This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

रजिस्ट्रीसं० डी एल ( एन ) 04/0007/ 2003-05

REGD . No. DL (N) 04/0007/ 2003-05

सत्यमेव जयते भारत का राजपत्र The Gazette of India

प्राधिकार से प्रकाशित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप्ताहिक

WEEKLY

सं. 27 ]

नईदिल्ली, जून 26- जुलाई 2, 2005 शनिवार /आषाढ़ 5-आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

No. 27]

NEW DELHI, JUNE 26-JULY 2, 2005 SATURDAY/ASADHA 5- ASADHA 11 , 1927 इस भाग में भिन्न पृष्ठ संख्या दी जाती है जिससे कि यह अलग संकलन के रूप में रखा जा सके Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation

भाग II-खण्ड 3 -उप-खण्ड (ii) PART II-Section 3 Sub- section (ii)

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

विधिऔर न्याय मंत्रालय

(viii ) श्री गिरीश आर. अग्रवाल, अधिवक्ता, मुम्बई, (विधि कार्य विभाग )

(ix) श्री दीपक ठाकुर, अधिवक्ता, मुम्बई

नई दिल्ली, 21 जून, 2005

का.आ. 2286.-केन्द्रीय सरकार , दंड प्रक्रिया संहिता, 1973 (1974का 2 ) की धारा 25 की उपधारा ( 1 क ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, -

( i ) श्री आर. के. पाठक , अधिवक्ता, मुम्बई,

( ii) श्री जे. आर. मोरे, अधिवक्ता, मुम्बई ,

( iii) कु. नीति पंडे, अधिवक्ता, मुम्बई,

( iv ) श्री राजेश देशाई , अधिवक्ता, मुम्बई,

को बृहत्तर मुम्बई में महानगर मजिस्ट्रेट न्यायालयों और विशेष न्यायालयों में भारत संघ या केन्द्रीय सरकार के किसी विभाग या कार्यालय या अपनी सरकारी हैसियत से कार्य करने वाले केन्द्रीय सरकार के विभाग के किसी अधिकारी द्वारा या उसके विरुद्ध सभी दांडिक मामलों का संचालन करने केप्रयोजन के लिए, इस शर्त के अध्यधीन कि ऊपर उल्लिखित अधिवक्ता केन्द्रीय सरकार या केन्द्रीय सरकार के किसी अधिकारी या केन्द्रीय सरकार के किसी विभाग के विरुद्ध किसी दांडिक मामले में बृहत्तर मुम्बई में किसी महानगर न्यायालय और किसी विशेष न्यायालय में उपसंजात नहीं होंगे, तुरन्तप्रभाव से तीन वर्ष की अवधि के लिए या अगले आदेश तक, इनमें से जो भी पहले हीं, सहायक लोक अभियोजक के रूप में नियुक्त करतीहै ।

(v ) श्री अजीत एस. ईनामदार, अधिवक्ता, मुम्बई ,

[फा.सं. 23( 2ए) /2005- न्या० ] (vi) श्री एन. नटराजन , अधिवक्ता, मुम्बई,

डी.आर. मीणा, संयुक्त सचिव और विधि सलाहकार (vii) श्री विमल गुप्ता, अधिवक्ता, मुम्बई,

1855 GI/ 2005

(6647) 6648

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005/ASADHA 11 , 1927

[PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE (Department of Legal Affairs)

(Department of Personnel and Training) New Delhi , the 21st June , 2005

New Delhi , the 16th June , 2005 S.O. 2286.- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1A) of Section 25 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints,-

(i) Shri R.K. Pathak , Advocate, Mumbai ,

(ii) Shri J.R. More , Advocate, Mumbai ,

(iii) Ms. Nitee Punde , Advocate , Mumbai ,

(iv) Shri Rajesh Desai , Advocate, Mumbai ,

(v) Shri Ajit S. Inamdar, Advocate , Mumbai ,

S.O. 2287.- In exercise of the powers conferredby sub - section ( 8 ) of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974) , the Central Government hereby appoints the following Advocates as Special Public Prosecutors for conducting the prosecution of cases instituted by the Delhi Special Police Establishment (CBI ) in the State of Goa as entrusted to them by the Director, Central Bureau of Investigation in the trial Courts and appeals / revisions or other matter arising out of these cases in revisional or appellate Courts established by law:--

(vi) Shri N. Natarajan , Advocate , Mumbai ,

(i) Shri Santana B. Faria

(vii) Shri Vimal Gupta, Advocate , Mumbai ,

(ii) Shri Avinash P. Lavande

(viii) Shri Girish R. Agrawal , Advocate , Mumbai ,

[No. 225 /23/2004-AVD - II ] (ix) Shri Deepak Thakur , Advocate , Mumbai

CHANDRA PRAKASH, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 16 जून , 2005

का.आ. 2288.- केन्द्रीय सरकार, एत‌द्वारा दंड प्रक्रिया संहिता, 1973 ( 1974 का अधिनियम सं. 2 ) की धारा 24 की उपधारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केंद्रीय अन्वेषण ब्यूरो के निम्नलिखित अधिवक्ताओं को विचारण न्यायालयों में दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना द्वारा संस्थित मामलों के अभियोजन तथा किसी ऐसे राज्य अथवा संघ राज्य क्षेत्र जिस पर पूर्वोक्त धारा के उपबंध लागू होते हैं, में विधि द्वारा स्थापित पुनरीक्षण अथवा अपील न्यायालयों में इन मामलों से उद्भूत अपीलों/पुनरीक्षणों अथवा अन्य विषयों का संचालन करने के लिए विशेष लोक अभियोजक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है:-

1. श्री विवेक सक्सेना

as Assistant Public Prosecutors for the purpose of conducting all criminal cases by or against the Union of India or any Department or Office of the Central Government or any officer of the Central Government Department acting in his official capacity in the Metropolitan Magistrate Courts and Special Courts in GreaterMumbai with immediate effect for a period of three years or until further orders , whichever is earlier , subject to the condition that the above mentioned advocates shall not appear in any criminal case in any Metropolitan Magistrate Court and Special Court in Greater Mumbai against the Central Government or any officer ofthe Central Government or against any Department of the Central Government.

2. श्री धन किशोर

[F. No. 23 (2A)/2005 -Judl . ]

3. श्री पी. वी. रामकृष्ण राव

D.R. MEENA , Jt . Secy. and Legal Adviser

4. श्री अमृतपाल सिंह

कार्मिक , लोक शिकायत तथा पेंशन मंत्रालय

5. श्री राजमोहन चंद

(कार्मिक और प्रशिक्षण विभाग )

6. श्री आई. के. चंद्रा

नई दिल्ली , 16 जून, 2005

7. श्री बी. एस. चौधरी

8. श्री कमलकांत गोयल

9. श्री राम लाल नेगी

10. श्री पवन कुमार डोगरा

11. श्री सुरेंद्र कुमार कांतिवाल

12. श्री मनोज कुमार टी.पी.

13. श्री बाल करण सिंह

14. श्री मनोज चालदान

का.आ. 2287.-केन्द्रीय सरकार, एत‌द्वारा दंड प्रक्रिया संहिता, 1973 ( 1974 का अधिनियम सं. 2 ) की धारा 24 की उपधारा ( 8 ) द्वारा- प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए निम्नलिखित अधिवक्ताओं को विचारण न्यायालयों में निदेशक, केंद्रीय अन्वेषण ब्यूरो द्वारा उन्हें सौंपे गए दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना ( के.अ. ब्यूरो ) द्वारा गोवा राज्य में संस्थित मामलों के अभियोजन तथा विधि द्वारा स्थापित पुनरीक्षण अथवा अपील न्यायालयों में इन मामलों से उद्भूत अपीलों/पुनरीक्षणों अथवा अन्य विषयों का संचालन करने के लिए विशेष लोक अभियोजक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है:-

15. श्री एम. एच. कबाडी

16. श्री पी. अरुण

1. श्री संतना बी. फरिया

17. श्री के. सूर्यनारायण

2. श्री अविनाश पी. लवांडे

[सं. 225/1/2005- ए.वी.डी.- II ( i ) ] [सं. 225/23 /2004 - ए.वी.डी.- II ]

चन्द्र प्रकाश, अवर सचिव

चन्द्र प्रकाश, अवर सचिव 6649 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 2, 2005/आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

New Delhi , the 16th June , 2005

5. श्री दलजीत सिंह चावला

6. श्रीमती गीता सिंह

7. श्री प्रवीण श्रीवास्तव

8. श्री मुकेश कुमार मरोरिया

[सं. 225/1/2005 -ए.वी.डी.- II ( ii ) ]

चन्द्र प्रकाश, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 16th June , 2005

S.O. 2288.- In exercise of the powers conferredby sub -section (8) of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974) , the Central Government hereby appoints the following prosecuting Officers of the Central Bureau of Investigation as Special Public Prosecutor for conducing cases instituted by the Delhi Special Police Establishment in trial courts and appeals / revisions or other matters arising out of these cases in revisional or appellate courts , established by law in any State or Union Territory to which provisions of the aforesaid section apply :-

1. Shri Vivek Saxena

2. Shri Dhan Kishore

3. Shri P.V. Ramakrishna Rao

4. Shri Amrit Pal Singh

S.O. 2289.- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub -section ( 1 - A) of Section 25 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974) , the Central Government hereby appoints the following prosecuting Officers ofthe Central Bureau of Investigation as Assistant Public Prosecutor for conducing cases instituted by the Delhi Special Police Establishment in the courts of competent jurisdiction in any State or Union Territory :-

5. Shri Raj Mohan Chand

1. Shri Sanjay Kumar

6. Shri I.K. Chandra

2. Shri Raman Kumar

7. Shri B.S. Choudhary

3. Shri Vinay Kumar

8. Shri Kamal Kant Goel

4. Shri Anil Kumar Tanwar

9. Shri Ram Lal Negi

10. Shri Pawan Kumar Dogra

5. Shri Daljit Singh Chawla

11. Shri Surender Kumar Kantiwal

6. Smt . GeetaSingh

12. Shri Manoj Kumar T.P.

7. Shri Praveen Srivastav

13. Shri Bal Karan Singh

8. Shri Mukesh Kumar Maroria

14. Shri Manoj Chaldan

[No. 225/ 1/2005 -AVD . II( ii)] 15. Shri M.H. Kabadi

CHANDRA PRAKASH, Under Secy.

16. Shri P. Arun

नईदिल्ली, 23 जून , 2005

17. Shri K. Suryanarayana

[No. 225/ 1/2005 -AVD. II (i ) ]

CHANDRA PRAKASH, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 16 जून, 2005

का.आ. 2289.-केन्द्रीय सरकार, एतद्वारा दंड प्रक्रिया संहिता, 1973 ( 1974 का अधिनियम सं. 2 ) की धारा 25 की उपधारा ( 1 - ए ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केंद्रीय अन्वेषण ब्यूरो के निम्नलिखित अभियोजन अधिकारियों को किसी राज्य अथवा संघ राज्य क्षेत्र में दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना द्वारा सक्षम अधिकारिता वाले न्यायालयों में संस्थित मामलों के अभियोजन का संचालन करने के लिए सहायक लोक अभियोजक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है: -

1. श्री संजय कुमार

2. श्री रमन कुमार

3. श्रीविनय कुमार

का.आ. 2290.-केन्द्रीय सरकार , एतद्वारा दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना अधिनियम, 1946 ( 1946 का अधिनियम सं. 25 ) की धारा 6 के साथ पठित धारा 5 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए कर्नाटक राज्य सरकार की अधिसूचना सं. एच.डी. 57 पी.सी.आर. 2005 दिनांक 14-3-2005 द्वारा प्राप्त कर्नाटक राज्य सरकार की सहमति से सर्वश्री रमेश जेली , पूर्व मुख्य प्रबंध निदेशक, तत्कालीन ग्लोबल ट्रस्ट बैंक, श्रीधर सुबाश्री, पूर्व कार्यकारी निदेशक, तत्कालीन ग्लोबल ट्रस्ट बैंक, वी. जनार्दन, पूर्व उपाध्यक्ष, तत्कालीन ग्लोबल ट्रस्ट बैंक, विवेक नागपाल, पूर्व निदेशक, मैसर्स शोंख टेक्नॉलाजिज इंटरनेशनल लि. , केतन वी. पारिख , निदेशक, मैसर्स गोल्डफिश कंप्यूटर्स प्रा. लि. और निदेशक, मैसर्स पेंथर फिनकैप एंड मैनेजमैंट सर्विसिज लि. , सी.वी.आर. राव , निदेशक, मैसर्स शोंख टेक्नालाजिज इंटरनेशनल लि. और प्रशांत कुमार, निदेशक, मैसर्स शोंख टेक्नालाजिज इंटरनेशनल लि. तथा किन्हीं अन्य लोक सेवकों अथवा व्यक्तियों के विरुद्ध वर्ष 2001-2002 की अवधि के दौरान साख- सुविधाएं प्राप्त करने के मामले में तत्कालीन ग्लोबल ट्रस्ट बैंक 4. श्री अनिल कुमार तंवर 6650

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005/ASADHA 11 , 1927

लाजिस्टिक निदेशालय,

सीमा तथा केन्द्रीय उत्पाद शुल्क, चौथी मंजिल, लोकनायक भवन, खान मार्किट, नई दिल्ली-110003

[फा. सं. 11013 (01 )/2005- हिन्दी-2] मधु शर्मा, निदेशक ( रा.भा. ) को 38.49 करोड़ रु. का धोखा देने के कारण भारतीय दंड संहिता, 1860 ( 1860 का अधिनियम सं. 45 ) की धारा 120 - बी सपठित धारा 409 और 420 के अधीन दंडनीय अपराधों तथा तत्संबंधी सारभूत अपराधों और उक्त अपराधों से संबंधित अथवा संसक्त उसी संव्यवहार के अनुक्रम में किए गए अथवा उन्हीं तथ्यों से उद्भूत किन्हीं अन्य अपराधों के अन्वेषण के लिए दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना के सदस्यों की शक्तियों और अधिकारिता का विस्तार सम्पूर्ण कर्नाटक राज्य पर करतीहै ।

MINISTRY OF FINANCE (Department of Revenue)

New Delhi , the 17th June , 2005 [सं० 228/30/2005 - ए.वी.डी.- II ] चन्द्र प्रकाश, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 23rd June , 2005

S.O. 2291. In pursuance of sub - rule (4) ofrule 10 of the Official Language (Use for Official Purposes of the Union ) Rules , 1976 the Central Government hereby notifies the following Office under the Board of Central Excise & Customs , Department of Revenue the 80% Staffwhereof have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi:-

Directorate of Logistics Custom and Central Excise 4th Floor, Lok Nayak Bhavan New Delhi - 110003

[F. No. 11013 (01 )/2005 -Hindi -2 ] MADHU SHARMA, Director (OL) (आर्थिक कार्य विभाग )

(बैंकिंग प्रभाग )

नई दिल्ली, 18 जून , 2005 S.O. 2290.- 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 Karnataka , vide Notification No.HD 57 PCR 2005 dated 14-03-2005 hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of the State of Karnataka for the investigation of offences punishable under Section 120B read with 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act. No. 45 of 1860) and substantive offences thereof, against S / Shri Ramesh Gelli , Former CMD , erstwhile Global Trust Bank, Sridhar Subasri , Former ED , erstwhile Global Trust Bank , V. Janardhanan , Formerly Vice Presi- dent , erstwhile Global Trust Bank, Vivek Nagpal , Former Director of M/s . Shonkh Technologies International Ltd. , Ketan V. Parekh , Director of M/ s. Goldfish Computers Pvt . Ltd. , and Director of M/s . Panther Fincap and Manage- ment Services Ltd. , C.V.R. Rao , Director of M/s . Shonkh Technologies International Limited and Prasanth Kumar, Director of M/ s. Shonkh Technologies Internationl Lim- ited for defrauding erstwhile Global Trust Bank to the tune of Rs . 38.49 crores in the matter of availing credit facilities during the period 2001-2002 and any other public servants or persons in relation to or in connection with the said offences, any other offences committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts .

[No. 228/30/2005 -AVD - II] CHANDRA PRAKASH , Under Secy.

का. आ. 2292. राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक ( प्रबन्ध एवं प्रकीर्ण उपबंध ) स्कीम, 1970/1980 के खण्ड 3 के उपखण्ड ( 1 ) 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, भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक से परामर्श करने के पश्चात् एतदद्वारा श्री सी०पी० स्वर्णकार ( जन्मतिथि: 01-05-1948 ) , जो इस समय पंजाब नेशनल बैंक में महाप्रबंधक हैं, को उनके कार्यभार ग्रहण करने की तारीख से 30-04-2008 तक अर्थात् जिस तारीख को वह अधिवर्षिता की आयु प्राप्त करेंगे , उसके अंतिम दिन तक की अवधि के लिए या अगले आदेश होने तक, जो भी पहले हो, पंजाब नेशनल बैंक के पूर्णकालिक निदेशक ( कार्यपालक निदेशक के रूप में पदनामित ) के रूप में नियुक्त करती है ।

वित्त मंत्रालय (राजस्वविभाग ) नई दिल्ली, 17 जून, 2005

[सं. 9/12/2005- बीओ-I ] जी.बी. सिंह, अवर सचिव

(Department of Economic Affairs) (Banking Division)

New Delhi , the 18th June , 2005 का. आ. 2291.-केन्द्रीय सरकार, राजभाषा ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) नियम , 1976 के नियम 10 के उप - नियम (4) के अनुसरण में , राजस्व विभाग के अधीन केन्द्रीय उत्पाद एवं सीमा शुल्क बोर्ड के निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय को, जिनके 80 प्रतिशत कर्मचारीवृंद ने हिन्दी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है , अधिसूचित करती है : -

S.O. 2292. In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub- section ( 3) of Section 9 of the Banking Companies ( Acquisition and Transfer of [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

6651

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 2, 2005/आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

Undertakings) Act, 1970/1980 read with sub -clause ( 1 ) of clause 3 , Sub -clause ( 1 ) of clause 8 of the Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme , 1970/1980 , the Central Government, after con- sultation with the Reserve Bank of India, hereby ap- points Shri C.P. Swarankar (DOB : 01-05-1948 ) presently General Manager, Punjab National Bank, as a whole time Director (designated as the Executive Director) of Punjab National Bank with effect from the date of his taking charge ofthe post and upto 30-04-2008 , i.e. the date ofhis superannuation or until futher orders whichever isearlier.

[F. No. 9/12/2005-BO-I] G.B. SINGH, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 18 जून , 2005

का. आ. 2293.- राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक ( प्रबन्ध एवं प्रकीर्ण उपबंध ) स्कीम, 1970/1980 के खण्ड 3 के उपखण्ड ( 1 ) और खण्ड 8, 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, भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक से परामर्श करने के पश्चात् एतदद्वारा श्री पी. एल. गैरोला (जन्म तिथि: 15-12-1948 ) , जो इस समय यूनियन बैंक आफ इंडिया में महाप्रबंधक हैं, को उनके कार्यभार ग्रहण करने की तारीख से 31-12-2008 तक अर्थात् जिस तारीख को वह अधिवर्षिता की आयु प्राप्त करेंगे , उसके अंतिम दिन तक की अवधि के लिए या अगले आदेश होने तक, जो भी पहले हो, बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के पूर्णकालिक निदेशक ( कार्यपालक निदेशक के रूप में पदनामित ) के रूप में नियुक्त करती है ।

[सं. 9/13 /2005- बीओ- I ] जी.बी. सिंह, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 18th June, 2005

S.O. 2293. 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, 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 Shri P. L. Gairola (DOB: 15-12-1948 ) presently GeneralManager , Union Bank of India, as a whole time Director (designated as the Executive Director ) of Union Bank of India with effect from the date of his taking charge of the post and up to 31-12-2008, i.e. the date of his super- annuation or until futher orders whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 9/ 13/2005 -BO-I] G.B. SINGH, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 18 जून , 2005

का. आ. 2294.- राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक ( प्रबन्ध एवं प्रकीर्ण उपबंध ) स्कीम, 1970/1980 के खण्ड 3 के उपखण्ड ( 1 ) और खण्ड 8 के उपखण्ड ( 1 ) के साथ पठित बैंककारी कंपनी ( उपक्रमों काअर्जन एवं अंतरण) अधिनियम , 1970/1980 की धारा 9 की उपधारा ( 3 ) के खण्ड ( क) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार, भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक से परामर्श करने के पश्चात् एतदद्वारा श्री ए० सी० महाजन ( जन्म तिथि : 05-07-1950 ) , जो इस समय बैंक आफ इंडिया में महाप्रबंधक हैं, को उनके कार्यभार ग्रहण करने की तारीख से पांच वर्ष तक की अवधि के लिए या अगले आदेश होने तक, जो भी पहले हो , बैंक आफ बड़ौदा के पूर्णकालिक निदेशक ( कार्यपालक निदेशक के रूप में पदनामित ) के रूप में नियुक्त करती है ।

[सं. 9/11 /2005 - बीओ-I ] जी.बी. सिंह , अवर सचिव New Delhi, the 18th June , 2005

S.O. 2294. 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, 1970/1980 read with sub -clause ( 1 ) ofclause 3, 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 Shri A. C.Mahajan (DOB : 05-07-1950 ) presently General Manager , Bank of Indią, as a whole time Director (designated as the ExecutiveDirector) of Bank of Baroda for a period of five years from the date of his taking charge of the post on or until further orders whichever is earlier .

[F. No. 9/11/2005 -BO- I] G. B. SINGH, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 18 जून , 2005

का. आ. 2295.- राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक (प्रबन्ध एवं प्रकीर्ण उपबंध) स्कीम, 1970/1980 के खण्ड 3 के उपखण्ड ( 1 ) और खण्ड 8 के उपखण्ड ( 1 ) के साथ पठित बैंककारी कंपनी ( उपक्रमों का अर्जन एवं अंतरण ) अधिनियम , 1970/1980 की धारा १ की उपधारा ( 3 ) के खण्ड ( क ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार, भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक से परामर्श करने के पश्चात् एतद्वारा सुश्री सुनंदा लहरी ( जन्म तिथि : 07-08-1947 ) , जो इस समय यूको बैंक में महाप्रबंधक हैं , को उनके कार्यभार ग्रहण करने की तारीख से 31-08-2007 तक अर्थात् जिस तारीख को वह अधिवर्षिता की आयु प्राप्त करेंगी , उसके अंतिम दिन तक की अवधि के लिए या अगले आदेश होने तक, जो भी पहले हो , युनाइटेड बैंक आफ इंडिया के पूर्णकालिक निदेशक ( कार्यपालक निदेशक के रूप में पदनामित ) के रूप में नियुक्त करती है ।

[सं. 9/14/2005- बीओ- I ] जी.बी. सिंह, अवर सचिव 6652

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005/ASADHA 11 , 1927

New Delhi , the 18th June , 2005

S.O. 2295.-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, 1970/1980 read with sub-clause ( 1 ) of clause 3 , 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 Sunanda Lahiri (DOB : 07-08-1947) presently General Manager, UCO Bank, as a whole time Director ( designated as the Executive Director) of United Bank of India with effect from the date of her taking charge of the post and up to 31-08-2007 i.e. the date of her superannuation or until further orders whichever is earlier .

[F. No. 9/ 14/2005-BO- 1 ] 'G. B. SINGH , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 18 जून , 2005

का. आ. 2.296.- राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक ( प्रबन्ध एवं प्रकीर्ण उपबंध) स्कीम, 1970/1980 के खण्ड 3 के उपखण्ड ( 1 ) 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, भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक से परामर्श करने के पश्चात् एतद्वारा श्री यू.एस. कोहली ( जन्म तिथि: 18-08-1947 ) , जो इस समय पंजाब एंड सिंध बैंक में महाप्रबंधक हैं, को उनके कार्यभार ग्रहण करने की तारीख से 31-08-2007 तक अर्थात् जिस तारीख को वह अधिवर्षिता की आयु प्राप्त करेंगे , उसके अंतिम दिन तक की अवधि के लिए या अगले आदेश होने तक, जो भी पहले हो, देना बैंक के पूर्णकालिक निदेशक (कार्यपालक निदेशक के रूप में पदनामित ) के रूप में नियुक्त करती है ।

[सं. 9/18/2005- बीओ- I ]

जी.बी. सिंह, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 18th June , 2005

S.O. 2296 .-- 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, 1970/1980 read with sub- clause ( 1 ) of clause 3 , 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 Shri U.S. Kohli (DOB: 18-08-1947) presently General Manager, Punjab & Sind Bank , as a whole time Director ( designated as the Executive Director) of Dena Bank with effect from the date of his taking charge of the post and upto 31-08-2007 i.c. the date of his superannuation or until further orders whichever is earlier .

[F. No. 9/ 18/2005 -BO- I ] G. B. SINGH, Under Secy.

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii)] नईदिल्ली, 18 जून, 2005

का. आ. 2297. राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक ( प्रबन्ध एवं प्रकीर्ण उपबंध) स्कीम, 1970/1980 के खण्ड 3 के उपखण्ड ( 1 ) 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, भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक से परामर्श करने के पश्चात् एतदद्वारा श्री एम.डी. माल्या ( जन्म तिथि : 09-11-1952 ) ,जो इस समय कारपोरेशन बैंक में महा प्रबंधक हैं, को 1-07-2005 को या उसके कार्यभार ग्रहण करने कीतारीख से पांच वर्ष की अवधि के लिए या अगले आदेश होने तक, जो भी पहले हो, ओरियंटल बैंक आफ कामर्स के पूर्णकालिक निदेशक (कार्यपालक निदेशक के रूप में पदनामित ) के रूप में नियुक्त करती है ।

[सं. 9/10/2005- बीओ -1 ]

जी.बी. सिंह, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 18th June , 2005

S.O. 2297. 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 , 1970/1980 read with sub -clause ( 1 ) of clause 3 , 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 Shri M.D. Mallya (DOB : 09-11-1952 ) presently General Manager, Corporation Bank , as a whole time Director ( designated as the Executive Director ) of Oriental Bank of Commerce for a period of five years with effect from the date of his taking charge on or after 01-07-2005 or until further orders whichever is earlier .

[F. No. 9/ 10/2005 -BO - I ] G. B. SINGH , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 18 जून , 2005

का. आ. 2298.- राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक ( प्रबन्ध एवं प्रकीर्ण उपबंध) स्कीम, 1970/1980 के खण्ड 3 के उपखण्ड ( 1 ) 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, भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक से परामर्श करने के पश्चात् एतदद्वारा श्री के. एल. गोपालकृष्ण ( जन्म तिथि 10-12-1947 ) , जो इस समय यूनियन बैंक आफ इंडिया में महाप्रबंधक हैं, को उनके कार्यभार ग्रहण करने की तारीख से 31-12-2007 अर्थात्जिस तारीख को वह अधिवर्षिता की आयु प्राप्त करेंगे, उसके अंतिम दिन तक की अवधि के लिए या अगले आदेश होने तक, जो भी पहले हो, कोरपोरेशन बैंक के पूर्णकालिक निदेशक ( कार्यपालक निदेशक के रूप में पदनामित ) के रूप में नियुक्त करती है ।

[सं. 9/16/2005 - बीओ- [ ]

जी.बी. सिंह, अवर सचिव [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

New Delhi , the 18th June , 2005

S.O. 2298. 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 , 1970/1980 , read with sub -clause ( 1 ) ofclause 3 , 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 Shri K.L. Gopalakrishna (DOB : 10-12-1947) presentlyGeneral Manager, Union Bank of India, as a whole time director (designated as the Executive Director) of Corporation Bank with effect from the date of his taking charge ofthe post and upto 31-12-2007 i.e. the date of his superannuation or until further orders whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 9/16/2005 -BO - 1 ] G.B. SINGH, Under Secy.

रसायन एवं उर्वरक मंत्रालय (उर्वरक विभाग) नई दिल्ली, 14 जून, 2005

का. आ. 2299.- केन्द्रीय सरकार राजभाषा " संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग " नियम 1976 के नियम 10 के उप- नियम (4) केअनुसरण में रसायन एवं उर्वरक मंत्रालय, उर्वरक विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रण में आने वाले निम्नलिखित कार्यालय , जिनके 80 प्रतिशत से अधिक अर्थात्शत- प्रतिशत कर्मचारियों ने हिन्दी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है , को अधिसूचित करती है :

1. नेशनल फर्टिलाइजर्स लिमिटेड, क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, नागपुर, महाराष्ट्र

2. नेशनल फर्टिलाइजर्स लिमिटेड, क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय , औरंगाबाद, महाराष्ट्र

3. नेशनल फर्टिलाइजर्स लिमिटेड, क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, जलगांव, महाराष्ट्र

[ सं. ई -11011/1 /2001 - हिन्दी ]

स्वतंत्रके. सेखों, संयुक्त सचिव MINISTRY OF CHEMICALS AND FERTILIZERS (Department of Fértilizers) New Delhi , the 14th June , 2005

S.O. 2299. In pursuance of sub - rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language " Use for official purpose of the Union" Rule 1976 the Central Govt . hereby notifies the following offices , under the Administrative Control of the Ministry of Chemicals & Fertilizers , Department of Fertilizers , more than 80% i.e. 100% Staff whereof have acquired the working knowledge ofHindi:-

1. National Fertilizers Limited, Regional Office, Nagpur, Maharashtra.

2. National Fertilizers Limited , Regional Office, Aurangabad , Maharashtra .

6653

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 2 , 2005/आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

3. National Fertilizers Limited , Regional Office, Jalgaon, Maharashtra.

[No. E. - 11011/1/2001 -HINDI] SWATANTRA K. SEKHON, Jt . Secy.

पर्यावरण एवं वन मंत्रालय नईदिल्ली, 15 जून , 2005

का. आ. 2300.- राजभाषा ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) नियम 1976 के नियम 10 के उप- नियम (4 ) के अनुसरण मेंकेन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा मंत्रालय के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन भारतीय वन सर्वेक्षण ( पूर्वी अंचल ) , कोलकाता, जिसके 80 प्रतिशत से अधिक कर्मचारिवृन्द ने हिन्दी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है , को अधिसूचित करती है ।

[सं. ई-11011/2/2003 - रा.भा. (का. ) ] जय नारायण , निदेशक ( रा. भा. ) MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS New Delhi , the 15th June , 2005

S.O. 2300.- In pursuance of sub -rule ( 4) of Rule , 10 of the Official Languages ( Use for official purpose of the Union) Rule 1976 , the Central Government hereby notifies the Forest Survey of India (East Region) , Calcutta under the administrative control of the Ministry of Environment & Forests , the 80% staff whereof have acquired the working knowledge ofHindi .

[No. E - 11011/2/2003 -O.L. (I) ] JAI NARAIN, Director ( O.L) नागर विमानन मंत्रालय ( एएआई अनुभाग ) नईदिल्ली, 10 जून, 2005

का. आ. 2301. भारतीय विमानपत्तन प्राधिकरण अधिनियम 1994 ( 1994 की संख्या-55 ) के खंड 3 तथा खंड 41 [ का.आ. 718 ( ई ) ] द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए तथा इस मंत्रालय की दिनांक 8-6-2005 की इसी संख्या की अधिसूचना का अधिक्रमण करते हुए केन्द्र सरकार एतद्वारा 8 जून , 2005 ( पूर्वाह्न ) से श्री पी . एस. नायर कात्याग पत्र सदस्य ( कार्मिक एवं प्रशासन ) के पद से तथा भारतीय विमानपत्तन प्राधिकरण की सेवाओं से स्वीकार करती है तथा उन्हें दिनांक 8-6-2005 ( पूर्वाह्न से ) भारतीय विमानपत्तन प्राधिकरण की सेवाओं सेस्वैच्छिक सेवानिवृत्ति की अनुमति भी देती है ।

[सं. एवी.- 24011/006/2003 - एएआई ] एल. हौकिप, अवर सचिव MINISTRY OF CIVIL AVIATION (AAI Section) New Delhi , the 10th June , 2005

S.O. 2301. In excerise of the powers conferred by Section 3 and Section 41 [ S.O. 718 (E) ] of the Airports Authority of India Act , 1994 (No. 55 of 1994) , and in 6654

supersession to the Ministry's Notification of even No. dated 8-6-2005 , the Central Government hereby accepts the resignation of Shri P.S. Nair, from the post ofMember (Personnel & Administration) w.e.f. the forenoon of 8th June 2005. Shri Nair has also been permitted to voluntarily retire from the services of Airports Authority of India w.e.f. 8th June , 2005 (Forenoon) .

[No.AV- 24011 /006/2003 -AAI]

L. HAOKIP, Under Secy.

सूचना और प्रसारण मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली , 7 जून , 2005 का. आ. 2302.- इस मंत्रालय की दिनांक 5 फरवरी , 2005 की समसंख्यक अधिसूचना के अनुक्रम में तथा चलचित्र ( प्रमाणन ) नियम, 1983 के नियम 7 व 8 के साथ पठित चलचित्र अधिनियम, 1952( 1952 का 37 ) की धारा 5 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों काप्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्रीय सरकार निम्नलिखित व्यक्तियों को तत्काल प्रभाव से दो वर्ष की अवधि के लिए अथवा अगले आदेशों तक, जो भी पहले हो, केंद्रीय फिल्म प्रमाणन बोर्ड के चेन्नई सलाहकार पैनल के सदस्योंके रूप में नियुक्त करती है: -

1. श्रीमती लक्ष्मी राजाराम

2. श्रीमती रानी वेंकटेशन

3. श्रीमती एस धीविजा कुमारी

4. श्री सी. बालासुंदरम्

5. श्री ई. एकाम्बरम्

6. श्री टी. विजया रवि वर्मा

7. श्री पी. चंद्रशेखरन

8. श्री ए.जी. पूवाराघवन

9. श्री टी.एल. शिवालिंगम्

10. श्री के. सिल्वाराज पांडियन

11. श्री वी. के. अरिवीझागन

12. श्री मन्नई मथियालगन

13. श्री सुबा सोमू

14. श्री सी.आर. सुंदरराजन

15. श्री बी. सुदालैयांडी

16. डॉके. गायत्री देवी

17. श्रीमती जी. सरस्वती नलादियार

18. श्रीमती मीना वेंकटरमण

19. श्री मरियप्पा बास्कर

20. श्री एस. मुनावर बाशा

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005/ASADHA 11 , 1927

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] 21. श्री एम.सी. जबरूल्लाह

22. श्रीमती जयकला प्रभाकर

23. श्रीमती सुशीला पद्मनाभन

24. श्री के. स्वामीनाथन

25. श्री के.पी. श्रीनिवास राजा

26. श्री ए.जे.ज्वाय

27. श्री इलांगो

28. श्री नेताजी गणेशन

.. 29. श्रीमती प्रेमा श्रीनिवासन

30. श्री इब्राहीम रावतार

31. श्री रवि भारती

32. श्री बालाकृष्णन

33. श्री ए. शक्तिवेल

34. श्रीमती रानी कृष्णन

35. श्रीमती बानु लॉरेंस

36. श्रीमती मीना सिल्वाराज

37. श्रीमती जयश्री

38. श्रीमती सरस्वती नलादियार

39. श्री जी.आर. वेंकटेश

40. श्री कठिपारा जनार्धनन

41 श्री एम.ए. मुथालगन

42. श्री एस. रामदास

43. श्री कक्कन कस्तूरीभाई

44. श्री ई.के. अरुणकुमार

45. प्रोफेसर डॉ. वी. नागराजन

46. श्रीमती थिरुप्पुर सरोजा

47. श्री बालासुब्रमण्यम

[फा. सं. 809/4/2004- एफ ( सी ) ] पी.पी. नायर, डेस्क अधिकारी MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING

New Delhi, the 7th June , 2005

S.O. 2302. In continuation of this Ministry's Notification of even number dated 5th February, 2005 and in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - secition ( 1 ) of Section 5 of the Cinematograph Act , 1952 (37 of 1952 ) read with rules 7 and 8 of the Cinematograph ( Certification) Rules , 1983 the Central Government is pleased to appoint [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 2 , 2005/आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

6655 36. Smt . Meena Selvaraj

37. Smt . Jaishree

the following persons as members of the Chennai Advisory Panel of the Central Board of Film Certification with immediate effect for a period of two years or until further orders , whichever is earlier :

1. Smt . Lakshmi Rajaram

2. Smt . Rani Venkatesan

3. Smt . S. Dhivija Kumari

4. Shri C. Balasundaram

5. Shri E. Ekambaram

6. Shri T. Vijaya Ravi Verma

7. Shri P. Chandrasekaran

8. Shri A.G. Poovaraghavan

9. Shri T.L. Sivalingam

10. Shri K. Selvaraj Pandian

11. Shri V.K. Arivizhagan

12. Shri Mannai Mathyalagan

13. Shri Suba Somu

14. Shri C.R. Sunder Rajan

15. Shri B. Sudalaiyandi

16. Dr. K. Ghayathri Devi

17. Smt . G. Saraswathy Naladiar

18. Smt . Meena Venkatraman

19. Shri Mariappa Basker

20. Shri S. Munavar Basha

21. Shri M.C. Zabarullah

22. Smt . Jayakala Prabhakar

23. Smt . Susheela Padmanabhan

24. Shri K. Swaminathan

25. Shri K.P. Srinivasa Raja

26. Shri A.J. Joy

27. Shri Ilango

28. Shri Nethaji Ganesan

29. Smt . Prema Srinivasan

30. Shri Ibrahim Rawthar

31. Shri Ravi Bharti

32. Shri Balakrishnan

33. Shri A Sakthivel

34. Smt. Rani Krishnan

35. Smt . Banu Lawrence

1855 G1 /05-2

38. Smt . Saraswati Naladiyar

39. Shri G. R. Venkatesh

40. Shri Kathipara Janardhanan

41. Shri M.A. Muthalagan

42. Shri S. Ramadass

43. Shri Kakkan Kasturibhai

44. Shri E.K. Arunakumar

45. Prof. Dr. V. Nagarajan

46. Smt . Thiruppur Saroja

47. Shri Balasubramanian

[F. No. 809/4/2004 -F (C ) ]

P. P. NAIR, Desk Officer नई दिल्ली, 9 जून , 2005

का. आ. 2303.- इस मंत्रालय की दिनांक 5 फरवरी , 2005 , 18 फरवरी, 2005 और 10 मार्च, 2005 की समसंख्यक अधिसूचनाओं केअनुक्रम में तथा चलचित्र ( प्रमाणन ) नियम , 1983 के नियम 7 व 8 के साथ पठित चलचित्र अधिनियम , 1952 ( 1952 की 37 ) की धारा 5 की उप धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्रीय सरकार निम्नलिखित व्यक्तियों को तत्काल प्रभाव से दो वर्ष की अवधिके लिए अथवा अगले आदेशों तक, जो भी पहले हो, केंद्रीय फिल्म प्रमाणन बोर्ड के हैदराबाद सलाहकार पैनल के सदस्यों के रूप में नियुक्त करती है :-

1. श्रीमती सलिका अनंता लक्ष्मी

2. श्री एस . वेणुगोपाल रेड्डी

3. श्रीमती ई. जया लक्ष्मी

4. श्री जल्ला प्रसाद यादव

5. श्री जी. चंद्रशेखर रेड्डी

6. श्रीमती मदपाती सरलारानी

7. श्री श्रीनिवास राजू

8. श्री पी सुनील कुमारगौड़

9. श्रीगोपी नायडू

10. श्री वीनूकोंडा नागराजू

11. श्रीमती पालुरी सेषुमांबा

12. श्रीमती वी. चूड़ामणि

13. श्री बी. नारसी रेड्डी

[फा. सं. 809/3/2004- एफ ( सी. ) ] पी.पी. नायर, डैस्क अधिकारी 6656

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005/ ASADHA 11 , 1927

New Delhi , the 9th June , 2005

S.O. 2303. In continuation of this Ministry's Notifications of even number dated 5th February, 2005, 18th February, 2005 and 10th March , 2005 and in exercise ofthe powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 5 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 ( 37 of 1952 ) read with rules 7 and 8 ofthe Cinematograph (Certification) Rules , 1983 the Central Government is pleased to appoint the following persons as members of the Hyderabad Advisory panel of the Central Board of Film Certification with immediate effect for a period of two years or until further orders , whichever isearlier:

1. Smt . Salika Anantha Lakshmi

2. Shri S. Venu Gopal Reddy

3. Smt . E. Jaya Lakshmi

4. Shri Jalla Prasad Yadav

5. Shri G. Chandra Sekhar Reddy

6. Smt . Madapati Sarlarani

7. Shri Srinivasa Raju

8. Shri P. Sunil Kumar Goud

9. Shri Gopi Naidu

10. Shri Vinukonda Nagaraju

11. Smt . Paluri Seshumamba

12. Smt . V. Choodamani

13. Shri B. Narsi Reddy

[F. No. 809/3/2004 -F (C) ] P. P. NAIR , Desk Officer नई दिल्ली, 15 जून , 2005

का. आ. 2304.- चलचित्रकी ( प्रमाणन ) नियमावली, 1983 केनियम 7 व 8 के साथ पठित चलचित्रकी अधिनियम , 1952 ( 1952 का 37 ) की धारा 5 की उप धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्रीय सरकार, केन्द्रीय फिल्म प्रमाणन बोर्ड के तिरुअनंतपुरम् सलाहकार पैनल का गठन करती है तथा निम्नलिखित व्यक्तियों को तत्काल प्रभाव से दो वर्ष की अवधि के लिए अथवा अगले आदेशों तक, जो भी पहले हो, के लिए उक्त पैनल के सदस्यों के रूप में नियुक्त करती है । यह इस मंत्रालय की दिनांक 4 फरवरी , 2004 की समसंख्यक अधिसूचना के अधिक्रमण में होगी ।

1. श्री के. आनन्द कुमार

2. प्रो. के. बालाकृष्णन्

3. डॉ. लिजे फ्रांसिस

4. श्री के. कृष्ण कुमार

5. श्री टेनी जोस

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] 6. श्री के. जे . राफी

7. श्री एन. श्रीकुमार

8. श्री टी. के. राधाकृष्णन पिल्लै

9. श्री अनिल अक्कारा

10. श्री जोसफ बाबू वी.वी.

11. श्री वी.वी. प्रकाश

12. श्री के. शिवरमण

13. श्री पी. मोहम्मद अली

14. श्री के. एस. शाहजी

15. श्री बी. बाबू प्रसाद

16. श्री एम. वीरन कुट्टी

17. श्री ई बी आई जार्ज

18. श्री सतीशन् पाचेनी

19. श्री थानकामोनी दिवाकरन्

20. श्रीमती दीप्ति प्रदीप कुमार

21. श्री एम. के. शिवशंकरन्

22. श्री शरत्चन्द्रन

23. श्री पी.एस. बाबुराज

24. श्री सूर्या कृष्णा मूर्ति

25. श्री जोसफ़ मैथ्यु

26. श्री रोज मैरी

27. श्री एल . रामचन्द्रन

28. श्रीमती लक्ष्मी नायर

29. श्री एम एफ थॉमस

30. श्रीमती वाणी विश्वनाथ

31. श्रीमती बिंदु बालाकृष्णन

32. श्री पालोड रवि

33. श्री आर.एस. प्रदीप कुमार

34. सुश्री गिरिजा सेतुनाथ

35. श्री वी.के. जोसफ

36. सुश्री अनीता करनावार

[फा. सं . 809/9/2004- एफ ( सी. ) ] पी.पी. नायर, डैस्क अधिकारी [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

6657

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 2, 2005/ आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

New Delhi , the 15th June , 2005 S.O. 2304.- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 5 of the Cinematograph Act , 1952 (37 of 1952 ) read with rules 7 and 8 of the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules , 1983 the Central Government is pleased the constitute the Thiruvananthapuram Advisory panel of the Central Board ofFilm Certification and to appoint the following persons as members of the said panel with immediate effect for a period of two years or until further orders , whichever is earlier . This supersedes this Ministry's notification of even number dated 4th February, 2004.

1. Shri K. Ananda Kumar

2. Prof. K. Balakrishanan

3. Dr. Lizzy Francis

4. Shri K. Krishna Kumar

5. Shri Tenny Jose

6. Shri K.J. Raphy

7. Shri N. Sreekumar

8. Shri T.K. Radhakrishanan Pillai

9. Shri Anil Akkara

10. Shri Joseph Babu V.V.

11. Shri V.V. Prakash

12. Shri K. Sivaraman

13. Shri P. Mohammed Ali

14. Shri K.S. Shaji

15. Shri B. Babu Prasad

16. Shri M. Veeran Kutty

17. Shri E.B.I. George

18. Shri Satheesan Pacheni

19. Shri Thankamoni Divakaran

20. Smt . Deepthi Pradeep Kumar

21. Shri M.K. Sivsankaran

22. Shri Sarath Chandran

23. Shri P.S. Baburaj

24. Shri Soorya Krishna Moorthi

25. Shri Joseph Mathew

26. Shri RoseMary

27. Shri L. Ramachandran

28. Smt . Lakshmi Nair

29. Shri M.F. Thomas

30. Smt . Vani Vishwanath

31. Smt. Bindu Balakrishnan

32. Shri Palode Ravi

33. Shri R.S. Pradeep Kumar

34. Ms. Girija Sethunath

35. Shri V.K. Joseph

36. Ms. Anita Karnavar

[F. No. 809/9/2004-F (C) ]

P. P. NAIR, Desk Officer नई दिल्ली, 16 जून, 2005

का. आ. 2305.- इस मंत्रालय की दिनांक 7 जून, 2005 की समसंख्यक अधिसूचना में आंशिक संशोधन करते हुए और चलचित्रकी (प्रमाणन) नियमावली , 1983 के नियम 7 और 8 के साथ पठित चलचित्रकी अधिनियम, 1952 ( 1952 की 37 ) की धारा 5 की उप धारा (1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्रीय सरकार श्री वी.एस. नायडूको श्री बालासुब्रमण्यन के स्थान पर तत्काल प्रभाव से दो वर्ष की अवधि के लिए अथवा अगले आदेशों तक, जो भी पहले हो, केंद्रीय फिल्म प्रमाणन बोर्ड के चैन्नई सलाहकार पैनल के सदस्य के रूप में नियुक्तकरती है ।

[फा. सं. 809/4/2004- एफ ( सी) ]

पी. पी. नायर, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 16th June , 2005

S.O. 2305.-In partial modification of this Ministry's Notification of even number dated 7th June , 2005 and in exercise of the powers conferred by sub -section (1) of Section 5 of the Cinematograph Act , 1952 (37 of 1952) read with rules 7 and 8 of the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 1983 the Central Government is pleased to appoint Shri V. S. Naidu as a Member of the Chennai Advisory panel of the Central Board of Film Certificationwith immediate effect for a period of two years or until further orders, whichever is earlier, in place ofShri Balasubramanian.

[F. No. 809/4/2004 -F(C) ] P. P. NAIR, Desk Officer 6658

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005/ ASADHA 11 , 1927

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ] उपभोक्तामामले , खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय

(उपभोक्तामामले विभाग )

भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो

नई दिल्ली, 9 जून, 2005

का.आ. 2306.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम, 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित कस्ता है कि नीचे अनुसूची में दिये गये मानक ( को ) में संशोधन किया गया/किये गये हैं :

अनुसूची

क्रम संख्या

संशोधित भारतीय मानक की संख्या और वर्ष

संशोधन की संख्या

और तिथि

संशोधन लागूहोने की तिथि

(2)

(4)

(1)

(3)

14968:2001

संशोधन संख्या 1 - मार्च, 2005

मार्च, 2005

1681: 1998

अप्रैल, 2005

संशोधन संख्या 1 - अप्रैल, 2005

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

[संदर्भ : टी एक्स डी/जी -25 ]

एम. एस. वर्मा, निदेशक एवं प्रमुख ( टीएक्सडी) MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS , FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department of Consumer Affairs )

BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS

New Delhi , the 9th June , 2005

S.O. 2306.-In pursuance of clause (b) of sub - rule ( 1 ) of Rules ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987. the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that amendments to the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been issued :

SCHEDULE

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

Date from which the amendment shall have effect

No. and year of

the amendment

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

IS 14968 : 2001

March, 2005

Amendment No. 1-March , 2005

2 .

IS 1681 : 1998

April, 2005

Amendment No. 1-April , 2005

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

[Ref.: TXD/G - 25 ]

M. S. VERMA , Director and Head ( Textiles) 6659 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 2 , 2005/ आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

नई दिल्ली, 10 जून, 2005

का.आ. 2307.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम, 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिये गये हैं वे स्थापित हो गए हैं :

अनुसूची

स्थापित तिथि क्रम संख्या

स्थापित भारतीय मानक( कों) की संख्या वर्ष और शीर्षक

नये भारतीय मानक द्वारा अतिक्रमित भारतीय मानक अथवा मानकों, यदि कोई हो, कीसंख्या और वर्ष

(2)

(1)

(3)

(4) 1.

मई, 2005

आई एस 4402: 1993/ आई एस ओ 1107:1974

आई एस 4402: 2005/आई एस ओ 1107: 2003 मछली पकड़ने के जाल का कपड़ा- मूल शब्द और परिभाषाएँ ( दूसरा पुनरीक्षण )

आई एस 5815:1993 /

मई, 2005

आई एस ओ 1806:1973

आई एस 5815 ( भाग 5 ) : 2005/ आई एस ओ 1806: 2002 मछली पकड़ने का जाल- जाल बनाने के धागों का टूटना, भार और गाँठ टूटना ज्ञात करना ( दूसरा पुनरीक्षण)

मार्च, 2005 आई एस 15565: 2005 वस्त्रादि परीक्षण विधि- रंगों में फ्री बेन्जीडीन का मूल्याकंन करना

जनवरी , 2005 4. आई एस 15513 ( भाग 1 ): 2005/ आई एस ओ 10787-1: 1994 वस्त्रादि मशीनरी और उपसाधन हिल्ड फ्रेम भाग 01 छड़ की सहायता से फ्रेम पटरे पर सीधी लगी हिल्ड छड़- समन्वित आयाम

जनवरी , 2005 आई एस 15513 ( भाग 2): 2005/ आई एस ओ 10787-2: 1994 वस्त्रादि मशीनरी और उपसाधन हिल्ड फ्रेम - भाग 02 छड़ की सहायता से फ्रेम पटरे में लगी हिल्ड छड़ - समन्वित आयाम

जनवरी, 2005 आई एस 15513 ( भाग 3 ): 2005/ आई एस ओ 10787-3: 1994 वस्त्रादि मशीनरी और उपसाधन हिल्ड फ्रेम भाग 03 - हिल्ड फ्रेम की गाइड

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

[संदर्भ: टीएक्सडी/जी-25 ]

एम. एस. वर्मा, निदेशक एवं प्रमुख ( टीएक्सडी) 6660

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005 /ASADHA 11 , 1927

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

New Delhi , the 10th June , 2005

S.O. 2307.-In pursuance of clause (b) of Sub - rule ( 1) of Rules ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each:

SCHEDULE

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

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

(4) (2)

(1)

IS:4402: 1993 / ISO 1107 :1974

IS 4402 : 2005/ ISO 1107 : 2003

May, 2005 Textiles- Fishing nets - Netting - Basic terms and definitions (Second Revision)

IS: 5815 ( Part5):

May, 2005

1993 / ISO 1806 : 1973

IS 5815 (Part 5 ) : 2005/ ISO 1806: 2002 Fishing nets - Determination ofmesh breaking force of netting (Second Revision)

March , 2005 3.

IS 15565 : 2005 Textiles - Methods oftest - Estimation of free benzidine indyes

January, 2005 IS 15513 (Part 1 ) : 2004/ ISO 10787- 1: 1994 Textiles Machinery and Accessories - Heald frames Part 1 Heald carrying rod fixed to the frame stave by rod support - Coordinated dimensions

January , 2005 IS 15513 (Part 2) : 2004 /ISO 10787-

2:1994 Textiles Machinery and Accessories - Heald frames Part 2 : Heald carrying rod fixed directly on the frame stave Coordinated dimensions

January, 2005 IS 15513 ( Part 3 ) : 2004/ ISO 10787- 3: 1994 Textiles Machinery and Accessories - Heald frames - Part 3: Guide for heald frames

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

[Ref.: TXD/G - 25 ]

M.S. VERMA , Director and Head (Textiles ) [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 2, 2005/ आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

6661

नई दिल्ली , 27 जून , 2005

का.आ. 2308.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम, 1988 के विनियम 6 के उपविनियम (3 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा नीचे अनुसूची में दिये गये उत्पादों की मुहरांकन शुल्क अधिसूचित करता है :

उत्पाद

इकाई अनु. वर्ष

भारतीय भाग मानक सं.

बड़े पैमाने न्यूनतम पर (रु.)

6 2

10914

1991 स्वचल वाहन - हवा भरे 1 टायर

टायर तिरछी प्लाई वाले-

विशिष्टि भाग 2 ट्रक बस

और हल्के ट्रक के टायर

10914

स्वचल वाहन- हवा भरे 1 टायर

1991

टायर तिरछी प्लाई वाले-

विशिष्टिभाग 3 यात्री

करके टायर

अनुसूची

प्रचालन तिथि स्लैब- 1 में इकाइयाँ

स्लैब- 2में इकाइयाँ

इकाई दर स्लैब 2 (रु.)

शेष इकाई दर (रु.)

छोटे पैमाने मुहरांकन शुल्क पर (रु.)

इकाई दर स्लैब -1 (रु.)

11 12

14 100000

20050701

1.5 100000 1.35

1.5

100000

100000 1.35 20050701

[संदर्भ: सी.एम.डी. I/13 : 10] बलवंत राय , उप महानिदेशक ( मुहर )

New Delhi , the 27th June , 2005

S.O. 2308. In pursuance of sub - regulation (3) of regulation 6 of the Bureau of Indian Standards ( Certifica- tion) Regulations 1988, the Bureau of Indian Standards , hereby notifies the Marking for the products given in the schedule :

SCHEDULE

Product

UNIT IS : No. PT . Sec . Year

Scale (Rs.) Min. Large

6 2

7 10914 2

0 1991

1 Tyre

Automative Vehicles-

Unit Enforcement

Marking Fee Small Scale

Unit Units Rate In Slab- 1 Slab - 1 (Rs.)

Unit Units Rate In Slab - 2 Slab - 2 (Rs.)

Rate Date Rest (Rs.)

9 10

11 12

13 14 2 100000 1.5 100000 1.35 20050701

100000 80000

Pneumatic Tyres :

Part 2 Truck Bus and

Light Truck Tyre

Diagonal Ply

10914

1991

1 Tyre

Automative Vehicles-

2 100000 1.5 100000 1.35 20050701

100000 80000

Pneumatic Tyres :

Part3 Passenger

CarTyre

[Ref: CMD- I/ 13 : 10 ] BALWANT RAI , Dy . Director General (Marks)

विद्युत मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 22 जून, 2005

का.आ. 2309.- केन्द्रीय सरकार , सरकारी स्थान ( अप्राधिकृत अधिभोगियों की बेदखली ) अधिनियम, 1971 ( 1971 का अधिनियम सं. 40 ) की धारा 3 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, प्रबंधक ( सिविल ) चमेरा पावर स्टेशन , स्टेज- I , खैरी , हिमाचल प्रदेश को , जो सरकार के राजपत्रित अधिकारी के समतुल्य अधिकारी है , उक्त अधिनियम के प्रयोजनों के लिए संपदा अधिकारी नियुक्त करती है जो उक्त अधिनियम के द्वारा या उसके अधीन अपनी अधिकारिता की स्थानीय सीमाओं के भीतर प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग और संपदा अधिकारी पर अधिरोपित कर्तव्यों का 6662

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005 / ASADHA 11 , 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] पालन करेगा और उक्त प्रयोजनों के लिए भारत सरकार के विद्युत मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना सं. का.आ. 1250 , तारीख 27-4-2004 , जो भारत के राजपत्र, भाग ।। , खंड 3 , उपखंड ( ii ) , तारीख 29-5-2004 में प्रकाशित की गई थी, में निम्नलिखित संशोधन करती है , अर्थात्: -

संशोधन

1. पूर्वोक्त कानूनी आदेश में, " नेशनल हाइड्रोइलैक्ट्रिक पावर कारपोरेशन लिमिटेड (एन.एच.पी.सी. ) के अधिकारी " पद के स्थान पर " प्रबंधक (सिविल ) , चमेरा पावर स्टेशन, स्टेज- I , खैरी , हिमाचल प्रदेश " पद रखा जाएगा ।

2. उक्त अधिसूचना के नीचे सारणी के स्तंभ 1 में, " श्री रंजन नारंग ' ज्येष्ठ प्रबंधक ( सिविल ) " प्रविष्टि के स्थान पर " श्री एस.एल. शर्मा, प्रबंधक ( सिविल ) " प्रविष्टि रखी जाएगी ।

[फा.सं. 16/16/97 - डी ओ ( एनएचपीसी) ] राजेश वर्मा, निदेशक ( एच- I )

MINISTRY OF POWER New Delhi , the 22nd June , 2005

S.O. 2309.- In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Public/Premises ( Eviction of Un - authorized Occupants ) Act , 1971 (Act No. 40 of 1971 ) , the Central Government hereby appoints the Manager ( Civil ) , Chamera Power Station Stage - I , Khairi , Himachal Pradesh , an Officer equivalent to the rank of Gazetted Officer of the Govern- ment , to be an Estate Officer for the purposes of the said Act , who shall exercise the powers conferred and perform the duties , imposed on Estate Officers by or under the said Act , within the local limits of his jurisdiction and for the said purpose make the following amendments to the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Power, number S.O. 1250 dated 27-4-2004, published in the Gazette of India, Part II , Section 3 , Sub-section ( ii) dated 29-5-2004 , namely :-

AMENDMENTS

1. In the aforesaid statutory order for the expression " Officer of National Hydroelectric power Corporation Ltd. ( NHPC ) " the expression "Manager ( Civil ) , Chamera Power Station Stage - 1, Khairi , Himachal Pradesh " shall be substituted.

2 . In the table below the said notification, in column 1 for the entry " Shri Rajan Narang , Senior Manager (Civil) " the entry " Shri S.L. Sharma , Manager ( Civil) " shall be substituted.

[F. No. 16/16/97 -DO( NHPC ) ] RAJESH VERMA , Director (H - I )

कोयला मंत्रालय

आदेश

नई दिल्ली, 21 जून, 2005

का.आ. 2310.- कोयला धारक क्षेत्र ( अर्जन और विकास ) अधिनियम 1957 ( 1957 का 20 ) ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 9 की उपधारा 1 ( क) के अधीन पौनी विस्तार विवृत परियोजना , बल्लारपुर क्षेत्र , जिला चंद्रपुर ( महाराष्ट्र ) के लिए जारी की गई भारत सरकार के कोयला मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्यांक का. आ. 3293 तारीख 16 दिसम्बर, 2004 जो भारत के राजपत्र , भाग- II , खंड 3 , उपखंड ( ii ) तारीख 25 दिसम्बर, 2004 में प्रकाशित की गई थी उक्त अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में वर्णित ऐसी भूमि ( जिन्हें इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त भूमि कहा गया है ) में या उस पर के अधिकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 10 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन, सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त होकर, आत्यंतिक रूप से केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित हो गए हैं;

और, केन्द्रीय सरकार का यह समाधान हो गया है , कि वेस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड, नागपुर ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् सरकारी कम्पनी कहा गया है ) ऐसे निबंधनों और शर्तों का जिन्हें केन्द्रीय सरकार इस निमित्त अधिरोपित करना उचित समझे , अनुपालन करने के लिए तैयार है;

अतः अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 11 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, यह निदेश देती है , कि भूमि और उक्त भूमि में इस प्रकार निहित या उस पर के सभी अधिकार तारीख 25 दिसम्बर, 2004 से केन्द्रीय सरकार में इस प्रकार निहित बने रहने के बजाय , निम्नलिखित निबंधनों और शर्तों के अधीन रहते हुए, सरकारी कंपनी में निहित हो जाएँगे, अर्थात्: -

1. उक्त सरकारी कम्पनी, उक्त अधिनियम के उपबंधों के अधीन यथाअवधारित , प्रतिकर, व्याज, नुकसान और वैसी ही मदों की बाबत किए गए सभी संदायों की केन्द्रीय सरकार को प्रतिपूर्ति करेगी ।

2. उक्त सरकारी कम्पनी द्वारा शर्त ( 1 ) के अधीन , केन्द्रीय सरकार को संदेय रकमों का अवधारण करने के प्रयोजनों के लिए एक अधिकरण का गठन किया जाएगा तथा ऐसे किसी अधिकरण और ऐसे अधिकरण की सहायता के लिए नियुक्त किए गए व्यक्तियों 6663 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 2, 2005/ आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

के संबंध में उपगत सभी व्यय सरकारी कम्पनी वहन करेगी और वैसे ही उक्त भूमि में या उस पर इस प्रकार निहित अधिकारों के लिए या उनके संबंध में सभी विधिक कार्यवाहियों, जैसे अपील आदि की बाबत उपगत, सभी व्यय भी सरकारी कम्पनी वहन करेगी;

3. उक्त सरकारी कम्पनी, केन्द्रीय सरकार या उसके पदधारियों की, ऐसे किसी अन्य व्यय के संबध में, जो उक्त भूमि में या उस पर इस प्रकार निहित होने वाले पूर्वोक्त अधिकारों के बारे में , केन्द्रीय सरकार या उसके पदधारियों द्वारा या उनके विरुद्ध किन्हीं कार्यवाहियों के संबंध में आवश्यक हो, क्षतिपूर्ति करेगी;

4. उक्त सरकारी कम्पनी को, केन्द्रीय सरकार के पूर्व अनुमोदन के बिना, उक्त भूमि में अधिकारों को किसी अन्य व्यक्ति को अंतरित करने की शक्ति नहीं होगी; और

5. उक्त सरकारी कम्पनी , ऐसे निर्देशों और शर्तों का, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार द्वारा जब कभी आवश्यक हो , उक्त भूमि के विशिष्ट क्षेत्रों के लिए दिए जाएं या अधिरोपित किए जाएं, पालन करेगी ।

[सं. 43015/7/2001- पी आर आई डब्ल्यू]

बी. के. पण्डा, निदेशक

MINISTRY OF COAL

ORDER

New Delhi , the 21st June, 2005

S.O. 2310.- Whereas on the publication of the notification of the Government of India, in the Ministry ofCoal , number S.O. 3293 dated the 16th December, 2004 , published in the Gazette of India, Part - II , Section 3 , Sub- section (ii ), dated the 25th December , 2004, issued in the name of Pauni Expansion Opencast Project , Ballarpur Area, District Chandrapur (Maharashtra) under sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 9 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development ) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the said lands ) the lands and rights in or over the lands , described in the Schedule appended to the said notification (hereinafter referred to as the said land) vested absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances under Sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 10 of the said Act ;

And whereas the Central Government is satisfied that the Western Coalfields Limited, Nagpur (hereinafter re- ferred to as the Government Company) is willing to comply with such terms and conditions as the Central Government thinks fit to impose in this behalf;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 11 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby directs that the lands and rights in or over the said lands , so vested, shall with effect from the 25th December , 2004 instead of continuing to so vest in the Central Government , vest in the Government Company, subject to the following terms and conditions , namely :-

1. the said Government Company shall reimburse the Central Government all payments made in respect of compensation, interest , damages and the like , as determined under the provisions of the said Act; 2. a tribunal shall be constituted for the purpose of determining the amounts payable to the Central Govern- ment by the Government Company under condition ( 1 ) , and all expenditure incurred in connection with any such tribunal and persons appointed to assist the tribunal shall be borne by the Government Company and similarly, all expenditure incurred in respect of all legal proceedings like appeals, etc.; for or in con- nection with the rights , in or over the said lands , so vesting shall also be borne by the said Government Company;

3. the said Government Company shall indemnify the Central Government or its officials against any other expenditure that may be necessary in connection with any proceedings by or against the Central Govern- ment or its officials regarding the aforesaid rights in or over the said lands so vested;

4. the said Government Company shall have no power to transfer the land and rights in or over the said lands so vested to any other person without the previous approval of the Central Government ; and

5. the said Government Company shall abide by such directions and conditions as may be given or imposed by the Central Government for particular areas of the said land as and when necessary.

[No. 43015 / 7 /2001 /PRIW]

B. K. PANDA , Director 1855 GI/05-3 6664

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005/ASADHA 11 , 1927

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 21 जून, 2005

का.आ. 2311.-केन्द्रीय सरकार को प्रतीत होता है कि इससे उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में उल्लेखित भूमि में कोयला अभिप्राप्त किए जाने की संभावना है;

अतः , अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, कोयला धारक क्षेत्र ( अर्जन और विकास ) अधिनियम , 1957 ( 1957 का 20 ) ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्तअधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 4 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, उसमें कोयले का पूर्वेक्षण करने के अपने आशय की सूचना देती है ;

इस अधिसूचना के अंतर्गत आने वाले रेखांक सं. सी-1 ( ई) / III/जे.जे.एम.आर. /730-0305 , तारीख 30 मार्च, 2005 का निरीक्षण वेस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड ( राजस्व अनुभाग ) , कोल इस्टेट सिविल लाइन्स , नागपुर -440001 ( महाराष्ट्र ) के कार्यालय में या कलेक्टर, चंद्रपुर (महाराष्ट्र) के कार्यालय में या कोयला नियंत्रक, 1 , काउंसिल हाऊस स्ट्रीट, कोलकाता के कार्यालय में किया जा सकता है ;

इस अधिसूचना के अंतर्गत आने वाली भूमि में, हितबद्ध सभी व्यक्ति उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 13 की उपधारा ( 7 ) में निर्दिष्ट सभी नक्शों, चार्टों और अन्य दस्तावेजों को इस अधिसूचना के प्रकाशन की तारीख से नब्बे दिनों के भीतर ओ.एस.डी. ( एल ० एण्ड आर० ) राजस्व विभाग , वैस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड, कोल इस्टेट, सिविल लाइन्स, नागपुर -440001 ( महाराष्ट्र) को भेज सकेंगे ।

अनुसूची एकोणा- I ओ सी खंड माजरी क्षेत्र , जिला चंद्रपुर ( महाराष्ट्र )

(रेखांक सं ० सी -1 ( ई ) III/जे.जे.एम.आर./730-0305 , तारीख 30 मार्च , 2005 )

जिला

टिप्पणियां क्रम सं०

ग्राम का नाम

तहसील

क्षेत्रफल हेक्टर में

पटवारी सर्किल संख्या

7 1

50.17

वरोरा

भाग एकोणा

चन्द्रपुर

मार्डा

भाग 2.

वरोरा

40.65

चन्द्रपुर

वनोजा

भाग

18.60

वरोरा

चन्द्रपुर

वरोरा

भाग

144.79

चरूर ( खटी)

चन्द्रपुर

कुल क्षेत्र: 254.21 हेक्टर ( लगभग ) या 628.15 एकड़ ( लगभग)

सीमा वर्णन:-

क-ख रेखा " क " बिन्दु से आरम्भ होती है और ग्राम एकोणा, डाइवल नदी के पूर्वी तट के साथ - साथ ग्राम एकोणा और चरूर ( खटी ) से होकर गुजरती है । फिर नाले के दक्षिण तट के साथ - साथ आगे बढ़ती है और बिन्दु " ख " पर मिलती है ।

ख-ग रेखा ग्राम चरूर ( खटी ) से और ग्राम चरूर ( खटी ) और वनोजा की सम्मिलित ग्राम सीमा के साथ - साथ आगे बढ़ती है , पी० डब्ल्यू०डी० सड़क को पार करती है और फिर वनोजा ग्राम से होकर आगे बढ़ती है, ग्राम सड़क को पार करती है फिर ग्राम वनोजा और मार्डा की सम्मिलित सीमा के साथ - साथ आगे बढ़ती है और बिन्दु " ग " पर मिलती है।

ग-क रेखा ग्राम मार्डा से होकर गुजरती है फिर ग्राम सड़क तथा ग्राम मार्डा और एकोणा की सम्मिलित सीमा को पार करती है फिर ग्राम एकोणा से होकर आगे बढ़ती है और आरम्भिक बिन्दु " क " पर मिलती है ।

[सं . 43015/6/ 2005- पी आर आई डब्ल्यू] बी. के. पण्डा, निदेशक 6665 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 2, 2005/आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

New Delhi , the 21st June, 2005

S.O. 2311. Whereas it appears to the Central Government that coal is likely to be obtained from the lands mentioned in the Schedule hereto annexed ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 4 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act , 1957 (20 of 1957 ) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) , the Central Government hereby gives notice of its intention to prospect for coal therein;

The plan bearing No. C- 1 (E) III / JJMR/ 730-0305 dated the 30th March, 2005 of the area covered by this notification can be inspected in the Office of the Western Coalfields Limited (Revenue Department) , Coal Estate, Civil Lines , Nagpur - 440001 (Maharashtra ) or in the office of the Collector Chandrapur (Maharashtra) or in the office of the Coal Controller, 1 , Council House Street , Kolkata .

All persons interested in the lands covered by this notification shall deliever all maps charts and other documents referred to in Sub -section (7) of Section 13 of the said Act, to the O.S.D. (L & R ) , Revenue Department, Western Coalfields Limited, Coal Estate , Civil Lines , Nagpur -440001 (Maharashtra ) within ninety days from the date ofpublication of this notification.

SCHEDULE

YEKONA- IOC BLOCK , MAJRI AREA

DISTRICT CHANDRAPUR (Maharashtra)

Plan No. C - 1 (E) III/ JJMR/ 730-0305 dated the 30th March , 2005 .

District

Remarks

Tahsil

Name of Village

Serial Number

Area in hectares

Patwari circle number

7 1

Yekona

Part

Warora

Chandrapur 50.17

40.65

Part

Warora

Marda

Chandrapur

Part 3.

Warora

18.60

Wanoja

Chandrapur

144.79

Part

Warora

Charur (Khati)

Chandrapur

Total area

254.21 hectares (Approximately) or

628.15 acres (Approximately) Boundary description : -

A-B : Line starts from point ' A' through villages Yekona along the Eastern Bank of Daiwal River of VillageYekona and Charur (Khati ) then proceeds along with the Southern Bank of Nallah and meets atpoint 'B' .

BC : Line passes through Village Charur (Khati ) and proceeds along the common Village boundary of Villages Charur (Khati ) and Wanoja crosses PWD Road then proceeds through Village Wanoja crosses Villages road then proceeds along the common village boundary of villages Wanoja and Marda and meets at point ' C' .

C-A : Line passes through Village Marda then crosses Village road and common Village boundary of Villages Marda and Yekona then proceeds through Village Yekona and Meets starting point ' A' . [No. 43015 / 6/ 2005/PRIW]

B. K. PANDA , Director

आदेश

नई दिल्ली , 21 जून , 2005

का.आ. 2312.- कोयला धारक क्षेत्र ( अर्जन और विकास ) अधिनियम , 1957 ( 1957 का 20 ) ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 9 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी भारत सरकार के कोयला मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्यांक का. आ. 3095 तारीख 24 नवम्बर , 2004 के भारत के राजपत्र, भाग II, खंड 3, उप- खंड ( ii ) तारीख 4 दिसम्बर, 2004 में प्रकाशित होने पर, उक्त अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि और भूमि में या उस पर के अधिकार ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिकार कहा गया है ) उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 10 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन , सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त होकार, आत्यतिक रूप से केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित हो गए थे;

6666

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2, 2005 /ASADHA 11 , 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] और, केन्द्रीय सरकार का यह समाधान हो गया है , कि साउथ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड, बिलासपुर ( छत्तीसगढ़ ) सरकारी कम्पनी (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् सरकारी कम्पनी कहा गया है ) ऐसे निबंधनों और शर्तों का जो केन्द्रीय सरकार इस निमित्त अधिरोपित करना उचित समझे, अनुपालन करने के लिए रजामंद है;

अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 11 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, यह निदेश देती है , कि इस प्रकार निहित उक्त भूमि और उक्त भूमि में या उस पर के अधिकार तारीख 4 दिसम्बर , 2004 से केन्द्रीय सरकार में इस प्रकार निहित बने रहने की बजाय , निम्नलिखित निबंधनों और शर्तों के अधीन रहते हुए उक्त कम्पनी में निहित हो जाएँगे , अर्थात्: -

1. उक्त कम्पनी, उक्त अधिनियम के अधीन अवधारित, प्रतिकर, ब्याज, नुकसानी और वैसी ही मदों की बाबत किए गए सभी संदायों कीकेन्द्रीय सरकार को प्रतिपूर्ति करेगी ।

2. उक्त कम्पनी द्वारा शर्तें ( 1 ) के अधीन , केन्द्रीय सरकार को संदेय रकमों का अवधारण करने के प्रयोजन के लिए एक अधिकरण का गठन किया जाएगा तथा ऐसे किसी अधिकरण और ऐसे अधिकरण की सहायता के लिए नियुक्त व्यक्तियों के संबंध में उपगत सभी व्यय, उक्त कम्पनी वहन करेगी और इसी प्रकार, निहित उक्त भूमि में या उस पर के अधिकारों के लिए या उनके संबंध में सभी विधिक कार्यवाहियों , जैसे अपील आदि की बाबत उपगत, सभी व्यय भी उक्त कम्पनी वहन करेगी ।

3. उक्त कम्पनी , केन्द्रीय सरकार या उसके पदधारियों की, ऐसे किसी अन्य व्यय के संबध में, जो इस प्रकार निहित उक्त भूमि में या उस पर के अधिकारों के बारे में, केन्द्रीय सरकार या उसके पदधारियों द्वारा या उनके विरूद्ध किन्हीं कार्यवाहियों के संबंध में आवश्यक हो, क्षतिपूर्ति करेगी ।

4. उक्त कम्पनी को, केन्द्रीय सरकार के पूर्व अनुमोदन के बिना, उक्त भूमि को किसी अन्य व्यक्ति को अंतरित करने की शक्ति नहीं होगी; और

5. उक्त कम्पनी, ऐसे निर्देशों और शर्तों का, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार द्वारा जब कभी आवश्यक हो, उक्त भूमि के विशिष्ट क्षेत्रों के लिए दिए जाएँ, या अधिरोपित की जाएं, पालन करेगी ।

[ सं. 43015 / 19/ 2000- पी. आर. आई . डब्ल्यू. ]

बी. के. पण्डा, निदेशक

ORDER

New Delhi , the 21st June , 2005

S.O. 2312.-Whereas on the publication of the notification of the Government of India, in the Ministry of Coal, number S.O. 3095 dated the 24th November , 2004, in Part - II , Section 3 , Sub- section ( ii ) , of the Gazette of India, dated 4th December , 2004, issued under Sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 9 of the Coal Bearing Areas ( Acquisition and Development ) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) , the rights in or over the lands , described in the Schedule appended to the said notification (hereinafter referred to as the said rights ) vested absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances under Sub- Section (1) of Section 10 of the said Act ;

Andwhereas the Central Government is satisfied that the South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) , a Government Company (hereinafter referred to as the Company) , is willing to comply with such terms and conditions as the Central Government thinks fit to impose in this behalf;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 11 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby directs that the said rights in or over the lands , so vested, shall with effect from the 4th December, 2004 instead of continuing to so vest in the Central Government, vest in the said Company , subject to the following terms and conditions , namely :-

1. The said Company shall reimburse the Central Government all payments made in respect of compensation, interest, damages and the like, as determined under the provisions of the said Act ;

2. A tribunal shall be constituted for the purpose of determining the amounts payable to the Central Government by the said Company under Condition ( 1 ) , and all expenditure incurred in connection with any such tribunal and persons appointed to assist the tribunal shall be borne by the said Company and similarly, all expenditure incurred in respect of all legal proceedings like appeals , etc. , for or in connection with the rights , in or over the said lands , so vesting shall also be borne by the said Company;

3. the said Company shall indemnify the Central Government or its officials against any other expenditure that may be necessary in connection with any proceedings by or against the Central Government or its officials regarding the aforesaid rights in or over the said lands so vested; -

4. The said Company shall have no power to transfer the said lands to any other person without the previous approval of the Central Government ; and

5. The said Company shall abide by such directions and conditions as may be given or imposed by the Central Government for particular areas as and necessary .

[No. 43015/19/2000 -PRIW]

B. K. PANDA , Director [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 2 , 2005/ आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

1 पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय

बारां नईदिल्ली, 22 जून, 2005

का.आ. 2313.- 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. 1398 ( अ ) एवं 1399 ( अ) तारीख 21-12-2004 द्वारा , उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में गेल ( इण्डिया ) लिमिटेड द्वारा राजस्थान राज्य में विजयपुर- कोटा एवं स्पर पाइपलाइनों के माध्यम से पेट्रोलियम गैस के परिवहन के लिए पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय कीघोषणा की थी;

और उक्त राजपत्रित अधिसूचना की प्रतियां जनता को तारीख 06-05-2005 तक उपलब्ध करा दी गई थीं;

और पाइपलाइन बिछाने के सम्बन्ध में जनता से प्राप्त आक्षेपों पर सक्षम प्राधिकारी द्वारा विचार कर लिया गया है और उन्हें अननुज्ञात कर दिया गया है;

अतः , अब सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन केन्द्रीय सरकार को अपनी रिपोर्ट दे दी है;

बारां 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;

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, निर्देश देती है कि पाइप- लाइनें 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

सर्वेनं.

तहसील गाँव

आर.ओ.यू.

अर्जित करने के लिए क्षेत्रफल (हैक्टेयरमें) 1

0.1245 बारां

अन्ता

पलसवा

135 140

0.0040

6667 3

5 पलसवा

0.0740 अन्ता

0.0048

0.0560

0.0718

0.0146

0.0010

0.0468

0.0294

0.0020

0.0600

0.0140

0.0648

26/1003

0.0047

0.0826

0.1098

0.0416

0.0424

योग

0.8488 अन्ता काचरी

424

0.0052

424/468

0.0204

423/480

0.1096

405

0.2807

0.6243

396

373

0.3120

374

0.0350

367

0.3030

353

0.2880

354

0.1670

355

0.7940

349

0.2140

349/429

0.1560

347

0.1720

345

0.1280

346

0.2890

335

0.4340

334

0.4950

425/477

0.0830

4.9102

योग 6668

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2, 2005/ASADHA 11 , 1927

बारां बारां

अन्ता

0.0720

चकशाहबाद 180

179

0.0970

योग

0.1690 बारां

0.0295 अन्ता तामखेड़ा

0.0120

0.0326

0.0482

0.1080

0.0500

0.0290

0.1566

0.0010

0.0950

0.0108

0.1504

0.0004

0.0596

0.0246

154

181

0.0492

184

0,0010

0.0992

183

0.0560

182

0.0198

185

186

0:0774

187

0.1004

189

0.7250

0.0240

236/799

236

0.3240

235

0.1800

234

0.1850

233

0.1260

241

0.2260

0.4470

242

252

0.5400

251

0.1470

246

0.4500

259

0.0020

0.7290

250

266/781

0.0420

265

0.0040

266

0.0100

5.3717

योग

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

5 अन्ता

अन्ता

180/1924

0.0188

180

0.1026

179

0.0082

155

0.0073

156

0.1426

0.1373

158

159

0.0598

160

0.0004

0.0404

164

165

0.1393

166

0.0280

171

0.0030

0.0208

170

169

0.0296

183

0.0010

0.0620

184

0.0382

188

0.0113

189

0.0232

190

0.0311

187

0.0912

191

423/1947

0.1150

424

0.0385

425

0.0010

0.0370

428

429

0.0298

0.0078

430

0.0240

431

432

0.0330

434

0.0040

436

0.1270

437

0.0475

0.0010

441

440

0.1862

0.3052

445

448

0,0681

449

0.0560

450

0.0067

466

0.1538

467

0.1110

468

0.1002 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

6669

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 2, 2005/ आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

5 2

1 अन्ता

469

बारां

0.1139 बारां

अन्ता

470

0.0004

0.1032

480

482

0.1644

0.0346

480/1881

478

0.0140

549

0.0896

0.0002

551

548

0.1841

545

0.0760

546

0.0120

योग

3.2413

बमोरी

0.0234

0.0860

0.1808

0.0212

20/1065

0.0278

0.0984

0.0818

0.0216

0.0872

0.0625

0.0646

0.2032

0.0254

0.0306

योग

1.0145

0.7257

नागदा

424

425

0.0010

434/1577

0,0050

435

0.6213

461

0.1150

0.0718

528

527

0.0120 बारां

525

0.2184

529

0.1026

531

0.0514

543

0.0080

540

0.0978 3

5 2

532

0.0020 अन्ता

नागदा

539

0.0698

0.0516

538

533

0.1314

0.2012

534

0.1538

1345

1346

0.0020

0.0840

1344

1346/1572

0.0020

0.0186

1343

0.1392

1204

0.0558

1207

0.0198

1211

0.0093

1210

1209

0.0382

0.0396

1212

1213

0.0798

1215

0.0298

0.0612

1216

0.0096

1201

0.0414

1200

1199

0.0131

0.043

1175

0.1178

1176

1178

0.0002

0.1846

1177

0.0452

1181

1191

0.0092

0.0674

1190

1187

0.0966

0.0142

1185

1184

0.0320

0.0082

1183

3.9020

योग

0.7373 अन्ता

पलायथा

1230

0.5626

1221

1.2999

योग

[फाइल सं. एल-14014/9/04- जी.पी. ]

स्वामी सिंह, निर्देशक 6670

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005/ASADHA 11 , 1927

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

1 New Delhi , the 22nd June , 2005

Baran S.O. 2313.- Whereas by notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O. 1398 (E) and 1399 (E) dated 21-12-2004 issued under Sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition ofRight ofUsers 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 transport of Natural Gas through Vijaipur -Kota and Spur pipelines in the State of Rajasthan by the GAIL (India) Limited;

And whereas copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on 06-05-2005 ;

And whereas the objections received from the public to the laying of the pipeline have been considered and disallowed by the Competent Authority;

And whereas the Competent Authority has , under Sub -section ( 1) of Section 6 of the said Act , submitted its report to the Central Government;

And whereas the Central Government has , after considering the said report decided to acquire the Right of User in the lands specified in the Schedule ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section ( 1 ) of Section 6 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby directs 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 this date of the publication ofthis declaration, in the GAIL (India) Limited, free from all encumbrances.

SCHEDULE

Tehsil

Area District

Village Survey No.

tobe

acquired

for ROU

(InHectares) 1

135

Anta

Palsava

0.1245 Baran

140

0.0040

0.0740

0.0048

0.0560

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

5 2

0.0718 Palsava

Anta

0.0146

0,0010

0.0468

0.0294

0,0020

0.0600

0.0140

0.0648

0.0047

26/1003

0.0826

0.1098

0.0416

0.0424

0.8488

TOTAL

Kachari

424

0.0052

424/468

0.0204

423/480

0.1096

405

0.2807

0.6243

396

0.3120

373

0.0350

374

367

0.3030

0.2880

353

0.1670

354

0.7940

355

349

0.2140

0.1560

349/429

347

0.1720

345

0.1280

0.2890

346

335

0.4340

334

0.4950

425/477

0.0830

TOTAL

4.9102 Chaksahabad 180

0.0720

179

0.0970

TOTAL

0.1690 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 2 , 2005/ आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

Baran

Tamkheda 50

0.0295 Baran

Anta

0.0120

0.0326

0.0482

0.1080

0.0500

0.0290

0.1566

0.0010

0.0950

0.0108

0.1504

0.0004

0.0596

0.0246

154

0.0492

181

184

0.0010

183

0.0992

182

0.0560

185

0.0198

0.0774

186

187

0.1004

0.7250

189

0.0240

236/799

0.3240

236

235

0,1800

234

0.1850

233

0.1260

241

0.2260

242

0.4470

252

0.5400

251

0.1470

0.4500

246

259

0.0020

0.7290

250

0,0420

266/781

265

0.0040

266

0.0100

TOTAL

5.3717 1855 GI /05-4

6671

5 3

Anta

0.0188 Anta 180/1924

180

0.1026

179

0.0082

155

0.0073

156

0.1426

0.1373

158

0.0598

159

0.0004

160

0.0404

164

0.1393

165

0.0280

166

171

0.0030

0.0208

170

169

0.0296

0.0010

183

0.0620

184

0.0382

188

0.0113

189

0.0232

190

187

0.0311

0.0912

191

0.1150

423/1947

0.0385

424

425

0.0010

0.0370

428

429

0.0298

0.0078-

430

431

0.0240

0.0330

432

0.0040

434

0.1270

436

437

0:0475

441

0.0010

0.1862

440

0.3052

445

0.0681

448

0.0560

449

450

0.0067

466

0.1538

467

0.1110

468

0.1002 6672

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005/ASADHA 11 , 1927

1 1

469

Baran

Anta

0.1139

Anta

Baran

470

0.0004

480

0.1032

482

0.1644

480/1881

0.0346

478

0.0140

0.0896

549

551

0.0002

548

0.1841

545

0.0760

546

0.0120

TOTAL

3.2413

Bamori

0.0234

0.0860

0.1808

20/1065

0.0212

0.0278

0.0984

0.0818

0.0216

0.0872

0.0625

0.0646

0.2032

0.0254

0.0306

TOTAL

1.0145

424

0.7257

Nagda

425

0.0010

434/1577

0.0050

435

0.6213

461

0.1150

528

0.0718

527

0.0120

525

0.2184

529

0.1026

531

0.0514

543

0.0080

540

0.0978

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)]

5 2

0.0020

532

Anta Nagda

539

0.0698

538

0.0516

533

0.1314

534

0.2012

1345

0.1538

0.0020

1346

0.0840

1344

1346/1572

0.0020

1343

0.0186

1204

0.1392

0.0558

1207

1211

0.0198

0.0093

1210

1209

0.0382

0.0396

1212

0.0798

1213

0.0298

1215

0.0612

1216

0.0096

1201

1200

0.0414

1199

0.0131

0.0434

1175

0.1178

1176

1178

0.0002

1177

0.1846

0.0452

1181

0.0092

1191

0.0674

1190

0.0966

1187

1185

0.0142

1184

0.0320

0.0082

1183

TOTAL

3.9020

1230

0.7373 Palaita

1221

0.5626

TOTAL

1.2999

[File No. L- 14014/9/04-G.P. ]

SWAMI SINGH , Director [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 2 , 2005/आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

1 नई दिल्ली, 22 जून , 2005

कोटा का.आ. 2314.-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. 1398 (अ) एवं. 1399( अ) तारीख , 21-12-2004 द्वारा , उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में गेल ( इण्डिया) लिमिटेड द्वारा राजस्थान राज्य में विजयपुर- कोटा एवं स्पर पाइपलाईनों केमाध्यम से पेट्रोलियम गैस के परिवहन के लिए पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय कीघोषणा की थी;

और उक्त राजपत्रित अधिसूचना की प्रतियां जनता को तारीख 06-05-2005 तक 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 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 कियाहै;

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;

अनुसूची

जिला

तहसील गाँव

सर्वे नं. आर.ओ.यू.

अर्जित करने के

लिए क्षेत्रफल (हैक्टेयरमें) 1

5 2

215/235 0.2259 कोटा

ककरावदा

दीगोद

0.1969

197

6673

5 2

0.0276

196

दीगोद

200

0.3748 ककरावदा (जारी)

201

0.0200

203

0.0996

193

0.1016

0.0914

192

0.0746

191

186

0.2894

1.5018

योग

चीसा

158

0.0210

0.1998

159

154

0.0998

153

0.1256

152

0.0514

0.1290

100

0.0588

0.1368

0.1170

0.0990

0.1044

0.1852

0.0522

160

174

0.0970

0.0997

176

177

0.1060

0.1516

178

211

0.0348

0.0008

216

215

0.0402

0.0620

214/378

214

0.1150

0.0374

213

2.1245

योग

0.0100 रूग्गी

176

0.1053

175

174

0.0900

172

0.2312

171

0.0192

170/285 0.0344

170

0.1032

159

0.1290

167/283

0.0280 6674

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005/ ASADHA 11 , 1927

1 कोटा

160

0.0225 दीगोद

कोटा

166

0.1032

रूगगी (जारी)

0.0218

165

0.0749

133

130

0.0080

131

0.1330

0.1490

132

128

0.0638

0.0040

127

122

0.0560

0.1838

121

111

0.0020

110

0.1108

0.0936

109

105

0.1024

0.1790

0.1876

0.0896

0.1688

0.0542

0.0226

2.5809

योग

गढेपान

0.0420

325

349/363 0.0120

349

0.2686

0.0082

347

344

0.0150

348

योग

0.3608

170

0.0010

पाचड़ाकी

0.0270

194

झोपड़ी

171

0.0210

0.3280

193

0.1480

193/319

195

0.1310

191

0.0020

202

0.0120

204

0.0800

203

0.0030

207

0,2820

0.0010

208

209

0.1380

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

5 2

212

0.0360 दीगोद पाचड़ा

211

0.1450 कीझोपड़ी

210

0.0370 (जारी)

0.0360

213

218

0.1780

217

0.1620

0.0420

226

225

0.1620

0.0020

224

0.4660

227

259

0.1170

0.1470

258

0.0240

257

256

0.0300

255

0.3100

0.0010

254

0.4740

253

252

0.2340

251

0.0010

3.7780

योग

0.0192

बल्लभपुरा

0.2040

32/407

0.2700

0.2270

32/406

0.0439

0.0020

0.0870

0.1610

0.1683

0.0350

0,0910

0.0810

0.1350 .

0.2541

144

0.0100

89/412

0,0650

129/403

0,900

129

128

0.0020

130

0.1300

0,0420

134

0.1280

135

0.1910

189 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

6675

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 2, 2005/आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

1 कोटा

191

0.1500 कोटा दीगोद बल्लभपुरा

192

0.0130

योग

2.5995

भौंरा

156

0.2320

159

0.0719

162

0.0410

165

0.1110

166

0.0180

170

0.2330

201

0.0550

0.1200

205

0.0640

206

208

0.2586

209

0.0120

233

0.0691

473

0.0100

474

0.3504

587/623 0.1937

487

00.330

486

0.1410

485/587

0.3150

0.0750

494

494/617 0.2300

495

0.0690

498

0.4260

0.3780

500

500/625 0.1940

0.1800

503

502

0.0280

506

0.1720

507

0.0200

4.1007

योग

890

सिमलिया

0.0440

889

0.1790

888

0.0220

887

0.1250

0.2770

891

900

0.1120

901

0.1450

902

0.0180

904

0.1160

5 2

907

0.2180 दीगोद सिमलिया

906

0.2360 (जारी)

0.1150

864

863/937

0.1000

0.2520

859

0.0040

858

914

0.0240

852

0,1600

0.5550

842/941

842/940 0.2010

834

0.0930

0.0560

830

832

0.0860

0.0680

761

763

0.0750

0.0330

762

769

0.0830

768

0.1300

771

0.0710

772

0.0260

0.2540

778

777

0.0690

0.0140

656

621

0.2120

629

0.1180

627/975 0.0410

628/976 0.0150

0.0160

627

628

0,0960

615

0.5040

615/961 0.0010

614

0.1580

612

0.0460

5.1680

योग

0.0220 कराडिया 188

189

0.1930

190

0.2590

193

0.1280

197

0.4290

169

0.2210

168

0.1790

0.0000

218

206

0.0300 6676

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005/ASADHA 11 , 1927

1 कोटा

कराडिया 207

0.0740 दीगोद

कोटा

203

0.0020

235

0.0160

266

0.1230

267

0.1090

0.0860

271

272

0.0170

0.0560

273

0.0110

298

337

0.0030

338

0.0820

336

0.0020

335

0.0270

339

0.1470

334

0.3390

0.0060

539

0.2628

538

536

0.0310

0.2160

535

534

0.0910

533

0.0000

520

0.0320

467

0.0459

466

0.0320

468

0.0010

469

0,2090

470

0.1050

0.0895

471

479

0.2590

478

0.2180

482

0.1740

489

0.2320

490

0.0520

0.0080

494

493

0.1530

491

0.0020

492

0.1100

492/595

0.0200

4.9042

योग

0.0690

ब्रजपुरा

0.0200

0.1840

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

5 2

0.0670 दीगोद ब्रजपुरा

0.2220

0.1770

0.0710

0.0100

0.0420

0.0020

14/304

0.4940

0,0600

0.0040

0.0680

0.0020

0.1750

0.0200

1.6890

योग

0.0020 पौलाई कलां 327

0.3530

380

330

0.2290

0.1380

331

378/731 0.1188

0.0770

377

376

0.0020

377/759 0.0770

374

0.4420

0.2110

370

0.0060

369

0.0860

371

366

0.0950

365

0.0220

364

0.1870

0.0080

390/748

0.0420

389

0.0080

670

669

0.1100

669/738

0.0220

668

0.1630

667

0.0240

667/724 0.0140

636

0.0000

0.2720

635

0.1070

640

641

0.0850 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

6677

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 2, 2005/आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

1 कोटा

644

0.1900 कोटा दीगोद पौलाई

कलां

645

0.0440

646

0.1610

650

0.1700

620

0.0330

622

0.0180

621

0.0883

0.0280

619

611

0.0443

610

0.0320

609

0.1840

608

0.1880

603

0.0140

535

0.2000

536

0.0960

538

0.1580

540

0.0630

0.0270

540/726

549

0,0800

543

0.0100

0.1340

544

545

0.0330

176

0.1480

0.0400

175

163

0.2550

0.2160

162

159

0.2360

160

0.0100

158

0.0340

0.0040

135

134

0.0555

133

0.0470

132

0.1500

131/737

0.0040

6.0959

योग

नोहती

0.0230

0,2500

0.2190

0.5380

115

0.2260

0.0080

5/371

116

0.0140

117

0.0070

1.2850.

योग

5 2

डायरा

373

0.0990 लाडपुरा

374

0.0120

0.1646

371

372

0.3120

362

0.1890

363

0.3530

364

0.2810

0.2200

353/381

352

0.2340

1.8646

योग

गोदल्याहेडी 4

0.0680

0.0620

0.1810

6/596

0.1391

0.1480

0.2670

0.0380

0.0140

0.9171

योग

मोरपा

0.5830

0.6000

0.0450

0.1880

0.2240

0.1540

0.2020

0.3650

0.1320

166

0.1370

0.0820

0.1270

0.1480

0.0460

0.1820

0.1700

0.3450

0.0233

74/388

0.0060

3.7593

योग 6678

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005/ ASADHA 11 , 1927

1 कोटा

177

0.3240 कोटा अरनिया

लाडपुरा

185

0.2310

186

0,0020

184

0.1710

183

0.0970

179

0.1650

181

0.2790

194

0.1180

195

0.0230

0,0320

175

135

0.0950

136

0.1510

137

0.1360

0.0860

127

126

0.0840

125

0.1920

0.0380

124

122

0.3280

121

0.0020

0.0420

0.1645

0.1175

0.0800

0.1720

0.0750

0.0180

0.0280

कोटा

0.3320

0.2880

0.1810

0.0340

0.0000

4.0860

योग

137

0.2040

रसूलपुर

134

0.0170

133

0.0860

0.0370

132

0.0400

130

0.0160

249

0.0660

248

कोटा

0.1630

251

0.3240

252

0.2480

121

120

0.1780

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

5 3

0.1760

117

लाडपुरा रसूलपुर

112

0,0560

0.0100

113

1.6210

योग

0.0000

141

खेड़ा

0.2440

140

0.2610

138

0.3350

136

135

0.1340

130

0.1550

-0.0250

131

0.1390

120

119

0.1010

0.0760

0.0010

0.0380

0.1020

0.0250

0.1060

0.2480

0.1900

0.0100

0.1860

0.180

2.5040

योग

485

0.1290 लाडपुरा भोजपुरा

0.0840

484

0.0090

490

0,2930

492

495

0.0010

0,2920

498

0.0370

509

0.1500

510

0.0380

511

512

0.1180

0.1430

513

514

0.0250

1.3190

योग

मण्डानिया 924

0.0600 लाडपुरा

883

0,0300

884

0.0500

0.1200

923 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

6679

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 2, 2005/आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

1 2

5 1

कोटा कोटा

मण्डानिया 921

0.1440 लाडपुरा

920

0,0600

919

0.0210

918

0.1160

917

0.2560

916

0.1490

897

0.0020

898

0.2220

895

0.1330

646

0.0700

638

0.1310

639

0.1040

645

0.0150

0.0020

647

0.1490

644

641

0.0130

642

0.0330

650

0.0230

652

0.0670

673

0.0030

676

0.0300

678

0.0170

677

0.0300

679

0.1160

680

0.1610

681

0.1540

0.0010

684

683

0.1220

685

0.1250

688

0.0060

687

0.1150

0.0280

697

762

0.0120

798/1163 0.1340

798

0.0370

763

0.0500

795

0.0360

794

0.0110

793

0.0150

792

0.1180

0.0400

योग

3.3370 1855 G1/055

185

0.0220 लाडपुरा हाथीखेड़ा

189

0.1260

190

0.0170

191

0.0630

193

0.0020

192/348 0.0100

192

0.3280

0.0570

197

201

0.5420

230

0.3990

231

0.0120

233

0.0750

233/345 0.0210

1.6740

योग

0.0230 हनुमन्तखेड़ा 45

0.0280

0.3980

0.0370

0.1055

0.0040

0,0060

0.3050

0.1365

0.1900

0.2160

0.1590

योग

1.6080

289

0.0470 नया नोहरा

285

0.1500

0.0890.

