This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

रजिस्ट्री सं० डी० एल० ( एन ) 04/0007/2003-05

REGD . NO . D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003-05 भारत राजपत्र The Gazette of India

प्राधिकार से प्रकाशित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप्ताहिक

WEEKLY

सं. 46]

नई दिल्ली, नबम्बर 12 नवम्बर 18, 2006 , शनिवार /कार्तिक 21- कार्तिक 27 , 1928

No. 46] NEW DELHI , NOVEMBER 12-NOVEMBER 18, 2006, SATURDAY/KARTIKA 21- KARTIKA 27 , 1928 इस भाग में भिन्न पृष्ठ संख्या दी जाती है जिससे कि यह पृथक संकलन के रूप में रखा जा सके

Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation

भाग 11 खण्ड -उपखण्ड ( 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 Issuedby the Ministries of the Government of India

(Other than the Ministry ofDefence)

कार्मिक, लोक शिकायत तथा पेंशन मंत्रालय (कार्मिक और प्रशिक्षण विभाग )

नई दिल्ली, 3 नवम्बर , 2006

का.आ. 4387.- केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना अधिनियम , 1946 ( 1946 का अधिनियम सं. 25 ) की धारा 6 के साथ पठित धारा 5 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, बिहार राज्य सरकार के गृह ( आरक्षी ) विभाग की अधिसचूना सं. 1 /सी.बी.आई. - 80-21/2006 गृ.आ. , 10837/पटना, दिनांक 27 सितंबर , 2006 द्वारा प्राप्त सहमति से पटना संग्रहालय, पटना से पाल-कालीन अमूल्य मूर्तियों की चोरी. के संबंध में भारतीय दंड संहिता, 1860 ( 1860 का अधिनियम सं. 45 ) की धारा 457 और 380 के अधीन पुलिस स्टेशन , पटना कोतवाली में दर्ज मामला सं. 421/2006 दिनांक 26-09-2006 और उपर्युक्त अपराधों में से एक अथवा अधिक से संबंधित अथवा संसक्त प्रयत्नों, दुष्प्रेरणों और षडयंत्र तथा उसी संव्यवहार के अनुक्रम में किए गए अथवा उन्हीं तथ्यों से उद्भूत किसी अन्य अपराध अथवा अपराधों का अन्वेषण 3520 GI/2006

करने के लिए दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना के सदस्यों की शक्तियों और अधिकारिता का विस्तार सम्पूर्ण बिहार राज्य पर करती है ।

[सं. 228/55 /2006- ए.वी.डी.- II ] चंद्र प्रकाश , अवर सचिव MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS (Department ofPersonnel and Training) New Delhi , the 3rd November , 2006

S. O. 4387.- In exercise of the powers conferred by . sub-section (1 ) of Section 5 read with Section 6 of the Delhi SpecialPolice Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of State Government of Bihar Home (Police ) Department vide Notification No. 1 /CBI 80-21/2006- HP ( P )/10837 dated 27th September , 2006 , hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the member of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of the State of Bihar for

(9455) 9456

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 18 , 2018 KARTIΚΑ 27, 1928

investigation of Case No. 421/2006 dated 26-9-2006. registered at Police Station Patna Kotwali under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Panel Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860) relating to theft of invaluable Pal -era idols statues from the Patna Museum, Patna and attempts , abetments and conspiracy in relation to or in connection with one or more of the offences mentioned above and any other offence oroffences committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts .

[No. 228/55/2006-AVD- II] CHANDRA PRAKASH, Under Secy.

वित्त मंत्रालय (आर्थिक कार्य विभाग ) (बैंकिग प्रभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 9 नवम्बर , 2006 का. आ. 4388. - भारतीय निर्यात आयात बैंक ( एक्जिम बैंक) अधिनियम , 1981 ( 1981 का 28 ) की धारा 6 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के खंड ( ङ) के उपखंड ( 1 ) के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा श्री एन. रवि, सचिव ( पूर्व ) विदेश मंत्रालय , नई दिल्ली को श्री रिनजिंग वांगडीके स्थान पर भारतीय निर्यात - आयात बैंक के बोर्ड में निदेशक के रूप में नामित करती है ।

[फा. सं.24/1/2003- आई एफ -1 ] एम. साहू, अवर सचिव MINISTRY OF FINANCE (Department ofEconomic Affairs)

(Banking Division) New Delhi , the 9th November, 2006 S.O.4388 .-In pursuance of Sub - clause ( i) of clause (e) ofsub -section ( 1 ) of Section 6 ofExport - Import Bank of India Act, 1981 (28 of 1981 ), the Central Government hereby nominates Shri N. Ravi , Secretary (East) , Ministry of External Affairs , New Delhi as a Director on the Board of Export- Import Bank of India vice Shri Rinzing Wangdi .

[F. No.24/1 /2003- I.F. - 1 ] M. SAHU , Under Secy.

(राजस्व विभाग ) ( केन्द्रीय प्रत्यक्ष कर बोर्ड ) नई दिल्ली, 29 सितम्बर , 2006 (आयकर)

का.आ. 4389.- जबकि आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 ( 1961 का 43 ) ( यहां आगे उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 80 झ क

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] की उप- धारा ( 4 ) के खंड ( iii ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्र सरकार ने 1 अप्रैल , 1997 से शुरू होकर तथा 31मार्च, 2002 को समाप्त होने वाली अवधि के लिये संख्या का.आ. 193( अ ) दिनांक 30 मार्च , 1999 के ज़रिए तथा, 1 अप्रैल , 1997 से शुरू होकर तथा 31 मार्च, 2006 को समाप्त अवधि के लिए संख्या का.आ. 354 ( अ ) , के ज़रिए भारत सरकार वाणिज्य और उद्योग मंत्रालय ( औद्योगिक नीति और संवर्धन विभाग ) की अधिसूचनाओं द्वारा औद्योगिक पार्क की योजना निर्मित और अधिसूचित की है;

और , जबकि मैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट एंड इनवेस्टमेंट कारपोरेशन लि. जिसका पंजीकृत कार्यालय उद्योग भवन , तिलक मार्ग , जयपुर -302005 में है , औद्योगिक क्षेत्र हनुमानगढ़ फेस -2 हनुमानगढ़ , राजस्थान में एक औद्योगिक पार्क का विकास कर रहा है ;

और जबकि केन्द्र सरकार ने इस अधिसूचना के अनुबंध में उल्लिखित नियम और शर्तों के अधीन वाणिज्य तथा उद्योग मंत्रालय के दिनांक 24-04-2006 के पत्र सं. 15/202/2005- आई पी एंड आई डी के अन्तर्गत उक्त औद्योगिक पार्क को अनुमोदित किया है;

इसलिए अब उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 80 झ क की उप- धारा (4 ) के खंड ( iii ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्र सरकार एतद्वारा उक्त खंड ( iii ) के प्रयोजनार्थ औद्योगिक पार्क के रूप में मैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट एंड इनवेस्टमेंट कारपोरेशन लिमिटेड , जयपुर द्वारा विकसित तथा अनुरक्षित एवं प्रचालित किए जा रहे उक्त उपक्रम को अधिसूचित करती है ।

अनुबंध

नियम एवं शर्तें जिन पर भारत सरकार ने मैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट एंड इन्वेस्टमेंट कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड , जयपुर द्वारा औद्योगिक पार्क की गठित किए जाने हेतु अनुमोदन प्रदान किया है । 1. ( i ) औद्योगिक उपक्रम का नाम : राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट एंड इन्वेस्टमेंट कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड (ii) प्रस्तावित स्थान

: औद्योगिक क्षेत्र ,हनुमानगढ़ फेस-2 हनुमानगढ़ , राजस्थान

: 160.73 एकड़ ( iii ) औद्योगिक पार्क का क्षेत्रफल

(iv ) प्रस्तावित कार्यकलाप :

एन आई सी संहिता के साथ औद्योगिक कार्यकलाप

का स्वरूप

एन आई सी संहिता

प्रभाग

क्रम सं

अनुभाग

समूह क

2और 3

विवरण

श्रेणी

विनिर्माण कार्यकलाप [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

9457 भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 18 , 2006/कार्तिक 27 , 1928

98.68%

(v) औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए :.... निर्धारित आबंटनीय क्षेत्र का प्रतिशत

6. इस अधिसूचना के पैरा ( 1 ) ( vii ) में विनिर्दिष्ट संख्या में इकाइयों के औद्योगिक पार्क में अवस्थित होने के उपरान्त ही इस अधिनियम के अन्तर्गत कर लाभ प्राप्त हो सकते हैं ।

0.76%

(vi ) वाणिज्यिक उपयोग के लिए : निर्धारित क्षेत्र का प्रतिशत

95 यूनिटें

(vii ) औद्योगिक यूनिटों की : न्यूनतम संख्या

7. मैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट एंड इन्वेस्टमेंट कार्पोरेशन लि. , जयपुर उस अवधि के दौरान औद्योगिक पार्क का प्रचालन जारी रखेगा जिस अवधि में आयकर ,अधिनियम , 1961 की धारा 80झ क की उप- धारा ( 4 ) के खंड ( iii ) के अन्तर्गत लाभ लिए जाने हैं ।

282.84 लाख

(viii) प्रस्तावित कुल निवेश (राशि : रुपएमें)

शून्य

8. यदि उक्त औद्योगिक पार्क के आरंभ होने में इस अधिसूचना के पैरा 1 (xi ) में निर्दिष्ट तिथि से एक वर्ष से ज्यादा विलम्ब होता है तो आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 की धारा 80 झक की उप - धारा 4. (iii ) के अंतर्गत लाभ प्राप्त करने के लिए औद्योगिक पार्क योजना , 2002 के अन्तर्गत नया अनुमोदन प्राप्त करना अपेक्षित होगा । (ix) औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए : निर्मित स्थान पर निवेश (राशि रुपए में)

202.65 लाख

9. यह अनुमोदन अवैध रहेगा और मैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट एंड इन्वेस्टमेंट कार्पोरेशन लि. , जयपुर ऐसी किसी प्रतिक्रिया की अवैधता के लिए स्वयं ही जिम्मेदार होगा, यदि:

(x) अवसंरचनात्मक विकास पर निवेश जिसमें औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए निर्मित स्थान पर निवेश भी शामिल है (राशिरुपए में) :

31-3-2006

(i ) आवेदन पत्र जिसके आधार पर केन्द्र सरकार द्वारा अनुमोदन प्रदान किया गया है , में गलत सूचना/सूचना अथवा कतिपय तथ्यपरक सूचना न दी गई हो । (xi ) औद्योगिक पार्क के आरंभ होने की प्रस्तावित तिथि :

(ii ) यह उक्त औद्योगिक पार्क की अवस्थिति हेतु है जिसके लिए अनुमोदन किसी अन्य उपक्रम के नाम में पहले ही प्रदान किया गया है ।

2. किसी औद्योगिक पार्क में अवसंरचना विकास पर न्यूनतम निवेश कुल परियोजना लागत के 50 % से कम नहीं होगा । ऐसे औद्योगिक पार्क जो औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए निर्मित स्थल प्रदान करता है , के मामले में औद्योगिक स्थल के निर्माण कार्य की लागत सहित विकास अवसंरचना पर न्यूनतम खर्च कुल परियोजना लागत के 60% से कम नहीं होगा ।

10. यदि मैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट एंड इन्वेस्टमेंट कार्पोरेशन लि. , जयपुर ( अर्थात् अन्तरणकर्ता उपक्रम ) औद्योगिक पार्क का प्रचालन और अनुरक्षण किसी दूसरे उपक्रम (अर्थात् अंतरिती उपक्रम ) को हस्तांतरित करेगा तो अंतरणकर्ता और अंतरिती उपर्युक्त हस्तांतरण के लिए अंतरणकर्ता और अंतरिती उपक्रम के बीच निष्पादित करार की प्रति के साथ औद्योगिक सहायता सचिवालय , औद्योगिक नीति और संवर्धन विभाग , उद्योग भवन , नई दिल्ली -11 की उद्यमशीलता सहायता यूनिट को संयुक्त रूप से सूचित करेंगे । 3. संरचना विकास में सड़क ( सम्पर्क सड़क सहित ) , जलापूर्ति तथा सीवरेज़ , दूषित जल शोधन सुविधा , टेलिकॉम नेटवर्क, विद्युत उत्पादन एवं वितरण , वातानुकूलन तथा ऐसी अन्य सुविधाएं जो औद्योगिक कार्यकलाप हेतु सामान्य उपयोग के लिए हैं जो वाणिज्यिक दृष्टिसे निर्धारणीय एवं प्रयुक्त हैं ।

11. इस अधिसूचना में उल्लिखित शर्तों के साथ- साथ औद्योगिक पार्क स्कीम, 2002 में शामिल उन शर्तों का अनुपालन उस अवधि के दौरान किया जाना चाहिए जिसके लिए इस स्कीम के अंतर्गत लाभ प्राप्त किए जाने हैं । केन्द्र सरकार उपर्युक्त अनुमोदन को वापस ले सकती है यदि मैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट एंड इन्वेस्टमेंट कार्पोरेशन लि. , जयपुर औद्योगिक पार्क स्कीम , 2002 में विहित शर्तों अथवा इस अधिसूचना की किसी भी शर्त के अनुपालन में असफल रहता है।

4. दिनांक 1 अप्रैल , 2002 की का.आ. 354( अ ) के पैराग्राफ 6 के उप- पैराग्राफ ( ख ) में निर्दिष्ट तालिका के कॉलम ( 2 ) में उल्लिखित कोई एकल इकाई किसी औद्योगिक पार्क के लिए नियत औद्योगिक क्षेत्र का 50 % से अधिक हिस्सा धारित नहीं करेगी । इस प्रयोजनार्थ किसी इकाई का आशय एक या एक से अधिक राज्य अथवा केन्द्रीय कर कानून के प्रयोजन के लिए किसी अलग तथा भिन्न कम्पनी से है ।

[ अधिसूचना सं. 279/2006/फा. सं. 178/80/2006- आ.क.नि.- I ]

दीपक गर्ग , अवर सचिव 5. आवश्यक अनुमोदनों, जिनमें विदेशी निवेश संवर्धन बोर्ड अथवा भारतीय रिज़र्व बैंक अथवा उस समय प्रवृत्त किसी कानून के अन्तर्गत विनिर्दिष्ट किसी प्राधिकरण द्वारा विदेशी प्रत्यक्ष निवेश अथवा अनिवासी भारतीय निवेश के लिए अनुमोदन शामिल है , को प्रवृत नीति तथा प्रक्रियाओं के अनुसार अलग से लिया जाएगा । 9458

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 18 , 2006/KARTIKA 27 , 1928

(Department ofRevenue)

subject to the terms and conditions mentioned in the annexure to this notification ;

(CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES)

New Delhi , the 29th September , 2006

(INCOME- TAX)

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (iii ) of sub- section (4 ) of Section 80 - IA of the said Act, the Central Government hereby notifies the undertaking, being developed and being maintained and operated by M/s . Rajasthan State Industrial Development &Investment Corporation Limited, Jaipur , as an Industrial Park for the purposes of the said clause ( iii) .

ANNEXURE

Theterms and conditions on which the approval of theGovernment of India has been accorded for setting up of an Industrial Park by M/s . Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Limited , Jaipur.

1. (1) Name ofthe

S.O. 4389.-Whereas the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( iii ) of sub-section (4) of Section 80 - IA of the Income- tax Act , 1961 (43 of 1961 ) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) , has framed and notified a scheme for Industrial Park, by the notifications of the Government of India in theMinistry ofCommerce and Industry (Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion) vide number S.O. 193(E) , dated the 30th March, 1999, for the period beginning on the 1st day of April, 1997 and ending on the 31st day of March, 2002 and vide number S.O. 354(E) dated the 1st day of April, 2002, for the period beginning on the 1st day of April , 1997 and ending on the 31st day of March, 2006;

Industrial Undertaking

: Rajasthan State Industrial Development& Investment Corporation Limited, Jaipur .

(ii) Proposed location : Industrial Area Hanumangarh , Phase 2nd, Hanumangarh , Rajasthan .

And whereas M/s . Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Limited, having registered office at Udyog Bhawan , Tilak Marg , Jaipur- 302005 is developing an Industrial Park, at Industrial Area Hanumangarh, Phase 2nd, Hanumangarh, Rajasthan ;

160.73 Acres .

(ii) Area of Industrial : Park

(iv) Proposed activities

And whereas the Central Government has approved the said Industrial Park vide Ministry of Commerce and Industry letter No. 15/2002/2005 - IP & ID dated 24-4-2006

Nature of Industrial activity with NIC Code

NIC Code

Description

S. No.

Division

Section

Class

Group

2&3

Manufacturing

: 98.68%

(v) Percentage of allocable area earmarked for industrial use

: 0.76%

(vi) Percentage of allocable area earmarked for commercial use

95 Units

(vii) Minimum number of industrial : units

2. The minimum investment on infrastructure development in an Industrial Park shall not be less than 50% of the total project cost . In the case of an Industrial Park which provides built-up space for industrial use, the minimum expenditure on infrastructure development including cost of construction of industrial space , shall not be less than 60 % of the total project cost.

Rs . 282.84 lakhs

(viii) Total investments proposed : (Amount in Rupees)

(ix) Investment on built -up space : Nil for industrial use (Amount in Rupees)

: Rs . 202.65 lakhs

3. Infrastructure development shall include, roads (including approach roads ) , water supply and sewerage , common effluent treatment facility , telecom network , generation and distribution of power , air - conditioning and such other facilities as are for common use for industrial activity which are identifiable and are provided on commercial terms .

(x) Investment on Infrastructure Development including investment on built- up space for industrial use

(Amount in Rupees )

: 31-3-2006

(xi) Proposed date of Commencement of the Industrial Park

4. No single unit referred to in column (2) of the Table given in sub- paragraph (b) of paragraph 6 of S. O. 354 (E), dated the 1st April, 2002 , shall occupy more than fifty per cent of the allocable industrial area of an Industrial Park. For this purpose a unit means any separate and distinct entity for the purpose of one and more State or Central tax laws.

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

5. Necessary approvals , including that for foreign direct investment or non - resident Indian investment by the Foreign Investment Promotion Board or ReserveBank of India or any authority specified under any law for the time being in force, shall be taken separately as per the policy and procedures in force .

6. The tax benefits under the Act can be availed of only after the number of units indicated in Para 1 (vii ) of thisNotification , are located in the Industrial Park.

7. M/s . Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Limited, Jaipur shall continue to operate the Industrial Park during the period in which the benefits under clause ( iii ) of sub- section (4) of Section 80-1A of the Income- tax Act, 1961 are to be availed .

8. In case the commencement of the Industrial Park is delayedby more than one year from the date indicated in Para 1(xi) of this notification, fresh approval will be required under the Industrial Park Scheme, 2002, for availing benefits under sub - section 4( iii ) of Section 80 - IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

9. The approval will be invalid and M/s . Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Limited , Jaipur shall be solely responsible for any repercussions of such invalidity, if

(i) the application on the basis of which the approval is accorded by the Central Government contains wrong information/ misinformation or some material information has not been provided in it .

(ii) it is for the location of the Industrial Park for which approval has already been accorded in the name of another undertaking .

10. In case M / s . Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Limited, Jaipur transfers the operation and maintenance of the Industrial Park ( i.e. , transferor undertaking) to another undertaking ( i.e. , the transferee undertaking) , the transferor and transferee shall jointly intimate to the Entrepreneurial Assistance Unit of the Secretariat for Industrial Assistance, Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi - 11 along with a copy of the agreement executedbetween the transferor and transferee undertaking for the aforesaid transfer .

9459

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 18 , 2006/कार्तिक 27 , 1928

future, or failure on the part of the applicant to disclose any material fact , will invalidate the approval of the Industrial Park.

[Notification No. 279/2006/F. No. 178/80/2006 - ITA - I ] DEEPAK GARG, Under Secy .

नई दिल्ली, 29 सितम्बर , 2006 (आयकर)

का.आ. 4390.- जबकि आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 ( 1961 का 43 ) ( यहां आगे उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा . 80 झ क की उपधारा ( 4 ) के खंड ( iii ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्र सरकार ने 1 अप्रैल , 1997 से शुरू होकर तथा 31 मार्च , 2002 को समाप्त होने वाली अवधि के लिये संख्या का. आं. 193 (अ ) दिनांक 30 मार्च , 1999 के ज़रिए तथा 1 अप्रैल , 1997 से शुरू होकर तथा 31 मार्च , 2006 को समाप्त अवधि के लिए संख्या का.आ. 354 ( अ ) , के ज़रिए भारत सरकार वाणिज्य और उद्योग मंत्रालय ( औद्योगिक नीति और संवर्धन विभाग ) की अधिसूचनाओं द्वारा औद्योगिक पार्क की योजना निर्मित और अधिसूचित की है ;

और जबकि मैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट एंड इनवेस्टमेंट कारपोरेशन लिमिटेड जिसका पंजीकृत कार्यालय उद्योग भवन, तिलक मार्ग , जयपुर-302005 में है , औद्योगिक क्षेत्र भवानी मंडी, झालावाड़ , राजस्थान-326001 में एक औद्योगिक पार्क का विकास कर रहा है ;

और जबकि केन्द्र सरकार ने इस अधिसूचना के अनुबंध में उल्लिखित नियम और शर्तों के अधीन वाणिज्य तथा उद्योग मंत्रालय के दिनांक 11-05-2006 के पत्र सं. 15/ 103/2005- आई पी एंड आई डी के अन्तर्गत उक्त औद्योगिक पार्क अनुमोदित किया है;

इसलिए अब उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 80 झ क की उप - धारा (4 ) के खंड ( iii ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्र सरकार एतद्वारा उक्त खंड ( iii ) के प्रयोजनार्थ औद्योगिक पार्क के रूप में मैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट एंड इनवेस्टमेंट कारपोरेशन लिमिटेड, जयपुर द्वारा विकसित तथा अनुरक्षित एवं प्रचालित किए जा रहे उक्त उपक्रम को अधिसूचित करती है ।

अनुबंध

नियम एवं शर्तें जिन पर भारत सरकार ने मैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट एंड इन्वेस्टमेंट कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड , जयपुर द्वारा औद्योगिक पार्क की गठित किए जाने हेतु अनुमोदन प्रदान किया है । 1. ( i ) औद्योगिक उपक्रम का नाम : राजस्थान, स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट एंड इन्वेस्टमेंट कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड , ( ii ) प्रस्तावित स्थान

11. The conditions mentioned in this notification as well as those included in the Industrial Park Scheme , 2002 should be adhered to during the period for which benefits under this scheme are to be availed . The Central Government may withdraw the above approval in case M/ s . Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Limited, Jaipur , fails to comply with any of the conditions .

: औद्योगिक क्षेत्र, भवानी

मंडी, झालावाड़ , राजस्थान-326 001

: 49.19 एकड़ (iii ) औद्योगिक पार्क का क्षेत्रफल

12. Any amendment of the project plan without the approval of the Central Government or detection in 9460

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 18 , 2006/KARTIKA 27 , 1928

( iv) प्रस्तावित कार्यकलाप :

एन आई सी संहिता के साथ औद्योगिक कार्यकलाप

का स्वरूप

विवरण

एन आई सी संहिता

क्रम सं

श्रेणी

प्रभाग

समूह

अनुभाग

क

विनिर्माण कार्यकलाप

2और 3

(v) औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए : 96.9% निर्धारित आबंटनीय क्षेत्र का प्रतिशत

प्रयोजनार्थ किसी इकाई का आशय एक या एक से अधिक राज्य अथवा केन्द्रीय कर कानून के प्रयोजन के लिए किसी अलग तथा भिन्न कम्पनी से है ।

(vi ) वाणिज्यिक उपयोग के लिए : 3.0% निर्धारित क्षेत्र का प्रतिशत

(vii ) औद्योगिक यूनिटों की : 155 यूनिटें न्यूनतम संख्या

5. आवश्यक अनुमोदनों, जिनमें विदेशी निवेश संवर्धन बोर्ड अथवा भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक अथवा उस समय प्रवृत्त किसी कानून के अन्तर्गत विनिर्दिष्ट किसी प्राधिकरण द्वारा विदेशी प्रत्यक्ष निवेश अथवा अनिवासी भारतीय निवेश के लिए अनुमोदन शामिल है , को प्रवृत नीति तथा प्रक्रियाओं के अनुसार अलग से लिया जाएगा । (viii ) प्रस्तावित कुल निवेश ( राशि : 61.89 लाख रुपए में)

(ix)

औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए : शून्य निर्मित स्थान पर निवेश (राशिरुपए में)

7. मैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट एंड इन्वेस्टमेंट कार्पोरेशन लि. , जयपुर उस अवधि के दौरान औद्योगिक पार्क का प्रचालन जारी रखेगा जिस अवधि में आयकर अधिनियम, 1961 की धारा 80 झ क की उप- धारा ( 4 ) के खंड ( iii ) के अन्तर्गत लाभ लिए जाने हैं ।

(x) अवसंरचनात्मक विकास पर निवेश जिसमें औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए निर्मित स्थान पर निवेश भी शामिल है (राशि रुपए में ) : 59.40 लाख

(xi ) औद्योगिक पार्क के आरंभ होने की तिथि : 31-3-2006

8. यदि उक्त औद्योगिक पार्क के आरंभ होने में इस अधिसूचना के पैरा 1 ( xi ) में निर्दिष्ट तिथि से एक वर्ष से ज्यादा विलम्ब होता है तो आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 की धारा 80 झ क की उपधारा 4 ( iii ) के अंतर्गत लाभ प्राप्त करने के लिए औद्योगिक पार्क योजना , 2002 के अन्तर्गत नया अनुमोदन प्राप्त करना अपेक्षित होगा ।

9. यह अनुमोदन अवैध रहेगा और मैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट एंड इन्वेस्टमेंट कार्पोरेशन लि. , जयपुर ऐसी अवैधता के प्रणामों के लिए स्वयं ही जिम्मेदार होगा , यदि

(i ) आवेदन पत्र जिसके आधार पर केन्द्र सरकार द्वारा अनुमोदन प्रदान किया गया है , में गलत सूचना/ सूचना अथवा कतिपय तथ्यपरक सूचना न दी गई हो ।

3. संरचना विकास में सड़क ( सम्पर्क सड़क सहित ) , जलापूर्ति तथा सीवरेज़ , दूषित जल शोधन सुविधा , टेलिकॉम नेटवर्क , विद्युत उत्पादन एवं वितरण , वातानुकूलन तथा ऐसी अन्य सुविधाएं जो औद्योगिक कार्यकलाप हेतु सामान्य उपयोग के लिए हैं जो वाणिज्यिक दृष्टिसे निर्धारणीय एवं प्रयुक्त हैं ।

4. दिनांक 1 अप्रैल , 2002 की का.आ. 354 ( अ ) के पैराग्राफ 6 के उप- पैराग्राफ ( ख ) में निर्दिष्ट तालिका के कालम ( 2 ) में उल्लिखित कोई एकल इकाई किसी औद्योगिक पार्क के लिए नियत औद्योगिक क्षेत्र का 50 % से अधिक हिस्सा धारित नहीं करेगी । इस

के बीच निष्पादित करार की प्रति के साथ औद्योगिक सहायता सचिवालय, औद्योगिक नीति और संवर्धन विभाग , उद्योग भवन , नई दिल्ली-11 की उद्यमशीलता सहायता यूनिट को संयुक्त रूप से सूचित करेंगे । 11. इस अधिसूचना में उल्लिखित शतों के साथ- साथ औद्योगिक पार्कस्कीम, 2002 में शामिल उन शर्तों का अनुपालन उस अवधि के दौरान किया जाना चाहिए जिसके लिए इस स्कीम के अंतर्गत लाभ प्राप्त किए जाने हैं । केन्द्र सरकार उपर्युक्त अनुमोदन को वापस ले सकती है यदि मैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट एंड इन्वेस्टमेंट कार्पोरेशन लि. , जयपुर औद्योगिक पार्क स्कीम, 2002 में विहित शर्तों अथवा इस अधिसूचना की किसी भी शर्त के अनुपालन में असफल रहता है।

दीपक गर्ग , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 29th September, 2006

(INCOME- TAX)

S.O. 4390.-Whereas the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( iii) of Sub- section (4) of Section 80 - IA of the Income- tax Act , 1961 (43 of 1961) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) , has framed and notified a scheme for Industrial Park, by the notifications of the Government of India in the Ministry of Commerce and Industry (Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion) vide number S.O. 193 (E) , dated the 30th March , 1999, for the period beginning on the 1st day of April, 1997 and ending on the 31st day of March, 2002 and vide number S.O. 354(E) dated the 1st day of April, 2002, for the period beginning on the 1st day of April , 1997 and ending on the 31st day of March , 2006;

9461

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 18 , 2006/कार्तिक 27 , 1928

And whereas M/ s . Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Limited, having registered office at Udyog Bhawan , Tilak Marg , Jaipur-302005 is developing an Industrial Park, at Industrial Area Bhawani Mandi , Jhalawar, Rajasthan -326 001;

Andwhereas the Central Government has approved the said Industrial Park vide Ministry of Commerce and Industry letter No. 15/ 103/2005 - IP & ID dated 11-5-2006 subject to the terms and conditions mentioned in the annexure to this notification;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (iii) of Sub - section (4) of Section 80- IA of the said Act, the Central Government hereby notifies the undertaking, being developed and being maintained and operated by M/ s . Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Limited, Jaipur , as an Industrial Park for the purposes of the said clause (iii ) .

