCI the workman has failed to prove his case . The counsel further submitted that the management has proved on record from copy of agreement Ex . M 2 between the FCI and the contractor and the management that the management was in possession of license to engage a contractor who will provide security guards for the FCI . That document is Ex. M3 . He further submitted that management also proved Ex. M4 which is also a license granted to the contractor. He also submitted that workman has not proved any document . They were not issued any appointment letter by the FCI nor they were in the service of the FCI . To prove their documents as well as their contention and pleadings , the management has examined two witnesses Mr. R.K. Bansal , District Manager and M.L. Jindal and also proved documents Ex. M2 to M5 and affidavits Ex . M1 and M6 . He further submitted that there was no relationship of employer and employees between the management and the workmen and the services of the workmen were utilized by the FCI through contractor as per copy of agreement Ex . M2 . Learned Counsel for the management Shri Pramod Jain submitted that the management has proved its case fully and workman failed to prove his claim and the reference may be answered in favour of the management .
16. In view of the above submissions , oral evidence ofboth the parties and documents filed by the management, Ihave found that in nutshell , as not disputed by the parties , a short point to be resolved is that whether workmen are the employees of the FCI or that workers were provided by the Ex - servicemen Security Service Kurukshetra to the FCI for engagement and utilizing their service as chowkidars in accordance with the copy of agreement Ex .M2 .
17. I have found that in this case , the management has filed copy of agreement Ex . M2 which is the base of the case of the management . Other documents is Ex M3 , letter granting permission for the engagements of workmen through contractor and order of contractor deputing workman for duty with FCI . On perusal of the entire document , evidence on record and pleading of the parties . I found that there , is copy of agreement Ex. M2 dated 3-1-1986 entered into between the contractor and the management . Para 2 of this agreement is reproduced below :
"Whereas the SSS has offered to supply security guards to the Corporation for a period of 89 days initially, extendable y the period if required by the [PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ) 6230
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2005 /JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
corporation for the purpose of security under the terms and conditions set forth hereunder . "
contractor to the management of FCI showing appointment of a workman for the FCI cannot prove anything in the absence of any agreement to this effect also or any correspondence like appointment letter handed over to the workman by the contractor . I, therefore , hold that the management failed to prove that the workman of this case and other five cases mentioned above which are similar are the employees of the contractor M / s Ex- servicemen Security Service Kurukshetra and are not the employees of the FCI . The management failed to prove thatcontractor appointed the workmen as no document was produced that workmen were appointed by contractor and appointment letters were given to the workmen.
18. I have found that at the most case of the management could be that on 3-1-1986 . The FCI management had made an agreement that the SSS Kurukshetra shall supply chowkidars - cum - guards to the FCI and the agreement was extendable by the period if required by the corporation . This agreement Ex . M2 exhausted after 89 days i.e. on 1-4-1986 itself. This document whose photocopy was filed in the Court compel to think whether it is genuine document because why only this document i.e. copy of agreement was filed. This document as per its contents expired on 1-4-1986 and the management has not filed any other copy of further agreements in original . As the agreement Ex . M2 expires on 1-4-1986 itself and there is no words to say that it was extended further or during the period in dispute or in the relevant period there existed an agreement between the Ex- servicemen Security Service Kurukshetra and the FCI . Neither management led any oral evidence nor filed any further agreement that there were further agreements after 1-4-1986 to supply the security guard/ chowkidars through the contractor to the FCI . Furthermore the affidavit of the contractor M.L. Jindal is dated 8-2-02 , it is a affidavit which have been filled in the blanks as columns were left blank when it was prepared and not a typed affidavit.
20. On the other hand by simple perusing evidence of the workman who is poor and illiterate person by uncontroverted and unshakable oral evidence that he was the employee of the FCI and FCI has engaged him . He denied all the suggestions and thereafter FCI filed a copy of agreement to prove its case which agreement is expired agreement and not applicable for the relevant period. I, therefore , hold and decide the reference in favour of the workman that he was appointed by the FCI and he was not the employee of the contractor M/ s Ex - servicemen Security Service Kurukshetra. I further hold that as the workmen were the employees of the FCI and the services of Roshan Lal was terminated on 8-3-1990 or as alleged without any notice and retrenchment compensation and it is a violation ofSection 25F of the I.D. Act, 1947.
21. Therefore, the present reference, is decided in favour of the workman holding that the action of the management of FCI Kurukshetra in terminating the services ofRoshan Lal Ex-chowkidar/ watchman w.e.f. 8-3-90 is not just, fair and legal . Accordingly claim of the workman is allowed. He is entitled to be engaged on the same post which he was holding on 8-3-1990 on the date of his termination on the same terms and conditions with continuity of service . Therefore Roshan Lal shall be reinstated as a chowkidar in the some capacity as he was working on 8-3-90 forth with.
22. As regards backwages , the workman neither in his affidavit nor in claim statement has claimed that he remained unemployed during the relevant period after his termination to date . Therefore , in the circumstances he is not entitled to any back wages -from 8-3-90 to the date of award. The reference is answered in favour of the workman. Central Govt . be informed . File be consigned to record.
Chandigarh.
26-4-05
RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer 19. As per agreement Ex. M2 , it is clear that it expired after 89 days on 1-4-1986 and only the copy was filed by the management in the court for the consideration and thereafter no agreement was in existence as not filed. This is the only agreement and there is no agreement for the relevant period for which the workman worked and the management is alleging that during this period the workman was employed by the contractor . Had the management was having relevant executed agreements for the relevant period, they must have produced the same in the Court . Non - production of the agreements between the parties for the relevant period to prove that services of the workman were engaged by the FCI through the contractor. Iam of the considered view that as there is no agreement appears to be in existence as not produced by the management in the Court to prove their contentions when the management could prove that the workman worked in the service of the contractor M/s Ex - servicemen Security Service Kurukshetra for the relevant period. It further make strong the case of the workman as the management failed to produce any document which can corroborate the existence and execution of agreement. between the above contractor and the FCI that the workmen were engaged by the FCI through contractor during the relevant period . An office order of the 6231 भारत का राजपत्र : जून18 , 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28, 1927
[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
नई दिल्ली, 30 मई, 2005
That he was appointed on 07-10-1955 at Jatachhapa Colliery and was transferred to N / Chandametha , Bhamori , E/Donganrchikhali etc. and Mahdeopur Mine. At the time, the applicant has given representations to the management that though he is being transferred from one colliery to the other but the date of birth which is written incorrect in the colliery records be corrected , on the basis of the following documents :
का. आ. 2188.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार, डब्लू. सी. एल. प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नागपुर (संदर्भ संख्या सी.जी.आई.टी./एन.जी.पी./216/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30-5-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
01-07-1938
1. Shot Firer Certificate
01-07-1938 [सं. एल -22012/583/99- आईआर ( सीएम- II ) ]
2. Gastesting Certificate
01-07-1938
3. School Leaving Certificate
एन. पी. केशवन, डैस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 30th May, 2005
S.O. 2188.- In pursuance of Section 17 of, the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. CGIT/NGP/ 216/2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court , Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between the management of WGL, and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 30-5-2005 .
[No. L- 22012/ 583/99 - IR ( CM - II) ] N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR
PRESENT:
Shri E. Ismail , PresidingOfficer
Case No. C.G.LT./NGP/216/2000
Date: 26-4-2005 .
Shri Shankar Sapoot-Petitioner Vs.
The Sub Area Manager, W.C.L.-Respondent
AWARD
The applicant also submitted that his date of birth was recorded as 01-07-1938 in form ' B ' register of Jatachhapa Colliery, on the basis of his school leaving certificate of class 4th , at the time of his appointment . That he has passed Gestesting examination under Mines Act , 1952 where in his date of birth has been recorded as 01--7-1938 , on the basis of school leaving certificate. That he has also passed Shotfirer certificate examination under Mines Act , 1961 , and in this certificate , his date of birth has been recorded as 01-07-1938 . That both the above certificates have been issued by Mining Department of Govt . of India wherein the date of birth is recorded as 01-07-1938 on the basis of school leaving certificate . That the applicant has given representation in accordance with I.I. No. 37 and 76 for correction of his date of birth as 01-07-1938 on the basis of above certificates . That the management has corrected the date of birth of the many workers , on the basis of mining certificates such as Over- man, Mining Sirdar, Shot Fire, Gastesting, Boiler Attendant etc. in the year 1991 , and also in accordance with the memorandum of settlements in form ' H ' with INTUC and BMS unions dated 02-07-91 and 11-12-91 respectively. That the applicant's date of birth in old Form ' B ' register wereprepared in the year 1981-82 and 1987-88. That prior to the retirement , the applicant has submitted representation to the management for considering his date ofbirth as 01-07-1938 and not 31-12-1937 . However the Form' B ' register of E/Dongarchikhali Colliery shows his date of birth as 01-07-1938 .
The Central Government , Ministry of Labour , New Delhi by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) ofSub- section ( 1 ) and Sub section 2 (A) of Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute for adjudication vide order No. L - 22012/583 /1999 - IR (CM- II)dt . 06-07-2000 on following schedule.