282

0.2740

283

0.0285

287

0.1510

0.2025

0.4070

1.3490

योग

[फा. सं.एल -14014/9/04-जी.पी. ]

स्वामी सिंह, निंदेशक 6680

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005/ASADHA 11 , 1927

1 New Delhi , the 22nd June , 2005

Kota S.O. 2314.- Whereas by notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S. O. 1398 (E) and 1399 (E ) dated 21-12-2004 issued under Sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 3 ofthe 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 oflaying pipeline for the transport of Natural Gas through Vijaipur --Kota and Spur pipelines in the State of Rajasthan by the GAIL (India) Limited;

And whereas copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on 6-5-2005;

And whereas the objections received from the public to the laving of the pipeline have been considered and disallowed by the Competent Authority;

And whereas the Competent Authority has , under Sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 6 of the said Act , submitted its report to the Central Government ;

And whereas the Central Government has , after considering the said report , decided to acquire the right of user in the lands specified in the Schedule;

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:

Aud. 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 lay ing the pipelines shall, instead ofvesting in the Central Government , vest , on this date of the publication ofthe declaration , in the GAIL (India) Limited, free from all encumbrances .

SCHEDULE

Tehsil

District

Area

Village Survey No.

to be

acquired

for R.O.U.

(InHectares) 1

5 2

Kota

215/235 0.2259

Kakarvada

Digod

197

0.1969

196

0.0276

200

0.3748

201

0.0200

203

0.0996

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]

5 2

Kakarvada 193

0.1016 Digod

0.0914

192

0.0746

191

186

0.2894

Total

1.5018

0.0210 Chisa

158

159

0.1998

154

0,0998

153

0.1256

152

0.0514

100

0.1290

0.0588

0.1368

0.1170

0.0990

0.1044

(0,1852

160

0.0522

174

0.0970

176

0,0997

177

0,1060

178

0.1516

211

0.0348

0.0008

216

0.0402

215

214/378 0,0620

214

0.1150

213

0.374

2.1245

Total

176

0.0100 Ruggi

175

0.1053

174

0,0900

172

0.2312

171

0.0192

170/285 0.0344

170

0.1032

159

0.1290

167/283 0.0280

160

0.0225

166

0.1032

165

0.0218

133

0.0749

0.0080

130 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 2, 2005/ आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

1 1

5 Kota

131

0.1330 Kota Digod Ruggi

132

0.1490

128

0.0638

127

0.0040

122

0.0560

121

0.1838

111

0.0020

110

0.1108

109

0.0936

105

0.1024

0.1790

0.1876

0.0896

0.1688

0.0542

0.0226

2.5809

Total

0.0420

Gadepan 325

349/363

0.0120

349

0.2686

347

0,0082

344

0.0150

348

0.3608

Total

0.0010

Pachada Ki 170

0.0270

Jhopadi 194

171

0.0210

193

0.3280

193/319 0.1480

195

0.1310

0.0020

191

202

0.0120

204

0.0800

203

0.0030

0.2820

207

208

0.0010

209

0.1380

212

0.0360

211

0.1450

0.0370

210

6681

5 3

0.0360 Pachada 213

Digod

0.1780

218

Ki Jhopadi

0.1620

217

226

0.0420

0.1620

225

0.0020

224

0.4660

227

259

0.1170

0.1470

258

0.0240

257

256

0.0300

255

0.3100

254

0.0010

0.4740

253

252

0.2340

0.0010

251

3.7780

Total

0.0192 Ballabpura 33

32/407

0.2040

0.2700

32/406

0.2270

0.0439

0.0020-

0.0870

0.1610

0.1683

0.0350

0.0910

0.0810

0.1350

0.2541

144

89/412

0.0100

129/403 0.0650

0.0900

129

0.0020

128

130

0.1300

0.0420

134

0.1280

135

0.1910

189

191

0.1500

0.0130

192

2.5995

Total 6682

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005/ASADHA 11 , 1927

156

0.2320 Kota

Bhoura

Digod

Kota

159

0.0719

162

0.0410

165

0.1110

166

0,0180

170

0.2330

0.0550

201

205

0.1200

206

0.0640

0.2586

208

209

0.0120

233

0.0691

473

0,0100

474

0.3504

587/623

0.1937

487

0.0330

486

0.1410

485/587 0.3150

494

0.0750

494/617

0.2300

495

0.0690

498

0.4260

500

0.3780

500/625

0.1940

503

0,1800

0.0280

502

506

0.1720

0,0200

507

TOTAL 4.1007

0.0440

890

Simaliya

889

0.1790

888

0.0220

887

0.1250

891

0.2770

900

0.1120

901

0.1450

902

0.0180

904

0.1160

907

0.2180

0.2360

906

864

0.1150

863/937

0,1000

859

0.2520

858

0.0040

[PART II -SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

0.0240

914

Digod Simaliya

852

0.1600

0.5550

842/941

842/940

0.2010

834

0.0930

830

0.0560

832

0.0860

0.0680

761

763

0.0750

762

0.0330

0.0830

769

768

0.1300

771

0.0710

772

0.0260

778

0.2540

0.0690

777

656

0.0140

621

0.2120

629

0.1180

627/975 0.0410

628/976

0.0150

627

0.0160

0.0960

628

615

0.5040

0.0010

615/961

614

0.1580

612

0.0460

5.1680

TOTAL

Kararia

188

0.0220

0.1930

189

0.2590

190

193

0.1280

0.4290

197

0.2210

169

0.1790

168

218

206

0.0300

0.0740

207

203

0,0020

235

0.0160

266

0.1230

267

0.1090 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

6683

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 2, 2005/आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

5 1

Kota

0.0860 Kota

Kararia

271

Digod

0.0170

272

0.0560

273

298

0.0110

337

0.0030

338

0.0820

336

0.0020

335

0.0270

339

0.1470

334

0.3390

539

0.0060

0.2628

538

536

0.0310

0.2160

535

534

0.0910

533

520

0.0320

467

0.0459

466

0.0320

468

0.0010

469

0.2090

470

0.1050

471

0.0895

0.2590

479

0.2180

478

482

0.1740

489

0.2320

0.0520

490

0,0080

494

493

0.1530

491

0.0020

492

0.1100

0.0200

492/595

TOTAL 4.9042

0.0690 Brujpura

0.0220

0.1840

0.0670

0.2220

0.1770

0.0710

5 3

0.0100

Digod Brujpura

0.0420

14/304

0.0020

0.4940

0.0600

0.0040

0,0680

0.0020

0.1750

0.0200

1.6890

TOTAL

0.0020 Polaikalan 327

380

0.3530

330

0.2290

331

0.1380

0.1188

378/731

0.0770

377

376

0.0020

377/759

0.0770

374

0.4420

370

0.2110

369

0.0060

0,0860

371

366

0.0950

0.0220

365

0.1870

364

0.0080

390/748

389

0.0420

670

0.0080

669

0.1100

669/738

0.0220

668

0.1630

667

0.0240

667/724 0.0140

636

0.0000

635

0.2720

0.1070

640

0.0850

641

644

0.1900

645

0.0440

646

0.1610

0.1700

650

620

0.0330 6684

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005/ASADHA 11 , 1927

1 1

5 Kota

0.0180

Kota

Polaikalan 622

Digod

621

0.0883

0.0280

619

611

0.0443

610

0.0320

609

0.1840

608

0.1880

603

0.0140

0.2000

535

536

0,0960

538

0.1580

540

0.0630

0.0270

540/726

549

0.0800

543

0.0100

544

0.1340

0.0330

545

176

0.1480

175

0.0400

0.2550

163

162

0.2160

0.2360

159

160

0.0100

158

0.0340

0.0040

135

0.0555

134

133

0.0470

132

0,1500

0.0040

131/737

TOTAL 6.0959

0.0230

Nohati

0.2500

0.2190

0.5380

115

0,2260

5/371

0.0080

116

0.0140

117

0.0070

1.2850

TOTAL

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

5 Dahara 373

0.0990 Ladpura

374

0.0120

371

0.1646

0.3120

372

362

0.1890

363

0.3530

364

0.2810

0.2200

353/381

352

0.2340

TOTAL 1.8646

0.0680 Godliyahedi 4

0.0620

0.1810

6/596

0.1391

0.1480

0.2670

0,0380

0.0140

0.9171

TOTAL

0.5830

Morpa

0.6000

0.0450

0.1880

0.2240

0.1540

0.2020

0.3650

0.1320

166

0.1370

0.0820

0.1270

0.1480

0.0460

0.1820

0.1700

0.3450

0.0233

74/388

0.0060

TOTAL 3.7593

177

0.3240 Arniya

185

0.2310

0.0020

186

184

0.1710

183

0,0970 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 2 , 2005/आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

5 1

179

0.1650 Kota

Ladpura Arniya

Kota

0.2790

181

194

0.1180

195

0.0230

175

0.0320

0.0950

135

136

0.1510

0.1360

137

0.0860

127

126

0.0840

125

0.1920

124

0.0380

122

0.3280

121

0.0020

0.0420

0.1645

0.1175

0.0800

0.1720

0.0750

0.0180

0.0280

0.3320

0.2880

0.1810

0.0340

0.0000

4.0860

TOTAL

137

0,2040 Rasulpur

134

0.0170

133

0.0860

132

0.0370

130

0.0400

249

0.0160

0.0660

248.

0.1630

251

252

0.3240

121

0,2480

0.1780

120

117

0.1760

0.0560

112

113

0.0100

1.6210

TOTAL

0.0000

Kheda

141

140

0,2440

0,2610

138

6685

136

0.3350 Kheda

Ladpura

135

0.1340

130

0.1550

131

-0.0250

0.1390

120

0.1010

119

0.0760

0.0010

0.0380

0.1020

0.0250

0.1060

0.2480

0.1900

0.0100

0.1860

0.1780

TOTAL 2.5040

0.1290 Bhojpura 485

484

0.0840

490

0.0090

0.2930

492

0.0010

495

0.2920

498

509

0.0370

0.1500

510

0.0380

511

0.1180

512

513

0.1430

0.0250

514

1.3190

TOTAL

0.0600 Mandania 924

0.0300

883

0,0500

884

0.1200

923

0.1440

921

0,0600

920

0.0210

919

0.1160

918

0.2560

917

916

0.1490

897

0.0020

02220

898

895

0.1330

646

0.0700

638

0.1310 6686

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005/ ASADHA 11 , 1927

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] 4

5 Kota

0.1040 Kota

Mandania 639

Hanuat- 45

0.0230 Ladpura

Ladpura

kheda

0.0280 645

0.0150

647

0,0020

0.3980

0.1490

644

0.0370

0.0130

641

0.1055 642

0.0330

0.0040

650

0.0230

0.0060

0.0670

652

0.3050 673

0.0030

0.1365 676

0.0300

0.1900 678

0.0170

677

0.0300

0.2160 679

0.1160

0.1590 680

0.1610

TOTAL 1.6080 681

0.1540

289

0.0470

Naya

684

0.0010

Nohara

285

0,1500 683

0.1220

282

0.0890 685

0.1250

283

0.2740 688

0.0060

687

0.1150

287

0.0285 697

0.0280

0.1510

0.0120

762

0.2025

798/1163 0.1340

0.4070 798

0.0370

TOTAL 1.3490 763

0.0500

795

0.0360

[File No. L- 14014/9/04-G.P. ] 794

0.0110

SWAMI SINGH, Director 793

0.0150

नई दिल्ली, 22 जून , 2005

0.1180

792

0,0400

TOTAL 3.3370

0.0220

Hathikheda 185

189

0.1260

0.0170

190

191

0.0630

0,0020

193

192/348 0.0100

192

0,3280

0.0570

197

का. आ. 2315.- 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. 2730 तारीख 25-10-2004 द्वारा , उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में गेल ( इंडिया ) लिमिटेड द्वारा, राजस्थान राज्य में सैमकोर - श्रीराम फर्टिलाईजर स्पर पाइपलाइन परियोजना के माध्यम से पेट्रोलियम गैस के परिवहन के लिए पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा कीथी;

0.5420

201

230

0.3990

और उक्त राजपत्रित अधिसूचना की प्रतियां जनता को तारीख 18-01-2005 तक उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी;

0.0120

231

0.0750

233

233/345 0.0210

TOTAL 1.6740 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 2, 2005/ आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

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 में 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, निर्देश देती है कि पाइपलाइनें बिछाने के लिए भूमि में 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

जिला

गांव सर्वे नं.

तहसील

आर.ओ.यू. अर्जित करने के लिए क्षेत्रफल (हेक्टर में) 2

5 1

318

कोटा

0.1740

राजनगर

लाडपुरा

315

0.1560

310

0.1200

311

0.0360

305

0.0840

306

0.0240

0.2880

307

Kota

0.8820

योग

1.0920

सुखपुरा

0.0840

1.1760

योग

[फाइल सं. एल-14014/9/04- जी.पी. ]

स्वामी सिंह, निदेशक

Kota

New Delhi , the 22nd June, 2005

S.O. 2315.- Whereas by notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S. O. 2730 dated the 25-10-2004 issued under Sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right ofUsers in Land ) 1855 G1 /05-6

6687

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 purpose of laying pipeline forthe transport of natural gas through Samcore-Sriram Fertilizer spur piepline project in the State of Rajasthan by the GAIL (India) Limited;

Andwhereas copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on the 18-01-2005;

Andwhereas the objections received from the public to the laying of the pipeline have been considered and disallowed by the Competent Authority ;

And whereas the Competent Authority has , under sub -section ( 1) of Section 6 of the said Act, submitted its report to the Central Government ;

And whereas the Central Government has , after considering the said report, decided to acquire the right of user in the lands specified in the Schedule;

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 the pipelines;

And, further, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (4) of Section 6 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby directs that the right of user in the said land for laying the pipelines shall , instead of vesting in the Central Government, vest , on the date of the publication ofthe declaration, in the GAIL (India) Limited, freefrom all encumbrances .

SCHEDULE

District Tehsil

Area Village

tobe

Survey No.

acquired

for R.O.U.

(InHectares) 3

318

0.1740 Ladpura Rajnagar

315

0.1560

310

0.1200

0.0360

311

305

0.0840

0.0240

306

0.2880

307

TOTAL 0.8820

1.0920 Ladpura Sukhpura 36 43

0.0840

TOTAL 1.1760

[FileNo. -L 14014/9/04-G.P. ] SWAMI SINGH , Director 6688

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005/ASADHA 11,1927

नई दिल्ली, 24 जून , 2005

का. आ. 2316.- 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. 163 तारीख 13 जनवरी , 2005 , जो भारत के राजपत्र तारीख 15 जनवरी , 2005 , में प्रकाशित की गई थी, द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में गुजरात राज्य में मुन्द्रा से दिल्ली तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए मुन्द्रा-दिल्ली पेट्रोलियम उत्पाद पाइपलाइन के माध्यम से हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी ;

और उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियां जनता को तारीख 21 मार्च , 2005 , को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थीं ;

और सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन, केन्द्रीय सरकार को 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 विनिश्चय किया है ;

अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह घोषणा करती है कि इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाता है ;

और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (4) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह निदेश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख हसे केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने के बजाए , इस मंत्रालय के सहमति पत्र सुं. आर 31015/7/03 ओ.आर- दिनांक 25/11/2004 द्वारा लगाई गई शर्तों के अध्यधीन सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त, हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड में निहित होगा । 6689 [ भाग II - खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 2, 2005/आषाढ़ 11 , 1927-

अनुसूची

तहसील : नसीराबाद

जिला : अजमेर

राज्य: राजस्थान

क्षेत्रफल

गाँव का नाम

क्रम सं.

हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग मीटर

खसरा सं.

6 1. राजोसी

3426(स.नाला)

3427

3422/1

3422/2

3428/1 (स.पहाड़)

3428/2

3430

3429/1

3429/2

3442/1

05. 70

3442/2

3414/1

3414/2

3385/1 (स.भूमि)

3385/2

3386 (स .रास्ता)

3327(स. नाला)

3326

3325

3324

3323

3333

3334

3316

3337

3315

3313

3344 (स.बरड़ा)

3344मिन(बरड़ा)

。

}

3256 (स.आबादी)

3257/1 (स.आबादी)

3257/2

3258

3259/1 (स.आबादी)

3259/2

}

3290 6690

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005/ASADHA 11,1927

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

जिला : अजमेर

राज्य : राजस्थान

क्षेत्रफल

गाँव का नाम

क्रम सं.

हेक्टेयर

वर्ग मीटर

खसरा सं .

एयर

3289/1

1. राजोसी (जारी... )

3289/2

3260

3263

3264

3265/1 (स .आबादी) 。

3265/2

3236 (स. सड़क)

3111

3110

3109

3114/1

3114/2

3108/1

3108/2

3106/1 (स.आबादी)

3106/2

3107/1

3107/2

3105/1 (स.आबादी)

3105/2

3105/3/1

3105/3/2

3103

3104/1 (स.पाल)

3104/2

。

}

3122

3123(स .मोरी)

3124/4273

3056 (स .रास्ता)

3081/1

3081/2

3081/4276

3081/4276/1

3080

3079

3078

3077

3075

2764(स .रास्ता)

6691 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपेत्र: जुलाई 2, 2005/ आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

तहसील : नसीराबाद

जिला : अजमेर

राज्य: राजस्थान

क्षेत्रफल

एयर

खसरा सं.

वर्ग मीटर गाँव का नाम

क्रम सं.

हेक्टेयर

6 2

2760

20 1. राजोसी (जारी...)

2762

2763/1

2763/2

2757/1

2757/2

2756/1

2756/2

2755

2754

2753 (स .रास्ता)

2775/1 (स.बरड़ा)

2775/2

2815 (स.पाल)

2726

2721

2725

2723

2668

2667 (स.नाला)

2666/4243 (स.नाला)

2664/4242 (स.नाला)

2664/1

2664/2

2330/1

2330/2

2336

2337

2335

2341

2342

2324 (पी.डब्ल्यू.डी. सड़क)

2309

2297

2298

2296

2294

2293

2291

7.3

1240 [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] 6692

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005 /ASADHA 11,1927

जिला : अजमेर

राज्य: राजस्थान

तहसील : नसीराबाद

क्षेत्रफल

हेक्टेयर

वर्ग मीटर

एयर

खसरा सं.

गाँव का नाम

क्रम सं.

2287

1. राजोसी (जारी ... )

1241

1242

1245

1246

1248

1255

1268

1270

1269

2157

2156

2161

2163

2165

2155(स .रास्ता)

2138(स .रास्ता)

2070

2071

2073

2140

2139

1446

1441

1447

1445

1454

1452

1453

1461

1462

1463/1

1463/2

1460

1493

1551/1 (सुरक्षा मंत्रालय)

1551/2

1560/2

1560/1 ( सुरक्षा मंत्रालय)

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

6693

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 2, 2005/आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

तहसील : नसीराबाद

जिला : अजमेर

क्रम सं.

गाँव का नाम

खसरा सं.

3 राज्य: राजस्थान

क्षेत्रफल

वर्ग मीटर हेक्टेयर एयर

1557/2

1. राजोसी (जारी ...)

1557/1 (सुरक्षा मंत्रालय)

1558

* 1556 / 1 (सुरक्षा मंत्रालय)

1556/2

1578/1 (स.रास्ता)

1578/2(सुरक्षा मंत्रालय)

1577/2

1577/1 (सुरक्षा मंत्रालय)

1576

1581

1582

1584

1583

17 2. दिलवाड़ी

3. गादेरी

53मिन

54मिन

55मिन

56मिन

24 0

51 मिन (स .रास्ता)

51मिन

} 。

60 (पी.डब्ल्यू.डी. सड़क)

61 (पी.डब्ल्यू.डी. सड़क)

62(पी.डब्ल्यू.डी. सड़क)

85मिन

85मिन 0

87मिन(स.चारागाह)

87मिन (एच.पी.सी.एल.)

87मिन

87मिन (भा.रा.रा.प्रा . )

88 (स.नाला)

6694

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2, 2005/ASADHA 11,1927

तहसील : नसीराबाद

जिला : अजमेर

राज्य: राजस्थान

क्षेत्रफल

क्रम सं.

गाँव का नाम

मीटर

हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग

खसरा सं.

3. गादेरी (जारी... )

93 ,

89मिन

} 。

91मिन

。

91मिन

}

92(स.बरड़ा)

101 (स.भूमि)

103 (स. बरड़ा)

102

104

105

106

107

108

06 4. मोड़ी

4(ग्रा.पं.चारागाह)

ख.सं. 4 व 21 के बीच

20मिन

23 (स.भूमि)

38 (स.भूमि)

38मिन

。

}

24 (ग्रा.पं. चारागाह)

5. लवेरा

725

726(स.पत्थर)

728

728मिन

734(स.रास्ता)

735

736 (स.भूमि)

742

743

744 1

6695

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 2, 2005/ आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

खण्ड 3(ii) ]

जिला : अजमेर

तहसील : नसीराबाद

खसरा सं .

गाँव का नाम

क्रम सं.

745 5. लवेरा (जारी ... )

746

757

758

759

760

761 राज्य: राजस्थान

क्षेत्रफल

वर्ग मीटर हेक्टेयर एयर

764(स.भूमि)

798

799

797

800

800मिन

801

802

803 0

44 0

62 0

44 0

804(स.रास्ता)

805

806

811

810

812

815

814

892

890

891

889

905

906

935

936

941

939

940

948

959

958

957 1855 G1 /05-7

85 0

02 0

09 6696

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2, 2005/ASADHA 11,1927

तहसील : नसीराबाद

जिला : अजमेर

क्रम सं.

गाँव का नाम

खसरा सं.

955 5. लवेरा (जारी... )

990

992

1526

1525

1524

1522

1521

1516

1515

1514 राज्य : राजस्थान

क्षेत्रफल

एयर वर्ग मीटर हेक्टेयर

1513(स.रास्ता)

1510

1497

1496 0

1495(स.पाल)

1494

1493

1492

1438

1439

1441

1445

1442

1444

1443

1448

1449

1450

1482

1482/1639

1467

1466

1465

1464

1463

374मिन

6. रामपुरा अहिरान

374

375 0

68 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

6697

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 2, 2005/ आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

जिला : अजमेर

तहसील : नसीराबाद

क्रम सं.

गाँव का नाम

खसरा सं.

3 1

376 6. रामपुरा अहिरान (जारी ...)

377

386

385

384

389

383

392

414

413

410

411

439

440

438

441

442

443

444 राज्य : राजस्थान

क्षेत्रफल

हेक्टेयर

वर्ग मीटर

एयर

03 0

48 0

70 0

06 0

03 0

32 0

56 0

50 0

16 0

74 0

35 0

62 0

32 0

30 0

141 (स.भूमि)

140(स. रास्ता)

488

121

500

501

502

503 7. जिलावड़ा

74 0

881 (ग्रा.पं. चारागाह)

898(ग्रा.पं.चारागाह)

1324(स .रास्ता)

1325 (ग्रा.पं. चारागाह)

1326(स.रास्ता)

1323मिन

1323मिन (ग्रा.पं.चारागाह)

1323 (ग्रा.पं. चारागाह)

}

1329 (ग्रा.पं. चारागाह )

1322

1321

1320 02

0 6698

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005/ASADHA 11,1927

तहसील : नसीराबाद

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

जिला : अजमेर

क्रञ सं.

गाँव का नाम

खसरा सं.

7. जिलावड़ा (जारी ...)

राज्य : राजस्थान

क्षेत्रफल

हेक्टेयर

वर्ग मीटर

एयर

1318 (स.भूमि)

1318मिन

1317

1334

1316

1315

1338

1337

1339

1340

1350

1351 0

1349 (स.धोरा)

1369मिन (स.मोरी)

1369मिन

1367

1357

1358 }

1355मिन(स.धोरा)

。

1355मिन

1359

1360 }

1361 मिन(स.धोरा)

1361मिन

1362

1356

1207 0

1363(स.धोरा)

1152

1201

1200

1188 06

1169 (स.धोरा)

1151

1153

1150

329 8 कानपुरा

331 0

84 भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 2 , 2005/ आषाढ़ 11 , 1927 [ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

6699

जिला : अजमेर

तहसील : नसीराबाद

खसरा सं.

गाँव का नाम

क्रम सं.

332 8. कानपुरा (जारी... )

333

322

321

316

315

344

290

345

289

288

287

348

286

251

285

252

253

254 राज्य: राजस्थान

क्षेत्रफल

वर्ग मीटर हेक्टेयर एयर

80 0

27 0

88 0

78 0

35 0

42 0

00 0

66 0

240मिन

240

255

238

164

165

230

166

227

226

807

225

224

892

893

894

895

29 0

48 0

68 0

14 0

40 0

22 0

40 0

78 0

72 0

896 (स.रास्ता)

897 0

02 6700

[PART II -SEC . 3 ( ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005/ASADHA 11,1927

तहसील : नसीराबाद

जिला: अजमेर

राज्य : राजस्थान

क्षेत्रफल

क्रम सं.

गाँव का नाम

खसरा सं .

हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग मीटर 1

1014

8. कानपुरा (जारी...)

1013

1013मिन

1321

998(स.भूमि)

998मिन

1005मिन

1005मिन (स.भूमि)

1005

1004मिन

1004

1003

997(स.नाला)

954(स.भूमि)

955

955मिन

957

957मिन

958

959

962

961

32 9. बनेवडी

709

710

713

712

712मिन

725

704(स.भूमि)

703

703मिन

702

734

737

738

700 (स.भूमि)

699

698

696

71 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 2 , 2005/आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

6701

जिला : अजमेर

तहसील : नसीराबाद

गाँव का नाम

क्रम सं.

खसरा सं.

3 1

697 9. बनेवडी (जारी... )

राज्य: राजस्थान

क्षेत्रफल

हेक्टेयर

वर्ग मीटर

एयर

05 0

690/1456 मिन (स.भूमि)

00 20

690/1456मिन

09 44

690/1447 (स.भूमि)

690/1448 (स.भूमि)

690/1449 (स.भूमि)

690/1450 (स.भूमि)

}

772/1451 (स . चारागाह)

773

786 0

847 (स.भूमि)

862(स. रास्ता)

1116 (स.भूमि)

1117 (स.भूमि)

1118

1118मिन

1120

1100

1099

1098

1097

1092

1091

1093

1083

1082 } 。

78 0

24 0

20 0

54 0

20 0

1066 (स.भूमि)

1074

1.073 0

19 4,6 0

1071 (स. कुंआ)

1070 (स. रास्ता)

1422(स.चारागाह)

1392(स. रास्ता)

1361 (स.भूमि)

1362 0

0.6

1362मिन

1363 }

1390 (स. चारागाह)

1375 (स.चारागाह)

1376 (स. चारागाह)

6702

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2, 2005 /ASADHA 11,1927

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

जिला : अजमेर

राज्य : राजस्थान

क्षेत्रफल

क्रम सं.

गाँव का नाम

खसरा सं.

हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग मीटर 1

9. बनेवडी (जारी... )

1376/1455 (स. चारागाह)

1378

1379(स.नाला)

[फा. सं. -31015/63/2004-ओ.आर- II ]

हरीश कुमार, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 24th June , 2005

S. O. 2316.- Whereas by a notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O. 163 dated the 13th January , 2005 , issued under sub - section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 ( 50 of 1962) ( hereinafter referred to as the said Act) , published in the Gazette of India dated the 15th January , 2005 , the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for transportation of petroleum products from Mundra in the State of Gujarat to Delhi through Mundra - Delhi Petroleum Product Pipeline by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited ;

And whereas copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on the 21st March , 2005 ;

And whereas the competent authority has , under sub- section ( 1 ) of section 6 of the said Act , submitted report to the Central Government ;

And whereas the Central Government , after considering the said report and on being satisfied that the said land is required for laying the pipeline , has decided to acquire right of usertherein;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1 ) of section 6 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule , appended to this notification , is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline;

And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 4) of section 6 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby directs that the right of user in the said land for laying the pipeline shall , instead of vesting in the Central Government, vest on the date of publication of declaration , in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited , free from ail encumbrances , subject to the conditions imposed vide this Ministry's consent letter no . R- 31015/7/03 OR- 11 dated 25-11-2004.

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

6703

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 2, 2005/आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

SCHEDULE

Tehsil : NASIRABAD

State : RAJASTHAN

District : AJMER

Sr. No.

Khasara No. Name of the Village

3 1. RAJOSHI

Area

Are

Hectare

Sq.mtr .

6 0

3426 (G / L Nala)

3427

3422/1

3422/2 0

3428/1 ( G / L Pahad)

3428/2

3430

3429/1

3429/2

3442/1

3442/2

3414/1

3414/2

97 0

38 0

58 0

3385/1 (G/L)

3385/2

67 1

3386(G / L Cart Track)

3327 (G / L Nala)

3326

3325

.3324

3323

3333

3334

3316

3337

3315

3313

50 0

04 98 0

04 65 0

85 0

57 0

02 62

92 0

63 0

3344 (G / L Barda )

00 20

3344Min( Barda)

}

3256 ( G / L Abadi )

3257/1 ( G / L Abadi )

3257/2

3258 0

{

3259/1 ( G /L Abadi )

3259/2

3290 1855 G1/05-8

93 }

0 6704

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005 / ASADHA 11,1927

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

District : AJMER

State : RAJASTHAN

Area

Sr. No.

Hectare Are

Khasara No.

Name of the Village

Sq.mtr. 2

3289/1

1. RAJOSHI ( Contd ... )

3289/2

3260

02 53

3263

3264

3265/1 (G/LAbadi)

3236 (G / L Road )

3111

3110

3109

3114/1

3114/2

3108/1

3108/2

3106/1 ( G / L Abadi )

3106/2

3107/1

3107/2

3105/1 ( G / L Abadi )

3105/2

3105/3/1

3105/3/2

3103

3104/1 ( G /L Pal )

3104/2

。

}

3122

04 15

3123 (G /L Mori )

3124/4273

05 93

3056(G/ L Cart Track)

3081/1

3081/2

。

}

3081/4276

3081/4276/1

3080

3079

3078

3077

3075

00 65

2764(G /L Cart Track)

6705 भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 2 , 2005/ आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

State : RAJASTHAN

District : AJMER

Tehsil : NASIRABAD

Area

Are

Hectare

Sq.mtr. Sr. No.

Khasara No.

Name of the Village

2760

1. RAJOSHI (Contd ... )

2762

2763/1

2763/2

2757/1

2757/2

2756/1

2756/2

2755

2754

2753 (G / L Cart Track)

2775/1 (G/L Barda)

2775/2

}

2815(G/L Pal )

2726

2721

2725

2723

2668

2667(G /L Nala )

2666/4243(G /L Nala )

2664/4242 (G /L Nala )

2664/1

2664/2

2330/1

2330/2

2336

09 08

2337

2335

2341

2342

2324( P.W.D . Road )

2309

2297

2298

2296

2294

2293

2291

1240

r 6706

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005 /ASADHA 11,1927

AJMER

Tehsil : NASIRABAD

District :

State : RAJASTHAN

Area

Sr. No.

Hectare Are

Khasara No.

Name of the Village

Sq.mtr. 2

2287

1. RAJOSHI ( Contd ... )

1241

1242

1245

1246

1248

1255

1268

1270

1269

2157

2156

2161

2163

2165

2155(G/L Cart Track)

2138(G/L Cart Track)

2070

2071

2073

2140

2139

18 29

1446

09 15

1441

1447

1445

1454

1452

1453

1461

1462

1463/1

1463/2

1460

1493

1551/1 ( Ministry of Defence)

1551/2

1560/2

1560/1 ( Ministry of Defence)

6707

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 2, 2005/आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

District : AJMER

Tehsil : NASIRABAD

Sr. No.

Khasara No. Name of the Village

3 1.

1557/2 1. RAJOSHI ( Contd ... )

State : RAJASTHAN

Area

Hectare Are Sq.mtr .

1557/1 ( Ministry of Defence)

1558 0

1556/1 (Ministry of Defence)

1556/2 0

00 95

1578/1 (G / L Cart Track)

1578/2( Ministry of Defence)

1577/2 0

00 20

1577/1 ( Ministry of Defence)

1576

1581

1582

1584

1583 2. DILWADI

17 3. GADERI

53Min

54Min

55Min

56Min

57 0

16 82

13 18

10 24

12 47

08 81

01 59

09 54

06 93

51Min(G / L Cart Track )

51Min 0

60( P.W.D . Road)

61( P.W.D . Road)

62( P.W.D . Road )

85Min

85Min 06

87Min(G /L Pasture )

87Min( HPCL)

87Min 1

87Min( NHAI Road )

88(G / L Nala)

6708

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2, 2005 /ASADHA 11,192

Tehsil : NASIRABAD

District : AJMER Sr. No.

Khasara No. Name of the Village

70 3. GADERI ( Contd ...)

89Min

91Min

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]

State : RAJASTHAN

Area

Hectare Are Sq.mtr.

} 。

{

92(G / L Barda)

96 0

101(G/L)

103(G/ L Barda)

102

104

105

106.

107

108 4. MODI

4(G /P Pasture)

In Bet . Svy . No. 4 & 21

20Min

22 41

23(G/L)

38(G/L)

38Min 00

} 。

24(G / P Pasture)

5. LAVERA

725 0

726(G/L Rock)

728

728Min

} 。

734(G / L Cart Track)

735 0

736(G/L)

742

743

744 04

15 6709 भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 2, 2005/आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

[भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

State : RAJASTHAN

District : AJMER

Tehsil : NASIRABAD

Area

Hectare Are

Sr. No.

Khasara No.

Sq.mtr. Name of the Village

745

5. LAVERA ( Contd ... )

746

757

758

759

760

761

32 47

764(G/L)

798

00 20

799

797

800

800Min

}

01 44

801

802

803

01 44

804(G / L Cart Track)

01 41

805

14 85

806

811

810

06 41

812

815

814

892

890

06 06

891

889

905

906

935

936

941

939

940

948

959

958

957 6710

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005 /ASADHA 11,1927

Tehsil : NASIRABAD

District : AJMER Sr. No.

Khasara No. Name of the Village

3 1 .

955 5. LAVERA ( Contd ... )

990

992

1526

1525

1524

1522

1521

1516

1515

1514

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

State : RAJASTHAN

Area

Are

Hectare

Sq.mtr .

1513 (G / L Cart Track)

1510

1497

1496

1495(G /L Pal)

1494

1493

1492

1438

1439

1441

1445

1442

1444

1443

1448

1449

1450

1482 00

08 55

04 99

1482/1639

1467

1466

1465

1464

1463 6. RAMPURA AHIRAN

} 。

ว

374Min

374

375 0

68 6711 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 2, 2005/ आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

Tehsil : NASIRABAD

District : AJMER

State : RAJASTHAN

Area

Sr. No.

Khasara No.

Hectare Are Sq.mtr. Name of the Village

6 2

376

20 6. RAMPURA AHIRAN ( Contd ... )

377

06 03

386

385

384

09 06

389

383

392

414

413

410

411

439

440

438

441

442

09 62

443

444

06 30

141(G/L)

02 13

140(G /L Cart Track)

488

121

500

501

29 93

502

08 55

503

08 19

7. JILAWADA

881(G /P Pasture)

898 (G / P Pasture )

1324 (G / L Cart Track)

1325(G / P Pasture )

1326 (G / L Cart Track)

1323Min

1323Min (G / P Pasture)

}

1323 ( G / P Pasture)

1329 (G / P Pasture )

1322

1321

1320

24 1855 G1/05-9 [PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2, 2005 /ASADHA 11,1927

6712

State : RAJASTHAN

District : AJMER

Tehsil : NASIRABAD

Area

Are

Hectare

Sr No.

Sq.mtr.

Khasara No.

Name of the Village

1318(G/L)

7. JILAWADA ( Contd ... )

1318Min

1317

00 69

1334

1316

1315

1338

1337

1339

1340

1350

1351

1349(G/L Dhora )

1369Min(G/L Mori )

1369Min

}

1367

1357

1358

1355Min(G/L Dhora)

1355Min

}

1359

1360

1361Min(G/L Dhora)

{

1361Min

1362

1356

1207

1363(G / L Dhora )

1152

1201

1200

1188

1169 (G / L Dhora )

1151

1153

04 99

1150

329

8. KANPURA

331 6713

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 2, 2005/आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

State : RAJASTHAN

District: AJMER

Tehsil : NASIRABAD

Sr. No.

Khasara No. Name of the Village

332 8. KANPURA ( Contd ... )

333

322

321

316

315

344

290

345

289

288

287

348

286

251

285

252

253

254 Area

Are

Hectare

Sq.mtr.

04 98

01 39

240Min

240

255

238

164

165

230

166

227

226

807

225

224

892

893

894

895 }

02 29

00 20

20 48

01 68

13 54

896(G / L Cart Track)

897

0 6714

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005/ASADHA 11,1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

State : RAJASTHAN

District : AJMER

Tehsil : NASIRABAD

Sr. No.

Khasara No. Name of the Village

1014 8. KANPURA ( Contd ... )

1013 Area

Hectare Are Sq.mtr.

1013Min

1321 00

998 (G/L)

998Min

1005Min

1005Min(G/L)

1005

1004Min

1004

1003

997 (G / L Nala )

30 64

954(G/L)

955

955Min

957

957Min

958

959

962

961

709 9. BANEWADI

710

713

712 13

712Min

725 10

704(G/L)

703

703Min

702

734

737

738

700( G /L)

699

698

696 06

0 भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 2, 2005/ आषाढ़ 11 , 1927 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

Tehsil : NASIRABAD

6715 State : RAJASTHAN

District : AJMER

Sr. No.

Khasara No. Name of the Village

3 1.

697 9. BANEWADI ( Contd ... )

690/1456Min(G/L)

690/1456Min

690/1447 (G/L)

690/1448(G/L)

690/1449(G/L)

690/1450(G/L)

772/1451 (G / L Pasture )

773

786

847(G/L)

862( G /L Cart Track)

1116(G/L)

1117(G/L)

1118

1118Min

1120

1100

1099

1098

1097

1092

1091

1093

1083

1082

1066(G/L)

1074

1073

1071(G/L Well )

1070(G / L Cart Track)

1422(G / L Pasture)

1392(G /L Cart Track)

1361(G/L)

1362

1362Min

1363

1390(G /L Pasture)

1375(G/L Pasture)

1376 (G / L Pasture)

Area

Hectare Are Sq.mtr.

6 4

20 0

00 20

44 0

15 68

39 0

22 10 0

}

19 43

41 0

84 64

33 0

25 48 0

。

}

67 0

27 0

04 63 0

06 24 0

00 20

30 0

09 54 0

19 46 0

24 0

00 $80 0

56 0

30 60 0

04 33 0

31 18

い

03 06 。

}

34 39 0

23 17 0

86 6716

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005/ ASADHA 11,1927

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

District : AJMER

State : RAJASTHAN Sr. No.

Khasara No.

Are

Area Hectare

Sq.mtr. Name of the Village

20 9. BANEWADI ( Contd ... )

1376/1455(G/L Pasture) 0

1378 1379(G/L Nala)

[No. R- 31015/63/2004- O.R. - II ] HARISH KUMAR, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 24 जून, 2005

का. आ . 2317.- 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 बिछाऐ 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,, परियोजना, हिंदुस्तान 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 । 6717 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 2, 2005/आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

अनुसूची

तहसील : नसीराबाद

जिला : अजमेर

राज्य : राजस्थान

क्षेत्रफल

क्रम सं.

गाँव का नाम

खसरा सं.

हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग मीटर

6 1. राजोसी

3426(स. नाला)

3422/1

3422/2

3430

3429/1

3429/2

3414/1

3414/2

3327(स .नाला)

3326

3324

3333

3334

3337

3313

3258

3260

3263

3236 (स . सड़क)

3111

3114/1

3114/2

3108/1

3108/2

3107/1

3107/2

3104/1 (स.पाल)

3104/2

3122

3123(स.मोरी)

3124/4273

3124/4272

3081/1

3081/2

。

}

3080

3077

7.5

3075 6718

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2, 2005 /ASADHA 11,1927

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

जिला: अजमेर

राज्य : राजस्थान

क्षेत्रफल

हेक्टेयर

वर्ग मीटर क्रम सं.

गाँव का नाम

खसरा सं .

एयर

6 2

2763/1

1. राजोसी (जारी ... )

2763/2

2757/1

2757/2

2753(स.रास्ता)

2775/1 (स.बरड़ा)

}

2775/2

2815 (स.पाल)

2721

2723

2668

2667(स .नाला)

2664/4242 (स.नाला)

2666/4273

2330/1

2330/2

} 。

2335

2324(पी.डब्ल्यू.डी . सड़क)

2294

1240

1245

1248

1249

1254

1270

2157

2156

2163

2165

2155 (स.रास्ता)

2070

2073

2140

2139

1441

1445

1452

1462

1463/1

1463/2

}

0 。

1493 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

6719

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 2, 2005/आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

तहसील : नसीराबाद

जिला : अजमेर

गाँव का नाम

क्रम सं.

खसरा सं.

1582 1. राजोसी (जारी... )

1583 2. गादेरी

53मिन

54मिन

55मिन

56मिन राज्य: राजस्थान

क्षेत्रफल

वर्ग मीटर हेक्टेयर एयर

6 4

16 0

08 0

16 0

60 (पी.डब्ल्यू.डी. सड़क )

24 0

62(पी.डब्ल्यू.डी. सड़क)

88(स.नाला)

89मिन

91मिन

78 0

103 (स.बरड़ा)

106

34 0

05 0

ख.सं. 4 व 21 के बीच

3. मोड़ी

20मिन

40 0

86 0

38 (स.भूमि)

38मिन 0

00.

75 0

24(ग्रा.पं.चारागाह)

26 4. लवेरा

721

722

725 0

20 0

726(स.पत्थर)

52 0

734(स.रास्ता)

36 0

736(स. भूमि)

744

745 1855 GI/05-10

20 0

38 0 6720

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005/ ASAD 2005/ASADHA 11,1927

तहसील : नसीराबाद

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

जिला : अजमेर

क्रम सं.

गाँव का नाम

खसरा सं.

758 4. लवेरा (जारी... )

760

761

797

803 राज्य : राजस्थान

क्षेत्रफल

वर्ग मीटर

हेक्टेयर एयर

804(स. रास्ता)

811

815

892

890

889

906

936

939

956

990

1525

1516 0

1513(स. रास्ता)

1496 0

1495(स.पाल)

1494

1492

1438

1439

1442

1443

1482 0

1482/1639

1468(स . बरडा)

375 5. रामपुरा अहिरान

385

384

389

392

410

411

444 6. जिलावड़ा

1326(स .रास्ता)

1322 0

15 6721 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 2, 2005/ आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

तहसील: नसीराबाद

जिला : अजमेर

राज्य: राजस्थान

क्षेत्रफल

क्रम सं.

गाँव का नाम

खसरा सं.

एयर वर्ग मीटर

हेक्टेयर

1320

6. जिलावड़ा (जारी ...)

1316

1339

1349 (स.धोरा )

1357

1359

1360

1362

1363(स.धोरा )

1169 (स.धोरा )

1153

331

7. कानपुरा

333

316

344

288

348

253

254

165

230

227

807

892

894

998(स.भूमि)

998मिन

} 。

00.

997 (स. नाला)

962

8. बनेवडी

710

712

0 。

}

712मिन

704(स.भूमि)

702

734

737

73.8

5-8

699

847 (स.भूमि)

1117 (स.भूमि)

1120

1101 6722

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005 /ASADHA 11,1927

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

जिला : अजमेर

राज्य: राजस्थान

क्षेत्रफल क्रम सं.

गाँव का नाम

खसरा सं.

हेक्टेयर

वर्ग मीटर

एयर 1

1097

8. बनेवडी (जारी ... )

1093

1094

1066 (स.भूमि)

1079 1073 1071 (स.कुंआ) 1422 (स.चारागाह)

1392(स.रास्ता)

1362 1362मिन }

1375(स .चारागाह )

[फा. सं. आर-31015/63/2004-ओ.आर--|| ]

हरीश कुमार, अवर सचिव

NewDelhi , the 24th June , 2005

S. O. 2317.-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 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962 ) , the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;

Any person , interested in the land described in the said Schedule may, within twenty one days from the date on which copies of the Gazette of India containing this notification are made available to the public , object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri Shivdutt Gaur, Competent Authority, Mundra- Delhi Petroleum Product Pipeline, Project , Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited , D- 7, Lal Bahadur Nagar (East) , Opp . Clarks Amer Hotel , Jawaharlal Nehru Marg , Malviya Nagar, Jaipur - 302017 ( Rajasthan) .

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 2 , 2005/आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

SCHEDULE

6723 State : RAJASTHAN

District : AJMER

Tehsil : NASIRABAD

Sr. No.

Khasara No. Name of the Village

3 1

RAJOSHI

Area

Are

Hectare

Sq.mtr.

3426 (G / L Nala)

3422/1

3422/2

3430

3429/1

3429/2

3414/1

3414/2

33 0

10 0

50 0

3327 ( G / L Nala )

3326

3324

3333

3334

3337

3313

3258

3260

3263 0

13 0

05 0

27 0

33 0

67 0

14 0

3236 ( G / L Road)

3111

3114/1

3114/2

3108/1

3108/2

3107/1

3107/2 0

51 0

3104/1 ( G/ L Pal )

3104/2

3122

22 0

3123(G/ L Mori )

3124/4273

84 0

3124/4272

3081/1

3081/2

3080

3077

3075

} 。

62 0

80 0

75 0 [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005 /ASADHA 11,1927

6724

State : RAJASTHAN

District : AJMER

Tehsil : NASIRABAD

Area

Sr. No.

Are

Hectare

Khasara No.

Sq.mtr. Name of the Village

2763/1

RAJOSHI ( Contd ...)

2763/2

2757/1

2757/2

2753(G/L Cart Track)

2775/1 ( G / L Barda)

2775/2

2815 (G /L Pal)

2721

00 ,

2723

2668

2667 ( G / L Nala)

2664/4242 ( G /L Nala )

2666/4273

2330/1

2330/2

。

}

2335

2324( P.W.D . Road)

2294

1240

1245

1248

1249

1254

1270

2157

2156

2163

2165

2155(G/L Cart Track)

2070

2073

2140

2139

1441

1445

1452

1462

1463/1

。

1463/2

}

1493 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

6725

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 2, 2005/आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

Tehsil : NASIRABAD

District : AJMER Sr No.

Khasara No. Name of the Village

3 1.

1582 RAJOSHI ( Contd ... )

1583 2.

GADERI

53Min

54Min

55Min

56Min State : RAJASTHAN

Area

Are

Hectare

Sq.mtr 4

60( P.W.D . Road)

62( P.W.D . Road)

88(G/ L Nala)

89Min

91Min

91Min 0

103(G / L Barda)

106

MODI

In Bet . Svy. No. 4 & 21

20Min

38(G/L)

38Min 0

24(G /P Pasture)

721 LAVERA

722

725

726(G /L Rock)

734(G/ L Cart Track)

736(G/L)

744

745 0

00 6726

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2, 2005/ASADHA 11,1927

Tehsil : NASIRABAD

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ]

State : RAJASTHAN

District : AJMER

Sr No.

Khasara No. Name of the Village

3 1

758 4.

LAVERA ( Contd ... )

760

761

797

803 Area

Hectare Are Sq.mtr

804(G / L CartTrack)

811

815

892

890

889

906

936

939

956

990

1525

1516 0

1513 (G/L Cart Track)

1496 0

1495(G /L Pal)

1494

1492

1438

1439

1442

1443

1482

1482/1639 0

} 。

1468 ( G / L Barda)

375 5.

RAMPURA AHIRAN

385

384

389

392

410

411

444 JILAWADA

1326( G / L Cart Track)

1322 0

15 6727

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 2, 2005/आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

District : AJMER Tehsil: NASIRABAD

Sr No.

Khasara No. Name of the Village

1320 6. JILAWADA ( Contd...)

1316

1339 State : RAJASTHAN

Area

Are

Hectare

Sq.mtr.

1349(G / L Dhora )

1357

1359

1360

1362

1363( G /L Dhora )

1.169 (G / L Dhora )

1153

331 KANPURA

7 .

333

316

344

288

348

253

254

165.

230

227

807

892

894

80 0

79 0

40 0

22 0

25 0

998(G/L)

998Min

}

997(G/L Nala)

962

710 8. BANEWADI

712

712Min

34 0

14 0

} 。

704(G/L)

702

734

737

738

699

10 0

58 0

72 0

847(G/L)

1117( G/L)

1120

1101 1855 G1/05-11

00 6728

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005 / ASADHA 11,1927

Tehsil : NASIRABAD

District : AJMER

State : RAJASTHAN

Area

Sr.. No.

Khasara No.

Name of the Village

Hectare Are Sq.mtr. 1

6 8.

1097

BANEWADI ( Contd ... )

1093 .

1094

1066(G/L)

1079

19 46

1073

1071(G/ L Well )

1422(G /L Pasture)

1392(G/L Cart Track)

} 。

00 58

1362

1362Min

1375 (G/L Pasture)

[No. R-31015/63/2004- O.R. -II ] HARISH KUMAR , Under Secy .

नईदिल्ली, 24 जून , 2005

का. आ. 2318.- 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. 2979 तारीख 11 नवम्बर , 2004, जो भारत के राजपत्र तारीख 20 नवम्बर, 2004 , में प्रकाशित की गई थी , द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में गुजरात राज्य में मुन्द्रा से दिल्ली तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए मुन्द्रा-दिल्ली पेट्रोलियम उत्पाद पाइपलाइन के माध्यम से हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन 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 15 फरवरी, 2005 , को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थीं

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 तिनिश्चय किया है ;

अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उत 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 पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाता 6729 [भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 2, 2005/आषाढ़11 , 1927

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 की केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने के बजाए , इस मंत्रालय के सहमति पत्र सं. आर 31015/7/03 ओ.आर- दिनांक 25/11/2004 द्वारा लगाई गई शर्तों के अध्यधीन सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त , हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड में निहित होगा ।

अनुसूची

जिला : सिरोही

राज्य: राजस्थान

तहसील : पिण्डवाड़ा

क्षेत्रफल

क्रम सं.

वर्ग मीटर

हेक्टेयर

खसरा सं.

एयर

गाँव का नाम

6 2

20 1. कासिन्दा

155 (स.खालखद्दर)

156(स. नाला)

158

159

160

142

141

136

135

126

124

128

127

122मिन 01

114(स.नाला)

106

107

105

108

109

102

97 (स .खालखद्दर)

176(स .नदी)

191

195

194

193

196

215 (स .रास्ता)

6730

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2, 2005/ASADHA 11,1927

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

जिला: सिरोही

राज्य: राजस्थान

तहसील : पिण्डवाड़ा

क्षेत्रफल

क्रम सं

हेक्टेयर

मीटर

गाँव का माम

वर्ग

खसरा सं .

एयर

214

1. कासिन्द्रा (जारी...)

2,28

2,13.

229

232

0.5

239

243

244/498

0.1

245

261/497

261 मिन01 (स.खालखद्दर)

261/475

261/1

389/470

389/471

389/486

375/437

375/434

375/468

375मिन 01

375/493

374

375/438

३.59(स.रास्ता)

357

356

355

348

३.61. (स.नाला)

मिन 01 (ग्रा.पं.चारागाह) ।

362 362/429 (पी, डब्ल्यू.डी. सड़क)

315

316

31.7(स.सस्ता)

301

303

305

304मिन

290मिन

290/1

290/2

290/3

290/4 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3(ji) ]

6731

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 2, 2005/आषाढ़, 11 , 1927

तहसील: पिण्डवाड़ा

जिला: सिरोही

क्रम सं,

गाँव का नाम

खसरा सं.

3 1

278 2. अंचपुरी (जारी ---)

277 राज्य : राजस्थान

क्षेत्रफल

हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग मीटर

276(ग्रा.पं.चारागाह )

3. सांगवाडा

376 (स.भूमि)

355(स.भूमि)

355मिन

356/1

。

}

356(स.भूमि)

357

375

373/1

371

372 0

330 (स.भूमि)

327 0

325(स.नाला)

324 0

216(स.नाला)

215(स.भूमि)

210

209

208

207 0

1.3

193 (ग्रा.पं.चारागाह)

142

141/1

135

136/1 0

166 (स.रास्ता)

3.5

27 0

27/386

25 0

१० (स.रास्ता)

91 0

101(स.नाला)

4. फुलाबाईखेड़ा

576(स .नाला)

576/651 02

} 。 6732

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005 /ASADHA 11,1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

जिला : सिरोही

तहसील : पिण्डवाड़ा

क्रम सं.

खसरा सं.

गाँव का नाम

3 1

राज्य : राजस्थान

क्षेत्रफल

हेक्टेयर

वर्ग मीटर

एयर

577मिन 01

4. फूलाबाईखेड़ा (जारी ... )

589

591

588

587

585 0

544(स.रास्ता)

541 0

515/648

540 0

515(स.नाला)

494

493

488

484

486

462/2

461

460

458

454 5. काछोली

830

831

834

836 0

783(स . रास्ता)

768

767

771

770

765 0

678 (पी.डब्ल्यू.डी. सड़क)

674

673

668

675

667

665

666 0

647(स. रास्ता)

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 2, 2005/ आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

6733

जिला : सिरोही

तहसील : पिण्डवाड़ा

क्रम सं.

गाँव का नाम

खसरा सं .

3 1

548 5. काछोली (जारी ...)

546

544

542

543

537

538

539

533

540

530

541

523 राज्य : राजस्थान

क्षेत्रफल

हेक्टेयर

वर्ग मीटर एयर

669(स.नदी)

845(स. नदी)

6. पातुम्बरी

94(स.नदी)

95(स.रास्ता)

108

109

110

111

120

112

113

114

115 09

115/193

104

103

102

151

152

153 0

1.3

154(स. मगरी)

155(स. मगरी)

161

162 0

160 (स .रास्ता)

159 0

26 6734

[PART II-SEC. 3( ii) ]

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005/ASADHA 11,1927

जिला : सिरोही

तहसील : पिण्डवाड़ा

क्रम सं.

खसरा सं .

गाँव का नाम

6. पातुम्बरी (जारी ...)

राज्य : राजस्थान

क्षेत्रफल

हेक्टेयर

वर्ग मीटर

एयर

158 (स. रास्ता)

52 0

49(स.नाला)

47 0

40(स.नाला)

12 7. भावरी

623

622

621

617

618

620

619 0

0020

555 (स.खालखद्दर )

553 0

440 (स .खालखद्दर )

551 (स.खालखद्दर )

624(स.नाला)

548

547

546

545 0

441 (स. रास्ता)

435

438 0

20 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

6735

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 2, 2005/आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

जिला : सिरोही

तहसील: पिण्डवाड़ा

क्रम सं.

गाँव का नाम

खसरा सं .

436 7. भावरी (जारी... )

434

433

432

431 राज्य : राजस्थान

क्षेत्रफल

एयर वर्ग मीटर हेक्टेयर

427(स.रास्ता)

426

425

424

423

421

422 0

781 (स.खालखद्दर)

785(स.रास्ता)

805

806

807

808

809

810

811

816

814

821

824

826

829 (पी.डब्ल्यू.डी . सड़क)

1017मिन 01

1018 0

1023मिन 01

1052/2056 (स .खालखद्दर)

1052/2154 .

。

1052/2057

1053 }

1052/2168

1024

1054

1062

1063

1066 1855 GI/05-12

0 6736

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2, 2005/ ASADHA 11,1927

जिला : सिरोही

तहसील : पिण्डवाड़ा

क्रम सं.

गाँव का नाम

खसरा सं .

1069 7. भावरी (जारी ... )

1070 राज्य : राजस्थान

क्षेत्रफल

वर्ग मीटर हेक्टेयर एयर

1071 (स . रास्ता)

1075

1074

1077

1073

1078 0

265(स.नाला)

236

234

231

233

232

230

227

225

224 0

187 (स.नाला)

8. धनारी

13(स .खालखद्दर)

1514

1519

1520

1521

1522

1525

1527

1529

1533

1534

1477

1535

1541

1542

1543

1540

1444

1415

1.416

1414 0

()

61 6737 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ] .

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 2, 2005/ षाढ़ 11 , 1927

जिला : सिरोही

राज्य : राजस्थान तहसील : पिण्डवाड़ा

क्षेत्रफल

क्रम सं.

गाँव का नाम

खसरा सं .

हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग मीटर

1413

8. धमारी (जारी...)

1417

1418

1419

1420

1412 (स .खालखद्दर)

1688 (पी.डब्ल्यू.डी . सड़क)

1689

1691

1692

1693

1697

1698 (स.रास्ता)

1704

1705

1719

1717

1718

1731

}

ख .सं . 1731 और 605 के बीच में (स . रास्ता)

605

604

151 (पी.डब्ल्यू.डी . सड़क)

528

1751 (स.नाला)

527

526

525(स.नाला)

523

522

518

517

516

515

510

507

473(स.रास्ता)

462 6738

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2, 2005/ASADHA 11,1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)]

जिला: सिरोही

राज्य : राजस्थान तहसील: पिण्डवाड़ा

क्षेत्रफल

क्रम सं.

खसरा सं .

वर्ग मीटर गाँव का नाम

हेक्टेयर एयर

6 1

463

8. धनारी (जारी ... )

461

459

456

455

451

450(स.खालखद्दर )

449

447 (पी.डब्ल्यू.डी. सड़क)

446

444(सिं.वि.नहर)

445 (सिं.वि. )

435(सिं.वि.)

434(सिं.वि.)

433(सिं.वि.)

436

369

368

370

372

364

363

362

360

374(स.रास्ता)

375

376

377

384

382

383

380

2119/337 (रेलवे विभाग)

2120/337 (रेलवे विभाग )

}

2117/337 (रेलवे विभाग)

196

205(ग्रा.पं.धारागाह)

166 (स .नाला)

90 9. कोदरला

522(स.नाला)

527 [भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

6739

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 2, 2005/ आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

जिला : सिरोही

तहसील : पिण्डवाड़ा

क्रम सं.

गाँव का नाम

खसरा सं .

526 9. कोदरला (जारी...)

राज्य : राजस्थान

क्षेत्रफल

वर्ग मीटर हेक्टेयर एयर

521(स.नाला)

512

509

504

481

482

483

484 0

479 (स.भूमि)

478 (स.भूमि)

477 0

477मिन 01 (स.भूमि)

473/2

473/3

474 0

474मिन 01 (स.भूमि)

474मिन 02

474मिन 03

474मिन 04

462(स.सड़क)

460

460 मिन 01 (स.भूमि)

460मिन 02

460मिन03

460मिन 04

440

441

439

442

357

358 0

459(स.रास्ता)

350

349

348

347

345(स.रास्ता)

315

314 0

54 6740,

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005 / ASADHA 11,1927

जिला: सिरोही

राज्य : राजस्थान

तहसील : पिण्डवाड़ा

क्षेत्रफल

क्रम सं.

हेक्टेयर

गाँव का नाम

खसरा सं.

वर्ग मीटर

एयर

6 2

316

9. कोदरला (जारी ... )

313

311

312

305

307

306

300(स.नाला)

297

287 (स.भूमि)

291

130

10. रामपुरा

130/1

} 。

152

131

151

132

150

186

149

187

148

147

188

191

195

194

197

199

198

210

20मिन 01

72मिन 01

71मिन 01

70मिन 01

224(स.रास्ता)

225मिन 01

227मिन 01

229मिन 01

230

()

232मिन 01

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

6741

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 2, 2005/आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

जिला : सिरोही

तहसील : पिण्डवाड़ा

क्रम सं.

खसरा सं.

गाँव का नाम

236 10. रामपुरा (जारी... )

राज्य : राजस्थान

क्षेत्रफल

वर्ग मीटर हेक्टेयर एयर

237 (स.रास्ता)

243

238

239

295 11. डूंगरी

0.9

297 (स.नाला)

281

284

283

282 0

276 (स.सड़क)

164(स .मगरी)

165 (स .रास्ता)

166

170

171

172

173

175

176 0

179 (स.रास्ता)

187

191

192

120

113

112

111

110

103

104

97मिन

97/1

97/2

97/3

90/2 0

0 6742

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005/ ASADHA 11,1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)]

जिला: सिरोही

तहसील : पिण्डवाड़ा

क्रम सं.

खसरा सं .

गाँव का नाम

3 1

90/1 11. डूंगरी (जारी...)

90मिन

86 राज्य : राजस्थान

क्षेत्रफल

हेक्टेयर

वर्ग मीटर

एयर

66(स.रास्ता)

85 0

84(स.नाला)

83(ग्गा.पं.चारागाह)

78/1

78/2

77 0

76 (स . रास्ता)

75(स.नाला)

71 (ग्ग्र.पं. चारागाह)

1400 12. बसंतगढ़

1402

1404

1403

1406

1405

1395(स .रास्ता)

1.393

1-390

1391

1392

1374

1373

1372

1368

1369

1367

1336 (स.नदी)

1335

1335/1

} 。

335मिन 01 (स . भूमि)

1334मिन 01

1334 13. चवरली

622(ग्गा . पं.चारागाह)

414(ग्ग्र.पं .चारागाह)

} 。

404 (ग्ग्र.पं . चारागाह )

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 2, 2005/ आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

6743

जिला : सिरोही

तहसील : पिण्डवाड़ा

क्रम सं.

खसरा सं .

गाँव का नाम

410 13. चवरली (जारी... )

409

401

378

400 .

379

399

380

381

382

383

384

385 राज्य: राजस्थान

क्षेत्रफल

वर्ग मीटर हेक्टेयर एयर

272(स .खड्डा/रास्ता)

273

276

277

281

280

283

284

286

285

291

292

304

.305 (स.भूमि)

314 0

219 (स.मगरी)

325

-326

218

216

211

207

206(स.रास्ता)

205 14. अजारी

557

558

559 0

561 (स.मगरी)

1855 GI/05-13 6744

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2, 2005/ ASADHA 11,1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii )]

जिला : सिरोही

तहसील : पिण्डवाड़ा

क्रम सं.

गाँव का नाम

खसरा सं .

565 14. अजारी (जारी ... )

राज्य : राजस्थान

क्षेत्रफल

मीटर

वर्ग

हेक्टेयर एयर

556 (स. मगरा )

566

569

570

571

572

573

574

575

576

577 (स.रास्ता)

599 0

600 (स.नदी)

601

604

605

608

607

617 0

682(स.रास्ता)

495

494

493

491

490

485

478

474

471

465

463

402

403

396

404

394

393

392

407

379 (स .खालखद्दर)

6745 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 2, 2005/ आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

जिला: सिरोही

तहसील : पिण्डवाड़ा

राज्य: राजस्थान

क्षेत्रफल

क्रम सं.

गाँव का नाम

खसरा सं.

हेक्टेयर

वर्ग मीटर

एयर

6 2

14. अजारी (जारी...)

378 (स . रास्ता)

377

306

。

}

309

310

311

312

313

315

316

320

323

290(स .नदी)

289(स. रास्ता)

266

263

262

257

252

773(स.रास्ता)

210

201

200

782

00 .

783

784

01 .

792

794

796

802

803

810

808

809

3381

15. पिण्डवाड़ा

3380

3385

3386

3372

3387

3367

26 6746

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2, 2005/ASADHA 11,1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

जिला : सिरोही

तहसील : पिण्डवाड़ा

क्रम सं.

खसरा सं .

गाँव का नाम

3 1

3408 15. पिण्डवाड़ा (जारी...)

3409

3410

3411

3412

3416

3413

3415

3463

3462

3461 राज्य : राजस्थान

क्षेत्रफल

वर्ग मीटर

हेक्टेयर एयर

3465(स.रास्ता)

3468

3477

3478 0

3481 (स.रास्ता)

3528

3526

3525

3524

3518

3519

3505 (स .रास्ता)

3596

3596/3881

3591

3590 11

3602(स. रास्ता)

3604

3603

3618 (स.रास्ता)

3641

3640

3639

3638

3637

3634

3647

3633

3632

3630 (स .रास्ता)

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

6747

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 2, 2005/ आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

जिला : सिरोही

तहसील : पिण्डवाड़ा

क्रम सं.

गाँव का नाम

खसरा सं .

3625 15. पिण्डवाड़ा (जारी...)

राज्य : राजस्थान

क्षेत्रफल

वर्ग मीटर हेक्टेयर एयर

3289 (सिं.वि.नहर)

3273

3274 4

3275(स.रास्ता)

3280

3279

3278

3228

3276 0

3761 (स.रास्ता)

3758

3766

3767

808 (स. रास्ता)

891

890

878

879

872

866

862

861 0

899(स .रास्ता)

912/1 0

912मिन 01

911/1

911मिन 01

913 0

930(स.नाला)

960

956

955

954

952

951

971

972

945

944

942 0

40 6748

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005/ASADHA 11,1927

जिला : सिरोही

तहसील : पिण्डवाड़ा

राज्य : राजस्थान

क्षेत्रफल

क्रम सं.

खसरा सं .

गाँव का नाम

हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग मीटर

6 1

943

45 15. पिण्डवाड़ा (जारी ... )

937

936

1051 (स.रास्ता)

807 (सिं.वि.नहर)

1059 (सिं.वि.नहर)

1060 (स .रास्ता)

1348 (सिं.वि.नहर)

1061

1062

1067

1065

1066

1070

1074

1076

1082

1078

1079

1081

1080

1091

1092

1113 (स.रास्ता)

1172

1207

1208

1206

1205

1210

1211

217

106

1215

1213

1214

1223

1224(स.रास्ता)

1249

1250

1251 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 2, 2005/ आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

6749

जिला : सिरोही

तहसील : पिण्डवाड़ा

क्रम सं.

गाँव का नाम

खसरा सं .

1254 15. पिण्डवाड़ा (जारी ...)

राज्य : राजस्थान

क्षेत्रफल

हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग मीटर 4

587 (वनविभाग सड़क)

586(स.भूमि)

1255

1256 0

574(स.रास्ता)

1257

1259

1260 0

83(वनविभाग)

573 (न.पा. चारागाह)

。

}

573मिन 01 (न.पा. )

572 (पी.डब्ल्यू.डी. सड़क)

87 (न.पा. चारागाह)

88(स.नाला)

89 (न.पा.)

66(वनंविभाग नाला)

64 (न.पा.चारागाह)

16. सादलवा

344

41 (स.नाला)

345

347

346

348 0

359 (स.रास्ता)

328

327 0

326(स.नाला)

197

198

199 0

200 (स.रास्ता)

201 (ग्ग्र.पं.चारागाह)

268(स.नाला)

266

265 (स.रास्ता)

239

240

241

242

246 22

22 [PART II-SEC . 3 (1)] 6750

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005/ASADHA 11,1927

जिला: सि

राज्य: राजस्थान तहसील : पिण्डवाड़ा

क्षेत्रफल

वर्ग मीटर

हेक्टेयर

क्रम सं.

खसरा सं .

गाँव का नाम

एयर

247

16. सादलवा (जारी ... )

90 17. आमली

2(ग्ग्र.पं.चारागाह)

3 57 (ग्ग्र.पं. चारागाह )

[फा. स. आर -31015/46/2004- ओ.आर- ।। ]

हरीश कुमार, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 24th June , 2005

S. O. 2318.- Whereas by a notification of the Government of India in the Ministry ofPetroleum and Natural Gas number S.O. 2979 dated the 11th November , 2004 , issued under sub - section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 ( 50 of 1962) , ( hereinafter referred to as the said Act) , published in the Gazette of India dated the 20th November, 2004 , the Central Government declared its intentionto 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 from Mundra in the State of Gujarat to Delhi through Mundra- Delhi Petroleum Product Pipeline by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited;

And whereas copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on the 15th February , 2005 ;

And whereas the competent authority has , under sub - section ( 1 ) of section 6 of the said Act , submitted report to the Central Government ;

And whereas the Central Government . after considering the said report and on be satisfied that the said land is required for laying the pipeline , has decided to acquire right usertherein;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 1 ) of section 6 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule , appended to this notification , is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline;

And further , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section (4) of section 6 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby directs that the right of user in the said land for laying the pipeline shall , instead of vesting in the Central Government , vest on the date of publication of declaration , in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited , free from all encumbrances , subject to the conditions imposed vide this Ministry's consent letter no . R- 31015/7/03 OR- II dated 25-11-2004.

6751

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 2, 2005/आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

State : RAJASTHAN

District : SIROHI

Tehsil : PINDWARA

Khasara No. Sr. No

Name of the Village

1. KASINDRA

Area

Are

Hectare

Sq.mtr .

155 (G /L Khalkaddar)

156(G/L Nala)

158

159

160

142

141

136

135

126

124

128

127

122Min01

114(G / L Nala)

106

107

105

108

109

102

95.

97(G/L Khalkaddar)

98 0

176(G/L River)

191

195

194

193

196

215 (G / L Cart Track)

214

228

213

229

232 1855 GI/05-14

0 6752

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005/ASADHA 11,1927

State : RAJASTHAN

District: SIROHI

Tehsil : PINDWARA

Khasara No. Sr. No

Name of the Village

3 1

239 1. KASINDRA ( Contd ... )

243 Area

Are

Hectare

Sq.mtr .

05 29

24 0

244/498

245

261/497

261Min01 ( G / L Khalkhaddar )

261/475

261/1

389/470

389/471

389/486

375/437

375/434

375/468

375Min01

375/493

374 0

375/438

359(G /L Cart Track)

357

356

355

348

361(G /L Nala)

362Min01 ( G / P Pasture )

362/429( P.W.D.Road )

315 2. ACHPURA

316

317( G / L Cart Track )

301

303

305

304Min

290min

290/1

290/2

290/3

290/4

278

277

276 (G /P Pasture)

6753 भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 2, 2005/ आषाढ़ -11 , 1927

[भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii ) ]

State : RAJASTHAN

District: SIROHI

Tehsil : PINDWARA

Area

Khasara No.

Hectare Are Sq.mtr. Name of the Village

Sr. No

440954

376(G/L)

3. SANGWARA

355(G/L)

> 355Min

356/1

356(G/L)

357

375

373/1

371

372

330(G /L)

327

325(G/L Nala)

324

216(G /L Nala)

215(G/L)

210

13:

209

208

207

05 13

193 (G/ P Pasture)

142

141/1

135

136/1

166(G/L Cart Track)

27/386

90(G /L Cart Track)

00 20

101(G/L Nala)

4. PHULABAI KHEDA

576(G /L Nala)

576/651

。

} 6754

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2, 2005 /ASADHA 11,1927

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

District: SIROHI

Tehsil : PINDWARA

Khasara No. Name of the Village

Sr. No

3 1

Area

Are

Hectare

Sq.mtr .

577Min01

4. PHULABAI KHEDA ( Contd ... )

589

591

588

587

585

30 08 0

544(G/ L Cart Track)

541

20 0

515/648

540

515(G/L Nala)

494

493

488

484

486

462/2

461

460

458

454

830 5. KACHHOLI

831

834

836

54 0

09 0

57 0

36 0

16 99 0

783 (G / L Cart Track)

768

767

771

770

765

05 0

678( P.W.D. Road)

674

673

668

675

667

665

666

20 0

80 0

69 0

74 0

647 (G / L Cart Track)

6755 भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 2, 2005/ आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

State : RAJASTHAN

District : SIROHI

Tehsil : PINDWARA

Area

Are

Hectare

Sq.mtr.

Khasara No.

Name of the Village

Sr. No

548

5. KACHHOLI ( Contd ... )

546

544

542

543

537

538

539

533

540

530

541

523

669(G/L River)

845(G/L River)

94(G/L River)

6. PATUMBARI

95(G / L Cart Track)

108

109

110

111

120

112

113

06 91

114

115

115/193

104

103

102

151

152

153

154(G /L Magri )

155(G/L Magri )

161

10 08

162

160(G /L Cart Track)

159 6756

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2, 2005/ ASADHA 11,1927

Tehsil : PINDWARA

District : SIROHI

Khasara No. Sr. No

Name of the Village

3 1

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

Area

Hectare Are Sq.mtr .

158(G/ L Cart Track)

6. PATUMBARI ( Contd ... )

06 63

49(G/L Nala)

47 0

40(G/L Nala)

623 7. BHAVRI

622

621

617

618

620

619 0

555 (G / L Khalkhaddar)

553

440(G /L Khalkhaddar) 0

551 ( G / L Khalkhadder ! 0

624(G/L Nala

548

547

546

545 0

00 96

441( G/L. Cart Track)

435

438 0

20 6757 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 2, 2005/आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

State : RAJASTHAN Tehsil : PINDWARA

District : SIROHI

Area

Sr. No

Khasara No.

Are

Hectare

Sq.mtr .

Name of the Village

6 1

436

7. BHAVRI ( Contd ... )

434

000

433

432

431

427(G / L Cart Track)

426

425

424

423

421

422

781 ( G / L Khalkhaddar)

785(G / L Cart Track)

805

806

807

.04

808

809

810

811

816

814

821

824

826

829( P.W.D . Road)

1017Min01

1018

1023Min01

1052/2056(G/L Khalkhaddar)

1052/2154

。

1052/2057

}

1053

1052/2168

1024

1054

1062

1063

1066

89 6758

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2, 2005/ASADHA 11,1927

Tehsil : PINDWARA

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii )]

District : SIROHI

Khasara No. Sr. No

Name of the Village

1069 7. BHAVRI ( Contd ... )

1070 State : RAJASTHAN

Area

Are

Hectare

Sq.mtr. 4

1071 (G/LCart track)

1075

1074

1077

1073

1078 0

02 88

265(G / L Nala )

236

234

231

233

232

230

227

225

224 0

187(G /L Nala)

8. DHANARI

1513 (G / L KhalKhaddar )

1514

1519

1520

1521

1522

1525

1527

1529

1533

1534

1477

1535

1541

1542

1543

1540

1444

1415

1416

1414

0-1

61 6759

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 2, 2005/ आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

State : RAJASTHAN

District: SIROHI

Tehsil : PINDWARA

Khasara No. Name of the Village

Sr. No

1413 8. DHANARI ( Contd ... )

1417

1418

1419

1420 Area

Are

Hectare

Sq.mtr.

1412( G / L Khalkhaddar ) 0

1688(P.W.D.Road )

1689

1691

1692

1693

1697

12 . 02

1698(G / L Cart Track)

1704

1705

1719

1717

1718

1731

In Between Svy No.1731

& 605(G /L Cart Track) J

605

604

151(P.W.D.Road )

528

1751(G/ L Nala )

527

526

525(G/L Nala)

523

522

518

517

516

515

510

507

506

473(G / L Cart Track)

462 1855 GI/05-15

0 6760

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2, 2005 /ASADHA 11,1927

Tehsil : PINDWARA

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

District : SIROHI

Khasara No. Sr. No

Name of the Village

463 8. DHANARI ( Contd ... )

461

459

456

455

451 Area

Are

Hectare

Sq.mtr.

05 40

450(G / L Khalkhaddar)

449 0

447( P.W.D.Road )

446 0

444(Irrig . Deptt. Canal)

445( Irrig . Deptt . )

435( Irrig . Deptt. )

434(Irrig . Deptt . )

433( Irrig . Deptt . )

436

369

368

370

372

364

363

362

360

04 42

06 48

374(G/ L Cart Track )

375

376

377

384

382

383

380 0

20 88

2119/337 ( Railway Deptt . )

2120/337 ( Railway Deptt . )

2117/337 ( Railway Deptt.

196 ) ) }

205 (G /P Pasture)

166(G/L Nala)

9. KODARLA

522(G/ L Nala )

527 0

} 6761 भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 2, 2005/ आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

State : RAJASTHAN

District : SIROHI

Tehsil : PINDWARA

Area

Khasara No.

Hectare Are Sq.mtr. Name of the Village

Sr. No

6 2

526

88 9. KODARLA ( Contd ... )

521(G/L Nala)

512

509

504

481

482

483

484

479(G/L)

478(G/L)

477

477Min01 ( G /L)

} 。

473/2

473/3

474

474Min01 (G /L)

474Min02

474Min03

474Min04

462(G/L Road )

460

460Min01 ( G /L)

49 49

460Min02

460Min03

460Min04

440

441

439

442

357

358

459(G/L Cart Track)

350

349

348

347

345(G/ L Cart Track)

315

314 6762

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005/ASADHA 11,1927

State : RAJASTHAN Tehsil : PINDWARA

District: SIROHI

Area

Hectare Are

Khasara No.

Sr. No

Sq.mtr. Name of the Village

316

20 9. KODARLA ( Contd ... )

313

311

312

305

307

306

06 03

300(G /L Nala)

297

287( G/ L)

291

10. RAMPURA

130

} 。

130/1

152

131

151

132

150

186

149

187

148

147

188

191

195

194

197

199

198

210

209Min01

72Min01

71Min01

70Min01

02 57

224(G / L Cart Track)

225Min01

227Min01

229Min01

230

232Min01

03 6763 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 2, 2005/ आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

Tehsil : PINDWARA

State : RAJASTHAN

District : SIROHI

Area

Are

Khasara No.

Hectare

Sr. No

Sq.mtr. Name of the Village

6 2

236

10. RAMPURA ( Contd ... )

237(G /L Cart Track)

243

238

20 88

239

295

09 11. DUNGRI

00 50

297(G /L Nala)

281

284

283

05 70

282

276( G /L Road )

164(G / L Magri )

165(G/L Cart Track)

166

170

171

06 99

172

173

175

176

179(G /L Cart Track)

187

10 96

191

192

120

113

112

111

110

103

104

97Min

97/1

97/2

97/3

90/2 [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii )] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005 / ASADHA 11,1927

6764

State : RAJASTHAN

SIROHI

Tehsil : PINDWARA

Distric

Area

Are Sq.mtr.

Hectare

Khasara No.

Name of the Village

Sr. No

90/1

DUNGRI ( Contd ... )

11.

90Min

02 88

66(G /L Cart Track)

84(G/ L Nala )

83(G/ P Pasture)

78/1

78/2

0 .

76 ( G / L Cart Track)

75(G/L Nala)

71 (G / P Pasture)

1400

12. BASANTGARH

1402

1404

1403

24 84

1406

1405

1395 (G / L Cart Track)

1393

1390

1391

1392

1374

1373

1372

1368

1369

#367

1336(G/L. Rive

1335

1335/1 }

1335Min01 ( G/ L)

1334Min01

1334

08 13. CHAVARLI

622( G / P Pasture )

414(G / P Pasture )

}

404( G / P Pasture)

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 2, 2005, आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

6765

District : SIROHI

Tehsil : PINDWARA

State : RAJASTHAN

Area

Are

Hectare

Khasara No

Name of the Village

Sr. No

410 CHAVARLI ( Contd ... )

13.

409

401

378

400

379

399

380

381

382

383

384

385

Sq.mtr .

10 49

-0

272( G / L Khadda/Cart Track )

273

276

277

281

280

283

284

286

285

291

292

304

305 (G /L)

314 0

219(G/L Magri)

325

326

218

216

211

207

23 04

206(G / L Cart Track )

205

557 14. AJARI

558

559

561 (G / L Magri )

6766

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005/ SADHA 11927

Tehsil : PINDWARA

District : SIROHI

Khasara No. Sr. No

Name of the Village

565 14. AJARI ( Contd ... )

556(G /L Magra)

566

569

570

571

572

573

574

575

576

577( G / L CartTrack)

599

600(G /L River)

601

604

605

608

607

617

682( G / L Cart Track)

495

494

493

491

490

485

478

474

471

465

463

402

403

396

404

394

393

392

407

379 ( G / L Khalkhaddar )

[PART II- SLC. 3( i )] State : RAJASTHAN

Area

Hectare Are Sq.mtr

10.

5-4

07 92

04 86

03 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

6767

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 2, 2005/आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

Tehsil : PINDWARA

District : SIROHI

Khasara No. Sr. No

Name of the Village

3 1

14. AJARI ( Contd ...)

State : RAJASTHAN

Area

Are

Hectare

Sq.mtr. 4

378(G / L Cart Track)

377

306

309

310

311

312

313

315

316

320

323

} 。

13 05

290(G/L River)

289(G/L Cart Track)

266

263

262

257

252

773(G / L Cart Track)

210

201

200

782

783

784

792

794

796

802

803

810

808

809

3381 15. PINDWARA

3380

3385

3386

3372

3387

3367 1855 GI/05-16

00 6768

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005 /ASADHA 11,1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

State : RAJASTHAN

District : SIROHI

Tehsil : PINDWARA

Khasara No. Sr. No

Name of the Village

3408 15. PINDWARA ( Contd ... )

3409

3410

3411

3412

3416

3413

3415

3463

3462

3461 Area

Are

Hectare

Sq.mtr .

10 46

3465 ( G / L Cart Track )

3468

3477

3478

06 18

3481 (G / L Cart Track)

3528

3526

3525

3524

3518

3519 0

3505 (G / L Cart Track )

3596

3596/3881

3591

3590 0

3602( G / L Cart Track)

3604

3603 02

3618 (G / L Cart Track)

3641

3640

3639

3638

3637

3634

3647

3633

3632 00

3630(G/ L Cart Track )

6769

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 2, 2005/ आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

State : RAJASTHAN

District : SIROHI

Tehsil : PINDWARA

Khasara No. Name of the Village

Sr. No

3625 PINDWARA ( Contd ... )

15.

Area

Hectare Are Sq.mtr.

3289( Irrig . Deptt . Canal )

3273

3274 0

3275(G / L Cart Track)

3280

3279

3278

3228

3276

04 81

3761 (G / L Cart Track)

3758

3766

3767

808(G/ L Cart Track)

891

890

878

879

872

866

862

861

899(G / L Cart Track)

912/1

。

}

912Min01

911/1

911Min01

913 。

}

930(G/L Nala)

960

956

955

954

952

951

971

972

945

944

942

0 6770

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005 /ASADHA 11,1927

[ PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

State : RAJASTHAN

District : SIROHI

Tehsil : PINDWARA

Khasara No. Sr. No

Name of the Village

943 15. PINDWARA ( Contd ... )

937

936 Area

Hectare Are Sq.mtr.

1051(G /L Cart Track)

807(Irrg.Deptt . Canal )

1059 ( Irrg.Deptt. Canal )

1060 (G / L Cart Track)

1348 ( Irrg.Deptt. Canal )

1061

1062

1067

1065

1066

1070

1074

1076

1082

1078

1079

1081

1080

1091

1092 0

1113(G/ L Cart Track)

1172

1207

1208

1206

1205

1210

1211

1217

1216

1215

1213

1214

1223 0

08 92

* 0

08 95

1224(G / L Cart Track)

1249

1250

1251 09

10 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 2, 2005/ आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

Tehsil : PINDWARA

6771 State : RAJASTHAN

District : SIROHI

Khasara No. Sr. No

Name of the Village

1254 15. PINDWARA ( Contd ... )

Area

Are

Hectare

Sq.mtr .

587 ( Forest Deptt. Road)

586(G /L)

1255

1256

574(G / L Cart Track)

1257

1259

1260 0

83( Forest Deptt . )

573( N / P Pasture )

。

}

573Min01 ( N / P )

0 .

572( P.W.D . Road )

87( N / P Pasture)

88(G/L Nala))

89( N / P)

66( Forest Deptt . Nala)

64( N / P Pasture)

344 16. SADALWA

341(G /L Nala)

345

347

346

348 0

0. 10 32

359(G / L Cart Track)

328

327

49.

326(G / L Nala)

197

198

199

200( G / L Cart Track)

201 ( G / P Pasture )

268 (G / L Nala )

266 0

265(G / L Cart Track)

239

240

241

242

246 0

0 6772

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005/ ASADHA 11,1927

[PART II-SEC. 3( ii ) ]

State : RAJASTHAN Tehsil : PINDWARA

District : SIROHI

Area Are

Hectare

Khasara No.

Sr. No

Sq.mtr. Name of the Village

6 1

247

16. SADALWA ( Contd ... )

17. AMLI

2(G/P Pasture)

3 57(G /P Pasture)

[No. R- 31015/46/2004-O.R. - II ]

HARISH KUMAR , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 24 जून, 2005

का. आ. 2319.- 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. 3148 तारीख 7 दिसम्बर, 2004, जो भारत के राजपत्र तारीख 11 दिसम्बर, 2004 , में प्रकाशित की गई थी , द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में गुजरात राज्य में मुन्द्रा से दिल्ली तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए मुन्द्रा-दिल्ली पेट्रोलियम उत्पाद पाइपलाइन के माध्यम से हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन 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 31 जनवरी , 2005 , को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी ;

और सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन, केन्द्रीय सरकार को 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 विनिश्चय किया है ;

अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह घोषणा करती है कि इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में 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 , गृह निदेश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख को केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने के बजाए , इस मंत्रालय के सहमति पत्र सं. आर. 31015/7/03 ओ.आर- [[ दिनांक 25/11/2004 द्वारा लगाई गई शर्तों के अध्यधीन सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त, ... हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड में निहित होगा । 6773

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 2, 2005/आषाढ़11 , 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

अनुसूची तहसील : फागी

राज्य: राजस्थान

जिला: जयपुर

गाँव का नाम

खसरा सं .

क्रम सं.

164 1. बुकनी

178/7 क्षेत्रफल

वर्ग मीटर

एयर

हेक्टेयर

179 (स. रास्ता)

180(स.चारागाह)

320(सि.वि.नहर)

333/2(स.आबादी)

333/3 मिन 1 (स. चारागाह )

333/3 (स.भूमि)

333/3मिन(स.भूमि)

341 0

342(स.भूमि)

343 0

366 (स. रास्ता)

349 (स.भूमि)

357 0

356 मिन 2 (स.भूमि)

354(स.पाल)

448/606 (स .खारड़ा)

573

572 0

571 (स. रास्ता)

570 (स.खारड़ा)

569

568 0

565(स.रास्ता)

566

564

563

551

552

553

547

554

555

556

557

537

536 0

00 6774

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005 /ASADHA 11,1927

तहसील : फागी

[PART II-SEC . 3( ii) ]

राज्य : राजस्थान

जिला : जयपुर

खसरा सं .

गाँव का नाम

क्रम सं.

क्षेत्रफल

एयर

हेक्टेयर

वर्ग मीटर

558(स .नदी)

1. बुकनी (जारी ... )

598/4

161 2. नन्दलालपुरा

160/2

159

166

158

167

168

180(सि.वि.नहर)

201

199

198

197 0

205 (सि.वि.नहर)

217

218

220

224

225

228

231

232

233

234

278

275

274

273 0

06 00

335(सि.वि.नहर)

272

327

328

333

330

332

341 0

4 0

342(सि.वि.नहर)

344 01

343(स.भूमि)

[ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 2, 2005/ आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

तहसील : फागी

जिला: जयपुर

गाँव का नाम

खसरा सं.

क्रम सं.

184(स. झरडा) 3. शेरपुरा

183

182

180

181

233/1

233/3

233/4

233/5

233/6

234(सि.वि.नहर)

235 (सि.वि.नहर)

236 (सि.वि.नहर)

239(स. चारागाह)

245

244

248 (स. रास्ता)

250

247

251

255

254

253

59(स. रास्ता)

258 (स. चारागाह)

50/1

50/2(स.चारागाह)

6775 राज्य: राजस्थान

क्षेत्रफल

हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग मीटर 0

04 54 0

97 0

20 0

53 0

55 0

46 0

65 0

74 0

76 0

28 0

18 0

20 0

80 0

82 0

18 0

75 0

52 0

50 0

32 0

20 0

85 0

[फा. सं. आर-31015/59/2004-ओ.आर- ।।

हरीश कुमार, अवर सचि

New Delhi , the 24th June , 2005

S. O. 2319.- Whereas by a notification of the Government of India in the Minis of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O. 3148 dated the 7th December , 2004 , issu under sub- section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines ( Acquisition Rightof User in Land) Act, 1962 ( 50 of 1962) ( hereinafter referred to as the said Acı , published in the Gazette of India dated the 11th December , 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 from Mundra in the State of Gujarat to Delhi through Mundra- Delhi Petroleum Product Pipeline by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited ;

1855 GI/05-17 6776

[ PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2, 2005 / ASADHA 11,1927

And whereas copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on the 31st January , 2005 ;

And whereas the competent authority has , under sub- section ( 1 ) of section 6 of the said Act, submitted report to the Central Government;

And whereas the Central Government , after considering the said report and on being satisfied that the said land is required for laying the pipeline , has decidedto acquire right of usertherein:

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of section 6 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule , appended to this notification , is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline;

And further , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section (4 ) of section 6 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby directs that the right of user in the said land for laying the pipeline shall , instead of vesting in the Central Government , vest on the date of publication of declaration , in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited , free from all encumbrances , subject to the conditions imposed vide this Ministry's consent letter no . R- 31015/7/03 OR - II dated 25-11-2004 .

SCHEDULE

State : RAJASTHAN Tehsil : PHAGI

District : JAIPUR

Area

Hectare

Khasara No.

Are

Sr. No

Sq.mtr .

Name of the Village

1. BUKNI

164

178/7

179(G / L Cart Track)

180(G/ L Pasture)

320( Irri . Deptt. Canal )

333/2 ( G / L Abadi )

333/3Min1 ( G / L Pasture )

333/3 (G /L)

333/3Min(G/L)

341

342(G /L)

343

366(G /L Cart Track)

349(G/L)

357

356Min2(G / L)

354(G/L Pal )

448/606 (G / L Kharda )

573

572 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 2, 2005/ आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

Tehsil : PHAGI

6777 State : RAJASTHAN

District : JAIPUR

Khasara No. Sr. No

Name of the Village

3 1

1. BUKNI ( Contd ... )

Area

Are

Hectare

Sq.mtr .

571(G /L Cart Track)

04 28

570( G / L Kharda)

569

568 0

565(G /L Cart Track)

566

564

563

551

552

553

547

554

555

556

557

537

536 0

558(G /L River )

598/4

161 2. NANDALALPURA

160/2

159

166

158

167

168 20

180( Irri . Deptt. Canal )

201

199

198

197

205( Irri. Deptt. Canal )

217

218

220

224

225

228

231

232

0 6778

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005/ ASADHA 11,1927

Tehsil : PHAGI

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

District : JAIPUR

Khasara No. Sr. No Name of the Village

3 NANDALAL PURA (contd.)

233

234

278

275

274

273 Area

Are

Hectare

Sq.mtr .

335 ( Irri.Deptt. Canal)

272

327

328

333

330

332

341 0

342( Irri.Deptt . Canal )

344 0

343(G/L)

3. SHERPURA

184(G/L Jharda)

183

182

180

181

233/1

233/3

233/4

233/5

233/6

234( Irri.Deptt. Canal )

235( Irri . Deptt. Canal )

236( Irri.Deptt. Canal )

239(G / L Pasture)

245

244 0

248( G /L Cart Track)

250

247

251

255

254

253

18 52 6779 भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 2, 2005/ आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

SHER PURA (contd.. )

59(G /L Cart Track )

258 (G / L Pasture )

50/1

50/2( G / L Pasture)

[No. R-31015/59/2004-O.R. -II ]

HARISH KUMAR , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 24 जून , 2005

का. आ. 2320.- 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. 2978 तारीख 11 नवम्बर, 2004, जो भारत के राजपत्र तारीख 20 नवम्बर, 2004, में प्रकाशित की गई थी. द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में गुजरात राज्य में मुन्द्रा से दिल्ली तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए मुन्द्रा-दिल्ली पेट्रोलियम उत्पाद पाइपलाइन के माध्यम से हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन 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 27 जनवरी , 2005 , को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थीं ;

और सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन केन्द्रीय सरकार को 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 विनिश्चय किया है ;

अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह घोषणा करती है कि इस अधिसूचना से संलम्ब अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाताहै।

और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (4) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तिया का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह निदेश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने के बजाए , इस मंत्रालय के सहमति पत्र सं. आर 31015/7/03 ओ.आर- दिनांक 25/11/2004 द्वारा लगाई गई शर्तों के अध्यधीन सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त, हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड में निहित होगा । [PART II- SEC. 3 (ii)] 6780

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005/ASADHA 11,1927

अनुसूची

बाली

तहसील :

जिला: पाली

राज्य : राजस्थान

क्षेत्रफल

क्रम सं.

गाँव का नाम

खसरा सं .

हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग मीटर 1

1. आमलीया

6 (स.रास्ता)

(10

554

7'5

2:4

7'7

(19

551

36/461

410

2. नाना

155

916(स. नदी)

917 (पी.डब्ल्यू.डी. सड़क)

7.5

918(स.भूमि)

918/4250

920(स.भूमि)

925(स.वाला)

922

921(स.मगरी)

1166

1161

2'4

1160(स. नाला)

1154

1155(स.आबादी)

1153

56 6781

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 2, 2005/आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

तहसील : बाली

जिला : पाली

क्रम सं.

गाँव का नाम

खसरा सं .

3 1

1150 2. नाना (जारी ...)

राज्य : राजस्थान

क्षेत्रफल

हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग मीटर 4

1147 (स.भूमि)

1145 0

1142(स.नाला)

1139 0

1140 (स .रास्ता)

2096

2099

2103

2102 0

2115 (स. नाला)

2186 0

2185(स.भूमि)

2184(स.भूमि)

2183(स.भूमि)

2182(स.भूमि)

2181 (स.रास्ता)

2154 0

2193(स .मगरा)

2196 (स .मगरा)

2166

2165

2167

2168

2169

2170 0

2197 (स.मगरा)

2198 0

2199 (स.मगरा)

2200 0

2201 (स .मगरा)

2204/4161 (स.भूमि)

2202(स.भूमि)

2203 09

2418 (पी.डब्ल्यू.डी. सड़क )

2424(स.मगरी)

2420/2

2420/3 06

2420मिन

56 6782

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 2 , 2005 /ASADHA 11,1927

बाली

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

जिला : पाली

तहसील :

क्रम सं.

गाँव का नाम

खसरा सं.

3 1

राज्य : राजस्थान

क्षेत्रफल

हेक्टेयर

वर्ग मीटर

एयर

2419(स .रास्ता)

2. नाना (जारी...)

2417(स. मगरी)

52.

2416(स.रास्ता)

2415(वनविभाग)

2477(वनविभाग)

3. कागदड़ा

362(स.माइंस)

360

359 0

354(स.वाला)

353

349

350

343

342

339 0

19 (स .रास्ता)

18 0

12(स.भूमि)

5 0

4(स.भूमि)

20 (स.नदी)

68 0

64(स.भूमि)

57 0

38 भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 2, 2005/ आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

6783 राज्य : राजस्थान

जिला : पाली

तहसील : बाली

खसरा सं .

क्रम सं.

गाँव का नाम

क्षेत्रफल

वर्ग मीटर हेक्टेयर एयर

54(स.रास्ता)

3. कागदड़ा (जारी ...)

41 (स.रास्ता)

4. भन्दर

3459 (स. भाखर)

3461 (स.भूमि)

3462(स.वाला)

3463(स.भूमि)

3473(स.भूमि)

3472(स. रास्ता)

3471 (स.भूमि)

3470/4794(स.भूमि)

3512(स .रास्ता)

4038

4035(स. भाखर)

4003(स.नाला)

4001

4002(स .रास्ता)

3988

3987

3990

3986 (स.भूमि)

3983

3984

3982

3980

3981

3977

3976

3973

3961

3960

3960/4756

3932

3910 1855 GI/05-18

66 6784

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005 /ASADHA 11,1927

तहसील : बाली

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

जिला: पाली

खसरा सं.

क्रम सं.

गाँव का नाम

391.1 4. भन्दर (जारी ... )

3907

3898

3899

3895

3894

3891

3892

3890

3889 क्षेत्रफल

वर्ग मीटर हेक्टेयर एयर

54 0

3855 (स .रास्ता)

3854

3912

3913

3914

3853

3840(स.नाला)

4268

4270(स. रास्ता)

4271 (स.भूमि)

4272

3834 0

3829(स.नाला)

3819

3816

3817

3818

3801 (स .रास्ता)

3796

3794

669

666

665

662

661

660

659

658

657 (स.भूमि)

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 2, 2005/ आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

6785 राज्य: राजस्थान

जिला: पाली

तहसील : बाली

खसरा सं .

क्रम सं.

गाँव का नाम

क्षेत्रफल

वर्ग मीटर हेक्टेयर एयर

673(स .रास्ता)

5. सेन्दला (जारी ... )

695(स. भूमि)

693

686

684

683

582(स.नदी)

580

579

578 3

555

556

557

558

559

562

560

561 0

304(स .रास्ता)

471

472

469

473

468

467

464

459

458

454

455

438

445(स.भूमि)

439

444

401 (स.भूमि)

491 6. बेडा

2174(स.पहाड़)

2177

2178(स.भूमि)

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005/ASADHA 11,1927

6786

तहसील : बाली

जिला : पाली

क्रम सं.

खसरा सं.

गाँव का नाम

3 1

2176 बेडा (जारी...)

राज्य: राजस्थान

क्षेत्रफल

वर्ग मीटर हेक्टेयर एयर

20 0

2285 (स.मगरा)

2300 (स.भाखर)

2299

2298

2320

2322 0

2279 (स.रास्ता)

2336

2340

2341

2343

2344 0

2346(स.नाला)

2347

2350

2351

2354

2357

2356

2358

2359

2363

2364

2365

2368

2367 0

2394(स.नाला)

2398

2397

2405 03

2406(स. सड़क)

2420

2421

2422

2423

2426

2484/4971

2433 0

38 6787

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 2, 2005/ आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

राज्य : राजस्थान

जिला: पाली

तहसील : बाली

खसरा सं.

क्रम सं.

गाँव का नाम

6. बेडा (जारी...)

क्षेत्रफल

वर्ग मीटर हेक्टेयर एयर

2434(स.भूमि)

2435

2484(स.नाला)

2630

2613

2614

2616

2624

2620

2590 (स. रास्ता)

2801

2802

2803 0

2777/1 (स.भूमि)

2777/4

2834

2835

2838(स.रास्ता)

2864

2860

2863

2861

2862

2934(स. रास्ता)

301.5

3016

3010

3021

3022

3001

3000

3023

2999

2998

2997

3033 0

3034(स.नाला)

3205(स.भूमि)

3204 (स.भूमि)

6788

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005/ASADHA 11,1927

तहसील : बाली

जिला : पाली क्रम सं.

गाँव का नाम

खसरा सं.