ANNEXURE

The terms and conditions on which the approval of theGovernment of India has been accorded for setting up of an industrial park by M/ s . Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Limited , Jaipur.

1. (i) Name of the Industrial Undertaking

: Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Limited.

(ii) Proposed location : Industrial Area Bhawani Mandi, Jhalawar,

Rajasthan-326 001

49.19 acres .

(iii) Area of Industrial : Park

(iv) Proposed activities

Nature of Industrial activity with NIC Code

NICCode

S. No.

Section

Division

Group A

2and3

: 96.9% (v) Percentage of allocable area earmarked for industrial use

3.0% (vi) Percentage of allocable area earmarked for commercial use

155 Units (vii) Minimum number of industrial : units

61.89 lakhs (viii) Total investments proposed : (Amount in Rupees)

(ix) Investment on built up space : Nil for industrial use (Amount in Rupees)

Description

Class

Manufacturing

: 59.40 lakhs (x) Investment on Infrastructure Development including investment on built up space for industrial use (Amount in Rupees )

: 31-3-2006 (xi) Proposed date of Commencement of the Industrial Park

2. The minimum investment on infrastructure development in an Industrial Park shall not be less than 9462

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 18 , 2006/KARTIΚΑ 27 , 1928

50% of the total project cost . In the case of an Industrial Park which provides built -up space for industrial use, the minimum expenditure on infrastructure development including cost of construction of industrial space, shall not be less than 60 % of the total project cost .

3. Infrastructure development shall include , roads (including approach roads ) , water supply and sewerage, common effluent treatment facility, telecom network , generation anddistribution of power, air - conditioning and such other facilities as are for common use for industrial activity which are identifiable and are provided on commercial terms .

4. No single unit referred to in column (2) of theTable given in sub-paragraph (b) of paragraph 6 of S.O. 354(E) , dated the 1st April , 2002, shall occupy more than fifty per cent of the allocable industrial area of an Industrial Park . For this purpose a unit means any separate and distinct entity for the purpose of one and more State or Central tax laws .

5. Necessary approvals , including that for foreign direct investment or non - resident Indian investment by the Foreign Investment Promotion Board or Reserve Bank of India or any authority specified under any law for the time being in force, shall be taken separately as per the policy and procedures in force .

6. The tax benefits under the Act can be availed of only after the number of units indicated in Para 1 (vii ) of this Notification , are located in the Industrial Park .

7. M/ s . Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Limited, Jaipur shall continue to operate the Industrial Park during the period in which the benefits under clause (iii ) of sub- section (4) of Section 80- IA of the Income- tax Act, 1961 are to be availed.

8. In case the commencement of the Industrial Park is delayed by more than one year from the date indicated in Para 1(xi) of this notification, fresh approval will be required under the Industrial Park Scheme, 2002, for availing benefits under sub- section 4 ( iii ) of Section 80- IA of the Income -tax Act, 1961 .

9. The approval will be invalid and M/s . Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Limited. Jaipur shall be solely responsible for any repercussions of such invalidity , if

(i) the application on the basis of which the approval is accorded by the Central Government contains wrong information/ misinformation or some material information has not been provided in it.

(ii) it is for the location of the Industrial Park for which approval has already been accorded in the name of another undertaking .

10. In case M/ s . Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Limited, Jaipur

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] transfers the operation and maintenance of the Industrial Park ( i.e. , transferor undertaking) to another undertaking (i.e. , the transferee undertaking), the transferor and transferee shall jointly intimate to the Entrepreneurial Assistance Unit of the Secretariat for Industrial Assistance , Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi - 11 alongwith a copy of the agreement executed between the transferor and transferee undertaking for the aforesaid transfer.

11. The conditions mentioned in this notification as well as those included in the Industrial Park Scheme , 2002 should be adhered to during the period for which benefits under this scheme are to be availed . The Central Government may withdraw the above approval in case M/s . Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Limited, Jaipur fails to comply with any of the conditions .

12. Any amendment of the project plan without the approval of the Central Government or detection in future, or failure on the part of the applicant to disclose any material fact , will invalidate the approval of the Industrial Park .

[Notification No. 280/2006/F. No. 178/78/2006- ITA- I ] DEEPAK GARG, Under Secy. नईदिल्ली , 29 सितम्बर , 2006 (आयकर)

का.आ. 4391.- जबकि आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 ( 1961 का 43 ) (यहां आगे उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 80 झ क की उप - धारा ( 4 ) के खंड ( iii ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्र सरकार ने 1 अप्रैल , 1997 से शुरू होकर तथा 31 मार्च, 2002 को समाप्त होने वाली अवधि के लिये संख्या का. आ. 193 (अ ) दिनांक 30 मार्च , 1999 के ज़रिए तथा, 1 अप्रैल , 1997 से शुरू होकर तथा 31 मार्च , 2006 को समाप्त अवधि के लिए संख्या का.आ. 354(अ ) , दिनांक 1 अप्रैल , 2002 के ज़रिए भारत सरकार, वाणिज्य और उद्योग मंत्रालय ( औद्योगिक नीति और संवर्धन विभाग ) की अधिसूचनाओं द्वारा औद्योगिक पार्क की योजना निर्मित और अधिसूचित की है ;

और जबकि मैसर्स बी आई पी डवलपर्स प्राइवेट लिमिटेड , जिसका पंजीकृत कार्यालय 9 बी , वुड स्ट्रीट, तृतीय तल , कोलकाता- 700 016 में है , प्लाट नं. 3 , ई पी आई पी , हह्वाइटफील्ड, बंगलौर में एक औद्योगिक पार्क का विकास कर रहा है ;

और जबकि केन्द्र सरकार ने इस अधिसूचना के अनुबंध में उल्लिखित नियम और शर्तों के अधीन वाणिज्य तथा उद्योग मंत्रालय केदिनांक 13-05-2005 के पत्र सं. 15-6-2005- आई पी एंड आई "डी ( वाणिज्य और उद्योग मंत्रालय द्वारा 25-05-2005 को संशोधित ) के अन्तर्गत उक्त औद्योगिक पार्क अनुमोदित किया है ;

इसलिए अब उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 80 झक की उपधारा (4) के खंड ( iii ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्र [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

9463

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 18 , 2006/कार्तिक 27 , 1928

(i ) औधोगिक उपक्रम का मान की आई पी डवलपर्स

1. प्राइवेट लिमिटेड

(ii ) प्रस्तावित स्थान

सरकार एतद्द्वारा उक्त खंड ( iii ) के प्रयोजनार्थ औद्योगिक पार्क के रूप में मैसर्स बी आई पी डवलपर्स प्राइवेट लिमिटेड , कोलकाता द्वारा विकसित तथा अनुरक्षित एवं प्रचालित किए जा रहे उक्त उपक्रम को अधिसूचित करती है ।

: प्लाट नं. 3 , ईपीआई पी, हवाइरफील्ड, बंगलौर अनुबंध

(iii ) औधोगिक पार्क का कुल 48,957 वर्ग मीटर क्षेत्रफल

(iv ) प्रस्तावित कार्यकलाप :

नियम एवं शर्तें जिन पर भारत सरकार ने मैसर्स बी आई पी डवलपर्स प्राइवेट लिमिटेड , कोलकाता द्वारा औद्योगिक पार्क गठित किए जाने हेतु अनुमोदन प्रदान किया है ।

एन आई सी संहिता के साथ औद्योगिक कार्यकलाप का स्वरूप

विवरण

एन आई सी सौहती

क्रम सं.

प्रभाग

श्रेणी

अनुभाग

समूह

क

2और 3

মিनিर्माण

ख

बिजली , गैस और पानी

ग

संचार सेवाएं

892

डाटा प्रोसेसिंग साफ्टवेयर हलमेंट एंड कम्प्यूटर कन्सल्टेन्सी सर्विसिज । 8

893

बिजनेस और मैनेजमेंट कन्सल्टेन्सी एक्टीविटीज़ च

894

वास्तुशिल्पीय और इंजिनियरिंग तथा अन्य तकनीकी परामर्शी कार्य

छ

895

टेक्नीकल टेस्टिंग एंड एनालाइसिस सर्विसिज़

: 90.01%

(v) औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए निर्धारित आबंटनीय क्षेत्र का प्रतिशत

: 9.99%

(vi ) वाणिज्यिक उपयोग के लिए निर्धारित क्षेत्र का प्रतिशत

2. किसी औद्योगिक पार्क में अवसंख्चना विकास पर न्यूनतम निवेश कुल परिभोजमा लागत के 50% से कम नहीं होगा । ऐसे औद्योगिक पार्क जो औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए निर्मित स्थल प्रदान करता है, के भामले में औद्योगिक स्थात के निर्माण कार्य की लागत सहित विकास अवसंरचना पर न्यूनतम खर्च कुल परियोजना लागत के 60% से कम नहीं होगाः ।

: 7यूनिटें

( vii ) औद्योगिक यूनिटों की न्यूनतम संख्या

: 532,380,068

(viii) प्रस्तावित कुल निवेश ( राशि रुपए में)

391,487,715

3. संरचना विकास में सड़क ( सम्पर्क सड़क सहित ) , जलापूर्ति तथा सीवरेज , दूषित जल शोधन सुविधा, टेलिकॉम नेटवर्क, विद्युत उत्पादन एवं वितरण , वातानुकूलम तथा ऐसी अन्य सुविधाएं जो औद्यागिक कार्यकलाप हेतु सामान्य उपयोग के लिए हैं जो वाणिज्यिक दृष्टि से निर्धारणीय एवं प्रयुक्त हैं ।

(ix) औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए निर्मित : स्थान पर निवेश (राशिरुपए में)

: 457,824,015

(x ) अवसंरचनात्मक विकास पर निवेश जिसमें औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए निर्मित स्थान पर मिवेश भी शामिल है ( राशि रुपए में)

: 30-11-2005

4. दिनांक 1 अप्रैल , 2002 की का. आ. 354 ( अ ) के पैराग्राफ 6 के उप- पैराग्राफ ( ख ) में निति तासिका के कालम ( 2 ) में उल्लिखित कोई एकल इकाई फिश्री औधोगिक पार्क के लिए नियत औद्योगिक क्षेत्र का 50 % से अधिक हिस्सा धारित नहीं करेगी । इस प्रयोजनार्थ किसी इकाई का आशय एक या एक से अधिक राज्य अथवा केन्द्रीय कर कानून के प्रयोजन को लिए किसी अलग तथा भिन्नकम्पनी से है ।

(xi ) औधोगिक पार्क के आरंभ होने की प्रस्तावित तिथि

3520 GI/2006-2 9464

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 18 , 2006 KARTIKA 27 , 1928

5. आवश्यक अनुमोदनों , जिनमें विदेशी निवेश संवर्धन बोर्ड अथवा भारतीय रिज़र्व बैंक अथवा उस समय प्रवृत्त किसी कानून के अंतर्गत विनिर्दिष्ट किसी प्राधिकरण द्वारा विदेशी प्रत्यक्ष निवेश अथवा अनिवासी भारतीय निवेश के लिए अनुमोदन शामिल है , को प्रवृत्त नीति तथा प्रक्रियाओं के अनुसार अलग से लिया जाएगा । 6. इस अधिसूचना के पैरा 1 ( vii ) में विनिर्दिष्ट संख्या में इकाइयों के औद्योगिक पार्क में अवस्थित होने के उपरान्त ही इस अधिनियम के अन्तर्गत कर लाभ प्राप्त हो सकते हैं ।

7. मैसर्स बी आई पी डवलपर्स प्राइवेट लिमिटेड , उस अवधि के दौरान औद्योगिक पार्क का प्रचालन जारी रखेगा जिस अवधि में आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 की धारा 80 झ क की उप - धारा ( 4 ) के खंड ( iii ) के अन्तर्गत लाभ लिए जाने हैं ।

8. यदि उक्त औद्योगिक पार्क के आरंभ होने में इस अधिसूचना के पैरा 1 ( xi ) में निर्दिष्ट तिथि से एक वर्ष से ज्यादा विलम्ब होता है तो आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 की धारा 80 झक की उप- धारा 4 ( iii ) के अंतर्गत लाभ प्राप्त करने के लिए औद्योगिक पार्क योजना, 2002 के अंतर्गत नया अनुमोदन प्राप्त करना अपेक्षित होगा । 9. यह अनुमोदन अवैध रहेगा और मैसर्स बी आई पी डवलपर्स प्राइवेट लिमिटेड , ऐसी अवैधता के परिणामों के लिए स्वयं ही जिम्मेदार होगा, यदि--

(i ) आवेदन पत्र जिसके आधार पर केन्द्र सरकार द्वारा अनुमोदन प्रदान किया गया है , में गलत सूचना/सूचना अथवा कतिपय तथ्यपरक सूचना न दी गई हो ।

( ii ) यह उक्त औद्योगिक पार्क की अवस्थिति हेतु है जिसके लिए अनुमोदन किसी अन्य उपक्रम के नाम में पहले ही प्रदान किया गया है ।

10. यदि मैसर्स बी आई पी डवलपर्स प्राइवेट लिमिटेड ( अर्थात् अन्तकरणकर्ता उपक्रम ) औद्योगिक पार्क का प्रचालन और अनुरक्षण किसी दूसरे उपक्रम ( अर्थात् अंतरिती उपक्रम ) को हस्तांतरित करेगा तो अंतरणकर्ता और अंतरिती उपर्युक्त हस्तांतरण के लिए अंतरणकर्ता और अंतरिती उपक्रम के बीच निष्पादित करार की प्रति के साथ औद्योगिक सहायता सचिवालय , औद्योगिक नीति और संवर्धन विभाग , उद्योग भवन , नई दिल्ली-11 की उद्यमशीलता सहायता यूनिट को संयुक्त रूप से सूचित करेंगे ।

11. इस अधिसूचना में उल्लिखित शर्तों के साथ- साथ औद्योगिक पार्कस्कीम , 2002 में शामिल उन शर्तों का अनुपालन उस अवधि के दौरान किया जाना चाहिए जिसके लिए इस स्कीम के अंतर्गत लाभ प्राप्त किए जाने हैं । केन्द्र सरकार उपर्युक्त अनुमोदन को वापस ले सकती है यदि मैसर्स बी आई पी डवलपर्स प्राईवेट लिमिटेड औद्योगिक पार्कस्कीम , 2002 में विहित शतौँ अथवा इस अधिसूचना की किसी भी शर्त के अनुपालन में असफल रहता है ।

12. केन्द्र सरकार के अनुमोदन के बिना प्रोजेक्ट प्लान में किया गया कोई भी संशोधन अथवा भविष्य में पता लगना अथवा

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] किसी ठोस तथ्य का उद्घाटन करने में आवेदक का असफल रहना , औद्योगिक पार्क के अनुमोदन को अवैध बना देगा ।

[ अधिसूचना सं. 281/2006/फा. सं. 178/63/2005-आ.क.नि. - 1 ]

दीपक गर्ग , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 29th September , 2006 (INCOME- TAX)

S.O. 4391.-Whereas the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (iii ) of sub- section(4) of Section 80 - IA of the Income- tax Act , 1961 (43 of1961 ) ( hereinafter referred to as the said Act), has framed and notified a scheme for industrial park , by the notifications of the Government of India in the Ministry of Commerce and Industry (Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion ) vide number S.O. 193 (E ) , dated the 30th March , 1999 , for the period beginning on the 1st day ofApril , 1997 and ending on the 31st day of March , 2002 and vide number S.O. 354(E) dated the 1st day of April, 2002, for the period beginning on the 1st day of April , 1997 and ending on the 31st day of March, 2006;

And whereas M/s . BIP Developers Private Limited . having registered office at 9B , Wood Street, 3rd Floor, Kolkata - 700 016 , is developing an Industrial Park at Plot No. 3 , EPIP, Whitefield, Bangalore ;

And whereas the Central Government has approved the said Industrial Park vide Ministry of Commerce and Industry, letter No. 15 /6/ 05 - IP& ID dated 13-05-2005 (corrected by Ministry of Commerce and Industry an 25-05-2005) subject to the terms and conditions mentioned in the annexure to this notification;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (iii ) of sub - section (4) of Section 80-1A of the said Act, the Central Government hereby notifies the undertaking being developed and being maintained and operated by M/ s . BIP Developers Private Limited, Kolkata , as an industrial park for the purposes of the said clause( iii) .

ANNEXURE

The terms and conditions on which the approval of theGovernment of India has been accorded for setting up of an industrial park by M/ s . BIP Developers Private Limited, Kolkata :

1. ( i) Name of the Industrial : BIP Developers Undertaking Private Limited .

(ii) Proposed location : Plot No. 3 , ΕΡΙΡ , Whitefield, Bangalore.

(iii) Total area of Industrial : Park

48,957 Square Meters .

(iv) Proposed activities [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

Nature of Industrial activity with NIC code NICCode

9465

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 18 , 2006/कार्तिक 27 , 1928

Description

Class

S. Section Division Group No.

A 2 and 3

Manufacturing B 4

2. The minimum investment of infrastructure development in an Industrial Park shall not be less than 50% of the total project cost. In the case of an Industrial Park which provides built -up space for industrial use , the minimum expenditure on infrastructure development including cost of construction of industrial space , shall not be less than60% of the total project cost.

Electricity, Gas and

Water

: 75

Communication Services

892

3. Infrastructure development shall include, roads (including approach roads ) , water supply and sewerage , common effluent treatment facility, telecom network, generation and distribution of power , air- conditioning and such other facilities as are for commom use for industrial activity which are identifiable and are provided on commercial terms.

Data Processing ,

Software

Development and

Computer

consultancy

services

893

Business and management consultancy activities

894

4. No single unit referred to in column (2) of the Table given in sub-paragraph (b ) of paragraph 6 of S.O. 354(E) dated the 1st Apri 1, 2002, shall occupy more thanfifty per cent of the allocable industrial area of an Industrial Park . For this purpose a unit means any separate and distinct entity for the purpose of one and more state of Central Tax laws .

Architectural and

engineering and

other technical

consultancy

activities

895

5. Necessary approvals, including that for foreign direct investment or non - resident Indian investment by the Foreign Investment Promotion Board or Reserve Bank ofIndia or any authority specified under any law for the time being in force , shall be taken separately as per the policy and procedures in force .

Technical testing

and analysis

services

: 90.01 % .

(v) Percentage of allocable area earmarked for industrial use

9.99%

(vi ) Percentage of allo- cable area earmarked for commercial use .

7 Units

(vii) Minimum number : of industrial units

532,380,068

(viii) Total investments : proposed (Amount in Rupees) .

: 391,487,715

(ix) Investment on built up space for Industrial use (Amount in Rupees) .

: 457,824,015

(x) Investment on Infrastructure Develop- ment including investment onbuilt up space for industrial use (Amount in Rupees).

30-11-2005

(xi) Proposed date of commencement of the Industrial Park

6. The taxbenefits under the Act can be availed of only after the number of units indicated in Para 1 ( vii) of this Notification , are located in the Industrial Park .

7. M/s . BIP Developers Private Limited, shall continue to operate the Industrial Park during the period in which the benefits under clause ( iii ) of sub- section (4)ofsection 80 IA of the Income- Tax Act , 1961 are tobe availed .

8. In case the commencement of the Industrial Park is delayedbymore than one year from the date indicated inPara 1 (xi ) of this notification, fresh approval will be required under the Industrial Park Scheme, 2002, for availing benefits under sub - section 4( iii ) of Section 80 - IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 .

9. The approval will be invalid and M/s . BIP Developers Private Limited, shall be solely responsible for any repercussions of such invalidity, if-

(i) the application on the basis of which the approval is accorded by the Central Government contains wrong information/ misinformation or some material information has not been provided in it.

(ii) it is for the location of the Industrial Park for which approval has already been accorded in the name of another undertaking .

9466

[PART II -SEC. 3(ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 18 , 2006/KARTIKA27, 1928

10. In case M/s. DPDevelopas Private Limited, transfers the operation andmaintenance of the industrial park (i.c. , transfotorundertaking ) to another undertaking (i.c. , the transferve undertaking) , the transferor and transferoc shall jointly intimate to the Entrepreneurial Assistance Unit of the Secretariat for Industrial Assistance, Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi - 11 alongwith a copy of the agreement executed between the transferor and transferee undertaking for the aforesaid transfer.

सरकार एतद्‌द्वारा हक्त खंड ( iii ) के प्रयोजनार्थ औद्योगिक पार्क के रूप में मैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट एण्ड इन्वेस्टमेंट कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड , जयपुर द्वारा विकसित तथा अनुरक्षित एवं प्रचालित किए जा रहे उक्त उपक्रम को अधिसूचित करती है ।

अनुबंध

नियम एवं शर्तें जिन पर भारत सरकार ने मैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट एण्ड इन्वेस्टमेंट कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड , जयपुर द्वारा औद्योगिक पार्क के गठित किए जाने हेतु अनुमोदन प्रदान किया है ।

1. ( i ) औद्योगिक उपक्रम

का नाम

: राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट एण्ड इन्वेस्टमेंट कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड (ii) प्रस्तावित स्थान

11. The conditions mentioned in this notification as well as those included in the Industrial Park Scheme, 2002 should be adhered to during the period for which benefits under this scheme are to be availed. The Central Government may withdraw the above approval in case M/ s . BIP Developers Private Limited, fails to comply with any of the conditions .

12. Any amendment of the project plan without the approvalof the Central Government or detection in future, or failure on the part of the applicant to disclose any material fact, will invalidate the approval of the industrial park .