Thisis the reference by Government of India, Ministry of Labour , " Whether the action of the management of Vishnupuri Colliery ofWCL, Pench Area, PO: Parasia, Distt. Chhindwara (MP) in retiring Shri Shankar S/o Sapooth , Shotfirer ofVishnupuri Colliery w.e.f. 01-01-98 is justified ? Ifnot, to what relief the workman is entitled ?"
That the union also raised the issue in the I.R. Meeting and was promised by the management for corrective action but nothing was done . The applicant/ union were raising the issue with the managment for correctness of date of birth from time to time but without taking the same into consideration , retired the applicant , wrongfully w.e.f. 01-01-1998 . The Secretary of the union has given representationdt . 16-11-97 to the management that the date of birth of the applicant was written as 01-07-1938 in the LPC received by Mahadeopuri Colliery but the same was cut and made 01-01-1938 as such requested the management for correcting the date ofbirth as01-07-1938 . That after unlawful retirement, the applicant while requesting for gratuity payment again pointed outto That the applicant files claim statement and submits. that his actual date of birth is 01-07-38 and not 31-12-37 .
6232
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18, 2005 / JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
the management that his date of birth is 01-07-1938 and his retirement has been effected on the wrong entry made by the office administration . That the management may be advised to produce Form 'B ' register of E/Dongarchikhali Colliery and Form ' A' of CMPF which may indicate the correct date of birth of the applicant. That the management has taken his date of appointment as 06-12-1977 based on their records which was also wrong but the Controlling Authority under payment of Gratuity Act and ALC (Chhindwara) has considered his date of appointment as 07-10-1955 on the basis of appointment letter dt . 07-10-1955 issued by the Manager, Jatachhapa Colliery. That the management may be directed to pay the salary and retirement dues and all the allowances , benefits to the applicant considering his date of birth as 01-07-1938 .
A written statement was filed stating that the workmanwas appointed in Bhamori Colliery on 06-12-1971. As per service record his date of birth is 01-01-38 . According to Coal Mines Regulation Register of employment known as Form ' B ' is maintained by the management. Particulars of the workman in the Form ' B ' Register are recorded on the basis of declaration given by the workman concerned . In the Form ' B ' Register maintained by the management the date of birth of the workman has been recorded as 01-01-38 . The entries in the Form ' B ' Register also counter signed by the workman as a token of correctness of the entries made therein . The workman does not dispute any entries made in the Form 'B ' Register except the date of birth . This itself shows that the dispute in respect of date of birth has been raised by the workman after a lapse of so many years and on the verge of retirement as a result of after thought .
In view of the aforesaid , there cannot be any doubt that the date of birth of the workman is 01-01-38 . The workman has claimed his date of birth as 01-07-38 , which is factually incorrect and without any basis .
Apart From maintaining the From ' B ' Register the management maintain various other records in respect of each employee. In the case of the workman the management has maintained the service register, wherein the date of birth of the workman has been recorded as 36 years as on 01-01-74 (01-01-38 ) . The workman has put his thumb impression acknowledging the correctness of the entries made in the service register. As earlier stated the workman was initially appointed in Bhamori Colliery of Pench Area . Subsequently, he was transferred to North Chandametta Colliery and then to Mahadevpuri Colliery of Pench Area. While he was transferred from North Chandametta Colliery. His last pay certificate was prepared and sent by the said North Chandametta Colliery. In the said L.P.C. the particulars ofthe workman have been recorded as per the record being maintained with the said colliery. The said L.P.C. the date of birth of the workman has been recorded as 01-01-38 .
Because of the increase in the dispute with regard to age recorded in the official record the JBCCI has decided
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)] to issue guidelines for settlement of such issues . Accordinglyunder NCWA -II implementation, instructions No. 37 has been issued by the Member Secretary JBCCI vide Circular dt . 19-02-81 . Under the said II No. 37 a notice was displayed in the year 1982 , in which details and the date ofbirth ofthe employees were displayed . In the said notice also the date of birth of workman has been shown as 01-01-38 . Through the above notice the management invited objection if any on the date ofbirth being recorded inthe offical record . In spite of above notice , the workman did not raise any objection. Had the workman got any grievance , he would have reported the same within the stipulated period of 90 days in the light of the said II No. 37. In view of the fact that the workman did not raise any objection as contemplated in the aforesaid instruction , he cannot now challenge the entries made in various statutory records maintained by the management .
Clause IV- B of the I.I. 76 deals with review/ determination of date of birth in respect of existing e Loyee . The relevant clause is reproduced below :-
Review/determination of date of birth I respect of existing employee :
(i) ( a) In case of the existing employees Matriculation Certificate or Higher Secondary Certificate issued by the recognized University orBoard or Education and/ or Department of public instruction and admit cards issued the aforesaid bodies should be treated as correct provided they were issued by the said. Universities/Board/Institutions prior to the date of employment .
(ii) (b) Similarly, Mining Sirdarship , Winding Engineer or similar other statutory certificate where the Manager had to certify the date of birth will be treated as authentic . Provided that whereboth documents mentioned in (I) ( a) and(I) (b) above are available , the date of birth recorded in ( i) ( a) will be treated as authentic .
(iii) Wherever there is no verification in records , such cases will not be reopened unless there is very glaring and apparent wrong entry brought to the notice of the management , the management after being satisfied on the merits of the case will take appropriate action for correction through Age Determination Committee/Medical Board.
That, the details of date of birth recorded in various records of the company, such as Form ' B' Register , service excerpt, service register, L.P.C. etc. , are as under :-
( 1 ) Form ' B ' Register dated 01-01-38 .
(2) Service Register dated 01-01-38 .
(3) LPXdated 01-01-38 .
(4) Service excerpts ( 36 years as on 1974) .
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
6233
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18 , 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28, 1927
That, the workman has asked for correction of his date of birth at the fag -end of his service , without any substance or authentic record, therefore the reference may be answered in favour of the collieries .
15-11-1960 why did he give it to management approaching the management after 27 years just 2 months before retirement is belated and the petitioner deserves no relief and award is passed holding the action of the management ofVishnupuri Colliery of WCL, Pench Area, PO Parasia, Distt. Chhindwara (MP) in retiring Shri Shankar S/o Sapooth, Shot Firer of Vishnupuri Colliery w.e.f. 01-01-1998 is justified.
Award passed accordingly. Transmit.
The workman submitted Rejoinder. He submits that he has sumbitted his School Leaving Certificate which shows his date ofbirth 01-07-38 and Shot Firer Certificate and Gas Testing Certificate shows his date of birth as 01-07-38 . The issue was discussed in the meeting on 17-05-96.
E. ISMAIL, Presiding Officer
SCHEDULE
Witness of petitioner : Shri Shankar Sapoott, WW1 .
Witness of respondent : Shri D.K. Chourey, MW1 .
Exhibits of petitioner : Shot Fire Certificate , W1 GasTesting Certificate , W2 School Leaving Certificate, W3 Representationdt . 29-12-97 , W4 INTUC Union's letter dt. 16-11-97 tothe Personal Manager, W5 Appointment letter dt . 7-10-1955, W6
The petitioner examined himself as WW1 and deposed thathe was working as Shot Firer at Mahadevpuri Colliery ofWCL prior to his retirement . Exhibit W1 , W2 , W3 are the copies of Shot Firer Certificate , Gas .Testing Certificate and School Leaving Certificate . Exhibit W4 is the copy ofhis representationdt. 29-12-97. W5 is the INTUC union's representation dt . 16-11-97 . Exhibit W8 shows his PF deductions , it is not true that he was appointed on 06-12-71 but he was appointed on 07-10-1955 . That for payment ofGratuity, the Competent Authority also decided my case taking into consideration the date of appointment as07-10-1955, after perusal of all the records . That even if the year is recovered in the record of the management , 1st July of that year should have been taken as date ofbirth , as per the provisions of clause ( I) ofAnnexure (I ) of I.I. No. 76 ofNCWA - III , which reads as under:
" It was agreed that in cases when instead of date of birth , year has been recorded , 1st, July of the year will be deemed to be the date of birth. "
Record note of documents dt . 12-05-96, W7 Copy of letterdt . 30-06-89 of Welfare/Personnel Officer , Bhamuri Colliery, W8 A Copy of applicationdt. 17-8-98, W9.
Exhibits of respondent :
Shri D.K. Chourey, Senior Personal Officer was examined, who deposed that as per statutory record register called Form' B ' , the workman was declared his date of birth as 01-01-1938 . Date of birth was recorded as 36 years on 01-01-1974. He has put his signature and thumb impression inExhibit M2 . Even in Exhibit M4 , it was shown 36 years on 01-01-1974 .
Copy of Form 'B ' Register, M1 Copy of Service Register, M2 Copy oflast pay certificate being issued by the North Chandametta Colliery,M3 Service excerpts issued in the year 1987, M4 Retirement Notice No. 1116 , M5 Retirement Notice No. 555 dt. 20-06-97 and 02-07-97, M6.