3 1

6. बेडा (जारी... )

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

क्षेत्रफल

हेक्टेयर

वर्ग मीटर

एयर

3203(स.रास्ता)

3201

3202/4966

3202

3419

3418

3443

3444

3442

3433

3434

3441

3435

3436

3438

3437 0

3472(स. रास्ता)

3521

3520

3519

3518

3517

3510

3508

3507

3501 0

3499(स .रास्ता)

3498/4810 0

3861 (स.रास्ता)

3862(स.भूमि)

3865

3866

3871

3874

3878

3883

3882

3892

3893 0

11 भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 2, 2005/ आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

6789 राज्य: राजस्थान

जिला : पाली

तहसील : बाली

खसरा सं.

क्रम सं.

गाँव का नाम

3964 6. बेडा (जारी ...)

3957

3956

3952

3950

3949 क्षेत्रफल

वर्ग मीटर

एयर

हेक्टेयर

3937(स .रास्ता)

3939

3931 (स. रास्ता)

3930/4814(स.भूमि)

3929

3940(स.नाला)

2486 7. भादुन्द

2490

2491

2337

2339

2340

2341

2342

2351

2354

2362

2360

2361

2359

2365

2369

2228

2370

2227

2371

2372

2373

2205

2213

2206

2207

2204

0 6790

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2, 2005 / ASADHA 11,1927

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii )]

जिला : पाली

तहसील : बाली

क्रम सं.

खसरा सं.

गाँव का नाम

2203 भादुन्द (जारी... )

2199

2200

2201

2191 राज्य : राजस्थान

क्षेत्रफल

हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग मीटर 4

2291 (स .रास्ता)

2190 0

2172(स.रास्ता)

2143

2157

2158 0

2034(स. रास्ता)

2021 0

2020(स.भूमि)

2022

2019

1939 00

1793(स.नाला)

1785(स.भूमि)

1792

1787

1789 0

1786(स .नाडी)

1784(स.नाडी)

1777 0

1732(स. रास्ता)

1778(स. नदी)

1389

1390

1391

1396

1395 0

1397 (स .रास्ता)

1398

1412

1411

1409

1426

1427 0

28 6791 भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 2, 2005/ आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

जिला : पाली

तहसील:

राज्य : राजस्थान

क्षेत्रफलं

वर्ग मीटर क्रम सं.

एयर

खसरा सं.

हेक्टेयर

गाँव का नाम

1429

7. भादुन्द (जारी ...)

1438

1432

1433

1370 (स.रास्ता)

1344

1343

1345

1346

1347

1351 (स. रास्ता)

1352

1210 (पी.डब्ल्यू.डी. सड़क)

1150

1149

1148

1147

1146

1145

1144

1143

24 74

1140

1139

1141

1172

1171

1198

1199

1194

08 41

1.190 (स.नाला)

1191

201

8. बीजापुर

200 (स.रास्ता)

178

196

180

181

188

08 69

197

1.5

186

1855 GI/05-19 6792

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005 /ASADHA 11,1927

तहसील : बाली

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

जिला : पाली

क्रम सं.

गाँव का नाम

खसरा सं .

248 बीजापुर (जारी...)

243

244 राज्य: राजस्थान

क्षेत्रफल

हेक्टेयर

वर्ग मीटर

एयर

261 (स .रास्ता)

275 0

277 (स.भूमि)

274

278 0

295 (स.रास्ता)

305

307

308

309 0

336(स.रास्ता)

364/2920 (स.भूमि)

364/2820

364

363

359

360 0

1026(स .रास्ता)

1009

1006

1003

1005

1004 0

718(स.नाला)

715 (स.भूमि)

714 0

719(स.भूमि)

786(स.नाला)

720/2933

720

721

728(स . रास्ता

722

723

725

727 0

22 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 2, 2005/ आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

तहसील : बाली

6793

जिला: पाली

क्रम सं.

गाँव का नाम

खसरा सं.

726 8. बीजापुर (जारी...)

733

732

731 9. पादरला

566

563

576

575

577

579

578

580

582

590

638/817

591

636

635

634

633

595

632

629

630 राज्य: राजस्थान

क्षेत्रफल

मीटर हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग

19 08

626(स.रास्ता)

621

620

618 0

528(स.रास्ता)

377 0

362(स .रास्ता)

54 04

58 6794

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2, 2005/ASADHA 11,1927

तहसील : बाली

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

जिला : पाली

क्रम सं.

गाँव का नाम

खसरा सं .

3 1

244 सेवाड़ी

10.

242

241

240

261/3786

310(स .रास्ता)

348

344

349

351 (सिं.वि.नहर)

355

354

356

366

365

364 राज्य: राजस्थान

क्षेत्रफल

हेक्टेयर

वर्ग मीटर

एयर

20 0

362(स.रास्ता)

159

160

162

163

164

103

101

100

98 0

457(स.रास्ता)

554

555

541

542

537

534

527

522

521

589

587 0

09 6795

रस का राजपत्र: जुलाई 2, 2005/आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

[भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

राज्य : राजस्थान

जिला: पाली

तहसील : बाली

खसरा सं.

क्रम सं.

गाँव का नाम

590 सेवाड़ी (जारी ...)

10.

585

603

604

605

606 क्षेत्रफल

वर्ग मीटर एयर

हेक्टेयर

07.

641 (स.रास्ता)

979

978

977

976

975

996

992

995

997

44 11. पातावा

43.

62(पी.डब्ल्यू.डी. सड़क)

127

126

125

124

91 04

00 6796

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2, 2005/ ASADHA 11,1927

तहसील : बाली

[PART II-SEC . 3(ii) ]

जिला : पाली

क्रम सं.

गाँव का नाम

खसरा स

3 1

92 11. पातावा (जारी...)

123

122

106

104

10-3

101

112 12. बारवा

राज्य : राजस्थान

क्षेत्रफल

वर्ग मीटर एयर

536 (ग्रा.पं.)

537 (स.रास्ता)

544(ग्रा.पं. )

546 0

550 (स.भूमि)

548

549

577 0

580 (ग्रा.पं. )

535 (पी.डब्ल्यू.डी. सड़क)

534(ग्रा.पं.)

528

527

530

526

531

532 0

631(स. रास्ता)

€34

635

638

1180

1182

1181

183

184

1135 36

00 6797 भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 2, 2005/ आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

राज्य: राजस्थान

जिला : पाली

तहसील : बाली

क्षेत्रफल

एयर वर्ग मीटर

हेक्टेयर

खसरा सं .

क्रम सं.

गाँव का नाम

1186

12. बारवा (जारी ...)

1178 (स.रास्ता)

1114

1113

1115

1116

1134

1142

1143

1144

09 85

1145

1146

1093(स.रास्ता)

1062

1068

1063

1067

1066

1058

1057 (स.रास्ता)

869

872

870

881

882(स.रास्ता)

884

883

885

889

890

893

894

895

896

291

13 जुणावा

305(स. रास्ता)

297

264

263 6798

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2, 2005/ ASADHA 11,197

बाली

तहसील :

जिला : पाली

राज्य : राजस्थान

क्षेत्रफल

क्रम सं.

गाँव का नाम

वर्ग मीटर

खसरा सं .

हेक्टेयर एयर

6 2

262

32 लुणावा (जारी... )

13.

258

259

261

260

245 (स. रास्ता)

244

369(स.नदी)

370

371 (पी.डब्ल्यू.डी. सड़क)

434

438

-0

436

435(स.रास्ता)

460

463

464

467

468

470

471

474

476

475

479

535

525

526

527

521

499

500

501

502

14. सेशली

1005

952

951

943(स.वाला)

938 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii )]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 2, 2005/ आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

तहसील : बाली

6799

जिला : पाली

क्रम सं.

खसरा सं.

गाँव का नाम

866 14. सेसली (जारी...)

869 राज्य: राजस्थान

क्षेत्रफल

हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग मीटर 4

870 (स .नाला)

15. पुनाडिया

579 (स.भूमि)

580(स.भूमि)

581

582

598

597

596 0

610 (स . रास्ता)

611 0

613(स.वाली)

617

616

650

649

648

646

642

639

640

636 11

633(सयाली)

459

451

450/669 16. लालराई

598/1364 (स.भूमि )

598

593 0

73.

579/1358

579

546

545

547

543

542

544

541 1855 GI /05-20

91 6800

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005/ASADHA 11,1927

बाली

तहसील :

जिला : पाली

क्रम सं.

गाँव का नाम

खसरा सं.

3 1

540 16. लालराई (जारी ... )

487

499

490

.491 राज्य: राजस्थान

क्षेत्रफल

हेक्टेयर

वर्ग मीटर

एयर

20 0

07 0

20 0

94 0

52 0

483(स.नाला)

481

478

479

477

476

461 0

04 0

457(स.भूमि)

462

451 (स.रास्ता)

447 0

417 (स.रास्ता)

36 (ग्ग्र.पं.चारागाह)

395(स .रास्ता)

सर्वे नं. 395 और 394

के बीच में

394

392 0

37 (स.रास्ता)

74 08

198(स.नाला)

119

104

116

115

122

121

123

113

132

128 0

04 6801

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 2, 2005/ आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

राज्य: राजस्थान

जिला: पाली

तहसील : बाली

खसरा सं.

क्रम सं.

गाँव का नाम

131 लालराई (जारी ...)

16.

135

150

151

147

152

146

154

155

156(स.वाला)

168(स. नदी) 17. डूंगली

166

167

173

172

180

184

224(स.रास्ता)

240

241

257

242

256

258

255

261

264

263

265

266 (स. रास्ता)

270

272

282

281

278

1245 18. मुडारा

1246 (स .रास्ता)

1248

1255 (पी.डब्ल्यू.डी. सड़क)

1256

1279(स .रास्ता)

1280

1318

1316 क्षेत्रफल

वर्ग मीटर हेक्टेयर एयर

42 0

05 0

20 0

04 0

16 0

26 0

28 0

42 0

98 0

43 0

64 0

20 0

21 0

60 0

20 0

39 0

48 0

94 0

21 0

45 0

02 0

09 0

78 0

75 0 6802

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005 /ASADHA 11,1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

जिला : पाल

तहसील : बाली

क्रम सं.

खसरा सं.

गाँव का नाम

1317 18. मुंडारा (जारी...)

1302

1307

1306/1808

1303

1304

1473(स.भूमि)

1385

1386

1471 (स. रास्ता)

1486

1487

1488

1489

1499

1498

1497

1491

1492

1553 (स. रास्ता)

1559

1560

1561

1562

1563

1687 (पी.डब्ल्यू.डी.सड़क)

920

919

सर्वे नं. 920 और

910/1832 के बीच में

910/1832(स.भूमि)

910

909

908

906

901

902(स. रास्ता)

904

786 (स.रास्ता)

713 राज्य : राजस्थान

क्षेत्रफल

एयर

हेक्टेयर

वर्ग मीटर 4

08 6803 [भाग II- खण्ड (ii) ]

त का राजपत्र: जुलाई 2, 2005/आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

बाली

तहसील :

राज्य: राजस्थान

जिला: पाली

क्षेत्रफल

मीटर क्रम सं.

हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग गाँव का नाम

खसरा सं.

717

18. मुंडारा (जारी...)

718

730

723

738(स.रास्ता)

743

744/1844

722(स. रास्ता)

744

656

655/1848

649

650

651

647

[फा. सं. आर-31015/45/2004- ओ.आर-।। ]

हरीश कुमार, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 24th June, 2005

S. O. 2320.- Whereas by a notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O. 2978 dated the 11th November , 2004 , issued under sub - section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) , ( hereinafter referred to as the said Act), published in the Gazette of India dated the 20th November, 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 from Mundra in the State of Gujarat to Delhi by M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited; And whereas copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on the 27th December, 2005 ;

And whereas the competent authority has under sub- section ( 1 ) of section 6 of the said Act submitted report to the Central Government;

And whereas the Central Government , after considering the said report and on being satisfied that the said land is required for laying the pipeline , has decided to acquire right of user therein;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of section 6 of the said , the Central Government hereby declares that the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline;

And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub -section (4 ) of section 6 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby directs that the right of user in the said land for laying the pipeline shall , instead of vesting in the Central Government , vest on the date of publication of the declaration , in M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, free from all encumbrances , subject to the conditions imposed vide this Ministry's consent letter no . R-31015/7/03 OR- II dated 25-11-2004.

6804

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005/ ASADHA 11,1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)]

SCHEDULE

Tehsil : BALI

PALI

District :

Sr. No

Khasara No. Name of the Village

1. AMLIA

6(G / L Cart Track ) .

24.

25.

27.

36 State : RAJASTHAN

Arga

Hectare

04 94 0

29 19 0

34 0

00 48

06 54

24.

46 09

0 08 69

1.9 51

14 66

36/461

40 2. ΝΑΝΑ

09 83

41.

04 40

25 55

916(G /L River)

07 25

917( P.W.D Road )

918(G/L)

918/4250

920(G /L)

925 (G /L Nala ) .

922 0

17 21

921 ( G / L Ma

1166

1161 0

17 33. 0

26 25

04 24

1160(G/ L Nala )

1154 0

14 51

00 44

1155(G / L Abadi )

1153

56 6805 भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 2, 2005/ असषाद 11 , 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

State : RAJASTHAN

District: PALI

Tehsil : BALI

Area

Hectare Are

Khasara No.

Sq.mtr .

Sr. No

Name of the Village

1150

2. NANA ( Contd ... )

20 47

1147(G/L)

26 94

1145

1142(G/ L Nala )

20 42

1139

03 50

1140(G /L Cart Track)

20 56

2096

2099

2103

00 20

2102

2115(G / L Nala)

05 48

2186

2185(G/L)

2184(G/L)

17 43

2183 (G/L)

2182(G/L)

10 36

2181 (G / L Cart Track)

00 20

2154

2193 (G / L Magra )

2196 (G / L Magra )

2166

2165

2167

05 68

2168

05 76

2169

01 02

2170

00 20

2197(G / L Magra )

2198

2199(G /L Magra )

2200

2201 ( G / L Magra )

2204/4161 (G / L )

2202(G / L)

2203

2418 ( P.W.D Road )

07 20

2424 (G / L Magri )

2420/2

2420/3

2420Min

6806

[PART II-SEC. 3(ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2, 2005/A SAHA 11.127

Tehsil : BALI

State : RAJASTHAN

District : PALI

Sr. No

Khasara No. Name of the Village

3 2. NANA ( Contd ... )

Area

Hectare Are Sq.mtr. 4

2419(G/L Cart Track)

2417 (G/ L Magri )

2416 (G / L Cart Track)

2415 ( Forest Deptt . )

81 86

2477 ( Forest Deptt. )

3. KAGDARA

362(G / L Mines )

360

359 0

07 04

354(G/L Naia )

353

349

350

343

342

339

40 92

00 20

04 40

19(G / L Cart Track)

18 0

12(G/ L)

4(G/L)

06 47

08 49

29( G /L River)

09 69

00 30

28 13

64(G/L)

57 0

02 14

06 62

38 6807

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 2, 2005/आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

State : RAJASTHAN

District : PALI

Tehsil : BALI

Khasara No. Sr. No

Name of the Village

Area

Are

Hectare

Sq.mtr .

02 93 0

54(G / L Cart Track)

3. KAGDARA ( Contd ... )

24 0

04 92

32 0

10 69

07 0

10 0

41(G/L Cart Track)

01 95

3459 ( G / L Bhakhar)

4. BHANDAR

19 98

3461(G/L)

3462(G / L Nala )

06 0

3463(G /L)

66 0

3473 (G/L)

3472(G/L Cart Track)

33 0

3471(G/L)

3470/4794(G/ L )

07 38

3512(G / L Cart Track )

4038

06 18

4035 (G /L Bhakhar )

4003( (G /L Nala )

4001

10 26

4002(G /L Cart Track)

3988

3987

3990

07 09 0

00 26 0

40 0

3986(G /L)

3983

3984

3982

3980

3981

3977

3976

3973

3961

3960 0

13 94 0

06 03

80 0

05 73

36 0

12 19

84 0

3960/4756

3932.

3910 1855 GI/05-21

01 86

0 6808

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005/ASADHA 11.1927

Tehsil : BALI

District : PALI

Khasara No. Sr. No

Name of the Village

3 1

3911 4. BHANDAR ( Contd ... )

3907

3898

3899

3895

3894

3891

3892

3890

3889

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

Area

Hectare Are Sq.mtr. 4

25 43 0

81 0

64 0

15 37

49 0

02 80 0

3855 (G / L Cart Track)

3854

3912

3913

3914

3853

62 0

50 0

58 0

20 0

3840( G /L Nala )

4268

4270( G / L Cart Track)

4271 ( G/L)

4272

3834

04 0

42 0

3829 (G / L Nala )

3819

3816

3817

3818

00 0

00 51

99 0

3801 ( G / L Cart Track)

3796

3794

669 5. SENDALA

666

665

662

661

660

659

658 0

22 40

74 0

40 0

07 88

26 98 0

657(G/L)

6809 भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 2, 2005/ आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

State : RAJASTHAN

District: PALI

Tehsil : BALI

Area

Are

Hectare

Khasara No.

Sq.mtr .

Sr. No

Name of the Village

19 29

673(G / L Cart Track)

5. SENDALA ( Contd ... )

695(G / L)

693

686

04 08

684

683

582(G / L River)

02 05

580

579

578

555

0 05 88

556

557

06 30

558

13 16

559

562

03 48

560

561

03 08

304(G / L Cart Track )

13 26

471

07 40

472

05 85

469

473

13 61

468

467

07 66

464

05 97

459

458

454

05 68

455

438

445(G /L)

02 16

439

444

92 40

401(G /L)

491

93 60

2174 (G / L Pahad )

6. BERA

2177

2178 (G / L)

[PART II-SEC. 3(ii) ] 6810

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2, 2005 /ASADHA 11,1927

State : RAJASTHAN

District: PALI

Tehsil : BALI

Area

Are

Hectare

Sq.mtr.

Khasara No.

Sr. No

Name of the Village

2176

6. BERA ( Contd ... )

2285 (G / L Magra )

2300 (G /L Bhakhar)

2299

2298

2320

2322

2279(G / L Cart Track)

2336

2340

05 88

2341

00 20

2343

00 20

2344

2346(G/L Nala )

2347

2350

2351

2354

2357

2356

2358

2359

02 88

2363

2364

2365

2368

2367

2394 (G /L Nala )

2398

2397

2405

2406(G/ L Road)

2420

2421

2422

2423

2426

2484/4971

2433 6811 क्षका राजपत्र: जुलाई 2, 2005/ आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड

State : RAJASTHAN

District : PALI

Tehsil : BALI

Area

Are Sq.mtr.

Hectare

Khasara No.

Sr. No

Name of the Village

2434(G/L)

6. BERA ( Contd...)

00 20

2435

2484(G /L Nala )

01 65

2630

12 38

2613

11 88

2614

2616

2624

2620

2590(G/ L Cart Track)

2801

03 62

2802

2803

14 80

2777/1 (G/ L)

2777/4

2834

2835

2838(G / L Cart Track)

2864

2860

13 05

2863

2861

12 55

2862

2934(G / L Cart Track)

3015

3016

3010

3021

3022

00 20

3001

3000

06 15

3023

2999

2998

2997

3033

05 51

3034(G / L Nala )

3205( G /L )

3204 (G /L)

6812

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005/ASADHA 11,1927

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

District : PALI

State : RAJASTHAN

Area

Sr. No

Khasara No.

Hectatel Are Sq.mtr .

Name of the Village

6 1

02 39 6. BERA ( Contd ...)

3203 (G /L Cart Track)

3201

24 21

3202/4966

3202

49 89

3419

3418

3443

28 78

3444

03 41

3442

04 47

3433

00 25

3434

08 68

3441

00 64

3435

3436

04 99

3438

3437

06 96

3472(G / L Cart Track)

3521

18 13

3520

3519

19 19

3518

3517

10 95

3510

3508

3507

15 01

3501

3499(G/L Cart Track)

3498/4810

06 18

3861 ( G / L Cart Track)

04 41

3862(G/L)

05 97

3865

9986

3871

09 00

3874

08 69

3878

09 64

3383

3882

3892

3893 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

6813

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 2, 2005/आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

Tehsil : BALI

PALI

District :

Sr. No

Khasara No. Name of the Village

3964 6. BERA ( Contd ... )

3957

3956

3952

3950

3949 State : RAJASTHAN

Area

Are

Hectare

Sq.mtr. 4

13.

09 54

05 18

3937(G /L Cart Track)

3939 0

32 42

03 57

3931(G /L Cart Track)

3930/4814 (G /L )

3929 0

3940(G /L Nala)

2486 7. BHATUND

2490

2491

2337

2339

2340

2341

2342

2351

2354

2362

2360

2361

2359

2365

2369

2228

2370

2227

2371

2372

2373

2205

2213

2206

2207

2204

62 64

23 14

04 62

07 93

06 1.7

11 43

01 38

02 55

06 55

20 82

00 20

0 04

03 91

06 30 6814

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005/ASADHA 11 , 1927

Tehsil : BALI

[PART II-SEC . 3(

District : PALE

Sr. No

Khasara No. Name of the Village

3 1

2203 7. BHATUND ( Contd ... )

2199

2200

2201

2191 State : RAJASTHAN

Area

Hectare Are Sq.mtr. 4

6 0

51 0

65 0

08 00 0

2291(G /L Cart Track)

2190 0

32 0

2172( G / L Cart Track)

2143

2157

2158 0

56 0

06 47 0

2034(G / L Cart Track)

2021 0

25 31 0

10 49

2020( G / L)

2022

2019

1939 0

20 0

14 40 0

03 60 0

02 30

1793 ( G / L Nala )

25 44

1785 ( G /L)

1792

1787

1789 0

60 0

50 0

00 20

14 40

1786 ( G /L Nadi )

1784( G / L Nadi )

1777 0

28 44

02 16

1732(G/L Cart Track)

1778( G / L River )

1389

1390

1391

1396

1395 0

10 48

1397(G /L Cart Track)

1398

1412

1411

1409

1426

1427 0

07 88

15 19

03 84

08 6815 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 2, 2005/ आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

State: RAJASTHAN

Tehsil : BALI

District : PALI

Area

Sr. No

Khasara No.

Hectare Are Sq.mtr. Name of the Village

1429

08 92 7. BHATUND ( Contd ... )

1438

1432

05 62

1433

05 08

1370(G /L Cart Track)

1344

00 25

1343

1345

08 03

1346

00 35

1347

02 29

1351 (G / L Cart Track)

1352

13 05

03 12

1210( P.W.D Road)

1150

1149

1148

1147

1146

05 06

1145

1144

1143

1140

24 74

1139

1141

1172

13 21

1171

03 93

1198

1199

09 34

1194

08 41

1190(G /L Nala)

1191

14 8. BEEJAPUR

201

200(G /L Cart Track)

178

02 31

196

180

13 51

181

13 30

188

187

08 69

186

15 97 1855 GI/05-22 6816

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005/ASADHA 11,1927

Tehsil : BALI

State : RAJASTHAN

District: PALI

Khasara No. Sr. No

Name of the Village

3 1

248 8. BEEJAPUR ( Contd ... )

243

244 Area

Are

Hectare

Sq.mtr .

18 84

261 (G / L Cart Track)

275 0

277 ( G / L)

274

278 0

295 (G / L Cart Track)

305

307

308

309

16 24

18 11

336 ( G / L Cart Track)

364/2920( G /L )

364/2820

364

363

359

360

}

31 88

06 04

15 46

00 40

04 87

1026(G / L Cart Track)

1009

1006

1003

1005

1004 0

00 20

08 82

718 (G / LNala )

715 (G / L)

714 0

719(G/L)

786(G /L Nala )

04 93

720/2933

720

721 07

728 ( G / L Cart Track)

722

723

725

727 06

09 20

0 6817 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 2, 2005/ आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

State : RAJASTHAN

Tehsil : BALI

District : PALI

Area

Are

Hectare

Sr. No

Khasara No.

Sq.mtr. Name of the Village

6 1

08 08

726

8. BEEJAPUR ( Contd ... )

733

19 08

732

731

9. PADARLA

566

08 87

563

576

575

577

579

578

15 52

580

10 42

582

590

638/817

591

636

635

634

08 84

633

595

16 70

632

06 99

629

630

626(G / L Cart Track)

09 05

621

620

618

09 89

528 (G / L Cart Track)

377

362(G / L Cart Track)

07 05

17 69

10 64

10 58

54 6818

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2, 2005/ASADHA 11,1927

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii )]

State : RAJASTHAN

Tehsil : BALI

District : PALI

Area

Hectare

Sr. No

Khasara No.

Are Sq.mtr. Name of the Village

6 2

20 10. SEWARI

244

242

241

12 31

240

13 98

261/3786

310(G /L Cart Track)

348

344

349

351 ( Irrig Deptt. Canal )

355

06 11

354

356

02 15

366

365

364

362(G /L Cart Track)

159

160

08 71

162

163

05 15

164

07 05

103

10 88

101

100

05 97

03 06

457(G /L Cart Track)

15 89

554

555

541

542

537

534

527

10 18

522

521

589

587

09 6819

का राजपत्र: जुलाई 2, 2005/ आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

[भाग II-खण्ड

District: PALI Tehsil : BALI

Khasara No. Sr. No

Name of the Village

590 10. SEWARI ( Contd ... )

585

603

604

605

606 State : RAJASTHAN

Area

Are

Hectare

Sq.mtr.

07 40 0

641 (G / L Cart Track)

979

978

977

976

975

996

992

995

997

44 11. PATAWA

06 80 0

12 94 0

62(P.W.D Road )

127

126

125

124

89.

91-

02 00 0

02 58 0

37 0

52 0

04 88 0

04 25 0

05 44 0

25 0

0 6820

[PART II SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2, 2005/ASADHA 11,1927

Tehsil : BALI

District : PALI

State : RAJASTHAN

Area

Hectare

Sr. No

Khasara No.

Are

Name of the Village

Sq.mtr .

6 1

00 20 11. PATAWA ( Contd ... )

123

03 75

122

106

02 57

104

00 94

02 19

103

06 35

101

08 65

112

44 72

12. BARWA

536(G/P)

537(G / L Cart Track)

29 29

544( G/P)

546

19 28

550(G /L)

548

549

577

06 94

580(G /P)

535( P.W.D Road )

534(G /P)

528

527

530

526

03 08

531

00 93

532

01 12

631( G / L Cart Track)

634

635

15 00

638

20 73

1180

1182

1131

00 20

1183

1184

1185

82 6821

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 2, 2005/ आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

State : RAJASTHAN

District: PALI

Tehsil : BALI

Khasara No. Sr. No

Name of the Village

1186 12. BARWA ( Contd ... )

Area

Hectare Are Sq.mtr .

12 92 0

02 34

1178 ( G /L Cart Track)

1114

1113

1115

1116

1134

1142

1143

1144

1145

1146 0

10 68

00 73

54 0

32 0

38 0

80 0

00 80

85 0

05 54

1093( G / L Cart Track )

1062

1068

1063

1067

1066

1058

13 28 0

78 0

76 0

85 0

01 16 0

1057(G /L Cart Track)

869

872

870

881

20 0

16 85 0

00 20 0

03 06 0

882(G / L Cart Track)

884

883

885

889

890

893

894

895

896

291 10. LUNAWA

11 67 0

74 0

12 89

16 0

00 40 0

305(G / L Cart Track)

297

264

263

0 6822

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2018 ASALA1927

Tehsil : BALI

PAL

District :

Sr. No

Khasara No. Name of the Village

3 1

262 13. LUNAWA ( Contd ... )

258

259

261

260

[PART II- SEC. N State : RAJASTHAN

Area

Hectare Are Sq.mtr. 4

02 98

78 0

02 88 0

245(G / L Cart Track)

244 0

369(G/L River)

370 0

03 08

371( P.W.D Road )

434

438

436 0

03 09 0

02 58

10 66 0

74 0

435(G / L Cart Track)

460

463

464

467

468

470

471

474

476

475

479

535

525

526

527

521

499

500

501

502 14. SESLI

1005

952

951 0

03 95 0

63 0

04 24 0

30 0

06 39

71 0

54 0

32 0

13 0

03 80 0

73 0

38 0

25 20 0

50 0

63 0

943(G / L Nala )

938 0

70 93.

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 2, 2005/ आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

Tehsil : BALI

PALI

District :

Sr. No

Khasara No. Name of the Village

3 1

866 14. SESLI ( Contd ...)

869

6823 State : RAJASTHAN

Area

Are

Hectare

Sq.mtr.

00 90

05 26 0

870(G / L Nala )

15. PUNADIYA

03 79

579( G/ L)

01 85

580( G / L)

581

582

598

597

596

37 0

28 0

33 0

610(G /L Cart Track)

611

613(G /L Nala )

617

616

650

649

648

646

642

639

640

636 0

11 88

06 29

10 85

10 92

08 76

01 80

01 90

633 (G/ L Nala)

459

451

42 49

12 24

450/669

16. LALRAI

598/1364(G/L )

598

593

579/1358

579

546

545

547

543

542

544

541 1855 GI/05-23

32 44

0 6824

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005/ ASADHA 11.1927

Tehsil : BALI

[PART II -SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

State : RAJASTHAN

District : PALI

Sr. No

Khasara No. Name of the Village

3 1

540 16. LALRAI ( Contd ... )

487

499

490

491 Area

Hectare Are Sq.mtr.

14 94

483(G/L Nala)

481

478

479

477

476

461 0

04 81

10 99

01 03

03 04

00 84

457(G/L)

462 0

15 61

03 96

451(G / L Cart Track)

447 0

44 44

417( G / L Cart Track)

36(G / P Pasture)

395 (G / L Cart Track)

n Bet Svy No 395 & 394

394

392 0

01 07

37 (G / L Cart Track)

74 0

08 02

00 70

10 52

05 74

198(G/L Nala )

119

104

116

115

122

121

123

113

132

128 0

00 68

01 04

41 09

04 भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 2, 2005/ आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

PALI

District :

Tehsil : BALI

Khasara No. Sr. No

Name of the Village

131 16. LALRAI ( Contd ... )

135

150

151

147

152

146

154

155

6825 State : RAJASTHAN

Area

Are Sq.mtr. Hectare

10 08

156 ( G / L Nala )

17. DUNGALI

168( G / L River )

166

167

173

172

180

184

20 0

00 91

224(G / L Cart Track )

240

241

257

242

256

258

255

261

264

263

265

266 (G / L Cart Track) 、

270

272

282

281

278

1245 18. MUNDARA

05 94

1246(C . Cart Track )

1248

1255( P.W.D Road )

1256

03 08

1279(G/L Cart Track)

1280

1318

1316

0 6826

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2, 2005 / ASADHA 11,1927

Tehsil : BALI

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

District : PALI

Sr. No

Khasara No. Name of the Village

3 1

1317 18. MUNDARA ( Contd ... )

1302

1307

Area

Are

Hectare

Sq.mtr.

37 0

1306/1808

1303

1304 0

50 0

01 98

1473 (G/L)

1385

1386

42 0

10 0

1471 ( G / L Cart Track)

1486

1487

1488

1489

1499

1498

1497

1491

1492

24 0

26 0

05 38 0

16 93

01 80

1553(G /L Cart Track)

1559

1560

1561

1562

1563 0

11 19

17 25

06 19

1687( P.W.D Road )

920

919

In Bet Svy No/ 920 &

910/1832

910/1832(G/L )

910

909

908

906

901 0

19 04

902( G / L Cart Track)

904 0

11 87

09 22

786(G / L Cart Track)

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

6827

इस का राजपत्र: जुलाई 2, 2005/ आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

Tehsil : BALI

District : PALI

Sr. No

Khasara No. Name of the Village

713 18. MUNDARA ( Contd ... )

717

718

730

723

738(G /L Cart Track)

743

744/1844

722(G / L Cart Track)

744

656

655/1848

649

650

651

647 State : RAJASTHAN

Area

Are

Hectare

Sq.mtr. 4

32 0

39 03 0

35 0

26 41 0

26 22 0

73 0

23 0

55 0

04 24 0

02 0

59 97

01 00

09 43

[No. R- 31015/45/2004- O.R. -II ] HARISH KUMAR , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 24 जून, 2005

का. आ. 2321.- 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. 3145 तारीख 3 दिसम्बर, 2004, जो भारत के राजपत्र तारीख 11 दिसम्बर , 2004 , में प्रकाशित की गई थी, द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में गुजरात राज्य में मुन्द्रा से दिल्ली तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए मुन्द्रा-दिल्ली पेट्रोलियम उत्पाद पाइपलाइन के माध्यम से हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन 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 फरवरी , 2005 , को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी ;

और सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन , केन्द्रीय सरकार को 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 विनिश्चय किया है ;

अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह घोषणा करती है कि इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाता है ;

6828

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005/ ASADIHA 11,1927

[PART 11-SEC . 3 ( ii)] और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा ( 4 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह निदेश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख को केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने के बजाए , इस मंत्रालय के सहमति पत्र सं. आर 31015/7/03 ओ.आर -11 दिनांक 25/11/2004 द्वारा लगाई गई शर्तों के अध्यधीन सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त, हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड में निहित होगा ।

अनुसूची

जिला : पाटण

तालूका : राधनपुर

गाँव का नाम

खसरा सं.

कम सं.

3 1

चलवाडा

102

112

103

111

110

107

128

126

152

153 2

बंधवड

228

218

219

228

219

220

219

220

221

225

222

224

235

234

रास्ता खसरा संख्या

234/पी 1 और 2अ/पी 2 के बीव में

राज्य : गुजरात

क्षेत्रफल

हेक्टेयर

उप -खण्ड सं.

वर्ग मीटर

एयर

7 1

20 1

92 2

93 पी1

पी2

04 2

92 0

84 0

64 0

20 2

97 पी2

20 1/पी2

52 3

20 0

1/पी1

1/1

00 2

20 1/2

00 0

90 0

69 0

24 1पी।

48 पी

98 6829 भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 2, 2005/आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

जिला : पाटण

राज्य : गुजरात तालूका : राधनपुर

क्षेत्रफल

खसरा सं.

गाँव का नाम

उप-खण्ड सं. हेक्टेयर

वर्ग मीटर

एयर

कम सं.

अ/पी 2

2 बंधवड(जारी ..... )

ब

1/पी2

1/पी 1

3पी 1

1 पी

80 रास्ता खसरा संख्या 74/1

59 और 73 के बीच में }

39 रास्ता खसरा संख्या 62 और

55 40/पी2 के बीच में

पी2

रास्ता खसरा संख्या 43 /पी 2

और 59 /पी 2 के बीच में }

पी2

पी1

2पी1

83 रास्ता खसरा संख्या 49/3

और सुल्तानपुरा ग्रम सीमा के

बीच में 6830

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005/ASADHA 11,1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)]

जिला : पाटण

तालू : राधनपुर

गाँव का नाम

खसरा सं .

कम सं.

सुल्तानपुरा

रास्ता खसरा संख्या 13/1 और 92/1 के बीच में

103

104

105

105 4

169 सुबापुरा

170

रास्ता खसरा संख्या 170 और 171/1 पी 1 के बीच में

171

156

148

147

146

राज्य : गुजरात

क्षेत्रफल

उप -खण्ड

हेक्टेयर

वर्ग मीटर सं.

एयर

7 4

पी

09 1

1/1

पी2

पी1

पी2

22.

1+ 2

54 3पी2

3पी1

1 पी3

1पी1

1पी2

9 1पी1

1पी 1

2/2पी 2

2/1

2/2पी2

97 1/2

पी2

52 पी1

82 3

17 6831

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 2, 2005/ आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

जिला : पाटण

तालूका : राधनपुर

खसरा सं .

गाँव का नाम

कम सं.

3 2

140 4 सुबापुरा (जारी ..... )

139

138

115

117+118

119

109

101

राज्य : गुजरात

क्षेत्रफल

उप -खण्ड

वर्ग मीटर हेक्टेयर

सं.

एयर

7 4

56 1

10 0

55 0

2/2

2/1

74 0

1/3

02 0

18 2/2पी 2

2/1 पी 1

[फा. सं. आर-31015/ 39/2004- ओ.आर-II ]

हरीश कुमार, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 24th June , 2005

S. O. 2321.- Whereas by a notification of the Government of India in the Ministry ofPetroleum and Natural Gas number S.O. 3145 dated the 3rd December , 2004, issued under sub- section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Rightof User in Land) Act , 1962 (50 of 1962) ( hereinafter referred to as the said Act ), published in the Gazette of India dated the 11th December, 2004 , the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land specified in the Schedul appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for transportation أي petroleum products from Mundra in the State of Gujarat to Delhi through Mundra - Delhi Petroleum Product Pipeline by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited;

And whereas copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on the 3rd February , 2005;

And whereas the competent authority has, under sub- section ( 1 ) of section 6 of the said Act , submitted report to the Central Government ;

And whereas the Central Government , after considering the said report and on being satisfied that the said land is required for laying the pipeline , has decided to acquire right of user therein;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 1 ) of section 6 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule , appended to this notification , is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline;

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 of declaration , in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, free from a!! encumbrances , subject to the conditions imposed vide this Ministry's consent letter no . R- 31015/7/03 OR ! dated 25-11-2004 1855 GI/05-24 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005 /ASADHA 11,1927

6832

SCHEDULE

Taluk: RADHANPUR

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii )]

District : PATAN

Nameof Village

Survey no .

Sr. No.

3 1

102 CHALWADA

112

103

111

110

107

128

126

152

153 2

BANDHWAD

228

218

219

228

219

220

219

220

221

225

222

224

235

234

Cart track In between survey number.234/P1 and

2A/P2

State : GUJARAT

Area

Are

Hectare

Sub- Division No.

Square Metre 4

7 1

92 2

19 P1

64 1

04 2

20 2

97 P2

1/P2

52 3

20 1/P1

00 1/1

00 2

1/2

69 2

1P1

48 P1

98 }

A/ P2

1/ P2

71 4

1/P1

00 3P1

15 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 2, 2005/ आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

6833

District: PATAN

aluk : RADHANPUR

Nameof Village

Survey no. Sr. No.

3 2

7 BANDHWAD ( Contd ... )

Carttrack In between Survey number.74/ 1 and 73

Carttrack In between Survey number.62 and 40/P2

Carttrack In between Survey number.43 /P2 and

59/P2

Carttrack In between Survey number.49/3 and Village Boundary of

Sultanpura

19 3 SULTANPURA

State : GUJARAT

Area

Hectare Are

Sub- Division No.

Square Metre 4

7 2

00 1

00 1P

59 سلہ }

68 1

55 }

68 }

55 P1

2P1

38 1

44 }

07 1

09 1/1

91 1 6834

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005 /ASADHA 11,1927

[PART II SEC . 3 (ii) ]

District: PATAN

aluk : RADHANPUR

Name of Village

Srey no. Sr. No.

3 2

SULTANPURA

Cart track In between Survey number.13 /1 and

(Contd ... )

92/1

103

104

105

105 4 SUBAPURA

169

170

Carttrack in between Survey number 170 and 171/1P1

171

156

148

147

146

140

139

138

115

State : GUJARAT

Area

Are

Hectare

Sub- Division No.

Square Metre 4

7 0

08 1

03 2

36 0

80 0

1+2

80 3P2

54 3P1

.64

1P3

69 0

02 0

84 0

1P1

28 0

1P2

84 0

39 2

1P1

40 0

98 1P1

24 0

2/2P2

68 2/1

19 0

2/2P2

48 0

48 1/2

52 0

71 0

82 0

56 1

10 0

58 1

98 2/2

55 6835

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 2, 2005/आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

[भाग II 3(ii ) ]

State : GUJARAT

District: PATAN

Saluk : RAHANPUR

Area

Name of Village

Survey no.

Sr. No.

Hectare Are

Sub- Division No.

Square Metre

7 2

2/1

115

1/3

117+118

SUBAPURA (Contd... )

119

109

2/2P2

2/1P1

101

[No. R -31015/39/2004- O.R. - II ] HARISH KUMAR, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 27 जून, 2005

का. आ. 2322.- केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियन 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 अधिन जारी की गई भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का . आ . 563 तारीख 17 फरवरी , 2005 द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से सलंग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में गैस ट्रान्स्पोर्टेशन एंड इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर कंपनी लिमिटेड की संप्रवर्तक कंपनी रिलाएंस इन्डस्ट्रीज लिमिटेड के गोवा में उत्तरी/दक्षिणी अपतट में खोज ब्लाकों और आंध्रप्रदेश राज्य की संरचनाओ से महाराष्ट्र राज्य में पुणे जिले के विभिन्न उपभोक्ताओं तक प्राकृतिक गैस के परिवहन के लिए गैस ट्रान्स्पोर्टेशन एंड इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर कंपनी लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी;

और उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ जनता को तारीख 15 अप्रैल 2005 को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी; और पाइपलाइन बिछाने के संबंध में जनता की ओर से प्राप्त आक्षेपों पर सक्षम प्राधिकारी द्वारा विचार कर लिया गया है और अननुज्ञात कर दिया गया;

और सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन केन्द्रीय सरकार को अपनी रिपोर्ट दे दी है ;

और केन्द्रीय सरकार ने , उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्च्यात , और यह समाधान हो जाने पर कि उक्त भूमि पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए अपेक्षित है , उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन का विनिश्चय किया है ;

अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची मे विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाता है ;

और, केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (4 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह निर्देश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में पाइपलाइन बिछाने के संबंध में उपयोग का अधिकार इस घोपणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख से केन्द्रीय सरकार मे निहित होने के बजाए सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त, गैस ट्रान्स्पोर्टेशन एंड इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर कंपनी लिमिटेड में निहित होगा । 6836

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005 /ASADHA 11,1927

अनूसूची मंडल/तेहसिल/तालुक : शिरूर

जिला: पुणे गाँव का नाम

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

राज्य : महाराष्ट्र

सर्वे नंबर/ब्लॉक नंबर

2 1

गाव के सीमा के पास की नदी 1) इनामगाव

सर्वे नंबर 57/4 में गाडी रास्ता

सर्वे नंबर 57/4 में नाला

57/4

57/2

57/1

57/3

57/6

58/2

सर्वे नंबर 58 में गाडी रास्ता

सर्वे नंबर 41 और 61/2 के बीच का रास्ता

62/1

62/2

62/3

62/4

61/2

61/1

63/1

63/2

सर्वे नंबर 63/2 में गाडी रास्ता

65/1

65/2

66/2अ

66/1अ

67/1अ

67/1 ब

67/1 क

68/2

68/1

68/34

68/3अ

सर्वे कंस 58/ 3अ में गाड़ी रास्ता

69/2

70/3

आर.ओ.यु. अर्जित करने के लिए क्षेत्रप्

आर

हेक्टर

सि-आर

00,

55 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 2, 2005/आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

2 1

70/2

1 ) इनामगाव ( निरंतर ... )

347/111

सर्वे नंबर 10 में नाला

सर्वे नंबर 10 में गाडी रास्ता

458/5

457/1

457/4

457/3

471/2

472/24

472/12

472/2अ

472/1अ

473

सर्वे नंबर 473 और 474 के बीच का रास्ता

474

475

476/1

476/2

476/3

478/2

478/3

478/1

479

513/2/2

512

510

506

507

508

519/1

519/2

520/2

521/2

सर्वे नंबर 521/2 के बीच का गाडी रास्ता

522/3

522/2

522/4

523

524/1

525/1

525/3/2

525/7

6837

91 00

96 00

92 00

30 00

16 00

46 00

25 00

93 00

27 00

86 00

28 00,

30 00

90 00

98 00

46 00

06 00

03 00

08 00

75 00

73 00

56 00

91 00

13 00 6838

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2, 2005/ A11127

2 1

525/6अ

1) इनामगाव ( निरंतर ...)

76/11

2) पिंपळसुटी

40/3

सर्वे नंबर 76/111 और 40/3 के बीच का कॅनाल

40/5.

42/1

42/3

76/2/2

75/1

75/23/1

75/2व

75/24/1

74/1

74/2

सर्वे नंबर 74 और 156/1 के बीच का गाडी रास्ता

156/1

150

149

148

145/1

144

143

142/1

139/1

138/अ/1 व

138/3/1अ

176

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii ) 3

5 00

01 00

02 00

31 00

25 00

57 00

06 00

92 00

75 00

47 00

83 00

87 00,

09 00

90 00

07 00

71 00

14 00

176 और 185/1 के बीच का कॅनाल

185/1

सर्वे नंबर 185/1 और 185/2 के बीच का रास्ता

185/2

188/1

189

190

191

192/ 1अ

192/14

192/2

251

250/2

255

सर्वे नंदर 258/1 में गाडी रास्ता

258/1

54 00

09 00

68 00

70 00

93 00

67 00

74 00

36 00

98 00

87 90 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 2, 2005/आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

2 1

258/2

2) पिंपळसुटी ( निरंतर ...)

259/1

399

261/3

243/2/1

243/1/2

261/4

सर्वे नंबर 261/4 और 242 के बीच का कॅनाल

242

241

240

238/1

238/2

237/4

237/2

239

गाव के सीमा के पास का गाडी रास्ता 3) शिरसगांव काटा

405

404/2

404/1

409

400/1

400/1/1फ

सर्वे नंबर 400/1/1 फ और 410 के बीच का नाला

410

413/1

414/ब/1

414/4/2

417

418

416

415

397

396/2

सर्वे नंबर 396/2 और 253/2 के बीच का गाडी

गस्ता

253/2

253/3

253/1

252

251/ 2+4

249/1

248/1क

248/1/1 1855 GI/05-25

6839 3

64 00

02 00

50 00

92 00

49 00

18 00

42 00

55 00

71 00

59 00

77 00

36 00

20 00

80 00

94 00

05 00

73 00

81 00

62 00

09 00

61 00

85 00

68 00

18 00

11 00

02 00

21 00

28 00

2.2

59 00

38 6840

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005 / ASADHA11,1927

245/2

3) शिरसगांव काटा (निरंतर ...)

245/1

244

241

242

240

269/1

269/2

114/1

115/1

115/2

115/3

119/1

119/2

118

120

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

5 3

82 00

75 00

99 00

34 00

30 00

99 00

67 00

सर्वे नंबर 120 और 121/1 के बीच का मुख्य जिला

मार्ग-100

121/1

121/2

122

123/2/1

123/2/2

123/1/2/1

123/14/1

124

994

991

136

137/1

140

138

139/1

139/2

143

144/3

144/1

144/2

144/4/1/2

सर्वे नंबर 144/4/1/2 और 167 के बीच का गाध

रास्ता-117

167

168

169/1

70/130/1/1/1 00

71 00

03 00

95 00

98 00

72 00

89 00

70 00

40 00

59 00

41 00

12 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 2, 2005/ आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

174/1

3) शिरसगांव काटा ( निरंतर ...)

175/3

178/8

178/7

178/4

178/5

178/3

178/2

178/1

178/6

178/1अ

178/9/2

180

181

182

183

186/1/3

184

185/1

185/2/1

185/2/2

186/4/2

187/1

187/3

सर्वे नंबर 187/3 और 544 के बीच का गाडी रास्ता

544

543

562

563/1

563/2

563/3

564

सर्वे नंबर 564 और 565/2 के बीच का नाला

565/2

565/2/1

4) कोळगाव डोळस

10/3

10/ब

10/क

10/अ

9/ 2अ

6841 3

9. 00

07 00

10 00

79 00

60 00

00 00

16 00

52 00

70 00

85 00

32 00

42 00

72 00

36 00

22 00

06 00

20 00

29 00

80 00

92 00

57 00

17 6842

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005/ ASADHA 11 , 1927

2 1

9/1

4) कोळगाव डोळस ( निरंतर ... )

थे नंबर 9 और 157 बीच का रास्ता

157/13/1

158

सर्वे नंबर 158 में नाला

159/2

159/1

160/11

सर्वे नंबर 160/11 में रास्ता

161/व

सर्वे नंबर 161 /ब में नाला

161/अ

132/1/1

132/1/2

131/13/1अ

131/13/14

131/13/1 क [PART II -SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

5 3

39 00

63 00

93 00

05 00

02 00

91 00

11 00

14 00

00′

सर्वे नंबर 131/13/1 क और 95/4 के बीच का नाला

95/4

95/2

सर्वे नंबर 101/1/1 में ड्रेन

सर्वे नंबर 101/1/1 में गाडी रास्ता

101/1/2

102

100

109/1

110

111

112

336/2

5) आंधळगाव

336/1

सर्वे नंबर 336 और 338 के बीच का रास्ता

338

342

329

328

327

326/1

325/2

324

73 00

24 00

86 00

42 0.0

99 01

11 00

87 00

66 00

40 00

27 01

56 00

17 00

60 00

06 00

40 00

86 00

00 [ भाग II - खण्ड 3(ii) ]

6843

का राजपत्र: जुलाई 2, 2005/ आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

2 3

5 00

सर्वे नंबर 325/2 और 322 के बीच का नाला

5) आंधळगाव ( निरंतर ...)

322

306

6)काकडेवाडी

307

309

310/2

312

315

313

314

363

गाव सीमा के पास का रास्ता

64 00

83 01

सर्वे नंबर 343 और 300/3 के बीच का गाडी रास्ता

300/3

297

296

295

294

299

293/1

68 0.0

00 00

16 00

सर्वे नंबर 293/2 और 361 के बीच का नाला

361

364/1

08 00

63 00

सर्वे नंबर 364/1 और 364/2 के बीच का रास्ता

364/2

गाव सीमा के पास का रास्ता 7) आलेगांव पागा

568/1अ

गाव सीमा के पास का गाडी रास्ता

448/3

8) न्हावरे

448/1

447

82 00

90 00

82 00

79 00

सर्वे नंबर 447 और 443 के बीच की सरकारी जमीन

443

सर्वे नंबर 443 और 649 के बीच का गाडी रास्ता

649

648

647

646

645

644

6430

27 00

71 00

00.

17 00

20 00

66 00

सर्वे नंबर 643 पै और 713 के बीच का रास्ता

713

58 6844

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005/ ASADHA 11,1927

710

8) न्हावरे ( निरंतर ... )

709

708

सर्वे नंबर 708 और 704 के बीच का रास्ता

सर्वे नंबर 708 और 704 के बीच का गाडी रास्ता

704

705

706

707

699

सर्वे नंबर 699 और 735 के बीच का गाडी रास्ता

736

737

755

753/1

सर्वे नंबर 753 और 777 के बीच का नाला

777

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

5 00

13 00

75 00

59 00

88 00

79 00

68 00

03 00

72 00

52 00

51 01

88 00

सर्वे नंबर 777 और 780 के बीच की सरकारी जमीन

780/2

780/3

780/1

794/1

807

नाला और सर्वे नंबर 870 के बीच की सरकारी जमीन

सर्वे नंबर 796 के पास का नाला

795/1/13

796/2

108

9) उरळगाव

94/13/1

सर्वे नंबर 94 और 91 के बीच का गाडी रास्ता

सर्वे नंबर 69 और के बीच का गाडी रास्ता

सर्वे नंबर 45 और 43 के बीच का गाडी रास्ता

89 00

45 00

54 00

74 01

80 00

61 00

09 00

76 00

64 00

48 00

09 00

56 00

23 00

00 00

35 00

85 00

03 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 2, 2005/ आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

9) उरळगाव ( निरंतर ...)

6845

5 3

49 00

32 00

सर्वे नंबर 44 और 177 के बीच का नाला

177

178/1

178/2

सर्वे नंबर 178 में रास्ता

179

सर्वे नंबर 179 में रास्ता

220

210

211

237

215

216

214

44 00

57 00

38 00

57 01

26 00

76 01

03 00

53 00

58 00

27 00

सर्वे नंबर 214 और 366 के बीच का गाडी रास्ता

366

367

361

360

359

88 01

76 00

88 00

57 00

सर्वे नंबर 359 और 464 के बीच का गाडी रास्ता

464

सर्वे नंबर 464 में नाला

465

466

467

468

469

470

471

476

114/1

114/2

113

112

111

74 00

21 00

15 00

25 00

47 00

92 00

18 00

10 00

15 00

84 00

74 00

77 00

सर्वे नंबर 111 और 107 के बीच का गाडी रास्ता

107/1

गाव सीमा के पास का गाडी रास्ता 10) दहिवडी

305

304

23 00

99 00

79 6846

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2, 2005 /ASADHA 1027

सर्वे नंबर 304 और 306 के बीच का লালা 10) दहिवडी ( निरंतर ...)

306

सर्वे नंबर 306 में गाडी रास्ता

सर्वे नंबर 315 में गाडी रास्ता

315

316

सर्वे नंबर 316 और 333 के बीच का नाला

333

346

345

344

343

342

341

336

337

437

गाव सीमा के पास का नाला

11) पारोडी

191

188

36 में नाला

189/1

189/2

सर्वे नंबर 250 में रास्ता

190

सर्वे नंबर 250 और 192 के बीच नाला

सर्वे नंबर 188 और 43 के बीच का रास्ता

192

250

[ PART 11-SEC . 3 3

5 00

71 00

66 00

06 00

31 00

11 00

51 00

36 00

77 00

69 00

08 00

91 00

00 00

91 00

77 00

76 00

69 01

43 00

13 00

31 00

17 00

06 00

05 00

02 00

00 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 2, 2005/आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

2 1

गाव सीमा के पास का नाला 12) शिवतक्रार म्हाळुंगी

सर्वे नंबर 53 और 47 के बीच का रास्ता

38/1

सर्वे नंबर 46 और 42 के बीच का नाला

गाव सीमा के पास का गाडी रास्ता

797

13) टाकळीमिमा

796

792/4

792/3

789

791

790

सर्वे नंबर 790 में भाडी रास्ता

सर्वे नंबर 790 में गाडी रास्ता

सर्वे नंबर 633 और 790 के बीच का गोडी रास्ता

833

सर्वे नंबर 633 में माला

632

सर्वे नंबर 632 और 621 के बीच का रास्ता

621

620

619

618

617

616/2

615

614

613

579

601

607

604

598

597

1855 G1/05-26

6847 3

5 00

27 01

78 00

70 00

80 00

83 00

62 00

19 00

18 00

60 00

48 00

46 00

66 00

47 00

29 00

46 00

58 00

52 00

86 00

41 00

35 00

33 DO

70 00

46 00

66 00

18 00

92 00

63 00 、

12 00

86 00

55 00

75 6848

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005/ ASADHA 11,1927

595

13) टाकळी भिमा ( निरंतर ...)

588

594

589

590

591

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

5 00

69 00

72 00

65 00

78 00

सर्वे नंबर 591 और 518/1 के बीच का गाडी रास्ता

518/1

518/2

517/1

515/1

514

501

500

493/2

492

491

469

467

466

465

464

463/1

463/2

448/ 2अ

448/ 2व

448/1

447

446

445

416

415/1

415/2

396/24

396/ 2अ

396/1

393

सर्वे नंबर 393 में कॅनाल

392

391

390

उर्वे नंबर 390 में नाल?

389

388

00 00

15 00

05 00

22 00

34 00

76 00

15 00

90 00

07 00

47 00

09 00

43 00

95 00

75 00

16 00

00 00

27 00

91 00

69 00

46 00

58 00

15 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत काराजपत्र : जुलाई 2, 2005/ आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

596/1

14) कासारी

595/1

607

606

605

604

सर्वे नंबर 604 में कॅनाल

627

634

633

644

636

सर्वे नंबर 636 में गाडी रास्ता

641

642

643

686

684

687

688

689

685

631

692

683

1080

1081

1082

1084

1085

1102

सर्वे नंबर 1102 और 1133 के बीच का नाला

1133

1134

1135

1136

1137/1

1138/1

1138/2

1139

1140/1

1140/2

6849 3

22 00

77 00

04 00

71 00

92 00

30 00

55 00

51 00

80 00

62 00

09 00

17 00

00 00

82 00

97 00

27 00

90 00

34 00

46 00

79 00

01 00

71 00

02 00

77 00

43 00

86 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005 / ASADHA 11,1927

6850

2 1

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

सदर 1140 और 1142 के बीज का कॅनाल

14) कासारी ( निरंतर ...)

1142

1143

1144

1145

1146

1197

1199

1200/2

96 00

09 00

21 00

42 00

67 00

सर्वे नंबर 1200 और 1248 के बीच का इतर जिला

मार्ग-67

1248

1266

1267

1268

1269

1270

1271

1272

423

15) तळेगाव ढमढेरे

435

437

438

440

443

444

445/1

446

449

452

454

455

456

457

458

461

459

460

463

472

475

477

476

479

38 00

10 C

50 C

00 00

50 00

40 00

94 00

51 00

48 00

14 00

90 00

25 00

47 00

84 00

27 00

07 00

03 [भाग II- खण्ड ) 】

त का राजपत्र : जुलाई 2, 2005/ आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

483

15) तळेगाव ढमढेरे ( निरंतर...)

484

गाव सीमा के पास का रत्स्ता

रस्ता और सर्वे नंबर 1804 के बीच की सरकारी जमीन

1804

सर्वे नंबर 1804 में कॅनाल

1802

सर्वे नंबर 1802 में रास्

सर्वे नंबर 1802

1186

1184

1183

सर्वे नंबर 1183 और 329 के बीच का रास्ता

329

333

331

334

335

336

337

338

339

342

343

344

345/1

346

347

348

353

358

359

360

361

362

363

364

सर्वे नंबर 364 और 365 के बीच का कॅनाल

365

385

386

390

391

392

6851 3

5 00

31 00

80 00

34 00

63 00

11 00

88 00

55 00

96 00

16 00

43 00

17 00

33 00

95 00

99 00

38 00

57 00

56 00

05 00

68 00

85 00

50 00

73 00

19 00

29 00

10 00

51 00

42 00

01 6852

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005/ ASADHA 11,1927

395 15) तळेगाव ढमढेरे ( निरंतर ...)

399

398

सर्वे नंबर 398 और 417 के बीच की सरकारी जमीन

417

418

421

422

1258 16) शिक्रापुर

1259

सर्वे नंबर 1259 और 1260 के बीच का गाडी रास्ता

1260

1261

1190/1

1190/2

1190/3

1190/4

1190/5

सर्वे नंबर 1190 और 1751 के बीच की नदी

1751

1274/1

1273

1283

1309

1308

1306

1784

1809

1810

1811

1812

सर्वे नंबर 1812 और 1303 के दीव का नाम्ला

1303

1304

1367

1368

1365

1374

1376

1377

1380/1/1

1381

1845 [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] 3

5 00

14 00

67 00

90 00

56 00

09 00

39 00

14 00

16 00

21 00

46 00

60 00

01 00

84 00

34 00

75 00

28 00

69 00

19 00

54 00

61 00

31 00

53 00

48 00

71 00

48 00

49 00

16 00

49 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 2, 2005/ आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

1384/1

16) शिक्रापुर ( निरंतर ...)

सर्वे नंबर 1384 और 1361 के बीच का नाला

1361

सर्वे नंबर 1361 और 1572 के बीच का राजमार्ग

-55

1572

1574/अ

1573

1584

1585

1586

1588

1591

1593

1592

1596

1595

1597/3

1597/2

6853 3

5 00

53 00

33 00

23 00

73 00

55 00

14 00

40 00

24 00

92 00

56 00

89 00

33 00

29 00

56 00

80 00

सर्वे नंबर 1597 और 1599 के बीच का राजमार्ग -55

1599/1

1599/3

26 00

सर्वे नंबर 1599 और 1902 के बीच का गाडी रास्ता

1902/1

1902/2

1902/4

सर्वे नंबर 1902 और 2130 के बीच का नाला

2130

सर्वे नंबर 2130 और 1650 के बीच का नाला

1650

1651

1652

1455

सर्वे नंबर 1455 और 1658 के बीच की सरकारी

जमीन

सर्वे नंबर 1455 और 1661 के बीच की सरकारी

जमीन

1658

1661

1662

1663

1666

1667

1668

1669

67 00

42 01

16 00

71 00

33 00

62 00

63 00

75 00

39 00

96 00

66 00

09 6854

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2, 2005/ARADHA

2 1

1670/1

16) शिक्रापुर ( निरंतर ...)

1671/2

1671/3

1672

1673

1674

1677

1678

1679

1680

1681/1

1284

1285/1

1742

1293

1294

सर्वे नंबर 1294 और 1313 के बीच का राजमार्ग

-55

1313/1अ

1312

1311

1310

22/1

17) जातेगाव खुर्द

32/1

32/2

सर्वे नंबर 32/2 और 34 के बीच का रास्ता

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

5 00

68 00

80 00

43 00

65 00

64 00

90 00

12 00

48 00

45 00

03 00

19 00

65 00

59 00

21 00

42 00

85 00

31 00

55 00

84 00

52 00

82 00

67 00

66 00

75 00

00 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 2, 2005/आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

17) जातेगाव खुर्द ( निरंतर... )

474

49/1

सर्वे नंबर 50 और 51 के बीच का गाडी रास्ता

57/1

57/2

57/3

60/1

60/3

68/2

68/1

92/1

92/4/1

93/2

93/1

102

107

110/1अ

110/2अ

110/1 व

110/ 2व

110/4

110/3

693

18) करंदी

सने नंबर 693 में 1855 G1/05-27

6855 3

5 00

00 00

75 00

64 00

07 00

68 00

16 00

36 00

87 00

60 00

41 00

27 00

26 00

98 00

31 00

02 00

72 00

89 00

58 00

88 00

87 00

18 00

24 00

38 00

72 00

09 00

02 00

50 01

00 6856

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005 /ASADHA 11,1927

2 1

692

18) करंदी ( निरंतर ...)

694

सर्वे नंबर 694 और 695 के बीच का रास्ता

695

सर्वे नंबर 695 और 691 के बीच का कॅनाल

691

690

689

685

684

776

सर्वे नंबर 776 में गाडी रास्ता

775

सर्वे नंबर 775 और 773 के बीच का गात रास्ता-53

773

सर्वे नंबर 73 में कॅनाल

सर्वे नंबर 73 में गाडी रास्ता

772

770

767

765/1/2

765/1/1अ

766

909

910

911

912

गाव सीमा के पास का नाला

915/1

19) पिंपळे जगताप

सर्वे नंबर 915/1 और नाला के बीच का नाला

सर्वेनंबर 915/1 में नाला

902

901

900

899

898

897/1

897/2

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

5 00

74 00

84 00

19 00

77 00

00 00

80 00

19 00

21 00

04 00

25 00

57 00

71 00

65 00

77 00

48 00

21 00

62 00

59 00

11 00

26 00

24 00

66 00

सर्वे नंबर 897/2 और 884 के बीच का राजमार्ग-55

884

885

890/1

सर्वे नंबर 890/1 और 890/2 के बीच का कॅनाल

55 00

84 00

00 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 2, 2005/ आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

2 1

890/2

19) पिंपळे जगताप ( निरंतर ...)

882

881

गाव सीमा के पास का रास्ता

414

20) वाजेवाडी

6857

64 00

32 00

29 00

सर्वे नंबर 418 में नाला

418 पै

सर्वे नंबर 418 पै और 415 के बीच का नाला

415

416

421

411

422

सर्वे नंबर 411 और 403 के बीच का कॅनाल

403/1

399

400

398

397

396

393

389

388

387

388

385

384

383

381

380

377

376

375

374

373

372

369

368

364

363

361

357

358

18 00

00 00

25 00

84 00

19 00

15 00

13 00

53 00

58 00

05 00

53 00

06 00

68 00

57 00

53 00

47 00

33 00

27 6858

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2, 2005/ ASADHA 11,1927

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

356 और 353 के गोश का गाडी रास्ता

20) वाजेवाडी ( निरंतर...)

353

[फा. सं. एल-14014/48/2004-जी.पी. ]

स्वामी सिंह, निदेशक

New Delhi , the 27th June, 2005

S. O. 2322.- Whereas by a notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas , number S.O. 563 dated, 17th 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 transportation of natural gas from the exploration blocks the Northern / Southern Offshore of Goa and structures in Andhra Pradesh of Reliance Industries Limited, the promoter company of Gas Transportation and Infrastructure Company Limited to various consumers of District Pune in the State of Maharashtra by Gas Transportation and Infrastructure Company Limited;

And whereas the copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on the 15th 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 of the said Act, submitted report to the Central Government;

And whereas the Central Government, after considering the said report and on being satisfied that the said land is required for laying the pipeline, has decided to acquire the right of user therein;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section ( 1) of section 6 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification is hereby acquired, for laying the pipeline;

And further , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 4) of section 6 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby directs that the right of user in the said land for laying the pipeline shall , instead of vesting in the Central Government , vest, on this date of publication of the declaration, in Gas Transportation and Infrastructure Company Limited, free from all encumbrances .

6859

एत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 2, 2005/आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

[भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]

Schedule

Mandal /Thesil/Taluk : Shirur

District: Pune NameofVillage

Survey No./Sub-Division No. 1

2 1) Inamgaon

State : Maharashtra

Area to be acquired for ROU

C-Are Hectare Are

River atVillage Boundary

Cart Track near SurveyNo. 57/4

Nala in Survey No. 57/4

57/4

57/2

57/1

57/3

57/6

58/2

CartTrack in Survey No. 58

Road between Survey No. 41 and

61/2

62/1

62/2

62/3

62/4

61/2

61/1

63/1

63/2

CartTrack in SurveyNo. 63/2

65/1

65/2

66/2A

66/1A

67/1A

67/1B

67/1C

68/2

68/1

68/3B

68/3A

CartTrack in Survey No. 68/3A

69/1

69/2

19 6860

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005/ ASADHA 11,1927

70/3

1) Inamgaon ( Contd .... )

70/2

347/1A1

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

Nala in Survey No. 10

CartTrack in Survey No. 10

458/5

457/1

457/4

457/3

471/2

472/2B

472/1A2

472/2A

472/1A

473

Road between Survey No. 473 and

474

475

476/1

476/2

476/3

478/2

478/3

478/1

479

513/2/2

512

510

506

507

508

519/1

519/2

520/2

521/2

CartTrack in Survey No. 521/2

522/3

522/2

522/4

523

524/1

525/1

09 [भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 2, 2005/ आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

525/3/2 1) Inamgaon ( Contd .... )

525/7

525/6A

76/1A1 2) Pimpalsuti

40/3

6861 3

Canal between Survey No. 76/1A1

and40/3

40/5

42/1

42/3

76/2/2

75/1

75/2A/1

75/2B

75/28/1

74/1

74/2

CartTrackbetween Survey No. 74

and 156/1

156/1

150

149

148

145/1

144

143

142/1

139/1

138/A/1B

138/A/1A

176

Canal between Survey No. 176 and

185/1

Road between Survey No. 185/1 and

185/2

188/1

189

190

191

192/1A

192/1B

192/2

251

00 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005 /ASADHA 11,1927

6862

250/2

2) Pimpalsuti (Contd .... )

255

CartTrack in Survey No. 258/1

258/1

258/2

259/1

399

261/3

243/2/1

243/1/2

261/4

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

Canal between Survey No. 261/4 and

242

241

240

238/1

238/2

237/4

237/2

239

3) Shirasgaon Kata

CartTrack at Village Boundary

405

404/2

404/1

409

400/1

400/1/1f 00

Nala between Survey No. 400/1/1F

and410

410

413/1

414/B/1

414/B/2

417

416

415

397

396/2

CartTrackbetween Survey No. 396/2

and253/2

253/2

253/3

253/1

02 [ भाय II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

6863

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 2, 2005/ आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

252

3) Shirasgaon Kata (Contd .... )

251/2+4

249/1

248/1B

248/1A/1

245/2

245/1

244

241

242

240

269/1

269/2

114/1

115/1

115/2

115/3

119/1

119/2

118

120

MajorDistrict Road-100between

Survey No. 120 and 121/1

121/1

121/2

122

123/2/1

123/2/2

123/18/2/1

123/1B/1

124

99B

99A

136

137/1

140

138

139/1

139/2

143

144/3

144/1

144/2

144/4/1/2 1855 G1/05-28

49.

00 6864

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005/ ASADHA 11.1927

2 3) Shirasgaon Kata ( Contd .... )

Village Road-117 between SurveyNo.

144/4/1/2 and 167

167

168

169/1

170/1A/1 /1 /1

174/1

175/3

178/8

178/7

178/4

178/5

178/3

178/2

178/1

178/6

178/1A

178/9/2

180

181

182

183

186/A/3

184

185/1

185/2/1

185/2/2

186/B/2

187/1

187/3

CartTrackbetween Survey No. 187/3

and544

544

543

562

563/1

563/2

563/3

564

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

Nala between Survey No. 564 and

565/2

565/2/1

4) Kolagaon Dolas

00 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 2, 2005/आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

-1

4) KolagaonDolas (Contd ....)

10/D

10/B

10/C

10/A

9/2A

9/1

6865 3

Road between Survey No. 9 and 157

157/1A/ 1

158

Nala in Survey No. 158

159/2

159/1

160/1B1

Road in Survey No. 160/1B1

161/B

Nala in Survey No. 161/B

161/A

132/1/1

132/1/2

131/1A/1A

131/1A/18

131/1A/1C

Nala between Survey No. 131 / 1A/1C

and 95/4

95/4

95/2

Drain in Survey No. 101/1/1

CartTrack in Survey No. 101/1/1

101/1/2

102

100

109/1

110

111

112

336/2

5)Andhalgaon

336/1

Roadbetween Survey No. 336 and

338

342

00 6866

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005/ASADHA 11,1927

329 5)Andhalgaon(Contd ....)

328

327

326/1

325/2

324

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)]

Nala between Survey No. 325/2 and

322

306 6) Kakadewadi

307

309

310/2

312

315

313

314

363

Road atVillage Boundary 00

CartTrackbetween Survey No. 313

and 300/3

300/3

297

296

295

294

299

293/1 21

Nalabetween Survey No. 293/2 and

361

364/1 00

Road between Survey No. 364/1 and

364/2

364/2 7) Aalegaon Paga

Road at Village Boundary

568/1A

CartTrack at Village Boundary

448/3 9) Nhavare

448/1

447

Government Land between Survey

No. 447 and 443

443

CartTrackbetween Survey No. 443

and 649

649

17 [भाग II-खण्ड

का राजपत्र : जुलाई 2, 2005/आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

648

8) Nhavare ( Contd....)

647

646

645

644

643P

Roadbetween Survey No. 643P and

713

710

709

708

Roadbetween Survey No. 708 and 704

CartTrackbetween Survey No. 708

and 704

704

706

707

699

CartTrackbetween Survey No. 699

and 735

736

737

755

753/1

Nala between Survey No. 753 and

777

Government Land between Survey

No. 777 and 780

780/2

780/3

780/1

794/1

807

Government Land between Survey

No. 870 and Nala

Nala near Survey No. 796

795/1/3

796/2

108

9) Uralgaon

94/1A/1

CartTrackbetween Survey No. 94

and 91

6867 3

64 6868

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 2 , 2005/ASADHA 11,1927

9) Uralgaon ( Contd .... )

CartTrackbetween Survey No. 69

and45

CartTrackbetween Survey No. 45

and43

Nala between Survey No. 44 and 177

177

178/1

178/2

Road inSurvey No. 178

179

RoadinSurvey No. 179

220

210

211

237

215

216

214

CartTrackbetween Survey No. 214 and 366

366

367

361

360

359

CartTrackbetween Survey No. 359

and464

464

Nala in Survey No. 464

465

466

467

468

469

470

[PART II-SEC . 3( ii) ]

من

92 भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 2, 2005/ आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

471

9) Uralgaon (Contd.... )

476

114/1

114/2

113

112

111

6869 3.

10 00

95 00

15 00

47 00

77 00

CartTrackbetween Survey No. 111

and 107

107/1

10) Dahiwadi

28 00

CartTrack at Village Boundary

305

304

99 00

71 00

Nala between Survey No. 304 and

306

66 00

CartTrack in Survey No. 306

31 00

CartTrack in Survey No. 315

315

316

11 00

Nala between Survey No. 316 and

333

346

345

344

343

342

341

336

337

437

36 00

69 00

29 00

35 00

08 00

29 00

00 00

Nala atVillage Boundary

11) Parodi

191

188

95 00

81 00

71 00

69 00

55 00

51 00

Nala in Survey No. 36

189/1

41 6870

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2, 2005

189/2 11) Parodi ( Contd....)

34 AS27

[PART II-SEC. Sti

Road in Survey No. 250

190 00

Nala between Survey No. 250 and

192

Road between Survey No. 188 and

192

250

25 12) Shiv takrar Mahalungi

Nala atVillage Boundary

53 01

Road between Survey No. 53 and 47

38/1

Nala between Survey No. 46 and 42

45 00

CartTrack at Village Boundary

797 13) Takli Bhima

796

792/4

792/3

789

791

790 00

Track in Survey No. 790

CartTrack in Survey No. 790

No. 633 and 790

633 00

Government Land between Survey.

Nala in Survey No. 633

632 00

Road between Survey No. 632 and

621

621 00

33 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 2, 2005/ आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

620

13) Takli Bhima (Contd .... )

619

618

617

616/2

615

614

613

579P

601

607

604

598

597

595

588

594

589

590

591

6871 3

CartTrackbetween Survey No. 591

and 518/1

518/1

518/2

517/1

515/1

514

501

500

493/2

492

491

469

467

466

465

464

463/1

463/2

448/2A

448/2B

448/1

447

446

1855 G1/05-29

22 00

761 00

12 15

16 6872

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005 /ASADHA 11.1927

445

13) Takli Bhima (Contd....)

416P

415/1

415/2

396/2B

396/2A

396/1

393

Canal in Survey No. 393

392

391

390

Nala in Survey No. 390

389

388

596/1

14) Kasari

595/1

607

606

605

604

Canal in Survey No. 604

627

634

633

644

635

636

CartTrack in Survey No. 636

641

642

643

686

684

687

688

689

685

691

692

683

1080

1081

1082

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]

27 00

92 00

26 00

99 00

42 00

09 00

97 00

93 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

6873

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 2, 2005/ आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

1084

14) Kasari (Contd....)

1085

1102

Nala between Survey No. 1102 and

1133

1134

1135

1136

1137/1

1138/1

1138/2

1139

1140/1

1140/2 41

Canal between Survey No. 1140 and

1142

1143

1144

1145

1146

1197

1199

1200/2 00

Other District Road -67 between

Survey No. 1200 and 1248

1248

1266

1267

1268

1269

1270

1271

1272

423

15) Talegaon Dhamdhere

435

437

438

440

443

444

445/1

446

449

03 874

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2, 2005/ ASADHA 11,1927

452

15) Talegaon Dhamdhere (Contd .... )

454

455

456

457

452

461

459

460

463

472

475

477

476

479

483

484

[PART II-SEC . 3( ii) ]

09 00

52 00

25 00

47 00

45 00

84 00

27 00

58 00

67 00

07 00

31 00

50 00

Road atVillage Boundary

Government Land between Road and

Survey No. 1804

1804

Canal in Survey No. 1804

1802

Road in Survey No. 1802

Nala in Survey No. 1802

1186

1184

1183

88 00

77 00

Road between Survey No. 1183 and

329

330

331

334

335

336

337

338

339

342

343

344

345/1

346

347

96 00

81 00

43 00

17 00

33 00

99 00

26 00

98 00

57 00

82 00

56 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

6875

रतका राजपत्र: जुलाई 2, 2005/ आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

348

15) Talegaon Dhamdhere (Contd....)

353

358

359

360

361

332

363

364

Canalbetevey No. 364 and

365

385

386

390

391

392

395

399

398

Government Land between Survey

No. 398 and 417

417

418

421

422

1258

16) Shikrapur

1259

CartTrackbetween Survey No. 1259

and 1260

1260

1261

1190/1

1190/2

1190/3

1190/4

1190/5

River between Survey No. 1190 and

1751

1274/1

1273

1283

1309

1308

05 00

61 00

85 00

91 00

50 00

73 00

18 00

19 00

29 00

10 00

78 00

42 00

14 00

67 00

95 00

56 00

09 00

16 00

03 00

60 00

01 00

84 00

34 00

16 00

75 00

69 00

09 6876

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005/ ASADHA 11,1927

1306

16) Shikrapur ( Contd .... )

1784

1809

1810

1811

1812

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii)]

Nala between Survey No. 1812 and

1303

1304

1367

1366

1365

1374

1376

1377

1380/1/1

1381

1845

1384/1 00

Nala between Survey No. 1384 and

1361

StateHighway-55between Survey

No. 1361 and 1572

1572

1574/A

1573

1584

1585

1586

1588

1591

1593

1592

1596

1595

1597/3

1597/2 00

StateHighway-55between Survey

No. 1597 and 1599

1599/1

1599/3 47

CartTrackbetween Survey No. 1599

and 1902

1902/1 00

38 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

6877

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 2, 2005/आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

1902/2 16) Shikrapur ( Contd .... )

1902/4 3

26 00

Nalabetween Survey No. 1902 and

2130

Nala between Survey No. 2130 and

1650

1651

1652

1455

Government Landbetween Survey.

No. 1455 and 1658

Government Land between Survey.

No. 1455 and 1661

1658

1661

1662

1663

1666

1667

1668

1669

1670/1

1671/2

1671/3

1672

1673

1674

1677

1678

1679

1680

1681/1

1284

1285/1

1742

1293

1294

03 00

StateHighway-55 between Survey

No. 1294 and 1313

1313/1A

1312

1311

1310

39 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2, 2005/ASADHA 11,1927

6878

22/1 17) Jategaon Khurd

32/3

32/1

32/2 [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)]

Roadbetween Survey No. 32/2 and

47P

49/1

50 00

CartTrackbetween Survey No. 50

and 51

57/2

57/3

60/1

60/3

68/2

68/1

00 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

6879

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 2, 2005/आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

17) Jategaon Khurd (Contd....)

92/1

92/4/1

93/2

93/1

102

107

110/1A

110/2A

110/1B

110/2B

110/4

110/3

693

18) Karandi

76 00

88 00

24 00

22 00

Drainin Survey. No. 693

692

694

Road between Survey No. 694 and

695

Canal between Survey No. 695 and

691

690

689

685

684

776

24 00

CartTrack in Survey No. 776

775

VillageRoad 53 between Survey No.

775 and 773

773

19 00

Canal in Survey No. 73

CartTrack in Survey No. 73

772

770

767

1855 GI/05-30

25 00

75 6880

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005 /ASADHA 11,1927

765/1/2 18) Karandi (Contd....)

765/1 /1A

766

909

910

911

912

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

5 00

34 00

71 00

66 00

94 00

77 00

48 00

Nala at Village Boundary

915/1

19) Pimpale Jagtap

62 00

Nala between Survey No. 915/1 and

Nalla

Nala in Survey No. 915/1

902

901

900

899

898

897/1

897/2

35 00

11 00

24 00

54 00

State Highway-55between Survey

No. 897/2 and 884

884

885

890/1

94 00

66 00

Canalbetween Survey No. 890/1 and

890/2

882

881

64 00

32 00

29 00

Road at Village Boundary

414

20)Wajewadi

52 00

Nala in Survey No. 418P

418P

39 00

Nala between Survey No. 418P and

415

416

421

411

422

27 00

18 00

59 00

00 00

25 00

Canal between Survey No. 411 and

403

403/1

399

400

398

84 00

40 00

19 6881

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 2, 2005/आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

397 20) Wajewadi ( Contd .... )

396

393

389

388

387

386

385

384

383

381

380

377

376

375

374

373

372

369

368

364

363

361

357

358

5 3

33 00

09 00

53 00

51 00

70 00

05 00

53 00

92 00

58 00

31 00

06 00

57 00

53 00

96 00

47 00

27 00

CartTrack between Survey No. 358

and 353

353

[ F. No. L-14014/48/2004-G.P .

SWAMI SINGH , DIRECTOR

नई दिल्ली, 27 जून , 2005

का. आ. 2323.- 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 . 478 तारीख 07 फरवरी , 2005, जामनगर भोपाल और काकीनाडा हैदराबाद - गोवा पाइपलाइन को आपस में जोडने के लिए गैस द्रान्सपोर्टेशन एंड इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर कम्पनी लिमीटेड द्वारा एक पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उक्त अधिसूचना के संलग्न अनूसूची में निर्दिष्ट भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी;

और, उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ जनता को तारीख 30 मार्च , 2005 को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी;

औरइन बिछाने के संबंध में जनता की ओर से प्राप्त आक्षेपों पर सक्षम प्राधिकारी द्वारा विचार कर लिया गया हैऔर अननुज्ञात कर दिया गयाः

और, सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन केन्द्रीय सरकार को अपनी रिपोर्ट दे दी है;

6882

[PART II -SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2, 2005/ASADHA 11,1927

और केन्द्रीय सरकार ने, उक्त रिपोर्ट पर हिट करने के पश्चात् और यह समाधान हो जाने पर कि उक्त भूमि में 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 घोपणा करती है कि इसके से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट 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 पाइपलाइन बिछाने के संबंध मे उपयोग का अधिकार इस घोपणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख से केन्द्रीय सरकार मे निहित होने के बजाए, सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त, गैस दान्सपोर्टेशन एंड इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्वर कंपनी लिमिटेड में निहित होगा ।

अनुसूची तहसील : चोयॉसी

जिल्ला: सुरत

सर्वे नंबर / ब्लोक नं गांव का नाम

84 1 कसोली

111

124

112

123

141

148

140

149

150

152

151

165

168

166

167

163

182

184

183

245

270

423

486

490

489

491

495

494

496

502

501

503

504

562

561

560

559

558

557

556

554

553

552 राज्य : गुजरात

आर ओ यु अजित करने के लिये क्षेत्रफल

हेकटर आरे

00 6883 [ भाग II - ख खण्ड

कःराजपत्र : जुलाई 2, 2005/आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

352

364

353

365

366

380

379

384

3 वकताना

345

230

4 बोणन्द

5 गोजा

114

6 महोणी

182

181

183

184

189

190

191

195/अ

7 सावरगाम 6884

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005/ASADHA 11,1927

तहसील: पलसाना

जिल्ला : सुरत गांव का नाम

सर्वे नंबर / ब्लोक नं

247 1 नीयोल

246

232

2300

230

221

220

211

176

1780

210

179

180

188

192

191

134

127

105

106

68/1

803

94/1

63/1

284 2अंत्रोली

288

287

289

290

299 तहसील: कामरेज

जिल्ला: सुरत गांव का नाम

सर्वे नंबर / ब्लोक नं

78 1छेड़छा

57/अ

52/प

37 2 कोसमाडा

234

228

226

225

224

260

261

283

265

266

370

363

352

353

353P

36-

356

[PART II-SEC . 3(ii)] राज्य : गुजरात

आर ओ यु अजित करने के लिये क्षेत्रफल

हेकटर आरे

राज्य : गुजरात

आर ओ यु अजित करने के लिये क्षेत्रफल

हेकटर

आरे

63 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

6885

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 2, 2005/आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

356

2. कोसमाठा ( निरंतर

357

345/ब

341

3410

342

110

4 पतोदरा

104

105

5 सशकाना

7भादा

139

140

145

108

103

100

8 कठोर

00 6886

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : J

46 कठोर( निरंतर )

68 9 अग्रामा

557/ 10 वेलंगा

305

304

303

300

294

298

297

278

285

281

280

279

259

260

264

263

242

243

205/अ

207

208/

211

212

215

214

169

200

198

197

171

190

189 11 शेखपुर

20/अ

119

118

116 पै

111

OSASAMA 11.1997

[PART I-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

이

15 6887

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 2, 2005/आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

110 शेखपुर( निरंतर )

106

105 तहसील : ओलपाड

जिल्ला : सुरत गांव का नाम

सर्वे नंबर / ब्लोक नं

102

103

106

112

113

129

130

131

183

178

176

175

258

270

277

276

286

288

289

290

130

127

114

110

108

106

105

104

97/अ

101

100

163 3सिमाल्नु

160

159

157

156

167

126

127

128

129/अ

129/

133

134

108 4बोलाव

1855 G1/05-31

राज्य : गुजरात

आर ओ यु अजित करने के लिये क्षेत्रफल

आरे

हेक्टर

.00

86 6888

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

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005/ASADHA 11,1927

159/अ बोलाव( निरंतर)

119

121

118

117

198 5अनिता

197

194

241

246

247

248

249

250

251

252

253/ अ

253/थ

290

296

315

312

313

336

314

335

334

387

393

394

395

396

397

409

399

408

407

403

404

355/व 6 उमराठी

184

185

175

174

176

177

171

169

168

102

163/य

[ ता. सं. एल-14014/37/2004-जी.पी. ]

स्वामी सिंह, निदेशक 6889 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 2, 2005/आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

New Delhi , the 27th June , 2005

S. O. 2323.-Whereas by notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O. 478 , dated the 07th February, 2005 issued urder sub- section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) (hereafter referred to as the said Act) , the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land , specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for transportation of natural gas through an interconnection between Jamnagar - Bhopal and Kakinada Hydrabad - Goa Pipeline by Gas Transportation and Infrastructure Company Limited;

And, whereas the copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on the 30th March , 2005 ;

The objection received from the public to the laying of the Pipeline have been considered and dissolved by the Competent Authority;

And whereas the Competent Authority has , under sub- section (1) of section 6 of the said Act, submitted report to the Central Government;

And whereas the Central Government, after considering the said report and on being satisfied that the said land is required for laying the pipeline, has decided to acquire the right of user therein;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub section ( 1) of the Section 6 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline ;

And, further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section (4) of section 6 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby directs that the right of user in the said land for laying the pipeline shall, instead of vesting in the Central Government, vest, on the date of publication of the declaration , in Gas Transportation and Infrastructure Company Limited free from all encumbrances .

6890

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2, 2005 /ASADHA 11,1927

ROHEDULE Tehsil : Choryasi

Stock No. Name of the Village

84 1.Kachholl

111

124

112

123

141

148

140

149

150

152

151

165

168

166

167

163

182

184

183

245

244

270

418

417

416

414

413

423

486

490

489

491

495

494

496

502

501

503

504

562

561

560

559

558

557

556

554

553-

552

352 2.Bhatiya

354

353

365

366

380

379

364

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

Area to be acquired for ROU

Hectare Are Sq.m

8888888888

18 [भाग II- खण्ड

6891

का गजपत्र : जुलाई 2, 2005/आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

346 3.Wertana

348

350

230

231

248

246

248

260

261

257

185 4.Bonand

188

1RG

190

191

178

177

132

133

113

119

97 5.Goja

104

105

111

116

113

115

114

53 6.Mahoni

238

182

181

183

184

189

190

191

195 /A

4 ?. Sabargam

District : Surat Tehsil : Palsana

Name of the Village

Survey No./Block No.

247 1.Niyol

246

232.

33(

State:Gujarat

Area to be acquired for ROU

Hectare Are

Sq.m

13 6892

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005 /ASADHA 11,1927

230P Niyol( Cont'd )

230

221

220

211

176

176P

210

179

180

188

192

191

134

127

105

106

68/1

80A

94/P1

93/1 2.Antroli

284

286

287

289

290

299

District : Surat Tehsil : Kamrej

Survey No./Block No. Name of the Village

78 1.Chhedachha

57/A

52/ P

37 2.Kosmada

234

228

226

225

224

260

261

283

265

266

371

370

363

352

353

353P

355

356

357

345/A

[PART II-SEC. 3( ii)j

State:Gujarat

Area tobe acquired for ROU

Hectare Are

Sq.m

73 [ भाग II- सखण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

6893

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 2, 2005/आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

341

Kosmada( Cont'd)

341P

342

3. Khadsad

110

4.Pasodara

102

106

104

105

5. Lashkana

5/P

166

6.Valak

137

7. Bhada

138

139

140

145

146

108

107

106

104

105

103

100

102

8. Kathor

23 6894

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUL

[PART II-SEC,3 (ii) ]

2005/ASARA 11 127

46 Kathor( Cont'd )

68 9.Abrama

557/B

305 10.Velanja

304

303

300

294

298

297

278

285

281

280

279

259

260

264

263

242

243

205/A

207

208/A

211

212

215

214

199

200

198P

198 P

197

171

190

189

188

183

182

11 11. Shekhpur

20/A

119

118

116P

111 30

18 भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 2, 2005/ आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

110 Shekhpur( Cont'd)

106

105

District: Surat Tehsil: Olpad

Survey No./Block No. Name of theVillage

102 1. Kareli

103

106

112

113

129

130

131

138

139

141

145

146

147

148

185

184

181

183

178

176

175

258

260

281

261

280/B

270

278

277

276

286

288

289

290

130 2.Syadia

127

114

110

108

106

105

104

97/A

101

100

163 3.Simalthu

160

150

157

156

167

126

127

128

129/A

129/B

133

134

108 4.Bolav

107

7 1855 G1/05-32

6895

State:Gujarat

Area tobe acquired for ROU

Hectare Are

Sq.m

Contd .... 8 6896

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2, 2005/ASADHA 11,1927

159/A Bolav( Cont'd )

119

121

118

117

198 5.Anita

197

194

241

246

247

248

249

250

251

252

253/A

253/B

290

296

315

312

313

336

314

335

334

387

393

394

395

396

397

409

399

408

407

403

404

355/B 6.Umarachhi

184

185

175

174

176

177

171

169

168

102

163/B

[ F. No. L -14014/37/2004-G.P . ]

SWAMI SINGH , DIRECTOR

नई दिल्ली, 27 जून , 2005

का. आ. 2324.- 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 बिछाएं 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, 1952 (1962 का 50 ) की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, उ भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है ;

[भाग !! - खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

6897

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 2, 2005/ आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

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 है, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के लिए उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के सम्बन्ध में श्री शिवदत्त गौड़ , सक्षम प्राधिकारी , मुन्द्रा-दिल्ली पेट्रोलियम उत्पाद पाइपलाइन परियोजना, हिंदुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, डी-7 , लालबहादुर नगर ( पूर्व ) , क्लार्क्स आमेर होटल कें सामने, जवाहरलाल नेहरु मार्ग, मालवीय नगर, जयपुर-302017 (राजस्थान) को लिखित रुप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।

अनुसूची

जिला: सिरोही

राज्य : राजस्थान

तहसील : आबू रोड

क्षेत्रफल

वर्ग मीटर

एयर

हेक्टेयर

खसरा सं.

गाँव का नाम

क्रम सं.

657

1. आवल

664

677

712

713

717

718

421

423

400

384

373

371

372

370

365

178(ग्रा.पं.सड़क)

123

135

137

142

14.9

519

2. मूंगथला

570

573(सिं.विभाग)

573(एस. विभाग)

596

594

597 (स.नाला)

1679/1

1678

1500

1498 6898

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2, 2005/ASADHA 11,1927

जिला : सिरोही तहसील : आबू रोड

गाँव का नाम

क्रम सं.

खसरा सं.

3 1

1497 2. मूंगयला (जारी...)

1472

1404

1405

1413

1414

1411

1349

1280

1281

1266

94 3. मीरगढ

32 4. तलवारों का नाका

372

369(स.नाला)

347

354

358

318

299

296

295/532

295/1

295मिन 01

281

283

278 (सिं.वि. नहर)

277/521

12 5. गणका

443

444

429

415

116

117

121

68 6. उबरखी

49(स.नाला)

[PART 11-SEC. 3 (ii) ] राज्य : राजस्थान

क्षेत्रफल

हेक्टेयर

वर्ग मीटर एयर

1 01

.00

。

}

11 [भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]

6899

का राजपत्र: जुलाई 2, 2005/आषाढ़11 , 1927

जिला : सिरोही

तहसील: आबू रोड

गाँव का नाम

खसरा सं.

क्रम सं.

3 6.

186 उमरची (जारी:-)

239

244 राज्य: राजस्थान

क्षेत्रफल

हेक्टेयर

वर्ग मीटर एयर

196मिन 01

197 0

433201

205 7. दानवाव

206

219

236

245

244

237

243

272/252

255 8. कारोली

406 00

68 64

410 (स.मगरी)

409 0

387(स.नाला)

396/2

393

233/2

232

250

121

1081 9. आमयला

1083

1093

1082 00

992मिन 01 (स. भूमि)

993

981

986

987

834/2

686

719

720

726

743 0

744(स. भूमि)

745(स.रास्ता)

752 00

61 6900

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005 /ASADHA 11,1927

[PART II- SEC . 3( ii) ]

जिला : सिरोही

तहसील : आबू रोड

राज्य: राजस्थान

क्षेत्रफल

क्रम सं.

गाँव का नाम

खसरा सं.

हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग मीटर 1

6 9. आमयला (जारी... )

750 मिन 01 (स . भूमि)

750/1175

750/1211

750/1212

142/1210

140मिन 01 (स. भूमि)

126/1191

126मिन 01 (स. भूमि)

126/1163

126/1162

。

}

122

124

409

01 10. मुदरला

404

394

339/763

341

354

358मिन

[फा. सं . आर-31015/44/2004-ओ.आर- II ]

हरीश कुमार, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 27th June , 2005

5. 2324.- 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;

Now, therefore , in exercise of powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act , 1962 (50 of 1962 ) , the Central Government hereby dece 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 , obiect in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under me land to Shi Shivdutt Gaur, Competent Authority , Mundra - Delhi Petroleum Product Pipeline Hindustar Petroleum Corporation Limited , D- 7 , Lal Bahadur Nagar ( East ) , Opp. Clarks Amer Hotel , Jaarlal Nehru Marg , Malviya Nagar, Jaipur- 302017 ( Rajasthan) .

हरोज करा ISH KUMAR [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

6901

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 2, 2005/ आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

SCHEDULE

State : RAJASTHAN

District : SIROHI

Tehsil : ABU ROAD

Khasara No. Sr. No

Name of the Village

657 1. AVAL

664

677

712

713

717

718

421

423

400

384

373

371

372

370

365 Area

Are

Hectare

Sq.mtr.

00 60

178(G.P. Road )

123

135

137

142

149

519 2. MUNGTHALA

570 0

00 68

01 42

573( Irrigation deptt. )

578 ( Irrigation deptt. )

596

594

597(G /L Nala)

1679/1

1678

1500

1498

1497

1472

1404

1405

1413

1414

1411

1349 0

1 0

0 6902

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ) THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2, 2005/ASADHA 11.1927

Tehsil : ABU ROAD

State : RAJASTHAN

District : SIROHI

Area

Sr. No

Khasara No.

Sq.mtr.

Are

Hectare

Name of the Village

1280

00 92 2. MUNGTHALA ( Contd ... )

1281

1266

40 3. MIRGARH

372

4. TALWARON KA NAKA

00 25

369(G /L Nala)

347

354

358

318

299

296

295/532

295/1

295Min01

} 。

281

283

278( Irrig. Deptt . Canal )

277/521

5. GANKA

443

444

429

415

116

117

121

85 6. UMARNI

49(G/ L Nala )

186

239

01 95

244

00 06

196Min01

197

433Min01

01 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

6903 भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 2, 2005/आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

State : RAJASTHAN Tehsil : ABU ROAD

District : SIROHI

Area

Sr. No

Khasara No.

Name of the Village

Hectare Are Sq.mtr.

205

7. DANWAV

00 64

206

219

236

245

244

00 83

237

243

272/252

00 96

255

8. KAROLI

406

410 (G/ L Magari )

409

00 68

00 42

387(G / L Nala )

396/2

393

00 24

233/2

232

250

121

1081

76 9. AMTHALA

1083

1093

1082

992Min01 (G/L)

993

981

986

987

00 38

834/2

686

719

720

726

01 09

743

744(G/L)

745(G/L Cart Track)

752

750Min01 ( G /L)

750/1175

750/1211

750/1212

142/1210

1855 GI/05-33 6904

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005/ASADHA 11.1927

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

District : SIROHI

State : RAJASTHAN

Area

Sr. No

Hectare

Khasara No.

Nameof the Village

Are Sq.mtr. 1

24 9. AMTHALA ( Contd ... )

140Min01 (G /L)

126/1191

126Min01 ( G /L)

126/1163

126/1162

122

124

38 10. MUDARLA

409

404

394

339/763

341

354

358Min

[No. R-31015/44/2004-O.R. -II ]

HARISH KUMAR , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 27 जून , 2005

का. आ. 2325.- 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. 3098 तारीख 23 नवम्बर, 2004, जो भारत के राजपत्र तारीख 04 दिसम्बर, 2004 , में प्रकाशित की गई थी, द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में गुजरात राज्य में मुन्द्रा से दिल्ली तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए मुन्द्रा- दिल्ली पेट्रोलियम उत्पाद पाइपलाइन के माध्यम से हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन 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 24 फरवरी , 2005 , को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थीं ;

और सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (1 ) के अधीन केन्द्रीय सरकार को 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 विनिश्चय किया है ;

अतः अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह घोषणा क । है कि इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाता है;

6905 भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 2, 2005/ आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (4) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह निदेश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख को केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने के बजाए , इस मंत्रालय के सहमति पत्र सं. आर 31015/7/03 ओ.आर- ।। दिनांक 25/11/2004 द्वारा लगाई गई शर्तों के हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड में निहित होगा । अध्यधाम सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त ,

अनुसूची

जिला : सिरोही

राज्य : राजस्थान

तहसील : आबू रोड

क्षेत्रफल

वर्ग मीटर

खसरा सं.

एयर

गाँव का नाम

हेक्टेयर

क्रम सं.

1. आवल

654(स.रास्ता)

655(स.रास्ता)

653(स. रास्ता)

656

657

658

662

663

664

688

691

687

685

682

681

676

677

675

712

713

714

714/1463

715

716

448

447

717

718

418

420/1

420मिन

421

428 6906

[PART II-SEC. 3( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2, 2005 /ASADHA 11,1927

जिला: सिरोही

तहसील : आबू रोड

खसरा सं.

गाँव का नाम

क्रम सं.

423 1. आतल (जारी...)