[Notification No. 281/2006/F. No. 178 /63/2005- ITA- I ]

DEEPAK GARG, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 29 सितम्बर , 2006

(आयकर)

: औद्योगिक क्षेत्र झुनझुनु , फेज- II , जिला झुनझुनु , राजस्थान

(iii ) औद्योगिक पार्क का क्षेत्रफल : 124.06 एकड़

(iv) प्रस्तावित कार्यकलाप

एन आई सी संहिता के साथ औद्योगिक कार्यकलाप का स्वरूप एन आई सी संहिता

विवरण प्रभाग

क्रम सं. अनुभाग

समूह श्रेणी

क 2और 3

का.आ. 4392-जबकि आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 ( 1961 का 43) (यहां आगे उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 80 झ क की उप- धारा ( 4 ) के खंड ( iii ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्र सरकार ने 1 अप्रैल , 1997 से शुरू होकर तथा 31 मार्च, 2002 को समाप्त होने वाली अवधि के लिये संख्या का.आ. 193 (अ ) दिनांक 30 मार्च , 1999 के जरिये तथा 1 अप्रैल , 1997 से शुरू होकर तथा 31 मार्च , 2006 को समाप्त अवधि के लिए संख्या का.आ. 354(अ ) के जरिए भारत सरकार , वाणिज्य और उद्योग मंत्रालय (औद्योगिक नीति और संवर्धन विभाग ) की अधिसूचनाओं द्वारा औद्योगिक पार्क की योजना निर्मित और अधिसूचित की है ;

और जबकि मैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट एण्ड इन्वेस्टमेंट कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड जिसका पंजीकृत कार्यालय उद्योग भवन, तिलक मार्ग , जयपुर-302005 में है , औद्योगिक क्षेत्र झुनझुनु, फेज- II , जिला झुनझुनु , राजस्थान में एक औद्योगिक पार्क का विकास कर रहा है;

और जबकि केन्द्र सरकार ने इस अधिसूचना के अनुबंध में उल्लिखित नियम और शर्तों के अधीन वाणिज्य तथा उद्योग मंत्रालय के दिनांक 24-4-2006 के पत्र सं. 15/191/2005- आई पी एंड आई डी के अन्तर्गत उक्त औद्योगिक पार्क अनुमोदित किया है ;

इसलिए, अब उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 80झ क की उप- धारा (4 ) के खंड ( iii ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्र

विनिर्माण कार्यकलाप

: 100%

( v ) औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए निर्धारित आबंटनीय क्षेत्र का प्रतिशत

(vi ) वाणिज्यिक उपयोग के लिए निर्धारित क्षेत्र का प्रतिशत : शून्य

: 160 यूनिटें

(vii ) औद्योगिक यूनिटों की न्यूनतम संख्या

: 256.78 लाख (viii) प्रस्तावित कुल निवेश (राशि रुपयों में)

: शून्य

(ix) औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए निर्मित स्थान पर निवेश ( राशि रुपयों में)

(x ) अवसंरचनात्मक विकास पर 202.18 लाख निवेश जिसमें औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए निर्मित स्थान पर निवेश भी शामिल है (राशि रुपयों में) [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

9467

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 18 , 2006/फार्तिक 27 , 1928

: 31-3-2006

(xi ) औद्योगिक पार्क के आरंभ होने की प्रस्तावित तिथि

2. किसी औद्योगिक पार्क में अवसंरचना विकास पर न्यूनतम निवेश कुल परियोजना लागत के 50% से कम नहीं होगा । ऐसे औद्योगिक पार्क जो औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए निर्मित स्थल प्रदान करता है , के मामले में औद्योगिक स्थल के निर्माण कार्य की लागत सहित विकास अवसंरचना पर न्यूनतम खर्च कुल परियोजना लागत के 60 % से कम नहीं होगा ।

10. यदि मैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट एण्ड इन्वेस्टमेंट कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, जयपुर (अर्थात् अन्तरणकर्ता उपक्रम ) औद्योगिक पार्क का प्रचालन और अनुरक्षण किसी दूसरे उपक्रम (अर्थात् अंतरिती उपक्रम ) को हस्तांतरित करेगा तो अंतरणकर्ता और अंतरिती उपर्युक्त हस्तांतरण के लिए अंतरणकर्ता और अंतरिती उपक्रम के बीच निष्पादित करार की अत्ति के साथ औद्योमिक सहायता सचिवालय , औधोगिक नीति और संवर्धन विभाग , उद्योग भवन , नई दिल्ली -11 की उद्यमशीलता सहायता यूनिट संयुक्त रूप से सूचित करेंगे । 3. संरचना विकास में सड़क ( सम्पर्क सड़क सहित ) , जलापूर्ति तथा सीवरेज, दूषित जल शोधन सुविधा, टेलिकॉम नेटवर्क, विद्युत उत्पादन एवं वितरण , वातानुकूलन तथा ऐसी अन्य सुविधाएं जो औद्योगिक कार्यकलाप हेतु सामान्य उपयोग के लिए हैं जो वाणिज्यिक दृष्टिसे निर्धारणीय एवं प्रयुक्त हैं ।

11. इस अधिसूचना में उल्लिखित शतों के साथ-साथ औद्योगिक पार्कस्कीम, 2002 में शामिल उन शतों का अनुपालन उस अवधि के दौरान किया जाना चाहिए जिसके लिए इस स्कीम के अंतर्गत लाभ प्राप्त किए जाने हैं । केन्द्र सरकार उपर्युक्त अनुमोदन को वापस ले सकती है । मैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट एण्ड इन्वेस्टमेंट कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड , जयपुर औद्योगिक पार्क स्कीम , 2002 में विहित शताँ अथवा इस अधिसूचना की किसी भी शर्त के अनुपालन में असफल रहता है ।

4. दिनांक 1 अप्रैल , 2002 की का.आ. 354 (अ ) के पैराग्राफ 6 के उप पैराग्राफ (ख ) में निर्दिष्ट तालिका के कालम (2 ) में उल्लिखित कोई एकल इकाई किसी औद्योगिक पार्क के लिए नियत औद्योगिक क्षेत्र का 50 % से अधिक हिस्सा धारित नहीं करेंगी । इस प्रयोजनार्थ किसी इकाई का आशय एक या एक से अधिक राज्य अथवा केन्द्रीय कर कानून के प्रयोजन के लिए किसी अलग तथा भिन्न कम्पनी से है ।

12. केन्द्र सरकार के अनुमोदन के बिना प्रोजेक्ट प्लान में किया गया कोई भी संशोधन अथवा भविष्य में पता लगना अथवा किसी ठोस तथ्य का उद्घाटन करने में आवेदक का असफल रहना , औद्योगिक पार्क के अनुमोदन को अवैध बना देना । 5. आवश्यक अनुमोदनों , जिनमें विदेशी निवेश संवर्धन बोर्ड अथवा भारतीय रिज़र्व बैंक अथवा उस समय प्रवृत्त किसी कानून के अंतर्गत विनिर्दिष्ट किसी प्राधिकरण द्वारा विदेशी प्रत्यक्ष निवेश अथवा अनिवासी भारतीय निवेश के लिए अनुमोदन शामिल है, को प्रवृत्त नीति तथा प्रक्रियाओं के अनुसार अलग से लिया जाएगा ।

[ अधिसूचना सं. 278/2006/फा. सं. 178/76/2006- आ.क.नि.- I ] दीपक गर्ग, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 29th September , 2006 6. इस अधिसूचना के पैरा 1 ( vii ) में विनिर्दिष्ट संख्या में इकाइयों के औद्योगिक पार्क में अवस्थित होने के उपरान्त ही इस अधिनियम के अन्तर्गत कर लाभ प्राप्त हो सकते हैं ।

(INCOME- TAX)

7. मैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट एण्ड इन्वेस्टमेंट कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड , जयपुर उस अवधि के दौरान औधोगिक पार्क का प्रचालन जारी रखेगा जिस अवधि में आयकर अधिनियम, 1961 की धारा 80 झ क की उप- धारा ( 4 ) के खखंड ( iii ) के अन्तर्गत लाभ लिए जाने हैं ।

8. यदि उक्त औद्योगिक पार्क के आरंभ होने में इस अधिसूचना के पैरा 1 (xi ) में निर्दिष्ट तिथि से एक वर्ष से ज्यादा विलम्ब होता है तो आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 की धारा 80झ क की उप- धारा (4) ( iii ) के अंतर्गत लाभ प्राप्त करने के लिए औद्योगिक पार्क योजना, 2002 के अंतर्गत नया अनुमोदन प्राप्त करना अपेक्षित होगा ।

S.O. 4392.-Whereas the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( iii) of sub- section(4) of Section 80- IA of the Income-tax Act , 1961 (43 of 1961) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) , has framed and notified a scheme for industrial park , by the notifications of the Government of India in the Ministry of Commerce and Industry (Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion) vide number S.O. 193 (E) , dated the 30th March, 1999, for the period beginning on the 1st day of April, 1997 and ending on the 31st day of March , 2002 and videnumber S.O. 354(E), dated the 1st dayApril, 2002, for the period beginning on the 1st day of April , 1997 and ending on the31st day of March, 2006;

9. यह अनुमोदन अवैध रहेगा और मैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट एण्ड इन्वेस्टमेंट कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड , जयपुर ऐसी अवैधता के परिणामों के लिए स्वयं ही जिम्मेदार होगा , यदि

And whereas M/ s . Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Limited, having registered office at Udyog Bhawan , Tilak Marg , Jaipur-302005 is developing an Industrial Park at Industrial Area Jhunjhunu, Phase- II , District Jhunjhunu , Rajasthan;

( i ) आवेदन पत्र जिसके आधार पर केन्द्र सरकार द्वारा अनुमोदन प्रदान किया गया है, में गलत सूचना सूचना अथवा कतिपय तथ्यपरक सूचना न दी गई हो । 9468

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 18 , 2006/KARTIKA 27 , 1928

Andwhereas the Central Government has approved the said Industrial Park vide Ministry of Commerce and Industry letter No. 15/ 191/2005 - IP& ID dated 24-4-2006 subject to the terms and conditions mentioned in the annexure to his notification;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (iii ) of sub- section (4) of Section 80- IA of the said Act, the Central Government hereby notifies the undertaking being developed and being maintained and operated by M/ s . Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Limited, Jaipur, as an industrial park for the purposes of the said clause (iii) .

ANNEXURE

The terms and conditions on which the approval of the Government of India has been accorded for setting up of an industrial park by M/ s . Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Limited, Jaipur.

1. (i) Name of the

Rajasthan Industrial

Undertaking

: State Industrial Development and Investment Cor- poration Limited.

: Industrial Area, (ii) Proposed

location

Jhunjhunu, Phase - II, District-Jhunjhunu , Rajasthan.

: 124.06 Acres .

(iii) Area of Industrial Park

(iv) Proposed Activities :

Nature of Industrial activity with NIC code NIC Code

Description S. No. Section Division Group Class

A 2&3

Manufacturing

100% (v) Percentage of : allocable area earmarked for Industrial use

: Nil

(vi) Percentage of allocable area earmarked for commercial use

160Units (vii) Minimum number : of industrial units

: 256.78 lakhs (viii) Total investments proposed (Amount inRupees)

: Nil Investment on built

(ix) up space for Industrial use (Amount in Rupees)

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

202.18 lakhs (x) Investment on :

Infrastructure

Development includ- ing investment on built up space for industrial use (Amount in Rupees)

31-03-2006 (xi) Proposed date of : commencement of the Industrial Park .

2. The minimum investment on infrastructure development in an Industrial Park shall not be less than 50% of the total project cost. In the case of an Industrial Park which provides built- up space for industrial use , the minimum expenditure on infrastructure development including cost of construction of industrial space, shall not be less than 60% of the total project cost.

3. Infrastructure development shall include, roads (including approach roads ) , water supply and sewerage , common effluent treatment facility, telecom network, generation and distribution of power, air - conditioning and such other facilities as are for common use for industrial activity which are identifiable and are provided on commercial terms .

4. No single unit referred to in column (2 ) of the Table given in sub - paragraph (b ) of paragraph 6 of S.O. 354(E ) dated the 1st April, 2002, shall occupy more than fifty per cent of the allocable industrial area of an Industrial Park. For this purpose a unit means any separate and distinct entity for the purpose of one andmore State or Central tax laws .

5. Necessary approvals , including that for foreign direct investment or non - resident Indian investment by the Foreign Investment Promotion Board or Reserve Bank of India or any authority specified under any law for the time being in force, shall be taken separately as per the policy and procedures in force .

6. The tax benefits under the Act can be availed ofonly after the number of units indicated in Para 1 (vii ) of this Notification, are located in the Industrial Park .

7. M/ s. Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Limited, Jaipur, shall continue to operate the Industrial Park during the period in which the benefits under clause ( iii ) of sub- section (4) of Section 80- IA of the Income - tax Act , 1961 are to be availed .

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

8. In case the commencement of the Industrial Park is delayed by more than one year from the date indicated in Para 1 ( xi) of this notification, fresh approval will be required under the Industrial Park Scheme, 2002 , for availing benefits under sub - section 4(iii ) of Section80-1A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 .

9. The approval will be invalid and M/s . Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Limited, Jaipur , shall be solely responsible for any repercussions ofsuch invalidity, if:

(i) the application on the basis of which the approval is accorded by the Central Government contains wrong information/ misinformation or some material information has not been provided in it.

(ii) it is for the location of the Industrial Park for which approval has already been accorded in the name of another undertaking.

10. In case M/ s . Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Limited, Jaipur, transfer the operation and maintenance of the Industrial Park ( i.e. transferor undertaking) to another undertaking (i.e. the transferee undertaking) , the transferor and transferee shall jointly intimate to the Entrepreneurial Assistance Unit of the Secretariat for Industrial Assistance , Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi - 11 along with a copy of the agreement executed between the transferor and transferee undertaking for the aforesaid transfer .

11. The conditions mentioned in this notification as well as those included in the Industrial ParkScheme, 2002 should be adhered toduring the period for which benefits under this scheme are to be availed . The Central Government may withdraw the above approval in case M/ s . Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Limited, Jaipur, fails to comply with any of the conditions .

12. Any amendment of the project plan without the approval of the Central Government or detection in future, or failure on the part of the applicant to disclose any material fact, will invalidate the approval of the industrial park.

[Notification No. 278 /2006/F . No. 178 /76/2006- ITA- I]

DEEPAK GARG, Under Secy.

9469

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 18 , 2006/कार्तिक 27 , 1928

नई दिल्ली, 29 सितम्बर , 2006 (आयकर)

का.आ. 4393- जबकि आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 ( 1961 का 43 ) ( यहां आगे उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 80 झ क की उप - धारा (4 ) के खंड ( iii ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्र सरकार ने 1 अप्रैल , 1997 से शुरू होकर तथा 31 मार्च, 2002 को समाप्त होने वाली अवधि के लिये संख्या का.आ. 193( अ ) दिनांक 30 मार्च, 1999 के जरिये तथा 1 अप्रैल , 1997 से शुरू होकर तथा 31 मार्च, 2006 को समाप्त अवधि के लिए संख्या का.आ. 354 ( अ ) के जरिए भारत सरकार , वाणिज्य और उद्योग मंत्रालय ( औद्योगिक नीति और संवर्धन विभाग ) की अधिसूचनाओं द्वारा औद्योगिक पार्क की योजना निर्मित और अधिसूचित की है;

और जबकि मैसर्स विजाग आईटी पार्क लिमिटेड, जिसका पंजीकृत कार्यालय वी यू डी ए कम्पाउंड , सीरीपुरम , विशाखापटनम -530003 में है , औद्योगिक क्षेत्र वी यूडी ए कम्पाउंड, सीरीपुरम , विशाखापटनम ( जिला विशाखापटनम ) , आन्ध्र प्रदेश -530003 में एक औद्योगिक पार्क का विकास कर रहा है ;

और जबकि केन्द्र सरकार ने इस अधिसूचना के अनुबंध में उल्लिखित नियम और शर्तों के अधीन वाणिज्य तथा उद्योग मंत्रालय के दिनांक 1-09-2004 के पत्र सं. 15/18/2004- आई पी एंड आई डी के अन्तर्गत उक्त औद्योगिक पार्क अनुमोदित किया है;

इसलिए, अब उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 80 झक की उप- धारा ( 4 ) क खंड ( iii ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्र सरकार एतद्द्वारा उक्त खंड ( iii ) के प्रयोजनार्थ औद्योगिक पार्क के रूप में मैसर्स विजाग आईटी पार्क लिमिटेड , विशाखापटनम द्वारा विकसित तथा अनुरक्षित एवं प्रचालित किए जा रहे उक्त उपक्रम को अधिसूचित करती है ।

अनुबंध

नियम एवं शर्तें जिन पर भारत सरकार ने मैसर्स विजाग आईटी पार्क लिमिटेड , विशाखापटनम द्वारा औद्योगिक पार्क की गठित किए जाने हेतु अनुमोदन प्रदान किया है

1. ( i ) औद्योगिक उपक्रम का नाम

: मैसर्स विजाग आईटी पार्क लिमिटेड,

(ii ) प्रस्तावित स्थान

: वी यूडी ए कम्पाउंड , सीरीपुरम विशाखापटनम ( जिला विशाखापटनम ) , आन्ध्र प्रदेश-530003

: 2 एकड़

(iii ) औद्योगिक पार्क का क्षेत्रफल [PART II-SEC. 3(ii )) 9470

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 18, 2006/KARTIΚΑ27 , 1928

( iv ) प्रस्तावित कार्यकलाप :

एन आई सी संहिता के साथ औद्योगिक कार्यकलाप का स्वरूप

एन आई सी संहिता

प्रभाग

श्रेणी विवरण

समूह

अनुभाग

क्रम सं.

4. दिनांक 1 अप्रैल , 2002 की का. आ. 354( अ ) के पैराग्राफ 6 के उप पैराग्राफ (ख ) में निर्दिष्ट तालिका के कालम ( 2 ) में उल्लिखित कोई एकल इकाई किसी औद्योगिक पार्क के लिए नियत औद्योगिक क्षेत्र का 50 % से अधिक हिस्सा धारित नहीं करेगी । इस प्रयोजनार्थ किसी इकाई का आशय एक या एक से अधिक राज्य अथवा केन्द्रीय कर कानून के प्रयोजन के लिए किसी अलग तथा भिन्नकम्पनी से है ।

क

892

5. आवश्यक अनुमोदनों , जिनमें विदेशी निवेश संवर्धन बोर्ड अथवा भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक अथवा उस समय प्रवृत्त किसी कानून के अंतर्गत विनिर्दिष्ट किसी प्राधिकरण द्वारा विदेशी प्रत्यक्ष निवेश अथवा अनिवासी भारतीय निवेश के लिए अनुमोदन शामिल है , को प्रवृत्त नीति तथा प्रक्रियाओं के अनुसार अलग से लिया जाएगा ।

डाय

प्रोसेसिंग

साफ्टवेयर

डेवलपमेंट

एंड कम्प्यूटर

कन्सल्टेन्सी

सर्विसिज़

: 85%

6. इस अधिसूचना के पैरा 1 ( vii ) में विनिर्दिष्ट संख्या में इकाइयों के औद्योगिक पार्क में अवस्थित होने के उपरान्त ही इस अधिनियम के अन्तर्गत कर लाभ प्राप्त हो सकते हैं । (v ) औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए निर्धारित आबंटनीय क्षेत्र का प्रतिशत

( vi ) वाणिज्यिक उपयोग के लिए निर्धारित क्षेत्र का प्रतिशत : 5%

7. मैसर्स विजाग आई टी पार्क लिमिटेड , विशाखापटनम उस अवधि के दौरान औद्योगिक पार्क का प्रचालन जारी रखेगा जिस अवधिमें आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 की धारा 80 झ क की उप- धारा (4) के खंड ( iii ) के अन्तर्गत लाभ लिए जाने हैं ।

(vii ) औद्योगिक यूनिटों की : 5 यूनिटें न्यूनतम संख्या

: 35करोड़ (viii ) प्रस्तावित कुल निवेश (राशिरुपयों में)

: 25 करोड़

8. यदि उक्त औद्योगिक पार्क के आरंभ होने में इस अधिसूचना के पैरा 1 ( xi ) में निर्दिष्ट तिथि से एक वर्ष से ज्यादा विलम्ब होता है तो आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 की धारा 80झ क की उपधारा 4 ( iii ) के अंतर्गत लाभ प्राप्त करने के लिए औद्योगिक पार्क योजना, 2002 के अंतर्गत नया अनुमोदन प्राप्त करना अपेक्षित होगा । ( ix ) औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए निर्मित स्थान पर निवेश ( राशि रुपयों में)

9. यह अनुमोदन अवैध रहेगा और मैसर्स विजाग आई टी पार्क लिमिटेड , विशाखापटनम ऐसी अवैधता के परिणामों के लिए स्वयं ही जिम्मेदार होगा , यदि-

( i ) आवेदन पत्र जिसके आधार पर केन्द्र सरकार द्वारा अनुमोदन प्रदान किया गया है , में गलत सूचना/सूचना अथवा कतिपय तथ्यपरक सूचना न दी गई हो ।

(x ) अवसंरचनात्मक विकास पर : 32.80 करोड़ निवेश जिसमें औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए निर्मित स्थान पर निवेश भी शामिल है (राशि रुपयों में )

(xi ) औद्योगिक पार्क के आरंभ होने की प्रस्तावित तिथि : 01-03-2004

( ii ) यह उक्त औद्योगिक पार्क की अवस्थिति हेतु है जिसके लिए अनुमोदन किसी अन्य उपक्रम के नाम में पहले ही प्रदान किया गया है ।

2. किसी औद्योगिक पार्क में अवसंरचना विकास पर न्यूनतम निवेश कुल परियोजना लागत के 50% से कम नहीं होगा । ऐसे औद्योगिक पार्क जो औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए निर्मित स्थल प्रदान करता है, के मामले में औद्योगिक स्थल के निर्माण कार्य की लागत सहित विकास अवसंरचना पर न्यूनतम खर्च कुल परियोजना लागत के 60% से कम नहीं होगा ।

10. यदि मैसर्स विजाग आई टी पार्क लिमिटेड , विशाखापटनम (अर्थात अन्तरणकर्ता उपक्रम ) औद्योगिक पार्क का प्रचालन और अनुरक्षण किसी दूसरे उपक्रम ( अर्थात अंतरिती उपक्रम ) को हस्तांतरित करेगा तो अंतरणकर्ता और अंतरिती उपर्युक्त हस्तांतरण के लिए अंतरणकर्ता और अंतरिती उपक्रम के बीच निष्पादित करार की प्रति के साथ औद्योगिक सहायता सचिवालय , औद्योगिक नीति और संवर्धन विभाग , उद्योग भवन , नई दिल्ली -11 की उद्यमशीलता सहायता यूनिट को संयुक्त रूप से सूचित करेंगे ।

3. संरचना विकास में सड़क ( संपर्क सड़क सहित ) , जलापूर्ति तथा सीवरेज, दूषित जल शोधन सुविधा, टेलिकॉम नेटवर्क , विद्युत उत्पादन एवं वितरण , वातानुकूलन तथा ऐसी अन्य सुविधाएं जो औद्योगिक कार्यकलाप हेतु सामान्य उपयोग के लिए हैं जो वाणिज्यिक दृष्टिसे निर्धारणीय एवं प्रयुक्त हैं ।

11. इस अधिसूचना में उल्लिखित शर्तों के साथ- साथ औद्योगिक पार्क स्कीम , 2002 में शामिल उन शर्तों का अनुपालन उस अवधि के दौरान किया जाना चाहिए जिसके लिए इस स्कीम के अंतर्गत लाभ [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

प्राप्त किए जानें हैं । कैन्द्र सरकार उपर्युक्त अनुमोदन को वापस ले सकती है । यदि मैसर्स विजाग आईटी पार्क लिमिटेड , विशाखापडनम औद्योगिक पार्क स्कीम , 2002 में विहित शतों अथवा इस अधिसूचना की किसी भी शर्त के अनुपालन में असफल रहता है । 12. केन्द्र सरकार के अनुमोदन के बिना प्रोजेक्ट प्लान में किया गया कोई भी संशोधन अथवा भविष्य में पता लगना अथवा किसी ठोस तथ्य का उद्घाटन करने में आवेदक का असफल रहना, औद्योगिक पार्क के अनुमोदन को अवैध बना देगा ।

[ अधिसूचना सं. 282/2006/फा.सं. 178/39/2005- ओ.क. निं. - 1 ]

दीपक गर्ग , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 29th September, 2006

(INCOME TAX)

S.O. 4393 Whereas the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferted by clause ( iii ) of sub- section (4) of Section 80 - IA of the Income- tax Act , 1961 (43 of 1961) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) , has framed and notified a scheme for industrial park, by the notifications of the Government of India in the Ministry of Commerce and Industry (Departmeni of Industrial Policy and Promotion) vide number S.O. 193 (E) , dated the 30th March, 1999, for the period beginning on the 1st day of April , 1997 and ending on the 31st day of March, 2002 and vide number S.O. 354 (E ) dated the 1st day April , 2002, for the period beginning on the 1st day of April, 1997 and ending on the 31st day of March , 2006;

And whereas M/s . Vizag IT Park Limited, having registered office at VUDA Compound, Siripuram: Visakhapatnam -530003, is developing an Industrial Park at VUDA Compound , Siripuram , Visakhapatnam , (Visakhapatnam District ), Andhra Pradesh - 530003;

Andwhereas the Central Government has approved the said Industrial Park vide Ministry of Commerce and Industry letter No. 15/ 18/2004- IP & ID dated 1-9-2004 subject to the terms and conditions mentioned in the annexure to this notification;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( iii ) of sub - section (4) of Section 80-1A of the said Act, the Central Government hereby notifies the undertaking being developed and being maintained and operated by M/s . Vizag IT Park Limited, Visakhapatnam, as an industrial park for the purposes of the said clause (iii).

ANNEXURE

The terms and conditions on which the approval of the Government of India has been accorded for setting up of an industrial park by M/ s . Vizag IT Park Limited, Visakhapatnam.

3520 G1 /2006-3

9471

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 18 , 2006/कार्तिक 27 , 1928

: Vizag ITPark Limited.

1. (i ) Name of the Industrial Undertaking

(i ) Proposed location

: VUDA Compound , Siripuram, Visakhapatnam, (Visakhapatnam District), Andhra Pradesh-530003.

: 2 Acres .

(i) Area of Industrial Park

(iv) Proposed activities :

Nature of Industrial activity with NIC Code NIC Code

S. No

Description Section Division Group Class

892

Data

Processing,

software development and computer consultancy services .

: 85%

(v) Percentage of allocable area earmarked for Industrial use

: 5%

(vi ) Percentage of allocable ares earmarked for commercial use

: 5 Units

(vii) Minimam fiumber of industrial units

: 35 crores (viii ) Total investments proposed (Amount inRupees)

: 25 crores

(ix) Investment on built up space for Industrial use (Amount in Rupees)

: 32.80 crores (x) Investment on Infrastructure Development includ- ing investment on built-up space for industrial use (Amount in Rupees )

: 1-3-2004

(xi) Proposed date of commencement of the Industrial Park .

9472

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 18,2006/KA427, 1928

2. The minimum investment on infrastructure development in an Industrial Park shall not be less than 50% of the total project cost. In the case of an Industrial Park which provides built- up space for industrial use , the minimum expenditure on infrastructure development including cost of construction of industrial space , shall not be less than 60 % of the total project cost.

3. Infrastructure development shall include, roads (including approach roads ) , water supply and sewerage, common effluent treatment facility , telecom network , generation and distribution of power , air - conditioning and such other facilities as are for common use for industrial activity which are identifiable and are provided on commercial terms .

4. No single unit referred to in column (2 ) of the Table given in sub - paragraph (b) of paragraph 6 ofS.O. 354( E ) dated the 1st April , 2002 , shall occupy more than fifty per cent of the allocable industrial area of an Industrial Park . For this purpose a unit means any separate and distinct entity for the purpose of one and more State or Central tax laws .

5. Necessary approvals , including that for foreign direct investment or non - resident Indian investment by the Foreign Investinent Promotion Board or Reserve Bank of India or any authority specified under any law for the tinie being in force , shall be taken separately as per the policy and procedures in force .

6. The tax benefits under the act can be availed of only after the number of units indicated in Para 1 ( vii) of this Notification , are located in the Industrial Park .

7. M/ s . Vizag IT Park Limited , Visakhapatuam, shall continue to operate the Industrial Park during the period in which the benefits under clause (iii) of sub - section (4 ) of Section 801A of the Income - tax Act , 1961 are to be availed .

8. In case the cominenceinent of the Industrial Park is delayed by more than one year from the date indicated in Para 1 ( xi ) of this notification , fresh approval will be required under the Industrial Park Scheme , 2002 , for availing benefits under sub - section 4 ( iii ) of Section 801A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 .

9 The approval will be invalid and M/ s . Vizag IT Park Limited, Visakhapatnam, shall be solely responsible for any repercussions of such invalidity, if:

[PART II-SEC . 3( ii) ] (i) the application on the basis of which the approval is accorded by the Central Government contains wrong information/ misinformation or some material information has not been provided in it .

(ii) it is for the location of the industrial park for which approval has already been accorded in the name of another undertaking.

10. In case M/ s . Vizag IT Park Limited , Visakhapatnam, transfer the operation and maintenance of the industrial park ( i.e. transferor undertaking ) to another undertaking ( i.e. the transferee undertaking ) , the transferor and transferee shall jointly intimate to the Entrepreneurial Assistance Unit of the Secretariat for Industrial Assistance , Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, Udyog Bhawan , New Delhi - 11 along with a copy of the agreement executed between the transferor and transferee undertaking for the aforesaid transfer .

11. The conditions mentioned in this notification as well as those included in the Industrial Park Scheme, 2002 should be adhered to during the period for which benefits under this scheme are to be availed. The Central Government may withdraw the above approval in case M/s . Vizag IT Park Limited, Visakhapatnam , fails to comply with any of the conditions .

12. Any amendment of the project plan without the approval of the Central Government or detection in future , or failure on the part of the applicant to disclose any material fact, will invalidate the approval of the Industrial Park.

[Notification No. 282/2006 /F . No. 178/39/2005- ITA - 1 ] DEEPAK GARG, Under Secy .

विज्ञान और प्रौद्योगिकी मंत्रालय (विज्ञान और प्रौद्योगिकी विभाग ) नई दिल्ली, 7 नवम्बर , 2006

का.आ. 4394- केन्द्रीय सरकार , राजभाषा ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) नियम , 1976 के नियम 10 के उपनियम ( 4 ) के अनुसरण में विज्ञान और प्रौद्योगिकी मंत्रालय के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन स्वायत्तशासी संस्थान , विज्ञान प्रसार , नोएडा ( उत्तर प्रदेश ) को, जिनके 80 % कर्मचारियों ने हिन्दी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है , अधिसूचित करती है ।

[फा. सं. 11028 /1 /2005- (रा.भा. ) ] नीलाम्बर पाण्डेय , संयुक्त निदेशक ( रा.भा. ) [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

MINISTRY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (Department ofScience and Technology) New Delhi , the 7th November , 2006 S. O. 4394. In pursuance of sub -rule (4) of Rule 10 ofthe Official Language (Use for official purposes of the Union) Rules , 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies Vigyan Prasar, Noida, U. P. an autonomous institution under the Administrative Control of Ministry of Science and Technology , 80 % staff where of have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi .

[F. No. 11028/1/2005 (OL) ] NILAMBAR PANDEY, Jt . Director (OL) नई दिल्ली, 7 नवम्बर , 2006

का.आ. 4395.-केन्द्रीय सरकार , राजभाषा ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) नियम, 1976 के नियम 10 के उप- नियम (4 ) के अनुसरण में विज्ञान और प्रौद्योगिकी मंत्रालय के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन भारतीय सर्वेक्षण विभाग के निम्नलिखित कार्यालयों को, जिनके 80 % कर्मचारियों ने हिन्दी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है, अधिसूचित करती है :-

1. जम्मूऔर कश्मीर भू- स्थानिक आंकड़ा केन्द्र , भारतीय . सर्वेक्षण विभाग , जम्मू।

2. दक्षिणी मुद्रण वर्ग , भारतीय सर्वेक्षण विभाग , हैदराबाद (आन्ध्र प्रदेश ) ।

[फा. सं. 11028/1/2005 ( रा.भा. ) ]

नीलाम्बर पाण्डेय , संयुक्त निदेशक ( रा.भा. ) New Delhi , the 7th November, 2006 S. O. 4395.- 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 offices of Survey of India under the Administrative Control of Ministry of Science and Technology, 80% staff where of have acquired the working knowledge ofHindi:---

1. Jammu and Kashmir Geo - spatial Data Centre , Survey of India, Jammu .

2. Southern Printing Group, Survey of India, Hyderabad (A.P. ) .

[F. No. 11028/1/2005( OL) ] NILAMBAR PANDEY, Jt. Director ( OL) नई दिल्ली, 7 नवम्बर, 2006

का.आ. 4396- केन्द्रीय सरकार , राजभाषा ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) नियम , 1976 के नियम 10 के उप- नियम (4 ) के अनुसरण में विज्ञान और प्रौद्योगिकी मंत्रालय के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन स्वायत्तशासी संस्थान , प्रौद्योगिकी सूचना, पूर्वानुमान एवं मूल्यांकन परिषद , नई दिल्ली को , जिनके 80 % कर्मचारियों ने हिन्दी काकार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है , अधिसूचित करती है ।

[फा. सं. 11028/1/2005- ( रा.भा. ) ]

नीलाम्बर पाण्डेय , संयुक्त निदेशक ( रा.भा. )

9473

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 18 , 2006/कार्तिक 27 , 1928

New Delhi , the 7th November , 2006 S. O. 4396.-In pursuance of sub - rule (4) ofRule 10 ofthe Official Language (Use for official purposes of the Union) Rules , 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies Technology Information , Forecasting and Assessinent Council ( TIFAC) , New Delhi , an autonomous Institution under the Administrative Control of Ministry of Science and Technology , 80 % staff where of have acquired the working knowledge ofHindi .

[F. No. 11028/1/2005 (OL) ] NILAMBAR PANDEY. Jt . Director (OL) सूचना और प्रसारण मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली, 20 अक्तूबर, 2006

का.आ. 4397. इस मंत्रालय की दिनांक 20-06-2005 की समसंख्यक अधिसूचना के अनुक्रम में और चलचित्र ( प्रमाणन ) नियमावली, 1983 के नियम 7 और 8 के साथ पठित चलचित्र अधिनियम , 1952 ( 1952 का 37 ) की धारा, 5 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केंद्र सरकार , निम्नलिखित व्यक्तियों को तत्काल प्रभाव से दो वर्षों की अवधि के लिए या अगले आदेशों तक, जो भी पहले हो, केन्द्रीय फिल्म प्रमाणन बोर्ड के मुम्बई सलाहकार पैनल के सदस्य के रूप में नियुक्त करती है :

1. प्रो. चन्दन सिंह रोटेले , 31/4 , प्रियदर्शनी अपार्टमेन्ट्स, निकट आर.टी.ओ. , नागपुर-10,

2. श्री नन्दू साडु बनसोडे , सिमला नगर , डी. एक्स 125-1% , नेनीयन सी रोड , मालाबार हिल , मुम्बई-36

[फा. सं. 809/1/2004- एफ ( सी) ] संगीता सिंह, निदेशक ( फिल्म) MINISTRY OF INFORMATIONAND BROADCASTING

New Delhi, the 20th October , 2006 S. O. 4397. In continuation of this Ministry's notification of even number dated 20-06-2005 and in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 5 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 the following persons as members of the Mumbai Advisory Panel of the Central Board of Film Certification with inmediate effect for a period of two years or until further orders , whichever isearlier:

1. Prof. Chandansingh Rotele, 31/4, Priyadarshani Apartments Near RTO , Nagpur- 10 .

2. ShriNandu Sadu Bansode, Simla Nagar , DX 125-1 / 2, Nepean Sea Road, Malabar Hill , Mumbai - 36 .

[F. No. 809/1/2004 - F (C ) ]

SANGEETA SINGH , Director ( Films) 9474

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: NOVEMBER 18 , 2006/KARTIKA 27, 1928

नईदिल्ली, 25 अक्तूबर , 2006

का.आ. 4398.-इस मंत्रालय की दिनांक 30 अगस्त, 2005 की समसंख्यक अधिसूचना के अनुक्रम में और चलचित्र ( प्रमाणन ) नियमावली , 1983 के नियम 7 और 8 के साथ पठित चलचित्र अधिनियम , 1952 ( 1952 का 37 ) की धारा 5 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केंद्र सरकार , तत्काल प्रभाव से दो वर्षों की अवधि के लिए या अगले आदेशों तक , जो भी पहले हो , केन्द्रीय फिल्म प्रमाणन बोर्ड के दिल्ली सलाहकार पैनल के सदस्य के रूप में सुश्री रेणू मित्तल , निवासी मकान सं. 4 , सेक्टर 28 , अरूण विहार, नोएडा-201301 को नियुक्त करती है ।

[फा. सं. 809/7/2004- एफ ( सी) ] संगीता सिंह , निदेशक (फिल्म) New Delhi , the 25th October , 2006 S.O. 4398. In continuation of this Ministry's notification of even number dated 30th August, 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 Ms. Renu Mittal , House No. 4, Sector 28 , Arun Vihar , Noida- 201301 as member of the Delhi Advisory Panel ofthe Central Board of Film Certification with immediate effect for a period oftwo years or until further orders , whichever is earlier .

[F. No. 809/7/2004- F(C)]

SANGEETA SINGH, Director (Films) नई दिल्ली , 25 अक्तूबर, 2006

का.आ. 4399.-इस मंत्रालय की दिनांक 15 जून , 2005 की समसंख्यक अधिसूचना के अनुक्रम में और चलचित्र ( प्रमाणन ) नियमावली, 1983 के नियम 7 और 8 के साथ पठित चलचित्र अधिनियम , 1952 ( 1952 का 37 ) की धारा 5 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केंद्र सरकार, तत्काल प्रभाव से दो वर्षों की अवधि के लिए या अगले आदेशों तक , जो भी पहले हो, केन्द्रीय फिल्म प्रमाणन बोर्ड के तिरूवनंतपुरम सलाहकार पैनल के सदस्य के रूप में श्री अनिल थॉमस , वडाक्केविट्टिल , अनिल विला, पॉवर स्टेशन के निकट, पठानामथिट्टा पोस्ट ऑफिस और जिला , केरल -689645 को नियुक्त करती है ।

[फा. सं. 809/9/2004- एफ ( सी) ]

संगीता सिंह , निदेशक (फिल्म) New Delhi , the 25th October , 2006 S.O. 4399.-In continuation of this Ministry's notification of even number dated 15th 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

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] Shri Anil Thomas , Vadakkeveettil Anil Villa , Near Power Station, Pathanamthitta P. Q. & District, Kerala-689645 as a member of the Thiruvananthapuram advisory panel of the Central Board of Film Certification with immediae effect for a period of two years or until futher orders , whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 809/9/2004- F(C) ] SANGEETA SINGH , Director (Films) नई दिल्ली , 30 अक्तूबर , 2006

का.आ. 4400.-इस मंत्रालय की दिनांक 15 जून , 2005 की समसंख्यक अधिसूचना के अनुक्रम में और चलचित्र ( प्रमाणन ) नियमावली , 1983 के नियम 7 और 8 के साथ पठित चलचित्र अधिनियम , 1952 ( 1952 का 37 ) की धारा 5 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केंद्र सरकार , निम्नलिखित व्यक्तियों को तत्काल प्रभाव से दो वर्षों की अवधि के लिए या अगले आदेशों तक , जो भी पहले हो , केन्द्रीय फिल्म प्रमाणन बोर्ड के तिरुवनंतपुरम सलाहकार पैनल के सदस्य के रूप में नियुक्त करती है:

1. सुश्री दीप्ती मेरी वर्गीस , थाडाठेल , 35/644- ए , जनथा, सं. नार्थ पालारिवद्रुम , कोची-25

2. श्री अनिल कुमार के. पी. अध्यक्ष , केरल पी. वाइ. सी. , 1/4703 , वाइकुंडम, बिलाथिकुलम , अर्निपालम पी. ओ . कालीकर-673010

[फा. सं. 809/9/2004-एफ ( सी ) ] संगीता सिंह , निदेशक ( फिल्म) New Delhi , the 30th October, 2006 S.O. 4400.- In continuation of this Ministry's notification of even number dated 15th 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 the following persons as members of the Thiruvananthapuram 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. Ms. Deepthi Mary Varghese , Thadathel , 35/644 - A, Janatha , Jn . North Palarivattom , Kochi -25.

2. Shri Anil Kumar K. P. President, Kerala PYC, 1/4703 , Vykundam, Bilathikulam , Ernhipalam P.O. , Calicut- 673010.

[F. No. 809/9 /2004- F(C) ] SANGEETA SINGH , Director (Films) नई दिल्ली, 25 अक्तूबर , 2006

का.आ. 4401.-इस मंत्रालय की दिनांक 12 जुलाई , 2005 की समसंख्यक अधिसूचना के अनुक्रम में और चलचित्र ( प्रमाणन ) नियमावली , 1983 के नियम 7 और 8 के साथ पठित चलचित्र [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

अधिनियम , 1952 ( 1952 का 37 ) की धारा 5 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केंद्र सरकार , एत‌द्वारा केन्द्रीय फिल्म प्रमाणन बोर्ड के बंगलौर सलाहकार पैनल से निम्नलिखित सदस्यों को तत्काल प्रभाव से हटाती है :

1. श्री के. कृष्णप्पा

2. डॉ. देवकटक्षम गिडियोन

3. श्री के. जी. सुब्रमण्यस्वामी

4. श्री बासवराज उल्लागड्डी

5. श्रीमती मंजुला राज

6. श्री एम. डी. पल्लवी

7. श्रीमती नहीद अठाउल्ला

8. श्री टी. एन. सीताराम

9. डॉ. सिद्धालिंगैया

10. श्री वाई. एच. विजय कुमार

[फा. सं. 809/5/2004- एफ ( सी) ] संगीता सिंह, निदेशक ( फिल्म ) New Delhi , the 25th October , 2006 S.O. 4401.-In continuation of this Ministry's Notification of even number dated 12-7-2005 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 of the Cinematograph ( Certification) Rules , 1983, the Central Government hereby removes the following members from the Bangalore Advisory Panel of the Central Board of Film Certification with immediate effect:

1 , Shri K. Krishnappa

2.Dr. Devakataksham Gideon

3. Shri K. G. Subramanyaswamy

4. Shri Basavaraj Ullagaddi

5. Smt . Manjula Raj

6. Shri M. D. Pallavi

7. Smt . Naheed Athaulla

8. Shri T. N. Seetharam

9. Dr. Siddhalingaiah

10. Shri Y. H. Vijay Kumar

[F. No.809/5/2004- F(C)] SANGEETA SINGH, Director(Films) नई दिल्ली, 19 अक्तूबर , 2006

का.आ. 4402- इस मंत्रालय की दिनांक 5 फरवरी , 2005 और 3 जून , 2005 की समसंख्यक अधिसूचना के अनुक्रम में और आशिक आशोधन में चलचित्र ( प्रमाणन) नियमावली , 1983 के नियम 3 के साथ पठित चलचित्र अधिनियम , 1952 ( 1952 का 37 ) की धारा 3 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केंद्र सरकार , श्रीमती मालविका सिंह के स्थान पर

9475

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 18 , 2006/ कार्तिक 27 , 1928

श्रीमती एम . श्रीमणी को तत्काल प्रभाव से और अगले आदेशों तक केन्द्रीय फिल्म प्रमाणन बोर्ड के सदस्य के रूप में नियुक्त करती है । [फा.सं. 809/12/2003- एफ ( सी) ] संगीता सिंह, निदेशक (फिल्म ) New Delhi , the 19th October , 2006 S.O. 4402- In continuation and in partial modification ofthis Ministry's Notification of even number dated 5th February, 2005 and 3rd June, 2005 and in exercise ofthe powers conferred by Sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 (37 of 1952) read with rule 3 of the Cinematograph (Certification ) Rules , 1983 , the CentralGovernment is pleased to appoint Smt. M. Sri Mani in place of Smt . Malvika Singh as member of the Central Board of Film Certification with immediate effect and until further orders .

[F. No. 809/12/2003 - F (C)] SANGEETA SINGH, Director (Films) नई दिल्ली, 30 अक्तूबर , 2006

का.आ. 4403- इस मंत्रालय की दिनांक 20-6-2005 की समसंख्यक अधिसूचना के अनुक्रम में और चलचित्र ( प्रमाणन) नियमावली , 1983 के नियम 7 और 8 के साथ पठित चलचित्र अधिनियम , 1952 (1952 का 37 ) की धारा 5 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केंद्र सरकार निम्नलिखित व्यक्तियों को तत्काल प्रभाव से दो वर्षों की अवधि के लिए या अगले आदेशों तक, जो भी पहले हो, केन्द्रीय फिल्म प्रमाणन बोर्ड के मुम्बई सलाहकार पैनल के सदस्य के रूप में नियुक्त करती है:

1. सुश्री योगिता तई वी. नंदरकर द्वारा अशवरदास बोरकर , लक्ष्मी नगर , वार्ड सं. 11 , डी. एड. कॉलेज के निकट, गॉडिया, जिला गोंडिया, महाराष्ट्र-232514

2. श्री शरद वी अहेर , अध्यक्ष , महाराष्ट्र वी.वाई.सी. विश्व सत्या, ओजर ( एम.आई.जी ) टाल निपाद , नासिक , महाराष्ट्र । 3. श्री सुनील अहीरे , 204/8230 , कन्नमवार नगर- I , विखरोली मुम्बई-400 083 ।

[फा, सं. 809/1/2004- एफ ( सी ) ] संगीता सिंह, निदेशक ( फिल्म) New Delhi, the 30th October , 2006

S.O. 4403.- In continuation of this Ministry's Notification of even number dated 20-6-2005 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 of the Cinematograph ( Certification ) Rules , 1983 , the Central Government is pleased to appoint the following persons as members of the Mumbai Advisory Panel of the Central Board of Film Certification with immediate effect fora period of two years or until further orders, whichever isearlier:

(1) Ms. Yogita Tai V. Nandarkar , C/ o Ashwardas Boarkar, Laxminagar , Ward No. 11 , Near D. Ed . College, Gondia, Distt , Gondia , Maharashtra - 232514.

9476

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 18 , 2006/KARTIKA 27 , 1928

(2) Shri Sharad V. Aher , President, Maharashtra PYC , Vishwa Sattya, Ozar (Mig) , Tal : Nipad, Nasik, Maharashtra .

(3) Shri Sunil Ahire , 204/8230 , Kannamwar Nagar- I , Vikhroli, Mumbai -400083 .

[F. No. 809/1 /2004- F (C) ]

SANGEETA SINGH , Director (Films) नई दिल्ली, 30 अक्तूबर , 2006

का.आ. 4404- इस मंत्रालय की दिनांक 30 अगस्त , 2005 की समसंख्यक अधिसूचना के अनुक्रम में और चलचित्र ( प्रमाणन ) नियमावली , 1983 के नियम 7 और 8 के साथ पठित चलचित्र अधिनियम , 1952 ( 1952 का 37 ) की धारा 5 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केंद्र सरकार निम्नलिखित व्यक्तियों को तत्काल प्रभाव से दो वर्षों की अवधि के लिए या अगले आदेशों तक , जो भी पहले हो, केन्द्रीय फिल्म प्रमाणन बोर्ड के दिल्ली सलाहकार पैनल के सदस्य के रूप में नियुक्त करती है :

1. श्री प्रदीप जैलदार

2. श्री सतविंदर सिंह संधु

3. श्री नितिन शर्मा

4. श्री विक्रम मल्होत्रा

5. श्री मोहम्मद आमिन भट

6. सुश्री परप्रीत बरार

7. श्री अमरिंदर सिंह ' राजा'

8. श्री रमिन्दर अवला

9. सुश्री चयनियका उनियाल

10. श्री मनीष धरनिया

11. श्री नीरज डांगी

12. श्री प्रकाश जोशी

13. श्री राजपाल खैरोला

14. श्री योगेश दीक्षित

15. श्री नदीम अशरफ जायसी

16. सुश्री मधुमिता चक्रवर्ती

17. श्री सुखपाल सिंह भूल्लर

[फा. सं. 809/7/2004- एफ (सी ) ]

संगीता सिंह , निदेशक ( फिल्म) New Delhi , the 30th October, 2006 S.O. 4404 In continuation of this Ministry's Notification of even number dated 30 August, 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 the following persons as members of the Delhi 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. Shri Pradeep Zaildar

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii ) ] 2. Shri Satvinder Singh Sandhu

3. Shri Nitin Sharma

4. Shri Vikram Malhotra

5. Shri Mohd . Amin Bhat

6. Ms. Parpreet Brar

7. Shri Amrinder Singh 'Raja'

8. Shri Raminder Awla

9. Ms. Chaynika Uniyal

10. Shri Manish Dharnia

11. Shri Neeraj Dangi

12. Shri Prakash Joshi

13. Shri Rajpal Khairola

14. Shri Yogesh Dixit

15. Shri Nadeem Ashraf Jaisi

16. Ms. Madhumita Chakraborty

17. Shri Sukhpal Singh Bhullar

[F. No. 809/7/2004 - F ( C) ] SANGEETA SINGH, Director (Films) नई दिल्ली, 30 अक्तूबर , 2006

का.आ.4405- इस मंत्रालय की दिनांक 12-7-2005 की समसंख्यक अधिसूचना के अनुक्रम में और चलचित्र ( प्रमाणन) नियमावली , 1983 के नियम 7 और 8 के साथ पठित चलचित्र अधिनियम , 1952 ( 1952 का 37) की धारा 5 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केंद्र सरकार , निम्नलिखित व्यक्तियों को तत्काल प्रभाव से दो वर्षों की अवधि के लिए या अगले आदेशों तक , जो भी पहले हो , केन्द्रीय फिल्म प्रमाणन बोर्ड के बंगलौर सलाहकार पैनल के सदस्य के रूप में नियुक्त करती है । 1. श्री नागराज छेबी, नींद्रमठ के निकट, ओल्ड हुबली , हुबली -24 2. श्री शाकिर सनादी, 187 , कविरे मार्ग , विशेषवर नगर, हुबली-32

[फा.सं. 809/5/2004- एफ ( सी ) ] संगीता सिंह, निदेशक ( फिल्म) New Delhi , the 30th October , 2006

S.O. 4405- In continuation of this Ministry's Notification of even number dated 12-7-2005 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 of the Cinematograph ( Certification ) Rules, 1983, the Central Government is pleased to appoint the following persons as members of the Bangalore 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. Shri Nagraj Chebbi , Near Knnendramath, Old Hubli , Hubli-24

2. Shri Shakir Sanadi, 187, Kavircy Marg, Vishweshvar Nagar,Hubli -32.

[F. No. 809 /5/2004- F ( C) ] SANGEETA SINGH, Director (Films ) [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 30 अक्तूबर , 2006

का.आ. 4406.- इस मंत्रालय की दिनांक 7 जून, 2005 की समसंख्यक अधिसूचना के अनुक्रम में और चलचित्र ( प्रमाणन ) नियमावली , 1983 के नियम 7 और 8 के साथ पठित चलचित्र अधिनियम , 1952 ( 1952 का 37 ) की धारा 5 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केंद्र सरकार, निम्नलिखित व्यक्तियों को तत्काल प्रभाव से दो वर्षों की अवधि के लिए या अगले आदेशों तक , जो भी पहले हो , केन्द्रीय फिल्म प्रमाणन बोर्ड के चेन्नई सलाहकार पैनल के रूप सदस्य के में नियुक्त करती है :

1. श्री के. पांडियन ,

अध्यक्ष,

पांडिचेरी पी.वाई.सी. सं. 8 पहला मोड़ , पल्ला स्ट्रीट, मुरूगपक्कम, पांडिचेरी -605 0041

2. श्री मानिक टैगोर,

31-ए, मेगालोई स्ट्रीट, सेंटामिल नगर, शिवगंगा , तमिलनाडु ।

3. श्री मौर्या जय कुमार ,

अध्यक्ष,

तमिलनाडु पी.वाई.सी. , कोयम्बटूर ।

[फा.सं. 809/4/2004- एफ ( सी ) ] संगीता सिंह , निदेशक (फिल्म ) New Delhi , the 30th October, 2006

S.O. 4406. In continuation 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 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. Shri K. Pandian,

President, Pondicherry PYC . No. 8 , 1stCross , Palla Street, Murungapakkam , Pondicherry -605004.

2. Shri Manick Tagoore ,

31-A, Megaloi Street , Sentamil Nagar , Sivaganga, Tamil Nadu.

3. Shri Mayura Jay Kumar ,

President,

Tamil Nadu PҮС,

Coimbatore .

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

SANGEETA SINGH, Director (Films)

9477

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 18 , 2006/कार्तिक 27 , 1928

नई दिल्ली, 30 अक्तूबर , 2006

का.आ. 4407. - इस मंत्रालय की दिनांक 5 फरवरी , 2005 की समसंख्यक अधिसूचना के अनुक्रम में और चलचित्र ( प्रमाणन) नियमावली, 1983 के नियम 7 और 8 के साथ पठित चलचित्र अधिनियम , 1952 ( 1952 का 37 ) की धारा 5 की उप धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केंद्र सरकार तत्काल प्रभाव से दो वर्षों की अवधि के लिए या अगले आदेशों तक , जो भी पहले हो, केन्द्रीय फिल्म प्रमाणन बोर्ड के हैदराबाद सलाहकार पैनल के सदस्य के रूप श्री शेख मस्तान वली , स्वरम नगर , सं. 26-20-264, चैक पोस्टके निकट गुंटूर, आंध्र प्रदेश , को नियुक्त करती है ।

[फा.सं. 809/3/2004- एफ ( सी ) ]

संगीता सिंह , निदेशक (फिल्म) New Delhi , the 30th October , 2006 S.O. 4407. In continuation of this Ministry's Notification of even number dated 5th February, 2005 and in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section (1 ) of Section 5of 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 Sheikh Mastan Wali, Swaram Nagar, No. 26-20-264, Near Check Post, Guntur , Andhra Pradesh as a member of theHyderabad advisory panel of the Central Board of Film Certification with immediate effect for a period of two years oruntil further orders , whichever is earlier .