नई दिल्ली, 30 मई , 2005
Much has been argued from both the sides . According to petitioner he joined in 1955. Accordingto management he joined in 1971 but he was paid gratuity from 1955 according to the petitioner but however it has come in evidence by the petitioner himself that the union represented about his date ofbirth on 16-11-97 vide Exhibit W5 and he himself represented vide Exhibit W4 on 29-12-97 .
का. आ. 2189.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार, आल इण्डिया रेडियो के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, जयपुर (संदर्भ संख्या सी.जी.आई.टी. - 29/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30-5-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं . एल-42012/275/2002- आईआर ( सी- II ) ]
एन. पी. केशवन, डैस्क अधिकारी Suffice it to say that the Hon'ble Supreme Court says. in 1993 Supp ( 1 ) Supreme Court Cases 763 where the Lordship held that the representation received after 18 years for correction of date ofbirth held that it can be dismissed atpre hearing state . Here also it may be seen that document dt. 20-04-1987 (Exhibit M8) , his date of birth is recorded as 01-01-1938 . In M10 also his date of birth is recorded as 01-01-1938 . In M4 and M2 also it is recorded as 01-01-1938 and when he had Exhibit W3 in his possession since [PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ] 6234
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18, 2005/ JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
New Delhi , the 30th May, 2005
S.O. 2189.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No CGIT- 29/2003 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court , Jaipur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of All India Radio, and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 30-5-2005.
[No. L -42012/275/2002 - IR (C- II) ]
N. P. KESAVAN , Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
2. The workman in his statement has pleaded inter alia that he was employed as a 4th class by the non- applicant management on 1-9-1994, whose service was terminated on 1-7-1995 and he had raised an Industrial Dispute . Consequent upon transmitting the reference to the CGIT, Jaipur the Tribunal vide its award dated 25-5-2000 ordered his reinstatement in service with its continuity and 50 per cent back wages . He was taken back on duty on 11-8-2000 by the establishment , who raised his demand for payment of back wages before the concerned authoritics , which irked them and he was terminated on 27-3-2002. He , thereafter, raised an Industrial Dispute before the Conciliation Officer, who submitted a failure report to the Central Government which has referred this Industrial Disputeto the CGIT.
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR
Case No. CGIT- 29 /2003
Reference No. L-42012/ 275 /2002 - IR ( C - II)
Sh . Ramesh Chand Sharma, S/o Sh. Ram Niwas Sharma,
R/o Baharu Ghati , Post-Balupur, Tehsil -Rajghat , Dist . -Alwar,
.....Applicant
Alwar (Rajasthan)
Versus
1. The Deputy Director, All IndiaRadio , Akashwani Bhawan , Parliament Street, NewDelhi.
3. The workman has further averred that his service was terminated w.e.f. 3-4-2002 vide order dated 27-3-2002 issued by the management . But the post of 4th class are lying vacant in the department and the similar work is available with the establishment . He has stated that at the time of his termination the junior persons to him were retained by the management . He has alleged that the non- applicant establishment has acted in violation of provisions under Section 25 - G and 25 - H of the Act . He has further submitted that the non - applicant establishment has contravened the provisions under Section 25 - F of the Act since one month notice and the retrenchment compensation were not given to him. He has added that the bank had deducted Rs . 70 out of the draft amount and the compensation amount was not legally sufficient. He has urged that his termination order dated 27-3-2002 whereby his service was terminated w.e.f. 1-4-2002 be declaredunjust and illegal and he be reinstated in the service with back wages.
2. The Station Director, All India Radio , Alwar
3. The Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, NewDelhi
..Non - applicants
Present:
Presiding Officer , Sh . R.C. Sharma
: Sh . Kan Singh Rathore
Forthe applicant
: Sh. T.P. Sharma
For the non - applicants
: 28-04-2005
Date of Award
AWARD
4. The non -applicants , in their written counter, have disputed the claim of the workman by stating that vide award dated 25-5-2002 an option was given to the management to terminate the service of the workman, if required , may be terminated in accordance with the provisions under Section 25 - F of the Act, that I month notice was issued to him whereby his service was terminated w.e.f. 2-5-2002 , but the workman wilfully absented himself from duties w.e.f. 1-4-2002 . They have further denied any contravention under Sections 25 - G and 25 -H ofthe Act on the part of the establishment .
5. In the rejoinder, the workman has reiterated the facts as narrated in his statement of claim.
Point Nos. I and II
The Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred under Clause ' D ' of Sub - section 1 to Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act ' ) has referred the following Industrial Dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal which runs as under :
6. Since both the parties have reiterated the plea relating to contravention of the provision under Section 25 -F of the Act on the count of completion of 240 days of actual work in the calendar year preceding to the date of termination , it led the court in framing the issue on this point and the parties have also adduced the evidence "क्या प्रबंधन प्रसार भारतीय आकाशवाणी के द्वारा कर्मकार श्री रमेश चन्द्र शर्मा पुत्र श्री राम निवास शर्मा की सेवाएं दिनांक1-4- 2002समाप्त करना न्यायोचित है ? यदि नहीं, तो कर्मचारी किस लाभ का हकदार है और किस तिथि से ? " 6235 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18 , 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28 1927
13. Notice Ex. W17 dated 27-3-2002 was issued by the management to the workman which has been received by him admittedly on 3-4-2002 at his residents. It speaks that since his services are not required, his services would beterminated after expiry of the one month since the date ofthe receipt ofthe notice.
thereon respectively, though this matter relates to the issue framed anddiscussed in the earlier award dated 25-5-2000 ofthis,Tribunal . However, both the parties during the course of final hearing of the dispute on mutual consent have confined themselves to the relevant question of the violation under Section 25 -F, clauses (a) and (b) ofthe Act, which is involved in this dispute as to whether the retrenchment of the workman by All India Radio is legally properandvalid.
7. I have heard both the parties and have gone through the record.
14. The management could not be able to bring on record any documentary evidence indicating the date of the receipt ofthis notice . As stated earlier, the oral evidence ofthe workman is only available on this point , who has admitted that it was received by him on 3-4-2002 at his residence.
8. The Ld. representative for the workman contends that the workman was employed as class 4th by the non- applicant management , whose service was terminated on 1-7-1995 and the dispute was referred to this CGIT, which vide its award dated 25-5-2000 directed the non - applicant management to reinstate him and he was consequently reinstated on 11-8-2000 . But by the notice dated 27-3-2002, his service was again terminated and he was not taken on dutyw.e.f. 1-4-2002 . The Ld. representative further submits that the management has not issued one month notice to the workman before terminating his service , nor the sufficient retrenchment compensation has been given to the workman. His submission is that the compensation worth Rs. 9285 was paid to him by the bank draft in which Rs. 70 were deducted by the bank as its clearance charges. Hehasalso contended that in accordance with the minimum wages the compensation amount has not been given to theworkman.
15. The workman has alleged that he was declined to join the duty by the management w.e.f. 27-3-2002 , whereas the management's stand is that the workman has left the job on his own. In his cross -examination , he has deposed that he was refused to attend the office on 27-3- 2002 and from 1-4-2002 to 1-5-2002 he had not attended the office. He has emphatically denied the suggestion put to him on behalf of the management that he had feft the job w.e.f. 1-4-2002 and has stated that he was continued on the postby the management . It cannot be presumed that the workman, whose service was earlier terminated by the management w.e.f. 1-7-1995 and who could after a long legal battle won his case and was reinstated on 11-8-2000 in pursuance of the award dated 25-5-2000 would absent himselfwithout any reason from his duties . It was for the management to prove by adducing reliable evidence that theworkman had left the job on his own, which it has failed to establish. It, therefore, flows on the aforesaid facts that the service ofthe workman was orally discontinued by the management on or about 1-4-2002 and thereafter the notice was issued to him contrary to Section 25 -F, clause ( a) of the Act inasmuch as his service was terminated prior to the expiry ofone month notice period . Besides , the notice Ex . W-17 does not contain the reasons for retrenchment as envisaged in clause (a) to Section 25 -F ofthe Act . Thus , the notice Ex. W17 is invalid in view ofthe aforesaid provision.
9. Per contra, the Ld. representative for the non- applicant contends that the workman himself absented from. the duty, who was served with one month notice and after compliance ofthe notice his service was terminated . The Ld. representative further contends that sufficient retrenchment compensation was also sent to him by the registed bank draft which has been received by him and the management has acted in accordance with the direction of this tribunal which states that if the services of the workmen are not required then these may be dispensed with in accordance with the provisions of the Act .
10. I have bestowed my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions and have carefully gone , through the judicial decisions relied upon by both the parties .
16. Now I am faced with the another question as to whether the dues payable to the workman were given to him by the management on the date of his retrenchment . The Id. representative for the workman has rightly contended that the dues should be paid to the workman on the date of his retrenchment simultaneously in view of the clause (b) of Section 25 -F of the Act .
11. Section 25 -F, clause (a ) lays down that no workman shall be retrenched until he has been given one month's notice in writing indicating reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice is expired. Its clause (b) says that the employer is required to pay the compensation amount to the workman at the time of his retrenchment .