427

425

426 राज्य : राजस्थान

क्षेत्रफल

वर्ग मीटर हेक्टेयर एयर

408 (ग्रा.पं.रास्ता)

400

399

398

397

384

386

373

371

372

370

369(स.नाला)

368 (स.खालखद्दर)

335 (ग्रा.पं. आबादी)

347

348 348

08 08 01

367(ग्रा.पं.रास्ता)

366

365

178(ग्रा.पं.सड़क)

112/1

123

124

126

135

137

134

142

133/1

133

143(स.नाला)

150

147

149

148 162

162

164 2. मूंगयला

07 16

474(ग्रा.पं.चारागाह)

475

0 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

6907

का राजपत्र: जुलाई 2, 2005/आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

जिला: सिरोही

तहसील : आबू रोड

गाँव का नाम

क्रम सं.

खसरा सं.

मूंगयला (जारी...)

राज्य: राजस्थान

क्षेत्रफल

हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग मीटर

477 (स.नाला)

478

479

480(स.नाला)

519

5.20

527

526

547

549(स.नाला)

552

558(स.नाला)

557

564

566

570

569 0

572(स.नाला)

573(सिं.विभाग)

578(सिं.विभाग)

574

596

594 0

597 (स.नाला)

1704

1708

1707

1687 (स. रास्ता)

1679/1

1675

1678

1670 0

1528 (पी.डब्ल्यू.डी. सड़क)

1500

1499

1498

1497

1496 (स.रास्ता)

1471

07 6908

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005/ASADHA 11,1927

जिला : सिरोही

तहसील : आबू रोड

क्रम सं.

गाँव का नाम

खसरा सं.

3 1

1472 2. मूंगयला (जारी... )

1470

1469

1468

1474

1475

1476

1404

1405 राज्य : राजस्थान

क्षेत्रफल

हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग मीटर

40 0

33 0

20 0

15 0

17 0

1406 (स.रास्ता)

1407

1413

1409

1414

1410

1412

1411

1435

1428

1426

1350

1349

1299

1299/1

84 0

25 0

34 0

1300मिन

1300/1

1301

1280

1281

1263

1266

1267 3. मीरगढ

1(स.नाला)

76 06

88 6909 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 2, 2005/ आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

जिला: सिरोही

राज्य : राजस्थान

तहसील : आबू रोड

क्षेत्रफल

गाँव का नाम

खसरा सं.

क्रम सं.

एयर वर्ग मीटर

हेक्टेयर

44 3. मीरगढ (जारी...)

27मिन01

27(स. नदी)

86 4. तलवारों का नाका

371

372

369(स.नाला)

347

354

353

358

338(स.नाला)

337

335

334/1

334मिन

323

322

318

317

303

302

300 (स.नाला)

299

296

297

295/532

295/533

295/1

295मिन 01

294/531

293/523

293/522

293

286(स .रास्ता)

6910

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005/ ASADHA 11 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) }

जिला: खिरी

तहसील : आबू रोड

खसरा सं.

गाँव का नाम

क्रम सं.

3 1

281 4. तलवारों का नाका (जारी...)

282

283 राज्य : राजस्थान

क्षेत्रफल

हेक्टेयर

वर्ग मीटर

एयर

278 (सिं.वि. नहर)

277/521

277 0

277मिन 01

5. गणका

14 }

15(स.रास्ता)

13(स.नाला)

31 (स.रास्ता)

442

443

441

440

444

439 0

432(स. रास्ता)

429

428/2

428/1

427/1

427/2

425/2

425/1

417

416

415

414

413

71 0

114 (पी.डब्ल्यू.डी. चारागाह)

72 0

115(स.नाला)

116

117

80 भाग - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

6911

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 2, 2005/आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

जिला : सिरोही

तहसील : आबू रोड

गाँव का नाम

क्रम सं.

खसरा सं.

3 1

118 5. गणका (जारी...)

121

122 राज्य: राजस्थान

क्षेत्रफल

हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग मीटर 4

47 0

123(स.रास्ता)

124 6. उमरनी

56/1

51 0

49(स.नाला)

186

182(पी.डब्ल्यू.डी. सड़क)

232

237

238

239

242

244

209 0

196मिन 01

196/1

197

199

198

202 03

208 (सिं.वि. नहर)

427

434 0

433मिन 01

433/1

435 1855 G1/05-34

د 6912

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005/ASADHA 11,1927

जिला: सिरोही तहसील : आबू रोड

गाँव का नाम

क्रम सं.

खसरा सं .

7. दानवाव

205

204

207

209

210

217 (स .रास्ता)

219

223(स.नाला)

236

245

244

237

243

251 (पी.डब्ल्यू.डी सड़क)

252मिन 01

272/252

257मिन

256/5

256/4

256/3

256/2

256/1

255

254(स.मगरी) 8. कारोली

412(स.मगरी)

406

411

410 (स.मगरी)

409

408

387 (स.नाला)

390

391

396/2

393

394

398(स.रास्ता)

240

239/1 राज्य : राजस्थान

क्षेत्रफल

हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग मीटर 4

66 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

6913 भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 2, 2005/ आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

जिला : सिरोही

राज्य : राजस्थान

तहसील : आबू रोड

क्षेत्रफल

क्रम सं.

गाँव का नाम

एयर वर्ग मीटर

खसरा सं .

हेक्टेयर

233/1

8. कारोली (जारी...)

233/2

247/1

247/2

522/247

523/247

524/247

232

231

230

250

251 मिन 01 (स.भूमि)

528/251/1

529/251/2

530/251/3

255

256

257

258

259

125(स.रास्ता)

121

1042

9. आमयला

1037 (स.रास्ता)

2.5

1036

1081

1083

1092

1093

992मिन 01 (स.भूमि)

993

992/1168 (स.खालखद्दर)

988

986

987

977 (स.रास्ता)

976

975

969 (स.नाला)

6914

[PART II- Sec. 3( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2, 2005/ASADH411.1927

जिला सिरोही तहसील : आबू रोड

क्रम सं.

गाँव का नाम

खसरा स .

3 9. आमयला (जारी ... )

राज्य: राजस्थान

क्षेत्रफल

तर्ग मीटर एयर

868(स. भूमि)

866मिन

865

863

834/2

833/1 0

772 (पी.डबल्यू.डी सड़क)

707

708

711(स.रास्ता)

697

686

720/1147

719

720

722

723

725

726

727

743

742

744(स.भूमि)

745(स. रास्ता)

752 12

751 मिन. 01 (स.नाला)

751/1190

750 मिन 01 (स. भूमि)

750/1175 0

750/1211

750/1212

142/1219 08

142/1210

142/1213

142/1266 0

140मिन 01 (स. भूमि)

128(स.नाला)

126/1191

88 [भाग - खण्ड

6915

का राजपत्र : जुलाई 2, 2005/आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

जिला : सिरोही

राज्य: राजस्थान

अल आबू रोड

क्षेत्रफल

रूसरा सं.

गाँव का नाम

हेक्टेयर

वर्ग मीटर क्रम सं.

एयर

9. आमधला (जारी...)

126मिन ० 1 (स.भूमि)

126/1163

126/1162

}

124

658

10. मुदरला

657

612 (ल.रास्ता)

587

469/1 (स.नाला)

}

469मिन. (स.लाला)

418

419 मिन .01

} 。

419/760

424

428

18. 53

429

410

411

408

409

405

404

392/1

392मिन

394

337 (स. सड़क)

339/763

341

354

358मिन

375

374 मिन

376

373

372

371 (स.खालखद्दर)

112 (वनविभाग)

67 6916

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii )] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005/ASADHA 11,1927

जिला: सिरोही

तहसील : आबू रोड

राज्य : राजस्थान

क्षेत्रफल

क्रम सं.

गाँव का नाम

खसरा सं.

हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग मीटर 1

10. मुदरला (जारी ...)

[फा. सं. आर-31015/44/2004- ओ.आर- II ]

हरीश कुमार , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 27th June , 2005

S. O. 2325.- Whereas by a notification of the Government of India in the Ministry ofPetroleum and Natural Gas number S.O. 3098 dated the 23rd November , 2004, issued under sub-section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines ( Acquisition of Rightof User in Land ) Act , 1962 (50 of 1962 ) ( hereinafter referred to as the said Act ) , published in the Gazette of India dated the 4th December, 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 from Mundra in the State of Gujarat to Delhi through Mundra - Delhi Petroleum Product Pipeline by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited;

And whereas copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on the 24th February, 2005;

And whereas the competent authority has , under sub- section ( 1 ) of section 6 of the said Act, submitted report to the Central Government;

And whereas the Central Government , after considering the said report and on being sed that the said land is required for laying the pipeline , has decided to acquire right of user therein;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 1 ) of section 6 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule , appended to this notification , is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline;

And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (4) of section 6 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby directs that the right of user in the said land for laying the pipeline shall , instead of vesting in the Central Government , vest on the date of publication of declaration , in Hindustan Petroleum moration Limited , free from all encumbrances , subject to the conditions imposed vide Ministry's consent letter no . R- 31015/7/03 OR- II dated 25-11-2004.

6917

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 2, 2005/ आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

[ भोग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

SCHEDULE

Tehsil : ABU ROAD

State : RAJASTHAN

District : SIROHI

Sr. No

Khasara No. Name of the Village

3 1

1. AVAL

Area

Hectare Are Sq.mtr. 4

654(G/L Cart Track)

655(G /L Cart Track)

653(G / L CartTrack)

656

657

658

662

663

664

688

691

687

685

682

681

676

677

675

712

713

714 0

00 29

09 44

06 12

714/1463

715

716

448

447

717

718

418

420/1 0

04 48

420Min

421

428

423

427

425

426 0-

00 6918

[PART II-SEC . 3(ii) THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005/ASARNA 11,1927

State : RAJASTHAN

Tehsil : ABU ROAD

District :

Area

Are

Khasara No.

Hectare

Sq.mtr. Sr. No

Name of the Village

1. AVAL ( Contd ...)

408 (G.P.Carttrack)

400

399

398

397

384

386

13 14

373

371

372

370

369(G / L Nala)

368(G / L. Khalkhaddar) 0

335(GP Abadi )

347

348

367(G.P.Cart Track)

366

09 54

365

178(G.P. Road)

112/1

19 04

123

124

126

135

137

134

142

133/1

133 } 。

143 (G/ L Nala )

150

147

149

148

07 40

162

164

2. MUNGTHALA

474(G.P.Pasture)

475

0 6919 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 2, 2005/आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

State : RAJASTHAN Tehsil : ABU ROAD

District : SIROHI

Area

Sr. No

Khasara No.

Hectare Are Sq.mtr. Name of the Village

01 2. MUNGTHALA ( Contd ... )

477(G/L Nala)

478

479

480(G/L Nala)

519

12 45

520

527

526

547

549(G/L Nala)

552

558(G/L Nala)

557

564

566

570

569

03 92

572(G/L Nala)

573( Irrigation deptt.)

04 94

578( Irrigation deptt. )

574

596

594

02 34

597(G /L Nala)

1704

00 69

1708

1707

1687 (G /L Cart Track)

1679/1

1675

1678

1670

1528 (P.W.D . Road)

1500

1499

1498

1497

1496 (G /L Cart Track)

1471

1855 GI/05-35 6920

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005/ASADHA 11 , 1927

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

State : RAJASTHAN

District : SIROHI

Area

Sr. No

Are

Hectare

Khasara No.

Sq.mtr. Name of the Village

6 1

1472

40 2. MUNGTHALA ( Contd ... )

09 51

1470

1469

1468

1474

1475

1476

1404

1405

1406 (G / L CartTrack)

1407

1413

1409

1414

1410

1412

1411

1435

1428

1426

1350

1349

09 20

1299

1299/1

1300Min

1300/1

1301

1280

1281

1263

1266

1267

32 3. MIRGARH

1(G/ L Nala)

06 59

76 0921 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 2, 2005/आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

State : RAJASTHAN Tehsil : ABU ROAD

District : SIROHI

Sr. No

Khasara No.

Area Hectare Are Sq.mtr. Name of the Village

6 1

44 3. MIRGARH ( Contd ... )

00 20

27Min01

27( G /L River)

371

4. TALWARON KA ΝΑΚΑ

372

369(G /L Nala)

347

354

353

358

338(G/L Nala)

337

335

334/1

334Min

323

322

318

317

303

302

300(G/L Nala)

299

296

29 99

297

295/532

295/533

295/1

29501

}

294/531

293/523

293/522

293

286(G / L Cart Track)

[PART II-SEC . 3(ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 2, 2005/ASADHA 11,1927

6922

Tehsil : ABU ROAD

State : RAJASTHAN

District : SIROHI

Sr. No

Khasara No. Name of the Village

3 1

4. TALWARON ΚΑ ΝΑΚΑ

281

282 (contd ...)

283

Area

Hectare Are Sq.mtr.

10 87

278 ( Irrig . Deptt. Canal )

277/521

277

277Min01

5. GANKA

14 } 。

15(G/ L Cart Track)

13(G/L Nala)

12 0

31 (G / L Cart Track)

442

443

441

440

444

439 0

10 96

432(G / L Cart Track)

429

428/2

428/1

427/1

427/2

425/2

425/1

417

416

415

414

413

71 0

19 03

114( P.W.D.Pasture)

115(G / L Nala)

116

117

07 80 [ भाग - खण्ड 3 (1m) ]

6923

का राजपत्र: जुलाई 2 , 2005/आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

Tehsil : ABU ROAL

District : SIROHI

Khasara No ..

Sr. No

Name of the Village

118 5. GANKA (Contd ...)

121

122 State : RAJASTHAN

Area

Are

Hectare

Sq.mtr.

123( G / L Cart Track)

124 6. UMARNI

56/1

51 0

20 92

05 39

06 49

49(G/L Nala)

186 0

182( PWD Road)

232

237

238

239

242

244

209 0

196Min01

196/1

197

199

198

202

03 48

10 98

208 ( Irrig . Deptt. Canal )

427

434 41

03 77

433Min01

433/1

435 26

06 6924

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2, 2005/ASADHA 11,1927

Tehsil : ABU ROAD

District : SIROHI

Sr. No

Khasara No. Name of the Village

205 7. DANWAV

204

207

209

210 State : RAJASTHAN

Area

Are

Hectare

Sq.mtr .

06 48

217 (G/L. Cart Track)

219 0

04 50

223 ( G / L Nala)

236

245

244

237

243 0

251( P.W.D.Road)

252Min01

272/252

257Min

256/5

256/4

256/3

256/2

256/1

255 0

254(G /L Magari )

8. KAROLI

412(G /L Magari )

406

411 0

410 (G /L Magari )

409

40 10 42

387(G / Nala)

391

396/2

393

394 0

308(G /L. Cart Track)

210

23/1 0

02 6925 भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 2, 2005/आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

State : RAJASTHAN Tehsil : ABU ROAD

District: SIROHI

Area

Sr. No

Are

Khasara No.

Hectare

Sq.mtr. Name of the Village

233/1

70 8. KAROLI ( Contd ...)

233/2

247/1

247/2

522/247

523/247

524/247

232

231

230

250

251Min01 (G/L)

528/251/1

529/251/2

。

}

530/251/3

255

256

257

258

259

125( G / L Cart Track)

121

1042

9. AMTHALA

1037(G / L Cart Track)

1036

25 30

1081

1083

1092

1093

992Min01 ( G/L)

993

992/1168 (G / L Khalkhaddar)

988

986

987

977(G /L Cart Track)

976

975

969 (G /L Nala)

6926

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005/ASADHA 11:17

Tehsil : ABU ROAD

State : RAJASTHAN

District : SCHI

Khasara No. Sr. No

Name of the Village

3 1

Area

Hectare Are Sq.mtr.

868(G/L)

9. AMTHALA ( Contd ... )

866Min

865

863

834/2

833/1 0

02 19

772( P.W.D.Road)

707

708 0

711(G/L Cart Track)

637

686 0

720/1147

719

720

722

723

725

726

727

743

742

05 97

03 12

09 35

744(G/L)

745(G / L Cart Track)

752 0

751Min01 ( G / L Nala)

751/1190

750Min01 ( G / L)

750/1175

750/1211

750/1212

142/1219

142/1210

142/1213

19 08

142/1266

140Min01 ( G/L)

128(G/L Nala)

126/1191

6927 -खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 2, 2005/आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

State : RAJASTHAN

District: SIROHI

Tehsil : ABU ROAD

Area

Hectare Are

Khasara No.

Sr. No

Sq.mtr. Name of the Village

126Min01 (G/L)

9. AMTHALA ( Contd ... )

126/1163

126/1162

124

658

10. MUDARLA

657

612(G/L Cart Track)

12 47

587

469/1 (G /L Nala)

}

469Min (G / L Nala)

418

419Min01

419/760

} 。

424

428

429

410

411

408

409

405

404

392/1

392Min

394

337(G/L Road)

06 55

339/763

341

16 48

354

358Min

375

374Min

376

373

372

371 ( G / L Khalkhaddar )

112( Forest deptt)

1855 GI/05-36 6928

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2, 2005/ASADHA 11,1927

[PART II-SEC . 3( i)) Tehsil : ABU ROAD

State : RAJASTHAN

District : SIROHI

Area

Sr. No

Khasara No.

Hectare Are Sq.mtr .

Name of the Village

14 10. MUDARLA ( Contd ... )

04 89

[No. R- 31015/44/2004-O.R. -II ] HARISH KUMAR , Under Secy .

नईदिल्ली, 28 जून, 2005

का. आ. 2326. - 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. 2913 तारीख 3 नवम्बर, 2004, जो भारत के राजपत्र तारीख 13 नवम्बर, 2004, में प्रकाशित की गई थी, द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में गुजरात राज्य में मुन्द्रा से दिल्ली तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए मुन्द्रा-दिल्ली पेट्रोलियम उत्पाद पाइपलाइन के माध्यम से हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन 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 24 दिसम्बर, 2004 , को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थीं ;

और सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन, केन्द्रीय सरकार को 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 विनिश्चय किया है ;

अतः अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह घोषणा करती है कि इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए ;

और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (4) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह निदेश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख से केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने के बजाए , इस मंत्रालय के सहमति पत्र सं. आर 31015/7/03 ओ.आर- ॥ दिनांक 25/ 11 / 200 + द्वारा लगाई गई शर्तों के अध्यधीन सभी विल्लंगों से मुक्त, हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन नटेड में निहित होगा । [ भाग- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

6929

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 2, 2005/ आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

अनुसूची

जिला : बनासकांठा

तालूका : कांकरेज

गाँव का नाम

खसरा सं.

क्रम सं.

3 1

140 1. मांडला

139

रास्ता खसरा संख्या 139 /पी 3 और 123/पी 3 के बीच मे

123

125

127

128

129 राज्य: गुजरात

उप खण्ड

क्षेत्रफल

हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग मीटर सं.

पी1

पी4

58 0

पी3

85 पी3

52 पी1

पी4

रास्ता खसरा संख्या 129

और 19/1 के बीच मे

रास्ता खसरा संख्या 19 /2/पी 2 और 30 /पी 2 के बीच मे

रास्ता खसरा }

पी1

58 0

56 2पी1

70 }

पी1

96 0

1पी2

96 पी1

पी1

67 0

संख्या 14/पी 1 मे

590

593

594

582

581

580

579

66 2. जोटाडा

}

76 0

पी2

पी1

पी3

24 0

72 पी1

पी2

40 0

पी3

75 पी1

56 पी1

34 0

रास्ता खसरा संख्या 66

और 68 के बीच मे

}

नारी ..

6930

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005/ASADHA 11,1927

[PART II-SEC . 3( ii)]

जिला : बनासकांञ

तालूका : कांकरेज

गाँव का नाम

खसरा सं.

क्रम सं.

3 1

68 2. जोटाडा (जारी...)

188 3. जाडेल

188

62 4. नेकारिया

98 राज्य: गुजरात

उप खण्ड

क्षेत्रफल

वर्ग मीटर हेक्टेयर एयर

सं.

7 4

40 57 पी1

पी1

47 पी9

पी5

35 पी1

1पी2

पी1

20 पी2

पी3

पी2

रास्ता खसरा संख्या 98

और 101 के बीच मे

101

102

104

117

131

130

132

133

134

135

136

136 }

अ/पी1

अ/पी 2

अ/पी3

73.

50 पी1

पी2

52 पी1

पी3

50 1

रास्ता खसरा संख्या 136/1

और 161 के बीच मे

161

160

रास्ता खसरा संख्या 160 /पी 2 और 159 के बीच मे

159

158 }

44 0

89 पी2

63 }

11 0

55 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

6931

त का राजपत्र: जुलाई 2, 2005/आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

जिला : बनासकांठा

तालूका : कांकरेज

गाँव का नाम

खसरा सं.

क्रम सं.

251 5. रणकपुर

253

255

246

रास्ता खसरा संख्या 245/ 1 /पी2 और 266 के बीथ मे

266

156

299

300

308

303

304

307

306

315

रास्ता खसरा संख्या 27 /पी 1 और 66/1 के बीच मे

74 राज्य : गुजरात

उप खण्ड

क्षेत्रफल

हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग मीटर सं.

7 4

92 0

64 1 पी 1

57 पी 1

1पी 1

52 0

14 1पी2

48 }

03 0

84 0

53 0

81 0

47 पी1

66 0

19 0

53 पी1

50 1

पी1

84 0

78 }

00 1

77 0

80 0

51 पी2

88 पी1

80 0

40 0

रास्ता खसरा संख्या 74

और 73/1 के बीच मे

113 6. सदुजीवास

116

117

64 1

05 0

1पी1

32 40 पी1

पी2

29 93

44 0

55 0

रास्ता खसरा संख्या 117

और 54 के बीच मे

} 6932

[PART II-SEC. 3(ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005/ ASADHA 11,1927

जिला : बनासकांठा

राज्य : गुजरात तालूका : कांकरेज

उप खण्ड

क्षेत्रफल गाँव का नाम

खसरा सं.

हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग मीटर

सं.

क्रम सं.

7 1

31 6. सदुजीवास (जारी... )

पी2

पी1

पी2

165

7. यरा

164

163

161

2पी1

पी।

पी2

2पी2

2पी 1

पी 1

8. ताना

रास्ता नाना जामपुर गाम सीमा और खसरा संख्या 223/1 के बीच मे

223

पी 1

228

230

227

231 [ भान Ⅱ- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

6933

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 2, 2005/आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

जिला : बनासकांठा

तालूका : कांकरेज

गाँव का नाम

खसरा सं.

क्रम सं.

231 8. ताना (जारी...)

217

214

211

212

200

100 9. नाना जामपुर

100

102

101

113

117

118

रास्ता खसरा संख्या 118 /पी2 और 146/पी4 के बीच मे

146

140

139

132

131

रास्ता ताना ग्रम सीमा

और खसरा संख्या 131 के बीच मे

195 10. आंबलुन

187

189

188

178

नाला खसरा संख्या 178 /पी 1 और 167 के बीच मे

167

168

170

141

140

रास्ता खसरा संख्या 140 और 120/3 के बीच मे राज्य: गुजरात

क्षेत्रफल

वर्ग मीटर उप खण्ड सं. हेक्टेयर एयर

7 1

75 1

31 1

97 अ/पी 1

52 पी2

पी 1

11 पी1

19 पी2

42 }

पी4

75 1पी2

76 1

पी2

40 0

पी2

36 0

44 पी1

01 }

2पी 1

59 0

22 { 6934

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2, 2005/ASADHA 11 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

जिला: बनासकांठा

तालूका : कांकरेज

गाँव का नाम

खसरा सं.

क्रम सं.

3 1

120 10. आंबलुन (जारी... )

121

123

122

7 11. यली (गंगापुर)

1 12. आंगनवाडा

रास्ता खसरा संख्या 80/2 और 85 के बीच मे

106

105

110

111

114

125

124

116

123

121

122

120

141 राज्य : गुजरात

उप खण्ड

क्षेत्रफल

वर्ग मीटर हेक्टेयर एयर

सं.

41 3

67 पी1

पी2

17 पी 1

86 पी3

75 1

75 पी

पी1

40 1

72 2

30 1

31 2

33 2

पी 1

21 पी2

1पी 1 6935

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 2, 2005/ आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

जिला : बनासकांठा

तालूका : कांकरेज

गाँव का नाम

खसरा सं .

क्रम सं.

3 1

141 12. आंगनवाडा (जारी... )

141

145

146

165

181

182

184

209

210

208

207

206

238 13. दुदासण

रास्ता सापरा ग्रम सीमा और खसरा संख्या 171 के बीच मे

171

170

168

153

152

151

150

149

146

145

140

141

121

रास्ता खसरा संख्या 121 और 116/2 के बीच मे

116

58 1855 GI/05-37

राज्य : गुजरात

उप खण्ड

क्षेत्रफल

हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग मीटर सं.

30 1पी2

12 पी2

41 1

63 2पी1

54 पी1

.07

30 2

3पी1

09 05

पी 1

29 पी2

84 0

1 पी1

50 }

58 2

47 1पी2

37 पी2

68 पी1

पी1

88 0

70 1पी1

05 6936

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005/ ASADHA 11,1927

जिला : बनासकांठा

तालूका : कांकरेज

राज्य : गुजरात

उप खण्ड

क्षेत्रफल गाँव का नाम

खसरा सं .

हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग मीटर क्रम सं.

सं.

7 1

2पी1

13. दुदासण (जारी... )

रास्ता खसरा संख्या 36

और 279 के बीच मे

}

279

278

पी3

281

पी2

पी4

281

302

पी।

302

पी2

303

पी1

304

पी2

305

03 14. लक्ष्मीपुरा

123

पी3

08 91

100

102

115

146

145

पी 1

210

206

पी2

209

पी1

209

207

103

15. कम्बोइ

116

पी1

147

रास्ता लक्ष्मीपुरा गाम के खसरा संख्या 145 और खसरा संख्या 219 /पी 1 के बीच मे [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

6937

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 2, 2005/ आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

जिला: बनासकांठा

तालूका : कांकरेज

राज्य : गुजरात

उप खण्ड

क्षेत्रफल गाँव का नाम

खसरा सं.

वर्ग मीटर क्रम सं.

सं. हेक्टेयर एयर

पी1

219 .

15. कम्बोइ (जारी...)

219

पी2

219

पी3

217

220

216

208

पी1

820

पी 1

833

836

837

पी2

837

पी 1

845

पी 1

839

842

843

रास्ता खसरा संख्या 843/3

और 913 के बीच मे

}

913

1643

1646

1647

13--1

1648

0 .

1651

पी1

1650

पी2

1676

पी 2

1675

पी1

1674

1673

1693

पी2

1695

पी1

1695

1696

1700

1690

1691

1 पी2

1749

85 6938

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005/ ASADHA 11,1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii )]

जिला : बनासकांठा

तालूका : कांकरेज

राज्य : गुजरात

उप खण्ड

क्षेत्रफल गाँव का नाम

खसरा सं.

वर्ग मीटर

सं.

हेक्टेयर एयर क्रम सं.

7 15. कम्बोइ (जारी... )

रास्ता खसरा संख्या 1749 / 1 /पी 2 और 1667/पी 2 के बीच मे

1667

पी2

1766

पी1

1762

पी1

1764

1763

46 16. रावेर

1452

1411

1412

1408

1407

1413

1406

1405

1404

1397

1385

रास्ता खसरा संख्या 1385

और 1398 के बीच मे

}

1398

रास्ता खसरा संख्या 1398

और 1349/पी3 के बीच मे

}

1349

पी3

पी 1

1345

1346

पी1

1312

1311

1302

1300

1301

1181

1182

पी1

1155

पी 1

1154

1153

1150

1149

1135

1134 6939 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 2, 2005/आषाढ़11 , 1927

जिला : बनासकांठा

तालूका : कांकरेज

राज्य : गुजरात

उप खण्ड

क्षेत्रफल

गाँव का नाम

खसरा सं.

क्रम सं.

हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग मीटर

सं.

1121

40 16. रानेर (जारी...)

1119

1110

1111

1112

1078

1076

पी1

00 60

[फा. सं. आर-31015/38/2004- ओ.आर- II ]

हरीश कुमार, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 28th June , 2005

S. O. 2326.-Whereas by a notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O. 2913 dated the 3rd November , 2004, issued under sub- section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Rightof User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) . ( hereinafter referred to as the said Act ) , published in the Gazette of India dated the 13th November , 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 from Mundra in the State of Gujarat to Delhi through Mundra- Delhi Petroleum Product Pipeline by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited;

And whereas copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on the 24th December , 2004;

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 right of user therein;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section ( 1 ) of section 6 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule , appended to this notification , is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline;

And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 4) of section 6 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby directs that the right of user in the said land for laying the pipeline shall , instead of vesting in the Central Government , vest on the date of publication of declaration , in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, free from all encumbrances , subject to the conditions imposed vide this Ministry's consent letter no . R- 31015/7/03 OR- II dated 25-11-2004.

6940

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005/ASADHA 11.1927

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]

SCHEDULE

Taluk : KANKREJ

State : GUJARAT

District: BANĄSKANTHA

Area

Survey no.

Nameof Village

Sr. No.

Hectare Are Sq.mtr.

Sub- Division No.

7 1

140

29 93 1. MANDLA

139

02 85

Carttrack in between Survey

Number.139 / P3 & 123/P3

}

123

09 25

125

29 58

127

24 05

128

129

Carttrack In between

Survey Number 129 & 19/1

2P1

Carttrack In between Survey

Number. 19/2/ P2 & 30/ P2

00 96

13 54

1P2

Carttrack In

Survey Number . 14/ P1

590

593

594

582

581

18 99

580

579

2. JOTADA

{

Carttrack In between

Survey Number.66 & 68

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

6941

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 2 , 2005/आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

State : GUJARAT

District : BANASKANTHA

Taluk : KANKREJ

Nameof Village

Survey no. Sr. No.

68 2. JOTADA ( Contd ... )

73 3. JAKHEL

188

62 4. NEKRIYA

Area

Hectare Are Sq.mtr .

Sub- Division No.

21 P1

40 57

10 87

61 47

18 53

20 P5

35 P1

20 31 1P2

98 P1

34 20 0

24 20 P2

08 19

93 P2

}

Cart track In between

Survey Number.98 & 101

101

102

104

117

131

130

132

133

134

135

136

55 0 08

03 0

AP1

84 AP2

AP3

07 84

63 50 P1

60 0

55 0

44 P2

05 88 P3

12 98 2

50 1

42 0

}

Carttrack In between

Surtvey Number . 136/1 & 161

161

160

89 P2

Carttrack In between

}

Survey Number . 160 / P2 & 159

159

158

30 11

0 6942

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005/ ASADHA 11,1927

Taluk : KANKREJ

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

District : BANASKANTHA

Nameof Village

Survey no. Sr. No.

3 5. RANAKPUR

251

253

255

246

246 State : GUJARAT

Area

Sub- Division

Hectare Are Sq.mtr. No.

34 92

64 1P1

57 P1

1P1

23 52

14 1P2

05 48

Carttrack In between Survey

Number246 /1/P2 & 266

266

156

299

300

308

303

304

307

306

315

27 }

00 60

47 P1

21 1

53 P1

04 50 1

20 31 1

84 P1

Cart trackin betweenSurvey

17 00

23 51 P2

88 P1

Carttrack In between

Survey Number.74 & 73/1

113 6. SADUJIVAS

116

117 {

1P1

32 40 P1

29 93

09 44

08 55 0

}

Carttrack In between

Survey Number.117 & 54

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

6943

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 2 , 2005/आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

State : GUJARAT

District : BANASKANTHA

Taluk : KANKREJ

Name of Village

Surveyno.

Sr. No.

3 1

54 6. SADUJIVAS ( Contd ... )

69 7.THARA

165

164

163

161

16 8. ΤΑΝΑ

Carttrack In between village boundary of Nana Jampur & Survey Number.223/1

223

228

230

227

231 1855 GI/05-38

Area

Sq.mtr. Hectare Are

Sub- Division No.

7 0

31 18 0

00 42

17 28

91 P1

58 0

13 18

76 0

16 03

39 P2

07 0

19 0

18 88

49 0

2P1

13 18 0

26 P1

18 50 0

63 P2

35 2P2

19 0

37 2P1

13 89 0

11 0

09 97 3

08 55 1

0 09 25 2

40 0

23 0

{

14 25 P1

19 35

35 1

20 15 2

12 6944

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005/ASADHA 11,1927

Taluk : KANKREJ

State : GUJARAT

District : BANASKANTHA

Area Nameof Village

Survey no.

Sr. No.

Hectare Are Sq.mtr.

Sub- Division No.

231

8. TANA ( Contd ...)

217

12 58

217

214

211

212

01 56

200

100

9. NANA JAMPUR

AP1

100

102

25 48

102

101

113

117

118

08 19

118

CarttrackIn between Survey

Number.118/P2& 146/ P4

146

27 08

140

1P2

139

132

131

Carttrack In between Survey

Number . 131 Village boundary

ofTana

}

195

10. AMBLUN

24 94

187

189

188

0 09 36

178

10 44

178

Nala In between Survey

Number.178/P1 & 167

{

13 59

167

168

170

12 60

141

2P1

24 59

140

Carttrack In between

Survey Number.140 & 120/3

} 6945

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 2, 2005/आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

[ भान - खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

Taluk : KANKREJ

District : BANASKANTHA

Nameof Village

Surveyno.

Sr. No.

3 1

120 10. AMBLUN ( Contd ... )

121

123

122

7 11. THALI ( GANGAPUR)

1 12. ANGANWADA

Carttrack In between Survey Number 80/2 & 85 ---

106

105

110

111

114

125

124

116

123

121

122

120

141 State : GUJARAT

Area

Hectare Are Sq.mtr. Sub- Division No.

7 4

01 41 0

10 69

67 P1

01 P2

18 17 P1

13 86 0

16 50 1

20 0

75 P1

50 0

16 50 P1

20 22

52 0

24 22 0

09 84 0

12 65

12 40 0

-1

07 12

}

72 2

00 30 1

10 40 0

32 0

05 95 0

03 18 0

08 20 0

33 2

68 2

21 65 P1

0 08 83 P2

0 16 21 0

07 12 1P1 6946

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ji ) ]

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 2, 2005/ ASADHA 11,1927

State : GUJARAT

District : BANASKANTHA

Taluk : KANKREJ

Nameof Village

Survey no. Sr. No.

3 1

141 12. ANGANWADA ( Contd... )

141

145

146

165

181

182

184

209

210

208

207

206

238 13. DUDASAN

Area

Sub- Division

Hectare Are Sq.mtr. No.

7 4

30 0

1P2

15 00 2

06 52

92 0

74 2

58 0

74 0

23 0

12 0

41 0

44 1

63 0

2P1

54 P1

Carttrack in between Village

09 40 }

boundary of Sapara &

Survey Number.171

171.

170

168

153

152

151

150

149

146

145

140

141

121

96 0

07 84

30 2

05 3P1

36 P1

54 0

29 P2

12 47 0

10 69 0

10 0

26 0

07 91 2

23 1P1

60 0

Carttrack In between Survey

Number.121 & 116/2

116

58 }

58 2

47 0

1P2

37 P2

15 68 0

88 0

1P1

0 [भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

6947

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 2, 2005/ आषाढ़ 11, 1927

Taluk : KANKREJ

District :BANASKANTHA

Nameof Village

Survey no. Sr. No.

58 13. DUDASAN ( Contd ... )

36 State : GUJARAT

Area Are

Hectare

Sq.mtr. Sub- Division No.

2P1

66 0

96 0

62 0

09 97 1

17 03 0

Carttrack In between

Survey No.36 & 279

279

278

281

302

303

304

305

97 14. LAXMIPURA

123

100

102

115

146

145

210

206

209

207

103 15. ΚΑΜΒΟΙ

116

147 }

81 0

89 P3

12 71

00 47 P1

38 P2

19 24 1

26 P1

20 P3

09 97 1

08 91 0

09 32

37 0

36 0

12 48 1

87 0

06 0

16 0

68 P2

19 95 0

50 0

11 P1

83 0

Cart track In between Survey

Number. 145 of village

laxmipura and 219/P1

} [PART II- SEC . 3 (ii)) THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 2 , 2005/ASADHA 11,1927

6948

Taluk : KANKREJ

District: BANASKANTHA

State : GUJARAT

Area

Survey no .

Nameof Village

Sr. No.

Hectare Are Sq.mtr.

Sub- Division No.

219

15. KAMBOI ( Contd ... )

219

12 83

217

08 73

220

216

208

820

833

836

18 17

837

845

18 06

839

00 25

839

842

843

CarttrackIn between Survey

Number.843/3 and 913

{

913

1643

1646

1647

1648

01 68

1651

18 27

1650

11 04

1676

1675

1674

1673

1693

1695

17 95

1695

1696

05 70

1700

1690

1691

1P2

14 85

1749 [ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 2 , 2005/ आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

Taluk : KANKREJ

6949 State : GUJARAT

District : BANASKANTHA

Nameof Village

Survey no. Sr. No.

3 1

15. ΚΑΜΒΟΙ ( Contd ... )

Carttrack In between Survey Number.1749/1 / P2 and 1667 / P2

1667

1766

1762

1764

1763 16. RANER

1452

1411

1412

1408

1407

1413

1406

1405

1404

1397

1385

Area

Hectare Are Sq.mtr. Sub- Division No.

7 0

36 P1

04 60 0

06 41 0

14 46 0

75 0

34 1

00 2

63 0

09 19 0

00 94 1

13 00 0

01 0

30 0

76 }

Carttrack In between Survey

Number.1385 and 1398

1398 0

Carttrack In between Survey

Number. 1398 and 1349/P3

1349

1345

1346

1312

1311

1302

1300

1301

1181

1182

1155

1154

1153

1150

1149

1135

1134

18 53 0

54 P1

31 0

53 0

0 15 68

33 0

04 30 0

95 0

00 60 6950

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005/ASADHA 11,1927

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] Taluk : KANKREJ

District: BANASKANTHA

State : GUJARAT

Area Nameof Village

Survey no.

Sr. No.

Hectare Are Sq.mtr.

Sub- Division No.

1121

16. RANER ( Contd ... )

1119

01 64

1110

00 20

1111

1112

07 12

1078

1076

00 60

[No. R- 31015/38/2004-O.R. - II ] HARISH KUMAR, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 30 जून , 2005

का. आ. 2327.- केन्द्रीय सरकार , पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम, 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) की धारा 2 के खण्ड ( क) के अनुसरण में , नीचे दी गई अनुसूची के स्तम्भ ( 1 ) में उल्लिखित व्यक्ति को , मध्य प्रदेश राज्य में , उक्त अनुसूची के स्तम्भ ( 2 ) में उल्लिखित क्षेत्र की बाबत उस राज्य में अवस्थित विभिन्न उपभोक्ताओं को प्राकृतिक गैस वितरण के लिए मैसर्स गेल ( इण्डिया ) लिमिटेड द्वारा गैस पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए उक्त अधिनियम के अधीन सक्षम प्राधिकारी के कृत्यों का पालन करने के लिए प्राधिकृत करती है ।

अनुसूची

अधिकारिता का क्षेत्र व्यक्ति का नाम और पता

(1)

(2)

मध्य प्रदेश राज्य का श्री पी.एस. कर्मा , उप कलेक्टर ,

मैसर्स गेल (इण्डिया ) लिमिटेड में मानदेय आधार पर

झाबुआ जिला

गेल कम्प्रेसर स्टेशन ,

गेयलर कलां , जिला - झाबुआ

(मध्य प्रदेश)

पिन : 457661

[फा. सं. एल-14014/15/05- जी.पी. ]

स्वामी सिंह, निदेशक 6951 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 2, 2005/ आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

New Delhi , the 30th June , 2005

S. O. 2327.- In pursuance of clause ( a) of section 2 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipeline ( Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act , 1962 (50 of 1962) , the Central Government hereby authorize the person mentioned in column (1 ) of the Schedule below to perform the functions of the Competent Authority under the said Act for iaying of the gas pipeline by M /s . GAIL (India ) Limited in the State of Madhya Pradesh for distribution of natural gas to various consumers located in that State in respect of the areas mentioned in column ( 2 ) of the said Schedule..

Schedule

Area of Jurisdiction Name and Address of the person

(2)

(1)

District Jhabua

Shri P.S. Karma , Dy . Collector ,

on honorarium basis to M/ s . GAIL ( India ) Limited ,

ofMadhya Pradesh State GAIL Compressor Station ,

Gaylor Kalan , Distt. Jhabua,

(Madhya Pradesh)

Pin : 457661

[F. No. L-14014/15/05-G.P. J. SWAMI SINGH , DIRECTOR 1855 GI/05-39 6952

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 2, 2005/ASADHA 11 , 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] श्रम मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 7 जून, 2005

"WHETHER THE ACTION OF THE MANAGE- MENT OF STATE BANK OF INDIA . AGRA IN TERMINATING THE SERVICES OF SRI KRISHAN GOPAL MISHRA w.e.f. 9-7-99 IS LEGAL AND JUS- TIFIED ? IF NOT, TO WHAT RELIEF THE WORK- MAN IS ENTITLED ? "

का. आ. 2328.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, लखनऊ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या आई.डी. सं. 1/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 6-6-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/307/2000- आई आर ( बी- I ) ] अजय कुमार, डैस्क अधिकारी

MINISTRY OF LABOUR

New Delhi , the 7th June , 2005

S.O. 2328.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 1/2001) 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 State Bank of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 6-6-2005,

Worker's case in brief is that he was employed in the Chipitola Branch of State Bank of India on 1-5-99 and continued to be employed till 9-7-99 & was paid on daily wage basis at the end of the month. His work include cleaning of the table & chairs , providing water, carrying register from one table to another, taking out the files , delivering letters to other brances besides other works of the peon . Worker brought the case for regularisation on 21-6-99. through the trade union . Case was subsequently withdrawn as trade union told him that because of the termination , the case cannot proceed for regularisation , but shall proceed for reinstatement. Accordingly this case was initiated. As the worker continuously worked for 240 days in every year . his services were protected under section 25 F. G. H & N read with section 25 B. Worker has therefore prayed that the court should hold that the termination dt . 9-7-99 is illegal & unjstified & he should be reinstated with continuity of service with back wages .

[No. L- 12012/307/2000 -IR (B -I)] AJAY KUMAR. Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT :

SHRIKANT SHUKLA . PRESIDING OFFICER

I. D. No. 1/2001

Ref. No. L- 12012/ 307/ 2000 - IR (B -I ) dated : 29-12-2000

BETWEEN :

Shri Krishan Gopal Mishra S/ o

Late Kanhiva Lal Mishra . H. No. 9/498,

Mahadev Vali Gali , Moti Katra . Agra ( U.P. )

And

1. The Asstt. General Manager. State Bank of India , Chipitola,

Opposite party has denied the worker's claim . Opposite party has alleged that the person Krishan Gopal Mishra is not a worker under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act , nor the dispute is an Industrial Dispute. There are prescribed rules for recruitment of employees . Among the rules are that the vacancies are advertised in the newspaers . Employees registered at the employment exchange are considered . Selection committee is formed. The said committee conducts the recruitment proceedings . Those qualified for the post are called for the inteview & the selection committee prepares the list of selected candidates . The bank management issues appointment letters according to the need . Appointed employee is kept on probation for 6 months and after the successful completion of the term the employee is confirmed. But Sri Krishan Gopal Mishra is not the selected employee & therefore the plea that he was terminated is imaginary . It is also alleged that the claim is not maintainable . It is further alleged that Sri Krishan Gopal Mishra alongwith his associates Sri Adarash Vastmai , Satish Kumar & Mahavir used to supply water on contract basis . All above persons have been paid for the contract as per following schedule ;

Agra (U.P. ) 282001

Mahavir Satish

Adarash Vastmai

Krishan Gopal

Feb. 98

Dec. 97

April99

April 98 2. The Dy . General Manager, State Bank of India , Zonal Office Sanjay Placc . Agra (U.P. ) 282001

Mrach 98 Jan. 99

Jan. 98

May 98 AWARD

Sept. 98

July98

Oct. 98

August 98

Nov. 98

Jan. 99

April99

The Government of India , Ministry of Labour vide its order No. L - 12012 /307 / 2000 - IR ( B - I ) dated : 29-12-2000 referred the following dispute for adjudication to the Presiding Officer , CGIT -cum -Labour Court . Lucknow:

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

6953

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई2 , 2005/आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

It is admittedby the management that the case was filed before Asst . Labour Commissioner ( C) , Kanpur for regularisation & the same was withdrawn subsequently. It is alleged that the worker was not the employee of the bank nor was entitled for benefits admissible to the bank employees . It is also denied that the worker's attendence was taken. Worker has consealed to spell the rates on which he was paid. It has also been specifically denied that the bank management has taken the work of IVth class employees or peon .

The bank management has denied that the Sanjay, Surendra & Sheo Ram were made permanent & thereafter transferred . It is submitted that the said persons were appointed under prescribed recruitment procedure which shall be evident from their appointment letters .

Sri Krishan Gopal Mishra has filed rejoinder . It is not stated in the rejoinder that he was recruited/ appointed after observing the prescribed procedure of the bank. Sri Mishra has reiterated the plea taken in the statement of claim.

Sri Krishan Gopal Mishra has filed following photo copies of documents:

1. The extract of advertisement published in news papers .

2. The extract of advertisement published in news papers .

3. Application of Sri Krishan Gopal Mishra contractordt. 2-3-98 together with the banker's cheque for the amount of Rs . 3600/- 4. Application of Mahavir claiming for labour charges of Rs . 8 /-dt. 16-8-97 .

5. Statement from 1st Jan. 95 to Dec. , 98 showing receipt for amount & showing the purpose of thispayment .

6. Bill of Krishan Gopal Mishra dt . 3-10-97 for Rs. 10/-

7. Receipt of labour charges of Rs . 20/ - purproted to be signed by Krishan Goal Mishra dt . 12-3-97, 14-3-97,8-5-97.

8. Paper showing payment of Krishan Gopal on 12-6-97.

9. Receipt of Rs . 30/-dt . 14-6-97 of Krishan Gopal Mishra.

10. Application for payment of Rs . 70/-dt . 8-10-97.

11. Application for payment of Rs. 20/-dt . 2-12-97

12. Application for payment of Rs . 12/-dt . 30-1-99.

13. Application of Krishan Gopal contractordt. 3-4-99 for payment of Rs. 3600/- for providing water in the month of March 99 .

14. Unsigned statement of providing water.

15. Cash memo for charcoal & rikshaw fare dt . 14-1-99.

16. Application for providing water for the month ofJune 99 amounting to Rs . 3600/- 17. Copy of Joint application addressed to Asstt . Labour commissioner, Agra undated .

18. Copy of Joint application 3-2-99 addressed to Dy.General Manager , SBI Agra .

19. Copy of letter of AINTUC, Agra dt . 25-6-99 addressed to ALC( C) kanpurdt . 21-6-99 .

20. Bill of Satish Kumar for Rs . 30/-dt. 5-5-97 .

21. Certificate for permission to go home undated.

The Opposite party has filed following documents photo copies) :

1. Billdt. 2-3-98 of Krishan Gopal Mishra for Rs. 3600/-

2. Banker's cheque dt . 2-3-98 .

On demand by the Presiding Officer the Branch Manager (Barhan Branch of SBI ) Sri Raj Kumar filed following documents ;

1. Statement of account of staff canteenmanaged by local Implementation Committee from 1-1-95 to 31-12-99 .

2. Statement of Water & Farrash Job contract Jan. 95 to June 99 .

3. Statement of contract for cleaning of furniture & throwing out garbage .

Opposite party has filed following documents in original:

1. B.C. No. 23537 for Rs. 3600/- in the name of KrishanGopal Mishra contractor dt . 2-3-98 with slip & bill of the Krishna Gopal Contractor dt. 2-3-98 .

2. B.C. No. 399762 dt. 3-10-98 for Rs . 2400/- in the name ofManmohan contractor alongwith the slip & bill ofManohar .

3. Slipdt. 1-10-97 alongwith the bill amounting to Rs. 1800/- for collecting & throwing garbage for the month of Sept. 97 of Man Mohan Sri Krishan Gopal Mishra besides filing his own affidavit& also filed the affidavits of Tejpal Singh. Mahavir Singh & they have been cross examined, Opposite party has filed the affidavit of Branch Manager Sh . Raj Kumar & he has been crossexamined .

6954

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005/ASADHA 11. 1927

Parties have filed the written arguments . Pernsed arguments & evidence on record carefully.

Worker has no where in his statement of claim has stated that he was recruited as per prescribed procedure of the bank . On the contrary the other hand Krishan Gopal Mishra has admitted in the cross examination that his name was not forwarded by the employment exchange . He has stated in his cross examination that he was getting Rs . 609/ - per month as wages & he has denied that he was daily wage earner. He has also admitted that his attendance was not marked in register.

It is noteworthy that the worker did not disclose his monthly salary in his statement of claim .

Worker has filed photo copy of his own application addressed to Asstt . General Manager SBI , Chhipitola, Agra dt . 2-3-98 that he be paid Rs . 3600/ - for supply of water . Applications has been signed by Krishan Gopal Misra. Thekadar . The documents shows his status as contractor. The document shows that he supplied water from outside the bank in the month of Feb. Sri Krishna Gopal received the amount as well discharging himself as thekadar.

I have perused the statement of payment . The photo copy ofwhich have been filed by the Krishan Gopal Mishra . The payment to the said person has been made on the following dates :

Dates

Period

Amount

3600

1-8-97

July97

1-9-97

3600

August

3600

1-10-97

Sept. 97

28-10-97

3600

Oct. 97

1-12-97

3600

Nov. 97

1-1-98

3600

Dec. 97

3600

2-2-98

Jan. 98

2-3-98

3600

Feb. 98

3600

Sept. 98

August

2-11-98

3600

Sept. 98

3600

Dec. 98

1-1-99

From other photo copies of the documents following facts also reveal ;

3-10-97 1. Sri Krishna Gopal Mishra has been paid Rs. 10/- as labour charge displacing cooler & cleaning there of.

10-3-97 2. Sri Krishna Gopal demanded Rs . 20/ - for shifting Almirah from one place to another

14-3-97 3. Bill of Krishna Gopal for shifting Almirah amounting to Rs . 20/ -

[PART II-SEC 3 ( i) ]

8-5-97 4. Bill of Krishan Gopal for shifting Almirah amounting to Rs . 20/-

12-6-97 5. Payment ofRs . 18 for the billdt . 11-6-97

14-6-97 6. Bill for opening the petty amounting to Rs . 30/-

23-6-97 7. Bill for cleaning the tank for Rs . 50/-

18-10-97 8. Bill for Rs . 70/- for labour charges & rikshaw fare for shifting furniture to the residence of Sri R.D. Sharma.

2-12-97 9. Bill for shifting ledger labour charges Rs. 20/-

20-1-99 10. Bill for going to telegraph office

3-4-99 11. Bill for providing water by Krishan Gopal amounting to Rs . 3600/- for the month ofMarch , 1999

1-7-99 12. Bill for the supply of water for the month ofJune , 1999 to Krishan Gopal Thekadar Documents speaks of its nature and contrary to contents can not be believed . The last bill is dated 1-7-99 which pertains to the year month of June , 1999 From the documents of the opposite party it is also clearthat Sri Krishan Gopal also supplied water in the month ofMarch 1999 , April 1999, May 1999 .

There is not a single document which can show that Krishan Gopal Mishra was ever paid Rs 600/ - per month as the worker has tried to say in the cross examination.

In case the worker was discharging the duties of peon. he should not have billed the opposite party for carrying ledger from one place to another or for shifting tables etc. Charging labour charges for misclanious work for a few days shows that he was not at all discharging the duties of peon as claimed by Sri Krishan Gopal Mishra .

Photo copy of the advertisement has been filed on behalf of Sri Krishan Gopal Misra . The said document is not authentic , However, on bare reading it is regarding providing opportunity to the temporary & daily wager who were emploved as such between 1-7-95 to 31-7-88 & who were between the age group of 18 to 26 year at the time of initial appointment. Provided further such workers have put in 240 working days in one calander year or 270 days continuous working in 36 calander month . By second notice those employed between 1-7-75 to 14-8-91 were to be considered.

In the para 12 of he statement of claim the Sri Krishan Gopal Mishra has stated that he worked in the bank from 1-5-85 to 9-7-99 . The said statement of claim is accompained by the affidavit in which the worker first declared his age & subsequently changed to 29 years . Subsequently worker filed another affidavit on 12-4-2002 stating that he was initially duly selected & appointed as regular peon/ messanger on 9-7-99 by the [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

management of State Bank of India . In subsequent para 6 it is stated that appointment letter was not supplied to him.

Although the worker has tried to say that his wages were Rs . 600/ - per month but in another application dt . 1-8-2001 he has stated his salary as Rs . 900/- Consolidated. This application is also accompanied by affidavit.

This shown that the worker has come to court with imaginary allegations of salary & the date of his initial engagement . Opposite party Bank is nationalised bank of the country, no one can ever believe that a regular appointed person will not be provided the appointment letter. The photo copy of advertisement filed by Krishan GopalMishra is of no help to him .

Sri Krishan Gopal Mishra has to prove the allegation of his statement of claim that he was employed as workman . Although in para 2 of the affidavit dt . 12-4- 2002 , he has stated that he was initially duly selected appointed/ engaged as regular peon/ messanger on 9-7- 99 by the management of State Bank of India , Chhipitola Agra for performing regular perenial work , but this can not be taken to be true in absence of any appointment letter. Had he been appointed as alleged by him . why the trade union shall file a case for regularisation . Sri Krishan GopalMishra's own documents make it clear that he was not the regularly appointed employee of the Bank . More over he has himself admitted that he was neither interviewed or nor his name was forwarded by the employment Exchange .

The Bank's representative has argued that whenever Sri Mishra rendered any service as a contractor payment for the same was made to him & at the same time whenever the work of casual or temporary nature is taken, wages for the day or the work are paid on the basis of the volume of work. Accordingly on a few days the worker was paid for casual work as is evident from the documents the details for which have been given at page no 5 & 6.

Management representative has also argued that Sri Tejpal & Mahavir Singh have filed their affidavits in which they have twisted the facts and also stated false events otherwise they have made such statements only with a view to favour Sri Krishan Gopal Mishra although they cannot be said to be competem witness to state these facts which cannot by any imagination be in their knowledge . Sri Tejpal Singh who was in subordinate cadre cannot derive knowledge about the nature of appointment or engagementement of concerned person Sri Krishan gopal Mishra . As far as Sri Mahabir Singh's evidence is concerned the representative of the management has argued , that even he was never appointed engaged as regular peon/messanger nor he never performed regular

6955

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 2, 2005 /आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

or perennial work . Regarding Experience Certificate , representative has argued that it is undated in as much as it appears that the said annexure relates too curfew pass for the issuance of which alleged Branch Manager has or had no authority. Accordingly the said letter is fabricated document . Sri Mahabir Singh was never a permanent employee.

In the present case the volumes of the documents filed by the parties explains the nature of job/work to executed by Sri Krishan Gopal Mishra and it does not need explanation . The documents do not show that Sri Krishan Gopal Mishra was a regular peon/ messanger of the State Bank of India . He was even not a regular or casual worker . There existed no relationship of employer and employee between the parties . The industry has to resort to such petty contractors in the interest of the industry, such as water supply, collecting and disposing garbage etc. In the circumstances I come to the conclusion that Sri Krishan Gopa! Mishra was not the employee of the Bank and therefore there arise no question of termination of his services . Issue answered in favour of the management . Worker therefore is not entitled for any relief. Lucknow

26-5-2005

SHRIKANT SHUKLA, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 7 जून , 2005

का. आ. 2329 औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार नार्दन रेलवे के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण- चंडीगढ़, के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या आई.डी. सं. 183/1991 ) को प्रकाशित करतीहै , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 06-06-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-41012/22/91 - आई आर ( बी-1 ) ] अजय कुमार, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 7th June , 2005

S.O. 2329.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act . 1947 ( 14 of 1947) . the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( I.D. No. 183 / 1991 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court - 1 Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Northern Railway and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 06-06-2005.

[No. L-41012/22 /91 - IR ( B - I) ]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer 6956

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005/ ASADHA 11 , 1927

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM- LABOUR COURT- 1 , CHANDIGARH Case No. I.D. - 183/ 1991

Shri Madan Lal

C/o General Secretary, Northern Railway Karamchari Union , T4A. Railway Quarter Bhagtawala, Amritsar

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] I found that reference is for imposing of penality of witholding increments temporarily for one year and there is not much monetary gain to the LRs of the workman his AR is also not appearing and similar is the case of his LRs . I have also verified that on earlier dates also his AR not appeared and has also not appeared today . It appears that no one is interested to persue the present reference for copy anymore therefore , the present reference is returned to the Central Govt . for want of prosecution Central Govt. be informed . File be consigned to the Record Room. Announed.

Applicant

Versus

(1 ) General Manager, Northern Railway. Baroda House , New Delhi .

(2) The Deputy Chief Machanical Engineer, Mechanical Workshop , UttarRly . Amritsar.

(3) Divisionl Railway Manager, Uttar Rly. Ferozepur Cantt . (Punjab)

16-5-2005

RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 7 जून , 2005

Respondents

APPEARANCES

For the workman : None for workman or Lrs . or AR of the workman

For the management : Shri P.P. Khurana Advocate

AWARD

Passed on 16-5-2005

Central Govt. vide notification No. L -41012/ 22/91 /IR (D.U. ) dated 5-12-1991 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

"Whether the action of the management of Northern Railway in imposing upon Shri Madan Lal , the penality ofwithholding increment temporarily for one year is justified as a result of final orders passed vide letter No. 727 -E /D - 38 (Ei) POT. I dated 11-2-1985 ? If not , what relief the workman is entitled to and from what date?"

2. OneAD card received back duly served and received by Subhash Talwar, General Secretary who is appearing for the workman he did not appear . Management advocate Sh . Khurana submit that as none is appearing for the workman since 1-10-03 thereafter 1-4-04 , 12-5-04 , 28-10-04, 5-1-05 , 21-3-05 , 11-04-05 and today and it appears that workman's LRs are not interested nor the representative who has been duly served for today is present . Workman also expired and it is a petty matter of witholding one increment for one year and there is no fresh ground of relief has been made by the workman or his LRs for the consideration for the relief as the workman is dead .

3. In view of the above submission of Sh . P.P. Khurana Id . Advocate of the management and my persual of record का. आ. 2330.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक आफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण सं . I , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 74 का 1997 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 06-06-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -12011/62/95- आई आर ( बी-1 ) ] अजय कुमार, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 7th June , 2005

S.O. 2330.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 74 of 1997) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. - I Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on06-06-2005 .

[No. L - 12011 /62 / 95 - IR ( B - I ) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . I, DHANBAD .

In the matter of a reference U/ s. 10 ( 1 ) ( d) of the I.D. Act . Reference No. 74 of 1997

Parties: Employers in relation to the management of A.G.M. State Bank of India , Ranchi .

AND Their Workmen

PRESENT

Shri S. Prasad , PresidingOfficer [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

6957

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 2, 2005/आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

APPEARANCES :

For the Employers : Shri R.N. Ganguly, Advocate. For the Workman : None

State : Jharkhand .

Industry :Bank Dated, the 16th May, 2005

AWARD

By Order No. L - 12011/ 62/95 - IR (BI) dated 11-3-1997 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has , in exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( d) of sub- section ( 1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947, referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:

"Whether the action of State Bank of India manage- ment in not paying the regular scale of that cadre to the concerned workmen (S/Shri R.P. Dubey, H.Ν. Bharti , Ali Mohammad , R. Singh and S. Mahli ) and not regularising them in Bank's service even after putting continuous 10 years of service is proper and justified? If not , to what relief the concerned work- men are entitled to ?"

2. This reference was received by this Tribunal on 1-4-97 and written statement was filed on behalf of the workmen on 27-8-97 . Thereafter none is appearing on behalf of the workmen, though several opportunities were given to them. Despite notice none had appeared even on 10-5-2005 . It therefore appears that neither the concerned workmen nor the sponsoring union is interested to proceed with the case .

In such circumstances , I render a ' No Dispute ' Award 3. in the present reference case .

S. PRASAD, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 7 जून , 2005

का. आ. 2331.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक आफ इंदौर 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 का 38 आफ 2004) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 06-06-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -12012/ 14/2004 - आई आर ( बी-1 ) ] अजय कुमार, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 7th June , 2005

S.O. 2331. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( ID No. 38 of 2004) 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 State Bank of Indore and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on06-06-2005 .

[No. L- 12012/ 14/2004 - IR(B -I) ]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI SURESH CHANDRA PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT, LOKADALAT, SARVODAYA NAGAR, KANPUR Industrial Dispute No. 38 of 2004

Inthe matter of dispute between:

Sri Vinod Kumar Gaur,

S/o Sri Gorakhnath Gaur, 105/272 Sisamau, Kanpur.

And

TheManager, State Bank of Indore , Branch Gumti No. 5, Kanpur.

AWARD

1. Central Government , Ministry of Labour, New Delhi , vide its notification No. L- 12012/14/2004 /IR (B -I ) dt. 13-5-2004 has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal :

Kyaprabandhan State Bank of Indore , Kanpur dwara Sri Vinod Kumar Gaur Atmaj Sri Gorkhnath ko dinank 6-11-2002 se sewa samapta kiyajana nyayochit hai? Yadi nahi to sambandhit karmkar kis anutosh ka haqdar hai?

2. In the instant dispute after receipt of reference fromtheMinistry repeated notices through registered post were sent to the concerned workman for filing of his statement of claim in support of his case. But neither the workman, turned up nor filed his statement of claim . Management put their appearance in the case by way of filing letter of authority on behalf of Sri Neeraj Sharma . It therefore appears that the workman is not interested in prosecuting his case any more . Therefore , the tribunal is left with no other option but to hold that the concerned workman is not entitled for any relief for want ofpleading and proof.

3. Reference is therefore decided against the workman and in favour of the management .

SURESH CHANDRA, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 8 जून, 2005

का. आ. 2332.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, सी.आई.पी.ई.टी. प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट 6958

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005 /ASADHA 11 , 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय, लखनऊ ( संदर्भ संख्या 118/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 2-6-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था । :

[सं. एल -42012/17/2000- आई आर ( सी- II ) ]

एन.पी. केशवन, डैस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 8th June , 2005

the rate of Rs . 2500 from till 7-5-98 , although wages were paid only upto 30-4-99 work included that of Mason , plumbering, maintenance repairing, gardening, etc. The organisation includes workshop , hospital , garden , etc. It is also alleged that the employer used to collect attendance card every month the worker was not provided with appointment letter, pay slip, leave book, etc. therefore , the evidences are not in the possession of the employee and these are in the possession of employer . The employer terminated the employee's services in the A.N. of 7-5-99 without notice, notice pay or compensation . Worker has therefore prayed for reinstatement with all service benefits together with the wages for the period of 1-5-99 to 7-5-99 S.O. 2332. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 118/ 2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court , Lucknow now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Central Institute of Plastic Engineering and Technology and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 08-06-2005.

The worker Sri Rakesh Kumar Sahu has in his rejoinder alleged that the employer without any reason stopped taking work since 1-5-99 , by oral orders and that too without any notice , notice pay compensation although he did put in more than 240 days work .

[No. L - 42012/17/2000 - IR(C- II) ]

N.P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

Present :

Shrikant Shukla, Presiding Officer

I. D. No. 118/2001

Ref . No. L -42012 / 17/2000- IR( C - II) dt . 6-7-2001

Between:

Rakesh Kumar Sahu S/o Pal Sahu through Om Narayan Sahu , Ex - General Secretary, Lok Mazdoor Sabha , UP F-3351 , Rajaji Puram . Lucknow

And

The Dy. Director, CIPE & Technology B -27, Amasoi Industrial Area, Kanpur Road, Lucknow

AWARD

The Government of India , Ministry of Labour referred the following dispute to Presiding Officer , CGIT- cum- Labour Court , Lucknow for adjudication :

"Whether the action of the Central Institute ofPlas- tic Engineering & Technology, Lucknow in terminat- ing the services ofSh. Rakesh Kumar Sahu w.e.f. 7-5-99 is legal and justified ? If not , to what relief Sh. Sahu is entitled to ? "

The opposite party has denied the claim and has alleged that the Central Institute of Plastic Engineering& Technology, Lucknow is a Government Body registered under Societies Registration Act and is autonomous body inparding education in the filed of Plastic Engineering & Technology. It has been submitted that the service of mason, plumbers , labourers are required from time to time for the maintenance of the Institute Building for which persons are engaged either or daily rates , piece rate or on contract basis . Institute has been engaging the services of Sri Rakesh Kumar Sahu who is basically a mason and plumber from time to time either on daily wage basis or piece rate basis depending upon the nature of work and its duration. He was working as labour in Jan. and Feb. 1997 on daily wages . The area behind the building of the Institute starting from the hostel side and bund the service block was lying in a haphazard and aneven state with an outgrowth of dense jungle weeds . So it was felt that for developing this area contract be given to some person for carrying out the work . Since Rakesh Kumar Sahu who is a mason and a plumber and general contractor as would appear from his letterhead gave his offer on 26-2-97 for carrying out the above work on fixed rates and also stated that the work would be completed in five months . The offer was accepted vide letter dt. 1-3-97 . He was awarded the contract for carrying out gardening work within 5 months . The work was got done by Pakesh Kumar Sahu by employing minimum 5 labours . After completion of the above work Rakesh Kumar Sahu was given the work of planting 450 trees and irrigating the same for 15 days Rs . 7000 was paid to him against his billdt . 1-9-97. It was also felt that the maintenance and repairs as well as fresh work be given to him on a fixed charge of Rs. 2500 per month for vear starting from 1st May, 1998 subject to renewal fron time to time if required . He was required to provide manpower & other things for the purpose of carrying out Sh . Rakesh Kumar Sahu has alleged in his statement of claim that he was employed in picce rate wages maintenance work since March 1994 and thereafter since 1-5-98 he was employed on monthly wages at thework as required. The contract expired on 30-4-98 and it 6959 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 2, 2005/ आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

Worker was given an opportunity to put forward his oral submission , but he denied and pressed his written argument should be taken into account , on the other hand opposite party's representative submitted his oral submissions .

I have carefully gone through the written arguments ofparties and oral submissions of opposite party perused evidence on record .

was not renewed . As such he ceased to be the contractor formaintenance work after 30-4-98 . It is also submitted that the entry in the institute is restricted . For this purpose he was issued entry card which was required to be punched at the gate for entry in the institute and also for the purpose of.service charges . It is submitted that there is no post of mason in the institute . As and when mason is required they are brought from the market on daily rate basis or the work is done through contractor depending upon the nature ofwork . Opposite party has alleged that it is false to say that Rakesh Kumar Sahu worked till 7-5-99 . There is no question of issuing appointment letter or pay slip . Entry card too is not a proof of employment. Claim statement and alleged to be false , frivolous and misconceived and the worker is not entitled to any releif.

The opposite party has filed following photostat copies of documents with their written statement .

Worker has admitted in his cross examination that given a letter on 24-2-97 that the labour rate for levelling long lying on the back is 70 paisa per ft and also 5 labours will be required and the work shall require Rs . 7000 per month and the work shall be completed within 5 months. the work involved levelling , planting , extracting of hard substance as stones and kanker etc. The worker has also admitted that paper no . 28/6 is photo copy of his letter. The letter is reproduced below:

राकेश कुमार साहू

1. Letter of acceptance of the contractdt . 26-12-97.On the letterhead specifying the nature of work and the amount , engagement of labour (Ann . I to Written Statement) .

राज मिस्त्री एवं प्लम्बर म. नं. ईएसडब्ल्यू614 , सेक्टर आई, एल.डी.ए. कालोनी, कानपुर

रोड, लखनऊ

सिपेट

लखनऊ

2. Letter of acceptance of the contract dt. 1-3-97 by opposite party (Ann. I to Written Statement) .

दिनांक 26-2-97

महोदय,

3. Bill No. 43 of Rakesh Kumar Sahu dt. 1-8-97 ( Ann . III ofWS).

( 1 ) पीछे के लान बराबर करने के लेबर की मजदूरी 70 पैसे प्रति फिट देने की कृपा कीजिये ।

4. Extract of file note sheet of the opposite party dt . 2-9-97 (Ann . IV to WS) .

(2) 5 लेबर प्रतिदिन लगायेंगे 7000/ - प्रति माहं दर से होगा ।

लेबिल करना ।

(1)

5. Extract of file note sheet of the opposite party dt . 23-4-98 ( Ann . V to written statement) .

(2) घास की सफाई करना।

6. Extract of attendance register July 1998 to May 1999.

(3) पौधे लगाना।

(4) कंकड़ पत्थर भूमि से निकलवाना। 7. Gate pass issued to the workman from Jan. 1999 to April 99 .

(5) वृक्ष की सफाई, गुडाई ।

8. Payment voucher no . 1805 , 1803 dt . 31-12-98 for Rs . 2500 .

राकेश कुमार साहू 26-2-97 9. Statement of daily rated labours of Rakesh Kumar Sahu.

10. Extract of note sheetdt. 31-12-98 .

11. Statement of labour detailed.

12. Payment voucher no . 1639 dt . 2-12-98 for Rs . 2500 . 1640 dt. 2-12-98 for Rs . 2822, 1426 dt . 2-11-98 for Rs . 2500 1432 dt . 2-11-95 for Rs . 2264, 1281 dt . 30- 9-98 for Rs . 2500 , 1000 dt . 5-10-95 for Rs . 3210 alongwith the labour maintenance details .

Rakesh Kumar Sahu for the worker and Dr. Vijay Kumar for the opposite party have filed the affidavits and they have been cross examined by each other.

Dr. Vijay Kumar has stated in the alfidavit that Rakesh Kumar Sahu is a mason and plumber and general contractor as would appear from his letter head , gave offer on 26-2-97 for carrying out the work on fixed rates and also stated that the work would be completed in 5 months The true copy of which has been filed by the opposite partyas Ann. I of his affidavit. Dr. Vijay Kumar , Dy. Director Central Institute of Plastic Engineering and Technology . Lucknow ( hereinafter referred to as the Institute) has stated in para 6 ofhis affidavit that the offer of Sri Rakesh Kumar Sahu was accepted for the said work and vide letter dt . 1-3-97 he was awarded the contract for carrying out the gardening work for five months. The work was done by Sri Rakesh Kumar Sahu by employing minimum of 5 Employer has filed the written argument, worker has also filed the written arguments.

1855 GI/05-40 6960

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005 /ASADHA 11.1927

labourers. The ture copy of letter has been annexed to the affidavit as Ann . II which reads as follows :

सेन्ट्रल इन्स्टीट्यूट आफ प्लास्टिक्स इन्जीनियरिंग एंड टेक्नालाजी (रसायन एवं उर्वरक मंत्रालय, भारत सरकार ) Central Institute of Plastics Engineering and Technology (Ministry of Chemical and Fertilizer) बी-27 अमौसी इन्डस्ट्रियल एरिया , लखनऊ -226008

1-3-97 सिपेट: बागवानी/96-97/

श्री राजेश कुमार साहू नं. 664, सेक्टर आई

एल.डी.ए. कालोनी , कानपुर रोड, लखनऊ

विषय : कैम्पस में बागवानी कार्य

आपको CIPET कैम्पस में हास्टल ब्लाक के सामने बाउन्ड्री वाल से लेकर सर्विस ब्लाक के सामने बाउन्ड्री वाल तक पीछे के हिस्से की जमीन को समतल/बागवानी के लायक बनाने का कार्य निम्न शर्तों पर 1-3-97 से 31-7-97 तक 5 माह के लिये दिया जाता है । (1 ) जमीन की 1 फीट की गहराई तक खुदाई करना। (2 ) खुदाई के बाद कंकड़, पत्थर, घास निकालना एवं एक जगह इकट्ठा करना ।

(3) जमीन में गुडाई कर पौधे लायक बनाना ।

(4) जमीन समतल कर क्यारी बनाना ।

(5 ) जमीन में पहले से लगाये पेड़ों का रख- रखाव करना । (6 ) प्रत्येक माह में पर्याप्त मात्रा में मजदूर लगाकर कम से कम 150 दिवस प्रतिमाह कार्य होना चाहिये ।

(7 ) सम्पूर्ण कार्य 5 माह में 5-7-97 तक सन्तोषजनक ढंग से पूर्ण करना होगा ।

(8 ) आपको प्रत्येक माह की अन्तिम तिथि को माह के मजदूरों की उपस्थिति का विवरण तथा माह में किये गये कार्य का कुल एरिया कार्यालय में प्रस्तुत करना होगा ।

(१ ) आपके द्वारा प्रस्तुत बिल का मौलिक सत्यापन के उपरान्त आपको 7000/- ( सात हजार रुपये ) प्रतिमाह भुगतान किया जायेगा ।

(10 ) माह जुलाई 97 को भुगतान सम्पूर्ण कार्य सन्तोषजनक ढंग से पूर्ण करने पर ही किया जायेगा ।

( 11 ) यदि किसी माह में मजदूरों की उपस्थिति कम रहती है या कुल किये गये कार्य का एरिया कम पाया जायेगा तो उसी अनुपात में मासिक भुगतान से कटौती की जायेगी । (12) मासिक भुगतान से 2 % इनकम टैक्स की कटौती की जायेगी ।

[PART I -Str. 3 ( ii ) ] .

(13) एक बार तैयार किये गये एरिया में पुनः घास उगने पर उसको भी समय - समय पर साफ करना होगा । यदि आप उपरोक्त नियम एवं शर्तों से सहमत हैं तो इस पत्र के द्वितीय प्रति पर हस्ताक्षर कर इस कार्यालय को वापस करे ।

सभी शर्तों से सहमत हूं ।

डा. विजय कुमार ह:/- ह०/- ह ०:- उपनिदेशक

आर. के. साहू

Dr. Vijay Kumar has also stated in para 7 of the affidavit that Rakesh Kumar Sahu was further given work ofplanting 450 trees and irrigating the same for 15 days for Rs . 7000/-. The said work was completed and payment of Rs . 7000/- was made to him against his billdt . 1-9-97 . True copy of office note and billdt. 1-9-97 have been filed by Dr. Vijay Kumar as Ann . 3 of the affidavit .

Workerhas stated in his cross examination at para 5 that he was awarded contract to planting 450 trees andhe planted then and this work was for Rs . 7000 /- He alleges that he carried out the job but the payment was not made.

The bill of Rakesh Kumar Sahu Ann. 3 is dt . 2-9-97 for Rs . 7,000 /- the extract of note sheetdt . 2-9-97 of Admn. Asstt. signed by Sr. Accounts Officer and Dy. Director as reproduced below:

श्री राकेश कुमार साहू को सिपेट कैम्पस में हास्टल ब्लाक से लेकर सर्विस ब्लाक तक की जमीन को समतल कर पेड़ पौधे लगाने बनाने हेतु माह मार्च , 1997 से 31-7-97 तक 5 माह के लिये रु. 7000/- प्रतिमाह की दर से दिया गया था। श्री राकेश कुमार साहू को जो एरिया दिया गया था । उस एरिया को निर्धारित समय में पूरा कर लिया गया है जिसका अन्तिम भुगतान श्री राकेश को कर दिया गया है । उक्त कार्य के अतिरिक्त राकेश साहू को गेस्ट हाउस हेतु प्रस्तावित जमीन की सफाई तथा उनके द्वारा तैयार की गई जमीन में पेड़ लगाने का कार्य भी माह अगस्तमें अलग से दिया गया, जिसमें 450 पेड़ों के गढ्ढे खोदकर उसमें बालू खाद मिलाकर डालना तथा 450 पेड़ लगाकर उनकी 15 दिन तक नियमित सिंचाई की गई जिस कार्य हेतु श्री राकेश साहू ने रु. 7000/ - का बिल प्रस्तुत किया है । माह अगस्त में लिये गये कार्य का निरीक्षण किया गया तथा श्री राकेश कुमार साहू द्वारा प्रस्तुत दैनिक मजदूरी बिल में अंकित कुल मानव दिवस 160 में श्री राकेश साहू की उपस्थित के दिन घटाकर ( 160-29 ) 131 दिन का भुगतान रु. 40/ - प्रति दिन की दर से कुल भुगतान 5240/- ( पांच हजार दो सौ चालीस रुपये ) के भुगतान की प्रस्तुति की जाती है । आवश्यक स्वीकृति हेतु प्रस्तुत ।

ह ० ह ० उपनिदेशक ह ०

लेखाधिकारी

प्रशासनिक सहायक Dr. Vijay Kumar has stated in para 8 of the affidavit that it was felt that the maintenance service contract for maintenance repair as well as fresh work be given to him on a fixed service charge of Rs . 2500/- per month for one year [ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 2 , 2005/ आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

starting from 1st May, 1998 subject to renewal from time to time if required . It is relevant to mention here that the maintenance work was not to be carried out by Rakesh Kumar Sahu . He was required to provide man power and other things for the purpose of carrying out the work as required . A true copy of dt . 23-4-98 has filed as Ann . 5 of the affidavit which is reproduced below :

Ann . No. 5 CIPET CENTRE LUCKNOW

23-4-98

NOTE

For the maintenance and repairs of all plumbering and brick masonry related works , the Centre has been engaging the services of Sri Rakesh Kumar Sahu since the last five years or to . He functions as a mason ( i.c. ) semi skilled type of worker for both nature of jobs and has proved good and sincere services . The service charges were being paid either on daily wages basis or piece rate basis depending on the type of work . Besides the individual has also supplied labour for jungle clearance beautification, tree planting and maintenance of the backside of the premises.

It is felt that it would be more economical and in the overall increases of the Centre if the maintenance service contract for maintenance , repair as well as fresh work be given to Rakesh Kumar Sahu on a maintenance service charges of Rs . 2500 / - p.m. The labour charges for labour engaged would be payable separately on daily wages basis . As no separate charges for each individual work will be payable to Sri Rakesh Kumar Sahu , the return to the Institute in terms of his service would be available for brick masonary, plumbering related works as well as other misc . type of works which would be assigned to him now and then. The service contract can be for a period initially of one year w.e.f. Ist May, 1998 subject to renewal from time to time if required.

The proposal may please be approved .

Sd/- ADMN . OFFICER Sd/- MANAGER PROCESSING

Sd/- MANAGER ACCOUNTS

Sd/- DY. DIRECTOR

In the present case followings sections of Industrial Dispute Act , 1947 are relevant which are reproduced below:

2( s) "workman " means any person ( including an apprentice employed in any industry to do any manual. unskilled . skilled. technical , operational , clerical or supervisory work for hirè or reward, whether the terms of

6961 employment be express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with , or as a consequence of that dispute, or whose dismissal discharge orretrenchment has led to that dispute , but does not include any such person-

(i) who is subject the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), or the Army Act , 1950 (46 to 1950 ) or the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957) ; or

(ii) who is employed in the police service as an officer or other employee of a prison ; or

(iii) who is employed mainly in a management of administrative capacity: or

( iv ) who being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding one thousand six hundred rupees per mensum or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him , function mainly of a managemental nature.

2( 00)

"Retrenchment " means the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action but does not include;

(a) Voluntary retrenchment of the workman; or (b) retrenchment of the workman on reaching the age of superannuation if the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned contains a stipulation in that behalf: or

(bb) termination of the service of the workman as a result of the non - renewal of the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry or of such contract being terminated under a stipulation on thatbehalf contained therein ; or

Ist question is whether their exists the relationship ofemployer & employee amongst the parties .

It is admitted fact that Sri Rakesh Kumar Sahu presented the quotation on 26-2-97 to the opposite party specifying the labour rates for levelling the lawn with the clear operation to be under taken . The said quotation is submitted on the printed letter head disclosing his identity as "Raj Mistri & Plumber " & home address . The said quotation was accepted by the opposite party as is evident from the letter No. Bagwani/ 96-97 dated 1-3-97 of the opposite party. From the documentary evidence it is proved that the said contract was acted upon . This clearly shows that their is not relationship of employer & employees between the parties .

6962

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005/ASADHA 11 , 1927

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

Rakesh Kumar Sahu has in his statement of claim has tried to show that he worked with the opposite party as employee upto 7-5-99 but he was paid for the period upto 30-4-99 . However, he could not conceal this fact that he remained in service upto 1-5-99 in the rejoinder. The relevant extract of his rejoinder is reproduced below:

There is another contract between the parties . Under office notedt. 23-4-98 the opposite party further issued job order to Sri Rakesh Kumar Sahu for maintenance, repair as fresh work at the service charge of Rs. 2500/ - p.m. It was also provied that the labour charges for labour engaged would be paid seperately on daily wage basis as no separate charges for each individual work will be payable to Sri Rakesh Kumar Sahu . Service contract was stipulated for one year i.e. from 1st May, 98 subject to renewal from time to time . The management witness has proved by affidavit that maintennance work was to be carried out by Sri Rakesh Kumar Sahu alone. He was required to provide manpower & other things for the purpose of carrying out the work as required . The contract expired on 30-4-99 and it was not renewed as such he ceased to be contractor after 30-4-99 .

" सेवायोजक के उत्तर के पैरा 1 , 2 तथा 3 में जिस प्रकार से कथन किया गया है, वह स्वीकार नहीं है क्योंकि बाद से संबंधित श्रमिक सेवायोजक के प्रतिष्ठान में दि. 1-5-98 से रु. 2500/- प्रतिमाह की वेतन दर पर नियोजित कर लिया गया था और उसे दि. 1-5-99 से अकारण मौखिक रूप से कार्य पर लेना बन्द कर दिया गया तथा औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 के 25 एफ के अन्तर्गत बाद से संबंधित श्रमिक को कोई नोटिस अथवा नोटिस के बदले एक माह का वेतन तथा छटंनी के मुआवजे का भुगतान भी नहीं किया गया जबकि, श्रमिक से अखन्डित सेवा करते हुये एक वर्ष की सेवा में 240 दिनों से अधिक की सेवा पूरी कीहै ।"

The issue referred whether the action of the opposite party in terminating the services of Rakesh Kumar Sahu w.e.f. 7-5-99 is legal & justified. Rakesh Kumar Sahu was to prove that he was employee & the opposite party was employer.

Thus he has admitted that the opposite party did not took any work from Rakesh Kumar Sahu from 1-5-99 . In the circumtances it is not correct to say that he was engaged after 1-5-99 for work .

Opposite party has argued that-

Worker has indicated his unawareness about service contract and has denied that he was not given any contract as such @ 2500 / - per month and that to for a period of one year. However, he was admitted that since 1-5-1998 he started working in the Institute and for that purpose he used to engage labourers and whatever labour he used to be engaged were paid separately. He has also stated in cross- examination on his verification the labours were paid by the opposite party. He has also stated the names of labours engaged by him . The names of labours he engaged were Jhabu . Raju . Rajesh and Anand and others . He has also admitted that the attendance used to be marked of his labourers He has also stated that in Dec. 98 he employed Shridhar. Rajesh & Jhabu and others and in Dec. 98 he was paid Rs . 3069/ - towards labour charges . He has also admitted in Dec.. 98 Rs . 2500/ - were paid to him as service charges and likewise in every month he used to be paid service charges ofRs. 2500 /- and the labour charges . He has denied that his contract was till 30-4-99 and thereafter he was not extended any contract .

"Accordingly a service contract for maintenance work was given to Rakesh Kumar Sahu for one year on a fixed monthly service charge of Rs . 2500/ - for year . The contract period expired on 30-4-99 and it was not renewed. As such he ceased to be the contract for maintenance work after 30-4-99 . Sri Rakesh Kumar Sahu as contractor was required to be present in the institute on every working day for carrying out the repair or maintenance work as and when required. It is submitted that the entry in the Institute is required . For this purpose he was issued an entry card. which was required to be punched at the gate for entry in the Institute and also for the purposes of paying his service charges. It is further submitted that there is no post of Mason in the Institute . As and when a Mason is required he is brought from the market either on daily rate basis or on piece rate basis or the work is done through contractor depending upon the nature of work. In is submitted that the entry card does not give any right of employment to a person. As such its relevance is not important for the purposes of the present dispute . It is further submitted that Rakesh Kumar Sahu used to perform such work in the Institute which was required for the proper maintenance of the Institute from time to time for which he was given the service contract for one year. It is further submitted that at time he used to deploy more than one labour for carrying out the repairs etc.

From the note sheet dt . 23-4-98 copuled with the affidavit of Dr. Vijay Kumar. It is proved that a service contract was given to him w.e.f. 1-5-98 and the service charges were paid to him Rs . 2500 / -p.m. The denial by Rakesh Kumar Sahu is not trustworthy . It is proved by the management of the opposite party that the said service contract was for the period for upto 30-4-99 and thereafter there was no service contract nor the contract was extended . Rakesh Kumar Sahu has tried to prove that he was a salaried person w.e.f. 1-5-98 and the wages were Rs . 2500/ - per month . This fact is not trustworthy as payment of Rs . 2500 /- were service charges admitted by him , therefore no relationship of employer and employce between the parties.

It is submitted that Rakesh Kumar Sahu has admitted in his cross - examination that he used to deploy several labolurers in the Institute for carrying out the work for which he used to get payment over and above his fixed service charge of Rs . 2500 / - per month . It is further submitted [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

that the aboveamounts used to be paid to him after deducting Income Tax at source as is required in the case of a contractor.

Payment vouchers and bills for the months of Sept. October and Nov. 1998 have been filed as Ann . 1 to 3 alongwith the objections to show that several labours were provided by Rakesh Kumar Sahu during these months for which payment was made to him over and above the usual service charges for these months . It is submitted that 2% tax was deducted at source as is required for payment to contractors . Thus , it would be absolutely clear that Rakesh Kumar Sahu was working only as a maintenance contractor in the Institute and not as an employee.

It is further submitted that the entry card was only for purposes of ensuring entry and presence in the Institute for carrying out maintenance work in pursuance of the contract and cannot be read as a proof of employment and does not confer any right for being an employee of the Institute. It is categorically admitted that the entry card or the attendance register cannot be read as a proof of employment in the Institute . As such the same are not relevant for the adjudcation of the present dispute .

It is submitted that in order to carry out the maintenance work under the service contract . Rakesh Kumar Sahu was required to be present in the Institute every day. The entry and attendance of the workman was only for the purposes of ensuring his presence in the institute every day for the purposes of carrying out the maintenance work , if any, and also for the purposes of paying his service charges for the number of days he undertook maintenance work in the institute and cannot be read as a proof of employment in the institute .

Itis submitted that Sri Rakesh Kumar Sahu was working only as a contractor, he was not a workman as defined under the I.D. Act and the present proceedings at this behest are not maintainable .

It is further submitted that as Rakesh Kumar Sahu is not aworkman, working for more than 240 days in a calander year is not relavant for the present dispute and the provisions of Section 25F of I.D. Act are not applicable .

On the contrary the opposite party has argued that Rakesh Kumar Sahu was the worker of the opposite party and was in the employment and his services were terminated in afternoon 1-7-99 . The argument of representative of the Rakesh Kumar Sahu is not true looking into the various service contract between the parties and since Rakesh Kumar Sahu was not in the employment and there was no obligation on the opposite to tender any notice to the worker .

From the letter head and quotation of the Rakesh Kumar Sahu it is proved that he was not a worker but was a plumber and Raj Mistry etc. who was carrying out the various jobs on contract basis . The opposite party is a educational institute engage in imparting technical education in plastic engineering and its aim and object is

6963

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 2, 2005/ आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

to impart education in plastic engineering . It is not a public work deptt . which is engaging maintenance of building or garden etc. For petty work such institute have option either to employ and engage labour themselves and to carry out the job in alternative of they can engage petty contractor for the purpose to avoid to bring the labours from market and supervising the work . It is in these circumstances it is proved that the opposite party has engaged Rakesh Kumar Sahu for such petty works . Rakesh Kumar Sahu has in disperitably pleaded to get the employment with the opposite party and has tried to manipulate the fact and has not stated truth in the cross - examination . The representative of Rakesh Kumar Sahu has filed the case laws which is not relevant to the present case .

Rakesh Kumar Sahu has tried to say in affidavit that Randhir Kumar Patel has been kept engaged who was junior to him in service where as his services were terminated. The denying the allegation of the Dy. Director of the opposite party has stated in his affidavit that Randhir Kumar Patel was appointed as a Technician on Project work for one year vide appointment order dt . 31-7-98 . He worked till 31-7-99 and thereafter his contract was also not renewed and lapsed. He is no more in the employment of the Institute. Moreover Sri Patel was working against a post under a Project for which Diploma in Electronics was a prerequisite . Sri Rakesh Kumar Sahu cannot claim parity with Sri Randhir Kumar Patel , the opposite party has also filed the appointment letter of Randhir Kumar Patel which is annx . no . 6 of the affidavit.

Rakesh Kumar Sahu in his affidavit stated that the work for which he was engaged has been got executed by Jhabu and he was posted as Mali and thereafter the opposite party engaged other outsiders . Dr. Vijay Kumar Dy. Director denying the allegation has submitted that Jhabu initially a labour of Rakesh Kumar Sahu and used to work with him . He was given the contract for cleaning the institute for 11 months w.e.f. 1-4-2002 . His duties and work is different from that of Rakesh Kumar Sahu . As such it cannot be said that he was appointed in place of Rakesh Kumar Sahu. True copy of the contract of Jhabu is also been filed as annexure no. 7 of the affidavit .

From the discussions above I come to the conclusion that Rakesh Kumar Sahu was on service contract upto 30-4-99 and that contract was not further renewed and therefore there is no question of termination of his services and there is no requirement in law to give him any notice, notice pay or compensation under the provision of I.D. Act . The issue is therefore awarded accordingly. I also come to the conclusion that Rakesh Kumar Sahu is not entitled any relief whatsoever.

LUCKNOW

17-5-2005

SHRIKANT SHUKLA , PresidingOfficer 6964

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2, 2005/ ASADHA 11 , 1927

नई दिल्ली , 8 जून, 2005

का.आ. 2333-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार डब्ल्यू. सी. एल. प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , जबलपुर ( संदर्भ संख्या सी.जी.आई.टी./एल.सी./आर/ 164/93 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 2-6-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-22012/185/93- आई आर ( सी- II ) ]

एन. पी. केशवन, डैस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 8th June , 2005

S.O. 2333.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CGIT/ LC/R/ 164/ 93 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum -Labour Court , Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of WCL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 8-6-2005 .

[No. L- 22012/ 185/ 93 - IR( C - II) ] N.P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

went to attend the enquiry proceedings but no enquiry was conducted . Thereafter two times he received letters to face the enquiry on 14-7-90 and 12-8-90 . On both the dates , he went to attend the enquiry proceedings but the management failed to conduct the enquiry. Thereafter again he was served with a chargesheet No. 741/90 dated 11-6-90 mentioned therein that he was absenting fromduty from 16-3-90 . But no enquiry was conducted. He was called at the office along with Shri Lazbar Khan and his thumb impressions were taken on various papers with an assurance that he will be allowed to continue on duty. on 20-3-91 , he was dismissed without any charge as he was stopped verbally to continue on duty. The management with the view to retrench the surplus manpower adopted the above illegal procedure . The further case of the workman is that he never absented himself from duty, actually he was a TB patient and was under treatment of Company's hospital after giving due information to he management . The management to escape itself from granting leave of 6 months to him for treatment as per rules, passed the illegal order of his dismissal . That he never remained absent from duty unauthorisely and his short attendance shown by the management is false . It is prayed by the workman that the illegal and improper order of dismissal passed by the management be set aside and he be reinstated in service with full back wages, benefits and costs.

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

No. CGIT/LC/ R/ 164/ 93

Shri C. M. SINGH . Presiding Officer

Workman/Union

TheGeneral Secretary, Μ.Ρ. Κ.Κ.Μ.Ρ. (HMS ) , Post Junnardeo, Distt . Chhindwara

Versus

The Manager, Ghorawari Colliery, P.O. Ghorawari ,

Distt . Chhindwara

..Management

AWARD

Passed on this 12th May, 2005

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No. L- 22012/ 185/ 93 - IR (C - II) dated 23-8-93 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal :---

3. The case of the management in brief is as follows : The workman Shri Maroti was working as a General Mazdoor in Ghorawari Colliery. He was appointed on 22-3-1974 . Ever since his apointment, he was in the habitof absenting himself from duty continuously without informing the management and without taking prior approval from the Competent Authority. He was absent from 11-5-88 without any permission or intimation to the management . For the aforesaid act , he was issued with a chargesheet dated 4-7-88 which was duly recieved by him . he submitted his reply to the chargesheet and the same was not found satisfactory. Vide order dated 9-7-88 , Shri S.K. Srivastava, Sr. Personnel Manager was appointed Enquiry Officer to conduct enquiry into the chargesheet . The enquiry officer conducted a proper enquiry in which full opportunity was given to the workman . The workman participated in the enquiry and the Enquiry Officer held the workman guilty of charges levelled against him. The workman had a bad record of service. his past performance was also reviewed and it was observed that he was a habitual absentee . On several occasions , he was issued with chargesheet. His yearwise attendance particulars from the year 1984 onwards are as under :--

1984

1862

" Whether the action of the management of Ghorawari Colliery of WCL, Kanhan Area , PO Ghorawari , Distt . Chhindwara in dismissing Shri Maroti S/o Ratti , General Mazdoor from services w.e.f. 20-3-91 is justified ? If not , to what reliefthe workman is entitled to ?"

1985

1986

149

100

1987

1988

147

1989

1990

2. The Case of the workman in brief is as follows:- The workman Shri Maroti was a permanent worker having 15 years of neat and clean service for the industry (Ghorawari Colliery) , Western CoalfieldsLtd. , Distt . Chhindwara. He was served with chargesheet No. 226 dated 29-6-90 stating therein that he was served with a chargesheet No. 828/88 dated 4-7-88 regarding which the enquiry will be held on 7-7-90 i.e. after a gap of 2 years . He [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

4. The management in order to prove that a proper and legal enquiry was conducted , examined Shri S.K. Srivastava Retd. Personnel Manager. This witness was cross -examined by the learned counsel for the workman.

5. The parties filed certain papers in support of their respective contentions . Those documents shall be referred inthe body ofthis award at appropriate places where their reference is needed . it is worthwhile to mention here that the management also filed the department enquiry papers .

6. My Learned predecessor in office having heard Shri G.N. Jha the then Chief General Secretary, MPKKMP (HMS) , Junnardeo for workman and Shri A.K. Shashi Advocate for management and after having considered the evidence on record on 12-4-96 recorded the finding that DE is held proper and legal and answered the preliminary issue on enquiry in favour of the management . The finding on this preliminary issue shall form the part ofthis award .

7. I could not have an opportunity of hearing the workman in person or the authorized representative ofthe Union as nobody was present on behalf of workman on the date of hearing argument. I have heard Shri A.K. Shashidaram , Advocate for management and perused the record.

8. The learned counsel for the management submitted that the Disciplinary Authority after having considered the report of Enquiry Officer and an examining the entire enqauiry proceedings being fully satisfied that the charges stood proved accepted the enquiry report . That he after considering all the aspects of the case , specially the extreme gravity of charges that the workman remained absent from duty unauthorisely without any intimation or sanctioned leave and was a habitual absentee since he joined the services . imposed upon him the penalty of dismissal from service . The learned counsel further submitted that under the facts and circumstances of this case , the tribunal is requested not to exercise its jurisdication under Sec - 11A of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 to award lesser punishment than the dismissal from service. In this respect, he placed reliance on 1998 ( I) LLJ - 431 in the case of Union of India and ors . versus Srivastava B.K. I have very carefully gone through the law cited above . It has been held therein that if the DE conducted is fair and legal and there has been lawful exercise of power by the Disciplinary and Appellate Authority, the tribunal , should stay its hand. That it is no part of function of the tribunal to substitute its own decision when enquiry is held in accordance with rules and the punishment is imposed by the authorities considering all the relevant circumstances and which it is entitled to impose . The learned counsel for the management also placed reliance on 1995 ( I ) -LLJ - 1065 in the case of A.M. Ishwar Char versus Executive Engineer Electrical wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka held that under the guise of sympathy, there can be no compromise in cases of gross indiscipline . That sympathy will be shows in appropriate cases and the courts in this country have frequently observed that misplaced sympathy results in miscarriage ofjustice .

6965

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 2, 2005/ आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

In the case at hand, no prayer has been made on behalf ofworkman that the lesser penalty be imposed on him as punishment . Under the circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case in which lesser punishment than dismissal from service be awarded.

9. In view of the above , it is concluded that the action of the management of Ghorawari Colliery of WCL. Kanhan Area , PO Ghorawari , Distt . Chhindwara in dismissing Shri Maroti , S/ O Ratti , General Mazdoor from services w.e.f. 20/3/91 is justified .

10. The reference is accordingly answered in favour of the management and against the workman . The cost shall remain easy .

11. The copy ofthe award be sent to the Government of India , Ministry of labour as per rules .

C. M. SINGH, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 8 जून, 2005

का.आ. 2334- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक आफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , सं . II नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या आई. डी. - 116/97 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 8-06-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/ 110/96- आई आर ( बी- I ) ] अजय कुमार, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 8th June , 2005

S.O. 2334. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. I.D.- 116/97) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum - Labour Court No. II , New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank of India and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government 8-6-2005 . on

[No. L - 12012/ 110/96 - IR (B -I) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER : CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL- TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT - II, RAJENDRA BHAWAN, GROUND FLOOR, RAJENDRA PLACE , NEW DELHI R. N. RAI , Presiding Officer :

I.D. No. 116/97

In The Matter Of:

Sh . Bhuvnesh Dutt Sharma S /o Sh . N.D. Sharma , 18 , Gandhi Nagar, Gali No. 3 , Garh Road, Meerut .

6966

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005/ ASADHA 11 , 1927

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

The Asstt . General Manager, State Bank of India , Region IV, Zonal Office , Garh Road , Meerut (U.P. )

AWARD

The Ministry of Labour by its letter No. L- 12012/ 110/96- IR (B - I) Central Government Dt . 6-8-1997 has referred the following point for adjudication.