[File No.809/3/2004- F (C) ]

SANGEETA SINGH, Director (Films)

रेल मंत्रालय (रेलवे बोर्ड)

नई दिल्ली, 10 नवम्बर , 2006

का.आ. 4408, - रेल मंत्रालय ( रेलवे बोर्ड ) , राजभाषा निमय , 1976 ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) के नियम 10 के उपनियम (2 ) और ( 4 ) के अनुसरण में, पश्चिम रेलवे के निम्नलिखित कार्यालयों को, जहां 80 % से अधिक अधिकारियों/कर्मचारियों ने हिंदी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है , को एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है:

1. क्षेत्र अधिकारी कायालय , चर्चगेट

2. स्टेशन प्रबंधक कार्यालय , मुंबई सेंट्रल

3. मंडल यांत्रिक इंजीनियर कार्यालय (डीजल ) , बामी 4. वरिष्ठ मण्डल बिजली इंजीनियर ( कर्षण चल स्टॉक ) कार्यालय , वलसाड़

5. क्षेत्र प्रबंधक कार्यालय , वलसाड़

6. क्षेत्र अधिकारी कार्यालय , सूरत

7. सहायक इंजीनियर कार्यालय , नंदुरबार

8. मुख्य चिकित्सा अधीक्षक कार्यालय , प्रताप नगर, वड़ोदरा 9478

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 18 , 2006/ KARTIKΑ 27, 1928

9. सहायक इंजीनियर कार्यालय , ध्रांगधा

10. मंडल चिकित्सा अधिकारी कार्यालय , ध्रांगधा 11. मंडल चिकित्सा अधिकारी कार्यालय , भरूच 12. रेलवे प्राइमरी स्कूल कार्यालय , भरूच

13. सहायक इंजीनियर ( 1 ) कार्यालय , वड़ोदरा

14. सहायक इंजीनियर ( 2 ) कार्यालय , वड़ोदरा

15. सहायक इंजीनियर ( निर्माण ) कार्यालय , वड़ोदरा 16. क्षेत्रीय विद्युत् प्रशिक्षक स्कूल, वड़ोदरा यार्ड 17. मुख्य चिकित्सा अधीक्षक कार्यालय , साबरमती 18. वरिष्ठ मंडल यांत्रिक इंजीनियर (डीजल शेड ) कार्यालय , वटवा

19. मंडल चिकित्सा अधिकारी कार्यालय , वटवा 20. सहायक मंडल यांत्रिक इंजीनियर ( सवारी एवं माल डिब्बा ) कार्यालय, गांधीधाम

21. मंडल यांत्रिक इंजीनियर ( भाप ) कार्यालय , गांधीधाम 22. मंडल चिकित्सा अधिकारी कार्यालय , कांकरिया 23. मंडल सुरक्षा आयुक्त कार्यालय , राजकोट

24. मंडल चिकित्सा अधिकारी कार्यालय , मोरबी 25. स्टेशन अधीक्षक कार्यालय , हापा

26. मंडल चिकित्सा अधिकारी कार्यालय , हापा 27. मंडल चिकित्सा अधिकारी कार्यालय , सुरेन्द्र नगर 28. सहायक मंडल इंजीनियर कार्यालय , बोटाद

29. सहायक मंडल इंजीनियर कार्यालय , पोरबंदर 30. रेलवे माध्यमिक पाठशाला , भावनगर परा

31. मंडल चिकित्सा अधिकारी कार्यालय , महू

32. सहायक मंडल चिकित्सा अधिकारी कार्यालय , नीमच

33. सहायक मंडल चिकित्सा अधिकारी कार्यालय , नसीराबाद

34. सहायक मंडल चिकित्सा अधिकारी कार्यालय , चित्तौड़गढ़

35. वरिष्ठ मंडल चिकित्सा अधिकारी कार्यालय , उज्जैन 36. उप मुख्य संकेत एवं दूर संचार इंजीनियर (निर्माण ) कार्यालय , रतलाम

37. सहायक इंजीनियर ( कार्य ) कार्यालय , रतलाम 38. सहायक इंजीनियर ( निर्माण ) , कार्यालय उज्जैन 39. जनसंपर्क अधिकारी कार्यालय , इंदौर

40. कोचिंग डिपो अधिकारी कार्यालय , इंदौर

41. मंडल बिजली इंजीनियर ( कर्षण वितरक ) कार्यालय , उज्जैन

[PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] 42. कार्यपालक इंजीनियर कार्यालय , उज्जैन

43. वरिष्ठ मंडल चिकित्सा अधिकारी कार्यालय , नीमच 44. वरिष्ठ मंडल चिकित्सा अधिकारी कार्यालय , चित्तौड़गढ़

45. वरिष्ठ मंडल चिकित्सा अधिकारी कार्यालय , दाहोद 46. सहायक मंडल चिकित्सा अधिकारी कार्यालय , स्टेशन दाहोद

47. मुख्य कारखाना प्रबंधक कार्यालय , ईएमयूकारखाना , महालक्ष्मी

48. मुख्य कारखाना प्रबंधक, प्रताप नगर कार्यालय , वड़ोदरा [सं. हिंदी-2006/रा . भा. 1/12/1 ] कृष्णा शर्मा, संयुक्त निदेशक ( राजभाषा ) MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS (RailwayBoard)

New Delhi , the 10th November, 2006 S.O. 4408. Ministry of Railways (Railway Board) , in pursuance of Sub Rule (2) and (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language Rules, 1976 (use for the Official purposes of the Union) hereby , notify the following Offices of Western Railway, where 80 % or more Officers/Employees have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi :-

1. Office of the Area Officer , Churchgate 2. Office of the Station Manager , Mumbai Central 3. Office of the Divisional Mechanical Engineer (Diesel)Bami

4. Officeof the Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer (TractionRolling Stock) Valsad

5. Officeof the Area Manager , Valsad

6. Office of the Area Officer , Surat

7. Office of the Assistant Engineer , Nandurbar 8. Office of the Chief Medical Superintendent , Pratapnagar-Vadodara

9. Office of the Assistant Engineer , Dhrangdhra 10. Office of the Divisional Medical Superintendent . Dhrangdhra

11. Office of the Divisional Medical Superintendent , Bharuch

12. Office of the Railway Primary School , Bharuch 13. Office of the Assistant Engineer ( 1 ) , Vadodara 14. Office of the Assistant Engineer (2 ), Vadodara 15. Office of the Assistant Engineer ( Construction ) , Vadodara

16. Office of the Zonal Electrical Training School Vadodara, (Yard)

17. Office of the Chief Medical Superintendent , Sabarmati 9479

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 18, 2006/कार्तिक 27, 1928

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

18. Office of the Senior Divisional Mechanical

47. Office of the Chief Workshop Manager , (EMU Workshop),Mahalaxmi

Engineer (Diesel Shed) Vatwa 19. Office of the Divisional Medical Officer , Vatwa

48. Office of the ChiefWorkshop Manager , Vadodara .

20. Office of the Assistant Divisional Mechanical Engineer (C&W) Gandhidham

[F. No. Hindi -2006/O.L . 1/12/1 ] KRISHNA SHARMA, Jt . Director , (O.L. ) 21. Office of the Divisional Mechanical Engineer (Steam) Gandhidham

उपभोक्ता मामले और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय 22. Office of theDivisional Medical Officer , Karikáriya

(उपभोक्ता मामले विभाग )

भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो

23. Office of the Divisional Security Commissioner, Rajkot

नई दिल्ली, 6 नवम्बर , 2006

24. Office of the Divisional Medical Officer , Morbi

25. Office of the Station Superintendent , Hapa

26. Office of the Divisional Medical Officer,Hapa

27. Office of the Divisional Medical Officer , Sürendra Nagar

का, आ. 4409-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम 1987 के नियम 7 कै उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण भीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गए हैं ।

अनुसूची

28. Office of the Assistant Divisional Engineer, Botad

स्थापित तिथि

नथे भारतीय

क्रम

मानंक द्वारा अति-

29. Office of the Assistant Divisional Engineer, Porbandar

क्रमित भारतीय

मानक अथवा

30. Office of the Railway Secondary School, Bhavnagar Para

स्थापित भारतीय मानक (कों) की संख्या वर्ष और शीर्षक

31. Office of the Divisional Medical Officer,Mhow

मानकों, यदिकोई

हो, की संख्या और

32. Office of the Assistant Divisional Medical Officer,Neemuch

वर्ष

(4)

(3)

(1) (2)

33. Office of the Assistant Divisional Medical Officer , Naseerabad

31 अगस्त, 2006

आईएस 655 : 1963

34. Office of the Assistant Divisional Medical Officer,Chittorgarh

धातु एयर डक्टस विशिष्टि ( पुनरीक्षण)

35. Office of the Senior Divisional Medical Officer,Ujjain

आईएस 655: 2006 एयर डक्टस विशिष्टि ( पहला पुनरीक्षण)

30 सितम्बर, 2006

आईएस 7587 :

( भाग 2 ) : 1975

36. Office of the Deputy Chief Signal & Telecommunication Engineer ( Construction) , Ratlam

खानों में वाईडिंग

37. Office of the Assistant Engineer (Works ) , Ratiam

के लिए केज

सस्पेंशन गियर

38. Office of the Assistant Engineer (Construetion) , Ujjain

विशिष्टि भाग 2

39. Office of the Public Relations Officer, Indore

कैपल्स

आईएस 7587 : (भाग 2) : 2006 खानों में वाईडिंग के लिए केज सस्पेंशन गियर विशिष्टि भाग 2 कैपल्स (पहला

40. Office of the Coaching Depot Officer , Indore

पुनरीक्षण)

41. Office of the Divisional Electrical Engineer (Traction Distributor) Ujjain

42. Office ofthe Executive Engineer , Ujjain

43. Office of the Senior Divisional Medical Officer , Neemuch

44. Office of the Senior Divisional Medical Officer , Chittorgarh

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

[संदर्भ : एम. ई. डी./जी-2: 1 ] 45. Office of the Senior Divisional Medical Officer, Dahod

सी.के. वेदा, वैज्ञा. ' एफ' एवं प्रमुख ( यांत्रिक इंजीनियरिंग ) 46. Office of the Assistant Divisional Medical Officer, Station Dahod

3520 GI/2006-4 9480

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 18 , 2006AKA 27, 1928

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department of Consumer Affairs) BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS New Delhi , the 6th November , 2006 S.O. 4409. In pursuance of clause (b) of sub- rule (1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each :

SCHEDULE

Sl . No.

Date of Established No. & Year of the Indian Standards, Established

No. & Year of the Indian Standards .. ifany , Super- seded by the New Indian Standard

(2)

(1)

(3)

(4) 1.

31 August, 2006

IS 655: 1963 Specifications for Metal Air ducts (Revised)

IS655: 2006 Airducts- Specifications (Second revision)

30 September , 2006

IS 7587 (Part 2) : 2006 Cage sus- pension gear for winding in mines -Specification Part 2 Cappels

IS 7587 (Part 2) : 2006 Cage Sus- pension gear for winding inmines --Specification Part2 Cappels (firstrevision)

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

[Ref: MED/G- 2 : 1 ] C. K. VEDA, Sc . F & Head ( Mechanical Engineering) नई दिल्ली, 6 नवम्बर , 2006

का. आ. 4410.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि नीचे अनुसूची में दिये गये मानक( कों ) में संशोधन किया गया/किये गये हैं :

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

अनुसूची

क्रम सं

संशोधन लागू होने की तिथि

संशोधन की संख्या और तिथि

संशोधित भारतीय मानक की संख्या और वर्ष

(3)

( 1)

(4) (2)

1. आईएस 774: 2004 1 सितम्बर, 2006 31 अक्तूबर , 2006 इसन संशोधनों की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन , 9 बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली -110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों: नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता , चण्डीगढ़ , चेन्नई , मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों अहमदाबाद, बंगलौर, भोपाल , भुवनेश्वर, कोयम्बतूर , गुवाहाटी, हैदराबाद, जयपुर, कानपुर , नागपुर , पटना , पूणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

[संदर्भ: सीईडी/राजपत्र ] ए. के. सैनी, वैज्ञा. ' एफ' एवं प्रमुख ( सिविल इंजीनियरी ) New Delhi , the 6th November , 2006 S.O. 4410.-In pursuance of clause (b) of sub - rule (1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that amendments to the Indian Standards, particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been issued:

SCHEDULE

Sl. No.

No. and Year of the Indian Standards

No. and year. ofthe amend- ment

Date from which the amendment shall have effect (1)

(2)

(3)

(4) 1. IS774: 2004 1September. 2006

31October, 2006 Copy of these Standards are available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards , Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg , New Delhi - 110 002 and Regional Offices : New Delhi, Kolkata, Chandigarh , Chennai , Mumbai and also Branch Offices : Ahmedabad, Bangalore , Bhopal , Bhubaneshwar , Coimbatore, Guwahati , Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur , Nagpur, Patna, Pune , Thiruvananthapuram.

[Ref: CED/Gazette ] A. K. SAINI , Sc . ' F' & Head ( Civil Engg.) 9481

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 18 , 2006/कार्तिक 27 , 1928

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली , 7 नवम्बर , 2006

का.आ. 4411.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उप- नियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एत‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गए हैं :-

अनुसूची

स्थापित तिथि क्रम स्थापित भारतीय मानक ( कों ) की

संख्या , वर्ष और शीर्षक

संख्या

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

( 1 )

(4) (2)

(3)

अगस्त 2006 1.

एवं विद्युतीय मदों के लिए बेसिक पर्यावरण परीक्षण

आई एस 9000 ( भाग 7 अनुभाग 1 ) : 2006/ आई ई सी 60068-2-27 ( 1987 ) इलेक्ट्रानिकी कार्यविधियाँ, भाग 1 संघटट परीक्षण , अनुभाग ।

प्रघात ( परीक्षण ईए ) (पहला पुनरीक्षण )

अगस्त 2006 आई एस 9000 (भाग 7 अनुभाग 7): 2006/ आई ई सी60068-2-75 ( 1997 ) इलेक्ट्रानिकी एवं विद्युतीय मदों के लिए बेसिक पर्यावरण परीक्षण कार्यविधियाँ, भाग 7 संघटट परीक्षण , अनुभाग 7

परीक्षण ई एच हैमर परीक्षण

सितम्बर 2006 3. आई एस 9001 ( भाग 19 ): 2006 पर्यावरण परीक्षण - के लिए मार्गदर्शिका भाग 19 साल्ट मिस्ट परीक्षण

4. आई एस 9000 ( भाग 32 ): 2006/आई ई सी

अक्टूबर 2006 60068-4( 1987 ) इलेक्ट्रानिकी एवं विद्युतीय मदों के लिए बेसिक पर्यावरण परीक्षण कार्यविधियाँ,

भाग 32 विशिष्टि लेखकों के लिए जानकारी-परीक्षण

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

[संदर्भ एल टी डी/जी-75 ]

सुख बीर सिंह , प्रमुख ( एल आई टी डी )

١٢٠٠٠

New Delhi , the 7th November , 2006

S. O. 4411. In pursuance ofclause (b) of sub -rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each:

SCHEDULE

Date of

No. and year of Indian

Sl . No.

Established No. and year of the Indian Standards Established

Standards , if any, superseded by the New Indian Standard

(2)

(4)

(3)

(1)

August 2006 1. IS 9000 (Part 7/Sec 1) : 2006/IEC

60068-2-27(1987) Basic Environmental

Testing Procedures for Electronic and

Electrical items, Part 7 Impact Test, Sec 7

Shock (Test Ea) (First Revision) 9482

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 18 , 2006/KARTIΚΑ 27 , 1928

(1)

(2)

(4)

August, 2006 2. IS: 9000 (Part 7/Sec 7) : 2006/IEC 60068-2-75(1987) Basic Environmental Testing Procedures for Electronic and Electrical items, Part 7 Impact Test, Sec 7 Test Eh : Hammer Tests

September 2006.

IS9001 (Part 19) : 2006 Guidance for Environmental Testing, Part 19 Salt Mist Test 3.

October, 2006 4. IS 9000 (Part 32) : 2006/ЛЕС

60068-4(1987) Basic Environmental Testing Procedures for Electronic and Electrical Items, Part 32 Information for Specification Writers-Test Summaries

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

[Ref. LTD/G -75] SUKH BIR SINGH, Head (LITD)

कोयला मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 13 नवम्बर , 2006

का.आ. 4412.-केन्द्रीय सरकार ने कोयला धारक क्षेत्र ( अर्जन और विकास ) अधिनियम, 1957 ( 1957 का 20 ) ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 4 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी , भारत के राजपत्र , भाग II , खंड 3 , उपखंड ( ii ) तारीख 29 मार्च , 2005 में प्रकाशित भारत सरकार के कोयला मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का. आ. 1295 , तारीख 29 मार्च, 2005 द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट परिक्षेत्र की भूमि में जिसका माप 175.118 हैक्टेयर (लगभग ) या 432.72 एकड़ ( लगभग ) है , कोयले का पूर्वेक्षण करने के अपने आशय की सूचना दी थी,

और केन्द्रीय सरकार का यह समाधान हो गया है , कि इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में वर्णित उक्त भूमि के एक भाग में कोयला अभिप्राप्य है ;

अतः अब केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 7 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , इससे संलग्न अनुसूची में वर्णित 175.118 हेक्टर ( लगभग ) या 432.72 एकड़ ( लगभग ) माप वाली उक्त भूमि में खनिजों के खनन , खदान , बोर करने , उनकी खुदाई और तलाश करने , उन्हें प्राप्त करने , उन पर कार्य करने और उन्हें ले जाने के अधिकारों का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की सूचना देती है ।

टिप्पण ( 1 ): इस अधिसूचना के अंतर्गत आने वाले क्षेत्र के रेखांक संख्या एससीसीएल/बीएसपी/जीएम ( पीएलजी ) /लैंड 303 तारीख 22 फरवरी , 2006 का निरीक्षण कलेक्टर , कोरबा ( छत्तीसगढ़ ) के कार्यालय में या कोयला नियंत्रक 1 , काउंसिल हाऊस स्ट्रीट कलकत्ता-700001 के कार्यालय में या साउथ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लि. ( राजस्व विभाग ) सीपत रोड , बिलासपुर-495006 ( छत्तीसगढ़ ) के कार्यालय में किया जा सकता है ।

टिप्पण-( 2 ) : उपरोक्त अधिनियम की धारा 8 के उपबंधों की ओर ध्यान आकृष्ट किया जाता है , जिसमें निम्नलिखित उपबंध हैं:- अर्जन के प्रति आक्षेप:

" 8. ( 1 ) कोई व्यक्ति, की किसी भूमि में, जिसकी बाबत धारा 7 के अधीन अधिसूचना निकाली गई है , हितबद्ध है, अधिसूचना के निकाले जाने से तीस दिन के भीतर संपूर्ण भूमि या उसके किसी भाग या ऐसी भूमि में या उस पर किन्हीं अधिकारों का अर्जन किए जाने के बारे में आपत्ति कर सकेगा । 9483 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 18 , 2006/कार्तिक 27 , 1928

स्पष्टीकरण: - इस धारा के अंतर्गत यह आपत्ति नहीं मानी जाएगी , कि कोई व्यक्ति किसी भूमि में कोयला उत्पादन के लिए स्वयं खनन संक्रियाएं करना चाहता है और ऐसी संक्रियाएं केन्द्रीय सरकार या किसी अन्य व्यक्ति को नहीं करनी चाहिए । (2) उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन प्रत्येक आपत्ति सक्षम प्राधिकारी को लिखित रूप में की जाएगी और सक्षम प्राधिकारी आपत्तिकर्ता को स्वयं सुने जाने का या विधि व्यवसायी द्वारा सुनवाई का अवसर देगा और ऐसी सभी आपत्तियों को सुनने के पश्चात् और ऐसी अतिरिक्त जांच , यदि कोई हो , जो यह आवश्यक समझता है करने के पश्चात् वह या तो धारा 7 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन अधिसूचित भूमि के या ऐसी भूमि में या उस पर के अधिकारों के संबंध में एक रिपोर्ट या ऐसी भूमि के विभिन्न टुकड़ों या ऐसी भूमि में या उस पर के अधिकारों के संबंध में आपत्तियों पर अपनी सिफारिशों और उसके द्वारा की गई कार्यवाही के अभिलेख सहित विभिन्न रिपोर्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार को उसके विनिश्चय के लिए देगा ।

(3 ) इस धारा के प्रयोजनों के लिए वह व्यक्ति किसी भूमि में हितबद्ध समझा जाएगा , जो अधिकार में हित का दावा करने का हकदार होता, यदि भूमि या किसी ऐसी भूमि में या उस पर के अधिकार इस अधिनियम के अधीन अर्जित कर दिए जाते हैं । टिप्पणी-( 3 ): केन्द्रीय सरकार ने कोयला नियंत्रक , 1 , काउंसिल हाऊस स्ट्रीट, कलकत्ता 700001 को उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 3 के अधीन भारत के राजपत्र , भाग II , खंड 3 , उपखंड ( ii ) तारीख 4 अप्रैल , 1987 के पृष्ठ 1397 से 1400 पर प्रकाशित अधिसूचना का.आ. सं. 905 , तारीख 20 मार्च , 1987 द्वारा सक्षम प्राधिकारी नियुक्त किया है ।

अनुसूची

अमरपुर दक्षिण विस्तार ब्लाक

कोरबा सेल , जिला कोरबा ( छत्तीसगढ़ )

खनन अधिकार

जिला

टिप्पण पटवारी हल्का खेवट सं. तहसील

क्र. ग्राम का नाम सं

क्षेत्र (हैक्टेयर में)

87.677

भाग

कोरबा

1. जाबाली

कटघोरा

कोरबा

2 सिंघाली

कटघोरा

59.542

भाग

कोरबा

कटघोरा

27.899

भाग 3

अभईपुर

कुल 175.118 हैक्टेयर (लगभग) या 432.72 एकड़ ( लगभग)

( 1 ) ग्राम जाबाली ( भाग ) में अर्जित किए जाने वाले प्लाट संख्या:

11, 12, 13, 104, 105 , 106, 107 , 108 , 109, 110 , 111 , 112 , 113 , 114 , 115 , 116 , 117 , 118 , 119 , 120 , 121 , 122 , 123 , 124 , 125 , 126, 127 , 128 , 129 , 133 , 189, 190 ( भाग ) , 191 , 192 ( भाग) , 193 ( भाग)

( 2 ) ग्राम सिंघाली ( भाग ) में अर्जित किए जाने वाले प्लाट संख्या:

1, 2, 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8/1 ( भाग ) , 270 ( भाग ) , 307, 310 , 311 , 312 , 313 , 315 , 316 , 317, 318 , 319 , 320 , 321 , 322 , 323 , 325, 326 , 327 , 328 , 329, 330 (भाग)

(3 ) ग्राम अभईपुर में अर्जित किए जाने वाले प्लाट संख्या:

180 (भाग ) , 226 ( भाग ) , 227 ( भाग ) , 228 ( भाग ) , 229, 230 ( भाग ) , 231 , 233 ( भाग ) , 237 ( भाग ) , 238 ( भाग ) , 240 ( भाग) , 241 ( भाग ) , 242 से 284 9484

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 18 , 2006/KARTIΚΑ 27 , 1928

[PART II- SEC. 3( ii) ] सीमा वर्णन:

क-ख रेखा ग्राम जाबाली- विजयपुर की सम्मिलित सीमा पर बिन्दु ' क ' से आरंभ होती है और उसी सम्मिलित सीमा से होती हुई बिन्दु ' ख' पर मिलती है ।

ख-ग रेखा ग्राम जाबाली- अभईपुर की भागतः सम्मिलित सीमा से होकर गुजरती है उसके बाद ग्राम अभईपुर में प्रवेश करती है और प्लाट सं. 180, 238 , 240 , 241 , 237 , 233 , 230 , 228 , 227 , 226 से होते हुए ग्राम सिंघाली में प्रवेश करती है और प्लाट सं. 8/1 , 270 से होकर गुजरती है तथा बिन्दु " ग " पर मिलती है ।

ग-घ रेखा ग्राम सिंघाली से गुजरती है और प्लाट सं. 270 , 307 , 311 , 310 , 313 , 316 , 322 , 323 की दक्षिणी सीमा से होकर गुजरती है उसके बाद प्लाट सं. 330 से गुजरती है तथा बिन्दु " घ " पर मिलती है ।

घ-क रेखा ग्राम खाबाली में प्लाट सं. 192 , 193 , 190 से होकर गुजरती है उसके बाद प्लाट सं. 11 , 129 , 116 , 133 , 125 , 104 , 12 , 13 , 11 की पश्चिमी सीमा से होकर गुजरती है और प्रारंभ बिन्दु " क " पर मिलती है ।

[सं. 43015/3/2005/पीआरआईडब्ल्यू]

एम. शहाबुद्दीन , अवर सचिव

MINISTRY OF COAL New Delhi , the 13th November , 2006

S.O. 4412. Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal number S.O. 1295, dated the 29th March , 2005 published in the Gazette of India, Part- II , Section 3 , Sub - section ( ii ) dated the 9th April , 2005 under 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 gave notice of its intention to prospect for coal in the lands measuring 175.118 hectares ( approximately) or 432.72 acres (approximately) of the land in the locality specified in the schedule annexed to that notification;

And whereas the Central Government is satisfied that coal is obtainable in a part of the said lands ;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 7 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby gives notice of its intention to acquire the rights to mine , quarry , bore dig and search for, win, work and carry away minerals in the said lands measuring 175.118 hectares ( approximately) or 432.72 acres ( approximately) described in the schedule appended hereto;

Note 1. The plan bearing number SECL/BSP /GM/PLG/LAND/ 303 dated the 22nd February , 2006 of the area covered by this notification may be inspected in the office of the Collector , Korba ( Chhattisgarh ) or in the Office of the Coal Controller, 1 , Council House Street , Kolkata, 700001 or in the Office of the South Eastern Coalfields Limited ( Revenue Section) , Scepat Road , Bilaspur- 495006 ( Chhattisgarh ) ,

Note 2. Attention is hereby invited to the provisions of Section 8 of the said Act, which provides as follows :-

"8 ( 1 ) Any person interested in any land in respect of which a notification under section 7 has been issued may , within thirty days of the issue of the notification , object to the acquisition of the whole or any part of land or of any rights in or over such land .

Explanation:- It shall not be an objection within the meaning of this section for any person to say that he himself desires to undertake mining operations in the land for the production of coal and that such operations should not be undertaken by the Central Government or by any other person .

(2) Every objection under sub - section ( 1 ) shall be made to the competent authority in writing and the competent authority shall give the objector an opportunity of being heard either in person or by a legal practitioner and shall , after hearing all such objections and after making such further inquiry , if any, as he thinks necessary, either makes a report in respect of the land which has been notified under sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 7 or of rights in or over such land, or make different reports in respect of different parcels of such land or of rights in or over such land, to the Central Government, 9485

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 18, 2006/कार्तिक 27 , 1928

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

containing his recommendations on the objections, together with the record of the proceedings held by him, the decision ofthat Government .

(3) For the purposes of this section, a person shall be deemed to be interested in land who would be entitled to claim an interest in compensation if the land or any rights in or over such land were acquired under this Act. " Note 3. The Coal Controller , 1, Council House Street, Kolkata 700001, has been appointed by the Central Government asthe competent authority under Section 3 of the said Act, vide notification number S.O. 905 , dated the 20th March, 1987, published in Part II , Section 3, Sub - section ( ii) of the Gazette of India, dated the 4th April, at pages 1397 to 1400;

SCHEDULE

AmarpurSouthExtensionBlock

Korba Area, District Korba ( Chhattisgarh)

Mining rights

Remarks

Tahsil

District

Khewat number

Area( in hectares)

Name of village

Serial number

Patwari halka number

Korba

87.677

Jawali

part

Katghora

Korba

59.542

part Singhali

Katghora

27.899

Korba

part

Katghora

Abhaipur.

Total: 175.118hectares (approximately) or 432.72 acres (approximately) .

(1) Plot numbers to be acquired in village Jawali (Part) :

11, 12, 13, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108 , 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121 , 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127 , 128, 129 , 133 , 189, 190 ( part) , 191 , 192 (part) , 193 (part) .

(2) Plot numbers to be acquired in village Singhali (Part) .:

1, 2, 3 , 4, 5, 6, 7, 8/1 (part) , 270 (part ), 307 , 310, 311 , 312, 313, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319, 320, 321 , 322, 323 , 325, 326, 327, 328, 329, 330 (part) .

(3) Plot numbers to be acquired in village Abhaipur (Part):

180(part) , 226 (part ), 227 (part), 228 (part) , 229, 230 (part ), 231 , 233 (part ) , 237 (part ) , 238 (part ), 240 (part), 241 (part ) , 242 to 284 .

BoundaryDescription:

A-B

Line Starts from point "A" on the common boundary of village Jawali- Bijaipur and passes along the same common boundary and meets at point "B" .

B-C

Line passes along the partly common boundary of village Jawali - Abhaipur , then enter in village Abhaipur and passes through plot numbers 180, 238 , 240, 241 , 237, 233, 230, 228, 227, 226 then enter in village Singhali and passes through plot numbers 8/1 , 270 and meets at point "C" .

C-D

Line passes in village Singhali and passes along the southern boundary of plot numbers 270, 307, 311 , 310, 313, 316, 322 , 323 , then passes through plot number 330 and meets at point."D" .

D-A Line passes in village Jawali through piot numbers 192, 193, 190, then western boundary of plot numbers 11, 129 , 116, 133 , 125, 104, 12, 13 , 11 and meets at the starting point "A" .