17. The stand of the management is that the retrenchment compensation was paid to the workman by the registered draft mailed to him. Firstly, it is not in dispute that the retrenchment compensation was not paid to the workman on the date of his retrenchment , and, secondly it has also not been disputed that Rs . 70/- were deducted by the bank as its clearance charges , which converts it into the inadequate compensation amount . Accordingly, the management has also failed to observe the requirement laid down under clause (b ) of Section 25 - F of the Act .
12. Now the question which calls for consideration is whether the management has followed both the requirements supra.
6236
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF -INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2005 /JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
he is entitled to be reinstated in service with its continuity. He is further entitled to get the 50% back- wages w.e.f. 1-4-2002 to the date of this award . The award is passed in these terms accordingly.
26. Let a copy of the award be sent to the Central Government for publication under Section 17 ( 1 ) of the Act . R. C. SHARMA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 30 मई , 2005
18. The Ld. representative for the workman in support of his submission has relied upon 1984 RLR 981 . The facts thereof are that while passing the numerous orders ofretrenchment , few workmen who were entitled to receive payment simultaneously at the time of retrenchment, could not receive the payment on the same day. The finding of the tribunal that the employer had not paid the dues payable to such workmen under Section 25 -F, clauses ( a) &(b) ofthe Act at the time of retrenchment was considered to be just and upheld by the Hon'ble Court . The submission made on behalf of the workman finds support from the decision and is accepted accordingly.
का. आ. 2190.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, डब्लू. सी. एल. प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, नागपुर ( संदर्भ संख्यासी.जी.आई.टी./एन.जी.पी./ 127/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जोकेन्द्रीय सरकार को 30-5-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था । 19. The submission advanced on befalf of the workman that adequate compensation amount was not paid tohim in contravention of cl use (b) of Section 25 -F of the Act is also fortified from the ecision reported in 2004 Lab IC SC 3466 .
[सं. एल-22012/52/1999- आईआर ( सी- II ) ] एन. पी. केशवन, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 30th May, 2005
20. The Ld . representative for the management has referred to the following decisions in support of his submission, which I have carefully gone through, but their facts are quite dissimilar to the present controversy and the Ld. representative does not derive any assistance from them 2002 SCC (L& S ) 367, 2003 ( 1) LLJ Mad. 1015 , 1997 SCC (L & S ) 478 and 2001 ( 1 ) WLC 592.
S.O. 2190.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. CGIT/NGP/ 127/2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court , Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between the management of WCL, andtheir workmen, received by the Central Government on 30-5-2005 .
21. For the forgoing reasons , it is concluded that the non-applicant management has terminated the service ofthe workman in violation of provisions under Section 25 -F, clauses (a) & (b) of the Act . This point is , therefore, decided in favour of the workman and against the management .
Point No. III
[No. L - 22012/52/ 1999 - IR (C- II)] N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR
PRESENT:
22. The workman has neither disclosed in his claim statement nor in his affidavit the names of those junior persons who were retained by the management at the time ofterminating his service . Thus, he has failed to bring on record any evidence on this point, which is decided against him.
Point No. IV
SHRI E. ISMAIL, Presiding Officer Case No. C.G.LT./NGP/127/2000 Date: 27-4-2005 Shri Rajayya Piraiyya Petitioner Vs.
23. Likewise, the workman has also not named any person who was recruited after his termination by the management in his claim statement or even in his affidavit. Thus, he has also not adduced the evidence on this point . That being the position , this point is also decided against theworkman.
Point No. V
The Sub AreaManager, W.C.L.Ballarpur-Respondent AWARD
24. On account ofthe decision of point No. I in favour of the workman, his claim deserves to be allowed and he is entitled to be reinstated in the service .
The Central Government , Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section ( 1) and Sub-section 2 (A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputeð Act, 1947 has referred this dispute for adjudication vide order No. L-22012/52/ 1999 -IR (C - II)dt. 31-08-1999 on following schedule.
25. In the result, the reference is answered in the affirmative in favour of the workman and it is held that his termination order dated 1-4-2002 is illegal and unjust and 6237 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18 , 2005/ज्यैष्ठ 28 , 1927
the said facts . In the cross examination he denied that the medical board declared WW1 unfit.
The management examined Shri D.K. Chandok, Personal Manager as MW1 . He deposed to the facts stated in the counter filed by the employer. In the cross examination he deposed that he denied all suggestions.
"Whether the action of the management namely Sub Area Manager, Ballarpur Colliery 3 & 4 Pits of Western Coalfields Ltd. , PO : Ballarpur, Distt . Chandrapur in terminating the services of Sh . Rajayya Piraiyya, Ex-Loader, Ballarpur Colliery is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the woekman is entitled and from what date? What other directions are necessary in the matter?"
Themanagement examined Dr. S. Subramanian, Chief Medical Officer , who was working as Medical Suptd . Lal PethMedical Hospital during 85 to 87. He said that WW1 was treated and medical board declared him fit vide exhibit M2.
The petitioner's counsel argued that the very fact that the Commissioner, Workman's Compensation, Chadrapur granted him 42714/- on the basis of the evidence of Dr. Patiyal and no doctor was examined by the respondent and that he has represented in 86-97 , 91, 92 & 94. Therefore he may be reinstated with back wages and continuity of service.
It isargued by the learned counsel for the respondent that the said compensation case is pending in the Hon'ble High Court and the medical board had declared him fit , therefore he is not entitled for any relief.
The employee was appointed in WCL , Ballarpur Colliery, 3 & 4 Pits as Loader on 4-5-79 . He received a grievous leg injury in the course of employment. He was treated at Lala Peth Colliery Hospital , Chandrapur. There after he was declared fit. On 16-3-86 the medical board assessed permanent partial disablement as 0 % . He was declared fit for original job . He requested to send them to apex medical board, which also declared fit on 14-9-86. He requested for night job but not given and he was dismissed without conducting inquiry. Although the peritioner had applied several times to provide him a lightjob on surface. He filed for compensation and the Compensation Commissioner Chrandrapur awarded him compensation of42714/- along with interest of 6% from 1-7-85 & penalty of45% of the amount of compensation . The Workman's Compensation Commissioner assessed lost of earning capacity to the extent of 50%. That he has been a victim of unfair labour practice hence declaring him as deserter by. removing himfrom employment on 16-3-88 as null and void. He may be directed to reinstate by providing him with a light job, with continuity of service and back wages .
Awritten statement was filed that although he was declared medically fit he did not joined and was insisting for a light job . He was dismissed as a deserter. He was also provided free medical treatment and wages . Dr. Patiyal did not provide any treatment he only provided a certificate to the workman . That again the decision of the Commissioner for Workman's Compensation appeal is pending before High Court . Hence the reference may be ordered in favour ofmanagement .
Itmaybe noted that the petitioner has been declared as deserter as far back as 6-3-88 and the reference is on 31-8-99 that means he approached the ALC after a gap of 10 years . That it self is fatal to his case and the medical board has declared him fit , but Dr. Patiyal deposed before Commissioner for workman's compensation . That there is some mal union and he is unfit to work under ground. He has worked only for 6 years and in view of the divergent opinions and the fact that he has already received 42000 as compensation and his monthly wages was 1643 hence I am ofthe opinion that instead of giving him ajob at this length oftime. The ends ofjustice will be met if he is granted a lump sum compensation of Rs . 20,000 . The payment is to be made within 30 days of the publication of this award failingwhich he will be entitled for 6% interest per annum.
As no domestic enquiry was conducted hence no question of deciding the validity of domestic enquiry.
E. ISMAIL, Presiding Officer
SCHEDULE
(1) . Witness for petitioner
Shri Rajayya Pirayya as WW1 .
Shri Premdas Atkuriwar as WW2 .
The petitioner examined himself. Deposed to the said facts stated in the claim statement and also deposed that he had been to Dr. Patiyal renowned and experience orthopaedic surgeon who examined him and opined there is mal union of fracture right tibia fibula in valgus positión and that he has permanent disability of right tibia fibula bone . He was removed on 6-3-88 . He may be reinstated . (2). Witness for respondent Shri D. K. Chandok asMW1 .
In the cross the medical board examined, examination .
Shri S. Subramanian as MW2 .