The point runs as hereunder :-

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India in dismissing the service of Bhuvnesh DuttSharma w.e.f. 23-9-1994 is just , fair & Legal ? If not , what relief he is entitled to and from what date . "

hopeful and as assured by the Enquiry Officer and the Bank Representative no action would be taken against him. That the workman was shocked to receive show -cause notice from the Disciplinary Authority vide his letter dt . 20-7-1994 , tentatively deciding to inflict the punishment of dismissal on the workman . The decision of the Disciplinary Authority was illegal, arbitrary and amounts to victimization. The workman submitted his detailed reply to the show - cause notice vide his letter dt. 26-8-1994 , the copy ofwhich is enclosed , marked Annexure ' B ' , and the contents of the said letter be treated as part of my statement ofclaim. That the Disciplinary Authority did not consider workman's reply and acted recklessly and arbitrarily as he was a biased authority. He had pre - decided to dismiss the workman and show cause /tentative decision was only a formality and sham show.

The workman has filed statement of claim . In his statement of claim , it has been stated that the workman joined the service of State Bank of India , Subhash Bazar , Market. Meerut , as Guard on 28-5-1970 and was confirmed on 28-11-1970 . That his work and conduct was very satisfactory, therefore , he was promoted as Godown Keepr w.c.f. 1-9-1983 and posted at Meerut City Branch . He was transferred by the Bank to Main Market Muzaffarnagar Branch where he joined duty on 10th June , 1991.

That the workman was illegally dismissed from the Bank'sservice on 27-9-1994 by the Disciplinary Authority. The workman also submitted his Appeal against the above order to the Appellate authority vide his letter dt . 7-11-1994 . The Disciplinary Authority without going through the facts and merits of the case , summarily dismissed the Appeal . The copy of the said Appeal is enclosed-marked Annexure ' C ' ; and the contents of the same may kindly be treated as part of his statement of claim.

The findings of the Enquiry Officer in this case are biased and perverse .erse. It is the duty of the Enquiry Officer conducting a domestic enquiry to apply his mind to the evidence tendered and draw conclusions supported by reasons . Termination order based on a report containing conclusions without reasons is unsustainable .

The management has filed written statement . In the written statement , it has been stated that it is , however, wrong and emphatically denied that the chargesheet was issued on false and flimsy grounds . The workman was misusing his official position and was involved in certain illegal activities which caused financial loss to the bank. He negotiated certain cheques and withdrawals on his accounts , which bounced . He issued certain cheques and withdrawals also on his accounts without keeping sufficient balance . He was absenting unauthorisedly from his dutics from 10-7-1991 . These misconducts of the workman were pejudicial to the nature of the business of the bank and, therefore , he was charge sheeted.

That the workman was issued a charge sheet vide Memo No. MRT/ DPS/ RIV/ PCF/ 497 dt . 11-6-1992 by the Disciplinary Authority on false and flimsy grounds . The copy of the said charge sheet is enclosed and marked Annexure `A` . That Shri R.K. Sharma was appointed as EquiryOfficer. That the workman attended the enquiry on 30-11-1993 . That the workman was cocrced . pressurized and induced by the Enquiry Officer and the Bank Representative that the workman should not get himself defended by Shri J.N. Kapoor , the then General Secretry of the Union and in turn they assured the workman that they would help him . They further threatened that if the workman insists and brings Shri J.N. Kapoor then the management would not be able to help him . They further assured that they would look after his interest and if the workman follows their instructions and signs the proceedings as recorded by the Enquiry Officer, then no action would be taken against the workman . In the circumstances.the workman attended the proceedings mutely and signed the minutes blindly . The enquiry was a sham show and was done in a most irregular manner just to complete the formalities . The Enquiry Officer had been repeatedly assuring the workman that the enquiry proceedings are being done to close the case against the workman . The workman could never imagine that the Enquiry Officer and Bank Representative had been duping him and they are getting his signatures under coercion and false inducement , on his death warrants . The enquiry was a sham show and merely a formality. The principles of Natural Justice were flouted .

Sh . R.K. Sharma was appointed as Enquiry Officer and the workman attended the enquiry on 30-11-1993 . Rest of the contents of this para are wrong and denied. It is emphatically denied that the workman was coerced, pressurized and induced by the Enquiry Officer and the Bank Representative . It is submitted that the workman attended the Enquiry Proceeding for the first time on 30-11-1993 and requested for adjournment so that he could present his defence properly and could bring a defence representative . On the next date of hearing i.e. on 14-12-1993 , the workman did not bring any defence That the workman blindly relied on the false assurances of the Enquiry Officer and was very much [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

representative . He was afforded one more opportunity by the Enquiry Officer to bring his defence representative. He gave the name of Shri J.N. Kapoor as his defence representative . However , Shri J.N. Kapoor never appeared in the enquiry proceedings . It is wrong and denied that the enquiry was a sham show and was a mere formality. It is stated that the workman , time and again tried to vitiate the enquiry proceedings . The chargesheet was sent to the workman by Regd. Post which was acknowledged by him on AD Card . However, as no reply of the chargesheet was received despite repeated reminders , an enquiry was ordered by the Disciplinary Authority. The notice of enquiry was sent to the workman at his last recorded addresses by two Regd . letters on 13-5-1993 but both were received back with the endorsements " House locked; packet returned to Sender " . The workman was again intimated by Regd. letter and also by the UPC on 4-6- 1993, but these letters were also received back . On 13-11-1993 , notice to this effect was publihsed in the " Amar Ujala" a local newspaper. It is only then that the workman appeared in the enquiry proceedings on 30-11-1993 for the first time. It is wrong and denied that the enquiry was done in irregular manner and principles of natural justice were flouted . It is stated that the fullest opportunity to cross - examine the management witneses was given to the workman. He was also afforded the opportunity to present his defence before the enquiry officer. In view of these circumstances, it is stated that the principles of natural justice were fully followed during the enquiry proceedings .

Itis stated that after the conclusion of the enquiry proceedings, the Disciplinary Authority considered the whole matter and tentatively decided to dismiss the workman, consequently a show- cause notice was issued by the Disciplinary Authority on 20-7-1994 . It is wrong and denied that the decision of the Disciplinary Authority was illegal , arbitrary and amounted to victimization . It is admitted that on 26-8-1994 the workman submitted his reply to the show - cause notice and personally appeared before the Disciplinary Authority . The final orders of dismissal ofthe workman was passed by the Disciplinary Authority only after considering all the pleas and points raised by the workman in his reply during the personal hearing. It is emphatically denied that the Disciplinary Authority acted recklessly and arbitrarily and was a biased authority. It is wrong and denied that the Disciplinary Authority had predecided to dismiss the workman and the show cause and tentative decision was only a formality and sham show. Asstated earlier , the final orders of dismisal were passed after following proper procedures and only after the conclusion of enquiry proceedings.

It is, however, wrong and denied that the appellate authority dismissed and appeal without going through the facts and merits of the case . The appellate authority rejected the appeal of the wrokman by pasing a reasoned 1855 GI /05-41

6967

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 2, 2005/आषाढ़11 , 1927

order. It is wrong and denied that the charges against the workman were false and baseless . It is wrong and denied that the charges do not fall under the clauses of major misconduct . As the charges stood proved during a fair and legal enquiry in which all principles of natural justice were complied with and the workman was given due opportunity to defend himself, the workman was proportionately punished with the capital punishment of dismissal. It is admitted that other punishments have been imposed on other people but the facts and circumstances ofthose cases are entirely different from the case in hand. As the wrokman has made vague and baseless allegations the same cannot be replied. It is wrong and denied that any disporportionate punishment was awarded to the workman. As no prejudice has been caused to the workman during the fair and legal enquiry the workman was imposed the punishment of dismissal commensurating with the gravity of the charges upheld . It is wrong and denied that thework and conduct ofthe workman had been very good. The factum of the workman having large family is denied for want of knowledge. As the punishment has been imposed after a fair and legal enquiry the same cannot be interfered by the Hon'ble Court .

It is again wrong and denied that the enquiry was a sham show. The entire documentary evidence was placed in the enquiry proceedings and witnesses were examined by the management . The workman had an opportunity to cross -examine the witnesses of the Management and. therefore, the allegation made by the workman are wrong and denied. All the principles of natural justice were complied by the Enquiry Officer, the workman was given full opportunity to defend himself.

The workman applicant has filed rejoinder. In his rejoinder he has reiterated the averments of his claim statement and has denied most of the paras of the written statmeent. The management has also denied most of the paras of the statement of claim .

Heard arguments from both the sides and perused the papers on the record.

It was submitted from the side of the workman applicant that Shri R. K. Sharma was appointed as inquiry officer. The workman attended inquiry on 30-11-1993 . The workman was coerced , pressurized and enduced by the inquiry officer and the Bank representative that the workman should not get himself defended by Shri J. N. Kapoor the then General Secretary of the Union and in term they assured the workman that they would help him .

Itwas further submitted from the side of the workman that they further threatened that if the workman insists and brings his J.N. Kapoor then the management would not be able to help him . He was assured that they would look after his interest in case the workman follows their instructions and signs the proceedings as recorded by the inquiry officer. In that case no action against the 6968

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005 /ASADHA 11 , 1927

[PART II-SEC: 3 (ii) ] workman would be taken. In the circumstances the workman attended the proceedings and signed the minutes blindly. The inquiry was sham show and was done in the most irregular manner just to complete the formalities. The workman did not imagine that the inquiry officer and Bank representative are duping and they should get his signatures out of coercion and false assurances . The workman applicant signed the minutes of the proceedings . The inquiry officer gave report against him . He was dismissed from service . The appellate authority also did not apply his mind and held the dismissal valid.

confirmed in 1970. He was appointed as Godown Keeper w.e.f.; 01-09-1993 . He was charged on 11-06-1992 as such after 20 years of long service he has been charge sheeted . Shri J.N. Kapoor has not signed the proceedings of the inquiry. The case of the workman applicant is that he was assured that no action will be taken against him so he signed the proceedings of the bank and did not produce evidence in his defence in view of the same assurances . Shri J.N. Kapoor was given by the management as his defence representative but no step was taken to relieve Shri Kapoor thus the Bank did not provide the person to cross- examination the witness. The employee of the Bank has got rightunder para 521 ( 10 ) ( a) of Shastri Award to get employee for his defence and that employee should be relieved on special leave with full pay and allowances . In this case Shri J.N. Kapoor was not relieved to cross - examine the management witness . It was submitted from the side of the workman applicant that due to this act of the management para 521( 10 ( a ) of Shastri Award has been violated.

It was further submitted that the inquiry officer was biased and his report is perverse . He was dismissed for malafide reasons . The inquiry was not held properly. The principles of natural justice were violated . The workman was victimized for malafide reasons . Disproportionate and harsh punishment of dismissal was awarded to the workman . The workman had put in 24 years unblemished service . The management has not given any cognizance or considration of such long service with good records of the workman . The workman from the date of his dismissal has been trying to get remunerative job but he has failed. He has a large family to support .

It was submitted from the side of the management that the workman was charge sheeted by the inquiry officer and the charges are that he purchased DD and issued cheques and with no money and thus caused loss to the Bank .He held account No. 427 at Meerut City Branch and on 23-05-1991 purchased DD for Rs. 1200/- . From the main market Muzaffarnagar Branch he purchased DD of Rs . 3,250/-from the same branch . He purchased DD of Rs . 5.160/- and Rs . 500 /- . He issued cheques on his Saving Account 427 at Meerut City Branch without keeping sufficient balance in his account in contravention of his Service Rules and Conduct Rules . He issued cheque on 17-09-1990 for Rs . 5,000/- in the name of Sri Hari Om Agarwal . Cheque No. 746998 issued in favour of M/ s. Mahavir Traders for Rs . 10,000 /- was returned unpaid . Cheque No. 876270 for Rs . 4,120/- was returned unpaid on 07-04-1990 issued in favour of M/ s. Rajdhani Finance Company. His debit and credit transaction in his SB Account No. 427 at Meerut City Branch . He has credited Rs . 10,000/ -on 06-09-1990 , Rs . 10,000/ -on 26-09-1990 and Rs . 10 - .000/ -on 07-01-1991 and Rs . 7,923/-on 18-01-1991 . He has opened Saving Bank Accounts No.1138 with Zila Sahkari Bank Limited in contravention of the Conduct Rules.

He further received advance money from Smt . Prem Lata Singhal for sale of his land of Rs . 10,000 / - and Shri Hari Om Agarwal of Rs . 5,000 / - . He was unauthorisedly absent from duty w.e.f.; 10-07-1991 . It was further submitted by the Bank that even charges amount to grave to gross misconduct .

It was submitted from the side of the workman applicant that he joined Bank service in 1970 and he was

From the side of the workman applicant my attention was drawn to 18 1989 SCC Pg . 180 and 2000 SCC Pg . 830 . These citation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court are not relevant in the present facts and circumstances of the case . I have perused the inquiry report on witness has been cross-examined. It has been mentioned in the inquiry that the EPA pleaded his case himself and gave letter dated 26-04-1994 in respect of the clarification on charges against and requested the disciplinary authority to take lenient view and reduce the punishment awarded to him keeping in view the 20 years unblemished service put in by him . It transpires from the perusal of the order passed above by the disciplinary authority that the workman applicant pleaded his case himself and he gave a short defence statement . This indicates that he signed the proceedings under inducement of the inquiry officer and the Presenting Officer that no action will be taken against him. I have perused the entire charges , from the charges levelled against him there is no grave misconduct in case the principle of natural justice are supposed to be followed and it is supposed that sufficient opportunity has been given to him . In the facts and circumstances of the case a proper inquiry has not been held. The workman applicant has not been given opportunity to cross -examine the witnesses . Shri J.N. Kapoor the defence representative has not been relieved to cross - examine the witnesses produced during the inquiry as such there is infringement of the right given to the workman applicant in para 521 referred to above of the Shastri Award. In case for argument's shake if it is supposed that the principles of natural justice have been followed and he has been given sufficient opportunity to afford evidence in defence, the charge sheet did not disclose anything from which it can be said that the workman applicant has committed grave mis - conduct . The Bank Award under Rule 4 of the said award gross - misconduct has been defined . It is regarding [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

engagement in Trade or Business , unauthorized disclosure of information, dampeningetc. Damage caused to the property of the Bank wilful insubordination habitual doing ofany act, which amount to major misconduct . From the charge sheet itself it is clear that he has credited Rs . 10,000/-on 06-09-1990 again Rs . 10,000/- on 26-09-1990 , Rs . 10,000/-on 06-09-1991 and Rs . 7,913 / -on 18-01-1991 . The DD has been purchased on 23-05-1991 , 12-06-1991 and 01-10-1991 and the cheques have been issued on 17-09-1990 . There was sufficient amount in the account of the workman applicant according to the charge sheet itself as such there was no misappropriation , there is no embezzlement in case he has deposited Rs . 10,000/- on 06-09-1990 as per the charge sheet . He has deposited Rs . 10,000/- on 26-09-1990 . The cheque was returned on 17-08-1990 as there was no balance . In case the workman applicant has issued a cheque and there is no balance the cheque is to be returned but subsequently he has deposited the money for encashment of that cheque and even according to the negotiable instrument act money may be deposited within one month from the date of issue of the cheque. The money has been so deposited .

6969

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 2, 2005/आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

punishment of dismissal without any notice is not proportionate to the minor misconduct committed by the workman applicant.

The reference is replied thus:--

The action of the management of the State Bank of India in dismissing the service of Bhubnesh Dutt Sharma w.e.f. 23-09-1994 is neither absolutely just nor fair nor absolutely legal . The workman applicant deserves to be reinstated withholding his three increments with cumulative effect and 50% back wages w.e.f. 23-09-1994 . It isfurther clarified that the workman applicant will receive only 50% back wages and his three increments will be withheld with cumulative effect from 23-09-1994 . The management is directed to reinstate the workman applicant inthe light of the above order within one month from the publication of the Award. In case of default the workman applicant will be entitled to get 12% interest per annum on the back wages that become due.

The Award is given accordingly.

Dated: 09-02-2005

He has a shop and he wanted to sell the shop so he could take advance money from others and permission of the Bank is not required . From the perusal of the inquiry report and the charge sheet submitted to the workman applicant even if the proceedings of the inquiry are taken to be fair, the workman applicant has not committed any grave misconduct and as such he could not be given punishment of grave mis - conduct .

The workman applicant has committed minor mis- conduct so he cannot be awarded punishment of dismissal . He has rendered 20 years of service so in view of his long unblemished services for minor mis - conduct only increments are to be withheld and he should not have beenawarded the punishment of dismissal for gross mis- conduct . The gross mis - conduct is not found proved on the basis of the inquiry and charge sheet . The inquiry is not absolutely fair but there are certain transactions ofthe workman applicant , which constitute minor misconduct , and so he can be punished for he minor misconduct . No loss to the Bank has been established .

In this case both the parties have adduced evidence and the fairness of the inquiry has not been agitated as preliminary issue. Both the parties have adduced evidence so the award is being given on the merits of the case . The inquiry is not absolutely fair but still the workman applicant according to his own admissions has committed minor misconduct as such his three increments with cumulative effect should be withheld and he should be given 50% back wages in view of his minor mis -conduct . The

R. N. RAI , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 8 जून, 2005

का.आ. 2335.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार नार्दन रेलवे प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, सं . II , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या आई.डी. 31/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 8-06-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-41011/40/99- आई आर ( बी- I ) ]

अजय कुमार, डैस्कअधिकारी New Delhi, the 8th June, 2005

S.O. 2335. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (ID-31/2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court No. II, New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Northern Railway and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 8-6-2005 .

[No. L-41011/40/99 - IR(B - I) ]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer 6970

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2, 2005/ASADHA 11 , 1927

ANNEXURE

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

Presiding Officer : R. N. RAI

I.D. No. 31/2000

IN THE MATTER OF :

Sh. Ram Lal and Others ,

C/ o The President ,

Delhi Labour Union,

Agraval Bhawan ,

G.T. Road ,

TisHazari , Delhi .

Versus

The General Manager ,

Northern Railway,

Baroda House ,

New Delhi - 110001 .

AWARD

The Ministry of Labour by its letter No. L- 41011 /40/ 99 -IR (B -I ) Central Government Dt . 17-02-2000 has referred the following point for adjudication .

The point runs as hereunder:-

"Whether workman Shri Ram Lal , Babu Lal and Hari engaged as casual Workers at Railway's Karnail Singh Stadium by Northern Railways Sports Association are entitled for temporary status under Railway Estt . After completion of 120 days' continuous working . "

The Union has filed statement of claim on behalf of the workmen . In the statement of claim , it has been stated that the workman Sh . Ram Lal has been in the employment ofthe Northern Railway and is posted at Railway Karnail Singh Stadium w.e.f. 01-08-1994 as a Gym Attendant . Shri Babu Lal has been working as a peon w.e.f. 01-05-1990 and Sh. Hari has been working as a Safai Karamchari w.e.f. 01-07-1995 . Shri Ram Lal is getting Rs . 1,600 p.m. , Shri Babu Lal is getting Rs . 1900 p.m. and Sh . Hari is being paid Rs . 1650 p.m. which are less than the wages fixed under the minimum wages Act by the appropriate Government. They are being treated as monthly paid

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

muster roll workers although they are working continuously from the initial date of their joining into the employment and are performing full normal duties to the entire satisfaction of their superiors . They have unblemished and uninterrupted record of service to their credit . Their counterparts . doing the identical work but being treated as regular employees , are being paid their salaries in proper pay scale and allowances . They are also enjoying other benefits and facilities such as Uniform, E.L .. C.L. , Gazetted/ Restricted/Festival Holidays and Medical Leave which are completely deniedto the aforesaid workmen .

That they should have been granted temporary status in service from the initial date of their joining into the employment after completing 120 days of continuous employment . But no action has been taken by the Railways administration to regularise their services in proper pay scale and allowances . That the workmen aforesaid have been meted out with hostile discrimination as juniors to them have been regularised in service in proper pay scale and allowances . Shri Kayam Ullah S / o Sh . Karam Ullah was taken into the employment on 01-08-1993 . His services have been regularised and he has been transferred to Calcutta . The workmen aforesaid have represented their case to the Railway Board on various occasions but no reply has been given to them . They are made to perform duties from 6 a.m. to 8 p.m. daily, but no overtime wages are paid to them .

5 That the action of the management amounts to unfair labour practice as provided in Section 2 ( ra ) read with Item No. 10 of the 5th Schedule of the I.D. Act, 1947. That the job against which the workmen aforesaid are working is of a permanent nature of job . That a demand notice was served upon the General Manager of the Northern Railway by regd . A/D post vide communicationdt . 28-04-1999 , duly received in his office , but no reply has been received and it is presumed that the demand has been rejected . Thereafter an Industrial Dispute was raised by filing a statement of claim before the conciliation officer and the conciliationproceedings were initiated but the conciliation proceedings resulted in failure because of the adamant and non - cooperative attitude of the management and hence this reference .

The management has filed written statement . In the written statement , it has been stated that the Northern Railway Sports Association (N. R. S. A. ) is an Association for promoting sports among Railway employees . Its office bearers are all honorary members and they do not receive any remuneration for carrying out their duties in the field 6971 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 2 , 2005/आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

ofsports from the Railway Administration. Some persons are engaged by the Association purely on part time basis to provide services for the maintenance and upkeep of the stadium . There is , however, no post at the stadium level either temporary or permanent for such sports activities , as the power to engage anybody on temporary or permanent basis is vested in none other than the General Manager , Northern Railway, New Delhi . That the claims of applicants are not covered under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 , therefore , their claim petition is liable to be rejected by this Hon'ble court on this ground alone .

lump sum and Hari Ram is being paid Rs . 1900/- per month lump sum . They are all employees /workmen engaged by the Sports Association of Northern Railway and they are part time workers of the said Association and not of Northern Railway as alleged/claimed by the abovesaid workmen in their claim petition . It is denied that the counterparts of the said workmen are being treated as regular employees or are being paid proper pay scales and allowances . It is stated that there are no counterparts of the abovesaid workmen engaged by the Sports Association and it is a false and baseless statement made by the workmen in question that their counterparts are being treated as regular employees or are being paid their salaries in proper/ prescribed pay scales . The above statement of the workmen in question is completely wrong and is denied . It is further stated that since the above said workmen are not Railway servants , they are not entitled to any benefits which are available or enjoyed by the Railway employees , as per rules applicable to Railway employees .

That the applicants /claimants are working as daily wage part time workers depending on the job requirement and they are not holding any specific job of a peon or safaiwala and they are paid by the Sports Association from the earnings of stadium and partly from grants received through Staff Benefit Funds . So , they can in no way be considered to have been engaged by the Northern Railway. That the part time workers engaged on purely contract basis by the Northern Railway Sports Association cannot be treated as on the rolls of Northern Railway nor are they eligible for the grant of pay scales of Northern Railway. So, they are not entitled to the relief prayed for , and their claim petition is liable to be rejected by this Hon'ble Tribunal on this ground also .

That the claim petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the case is irrelevant to the facts and circumstances of the case and it does not merit consideration by this Hon'ble Tribunal . That grant of temporary status to those engaged on contract basis is extended only if they are in turn for such appointment on the basis of their position in select lists and/or are selected in the approved manner for appointment to regular Railway posts . N.R.S.A. neither have any such recruitment power nor the same has ever been extended to them in the past .

It is denied that there is any such system of temporary status in the Sports Association of Northern Railway which is being run by the honorary members of the said Association who are neither drawing any remuneration nor any other benefits for the services rendered by them in promoting sports among the Northern Railway employees . It is stated that the workmen in question are not on the rolls of Northern Railway, and, therefore, the granting of temporary status and pay scales to them does not arise . It is denied that the workmen in question being employees of Sports Association of Northern Railway have been meted out hostile discrimination or that their juniors have been regularised in service or given proper pay scales as alleged in the para under reply. Even otherwise, the contents of the para under reply can be commented upon by the Sports Association and not by the Northern Railway as such . It is further stated that the workmen in question not being Railway employees , their grievances , if any, can be looked into by the said Sports Association and not by the Railway Board as such . It is denied that the workmen in question have been performing daily duty from 6.00 a.m. to 8.00 p.m. as alleged . It is stated that the workmen being part time workers of N.R.S.A. are performing duty from 6.30 a.m. to 9.00 a.m. and thereafter from 4.00 p.m. to 9.30 p.m. as per the duty hours (roster ) fixed by the said Association . It is further stated that since the applicants/ workmen are not Railway employces as such , their claim is not covered under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as quoted in the sub- paras of the para under reply .

It is denied that Shri Ram Lal has been in the employment of Northern Railway, It is stated that the workman , Ram Lal, is a part time worker and employed by the Sports Association of Northern Railway and is paid by the said Association , and the said Association , it is pointed out , is not a government organisation . He is working as part time worker depending upon the job requirement with no specific job as peon or safaiwala. Another worker , Babu Lal is also a part time worker just like the one stated above and the third one , Hari Ram is also a part time worker just like the above said two workers, It is stated that Ram Lal is being paid Rs . 1900 per month (lump sum) ; Babu Lal is being paid Rs . 2100 per month 6972

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005/ ASADHA 11 , 1927

It is reiterated once again that the workmen/ applicants are working purely on part time/ contractual basis for maintenance and upkeep of the sports stadium ofNorthern Railway and this job is not at all of permanent nature involving employing staff on permanent basis. With regard to Shri Kayam Ullah , he left the part time job of SportsAssociation and Northern Railway is not aware of his present job . That para 3 of the claim petition is wrong and denied .

The applicants in question have been engaged as part time workers for maintenance and upkeep of the stadium and to provide services as and when required by the Northern Railway Sports Association . There is , however, no post at the stadium either temporary or permanent for sports activities . If that were so, such posts would have been filled up by the competent authority viz . General Manager, Northrn Railway, New Delhi , and not by any lesser authority , as all such powers are vested in the General Manager, Northern Railway, New Delhi only.

The workmen have filed rejoinder. In their rejoinder they have reiterated the averments of claim statement and have denied most of the paras of the written statement . The management has also denied most of the paras of the claim statement .

Evidence of both the parties has been taken .

Heard arguments from both the sides and perused the papers on the record .

It was submitted from the side of the workmen applicants that they have been working with Staff Sports Association for a long time but they have not been conferred temporary status . They have been getting fixed emoluments . NRSA , Baroda House has issued Identity Cards to them . Most of the workmen are working from 77 , 88 , 90 , 93 , 95 respectively but they have not been given temporary status . The Incharge of the Sports Stadium has written letter to the Northern Railway for regularization of the services of the Casual Labour employed in the Stadium , Badminton Hall , Gymnasim Hall , D.K.Z. Akhara. This letter is WW1 . This letter is admitted to the management . It indicates that the workmen concerned are working with the Sports Association . Letter dated 20-8-1993 is also regarding regularization from Ex . Director, Establishment , Railway Board.

It was further submitted that the workmen applicants have been working with the Sports Association but they have not been conferred temporary status and they are not paid "Equal Pay for Equal Work" .

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] Itwas admitted from the side of the management that the worker are part time workmen and they have been appointed by the Sports Association. They have not been appointed by the General Manager , Northern Railway and they have not been appointed according to the recruitment process . They are part time workers and they are working on contract basis for doing the job ofcleaning etc. They are not the employees of the Railway Government . From the perusal of the record it transpires that the workmen applicants are engaged in the stadium only and they are performing their duties in the Railway Stadium . It has been held in AIR 2003 SC 2353 that Railway Employees who are not appointed pursuant to any rules of recruitment or orders issued by the Railways but they are engaged on part time basis they cannot claim regularization and "Equal Pay for Equal Work " . In the instant case also the workmen applicants have not been recruited by orders issued by the Railways . In 117 ( 2005 ) Delhi Law Times DRJ 145 it has held that the workmen should perform duties identical to those of regular employees . In the instant case the workmen are not performing the duties of regular employee. In 2002 ( 7 ) SC 518 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that Daily Wagers and Casual Wagers cannot be regularized .

It was submitted from the side of the management that it is the duty of the workmen to prove that they have been recruited by the Railway Board or by the General Manager , Northern Railway but they have failed to prove it . Sports Association runs the stadium and the workmen have been appointed by the Sports Association so they are not direct recruit of the Railway Government . The question of giving them "Equal Pay for Equal Work" docs not arise . They are not even entitled to regularization in view of the law discuss above . They are not entitled to get any relief as prayed for .

The reference is replied thus: -

The workmen Sh . Ram Lal , Babu Lal and Sh . Hari engaged as Casual workers at Railway Karnail Singh Stadium vide Northern Railway Sports Association are not entitled for temporary status under Railway establishment after completion of 120 days continuous working. The workmen applicants are not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.

The Award is given accordingly.

Dated: 1-6-2005

R.N. RAI , Presiding Officer 6973 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 2, 2005/आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

AWARD

नई दिल्ली , 8 जून, 2005

TheMinstry of Labour by its letter No. L -41011/ 13 / 2000/IR (B-I) CENTRAL GOVERNMENT DT. 7-11-2000 has referred the following point for adjudication .

The point runs as hereunder :-

का.आ. 2336.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार रेलवे बोर्ड, रेलवे मंत्रालय , नई दिल्ली के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण सं.- II , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या आई.डी. 123/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 8-6-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-41011/13/2000- आई आर ( बी- I ) ]

अजय कुमार, डैस्क अधिकारी

"Whether the action of the Chairman, Railway Board, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi in not granting pay element ofrunning allowance at par with running staff to the Station Masters / Assistant Station Masters is justified, reasonable and valid? If not , what benefit and relief Station Masters and Assistant Station Masters are entitled to "

New Delhi , the 8th June , 2005

S.O. 2336. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. 123/2000 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court No. II , New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure . in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Railway Board, Ministry of Railway, New Delhi and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 8-6-2005.

[No. L-41011 / 13/2000 - IR ( B - I ) ]

The Union has filed statement of claim on behalf of the workmen. In the statement of claim , it has been stated that the Station Masters and Assistant Station Masters are appointed in Railways mainly for the purpose of performing train passing duties. The All India Station Masters' Association , Regd. No. 1359 has been espousing the cause of the Station Masters and Assistant Station Masters at various levels to find solutions to genuine rights/ grievances since 1951. On the demand of Station Masters and Assistant Station Masters , the All India Station Masters ' Association (Association for short) issued a Strike Notice on the management in July 97 on following demands:

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

(1) Supervisors ( Station Masters) to be placed above the supervised .

(2) Grant of Pay -Element of Running Allowance .

(3) Abolition of Essentially Intermittent Classification , etc. ,

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

PRESIDING OFFICER : R.N. RAI

I. D. No. 123/2000

IN THE MATTER OF :-

The Secretary General , All India Station Masters's Association , New Delhi , Regd . No. 1359 , 26. Badra Gardens , 8 Venugopal Street , Guduvanchery, Tamil Nadu -603202 .

VERSUS

The Labour Minstry initiated conciliatory proceedings . However, the conciliatory proceedings had failed. This Association continued its persuasive measures to find redressal to the issue raised in the Strike Notice and discussed the same in subsequent conciliatory proceedings . Having failed in all its efforts , this Association issued a fresh strike notice dt . 4th December, 1999 on the same issues . Again, a fresh round of conciliatory proceedings was initiated by the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner ( Central ) New Delhi . Some progress on the demand was made and in respect of revision of pay scales , the management agreed . Whereas , in respect of schedule under reference the management rejected , hence this statement .

The Chairman ,

Railway Board, Ministry of Railways , Government of India ,

Rail Bhawan, New Delhi - 110011.

The petitioner humbly submits that the rights of Station Masters and Assistant Station Masters to Running Allowance is inherent in them under the rules and in relation to the object sought to be achieved by the rules . An 6974

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 2 , 2005/ ASADHA 11. 1927

[PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii) ] analysis of the definition for Running Allowance which is mentioned as :

" Running Allowance is an Allowance ordinarily granted to running staff for the performance ofduty directly connected to the charge of moving trains and includes Kilometerage and Allowance in lieu of Kilometerage" in Rule 1507 of the Indian Railways Establishment Code .

Excluding - Ordinarily to running staff-remains as an allowance granted for performance of duties directly connected to the charge of moving trains . Now, for better understanding what are the duties directly connected to the charge of moving trains , the following may be pertinent to ponder over. The system of Railways is based on an enactment i.e. Railways Act, the latest is the Railways Act , 1989 , formulated and passed by both the Houses of Parliament . Section 60 (2) ( g) under this Act prescribe for Rules related to working of Railways , establishment of Railways , etc. , by the Central Government and for placing them before both the Houses of Parliament for approval . The General Rules , 1986 is the latest rules made in connectionwith the working of Railways by the Government of India and approved by the Union Parliament .

Kinds of authority to proceed are contained in GR 14.08 and according to this provision every tangible authority which are extracted utilizing block instruments . paper line clear tickets signed by Station Masters and 'taking off or ' Clearing the last stop signal are the authorities to proceed without which no train can commence itsjourney. Thus , duties performed in connection with extraction of the tangible authorities and the duties performed on the block instruments , preparation of paper line clear tickets and clearance of last stop signals and conveying such authority to proceed to the drivers are duties which are directly connected to the charge of moving trains. Further , GR 1.02( 10) ( Annexure IV) defines block section as that portion of the running line between two block stations into which no running train may enter until line clear has been received from the block station at the other end and vide GR 1.02 ( 37 ) ( Annexure V) line clear means a permission given from a block station to block station in near for a train to leave the latter and approach the former or permission obtained by a block station from a block station in advance for a train to leave the former and proceed towards the latter. From these two definitions in GR. 1.02( 10 ) & GR-1.02( 37) one can understand that for a train to enter into the Section between two block stations , it must possess line clear i.e. permission to approach transacted between block stations . With reference to GR 5.01 (4) (Annexure VI) and GR 14.03 (Annexure VII) Station Masters are the one and the only railway servants who can obtain or grant line clear and who can transmit an authority to proceed and can have free access to the block instruments . Thus every duty performed with the block instruments by the Station Masters is that directly connected to the charge of moving trains .

According to General Rules , working of Railways means basically movement of trains from one destination to another. The entire stretch between such destinations is divided into block sections by situating stations as operationally convenient spots . Thus , a train running between two destinations has to negotiate a member of stations and block stations . Thus running of trains between destinations requires certain duties to be discharged . Such duties , without which there cannot be running of trains, shall be construed to be directly connected to the charge ofmoving trains .

Further a train running between two destinations has to negotiate Stations which are defined to be places at which traffic is dealt with or any authority to proceed is given under the system of working vide GR 1.02 ( 51 ) (Annexure VIII) . In order to control reception and despatch oftrains at Stations , a system of signal working is stipulate Vide Chapter III of the General Rules , 1986. According to thischapter in normal circumstances movement of trains is controlled by clearing or taking off of relevant signals and such clearance of signals within Station - limits as per GR 3.36 (Annexure IX) shall not be done without necessary permission from Station Masters i.e. if a Station Masters does not either arrange to clear a signal or permit to a clear a signal , there cannot be any movement of trains . During failures of signal working the General Rules stipulate for issuing of paper authority fulfilling certain condition procedents . According to the mandatory General Rules , the above condition precedents are to be fulfilled by the Station Masters and the paper authorities shall be issued by the Station Masters only .

Moving trains which are called as running trains in General Rules , is defined to be a train, which has commenced its journey with an authority to proceed but has not completed its journey, Vide GR 1.02 ( 48 ) ( Annexure I) . According to this definition for a train to become a moving train, the essential requirement is that Station Masters/ Assistant Station Masters shall not give permission to start the train until train is fit to the effect that it is fit to proceed and has the prescribed brake power ( G.R. 4.31 ) and it shall be in possession on an authority to proceed i.e. without an authority to proceed , a train is a stable stock i.e. a train cannot said to be a moving train . This fact shall be understood from General Rules GR . 1.02 ( 6) ( Annexure II ) which defines an authority to proceed as an authority given to the driver of a train under the system of working to enter into a block section and GR 14.08 ( Annexure III) which stipulates that the Driver shall not take his train into a block station unless he has been given an authority to proceed. Thus every duty performed in connection with an authority to proceed is a duty directly connected to the charge of moving trains .

The duties leading to , clearing relevant signals . permission to clear signals are duties directly connected to 6975 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

जुलाई 2, 2005/ आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

भारत का राजपत्र:

toprotect the trains vide GR 6.03 ( Annexure XVI ) at stations orwithin station limits are duties directly connected to the charge of moving trains .

the charge of moving trains since without the above duties there will not be any movement of trains . Similarly Chapter 3 (H) ( Annexure X) prescribes for duties to be performed whenever signals and points governing movement oftrains, are defective and these duties have equal force to that under normal working of signals . As such the duties performed in connection with issuing authorities in place of defective signals, duties performed in receiving trains from the defective signals and duties connected to the correct setting and locking of points leading to reception and despatch of trains are duties directly connected to the charge of moving trains . In order to ensure safe and punctual running of trains , procedures have been laid in the General Rules , such as issuance of caution orders vide GR 4.09 ( Annexure XI ) and exchange of all right signals vide GR 4.42 (Annexure XII) , etc.

Also, " Charge of mentioned in the definition does not necessarily mean ' Driving ' or ' Attempt to drive ' but means and includes a duty directly connected to the control ofmoivng trains, according to law settled in CHRITCHTON V's . BURREL 1915 SLT 3365 which has been emphasized by Justice Shankar Saran in his award in 1961. " That train passing duty itself is a duty of great responsibility and heavy mental strain, so much so, that a slight mistake may lead to disastrous consequences involving loss of thousand of lives" . Also , once an engine enters into the traffic yard and until it is sent back to the loco shed it is under the charge and control of Station Master . With reference to GR 4.37 which postulates subordination of guards to Station Masters and GR 4.39 insists drivers to obey all orders given to him by Station Masters. Thus whole movements are controlled by Station Masters .

Caution orders are necessitated during emergencies and/or departmental maintenance works . All rights signals are exchanged as an important task to ensure safe and smooth running of train from one destination to another . This signal is exchanged between the Guard and the Driver of a moving train with the Station Staff. Any failure in exchanging all right signals either by the crew or the Station Staffwill lead totemporary termination running of trains . Therefore, duties related to , the issuance of caution orders , conveying the caution order and exchange of all right signals are those directly connected to the charge of moving trains . The General Rules , 1986 , are the rules , which provide forworking of railways and according to these rules, traffic, i.e. movement of trains etc. are directly controlled by the Station Masters . Further, vide General Rules 4.37 and 4.39 (Annexure XIII ) the driver and the guard who work trains areworking under the orders from the Station Masters and as such but for orders from the Station Masters there will not be running of trains and hence station Masters shall be the principal recipient of pay element of Running Allowance.

Then again, assuming not conceding , for moment that driving is a condition necessary to bring the duty withinthe expression Charge of Then , what is driving ? No where defined in the Railway Rules . The term when used with reference to a moving vehicle has two fundamental aspects or ingredients . One is the process of keeping the vehicle in motion and regulating its speed , the second is controlling the direction of the vehicle i.e. steering. A person asthe driver of a moving vehicle should possess both the above requirements . One without the other does not make him full driver of moving vehicle as well vehicle cannot also moye . These functions need not be vested in a singal person as seen in the motor boats , where generally these functions are vested in two different persons . Even in motor vehicles these two functions are not inter connected . One couldbe performed without connection with the other. The question of steering arises only when the vehicle is in motion. It is in this context Section 2 (5) of the Motor Vehicle Act. defines a drives as where a separate person acts as a steerman of motor vehicle that person as well as any other person engaged in the driving of the motor vehicle . It is therefore submitted that changing the direction of moving train even from a stationary point is part of driving and further any duty directly connected to the control of moving trains by way of signalling , line clear, issue of direction for the drivers etc. , are duties directly connected to the charge ofmoving trains .

Further, in so far as , the duties connected with line clear, authority to proceed , clearance of signals . etc .. which have a direct nexus with safe and punctual working of trains are duties without which there cannot be any movements , the same are running duties in the light of law settled in the case between Indian Railway Ticket Checking StaffAssociation and Union of India and Others ( Annexure XVII ) . As such Station Masters are drivers too .

If the duties of the driver of a train in starting his train from a Station which can take place only when the driver is permitted so by the guard of the train, are the duties directly connected to the charge of moving trains . thenthe duties performed by the Station Masters in relation to permission given to the guard to permit his driver to start his train vide 4.35 ( Annexure XIV) are equally placed to that by the Driver and the guard and as such are duties directly connected to the charge of moving trains . If the duties performed by the driver and the guard of a train in protecting such train in mid - section during emergencies such as accidents , fire etc. , are duties directly connected to the charge of moving trains , then the duties performed by Station Masters in ensuring the complete arrival of train which negotiate a section and in arranging to secure the train by sending search parties etc. , in the event of such train does not reach the station in advance within a reasonable time vide GR 6.04 ( Annexure XV) and arranging

1855 G1 /05-42 6976

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005/ASADHA 11 , 1927

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ]

in the category- wise break up to responsibility to accident , SMs have shown remarkable improvements in reducing accident compared to any other category similarly situated, hence Station Masters/ Assistant Station Masters deserve consideration . Station Masters/ Assistant Station Masters submit that with circumstances for the reasons stated above , Station Masters /Assistant Station Masters are similarly placed in pairty of circumstances with any other category of Railwaymen to draw running allowance and consequential pay clement benefits . Further, the Doctrine ofreasonable classification recognises that the Legislature may clarify for the purpose of legislation but requies that the classification must be reasonable . It should ensure that person or thing similarly situated are similarly treated.

Ref: ( i ) Mohammad Shijath Ali I's . Union of India 1974 SC 163

(ii) 1976 Lab IC 395 ( AIR 1976 SC 490 )

The Apex Court of India in Workman Vs. Calcutta PortCommissioner 1973 La IC/ 92 ( Annexure XVIII ) and Workmen I's. Bombay Port Trust ( 1970) 20 FLR 7 (Annexure XIX) held that the Running Allowance is given for the performance of duties connected to the safe and punctual running of trains i.e. train passing duties. Indeed , the Supreme Court has gone to the extent of calling running Allowance as incentive to ensure safety and efficiency in the working of Railways . It is pertinent, that running allowance comprises of two components , namely TA elements, which includes kilometerage and allowance in lieu of kilometerage and pay element , contributing for national pay for payment of DA, retiral benefits etc. The payment ofTA element is connected to all physical running oftrain, and pay element is related in ensuring safe and punctual working of trains . It is therefore , submitted that the Running Allowance perse is unconnected and unrelated to the duties performed in Running Train and it is granted exclusively as an incentive for the safe and punctual running of trains as held by the Supreme Court . Commissions and Tribunals .

Hence , Station Masters /Assistant Station Masters come within the meaning of the expression Running Staff also if that is a requirement for the grantant of Running Allowance . Article 14 and 16 of the constitution of India assures equal opportunity in matters relating to employment . Thus, for the purpose of the grant of any benefit for the safe and punctual working of trains or for the performance of duties connected to the charge of moving trains the Station Masters /Assistant Station Masters are similarly situated along with the so called Running Staff and they are entitled to be treated similarly. The denial of Running Allowance to Station Masters/ Assistant Station Masters is thus violative of the Constitutional guarantee of equal opportunity and equality before law as enshrined in Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India . The Loco Inspectors who have been categoricallydenied their claim for Running Allowance by the V Central Pay Commission have been extended the benefit of Running Allowance vide Railway Board's Order No. E (P & A) II - 97 /RS - 2 dt. 02-04-1988 ( Annexure XX ) for discharging the following duties comparably on equal footing with thatby the Station Masters /Assistant Station Masters .

This is why other staff performing duties in running trains are declared disentitled to the running allowances . though they are compensated with the travelling allowance . What disqualifies them is the qualification for Station Masters/ Assistant Station Masters to the benefit of running allowance. Once it is settled that running allowance is an allowance granted as an incentive , it is a recompense and consideration for safe and punctual working oftrains. the only question is whether such benefit could be denied to Station Masters/ Assistant Station Masters alone when the rule itself accommodates their case . A incentive is a motivation granted for a purpose . The object of the incentive here is performance of duty directly connected to the safe and punctual running of trains . The basis for the grant is therefore direct involvement and performance is the object sought to be achieved . It is needless , here , to narrate the quantum of involvement of Station Masters /Assistant Station Masters in the safe and punctual working of trains. They are considered the biggest among the BIG THREE in safe working . They are eligible to the Accident Free Service incentive when the same is not extended to some of the running staff viz . Guard. In recent grant of Awards for Accident Free Service made in accordance with the announcement of the Hon'ble Minister for Railwaysto grant incentives for safe working , the Station Masters/ Assistant Station Masters as a single category rank top among beneficiaries . " An important part of the Machine is Station Masters /Assistant Station Masters" ( Para 7 of Hand Book 1966 ) .

In the system of working that is prevailing in the Railways the end product of " TRANSPORT™ revolves around the three important categories of Station Masters . Drivers and Guards . Though it is so, the role played by the cach category in the system is different to the other . The role of Station Masters and Drivers though seems to be on the same place in reality, it vastly differs for the reasons the absolute responsibility in train passing vested with the category of Station Masters. In regard to the Drivers the responsibility shifts from primary to secondary, according to the circumstances , whereas in the case of Guards he is nowhere in the picture This is time and again established at the instance of an accident in the Railways . The Indian Railways in order to improve the safety standards in Railways and safety consciousness among the train Now on Station Masters ' performance , a cursory glance at the report of the latest Railway Accident Enquiry Committee will show how Station Masters perform and contribute to the object . The figures in the various charts in the Report is an unequivocal testimony to the fact that [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

passing staff, have devised various means to instill a source ofconfidence. One among those step is reward the Safety category personnel by distributing " Safety Awards " for Accident free service . In this , the omission of Guards ' category is a glaring example. This amply proves our point thattheirimportance is relegated to no place . Our averment gets fortified when the same is embedded in General Rules which provide for running of "Pilot Trains " without Guards as per S.R. 4.25 (ii ) ( a) (b) (c) ( Annexure XXI).

The role of Station Masters in Indian Railways have become pivotal for the reasons after the introduction of sophisticated electronic gadgets . The introduction ofthese gadgets are with an eye to improve the safety standard and the category of Station Masters is the only category working on these gadgets. It is not only the duty and responsibility increased manifold but also it has become more strenuous . The dependability of train passing in the system is fully devolved upon the Station Masters working in 7000 odd Stations. The Station Masters is the sole independent authority in the system of manage and maneouver the train operation without any immediate assistance at his place of work , whereas in the case of Drivers he is guided in all respects during the run by the Station Masters and in case any eventuality in the mid section he has an Assistant Driver to assist him in his discharge of duties.

The management has filed written statement . In the written statement , it has been stated that the application has not been made , instituted , signed and filed by any properly authorised person on behalf of the petitioner , hence, deserves dismissal . That the applicant has no cause of action against the management/ opposite party hence , deserves dismissal . That the applicant/petitioner has not come to this Hon'ble Court with clean hands and has suppressed rather misrepresented the facts which are very material for the purpose of proper adjudication of the matter in controversy pending before this Hon'ble Court and is guilty of " SUPPRESSOVERI " and on the face of the submissions contained in the Written Statement on merits the applicant is not entitled to any relief as claimed in the application , hence , deserves dismissal . That the present application is nothing but only an exercise in verbosity without any substance and only an abuse of the process of law, hence , deserves no consideration .

That the present application is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as the claim of the applicant is false , frivolous , vexatious , devoid of any merit and untenable in law. That the alleged claim is vague , imaginary, hypothetical after thought and outside the ambit and scope of Industrial Dispute as defined under Section 2 (k) of the I.D. Act , and the instant reference is incompetent. That this reference is not competent and this Hon'ble Court has no jurisdiction in view of the Section 3 (q ) of the Administrative Tribunals Act , 1985 to adjudicate upon the

6977

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 2 , 2005/आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

subject matter pending between the parties . That the applicant has no cause of action against the management/ opposite party as the claim of the applicant based on same facts as contained in the present application has already been finally decided in O.A. No. 1455/92 by CAT/Madras . After a through examination of the issues involved, the Tribunal did not find any merit in the application and dismissed the same vide their judgement dt . 30-11-1994 , hence the present claim of the applicant is barred by principles of " RESJUDICATA " is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. The present claim of the applicant is meritless and misconceived and the same be dismissed with compensatory costs.

Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal , Principal Bench, Delhi , in O.A. 1267/87 dt. 7-01-1993 in case Railway Ticket Checking Staff Checking Association.V/s . Union of India and Others while dismissing an identical claim by the Indian Railway Ticket Checking Staff held-

"The claim is based on Article 14 on the ground that they are entitled to equal pay for equal work . So far astheprinciple of law is concerned, it is settled that equal pay for equal work is a principle which flow from Article 14 of Constitution. It is equally well settled that the principle of equal pay for equal work can be accepted only when it is established that the duties, functions and responsibilities , the Courts are not well equipped and it is a function which can more satisfactorily be performed by experts in the field. Pay Commission have been regarded and accepted as experts in this behalf and the Supreme Courthas pointed out that when such an expert body evaluates the duties and functions , the court should not normally interfere with such evaluation by such a body."

That the demand of the applicant was considered by the IVth Central Pay Commission for inclusion of SMs/ ASMs in the category of running staff but the commission were unable to agree to the same , as may be see from para 10.445 oftheir report . Even the Vth Central Pay Commission did not agree to the demand for classification of SMs/ ASMs as running staff and grant of running allowance as may be observed from para 83.127 of their report . In this view of the matter the demand for classification of SMs/ ASMs as running staff and grant of running allowance/ pay element in running allowance to them has been examined by various flora but has not been found acceptable , as the same being devoid of merit .

The post of Station Masters/ ASMs is a stationary post and they perform stationary duties only. They are involved only in working of traffic within the station limits. The SMs/ ASMs do not move trains from the station . Also , they do not perform running duties ; they do not perform their duties while employed on moving trains or engines/ shunting engines . The meaning of ' moving trains ' and to 6978

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 2, 2005/ASADHA 11. 1927

'move the train in the operation of train movements ' is different and distinct . There are a number of categories of staff on the Railways such as Switchman , Cabinman , Pointsman , Signal Inspectors , Train Examiners . Train Controllers etc. who are connected with discharging duties of receiving/ examining trains in a station and dispatching the same . In fact , all railway employees in some way or the other are connected with the movement of trains . This , however, does not entitle them to be classified as "Running Staff' . The SMS / ASMs have been given certain powers to control the movement of trains within theirjurisdiction with a view to ensure safety. In fact , the scope of the duties of SMs/ ASMs has been very precisely mentioned by the Association itself in their instant case that "The Station Masters and Assistant Station Masters are appointed in Railways mainly for the purpose of performing train passing duties. It is the running staff, i.e. the drivers and guards who have to move the train and ensure that there is no obstruction on the track like , breach, washaway, sabotage , level crossing obstruction etc. The SMs/ASMs job is over after giving line clear , but it is the running staff who being directly Incharge of moving trains, who have to be vigilant and alert .

It is thus evident that the duties performed by SMs/ ASMs do not fall within ambit of " running duties " and that they are stationary staff performing train passing duties which is distinct from being Incharge of moving trains . The contention that running allowance is granted exclusively as an incentive for the safe and punctual running oftrains is wholly incorrect : Due to their nature of duties, the running staff have to stay away from their headquarters for a number of days in a month . Whereas Traveling Allowance /Daly Allowance is admissible to the employees in general on staying away from their Headquarters on fulfilment of the prescribed conditions , this benefit of Traveling Allowance/Daily Allowance is not admissible to the categories of running staff. Further, the scales of pay ofthe running staff are deemed to be notionally depressed and they earn a part of their pay through the instrument of running allowance .

Running Allowance, therefore , comprises mainly of two element , viz..

( a) an element of pay, and

(b) an element towards out of pocket expenses representing the TA/ DA element.

Running Allowance is payable to the running staff at the specified rates per 100 kms . The amount of running allowance carned is dependent upon the kilometreage worked by them and increases with the distance covered by them . In fact , performance above the average

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii )] kilometreage results in earnings higher than the more pay element and out of pocket expenses . This induces the running staff to take to running duties willingly and is a reflector of their efficiency and dedication to the Organisation . Thus , a portion of emoluments of the Running Staff is dependent upon the nature of duties and the quantum of work put in by them during the month. SMs/ ASMs are entitled to TA/ DA and the concept of notionally depressed scales of pay is not applicable in their case.

Loco Inspectors are drawn from amongst the categories of loco running staff viz . , Goods Drivers , Passenger Drivers and Mail/ Express Drivers . They are entitled to running allowance due to performance of their duties directly connected with the training and monitoring ofthe loco running staff on the foot -plate of the locomotives cab of the moving trains , which are akin to the duties ofthe Drivers . A copy of the duty - list of Loco Inspector is annexed asAnnexure R3 . It may be seen there from that there is vast difference between the duties performed by the Loco Inspectors on the one hand and the SMs/ ASMs on the other . The SMS / ASMs are stationary staff and perform stationary duties only. The Loco Inspectors are credited with actual foot plates duties and paid running allowance accordingly at the rates prescribed from time to time. The Loco Inspectors are given an allowance in lieu of kilometreage for other than foot plate duties performed by them outside their headquarters beyond a radius of 8 kilometres . No TA/ DA is admissible to Loco Inspectors , as is the case with running staff also. In the case of SMs/ ASMS , TA/ DA is admissible to them on fulfilment of the prescribed conditions .

In the instant case . it may be pertinent to mention that similar issue had been raised by a Section of Station Masters as O.A. No. 1455/92 before CAT/Madras . After a thorough examination of the issues involved the Tribunal did not find any merit in the application and dismissed the same vide their judgmentdt . 30-11-1994 . Further the IV Central Pay Commission also considered the demand for inclusion of SMS /ASMs in the category of running staff. The Commission considered the demand but were unable to agree to the same , as may be seen from para 10.445 of their report . Even the V Central Pay Commission did not agree to the demand for classification of SMs / ASMs as running staff and grant of running allowance as may be observed from para 8.3.127 of their report .

The General Secretary on behalf of All India Station Masters Association. New Delhi has filed rejoinder. In his rejoinder the averments of the claim statement have been reiterated and the contents of the paras of the written statement have been denied. The management has also [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

denied most of the paras of the claim statement in written statement .

Evidence of both the parties has been taken .

Heard arguments from both the sides and perused the paper on the record.

It was submitted from the side of the petitioner that running allowance is a allowance ordinarily to the running staff for the performance of duty directly connected with the charge of moving trains and includes kilometerage and allowance . In view of the kilometerage as per rule 1507 of the Indian Railways Establishment Court running allowance has been defined as above .

It was submitted from the side of the petitioner that running allowances granted for performances of duties directly connected to the charge of moving trains . It implies that running allowances should be granted only to those employees who are directly connected with the charge of moving trains. It implies otherwise that an employee who is not directly connected to the charge of moving trains should not get running allowance .

Itwas further submitted that the SMs and ASMs are also directly connected to the charge of moving trains so they should also get running allowance . The substantial question to be decided is whether the SMs and ASMs are directly connected to the charge of moving trains or not . In case they are directly connected to the charge of moving trains they should be granted running allowance.

It was further submitted that the moving trains are called as running trains in the General Rules. The SMs are essential requirements for a train to become a moving train. Permission for moving a train is not giving until it is certified that train is fit to the effect that it may proceed. Without any authority to proceed , the train is stable stock . The train cannot be said to be a moving train until it moves. The SMs and ASMs give a authority for the train to move so this duty is directly connected to the charge of moving trains . The train cannot move until authority to move is given by SMs or ASMs.

Itwas further submitted that the authority for taking off or clearing the last stop signal which is given by the SMs and ASMs and without such authority the train cannot commence its journey. Thus the duty of the SMs and ASMs is to issue authority for a train to move so they should be considered directly connected to the charge of moving trains . The SMs and ASMs are the only Railway Employees who can obtain or grant line clear and who can transmit authority to proceed and can have free access to the block instruments thus every duty performed by the SMs and ASMs is directly connected to the commencement

6979

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 2 , 2005/ आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

of journey or moving of the train so according to the definition running allowance should be given to the SMs and ASMs .

It was further submitted that duties relating to clearing relevant signals , permission to clear signals are directly connected to the moving trains . In order to ensure safe and punctual running of trains procedure have to be laid down in General Rules such as issuance of order. The failure in exchanging all right signals either by the train crew or the station staff will lead to temporary termination of running of trains therefore , such duties as issuance of caution order conveying the caution order and exchange ofall right signals are directly connected to the charge of moving trains . The SMs and ASMs perform their duties so they are directly related to the charge of moving trains . Charges mentioned in the definition does not necessarily mean driving or time to drive means includes the duties directly connected to the control of moving trains according to the law settled in 1915 SLT 1915. In 3365 it has been specified in award of1961.

It was further submitted that changing of direction of moving trains even from a stationary point is part of driving and control and moving by way of signaling line clear issue ofdirection for the drivers or duties are directly connected to the charge of moving trains . The duties of SMs and ASMs have a direct nexus with safe and punctual working of trains and these are running duties in the light oflaw settled . The SMs are drivers too .

Itwas further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 1970 (20) FLR 7 held that running allowance is givenfor the performance of duties connected to the safe and punctual running of trains i.e. train passing . It has been held as an incentive for smooth and efficient and safe running of the trains. It is granted exclusively as an incentive for the safe and punctual running of the trains . Running allowances is an allowance granted as incentive for safe and punctual working of trains . The SMs and ASMs play animportant role . In case clearance signals are not given a train cannot be run . My attention was drawn to AIR 1970 SC 490. The SMs and ASMs should be treated as running staff and they should be granted equal pay for equal work. They are entitled to get running allowance . The denial of running allowance is violative of Constitutional Guarantee of equal opportunity and quality before law as enshrined inArticle 14 and 16 of the Constitution . The running of the trains depends upon the SMs and ASMs so the SMs and ASMs are an integral part of the running trains without performance of their duties a train cannot run .

It was submitted from the side of the management that equal pay for equal work can be given in case the 6980

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005/ ASADHA 11. 1927

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

smooth running of the trains . They also discharge similar duties of the SMs and ASMs . There is no logic why they should not be paid running allowance in case the SMs and ASMs are found fit for running allowance .

duties functions and responsibilities are the same . The drivers are skilled workers and their duty is operational one such duties are not performed by SMs and ASMS they are not experts so they cannot get running allowance ofrunning staff.

To sumup the SMs and ASMs are not the running staff and they do not perform the nature of duties as performed by the running staff, the running staff is to leave away from his house for a number of days . They remain on the trains for number of hours and they work at a strategy for hours together. These duties are very tedious and hard and they have to discharge duties whereas the duties of the SMs and ASMs are for fixed hours and they work in shifts and the operation of the running trains are not so onerous in comparison to the running staff so it becomes quite obvious that the SMs and ASMs perform a different type of duty. Their duties are rather supervisory one .

It was further submitted that the case of SMs and ASMs was considered by the IVth Pay Commission and they were not found deserving for running allowance . In case there is Pay Commission and the right of the employees are decided by the Pay Commission after representation of both the parties , the Court ceases to have jurisdiction . The SMs filed OA No. 1455/92 before CAT/ Madras and the case was decided on 13-11-1994 and it was held that the IVth Pay Commission has decided thatpoint after considering the representation of both the parties and even the Vth Pay Commission also did not agree to the demands for classifications of SMs and ASMs asrunning staff and did not grant them running allowance .

The SMs and ASMs are Supervisors . They have control over the Switchman , Cabinman, Pointman , Signal Inspectors , Train Examiner, Train Controller etc. and their duties are managerial and administrative in view of this fact also the duties performed by the SMs and ASMs cannot be said to be operational and the duties of running staff. They are supervisors and in view of the definition of the I.D. Act they not the workman as they get more than Rs . 1,600 pay and they discharge supervisory duty. On this count also the petition is liable to be dismissed .

In view of the facts discussed above it is held that the SMs and ASMs do not perform the duties of running staff so they are not entitled to get equal pay for equal work as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court . They discharge supervisory duties and they are not connected to the charge of moving trains so they are not entitled to get running allowance . They are not entitled to get running allowance in view of the decision of the IV and Vth Pay Commission . I have perused the law cited by the petitioners but the same are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case .

The reference is replied thus : ---

The action of the Chairman , Railway Board . Rail Bhawan. New Delhi in not granting pay element of running allowance at par with running staff to the Station Masters/ Assistant Station Masters is justified , reasonable and valid . The Station Masters and Assistant Station Masters are not entitled to get running allowance as prayed for.

The Award is given accordingly.

Date: 03-06-2005 .

Running allowance is given to a class of employee who are skilled and whose duties are operational for efficient and smooth running of the trains . It depends on the nature of the duties and the quantum of work put in by them during a month . The running staff is directly connected with the duties of running trains in case the SMs and ASMs are considered running staff . The SMs and ASMs are stationary staff and perform stationary duties only. They remain on the station and they control the running of the trains sitting at one place so they perform trains passing duties and it is distinct from the charge of moving trains . The running staff stays away from his quarter for a number of days in a month and this allowance is given for staying away from their HQs on fulfilment of the prescribed conditions . The SMs do not leave/stay away from their houses for a number of days after fulfilment of the prescribed conditions . It is true that the train moves after a signal is given to the running staff and only SMs and ASMs do not perform such duties if considered broadly. The Cabinman , Pointman , Signal Inspector, Train Examiner or a Train Controller are also incidential for moving of the trains . The SMs and ASMS give direction to the Switchman , Cabinman , Pointman , Signal Inspectors , Train Examiner, Train Controller to let the train move in case these employees do not perform their duties the train cannot move. On this analogy it can be said that the Switchman , Cabinman , Pointman , Signal Inspectors . Train Examiner. Train Controller are directly connected to the charge of trains because without their operational duty the train cannot move so they should be also directly related to the charge of the trains . The Switchman, Cabinman , Pointman , Signal Inspectors , Train Examiner , Train Controller are the integral part of the stationary staff stationed at platform for the safe and

R.N. RAI , Presiding Officer 6981 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 2 , 2005 /आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

AWARD

नई दिल्ली , 9 जून , 2005

The Ministry of Labour by its letter No. L - 12011 / 105 / 2000/ IR (B - II ) , Central Government Dt. 29-08-2000 has referred the following point for adjudication .

The point runs as hereunder:

का.आ. 2337.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार पंजाब नेशनल बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. 2, नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 99/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 8-6-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -12011/105/2000- आई आर ( बी- II ) ]

सी. गंगाधरण , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 9th June , 2005

"Whether the action of the Chief, PS & LB Divison, 5, Sansad Marg, Punjab National Bank, Hd. Office , New Delhi in imposing the punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect vide order dated 20-10-1998 upon Shri Joginder Singh , Peon, PS & LB Division , Punjab National Bank is justified and reasonable? If not , what relief the workman is entitled to?" .

S.O. 2337.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 99/ 2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum- Labour Court No. II, NewDelhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Punjab National Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 8-6-2005.

The Union has filed statement of claim on behalf of the workman. In the statement of claim it has been stated that Shri Joginder Singh was served with cooked up charge sheet dated 23-07-1996 by the said disciplinary authority, the respondents , alleging , inter alia that he did not distribute the dak on 25-06-1996 and 26-06-1996 through PeonBook despite having been so advised and also refused to take files on 26-06-1996 to the chamber of DGM , then so asked by Shri RKB Singh , Manager of the said division .

[No. L- 12011 / 105 /2000 - IR (B - II) ]

C. GANGADHARAN , Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER : CENTRAL

GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT- II , RAJENDRA BHAWAN , GROUND FLOOR, RAJENDRA PLACE , NEW DELHI

Presiding Officer : R.N. RAI

I. D. No. 99/2000

That the said charge sheet was not issued by the competent authority as per service conditions of the workman . That no comments were sought from the concerned workman on the report of inquiry by the competent disciplinary authority before issue of show cause notice , thereby proposing punishment , which is against the principles of natural justice ' and provisions of law pertaining to disciplinary action . That the Presenting Officer did not submit any brief of inquiry to the Inquiry Officerbefore conclusion of inquiry findings . As such , the inquiry officer did not decide the case on merits but on the basis of his own misconceptions and surmises vide entire inquiryreport .

In the matter of : --

Shri Joginder Singh ,

Through General Secretary, PNB Worker's Union , C/o . PNB , " L " Block , Cannaught Circus , New Delhi.

Versus

That the inquiry officer did not give any credence to the judgements of apex court , in defence of workman . That the disciplinary authority did not provide any list of management witnesses and other documentary evidence to the inquiry officer for further investigations rather, the Presenting Officer did this duty himself, by overriding the powers of the disciplinary authority , which is illegal , and the entire inquiry proceedings stands vitiated on this count alone.

Pubjab National Bank

The Chief P. S. & L. B. Division , Punjab National Bank , 5. SansadMarg , New Delhi - 110001 .

That the Presenting Officer and the disciplinary authority both were of high ranking officials of the Bank, having easy access to the disciplinary authority. Thờ workman , having been only a Peon , was kept at a very low ebb, and the scales ofjustice remained tiltled against the said workman . No credence was given to the legal 6982

[PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005/ASADHA 11 , 1927

pronouncements , as quoted by the defence side . That the inquiry report was not provided to the workman for his formal comments on the inquiry report , before service of show cause notice dated 19-09-1998 , proposing punishment.

authority. Thereafter the disciplinary authority vide his order dated 20-10-1998 confirmed the punishment of " stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect " upon Shri Singh. Against the order dated 20-10-1998 of the disciplinary authority Shri Joginder Singh preferred and appeal dated 30-11-1998 and having regard to the material on the record , the same was rejected by the Appellate Authority vide his order dated 26-03-1999 .

That no personal hearing was granted to the workman by the disciplinary authority against the proposed punishment , as against the provisions of BPS , as well as against the provisions of law, and also against the principles of natural justice ' and the disciplinary authority passed the said order of punishment arbitrarily and the Appellate Authority also confirmed the said punishment more arbitrarily, without applying his mind.

That the disciplinary authority, Presenting Officer and the inquiry officer have colluded in framing the charges against the said workman and confirmed the inquiry on him in an arbitrary fashion , without having any regard to the principles of natural justice and provisions , of law. That the said punishment is inflicted upon the said workman in amost unfair and arbitrary fashion.

In view of the aforesaid it is submitted that the departmental action has been taken against Shri Joginder Singh in accordance with the provisions of the BPS and the punishment inflicted is commensurate with the gravity of the allegations established against him . Since the claimant in his claim has not specified any provision of the BPS which has been contravened by the bank , the claim of the union is liable to be rejected on this ground alone. It is the submission of the bank that the departmental inquiry was conducted in accordance with the provisions of the BPS and the same is fair and proper . However, in case this Hon'ble Tribunal comes to the conclusion for any reason whatsoever that the inquiry conducted is not fair and proper while deciding the preliminary issue of fairness of inquiry, in that eventuality, the bank would crave leave to lead evidence to establish the allegations made against the workman vide charge sheet dated 23-07-1996 .

The workman applicant has not filed rejoinder. From the perusal of the order sheet it transpires that the workman applicant has been absent since 27-08-2002 . He has not filed rejoinder to rebut the written statement of the management. Notice has been sent to him on 20-07-2004 still he did not turn up. The management also not turned up. In briefthe case of the petitioner is that a proper inquiry has not been held against him and two increments with cumulative effect have been withheld.

The workman applicant has not filed rejoinder. He has not given any affidavit . The burden is on the workman to prove that the inquiry was unfair. He has not discharged his burden .

The reference is replied thus

The action of the Chief. PS & LB Division, 5 , Sansad Marg . Punjab National Bank , Hd. Office , New Delhi in imposing the punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect vide order dated 20-10-1998 upon Shri Joginder Singh , Peon , PS & LB Division, Punjab National Bank is justified and reasonable . The workman applicant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for .

The Award is given accordingly.

Date 02-06-2005 .

R.N. RAI , PresidingOfficer In reply to the claim the management has stated that the service conditions of the workmen staff in the bank including those of Shri Joginder Singh are governed by the provisions of the Sastry Award , Desai Award and various BPS . Shri Joginder Singh was served with the charge sheet dated 23-07-1996 by the disciplinary authority under the provisions of the BPS whereby, inter alia , it was alleged that he did not distribute the dak on 25-06-1996 through Peon Book despite having been so advised and also refused to take files on 26-06-1996 to the chamber of DGM when so asked by Shri R.K.B. Singh , Manager of the Division. It was alleged that the acts committed on the part of Shri Joginder Singh constituted acts of insubordination within the meaning of para 19.5 (e) of BPS . Shri Joginder Singh . however, did not submit reply to the charge sheet. The disciplinay authority vide order dated 30-10-1996 set up departmental inquiry to find out the truthfulness of the allegations made vide charge sheet dated 23-07-1996 served upon him . It was submitted that the inquiry officer conducted the inquiry in accordance with the provisions of the BPS during which all reasonable opportunity was afforded to Shri Joginder Singh to present his case . The inquiry officer submitted his report dated 11-06-1998 to the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority thereafter vide show cause notice dated 19-09-1998 proposed punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect upon Shri Joginder Singh and fixed 28-09-1998 for the personal hearing but same was postponed twice on his written request . The inquiry report was provided to Shri Singh along with the said show cause notice . Shri Singh, however, did not appear for the personal hearing before the disciplinary [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 9 जून , 2005

का.आ. 2338.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सेंट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडियाके प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं .2 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 97/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 8-06-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/175/2001 - आई आर ( बी- II ) ] सी. गंगाधरण , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 9th June , 2005

S.O. 2338. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 97/ 2001 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court No. 2, New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the management of Central Bank of India and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 8-6- 2005.

[No. L- 12012/ 175/ 2001 - IR (B - II) ] C. GANGADHARAN , Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

I. D. No. 97/2001

Presiding Officer : R. N. Rai.

In the Matter of:- ShriAjayKumar, PocketC - 11 . House No. 73 , Sector- 5, Rohini . New Delhi

Versus

The Regional Manager. Central Bank of India . RegionalOffice, B(North ), Ist Floor . Chandni Chowk . Delhi - 110006.

AWARD

The Ministry of Labour by its letter No. L - 12012/ 175/2001 ( IR ( B - II ) Central Government Dt . 14-12-2001 has referred the following point for adjudication .

The point runs as hereunder :-

"Whether the action of Regional Manager, Central Bank of India, Regional Office , B ( North ) , Ist Floor , Chandni Chowk , Delhi - 6 in removing from services 1855 GI /05-43

6983

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 2 , 2005/ आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

to Shri Ajay Kumar, Ex . Peon, Central Bank of India, Regional Office w.e.f. 29-04-2000 is justified, valid and legal ? If not, what relief and benifits the concerned workman is entitled to ?"

2. The workman applicant has filed statement of claim in the statement of claim, it has been stated that the workman concerned in the present dispute was appointed as a peon in the services of Central Bank of India in the year 1986 and his service conditions had been , at all times relevant to the present dispute , governed by the provisions ofthe Sastry Award , as modified in the Desai Award and a further modified in the subsequent bipartite settlements reached between the managements of various banks including Central Bank of India and their workmen, from time to time.

That Central Bank of India is a statutory corporation , created by the banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer or Undertaking) Act , 1970 and is , therefore, an 'other authority' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and as such, is required to act fairly towards its employees in matters relating to their service conditions .

That in August, 1999 , when the workman was posted atthe Bank's Regional Office -B , Delhi , he was served upon a charge - sheet dated 18-08-1999 issued by the Bank's Regional Manager at its Regional Office- B , Delhi thereby also simultaneously instituting a departmental inquiry against him , without giving to him even an opportunityto give his explanation as to the charge framed against him, as provided in clause 19.1 of the bipartite settlement dated 19-10-1966 and also appointing an inquiry officer for holding the inquiry, by orders in the chargesheet itself.

That the above charge - sheet dated 18-08-1999 was issued to the workman three months after he was placed under suspension on 24-05-1999 . That the inquiry officer commenced the departmental inquiry against the workman on 13-09-1999 and concluded the same on 22-11-1999 . Where after the Presenting Officer of Management and the workman's representatives submitted to the inquiry officer their respective written briefs . That thereafter, the Regional Manager/ Disciplinary Authority forwarded to theworkman with his letter dated 06-01-2000 a copy ofthe Report/Findings of the inquiry officer dated 03-01-2000 and, as desired thereby, the workman submitted to the disciplinary authority his representation dated 24-01-2000 against the said Report/Findings of the inquiry officer . A copy of the said representation of the workman dated 24-01-2000 is enclosed as Annexure - W/2 hereto. entation

That this was followed by a show cause memorandum dated 03-04-2000 issued to the workman by the disciplinary authority , thereby proposing the punishment of REMOVAL OF THE WORKMAN FROM SERVICE against the workman together with the further punishment that the workman would not get the increment which became due to him during the period of his suspension. That , as directed by the disciplinary authority in the above show cause memorandum dated 03-04-2000, the workman appeared before him for a hearing on 17-04-2000 and showed cause against the orders of the proposed punishments. A copy of the minutes the said 6984

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005/ ASADHA 11 , 1927

hearing is enclosed a Annexure - W/3 hereto. That after the hearing dated 17-04-2000 , the disciplinary authority proceeded to pass a final order dated 29-04-2000, thereby confirming the orders of the proposed punishments , as made in the show cause memorandum dated 03-04-2000 . A copy of the said final order is enclosed as Annexure - W/ 4 hereto.

That aggrieved by the orders of the disciplinary authority, the workman submitted an appeal dated 05-06-2000 to the Bank's Asstt . General Manager at its Zonal Office, New Delhi . The original copy of the appeal is with the Bank as part of enq . Record . That the appeal of the workman was heard by the aforesaid appellate authority on 27-06-2000 , but was rejected by him vide his orders dated 07-08-2000 . That the workman then sent a notice dated 12-09-2000 to the management , thereby demanding the withdrawal of the punishment order dated 29-04-2000 and his reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits, but the workman did not hear anything from the management in reply to his above demand notice and so, he raised an industrial dispute before the Asstt . Labour Commissioner ( C) , New Delhi over the illegal and unjustified action of the management in removing him from service from 29-04-2000 . A copy of the aforesaid demand notice of the workman dated 12-09-2000 is enclosed as Annexure - W/5 hereto .

The very initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the workman vide charge- sheet dated 18-08-1999 was unfair and illegal for the reason that the departmental inquiry was instituted against the workman by an order in the charge sheet itself and even the appointment of the inquiry officer was made at the same stage without /before giving to the workman the prescribed opportunity to give his explanation as to the charge against him , which was , for the first time, framed in the charge-sheet dated 18-08-1999 , which was in contravention of the following provisions of clause 19.1 of the bipartite settlement dated 19-10-1966 as well as in violation of the principles of natural justice:-

19.1 . In supersession of paragraphs 18.20, 18.24 and 18.28 ofthe Desai Award, a person against whom disciplinary action is proposed or likely to be taken, shall in the first instance , be informed of the charge against him , and he shall have a proper opportunity to give his explanation as to such particulars."

The disciplinary authority had acted arbitrarily and inviolation of the principles of natural justice by rejecting the workman's reply dated 10-06-1999 to the preliminary memo of the Bank dated 05-06-1999 , with just a cryptic remark in the charge - sheet that " it was not found satisfactory " without adducing any reasons for his such dissatisfaction with the said reply of the workman .

The disciplinary authority had also acted illegally and in violation to the principles of natural justice by not furnishing to the workman with the charge- sheet any list of documents and witnesses in support of the charge framed by him against the workman , which showed that he had framed the charge without considering any evidence in its support and which , therefore , was a fatal infirmity in

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] the initiation of disciplinary action by him against the workman. In fact in not supplying to the workman any such list of documents and witnesses with the charge- sheet , the disciplinary authority had even disregarded the government directions . as conveyed to all nationalized banks by a letter dated 03-07-1984 which was circulated by the Bank's Central Office to all senior executives of the Bank under cover of a circular dated 23-08-1984 .

The inquiry was also conducted in an illegal manner in as much as that the inquiry was allowed to proceed entirely on the basis of evidence which was decided by a person other than the disciplinary authority after the commencement of the inquiry. It is submitted that the framing of charge by disciplinary authority without himself considering/deciding any evidence in the support thereof and the deciding of entire evidence in the support of the charge after the commencement of the inquiry, by another person , i.e. the Presenting Officer appointed by the disciplinary authority to present the Management's case in the inquiry was like putting the cart before the horse , which was utterly illegal and which vitiated the inquiry held against the workman.

The inquiry held suffered from another grave illegality for the reason that the inquiry officer had admitted into evidence all the documents filed by the Presenting Officer of the Management including the previous statement of a proposed witness of Management obtained behind the back of the workman without/before having the said documents first proved through the relevant/ concerned witnesses as per the basic and essential rule governing the conducting of departmental inquiries . Because the inquiry held was also unfair for the reason that although the Presenting Officer of Management had listed five witnesses to prove the charge against the workman, but he withheld from the inquiry two of these listed witnesses, namely Sh. Rakesh Khurana and Shri Ram Chander , who both were material and essential witnesses of the case , in as much as that while Shri Ram Chander had statedly checked the entire cash to trace the purported difference of Rs . 50,000/ - in the cash , Shri Rakesh Khurana had statedly searched for the missing cash of Rs . 50,000 in the Branch . While the above two listed witnesses were withheld from the inquiry without giving any reason for their non- production , thereby depriving the workman of an opportunity to cross examine them, another material witness who was not produced/ examined in the inquiry was one Shri G. S. Mishra , the officiating chief cashier - incharge of the cash department on the concerned date . Thus the management had acted in colourable use of its power by withholding the above three material and essential witnesses of the case , thereby preventing the full facts and the truth from coming to surface in the inquiry.

The inquiry conducted against the workman was unfair also for the reason that although the Presenting Officer of Management had filed in the inquiry a letter dated 20-05-1999 or one Shri Adish Kumar Jain, the Asstt . Cashier, in whose cash, the shortage of Rs . 50,000 /- had been reported on 20-05-1999 after the workman had handed over to him the cash given to the the workman for being stitched into packets 6985 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 2 , 2005/ आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

to the saidMr. Jain but the letter originally written by the said Mr. Adish Kumar Jain on 20-05-1999 was not produced inthe inquiry, even though he disclosed in cross examination in the inquiry that the said letter dated 20-05-1999 which was produced in the inquiry was the one obtained from him on 21- 05-1999 by the Manager and Dy. Manager of the branch by altering the version of the incident as was originally written byhim in his letter of 20-05-1999 by telling him that ifhe did not change the version as given by him in his originally written letter of 20-05-1999 and did not give a fresh letter, as desiredby them, he would himself get involved for the loss ofRs . 50,000. It is submitted that by withholding the letter originallywritten by Shri Adish Kumar Jain giving the version ofthe incident of the shortage of Rs . 50,000 reported in his cash on 20-05-1999 , the workman had been deprived ofthe opportunity of knowing as to what was his original version of the said incident of 20-05-1999 . It is stated that the withholding of the said material document and producing in its place another letter with altered version obtained from Mr. Jain by the authorities of the branch , amounted to tampering with evidence with the malafide intention of making the workman scapegoat to save Mr. Adish Kumar Jain , who had received the stitched cash handed over to him by the workman, without having pointed out any shortage in the said stitched cash at the time of receiving the said stitched cash from the workman on 20-05-1999 .

The cash given to a cash peon by a cashier for being stitched into packets is duly counted by the concerned cashier at the time of receiving back the stitched cash from the cash peon, there could be no question of the workman returning one packed of Rs . 500/ - denomination less to the cashier , Mr. Adish Kumar Jain, more particulary whenMr. Adish Kumar Jain had not pointed out any such shortage at the time of receiving back the stitched cash from the workman . That simply because the missing packet of Rs . 500 denomination was traced in the old record room of the Branch later on , did not by itself mean that it was placed there by the workman, more particularly when the workman had handed over to Mr. Adish Kumar Jain the entire cash which was given to the workman for stitching by the said cashier, Mr. Adish Kumar Jain, who had accepted the same as intact without pointing out any shortage therein at that time . That the admitted fact that Mr. Adish Kumar Jain had changed the original version of the incident of 20-05-1999 on 21-05-1999 at the instance of the Branch Manager and Dy. Branch Manager , as transpired in the inquiry, clearly pointed to a foul play and a pre-plan of the management to make the workman a scapegoat to save Mr. Adish Kumar Jain from the consequences of the loss of Rs . 50,000/ - from his custody after the entire stitched cash was handed over to Mr. Jain bythe workman in the forenoon of20-05-1999 .

The findings of the inquiry officer, on which the disciplinary authority had based his orders of proposed punishment against the workman in the show cause memorandum dated 03-04-2000 were completely perverse and unsustainable . That the Assistant Cashier , Mr. Adish Kumar Jain, who had reported the shortage of Rs . 50,000 in his cash only in the afternoon of 20-05-1999 , had not complained of/reported any shortage in the cash which had been given to the workman for being stitched into packets in the morning at the time the stitched cash was handed back to Mr. Adish kumar Jain by the workman. This fact clearly proved that the said shortage had taken place after the workman had handed over the stitched cash to Mr. Adish Kumar Jain in the forenoon of 20-05-1999. That Mr. Adish Kumar Jain, the Cashier concerned, failed to produce/show any record in the inquiry as to how many packets of Rs . 500/- denomination he had given to the workman for being stitched in the morning of20-05-1999.

However, withholding of increment of a charged employee is also one of the punishments prescribed in the bipartite settlements. Paragraph 85 of the Sastry Award makes it clear that " increments should normally be given and stoppage of increments by management should be onlybyway ofpunishment for proved misconduct or gross inefficiency" . It, therefore , follows that the orders of the disciplinary authority for non - release of workman's increment falling due to him during the period of his suspension , was passed by him by way of imposition of another punishment, in addition to the punishment of removal from service , which means that the disciplinary authority had awarded two punishments to the workman for the same single charge framed against him in the charge- sheet dated 18-08-1999 . Since imposition of two punishments for any one charge , as done by the disciplinary authority in the case of the workman , was prohibited by clause 19.9 of the bipartite settlement dated 19-10-1966, the punishment orders passed by the disciplinary authority was invalid and is liable to be set aside on this ground alone.

The management has filed written statement . It has been submitted that the workman applicant was given seven packets of Rs . 500 each to the workman for stitchingbut the workman returned only six packets back and thus there was a shortage of Rs . 50,000 (Rs . Fifty Thousand) cash and when Shri Adish Kumar Jain pointed outinquiredfrom the workman he replied that whatever packet he received from Adish Kumar Jain the same has been returned and nothing left to him . During the inquiry proceedings it is proved that the workman removed one That even between the time when Mr. Adish Kumar Jain had received the stitched cash from the workman in the forenoon of 20-05-1999 and the tallying of his cash by Mr. Adish Kumar Jain in the afternoon of that day, he had not complained of/reported any shortage in his cash, nor had been reported to any officials of the Branch that the workman had returned to him one packet of Rs . 500/- denomination less in the forenoon after the stitching of the cash given to the workman for that purpose . This showed that the story of there being shortage of one packet of Rs . 50,000/ - in his cash, reported at the time of tallying his cash in the afternoon was a self- serving, after- thought story.

6986

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005/ASADHA 11 , 1927

packet of Rs . 500 denomination and returned the same in the defence to the Branch Manager on his persuation . most of the paras of the claim statement have been denied. It has been further stated that a proper inquiry was conducted and sufficient opportunity was given to the workman applicant . He was found guilty to the admitted theft of Rs . 50,000 (Rs . Fifty Thousand) so he was given the punishment of removal from service .

The workman has filed rejoinder. In his rejoinder he has reiterated the averments of his claim statement and denied most of the paras of the written statement .

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)] the industrial dispute between the management of North WesternRailway and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 8-6-2005 .

[No. L-41012/253 /2003 - IR (B - I) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR Case No. CGIT - 36/ 2004

Reference No. L-41012/ 253/ 2003 - IR( B - I) Shri Gulab Singh ( deceased) , S/o . Sh . Meeru Singh ,

Through his legal heir Smt . Dhoban Kaur , W/o . Late Sh . Gulab Singh , Dauddpur, Gurunanak Colony,

Alwar(Rajasthan)

The workman has not been truning up for a long ume . So notice on 20-09-2004 and 02-02-2005 has been sent to the workman. It has been returned with the endorsement that none of the name of the workman resides in that house so the workman did not turn up despite proper notice and knowledge of the case. The management occasionally turned up . The cross of the workman was closed and the case was posted for argument . None was present on 01-07-04 , 25-08-04、10-09-04 , 27-10-04 , 02-02-05 , 12-05-05 & 17-05-05 . The workman did not turn up despite notices. He has given affifdavit but he did not make himself available for cross examination so his cross examinaton was closed on account of his absence . Thus claim statement of the workman applicant has not been proved because of his absence.

The reference is replied thus:--

Applicant

Versus 1. The Assistant Engineer, North Western Railway, Alwar 2. Divisional Railway Manager , North Western Railway.

Non - applicant

Jaipur.

Present:

: Sh . R. C. Sharma

Presiding Officer :

Sh C.D. Chaturvedi .

Forthe applicant

The action of the Regional Manager, Central Bank of India, Regional Office , B (North) , 1st Floor, Chandni Chowk, Delhi - 6 in removing from services to Shri Ajay Kumar, Ex . Peon . Central Bank of India . Regional Office w.e.f. 29-04-2000 is unjustified. valid and legal . The workman applicant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for .

The Award is given accordingly.

Date: 06-06-2005

R. N. RAI , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 9 जून , 2005

का.आ. 2339.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार नार्थ वेस्टर्न रेलवे 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. 36/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 8-06-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-41012/253 /2003 - आंई आर( बी-1 ) ]

अजय कुमार , डैस्कअधिकारी New Delhi , the 9th June , 2005

S.O. 2339.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No CGIT 36/2004 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Labour Court Jaipur now as shown in the Annexure , in For the non - applicant : Sh . Balvinder Singh .

: Date of award : 31-5-2005 .

AWARD

1. The Central Government in exercise of hte powers conferred under Clause ' D ' of sub- section 1 & 2 (A) to Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( herein after referred to as the Act ' ) has referred the folliwng industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal which runs as under :-

"Whether the action of the management of Railway Administration , Jaipur through Asstt . Engineer, NWR, Alwar in terminating the service of deceased Shri Gulab Singh . Gangman from 8-8-97 is legal and justified ? If not , the widow of the deceased is entitled for pensionary benefit etc. or not ?" 2. The facts , in brief, are that the legal heir Smt . Dhoban Kaur , wife of the deceased Gulab Singh (workman) has submitted a statement of claim in pursuance of the reference that her husband Gulab Singh was appointed on 4-1-1976 as a Gangman at Padisal Railway station , Distt . Alwar, who remained on leave on account of his sickness . But his service was terminated on 8-8-97 on the ground that he remained on unauthorized leave w.c.f. 11-1-95 till his termination . It has been further stated that the chargesheet was not served upon him and his service was [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

terminated without giving him an opportunity of hearing . It has been further pointed out that the workman Gulab Singh expired on 16-2-2002 during the conciliation proceedings pending before the Assistant Labour Commissioner. The applicant has urged that the termination orderdated 8-8-1997 passed against her deceased husband Gulab Singh be set aside and treating him to be in service till the date of his death all the admissible benefits be allowed to her. It is also prayed that all benefits which are admissible to the dependent of the deceased be also granted toher.

3. The non - applicants , in their written counter , have stated that the workman had remained on unauthorized leave for a period of 2248 days , in total , between 1990 to 1997, to whom a notice was sent by the management which was returned unserved and thereafter the chargesheet was sent at his residential address which was also returned unserved . Thereafter the domestic enquiry was initiated as per rules. It has also been stated that the workman has never submitted any application for his absence along with his sickness certificate. The non -applicants have further stated that the applicant is not entitled for any relief.

4. By the order dated 2-2-2005 , this court has found the domestic enquiry conducted against the workman to be defective and unfair .

5. On 9-2-2004 , the applicant moved an application accompanied with certain documents and has urged that since the fribunal has declared the departmental enquiry as unfair, in view of the settled law towards such cases , where the workman has been expired during the proceedings , the full relief is being granted to the dependents of such workman . The applicant has , therefore, prayed that full back- wages and other service benefits for the above period be granted to her as the legal heir of the deceased workman and the family pension also be grnated inher favour.

6. The non - applicant have opposed this application in their reply dated 26-4-2005 by stating that the applicant is not entitled for any relief.

7. On 23-2-2005 , the non - applicants have petitioned before the court that in the interest ofjustice an opportunity be given to them for adducing the evidence to prove the charge levelled agaisnt the deceased workman . It has been orally opposed on hehalf of the applicant .

8. I have heard both the parites and have gone through the record.

9. The pertinent question which emerges for determination is whether on account of the death of the workman, the bank be permitted to lead its evidence in support of the charges levelled against the workman.

10. The ld . representative for the applicant contends that due to the death of the workman the charges cannot be proved against him by adducing the evidence on behalf of the bank and that there is no justification now to lead

6987

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 2 , 2005/आषाढ़11 , 1927

the evidence . His contention is that it was the deceased workman who could be able to confront the management witnesses in their cross -examinations . on the other hand, the ld. representative for the non - applicants has submited that once the dispute has been referred to the tribunal it should prefer to pass an award by giving an opportunity of leading the evidence to the parties .

11. I have bestowed my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions and have carefully perused the judicial pronouncement 1995 ( 70 ) FLR Raj . 244 relied upon by the representative for the applicant on the point .

12. In 1995 (70) FLR Raj . 244 referred to on behalf of the applicant , the facts are that the workman died on 7-12-87 during the pendency of the reference who was survied by his wife and sons , who were made the parties. The enquiry held against the workman by the Life Insurance Corporation of India had been held to be unfair by the Tribunal during the lifetime of the workman and the Corporation was granted the permission to lead the evidence to prove the charge levelled against the workman . The Tribunal arrived at a conclusion that the charges were proved. But it directed that the workman was entitled to wages up to 7-12-87 which may be paid to his legal heirs . Both the parties challenged the award by filing the writ petitions before the Tribunal respectively which were dismissed.

13. The Hon'ble DB has observed that the fats relating to the termination order, holding the enquiry unfair and the death of the workman were undisputed . It was also observed that the charge against the concerned workman was held to be proved on the basis of the evidence which was led before the Tribunal by the employer after the death of the concerned workman . On these facts , the observation made by the Hon'ble Court is quoted as below:-

...... we are of the considered opinion that since the workman had died on December 7, 1987 and it had already been held earlier by the Tribunal that the enquiry held by the employer was unfair, the appellant could not seek to prove the charge after the death of the concerned workman. No charge can be proved on the basis of the evidence tendered after the death of the charge- sheeted workman. Argument of Shri Agrawal is that the charge could be proved even after the contemporaneous record as the charge was only of not giving the prescribed standard of work. We do not agree with this argument for the simple reason that only the deceased workman could confront the employer with the circumstances in which the prescribed standard of work could not be done by the legal representative , i.e. , the widow of the deceased workman and his sons . Only the deceased workman could confront the witnesses of the employer with such circumstances in which it may not have been possible for him to give the prescribed standard of work . Therefore, to say that the work put in by the concerned employee 6988

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 2 , 2005/ASADHA 11 , 1927

workman was on record and the requisite standard ofwork had been prescribed and therefore the charge could be proved even against a dead person without causing any prejudice to him is wholly misconceived, rather ill- conceived. In such circumstances , we do not find that the Tribunal committed any illegality in granting the relief of wages and other consequential financial benefits to the legal representatives of the deceased workman on the basis of the Supreme Court decision in Deshraj Gupta Vs. Industrial Tribunal , Lucknow for the period from the date ofthe termination to the date of the death of the workman. " 14. Evidently, the facts of the referred to case are squarely applicable to the present controversy and the contention canvassed on behalf of the non - applicants is fortified by the observations made by the Hon'ble Court .

15. The ld . representative for the applicant then, while relying upon 1994 SCC (L & S ) 1981 , has contended that the applicant also deserves to be granted the pensionary benefits . In this case , the departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner -delinquent who died during the proceedings of the departmental enquiry . The Hon'ble Apex Court has rendered a direction to the respondents to grant the appellant (legal heirs of the deceased ) the pensionary benefits according to the rules. The facts of this case also cover the present controversy and in the light of this decision it would be expedient in the interest ofthe justice to issue a direction to the non - applicants to consider applicant's case for the grant of the pensionary benefits according to the rules .

16.On facts and in the light of the decision rendered in 1995 ( 70 ) FLR Raj . 244 , in the instant case , the non- applicants cannot be permitted to lead the evidence to prove the charge levelled against the workman on account of his death during the pendency of the conciliation proceedings . Following the principles enunciated in the decisions supra , the applicant , who being the legal heir of the deceased workman is etitled to get the full wages from the date of his dismissal from the service i.e. 8-8-1997 till the date of his death i.e. 16-2-2002 . She is also entitled to other financial benefits which the deceased workman could receive up to the date of his death . The non -applicants are further directed to consider the applicant's case for the grant of pensionary benefits to her according to the departmental rules . Both these applications are disposed ofinthis manner and the reference is adjudicated to this effect and an award is passed in these terms accordingly.

17. Let a copy of the award be sent to the Central Government for publication under Section 17 (1 ) of the Act . R. C. SHARMA, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, १ जून, 2005

का.आ. 2340.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक आफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच,

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण जयपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सी जी आई टी 28/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 08-06-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/184/2003- आईआर( बी- I ) ] अजय कुमार, डैस्कअधिकारी New Delhi , the 9th June , 2005

S.O. 2340.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Case No. CGIT- 28/2004) of the Centra¹ 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 of India and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on8-6-2005 .

[No. L - 12012/184/2003 - IR (B - I) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM - LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR Case No. CGIT- 28/2004

Reference No. L - 12012/ 184/ 2003 - IR(B -I)

Sh . Ram Singh Rajput S/o Sh . Bhawani Singh , C/ o Secretary , HMS , Bengali Colony, Chhawani , Kota

........Applicant

Versus

The Branch Manager.

State Bank of India , Ind . Area , Branch Newai , Distt . (Raj .) ,

Tonk (Raj .)

Non-applicant PRESENT :

Presiding Officer: SH. R.C. SHRMA.

Sh . Arun Sharma Forthe applicants:

For the non - applicants :

Sh . Yashpal Garg . 30-5-2005 Date of award :

AWARD

1. The Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred under Clause ' D' of Sub- sections 1 and 2 (A) to Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( herein- after referred to as the Act ' ) has referred the following industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal which runs as under : --

"Whether the contention of Shri Ram Singh Rajput that he has worked continuously for more than 240 days in consecutive 12 months during the period from 1-9-94 to 15-3-2003 is correct and justified ? If yes, whether the action of the Branch Manager , State Bank of India , Industrial Area Br. , Newai , Distt . Tonk (Raj.) in terminating the service of the workman w.e.f. 15-03-2003 is legal and justified? If not, to what [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

relief the workman is entitled to and from which date?"

2. The claimant in his claim statement has pleaded that he was employed as a 4th class by the non - applicant on 1-9-1994 at the Newai Branch , Distt . Tonk , who continuously worked up to 13-3-2003 and had completed more than 240 days of actual work during this period . But on 15-3-2003 his service was terminated in violation of Section 25 -F of the Act . He has also averred that prior to him Shri Mohan Lal Gurjar was working in the bank whose service was confirmed in the year 1994 and after his appointment at Jhalawar he was substituted at his place . He has stated that the junior persons to him were retained while terminating his service and that after his termination Shri Mahesh Sharma was appointed by the management .

3. Resisting the claim, the non -applicant in his written counter has averred that no relationship of employer - employee existed between both the parties , that the claimant is not a workman as defined under the Act and the local implementation committee is a body of the bank officers and employees , which had employed the workman as a canteenboy from September, 1994 to January, 2003 to serve the tea and snacks to them and to the bank customers . The non - applicant has further stated that the workman was never employed by the bank as a 4th class, that he did not carry out any task of the bank during his period of employment as canteen boy and that the bank exercises no control over Local Implementation Committee (for short , ' LIC ' ) . The non - applicant has also stated that the case is not covered by the definition of retrenchment as defined under Section 2 ( oo) of the Act and had specifically denied any contravention of the provisions under Section 25 - G and 25 - H of the Act respectively. He has also pleaded that the bank is not an industry for the claimant.

4. In the rejoinder, the workman has reiterated the facts as narrated in the statement of claim.

5. On the pleadings ofboth the parties , the following points for determination were framed:-

BOA I. Whether the workman was appointed by the non- applicant bank on 01-09-1994 as a 4th class employee on daily wages , who continuously worked up to 14-03-2003 and whose service was terminated on 15-3-2003 in violation of Section 25 - F of the Act?

BOA II. Whether after the termination of the service of the workman fresh hand named Shri Mahesh Sharma was appointed by the non - applicant bank in violation of Section 25 -H of the Act?

BOA III . Whether the applicant is a workman as defined under Section 2( S) of the Act?

BONA IV. Whether in the present case the non - applicant bank is not an industry under the provisions of the Act?

6989

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 2 , 2005/ आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

V Relief, if any.

6. In the evidence , the workman has placed his affidavit . In the rebuttal , the counter affidavits of MW1 Ramchandra Man Singhani, retired Branch Manager and MW2 B. L. Bairwa, Deputy Manager have been submitted. All the witnesses were cross - examined by the opposite representatives respectively.

7. The workman has also led the documentary evidence by exhibiting as many as 148 documents, whereas no -applicant has brought on record 8 cheques which are stated to have been issued by the LIC .