[No. 43015/3/2005/PRIW]

M. SHAHABUDEEN, Under Secy.

9486

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 18 , 2006/ KARTIKA 27 , 1928

[PART II-SEC. 3(ii)]

पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली , 10 नवम्बर , 2006

का. आ. 4413.- केन्द्रीय सरकार , पैट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम , 1962 (1962 का 50) की धारा 2 के खण्ड (क) के अनुसरण में , भारत के राजपत्र , तारीख 6 मई , 2006 में प्रकाशित भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का० आ 1732 तारीख 2 मई , 2006 का निम्नलिखित रूप से संशोधन करती है , अर्थातः-

उक्त अधिसूचना की अनुसूची के स्तम्भ 1 में , " 12/30 एफ ब्लाक , मार्क रेसिडेन्सी , वी.ओ.सीोड , कन्टोन्मेंट , त्रिची-620001 (तमिलनाडु)" , शब्दों और अंकों के स्थान पर , " न० . 10 , थिरू वि का स्ट्रीम , राजाजीपुरम , तिरुवल्लूर - 602001 ( तमिलनाडु)" , शब्द और अंक रखे जाएंगे ।

[फा. सं. आर-25011/7/2004- ओ आर-1 ] एस. के. चिटकारा , अवर सचिव

Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas

New Delhi , the 10th November, 2006

9.0.4413 .- In pursuance of clause (a) of section 2 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) , the Central Government hereby makes the following amendments in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O. 1732, dated the 2nd May , 2006 , published in the Gazette of India dated the 6th May , 2006, as follows , namely: -

620001 In the said notification, in the Schedule , under column 1 , for the words and numbers , " 12/30 , F. Block, Mark Residency, VOC Road, Cantonment, Trichy (Tamilnadu) " , the words and numbers, " No.10 , Thiru Tiruvallur - 602 001 (Tamilnadu ) " , shall be substituted . Vi Ka Street , Rajajipuram ,

( F. No. R -25011 /7/2004-O.R. - I ] S.K. CHITKARA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 13 नवम्बर, 2006

का आ. 4414.- केन्द्रीय सरकार को यह प्रतीत होता है कि लोकहित में यह आवश्यक है कि तामिलनाडु राज्य में चेन्नई पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, मनालि कि रिफैनेरी से मीनाम्म्वक्कम एयरपोर्ट तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादनों के परिवहन के लिए एवीऐशन टर्बाईन फ्युयल ( ए टि एफ्) पाइपलाइन परियोजना के कार्यन्वयत हेतु इंडियन ऑयल कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए ;

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

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

9487

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 18,2006/कार्तिक 27 , 1928

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

कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्व है, उस तारीख से, जिसको उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 3 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के अधिन भारत के राजपत्र से यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियों साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती है, इक्किस दिन के भितर उस भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाने के संबध में श्री जी . जयराज, सक्षम प्राधिकारी, इंडियन आयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, ए.टि.एफ्. और चेन्नई- बैन्गलोर पाइपलाइन परियोजना, सं 10 , तितु- भि- का स्टिट, राजाजिपुरम, तिरुवालुर, तामिलनाडु -602 001 को लिखित रुप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।

अनुसूची

तालूका: श्रीपेरुम्बुदूर

राज्य : तामिलनाडु

जिला: कांचीपुरम

उप-खण्ड सं .

गाँव का नाम

सर्वेक्षण सं- खण्ड सं

427

53, वलारपुरग

437

438

439

अ

435

440

445

1345125767.

444

2अ 1 अ

444

57, इरुन्गाटटुकोटाइ

2541235

1 3520 GI /2006-5

क्षेत्रफल

हेक्टर

वर्ग मिटर एयर

90 9488

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 18 , 2006/KARTIKA 27, 1928

2अ

2अ1 अ

12अ

12व

201

210

141

211

199

93 8

198

218

811 अ

218

811 क

218

833

219

1अ1

219

186

3अ1

186

333

186

3ब

186

3क

348

347

[PART II SEC . 3( ii) ] 4

90 0

88 0

$50 0

0000160

43 भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 18,2006/कार्तिक 27 , 1928

[भाग- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

354

355

13अ

13ब

355

356

357

56, काटरम्वक्कम

3क1

3562 3 2

9489

10 0

40 0 40 4

25 0

12 0

86 0

40 0

62 0

20 0

60 0

40 0

244

503 3

40 0

67 0

600 0

53 0

18 13

30 0

37 0

72 0

53 0

12 80 0

13 09

23 0

00 81

28 00

00 55 0

11 07

44 24 0

74+

2 9490

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 18 , 2006/KARTIKΑ 27, 1928

109

118

121

12अ

121

1337

121

13क

129

183

184

6क

184

181

1अ

1व

181

2अ

181

2व

181

2क

181

192

193

137

193

1 ब

193

175

1 ब

196

197

199

198

1अ

198

237

207.

3अ

207

34.

207

209

13т

209

1ब

209

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

66 0

72 0

24 0

44 0

74 0

40 0

80 0

78 0

37 0

80 0

56 0

68 0

42 0

18 0

84 0

48 0

15 0

40 0

70 0

68 0

40 0

47 0

75 0

74 0

73 0

03 भारत का राजपत्र नवम्बर 18,2006/कार्तिक 27, 1928-

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

1अ1

211

112

211

31 अ

216

311 ब

216

341

216

217

1111

290

1ब

290

1क

290

1ड

290

1 इ

290

288

333

332

1द

334

1316

334

1अ7

334

1अ8

119

334

13110

334

1अ11

334

1112

334

1अ15

334

1114

334

1अ1 क

334

114

334

1अ16

334

117

334

1ड

334

1अअ

338

1अ1

1 क

338

3.38

9491

41.

98 0

63 0

24 0

35 0

83 0

40 0

95. 0

00 0

30.

10 0

75 0

40 0

30 0

50 0

40 0

65 0

82 0

90 0

30 0

62 0

40 9492

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 18, 2006/KARTIKΑ 27, 1928

338

1अ2

338

1अक

338

1अड

338

1अइ

338

335

1 एल्

335

24.

335

1जे

335

1के

335

1315

335

1अ4

329

328

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

6 0

90 0

32 0

35 0

00 0

40 0

90 0

17 0

81 0

54 0

40 0

45 0

72 0

90 0

62 0

40 भारत का राजपत्र: नवम्बर 18,2006/कार्तिक27, 1928

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

328

1जे

328

1आइ

328

1ए५

1जी

328

1अ

328

106

60, पुद्ध‌पाइर

1 एम्

107

108

1क

108

1क

9493

50 0

92 0

86 0

40 0

79 0

40 0

70 0

40 0

01 0

59 0

78 0

05 0

70 0

94 0

81 0

40 0

14 0

10 0

13 0

06 0

24 0

40 0

80 0

65 9494

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 18 , 2006/ KARTIKA 27 , 1928

2ब

2क

2अ

1 अ

1 ब

8अ

8ब

9ब

9क

123т

12ब

13अ

13 ब

6ब

6क

6ड

क

2ब1 अ

201 ब

204

640

3 61, नन्दाम्वक्कम

659

641

657

1अ 1

657

1अ2

657

1 इ

656

1अ1 अ

656

647

10अ2

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) )

6 4

94 0

00 0

45 0

40 0

89 0

14 0

01 0

75 0

89 0

83 0

86 0

48 0

90 0

99 0

48 0

02 0

37 0

76 0

71 0

38 0

40 0

81 0

20 0

63 0

36 0

26 0

00 0

72 0

20 0

50 0

16 0

17 0

89 9495

भारत का राजपत्र: नवम्बर 18,2006/कार्तिक 27 , 1928

[भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

10अ1

647

8अ

8व

647

7ब

647

7अ1 अ

647

6ब

647

5अ1

647

4अ1

3अ

647

1व

647

1अ

647

10अ1

648

649

635

1अ

635

1 ब

635

245

635

234.

635

243

635

2a2

635

2क1

633

114

633

1 ब

505

7ब 3520 GI/2006-6

6 4

64 0

92 0

40 0

94 0

04 0

18 0

41 0

82 0

55 0

38 0

55 0

80 0

40 0

08 0

40 0

08 0

56 0

20 0

40 0

68 0

87 0

30 0

54 9496

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 18 , 2006/KARTIKA 27 , 1928

501

503

502

495

496

2अ

496

231

497

1अ

497

1व

497

488

491

490

489

466

465

462

180

3अ

180

3ब

198

201

199

200

203

204

205

206

207

326

327

40 0

15 0

07 0

86 0

88 0

21 0

96 0

10 0

93 0

60 0

93 0

54 0

77 0

24 0

40 0

12 0

96 0

70 0

40 0

74 0

00010 2

10 0

40 0

40 [भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 18,2006/कार्तिक 27 , 1928

327

4ब

327

431

328

216

325

292

293

288

223

229

283

232

-10

272

235

273

2ब

270

239

240-

238

242

243

244

241

---

246

231

247

63т

237

2ब

137

9497

90 0

40 000

40 0

28 0

09 0

80 0

92 0

90 0

40. 0

86 0

76 0

71 0

93- 9 8

24 0

40 0

70 0

40 0

65 0

41 0

40 0

48 0

79 0

80 0

40 0

84 0

20 9498

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: NOVEMBER 18 , 2006/KARTIKA 27,1928

[ PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

243

97 , पुन्याडालाम

147

63, सिरुकालातुर

139

118

116

119

120

113

124

-2

125

501401221052

42 92, तिरुमुडिवक्कम

491

995

90 91.कुन्नातुर

995

2अ

994

1अ

994

1 ब

989

990

991

1 ब

991

978

974

972

2ब 1

968

2अ

968

2ब

968

111

968

1अ2

955

935

1अ1

) 9499

भारत का राजपत्र: नवम्बर 18,2006/कार्तिक 27 , 1928

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

1व

935

1क

935

1 एफ

2.ज

937

2अ1

937

1अ

938

4अ

939

1अ 1

906

1अ2

1ब1

906

1बं3

906

2क

889

890

888

877

878

820

821

822

827

823

825

824

786

787

788

781

780

779

771

770

756

1अ1

40 0

63 0

18 0

41 0

19 0

46 0

20 0

40 0

63 0

89 0

76 0

93 0

02 0

82941

41 0

70.

53 0

91 0

95 0

69 0

19 0

74 9500

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 18 , 2006/KARTIKA 27 , 1928

755

601

604

606

593

592

2अ

577

1अ

577

1 ब

569

568

1अ

560

549

119

549

1वाइ

549

1जेड

549

1अ1 अ

549

1पि

549

1क्यु

549

494

1अ

494

1 ब

496

1अ

497

1अ

483

1ब

484

478

468

462

131

130

127

126

129

1क

116

117

118

111

3ब 1

111

3ब2

[PART II- SEC. 3 ( it) !

75 0

88 0

79 0

36 0

40 0

20 0

84 0

50 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

9501

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 18, 2006/कार्तिक 27 , 1928

110

108

2अ

2अ1

2अ2

2अ3

2क

2व

3ब

1379

431

3अ

1379

4अ3

1379

4अ2

1379

414

1379

6अ 1

216

82. रेन्डांकटलाइ

215

209

208

206

205

1अ

151

146

143

142

136

135

120

1 ब

120

119

105

118

117

1अ

117

1 ब

121

1अ 4

27 0

95 0

54 0

92 0

25 0

31 0

60 0

85 0

84 0

69 0

49 0

89 0

78 0

06 0

89 0

40 0

03 0

89 0

03 0

36 0

80 0

98 0

40 0

00 0

80 0

18 0

41 0

22 9502

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 18 , 2006/KARTIKA 27 , 1928

115

212

81, ताराप्पक्कम

1अ

211

1 ब

211

2अ

211

2अ2

1अ

210

1ब

209

208

207

1अ

225

1 ब

225

203

202

226

1अ

226

1अ 1

226

1ब2

236

239

238

240

282

280

279

284

269

268

267

[PART II-SEC . 3( ii) ]

91 0

53 0

40 0

11 0

40 0

20606 2

64 0

79 0

52 0

35 0

47 0

75 0

57 0

98 0

09 0

71 0

72 0

88 0

52 0

98 0

49 0

13 0

39 0

40 0

96 0

80 0

96 0

80 0

00 0

63 0

30 0

68 भारत का राजपत्र : मवम्बर 18,2006/कार्तिक 27 , 1928

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

613

80, केरुगाँप्पक्कम

534

112

534

609

611

---

617

607

007

620

13122

625

628

629

630

646

649

650

651

653

652

657

656

694

697

711

712

714

715

1क

715

719

718

722

726

724

3520 GI/2006-7

9503

48 10

55 0

54 0

888 8 8 8

52 0

89 0

03 0

26 0

93 0

94 0

40 0

23 0

89 0

96 0

40 0

65 0

96 0

74 0

76 0

57 0

68 0

54 0

059954075150767410915

68 0

0 9504

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 18 , 2006/

725

402

79, कोलाप्पक्कम

403

2ब

403

348

2अ

242

348

2क

348

1अ

346

1 ब

346

349

350

351

345

343

1अ

343

1 अ

352

342

339

338

337

336

2क

2अ

336

2ब

336

2ब

333

2अ

333

2क

2अ

331

323

321

2अ

1क

322

427,1928

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

6 4

16 0

67 0

60 0

94 0

79 0

39 0

59 0

34 0

20 0

05 0

33 0

76 0

98 0

36 0

44 0

28 0

00 0

40 0

13 0

86 0

58 0

64 0

00 0

[फा. सं . आर-25011/11/2006- ओ आर-1 ] एस. के. चिटकारा , अवर सचिव 9505 भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 18,2006/कार्तिक 27, 1928

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

New Delhi , the 13th November , 2006

S. O. 4414.- Whereas , it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of Aviation Turbine Fuel (ATF) petroleum product from Refinery of Chennai Petroleum Corporation Limited , Manali to Meenammbakkam Airport in the State of Tamil Nadu , a pipeline should be laid by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited.

And whereas , it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying such pipeline , it is necessary to acquire the Right of User in the land described in the Schedule annexed to this notification ;

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

Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may within twenty - one days from the date on which the copies of this notification , as published in the Gazette of India are made available to the general public , object in writing to the acquisition of the Right of User therein , or laying of pipeline under the land to Shri G. Jayaraj , Competent Authority , Indian Oil Corporation Limited , ATF & Chennai -Bangalore Pipeline Project , No. 10 , Thiru - Vi - Ka Street , Rajajipuram , Tiruvallur , Tamilnadu -602 001 .

SCHEDULE

State: TAMILNADU Taluk : SRIPERUMBUDUR District: KANCHEEPURAM

Area

Are

Subdivision No. Hectare

Sq. Mtr.

Survey No.

Name of the Village

427

53, Valarpuram

437

438 9506

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 18 , 2006/KARTIKA 27 , 1928

3 1

439

435

440

445

444

2A1A

444

2 57, Irrungattukottai

2A1A

1.1

12A

12B

201

210

14A

211

199

198

218

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

0 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

9507

भारत का राजपत्र: नवम्बर 18,2006/कार्तिक 27 , 1928

218

8A1A

218

8A1C

218

8A3

1A1

219

1A2

3A1

186

3A3

186

348

347

354

355

13A

13B

355

356

357

56, Katrambakkam

3C1

00 40

96 0

0 9508

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 18 , 2006/KARTIKΑ 27 , 1928

109

118

121

12A

121

13A

121

13C

121

129

183

184

181

[PART II SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] 4

84 भारत का राजपत्र: नवम्बर 18,2006/कार्तिक 27 , 1928

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

192

193

175

196

1.97

199

198

207

209

1A1

211

1A2

211

3A1A

216

3A1B

216

3B1

216.

216

3B2

216

217

1A1,

217

1A1A

290

1A1

288

333

332

334

1A5

334

1A6

334

1A7

334

1A8

334

1A9

334

1A10

334

1A12

334

1A15

334

9509

082 0

591 1

56 0

35 0

0 9510

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 18, 2006/KARTIKA 27 , 1928

334

1A14

334

1A1C

334

1A4

334

1A16

334

1A17

334

1A1A

338

1A1

338

1A2

338

1AC

338

1AD

338

1AE

338

335

1A5

335

1A4

329

[PART II SEC. 3( ii ) ] 4

75 9511

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 18,2006/कार्तिक 27, 1928

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

328

106

60, Puduppair

107

108

3520 Gl /2006-8

40 0

28 0

50 0 00

92 0

22 0

56 0

57 0

52 0

79 0

70 0

40 0

01 0

59 0

40 0

78 0

12 0

0 9512

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 18, 2006/ А

3 1

12A

12B

13A

13B

2B1A

2B1B

2B4

640

61, Nandambakkam

659

641

1A1

657

1A2

657

656

1A1A

656

647

10A2 27,1928

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii ) ]

6 4

00 0

71 0

45 0

40 0

89 0

01 0

75 0

86 0

48 0

90 0

99 0

76 0

40 0

81 0

20 0

36 0

26 0

00 0

72 0

50 0

16 0

17 0

89 0

2 [ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: नवम्बर 18,2006/कार्तिक 27, 1928

647

10A1

647

647.

647

7A1A

647

5A1

647

4A1

647

648

10B1

649

635

17 .

635

2B5

635

2B4

635

2B3

635

2B2

635

2C1

1A4

633

505

9513 4

64.

-4

54 [PART II-SEC. 3 (ii )] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 18 , 2006/ KARTIKA 27 , 1928

9514

501

503

502

495

496

497

488

491

490

489

466

465

462

180

198

201

199

200

203

204

205

206

207

326

327

06 11

40 0

15 0

86 0

62 0

83 0

65 0

88 0

2 2022108 8

60 0

23 0

49 0

93 0

54 0

43225

12 0

0 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 18,2006 /कार्तिक 27, 1928

3 1

327

328

216

325

292

293

288

223

229

283

232

272

235

273

270

239

240

238

242

243

244

241

246

247

9515

0 9516

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 18 , 2006/KARTIKA 27 , 1928

243

1 97, Poonthandalam

147

63 , Sirukalathur

139

118

116

119

120

113

124

125

1 92, Thirumudivakkam

995

91 , Kunnathur

995

994

989

990

991

978

974

972

2A1

972

2B1

968

1A1

968

1A2

968

955

935

1A1

[ PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) )

27 0

93.

14 0

82 0

79 0

47 0

06 0

3 [भागII-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 18,2006/ कार्तिक 27 , 1928

935

937

2A1

937

2A2

938

939

906

1A1

906

1A2

1B1

906

1B2

906

1B3

906

889

890

888

877

878

820

821

822

827

823

825

824

7:86

787

788

781

780

779

771

770

756

1A1

9517 4

2. 20

78 9518

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: NOVEMBER 18 , 2006/ KARTIKA 27 , 1928

3 1

755

601

604

606

593

592

2A1

592

577

569

568

560

1A9

549

1A1A

549

494

496

497

483

484

478

468

462

131

130

127

126

129

116

117

118

3B1

111

3B2

111

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

88 0

70 0

79 0

36 0

01 0

40 0

90 0

20 0

84 0

18 0

40 0

1110

40 0

43 0

40 0

01006 6

02 0

29 0

40 0

60 0

14 0

50 0

9 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 18,2006/कार्तिक 27, 1928

3 1

110

108

2A1

2A2

2A3

1379

4A1

1379

4A3

1379

4A2

1379

4A4

1379

6A1

1379

8 :

216

82, Rendankattalai

215

209

208

206

205

151

146

143

142

136

135

120

119

105

118.

117

121

3520 G1 /2006-9

9519

49. 0

3 9520

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 18 , 2006/KARTIKA 27 , 1928

115

212

81, Tharappakkam

211

211.

2B1

211

210

209

208

207

225

203

202

226

1B1

226

1B2

236

239

238

240

282

280

279

284

269

268

267

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii ) ]

0 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

9521

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 18,2006/ कार्तिक 27, 1928

613

1 80, Kerugampakkam

534

609

611

617

607

620

625

628

629

630

646

649

650

651

653

652

657

656

694

697

711

712

714

715

719

718

722

726

724

90 0

37 0

48 0

26 0

96 0

40 0

65 0

96 0

74 0

76 0

57 0

68 0

12 0

68 0

0 9522

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 18 , 2006/KARTIKA 27 , 1928

725

402

79 , Kolappakkam

403

348

2B2

348

346

349

350

351

345

343

352

342

339

338

337

336

333

331

323

321

322

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

86 0

[F. No. R -25011 / 11/2006- O.R. - i ] S.K. CHITKARA , Under Secy .

9523 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 18,2006/कार्तिक 27 , 1928

नई दिल्ली, 14 नवम्बर, 2006

का. आ. 4415.- केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि मैसर्स रिलायंस गैस ट्रान्सपोटेशन इफ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड, पूर्ववत् मैसर्स गैस ट्रान्सपोर्टेशन एंड इंफ्रास्ट्रक्चर कम्पनी लिमिटेड जिसका तत्पश्चात् पुनःनामकरण मैसर्स रिलायंस गैस पाइपलाइन्स लिमिटेड की संप्रवर्तक कंपनी मैसर्स रिलाएंस इंडस्ट्रीज लिमिटेड के गोवा में उत्तरी / दक्षिणी अपतट में खोज ब्लॉकों और आन्ध्र प्रदेश में संरचनाओं से आन्ध्र प्रदेश राज्य में रंगारेड्डी जिले के विभिन्न उपभोक्ताओं तक प्राकृतिक गैस के परिवहन के लिए मैसर्स रिलायंस गैस ट्रान्सपोर्टेशन इंफ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड द्वारा एक पाइपलाइन विछाई जानी चाहिये ;

और केन्द्रीय सरकार को उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि उस भूमि मे , जिसके भीतर उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाई जाने का प्रस्ताव है और जो इस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित 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 , उनमें 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 उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी की गई अधिसूचना की प्रतियां साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती है , इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाई जाने के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के संबंध में श्री पी. बुच्चारेडडी, सक्षम प्राधिकारी , रिलाएंस गैस ट्रान्सपोर्टेशन इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड, फ्लैट नं 501 , डोर नं 6-3-1238 /501 , 5 फ्लोर, एलिगेंट अपार्टमेंट्स , राजभवन रोड , सोमाजीगुडा - 500082 , हैदराबाद , आन्ध्रप्रदेश राज्य को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा 1 .

अनुसूची

आर ओ यू अर्जित करने के लिए क्षेत्रफल

सब-डिबिजन नंबर

गाँव का नाम

सर्वे नंबर

सिएयर

हेक्टेयर. एयर

5 6

राज्य: आन्ध्र प्रदेश

जिला: रंगारेड्डी

मंडल: खुतुबुल्लापूर

711

1. दुण्डिगल

712

719

722

723

740

741

: 04

742

743

746

747 9524

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 18 , 2006 /KARTIKA 27 , 1928

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

751

752

753

754

755

758

871(पांड)

973

974

बैल गाड़ी रास्ता

(सर्वे नं.7428743 के बीच में)

गाँव सीमा

(सर्वे नं.9728974 के बीच में )

वैल गाड़ी रास्ता

(सर्वे नं.8718972 के बीच में)

[फा. सं. एल-14014/4/2002 - जी.पी. एस. बी. मण्डल , अवर सचिव

NewDelhi , the 14th November, 2006

S. O. 4415.- Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of the natural gas from the exploration blocks in the Northern/ Southern offshore of Goa and structures in Andhra Pradesh of M/ s Reliance Industries Limited by a Reliance Group company , M/ s Reliance Gas Transportation Infrastructure Limited erstwhile M/s Gas Transportation and Infrastructure Company Limited subsequently renamed as M/ s Reliance Gas Pipelines Limited, to various consumers of District Rangareddy in the State of Andhra Pradesh , a pipeline should be laid by M\s Reliance Gas Transporation Infrastructure 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 lands under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which are described in the Schedule annexed hereto ;

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

Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may , within twenty- one days from the date on which the copies of the notification as published in the Gazette of India under sub - section (1 ) of section 3 of the said Act , are made available to the general public , object in writing to the acquisition of right of the user therein for laying the pipeline under the land to Shri P. Butcha Reddy, Competent Authority, Reliance Gas Transportation Infrastructure Limited, Plot No 501 , Door No 6-3-1238 / 501 , 5th Floor, Elegant Apartments , Raj Bhavan Road , Somajiguda- 500 082, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh State.

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

9525

भारत का राजपत्र: नवम्बर 18,2006/कार्तिक 27, 1928

Schedule

Village

SurveyNo.

2 Mandal : Qutbullapur

Area to be acquired for ROU Sub-Division No.

Hectare Are

C-Are 3

State: Andhra Pradesh

District : Rangareddy

711 1. Dundigal

712

719

722

723

740

741

742

743

746

747

751

752

753

754

755

758

871(Pond)

973

974

CartRoad

(Between Sy. Nos . 742&743)

VillageSite (Near Sy. Nos . 972&974)

Cod. Road

(Between Sy. Nos.871 &972)

[ F. No. L- 14014/4/2002-G.P. ] S.B MANDAL, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 15 नवम्बर , 2006

का. आ. 4416.- केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय के का.आ. 1621 दिनांक 27.04.2006, द्वारा पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन्स (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम, 1962 (1962 का 50) (जिसे उसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा जायेगा) की धारा 3 (1 ) के अधीन अधिसूचना प्रकाशित कर, दादरी (उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य में) से पानीपत (हरियाणा राज्य में) तक, प्राकृतिक गैस के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड़ द्वारा "आर. एल.एन.जी. स्पर पाइपलाइन " के सम्बन्ध में उक्त अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में निर्दिष्ट तहसील घरौंड़ा जिला करनाल (हरियाणा राज्य) की भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के अपने आषय की घोषणा की थी, और, उक्त अधिसूचना की प्रतियां जनता को दिनांक 30.05.2006 को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी, 9526

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 18 , 2006/KARTIKΑ 27 , 1928

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] और, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अनुसरण में सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने केन्द्रीय सरकार को अपनी रिपोर्ट दे दी है ।

और, केन्द्रीय सरकार ने उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् इस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में उपयोग का अधिकार अर्जित करने का विनिश्चय किया है ।

अतः, अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुये घोषणा करती है कि इस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में पाइपलाइन बिछाने के उपयोग का अधिकार अर्जित किया जाता है ।

और , केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (4 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुये यह निदेश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने की बजाय सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त होकर इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड़ में निहित होगा ।

अनुसूची

जिला : करनाल

तहसील : घरौंड़ा

राज्य : हरियाणा

हदबस्त संख्या

गाँव का नाम

खसरा / किला संख्या हेक्टेयर

मुस्ततिल संख्या

वर्गमीटर

क्षेत्रफल एयर

2176

1. बेगमपुर

2178

2181

2182

2183

2187

2186

2191

2188

[फा. सं . एल-14014/ 32/ 2006- जी.पी . ]

एस. बी. मण्डल , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 15th November, 2006

S.O. 4416.-- Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas , published in the Gazette of India vide number S.O. 1621 dated the 27th April 2006 , 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 this notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation of Natural Gas from Dadri in the state of Uttar Pradesh to Panipat in the state of Haryana by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited for implementing the " R - LNG Spur pipeline from Dadri to Panipat " in Tehsil Gharaunda , District Karnal , in Haryana State;

And whereas , copies of the said gazette notification were made available to the public on 30.05.2006.

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

9527 [भाग II - खण्ड3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: नवम्बर 18,2006/कार्तिक 27 , 1928

And whereas , the Central Government after considering the said report is satisfied that the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification should be acquired;

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

And further , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section (4) of section 6 of the -said Act , the Central Government hereby directs that the right of users in the said land shall instead of vesting in the Central Government , vest form the date of publication of this declaration , in the Indian Oil Corporation Limited free from all encumbrances .

SCHEDULE

State : HARYANA

District : KARNAL

Tehsil : GHARAUNDA

Area

Name of Village

No. Hadbast Mustatil No.