(3). Exhibits for petitioner Nil
(4). Exhibits for respondent Nil
He examined another witness name Samayya who deposed that the injury disabled WW. He admitted that the medical board examined the petitioner . He examined another witness by name Premdas , who also deposed to 6238
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2005 /JYAISTHA 28, 1927
[PART II SEC. 3 ( ii) ] नई दिल्ली, 30 मई, 2005
in terminating Sh . Damodhar Janardhan Khiratkar, Explosive Carrier, Rajur Colliery, Pits, is legal proper and justified? If not, to what relief the wokman is entitled and from which date? What other directions are necessary in this matter?" का. आ. 2191.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, डब्ल्यू. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्रके संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, नागपुर ( संदर्भ संख्यासी.जी.आई.टी. /एन.जी.पी./255/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जोकेन्द्रीय सरकार को 30-5-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-22012/50/ 2000- आईआर ( सी- II ) ]
एन. पी. केशवन , डैस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi, the30th May, 2005
Aclaim statement was filed by the petitioner stating the facts that he was in services of party No. 1 since last 13 years . Prior to his termination of services . The service record ofthe party No. 2 was clean and unblemished . It is also submitted that party No. 2 was not issued with the charge sheet . No reasonable opportunity of being heard was given to him. No advance notice was given, no relevant document were also given to the party No. 2 while conducting any domestic enquiry. More over inquiry report was also not furnished to the party No. 2 after completion of enquiry. Under such circumstances inquiry is forged, defective and against the principles of natural justice. That the enquiry officer wrongly form his opinion that the charge are proved against the party No. 2 without proper enquiry and on that basis the punishment of dismissal is imposed. The enquiry officer/ disciplinary authority had not taken into consideration back service record before imposing the punishment of termination .
S.O. 2191. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT/ NGP /255 / 2000 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between the management of WCL . and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 30-5-2005.
[No. L -22012/ 50/ 2000 - IR (C- II) ]
N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL , NAGPUR
Further the pertitioner stated that neither the enquiry has been conducted nor any proceeding ex parte communicated to party No. 2. Thus if any enquiry conducted against party No. 2 lacks of principles ofnatural justice and fair opportunity of being heard. Thus the action ofthe management W.C.L. Rajur Sub Area in termination ofservice of Shri D.J. Khiratkar is illegal and unjustified and hence the workman is entitled to reinstate in service with full back wages .
PRESENT:
Shri E. Ismail, Presiding Officer
Case No. C.G.LT./NGP/255/2000
Date: 26-4-2005
Shri Damodhar J. Khiratkar-Petitioner
Vs.
Acounter was filed by the respondent stating that the petitioner was habitual absentee . He gave his written explanation to the chargesheet and inquiry was conducted. Hewas given full opportunity to defend himself and availing the services of co - workers . He examined himself as defence witness . Inquiry report was handed over to him. Past record was also considered. He was terminated on 21-7-94. As such the reference may be order in favour of the company.
The Sub ea Manager, W.C.L. Rajur- Respondent
AWARD
Arejoinder was filed that the petitioner was working since 9-1-1981 and terminated on 24-7-1994 . That he met an accident in 1992. The over man had allotted duty in the section of tramer while he was in the section of exclusive carrier. Due to which accident took place and his left hand has been fractured for which he was admitted in the company hospital for 2/92 and onwards . Due to this accident he was absent in 92 & 93 .
My learned predecessor did not decide the validity ofdomestic inquiry.
The Central Government , Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub - section ( 1 ) and Sub- section 2 (A) of Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute for adjudication vide Order No. L- 22012/50/2000 -IR (CM- II )dt . 21-08-2000 on following schedule .
"Whether the action of the management namely Sub AreaManager , Rajur Sub Area of Western Coalfields Ltd.
Itmaybe seen that the Hon'able Supreme Court has held in A.I.R. Supreme Court 1963 page No. 194 and laid down five conditions for the fairness of the enquiry.
भारत का राजपत्र: जून 18 , 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28, 1927
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]
1. I have gone through the chargesheet , which shows that in 1992 he attended only for 61 days . Charge sheet is clear hence point No. 1 answered in favour of the management .
2,3 & 4. I have gone through the inquiry report and all these conditions have been satisfied .
5. The inquiry officer has given the findings with reasoning; hence I hold that the inquiry is validly conducted. It has also come in evidence that in 1990, 1991 , when there was no accident he has worked less number of days . The evidence that has been let in has to eschewed, but there are medical certificates to show his ill health . Much has been argued on either side, but I am of the opinion that as he was sick and therefore one chance can be given to him with certain conditions , hence the references answered as follow:
The workman Sh . Damodhar J. Khiratkar shall be reinstated on the last pay drawn as explosive carrier on the following conditions :-
1. He shall put in minimum musters for three consecutive years .
2. If he fulfils condition No. 1 he shall be regularized andthe services from 9-1-81 to 24-7-94 shall be considered for terminal benefit .
Ifhe is not reinstated within 30 days of the publication of Award he will be entitled to last pay drawn .
E. ISMAIL, Presiding Officer
SCHEDULE
Shri D.J. Khiratkar (1) Witness for petitioner
(2) Witness for respondent Shri Hari Singh Laguri Suptd. of Mines as MW1 .
(3) Exhibits for petitioner
W- 1 Identity Card of WCL dt . 9-1-81 .
W - 2 Indentity for Explosive senior worker.
W-3 Pay -slip for 1994.
W-4Termination letter.
W-5 application for postponement of enquiry.
6239
W-6 Final Medical Certificate.
W - 7 Final Fitness Certificate.
W- 8 application for leave on medical ground.
(4). Exhibits for respondent Nil
नई दिल्ली, 30 मई , 2005
का. आ. 2192.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947. ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, डब्ल्यू. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, नागपुर ( संदर्भ संख्या सी.जी.आई.टी. /एन.जी.पी. /78/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30-5-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-22012/ 392/1997- आईआर ( सी- II ) ]
एन. पी. केशवन, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 30th May, 2005
S.O. 2192. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT/ NGP/ 78 / 2000 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum - Labour Court , Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between the management of WCL, and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 30-5-2005.
[No. L -22012/392/ 1997 - IR (C - II ) ]
N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR PRESENT:
SHRI E. ISMAIL, Presiding Officer Case No. C.G.I.T./NGP/78/2000
Date : 25-4-2005
Shri Podeti Komaraiyya Durgayya-Petitioner
Vs.
The Sub Area Manager, W.C.L. -Respondent 6240
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18, 2005 / JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] AWARD
justified. He relies on AIR 1977 Supreme Court page No. 31 where it was held that termination of service by efflux of time amounts to retrenchment. Non compliance of Sec . 25 - F (b) Labour Court held justified in awarding reinstatement with full back wages and he relied on several judgments and prayed for reinstatement with back wages .
The Central Government , Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub section 2 (A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute for adjudication vide Order No. L-22012/392/ 97 (C -II ) dtd . 15-12-1998 on the following schedule.
"Whether the action of the management WCL , ChandrapurArea in terminating the services of Sh . Podeti K. Durgayya, Ex-badli filler w.e.f. 26-08-89 is legal and justified? Ifnot, to what relief the wokman is entitled and fromwhich date ? What other directions are necessary in the matter?"
It isargued by the learned counsel for the respondent that he was dismissed again he was given chance under a settlement he did not report, time was extended twice he didnot report and the Union kept quite for 7 years and the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. He also relied 2000 LAB . I.C , 2326 were it was held that unauthorized absence from duty failure of delinquent to respond to notice- setting aside oforder of termination of services illegal . He there prays that the reference may be ordered in favours of management .
The claim petition was filed stating that the concerned employee Shri Podeti Komaraiyya Durgayya , Ex-Badli filler who was initially appointed as coal filler on 15-11-74 could not attend to his duties due to some domestic reasons , which were beyond his control in the month ofAugust 1989. A notice was issued to him on 14-8-89 , which was not actually served to him. By letter dated 26-8-89 he was removed from services .
It may be noted that in answering the reference the subsequent events also will have to be considered. The petitioner was removed from rolls on 26-8-89. He was given number of chances under settlement to report , he did not report and after 7 years he approached . All these delay itself shows that he was not interested in thejob . However taking the length of the litigation and his services from 1974 to 1989 I am ofthe opinion that he is entitled to some relief. Hence the references answered as follows :
The action of the Management of WCL Chandrapur area interminating the services of Shri Podeti Komaraiyya Durgayya , Ex-badli filler w.e.f. 26-8-89 is modified as voluntary retirement from 26-8-89 hence he will be entitled for all eligible terminal benefits .
E. ISMAIL, Presiding Officer The above workman's case was taken up for re- employment by the Union and a settlement dated 30-12-89 was arrived between the above named Union and the above name workman was to report between 15 days from 30-12-89 . Subsequently the petitioner reported but he was not taken . He approached to the management between 90 to 95 but to no avail . The termination is without following the I.D. Act and 25 F of the ID Act . One Kankaiah Durgayya although declared medically unfit yet he was taken in service in 96 hence there is discrimination. It is therefore prayed thatthe petitioner be re - instated with full back wages .
SCHEDULE
(1). Witness for petitioner Padeti Komaraiyya Durgayya WW1 , G.V.R. Sarma WW2.
(2). Witness for respondent Nil
(3). Exhibits for petitioner
Termination notice dated 26-8-89 W1 Memorandum of Settlement dated 30-12-89 W2 .