8. I have heard both the parties and have scanned the record . The point - wise discussion follows as under:-

Point No. I& III

9. Both these points contain the identical questions offacts and law, which are discussed together hereunder.

10. The ld. representative for the workman contends that the workman has come out with a case that he had completed 240 days of work during the entire tenure from 1-9-1994 to 13-3-2003 as a 4th class employee appointed by the bank . His service was terminated w.e.f. 15-3-2003 without following the provisions under Section 25 - F of the Act. TheId . representative then has contended that the non - applicant in his written statement has admitted that the workman has worked with the bank during this period, but to make out a different case he has cleverly said that the workman was working as a canteen boy. The Id. representative while placing his reliance on the documentary evidence has argued that the workman has submitted 148 documents to prove that variousjobs were assigned by the bank to him and for which the payment was made by the bank . His contention is that the submission that these documents are forged is not maintainable since the bank could not prove it by producing the original record lying with it. These documents , as per his submission , were submitted before the conciliation officer in presence of the non - applicant , who had never stated that they are forged documents . The Id . representative , therefore , contends that it is undoubtedly established that the workman has worked from September, 1994 to January, 2003 as a 4th class with the bank. It has been submitted on behalf of the workman also that the bank has not placed on record any agreement entered into by the LIC and the workman to serve as a canteenboy.

10A. Arguing contra, the ld . representative for the bank contends that the workman has alleged that he was appointed by the Deputy GM as a 4th class, which is unnatural since the Assistant GM is the competent authority to appoint him as the 4th class and no document has been placed on record to prove this fact . His next contention is that the bank had never appointed him, but the LIC had employed him as a canteen boy. The Id .

6990

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 2 , 2005/ASADHA 11 , 1927

[PART II - SFC . 3 (ii) | representative have further questioned the genuineness of the documents placed on behalf of the workman by arguing that they do not carry the signatures of the Branch Manager as well as the cashier and are fake documents . Hissecond contention on this point is that on the basis of these documents it could not be proved that the workman had completed 240 days of work in a calendar year during the said period . He has also submitted that a few of the documents e.g. Ex . W97 to W99 show that he received the payment as a canteen boy which is his admission .

11. I have bestowed my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions and have carefully gone through the judicial pronouncements referred to before me by both the parties.

had worked 240 days in a calendar year. Although the voluminous documentary evidence has been brought on the record, but it is nothing except the applications submitted on various dates by the workman and the slips containing the particulars of the clearing cheques issued by the bank on the various dates . Even if these documents are read in sequence of the various dates on which they have been written , they do not establish the fact that the workmanhad completed 240 days of actual work in any of the calendar years ranging between September, 1994 το March, 2003. Thus , the workman could not satisfactorily discharge the onus of proving the fact on the basis of documentary evidence that he had completed 240 days of actual work in any calendar year prior to the date of his termination.

12. Now , the questions which emerge for determination are ( i) whether the workman had completed 240 days of continuous work under the employment of the bank in a calendar year preceding to the date of his termination and ( ii ) whether during the period of his employment, he discharged his duties as a canteen boy engaged by the LIC .

15. Now, I proceed to analyze the oral evidence led byboth the parties . The workman in his cross -examination has admitted that no appointment letter was issued in his favour by the bank. He has further admitted that the payment ofwages was made to him through the cheques . which were credited into his account . It is also his admission that he had submitted the applications Ex . W 97 , W98 and W99 wherein he has stated that he has performed the work of the canteen for which the payment be made to him . At one place in his cross - examination he has pleaded ignorance as to whether the remuneration was made to him by the LIC , whereas on another place he has admitted this fact that it is correct to say that formerly the LIC paid him monthly consolidated wages of Rs . 350, which was subsequently increased to Rs . 500 per month . He has admitted that he received the payments through the cheques Ex. MI to 14 and has again pleaded the ignorance whether these cheques bear the signatures of the Chairman and Secretary of LIC respectively. As such , from the oral testimony of the workman, too , it could not be established that he had completed 240 days of actual work in a calendar year in the aforestated duration. Beyond it , it is reflected from his evidence that he was employed by the LIC on the payment of monthiy consolidated wages which used to be credited in his account and the plea of the bank is corroborated: by the cheques Ex M1 to Ex. M 8 whereby the remuneration was paid to him as a canteen boy.

16. Adding to it , the management witness Ramchandra Mansinghani has deposed that the workman was not appointed by the bank but he was employed as a canteen boy by the LIC . In his cross -examination he has stated that in the month of May , 1998 he was transferred from the present branch and till then he had seen the workman working as a canteen boy.

13. To establish his claim the workman in his evidence has exhibited as many as 148 documents . Ex . W1 to W90 along with few others are the applications addressed by the workman to the Branch Manager for payment of conveyance charges which he incurred to carry out the works of the bank . Although , these documents do not bear the seals of the bank , yet the yment order has been passed thereupon . Ex. W 135 to W 147 are the slips of the bank containing the details of the clearing cheques , which are stated to have been handed over to the workman for receiving their payment on behalf of the bank . With the assistance of these documents , the workman has sought to prove that he was employed by the bank to perform as a 4th class and as a part of his duties he had carried out the jobs assigned to him by the bank during the alleged period , i.e. , from 1-9-1994 to 13-3-2003 . But it has been contended on behalf of the bank that on the basis of these documents it is not proved that the workman had completed 240 days of actual work in any of the calendar years . During the course of the arguments , on behalf of the workman it could not be specifically pointed out as to in which calendar year the workman has completed over 240 days of actual work during this tenture . On a careful scanning of these documents it is revealed that on various dates the workman submitted the applications before the Branch Manager for payment of coveyance charges . On the basis of these applications total number of 240 days in any calendar year in the period in question cannot be reckoned . In other words, it is not possible to calculate the working days in a calendar year performed by the workman .

14. Similarly, the slips containing particulars of the cheques have been issued by the bank on various dates which do not go to show as to in which year the workman

17. The Id . representative for the workman has contended that MW2 Babulal Bairwa had admitted in his cross -examination that the workman had worked continuously inthe bank from January, 2002 to February . 2003. But this witness in continuation of the piece of this 6991 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 2, 2005/आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

statement has further pointed out that he was performing as a canteen boy. Therefore , the submission made on behalf of the workman cannot be maintained that he had worked in this period as a 4th class employee .

branch are required to bear it . The Bank is not employing the canteen workers . The Bank is not supervising or controlling the work or the details regarding the canteen or its employees appointed by the Local Implementation Committee. " 18. The Id. representative for the workman has referred to the decisions reported in 1965 (3 ) SCR 418 ; AIR 1957 SC 264; 2003 Lab IC Bombay 2789 and 1995 ( 1 ) RLR 704 on the point , but the facts thereof are distinguishable from the case on hand and on this factual background they are not applicable to the present controversy.

23. On the basis , the Hon'ble Court has propounded that " we, therefore , hold that employees of the canteens which are run at various branches by the Local Implementation Committees as per the welfare scheme framed by the SBI would not become employees of the Bank as the Bank is not having any statutory or conractual obligation or obligation arising under the Award to run such canteens" .

24. In the light of the principle enunciated by the Hon'ble Court in the decision supra , the submission advanced on behalf of the workman does not find any assistance . Since the claimant was not employed by the bank itself as a 4th class , no nexus of employer - employees existed between the contesting parties and in view of the matter , he cannot be treated to be a workman as defined under Section 2( S) of the Act. As such , both these points are decided against the workman .

Point No. 11

19. The ld. representative for the workman has then contended that even if it is presumed that the workman was performing as a canteen boy , he will be deemed to be a employee of the bank and the ld. representative has drawn my attention towards the decision reported in 1994 ( 69 ) FLR Bombay 189. In this case , the workmen were working in the mess of the government college's hostels , whose claims were dismissed by the Industrial Court on the ground that no relationship of employer -employee existed between the parties . The Hon'ble High Court has observed that looking to the totality of the facts and circumstances ofthe case the state of Maharashtra appears to be the employer of the concerned workmen working in the mess attached to the hostels . But the facts of the present case are entirely distinguishable wherein , firstly, the workman has not been able to prove that he was employed as a 4th class by the bank itself and , secondly, it could: not be shown on behalf of the workman as to whether the non - applicant bank was under a statutory obligation to provide the canteen facilities to its employees .

25. The workman in his affidavit has deposed that after the termination one Shri Mahesh Sharma was appointed in his place . It has been denied by the management witnesses . In the cross-examination , the workman has stated that he has not seen the appointment letter of Mahesh Sharma and has further pleaded his ignorance as to whether he was employed as a canteen boy. Thus , no definite and positive evidence could be adducedby the workman to prove that after his termination new hand was recruited without affording him an opportunity of the employment . This point , therefore, is decided against the workman.

20. By contrast , the ld . representative for the non- applicants has referred to AIR 2000 SC 1518. In this case, the question which came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was whether the employees of the canteens of some of the branches of State Bank of Indią can claim to be absorbed as employees of the State Bank of India .

Point No. IV

26. This point has not been pressed on behalf of the bank. It is , therefore , decided against the bank .

Relief

21. The Hon'ble Court has observed that it is admitted position that in law if there is an obligation to provide the canteen , the employees working in the canteen wouldbe employees of the bank , and if not, the employees working in the canteen may not become part of the establishment " .

27. For the forgoing reasons , the workman is entitled to no relief.

22. The Hon'ble Court further goes on to observe that there was no statutory, legal of contractual obligation of the bank to run the canteen or provide for canteen in its branches . The relevant passage of the observation is quoted as below: --

28. In the result , the reference is answered in the negative to this effect that the contention of the claimant Ram Singh Rajput that he was worked continuously for more than 240 days in consecutive 12. months during the period from 1-9-1994 to 15-3-2003 is incorrect and unjustified and his termination order dated 15-3-2003 is legal and justified. His claim is dismissed . An award is passed in these terms accordingly.

29. Let a copy of the award be sent to the Central Government for publication under Section 17 ( 1 ) of the Act. " In the present case also , the facts are also similar. There is no obligation statutory or otherwise to run the canteens by the Bank . The scheme is stated above only provides for grant of subsidy, for promoting running of canteen and if some more cost is incurred in running the canteen , the members of the staff working in that particular

R.C. SHARMA , Presiding Officer 1855 G1/05-44 6992

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2, 2005/ASADHA 11 , 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] नई दिल्ली, 9 जून, 2005 .

"Whether the action of the management of the Mineral Exploration Corporation Ltd. in laying off26 contingent workers of Zawar Project is justified? If not , to what relief the workman for entitled to ?"

उक्त आशय का प्रसंग प्राप्त होने पर न्यायालय द्वारा दिनांक 19-5-99 को प्रकरण संख्या 2/99 दर्ज रजिस्टर किया जाकर पक्षकारान को नोटिस जारी किये गये, जिस पर प्रार्थी यूनियन की ओर से क्लेम व विपक्षी की ओर से जवाब पेश किया गया ।

का.आ. 2341. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मिनरल एक्सप्लोरेशन कॉर्पो. लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण , उदयपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 2/99 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 9-6-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -29011/60/98- आई आर ( विविध ) ] बी. एम . डेविड, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 9th June , 2005

S.O. 2341. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 2/99 ) of the Industrial Tribunal , Udaipur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Mineral Exploration Corpn . Ltd. , and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 9-6-2005.

[No. L - 29011/60/ 98 - IR (M) ] B. M. DAVID , Under Secy.

अनुबंध

न्यायालय: न्यायाधीश , औद्योगिक विवाद अधिकरण एवं

श्रम : न्यायालय, उदयपुर

पीठासीन अधिकारी: उषा अग्रवाल, आर. एच. जे. एस.

प्रकरण संख्या: 2/99

ओ. वि. ( केन्द्र सरकार )

शाखा सचिव, मिनरल एक्सप्लोरेशन कॉर्पो . एम्प. यूनियन , जावर माईन्स, उदयपुर

प्रार्थीगण

बनाम

प्रोजेक्ट मैनेजर, मिनरल एक्सप्लोरेशन कॉर्पो . लिमिटेड, जावर माईन्स, उदयपुर

विपक्षी

उपस्थित:

श्री सुभाष श्रीमाली: प्रार्थीगण की ओर से ।

श्री बी. एस. बेपुरा: विपक्षी की ओर से ।

दिनांक: 31-5-2005

पंचाट

भारत सरकार के श्रम मंत्रालय द्वारा जरिये पत्र क्रमांक : एल- 29011/60/98/आई.आर. ( एम ) दिनांक 20-4-99 को निम्न आशय का प्रसंग इस न्यायालय को अधिनिर्णाथ प्रेषित किया गया ।

क्लेम प्रार्थना पत्र के तथ्य संक्षेप में इस प्रकार है कि प्रार्थी यूनियनविपक्षी संस्थान में कार्यरत श्रमिकों का प्रतिनिधि संगठन है तथा इस औद्योगिक विवाद से संबंधित 26 श्रमिक प्रार्थी यूनियन के सदस्य हैं, जिनके नाम संलग्नक-1 सूची में दिये हैं । विवाद से संबंधित श्रमिकों कीनियुक्तिप्रारम्भ में अप्रार्थी द्वारा बारोई प्रोजेक्ट के लिये की गयी । इन सभी श्रमिकों के नियुक्ति पत्र में एक शर्त थी कि इनकी सेवाओं का उपयोग जब भी आवश्यकता होगी जावर माईन्स एरिया के किसी की अन्य प्रोजेक्ट में किया जायेगा, एक श्रमिक की फोटो प्रति संलग्नक-2 है । इन 26 श्रमिकों को शुरू में कंटीनजेंट अकुशल श्रमिक के रूप में नियुक्ति दी गयी लेकिन बाद में जावर माईन्स एरिया में विभिन्न परियोजनाओं में इनको स्किल्ड श्रमिक बना दिया गया । नियुक्ति शर्त के आधार पर ही श्रमिकों से बारोई प्रोजेक्ट के अतिरिक्त पहले बलारिया माइन्स प्रोडेक्शन इन्कलाइन प्रोजेक्ट पर तथा बाद में बलारिया आइटम रेट कान्ट्रेक्ट प्रोजेक्ट पर कार्य दिया गया । दिनांक 6-11-97 को श्रमिक बलारिया आइटम रेट कान्ट्रेक्ट प्रोजेक्ट पर कार्यरत थे, तब अप्रार्थी ने यह कहते हुये इनके लिये कार्य उपलब्ध नहीं है , ले आफ कर दिया । औद्यो . विवाद अधि. 2 ( के. के. के. ) के अनुसार विपक्षी द्वारा बताये कारण के आधार पर ले आफ नहीं किया जा सकता । 26 श्रमिकोंको 6-11-97 से ले आफ किया जाना निम्नलिखित कारणों से पूर्णतः अनुचित एवं अवैध है । श्रमिकों को ले आफ किये जाने का जो कारण बताया वह औ.वि.अधि. , 1947 की धारा 2 ( के.के.के. ) के प्रावधानों के विपरीत है । विपक्षी के पास बलारिया आइटम रेट कांट्रेक्ट प्रोजेक्ट के स्थान पर उसी स्थान पर चल रहे अन्य प्रोजेक्ट मोचिया बलारिया कनेक्टिंग ड्राईवर पर पर्याप्त मात्रा में कार्य उपलब्ध था जहां पर 94 श्रमिकों जो विवाद से संबंधित श्रमिकों को ले आफ करने के बाद नियुक्त किया, जिनके नाम संलग्नक सूची 3 में हैं । इन श्रमिकों को इस उद्देश्य से सेवामुक्त किया कि इन्हें बाद में अनुचित एवं अवैध रूप में छंटनी किया जा सके, क्योंकि मिनरल एक्स. कार्पो. लि. के संचालक मंडल ने नियमित श्रमिकों व आई.डी.ए. एक्जीक्यूटिवस के वेतनमान संशोधन करने हेतु राशि बचाने के उद्देश्य से 578 श्रमिकों की छंटनी करने का निर्णय लिया था । निवेदन किया कि विपक्षी द्वारा श्रमिकों को ले आफ किये जाते समय 100 से अधिक श्रमिक कार्यरत थे , अतः विपक्षी संस्थान पर औ.वि.अधि. , 1947 के चेप्टर - 5- वी के प्रावधान लागू होते थे, इसके बावजूद श्रमिकों को ले आफ करने से पूर्व औ.वि.अधि. की धारा 25 एम. के अनुरूप सक्षम सरकार की अनुमति नहीं ली गयी । निवेदन किया कि मोचिया बलारिया कनेक्टिंग ड्राईव प्रोजेक्ट उसी खान पर शुरू किया गया जिस खान पर बलाग्यिा रेट कॉन्ट्रेक्ट प्रोजेक्ट आइटम चल रहा है अर्थात् तथाकथित प्रोजेक्ट एक ही खान पर थे, एक ही खान मैनेजर व प्रिंसिपल एम्पलायर के अधीन 6993 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 2 , 2005/ आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

थे, यहां तक कि दोनों प्रोजेक्ट में प्रवेश हेतु एक ही शाफ्ट का उपयोग किया जाता था । केवल श्रमिकों को ले आफ/छंटनी कर हानि पहुंचाने के उद्देश्य से इन्हें अलग-अलग प्रोजेक्ट दिखाया गया । विपक्षी इन 26 श्रमिकों को कार्य की समाप्ति व कार्य उपलब्ध न होना बताते हुये अनुचित एवं अवैध रूप से ले आफ किये जाने के स्थान पर उनसे मोचिया बलारिया कनेक्टिंग ड्राईव प्रोजेक्ट पर कार्य लिया जाता तो न तो इन श्रमिकों को ले आफ किये जाने की आवश्यकता थी और न ही इन्हेंछंटनी किये जाने की आवश्यकता थी, क्योंकि यह प्रोजेक्ट विपक्षी के अधीन अभी भी चल रहा है व बलारिया आइटम रेट कान्ट्रेक्ट प्रोजेक्टअप्रैल 98 से पुनः प्रारम्भ कर दिया गया है । प्रार्थना की गयी कि मा. न्यायाधिकरण यह घोषित करे कि इस विवाद से संबंधित 26 श्रमिकों को दि. 6-11-97 से ले आफ किया जाना पूर्णतया अनुचित एवं अवैध था, श्रमिकों को जावर माईन्स के प्रोजेक्ट मोचिया बलारिया कनेक्टिंगड्राईव प्रोजेक्ट पर कार्य उपलब्ध होने के कारण ले आफ व बाद में. दिनांक रिक्त स्थान से छंटनी नहीं किया जाना चाहिये था। सभी श्रमिक मोचिया बलारिया कनेक्टिंग ड्राईव प्रोजेक्ट या विपक्षी निगम के किसी की अन्य प्रोजेक्ट पर नियोजित किये जाने के अधिकारी हैं , सभी श्रमिक दिनांक 6-11-97 से उन्हें पुनः नियोजित किये जाने की तिथि तक का संपूर्ण वेतन व भत्ते, सेवा की निरन्तरता व अन्य सभी परिलाभ प्राप्त करने के अधिकारी हैं तथा अन्य कोई अनुतोष व विवाद का हर्जा खर्चा जो मा. न्यायाधिकरण उचित समझे, दिलाने की कृपा करे ।

दि. 26-2-99 द्वारा सीजीआईटी द्वारा पारित अवार्ड को नामंजूर एवं अपास्त कर दिया । मा. उच्च न्यायालय के समक्ष कार्यवाहियों में भी उत्तरवादी संघ ने जाबर माईन्स में नियोजित कर्मकारों सहित श्रमिक को कंपनी प्रबंधन द्वारा औ.वि.अधि. के प्रावधानों के कथित उल्लघंन में जबरी छुट्टी देने के विषय पर उच्च न्यायालय का ध्यान आकर्षित किया, किन्तु न्यायालय ने इस पर कोई संप्रेक्षण नहीं किया । निवेदन किया कि सुनवाई के समक्ष इन कथनों को निर्दिष्ट किया जाये । मध्य प्रदेश उच्च न्यायालय , जबलपुर के निर्णय दि. 26-2-99 की प्रति संलग्नक-2 संलग्न है । इस प्रकार जाबर माईन्स के श्रमिकों सहित जबरी छुट्टी का प्रश्न दोनों सीजीआईटी, जबलपुर तथा उच्च न्यायालय, जबलपुर के समक्ष उठाया गया था और उन्होंने जबरी छुट्टी दिये जाने पर किसी दोष अथवा अवैधता का संप्रेक्षण नहीं किया, अतः न्यायाधिकरण के समक्ष यह प्रश्न उठाने के लिये संघ विबंधित है । निवेदन है कि इस न्यायाधिकरण के समक्ष यह निर्देश ( रेफ्रेन्स ) न्याय निर्णयन हेतु अयोग्य है इसलिये तदनुसार उत्तरित किया जाना चाहिये । समझौता कार्यवाही के दौरान प्रबन्ध द्वारा समझौता अधिकारी के समक्ष सीजीआईटी , जबलपुर एवं उच्च न्यायालय के समक्ष वाद के लंबित होने के बारे में कथन किये गये थे। एलईओ ( सी ) कथित एफओसी तथा समझौता अधिकारी, उदयपुर सं. एलईओयूडी/5 ( 8) 97 दि. 4-12-98 की संलग्नक 3 संलग्न है । उपरोक्त कथनों के प्रति बिना प्रतिकूल प्रभाव के निम्न निवेदन किया कि मिनरल एक्सप्लोरेशन निगम लि. एक प्रमुख सार्वजनिक उपक्रम है जो खनिज संसाधनों की खोज में लगा है । देश के औद्योगिक विवाद को गति देने के लिये खनिज संभावनाओं की खोज तथा उनके विदोहन हेतु भारत सरकार द्वारा अक्तूबर 1972 में इसकी स्थापना की गयी । कंपनी अधि. , 1956 के अंतर्गत निगमित यह भारत सरकार का एक उपक्रम है । इसके अतिरिक्त कंपनी खादान निर्माण का कार्य भी करती है । निगम का उपर्युक्त कथित कार्य विभिन्न प्रोजेक्टों द्वारा किया जाता है जो औद्यो. विवाद अधि. , 1947 के अधीन अस्थायी औद्योगिक स्थापन होते हैं । निगम बड़ी संख्यामें निमित कर्मकारों को नियोजित करता है जो अधिकतम अनुभवी और कुशल कर्मचारी होते हैं । इनके अतिरिक्त कतिपय स्थानीय आकस्मिक श्रमिक भी नियोजित किये जाते हैं । जो नितान्त अस्थायी अवधि के लिये अधिकांशतः अकुशल प्रकृति के कार्य के लिये नियोजित किये जाते हैं तथा उनको सौंपा गया कार्य पूरा हो जाने पर अस्थायी औद्योगिक स्थापन बंद कर दिया जाता है और स्थानीय आकस्मिक श्रमिकों की कानून के अनुसार छंटनी कर दी जाती है और निगमित श्रमिकों को देश में दूसरे स्थानों पर भेज दिया जाता है, जहां पर निगम का नया कार्य सौंपा जाता है । श्रमिकों के नियोजन की इस व्यवस्थाका अनुसरण निगम की स्थापना के समय से किया जा रहा है । प्रबंध के इस दृष्टिकोण को कि प्रोजेक्ट अस्थायी औद्योगिक स्थापन होते हैं । भारत सरकार के सीता माला प्रोजेक्ट में सही माना गया है । भारत सरकार के श्रम मंत्रालय के पत्र सं. एल. 20012/61 / 70 -डी iii (ए) दि. 22-11-70 की एक प्रति संलग्नक 4 संलग्न है । निगम के प्रोजेक्टों को अस्थायी स्थापन मानते हुए भारत सरकार ने अनेक प्रोजेक्टों में छंटनी करने तथा उनके बंद करने की अनुमति दी है । जावर माईन्स प्रोजेक्ट के प्रकरणों में भी पूर्व में भारत सरकार के श्रम मंत्रालय ने अपने पत्र सं . एल. 29024/ 2/ 86 - डी-3 ( बी ) दि. 27-6-86 जिसकी विपक्षी ने जवाब क्लेम प्रार्थना पत्र प्रस्तुत कर निवेदन किया कि निम्नलिखित कारणों से कथित विधि अथवा तथ्य के आधार पर चलने योग्य नहीं है । विवादित विषय पर केन्द्रीय सरकार के सीजीआईटी, जबलपुर द्वारा आनुषंगिक विषय के रूप में पहले से ही न्याय निर्णयन किया जा चुका है , जब 2145 आकस्मिक श्रमिकों के नियमितीकरण तथा एमईसीएल के मृतकों के 64 आश्रितों को अनुकम्पा आधार पर नियोजन के मुख्य प्रश्न पर न्याय निर्णयन किया गया था । उपर्युक्त निर्देश समुचित सरकार द्वारा सीजीआईटी , जबलपुर को दि. 7-1-93 को किया गया । दि. 24-6-97 को हुई कार्यवाही के दौरान उपरोक्तन्यायाधिकरण ने प्रबन्धक को अवरुद्ध करते हुये एक अंतरिम आदेश पारित किया कि न्याय निर्णयन की कार्यवाही के लंबित रहते हुये किसी भी कर्मकार की छंटनी नहीं की जाए लेकिन परिणामतः क्योंकि अप्रार्थी निगम के पास जावरं माईन्स प्रोजेक्ट पर नियोजित 26 कर्मकारों सहित आकस्मिक श्रमिक जो कि अकुशल कार्य करने हेतु नियोजित थे के लिये कोई काम उपलब्ध नहीं था अतः औ.वि.अधि. , 1947 के उपबंधों का अनुसरण करते हुये उनको जबरी छुट्टी दे दी गयी । श्रमिकों कोदिये गये कानूनी नोटिस की प्रतियां संलग्नक-1 के रूप में इसके साथ संलग्न की जा रही हैं । एमईसी कर्मचारी संघ ने उपर्युक्त अवैध जबरी छुट्टी का प्रश्न सीजीआईटी, जबलपुर के समक्ष उठाया और उपरोक्त न्यायाधिकरण ने अवार्ड पारित करते समय प्रबंधक द्वारा कर्मकारों कीजबरी छुट्टी देने की कार्यवाही पर किसी दोष अथवा अवैधता का सम्प्रेक्षण नहीं किया । आगे यह भी प्रस्तुत है कि उपरोक्त न्यायाधिकरण ने अपने अवार्ड दि. 24-3-98 द्वारा प्रबंध की 2145 आकस्मिक श्रमिकों को नियमित करने का अन्य बातों के साथ निर्देश दिया । कंपनी के प्रबंध ने रिट याचिका उच्च न्यायालय, मध्य प्रदेश , जबलपुर के समक्ष कथित अवार्ड को चुनौती दी और न्यायालय ने अपने आदेश 6994

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005/ASADHA 11 , 1927

कंपनी का अपना कोई निजी काम नही है और ये श्रमिक बिना किसी काम के बेकार एवं कार्यहीन हो गये उनके लिये कोई काम नहीं रहा । फिर भी सीजीआईटी जबलपुर की अंतरिम रोल के कारण इन श्रमिकों कीछंटनी नहीं की जा सकी और अंत तक इनकी छंटनी नहीं की गयी उच्च न्यायालय, जबलपुर द्वारा सीजीआईटी का अवार्ड मन्सूब तथा अपाता नहीं किया गया इसलिये यह निवेदन किया गया है कि प्रबंध द्वारा उनको जबरी छुट्टी देने तथा तत्पश्चात् उनकी छंटनी करने की कार्यवाही औ.वि.अधि. के अनुसरण में की गयी । यह स्वीकार नही है कि अध्याय 5 बी. इस पर लागू होता है इस प्रोजेक्ट पर नियोजित श्रमिक 100 से कम संख्या में थे इसलिये अध्याय 5 ए. लागू होता है और अध्याय 5 बी. के उपबंध कराई लागू नहीं होते हैं । यद्यपि यह सही है कि पूर्व में श्रम मंत्रालय ने लापंगा प्रोजेक्ट पर जबरी छुट्टी देने की अनुमति देने से इंकार किया था, किन्तु उसका भिन्न आधार था वास्तविक स्वरूप से प्रोजेक्ट पर कार्य शेष था, लेकिन जब कार्य पूरा हो गया तो लापंगा प्रोजेक्ट मैनेजर ने औ.वि.अधि. की धारा 25- ओ के अंतर्गत (क्योंकि श्रमिक सं. 100 से अधिक हो रहे थे ) श्रम मंत्रालय को प्रार्थना पत्र दिया और श्रम मंत्रालय ने अपने अनुमति पत्र दि. 10-5-99 द्वारा अनुमति प्रदान की । कथित पत्र की प्रति संलग्नक-8 संलग्न है । पर. आर. सी. जाबर माईन्स का प्रोजेक्ट एक अलग एवं स्वतंत्र स्थापन था और इस प्रोजेक्ट पर एक विनिर्दिष्ट अवधि के लिये नियोजित श्रमिकों की प्रोजेक्ट बंद होने पर छंटनी की जानी थी । जिसको अभी- अभी मध्य प्रदेश उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा रिट पिटीशन सं. 1981/98 जैसा उपर्युक्त अवधूत दे दिये गये निर्णय सहित विश्व निर्णयों में उचित एवं वैध ठहराया है । कंपनी का प्रत्येक प्रोजेक्ट एक स्वतंत्र औद्योगिक स्थापन होता है क्योंकि जावर माईन्स प्रोजेक्ट पर कार्य पहले ही समाप्त हो चुका है । इन श्रमिकों को अन्य निकट एवीसीडी जावर माईन्स प्रोजेक्ट पर नियोजित करने का प्रश्न ही उत्पन्न नहीं होता निवेदन किया गया कि दावे का कोई औचित्य नहीं है तथा निर्देश का जवाब नकारात्मक तथा प्रबंध के पक्ष में दिये जाने योग्य है । उपर्युक्त लिखित कथन में किये गये कोई प्रकथन यदि श्रमिक द्वारा प्रस्तुत किये गये दावे के कथनों के विरुद्ध नहीं है तो विनिर्दिष्टतः अस्वीकार किये जाते हैं यद्यपि दावे के कथनों में किये गये प्रकथन विनिर्दिष्टतः स्वीकार नहीं किये गये हैं अथवा इस लिखित कथन में उनका उल्लेख नहीं किया गया हो तो भी वे स्वीकृत नहीं समझे जावें । तद्‌नुसार विचारार्थ प्रस्तुत किया है ।

प्रार्थीगण की ओर से सर्व श्री इमाम हुसैन , गंगाधर, विकास भट्टाचार्य , पुरुषोत्तम , जसवंत सिंह, धन्ना व हुनमान सिंह के शपथ पत्र प्रस्तुत हुये जिनसे विपक्षी प्रतिनिधि द्वारा जिरह की गयी । उपरोक्त प्रार्थीगण के अतिरिक्त प्रार्थी श्रमिक श्री हाजा का शपथ पत्र प्रस्तुत किया गया, परन्तु ये प्रार्थी जिरह हेतु उपस्थित नहीं आया । विपक्षी की ओर से वी.आर. सुब्बाराजु का शपथ पत्र प्रस्तुत किया गया जिनसे प्रार्थीगण के प्रतिनिधि द्वारा जिरह की गयी तथा दस्ताविजी साक्ष्य मे नोटिस, लपंगा प्रोजेक्ट आफीसर आर्डर नियुक्ति पत्र श्रमिक, श्रमिकों की नियुक्ति नई भर्ती -97 एमबीसीडी प्रोजेक्ट, बोर्ड मीटिंग आईटम नं. 4, श्रम मंत्रालय का पत्र रिकार्ड प्रति आदेश नोटिस श्रमिको को वे आफ करने का जबलपुर उच्च न्यायालय का निर्णय व अवार्ड श्रम मंत्रालय के पत्र हि.जि.लि. का पत्र श्रम न्यायालय का निर्णय, पत्र प्रति संलग्नक -5 संलग्न है , द्वारा 32 आकस्मिक श्रमिकों की छंटनी की अनुमति दी थी जब श्रमिकों की संख्या 100 से अधिक हो गयी थी । निवेदन किया कि सीजीआईटी जबलपुर अवार्ड दि. 23-2-80 के अनुसार प्रोजेक्टों पर आकस्मिक श्रमिकों का नियोजन प्रोजेक्ट की अवधिमें विनिर्दिष्ट कार्य के लिए किया गया । इन नियुक्त व्यक्तियों की छंटनी कार्य पूरा होने और प्रोजेक्ट बंद होने पर की गयी । उपर्युकत अवार्ड दि. 23-2-80 की प्रति संलग्नक 6 के रूप में संलग्न है । ये 26 श्रमिक भी इस प्रोजेक्ट के विनिर्दिष्ट कार्य को पूरा करने हेतु लगाये गये थे इसलिए वे दूसरे प्रोजेक्टों में स्थानान्तरण अथवा आमेलित करने का दावा नहीं कर सकते । आर. आर. सी. प्रोजेक्ट जावर माईन्स पर कार्य पूरा हो गया था । एमईसीएल तथा मै. एचजेडएल के मध्य मद - दर- संविदा 5-11-97 को समाप्त हो गया था तथा मै . एचजेडएल ने संविदा को आगे बढ़ाने की मंजूरी नहीं दी । हिन्दुस्तान जिंक जावर माईन्स के चीफ इन्जि. ( टीएस ) से प्राप्त पत्र दि. 26-9-97 की एक प्रति संलग्नक- 7 संलग्न है । इस दृष्टि से इस प्रोजेक्ट पर इन 26 श्रमिकों के लिये कोई कार्य नहीं था । कार्य की अनुलिब्धता के कारण से इन श्रमिकों को दि. 6-9-97 से जबरी छुट्टी दी गयी थी । सीजीआईटी जबलपुर द्वारा दिये गये आदेश दि. 24-6-97 द्वारा रोकी की दृष्टि से इन आकस्मिक श्रमिकों की छंटनी नहीं की गयी यद्यपि जिस कार्य पर इनको लगाया वह कार्य पहले ही पूरा हो गया। निगम के प्रमाणित स्थायी आदेश के खंड 21 में उपबंधों के अनुसार तथा औद्योगिक विवाद अधि. 1947 तथा तद्धीन नियमों के अनुसार प्रक्रिया का अनुसरण करने के बाद इन श्रमिकों को जबरी छुट्टी दी गयी थी। कंपनी द्वारा की गयी जबरी छुट्टी सही एवं उचित थी तथा स्थायी आदेशों के उपबंधों के अनुसार तथा औद्योगिक विवाद अधि. 1947 के लागू होने वाले अनुबंधों के अनुरूप थी । उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा सीजीआईटी जबलपुर के अवार्ड को मन्सूब करने के बाद औ.वि.अधि. के उपबंधों के अनुसार इन श्रमिकों की पहले से छंटनी की जा चुकी है तथा कंपनी की पंजी ( रोल ) पर अब नहीं है इसलिये प्रस्तुत विवाद निष्फल है तथा न्याय निर्णयन के योग्य नहीं है । क्योंकि कोई विवाद अस्तित्व में नहीं रहता है । उर्पयुक्त निवेदनों की प्रतिकूलता के बिना प्रबंध ने प्रारम्भ से ही प्रार्थी संघ द्वारा प्रबंधक के कथनों के विपरीत किये गये दावे के प्रत्येक कथन, प्रकथन और निवेदनों को अस्वीकार किया है तथा प्रबंध के उपर्युक्त निवेदनों के विपरीत सभी दावों को इसके द्वारा अस्वीकार किया जाता है । जबाव में कथन किया कि संबंधित श्रमिकों की नियुक्ति प्रारम्भ में अप्रार्थी द्वारा बारोई प्रोजेक्ट के लिये नहीं की गयी , न ही इन श्रमिकों कीसेवा का उपयोग जब भी आवश्यकता होगी जावर माईन्स एरिया के किसी भी अन्य प्रोजेक्ट में किया जायेगा यह शर्त हो । 26 श्रमिकों को न तो कटीजेंट अकुशल श्रमिक के रूप में नियुक्ति दी न ही इनको स्किल्ड श्रमिक बनाया । ये श्रमिक जावर माईन्स प्रोजेक्ट में आकस्मिक आधार पर लगाये गये थे । इससे अस्वीकार किया कि नियुक्ति की इस शर्त के आधार ही विवाद से संबंधित श्रमिकों से बारोई प्रोजेक्ट के अतिरिक्त पहले बलारिया माईन्स प्रोडेक्शन इन्जबाइन प्रोजेक्ट पर तथा बाद में बलारिया आइटम रेट कांट्रेक्ट प्रोजेक्ट पर कार्य किया गया हो । जबरी छुट्टी ओ.वि.अधि. के प्रावधानों के विपरीत की गयी हो स्वीकार नहीं है , जबरी छुट्टी स्थायी आदेशों के उपबंधों तथा औ.वि.अधि. से लागू होने योग्य उपबंधों के अनुसार की गयी थी । [भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

नरबहादुर प्रोजेक्ट मैनेजर, पत्र केसु लाल बनाम प्रोजेक्ट मैनेजर, पत्र सोना बनाम प्रोजेक्ट मैनेजर, पत्र श्यामुबाई बनाम प्रोजेक्टर मैनेजर, कार्यालय आदेश , पत्र थावरचंद, प्रार्थना पत्र हांजा व भैरा का बकाया पैसे लेने हेतु, प्रार्थना पत्र बी.पी. सिंह का बकाया पैसा प्राप्ति हेतु प्रार्थना पत्र जग्या छंटनी का पैसा लेने हेतु स्टेपिंग आर्डस व क्लेम प्रार्थना पत्र की छाया प्रतियां प्रस्तुत की हैं । 1 उन पक्षकारों की बहस सुनी गयी व पत्रावली का अवलोकन किया गया । हस्तगत प्रकरण में हमें देखना है कि विपक्षी नियोजक द्वारा उनके 26 श्रमिक प्रार्थीगण को जबरी छुट्टी देना उचित है ?

हस्तगत प्रकरण में श्रम मंत्रालय भारत सरकार द्वारा जो प्रसंग इस न्यायालय को अधिनिर्णय हेतु प्रेषित किया गया है , उसमें 26 श्रमिकों की जबरी छुट्टी किये जाने के संबंध में विवाद है, परन्तु ये 26 श्रमिक कौन हैं ? इस बाबत प्रसंग के साथ कोई श्रमिकों की सूची संलग्न नहीं है तथा प्रार्थी संघ द्वारा जो क्लेम प्रार्थना पत्र प्रस्तुत किया गया है उसमें भी विवाद से संबंधित 26 श्रमिकों के नाम नहीं दर्शा रखे हैं, क्लेम प्रार्थना पत्र मेंकेवल मात्र यह अंकित कर रखा है कि इस औद्योगिक विवाद सेसंबंधित 26 श्रमिक प्रार्थी यूनियन के सदस्य हैं, जिनके नाम संलग्नक- 1 सूची में दिये गये हैं, परन्तु प्रार्थी संघ की ओर से पत्रावली पर कोई संलग्नक-1 सूची प्रस्तुत नहीं की गई है , ये पत्रावली का अवलोकन करने से प्रकट होता है । इसके अतिरिक्त प्रार्थीगण की ओर से साक्ष्य में साक्ष्य स्वरूप कुल आठ शपथ पत्र प्रस्तुत किये गये हैं जिनमें भी प्रार्थीगण ने क्लेम प्रार्थना पत्र के कथनों को दोहराते हुए कथन किया है कि इस औद्योगिक विवाद से संबंधित 26 श्रमिक प्रार्थी यूनियन के सदस्यहैं जिनके नाम संलग्नक-1 सूची में दिये गये हैं , परन्तु कोई सूची प्रस्तुत नहीं की गयी है । अतः जिन श्रमिकगण के शपथ पत्र प्रस्तुत किये गये हैं ये विवाद से संबंधित 26 श्रमिकों में से हो यह संलग्न सूची के अभाव मेंमाने जाने योग्य नहीं है । प्रार्थी संघ की ओर से भी प्रकरण की अंतिम स्थान तक प्रसंग को संशोधित कराने का प्रयास नहीं किया गया और न ही 26 प्रार्थी श्रमिकगण के नाम की सूची ही प्रस्तुत की है । इस न्यायालय का क्षेत्राधिकार प्रेषित प्रसंग तक ही सीमित है अभयपक्षकारों की सहमति से थी यह न्यायालय प्रेषित प्रसंग में संशोधन नहीं कर सकती है, ये ही दिशा निर्देश विधि दृष्टांत 2002 ( 3 ) डब्ल्यू एल सी-67 सुरेशचंद्र बनाम जनरल मैनेजर राज. स्टेट ब्रिज एवं कन्स्ट्रक्शन कोरपोरेशन में माननीय राज. उच्च न्यायालय ने सम्मानीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय के द्वारा कई निर्णयों में दिये गये दिशा निर्देशों की पालना में दिये हैं । ऐसी स्थिति में श्रम मंत्रालय भारत सरकार द्वारा प्रेषित प्रसंग में सूचि संलग्न नहीं होने व प्रार्थी संघ द्वारा विवाद से संबंधित 26 श्रमिकों की सूची संलग्नक -1 प्रस्तुत नहीं किये जाने के कारण प्रेषित प्रसंग दूषित व निस्तारण योग्य नहीं होने से निरस्त किये जाने योग्य है ।

ऐसी स्थिति में श्रम मंत्रालय भारत सरकार द्वारा प्रेषित प्रसंग निस्तारण किये जाने योग्य नहीं होने से निरस्त किया जाता है । भारत सरकार के श्रम मंत्रालय प्रेषित प्रसंग को उत्तरित करते हुए पंचाट इस प्रकार पारित किया जाता है कि व्यवस्थापक मिनरल एक्सप्लोरेशन कोरपोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा जावर माईन्स के 26 कर्मकारों को जबरी छुट्टी देने की कार्यवाही उचित एवं वैध है ? प्रसंग में 26

6995

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 2 , 2005/ आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

कर्मकारों की सूची संलग्न नहीं होने एवं प्रार्थी संघ द्वारा क्लेम प्रार्थना पत्र के साथ उपरोक्त 26 कर्मकारों के नाम की सूची संलग्न नहीं होने के कारण प्रेषित प्रसंग दूषित होने से निरस्त किया जाता है । पंचाट प्रकाशनार्थ श्रम मंत्रालय भारत सरकार को भेजा जावे ।

पंचाट आज दिनांक: 31-5-2005 को खुले न्यायालय में लिखाया जाकर सुनाया गया ।

उषा अग्रवाल, न्यायाधीश नई दिल्ली, 9 जून , 2005

का.आ. 2342. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एयरपोर्ट ऑथोरिटी ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , नई दिल्ली-1 के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 87/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 09-06- 2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-11011/24/2002- आई आर ( विविध ) ]

बी. एम. डेविड, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 9th June , 2005

S.O. 2342. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 87/2003 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum-labour Court , New Delhi No. 1 as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Airport Authority of India and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 09-06-2005 .

[No. L- 11011/24/2002- IR (M) ]

B. M. DAVID , Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, NEW DELHI PRESIDING OFFICER : Shri Sant Singh Bal I. D. No. 87/2003

In the matter of dispute between : The Working General Secretary, Airport Employees Union , 3 , V. P. House , Rafi Marg , New Delhi , NewDelhi - 110001 .

2. The Secretary,

TheAirport Employees Union , VandanaBuilding , 11 , Tolstoy Marg ,

Workmen New Delhi - 110001 .

6996

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 2, 2005/ASADHA 11 , 1927

Versus

The Regional Executive Director (NAD)

Airport Authority of India,

RajivGandhi Bhawan, New Delhi- 110037,

Management APPEARANCES : None for the workmen .

Shri Feroz Ahmed A/R for the management .

AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L- 11011 /24/2002 IR(M) dated 26-5-2003 hasreferred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :-

"Whether the action of the management of AAI New Delhi in not regularising the services of concerned 5 workmen fromthe date of his initial appointment is just, fair and legal . If not , what relief the concerned workmen are entitled to and from which date." 2.After receipt of the reference notice to the parties was issued for filing claim statement on 14-10-2003 . On 14-10-2003 Shri Satya Singh Rawat appeared for workman and Shri Mukesh Kumar for the management and Shri Rawat requested for adjournment for filing claim . Hence it was adjourned to 13-1-2004 . On 13-1-04 and 25-2-04 none for the workman appeared and Shri Feroz Ahmed for the management appeared and then case was adjourned to 28-4-04 for filing claim . Again on 28-4-04 none appeared for either party and even claim was not filed and case was adjourned to 8-7-04 for filing claim. On 8-7-04 Shri Ranjit working General Sec . for the workman requested for adjournment for filing claim and case was adjourned to 20-9-04 for filing claim. On 20-9-04 workman with his A/R appeared and requested for adjournment for filing claim an itwas adjourned to 1-12-04 .

From 1-12-04 til today i.c. 1-6-2005 four opportunities were granted to the workman for filing claim statement but neither he nor his counsel has appeared nor claim statement filed. It appears that the workman are not interested in prosecution of this case. Shri Feroz Ahmed A/R for the management appeared . Hence workman are proceeded ex parte. Thus . No Dispute Award is passed. File be consigned to record room .

Dated: 1-6-05

SANT SINGH BAL, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 9 जून, 2005

का.आ. 2343. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार हिन्दुस्तान जिंक लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के

[PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii) ] बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण उदयपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 3/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-05-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-43012/12/ 2000- आई आर ( विविध ) ]

बी. एम. डेविड, अवर सचिव New Delhi, the 9th June , 2005

S.O. 2343. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act . 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Industrial Tribunal Udaipur ( Ref. No. 3/2000 ) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Hindustan Zinc Ltd. , and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 27-05-2005 .

[ No. L -43012/ 12/2000 - IR ( M) ] B. M. DAVID , Under Secy.

अनुबंध

न्यायालय: न्यायाधीश , औद्योगिक विवाद अधिकरण एवं श्रम : न्यायालय , उदयपुर

पीठासीन अधिकारी उषा अग्रवाल , आर. एच. जे. एस. प्रकरण संख्या : 3/2000

आई. टी. आर . ( केन्द्र सरकार )

श्री मिठूलाल वैष्णव ( 18303 ) द्वारा अखिल भारतीय जस्ता उत्पादक श्रमिक संघ, रामचंद्र चम्पालाल धर्मशाला के बाहर उदयपुर ( राज . )

प्रार्थी

बनाम

महाप्रबंधक , हिन्दुस्तान जिंक लिमिटेड, राजपुरा दरीबा माइन्स पोस्ट दरीबा जिला राजसमन्द ( राज.)

.विपक्षी उपस्थित :

: प्रार्थी की ओर से ।

श्री प्रदीप पालीवाल

: विपक्षी की ओर से ।

श्रीबी.एल. गुप्ता

दिनांक: 13-4 2005

पंचाट

भारत सरकार श्रम मंत्रालय द्वारा जरिये पत्र क्रमांक: एल -43012/12/ 2000/आई आर ( एम ) दिनांक 30-8-2000 द्वारा निम्न प्रसंग इस न्यायालय को अधिनिर्णयार्थ प्रेषित किया गया ।

"Whether the action of management of Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Rajpura Dariba Mines , Dariba Distt . Rajamand in not giving pay protection and step upto Sh . Mithulal 6997 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 2, 2005/ आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

किये जाने से यह विवाद चलने योग्य नहीं होने से खारिज किया जाना चाहिये ।

Vaishnav and giving more salary to his junior workman is legal and justified ? If not what relief workman concerned is entitled to?"

उक्त आश्य का प्रसंग प्राप्त होने पर इस न्यायालय द्वारा दिनांक 9-10-2000 को प्रकरण संख्या 3/2000 आई.टी.आर. दर्ज रजिस्टर किया जाकर पक्षकारान को नोटिस जारी किये गये, जिस पर प्रार्थी की ओर से क्लेम व विपक्षी की ओर से जवाब प्रस्तुत किया गया ।

जबकि प्रार्थी की ओर से उनके अधिवक्ता श्री प्रदीप पालीवाल का तर्क है कि विवाद में प्रतिनिधित्व सचिव अखिल भारतीय जस्ता उत्पादक श्रमिक संघ द्वारा किया गया है । क्लेम प्रस्तुतिकरण से ही बतौर सचिव में ( प्रदीप पालीवाल ) ही प्रकरण में पैरवी कर रहा हूं तथा प्रार्थी यूनियन मान्यताप्राप्त यूनियन नहीं है विपक्षी द्वारा ऐसी कोई लिखित या मौखिक आपत्ति गत पांच वर्षों में नहीं की गयी है । अतः क्लेम प्रस्तुतिकरण तिथि से ही यूनियन की ओर से माना जावे । प्रार्थी प्रतिनिधि ने इस बाबत बहस के समय प्रत्युत्तर भी प्रस्तुत कर निवेदन किया गया है । उनका यह भी तर्क है कि विपक्षी इस प्रकार की आपत्ति उठाकर प्रार्थी द्वारा विवाद को विड्रा करने के लिये बाध्य कर रहा है । प्रकरण की सिद्धी के लिये बयान श्रमिक के ही कराये जाते हैं व उसी के ही कराये गये हैं । उनका यह भी तर्क है कि उन्होंने प्रत्युत्तर प्रस्तुत कर अपनी भूल का सुधार कर लिया है । अतः प्रार्थी का विवाद के समर्थन में प्रस्तुत क्लेम प्रार्थना पत्र स्वीकार किया जाकर उसे तदनुसार अनुतोष प्रदान करायाजावे ।

यह प्रकरण दिनांक 5-4-2005 को अंतिम बहस हेतु नियत था एवं बहस के दौरान विपक्षी/संस्थापक प्रतिनिधि की यह आपत्ति रही है किकेन्द्रीय सरकार के द्वारा अधिनिर्णय हेतु इस न्यायाधिकरण को जो प्रसंग प्रेषित किया है, उसमें प्रार्थी स्वयं पक्षकार नहीं है, बल्किप्रार्थी की यूनियन अखिल भारतीय जस्ता उत्पादक श्रमिक संघ, रामचन्द्र चम्पालाल धर्मशाला के बाहर उदयपुर पक्षकार है तथा प्रार्थी का विवाद वेतन संरक्षण व स्टैप- अप करने से संबंधित है, चूंकि व्यवस्थापक द्वारा प्रार्थी/ श्रमिक मीठूलाल से कनिष्ठ को अधिक वेतन दिया जा रहा है , इसलिये संदर्भित विवाद का प्रार्थी यूनियन द्वारा ही क्लेम प्रस्तुत किया जा सकता है स्वयं प्रार्थी द्वारा प्रस्तुत नहीं किया जा सकता है । जबकि हस्तगत प्रकरण में क्लेम प्रार्थना पत्र में पक्षकार मीठू लाल वैष्णव द्वारा अखिल भारतीय जस्ता उत्पादक श्रमिक संघ , रामचन्द्र चंपा लाल धर्मशाला के बाहर उदयपुर है , किन्तु क्लेम प्रार्थना पत्र पर संघ के सचिव या प्रेसिडेन्ट के बतौर प्रार्थी हस्ताक्षर नहीं किये हैं , बल्किप्रार्थी के द्वारा हस्ताक्षरित किया गया है , न कि श्रमिक संघ द्वारा तथा यह क्लेम प्रार्थना पत्र न्यायाधिकरण के समक्ष पेश भी प्रार्थी श्रमिक ने नहीं किया है, बल्कि उसके अधिवक्ता श्री जय पालीवाल ने प्रस्तुत किया है व उन्होंने भी धारा 36 आई. डी. एक्ट के तहत न्यायालय से श्रमिक की पैरवी करने हेतु इजाजत नहीं ली है । अतः श्रमिक का क्लेम प्रार्थना पत्र श्रमिक की संघ द्वारा प्रस्तुत नहीं किये जाने व पैरवी भी अधिवक्ता द्वारा किये जाने से प्रार्थी का क्लेम प्रार्थना पत्र निरस्त किये जाने योग्य है , क्योंकि औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम की धारा 2 ए के अनुसार श्रम न्यायालय /न्यायाधिकरण के समक्ष कोई भी विवाद जो श्रमिक की सेवा मुक्ति, छंटनी सेवा पृथक या अन्यथा उसकी सेवाएं व्यवस्थापक द्वारा पर्यवस्तिसे सम्बन्धित हैं तो ही श्रमिक स्वयं बतौर पक्षकार बनाया जा सकताहै व उसके द्वारा पैरवी की जा सकती है । जबकि प्रार्थी/ श्रमिक का विवाद धारा 2 - क के तहत नहीं है , इसलिये वह स्वयं न तो क्लेम प्रार्थना पत्र प्रस्तुत कर सकता है न वह स्वयं पैरवी ही कर सकता है । श्री प्रदीप पालीवाल बतौर अधिवक्ता प्रकरण में पैरवी कर रहे हैं , चूंकि उन्होंने वकालत - नामा प्रस्तुत किया है तथा बतौर सचिव संघ, की हैसियत से प्रतिनिधित्व करने हेतु नियम 36 के तहत फार्म - एफ के तहत कोई अधिकार- पत्र प्रस्तुत नहीं किया है । न ही क्लेम प्रार्थना पत्र में बतौर सचिव हस्ताक्षर ही किये हैं व क्लेम भी उनके द्वारा प्रस्तुत नहीं किया गया है । यह भी विपक्षी प्रतिनिधि का तर्क है कि प्रार्थी ने विपक्षी अधिवक्ता द्वारा की गयी जिरह में यह स्वीकार किया है कि यह सही है कि प्रस्तुत विवाद अखिल भारतीय जस्ता उत्पादक श्रमिक संघ द्वारा उठाया गया है । स्टेटमेंट ऑफ क्लेम एमजी आर 13 पर केवल मेरे ही दस्तखत हैं संघ के किसी पदाधिकारी के दस्तखत नहीं हैं । अतः प्रार्थी का क्लेम प्रार्थना पत्र आई. डी. एक्ट की धारा 36 के अनुसार पेश कर प्रतिनिधित्व नहीं

हमने उभय पक्षकारों की बहस पर गम्भीरतापूर्वक विचार किया व पत्रावली का अवलोकन भी किया । पत्रावली के अवलोकन से यह प्रकट होता है कि प्रस्तुत विवाद केन्द्रीय सरकार के समक्ष अखिल भारतीय जस्ता उत्पादक श्रमिक संघ द्वारा उठाया गया है , किन्तु क्लेम प्रार्थना पत्र पर यूनियन के या सचिव के हस्ताक्षर नहीं हैं, केवल मात्र प्रार्थी के हस्ताक्षर हैं तथा इसको न्यायाधिकरण के समक्ष प्रस्तुतं भी प्रार्थी या यूनियन/प्रतिनिधि द्वारा नहीं किया जाकर उसके अधिवक्ता श्री जय पालीवाल द्वारा प्रस्तुत किया गया है । श्री प्रदीप पालीवाल प्रकरण में पैरवी बतौर अधिवक्ता कर रहे हैं न कि यूनियन के सचिव की हैसियत से, चूंकि उनके द्वारा वकालत- नामा प्रस्तुत किया गया है न किनियम 36 के फार्म- एफ के अनुसार प्रतिनिधित्व पत्र पेश किया है । औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम की धारा 2 - क के अनुसार सेवा पृथक, छंटनी सेवामुक्ति या अन्य प्रकार से सेवा से वंचित किसी कर्मकार को व्यवस्थापक द्वारा किया जाता है तो वह स्वयं ऐसा विवाद उठा सकता है अर्थात् अन्य किसी प्रकार का विवाद कर्मकार की संघ द्वारा ही उठाया जा सकता है । हस्तगत प्रकरण में भी विवाद प्रार्थी के संघ ने ही उठाया है तथा प्रेषित प्रसंग में संघ ही पक्षकार है व न्यायालय के समक्ष प्रसंग प्रेषित होने पर संघ ही क्लेम प्रार्थना पत्र प्रस्तुत कर पैरवी कर सकता है जो कि हस्तगत प्रकरण में नहीं की गयी है । इस प्रकार प्रार्थी ने स्वयं क्लेम प्रार्थना पत्र पर हस्ताक्षर कर अपने अधिवक्ता द्वारा क्लेम पेश कराया है , जो औद्योगिक विवाद अधिकरण की धारा 2-क का प्रार्थी का विवाद नहीं होने से क्लेम प्रार्थना पत्र प्रार्थी द्वारा प्रस्तुत नहीं किया जा सकता है तथा यह धारा 36 औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम का स्पष्ट उल्लंघन होने से प्रार्थी का क्लेम चलने योग्य नहीं है । विपक्षी द्वारा यह विधिक आपत्ति उठायी गयी है जो क्लेम के किसी भी स्टेज पर उठायी जा सकती है । ऐसी स्थिति में विपक्षी द्वारा उठायी गयी विधिक आपत्ति में बल पाते हैं तथा प्रार्थी की ओर से कोई ऐसा कानून या नियम औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम में नहीं बताया गया है , जिससे उसकी यह त्रुटि सुधारी जा सकती हो । अतः विपक्षी 6998

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005/ASADHA 11 , 1927

[PART II - SEC. 3 (ii) ]

Versus

के द्वारा उठायी गयी आपत्ति उचित एवं वैध होने के कारण प्रार्थी का क्लेम प्रार्थना पत्र चलने योग्य नहीं होने से निरस्त किया जाता है ।

Sr. Manager (P& A)

IOCL (Marketing Division) ,

Rajasthan State Office,

Ashok Chowk, Adarsh Nagar,

Non-applicant

Jaipur

Case No. CGIT- 24/ 2004 .

Reference No. L- 30012/54/2004 - IR(M)

Sh. Chanda Ram Meena ,

S/ o Sh . Nanag Ram Meena,

R/oMukam Post Chintanu Kla via Manoharpur, भारत सरकार के श्रम मंत्रालय द्वारा प्रेषित प्रसंग को उत्तरित करते हुये पंचाट इस प्रकार पारित किया जाता है कि व्यवस्थापक हिंदुस्तान जिंक लि. राजपुरा दरीया माईन्स दरीबा डिस्ट्रीक राजरबन्द द्वारा श्रमिक श्री मीठूलाल वैष्णव को वेतन संरक्षण एवं स्टेप अप नहीं करना तथा उससे जूनियर कर्मकार को अधिक वेतन देना उचित एवं वैध है का क्लेम रैफ्रेन्स में प्रार्थी पक्षकार अखिल भारतीय जस्ता उत्पादक श्रमिक संघ द्वारा प्रस्तुत व पैरवी नहीं किये जाने के कारण चलने योग्य नहीं होने से खारिज किया जाता है । पंचाट प्रकाशनार्थ भारत सरकार को भेजा जावे ।

Applicant

Tehsil Amer, Jaipur

Versus

Sr. Manager ( P &A)

पंचाट आजदिनांक: 13-4-2005 को खुले न्यायालय में लिखाया जाकर सुनाया गया ।

IOCL (Marketing Division),

उषाअग्रवाल, न्यायाधीश

Rajasthan State Office .

Ashok Chowk , Adarsh Nagar,

Jaipur

Non-applicant नई दिल्ली, 6 जून, 2005

Case No. CGIT-23/2004 .

Reference No. L- 30012/ 50/ 2004 - IR ( M)

Sh. Ramkishan Meena ,

S/o Sh. Narayan Lal Meena ,

R/o Village- Chakotia ,

Tehsil Amer, Jaipur

Applicant

Versus

का.आ. 2344. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार इण्डियन ऑयल कार्पो० लि० 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 20 , 23 , 24/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 06-06-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

Sr. Manager ( P&A)

IOCL (Marketing Division ) ,

[सं. एल-30012/49, 50, 54/2004- आई आर ( विविध ) ]

Rajasthan State Office,

बी. एम. डेविड, अवर सचिव

Ashok Chowk , Adarsh Nagar.

New Delhi , the 6th June , 2005

Jaipur

Non-Applicant

PRESENT :

Sh . R.C. Sharma

PresidingOfficer :

Sh . Kunal Rawat

Forthe applicant:

Sh . Sudhanshu Kasliwal

For the non - applicants :

Date of award:

16-5-2005

AWARD

S.O. 2344. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) . the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 20 , 23 , 24/2004) of the Cental Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court , Jaipur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 06-06-2005 .

[No. L- 30012/49 , 50 , 54/2004 - IR (M) ] B. M. DAVID , Under Secv.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR

Case No. CGIT- 20/2004 .

Reference No. L -30012/49/ 2004- IR (M)

Sh. Narendra Singh Shekhawat .

S/o Sh. Gulab Singh ,

Through Sh . Lakhu Singh Shekhawat , UDC

R/ o City Palace Museum .

Applicant

1. These aforementioned three references have been transmitted by the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred under Clause ' D ' of Sub- Sections 1 & 2(A) to Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act' ) for adjudication to this Tribunal which involve the identical facts and questions of law and are agitated against the same establishment . which are being disposed of by this common order. The disputes referred to this Tribunal relate to the validity of the termination orders dated 21-5-2001 passed by the establishment against the workmen Shri Narendra Singh Shekhawat and Shri Chanda Ram Meena respectively as well as the termination order dated 7-12-2002 passed against the workman Shri Ram Kishan Meena.

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

2. According to the averments made by the workman in their respective claim statements , Narendra Singh Shekhawat and Chanda Ram Meena were recruited by the non - applicant Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. ( for short, the crop . ) as the labourers on 2-6-2000, who continuously performed to work till 21-5-2001 at Khasha Kothi Circle , Petrol Pump belonging to the corp . Ram Kishan Meena was also recruited as a labourer on 7-12-2002 , who continued to work till 6-12-2002. But the services of the first two workmen were terminated on 21-5-2001 whereas that of Ram Kishan Meena was terminated on 7-12-2002 respectively without following the requirements under Section 25 -F of the Act , who unsuccessfully raised the Industrial Dispute before the Conciliation Officer . The workman have further stated that after the termination , the crop . hasrecruited the fresh hands in violation of Section 25 - H of the Act . The workmen have alleged that the nature of the work performed by them is perennial . They have urged that their termination order be declared unjst and void respectively and they be reinstated in the service with back-wages and other consequential reliefs .

3. Resisting the claims of the workmen , it has been stated on behalf of the corp . in the written-counter that no relationship of employer - employee exist between the parties, that the workmen were only trainees and were kept ontraining under a Training Scheme by the management ofthecrop. vide its letter dated 19-6-2000 (Ex. M 1) according to which the training period of the claimants was for a stipulated period and it was made clear to them that they shall not be absorbed on completion of the training . It is further pleased that the certificates of their training were issued in their favour to enable them to get the employment and they had accepted the terms and conditions of the training prior to the execution of the undertaking by them. The non - applicant has further alleged that the claimants are not the workmen as defined under Section 2 ( s) of the Actand on completion of training period by efflux of time theirtermination cannot be termed as retrenchment falling under Section 2 ( oo) of the Act . The non -applicant has claimed that the cases of the workmen fall under Section 2 (oo) (bb) of the Act.

4. In the rejoinder the workmen have reiterated the same facts as mentioned in their claim statements and have admitted that the certificates of training were issued to them respectively.

5. On pleadings , the following points for determination were framed :-

I. Whether the claimant was employed by the non -applicant corporation on 2-6-2000 , who continuously worked from 26-6-2000 to 21-5-2001 and whose service was terminated on 21-5-2001 (7-12-2002 in case ofRam Kishan 1855 G1 /05-45

6999

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 2, 2005 /आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

Meena) in violation of Section 25 - F of the ID Act? BOA II . Whether after the termination of the workman, fresh hands were recruited by the non- applicant corporation in violation of Section 25-H of the Act and Rule 78 of the Industrial Disputes Rules , 1957 ?

BOA III . Whether the claimant is a workman as defined under Section 2 (s ) of the ID Act ? BONA IV. Relief, if any.

6. In the evidence , the workmen have examined themselves and in the rebuttal the counter affidavit of MW - 1 Giyalal , Sr. H.R. Manager has been placed on the record . All these witnesses were cross - examined by the opposite representatives respectively. The corpn . has also led the documentary evidence whereas the workmen have chosen not to bring any documentary evidence on record.

7. I have heard both the parties and have gone through the record. The point-wise discussion follows as under:-

Points No. I & III

8. Since the facts involved in both these points are common, they are discussed together .

9. The Id. representative for the workmen contends that the workmen have worked for more than 240 days in acalendar year at the petrol pump at Khasha Kothi under the supervision and control of the corpn. Their names were not sponsored by any college for training , that the corpn. was earning through their employment and that there was no training institute for imparting trainingto them . The ld . representative further contends that they were working 8 hours per day, that their job was of the permanent nature and the claimmants fall in the category ofthe workmen as defined under Section 2 ( s) of the Act. PerContra, the ld. representative for the corpn.contends that as per contract Ex . M - 1 the claimants were appointed as the trainees , who were paid the monthly stipend and they were posted on the retail outlets . The corpn . floated a scheme and the names of the workmen were sought from the employment exchange , who on being found suitable were given the training and the term of their appointment expired with the efflux of time . The Id. representative adds that the scheme was framed in terms of20 point programme of the Central Government . The main thrust on behalf of the corpn . is that the workmen were apprentices and their disengagement does not amount to retrenchment.

7000

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005/ASADHA 11 , 1927

10. I have bestowed my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions and have carefully gone through the decisions referred to by both the parties before me.

11. It is undisputed that the claimants Narendra Singh and Chanda Ram Meena had performed their duties from 2-6-2000 to 21-5-2001 and Ram Kishan Meena from 7-12-2001 to 6-12-2002 under the employment ofthe corpn. The claimants case is that they were engaged as labourers and were performing the job of the perennial nature, whereas the corpn . has set up a plea that they were appointed as trainees/ apprentices on certain terms and conditions for a fixed term and after the expiry of the stipulated period their appointment came to an automatic end. It has been averred on behalf of the corpn . that a scheme was launched by the Central Government to impart the training in the field to the youths to enable them to get the ample opportunity for their employment in the future . Admittedly, the offer of appointment and the undertaking by the claimants were signed by the claimants respectively.

12. The Id . representative for the workmen in support of his submission has referred to the decision reported in JT 2004 (8 ) SC 272 and the observation made by the Hon'ble Apex Court therein is quoted for convenience sake as below :-

"Whether a relationship of an employer and workman or an employer and an apprenticeship had been brought about , it essentially a question of fact . The court while determining such a dispute must consider the factual matrix involved therein in the light of the provisions of the said Act. Once it is held that a contract of apprenticeship entered into by and betweenthe employer and the workman is a genuine one and not a camouflage or a ruse , a presumption would arise that concerned person is not a workman" .

13. Now, in view of the principle propounded in the decision supra, I proceed to examine as to whe ther the offer of appointment is a sham contract or a genuine one.

14. The letter containing the offer of appointment Ex . M- 1 (which is similar in all the three cases) , addressed to the claimants respectively, states that they have been found suitable for the purpose of the training on the following terms and conditions , out of them , the few important conditions are that their training shall be for a period of 11 months, that they will be governed by Coco Retail Outlet Training Team of IOC , that they would have undergo both theoretical and practical training, that the training period shall be of 8 hours per day and that the stipend worth Rs. 1664 per month will be paid to them. It

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ] also says that during the training period there shall not be any employer - employee relationship between the parties and that on completion of the training the IOC shall not absorb them , however, on successful completion of training period a certificate to that effect will be issued.

15. Ex . M -2 is the undertaking designed as the " Title of the scheme" , whereby the claimants have agreed to be governed by the scheme in terms of the letter for offer of appointment.

16. Now, I advert to the oral evidence adduced by both the parties to justify their pleas respectively.

17. The claimants in their cross examination have stated that they were engaged for delivering of the petrol into cutomers ' vehicles and have denied that the consolidate wages were paid to them in the capacity ofthe trainees . Although, they have admitted that prior to their engagement they had not handled the job of delivering the petrol into the vehicles , but they have deposed that the nature of the job was such which did not require any training. Thus , the claimants have firmly denied that they were appointed as the trainees and have stated that they were performing the regular work .

18. Contrary to it , MW- I Jiyalal has stated in his counter affidavit that the claimants were not the employees of the corpn. , who were only the trainees and had undergone the training for the stipulated period , which they had accepted by putting their signatures and executing anundertaking. In the cross examination this witness had admitted that the workmen were imparted the training for delivery of the petrol into customers ' vehicle as well as in conducting with the customers . He has , too , admitted that the cost of the petrol was charged by themfrom the customers . It is also his admission that no principal for training was appointed , that the attendance of the claimants were marked in the attendance register by the supervisor of the corpn. and that the work performed by them still continues to exist in the corpn. He has clearly admitted that the claimants were put under the control and supervision of the petrol pump and that after the disengagement of the claimants the fresh workers were engaged as trainees by the corpn ..

19. It flows from the aforestated facts that the corpn . had neither training institute and nor even a trainer it had to impart the training to the disputants in the field. So far as the nature of the work is concerned , it is crystal clear that thework performed by them was perennial in nature and it even exists after their disengagement and to carry on the similarkind of work the fresh employees were recruited by the corpn . Undoubtedly, the corpn . had exercised the control and supervision over them .

20. The Id . representative for the workmen has referred to AIR 2003 SC 3329 in support of his submission, the facts thereof are that the case of the management was that the disputants were traines only and their traineeship was terminated by the management . The question that 7001 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 2, 2005/ आषाढ़ 11, 1927

compensation were paid to them. Thus , their termination tentamounts to retrenchment as defined under Section 2(oo) of the Act and the plea set for on behalf of corpn . that the claimants were appointed as the trainees and their appointment came to an automatic end on the expiry ofthe period of appointment, fails and their case is not covered by clause (bb ) to Section 2 (oo) of the Act . Accordingly, points No. I and III are decided in favour of workmen and against the corpn.

Point No. II : -

cameup for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court was whether the disputants were employed within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of the Act and it was considered by the Hon'ble Court that if the disputants were trainees , there should have been trainers too . The case of the management was also disbelieved on the ground that it did not have any permanent workmen and all the persons employed were trainees . It has been observed by the Hon'ble Court that "the management evidently came forward with a false plea doubling the employees/ workmen as trainees so as to resort to summary termination and denied the legitimate benifits " . The facts of the referred to decision are squarely applicable to the present controversy and it fortifies the submission canvassed on behalf of the workmen .

23.The workmen in their pleadings have categorically stated that after their termination the fresh hands were recruited by the corpn . They have further deposed this fact in their affidavits respectively. In the cross examination MW- 1 Jiyalal has admitted that while terminating the services ofthe workmen their seniority list was not drawn up and after their termination the fresh hands were employed as the trainees. He has further olarified that similar kind of training was also imparted to the new apprentices. Under the foregoing paragraphs it has been concluded that the claimants were engaged as the labourers and a relationship of employer -employee existed between both the parties . The admission made by the management witness leads to infer that the casual workers were engaged after the disengagement of the claimants to carry on the similar kind of work, which used to be performed by the claimants . Furtrher, it could not be disputed on behalf of the corpn. thatprior to the engagement of the fresh hands , an opportunity was not afforded to these retrenched workmen . Therefore , the corpn . has acted in violation of Section 25 -H of the Act and Rule 8 of ID Rules, 1957. This point, therefore , is decided in favour of the workmen.

RELIFE

21.Contrary to it, the ld. representative for the corpn. has placed before the court a photostat copy of the unreported judgement passed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the matter of Writ Petition 2020 of2000 , Petroleum Employees Union v. M/s . Indian Oil Corpn . Ltd. and Ors . , the facts thereof are that 22 candidates were posted at retail outlet by the corpn. treating them as the trainees . The Hon'ble Court has upheld the conclusion drawnby the Labour Court that they were not the workmen but the trainees , to whom the training was imparted by the corpn. But the facts of this case demonstrate that the candidates were provided classrooms and field training, which was being given to them by specialized agency. They were also given training history card. On these facts they were considered to be trainees and , therefore, the facts of the decision supra are totally distinguishable from the present controversy. The ld . representative has also relied upon JT 2004 ( 7) SC 232 , which I have carefully gone through and suffice it to state here that exfacie the facts of the cited decision are quite dissimilar from the present controversy. Thus , the ld. representative for the corpn . does not derive any assistance from both these judicial verdicts.

24. On account of the decision of the aforestated points in favour of the workmen, their claims deserve to be allowed and they are entitled tobe reinstated . They have also pleaded their unemployment since their termination , which stands unrebutted . Therefore, they are also entitled to get the back wages .

25. In consequence , all these aforestated three references are answered in affirmative in favour of the workmen and against the Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. and it is held that their claims deserve to be allowed . The termination orders dated 21-5-2001 terminating the services of claimants Narender Singh Shekhawat, Chanda Ram Meena and dated 7-12-2002 terminating the services of Ram Kishan Meena are illegal and unjustified respectively. They are entitled to be reinstated in the service with its continuity and 50% back wages . An award is passed in these terms accordingly.

R. C. SHARMA , Presiding Officer 22. Thus delving deep into the matter it echoes that the appointment order/contract Ex. M - 1 was a veil and under the disguise of imparting the training to the claimants, their services were hired by the corpn . on payment of monthly consolidated wages for performing its regular work at the petrol pump, which even exists till today. It leads to an inescapable conclusion that their appointment/contract is a sham one and the corpn.'s plea cannot be maintained . On these facts , the claimants have succeded to establish that they had completed over 240 days of actual service under the employment of the corpn . in a calendar year preceding to the termination and that there existed a nexus of employer -employee between the contesting parties . Undisputedly, prior to their termination they were not served with one month's notice , nor the pay in lieu of the notice , may the retrenchment 7002

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2, 2005/ASADHA 11 , 1927

नई दिल्ली, 6 जून , 2005.

to as the ' Act ' ) has referred the following Industrial Dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal which runs as under

"Whether the action of the management of Oriental Bank of Commerce to dismiss Sh. Lokendra Singh , S/o Sh . Swaroop Singh from service vide Order dated 23-5-1997 is justified and legal? If so , what relief is the aggrieved workman entitled to ? " का. आ. 2345.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार ओरिएण्टल बैंक ऑफ कॉमर्स 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 12/2002) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 03-06-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -12012/156/2000- आई आर ( बी- II ) ]

सी. गंगाधरण , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 6th June , 2005

publishes S.O. 2345.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 12/2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court Jaipur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Oriental Bank of Commerce and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 03-06-2005 .

[No. L - 12012/ 156/2000 - IR (B - II) ] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

2. The factual background of the case sans the unnecessary details is that the workman was initially appointed as a safaiwala on 1-1-85 and after clarifying the departmental examination he was promoted to the post of clerk-cum-cashier . While he was working in the branch of bank at Bharatpur, he was chargsheeted on 1-11-95 with an imputation that on 11-8-95 he misbehaved with Sh . K.C. Gupta , the Sr. Manager of the branch situated at hotel Van Vihar, Bharatpur (for short, the hotel ) . The workman has pleaded that after his duty hours on 11-8-95 he was called by Sh . K.C. Gupta around 7.30/ 8 pm at the hotel and asked him to stay there till late at night . He requested him that his wife is unwell and his presence is required at his house , but no heed was paid to his request . He has alleged that Sh . K.C. Gupta was taking liquor at that time along with some other persons, who under intoxication asked him either to supply alcohol to him or hewouldbe reverted to the post of 4th Class . The workman denying the misbehaviour committed by him towards Sh . K.C. Gupta has pleaded the ulterior motive of Sh . Guptato prosecute him . He has also assailed the impugned punishment order of dismissal to be an excessive one .

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR

Case No. CGIT- 12/ 2002

Ref. No. L - 12012 / 156/ 2000 - IR (B - II)

Sh . Lokendra Singh , S/ o Sh . Swaroop Singh ,

DigavaPara, In front of Moti Singh , Advocate , Anah Gate, Bajaria , Teh. and Distt . Bharatpur ( Rajasthan)

Applicant

Versus

3. In turn, the non - applicant in his written counter has averred that on 12-8-95 the extension counter of the Bharatpur branch was scheduled to be inaugurated and the bank's higher officers from Delhi and Jaipur had arrived at Bharatpur on 11-8-95 and were staying in the aforestated hotel where at about 9.25 pm the workman had abused the Sr. Manager Sh. K.C. Gupta and attempted to assault on him in presence of the staff members against whom a disciplinary proceeding was initiated on the charges of misconduct and was subsequently dismissed from the service by the disciplinary authority. It has also been pleaded that the misconduct committed by the workman at the hotel is directly related to the bank for which the legal action can be taken by the bank .

The Assistant General Manager (Personnel ) , Oriental Bank of Commerce , Harsha Bhawan , E -Block , Connaught Place , New Delhi - 110001

4. In the rejoinder, the workman has stated that the alleged misconduct was committed outside the bank premises which is not covered by the clauses under the Bipartite Settlement ( for short the BPS) .

Non - applicant

PRESENT :

Presiding Officer : Sh . R.C. SHARMA

: Sh. Suresh Kashyap

Forthe applicant

5. Vide order dated 18-9-2003 of this Court, the domestic enquiry conducted against the workman was found to be bad and the bank was permitted to lead the evidence to justify the charges levelled against the workman.

: Sh . B. S. Ratnu

For the non - applicant

Date of award : 05-05-2005

AWARD

1. 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

6. Insupport of its case , the bank has examined Paramhans Meena , the officer of the bank Maheshchand Sharma , LDC, Anil Kumar Gupta, Clerk/Typist , K.C. Gupta Sr. Manager and Nikhil Gupta, Special Assistant . On behalf ofthe workman, the affidavits of Raja Ram , Class IV, R.K. Goyal , Manager and Vijay Kumar Mehra, Hotel Manager [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

along with his own have been placed on the record. All these witnesses have been cross - examined by the opposite representatives respectively.

7. I have heard both the parties and have scanned the record.

8. Theld . representative for the bank contends that by examining five witnesses the management has proved the charges under paras 19.5 (c) and 19.5 (e) of the BPS and the management witnesses have categorically narrated the incident in their testimony. The ld . representative further contends that the workman had defied the order of the Sr. Branch Manager, and abused him and the meeting in the hotel was for the purpose of improvement and betterment of the bank which attracts the provision under clause 19.5 ( c) of the BPS .

9. Countering these submissions , theld . representative for the workman contends that it is to be seen-whether the oral order given to the workman was reasonable and whether he had deliberately refused the order. His submission is that there is no evidence that the meeting was convened at the hotel , but contrary to it the evidence produced on the record is that the employees of the bank went in the hotel at their own to meet the higher officers and they were not called there . His further contention is that the evidence discloses that no meeting was held at the hotel and that no document showing this fact has been produced on the record . The Id. representative adds that the said incident which had taken place at about 9.25 p.m. , which was not during the office hours .

10. The Id . representative has further contended that the management witnesses have denied happening of the incident and their statements are contradictory. His further submission is that Sh. Paramhans Meena's statement was not recorded by the Enquiry Officer, who was examined in the Court after a lapse of 10 years , that he has named Sh. R. K. Goyal , who was present there and R. K. Goyal has been produced by the workman in support of his case . The ld . representative has also assailed the testimony of Sh . K. C. Gupta by arguing that he has admitted that no order for convening the meeting was issued, that no proceedings were drawn , that the workman was not called in the hotel and that no written order was issued for allocation of the duties . The ld . representative has emphasized on the fact that it was necessary for him to issue the order in writing. The ld . representative has also attacked the management evidence on the ground thatcertainwitnesses , viz . , Pankaj Sharma and Hanuman Prasad Meena have also been named by the management witnesses who have not been produced. It has also been a ground of attack on behalf of the workman that why Sh . K. C. Gupta has not lodged an FIR against the said incident. On behalf of the workman , the veracity of Sh. K. C. Gupta has been sought to impeach on the ground that certain news have been published against him in the newspaper and a suit was also filed against him.

11. The ld . representative for the workman then has placed his reliance upon the defence evidence adduced on behalf of the workman and has contended that Sh . R. K. Goyal , Manager in the bank who was the ther in

7003

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 2, 2005/आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

charge of the extension counter has denied the said allocation of the duties among the employees and has stated that no incident had taken place . The ld. representative has also placed his reliance upon the testimony of Sh . Vijay Mehra , the in charge of the aforestated hotel by stating that he has deposed that no permission to convene the meeting in the hotel was obtained from the hotel management . It has also been a ground that the charges have not been framed in accordance with the standing order and, therefore, no punishment can be imposed on the workman and that both the charges could not be proved by the bank .

12. Both the ld . representative have referred to the various decisions in support of their submissions , which find mention herein below.

13. I have bestowed my anxious consideration to the rival contentions and have gone through the judicial pronouncements .

14. Now , the question which crops up for determination is whether the workman had committed the misconduct with the then Sr. Manager, Sh . K. C. Gupta as defined under paras 19.5(c) and 19.5(e) of the BPS dated 19-10-1966?

15. The chargesheet dated 1-11-95 reads that on 11-8-95 at about 9.25 p.m. at the hotel, Van Vihar, Bharatpur, you had misbehaved with the Sr. Manager , Sh . K. C. Gupta while he was discussing with the staff members about the duties entrusted to the employees on 10-8-95 for 12-8-95 . When in the presence of other staff members , you were told to work at the main branch , then denying his orders you replied that " I would not go to the branch. I would only go to the extension counter" . But when you were directed to report in the main branch, then you abusively said " You do whatever you like . I will do go to the extension counter" . When you were objected for abusing , you took up your slippers from your foot and abused the Sr. Manager and rushed towards him aggressively to assault him and the staff members had to restrain you from scuffling with Sh . K. C. Gupta. The chargesheet further says that the aforestated misconduct of the workman is attracted by paras 19.5( c) and 19.5 (e) oftite BPS dated 19-10-1966 .

16. Para 19.5 deals with the gross misconduct and the aforestated clauses are reproduced as below :-

19.5( c) : " drunkenness or riotous or disorderly or indecent behavior on the premises of the bank" ;

19.5 (e) : "willfull insubordination or disobedience of any lawful and reasonable order of the management or of a superior " ;

17. As per clause 21 ( IV) (a) , an employee found guilty of gross misconduct may be dismissed without notice.

18. Now, the primary question which needs the consideration is whether the incident had occured ? The management to establish the gross misconduct levelled against the workman has examined 5 witnesses in support of its case . Although , the management witnesses Shri Mahesh Chand Sharma and Shri Anil Kr. Gupta have 7004

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2, 2005 /ASADHA 11 , 1927

and a suit was also filed against him. The Id . representative for the workman has argued that the testimony of the management witnesses is contradictory and cannot be reliedupon.

narrated the alleged incident in their affidavit respectively, but Shri M. C. Shah has admitted in his cross - examination that no such incident had taken place in his presence. Likewise , Shri A. K. Gupta has stated that there was a brawl between Sh. K. C. Gupta and the workman with regard to the entrustment of the duty at the branch office , who were pacified and when he went towards the jeep , he heard a noise and then saw that the staffers were intervening between both of them. Thus , according to his testimony it appears that he had not witnessed the occurrence . As such , evidently both these witnesseş cannot be termed as eye witnesses who have not corroborated the management case .

22. K. C. Gupta in his cross-examination has pointed out that the duties to the staff members for 12-8-1995 was orally allotted by him in the branch on 10-8-1995 , in a meeting of staffers called by him . It is true that the witness has admitted that no document with regard to convening the meeting could be placed on the record , but he has emphatically stated that he in the capacity of Sr. Manager could issue the written or verbal order for entrusting the duties. This fact has even been admitted by WW - 2 R. K. Goyal that the manager can allot the duties to the employees . Further it is not the case of the management that a meeting was convened on 11-8-1995 at the hotel, but the bank has clearly put forth its case that on 11-8-1995 when the superior bank officers from Delhi and Jaipur had arrived at the hotel , the staffers along with the workman on their own had gone to the hotel to pay the courtesy call to the superior officers , where the incident had takenplace .

19. Now remains the evidence of K. C. Gupta, Paramhans Meena and Nikhil Gupta , who have narrated the incident in detail in their affidavits respectively. K. C. Gupta has stated in his affidavit that on 18-8-1995 the workman Lokendra Singh was entrusted with the duty to attend the main branch and on 12-8-1995 in the hotel when Paramhans Meena intimated him that Lokendra Singh was defying the duty already allotted to him and stated that he will not attend the branch on 12-8-1995 , then he had asked Lokendra Singh to attend the branch , who indecently replied to him that he would go to the Extension Counter. He has further deposed that when he asked Lokendra Singh to be present at the branch , the workman abused him in filthy and foul language by stating that he would go to the extension counter only. He has further stated that when he asked him not to abuse , then he took up his Hawai Chappal from his foot and rushed towards him to assault him in the aggressive mood , who was resisted by Mahesh Sharma , Pankaj Sharma, Nikhil Gupta and Paramhans Meena .

23. K. C. Gupta has also been cross - examined on the point that he was not abused by the workman and no such incident had taken place, but he has emphatically denied all such questions put to him and has categorically stated that the workman was putting on the chappal on that day. He has also clarified that for loding the FIR permission from the regional office was required and , therefore, it could be lodged. He has also clarified that he had reported this incident to the higher bank officers . Apart , it , when a misconduct is committed by any of the employees of the bank , it rests with the bank authorities to lodge the complaint with , the police or to initiate the disciplinary proceedings against him and even if the FIR is not lodged against him , the disciplinary proceedings launched against him cannot be doubted on this sole ground.

20. The testimony of K. C. Gupta has been corroboratedby Paramhans Meena who has depicted the said incident in his affidavit by stating that on 12-8-1995 he had reported to K. C. Gupta in the hotel that Lokendra Singhhad refused him to join the duty on 12-8-1995 at the branch and he is insisting to attend the extension counter. Thereafter, he has categorically stated that he was advised by the K. C. Gupta to attend the branch , but he abused him indecently and insisted to attend the extension counter. He has stated that the workman attempted to assault K. C. Gupta with his chappal , who was intervened by the staff members present there . Nikhil Gupta has also described the alleged incident in his affidavit and has corroborated the evidence of both K. C. Gupta and Paramhans Meena .

24. Sh . K. C. Gupta has admitted in his cross- examination that a suit against him was instituted in the District Court at Bharatpur , but has stated that it was a false suit . He has pleaded ignorance as to the news published against him in the newspaper on 15-12-1995 . On behalf of the workman , a copy of the newspaper ' Crown' dated 15-12-1995 has been placed on the record wherein it has been reported that the bank manager of the Oriental Bank of Commerce at Numaish Road Branch , demanded bribery for the grant of loan, but Sh. K. C. Gupta has not been named in this news . Moreover , in view of the decision reported in 1994 ( 1) WLC (Raj .) 679 statement of fact in newspaper is merely hearsay and inadmissible in absence of maker of statement deposing to hand perceived facts reported.

21. On behalf of the workman , the management evidence has been assailed by arguing that the order allotting the duty of the workman was not reasonable , that no meeting was held on 10-8-1995 whereby the duties were allotted to the staff members , that Sh . K. C. Gupta had not issued any notice to the workman fixing his duty on 12-8-1995 at the branch and that no document of holding the meeting could be produced on behalf of the bank . It has also been questioned on behalf of the workman that why the FIR was not lodged by K. C. Gupta , that his functioning as a manager was objectionable and the adverse news were published against him in a newspaper

25. Similarly, Paramhans Meena and Nikhil Gupta have also been cross - examined at length, but all these 3 witnesses could not be shaken in their cross - examination and nothing has surfaced on record to discard or disbelieve their testimony. On all the material points these witnesses have corroborated the testimony of each other.

7005. [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 2 , 2005/ आषाढ़ 11 , 1927.

cross-examination he had stated that he has complained this matter to the RM Office but has further admitted that in his complaint Ex. W- 1 /A this fact does not find mention.

28. I have carefully gone through the complaint Ex. W-1/A addressed by the workman to the Chairman and theManaging Director of the bank wherein he has stated that Sh . K. C. Gupta has marked him absent in the attendance register, who has tempered with the official recordand the action be taken on probing into the matter. But nowhere in this application the fact of taking alcohol by Sh. K. C. Gupta and the demand of providing the liquor are mentioned . Thus , testimony of the workman is merely of the negative nature , wherein he has denied the commission of any misconduct on his part, yet he has admitted his presence on 11-8-95 at the relevant time in the hotel . It is further obvious from his evidence that in turnhe has blamed the then Sr. Manager Sh . Gupta with a serious derogatory allegation of taking liquor and asking him either to fulfil his demand of alcohol of bear the consequence of reversion. It is unnatural that an officer in presence of his superior officers would take the alcohol and beyond it he would compel a subordinate employee to provide the liquor or to see the dire consequences of reverting to the post of 4th Class . It , therefore, flows that in order to save himself the workman has gone to the extent of imputing his superior with such a grievous but false allegation. The rebuttal evidence adduced on behalf of the workman is feeble , indefinite and vague and does not substantiate his plea of innocence .

29. On a critical examination of the oral evidence adduced on the record on behalf of both the parties , the management has succeeded to establish that the workman without any provocation had abused and misbehaved indecently with Sh. K. C. Gupta and had wilfully disobeyed the reasonable order issued by Sh. Gupta to adhere to his duty on 12-8-95 at the Branch Office , Bharatpur .

30. The ld. representative for the workman then has contended that the misconduct committed by the workman is not covered by para 19.5 (c) ofthe BPS wherein the requirement is alleged indecent misbehaviour should be committed in the premise of the bank . The Id . representative has asserted that the hotel is situated nearly 7-8 Kms . away from the branch and the alleged misconduct cannot be attracted under clause 19.5 ( c ) . Countering this submission , the ld. representative for the bank has contended that the act of the workman was subversive of discipline which relates to the business and management of the bank and , therefore , it is covered under clause 19.5 ( c) ofBPS .

26. As against it, on behalf of the workman , 4 witnesses including the workman have been examined to prove his innocence . WW - 1 , Raja Ram has stated that he is working as 4th class in Bharatpur Branch since 4-9-1995 and that K. C. Gupta has named him to be present on 11-8-1995 at the hotel , whereas on that day he was not under the employment of the bank and the news and no reason for him to be present there. His evidence is thus a negative evidence which does not relate with the commission of the misconduct levelled against the workman. The next witness is WW-2 , Shri R. K. Goyal , who has stated that on 11-8-1995 he was posted as Manager in Bharatpur Branch and that no brawl had taken place inhis presence on 11-8-1995 at the hotel , where he was also present . But in his affidavit he has stated that he had reached the hotel around 10 p.m. , whereas it has been alleged that the occurrence took place around 9.25 p.m. As such, it appears that he was not present at the scene which is further fortified by his reply to the question put to him on behalf of the bank whereby he has pleaded ignorance as to whether the incident could have taken place before his arrival on the spot . Therefore , his evidence is indefinite and vague which does not corroborate the workman's case. WW-4 is Vijay Kumar Mehra, who was posted as Manager of hotel Van Vihar on 11-8-1995 , who has stated in his affidavit that on 11-8-1995 the staff members of the bank had come to see the bank's authorities staying in the hotel at about 9.30 p.m. and the alleged occurrence had not taken place. In his cross - examination , he has admitted that he personally knows the workman as he is acquainted with his elder brother, which suggests that he is an interested witness . In his affidavit he has stated on 11-8-95 at 9.30 p.m. , no meeting was held by the bank authorities at the hotel, but in his cross -examination he has stated that no permission was taken from them before convening the meeting by the officers staying in the hotel . Thus , his testimony is contradictory in itself and being a Manager it can safely be perceived that he could be busy in attending his duties , whereas incident is stated to have been taken place outside the gate of the hotel . At that place and that time, the presence of the Manager of the hotel could not be expected on the spot in the aforestated process. Moreover, none of the management witnesses could be cross -examined on behalf of the workman on this aspect as to whether the hotel manager Vijay Kumar Mehra was also present at the scene. Thus , his deposition is untrustworthy and his presence at the scene is unnatural and it is reflected that being an interested witness he has been examined on behalf of the workman.

31. The ld. representative for the workman in support ofhis submission has placed his reliance upon 1984 FJR (64) SC 16, 1996 ( 1 ) LLN SC 526 and 1994- II LLN Bombay 974. In 1984 FJR ( 64 ) SC 16 Glaxo Laboratories (India) Ltd. v. Labour Court , Meerut and Ors . , the facts are that in the standing order 22 of the establishment it was provided that the acts set out therein committed within the precincts of the establishment or in the vicinity thereof will be treated as misconduct . During the strike in the establishment certain workmen who had joined the strike boarded a bus which was to carry the loyal workman who 27. I, now switch to the testimony of the workman, who has denied the alleged misconduct committed by him. In his cross - examination, he has admitted that the higher bank authorities from Delhi and Jaipur had arrived at the hotel and to see them the staff members had visited the hotel . He has stated in his affidavit that he was called by K. C. Gupta on 11-8-95 around 8 p.m. in the hotel and when he visited the hotel he found that Sh. Gupta along with some other persons were taking alcohol and that he was asked by Sh . Gupta either to provide the liquor to all of them or he would be reverted to the 4th Class . In his 7006

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005/ASADHA 11 , 1927

did notjoin the strike and at various places the delinquent manhandled the loyal workmen. On the question whether the alleged acts of misconduct committed within the premises of establishment constitute the misconduct under the standing order, it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the words " committed within the premises of the establishment " must he given full effect . It was further observed that the casual connection between the act of misconduct and the employment must be real , immediate and not remote. In this case , it was held that the alleged acts were not committed within the premises of the establishment .

judgments , it is not possible for me to accept the contention so strenuously canvassed at the Bar by Mr. Sarnaik . In my view, there is no conflict between Mulchandani and Glaxo . The law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Mulchandani ( supra) is clear. An act would be ' subversive ' of discipline within the premises or precincts of the industrial establishment as long as the act has a rational and reasonable nexus with the industrial employment and has the deleterious consequence of subverting the discipline in the establishment , regardless of whether the act takes place within or outside the establishment . The emphasis is on the baneful consequence of the act, and not on its situs . Applying this test to the facts in these two writ petitions it is clear that the acts alleged against the workmen fell clearly within the definition of the misconduct under the Model Standing Order 24 ( 1 ) as commission of an act subversive of discipline or good behaviour on the premises of the establishment" .

32. 1996 ( 1 ) LLN SC 526 , in this case the relevant clause 39 (h) states that disorderly behaviour during working hours within the premises of the bank are misconduct and its second part states that any act subversive of discipline committed either within or outside the premises of the company is also a misconduct . The Id. representative for the workman has argued in view of this ruling that since the alleged misconduct was not committed withinworking hours , it is not a misconduct . But no such expression as " working hours " has been incorporated in 19.5 (c ) of the BPS in the instant case . Accordingly, the ld. representative does not derive any help from this decision being dissimilar from the present controversy.

33. In 1994 - II LLN Bombay 974, the Hon'ble Court has held that in the event there is nothing to show any connection between the incident and the employment of the delinquent workmen with the undertaking, there is not nexus between alleged act of misconduct and the employment to bring within the standing orders . Thus, the facts of this case are dissimilar from the present controversy.

36. In 1994 ( 1 ) LLN Kerala 744 and 192 ( II) LLJ Bombay 394, referred to on behalf of the bank, the Hon'ble Kerala High Court has held that if an assault is caused on the officer who was leading non - striking workman into the factory near its premises, it will amount to a misconduct since it has as intimate connection with employment in the factory though it was not taken place in the factory and in the later case the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has observed that the act of assault on the co- worker by the delinquent , though it took place outside the factory premises had a direct and rational nexus with industrial relations between the employer and the workmen in the establishment, which amounted to an act subversive of discipline within the meaning of the concerned standing order.

34. Per contra, the ld . representative has referred to ( 1975 ) 4 SSC 731 Mulchandani Electrical and Radio Industries Ltd. v. The Workmen , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as below : ----

37. In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Courtreported in ( 1975) 4 SCC 731 and ( 1995) LLJ SC 314, the alleged act of misconduct even if it was committed outside the premises of the bank , it has the effect of subverting discipline within the premises of the bank and will amount to misconduct under para 19.5 (c) of the BPS . The submission canvassed on behalf of the bank is thus fortified by the principle propounded by the Hon'ble Apex Court inthe decisions supra . The Glaxo Laboratories case has been discussed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforestated decisions and in view of the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court , theld . representative for the workmen does not derive any help from athe decision relied upon by him .

"In our opinion, on a plain reading of the clause , the words within the premises or precincts of the establishment" refer not to the place where the act where the consequence of such an act manifests itself. In other words , an act , wherever committed, if it has the effect of subverting discipline or good behaviour within the premises or precincts of the establishment , will amount to misconduct under Standing Order24 ( 1 ) . We are unable to agree that Standing Order 24 ( 1) leaves out of its scope an act committed outside though it may result in subversion of discipline or good behaviour within the premises or precincts of the establishment in question. Such a construction in our view would be quite unreasonable" .

35. The next case relied upon by the Id . representative for the bank is ( 1995) II LLJ SC 314 wherein the Hon'ble Court has referred to its decision on the point rendered in Mulchandani Glaxo Cases and the views of the Hon'ble Court are usefully quoted as below :-

38. On a careful examination the facts and circumstances and the survey of decisions referred to on behalf of both the parties, the bank has succeeded to establish that the commission of the alleged act by the workman amounts to an act subversive of discipline within the meaning of para 19.5 ( c) which had a direct relation between the workman and the management and that the workman has committed gross misconduct under paras 19.5 ( c) and 19.5 (e ) of the BPS .

" In view of the consistent view taken by the different Benches of this Court , as evidenced in above [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

39. That takes me to consider the question of disproportionate quantum of punishment awarded to the workman looking to the nature of the misconduct.

40. TheId . representative for the workman contends that the disciplinary authority has not considered the past service record of the workman before passing the punishment order , who has ten years of unblemished service at his credit and the stringent punishment has been imposed upon him which is a violation of clause 19.5 (c) of the BPS. In support of his submission the ld . representative has relied upon 1983 FJR (62) SC 100, 1984 FJR(64) SC 433 , 1989 , LLN - 1 SC 303 , 1969 (69) SC FLR 191.

41. Contrary to it, the Id representative for the bank contends that looking to the gravity of the misconduct, the punishment imposed upon the workman is proportionate and is not harsh . The ld. representative in support of his contention has placed before the court of photocopy of a decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. N.V. Naravade .

42. In 1983 FJR (62) SC 100 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that the punishment must be commensurate with the gravity of the offence . In this case , the workman was awarded the punishment of dismissal which was considered to be unjustified on the ground that the workman had 14 years of unblemished service and was not resorting to any positive action subsequently. He was charged with the misconduct of using the abusive and threatening language towards another workman.

43. 1984 FJR ( 64) SC 433 : In this case the workman had abused another workman in derogatory and abusive manner, the Hon'ble Court has noted that the " Charge levelled against the appellant is not serious one and it is not known how the charge , even if proved would result in any; much less total , loss of confidence of the management in the delinquent" .