Are

Khasra / Killa No. Hectare

Square Metre

2176

1. BEGAMPUR

2178

2181

2182

2183

2187

2186

2191

2188

[F. No. L- 14014/32/2006-G.P. ] 6.B MANDAL, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 15 नवम्बर , 2006

का. 4417- केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय के का.आ. 1623 दिनांक 27.04.2006, द्वारा पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन्स (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम, 1962 (1962 का 50) (जिसे उसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा जायेगा) की धारा 3 (1 ) के अधीन अधिसूचना प्रकाशित कर, दादरी (उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य में ) से पानीपत (हरियाणा राज्य में) तक, प्राकृतिक गैस के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड़ द्वारा "आर. एल.एन.जी. स्पर पाइपलाइन" के सम्बन्ध में उक्तः अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में निर्दिष्ट तहसील गन्नौर जिला सोनीपत (हरियाणा राज्य) की भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के अपने आषय की घोषणा की थी,

और, उक्त अधिसूचना की प्रतियां जनता को दिनांक 30.05.2006 को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी, और, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (1 ) के अनुसरण में सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने केन्द्रीय सरकार को अपनी रिपोर्ट दे दी है ।

और , केन्द्रीय सरकार ने उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् इस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में उपयोग का अधिकार अर्जित करने का विनिश्चय किया है ।

3520GI/2006-10 9528

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 18 , 2006/KARTIKA 27, 1928

[PART I SEC . 3 (ii)] अतः, अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुये घोषणा करती है कि इस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में पाइपलाइन बिछाने के उपयोग का अधिकार अर्जित किया जाता है ।

और , केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (4) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुये यह निदेश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने की बजाय सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त होकर इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड़ में निहित होगा ।

अनुसूची

तहसील : गन्नौर

जिला : सोनीपत

राज्य: हरियाणा

क्षेत्रफल

गाँव का नाम

एयर वर्गमीटर

हेक्टेयर

हदबस्त संख्या

खसरा किला संख्या

मुस्ततिल संख्या

5/3

1. पबनेरा

5/2

25 30.

5/1

00.

24/1

03.

24/2

22/1

12.

39.

21.

17.

23/2

18/2

18/1

19/1

00 50

19/2

19/3

$00

19/2

2. चन्दौली

04: 55

19/1

00. 25

08 09

10 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: नवम्बर 18,2006/कार्तिक 27 , 1928

9529

क्षेत्रफल

खसरा/ किला

.गाँव का नाम

हदबस्त संख्या

हेक्टेयर

मुस्ततिल संख्या संख्या

एयर वर्गमीटर

5/1

5/2

4/2

4/1

19.

11/2

7/1

7/2

8/1

8/2

8/3

3/3

3/2

2/1

.2/2

21/1

21/2

21/3

16/1

16/2

17/1

17/2

04 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 18. 2006/ KARTIKA 27 , 1928

PART II--S . 3 ( i))

क्षेत्रफल

खसरा/ किला

गाँव का नाम

वर्गमीटर

हेक्टेयर एयर

मुस्ततिल संख्या

हदबस्त संख्या

संख्या

17/1

17/2

18/1

18/2

19/1

19/2

11/2

10/1

10/2

4/22

24/1

24/2

24/3

24/4

24/13

24/11

24/14

24/12

24/15

24/16 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

9531

...भारत का राजपत्र नवम्बर 18,2006/कार्तिक 27, 1928

क्षेत्रफल

खसरा/ किला

गाँव का नाम..

हदबस्त संख्या

मुस्ततिल संख्या

संख्या हेक्टेयर एयर वर्गमीटर

24/17

24/18

103

110

83 3. बेगा

163

18/1

13/2

18/2

13/1

162

21/1

155

25/1

156

25/2

24/2

17/1

17/2

13/1

13/2

13/3

1/1

81 9532

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 18 , 2006/KARTIKA 27 , 1928

[PART II SEC. 3 (ii) )

क्षेत्रफल

खसरा/ किला

गाँव का नाम

हेक्टेयर

वर्गमीटर

हदबस्त संख्या

संख्या

मुस्ततिल संख्या

एयर

137

136

23/1

125

21/1

21/2

11/2

126

6/1

6/2

7/1

7/2

7/3

4/1

4/2

22/1

105

24/2

23/1

23/2

18/16

18/17

18/18

18/19

18/20

75 [भाग II- खण्ड3 (ii ) ]

9533

भारत का राजपत्रःः नवम्बर 18,2008/ कार्तिक 27, 1928

गाँव का नाम

संख्या

19/1

19/2

19/3

19/4

19/5

19/6

19/7

19/8

12/1

12/2

11/3/1

11/3/2

11/2

104

25/2

23/2

13.

12/1

12/2

क्षेत्रफल

हेक्टेयर एयर वर्गमीटर 0

27 0

75 0

26 0. 02

53 0

77 0

75 0

26 0

02.

27 0

04 80

75 0

77 0

27 0

28 α

50 0

08 09 0

31 0

89 0

02 0

25 0

18 01

01 0

75 0

91 0

55 0

04 30 0

07 0

34 06

83 12

39 02

53 σ

25 14 67 0

25 01

77 13 15 05

56 9534

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 18 , 2006/KARTIKA 27, 1928

क्षेत्रफल

खसरा/ किला

गाँव कानाम

वर्गमीटर

एयर

हेक्टेयर

संख्या

मुस्ततिल संख्या

हदबस्त संख्या

9/1

9/2

2/2

2/1

22/1

19/2

11/2

17/1

17/2

25.

7/2

13/2

2/1

19/2

198

199

200

552

556

570 9535 भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 18,2006/कार्तिक 27 , 1928

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

क्षेत्रफल

खसरा/ किला

गाँव का नाम

हेक्टेयर

वर्गमीटर

हदबस्त संख्या

मुस्ततिल संख्या

संख्या

एयर

581

608

610

616

4. दातौली

02 27

09 86

24/1

134

[फा. सं. एल-14014/33/2006- जी.पी. ]

एस. बी. मण्डल, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 15th November, 2006

S. C. 4417.- Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas , published in the Gazette of India vide number S.O. 1623 dated the 27th April 2006 , 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 this notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation of Natural Gas from Dadri in the state of Uttar Pradesh to Panipat in the state of Haryana by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited for implementing the " R- LNG Spur pipeline from Dadri to Panipat " in Tehsil Ganaur , District Sonipat, in Haryana State;

And whereas , copies of the said gazette notification were made available to the public on 30.05.2006 .

Andwhereas , the Competent Authority has under sub- section ( 1 ) of section 6 of the said Act, submitted his report to the Central Government .

And whereas , the Central Government after considering the said report is satisfied that the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification should be acquired;

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

And further , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section (4) of section 6 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby directs that the right of users in the said land shall instead of vesting in the Central Government , vest form the date of publication of this declaration , in the Indian Oil Corporation Limited free from all encumbrances.

3520 GI/2006-11 9536

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: NOVEMBER 18 , 2006/KARTIKA 27. 1928

PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

SCHEDULE

State : HARYANA

District : SONIPAT

Tehsil : GANAUR

Area

Name of Village

Mustatil No.

Are

Hadbast No.

Khasra / Killa No. Hectare

Square Metre

5/3

1. PABNERA

5/2

5/1

24/1

24:2

22/1

23/2

18/2

18/1

19/1

19/2

19/3

19/2

2. CHANDAULI

19/1

04 9537 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ij ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : गनम्बर 18,2006/ कार्तिक 27 , 1928

Area

Name of Village

Mustatil No.

Hectare Are

Khasra / Killa No.

Hadbast No.

Square Metre

5/1

5/2

4/2

4/1

11/2

7/1

7/2

8/1

8/2

8/3

3/3

3/2

2/1

2/2

21/1

21/2

21/3

16/1

16/2

11.

17/1

17/2

發 9538

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 18 , 2006/KARTIΚΑ 27, 1928

Area

Nameof Village

Hadbast No.

Mustatil No.

Are

Khasra / Killa No. Hectare

Square Metre

17/1

17/2

18/1

18/2

19/1

19/2

11/2

10/1

10/2

4/22

24/1

24/2

24/3

24/4

24/13

24/11

24/14

24/12

24/15

24/16

0 9539

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 18,2006/कार्तिक 27 , 1928

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

Area Name of Village

Mustatil No.

Hectare Are

Hadbast No.

Khasra / Killa No.

Square Metre

24/17

24/18

103

110

163

3. BEGA

18/1

13/2

18/2

13/1

162

21/1

155

25/1

156

25/2

24/2

17/1

17/2

13/1

13/2

13/3

1/1 9540

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 18 , 2006/ KARTIKA 27. 1928

PARE U- SCS

Area

Nameof Village

Hadbast No.

Mustatil No.

Are

Khasra / Killa No. Hectare

Square Metre

137

136

125

23/1

21/1

21/2

11/2

126

6/1

6/2

7/1

7/2

7/3

4/1

4/2

22/1

105

24/2

23/1

23/2

18/16

25 .

18/17

18/18

18/19

18/20

0 9541 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 18,2006/कार्तिक 27 , 1928

Area Name of Village

Hadbast No.

Mustatil No.

Khasra / Killa No .. Hectare Are

Square Metre

19/1

19/2

19/3

19/4

19/5

19/6

19/7

19/8

12/1

12/2

11/3/1

11/3/2

11/2

104

25/2

23/2

12/1

12/2

14 9542

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: NOVEMBER 18, 2006/KARTIKA 27 , 1928

[PART II-SEC . 3( ii) ]

Area

Nameof Village

No. Hadbast Mustatil No.

Khasra/ Killa No. Hectare Are

Square Metre

9/1

9/2

2/2

2/1

22/1

19/2

11/2

17/1

17/2

7/2

13/2

2/1

19/2

198

199

200

552

556

570

00 9543 [भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 18,2006/ कार्तिक 27, 1928

Area

Name of Village

Hadbast No.

Mustatil No.

Are

Khasra/ Killa No. Hectare

Square Metre

581

608

610

616

4. DATAULI

24/1

31.

134

[F. No. L -14014/33/2006-G.P.

S.B MANDAL, Under Secy

नई दिल्ली, 15 नवम्बर, 2006

का. आ. 4418.- केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय के का.आ. 1622 दिनांक 27.04.2006, द्वारा पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन्स (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम, 1962 (1962 का 50) (जिसे उसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा जायेगा) की धारा 3 (1 ) के अधीन अधिसूचना प्रकाशित कर, दादरी (उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य में) से पानीपत (हरियाणा राज्य में) तक, प्राकृतिक गैस के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड़ द्वारा "आर.-एल.एन.जी. स्पर पाइपलाइन " के सम्बन्ध में उक्त अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में निर्दिष्ट तहसील मतलौडा जिला पानीपत (हरियाणा राज्य ) की भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के अपने अभय की घोषणा की थी, और , उक्त अधिसूचना की प्रतियां जनता को दिनांक 30.05.2006 को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थीं, और , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (1 ) के अनुसरण में सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने केन्द्रीय सरकार को अपनी रिपोर्ट दे दी है ।

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुये घोषणा करती है कि इस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में पाइपलाइन बिछाने के उपयोग का अधिकार अर्जित किया जाता है ।

और , केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (4) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुये यह निर्देश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने की बजाय सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त होकर इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड़ में निहित होगा ।

3520GI/2006-12 9544

[PART II -SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 18 , 2006/ KARTIKA 27 , 1928

अनुसूची

राज्य : हरियाणा

जिला: पानीपत

तहसील : मतलौड़ा

क्षेत्रफल

खसरा/ किला

गाँवकानाम

एयर वर्गमीटर

हेक्टेयर

संख्या

मुस्ततिल संख्या

हदबस्त संख्या

5/1

1.शौदापुर

31.

5/2

24/1

16/2

12/1

12/2

008

3001

9/1

19/1

13/2

0 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

9545

भारत का राजपत्र: नवम्बर 18,2006/कार्तिक 27, 1928

कनफाल गाँव का नाम

हेक्टेयर एचर वर्गमीटर

खसरा किला संख्या

संख्या

मुस्ततिल संख्या

3/1/2

25 01

8/2

7/1

4/1

4/2

3/2/2

38 06

25 00

38 00

38 20

09 G

1.0

232/2

238

50 C!

242

243

250/2

2. नौहरा

25 00

86 00

38 C 9546

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 18 , 2006/KARTIKA 27 , 1928

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ]

क्षेत्रफल

गाँव का नाम

वर्गमीटर

हदबस्त संख्या

मुस्ततिल संख्या

खसरा/ किला संख्या हेक्टेयर एयर

1/2/2

21/2/2

20/1/1

20/2/2

02.

4/2

4/1

17/1

17/2

4/2

0 9547 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 18,2006/कार्तिक 27 , 1928

क्षेत्रफल

गाँव कानाम

हेक्टेयर

वर्गमीटर

हदबस्त संख्या

खसरा/ किला संख्या

एयर

मुस्ततिल संख्या

8/2

21/1

20/2/1

20/2/2

20/1

12/2

11/2

13 9548

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 18 , 2006/KARTIKA 27 , 1928

क्षेत्रफल

गाँव का नाम

वर्गमीटर

एयर

हेक्टेयर

खसरा किला संख्या

मुस्ततिल संख्या

हदबस्त संख्या

101/2

121

388

393

417

109

3.सिठाना

17/1

4 9549 भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 18,2006/कार्तिक 27; 1928

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

क्षेत्रफल

वर्गमीटर

एयर

गाँव का नाम

हेक्टेयर

खसस किला संख्या

मुस्ततिम संख्फ

हदबस्ला संख्या

.00

16/2

12 39

15/1

134

19/2

2 vnrainim erit ni sibal to imemmevod ant to noitsaititon adi yd aseverdi

22 250

0 шли

11 изготte

вле

1431 08 isdnmin sbiv sibni to stesso erhibedaldo

muporte erft io & vottbee to ( 1 ) noitbea - due setnu bol @ a000131 beta3 (SAR ) to 98 ) seer toA ( brej ni reali to rigil to noitialgpaA ) aammioqia alegerit brin3 nounado, ah berelost tremmevod lenne edt (to blise erit es or beproтет таранокий, ef of hebreues suberto ? erit m beitibage braletna to dar erti adubos of 13 той лый mutsikt to robshogenset oft not anileqiq physio егоyug Ort mot noi13-

10 niskond ett yd siegeri lo sius edi ni tsqp69 of rizopartner lopetste 26

зерлей от кова гтmat sulieaia tuye el em onlinegigianihot ba

19/2

13 .

pridag ont of aldshavs ebem enew nodesčiten eftessy bige ent to enigus aвері :

2005 00

002 so in Alpines to ( 1 ) noitose ona wbw and yhontua neleg Inemmevol senso ett of hoopy ain bahin0192 261023

26 Lady Nhượn đất of bobreathe s'ubstri ? att ni bellinege klantv1004 : 55

03 Lun28

Thorupos

22/1

20 0 61 In avrothee to the noilbee - dua yd bonatnes ziewan er satt

minden 13 beriupos al norcoltton airti or besty112s cluberko? ett

10.

0 1.1 13 ent to ir nodosa ic (a ) nostore- dua yd barnebisio atewod sit to szlajam Jam

11 13 luce rift nneau to frigh erft folk storil vdeior ποιος ει

bf זמנטומפאריםוה o stsb edt naat taav insminevad istmed ett of gaitees to bewan Barle ausmaidmuone ile inou os it befimul повторно 10 зывaem e todt man and 9550

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: NOVEMBER 18 , 2006/KARTIKA 27 , 1928

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

क्षेत्रफल

खसरा/ किला

गाँव का नाम

वर्गमीटर

हेक्टेयर

हदबस्त संख्या

मुस्ततिल संख्या

संख्या

एयर

11. 38

130/2

131

134

159

[फा. सं. एल-14014/34/2006- जी.पी . ]

एस. बी. मण्डल. अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 15th November, 2006

S. O. 4418 .-- Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas , published in the Gazette of India vide number S.O. 1622 dated the 27th April 2006 , 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 this notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation of Natural Gas from Dadri in the state of Uttar Pradesh to Panipat in the state of Haryana by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited for implementing the " R- LNG Spur pipeline from Dadri to Panipat " in Tehsil Madaluda , District Panipat , in Haryana State;

And whereas , copies of the said gazette notification were made available to the public on 30.05.2006 .

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

And whereas , the Central Government after considering the said report is satisfied that the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification should be acquired ;

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

And further , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section (4) of section 6 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby directs that the right of users in the said land shall instead of vesting in the Central Government , vest form the date of publication of this declaration , in the Indian Oil Corporation Limited free from all encumbrances .

9551 भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 18,2006/कार्तिक 27 , 1928

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

SCHEDULE

State : HARYANA

District : PANIPAT

Tehsil : MADLAUDA

Area

Name of Village

Hadbast No.

Mustatil No.

Are

Khasra / Killa No. Hectare

Square Metre

5/1

1. SHOHDAPUR

5/2

24/1

16/2

12/1

12/2

9/1

19/1

13/2

3520 Gl /2006-13 GAZETE OF INDIA: NOVEMBER 18. 2006 /KARTIKA 27 , 1928

[ PART II -SEC . 3 ( ii) )

Area

Name of Village

Mustatil No.

No. Hadbast

Khasra / Killa No. Hectare Are

Square Metre

3/1/2

8/2

7/1

4/1

4/2

3/2/2

232/2

238

242

243

250/2

2. NAUHRA

38 9553 भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 18,2006/कार्तिक 27 , 1928

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

Area

Nameof Village

Mustatil No.

Hadbast No.

Khasra / Killa No. Hectare Are

Square Metre

1/2/2

21/2/2

20/1/1

20/2/2

4/2

4/1

17/1

17/2

4/2

18 EA NOVEMBER 18 , 2006 / KARTIKA 27,1928

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

Area

HadbastMustatil

Name of Village

Khasra / Killa No.

No.

Are

Hectare

Square Metre

8/2

22.

21/1

20/2/1

20/2/2

20/1

12/2

11/2

13 9555

भारत काराजपत्र : नवम्बर 18,2006/कार्तिक 27 , 1928

[भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

Area Nameof Village

Mustatil No.

Hadbast No.

Khasra / Killa No.

Are

Hectare

Square Metre

101/2

121

388

393

417

109

3. SITHANA

17/1

4 9556

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: NOVEMBER 18.2006/KARTIKA 27. 1928

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

Area

Nameof Village

Hadbast No.

Mustatil No.

Khasra / Killa No.

Are

Hectare

Square Metre

16/2

15/1

19/2

22/1

11/2

11 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: नवम्बर 18,2006/कार्तिक 27 , 1928

9557

Ares Name of Village

Hadbast No.

Mustatil

No

Are Square Metre

Khasra / Killa No. Hectare

130/2

131

134

159

[F. No. L -14014/34/2006-G.P. ] S.B MANDAL , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 15 नवम्बर , 2006

का. आ. 4419.- केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय के का.आ. 1852 दिनांक 10.05.2006, द्वारा पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन्स (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम, 1962 (1962 का 50) (जिसे उसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा जायेगा) की धारा 3 (1 ) के अधीन अधिसूचना प्रकाशित कर, दादरी (उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य में) से पानीपत (हरियाणा राज्य में) तक, प्राकृतिक गैस के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड़ द्वास "आर -एल.एन.जी. स्पर पाइपलाइन " के सम्बन्ध में उक्त अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में निर्दिष्ट तहसील पानीपत जिला पानीपत (हरियाणा राज्य ) की भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के अपने आषय की घोषणा की थी, और, उक्त अधिसूचना की प्रतियां जनता को दिनांक 12.06.2006 को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी, और, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अनुसरण में सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने केन्द्रीय सरकार को अपनी रिपोर्ट दे दी है ।

अतः , अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (1 ) द्वास प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुये घोषणा करती है कि इस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में पाइपलाइन बिछाने के उपयोग का अधिकार अर्जित किया जाता है ।

और, केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (4) द्वारा प्रदत्तः शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुये यह निदेश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने की बजाय सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त होकर इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड़ में निहित होमा । THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 18 , 2006/KARTIKA 27 , 1928

9558

अनुसूची

[PART II SEC . 3ii) ] राज्य : हरियाणा

जिला : पानीपत

तहसील : पानीपत

गाँव का नाम

खसरा/ किला संख्या

मुस्ततिल संख्या

हदबस्त संख्या

1. पहलादपुरं खलीला

351

350

352

366

369

367

368

372

373

385

386

388

389

390

391

374

395

396

535

536

537

542

550

564

565

566

567

568

569

574 क्षेत्रफल

वर्गमीटर हेक्टेयर एयर

75 0

12 0

27 0

32 0

56 0

62 0

25 0

10 0

77 0

25 0

61 0

26 0

25 0

04 0

83 0

0 9559 [ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 18,2006/कार्तिक 27, 1928

क्षेत्रफल

गाँव का नाम

वर्गमीटर

एयर

हेक्टेयर

मुस्ततिल संख्या

खसरा/ किला संख्या

हदबस्त संख्या

575

576

577

646

647

652

653

654

655

657

658

663

664

665

761

762

763

764

766

767

771

772

774

775

789

797

790

25/2

2.डिवाना

16/2/2

17/1

15/1

3520 Gl / 2006-14 [PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii )] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 18 , 2006/KARTIKΑ 27 , 1928

क्षेत्रफल

गाँव का नाम

वर्गमीटर

एयर

हेक्टेयर

खसरा/ किला संख्या

संख्या मुस्ततिल

संख्या हदबस्त

2/1

2/2

15/1

15/2

7/1

4/1

4/2

21/1

21/2

38-

0 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii)]

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 18,2006/कार्तिक 27, 1928

9561

क्षेत्रफल

गाँव कानाम

हेक्टेयर

वर्गमीटर

खसरा/ किला संख्या

हदबस्त संख्या

मुस्ततिल संख्या

एयर

4/4

4/5

4/1

4/2

24/1

24/2

23/2

12/2

2/1

2/2

22/1

21/1

21/2

14/1/2

14/1/1/2

0 PART 11-SEC. 5 ( ii) )

क्षेत्रफल

खसरा/ किला

दाँद का नाम

हदबस्त संख्या

हेक्टेयर

वर्गमीटर

एयर

मुस्ततिल संख्या

संख्या

92/2

94/2

118

125

126

129/1

207/2

214

217

219

224

2/1

2/2

9/1

9/2

5/1/1

6/1/2

6/2

77 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 18,2006/कार्तिक 27 , 1928

9563

खसरा/ किला

क्षेत्रफल

गाँव का नाम

हदबस्त संख्या

मुस्ततिल संख्या

हेक्टेयर

वर्गमीटर

संख्या

एयर

5/1

18/1

19/1

11/2

15/1

15/2

13/1

13/2

10/2

14/1

14/2

8/2

102/1

103

112

119

128

132

139

158

159

54 [PART II-SHC. 3 (ii )] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: NOVEMBER 18 , 2006/KARTIKA 27, 1928

9564

क्षेत्रफल

गाँव कानाम

वर्गमीटर

एयर

हेक्टेयर

खसरा/ किला संख्या

मुस्ततिल संख्या

हदवस्त संख्या

160

161

172

174

199

200

201

202

208

209

210

211

213

220

221

317

4. बिन्झौल

4/2

4 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

9565

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 18,2006/कार्तिक 27, 1928

खसरा किल्ला

गाँव का नाम

हदबस्त संख्या

मुस्ततित्व संख्या

हेक्टेयर एबर वर्गमीटर

संख्या

9/1

9/2

11/2

25/1

25/2

7:5

9/1

9/2

6:6

10/1

10/2

105 [PART II-SEC . 3 ( i ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 18 , 2006/KARTIKΑ 27, 1928

9566

क्षेत्रफल

गाँव का नाम

वर्गमीटर

एयर

हेक्टेयर

खसरा/ किला संख्या

हदबस्त संख्या

मुस्ततिल संख्या

100

107

112

114

122

122/1

126

324

325

331

332

357

362

407

5. जाटौल

13/1 [ भाग !! खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

9567

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 18,2006/कार्तिक 27 , 1928

क्षेत्रफल गाँव का नाम

मुस्ततिल संख्या

हदबस्त संख्या

वर्गमीटर

खसरा/ किला संख्या हेक्टेयर एयर

13/2

3/1

9/1

1/3

1/1

21/2

17/1

17/2

14/1

3520 GI/ 2006-15 9568

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 18 , 2006/KARTIKΑ 27 , 1928

[PART 11-SEC . 3( ii ) ]

क्षेत्रफल

गाँव कानाम

एयर वर्गमीटर

हेक्टेयर

खसरा/ किला संख्या

संख्या मुस्ततिल

संख्या हदबस्त

13/1

13/2

19/1

12/2

10/1

10/2

6/1/1

6/2

117

123

126

150

163

343

344

50 [ भाग.II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 18,2006 /कार्तिक 27, 1928

9569

खसरा/ किला

क्षेत्रफल

गाँव का नाम

हदबस्त संख्या

मुस्ततिल संख्या

हेक्टेयर

संख्या

एयर वर्गमीटर

347

364

368

6.सिकन्दरपुर

11/2

6/1

21/1

25/2

16/1

15/1

15/2

6/1

5/2

103

7. रजापुर

10/1

10/2

65 PAR! II- SEC Зії) ) THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 18. 2006/ KARTIKA 27. 1928

9570

क्षेत्रफल

खसरा/ किला

गाँव का नाम

वर्गमीटर

हैक्टेयर एयर

संख्या

संख्या मुस्ततिल

संख्या हदबस्त

117

122

8. ददलाना

121

117

114

113

110

13 9571 [भाग II-- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: नवम्बर 18,2006/कार्तिक 27, 1928

क्षेत्रफल

खसरा/ किला

गाँव का नाम

वर्गमीटर

हेक्टेयर एयर

मुस्ततिल संख्या

संख्या

संख्या हदबस्त

0.00

104

103

5/2

[फा. सं. एल-14014 / 34/2006- जी.पी . ]

एस.. बी. मण्डल , अवर सचिव,

New Delhi , the 15th November , 2006

3.0.4419.- Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas , published in the Gazette of India vide number S.O. 1852 dated the 10th May 2006 , 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 this notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation of Natural Gas from Dadri in the state of Uttar Pradesh to Panipat in the state of Haryana by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited for implementing the " R - LNG Spur pipeline from Dadri to Panipat" in Tehsil Panipat , District Panipat, in Haryana State;

And whereas , copies of the said gazette notification were made available to the public on 12.06.2006.

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

And whereas , the Central Government after considering the said report is satisfied thatthe right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification should be acquired;

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

And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 4) of section 6 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby directs that the right of users in the said land shall instead of vesting in the Central Government , vest form the date of publication of this declaration , in the Indian Oil Corporation Limited free from all encumbrances.

9572

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 18 , 2006/KARTIKA 27 , 1928

[PART II SFC . 3 ( ii) ]

SCHEDULE

State : HARYANA

Tehsil : PANIPAT

District : PANIPAT

Area

Name of Village

Hadbast No.

Mustatii No.

Hectare Are

Khasra / Kilia No.

Square Metre

1. PAHALADPUR KHALILA

351

350

352

366

369

367

368

372

373

385

386

388

389

390

391

374

395

396

535

536

537

542

550

564

565

566

567

568

569

574

25 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

9573

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 18,2006/कार्तिक 27, 1928

Name of Village

Hadbast No.

Mustatil No.

Are

Khasra / Kilia No. Hectare

Square Metre

575

576

577

646

647

652

653

654

655

657

658

663

664

605

761

762

763

764

766

767

771

772

774

775

789

797

790

25/2

2.DIWANA

16/2/2

17/1

15/1

04 9574

[PART II-St.30 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 18 , 2006/KARTIKA 27 , 1928

Area

Nameof Village

Hadbast No.

Mustatil No.

Hectare Are

Khasra / Killa No.

Square Metre

2/1

2/2

15/1

15/2

7/1

4/1

4/2

21/1

21/2

1.2

01 9575 [ भाग II-- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 18,2006/कार्तिक 27, 1928

Area

Nameof Village

Hadbast No.

Mustat !! No.

Khasra / Killa No.