Acounter was filed stating that the petitioner Podeti Komariyya Durgayya was terminated on the ground of abandonment of service . His previous attendance was 1986-161 days 1987-124, 1988-117 , 1989-50 . He was absenting from 28-6-89 without intimation. A show cause notice was issued that and he was terminated and no appeal was filed . In view of settlement dated 30-12-89 he was to report within 15 days , he did not report . Management took a lenient view and vide letter dated 30-1-1990 extended the date for reporting till 13-2-1990 which was further extended till 14-3-1990 . Unions slept for 7 years hence there are no merits in the case .
(4) Exhibits for respondent
General Secretary, Shri G.V.R. Sharma examined as WW1 and deposed to the facts stated in the petition.
Memorandum of Settlement dtd . 30-12-89 MW1 . Settlement dtd . 30-12-89 MW2 .
Implementation of settlement dtd . 30-12-89 MW3 .
Much has been argued stating that the petitioner joined on 15-11-1974 and dismissed on 26-8-89 . No proof of service of notice . Here the reference is whether terminating the services on the workman from 26-8-89 is 6241 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18 , 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28, 1927
नई दिल्ली, 30 मई, 2005
Paswan, U.G. Loader from services w.e.f. 14-7-2003 is legal and justified ? If not , to what relief is the workman entitled ? "
का. आ. 2193.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, ई. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण आसनसोल (संदर्भ संख्या 40/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को30-5-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
2.After receipt of the aforesaid order of reference summons were issued to the respective parties through the registered post and having received the summons both the parties appeared in the Court through their representatives and filed their separate sets of written statement in support of their respective claims .
[सं. एल-22012/311/ 2003- आईआर( सी- II ) ] एन. पी. केशवन, डैस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 30th May, 2005
3. In brief compass the case of the workman concerned as per his written statement is that Sri Jagannath Paswanwas in employment of the company as U.G. Loader atChora Colliery of M/s . Eastern Coalfield Limited.
S.O. 2193. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 40/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum -Court, Asansol , as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of E.C.L. , and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 30-5-2005 .
4. The main case of the delinquent workman is that he became sick and reported at Government Health Centre on 27-11-2002 and continued his treatment at dispensary up to 26-3-2003 . After being declared fit . The workman reported to the management but he was not allowed to resume his duty.
[No. L-22012/311/2003 - IR(C-II)]
N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM - LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL
PRESENT : SRI MD . SARFARAZ KHAN , PRESIDING OFFICER.
REFERENCE NO . 40 OF 2004
PARTIES:
The Agent , Chora Colliery, Kenda Area ofE.C. Ltd. , P.O. Bahula, Distt. , Burdwan. Vrs. Management
5. The further case of the workman is that he was charge-sheeted vide charge -sheet No. ECL/CH/06B/03 /467, dated 28-3-2003 . The workman had replied to the charge- sheet and submitted all documents related to his sickness during enquiry proceedings , the enquiry officer unfortunately gave his findings against the workman ignoring all rules and regulation . In view of the facts mentioned above it is claimed to be absolutely clear that the dismissal of Sri Jagannath Paswan from the service of the company is illegal and unjustified. It is prayed that the management of Chora Colliery under Kenda Area ofM/s . ECL to reinstate the workman in service with payment of full back wages for the period from the date of dismissal will all consequential benefits .
6. On the other hand the defence case of the management as per its written statement in brief is that the instant reference is bad in the eye of law and the very dispute is entirely misconceived one.
Shri Jagannath Paswan, U.G. Loader represented by Sri S.K. Pandey, General Secretary, Koyala Mazdoor, Congress , Asansol . Workman.
REPRESENTATIVES :
For the Management: Forthe Workman: (Union)
Sri P.K. Das , Advocate. Sri S. K. Pandey, General Secretary of the Union . State:West Bengal.
Industry: Coal.
Dated 2-3-2005 .
AWARD
7. The main defence case of the management is that the concerned workman was chargesheeted for his unauthorised absence from his duty for the period from 27-11-2002 to 28-3-2003 as per the provisions of certified standing order. The delinquent workman submitted his report to the chargesheet but the explanations submitted by the workman was found to be totally unsatisfactory and as such a domestic enquiry proceedings was held under the said chargesheet in presence of the delinquent workman and he all along participated in the enquiry proceedings and he was given all reasonable opportunities to defend hiscase in accordance with the principles ofnatural justice .
Inexercise of the powers conferred by clause ( d) of sub -section (1) and sub - section 2 (A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , Government of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L- 22012/311/2003 - IR(CM- II) dated 30-6-2004 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal:
8. The further case of the management is that the enquiry officer after conclusion of his enquiry proceedings held the workman guilty for the charges and the charge of misconduct was fully established in his enquiry findings submitted before the appointing authority. The punishing "Whether the action of the Management of Chora Colliery under Kenda Area of M/ s . Eastern Coalfields Limited in dismissing Sri Jagannath 6242
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18, 2005/ JYAISTHA 28, 1927
authority having been fully satisfied with the findings of the enquiry officer along with connected papers and past attendance of the workman awarded a pubishment of dismissal frem service in accordance with the gravity of misconduct.
9. It is also the case of the management that the second show cause notice was also served to the workman and he was supplied with the copy of the enquiry proceedings. The workman concerned was previously punished for the similar type of misconduct in the year 2002 and his 3 increments were stopped twice in the same year .
17. The management in para 1 of its pleadings has taken the plea that the instant reference is bad in the eye of law as the same is not legally maintanable . It is also claimed that in view of the facts and the circumstances of the case the dispute is misconceived one . But the aforesaid issue was neither raised nor pressed by the management during the course of hearing of the dispute. The management has also not examined any oral witness nor tendered even a chit of paper in support of its plea. As such I do not find any defect in the maintainability of this reference and the facts of the case very well come under the purview of Industrial Dispute , Act 1947. The Government of India through the Ministry of Labour has rightly referred the dispute to this Tribunal for its adjudication and as such this issue is decided against the management.
10. It is denied that the workman due to his illness could not attend his duty. He did not report his illness before the management and the medial certificate is claimed to be manufatured one. It is prayed that the action of the management to be held to totally justified in dismissing the workman and the workman is not entitled to seek any relief.
18. It is apparent from the perusal of the record that none of the parties has examined any oral witness in support of their case rather both sides have filed some documents . The management has filed the original copy of the enquiry proceeding and its report. The union has filed the Xerox copy of the enquiry proceeding its report and treatment papers including the medical certificates and the copy of its reply to the chargesheet issued against him. These all documents are admitted one as the genuineness ofthe same has not been challenged by either side .
11. On perusal of therecord it transpires that on 22-12-2004 a hearing on the preliminary point was made. The validity and fairness of the enquiry proceedings was not challenged by the delinquent employee as he had duly participated in the enquiry proceedings . So the enquiry proceeding was held to be fair and valid and accordingly the date for final hearing of the dispute on merit was fixed. The final hearing of the dispute was taken up on 23-2-2005 and the award was kept reserved for order.
12. In the light of the pleadings of the parties and the materials available on the record I do find certain facts which are admitted by the respective parties . So before entering into the discussion of the merit of the case I would like to mention the facts which are admitted one .
13. It is the admitted fact that Sri Jagannath Paswan underground Loader was the permanent employee at Chopra Colliery ofM/s . Eastern Coalfield Limited .
14. It is the further admitted fact that the concerned workman was absent from his duty with effect from 27-11-2002 to 28-3-2003 without any prior permission and information to the management.
19. It is clear from the enquiry proceedings and its report that the delinquent employee had received the chargesheet and had participated in the proceedings . He has categorically admitted in his statement before the enquiry officer during the proceedings that he failed to inform the competent authority during the said period of his sickness due to physical ailment. He has further stated in his statement that due to sudden attack with jaundice he was compelled to be absent from his duty since 27-11-2002 to 26-3-2003. He was completely bed redden during the said period and during those relevant period he was under the medical treatment of Govt . Health Centre of Jamuria Block Medical Department . (Bahadurpur BPHC ) from 1-12-2002 to 26-3-2003 . Besides this the enquiry officer has also categorically mentioned in his findings that although the chargesheeted workman was suffering from viral hepatitis with Peptic ulcer sydrome as Ext . D/I and as per his statement . But he could have informed the colliery authority regarding the reason of his absenting from duty as a token of permission to his outside medical treatment other than company's hospital/dispensary but not done.
15. It is also admitted fact that the workman concerned was chargeshceted on 28-3-2003 and he had replied the chargesheet and subsequently a domestic enquiry was conducted by an enquiry officer and the workman had duly participated in the enquiry proceedings and sufficient opportunity was given to defend himself and the enquiry officer gave his findings against the workman. It is also admitted that during the course of enquiry the workman had filed the medical certificates and treatment papers .
20. In view of the above facts , circumstance enquiry proceedings and the findings of the enquiry officer I find that the workman concerned was admittedly absent from his duty w.e.f. 27-11-2002 to 26-3-2003 about four months continuouslywithout any prior permission and information of the colliery authority. The enquiry officer has rightly held his guilty for an unauthorised absence under clause 17(1 ) ( n) of the Model Standing Order applicable to the establishment and in view of the aforesaid facts the 16. These all facts are the admitted facts and as per the settled principles of law the facts admitted need not be proved. So I do not think proper to discuss these facts in detail .