44. The Id. representative has also placed his reliance upon 1989 LLN- 1 SC 303 and 1969 (69 ) FLR. SC 191 , which I have carefully gone through, but their facts are not applicable to the controversy at hand.

45. In contrast, the Id. representative for the bank has invited my attention towards the views taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court on the quantum of punishment imposed for a similar misconduct in a most recent case Mahindra & Mahindra Vs. N.B. Naravade, the facts thereof are that the respondent workman used abusive and filthy language against his superior, who was found guilty after concluding the disciplinary proceedings against him and wasterminated by the disciplinary authority. The relevant passage of the aforesaid judgment is extracted as below :-

" In the absence of any such factor existing the Labour Court cannot by way of sympathy alone exercise the power under Section 11 - A of the Act and reduce the punishment . As noticed herein above at least in two of the cases cited before us , i.e. Orissa Cement Ltd. ( supra ) and New Shorrock Mills (supra) , this Court held: ' punishment of dismissal 1855 G1/0546

7007

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 2, 2005/आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

for using of abusive language cannot be held tobe disproportionate . " In this case all the forums below have held that the language used by the workman was filthy. We too are of the opinion that the language used by the workman is such that it cannot be tolerated by any civilized society. Use of such abusive language against a superior officer , that too not once but twise , in the presence of his subordinates cannot be termed to be an indiscipline calling for lesser punishment in the absence of any extenuating factor referred to herein above " .

46. The workman in the instant case has been held blameworthy on the basis of positive and legal evidence adduced on behalf of the bank and it is found that the workman was shockingly rude towards his superior and his behaviour was so offending that he deserved to be punished . On the overall assessment of the facts and circumstances emerging in the case and considering the totality of the alleged misconduct , the punishment of dismissal awarded to him cannot be treated to be excessive anddisproportionate in the light of the views expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mahindra & Mahindra Vs. N.B. Naravade . As such , the impugned punishment order does not warrant any interference .

47. In the result , the reference is answered in the negative against the workman and in favour of the management of the bank and it is held that the dismissal order dated 23-5-1997 passed against the workman is justified and legal . The claim of the workman is rejected. An award is passed in these terms accordingly.

48. 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, 6 जून , 2005

का. आ. 2346.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार इंडियन ऑयल कार्पो. लि. , के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , नई दिल्ली- II के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 57/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 06-06-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-30011 /102/2002- आई आर ( विविध ) ] बी.एम. डेविड, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 6th June , 2005

S.O. 2346.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 57/ 2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court , New Delhi - II as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Indian Oil 7008

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005/ASADHA 11 , 1927

Corpn . Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 6-6-2005 .

[No. L -30011/ 102/2002 - IR (M)]

B.M. DAVID , Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER :

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT - II, NEW DELHI

Presiding Officer : R. N. RAI .

I.D. No. 57/2003

IN THE MATTER OF :

Shri Ram Avtar & Others ,

C/ o The General Secretary,

DelhiMulti Storeyed Building,

Employees Congress ,

Vandana Building ,

11 , Tolstoy Marg , New Delhi - 110001 .

Versus

The Chairman Cum Managing Director ,

Indian Oil Corporation Limited,

Scope Complex , Core No. 2,

Lodhi Road,

New Delhi .

AWARD

[PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii) ] (संदर्भ संख्या 142/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 06-06-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -40012/584/2000- आई आर ( डीयू) ]

कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 6th June , 2005

S.O. 2347. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 142/ 2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court - I , Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Deptt . of Telecom . and their workman, which was received by the Central Governinent on 06-06-2005.

[No. L -40012/584/ 2000 - IR ( DU) ] KULDIP RAI VERMA , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM - LABOUR COURT- I,

CHANDIGARH

Case No. ID - 142/2001

Shri Kuldip Singh ,

C/o R.K. Sharma ,

H. No. 372 ,

Sector 20A ,

Chandigarh

TheMinistry of Labour by its letter No. L - 30011/ 102/2002 - IR ( M) Central Government Dt. 04-04-2003 has referred the following point for adjudication.

The point runs as hereunder :-

"Whether the action of the management of I.O.C.L. , New Delhi is not regularizing the services of 10 workmen as in the Annexure from the date of his initial appointment is just , fair and legal ? If not , to what relief the concerned workmen are entitled and from which date? "

It transpires from the perusal of the order sheet that notice on 29th January, 2004 and 12th January, 2005 has been sent to the workmen applicants as well the management but none appeared . The workman has not filed claim statement .

No Dispute Award is given.

Dated: 31-5-2005

R.N. RAI , Presiding Officer , नई दिल्ली, 6 जून , 2005

का. आ. 2347. 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 न.- I, चण्ड़ीगढ़ के पंचाट

....Applicant .

Versus

(1) The Chief General Manager,

Telecom . Punjab Circle ,

Sector 34 ,

Chandigarh - 160001.

(2) The Principal General Manager,

Telecom . Sector 18 ,

.... Respondents Chandigarh - 160001 .

APPEARANCES :

: None

: Shri Shiv Kumar & For the workman For the management

Anish Babbar

AWARD

Passed on 20-5-2005

Central Govt . vide notification No. L- 40012/ 584/2000 - IR( DU) dated 26-3-2001 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

"Whether the action of Chief General Manager , Telecom . Punjab Circle , Chandigarh and the Princiapl General Manager Telecom. , Chandigarh Distt. in ordering disengagement/termination of services of Shri Kuldip Singh a workman engaged through contractor Shri R.K. Mittal w.e.f. 27-2-99 isjust and legal ? If not , to what relief the workmen is entitled and from which date ?" [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

7009

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 2, 2005/ आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

2. Case repeatedly called none is present for the workman. His earlier authorised representative Shri Tanved Ali Khan is not present . On the request of the new AR Shri O.P. Singh , Court notice was issued as the workman was not contacting the union. But despite service of the workman through court notice , workman is not present and it appears that he is not interested in persuing the case and perhaps gainfully employed. Statement of AR of the workman recorded and the AR ofthe management have also no objection in returning the case for want of prosecution. In view of the submission of the AR of the workman and submission of management's authorised representative, it is clear that workman is not interested to persue the present references he has not appeared despite service of the court notice on him for today and the same is returned for want of prosecution . Central Govt. be informed. File be consigned to record .

Announced .

20-5-2005

RAJESH KUMAR , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 6 जून, 2005

का. आ. 2348.-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 नं.- I , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 278/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 6-6-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[ सं . एल -40012/ 167/2000- आई आर ( डीयू) ] कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 6th June , 2005

S.O. 2348. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 278/ 2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court No. - I , Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Deptt . of Telecom. , and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 6-6-2005 .

[No. L -40012/ 167/2000 - IR (DU) ] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM- LABOUR COURT- I, CHANDIGARH Case No. ID - 278/ 2K

Shri Daljit Singh ,

C/o R.K. Sharma,

H.No. 372,

Sector 20A , Chandigarh

....Applicant Versus

( 1) The Chief General Manager , Telecom . Punjab Circle, Sector 34,

Chandigarh - 160001 .

(2) The Principal General Manager,

Telecom Sector 18 ,

Chandigarh - 160001 .

Respondents APPEARANCES :

Forthe workman

: None

For the management

Shri Shiv Kumar & Anish Babbar

AWARD

Passed on 20-5-2005

Central Govt . vide notification No. L -40012/ 167/2000 - IR ( DU ) dated 31-7-2000 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

"Whether the action of Chief General Manager , Telecom. Punjab Circle , Chandigarh and the Principal General Manager Telecom , Chandigarh Distt . in ordering disengagement/termination of services of Shri Dalji Sagh a workman engaged through contractor Shr K.K. Mittal w.e.f. 27-2-99 isjust and legal ? If not, what relief the workmen is entitled and from which date ? "

2. Case repeatedly called none is present for the workman. His earlier authorised representative Shri Tanved Ali Khan is not present . On the request of the new AR Shri O.P. Singh , Court notice was issued as the workman was not contacting the union . But despite service of the workman through court notice , workman isnot present and it appears that he is not interested in persuing the case and perhaps gainfully employed . Statement of AR of the workman recorded and the AR ofthe management have also no objection in returning the case for want of prosecution . In view of the submission of the AR of the workman and submission of management's authorised representative , it is clear that workman is not interested to persue the present references he has not appeared despite service of the court notice on him for today and the same is returned forwant of prosecution . Central Govt . be informed . File be consigned to record.

Announced

20-5-2005

RAJESH KUMAR , Presiding Officer, 7010

[PART II - SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005 /ASADHA 11 , 1927

नई दिल्ली , 6 जून , 2005

"Whether the action of the Management of BSNL , Gurgaon in terminating the services of Shri Jaipal Singh Raghav son of Shri Ram Narain , a part time sweeper- cum-chowkidarw e.f. March, 1966 is just and legal ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to ? "

का.आ. 2349.--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 नं. -1 , चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 212/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 6-6-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-40012/124/2002- आईआर( डीयू) ] कुलदीप राय वर्मा , डैस्क अधिकारो New Delhi , the 6th June , 2005

2. Case repeatedly called , none is present for the workman despite registered notice served uponpon him for 28-3-05. Today also workman is not present and it appears that he is not interested in persung the case and perhaps gainfully employed. No clain statement has been filed by the workman till today. The authorised representative of the management also submitted that as workman is not appearing , the reference may be returned to the Central Government for want of prosecution . I1 . view of the submission of the A.R. of the management's authorised representative , it is clear that workman is not interested to persue the present reference as he has not appeared despite service of the Court notice on him for today and the same is returned for want of prosecution . Central Government be informed. File be consigned to record.

Announced .

S.O. 2349.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.212/ 2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court No. I , Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Deptt. of Telecom. and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 6-6-2005 .

20-5-2005

RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer [No. L-40012/124/2002- IR (DU) ] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

नई दिल्ली, 6 जून , 2005

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM LABOUR COURT - I, CHANDIGARH

Case No. L.D. 212/2002

का.आ. 2350.-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 नं. -1 , चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 300/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 6-6-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

Applicant

Shri Jaipal Singh Raghav, son of Shri Ram Narain Singh Village & P.O. Dohla , Gurgoan,

[सं. एल -40012/188/2000- आईआर( डीयू) ] VERSUS

कुलदीप राय वर्मा , डैस्क अधिकारी (1) The Sub Divisional Officer ,

New Delhi , the 6th June , 2005

O/o The General Manager , Telecom, Main Telephone Exchange , Old Delhi Road , Gurgoan.

Respondent

APPEARANCES

None

Shri Anish Babbar

Forthe workman: For the management:

AWARD

Passed on 20-5-2005

S.O. 2350.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 300/ 2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court No. I , Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Deptt . of Telecom . and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 6-6-2005.

[No. L -40012/ 188/2000 - IR (DU) ] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer Central Government vide notification No. L - 40012/ 124/2002 /IR (D.U. ) dated 8-10-2002 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication ;

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

7011

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 2, 2005/आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

ANNEXURE

today and the same is returned for want of prosecution . Central Government be informed. File be consigned to record.

Announced

BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT -L, CHANDIGARH

Case No. I.D. 300/2000

Shri Kesar Singh , Son of

Shri Harpal Singh Village Gidderpur ,

P.O. Chudiala Sudan,

Applicant Teh. Mohali , Ropar

Versus

( 1) The Chief General Manager,

Telecom. Punjab Circle, Sector 34, Chandigarh - 160 001

Telecom . Sector18 ,

(2) The Principal General Manager, Chandigarh - 160001

Respondents APPEARANCES

Forthe workman:

Shri O. P. Singh For the management

Sh . Shiv Kumar & Shri Anish Babbar

AWARD

Passed on 20-5-2005

Central Government vide notification No. L -40012/ 188 / 2002 / IR ( D.U.) dated 31-7-2000 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of the Management of General Manager Telecom, Chandi -garh in terminating the services of Shri Kesar Singh Son of Shri Harpal Singh , w.e.f. 27-2-99 is , just and legal ? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled and from which date?"

2. Case repeatedly called . None is present for the workman . His earlier authorised representative Shri Tanved Ali Khan is not present . On the request of the new AR Shri O.P. Singh , Court notice was issued as the workman was not contacting the union. But despite service of the workman through court notice , workman is not present and it appears that he is not interested in persuing the case and perhaps gainfully employed . Statement of AR of the workman recorded and the AR of the Management have also no objection in returning the case forwant ofprosecution. In view of the submission of the AR of the workman and submission of management's authorised representative , it is clear that workman is not interested to persue the present reference as he has not appeared despite service of the Court notice on him for 20-5-2005

RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 6 जून , 2005

का.आ. 2351.-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 नं. -1, चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट( संदर्भ संख्या 309/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 06-06-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-40012/197/2000- आईआर( डीयू) ]

कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 6th June , 2005

S.O. 2351.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.309/ 2000 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court No. I. Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Deptt . of Telecom and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 6-6-2005 .

[No. L -40012/ 197 /2002 - IR (DU) ]

KULDIP RAI VERMA , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM LABOUR COURT - I, CHANDIGARH Case No. I.D. 309/2000

Shri Dinesh Kumar Son of

Late Shri Balraj Kishan, House No. 2764, Ward No. 11 ,

Near Jain Mandir , Kharar , Ropar Applicant

Versus

(1 ) The General Manager ,

Telecom, Sector- 18 , Chandigarh .

Respondent APPEARANCES :

For the workman :

SH . O.P. Singh

Shiv Kumar & Forthe management ,

Anish Babbar 7012

THEGAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2, 2005 / ASADHA 11 , 1927

AWARD

Passed on 20-5-2005

Central Government vide notification No. L -40012/ 197/2000 /IR (D.U. ) dated 31-7-2000 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

"Whether the action of the Management of General Manager Telcom Chandigarh in terminating the Services of Shri Dinesh Kumar Son of Late Shri Balraj Kishan , is just and legal ? If not, to what reliefthe workman is entitled and from which date ? "

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] Telcom. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 6-6-2005 .

[No. L -40012/578 /2000 - IR (DU) ] KULDIP RAI VERMA , Desk Officer ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM- LABOUR COURT - I, CHANDIGARH Case No. I.D. 136/2001

Shri Bahadur Singh , C/ o

Shri R.K. Sharma, House No. 372 , Sector 20 A ,

Chandigarh - 160001

2. Case repeatedly called . None is present for the workman.His earlier authorised representative Shri Tanved Ali Khan is not present. On the request of the new AR Shri O.P. Singh , Court notice was issued as the workman was not contacting the union. But despite service of the workman through Court notice , workman is nsot present and it appears that he is not interested in persuing the case and perhaps gainfully employed . Statement ofAR of the workman recorded and the AR of the Management have also no objection in returning the case for want of prosecution . In view of the submission of the A.R. of the workman and submission of the management's authorised representative , it is clear that workman is not interested to persue the present reference as he has not appeared despite service of the Court notice on him for today and the same is returned for want of prosecution . Central Government be informed. File be consigned to record.

Announced 20-5-2005

RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 6 जून , 2005

का.आ. 2352.- 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 नं. - 1 , चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 136/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 6-6-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-40012/578/2000- आईआर( डीयू) ] कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 6th June , 2005

S.O. 2352.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.136/ 2001 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court No. I , Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Deptt . of

Applicant

Versus

(1) The Chief General Manager , Telecom. , Sector18 , Chandigarh- 160001

Respondents (2) The Principal General Manager, Telecom. Punjab Circle , Sector 34, Chandigarh - 160001

APPEARANCES

None

Shri Shiv Kumar For the workman: For the management ,

& Anish Babbar

AWARD

Passed on 20-5-2005

Central Government vide notification No. L - 40012/ 578 / 2000 / IR (D.U. ) dated 26-3-2001 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of Chief General Manager, Telecom Punjab Circle Chandigarh and the Principal General Manager Telecom , Chandigarh in ordering disengagement/termination of Services of Shri Bahaduer Singh a workman engaged through contractor Shri R. K. Mittal w.e.f. 27-2-99 is just and legal ? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled and from which date ?"

7013

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 2, 2005/आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

Management have also no objection in returning the case want of prosecution . In view of the submission of the A.R. of the workman and submission of management's authorised representative , it is clear that workman is not interested to persue the present reference as he has not appeared despite service of the Court notice on him for today and the same is returned for want of prosecution. Central Government be informed. File be consigned to record.

Announced 20-5-2005

RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 6 जून, 2005

का.आ. 2353.- 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 नं. - 1, चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट( संदर्भ संख्या 375/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 6-6-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -40012/306/2000- आईआर( डीयू) ]

कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 6th June, 2005

S.O. 2353. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.375/ 2000 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court No. I , Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Deptt . of Telcom. and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 6-6-2005 ,

[No. L -40012/306/ 2000 - IR (DU) ]

KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, PRESIDING

OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM - LABOUR COURT - I, CHANDIGARH

Case No. I.D. 375/2000

Shri Jasbir Singh . S/ o

Shri Chaaja Singh

Village & P.O. Samana Kalan ,

Applicant Tch & District Ropar

Versus

( 1 ) The Chief General Manager, Telecom. , Sector - 18, Chandigarh - 16001

(2) The Principal General Manager , Telecom. Circle , Sector 34, Chandigarh - 160001

Respondent APPEARANCES :

: None

For the workman

Forthe management

: Shri Shiv Kumar & Anish Babbar

AWARD

Passed on 20-5-2005

Central Government vide notification No. L.- 40012/ 306/2000/IR ( D.U. ) dated 25-9-2000 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of management of Department of Telecom Chandigarh in terminating the services of Shri Jasbir Singh Son of Shri Chaaja Singh w.e.f. 27-2-1999 is just and legal ? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled ?"

2. Case repeatedly called none is present for the workman. His earlier authorised representative Shri Tanved Ali Khan is not present . On the request of the new AR Shri O.P. Singh , Court notice was issued as the workmanwas not contacting the union . But despite service of the workman through court notice , workman is not present and it appears that he is not interested in persuing the case and perhaps gainfully employed. Statement of AR of the workman recorded and the AR of the Management have also no objection in returning the case for want of prosecution. In view of the submission of the A.R. of the workman and submission of management's authorised representative , it is clear that workman is not interested to persue the present reference as he has not appeared despite service of the Court notice on him for today and the same is returned for want of prosecution . Central Government be informed . File be consigned to record.

Announced 20-5-2005

RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 6 जून, 2005

का.आ. 2354.- 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 7014

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005 /ASADHA 11 , 1927

अधिकरण नं. -1 , चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 403/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 6-6-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-40012/351 /2000- आईआर(डीयू) ]

कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 6th June , 2005

S.O. 2354. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 403 / 2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court No. I , Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the emplovers in relation to the management of Deptt. of Telecom, and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 6-6-2005 .

[No. L-40012/351 /2000 - IR (DU ) ]

KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT - 1, CHANDIGARH

Case No. L.D. 403/2000

Shri Surjit Singh,

C/o , Shri R. K. Sharma , H. No. 372 , Sector 20A, Chandigarh

Applicant

Versus

(1) The Chief General Manager, Telecom. Punjab Circle, Sector 34, Chandigarh- 160001

(2) The Principal General Manager, Telecom. , Sector- 18, Chandigarh - 160001

Respondents

APPEARANCES

For the workman :

For the management:

None Shri Shiv Kumar & Anish Babbar

AWARD

Passed on 20-5-2005

Central Government vide notification No. L -40012/ 351/2000 / IR ( DU) dated 28-9-2000 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of Chief General Manager , Telecom . , Punjab Circle , Chandigarh and the

[PART II -SEC . 3 (ii) ] Principal General Manager Telecom. , Chandigarh Distt . in ordering disengagement/ termination of services of Shri Surjit Singh a workınan engaged through contractor Shri R. K. Mittal w.e.f. 27-2-99 is just and legal ? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled and from which date ? "

2. Case repeatedly called. none is present for the workman . His earlier authorised representative Shri Tanved Ali Khan is not present . On the request of the new AR Shri O.P. Singh , Court notice was issued as the workınan was not contacting the union . But despite service of the workman through court notice,otice , workman is not resent and it appears that he is not interested in persuing the case and perhaps gainfully employed. Statement of AR of the workman recorded and the AR of the management have also no objection in returning the case for want of prosecution . In view of the submission of the AR of the workman and submission of management's authorised representative, it is clear that workman is not interested to persue the present reference as he has not appeared despite service of the Court notice on him for today and the same is returned for want of prosecution . Central Government be informed. File be consigned to record.

Announced

20-5-2005

RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 6 जून , 2005

का.आ. 2355.- 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 नं. -1 , चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 160/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 6-6-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-40012/577/2000-आईआर(डीयू) ]

कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 6th June , 2005

S.O. 2355.-- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 160/ 2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal / Labour Court No. I , Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Deptt. of Telecom . and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 6-6-2005 .

[No. L-40012/577/2000 - IR (DU) ] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

7015

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 2, 2005/आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT -1, CHANDIGARH

Case No. I.D. 160/2002

Shri Kuldip Singh ,

C/ o . Shri R. K. Sharma ,

H. No. 372 , Sector 20A , Chandigarh

-Applicant

Versus

(1) The Chief General Manager,

Telecom., Punjab Circle , Sector 34, Chandigarh - 160001

(2) The Principal General Manager, Telecom.. Sector - 18.

Chandigarh- 160001

-Respondent

APPEARANCES

For the workman

None

For the management

Shri Shiv Kumar & Anish Babbar

AWARD

Passed on 20-5-2005

Central Government vide notification No. L -40012/ 577/ 2000 / 1R ( DU ) dated 26-3-2001 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of Chief General Manager, Telecom . , Punjab Circle, Chandigarh and the Principal General Manager Telecom. Chandigarh Distt. in ordering disengagement/termination of services of Shri Kuldip Singh a workman engaged through contractor Shri R.K. Mittal w.c.f. 27-2-99 is just and legal ? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled and from which date ? "

workman and submission of management's authorised representative, it is clear that workman is not interested to persue the present reference as he has not appeared despite service of the court notice on htim for today and the same is returned for want of prosecution . Central Government be informed . File be consigned to record.

Announced

20-5-2005

RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 6 जून , 2005

का.आ. 2356.- 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 नं. -1 , चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 279/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 6-6-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-40012/162/2000- आईआर( डीयू) ]

कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 6th June , 2005

S.O. 2356. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act . 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No.279/ 2000) of the 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 Deptt . of Telecom . and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 6-6-2005 ,

[No. L -40012/162 /2000 - IR ( DU ) | KULDIP RAI VERMA , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM - LABOUR COURT- 1 , CHANDIGARH Case No. I.D. 279/2000

Shri Ram Kumar

C/o Shri R. K. Sharma, H. No. 372 , Sector 20A,

Applicaant Chandigarh

2. Case repeatedly called, none is present for the workman . His earlier authorised representative Shri Tanved Ali Khan is not present . On the request of the new AR Shri O.P. Singh , Court notice was issued as the workman was not contacting the union . But despite service of the workman through court notice , workman is not present and it appears that he is not interested in persuing the case and perhaps gainfully employed . Statement of AR of the workman recorded and the AR of the management have also no objection in returning the case for want of prosecution. In view of the submission of the AR of the 1855 GI/05-47

Versus

(1 ) The ChiefGeneral Manager ,

Telecom. , Punjab Circle, Sector 34, Chandigarh - 160001

(2) The Principal General Manager . Telecom. , Sector- 18,

Chandigarh- 1600001

Respondents 7016

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2, 2005/ASADHA 11 , 1927

APPEARANCES :

Forthe workman:

None

For the management :

Shri Shiv Kumar & Anish Babbar

AWARD

Passed on 20-5-2005

Central Government vide notification No. L -40012/ 162/ 2000/IR (D.U. ) dated 31-7-2000 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :-

"Whether the action of Chief General Manager , Telcom. , Punjab Circle, Chandigarh and the Principal General Manager Telecom . , Chandigarh Distt . in ordering disengagement/termination of service of Shri Ram Kumar a workman engaged through contractor M/ s . Gupta w.e.f. 27-2-99 is just and legal ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled and from which date of ? "

2. Workman AR submits that workman is not contacting him nor available and old representative is also not traceable. It appears that workman is interested . The management representative Shri Shiv Kumar submit that asperpostal report workman is not available and he prayed for the dismissal of the reference . Statement of AR of both the parties recorded to the effect that old AR is not traceable and workman is not contacting himself to the union and the management has no objection.

3. In view of the submission of the rep . of the management and that of the workman who is now President of the Union Mr. O.P. Singh , it appears that workman is not interested and gainfully employed , the present reference is returned to the Central Govt . for want of prosecution. Central Govt . be informed . File be consigned to record .

Chandigarh

20-5-2005

RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer.

नई दिल्ली , 6 जून, 2005

का.आ. 2357. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार उड़ीसा माईनिंग कार्पो . लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , भुवनेश्वर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 422/01 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 6-6-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-29011/48/2001- आईआर ( विविध ) ] बी. एम. डेविड, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 6th June, 2005

S.O. 2357.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 422/ 01) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Bhubaneswar now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Orissa Mining Corpn. Ltd. and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 6-6-2005 .

[No. L -29011/48/2001 - IR (M) ]

B. M. DAVID , Under Secy .

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT , BHUBANESWAR

PRESENT :

Shri N.K.R. MOHAPATRA. Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T. - cum -Labour Court, Bhubaneswar .

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO . 422/2001 Date of Passing Award- 13th May , 2005 BETWEEN :

The management of the Managing Director, Orissa Mining Corporation Limited , OMC House , Bhubaneswar

... 1st Party -Management

AND

The Workmen represented through the General Secretary , Orissa Mining Workers Federation , OMCLtd. OMC House. Bhubaneswar,

...2nd Party -Union APPEARANCES :

M/s . M.R. Mohanthy &

Associates , Advocates

Forthe 1st Party Management.

M/ s . S.S. Das & Associates , Advocates For the 2nd Party Union .

AWARD

1. The Government of India in this Ministry of Labour in exercise of the powers conferred under clause (d) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2( A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) have referred the following dispute for adjudication vide their Order No. L 29011 / 48 /2001 - IR (M) , dated 6-9-2001 :-

"Whether the action of the management of OMC by not paying equal pay to 251 employees ( as per list) at par with the regular employees of OMC is 7017 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 2, 2005/ आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

justified ? If not , to what relief the workmen are entitled to ? "

the Board of Directors, hereinafter called the Board, recommended to the State Government to create sufficient number of posts for absorption of those of the workers who had joined the job prior to 31-12-1990 against " non- permanent ". category . But on the refusal of the State Government to create such posts it is no more practicable on the part of the Management to provide regular service to all these workers at a single stroke without following the restriction prescribed under O.R.V. and C.N.V. Act and the Rules framed thereunder and the other restrictions imposed by the Government for abolition of 50 % of the posts.

4. As regards the maintainability of the present claim for absorption of the workmen, the Management further contends that since some of the workmen have preferred separate similar cases in different other legal forums as also before Hon'ble High Court demanding their regularization/absorption , this Tribunal by going outside the term of reference can not adjudicate the question of absorption ofthese workmen pending disposal of the cases filedbefore the Hon'ble High Court.

5. On the basis of above claim and counter claim of the parties the following issues were framed:-

ISSUES

(1) Whether the action of the Mangement of Orissa Mining Corporation by not paying equal pay to 251 ployees ( as per list) at par with the regular employees of Orissa Mining Corporation isjused ?

(ii) If not, what relief the workmen are entitled to ?

2. The case of the workmen numbering 251 as presented by the 2nd Party Federation is that they are working continuously in different mining areas of the 1st Party -Management since 31-12-1990 and prior to it either as daily rated monthly paid employees or on adhoc basis or against some designated posts . For providing better service benefits to them the 2nd Party - Federation had earlier submitted a charter of demands and accordingly the 1st Party -Management had appointed a committee under the Chairmanship of Shri D. Mohanta, the then General Manager (Mines) to make an in - depth study and to submit a report accordingly. In the 312th General Body Board Meeting of the Management the report of the committee was placed for consideration and in it, it was decided to absorb as non -permanent employees only those of the workers who were engaged prior to 31-12-1990 but not all other workers engaged subsequent thereto . Accordingly the State Government was moved for according approval and creation of additional posts but it was turned down by the Government . Here it is further averred that though creation of additional posts was within the competency of the Board of Directors , the matter should not have been referred to the State Government for approval etc. and as such the workers need to be absorbed in service pursuant to the decision of the Board. It is further contended by the Federation - 2nd Party that out of the listed 251 workmen the Management has already regularized the services of Sl . No. 154, 158, 159, 163 , 179 and 180 while Sl . No. 39 to 46, 94 to 98 , 179 to 192, 194, 196, 198 to 206 , 223 , 224, 227 to 230 , 233 to 238 , 241 , 243 and 244 have filed different cases in various legal forums for regularization of their service and therefore the present dispute is to be limited to the rest of the workmen.

6. For convenience sake both the issues are taken uptogether.

Itmay be reiterated that, though under the terms of the reference the Government of India has asked the Tribunal to examine as to whether the listed 251 employees are entitled to get equal pay for equal work, the Federation, representing the workmen has claimed for regularization ofthese workers in its claim statement . Now therefore , the question arises as to whether the terms of the reference andthepresent claim of the Federation can be considered be complimentary to each other or whether the claim for regularization can ever be considered as a matter ancilliary to the terms of reference .

7. It is the settled law that regularization of service depends on various factors such as status of the employees , the length of service rendered by the employees , whether by such continuous employment their status have been changed, the manner and methods of recruitment of employees , availabiity of permanent posts for them and the rules/schemes framed for regularization 3. In reply to the above claim of the 2nd Party- Federation, the 1st Party -Management (Orissa Mining Corporation ) has contended that in order to meet the time to time exigencies of work these 251 and many other workers were engaged at different point of time by picking them from the open market by the Mines Manager/Camp Officer and they were engaged either as adhoc employees or daily rated monthly paid employees on payment of minimum wages prescribed by the Government from time to time. In a latter stage , considering the difficulties of the workers , the Management also adjusted some of them against regular vacancies while few others against a category called "Non - permanent category " for their future regularization subject to the restriction imposed by the State Government in the matter of reducing the staffing strength. In so far as the left out persons ( meaning the 251 workmen in question ) a committee was set up on the demand of the 2nd Party - Federation to make an in-depth study of the problems of these workmen and on that basis 7018

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005/ASADHA 11. 1927

of such employees . Whereas in case of equal pay for equal works factors such as the qualification of employees , methods of their appointment, the criteria prescribed for such recruitment and the quality and quantity of work performed by both regular and non - regular/ casual employees are to be taken into consideration along with the pay structures prescribed for different categories of employees . Besides the availability of work for such employees are also to be taken into consideration so as to cut a balance between the regular employees and the non- regular employees. Thus from the above it appears that the guiding principles prescribed both for regularization and equal pay for equal work are based on two different and distinct concepts and as such the claim for equal pay for equal work can not either be considered to be complimentary or matter ancillary to a claim for regularization of service.

recommendation on the committee the Management had moved the State Government pursuant to a decision taken in 312th Board meeting for creation of additional post for absorption of the 251 workmen in a non -permanent category as was done on earlier occasions . It is also the admitted case of both the parties that on the refusal of the Covernment to create such posts the 2nd Party-Federation raised an Industrial Disputes culminating in the present reference . It is also admitted that few of the workmen involved in this reference being aggrieved with the decision of the State Government filed separate O.J.C. No. 2530/99 and 3375/99 before the Hon'ble Court claiming regularization on the basis of the decision taken in 312th Board Meeting On perusal of the judgement delivered by the Hon'ble Court in the above noted two O.J.Cs it can be gathered that in O.J.C. 3375/99 the petitioners had claimed extended service benefits for daily rated monthly paid employees (DRMP) working in designated posts in terms ofthe decision of312th Board meeting and in O.J.C. 2530/ 99 claim was laid on the basis of above decision of the Board for extended benefits as available to a non- permanent employee and for payment of minimum pay and D.A. as apaplicable to a regular employee working in parallel posts . The above two prayers no doubt look different but the decision of 312th Board meeting being the basis for all these claims as also for the present claim there can not be different treatment for different workmen . If these different prayers are considered along with the memorandum proposed for the 312th Board meeting (Ext.- 1) and the decision of the board under item 9 ( J) ( Ext . - 2 ) it would lead to an irresistible conclusion that virtually all these divergent prayers are directed against a common demand for regularization/ absorption of these workmen in a category called non - permanent category. The judgements delivered by the Hon'ble Court in the above noted O.J.Cs show that in both these cases the State Government was directed in the year 2001 to consider the recommendation of 312th Board Meeting within a stipulated period and after the above order of the Hon'ble Court the present reference was received in Sept. 2001 when the Government was yet to take a decision as per the direction of the Hon'ble Court . From a xerox copy of a Government letter available on record it appears that the Government of Orissa . Department of Steel and Mines in its letter No. 2161 , dated 4-3-2003 have turned down the proposal for creation of additional posts given by the 1st Party-Management .

8. As per the terms of reference it is required to examine whether the listed workers numbering 251 are entitled to get equal pay at par with the regular employees . The word equal pay at par with regular employees cannot be read in isolation without reference to the term " equal work" . As pointed out in the foregoing Para for a claim for equal pay for equal work it is to be shown that the work performed by the non regular/casual employees are similar both in quality and quantity with that of the work peformed by regular employees . Besides it is also to be shown that the casual workers have possessed necessary qualification or acquired necessary knowledge and experience matching with that of their counter -part regular employees . It is also to be shown the pay structures prescribed for both the categories besides providing data's about availability of work for the non -regular employees so as to cut a balance between regular employees and non- regular employees . But in the instant case no such material has been brought on record nor any witness has been examined from the side of the Federation representing the workmen to cut such a balance or to prove that they are in no way less competent than the regular employees . Agood number of decisions have simply been filed from the side of the Federation on the subject of equal pay for equal work. But in the absence of materials on record as pointed out earlier , the applicability of these decisions becomes remote . When under the terms of reference the Tribunal is required to examine the question relating to equal pay for equal work it can not by going beyond such terms ofthe reference decided by a circumbent approach the question of regularization when some of the 251 workers have already filed separate O.J.C. No. 2530/99 and 3375/99 before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa on grounds similar to the present one.

9. Admittedly in order to provide better service benefits to the casual workers the Management had appointed a committee to make an indepth study of the problems of these workers and on the basis of

10. In the above back drop of the case it was argued furtherby the Counsel for the workman that the 1st Party- Management being a body corporate having its independent financial power to exercise it should not have referred the matter to the Government for creation of additional posts for the workmen . Reliance being placed in a case between Narayan Chandra Das- Versus- State ofOrissa and others reported in 1994 (II) OLR 343 it was further submitted that in so far as the functioning of the [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

1stParty -Management the Government of Orissa except in the matter of appointment of Director , Chairman and Managing Director has got no power of interference in all other matters of appointment . Emphasis being placed on the above ruling it was submitted that when the Board of Directors in their 312th meeting have already taken a decision to absorb the workman in a non -permanent category they should equally come forward to make necessary provision in that direction independent of any decision of the Government of Orissa . In other words it was submitted that the Management being itself competent to create additional posts it can not escape from its said liability by throwing the responsibility on the State Government .

11. As against the above submission it was argued by the 1st Party -Management that creation or abolition of posts is always within the prerogative discretion of the employer and that an employee or its Union cannot encroach upon such power or force the Management to exercise its power to their suitability . In the reported case between State of Haryana-Versus-Piara Singh (AIR- 1992 - SC-2130) it has been observed by their Lordship that " ordinarily speaking the creation and abolition of posts in the prerogative of the Executive. It is the executive again that lays down the conditions of service, subject ofcourse, to a law made by the appropriate legislature . This power to prescribe the conditions of service can be exercised eitherby making rules under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution or (in the absence of such rules) by issuing rules/ instructions in exercise of its excecutive powers . The Court comes into picture only to ensure observance of fundamental rights , statutory provisions , rules and other instruction, if any, governing the condition ofservice.

12. From the pleading of the parties it is clear that theManagement has formulated a scheme for absorption ofthe casual workers and under it a separate category of employees have been created under a title " Non- permanent category . " Under the above scheme casual workers having the prescribed qualification and service experience have been taken to the above category with minimum service benefits for the purpose of their future regularization against permanent posts and there is no denial to the fact that in the past several casual workers have already availed of such benefits year after year . In view of the same the management can not be asked ( as argued by the Federation) to create posts for these workmen as per the decision of the 312th Board meeting ignoring the decision ofthe State Government and without looking at its financial condition specially in the face of an existing scheme mentioned above and pay equal monetary benefits and other service benefits to these workmen in terms of salary and other benefits at par with their counterpart regular employees .

7019

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 2 , 2005/ आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

13. However, while parting with the judgement (Award) I would like to mention here that a provide protection to the services of these workmen who have been rendering services since long the Management may be good enough to find out an alternative method to improve the financial condition of these workmen .

14. Creating new posts for absorption of the workmen may be a problem for the Management (as is the stand taken by the Management in the present case) but such problem can be meted out otherwise if the Management is really sincere to take care of the futures ofthe casual employees who have rendered continuous services to the establishment of the Management . Creation of posts is necessary only in case of absorption of the employees but in so far as payment of wages at a higher rate is concerned no such post needs to be created . The Government of India , Ministry of Personnel , Public Grievance and Pension Department ofPersonnel and Training in their Office Memorandum No. F - 49014 / 2/86-Estb . ( C) have prescribed certain guidelines in respect of the casual workers who are rendering same nature of work like the regular employees . Under the scheme a casual labourer continuously engaged for a longer period has been declared entitled to 1/30th pay at the minimum of the relevant pay scale + D.A. of the regular employee (subject to limited restriction) for the work of eight hours a day . As per the said Office Memorandum such benefits have been given without creation of new posts . Therefore , if the Management is really serious in its thought of improving the financial condition of the casual workers it is high time for the Management of OMC to formulate a separate scheme akin to the scheme referred to above with necessary modifications prescribing therein certain modalities for the future absorption of the listed workmen in the cadre of non- permanent category .

15. With the above observation and for the discussions made under various issues it is held that the 251 workmen are not entitled to get equal pay at par with regular employees . But however, in keeping pace with the intention as reflected in its 312th Board meeting, the Management is directed to think of formulating a separate scheme of 1/ 30th pay with or without limited service benefits in the light of the Office Memorandum referred to above ( with suitable modification and alteration) so as to protect and preserve the services of the 251 workmen for their future absorption in the existing non -permanent category.

16. Reference is answered accordingly .

N. K. R. MOHAPATRA, Presiding Officer 7020

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 2 , 2005/ASADHA 11 , 1927

The point runs as hereunder :-

नई दिल्ली, 6 जून, 2005

"Whether the action of the management of National Airport Authority of India in terminating the services of Shri Suresh Kumar , Safai Karamchari w.e.f. , 01-11-1995 is just, and fair ? If not, what relief the concerned workmen is entitled to ? "

का.आ.2358 .-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार नेशनल एयरपोर्ट ऑथोरिटी ऑफ इण्डिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नई दिल्ली- II, के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 108/97 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 06-06-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-11012/1/97- आई आर ( विविध ) ]

बी. एम. डेविड, अवर सचिव

That the applicant had been working in the Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan Departmental Canteen of National Airport Authorityat A-Block, Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan, New Delhi as Safaiwala since April , 1994. That on the direction of Ministry of Civil Aviation and Tourism (Department of Civil Aviation) the applicant and one other person namely Madhav , were appointed on daily wages as unskilled workman inApril , 1994.

New Delhi , the 6th June , 2005

This was done to provide better service to the staff ofMinistry and National Division of A.A.I. as the quantum of work was unmanageable for the existing staff of the Canteen.

S.O. 2358.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 108/97) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum -Labour Court , New Delhi - II , as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of National Airport Authority of India and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 06-06-2005.

[No. L- 11012/ 1 /97-IR (M) ] B. M. DAVID , Under Secy .

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER : CENTRAL

GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-

LABOUR COURT- II

NEW DELHI

That the payment to the applicant used to be made by the A.A.I. through its contractor who had acted as a tout and had introduced the applicant to the Management to get appointed with the A.A.I. as daily wager . That the strongly enough the salary to the applicant was being paid through the contractor and the applicant was employed and continued as such even though the work and duty was of permanent nature and the applicant had worked continuously till 31-10-1995 till the time his services were illegally and arbitrarily terminated . The applicant was being paid on day to day basis instead of month basis as other regular employees including class - IV, workers are paid. Thus the applicant was deprived of benefits like C.P.F. , Insurance , Medical , H.R.A. etc. and other benefits and the sword of insecurity hanging of his head all the time and which infact has already been used w.e.f. Ist November, 1995, when the services of the applicant have been illegally terminated .

PRESIDING OFFICER : R. N. RAI

I.D. No. 108/97

IN THE MATTER OF :

Sh . Suresh Kumar S/ o Sh . Chhatter Pal , Tripura Bhawan , Guest House, Race Course , New Delhi .

Versus

The Director (Admn.) National Airport Authority of India , A -Block, Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan, Safdarjung Airport , New Delhi .

AWARD

The Ministry of Labour by its letter No. L - 11012/1 / 97 - IR (Misc . ) Central Government dt . 10-07-1997 has referred the following point for adjudication .

That the applicant requested the authorities to remove the above anomalies and irregularities an to regularise his services in furtherance to which on 31st August 1994 it was decided that the payment to the daily wagers working in the Canteen ( including the applicant) would be made by the National Airport Authority and the before the salary used to be paid the said authority. The minutes of the meeting dt . 31st August , 1994 are enclosed as Appendix `A`. The applicant was not paid his salary for February , March . April & May , 95 for which he complained to the Chairman A.A.1. on which the Canteen Manager and Director( Admn . ) got annoyed and threatened the applicant to terminate his services . That the applicant continued to request/ represent to the authorities to regularise his services and extended benefits mentioned in services and extended benefits mentioned in para 4 above and the authorities by their word and conduct assured the applicant time and again by word and conduct that his services would be regularised in due course .

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

That, however , contrary to the assurance and understanding given to the applicant on Ist Nov. , 1995 when the applicant went tojoin his duty he was not allowed to sign the duty roaster and was informed that his services had been terminated. That the applicant has worked for 19 months continuously i.e. from April, 1994 to Oct. , 95 and his services have been illegally terminated without following the due process of law and in gross violation of the provision of the Industrial Disputes Act . The photo copy of the duty roaster showing that the applicant has worked in the Canteen for 19 months continuously is attached herwith as Appendix ' B ' .

That after terminating the service of the applicant illegally other persons have been appointed in the Canteen who are performing the same duty as were being performed by the applicant. That thus it is established that there is continuity of work and the work is of continuous and permanent nature and also the authorities were estapped to take such an action by their word and conduct . That the above said action of the A.A.I. Authority of not regularising service and instead terminating the services of the applicant amounts to unfair practice a defined in the I.A. Act and the action of termination in liable to the cancelled and the applicant is entitled to be -reinstated in service with full back wages all consequential benefits and also regularisation in service .

The management has filed written statement . In the written statement, it has been stated that since the claimant, at no point of time was employed by the Management , he is not a "workman " as defined in Sub - Section (s) of Section 2ofthe Industrial Disputes Act , 1947. Hence the order of reference is bad in law . The Claimant , Shri Suresh Kumar cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be covered with in the expression of " Workman " . Therefore, the present order of reference which presupposes that the claimant is a "workman " is bad in law . That the order of reference is wholly mis - conceived, incompetent, illegal and invalid . The order of reference does not refer for adjudication the " real matter in dispute" between the parties . The dispute between the parties as was submitted by the management before the Learned Reconciliation Officer and as also stated in the failure report , was that Shri Suresh Kumar was at no point of time employed by the management and was only an employee of one of the contractors , therefore, there was no question of termination of his services by the management . However , the order of reference is based on presumption that the claimant, Shri Suresh Kumar, was a workman under the management of the National Airport Authority. The terms of reference as per the order of reference are as under :--

"Whether the action of the management of National Airport Authority of India in terminating the services of Shri Suresh Kumar , Safai Karamchari w.e.f. , 01-11-1995 is just , and fair ? If not , what relief the concerned workmen is entitled to ? "

7021

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 2, 2005/आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

The actual dispute between the parties are that the claimant was not the employee of the management , therefore, the management could have never terminated his services. But the order of reference presupposes the existence of termination and employer and employee relationship . In these circumstances , as per section 10(4) of the Act, this Hon'ble Tribunal cannot go into the question of existence of termination of services and also whether Shri Suresh Kumar is a workman, therefore , the order of reference is bad . It is pertinent to mention here that the order of reference cannot be based on mere presumptions. In fact it should refer the real matter in dispute.Hence, no adjudication proceeding can take place on the basis of the instant order of reference .

The order of reference refers the matter for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal under Section 10(1) (d) of the Act, whereas as per item 3 of the Second Schedule to the Act " discharge or dismissal of workmen including reinsatement of, or grant of relief to workmen wrongfully dismissed" are the matters which can under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 , be adjudicated upon by the Labour Court only and the Industrial Tribunal cannot transgress thejurisdiction of a Labour Court . As would be apparent fromthe order of reference , the matter in dispute asper the instant order of reference is one of the matters specified in item 3 of the second schedule of the Act . As perthe provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, Under Section 10( 1 ) of the Act , the dispute referred in the instant order of reference falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of Labour Court instead of the Industrial Tribunal . Hence , this Hon'ble Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the present matter . The proceeding should be dropped on this very ground that the order of reference is bad in law and liable to be set aside .

It isrelevant to point out that the claimant Shri Suresh Kumar , was a contract labour under an independent contractor , M/ s . Arcon India Limited . hence , as such, there was no 'master' and ' servant ' relationship between the management and the claimant . The claimant was not an employee of the management and hence his name was not borne in "Muster Roll " of the management . He was a "CONTRACT LABOURER" under a direct supervision and disciplinary control of the respective contractor. It is relevant to point out that at no time " Appropriate Government" has prohibited the engagement of the contract labourer through contractors . Neither the " CONTRACT LABOURER" (REGULATION AND ABOLITION) Act, 1970 nor " RULES " framed therein provide that upon terminating the services of the contractor by the contractor the said contract labour who was working under the direct supervision and disciplinary control of the respective contractor should be absorbed or otherwise treated as employees of the "PRINCIPAL EMPLOYER". It may be useful to make a reference to the pronouncement of the Apex Court in the case of 1957 (2) LLJ 658 " Umed Singh Hamira 7022

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2, 2005/ASADHA 11 , 1927

Vs. Masderi Mills Limited" where in it was held that the workmen employed by the Cooperative Society in the Canteen run by it in the premises and the equipment provided for by the management cannot be considered to be " EMPLOYEES" qua the management . Hence there is no justification for the claimant to claim for absorptionby the Principal Employer i.e. , the management of the National AirportAuthority .

That it is the respectful submission of the management that the " National Airport Authority of India" is a Public Sector and hence , the workman to be taken as regular employee can be appointed only as per the rules , regulations and guidelines provided for the same from time to time. The claimant cannot seek employment with the management by passing all the rules in that regard by claiming absorption solely on the ground that he worked as a contract labour. In this matter , it may be relevant to make reference to the pronouncement of the Apex Court , in 1992 L.I.C. 2332 and 1990 L.I.C. 405, wherein it was held thata contract labour working in an establishment in Public Sector under a contractor is not entitled to claim absorption on regular basis without being sponsored by an Employment Exchange even if he has worked continuously for five years . It is opened to establishment in Public Sector to choose the media of Employment Exchange for fillingup ofvacancies and the establishment cannot be compelled to appoint persons other than those sponsored by the Employment Exchange . it was also held that the word " employer " as such is not defined , however on the other hand the definition of Principal Employer denotes the existence of middle man that is a contractor. Therefore , there is no direct " master and servant relationship " between the management and the contract labour. As such there was no Industrial Dispute between the claimant and the management and hence on this very ground the order of reference is bad and the present proceeding should be dropped . It is significant to note that the claimant was not engaged by the contractor for work of management which is of permanent nature.

That the application is bad for non -joinder of the necessary party , i.e. M/s . Arcon India Limited the contractor under whose supervision the present claimant Shri Suresh Kumarworked as a contract labour . That the claimant is neither a " workman" nor " employee" of the management , as such there exist no " Industrial Dispute " between the claimant and the management and the order of reference which presupposes a termination of the services of the claimant by the management is bad and no adjudication proceedings can , therefore , take place on the basis of the present order of reference . The issue of absorption of claimant in the employment of the management is beyond thejurisdiction of the Hon'ble Tribunal .

It issubmitted that the dispute if any exists is between the contractor i.e. M/s . Arcon India Limited and the claimant and not between the claimant and the manage - ment , as the

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] claimant was not a workman under the management . It is submitted that the said Shri Suresh Kumar was contract labourer under one of the contractors , M/ s . Arcon India Limited, who was a contractor of conservancy services. Shri Suresh Kumar was engaged by the contractor for conservancy services and not for Canteen purposes . the contractor deputed its workers on rotational basis at various points/areas ofthe Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan.

It is submitted that the said claimant , Shri Suresh Kumarwas appointed by the contractor M/ s . Arcon India Limited and was working under the supervision of the said contractor and there was no direct relationship of" master- servant" between the management and the claimant and hence there is no dispute of the Industrial nature between the management and the claimant . It is the respectful submission of the management that as the Ministry of Civil Aviation was shifted in Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan , seeking the temporary shortage of staff in CAD Canteen, for short period Shri Suresh Kumar was deputed by the contractor M/s. Arcon India Limited. it is specifically denied that the appointment was done to provide better services to the staff of Ministry and Information Division of Airport Authority of India and the quantum of work was unmanageable by the existing staff of the canteen .

It is denied that the contractor acted as a tout and had introduced the claimant to the management to get appointed with the Airport Authority of India as daily wager. As mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs, it is submitted that the claimant was paid by the contractor and there was no direct relationship between the claimant and the managment . The management used to pay the money to the contractor for maintenance of the canteen and at any point of time the Respondent Management paid any wages to the contract labour like the one the said claimant Shri Suresh Kumar. It is further denied that the nature of dutywas ofpermanent nature and the claimant had worked continuously till 31st October, 1995. It is categorically denied that the services of claimant were illegal and arbitrarily terminated. It is submitted the said Shri Suresh Kumar was paid by the contractor . The allegation that the services were terminated illegal is baseless and misconceived . As mentioned in foregoing paragraphs that when the claiment was not an employee under the Respondent Management the question of termination could not arise . The mere presumption that the claimant worked as a regular employee under the Respondent Management . will not form a basis for the allegation of illegal termination . It is denied for want of knowledge that the claimant was being paid on day to day basis instead of monthly basis because the claimant was not a employee under the respondent Management. Since , there existed no relationship of employer and employee the allegation that the claimant was deprived of benefit like C.P.F.. Insurance , Medical, H.R.A. etc. and other benefits and the sword of insecurity hanging on his head all the time and the services of the claimant have been illegally terminated are absolutely misconceived and denied. It is 7023 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 2, 2005/ आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

submitted that the claimant was not an employee and hence the question of benefits mentioned above will not arise and the allegation of termination of services is misconceived.

The workman applicant has filed rejoinder and in his rejoinder he has reiterated the averments of his claim statement and has denied most of the paras of thewritten statement .

In 1957 (2) LLJ 658, the Hon'ble Supreme Court hasheld that such employees are not the employees of management. In 1992 LIC 2332 and in 1990 LIC 405 it has been held by the Supreme Court that contract labour working in an establishment in Public Sector under the contract are not entitled to claim absorption on regular basis without being sponsored by an employment exchange even if he has worked continuously for five years .

Evidence of both the parties has been taken. The Management has denied most of the paras of the claim statement .

Heard argument from both the sides .

The workman applicant has filed written argument.

That the application is bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties. The workman applicant has not impleaded the contractor M/ s . Arcon India Limited . He was deputed by the contractor for cleaning Rajiv Gandhi Bhavan . The contractor did not act as a tout . The termination of the services of the workman was quite legal . It has been held in 2004 (4) 1 SSC Page 126 that the factors to be considered interalia are : -

(1) Control , ( 2) Integration , (3 ) Power of appointment and dismissal , ( 4) Liability to pay remuneration and deduct insurance contribution , ( 5) Liability to organize the work and supply tools and materials , (6) Nature of mutal application , (7 ) Terms and conditions of contract.

The management was heard orally . It was submitted from the side of the applicant that payment to the applicant was made by the AAI through its contractor who had acted as a tout and had introduced the applicant to get appointment of daily wager . The workman has worked continuously till 31-10-1995 . He was appointed in April 1994. He has worked for more than 240 days . He requested the authorities to regularize his services and to remove the anomalies and irregularities . It was decided that the payment to the daily wager working in the Canteen to be made by the National Airport Authority . The applicant has not received his pay for Feburary , March , April and May 1995. He complained to the Chairman, AAI . When the applicant went to join duty on 1st November, 1995 he was not allowed to sign the duty roaster and he was informed that his services have been terminated. The petitioner has worked for 19 months continuously from April 1994 to October 1995 and his services were terminated without following the due process of law. He was not paid money in lieu of compensation. The work is of continuous and permanent nature.

Itwas submitted from the side of the management that the workman was a contractor's man. he was not an employee of the management so the reference is bad in law. The management has not terminated the services of the workman applicant and he was not an employee of the management . The order of reference is one of the matters specified in item 3 of the 2nd schedule of the act asperthe provisions of the ID Act under Section 10 ( 10 ofthe Act .) The dispute referred in the instant order of the reference falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of Labour Court instead of Industrial Tribunal so the Hon'ble Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to entertain the present matter . The Claimant Suresh Kumar was a contractor labour under M/s Arcon India Limited so there is no master servant relationship between the claimant and the management . He was a contract worker and he worked under the control and supervision of the contractor . The contractor was his principal employer.

Ithas been held in this case that ifthe work is of permanent and perennial nature they shall be deemed to be directly employed by the adminstration . In the present facts and circumstances of the case the workman is entrusted with the work of cleaning and sweeping Rajiv Gandhi Bhavan . Cleaning and Sweeping is a work of permanent and perennial nature . Contract labour cannot be employed for such work. The same view has been expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ( 1999) 3 SCC 601 , 1994 SCC (L & S) 765. The work of workman applicant is of perennial nature . It has been held in JT 2003 ( 1 ) SC 465 that contract labour should not be permitted when the work is of perennial nature . The Hon'ble Supreme Court in JT 1999 (2 ) SC 435 has held thatContract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act 1970 is a beneficial piece of legislation. It should not be considered with narrow pedantic approach. The widest possible meanning ought to be offered to the expressions used in the act and contract labourer should not be left on the mercy of the intermediary . From perusal ofthe citation referred to above it becomes quite explicite that the workman was intrusterd with the work of safai . Such a work is work of perennial nature . Contract labour cannot be engaged for such nature of work . He worked under control and supervision of the management and he was integrated to the establishment . Later on payment was made through the NAA as such he was under control and supervision and payment of the management . No paper has been filed regarding any agreement of contract between M/ s . Arcon India Limited and theManagement . The so called contractor has got 1855 G1/05-48 7024

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005 /ASADHA 11 , 1927

registration . There is no term of contract . In the circumstances contract shall be deemed to be camouflage and as such the workman will become an employee of the management and there shall be deemed to be a contract of service . In the facts and circumstances of the case there is no term of agreement so it shall be deemed that the workman was directly engaged by the management and there was master and servant relationship between the management and the workman applicant . The law citedby the management is not applicable in the present facts and circumstances of the case .

The reference is replied thus :-

The action of the management of National Airport Authority of India in terminating the services of Shri Suresh Kumar, Safai Karamchari w.e.f. 01-11-1995 is neitherjust nor fair. The workman applicant is entitled to be reinstated w.e.f. 01-11-1995 to the post of Safai Karamchari with 25 % back wages . The Management is directed to reinstate the workman applicant within one month from publication of the award . In case of default the workman applicant will be entitled to get 10% interest over the entire back wages .

TheAward is given accordingly .

Dated: 25-05-2005

R. N. RAI , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 7 जून , 2005

का.आ. 2359.- 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 नं०-1 , चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 350/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 6-6-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12011/51/2000- आईआर ( बी- II) ]

सी. गंगाधरण , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 7th June , 2005

S.O. 2359. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 350/ 2000) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court , Chandigarh No. 1 , as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of UCO Bank, and their workman, received by the Central Government on 6-6-2005 .

[No. L- 12011 /51/2000- IR (B -II) ]

C. GANGADHARAN , Under Secy.

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT - 1 , CHANDIGARH

Case No. I.D. 350/2000 '

The General Secretary , UCO Bank Employees Union , Central Office C/ o UCO Bank,

.......... Applicant G.T. Road, Jalandhar (Punjab)

Versus

..Respondent UCO Bank , The Divisional Manager , UCO Bank , Sector 22 , Chandigarh

Appearances :

: None

For the workman

: Shri N. K. Zakhmi , Forthe management

Advocate

AWARD

Passed on 11-5-2005

Central Government vide notification No. L - 12011 / 51/ 2000/ IR ( B - II) dated 11-9-2000 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

"Whether the action of the management of UCO Bank in concelling the notification dated 10-9-1996 for filling up the vacancy of Head Cashier category Evide circular dated 11-5-1998 and filling up the vacancyby posting Chief Cashier from officer cadre by transferring a officer from outside the branch is justand legal ? If not , to what relief the concerned workmen/Union are entitled ? "

2. Case repeatedly called. None has put up appearance on behalf of the Union today also nor affidavits in evidence has been filed by the Union . On persual of the file it is found that for the last many dates from 13-7-04 none is appearing for the Union despite notice to them. The learned counsel for the management submitted that it appears that Union is not interested to persue with the present reference and the case may be closed.

3. In view of the above submission and my persual of the order sheet . I have found that Union is not appearing. It appears that Union is not interested to persue with the present reference despite several dates for filling ofthe affidavit. In view of the same, the present reference isreturned to the Central Govt . for want of prosecution . Central Govt . be informed. File be consigned to record .

Announced 11-5-2005

RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ] .

नई दिल्ली, 7 जून, 2005

का.आ. 2360.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार जवाहर लाल नेहरू पोर्ट ट्रस्ट के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों केबीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में विवाचक श्री राजाभाऊ गवाण्डे, थाने, के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 1/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 06-06-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [ सं. एल-31011 / 25 /2003 - आईआर( बी- II ) ]

सी. गंगाधरण, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 7th June , 2005

S.O. 2360.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1/2004) of Sh . Rajabhau Gawande , Arbitrator, Thane as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to management of Jawahar Lal Nehru PortTrust and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 06-06-2005 .

[No. L-31011/25/2003 - IR (B - II) ]

C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI RAJABHAU GAWANDE, ARBITRATOR, THANE

Reference (VA) No. 1 of 2004

Between:

Shri R. Ravikumar Chief Manager (Admn. ) & Secy. , Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust Sheva , Navi Mumbai .

7025

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 2, 2005/आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

Appearances:

S /Shri R. Ravikumar, CM(A) & Secretary, D.S. Garde, M(CT) , S.M. Shetty, M (ES )-Representatives of the Company.

S/Shri Bhushan Patil, General Secretary, Ganesh Gharat, President, Prashant Bhagat, Treasurer-representatives of Nhava Sheva Bunder Kamgar Sanghatana (A). S/Shri Jaiprakash Sawant, Vice President, Shrikant Patil , Secretary, J.A. Panda, Executive Committee Member- representatives of Nhava Sheva Port & General Workers ' Union.

S/Shri Y.S. Rane , Joint Secretary, G.U. Kolhe, Joint Secretary , D.V. Pangavhane , Executive Member- representatives of Transport & Dock Workers ' Union.

AWARD

This is a voluntary Reference under Section 10A of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 , hereinafter referred to "as the Act" of a dispute between the parties mentioned above. It appears that there was a Memorandum of Settlement dated 24th August, 2000 arrived at before the Regional Labour Commissioner ( Central) , Mumbai, under Section 12(3 ) of the Act over incentive scheme in JNPT between the parties mentioned above .

PartyNo. 1

AND Representatives of Party II

(1 ) Shri Bhushan Patil , General Secretary, Nhava Sheva Bunder Kamgar Sanghatana (A) 64. Shopping Centre, 1stFloor , JNPT, Township, Uran -400 707.

(2) Shri Shrikant Patil , Secretary, Nhava Sheva Port & General Workers' Union , Port Trust Kamgar Sadan , Nawab Tank Road , Mazgaon , Mumbai -400010.

(3) Shri G.U. Kolhe , JointSecretary, Transport & Dock Workers ' Union , P.D, Mello Bhavan, P. D'Mello Road ,

Carnac Bunder , Mumbai 400 038. Party No. II 2.Parties to the dispute have been unable to reach a Settlement on the quantum of the multiplying factors contained in Annexures I, II and III of the Settlement referred to above . Copies of the same to be found at the end of the Award marked as Appendiend it is to be treated as the part ofthe Award . However, tis agreed to refer this issue to my arbitration and accordantly they entered into an agreement . The agreement was forwarded to the appropriate authority and the Government of India/Bharat Sarkar , Ministry of Labour/ Shrama Mantralaya by an order No. F. No. L-31011/25/2003 - IR (B - II) dated 17th March , 2004 , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 3A) of Section 10A of the Act referred the said dispute to my arbitration . The said agreement was published in the Gazette ofIndia dated May 9-15 , 2004 in Part II , Section 3 , Sub- section ( ii ) at page 2327. This is how the Arbitrator is seized ofthe matter . Nature of the dispute can be gathered from the Schedule appearing in the said Gazette . Text of the said Schedule is reproduced below:---

SCHEDULE

"Whether multiplication factors indicated in Ann. I , Il and III of the settlement dated 24-08-2000 between the management of Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust and (i ) Nhava Sheva Port and General Workers " Union , ( ii ) Nhava Sheva Bunder Kamgar Sanghatana (A) and ( iii ) Transport and Dock Workers ' Union regarding incentive scheme are fair and reasonable ? If not , what should be the multiplication factors?"

3. Parties were served with necessary notices . The Nhava Sheva Bunder Sanghatana (A) , hereinafter 7026

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005 /ASADHA 11 , 1927

[PART II -SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

made applicable retrospectively i.e. from 24 th August 2000.

Appendix I reads as follows:

APPENDIX-I

Demand for Revision in Multiplying Factor for Incentive

Scheme

Category

Demand

Multiplying Factor Existing

1.35

Jr. Engineer (Opm . ) RMQC

1.0

Jr.Engineer (Oprn. ) RTGC

0.8

0.5

Technician

0.5

0.8

Checker

0.8

0.5

Driver

0.8

0.5

Asstt. Technician

0.5

0.8

Jr. Engineer (Maint. )

0.8

0.5

Technician (Maint )

0.4

0.8

H.D.D./Checker/Asstt. Tech . (Maint .)

ICD Operation@ 100% Level

the multiplying factors , no scientific method was adopted and the RTGC Operator was considered as a prime category, for which multiplying factor was fixed as Annexure I and in that proportion the multiplying factor was fixed for other categories . According to it, the multiplying factor is very high for certain categories and very low for other categories . It submits that there should be variation in the multiplying factor for different categories and the same should be reasonably and scientifically fixed according to the importance of the work and the sharing in productivity . It further submits that in the Port operation , the work of almost all categories of emplyees is co -related and interdependent on each other . Whenever the Cleaning Operator discharges the container from vessel , it is loaded on the tractor trailer, which is being transported by Heavy Duty Driver upto the Container Yard for stacking which is discharged by RTGC Operator or ICD to move it at its destination, which isdischarged by RMGC Operator、 referred to as "The Sanghatana " , has filed its Statement of Claim at Exhibit U -4 . It contends that the Settlement in question was the first Settlement and prior to the same , there was no official shceme of incentive for Class III and IV category of employees . It adds that while deciding

Multiplying Factor

Category

Demand

Existing

1.0

0.7

Jr. Engineer ( Opm . )

0.8

0.5

Technician

0.5

0.8

Checker

0.5

0.8

Driver

0.5

0.8

Asstt . Technician

ICD Operation@ 90% Level

Category

Multiplying Factor

Demand

Existing

0.5

0.9

Jr.Engineer (Opm. )

0.7

0.4

Technician

0.4

0.7

Checker

0.7

0.4

Driver

0.4

0.7

Asstt . Technician

ICD Operation@ 86% Level

Category

Demand

Multiplying Factor Existing

0.5

0.8

Jr.Engineer (Oprm. )

0.3

0.6

Technician

0.3

0.6

Checker

0.3

0.6

Driver

On all the cranes , i.e. RMQC , RTGC , RMGC , Checkers , Technicians , Assistant Technicians are deployed for giving proper signals and information. Thus the operation work of all categories of employees is interdependent . It further submits that the employees of the Port Trust are divided amongst different Unions on the basis of categories . The amount of incentive unreasonably varies from one category to another. Its grievance is that certain categories of employees are getting unreasonably more amount as compared to other categories . Referring to Clause No. 6 in the Settlement , it complains that this clause was not strictly implemented . Consequently , only certain employees of certain categories are getting maximum benefit from the existing incentive scheme . It is also complained that by keeping multiplying factor at low level , the Management is not utilising the budgetamount fixed for incentive scheme . According to it, since all the employees of Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust , for short referred to as JNPT and also as the Company, are directly or indirectly contributing to the productivity , new scheme should not be signed without applying it to all the categories of the employees . Lastly , it is prayed that in order to give justice to all categories of employces in the Operations Department , the multiplying factor should be fairly and reasonably increased in case of all categories especially lower categories like Technicians , Assistant Technicians. Checkers and Heavy Duty Drivers working atdifferent places as stated in Appendix I to the Statement of Claim . It also submits that incentive scheme should be applied to all 1581 employees of Class III and IV categories and adds that the revised multiplying factor should be

0.6

0.3

Asstt . Technician

7027 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 2, 2005/आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

ICD Operation@ 70% Level

At a level of 100 % performance

Category

Multiplying Factor

0.7

0.8

Jr. Engr . (Op.)

Existing Demand

0.5

0.6

Tech. (Op.)

0.4

0.7

Jr.Engineer (Oprn. )

0.6

0.5

Drivers/A.Ts/ Checkers (Op . )

0.5

0.2

Technician

At a level of90% performance

0.7

0.5

Jr. Engr.(Op.)

0.5

Checker

0.2

0.4

0.5

Tech(Op.)

0.2

0.5

Driver

0.4

0.5

Drivers/A.Ts./Checkers (Op. )

0.5

0.2

At a level of 80% performance

Asstt . Technician

0.5

0.6

Jr.Engr.(Op.)

0.3

0.4

Tech. (Op.)

0.3

0.4

Drivers/A.Ts. /Checkers (Op .)

At a level of 70% performance

0.4

0.5

Jr.Engr.(Op.)

0.2

0.3

Tech(Op.)

0.3

0.2

Drivers/A.Ts. /Checkers (Op . )

PROPOSED ANNEXURE- II

Category

Multiplying Factor in the Settlement

Multiplying Factoras claimedby the Unions

1.5

Jr.Engineer (R/ O)

0.75

Jr.Engineer (RM)

0.5

0.6

Tech. & AT (R/ O)

0.5

0.6

Tech../AT (M)

BTCC/ Shipping Maintenance/

Sub Stores

0.5

0.6

Jr.Engr.

0.4

0.5

Tech/AT

4. Nhava Sheva Port and General Workers ' Union , hereinafter referred to as Workers Union , has filed its Statement of Claim at Exhibit UA 3. It has annexed proposedAnnexures , I, II and III to the Statement of Claim and it submits that the multiplying factors may be revised as per the same . Claim of the Workers Union is based upon the nature of work involved in the Port operations and also on the duties and responsibilities of the workmen employed for performance of the Port authorities . It adds that the claim is based upon the risk factors involved in the operational work and in handling necessary equipments and also on the skill and knowledge involved inthe operation and maintenance work . It submits that the occupational hazards of the workmen need to be taken into consideration. The Workers Union further submits to take into consideration the amount of contribution of the workmen in Port productivity and the revenue and the profits earned by the.JNPT on account of the said productivity. It submits that an award be made after taking into consideration the multiplication factors indicated in the annexures to the Statement of Claim and the consequential benefits should also be . given to the employees accordingly . Annexures I, II and III read as follows:

0.4

HDD

0.3

0.4

0.3 PROPOSED ANNEXURE- I

Checkers

Category

Mechanical Bagging Oprns . at performance level of 100%

0.5

0.4

Jr.Engr . ( S/O)

Multiplying Factor in the Settlement

0.5

0.6

Tech. & AT( S/O)

Multiplying Factoras claimedby the Union

Mechanical Bagging Oprns . at Performance level of 90%

1.5

0.3

0.4

Jr. Engr . (S/O)

Jr. Engineer ( Opm . ) RMQC

0.4

0.5

Tech . & AT( S/O)

Jr. Engineer (Op. ) RTGC

0.5

0.8

Technician(Op)

Mechanical Bagging Oprns . At Performance level of 80%

0.2

0.3

0.5

0.8 Jr.Engr . (S/O)

Drivers/A.Ts./Checker (Op)

0.3

0.4

Tech. & AT( S/O)

0.5

0.8

Jr. Engineer (Maint . )

0.4

0.7

Mechanical Bagging Oprns . At Performance level of 70%

Technician (Maint. )

0.2

0.3

0.7

0.4

Jr. Engr . (S/O)

Drivers/A.Ts./Checkers ( Maint . ) Other Category ( ICD & CFS)

0.25

0.4

Tech . & AT( S/O) 7028

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005/ASADHA 11 , 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

3 PROPOSED ANNEXURE- III

Category

0.7

0.5

Tech. (Op. )/Checkers/ Drivers/A.T.s .---RMQC

Multiplying Factor in the Settlement

Multiplying Factor as claimedby the Unions

0.5

0.6

Tech. (Op. )/ Checkers/ Drivers/A.Ts./RTGC

0.5

0.8 Engg. Services & Marine Dept.

Jr. Engineer (Maint. )

0.7

0.4

Tech. (Mant.)

0.5

0.25

Jr. Engr . Supervisor (P.C. & Signal Stn.)

0.7

0.4

Drivers/A.T.s/ Checkers (Maint. )

Other Category ( ICD & CFS)

0.2

0.4

Tech./Signal Supdt./Station Officer

At a level of 100 % performance

0.7

0.8

Jr.Engr . (Op .)

Drivers/A.T.s/ Sub . Officers/ Checkers/Sr. Signal Man/ Jr.

0.2

0.5

0.6

0.4 Tech(Op.)

0.6

0.5

Signal Man/DCPO/Fireman Indoor Staff & PPD Deptt .

Drivers/ A.Ts/ Checkers (Op .)

At a level of 90% performance

0.125

0.25

O.S./Surveyor/Matron/Draughtsman Gr. I.J.E. (Civil)

0.5

0.7

Jr.Engr . (Op .)

0.55

0.4

Tech(Op.)

0.55

0.4

Drivers/A.Ts/Checkers ( Op. )

0.112

0.2

Steno Gr . I/ Sr . Asstt./Audit Asstt./ Computer Operator/Hindi Translator/ Sister- in-charge Radiographer/ A.T. (Civil)

At a level of 80 % performance

0.6

0.5

Jr. Engr . (Op.)

0.3

0.4

Tech(Op.)

0.3

0.4

Drivers/A.Ts./Checkers ( Op . )

0.2

0.1

Steno Gr . II/Jrt . Asstt./Staff Nurse/ Lab . Technician/Pharmacist/ TelexOptr . Staff Car Driver/ Hindi Typist/Theatre Asstt.

At a level of 70 % performance

0.5

0.4

Jr.Engr. (Op.)

0.087

0.15

Peon/Jamadar/ Jamadar Gr . I/ Mazdoor /Zerox Operator/Hospital Attendant

0.2

0.3

Tech(Op.)

0.3

0.2

Drivers/A.Ts/Checkers (Op. )

PROPOSED ANNEXURE - II

Category

Multiplying Factorin the Settlement

Multiplying Factor as claimedby the Union

1.5

Jr. Engineer (R/ O )

0.75

Jr. Engineer (RM)

0.6

0.5

Tech & AT (R/ O )

0.5

0.6

Tech./A.T . (M)

BTCC / Shipping Maintenance/ Sub Stores/Auxiliary facilites , etc.

0.5

0.6

Jr.Engineer

5. The Transport and Dock Workers ' Union , hereinafter referred to as the Dock Workers Union , has filed its Statement of Claim at Exhibit UB -3 . It has annexed in all three annexures captioned as proposed Annexures I, II and III to the Statement of Claim and it submits that the awardbe made as indicated by the three annexures . It submits that this claim is based upon the nature of the work, the duties and responsibilities shouldered by the workmen, the risk factors involved in the operational work in handling equipments and also on the skill and knowledge involved in the operation and maintenance of work as also upon the occupational hazards the workmen are required to face . It also urges the Arbitrator to take into consideration the contribution of the workmen in the Port productivity and the revenue and profits earned by the JNPT . It prays that an award be made after taking into consideration the multiplication factors indicated in the annexures and effect of the same be given retrospectively. The text of the proposed annexure reads as follows: -

0.4

0.5

Tech/AT

PROPOSED ANNEXURE - I

HDD

0.3

0.4 Category

0.4

0.3

Checkers

Multiplying Factor in the Settlement

Mechanical Bagging Oprns .

Multiplying Factor as claimedby the Unions

AtPerformance Level of 100 %

0.5

0.4

Jr. Engr . (S/O)

0.6

0.5

1.5 Tech. & AT ( S/O)

Mechanical Bagging Oprns .

Jr. Engineer ( Op . ) RMQC Jr. Engineer (Op. ) RTGC 7029 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 2, 2005/आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

AtPerformance level of 90 %

0.4

0.3

Jr. engr . (S/O)

0.5

0.4

Tech . & AT ( S/O)

Mechanical Bagging Oprns . AtPerformance level of 80%

0.2

0.3

Jr. Engr. (S/O)

0.3

0.4

Tech . & AT ( S /O)

Mechanical Bagging Oprns . At Performance level of 70%

0.2

0.3

Jr. Engr . (S/O)

0.25

0.4

Tech . & AT ( S/O)

PROPOSED APPENDIX- III

Category

Multiplying Factor in the Settlement

Multiplying

Factor as

claimedby

the Union

Engg. Services & Marine Dept.

0.25

0.5

Jr. Engr. Supervisor (P.C. & Signal Stn. )

0.2

Tech./Signal Supdt./Station Officer

0.4

0.2

Drivers/A.T.s/Sub . Officers/ Checkers/Sr . Signal Man/Jr. Signal Man/DCPO/ Fireman

Indoor Staff& PPD Deptt.

0.125

0.25

O.S./Surveyor/Matron/Draughtsman Gr. I.J.E. (Civil)

0.25

0.112

Steno Gr . I/ Sr . Asstt./Audit Asstt./ Computer Operator/Hindi Translator/ Sister- in- charge Radiographer/ A.T. (Civil)

0.2

0.1

Steno Gr . II/ Jrt. Asstt . Staff Nurse/ Lab . Technician/Pharmacist/ TelexOptr. Staff Car Driver/ Hindi Typist/TheatreAsstt.

Peon/Jamadar/ Jamadar Gr. I/ Mazdoor/Zerox Operator/Hospital Attendant

0.087

0.17

the dwindling bulk traffic, it was not possible to achieve the minimum throughput level mentioned in Annexure II . Therefore , a decision was taken to convert the Bulk Terminal into a Container Terminal on BOT basis . Bulk Terminal , as it was originally envisaged , no longer exists and all the main structures have been demolished. In respect of Annexure III , the matter was to be referred to Indian Port Association for concurrence before it could be implemented. The concurrence of Indian Port Association was not received . Therefore , Annexure III couldnot be implemented. According to it, the issue to be decided by the Arbitrator is the quantum of multiplication factors , as contained in Annexure I only . It adds that this is clearfromPara 2 of the terms of reference , which states that the total number of workmen employed in the undertaking is 1581 and 609 are eigible for the incentive payment under the Settlement. (THIS POSITION IS LATER ON ADMITTED BY THE UNIONS WHILE MAKING SUBMISSIONS BEFORE ME ). According to it, the existing incentive scheme is very liberal . Moreover, the datum fixed are very low. In the neighbouring NSICT terminal, no incentive payment is paid if the productivity was below 23 moves per hour whereas in JNPT it is 12 moves per hour. In JNPCT 1 : 1 reliever is provided both for RMQC and connected RTGC working . In other words, the Junior Engineering in fact effectively works for 4 hours instead ofthe usual 8 hours and gets his full wages. Similarly, 2 : 1 reliever pattern is provided in all other categories working for various operations in Container Terminal , which means that on an average each worker is effectively working only for five and half hours instead of 8 hours duty . Over and above, he gets the incentive payment for productivity above data . The productivity levels so far achieved in JNPT are well below the international norms . It further submits that there has been constant criticism that the productivity levels of JNPT are low and pre -berthing detention and turnaround time of the ships is very high. It submits that the existing multipliction factors are already on the higher side and more than commensurate with the actual skills , level of productivity , nature of work, time spent and the qualification of the workers involved . It criticises that what has been proposed by the the Unions is irrational and without any basis, that the Unions have not given any scientific reasoning as to why the multiplication factors stated by them should be accepted . In fact, the multiplication factors as claimed by them in some cases are more than the multiplication factors they had actually demanded during the discussion with the management while finalising the Settlement . It adds that the incentive amounts paid under the existing scheme have been substantial and it was of the order of Rs . 1.62 crores during 2002-03 and on an average about Rs . 13.5 lakhs per month and Rs . 1.87 crores during 2003-04 and on anaverage about Rs . 15.6 lakhs per month. In addition to the incentive payment, the workers also get substantial overtime payment . It prays that the Arbitrator may be 6. The Management of JNPT, hereinafter referred to as the Company has filed its Written Statement to these Statement of Claims at Exhibit C- 2 . It submits that the total number of workmen employed under the undertaking is 1581 and 609 employees are eligible for the incentive payment under the settlement dated 24th August, 2000. It submits that Annexure I of the Settlement dated 24th August , 2000 relates to the Container Terminal , Annexure II relates to the Bulk Terminal and Annexure III relates to other administrative staff. Annexures II and III could not be implemented . In respect of Bulk Terminal , because of 7030

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JJULY 2 , 2005 /ASADHA 11 , 1927

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

At a Level of 100 % Performance

0.7

0.8

Jr. Engr. (Op)

0.5

0.6

Tech (Op)

0.6

0.5

Drivers/A.Ts/Checkers (Op)

At a Level of 90 % Performance

0.7

0.5

Jr. Engr . (Op)

0.4

0.5

Tech(Op)

pleased to pass an award to the effect that the multiplication factors indicated in Annexures I , II and III of the Settlement dated 24th August 2000 are fair and reasonable and there is no need to make any modification. Company has given calculation of Multiplying Factors worked out on the basis of merits of different criteria for different categories of emplyees in Annexure I of its Written Statement Exhibit C - 2 . Copy of the same is to be found at the end of the Award marked as Appendix II and it s to be treated as part of this Award.

0.4

0.5

Drivers/A.Ts/Checkers (Op )

At a Level of 80% Performance

0.5

0.6

Jr. Engr. (Op)

0.4

0.3

Tech(Op)

0.4

0.3

Drivers/A.Ts / Checkers (Op)

At a Level of 70 % Performance

0.4

0.5

Jr. Engr . (Op)

0.2

Tech(Op)

0.2

0.3

Drivers/A.Ts/Checkers (Op )

PROPOSED APPENDIX -B

Category

Multiplying Factor in the

Settlement

Multiplying Factor as claimedby the Union

1.5

Jr. Engr . (R/O)

0.75

Jr. Engr. (RM)

0.6

0.5

Tech & AT ( M )

0.5

0.6

Tech/A.T . ( M)

BTCC / Shipping Maintenance/

Sub Stores

0.6

0.5

Jr. Engr.

0.5

Tech/AT

0.4

0.3

HDD

0.3

0.4

Checkers

7. All the three Unions , namely , Sanghatana , Workers Union and the Dock Workers Union at a later stage have filed a joint rejoinder at Exhibit U , UA , UB - 1 . Along with this rejoinder, they have placed on record proposed Annexure A, proposed Annexure B and proposed Annexure C and they submit that what is indicated by these annexures is fully legal and justified. These proposed annexures are based upon the nature of work involved in the Port Operations and upon the duties and responsibilities shouldered by the workmen employed for performance of Port Operations . The skill as also the risk factors are taken into consideration. The occupational hazards the workmen are required to face are also taken into consideration . Similarly, the amount of contribution of the workmen in Port productivity and to the revenue and profits earned by JNPT are also taken into consideration. The claim is justified because of the contribution of the workers in the JNPT has been accredited with ISO 9002 certification . It ranks among top 30 container ports in the world. It handles about 55-60% ofthe total containerised cargo of the country . It ensures the fastest turn - around amongst all Indian Ports and it has grown exponentially to reach Super Port status and its financial performance has always remained remarkable . Ithas referred to the revenue earned by JNPT . It urged that the proposals indicated by the three annexures , namely , A, B and C annexed to the rejoinder be taken into consideration and appropriate award be made in the light of the same . The same are as under :-

PROPOSED APPENDIX-A

Mechanical Bagging Oprns . AtPerformance level of 100 %

Category

0.4

0.5 Multiplying Multiplying

Jr. Engr. ( S/O)

Factor in the

0.6

0.5

Tech . & AT ( S / O )

Settlement

Factor as claimedby the Union

Mechanical Bagging Oprns . AT performance level of 90 %

0.3

0.4

Jr. Engr. (S/O)

0.4

0.5

1.5

Tech . & AT ( S / O )

Jr. Engr . ( OP) -RMQC

Mechanical Bagging Oprns .

Jr. Engr . (OP ) -RMQC

ATperformance level of 90%

0.5

0.8

Tech (Op)

0.2

0.3

Jr. Engr . ( S/O)

0.5

0.8

Drivers/A.Ts/ Checkers (Op )

0.4

0.3

Tech . & AT ( S/ O)

0.5

0.8

Jr.Engr. (Mant. )

0,4

Mechanical Bagging Oprns. ATperformance level of 90 %

Tech (Mant)

0.2

0.3

Jr. Engr . (S/O)

0.25

0.4

Tech . & AT ( S / O)

0.4

0.7

Drivers/A.Ts/Checkers ( Mant) Other Category ( ICD & CFS ) 7031 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 2, 2005/आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

PROPOSED APPENDIX -C

Category

Multiplying Factor in the Settlement

Multiplying

Factor as

claimedby

the Union

Engg. Services& Marine Dept.

0.5

0.25

Jr. Engr./Supervisor (P.C. & Signal Stn.)

Tech/ Signal Supdt./Station Officer

0.2

0.4

0.2

Drivers/A.Ts. /Sub.Officers/ Checkers Sr. Signal Man/ Jr. Signal Man/DCPO/ Fireman

Indoor Staff & PPD Deptt.

0.25

0.125

O.S./Surveyor/Matron/ DraughtsmanGr . I.J.E. (Civil)

9. It is felt necessary to refer to certain documents before referring to the oral evidence on record. Admittedly, the Settlement Exhibit C- 18 between the parties took place on 24th August 2000. In particular , I refer to paragraph III of the Settlement which reads thus : " If any doubt arises on the interpretation of the above clauses/provisions of the incentive scheme , the matter will be discussed bilaterally for resolution. Ifno resolution emerges , the mattar will be referred to an Arbitrator under Section 10A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 " , (Emphasis supplied) . Further , I refer to paragraph IV of the Settlement which reads thus: " Since the parties have been unable to reach a settlement on the quantum of the multiplying factor contained in Annexure I , II and III , it was agreed to refer this issue to arbitration by a mutually acceptable person under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act . This , however, will not hold up implementation of the Settlement inits existing form " . Presisely speaking , it is by virtue of this provision that I am seized of the matter . Next I refer to paragraph VI of the Settlement which reads thus : " The settlement will be reviewed after a period of two years" .

0.2

0.112

Steno Gr . I/ SR.Asstt./ AuditAstt./Computer Operator/ Hindi Translator/Sister - in - charge Radiographer/A.T. ( Civil )

0.1

0.2

Steno Gr . II /Jr . Asstt/ Staff Nurse/ Lab . Technician/Pharmasist/ Telex Optr. Staff Car Driver/ Hindi Typist/ Theatre Asst .

0.087

0.15

Peon/Jamadar/Jamadar Gr . I/ Mazdoor / Zerox Operator/ Hospital attendant

10. Further , it is felt necessary to refer to certain terms which are in the nature of abbreviations . These are RMQC which means Rail Mounted Quay Crane ; RTGC which means Rubber Tyred Gantry Crane ; RMGC which means Rail Mounted Gantry Crane ; CFS operation which refers to either the lifting of containers from the yard and giving delivery of these containers through the tractor trailers deployed by the container freight station or off loading of containers brought from the CFSs in the JNPT yard through the port equipments. ICD operation refer to off loading of containers (By RMGC) from the rakes deployed by the Container Corporation of India, placing it on the tractor trailer and shifting it to the designated yard/ vessel or vice versa . It is also necessary to understand what is meant by CFS operation at a level of 100% performance . It means when 91 % and above import containers are delivered within 24 hours time (from the time of issue of job order) it is considered as 100% performance in incentive calculation . Lastly , we are concernedwith the term M.F. which means Multiplication Factor . A somewhat brief explantion is needed to understand the import of this term . The major contribution for the Port productivity (from the employees cadre) is from the crane operators in RMQC. Their contribution is considered as unity or 100 % and the contribution of other categories have been proportionately dervied as percentage of this RMQC operators contribution . This factor derived for the individual categories is referred to asMultiplication Factor for calculation of incentive . This canbe further explaied by taking an illustration , e.g. when the incentive payable to Operator (Junior Engineer) of RMQC at a particular level of productivity is Rs . 5,000 , then the categories of employees with 0.7 M.F. will get Rs. 5000 x 0.7 = Rs . 3500 and so on .

11. Let me now refer to the evidence on record . On behalf of the Union as many as four witnesses have led 8. The disputants requested the Arbitrator to make site inspection for the proper appreciation of the situation obtaining at the site and also for appreciating real nature of the issue involved in the matter . Accordingly, site inspection was made on 28th September 2004. However, site inspection could not be fully done on that day . It was only partly done. The further site inspection took place on 10th October 2004. The Company (Management) has placed on record Exhibit C -7 . It is accompanied by a note submitted by the Company (Management) urging the Arbitrator to take the same into consideration while making the site inspection . The Unions have placed on record their note which accompanies Exhibit U , UA, UB- 5 urging the Arbitrator to take the same into consideration . During the course of inspection , I had occasion to hear Shri Pradeed Kumar, the Deputy Manager ( Container Terminal and Operations) and also S/Shri Prashant Bhagat , G. U. Kolhe and Shri Sharad Khadke . There were few more workmen but I have named only these who were prominent amongst them . I had occasion to visit ( i ) Rail Mounted Gantry Crane (RMGC) , ( ii ) Rubber Tyred Gantry Crane (RTGC) (Yard), (iii) Rail Mounted Quarry Crane (RMQC) , (iv) Planning Section POC and (v ) VTMS Marine Control Room, I had occasion to prepare my site inspection note which is to be found at Exhibit O - 4 . It speaks for itself.

1855 G1 /05-49 7032

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2, 2005/ASADHA 11 , 1927

their evidence. Let me begin with Witness Shri Santram Nagnath Khavase . His evidence is to be found at Exhibit UB -6 . He has placed on record his affidavit at Exhibit UB - 5 which is treated as his evidence in chief. He has beencross - examined by the Company. He states that his monthly gross salary is Rs . 12500 excluding HRA . In addition, he gets overtime and also the incentive . He is in agreement with the suggestion put to him that the total amount of O.T. (overtime) and incentive comes to 50% of his gross salary . He is a Junior Engineer. He admits that the reliever is provided and the ratio is 1 : 1. He adds that the duty hours are four hours both for the operator and reliever. However , in practice the operator may work for two hours and then the work is handed over to the reliever who in turn works for two hours and so on and so forth . The two hours which he thus gets free, he spends the same in having rest, in eating his food and attending to toilet efc . He admits that he is in agreement with the suggestion that in all he does four hours active job .

12. The next witness is Shri Jaikrishna Anand Panda.

Hisevidence is to be found at Exhibit UA- 5 . He has placed on record his affidavit at Exhibit UA-4 and the same is treated as his evidence in chief. He has been cross- examined at length by the Company . It appears from the responses made by him during the course of cross- examination that he was promoted as a Junior Engineer in the year 1996 and that for about ten years he has worked in Container Terminal ( Maintenance) . At present hisjob is to operate Container Handling Cranes namely RMQC, RTGC and RMGC as per the duty allocation . Gross salary of a Crane Operator is in the neighbourhood of Rs . 20,000 including incentive and overtime . On an average , the incentive amount which he gets is in the neighbourhood of Rs . 3000 to Rs . 4000 per month . The amount of overtime he earns per month is in the neighbourhood of Rs . 4000 to Rs . 5000. According to him , the substantial contribution to productivity is by Junior Engineer . He admits that the operational part of the job is four huors per operator and after the operational work he doessome personal work . He takes tea and has his lunch and does work assigned to him by the Shift Incharge . He states that he spends some time in assisting the loading and unloading work . However, quick in succession he states that it is only when he is called upon to assist the loading and unloading work, his services are rendered in that context . He admits that otherwise he keeps himself idle. While concluding his evidence , he states that he is unable to state whether the work done by Crane Operator in NSICT is comparable with the work of Crane Operators in JNPT.

13. Then the next witness is Shri Prashant Ramkrishna Bhagat . His evidence is at Exhibit U-6 . He too has placed on record his affidavit Exhibit U - 5 which has been treated as his evidence in chief. In his evidence in cross , he states that he has worked as a Crane Operator

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)] for about three years . he did not get any chance to operate RMQCs . He adds that prior to introduction of the incentive scheme, the take home salary of a Junior Engineer was Rs. 8000 (Gross) per month . After the implementation of the scheme, the take home salary is Rs . 10000 (gross) per month . His Union represents only in JNPT and it has nothing to do with NSICT .

14. The last witness is Shri Jeevan Kamlakar Kadu . His evidence is at Exhibit UB - 9 . He too has placed on record his affidavit at Exhibit UB -8 and the same has been treated as his evidence in chief. From the responses made by him during the course of his cross- examination, it becomes clear that he had joined JNPT in the year 1989 as an Assistant Technician . Currently he is working as a Technician . In the year 2003 , he has been transferred to the Container Terminal where he is working in the Maintenance Section. It is clear from his evidence that there are as many as 18 cranes operating at JNPT . He does not state anything substantial with a view to putting forth the case of the Union . This is the nature of evidence led onbehalf of the Unions .

15. On behalf of the Company, two witnesses have given evidence . The first witness is Shri M. Sumitra Rao . He was working in the capacity of Senior Manager (Container Terminal ) in the establishment of JNPT . His evidence is to be found at Exhibit C - 11 . He has placed on record his affidavit at Exhibit C- 10 . The same has been treated as his evidence in chief. He has been cross- examined at some length.

16. What is more important in the context of his evidence is what he has stated in his affidavit. There , we get the detailed justification of Multiplication Factors . It is to be found in paragraphs A, B , C and D of the affidavit. At this very stage , let me refer to Exhibit C- 9 where we get justification of Multiplication Factors . When we compare the text of Exhibit C- 9 to be found in particular at paragraphs A, B , C and D with what has been stated in ExhibitC- 10 in the affidavit of Shri Rao , one has reason to observe that what is stated in both Exhibit C- 9 and Exhibit C-10 isvirtually the same and identical . As observed earlier , some discussion regarding paragraphs A, B , C and D is necessary as these hinge on the Multiplication Factors .

17. In paragraph A, there has been a reference to (i) Jr. Engr . (Op ) RMQC (M.F. 1.0) ; ( ii ) Jr. Engr. (Op ) RTGC (M.F. 1.0); (iii ) Tech./Checker (Op) -RMQC (M.F. 0.6); (iv) Tech./Checker (Op ) -RTGC (M.F. 0.6) ; (v) Asstt . Tech.- RMQC ( M.F. 0.6) and ( vi) Drivers (Op ) (M.F. 0.6) . In paragraph B , there has been a reference to ( i ) Jr. Engr . (Maint .) (M.F. 0.5 ) ; ( ii ) Technician (Maint . ) ( M.F. 0.4) ; (iii) Asstt . Technican ( Maint . ) (M.F. 0.4) and (iv) Driver (Maint. ) (M.F. 0.4) . In paragraph C, there has been a refence to (i) Jr. Eng . (Op) -RMGC /RTGC (M.F. 0.7) ; ( ii ) Technician/ Checker (Op ) -RMGC / RTGC ( M.F. 0.5 ) ; ( iii ) Asstt. Technician -RMGC (M.F. 0.5) and (iv) Driver (Op ) -RMGC (M.F. 0.5) . Lastely in paragraph D, there has been a reference to ( i ) Jr. Engineer (M.F. 0.7) and ( ii) Technician/ Checker (M.F. 0.5) .

7033 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 2, 2005/ आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

18. These headings are important because those mentioned above constitute what is called as a team and it is this team that does the work in question. It may be noted here only that the Company has given out the nature of work required to be done by the individual categories constituting the team. It is also mentioned as to whether the work is heavy and requires skill . It is also mentioned as to whether the nature of work is continuous or otherwise. In short , I may state that all the required details projecting on record the nature of work etc. to be carried out by the individual categories of workmen is found in paragraphs A, B , C and D. What exactly is the worth of the same will be considered at the appropriate place . Incidentally , I may observe that although possible, no Union has placed any rejoinder to the details to be found in paragraphs A, B, C and D.

me first refer to their pleadings . The Sanghtana which figures as Union No. 1 In its Statement of Claim Exhibit U- 4 has mainly pleaded three points. According to it, the amount of incentive unreasonably varies from one category to another, clause 6.0 which refers to the staff being subject to periodic transfer was not strictly implemented and , lastly , the revised scheme should be made applicable to all 1581 employees . The Workers 'Union which figures as Union No. 2 in its Statement of Claim Exhibit UA - 3 has mainly pleaded that the claim should be revised in the context of multiplication factors and consideration for this revision should be the risk factor and also the skill and knowledge factors involved in the operationofthe work. It is also urged that the contribution ofthe workmen made in port productivity should also be taken into consideration . The Dock Workers ' Union which figures as Union No. 3 in its Statement of Claim Exhibit UB-3 has raised two points . It is pleaded that the multiplying factors are required to be revised in the interest ofport productivity and in order to ensure fairness to the workman as a share of return on gains of productivity . It invities may attention to the fact that the workmen have increased productivity during the currency of the Settlement.

23. It may be added here that all the three Unions later on placed ajoint rejoinder to the Written Statement filedby the Company at Exhibits U , UA, UB - 1 . It proposed multiplication factors are to be found in Annexures A, B and C. It is now the contention of all the Union vide this joint rejoinder that these proposals are based upon the nature ofwork , the duties aux responsibilities shouldered by workmen , the skill as iso the risk factor, the occupational hazards the women are required to face should also be taken into cor ideration . In particular, more stress has been given to the fact that JNPT has been accredited with ISO 9002 Certification and that it ranks in top 30 Container Ports in the world and it handles about 55-60% of the containers cargo of the country . It is urged by the Unions that these factors be considered and the multiplication factor be revised.

19. The next witness examined by the Company is Shri Anand Krishnrao Hambarde . His evidence is to be foundat ExhibitC- 15 . He has placed on record his affidavit at Exhibit C - 14 and the same has been treated as his evidence in chief . He too has been cross- examined at some length by the Unions . It appears that the witness joined JNPT in 1990 as an Assistant Manager (Operations). He is a Graduate in Engineering. According to him, a good deal of concentration is required for operating the cranes . He adds that other categories also need to have concentration but the degree is not the same which the Operator is required to have in the context of concentration . He admits that while JNPT is a Government concern, NSICT is a private one . He makes it clear that he is comparing with NSICT because it is a neighbouring terminal and working with the same environment . However , he adds that he cannot state if the working conditions in JNPT Terminal and the NSICT Terminal are identical because he is not aware of the working conditions obtaining in NSCIT. He concludes his evidence by saying that he does not know the quality and standard of NSICT equipments andhence he is unable to answer the question: whether the quality and standard of NSICT equipments and JNPT equipments are not the same ? I shall have occasion to refer to some relevant responses made by him at a later stage while discussing the evidence at large on record. This is the nature of the oral evidence adducedby

the Company.

24. A careful reading of these pleadings will instantly show that nothing specifically has been stated how the existing multiplying factors are neither fair nor reasonable .

20. Both Shri Sumitra Rao and Shri Anand Krishnrao Hambarde have been cross - examined by the Unions and I shall have occasion to refer to some relevant responses made by them at a later stage while discussing the evidence atlarge on record .

25. I do not wish to reproduce the relevant and important pleadings to be found in the Written Statement Exhibit C - 2 filed by the Company as at an earlier stage I have made a mention thereof. Suffice itto say that Companyhasjustifiably placed reliance on the justification ofthe multiplication factors given in the existing incentive scheme (Exhibit C-9) .

21. Issue for consideration is whether the multiplication factors indicated in Annexures I, II and III ofthe Settlement Exhibit C- 18 are fair and reasonable . The later part of the issue is if not, what should be the multiplication factors?

26. On behalf of the Unions representing the workmen, it is chiefly argued that the claiim put forth by them is based upon the duties and responsibilities those are being shouldered by the workmen and also upon the 22. It is the contention of the Unions that the multiplication factors are neither fair nor reasonable . Let 7034

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2, 2005 /ASADHA 11 , 1927

skill factor and the risk factor . Then there are the occupational hazards too . Further it is argued that the Company has earned a very good revenue and the workmen are entitled to upward revision of the multiplication factors astheir share in the gain . They conclude their submissions by saying that the claim put forth by them is based on the actual experience and practical approach . They urge me to make an upward revision in the multiplication factors .