[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
6243 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18, 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28, 1927
facts and the spicific provision provided there in appears to be reasoned and convincing .
delinquent employee deserves some suitable punishment for the alleged charge of misconduct proved as provided in the Model Standing Order applicable to the establishment :
21. Now the only main point for consideration before the Court is to see as to how for the punishment awarded to the delinquent workman by the management is just, proper, and proportionate to the alleged nature of misconduct proved ?
25. It has been several times clearly observed by the different Hon'ble High Courts and the Apex Court as well that before imposing a punishment of dismissal it is necessary for the disciplinary authority to consider socio- economic back ground of the workman his family back ground, length of service put in by the employee , his past records and other surrounding circumstances including the nature of the misconduct and lastly the compelling circumstances to commit the misconduct . These are the relevant factors which must have to be kept in mind by the authority at the time of imposing the punishment, which has not been done by the management in this case.
22. Heard both the sides on the aforesaid point in question in detail . It was submitted by the side of the workman that it is a simple case of an unauthorised absence ofabout four months only and the absence from the duty during the relevant period is duly explained and the reasons ofabsence supported with medical certificates have been found sufficient and relevant by the enquiry officer and that is why the enquiry officer in his finding has not mentioned a word that the unauthorised absence was without any sufficient cause. The medical certificate grantedby the Block medical Officer B.P.H.C. Jamuria go to show that the delinquent employee was suffering from viral hepatitis (Jaundice) with peptic ulcer sydrome followedby sprain(R.I. ) ankel with LB.P. after full from 1-12-2002 to 26- 2-2003 and this fact find support from the findings of the enquiry officer as well . I find much force in the argument of the union side on this point and I am convinced to hold that the workman was absent during the relevant period under the compelling circumstance beyond his control .
26 Undoubtedly the delinquent employee is an illiterate man of Paswan by caste who is the member of the Scheduled Caste and weaker section of society. He is admittedly financially poor and weak who has suffered a lot for about more than three years and he had never been gainfully employed any where during the period after his dismissal . The attention of the Court was also drawn by the union towards the provision of the Model Standing Order laid down under clause 27( 1 ) page - 15 where various minor punishment have been prescribed to be awarded according to the gravity of the misconduct I fail to under- stand as towhy only maximum punishment available under the said clause should be awarded in the present facts and circumstance of the case . It has been observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that justice must be tempered with mercy and that the delinquents workman should be given an opportunity to reform himself and to be loyai and disciplinary employee of the management .
27. However I am of the considered view that the punishment of dismissal for an unauthorised absence for about four months under the compelling circumstance and without any mala fide intention is not just and proper rather it is too harsh a punishment which is totally disproportionate to the alleged misconduct proved. Such a simple case of unauthorised absence under a compelling circumstance does not come under the definition of gross misconduct and the same should have been dealt with leniently by the management .
23. During the course of further argument it was submitted that the workman concerned has got unblemish record during the service period and there has not been any complain of any misconduct either unauhorised absence or any other sorts of. The management has also not chargesheeted him for habitual absence nor any any chit or paper in this regard has been filed in the Court nor before the enquiry officer. Had there been any complain of habitual absence the workman must have been chargesheeted for the same. This point of argument is also supported with the facts available in the record, and it can be concluded that it is the first offence of the workman which has been sufficiently explained and supported by the medical certificate indicating the compelling circumstance beyond the control of the concerned workman.
28. In this view ofthe matter I think it just and proper to modify and substitute the punishment exercising the powerunder section 11 (A) of the Industrial Dispute Act , 1947 to meet the ends of justice and accordingly the impugned order of dismissal of the concerned workman is hereby set - a - side and he is directed to be reinstated with the continuity of the service and in the light of the prevailing facts and circumstances and the misconduct for which the punishment of dismissal was imposed on the workman concerned I think it appropriate that the delinquent workman be imposed a punishment of strict warning not to rapeat the same in future . It is further directed that the workman will be entitled to get only 50% of the 24. It was vehementally argued by the union that it is a simple case of an unauthorised absence for about four months under the compelling circumstance which can not be claimed to be a gross misconduct . The attention of the Court was also drawn towards the specific provision ofthe Model Standing Order where the extreme punishment prescribed is dismissal as per the gravity ofthe misconduct and it was claimed that the extreme penalty can not be imposed upon the workman in such a minor case of alleged misconduct of an unauthorised absence for a few months . The argument of the Union in the light of the prevailing
1714 Gl /0530 6244
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18, 2005 /JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ]
AWARD
back wages which will serve the ends of justuce. Accordingly it is hereby
ORDERED
That let an award be and the same is passed. Secretary to send the copies of the award to the Ministry of Labour for information and needful . The reference is accordingly disposed off.
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( d) of sub- section 1 and sub- section 2 (A) of the Section 10 ofthe Industrial Dispute Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), Government of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L- 22012/ 287/ 97 - IR( CM - II) dated 20-7-1998 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by thisTribunal.
SCHEDULE
Md.. SARFARAZ KHAN, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 30 मई , 2005
"Whether the action of the management of Sripur Seam Incline Colliery of M/ s. E.C.L. in denying thewages for the period from 11-10-95 to 07-11-95 onaccount of stoppage of work of Sh. Deonandarı Singh, Loading Clerk is justified ? If not, to what relief is the workman concerned entitled ? " का. आ. 2194.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, ई. सी. एल. प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण आसनसोल (संदर्भ संख्या 28/1998 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30-5-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं . एल-22012/287/97- आईआर ( सी- II ) ] एन. पी. केशवन , डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 30th May, 2005
2. In pursuance of the aforesaid order of reference received from the Government of India through the Ministry of labour, summons were issued to both the parties by the registered post . Having received the notices of summons both the parties appeard and filed their respective written statement in suppot of their claims.
S.O. 2194. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award Ref. No. 28/1998 of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum Labour Court , ASANSOL , as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management ofE.C.L. , and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 30-5-2005 .
[No. L -22012/287/ 1997 - IR ( C - II) ] N. P. KESAVAN , Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL
PRESENT : Sri Md. Sarfaraz Khan , PresidingOfficer .
3. From perusal of the record it transpires that since 04-04-2002 the union is absent and left taking any steps in this case on its behalf. The record goes to show that registered notice was sent to the union for appearance but even after receipt and due service of the notice , no step was taken nor the union appeared in this case . The order sheet goes to show that the union is regularly absent since 04-04-2002 which indicates that the union has got no interest in this case and does not want to proceed with this case. This reference is old one and pending since the year 1998. So it is notjust and proper to keep the record pending any more as no purpose is to be served. Accordingly a "NO DISPUTE AWARD" is passed. Let the copies of the award be sent to the Ministry of Labour for information and needful . The reference is accordingly disposed off.
Reference No. 28 of 1998 .
Md . SARFARAZ KHAN, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 2 जून , 2005
PARTIES: The Agent , Sripur Seam Incline Colliery, M/ s . E.C. Ltd. , P.O. Sripur Bazar, Distt. , Burdwan.
....Management
Sri Deonandan Singh, Loading Clerk
Sripur Seam Incline Colliery,
M/ s. E.C. Ltd. ,
P.O. Sripur Bazar,
Workman
Distt. , Burdwan.
REPRESENTATIVES:
का. आ. 2195.-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 ( ढ़ ) के उप- खण्ड ( vi ) के उपबंधों के अनुसरण में भारत सरकार के श्रम मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का.आ. 3251 दिनांक 8-12-2004 द्वारा लोह अयस्क खनन उद्योग जो कि औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की प्रथम अनुसूची की प्रविष्टि 16 में शामिल है, को उक्त अधिनियम के प्रयोजनों के लिए दिनांक 18-12-2004 से छः मास की कालावधि के लिए लोक उपयोगी सेवा घोषित किया था;
For the Management Sri B. Chaudhury , Advocate
For the Workman : None
और केन्द्रीय सरकार की राय है कि लोकहित में उक्त कालावधि को छः मास की और कालावधि के लिए बढ़ाया जाना अपेक्षित है;
Industry: Coal .
State:West Bengal
Dated 8-4-2005
अतः, अब, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) का धारा 2 के खण्ड ( ढ़) के उप- खण्ड ( vi ) के परन्तुक द्वारा प्रदत्त 6245 [ भाग II खण्ड 3 (ii) 」 、
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18 , 2005/ज्येष्ठ 28, 1927
शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त उद्योग को उक्त अधिनियम के प्रयोजनों के लिए दिनांक 18-6-2005 से छः मास की कालावधिके लिए लोक उपयोगी सेवा घोषित करती है ।
स्थापना करती है जिसका मुख्यालय कोलकाता में होगा तथा श्री एच. बनर्जी, वर्तमान में पीठासीन अधिकारी , केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, कोलकाता को इसके पीठासीन अधिकारी के रूप में नियुक्त करती है । राष्ट्रीय अधिकरण अपना पंचाट छः माह की अवधि के भीतर देगा ।
[फा. सं. एस-11017/ 13/97- आई आर ( पी एल ) ] जे.पी. पति, संयुक्त सचिव New Delhi , 2nd June , 2005
जहां तक सरकार द्वारा इस मंत्रालय के दिनांक 2-12-2004 के आदेश संख्या एल. 16011/2/2003 आई.आर. ( डी.यू. ) के द्वारा केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं- श्रम न्यायालय संख्या-2, मुंबई को विद्यमान विवाद को संदर्भित किये जाने का संबंध है, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 की धारा 10 की उप - धारा-6 ( क ) के संबंध लागू होंगे ।
अनुसूची
S.O. 2195.-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. 3251 dated 8-12-2004 the service in the Iron Ore Mining Industry which iscovered by item 16 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 18th December, 2004;
" क्या प्रति सप्ताह कार्य घंटों को 37.5 घंटों से बढ़ाकर 44 घंटे किये जाने ( पांचवें वेतन आयोग की अनुशंसा के अनुसार ) के लिए 19 प्रतिशत क्षतिपूर्ति न दिये जाने की भारत सरकार टकसाल के प्रबंधन की कार्रवाई उचित एवं विधिसम्मत है ? यदि नहीं तो कामगार किस राहत के पात्र हैं ? "
And whereas, the Central Government is of opinion that public interest requires the extension of the said period by a further period of six months ;
[फा. सं. एल-16011/3/2004- आई आर ( डीयू) ] कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डैस्क अधिकारी
ORDER
New Delhi , the 6th June, 2005 Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferredby 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 18th June , 2005 .
[F. No. S - 11017/ 13 /97 - IR(PL) ] J.P. PATI , Jt . Secy.
आदेश नई दिल्ली, 6 जून , 2005
S.O. 2196.-Whereas an industrial dispute between employers in relation to management of India Government Mint and their workman in respect to the schedule hereto annexed was referred for adjudication to Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum -Labour Court No. 2, Mumbai vide order No. L- 16011/2/ 2003- IR(DU) dated 2-12-2004.
Andwhereas the Hon'ble High Court ofKolkata in W.P. 8741 (W)/2005 has directed the Government to refer the dispute before the appropriate authority within a period oftwo weeks from the date of communication order.
का. आ. 2196.- जबकि भारत सरकार टकसाल के प्रबंधन के संबंध में नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच इसके साथ संलग्न अनुसूची के संदर्भ में औद्योगिक विवाद को दिनांक 2-12-2004 के आदेश संख्या एल . -16011/2/2003- आई.आर. ( डी.यू. ) के द्वारा केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण- एवं- श्रम न्यायालय संख्या-2 , मुंबई को न्यायनिर्णयन हेतु भेजा गया था;
And whereas the Central Government is of the opinion that it would be expedient to refer the said Industrial Dispute to a National Industrial Tribunal as the matterpertains to establishments of the said management located in more than one State.
और जबकि माननीय कलकत्ता उच्च न्यायालय ने रिट याचिका 8741 ( डब्ल्यू) / 2005 में सरकार को इस आदेश की प्राप्ति की तारीख से दो सप्ताहों की अवधि के भीतर इस विवाद को समुचित प्राधिकरण के समक्ष प्रस्तुत करने का निदेश दिया है;
और जबकि केन्द्रीय सरकार का यह मत है कि उक्त औद्योगिक विवाद को राष्ट्रीय औद्योगिक अधिकरण को भेजना समीचीन होगा क्योंकि यह मामला उक्त प्रबंधन के प्रतिष्ठानों से संबंधित है जो एक से अधिक राज्यमें स्थित हैं :
Now, therefore, the Central Government , in exercise ofthe powers conferred by Section 7 B of the I.D. Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) read with Section 10 (1A) hereby constitutes a National Industrial Tribunal with the Head Quarters at, Kolkata and appoint Sh . H. Bannerjee , presently Presiding Officer, at Kolkata as its Presiding Officer. The National Tribunal will give its award within a period of six months .
अतः , अब केन्द्र सरकार धारा 10 ( 1 क ) के साथ पठित औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 7 ख द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, एक राष्ट्रीय औद्योगिक अधिकरण की
As regards the existing reference of the dispute made by Government vide this Ministry's Order No.
6246
THE GAZETTE OFINDIA : JUNE 18 , 2005/JYAISTHA 28 , 1927
L-16011 /2/2003 - IR(DU) dated 2-12-2004 to Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum -Labour Court No. 2, Mumbai , the provisions of sub - section ( 6 ) (a) of Section 10 ofthe I.D. Act, 1947 will apply.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action ofthe management of India Govt. Mint in not granting of 19 % compensation for the increased working hours from 37.5 hours per week to 44 hours per week(as per recommendation ofVth Pay Commission ), is just and legal? If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled to?"
[No. L -16011/3/2004- IR(DU) ] KULDEEP RAI VERMA , Desk Officer नईदिल्ली, 6 जून, 2005
का. आ. 2197.-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 ( ढ़ ) के उप -खण्ड ( VI ) के उपबंधों के अनुसरण में भारत सरकार के श्रम मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का.आ. 3353 दिनांक 15-12-2004 द्वारा कोयला उद्योग जो कि औद्योगिकविवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की प्रथम अनुसूची की प्रविष्टि04 में शामिल है , को उक्त अधिनियम के प्रयोजना के लिए दिनांक17-12-2004 से छः मास की कालावधि के लिए लोक उपयोगी सेवा घोषित किया था;
और केन्द्रीय सरकार की राय है कि लोकहित में उक्त कालावधि को छः मास की और कालावधि के लिए बढ़ाया जाना अपेक्षित है;
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 17-6-2005 से छ: मास की कालावधिके लिए लोक उपयोगी सेवा घोषित करती है ।
[फा. सं. एस-11017/2/97- आईआर (पीएल) ] जे. पी. पति, संयुक्त सचिव New Delhi , the 6th June, 2005
S.O. 2197.-Whereas the Central Government having been satisfied that the public interest so requires 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 No. S.O. 3353 dated 15-12-2004 the service in the Coal Industry which iscovered by item 4 of the First Schedule to the Industrial DisputesAct, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) tobe a public utility service for the purpose of the said Act, for a period of six months from the 17th December 2004.
Andwhereas, the Central Government is of opinion thatpublic interest requires the extension of the said Period bya further period of six months .
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to sub -clause (vi ) of clause ( n) of Section 2 ofthe Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, the Central Government
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]
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 17th June, 2005.
[F. No. S- 11017/2/ 97 - IR(PL) ]
J.P. PATI, Jt. Secy.
नईदिल्ली, 9 जून, 2005
का. आ. 2198.- कर्मचारी भविष्य निधि और प्रकीर्ण उपबंध अधिनियम, 1952 ( 1952का19 ) की धारा 5 की उप - धारा ( i ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्र सरकार एतद्वारा श्री विनीत विरमानी को केन्द्रीय न्यासी बोर्ड के एक सदस्य के रूप में नियुक्त करती है और दिनांक17-03-2003 को भारत के राजपत्र, असाधारण के भाग II, खण्ड 3 , उप- खण्ड ( ii ) में प्रकाशित भारत सरकार, श्रम मंत्रालय का.आ. 295( अ. ) दिनांक 13-03-2003 की अधिसूचना में निम्नलिखित संशोधन करती है ।
2. उक्त. अधिसूचना में प्रविष्टि सं. 27 श्री आर. के . सोमानी, अध्यक्ष और प्रबंधक निदेशक, एसोच्चम के लिए निम्नलिखित प्रविष्टि अन्तःस्थापित की जाएगी, अर्थात्:-
श्रीविनीतविरमानी अध्यक्ष, एसोच्चम, प्रबंध निदेशक,
एस.पी. विरमानी एण्ड सन्स प्रा.लि. 15 , गोल्फलिंक्स, नई दिल्ली -110003
[फा.सं. वी-20012/2/ 2003- एसएस- II ]
संयुक्ता राय , अवर सचिव NewDelhi , the 9th June, 2005
S.O. 2198. In exercise ofthe powers conferred by sub-section ( i ) of Section 5A of the Employees Provident Fund &Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 ( 19 of 1952) the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Vineet Virmani as a member of the Central Board of Trustees and makes the following amendment in the Notification of the Government of India in the Ministry ofLabour S.O. 295 (E) dated the 13-03-2003 published in Part II , Section 3 , Sub- section ( ii ) of the Gazette of India , Extraordinary dated 17-03-2003.
2. In the said notification for entries against serial No. 27 " Shri R.K. Somany, Chairman and Managing Director, ASSOCHAM" , the following entries shall be substituted namely:-
Shri Vineet Virmani Chairman, ASSOCHEM Managing Director S.P. Virmani & Sons Pvt. Ltd. 15th, GolfLinks , New Delhi- 110003
[F. No. V-20012/2/2003 -SS -II) ] SANJUKTA RAY, Under Secy.
Printed by the Manager , Govt. of India Press , Ring Road, Mayapuri , New Delhi - 110064 and Published by the Controller of Publications , Delhi - 110054.