27. On the other hand , it is argued on behalf of the Company that the Unions have failed to furnish any convincing material justifying the upward revision of the multiplication factors. In the form ofjustification , however, Company has shown how the exiting multiplication factors are both fair and reasonable. According to the Company, there are other reasons also for improvement in productivity like reviewing the operational procedures from time to time, induction of new equipments and hiring of more than 100 tractor trailers for augmenting the capacity ofthe terminal. It submits that the multiplication factors arejustified on the basis of actual nature of work, hardship involved and educational qualification , skills , effect on port productivity . In particular , my attention is invited to the evidence of Shri Hambarde who states that the requirement of engaging external agencies for deriving the multiplication factors was not necesscitated as JNPT is the leading container port in India and the officers involved in preparation of the scheme were working in the subject filed for sufficient time and they have derived the multiplication factors judiciously based on the involvement and the skills of each category of workmen . He urges me to reject the demand of the Unions for upward revision.

28. I now refer to the relevant evidence and certain important responses made by the witnesses during the course of their evidence in cross . In his affidavit Exhibit U -5 , which is treated as evidence in chief, Shri Prashant Ramchandra Bhagat has given as many as one to ten grounds justifying the increase in the multiplication factors . Now, it may be noted here only that Shri Jaikishna Anand Pande in his affidavit Exhibit UA - 4 has given the samegrounds . Same is the case with Shri Santram Nagnath Khavase, who in his affidavit Exhibit UB -5 has given the very same grounds and lastly the witness Shri Jeevan Kamlakar Kadu in his affidavit Exhibit UB - 8 has followed suit. A careful reading of these responses does not throw any light on the issue , namely , whether or not the existing or not the existing multiplying factors are fair and reasonable or otherwise .

29. I now refer to the evidence of Shri Sumitra Rao whose affidavit , as stated earlier , is at Exhibit C - 10 and the same has been treated as his evidence in chief . In his evidence in cross , he has stuck up to the stand taken up by the Company and has not deviated from the same despite his lengthy cross - examination .

[PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii) ] 30. While responding to the question put to him by the Court , Shri M. Sumitra Rao admits that even though he has made a reference to the same of NSIT, he has not produced any official record or records to substantiate the same . At one stage he happened to state : "Right from CMO to the Assistant Engineer level- we framed the present incentive scheme " . Now , this statement rings as ifthe Unions were excluded while framing the present incentive scheme . He was required to admit that unfortunately what he stated gives such an impression . I am of the view that this part of his evidence should not come in the way of making evaluation of his evidence in its totality because it is a fact that there were as many a sixteen meetings between the Management and the Unions when the terms of settlement were discussed . Morever , it is not the case of the Unions that they were notparties to the Settlement Exhibit C- 18 . His evidence coupled with the justification Exhibit C- 9 particularly what isstated in paragraphs A, B, C and D does strengthen the plea ofthe Company that the existing multiplication factors areboth fair and reasonable . To say that his evidence is motivated because he happens to be an ex - officer of the Company is to over- simplify the issue. In fact he is the concerned officer who has personal knowledge regarding the framing of the incentive scheme. He was on the spot and he had the advantage of having day to day experience whole supervising the work of the concerned workman.

31. The next witness is Shri A. K. Hambarde and, as stated earlier , his affidavit Exhibit C- 14 has been treated as his evidence in chief. His prime contention is that since the JNPT is the major Container handling Port in India and the Officers were having sufficient experience in the subject field , no assistance from outside agencies was obtained. He has stood firm to his stand during the course ofhis evidence in cross . And there has been no specific challenge to his prime contention stated above . He has impressed me by his evidence .

32. Evidence of the Company's two witnesses read with thejustification Exhibit C- 9 enables one to hold that what is statedby them is both relevant and important in the context of the multiplication factors . Burden ofproof shifts depending on the nature of the case . In the instant case, while it is for the Unions to establish that the existing multiplication factors are neither fair nor reasonable , it is for the Company to establish that they are both fair and reasonable. In view of this special feature of the case , I have made the observation that the burden of proof shifts.

33. In fact, it is difficult to define the two expressions, namely, ( i) fair and ( ii ) reasonable. Referring to Webster's Distionary, it is possible to say that by " fair" is meantjust , equitable , impartial , unbiased . The expression "reasonable" is capable of meaning that which is agreeable to reason, not absurd, within the limit of reason . In fact , it is an objective expression and its objectivity is to be [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

determined judiciously by the Court . All this does not advance our understanding of the two expressions and onehas to consider them in the light of facts on record . In this context, there is one more aspect for consideration. Evidence on record led by the parties does not help the Arbitrator to comprehend the import of the expression scientific data and/or job evaluation to which a reference has been made during the course of examination of the parties. In the absence of necessary evidence on record at the hands of external agency, one has reason to hold that experience is and should be the guiding principle . It is rightly said that experience is the best teacher and it teaches one more than what the theoretical volume teaches . The concerned workmen were carrying out their duties and the supervisors were supervising their day to day work . The inter- action between the two must have given some guideline to both of them to determine as to what is meant by a scientific data and/orjob evaluation. The arbitrator will certainly bejustified in taking a judicial note of the fact that the practical experience is more important and that it goes a long way in the determination of scientific data and/ or job evaluation . Moreover , the Arbitrator cannot be oblivious of the fact thatthe inter-action between the two and the day to day experience gathered by them was giving results . It is in this back ground that one has to read the various terms in the Settlement Exibit C - 18 bearing in mind that there were many sittings attended by both the parties who discussed the issue under consideration and finally the prime amount could be fixed and the multiplication factors could be determined. It cannot be said that the arrangement thatevolved was chance - arrangement. Certainly, there was application of mind on the part of all the concerned.

34. I have given an anxious thought to the oral as also the documentary evidence on record . Evidence led by the Unions , in my view is neither inspiring nor satisfactory and it does not help them to establish that the present multiplication factors are unfair and unreasonable . They have led evidence without fully understanding the issue before the Tribunal . It appears that they treated the issue on a par with the Charter of Demands . On the other hand , evidence led by the Company at the hands of the two witnesses is cogent , to the point and the same merits to be preferred as it has the character of compelling acceptance . Banking on the same , I hold that the existing multiplication factors are fair and reasonable and record my finding on the issue accordingly. In view of this finding , the latter part of the issue does not survive . It follows from this that the present arrangement in the context of multiplication factors need not be disturbed . It remains the same .

35. To make the long story a short one , the Company wins and the Unions lose in this Reference .

36. However, before I conclude , I wish to make a few observations . I refer to the text of the Settlement ( Exhibit

7035

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 2, 2005/आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

C- 18) . Here the basic arrangement is that there is a prime amount called as X and the multiplication factors called as Y, Y1 , Y2 etc. Both of these are inter- related because they are concerning with amelioration of the individual units of an organic whole. Whether in a concrete instance , prime amount is increased or in the alternative the multiplication factors are increased, the sum total of the benefit accruing to the individual unit of the organic whole will remain unaffected.

37. In the overall context of the dispute I am seized of, I could not consider the issue of giving a better allocation to the concerned workmen . In fact it can be accomplished by reasonably increasing the prime amount. I am unable to increase or decrease the prime amount for want of jurisdiction . My jurisdiction is confined only to the determination of the multiplication factors . Now, the legal position on this score is very clear . The Tribunal is not free to enlarge the scope of the dispute referred to it . It must confine its adjudication to the point/ s specifically mentioned . Thus the scope is limited. It cannot be enlarged. Enlarging the scope will amount to travelling beyond the scope of Reference .

38. I may refer to clause 7.VI of the Settlement (ExhibitC- 18 ) which reads thus: " The Settlement will be reviewed after a period of two years " . Now , the said two years period is already over and the parties , if they so desire, may think of resorting to this enabling provision . There they do get a premise to review the existing Settlement in its entirety and in particular the quantum of theprime amount.

39. That the dispute could not be resolved yesterday does not necessarily mean that it cannot be resolved today or tomorrow. The guideline is and should be : " Do not allow yesterday to sit on today lest the concerned workmen community would lose its tomorrow " . It will be useful to seek mutual dialogue between the Company and the three Unions and this alone can lead to the settlement of the issue .

40. Social justice imperative has constrained me to make the above said observations and the other considerations are the hardships suffered by the concerned workmen as a team and their valuable contribution towards increasing port productivity . These observations are in the nature of loud thinking and it is hoped that the parties to the present dispute will not lend a Nelsons's eye to these observations . It is my carnest plea that these observations may be scriously considered by the disputants because I firmly believe that Management and Labour should be a great family living inunity and harmony.

41.Award accordingly.

RAJABHAU GAWANDE , Arbitrator Thane

Dated: 18th May 2005 7036

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2, 2005/ASADHA 11 , 1927

95,200

81,200

80,500

147,000

478,800

294,000

Total incentive forthe Month

7,000 4,200

4,200

3,500

2,800

7,000

Updatedon28-03-2000

Amountof incentive PMat20 andabove moves/hr

63,250

74,800

63,800

376,200

115,500

231,000

Total incentive forthe Month

5,500 3,300

3,300

2,750

5,500

2,200

2,200 Amountof incentive PMat 18-19.99 moves/hr

189,00

51,750 52,200

61,200

94,500

189,000

307,800 Total incentive forthe Month

1,800

2,250

2,700 1,800

4,500

2,700

4,500

Amountof incentive PMat 16-17.99 moves/hr

42,920

50,320

42,550

77,700

253,080

155,400

Total incentive forthe Month

APPENDIXI

1,480

1,850

3,700

2,220

3,700 2,220 Amountof incentive PMat 14-15.99 moves/hr

37,375

37,700

68,250 44,200

136,500

222,300 Total incentive forthe Month

1,625

3,250 1,950

3,250

1,300

1,950

1,300 Amountof incentive PMat 12-13.99 moves/hr

IncentiveSchemeforTechnicalStaffinContainerTerminal(FinancialImplication)

42 42

34 29

114 No.of employees

0.6

0.4

0.6 0.5

0.4 factor

Multiplying

Atalevelof100%performance

Jr.Engr.(Mant)

Jr.Engr.(Op)-RMQC

Jr.Engr.(Op)

Jr.Engr.(Op) 7037 भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 2, 2005/अषाढ़ 11 , 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

per

Total

27000

month

61200

168000

189000

amount

8000&above

6000

3000123000

4500

3000

2400312000

180059400

1800

300042000

month

Incentive

49980

22050

34300

Total amount per month

100450

137200

154350

7000-7999MT

2450 1960254800

147048510

1470

4900

3675

2450 2450

Incentive pmonth

82000 28000 40800

18000

39600

20800

Total amount per month

126000

112000

6000-6999MT

2000

4000

3000

1600

2000

1200

2000

Incentive pmonth

67650

32670

33660

14850

92400

per month

Total amount

5000-5999MT

990

1650

1320171600

1650103950

3300

165023100

2475

Incentive pmonth

APPENDIXII

57400

27720

78400

12600

88200

28560

per month

Total amount

4000-4999

840

140019600

1400

1120145600

2100

2800

Incentive pmonth

78750

51250

70000

11250

25500

17500

Total amount per month

130000 80-85%=0.5

86-90% 0.6

75-80%=0.4

CFSOperationwithin24hrs.

91&Above=0.7

750

75024750

1875 1250

1000

2500 1250

1250

AvgDish3000-3999

Incentive pmonth

33 34

130

Emplo- yees

No.of

2 1

Proposedincentiveschemeforbulkterminal(Updated16-02-2000withmultiplyingfactorasperexistingpractice)

0.5

0.5 0.5 0.4

0.3 0.3

0.75

Multiply-

ingfactor

Delaymorethanonehouratastreachonaccountofhired/leasedequipment.

Checkers

Category

5-5.59=0.6

7-7.59=0.4

4-4.59 0.7

Eligiblecriteriaforcalculatingincentivebasedontheshipoperationsareasfollows:

6-6.59=0.5

BTCC/Shippingmaintenance/SubStores.AuxillarFacilityetc.

HDD

Tech/AT

DelayforthereasonsstatedbelowshallbedeductedfromthetotalcraneworkinghoursforthepurposeofcalculationofINCENTIVE.

Tech.&AT(r/O)

Tech/A.T.(M)

ICDOperation

Note:(i)Thegrosscraneproductivitypermonthshallbecalculatedbasedontheaveragegrosscraneproductivityofthevesselshandledinthatmonth.

Jr.Engr(R/M)

Jr.Engr.

Jr.Engr.(R/O)

1.Delayduetonon-complianceofcustomformalitiesbytheagentbetweenfirstandlastmove.

1.Forhandling30,000containersandaboveinamonthis100%.

5.Forhandling26,000to26,999containersinamonthis80%.

4.Delayduetoshiftingofvesselfromoneberthtoother.

3. Delayduetoforcedmajeourconditionssuchasinclementweathercondition,mainpowersupplyfailureduetoextraneousreasons,etc.

2.Forhandling29,000to29,999containersinamonthis95%.

3.Forhandling28,000to28,999containersinamonthis90%.

6.Forhandling25,000to25,999containersinamonthis75%.

7.Forhandlingcontainersbelow25,000inamonthis-NIL-.

4.Forhandling27,000to27,999containersinamonthis85%.

7038

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005/ASADHA 11 , 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] 15

14400

1401000

16812000

800

1200

1200-

2400

1500

3000405000

1800

180

11760

330750

1144150

13729800

980

1225

1470

1960

1470

2450

9600

934000

11208000

800

1200

1600

1200

1000

1600

7920

222750

770550

9246600

825

660

990

660

990

1320

1650

1320

6720

653800

7845600

840

700

840 560

560

1400189000

1120

6000

583750

168750

7005000

750

500

625

1250

1000

135

0.4

0.2

0.4 0.5

0.2

0.3

0.25

Throughputofdrybulkthroughmechanicalsystem80000MTorabove100%.

Throughputofdrybulkthroughmechanicalsystem74000MTto75999 MT85%.

Throughputofdrybulkthroughmechanicalsystem76000MTto77999MT90%.

Throughputofdrybulkthroughmechanicalsystembelow70000MT-Nil-.

Throughputofdrybulkthroughmechanicalsystem70000MTto72999МГ75%.

Throughputofdrybulkthroughmechanicalsystem78000MTto79999MT95%.

Throughputofdrybulkthroughmechanicalsystem72000MTto73999MT80%.

AverageBagginginaDay:400MT&above-70%Perforınancelevel.

AverageBagginginaday:1000MT&Above-100%Performancelevel.

AverageBagginginaDay:600MTto799MT-80%Performancelevel.

AverageBagginginaday:800MTto999MT-90%Performancelevel.

6999,7000-7999&8000andabove.

Theaveragedischargeisbasedonthetotaltimetakenfromthestartingofdischargeoperationsuptothecompletionofdischargeoperationsincludingdeckcargoclearing,takingoutpayloader etc.

MachanicalBaggingOprn.satperformancelevelof100%

MachanicalBaggingOprns.atperformancelevelof70%

MachanicalBaggingOprns.atperformancelevelof90%

MachanicalBaggingOrpns.atperformancelevelof80%

Totalfor12months

(4)

Tech.&AT(S/O)

Total

Tech&AT(S/O)

(6)TherewillbeincrementalRatesof30,50,70,90&110PaiserespectivelyforeveryMTincreaseintheaveragedischargerateperdayintheslabsof3000-3999,4000-4999,5000-5999,6000-

Tech&AT(S/O)

(5)Theminimumthroughputofdrybulkcargohandledwiththemechanisedsystempermonthshallbe80.000MTandaboveforachievingtheprimeamount.

(7)Eligibilityforincentive:

Tech&AT(S/O)

(2)Timelostduetomajordetentionswithcompletestoppageofdischargeoprns.intheparticularvessel/mechanicalbaggingsystemformorethanfourhourscontinuouslyinadayduringvessel discharge/baggingduetorain,holiday(nonworking).vesseldelaysandlackofspaceinthesilowillbeexcludedwhilecalculatingaveragedischargeperday.

(3)Theaveragedischargepershipberthdayiscalculatedbasedonthetotaldrybulkcargodischargedfromthevesselscompletedintheparticularmonthbythemechanisedsystemconsidering theindividualberthoccupancyofallthevesselsandthequantityofcargodischargedfromthesevessels.

(1)BaggingOperationsIncentiveforbaggingwillbeconsideredsubjecttominimumthroughputof10000MTMechanicalBaggingpermonth.

Jr.Engr(S/O)

Jr.Engr.(S/O)

Jr.Engr(S/O) 7039 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 2, 2005/अषाढ़ 11 , 1927

Total

50,375

94,900

306,475

ANNEX-III

81314,625

650117,00

73140,950

above

6500

above

1,625 1,300 1,300161,200

20&

incentiveincentive

moves/hr.

permth.permonth

inC/Tat

of8000&

Avg.Disch

&inB/Tat

TotalAmountof

86,870

46.113

147,560

280,543

incentive

permonth

Updatedon16thFeb'00/28thMar'00

74413,388

595107,100

66937,485

5950 1,488 1,190 1,190

incentive

7000-7999

Dischof

permth

&above

moves/hr.&

in C/Tat20

inB/TatAvg.

TotalAmountof

36,813

85,500

223,963

117,800

95069,350

53429,925

475

59410,688

950

4750 1.188

18-19.99

incentiveincentive

6000-6999

Dischof

atAvg.

permthpermonth

moves/hr.

inC/Tat

&inB/T

8,775

TotalAmountof

56,940

30,225

96,720

183,885

incentive

780

975

780

488

43924,570

39070,200

3900

16-17.99

incentive

Dischof

5000-5999

atAvg.

permthpermonth

moves/hr.

inC/Tat

&inB/T

TotalAmountof

7,313

47,450

25,188

80.600

153,238

incentive

650

36620.475

650

406

813

32558.500

3250

14-15.99

incentive

Dischof

4000-4999

atAvg.

permthpermonth

moves/hr.

inC/Tat

&inB/T

Total Amountof

6,469

22,281

41,975 71,300

18.113

51,750

135,556

incentive

IncentiveSchemefortheStaffotherthanCT&BT(FinancialImplication)

575

359

323

288

719

2875

12-13.99

incentive

3000-3999

Dischof

atAvg.

moves/hr.

permthpermonth

inC/Tat

&inB/T

124 228

yees

Emplo

No.ofAmountof

Multiply-

ingfactor

1x0.4x0.50.2

1x0.4x0.5x=0.2

1x0.5x0.50.25

1x0.5x0.5x0.5=0.125

.9x0.5x0.5x0.5=0112

Radiographer/AT

DraughtsmanGr.I

Pharmacists/Clerk/

Asstt./StaffNurse/Lab.

Technician/ Categories

Operator/HindiTransletor/

Fireman

Checkers/Sr.SignalMan/

Theatre AveragePrimeAmount

StatinOfficer

Indoorstaff&PPDDept.

Driver/A.Ts./Subofficers/

Asstt. 0.8x0.5x0.5x0.50.1 180

TelexOptr.Staff

StenoGr.I/Sr.Asstt./

StenoGr.II/Jr.

AuditAsst./Computer

Sister-in-charge/

Totalpermonth

Engg.Services&MarineDept.

Tech/.SignalSupdt./

Cardriver/HindiTypist/

&SignalStn.)

OS/Surveyor/Matron/

JE(Civil)

Jr.Engr./Supervisor(P.C

(Civil)

Jr.SignalMan/DCPO/ 7040

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2, 2005 /ASADHA 11 , 1927

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] 15

101010100000011

Multi-

210,681

plication

6,205,875

Factor (M.F.)as by signedin

0.8

0.9

0.8

56938,106

888888601

00000

0.75

union

0.675

labouragreement

Multi-

0.5

34,882

0.44

54 0.44

0.52

0.34

0.98

0.45

0.35

0.28

0.42

0.86

0.53

192,854

5,680,763

workeddemanded

plicationplication

Multi- outby

FactorasFactoras

thePort

( =j/100)

544

50 45 50 50 1 34 35 36

Total Marks

740403445

27,847521

153,959

4,535,063

555 Sophis-

(Max.

tication/ Speedof Equip.

00000 50000

marks05) 530005

055 Technical

skill (Max.

50000

08550

marks10) 880000

22,864416

126,409

3,723,525

444 ofjob (Max.

Continuity

88854

22258

marks10) 008854

341

000

77777

22222

Effecton

marks10) 1000078

으으으

APPENDIXII

Port

19,053

105,341

producti-

3,102,938

marks10)

vitiy (Max.

55555

Effecton

77777

284

factor

000 Risk (Max

77770 55557

marks10) 10555107

000 16.855

93,186

Skill (Max

2,744,906

50005

43333

000005

252

.53

tion marks10)

500 Qualifi-

required

Education (Max.

50537 58853

marks15)

10 10

549

321

000 Hardship

(Max.

5 55553 5 05550

marks20)

0.087

CalculationofMultiplyingfactorworkedoutonthebasisofmeritsofdifferentcriteria'sfordifferentCategoriesofemployees

Attandant7x0.5x0.5x0.5=

Mazdoor/Zerox

Report JamadarS.Gr./

Operator/Hospital

Grandtotalperannum

levelof100%

Peon/Jamadar/

Totalpermonth

No.

B.MaintenanceStaff

3.Checker

C.(ICD&CFS)OperationStaffatthe

5.Checker(Maint.)

Sr.Particulars/category

1.Jr.Engr.

2.Tech.

2.Tech.(Operation)

D.Vessel/ICDPlanning/Stats/

1.Jr.Engr.(Op.)-RMQC

3.A.T.s(Maint.)

4.Drivers(Maint.)

3.Checker(Operation)

1.Jr.Engr.(Maint.)

6.Drivers(Operation)

5.A.T.s(Operation)

5.Drivers(Operation)

A.ShipOperationstaff

2.Tech.(Maint.)

1.Jr.Engr.(Op.)

4.A.T.s(Operation)

2.Jr.Engr.(OP.)-RTGC

3.Tech.(Operation)

4.Checker(Operation).

7041 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 2, 2005/ आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

SCHEDULE

श्रम और रोजगार मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली, 7 जून , 2005

"KyaColliery Sharmik Sangh ki Mang ke Shri Bistu Mahato Evam Suchi Mey Diya Gaye Anya 18 Karmkaro ko Mudidih Colliery , Bharat Coking Coal Limited ka. Niyamita Karmkar Mana Jaya Uchit Evam Naya Sangat Hai ? Yadi ha to ukt Karmkar kis rahat key patra hai tatha kisTarikh Sey?"

2. Case of the concerned workmen according to written statement submitted by the sponsoring union on their behalf in brief is as follows:-

का.आ. 2361.-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 82/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-06-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-20012/619 /97- आई आर ( सी-1 ) ]

एन. पी. केशवन, डैस्क अधिकारी

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi , the 7th June , 2005

The sponsoring union submitted that the management of Mudidih Colliery Area No. V engaged the concernedworkmen for supplying Free Fuel Coal by Cart Loading from the colliery siding ofthe colliery for domestic purpose to the officers , staff and other Executives of the Colliery and Area office in their Bunglow , Quarters of Sijua andMudih Colliery in the year 1980 .

S.O. 2361. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 82/ 2001 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- 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 3-6-2005.

[No. L - 20012/ 619/ 97 - IR ( C- I) ] N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO . 2) AT DHANBAD

PRESENT :

SHRI B. BISWAS , PresidingOfficer

Inthe matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1) (d) ofthe I.D. Act, 1947

REFERENCE NO . 82 OF 2001

PARTIES:

Employers in relation to the management of M/ s . BCCL and theirworkman.

APPEARANCES:

Onbehalf of the workman : Mr. S. N. Goswami ,

Advocate .

Onbehalf of the employers : Mr. H. Nath , Advocate.

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal .

Dated, Dhanbad , the 18th May , 2005.

AWARD

They submitted that existing system of supplying of Free Fuel Coal for domestic purpose of the employees/ staff/officers of the colliery/establishment under social security/facilities was available under Chapter XI since implementation of NCWA -II under clause 11.2.1 and this existing system is in continuous , permanent and perennial in nature . Therefore as per job description and categorisation of Coal Employees in Cat . I the concerned workmen ought to have been designated at " FUEL COAL SUPPLIER MAZDOOR " They submitted that the concerned workmen have beerforming theirjob as per job assignment since 1980 der direct control and supervision of the officials of the management continuously . The concerned workmen in course of rendering their services have put attendance for more than 240 days in each calendar since 1980. The concerned workmen used to supply coal to the residence/Bunglow/ quarters of the Officers/staff/workers/employees for their domestic use and they used to load coal on bullock - cart according to the directions of Loading Clerk/ Loading Supervisor. In rendering such services the concerned workmen used to note their attendance before the Attendance Clerk and they used to draw wages from the management as per their hazira chart . It has been submitted bythe sponsoring union that the concerned workmen were directly engaged by the management and they used to render their services under direct supervision and control of the officials of the management and not under any contractor . Accordingly they submitted several representation for regularisation of the concerned workmen as " FUEL COAL SUPPLIER MAZDOOR" . But to no effect, though management provided amenities , facilities to them like other permanent employees of the colliery and allowed tobuild up their hutments within the vicinity and precinct ofthe colliery and allowed them to enjoy drinking water , fuel coal , electricity , cow shed etc .. They disclosed that had there not been any relationship of Master and servant 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 - 20012/619/ 97 - IR (C- I) , dated the 15th March, 2001 .

7042

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 2 , 2005 /ASADHA 11 , 1927

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] betweenthe management and the concerned workmen they would notprovide all those facilities to them. They alleged thatinspite of rendering all facilities as the management refused to regularise them as Fuel Coal Supplier Mazdoor , they raised an industrial dispute before the ALC ( C) , Dhanbad for conciliation which ultimately resulted reference to this Tribunal . The sponsoring union accordingly submitted prayer to pass award directing the management to regularise the concerned workmen as departmental workmen with pay scale of Cat.I and other consequential benefits with effect from 1980.

bullocks and builock carts for the purpose of transporting coalto theofficers and staff as per requirement and sanction and as such question of engagement of the concerned workmen on the jobs relatingto maintenance of the bullock carts and feeding the bullocks and looking after the bullocks by washing cleaning etc. never arose . They submitted further that neither they had any control over the workmen of the bullock cart owners nor they worked under their control and supervision . They are out and out workmen of the bullock cart owners and for which they do not have any claim for their regularisation as Cat.I Mazdoor . Accordingly, they submitted prayer to pass Award rejecting the claim of the concerned workmen.

4. POINTS TO BE DECIDED

fact that they ever selected and recruited the concerned

"Whether the claim of Colliery Shramik Sangh that Sri Bistu Mahato and 18 others named in the annexure ( list enclosed) should be treated as regular workmen, is legal and justified? If yes , to what relief the concerned workmen are entitled and from what date ?"

5. FINDING WITH REASONS

and sanction . Moreover , such transportation and distribution of coal through bullock carts are not regular

job but are carried on once in a week or once in two weeks . For the rest of the period the bullock carts are utilised for

The sponsoring union with a view to substantiate their claim examined two witnesses as WW- 1 and WW- 2. On the contrary management also in support of their claim examined one witness as MW - 1 . WW - 1 who is one of the. concerned workman during his evidence disclosed that they were engaged by the management in the year 1980 to load coal in the bullock cartfrom colliery siding and to unload coals to the quarters of different workmen accordingto list. He submitted that from 1980 till 9-12-95 they performed their duties in this way . He also disclosed that they used to load coal in the bullock carts under supervision of the loading supervisor and loading Munshi used to record their Hazira. He further disclosed that he used to draw wages from colliery counter. In support of their claim he relied on the Wagesheets which during his evidence was marked as Ext . W- 1 . It is his contention that as the management refused to regularise them in work they through the sponsoring union raised industrial dispute . WW - 2 during his evidence corroborated the facts disclosed by WW - 1 in course of his evidence. However , this witness disclosed that the concerned workmen worked directly under the management from 1980 to 1990 continuously . On the contrary MW- 1 during his evidence disclosed that while he was posted at Mudidih Colliery duringthe period from 1973 to 1988 management used to supply free coal to all the staff through contractors engaged by them. He disclosed that for supply of coal management used to pay Rs . 5 per bullock cart loaded with coal. Contractor through their own men used to supply the said coal . He categorically, during his evidence denied the claim of the sponsoring union that the concerned workmen were engaged by the management for supply of coal to the quarters of the workers and officers . It is the 3. Management on the contrary after filing Written Statement-cum - rejoinder have denied all the claims and allegations which the sponsoring union asserted in their Written Statement . They submitted that no employer- employee relationship existed between the management and the concerned workmen any day. They denied the workmen as Mazdoor for supply of free coal to their staff and officers for domestic use . Neither their names were enrolled in the Form B Register nor they issued any I.D. Card to them. They categorically denied the fact about the issuance of any work order to the concerned persons for carrying coal on the baskets on their heads and shoulders and supplying the fuel coal at the residence of officers and staff . As they never deployed them to perform such job question of payment of their wages by them never arose . They submitted that they awarded contract to different bullock cart owners at different periods for transporting coal from the coal depot to the residence of officers and staff and to supply the coal to them as per the sanctioned quantity . The contractors received payments for transporting the fuel coal and supplying the same at the residence of the officers and staff on the agreed rate. Said contractors as were local residents they purchased bullocks and bullock carts by investing their own money and they constructed the sheds for keeping the bullocks and feeding them with necessary fodders and other materials . They submitted that the bullock cart owners used to carry on transport business by transporting various goods , materials , foodgrains etc. from the railway station to the shop owners or to other persons of the locality and they also used to engage themselves in carrying on the business of transporting coal from the depot to the residence of the officers and staff of Mudidih Colliery for its distribution according to the requirement transporting jobs of different persons in the locality . The concerned workmen are the workmen of the bullock cart owners and accordingly they cannot place their demand to be treated as workmen of the management . They submitted that the management never purchased the 7043 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 2 , 2005/आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

them or not. In course of hearing sponsoring union has failed to produce a single scrap of paper excepting the document marked as Ext . W- 1 to show that the concerned workmen were engaged by the management and they continuously worked under them from 1980 to 1995. The pertinent question in relation to the demand of the concerned workman comes in though there is no whisper in the Written Statement of the sponsoring union actually who used to supply bullock carts and bullocks for the purpose of loading coal in the bullock carts from the coal depot and transportation of the same to the quarters of the officers and workmen as per requisition . There is no iota of evidence that it was the management who was the owner of those bullock carts and bullocks for loading and supply of coal and for operation of those bullock carts they engaged the concerned workmen . The sponsoring union in course of hearing has failed to produce any cogent paper to show that management was the owner of those bullock carts and bullocks they used for supply of coal through the concerned workmen. It is unbelievable to consider that continuously for a period of 15 years the concernedworkman worked under the management being engagedby them but the management neither issued any wageslip to them nor opened any Provident Fund account . Ifthey were considered as regular worker in that case their names ought to have been recorded in the Form B Register along with other particulars for future guidance . It has been specifically mentioned by the management that as no employer employee relationship ever grew up there was no scope to record their names with other particulars in the Form B Register . There was also no scope to issue any wageslips , I.D. Card or to open Provident Fund account number for their future benefit . As the concerned workmen claimed that they were the direct employees of the management onus automatically shifted on the sponsoring union to establish such claim. No doubt the sponsoring union in course of hearing examined two witnesses on their part but considering evidence of these two witnesses I have failed to find out any such material ingredient relying on which they veracity of the claim of the sponsoring union could be relied on . In view of the facts and circumstances discussed above I , therefore , hold that the concerned workmen are not entitled to get any relief. In the result , the following Award is rendered :-

"The claim of Colliery Shramik Sangh that Sri Bistu Mahato and 18 others named in the annexure ( list enclosed) should be treated as regular workman is not legal and justified. Consequently , the concerned workmen are not entitled to get any relief. "

B. BISWAS , Presiding Officer specific contention of the management that no employer- employee relationship ever existed between them and the concerned wokrmen . Neither they were selected nor recruited by the management and nor their names were enrolled in the Form B Register . Accordingly question of issuance of I.D. Card to them never arose . As they were not the workmen appointed by them , they disclosed that question of issuance of letter of appointment or issuance of pay slip to enable them to receive wages from the pay counter of the colliery never arose . It is their contention thatthey used to award contract to different bullock cart owners for different periods for transporting coal from the coal depot to the residence of officers and staff and to supply the coal to them as per the sanctioned quantity in respect of different persons . Against supply of coal the contractors used to receive payment from the management . During evidence , WW - 1 admitted that neither they received any letter of appointment from the management nor management issued any I.D. Card to them . He also admitted that they never received any wageslip from the management for the work done by them . No Provident Fund account was also opened in their favour . He further admitted that they do not have any sort of paper to show thatthey worked under the management continuously from 1980 to 1995 excepting the wagesheet marked as Ext . W- 1 . I have carefully considered the wagesheet Ext . W- 1 . From this wagesheet it cannot be ascertained at all if the same was maintained in the official capacity of the management and a copy of which was handed over to the workman . The wagesheet marked as Ext . W - 1 is for the week ending 3-5-1985 . Neither it bears any signature of the officials of the management nor office seal . Accordingly relying on the wagesheet for the week ending 3-5-1985 there is no scope to arrive into conclusion that the concerned workmen received wages from the management against the work performed by them as per this wagesheet . It is the specific claim of the management that no employer- employce relationship ever created in between the concerned workmen and the management . It is their further contention that for supply of coal to the officers and staff which they are entitled as per NCWA they used to give contract to the contractors for the same and those contractors with the help of their own men used to load coal in the bullock carts and thereafter they used to suppply coal to the workers and the officers on the basis of requisition slip issued by the management . There is no dispute to hold that as per provision of NCWA management used to supply coal to their officers and staff. There is also no dispute to hold that those officers and staffused to receive coal as per requisition at their quarters . Now the question is whether the concerned workmen being engaged by the management used to supply coal to 7044

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005/ASADHA 11 , 1927

Annexure

नाम

1. बड़ा बिंसतू महती

2. मे. इसहाक अन्सारी

3. सेख मैनु दास

4. रीकू राम

5. मे . अमीन अन्सारी

6. रबिकुमार बेलदार

7. चन्द्रकेश भर

8. अलाउदीन अन्सारी

9. राजेश राय

10. रमेश

11. सदानन्द

12. श्याम बिहारी

13. रामचन्द्र

14. कइम मियां

15. जियाउल हसन

16. सम्भ

17. मे. असलम अन्सारी

18. बसंत

19. विरेन्दर रजवार

नई दिल्ली, 7 जून, 2005

का.आ. 2362.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सी सी एल के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय, धनबाद II के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 13/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-06-2005 कोप्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं . एल-20012/176/2003- आईआर( सी- I ) ] एन. पी. केशवन, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 7th June , 2005

S.O. 2362. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 13/ 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

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)] to the management of CCL and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 3-6-2005.

[No. L -20012/176/ 2003 - IR ( C -I) ] N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

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) of the I.D. Act. , 1947 Reference No. 13 of 2004

Parties:

Employers in relation to the management of Rajhara Area of M/s. CCL and their workmen .

Appearances:

Onbehalf of the employers : Mr. D. K. Verma, Ld . Advocate .

Onbehalf of the workmen : None

State : Jharkhand

Industry: Coal Dated, Dhanbad, the 18th May , 2005

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 -20012/176/2003 - IR ( C - I) , dated the 17-12-2003 .

SCHEDULE

"Whether the demands of the Rajhara Colliery Mazdoor Sangh from the management of CCL Rajhara Area ( 1 ) for payment of double the normal wages for the extra work done by wagon loaders viz . Loading of 7.25 tonnes as against their prescribed workload of 4.50 tonnes ; and (2) for reviving the practice ofgiving 5 attendances for loading a truck of 10 tonnes by two workmen is just and fair ? If so , to what relief are the workmen concerned entitled ?" 2. The case of the sponsoring union according to Written Statement submitted by them is as follows : - The sponsoring union submitted that prior to formation of North Karmpara Area the system of filling the wagon box were done through eight casual wagon loaders . They disclosed that when 2 loaders would fill up the trucks the management used to note five attendance in place of 2 attendance because the workers used to collectbest coal from the siding and load in the truck of10 tonnes . They disclosed that this system of noting extra 7045 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 2, 2005/ आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

practice ofgiving 5 attendances for loading a truck of 10 tonnes by two workmen is just and fair ? If so , to what relief are the workmen concerned entitled ?"

FINDINGS WITH REASON

5. It transpires from the record that in spite of giving several opportunity the sponsoring union did not consider necessary to adduce any evidence either oral or documentary to substantiate their claim . Management also did not consider necessary to adduce any evidence on theirpart.

Asperwritten statement it is the contention of the sponsoring union that management since long years used to note five attendance for loading of coal in a truck of 10 tonnes by two workmen instead of noting two attendance . They alleged that management arbitrarily stopped that privilage to the workmen who since long years enjoyed.

attendance started from 1983. After formation of Rajhara Area in the year 1988 which consisted ofRajhara Colliery , HutarColliery, Gore Magnetite Project and Tetariya Khand. The same system was followed . They alleged that being aggreived by the complaint case filed before Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Daltanganj , General Manager S. R. Pandey ofRajhara Area in collusion with Head Quarters tobreak the backbone of the wagon loaders not only issued illegal and biased orders but also refused to deploy wagon loaders for loading coals who used to be deployed regularly. Instead management started engaging villagers to load trucks and wagons. They accordingly have placed their demand to pay the wages double the normal wages for extra work done by wagon loaders for loading wagons having 58 tonnes capacity by eight wagon loaders . They further submitted that illegal stoppage of giving five attendance for loading of truck of ten tones capacity by two loaders should be renewed .

3. Management on the contrary after filing written statement - cum-rejoinder have denied all the claims & allegations which the sponsoring union asserted in their written statement .

They submitted that demand of the union for payment of double the normal wage for extra work done bywagon loaders viz . loading of 7.25 tonnes as against their prescribed workload of 4.50 tonnes is neither legal nor justified and against the provision of NCWA - VI . In fact piece rated workers are entitled to draw wages on pro- ratabasis for doing extra work beyond the prescribed work load of4.50 tonnes as per NCWA -VI .

Similarly it is their further claim that management used to deploy eight workmen for loading of wagon having 58 tonnes capacity . As per norms a workman is liable to load 4.50 tonnes of coal in the wagon . They disclosed that a workman is entitled to get double the wages for his loading 7.25 tonnes of coal but that too management have denied to pay. On the contrary, management referring NCWA - VI submitted that a workman is eligible to get extra wages on prorata basis for loading of coal excess to that of the required quantity which he is liable to load as piece rated worker .And in support of that claim they relied on para 3: 4: 1 as special provision for payment of wages if a workman works excess of the prescribed work load . They submitted thatas per the said provision a piece rated worker shall be paid prorata increase in the basic piece rate as well as special dearness allowance and variable dearness allowance .

Disclosing this fact they submitted that the demand which the sponsoring union placed is against the provision ofNCWA - VI . In spite of getting ample opportunity the sponsoring union have failed to produce a single scrap of paperin support of their claim .

They submitted that in chapter III of NCWA VI the wage rate, work norms etc. of piece rated workers have been mentioned. In para 3 : 4 : 1 , special provision for payment ofwages if a workman works in excess of the prescribed work load has been made out . As per the said provision apiece rated worker shall be paid prorata increase inthe basicpiece rate as well as special dearness allowance and variable dearness allowance .

They disclosed that NCWA - VI is an agreement between all recognised unions and the managements and the same is binding to all workmen as well as management ofCoalIndustry.

Accordingly , management submitted that as the demand of the sponsoring union is a state demand they are not entitled to get any relief.

4. POINTS TO BE DECIDED

Itis to be borne into mind that facts disclosed in the written statement cannot be considered as substantive piece of evidence until and unless it is substantiated by cogent evidence . As the sponsoring union have lamentably failed to substantiate their claim by adducing cogent evidence just relying on the facts disclosed in the written statement there is no scope to uphold their contention particularly when the provision laid down in NCWA - VI as mentioned above speaks contrary to their claim.

According, the demand of the sponsoring union can not be acceeded to .

Inthe result the following award is rendered:

"That the demands of the Rajhara Colliery Mazdoor Sangh from the management of CCL Rajhara Area 7046

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2, 2005/ASADHA 11 , 1927

(1) for payment of double the normal wages for the extra work done by wagon loaders viz . Loading of 7.25 tonnes as against their prescribed workload of 4.50 tonnes; and (2 ) for reviving the practice ofgiving 5attendances in place of 2 attendances for loading a truck of 10 tonnes by two workmen is notjust and fair.

Accordingly, the concerned workmen are not entitled toget any relief.

B. BISWAS, PresidingOfficer नईदिल्ली, 7 जून, 2005

का.आ. 2363.- 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 139/99 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-6-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-20012/324/98- आई आर ( सी-1 ) ]

एन. पी. केशवन, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 7th June , 2005

S.O. 2363. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 139/99) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Dhanbad - II now as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of BCCL and their workman, which was receivedby the Central Government on 3-6-2005 .

[No. L-20012/324/98 - IR (C -I) ]

N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

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) ofthe I. D. Act , 1947

REFERENCE NO . 139 OF 1999.

PARTIES:

Employers in relation to the management ofM/s . BCCL and their workman.

APPEARANCES :

Onbehalf of the workman : None

Mr. B.M. Prasad .

Onbehalf ofthe employers :

Advocate.

State: Jharkhand

: Industry: Coal Dated, Dhanbad , the 19th May , 2005

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii )]

AWARD

TheGovt. of India , Ministry of Labour, in exercise of thepowers 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 - 20012/324/ 98 -IR (C-I) , dated, the 22nd February , 1998.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Laikdih Deep Colliery under C. V. Area ofBCCL in dismissing Sri Khera Roy U.G. Loader (B. Form No. 2347) w.e.f. 15-3-96 is justified ? Ifnot, what relief the workman is entitled?

2. The case of the concerned workman according to Written Statement , submitted by the sponsoring Union in briefisas follows :-

The sponsoring union submitted that the concerned workmanwas underground loader in Laikdih Deep Colliery. They submitted that owing to his illness it was not possible on the part of the concerned workman to attend to his duties and the said matter was duly reported to the management . After recovery when he came to his place of work with a view to resume his duty management issued him a letter of dismissal under signature of Agent vide letter No. BCCL / 1202/96/398 dt . 15-3-96. They alleged that management passed that order of dismissal without holding domestic enquiry as well as without knowledge of the concerned workman . Accordingly they submitted that the said order of dismissal was not only arbitrary but also absolutely illegal in the eye of law , After that order of dismissal the concerned workman submitted the representation with prayer for reinstatement but as it was refused he raised an industrial dispute through the sponsoring union before the ADC(C) for conciliation which ultimately resulted reference to this Tribunal for adjudication . The sponsoring union submitted prayer to pass Award directing the management to reinstate the concerned workman in his service with back wages and other consequantial relief from the date of his dismissal .

3. Management on the contrary after filing Written Statement- cum -rejoinder have denied all the claims and allegations which the sponsoring union asserted in their written statement submitted on behalf of the concerned workman. They submitted that the concerned workman wasunderground loader at Laikdih Deep Colliery . They further disclosed that the developed the habit of absenting himself from duty without information and without permission and also without showing satisfactory cause . During the year 1992, 1993 and upto 13-3-94 he worked for 79 days , 109 days and 28 days respectively . From 14-3-94 again he started absenting himself fromduty without giving any intimation or taking prior permission from the management . As a result on 7-3-95 for committing misconduct on the ground of [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

absentism they issued chargesheet to the concerned workman which was sent to his home address by Regd . Post A/D . The concerned workman as did not consider necessary to submit reply to the chargesheet, disciplinary authority decided to hold domestic enquiry against him and accordingly appointed Enquiry Officer . The enquiry officer after assuming the charge of enquiry also issued notice to the concerned workman repeatedly but to no effect . Thereafter the Enquiry Officer was compelled to proceed with the hearing of the enquiry proceeding exparte and submitted report after completion ofhearing of that enquiry proceeding , The disciplinary authority thereafter issued a noticedt . 7-2-96 enclosing therewith copies of the enquiry proceeding papers and enquiry report at his home address by Regd. Post A/D . In spite of sending all those papers the concerned workman did not submit any representation against the finding of the enquiry officer . Accordingly Disciplinary Authority after considering all aspects including his past conduct issued the order of dismissal by letter dt . 15-3-96 against him. They submitted that the Disciplinary Authority neither took any arbitrary decision nor committed any illegality in dismissing the concerned workman from service . Accordingly , they submitted prayer to pass Award rejecting the claim of the concerned workmen.

4. POINTS TO BE DECIDED

"Whether the action of the management of Laikdih Deep Colliery under C.V. Area of BCCL in dismissing Sri Khera Roy U.G. Loader (B. Form No. 2347) w.e.f. 15-3-96 is justified ? If not , what relief the workman is entitled ? "

5. FINDING WITH REASONS

It transpires from the record that before taking up hearing of this case on merit it was taken into consideration whether domestic enquiry held against the concerned workman was fair, proper and in accordance with the principle of natural justice or not. It is seen that the said isssue on preliminary point was disposed of by this Tribunal vide order No. 19 dt . 3-1-2005 in favour of the management . Therefore , now the point for consideration is whether the management have been able to substantiate the charge brought against the concerned workman and if so whether the concerned workman is entitled to get any relief under Section 11A of the I.D. Act . , 1947 .

In course of evidence of MW-1 the chargesheet issued against the concerned workman was marked as Ext. M- 1 . From the chargesheet it transpires that the same was issued on the allegation of committing misconduct for unauthorised absence of the concerned workman from 14-3-94 to 6-3-95 . Considering evidence of MW - 1 there is no dispute to hold that the concerned workman did not submit any reply to the chargesheet . It also transpires 1855 GI/05-51

7047

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 2, 2005/आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

clearly from the materials on record that in spite of issuance ofrepeated notices the concerned workman did not appear with a view to face the enquiry proceedings . The enquiry papers if looked into will expose clearly which ventures the Enquiry Officer took to serve notices upon the concerned workman for causing appearance of the concerned workman in course of enquiry proceeding. As the ventures taken by the Enquiry Officer in that regard went fruitless he took up hearing of the enquiry proceeding exparteand after completion ofhearing submitted his report to the Disciplinary authority which during evidence of MW- 1 was marked as Ext. M-8 . It is the contention of the management that the enquiry report and proceeding papers also were sent to the concerned workman by Regd . Post but the same was returned back with the comments of the Postal Peon " Refused " . The envelope containing enquiry report during evidence was marked as Ext . M -8 / 1 . As the concerned workman refused to accept the enquiry report which sent by the Agent by Regd. Post with A/D this should be considered as valid service . It is seen that knowing fully well of the enquiry proceeding matter the concerned workman did not consider necessary to submit his explanation in support of his claim if any.

It is seen that the concerned workman previous to this incident was also in the habit of remaining himself absent from duty without assigning any sufficient cause and also without obtaining any permission from the managment . In the instant case the concerned workman remained himself absent for about one year continuously and without giving any intimation or taking prior permission from the management . After careful consideration of all the facts circumstance . I find sufficient reason to hold that the management have been able to substantiate the charge of misconduct against the concerned workman . In course hearing the order of dismissal issued against the concerned workman was marked as Ext . M-9 .

Now the point for consideration is if there is any scope to review that order of dismissal relying on the provision as laid down under Section 11A of the I.D. Act . , 1947. It is admitted fact that the concerned workman was underground loader at Laikdih Deep Colliery. There is also no dispute to hold that for committing misconduct on the ground of absentism management issued chargesheet against the concerned workman and thereafter conducted domestic enquiry against him through the Enquiry Officer. During enquiry proceeding it exposed that the concerned workman was in the habit of remaining himself absent from duty without giving any information or taking prior permission from the management . The contention of the management is that during 1992, 1993 and upto 13th March , 1994 he put his attendance for 79 days , 109 days and 28 days respectively and thereafter with effect from 14-3-94 he continuously started remaining himself 7048

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2 , 2005 /ASADHA 11 , 1927

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii ) ]

Khera Roy U.G. Loader (B , Form No. 2347) w.e.f. 15-3-96 is justified. Consequently, the concerned workman is not entitled to get any relief.

B. BISWAS, PresidingOfficer

नई दिल्ली, 7 जून, 2005

का.आ. 2364.-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 259/99 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3- 06-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-20012/466/98- आई आर ( सी- I ) ]

एन. पी. केशवन, डैस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 7th June , 2005

S.O. 2364 -In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 259/99) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal /Labour Court Dhanbad II now as shown in the Annexure , in industrial dispute between the employers in relation to themanagement of BCCL and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 3-6-2005.

[No. L-20012/466/98 - IR (C-I) ] N.P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

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. 259 OF 1999

PARTIES:

Employers in relation to the management ofLohapatti Colliery ofM/s . BCCL and their workman.

APPEARANCES :

Onbehalf of the workman

On behalf of the employers : None Mr. H. Nath , Advocate .

absent from duty without giving any intimation or taking priorpermission from the management and for which management was compelled to issue chargesheet to him dt. 7-3-95 . Therefore , it transpires clearly that management issued chargesheet for committing misconduct on the ground of absentism after the concerned workman remained himself absent for about one year continuously . It is the contention of the sponsoring union that as the concerned workman was lying seriously ill it was not possible for him to attend to his duty and for which due intimation was given to the management , but managment illegally and arbitrarily ignoring that fact dismissed him from service when he came to his place of work with a view to resume his duties: It is really curious to note that in course of hearing before this Tribunal the sponsoring union did not consider necessary to produce a single scrap of paper to show that actually the concerned workman was lying ill and for which it was not possible on his part to attendto his duty . They also have failed to produce a single scrap of paper to show that due intimation was given to the management . Therefore, there is sufficient reason to believe that plea taken by the sponsoring union is far from satisfactory and for which there is no scope to give any importance to that claim . On the contrary considering materials paper on record it has been established that conduct of the concerned warkman relating to his attendance in duty for the previous years was absolutely bad. In the instant case actually for about a year the concerned workman remained himself absent from duty and did not consider necessary to given any intimation to the management about the reason of such absence . Gesture of the concerned workman if is taken into consideration will expose clearly that he considered the place of his employment as of his Zamindari and accrued right to enjoy his service as of his wishes and choice . The concerned workman was so much adamant that even when copies of enquiry proceeding and other enquiry papers were sent to him by Regd. Post with A/D he refused to accept the same . Even he did not consider necessary to assign any reason . To that effect. After thatorder of dismissal issued by the management the sponsoring union came forward and raised industrial dispute to shield the interest of the workman by making someallegations and aspersions against the management not being supported by any sufficient cause . Accorndingly after careful consideration of all the facts and circumstances I hold that the order of dismissal issued against the concerned workman by the management was absolutely justified and there is no scope at all to review that order of dismissal . Accordingly the concerned workman is not entitled to get any relief. Inthe result , the following Award is rendered.

State: Jharkhand

Industry: Coal/ "The action of the management of Laikdih Deep Collieryunder C.V. Area of BCCL in dismissing Shri

Dated, Dhanbad, the 24th May, 2005.

7049 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 2, 2005/ आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

AWARD

3. It transpires from the record that inspite of getting ample opportunity neither the sponsoring union nor the concerned workman filed any Written Statement in support ofthe Industrial Dispute raised by him for which the instant reference case was taken up for exparte hearing .

4. POINTS TO BE DECIDED

TheGovt . of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the 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/ 466/ 98 - IR ( C- I) , dated the 4th June, 1999.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action to dismiss Shri Ishwar Singh , Driver from service by the management of Lohapatty Colliery of M/ s . BCCL and non -payment of subsistence allowance is justified? If not to what relief the concerned workman is entitled ? "

FINDING WITH REASONS "Whether the action to dismiss Shri Ishwar Singh , Driver from service by the management ofLohapatty Colliery of M/ s . BCCL and non -payment of subsistence allowance is justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to ? "

2. The case of the management according to Written Statement submitted by them in brief is as follows :-

Before taking up hearing of this 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 natural justice . It transpires from the record that the said issue on preliminary point was disposed of vide Order No. 13 dt. 17-5-2005 in favour of the management .

They submitted that the concemed workman , a driver was on 3rd Shift duty on 30-11-1996 . They disclosed that while he was engaged in driving the truck bearing Number BHN - 8624 dashed against a tree near Muchraidih resulting serious damage to that truck which involved a loss of Rs. 50,000/- .

Now the point for consideration is if the management havebeen able to substantiate the charge brought against the concerned workman and if so whether he is entitled to get any relief U/ S . 11 -A of the I.D. Act .

They alleged that as the said accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the said truck by the concerned workman a chargesheet vide letter No. LC /CS / 96 / 3623 dt. 2-12-96 was issued to him under clause 26-1-15 and 26-1-2 of the Certified Standing Orders applicable to the employees of the Company. The concerned workman on receipt of the said chargesheet submitted his reply but as the said reply was not satisfactory the Disciplinary Authority decided to hold domestic enquiry against him and appointed Enquiry Officer. The said Enquiry Officer in course of hearing enquiry preceeding extended full opportunity to the concernedworkman to defend his case. During hearing they submitted that the concerned workman did not raise any question in the manner and way the Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry against him. They submitted that the said Enquiry Officer after conducting domestic enquiry submitted his report holding the concerned workman guilty to the charge brought against him.

Considering the evidence of MW- 1 & also materials on record there is no dispute to hold that the concerned workmanwas a driver posted at Lohapatty Colliery. It is the contention of the management that on 30-11-96 the concernedworkman was on 3rd shift duty and in course ofhis said duty while he was engaged in driving, Truck No.BHN-3624 dashed against a tree at Muchraidih. They alleged that the said accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the said Truck by the concerned workman. They further alleged that due to said accident not only the said truck was damaged badly but also it incurred a loss of Rs . 50,000/- . They disclosed that as the concerned workman committed such miscondnuct under clause 20-1-15 and 26-1-2 of the Certified Standing Order applicable to the workman of the management a chargesheet bearing No. LC/CS/96/3623 dt . 2-12-96 was issued to him . The copy of the said chargesheet during evidence ofMW - 1 was marked as Ext . M-2 . After receipt ofthe said chargesheet the concerned workman submitted his reply which was also marked as Ext . M -3 . The reply was given by the concerned workman on 6-12-96 . In his replyhe disclosed that on 1-12-96 driving his truck while hewas preceeding to Area Office reached of at his place of occurance suddenly he faced a woman with three children was trying to cross the road from right to left direction. At that time a private car came to the spot from Mohuda side and as a result the situation went beyond his control and the truck dashed against a road side tree. Disclosing this fact he submitted the said accident did The Disciplinary Authority thereafter , with the approval of the Competent Authority awarded him punishment and he was reverted back to the post of Helper/Khalasi and placed in Category II w.e.f. 31-7-97 . It is the specific claim of the management that they did not dismiss the concerned workman from service as per reference. They further submitted that the Disciplinary Authority neither took any arbitrary decision nor committed any illegality in reverting him back to the post ofKhalasi/Helper in Cat . II as he was found guilty to the charge brought against him.

7050

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2, 2005/ASADHA 11 , 1927

[PART II- SEC. 3 (ii) ] not take place for his rash and negligent driving but to save the lives of some persons .

aver the accident in question and in that case the said truckwould not sustain serious damage and automatically question of sustaining loss would not arise . It transpires from the record that after submitting the enquiry report the Disciplinary Authority considering the same and incident inflicted no severe punishment like order of dismissal but only issued order for his demotion to the postofHelper/Khalasi.

6. Now the point for consideration is whether the concerned workman is entitled to get any relief U/ s . 11A ofthe I.D. Act , 1947. Section 11A of the I.D. Act , 1947 speaks asfollows:-

"Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referredto a Labour Court , Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and . in the course of 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 on such 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 case may require. "

The schedule to the order of reference which was received from the Ministry is as follows:-

"Whether the action to dismiss Shri Ishwar Singh Driverfrom service by the management ofLohapatty Colliery , M/ s . BCCL and non - payment of subsistence allowance is justified? If not, to what reliefthe concerned workman is entitled to ? "

According to the schedule of the order of reference the concerned workman was dismissed from his service and that is why answer is required to be given whether thatorder of dismissal issued by the management was justified or not ? From the record it transpires that the concerned workman was not at all dismissed from his service, he was only demoted to the post of Helper/Khalasi fromthepost of Driver as punishment. Therefore, there is no scope to answer whether the order of dismissal issued by the management was justified or not ?. In the circumstances , there is also no scope to review the punishment of demotion in service imposed upon the concerned workman U / s , 11A of the I.D. Act . , 1947. In the result, the following Award is rendered:-

"The action of the management to issue order of demotion against the concerned workman Shri Ishwar Singh, Driver ( not order of dismissal as mentioned in the order of reference) to the post of Khalasi /Helper was justified . Consequently , the concerned workman is not entitled to get any relief. "

B. BISWAS , Presiding Officer It is seen that inspite of the said fatal accident the concerned workman did not personally give any intimation to the management. On the contrary disclose that he intimated the matter to Madan Napit for report to the management . To uphold his contention he did not consider necessary to examine that person as witness during hearing of the enquiry proceeding . Therefore , veracity of this fact cannot be relied on . From his reply there is no whisper ifdue to mechanical fault the said accident took place.On the contrary it has been exposed that the said accident took place to save the lives of some persons who at that relevant time tried to cross the road from rightto left side . He disclosed that at that relevant time a Private caralso was on the road for which he was not in a position to controlhis truck. The concerned workman also did not consider necessary to exmine the driver of that private car in course of hearing to establish the genuinity of his claim. From his reply I also do not find any whisperwhy he did not take attempt to stop his vehicle when he apprehended danger to lives of those persons who at that relevant moment tried to cross the road . Considering his reply there is reason to believe that he wasdriving his truckwith high speed and for which it was not possible on hispart to stop the same with a view to avoid that accident . If the reply of the concerned workman is taken into consideration carefully further it will expose that he was verymuch negligent in driving his truck and for which the said accident took place . Accordingly the plea taken by the concerned workman in his reply cannot in any circumstances be considered as sufficient enough to accept that he had no fault in meeting the accident in question. As a result of the said accident the Truck was badly damaged and that also was not denied by the concerned workman. It is not expected that a driver while on the steering should drive in such a manner that he would not be able to control the same in case of any exigency. Therefore , considering all aspects carefully which I have discussed above I find sufficient reason to holdthat for rash and negligent driving of the truck by the concerned workman the said accident took place. Management issued chargesheet against the concerned workmanunder clause 26-1-15 and 26-1-2 of the Certified Standing Order . Clause 26-1-15 speaks " Causing wilful damage to work in progress or to the Property of the employer" and clause 26-1-2 speak " Habitual negligence orneglect ofduty, malingering , slowing down of work or inciting others to do so . " Considering the material evidence on record I hold that management has well been able to establish charge under clause 26-1-15 of the Certified Standing Order against the concerned workman . Management also have been able to substantiate part of the charge as per clause 26-1-2 of the Certified Standing Order i.e. "Negligent of duty " . Had he not been negligent induty at the time of driving the said truck he could easily [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

नईदिल्ली, 7 जून , 2005

का.आ. 2365.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भा.को. को.लि. 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 319/99 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-6-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-20012/202/ 99- आई आर ( सी- I ) ]

एन. पी. केशवन, डैस्क अधिकारी NewDelhi , the 7th June, 2005

S.O. 2365. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 319/99 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Dhanbad- II now as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of BCCL and their workmen, whichwas receivedby the Central Government on 3-6-2005 .

[No. L -20012/202/ 99 - IR(C -I ) ]

N.P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

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 . 319 OF 1999

PARTIES:

Employers in relation to the management of Kustore Area of M/ s . B.C.C.L. and their workman,

APPEARANCES:

: None

Onbehalf ofthe workman

Onbehalf of the employers Mr. R. N. Ganguli , Ld. Advocate. State: Jharkhand

Industry: Coal Dated, Dhanbad, the 25th May, 2005

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour , in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section

7051

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 2, 2005/ आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

10(1)(d) of the I. D. Act , 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/202/99-(C- I) , dt . 22-11-1999.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management in denying promotionto Shri Banwari Kurmi of technical and supervisory grade C contrary to JBCCI cadre scheme andpastpractices is justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to ? "

2. The case ofthe concerned workman according to writtenstatement, submitted by the sponsoring Union on hisbehalf in brief is as follows :-

The sponsoring union submitted that the concerned workman was posted at Kustore Colliery under Kustore Area as Winding Engine Khalasi . They disclosed that he obtained Winding Engine Man's II class certificate (Electrical)from Competent Authority on 31-3-86 and the number of his Certificate is 1178. They alleged that as per the said certificate though he was entitled to get his promotion in category VI as per N.C.W.A. Management did not consider his such promotion. They further disclosed that thereafter in the year 1993 he obtained Winding Engine Man's I Class Certificate (Electrical ) and the number of that certificate is 867. They submitted that asper this Certificate he was entitled to get his promotion in the post of T & S Gr. C' as per NCWA but the management did not give him any such promotion for which he was deprived of getting the benefits of the Statutory Competency Certificate . They alleged that management illegally, arbitrarily and violating the principle ofnatural justice deprived him from his legitimate claim and for which he raised an Industrial Dispute for conciliation which ultimately resulted reference to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The sponsoring union on behalf of the concerned workman accordingly submitted prayer to pass award directing the management to issue order of promotion in Cat. VI from the date of obtaining class II Certificate and promotion in T & S Grade ' C ' from the date of obtaining Class I Certificate , i.c. , w.e.f. 25-1-93 along with backwages and other consequential relieve .

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 as per JBCCI Circular No. 30 dt. 26-6-84 Winding Engine Operators are required to be placed in Category V if he is promoted and placed as Winding Engine Operator after obtaining 2nd class certificate of competency for operating Winding Engine rom the Mining Examination Board.

7052

THEGAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2, 2005/ ASADHA 11 , 1927

They disclosed that a Winding Engine Operator in Cat. Vmay be considered for his promotion to Cat . VI after he obtains first class Certificate of Competency as Winding Engine Operator and has completed minimum of 3 years of experience as Cat. V Winding Engine Operator on the basis ofTrade Test conducted by the DPC to fill up the vacancy existing in the colliery. Thus, the prerequisite for promotion is existence of vacancy and passing the trade test conducted through D.P.C. after a person becomes eligible for consideration of his promotion .

The Winding Engine Operator can only be promoted to higher grade in case of existence of Koope Winder . They disclosed that as in their colliery there is no Koope Winder his grade ofpromotion ofWinding Engine Operator was considered in Cat . VI only.

They submitted that concerned workman after obtaining his first class certificate of Winding Engine Operator , raised an Industrial Dispute through his RCMS Union before ALC ( C) , Dhanbad and as per cadre scheme he was placed in Cat . VI with effect from 1-1-1994 on the basisofTripartite Settlement arrived at on 21-10-94 in the course of conciliation proceeding carried on under the jurisdiction of ALC( C) , Dhanbad IV. They disclosed that they have already implemented the aforesaid settlement which is still binding . Accordingly, during, pendency of thatsettlement, there is no scope for raising any Industrial Dispute by him through other unions .

They submitted that as Cat . VI is highest grade for the Winding Engine Operator and as in their colliery there is no Winding Engine named Koope Winder, there is no scope to issue further promotion order in his favour. Accordingly, demand of the sponsoring union for his promotion in grade ' C ' is without any merit and for which his such claim is liable to be rejected summarily.

4. POINTS TO BE DECIDED

"Whether the action of the management in denying promotion to Shri Banwari Kurmi of technical and supervisory grade C contrary to JBCCI cadre scheme and past practices is justified ? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled to ? "

5. FINDING WITH REASONS

Ittranspires from the record that in spite of offering several opportunities as the sponsoring union/workman failed to take any step with a view to substantiate the claim in question the instant reference case was fixed for ex parte hearing on the part of the management . On the date of hearing the management also declined to adduce any evidence on their part . In view of this circumstances relying on the pleading of both sides and materials on record let it be considered how for the claim of the concerned workman stands on cogent footing .

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] Management in their written statement admitted the fact of obtaining first class certificate of Winding Engine Operator by the concerned workman . They also admitted that R.C.M.S. Union on behalf of the concerned workman raised an Industrial Dispute before ALC(C ) , Dhanbad.

According to written statment submitted by the sponsoring union the concerned workman claimed his promotion in Cat. VI . w.e.f. 31-3-86 and his promotion in T & S Grade ' C ' from the date of obtaining 1st class Competency Certificate w.e.f. 25-1-1993 . The contention of the mangement is that as per J.B.C.C.I. Circular No. 30 dt . 26-6-84 Winding Engine Operators are required tobe placed in Cat . V if he is promoted and placed as Winding Engine Operator after obtaining 2nd class Certificate of Competency for operating Winding Engine from theMining Examination Board. Again Winding Engine Operator in category Vmay be considered for his promotion to Cat . VI after he obtains 1st class Certificate of Competency as Winding Engine Operator and has completed minimum 3 years of experience as Cat . V Winding Engine Operator on the basis of trade test conducted by the D.P.C. to fill up the existing vacancies.

Here in the instant case from the facts disclosed by the written statement it transpires that the concerned workman was Winding Engine Khalasi posted at Kustore Area and not as Winding Engine Operator. It has been disclosed by the management that haulage khalasi in Cat . IV or any other person belonging to E & M Cadre can be considered for his promotion as Winding Engine Operator subject to the conditions that he obtained 2nd class WindingEngine Khalasi Certificate and also that he passed necessary trade test in that regard. It is seen that as Winding Engine Khalasi the concerned workman obtained Winding Engine Man's II class certificate on 31-3-86 and WindingEngine Man's I class Certificate on 25-1-1993 . No evidence is forthcoming if after obtaining 2nd class Certificate he appeared for trade test or not . It is the contention of the management that without Trade Test , a Khalasi though obtained requisite 2nd class Certificate is not eligible to get his promotion as Winding Engine Operator in category VI . Again to get promotion in category VI he must obtain his experience for three years and must obtain 1st class Certificate and thereafter he will be eligible to appear in the Trade test to be conducted by D.P.C. Ifhe fulfils the required condition and if he passed the trade test then as per vacancy he will get his posting as Winding Engine Operator in Cat . VI is that there must be vacancy for the post of Winding Engine Operator. They further disclosed that there is no provision to get promotion directly in T & S grade ' C ' only for obtaining 1st class Certificate.

It has been further submitted by the management that during pendency of hearing of the dispute before [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

ALC( C) , Dhanbad the concerned workman was placed in Cat. VI w.e.f. 1-1-94 on the basis of Tripartite Settlement arrived at on 21-10-94 . They further submitted that the said settlement is still in force and as per the terms & conditions of the said settlement full benefit was given to him. They disclosed that raising of further Industrial Dispute is to be considered illegal when the settlement in question is still in force as per Sec . 18 of the I.D. Act .

Considering the submission of the management and materials on record it is clear that as per Tripartite Settlement the concerned workman was placed in Cat . VI as Winding Engine Operator. As per that settlement he has already been providedwith all benefits .

Therefore , onus is on the sponsoring union to establish that the concerned workman is not bound by the said settlement and also it was not at all acted upon. It is seen that neither the concerned workman nor his sponsoring union has failed to produce an iota of evidence to refute the claim of the management . Onus is also on the sponsoring union to establish that the moment a workman obtains 1st class certificate he is eligible to get his promotion in T & S grade ' C' particularly when management categorically denied this claim . It is curious to note that neither the sponsoring union nor the concerned workman considered necessary to establish such claim.

It-is to be borne into mind that facts disclosed in the written statement cannot be considered as substantivepiece of evidence until and unless the same are substantiatedby material evidence either oral or documentary.

Management specifically asserted relying on Tripartite Settlement that the concerned workman has got hispromotion in Cat. VI w.e.f. 1-1-94 . Again as per clause 2ofthe settlement it was agreed upon that arrear payment pertaining to the period from 2-2-92 should be decided mutually at Area level within two months from the date of settlement . There is no whisper on the part of the sponsoring union that the said settlement was not acted upon asper terms and conditions. There is also no whisper that the sponsoring union submitted any application to RLC( C) subsequently disagreeing with the terms and conditions of the said settlement. It is seen that over the issue in question when a Tripartite Settlement existed the sponsoring union over self same issue raised another disputewithout disclosing any fact which led them to take such decision .

Accordingly, after careful consideration of all the facts and circumstances discussed above I hold that sponsoring union have lamentably failed to establish their claim and for which the concerned workman is not entitled to get any relief.

7053

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 2, 2005/आषाढ़ 1.1 , 1927

In the result, the following Award is rendered:-

"That the action of the management in denying promotion to Shri Banwari Kurmi of Technical and Supervisory Grade ' C' contrary to JBCCI cadre scheme and past practices is justified. "

Consequently the concerned workman is not entitled toget anyrelief. B. BISWAS , PresidingOfficer नई दिल्ली, 7 जून, 2005

का.आ. 2366.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भा. को. को.लि. के प्रबंधतंत्रके 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 15/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-6-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-20012/235/99- आई. आर. ( सी- I ) ] एन. पी. केशवन, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 7th June , 2005

S.O. 2366. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 15/2000) 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 workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 3-6-2005 .

[No. L-20012/235/99 - IR (C -I) ] N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. I, DHANBAD In the matter of a reference U/s. 10( 1) ( d) (2A) ofthe I. D. Act Reference No. 15 of 2000 Parties : Employers in relation to the management of Mudidih Colliery of M/s . B.C.C. Ltd. AND Their Workmen

Present : Shri S. Prasad, Presiding Officer 7054

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2, 2005/ASADHA 11 , 1927

Appearances:

: None.

For the Employers

Forthe Workman

: None.

State: Jharkhand

Industry: Coal Dated, the20th May, 2005.

AWARD

By Order No. L - 20012/ 235/ 99 - IR ( C- 1) dated, 20-12-99 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 followingdis- pute for adjudication to this Tribunal:

"Whether the action of the management of Mudidih Colliery of M/ s . BCCL in not regularising S/Sri Shambhu Nath Rabidas and Akhileshwar Mahato, M/Loader in accordance with statement dated 21-7-95 is justified ? If not , to what relief the con- cerned workmen are entitled?"

2. This reference was received in this Tribunal on6-1-2000 . But till 18-5-2005 no written statement has been filed on behalf of the workmen though several opportunities were granted to the workmen. It , there- fore, appears that neither the concerned workmen nor the sponsoring union are interested to contest the reference case.

3. In such circumstances , I render a ' No Dispute' Award in the present reference case.

S. PRASAD, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 7 जून , 2005

का.आ. 2367 औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मै. शाम एविएशन प्रा. लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नई दिल्ली- II के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 16/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-6-2005 कोप्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-11012/121/99- आई. आर. ( सी-1 ) ]

एन. पी. केशवन, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 7th June , 2005

S.O. 2367. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 16/2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal /Labour

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] Court, New Delhi - Il now as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s . Sham Aviation (P) Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on3-6-2005,

[No. L- 11012/121/ 99 - IR( C-I) ]

N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER : CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT- II, NEW DELHI

PRESIDING OFFICER : R. N. RAI I.D. No. 16/2000

IN THE MATTER OF :

Sh. Arvind Kumar Chaudhary . F-350, Gali No. 23 , Sadh Nagar. Part-II,Palam Colony, New Delhi - 110045.

VERSUS

M/s. Sam Aviation (P) Ltd.. Jaydeep Meer Chandani , Salatpur State, 15 No.. Form House , Near Andhariya More, Maheroli, New Delhi .

AWARD

TheMinistry of Labour by its letter No. L- 11012/ 121/99 -IR (C- 1 ) Central Government Dt . 04-02-2000 has referred the following point for adjudication.

The point runs as hereunder:-

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the Managing Director M/s . Sam Aviation ( P) Ltd. , Room No. 15 , Hotel Janpath , New Delhi - 110001 in termination the services of Sh. Arvind Kumar Chaudhary, Cargo Supervisor w.e.f. 1-3-99 is justified ? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled to ? " The workman has filed statement of claim . In his statement of claim, it has been stated that the workman applied for the post of supervisor in the respondent establishment on 02-11-1995 . On the basis of the application , the management appointed him as Cargo Supervisor with effect from 17-11-1995 at a monthly wages of Rs . 3,000 per month . A copy of the 7055 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 2, 2005/आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

appointment letter issued by the management to the workman is placed herewith and marked as Exb . WW 1 / 1. The workman's last drawn monthly wages were Rs. 3,744/-. A copy of the salary slip for the month of January, 1998 is placed herewith and marked as Exb . WW 1/2 .

the workman was pressurized to surrender his resignation letter and take away 20 days salary pertaining to month of December , 1998. The workman refused to accept the demand of the management. Then, the Senior General Manager misbehaved with the workman . The workman then sent a letter dt . 04-03-1999 under certificate of post to bring these matters on the record . A copy of the letter dt . 04-03-1999 written by the workman to the Senior General Manager alongwith postal receipt is placed herewith collectively and marked as Exb . WW 1/12 .

Asthe respondent management failed to pay 20 days salary for the month of December , 98 and also subsistence allowance during the suspension period , the workman filed a statement of claim before the Hon'ble Assistant Labour Commissioner praying to issue the director to the management to pay the workman his 20 days salary and also subsistence allowance and conduct his departmental enquiry expeditiously by following principles of natural justice.

That the workman used to do his job sincerely and honestly. It is submitted that for discharging the responsibilities of the job , the workman used to enter Airport and the management required to provide entry pass to the workman. The workman seeks the permission of the Hon'ble Court to place the following documents on record to prove his case . A copy of the letterdt . 02-12-1995 issued by the respondent management to the Security Manager, Airports Authority of India is placed herewith and marked as Exb . WW 1/3 . The photo-copy of the attendance record of January, 1996. is placed herewith and marked as Exb . WW 1/4 . The photo -copy of the temporary passes issued to the workman are collectively placed herewith and marked as Exb . WW 1/5 . The photo- copy of the permanent passes issued to workman at different periods are collectively placed herewith and marked as Exb . WW 1/6. The photo- copy of the duty rosters pertaining to different periods are placed herewith and marked as Exb . WW 1/7. The photo- copy of the salary register pertaining to November, 1996, December , 1996 and February, 1997 are placed herewith collectively and marked as Exb . WW 1/8 . That the workman's Incharge wrote a letter dt . 30-04-1997 to the General Manager of the Respondent establishment recommending that the workman's salary required to be enhanced from Rs . 3,200 to Rs . 4,200 . A copy of the letterdt . 30-04-1997 from Sh . A.K. Rai to the General Manager of the respondent isplaced herewith and marked as Exb . WW 1/9.

Thatthe workman has been suspended illegally and unjustifiedly. That the management has not served any charge sheet on the workman . That the management has not conducted any department enquiry against the workman and principles of naturaljustice are violated. That the management has not served any termination letter and onlyby reply informed before the Hon'ble Assistant Labour Commissioner (C ) that the services of the workman have been terminated . That the management has not paid 20 days salary pertaining to December, 1998 and also has not paid subsistence allowance during the suspension period . That the termination of workman is illegal and unjustified and liable to be set aside and workman is entitled to be reinstated with full back wages and continuity of service . The workman is unemployed since 20th December, 1998. Dispite his best efforts he could not get any alternative employment.

That all of a sudden, the respondent management served to the workman a suspension letter dt . 20-12-1998 . Acopy of the suspension letter dt . 20-12-1998 is placed herewith and marked as Exb . WW 1/10 . That the respondent management also issued similar suspension letters to 5 other employees . That the management has pressurized all the suspended employees to tender their resignations. The other five employees succumbed to the pressure and surrendered their resignations without their own will . But the claimant workman refused to sign resignation letter and requested the management to continue him in the service.

The management has filed written statement . In the written statement , it has been stated that the statement of claim filed on behalf of the claimant is liable to be dismissed as the claimant is not covered under the difinition of 'Workman' as per Sec . 2 (s) of the I.D. Act . It is submitted that the claimant was working as ' Supervisor' . The claimant was working in a supervisory capacity and the claimant was drawing a salary of more than Rs . 1600. Thus the claimant is not covered under the definition of 'Workman ' as given in Sec . 2(s ) of the I.D. Act . On this ground the claim of the claimant is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. That the reference has not been made by the appropriate Govt . The reference has been made by the Central Govt. which is not the appropriate Govt. in the present case . It is submitted that the management does not own and carry an air transport service . The management simply books the cargo and gets them sent to different countries through Aeroplanes owned by different companies.

That the respondent management sent a letter dt. 22-02-1999 to the workman asking him to meet the Senior General Manager in connection with his suspension . A copy of the letter dt . 22-02-1999 from the management to theworkman is placed herewith and marked as Exb . WW 1 / 11. When the workman met the Senior General Manager of the respondent establishment in response to above letter, 7056

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2, 2005/ASADHA 11 , 1927

That the statement of claim filed by the claiment is not in accordance with the well established practices . The statement of claim looks like an affidavit as the present statement of claim contains a number of documents which have been exhibited without oath. The statement of claim should contain the simple facts and same are to be proved later on oath by way ofevidence. The claaaimant , therefore, be directed to file a proper statement of claim . That the reference hasbeen made without application of the mind. the claimant had claimant his 20 days ' salary for the month of December, 1998 and suspension allowance in his statement of claim filed before the Conciliation Officer, but the terms of reference speak of termination , thus , the reference has been made without application of the mind . It is submitted that the claimant filed a statement of claim U/S . 2(k) of the I.D. Act before the conciliation officer for wages and suspension allowance , but reference has been made of termination U/ S 2-A of the I.D. act whereas there was no statement of claim filed by the claimant against the alleged termination, hence the reference is liable to be struck down.

That there is no termination on the part of the management . It is submitted that the claimant was suspended vide letterdt . 20-12-1998 for various misconducts including drinking with order employees during duty hours. It is submited that the management sent various letters and messages at the last known official address of the claimant as the whereabouts of the claimant were not known till notice was received from the office of the Regional Labour Commissioner ( Central) in the month ofMay, 1999. The claimant did not contact the management nor sent any letter to the management during this period. From the conduct of the claimant , it is manifest that the claimant had abandoned his job . It is further submitted other employees who were also suspended alongwith the claimant had already resigned and got their dues .

The workman applicant has filed rejoinder. In this rejoinder he has reiterated the averments of his claim statement and has denied most of the paras of the written statement. the management has also denied most of the paras of the claim statement . The workman has filed affidavit . He has not been cross -examined by the management . The management was not present to argue the case. The workman applicant has been present all along . The management was also present previously and notice has been sent to the management but the management has not appeared to cross- examine the workman .

The case of the workman applicant is that he was appointed to the post of supervisor in the respondent's establishment on 02-11-1995 . He was appointed as Cargo supervisor w.e.f. 17-11-1995 at a monthly wage of Rs . 3000 per month. The workman was provided Identity Card and temporary pass . The workman was suspended on 20-12-1998 , the other five persons appointed with him were

[PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii) ] also suspended . The other workmen were reinstated later onbut this workman was not reinstated .

The management in the written statement has taken theplea that the petitioner is not a workman as per section 2(s) of ID Act . He was working as a supervisor. He was working in a supervisory capacity and he was drawing salary more than Rs . 1,600 so he is not covered under definition as given in 2 (s) of the act . It has been further statedby the management in the written statement that he was suspended on various grounds of misconduct and the mangement sent him several letters but he was not known. The claimant did not contact the management. The claimant has abandoned his job .

It was submitted from the side of the management that no doubt he was Cargo supervisor and his salary was Rs . 3000 but he supervised Cargo only. He was not a supervisor of the other workman working under him . No workman worked under him . He was rather a watchman or Guard ofthe Cargo . He took Cargo from one place to another sohe was not a supervisor in the real sense who supervises the activities of the others but this workman did not supervise the duties of others who worked under him and in fact none worked under him so he was not a supervisor inthe oral sense as provided in the definition 2 (s) of the ID Act. He was a Cargo Guard or watchman and he got Cargo carried as required by the management so he was not a supervisor.

It was further submitted that the management has admitted that he was suspended owing to his misconduct i.e. drinking with other employees . He has abandoned his job . The management ought to have proved the allegations levelled against the workman applicant but no inquiry has beenheld. Theworkman has come simply for raisingdispute so it cannot be said that he has abandoned the job . The action of the management is notjust . The workman aplicant is entitled to be reinstated with 50 % back wages .

The reference is replied thus :-

The action of the Managing Director , M/s . Sam Aviation (P) Ltd. , Room No. 15 , Hotel Janpath, New Delhi- 110001 in terminating the services of Shri Arvind Kumar Choudhary, Cargo supervisor w.e.f. 01-03-1999 is neither just nor legal .

The workman applicant is reinstated to the post of Cargo supervisor w.e.f. 01-03-1999 with 50 % back wages . The management is directed to reinstate the workman as directed within one month from the date of publication of the Award. In case of default the workman applicant will be entitled to get 10% interest on his entire back wages .

The Award is given accordingly.

Dated: 25-05-2005

R.N. RAI , Presiding Officer [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

7057

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 2, 2005/आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

नई दिल्ली, 7 जून , 2005

का.आ. 2368.- कर्मचारी भविष्य निधि एवं प्रकीर्ण उपबंध अधिनियम, 1952 ( 1952 का 19 ) की धारा 16 की उप - धारा ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार, यह मत होने के कारण कि सोसाइटी पंजीकरण अधिनियम, 1860 ( 1860 का 21 ) के अंतर्गत पंजीकृत कतिपय स्थापनाओं की परिस्थितियों के मद्दे नजर अथवा फिलहाल लागू किसी अन्य तदनुरूप निगम के अंतर्गत ऐसा करना जरूरी तथा समीचीन है , एतद्वारा निम्नलिखित श्रेणी के प्रतिष्ठानों को 1 अप्रैल, 2005 से 31 मार्च, 2010 तक की अवधि तक उक्त अधिनियम के प्रचालन से छूट प्रदान करती है ,-

(क) जिनका वित्तपोषण पूर्णतः केन्द्र सरकार, अथवा किसी राज्य सरकार अथवा राज्य सरकारों अथवा आंशिक रूप से केन्द्रीय सरकार तथा आंशिक रूप से एक अथवा अधिक राज्य सरकारों से प्राप्त सहायता अनुदान से होता हो बशर्ते कि सहायता अनुदान में भविष्य निधि के नियोक्ताओं के अंशदान के संबंध में नियोक्ता की देयताओं को पूस करने के प्रयोजन से कोई राशि शामिल न हो; अथवा

(ख) जो लोक धर्म अथवा दातव्य न्यासों अथवा अक्षयनिधियों ( मठों, मन्दिरों, गुरूद्वारों , वक्फों, चर्चों, यहूदी सभाघरों, एजीरियों अथवा सार्वजनिक धार्मिक अन्य पूजा स्थलों ) अथवा सोसाइटियों अथवा धार्मिक न्यासों अथवा दातव्य अथवा अन्य सार्वजनिक प्रयोजनार्थ न्यासों द्वारा चलाए जाते हों और केन्द्र सरकार द्वारा आयकर अधिनियम, 1961 ( 1961 का 43 ) के अंतर्गत उपर्युक्त रूप में अधिसूचित किए गए हों,

बशतें कि ऐसी श्रेणी के प्रतिष्ठान कोई विश्वविद्यालय, कोई कॉलेज, कोई विद्यालय , कोई वैज्ञानिक संस्थान, कोई ऐसा संस्थान चलाते हों जिसमें छात्रों से कोई प्रभार अथवा शुल्क लेकर अनुसंधान, शिक्षा जानकारी अथवा प्रशिक्षण प्रदान किया जाता हो अथवा वे कोई अस्पताल- नर्सिंग होम अथवा क्लीनिक चलाते हों जिसमें रोगियों से कोई प्रभार अथवा शुल्क लेकर चिकित्सा उपचार या प्रक्रिया की जाती हो, तो ऐसे कार्यकलाप को प्रथम उल्लिखित अधिनिसम के प्रचालन से छूट नहीं दी जाएगी :

बशर्ते कि सरकार जब कभी उचित समझे छूट को रद्द करने तथा/अथवा आशोधित करने का अधिकार सुरक्षित रखती है ।

[फा. सं . एस-35014/3/02 - एस एस- II ]

संयुक्ताराय, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 7th June , 2005

S.O. 2368. In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub - section ( 2) of Section 16 of the Employees ' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952) the Central Government , being of opinion that having regard to the circumstances of certain establishements registered under the Societies Registration

Act, 1860 (21 of 1860) , or under any other corresponding law for the timebeing in force it is necessary and expedient so to do , hereby exempts the following class of establishments from the operation of the said Act for a period up to the 31st March, 2010 with effect from the 1st April, 2005, :-

(a) thosebeing wholly financed by the grants - in- aid received from the Central Government, or any State Government or State Governments orpartlyby the Central Government and partly by one or more State Governments subject to the condition that grants - in- aid does not include any amount for the purpose ofmeeting the liability of the employer towards the employers' contribution to the provident fund; or

(b) those being run by public , religious or charitable trusts or endownments (including maths , temples , gurudwaras , wakfs, churches , synagogues , agiaries or other places ofpublic religious worship ) of societies and Trusts for religious or charitable or other public purposes and notified as such as by the Central Government under the Income Tax Act , 1961 (43 of 1961 ) :

Provided that if such class ofestablishments run any university, any college , any school , any soientific institution , any institution in which research, education, imparting knowledge or training is carried on against charges of fees from the students , or run any hospital, nursing home or clinic in which any medical treatment or procedure is carried on against charges or fees from the patients , such activity shall not be exempted from the operation of the first mentioned Act:

Provided that the Government reserves the right to revoke and/ or modify the exemption as and when it is deemed fit .

[F. No. S - 35014/3/ 02 - SS - II]

SANJUKTA RAY, Under Secy .

नई दिल्ली, 17 जून , 2005

का.आ. 2369.- कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम, 1948 (1948 का 34) की धारा-1 की उप- धारा ( 3 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार एत‌द्वारा 1 जुलाई , 2005 को उस तारीख के रूप में नियत करती है , जिसको उक्त अधिनियम के अध्याय 4 (44 व 45 धारा के सिवाय जो पहले से प्रवृत्त हो चुकी है ) अध्याय 5 और 6 ( धारा 76 की उपधारा ( 1 ) और धारा 77 , 78 , 79 और 81 के सिवाय जो पहले ही प्रवृत्त की जा चुकी है के उपबन्ध असम के निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रों में प्रवृत्त होंगे, अर्थात्,

" डिगबोई क्षेत्र के मोजा- माकुम, जिला तिनसुकिया के अन्तर्गत आने वाले डिगबोई राजस्व सर्किल के अधीन राजस्व 7058

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2, 2005 / ASADHA 11 , 1927

ग्राम- बापापुंग , मूलियाबारी गोलाई नम्बर 1 , 2 और 3 एवं बोरबिल संख्या 1 , 2 और 3। "

[संख्या एस-38013 / 25/ 2005 - एस.एस.- 1 ] के.सी. जैन, निदेशक New Delhi , the 17th June , 2005

S.O. 2369. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section (3 ) of Section 1 of the Employees ' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st July, 2005 as the date on which the provisions of Chapter IV ( except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force) and Chapters V and VI (except Sub - Section ( 1 ) of Section 76 and Sections 77 , 78 , 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force) of the said Act shall come into force in the following areas in the State of Assam namely :-

"Areas under Digboi falls within Digboi Town Committe incuding Revenue Villages -Bapapung Village, Mullabari , Golai Nos . 1 , 2 and 3 , Borbil Nos . 1 , 2 & 3 in the Digboi area under Mouza- Makum in the District Tinsukia . "

[No. S - 38013 / 25/2005 - S.S . I ] K.C. JAIN, Director नई दिल्ली, 17 जून , 2005

का.आ. 2370.- कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम , 1948 ( 1948 का 34 ) की धारा-1 की उप - धारा ( 3 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा 1 जुलाई, 2005 को उस तारीख के रूप में नियत करती है, जिसको उक्त अधिनियम के अध्याय- 4 (44 व 45 धारा के सिवाय जो पहले से प्रवृत्त हो चुकी है ) अध्याय- 5 और 6 ( धारा 76 की उपधारा ( 1 ) और धारा 77, 78 , 79 और 81 के सिवाय जो पहले ही प्रवृत्त की जा चुकी है ) के उपबन्ध केरल के निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रों में प्रवृत्त होंगे , अर्थात्,

"जिला कण्णूर में तलिपरंबु तालुक में चुषलि क्षेत्र। " [संख्या एस-38013/26/2005 - एस.एस.- 1 ] के. सी. जैन, निदेशक New Delhi , the 17th June , 2005

S.O. 2370. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section (3 ) of Section 1 of the Employees ' State Insurance Act, 1948 ( 34 of 1948 ) the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st July, 2005 as the date on which the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force ) and Chapters V and VI ( except sub - Section ( 1 ) of Section 76 and Sections 77, 78 , 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force) of the said Act shall come into force in the following areas in the State of Kerala namely :-- District." Chuzhali in Taliparambu Taluk in Kannur

[No. S - 38013 /26/2005 - S.S . I ]

K. C. JAIN , Director

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] नई दिल्ली, 21 जून , 2005

का.आ. 2371.- कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम , 1948 (1948 का 34 ) की धारा-1 की उप - धारा ( 3 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा 1 जुलाई, 2005 को उस तारीख के रूप में नियत करती है , जिसको उक्त अधिनियम के अध्याय 4 (44 व 45. धारा के सिवाय जो पहले से प्रवृत्त हो चुकी है ) अध्याय 5 और 6 ( धारा 76 की उपधारा ( 1 ) और धारा 77 , 78 , 79 और 81 के सिवाय जो पहले की प्रवृत्त की जा चुकी है ) के उपबन्ध केरल के निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रों में प्रवृत्त होंगे , अर्थात्,

"जिला एरनाकुलम के चेनयान्नूर में चेरानल्लूर क्षेत्र । " [संख्या एस-38013/28/2005 - एस.एस. - 1 ] के. सी. जैन, निदेशक New Delhi , the 21st June , 2005

S.O. 2371. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section (3 ) of Section 1 of the Employees ' State Insurance Act , 1948 (34 of 1948 ) the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st July, 2005 as the date on which the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force) and Chapters V and VI ( except Sub- Section ( 1 ) of Section 76 and Sections 77 , 78 , 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force ) of the said Act shall come into force in the following areas in the State of Kerala namely :---

"Cheranallur in Kanayannur Taluk in Ernakulam District ."

[No. S - 38013 /28 /2005 - S.S . I ] K. C. JAIN , Director नई दिल्ली, 21 जून , 2005

का.आ. 2372.- कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम, 1948 (1948 का 34 ) की धारा-1 की उप- धारा ( 3 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा 1 जुलाई , 2005 को उस तारीख के रूप में नियत करती है , जिसको उक्त अधिनियम के अध्याय 4 (44व 45 धारा के सिवाय जो पहले से प्रवृत्त हो चुकी है ) अध्याय 5 और 6 ( धारा -76 की उपधारा ( 1 ) और धारा 77 , 78 , 79 और 81 के सिवाय जो पहले ही प्रवृत्त की जा चुकी है ) के उपबन्ध केरल के निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रों में प्रवृत्त होंगे , अर्थात्,

" जिला तथा तालुक कोट्टयम में ओणमतुरूत क्षेत्र । " [संख्या एस-38013/29/2005 - एस.एस. - 1 ]

के. सी. जैन, निदेशक New Delhi , the 21st June , 2005

S.O. 2372.- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section (3 ) of Section 1 of the Employees ' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948 ) the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st July , 2005 as the date on which the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force ) and Chapters [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

7059

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 2, 2005/आषाढ़ 11 , 1927

Vand VI (except sub -section ( 1 ) of Section 76 and Sections 77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force) of the said Act shall come into force in the following areas in the State of Kerala namely :-

" Onamthuruth in Kottayam Taluk & District . "

[No. S - 38013/ 29/2005 - S.S . I ] K. C. JAIN , Director नई दिल्ली, 21 जून , 2005

का.आ. 2373.- कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम , 1948 (1948का 34 ) की धारा 1 की उप - धारा ( 3 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा 1 जुलाई, 2005 को उस तारीख के रूप में नियत करती है , जिसको उक्त अधिनियम के अध्याय 4 (44 व 45 धारा के सिवाय जो पहले से प्रवृत्त हो चुकी है ) अध्याय 5 और 6 ( धारा 76 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) और धारा 77 , 78, 79 और 81 के सिवाय जो पहले ही प्रवृत्त की जा चुकी है ) के उपबन्धं केरल के निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रों में प्रवृत्त होंगे, अर्थात्:-

" जिला तथा तालुक कोट्टयम में अकालकुन्नम क्षेत्र। " [संख्या एस -38013/27/2005- एस.एस.- I ]

के. सी. जैन, निदेशक New Delhi , the 21st June, 2005

S.O. 2373.-In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (3 ) of Section 1 of the Employee's State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948 ) the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st July , 2005 as the date on which the provisions of Chapter IV ( except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force) and Chapters V and VI (except sub -section ( 1) of Section 76 and Sections 77 , 78 , 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force) of the said Act shall come into force in the following areas in the State of Kerala namely :-

"Akalakunnam in Kottayam Taluk & District . "

[No. S - 38013/ 27/2005 - S.S . I ]

K. C. JAIN, Director नई दिल्ली, 27 जून, 2005

का.आ. 2374.- 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. 303 दिनांक 11-1-2005 द्वारा खनिज तेल ( कच्चा तेल) , मोटर और विमानन, स्पिरिट, डीजल तेल, मिट्टी का तेल, ईंधन तेल, विविधा हाइड्रोकार्बन तेल और उनके मिश्रण जिनमें सिंथेटिक तेल और इसी प्रकार के तेल शामिल हैं, के निर्माण या उत्पादन में लगे उद्योग में सेवाओं में है जो कि औद्यागिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की प्रथम अनुसूची की प्रविष्टि 26 में शामिल हैं, को उक्त अधिनियम के प्रयोजनों के लिए दिनांक 16-1-2005 से छः मास की कालावधिके लिए लोक उपयोगी सेवा घोषित किया था;

और केन्द्रीय सरकार की यह राय है कि लोकहित में उक्त कालावधि को छ. 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 परंतुक द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त उद्योग को उक्त अधिनियम के प्रयोजनों के लिए दिनांक 16-7-2005 से छः मास की कालावधिके लिए लोक उपयोगी सेवा घोषित करती है । [फा. संख्या एस -11017/6/97- आई.आर. ( पी. एल. ) ]

जे. पी . पति, संयुक्त सचिव New Delhi , the 27th June , 2005

S.O. 2374.-Whereas the Central Government having been satisfied that the public interest so requires thatin 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. 303 dated 11-1-2005 the services in Industry engaged in manufacture or production of mineral oil ( crude oil) , motor and aviation spirit, diesel oil , kerosene oil, fuel oil , diverse hydrocarbon oils and their blends incuding synthetic fuels , Lubricating oils and the like which is covered by item 26 ofthe 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 16th January, 2005 .

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 .

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to sub - clause (vi ) of clause ( n) of section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 , the Central Government hereby declares the said industry to be a public utility service for the purposes of the said Act , for a period of six months from the 16th July, 2005 .

[F. No. S - 11017/ 6/ 97 - IR( PL ) ] J. P. PATI , Jt . Secy .

नई दिल्ली, 28 जून , 2005

का.आ. 2375.- केन्द्रीय सरकार संतुष्ट है कि लोकहित में ऐसा करना अपेक्षित है कि भारतीय खाद्य निगम में सेवाओं को जिसे औद्यागिकविवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की प्रथम अनुसूची की प्रविष्टि6 के अन्तर्गत निर्दिष्ट किया गया है , उक्त अधिनियम के प्रयोजनों के लिए लोक उपयोगी सेवाएं घोषित किया जाना चाहिए । अतः अब, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 2 के खण्ड ( ढ़ ) के उप- खण्ड ( 6 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त उद्योग को उक्त अधिनियम के प्रयोजनों के लिए तत्काल प्रभाव से छः मास की कालावधि के लिए लोक उपयोगी सेवा घोषित करती है ।

[फा. संख्या एस-11017/5/91- आई.आर. ( पी . एल. ) ]

जे. पी. पति, संयुक्त सचिव 7060

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2, 2005 /ASADHA 11 , 1927

New Delhi , the 28th June , 2005

S.O. 2375. Whereas the Central Government is satisfied that the public interest so requires that the services inthe Food Corporation of India which is covered by item 6 ofthe First Schedule to the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (14 of 1947) , should be declared to be a public utility service for the purpose of the said Act .

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub -clause (vi ) of clause ( n) of section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 , the Central Government hereby declares with immediate effect the said industry to be a public utility service for the purpose of the said Act for a period of six months.

[F. No. S - 11017 /5 / 91 - IR(PL ) ] J. P. PATI , Jt . Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 28 जून , 2005

का.आ. 2376.- 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. 302 दिनांक 10-1-2005 द्वारा बैंक नोट मुद्रणालय , देवास ( म.प्र. ) जो कि औद्यागिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की प्रथम अनुसूची की प्रविष्टि 22 में शामिल है , को उक्त अधिनियम के प्रयोजनों के लिए दिनांक 10-1-2005 से छः मास की कालावधि के लिए लोक उपयोगी सेवा घोषित किया था । और केन्द्रीय सरकार की यह राय है कि लोकहित में उक्त कालावधि को छ. मास की और कालावधि के लिए बढ़ाया जाना अपेक्षित है;

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] अतः अब, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 2 के खण्ड ( ढ़ ) के उप - खण्ड ( vi ) के परंतुक द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त उद्योग को उक्त अधिनियम के प्रयोजनों के लिए दिनांक 10-7-2005 से छः मास की कालावधिके लिए लोक उपयोगी सेवा घोषित करती है । [फा. संख्या एस -11017/4/ 97 - आई.आर. ( पी. एल. ) ] जे. पी. पति, संयुक्त सचिव New Delhi , the 28th June , 2005

S.O. 2376.- 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 S.O. No. 302 dated 10-1-2005 the service in Bank Note Press , Dewas which is covered by item 22 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 10th January, 2005 ;

Andwhereas , the Central Government is of opinion thatpublic interest requires the extension of the said period by a 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 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 the Central Government hereby declares the said industry to be a publicutility service for the purposes of the said Act , for a period of six months from the 10th July, 2005.

[F. No. S - 11017/ 4/ 97 - IR( PL) ] J. P. PATI , Jt . Secy .

Printed by the Manager, Govt . of India Press , Ring Road, Mayapuri , New Delhi - 110064 and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi - 110054 .