Are

Hectare

Metre Square

4/4

4/5

4/1

4/2

24/1

24/2

23/2

12/2

2/1

2/2

22/1

21/1

21/2

14/1/2

14/1/1/1 0

14/1/1/2 0

3520 GI/2006-16 9576

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 18 , 2006/ AA 27,1928

[PART II- SIC . 3 ( ii ) )

Area

Nameof Village

Hadbast No.

Mustatil No.

Khasra / Klila No. Hectare Are

Square Metre

92/2

94/2

118

125

126

129/1

207/2

214

217

219

224

2/1

3. MAHRANA

2/2

9/1

9/2

6/1/1

6/1/2

6/2

77 9577 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 18,2006/कार्तिक 27, 1928

Area

Name of Village

Mustatil No.

Hadbast No.

Khasra / Killa No. Hectare Are

Square Metre

5/1

18/1

19/1

11/2

15/1

15/2

13/1

13/2

10/2

14/1

14/2

8/2

102/1

103

112

119

128

132

139

158

159 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 18 , 2006/KARTIKA 27, 1928

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii)] 9578

Area

Name of Village

Hadbast No.

Mustatii No.

Hectare Are

Khasra / Killa No.

Square Metre

160

161

172

174

199

200

201

202

208

209

210

211

213

220

221

317

4. BINJHAUL

4/2

12 9579

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 18,2006 /कार्तिक 27, 1928

[ भाग II- खपड 3(ii ) ]

Area Name of Village

Mustatil No.

Hadbest No.

Khasra / Killa No.

Are

Hectare

Square Metre

9/1

9/2

11/2

11-

25/1

25/2

9/1

9/2

10/1

10/2

0 9580

[ PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: NOVEMBER 18 , 2006/KARTIKA 27 , 1928

Area

Name of Village

Hadbast No.

Mustatil No.

Hectare Are

Khasra / Killa No.

Square Metre

100

107

112

114

122

122/1

126

324

325

331

332

357

362

407

5. JATAUL

13/1

02 9581

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 18,2006/कार्तिक 27 , 1928

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

Area Nameof Village

Mustatil No.

Hadbast No.

Khasra / Killa No. Hectare Are

Square Metre

13/2

3/1

9/1

1/3

1/1

21/2

17/1

17/2

14/1

18 9582

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 18 , 2006/KARTIKA 27 , 1928

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) )

Area

Name of Village

Hadbast No.

Mustatil No.

Hectare Are

Khasra / Killa No.

Square Metre

13/1

13/2

19/1

12/2

10/1

10/2

6/1

6/2

117

123

126

150

163

343

344

50 9583

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 18,2006/ कार्तिक 27 , 1928

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

Area

Name of Village

Mustatil No.

Hadbast No.

Khasra / Killa No. Hectare Are

Square Metre

347

364

368

6. SIKANDARPUR

11/2

6/1

21/1

25/2

16/1

10-

15/1

15/2

6/1

8/2

103

7. RAZAPUR

10/1

10/2

3520 GI/2006-17 9584

[PART II- SIC. 3 ( ii ) ) THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 18 , 2006/ 127,1928

Area

Name of Village

Hadbast No.

Mustatil No.

Are

Khasra / Killa No. Hectare

Square Metre

117

122

8. DADLANA

121

117

114

113

110

81 9585 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 18,2006/कार्तिक 27 , 1928

Area

Name of Village

Hadbast No.

Mustatil No.

Are

Khasra / Killa No. Hectare

Square Metre

104

103

5/2

[ F. No. L - 14014/ 34/2006-G.P. ) S.B MANDAL , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 15 नवम्बर , 2006

का. आ. 4420.- केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय के का.आ. 1965 दिनांक 16.05.2006, द्वारा पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन्स (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम, 1962 (1962 का 50) (जिसे उसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा जायेगा ) की धारा 3 (1 ) के अधीन अधिसूचना प्रकाशित कर, दादरी (उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य में) से पानीपत (हरियाणा राज्य में) तक, प्राकृतिक गैस के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड़ द्वारा "आर. एल.एन.जी. स्पर पाइपलाइन" के सम्बन्ध में उक्त अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में निर्दिष्ट तहसील समालखा जिला पानीपत (हरियाणा राज्य) की भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के अपने आषय की घोषणा की थी, और, उक्त अधिसूचना की प्रतियां जनता को दिनांक 15.06.2006 को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी,

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

अतः, अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुये घोषणा करती है कि इस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में पाइपलाइन बिछाने के उपयोग का अधिकार अर्जित किया जाता है ।

और, केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (4 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुये यह निदेश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने की बजाय सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त होकर इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड़ में निहित होगा । 9586

(PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 18 , 2006/KARTIKA 27 , 1928

अनुसूची

राज्य : हरियाणा

जिला : पानीपत

तहसील : सामलखा

क्षेत्रफल

गाँव का नाम

वर्गमीटर

एयर

हेक्टेयर

खसरा/ किला संख्या

मुस्ततिल संख्या

हदबस्त संख्या

220

1. राकसेडा

14/1

14/2

7/2

210

207

209

208

183

12 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: नवम्बर 18,2006/कार्तिक 27 , 1928

9587

क्षेत्रफल

खसरा/ किला

गाँव का नाम

हृदवस्त संख्या

मुस्ततिल संख्या संख्या हेक्टेयर एयर वर्गमीटर

179

182

180

7/1

7/2

08 60

145

19/1

19/2

253/2

254

808

2. बसाडा

16/1

16/2

14 9588

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 18 , 2006/ KARTIKA 27 , 1928

[PART II SEC. 3( ii) ]

क्षेत्रफल

खसरा/ किला

गाँव का नाम

संख्या मुस्ततिल

संख्या हेक्टेयर एयर वर्गमीटर संख्या हदबस्त

4/1

4/2

24/1

24/2

9/1

9/2

2/1

2/2

20/1

20/2

16/1

16/2

7/1

7/2

6/2

4/1

61 9589 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 18,2006/कार्तिक 27, 1928

क्षेत्रफल

खसरा/ किला

गाँव का नाम

संख्या

मुस्ततिल संख्या

हदबस्त संख्या

हेक्टेयर एयर वर्गमीटर

107

119

12/1

25 3. महावटी

12/2

12/3

12/4

12/5

12/6

10/1

10/4

17/1

17/2

13/1

13/2

1/2

21/1/1

21/1/2

21/2

15 [PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 18 , 2006/KARTIKA 27 , 1928

9590

क्षेत्रफल

गाँव कानाम

एयर वर्गमीटर

हेक्टेयर

खसरा/ किला संख्या

मुस्ततिल संख्या

हदबस्त संख्या

14/1

14/2

8/1

8/2

2/1

2/2

2/3

2/4

22/2/1

22/1

21/1

11/2

15/1

6/1

6/2

7/1

104

110

162

165

166 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

9591

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 18,2006/कार्तिक 27, 1928..

क्षेत्रफल

खसरा/किला

गाँव का नाम

मुस्ततिल संख्या

हदबस्त संख्या

संख्या हेक्टेयर एयर वर्गमीटर

178

352

408

51 4. देहरा

102

103

00 25

24/2

8/1

8/2

15/1

15/2

4/1

4/2

3520 GI/2006-18 [PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] 9592

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 18 , 2006/KARTIKΑ 27 , 1928

क्षेत्रफल

गाँव का नाम

वर्गमीटर

एयर

हेक्टेयर

खसरा/ किला संख्या

मुस्ततिल संख्या

हदबस्त संख्या

23/1

23/2

22/1

18/2

20/1

24/2

17/3

12/1

2/1

21/1

21/2

21/3

14/1

14/2

4 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

9593

भारत का राजपत्र नवम्बर 18,2006/कार्तिक 27, 1928

खसरा/ किला गाँव का नाम

संख्या इदवस्त मुस्तविल संख्या संख्या

3/1

3/2

22/1

23/1

23/2

19/1

19/2

12/2

20/1/1

11/2

24/1

24/2

121

122

123

193

229

637

638

653

661

667

726

128

5. डिकाडला

17/2/1/1

17/2/1/2

17/2/2/1

17/2/2/2

18 त्रिफल

वर्गमीटर हेक्टेयर एयर

53 0

38 0

07 0

02 53 0

05 56 0

25 0

27 0

06 07 0

57 0 03 28 0

85 0

04 0

56 0

27 0

26 0

01 0

26 0

02 53

51 0

01 0

84 0

25 0

77 0

62 0

10 9594

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 18 , 2006/KARTIKA 27 , 1928

[PART II-SEC . 3( ii )]

क्षेत्रफल

खसरा/ किला

गाँव का नाम

संख्या हदबस्त

संख्या मुस्ततिल

संख्या

एयर वर्गमीटर

हेक्टेयर

9/1

9/2

2/1

2/2

10/1

106

105

103

22/1

140

162

546/1

6. जौरासी सर्फ खास

124

125

15/2

6/1/1

6/1/2

6/2/1

6/2/2

50 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 18,2006/कार्तिक 27, 1928

9595

क्षेत्रफल

हदबस्त

खसरा किला

गाँव का नाम

हेक्टेयर

मुस्ततिल संख्या

वर्गमीटर

संख्या

एयर

5/1

121

25/1

13/1

13/2

12/1

9/1

9/2

114

1/2

51.

11/2

115

15/2

6/1

5/1

5/2/2

108

15/1

17/1

14/1

14/2

7/1

7/2

63 9596

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 18 , 2006/KARTIKA 27 , 1928

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

क्षेत्रफल

खसरा/ किला

गाँव का नाम

एयर वर्गमीटर

संख्या मुस्ततिल

हेक्टेयर

संख्या हदबस्त

संख्या

2/1

2/2

100

101

6/1

6/2

5/1

4/1

4/2

24/1

18/1

18/2

19/1/1

19/1/2

10/1

10/2

1/1

1/2

14 [भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

भारत क्रा राजपत्र नवम्बर 18,2006/क्रार्तिक 27; 1928

गाँव का नाम

13 00

8/1

8/2

25/1

25/2

16/1

16/2

17/1

085

17/2

105

17/3

14/1

14/2

3/2.

2/1

2/2

25/1/1

25/1/2

25/2/1

25/2/2

16/1

16/2/1

16/2/2

17/1

17/2

9597

क्षेत्रफल

एयर

हेक्टेयर

वर्गमीटर 0

87 0

25 0

07 0

32 0

87 0

55 0

89 0

02 0

78 0

10.

62 0

77 0

25 0

54 0

63 0

54 0

25 0

60 0

30 0

54 0

27 0

25 0

50 0

80 0

05 81 0

00 25 0

25 0

0 9598

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 18 , 2006/KARTIKA 27 , 1928

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

क्षेत्रफल

गाँव का नाम

हदबस्त संख्या

मुस्ततिल संख्या

खसरा/ किला संख्या हेक्टेयर एयर वर्गमीटर

07 59

3/1

3/2

24/1

144/1

152

198

199

727

758

760

762

798/1

798/3

7. जौरासी खालसा

18/1

18/2

13/1

13/2

8/2

3/1

22/1

19/2

20/1

20/2

16/1

16/2

124

126

03 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: नवम्बर 18,2006/कार्तिक 27 , 1928

9599

क्षेत्रफल

गाँव कानाम

खसरा/ किला संख्या हेक्टेयर एयर वर्गमीटर

हदबस्त संख्या

मुस्ततिल संख्या

14/1

12 8. गढी छाजू

14/2

9/2

1/1

21/1

21/2

25/1

16/1

16/2

14/1

14/2

8/1

8/2/1

8/2/2

115

148

381.

383

3520 GI /2006-19 [PART II -SFC . 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 18 , 2006/KARTIKΆ 27 , 1928

9600

क्षेत्रफल

गाँव का नाम

हेक्टेयर एचर वर्गमीटर

खसरा किला संख्या

मुस्ततिल संख्या

हदबस्त संख्या

110

9. करहस

00 25

4/1

4/2

106

12/2

04 30

11/2

10/1

10/2

107

5/1

5/2

18/1

18/2

13/1

12/1

12/2

9/2

62 53

9:1

4 [ भाग !- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 18,2006/ कार्तिक 27 , 1928

9601

क्षेत्रफल

खसरा/ किला

का नाम

रुवबस्त संख्या

मुस्ततिल संख्या

हेक्टेयर

संख्या

वर्गमीटर

एयर

23/1

13/1

10/1

10/2

6/1

6/2

0 . 02

5/1

5/2

4/1

24/2

18/2

86.

6/1

6/2

18/1

18/2

02 PART 11 - SUC. 3 ( ji) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA NOVEMBER 18. 2000 /KARTIKA 27,1928

9:02

खसरा/ किला

गाँव का नाम

वर्गमीटर

क्षेत्रफल एयर

हेक्टेयर

संख्या

संख्या मुस्ततिल

संख्या हदबस्त

11/2

24/2

7/2

6/1

7/1

7/2

15/1

15/2

24/1

24/2

23/2

12/2

9 9603

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 18,2006/कार्तिक 27 , 1928

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

क्षेत्रफल गाँव कानाम

वर्गमीटर

खसरा/ किला संख्या

एयर

हदबस्त संख्या

हेक्टेयर

मुस्ततिल संख्या

1/1

22/1

119

125

129

131

136

172

174

176

183

351

363

393

398

399

402

403

404

09 10. मनाना

19 9604

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: NOVEMBER 18, 2006/KARTIKA 27, 1928

SEC. 3( ii) ]

PART

क्षेत्रफल

खसरा/ किला

गाँवका नाम

संख्या मुस्ततिल

हदबस्त संख्या

संख्या हेक्टेयर एयर वर्गमीटर

14 42

25/1

25/2

24/1

2 [ भाग- खण्ड 3 ( ii)

9605

भारत का राजपत्र: नवम्बर 18,2006/ तक 27, 28

खसरा किल्ला

गाँव कानाम

हदबस्त संख्या

मुस्ततिल संख्या

संख्या हेक्टेयर एयर कर्गमीटर

12- 90

077

15/2

13 15

248

250

[फा. सं. एल-14014/34/2006- जी.पी. ]

एस. बी. मण्डल, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 15th November, 2008

S.O. 4420.- Whereas by the notification of the Government off Indias in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas , published in the Gazette of India vielte number S0 1965 dated the 16th May 2006 , issued under sub-section ( 1) of section 3 off the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Rightof Uber im Land) Act, 1962 (500 of 1962), (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the Centhal Governmentt declared ites intention to acquire the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation of Natural Gas from Dadri in the state of Uttar Pradesh to Panipat in the state of Haryana by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited for implementing the " R-LNG Spur pipelinefrom Dadri to Panipat" in Tehsil Samalkha, District Panipat, in Haryana State;

And whereas , copies of the said gazette notification were mardie available to the public on 15.06.2006 .

And whereas , the Competent Authority has under sub - section (11) of section 6 off the said Act , has submitted his report to the Central Govemment

And whereas , the Central Government after considering the said report is satisfied that the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification should be acquired ;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers confermardi by srubo- spection (1) of sector 5 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that the right of weer in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification is acquired

And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section (4) of section 8 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby directs that the right of users in the saidland shall instead of vesting in the Central Government, vest form the date ofpublication of this declaration , in the Indian Oil Corporation Limited free from all encumbrances .

9606

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: NOVEMBER 18. 2005/ KARTIK 27.1928

SCHEDULE

State: HARYANA

PANIPAT

District:

Tehsil :SAMALKHA

Area

Name of Village

Hadbast No.

Mustatil No.

Khasra / Killa No. Hectare Are

Square Metre

220

1. RAKHSEDA

14/1

14/2

7/2

210

207

209

208

183

12 9607 भारत का समभत्र : नवम्बर 18,2006/कार्तिक 27, 1928

[মাণ 11-3 (H)1

Area

Name of Vitage

Hectare Are

K No.

Metre

12.

179

162

180

7/1

7/2

145

19/1

19/2

253/2

254

808

2.BASEDA

90 48

01-

16/1

16/2

3520 GI/2006-20 [PART I-SBC. 3( 4 ) ] 9608

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 18 , 2006/KKA 27.1928

Hedbest

Name of Village

Hecture

Kheera/ KillaNo.

4/1

4/2

24/1

24/2

9/1

9/2

2/1

2/2

20/1

20/2

16/1

16/2

7/1

7/2

6/2

4/1

61 9609 [ भाग - खण्ड 3(ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 18,2006/कार्तिक 27 , 1928

Arsa

Killa No.

Are

Hectare

107

119

12/1

25 3.MAHAWATI

12/2

12/3

12/4

12/5

12/6

10/1

05.

10/4

17/1

17/2

13/1

13/2

1/2

21/1/1

21/1/2

21/2

33 PAS

NOVEMBER 18, 2006/KARTIKA 27,1928

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA

9610

Area

Name of Village

Mustatil No.

Hectare Are

Hadbast No.

Khasra / Killa No.

Square Metre

14/1

14/2

8/1

8/2

2/1

2/2.

2/3

2/4

22/2/1

22/1

04 ?

21/1

11/2

15/1

6/1

6/2

7/1

104

110

162

165

166 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र नवम्बर 18,2006 कार्तिक 27, 1928

9611

Area

KiliaNo.

Are

Hectare

Square Metre

178

352

408

4. DEHRA

102

-0

103

24/2

8/1

8/2

16.

15/1

15/2

4/1

4/2

04.

86 9612

[PART I -SEC. 3 (ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA ; NOVEMBER 18, 2006 /KARTIKA 27, 1928

Arsa

Name of Village

Hadbast No.

Mustatil No.

Khasra / Killa No. Hectare Are

Square Metre

23/1

23/2

22/1

18/2

20/1

24/2

17/3

12/1

2/1

21/1

21/2

21/3

14/1

14/2

4 [भाग- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

9613

भारत का राजपत्र नवन्दर 18,2006/कार्तिक 27, 1928

Area

Kilia No. Hectare Are Name of

Square Metre

3/1

3/2

22/1

23/1

23/2

19/1

19/2

12/2

-20/1/1

11/2

24/1

24/2

121

122

123

193

229

637

638

653

661

667

726

128

5. DIKADLA

17/2/1/1 0

17/2/1/2 0

17/2/2/1 0

17/2/2/2 0

18 FOVEMBER

KARTIKA 27.1918

FART - SC36 ) 9614

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA

Area

"Name of Village

Hadbast No.

Mustatil No.

Hectare Are

Khasra / Kitta No.

Square Metre

9/1

9/2

2/1

2/2

10/1

106

105

103

22/1

0..

140

162

546/1

124

6. JAURASI SURF KHAS

125

15/2

6/1/1

6/1/2

6/2/1

6/2/2 9615

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 18,2005/फातिक 27 , 1928

[ भाग- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

Area Nameof Village

Hectare Are

Khasra / Killa No.

Hadbast No.

Mustatil No.

Square Metre

5/1

121

25/1

13/1

13/2

12/1

9/1

9/2

114

1/2

11/2

115

15/2

6/1

5/1

5/2/2

108

15/1

17/1

14/1

14/2

7/1

7/2

1.1

3520 GI/2006-21 9616

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 18 , 2006. TIKA 27 , 1928

PART 11 - S3u ) )

Area

Name of Village

Hadbast No.

Mustatil No.

Khasra / Killa No. Hectare Are

Square Metre

2/1

2/2

100

101

6/1

6/2

5/1

4/1

4/2

24/1

18/1

18/2

19/1/1

19/1/2

10/1

10/2

1/1

1/2

14 भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 18,2006/कार्तिक 27 , 1928

[भाग II- खण्ड 3(ij ) ]

9617

Area

Name of Village

Mustatil No.

Hadbast No.

Khasra / Killa No.

Are

Hectare

Square Metre

8/1

8/2

25/1

25/2

16/1

16/2

17/1

17/2

17/3

14/1

12.

14/2

3/2

2/1

2/2

1.2

25/1/1

25/1/2

25/2/1

25/2/2

16/1

16/2/1

16/2/2

17/1

17/2

7 9618

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 18 , 2006/KARTIKA 27, 1928

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

Area

Name of Village

Mustatil No.

Hadbast No.

Khasra / Killa No. Hectare Are

Square Metre

3/1

3/2

24/1

144/1

152

198

199

727

758

760

762

798/1

798/3

7. JAURASI KHALSA

18/1

18/2

13/1

13/2

8/2

3/1

22/1

19/2

20/1

20/2

16/1

16/2

124

126

03 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

9619

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 18,2006 /कार्तिक 27 , 1928

Area

Name of Village

Hadbast No.

Mustatil No.

Are

Khasra / Killa No. Hectare

Square Metre 8.GARHI CHHAJU

14/1

14/2

9/2

1/1

21/1

21/2

25/1

16/1

16/2

14/1

14/2

8/1

8/2/1

8/2/2

115

148

381

383

77 THE GAZEITE OF INDIA: NOVEMBER 18.206/ KARTIKA 27.28

9620

Area

Name of Village

Hadbast No.

Mustatil No..

Hectare Are

Khasra / Killa No.

Square Metre

110

9. KARHANS

4/1

4/2

106

12/2

11/2

10/1

10/2

107

5/1

5/2

18/1

18/2

13/1

12/1

12/2

9/2

4 [भाग li- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र नवम्बर 18,2005 / नार्तिक 27 , 1928

9621

Area Name of Village

Mustatil No.

Hadbast No.

Khasra / Killa No.

Are

Hectare

Square Metre

23/1

13/1

1-2

10/1

10/2

6/1

6/2

5/1

5/2

4/1

24/2

18/2

6/1

6/2

18/1

18/2

27 9622

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 18 , 2006 /KARTIKA 27, 1928

[PART 11 ---- Sec . 3 ( ii ) ]

Area

Name of Village

Hadbast No.

Mustatil No.

Khasra / Killa No. Hectare Are

Square Metre

11/2

24/2

7/2

6/1

7/1

7/2

15/1

15/2

24/1

24/2

23/2

12/2

9 9623 [नाखण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजन्त्र : नवम्बर 18,2006/कार्तिक 27, 1928

Area

Name of Village

Mustatil No.

Hadbast No.

Khasra / Killa No. Hectare Are

Square Metre

1/1

22/1

119

125

129

131

136

172

174

176

183

351

363

393

398

399

402

403

404

10. ΜΑΝΑΝΑ

77.

3520 GI/2006-22 27,1928

9624

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA NOVEMBER 18 , 20

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

Area

Name of Village

Hadbast No.

Mustatil No.

Khasra / Killa No. Hectare Are

Square Metre

25/1

25/2

24/1

2 9625

भारत का राजपत्र नवम्बर 18,2006 . कार्तिक 27; 1928

[ भाग 11-- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

Area

Name of Village

Mustatil No.

Hadbast No.

Khasra / Killa No. Hectare Are

Square Metre

19 .

15/2

248

250

[F. No. L- 14014/34/2006-G.P. ] S.B MANDAL , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 16 नवम्बर, 2006

का. आ. 4421.- 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 की गई भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का . आ . 2797, तारीख 20 जुलाई , 2006 द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में, मैसर्स रिलाएंस इंडस्ट्रीस लिमिटेड, के गोवा में उत्तरी/ दक्षिणी अपतट में खोज ब्लॉकों और आन्ध्रप्रदेश में संरचनाओं से आन्ध्रप्रदेश राज्य में पूर्वी गोदावरी जिले के विभिन्न उपभोक्ताओं तक प्राकृतिक गैस के परिवहन के लिए, एक रिलाएंस समूह कम्पनी , मैसर्स रिलाएंस गैस ट्रान्सपोर्टेशन इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड, पूर्ववत् मैसर्स रिलाएंस गैस पाइपलाइन्स 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 प्रतियाँ जनता को तारीख 17 अगस्त, 2006 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 अननुज्नात 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 पश्चात्और यह समाधान हो जाने पर कि उक्त भूमि पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए अपेक्षित है, उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने का विनिश्चिय किया है ;

अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह घोषणा करती है कि इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट 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 उपयोग का अधिकार इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख से केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने की बजाए , सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त, मैसर्स रिलाएंस गैस ट्रान्सपोर्टेशन इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड, में निहित होगा । 962.6

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 18 , 2006 KARTIKA 27 , 1928

अनुसूम्बी

PART -SEC. 3( ii) ]

राज्य: आन्ध्र प्रदेश

जिला: ईस्ट गोदावरी

मंडलः ताल्लारेवु

गांव का नाम

सर्वे सं/ सब डिविजन सं 1

114

1 ) मल्लवरम

118/1

118/2

600/6ए

600/6सि

601/1

603

604

605

617/1

618/1

618/2

618/3

620

627/4

628

629

630

631/10

631/11/ ए

631/11/बी

631/2

631/3

631/4

631/5

631/6ए

631/6वी

631/7

631/8

631/90 आर ओं यू अर्जित करने केलिए क्षेत्रफल हेक्टार

एर

सिएर

5 3

40 0

75 0

15 0

95 0

55 0

25 0

70 0

40 0

85 0

70 1

30 0

15 0

60 0

10 0

70 0

15 0

05 0

00 0

80 0

50 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 18,2006/कार्तिक 27, 1928

631/9वी 1 ) मल्लवरम (निरंतर)

655

656

657

658/1

658/2

658/3

658/4

659/2

659/3

660/2

660/3

661

662/3

663

664/1

664/2

214/2 2) पोलेकुररू

659

660

664

665

684

685

688

जिला: ईस्ट गोदावरी

मंडलः काजुलूर

557/1 1 ) काजुलूरु

32/3

453

113 2) तरलमपूडि

242/1 3) जगन्नादगिरि

9627

5 3

10 0

45 0

80 0

40 0

20 0

85 0

75 0

60 0

95 0

75 0

50 0

75 0

70 0

05 0

70 0 :

40 0

10 0

40 0

75 : 0

राज्य: आन्ध्र प्रदेश 0

90 0

40 0

21 9628

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 18 , 2006/KARTIKA 27 , 1928

2 1

5 3

राज्य: आन्ध्र प्रदेश

जिला: ईस्ट गोदावरी

मंडलः करपा

59/3 1) वेमूलवाडा

435

436/1

436/2

439/3

439/4

439/35

439/36

439/37

439/38

439/39

439/44

444/ 2 वी

444/3

444/5

444/7

445/1

445/2

445/3

445/5

465/1

465/18

465/19

465/21

465/22

465/23

465/25

465/26

465/27

40 0

25 0

95 0

30 0

20 0

45 0

85 0

75 0

35 0

10.

25 0

60 0

25 0

55 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र नवम्बर 18,2005/कार्तिक 27, 1928

9629

465/28

2) वेमूलवाडा (निरंतर)

468

[फा. सं. एल-14014/45/2002 - जी.पी. ] एस. बी. मण्डल , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 16th November , 2006

S.O. 4421.- Whereas by notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O. 2797 dated the 20th July 2006 , 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 in the Northern/ Southern Offshore of Goa and Structures in Andhra Pradesh of M/ s Reliance Industries Limited, by a Reliance Group company, M/ s Reliance Gas Transportation Infrastructure Limited, formerly known as M/ S Reliance Gas Pipelines Limited, to various consumers of District EastGodavari in the State of Andhra Pradesh;

And whereas the copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on the 17th August 2006;

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 the date of publication of the declaration, in M / s Kellance Gas Transporation Infrastructure Limited , free from all encumbrances .

9630

THE GAZETICE OF INDIA NOVEMBER 18, 2006/KARTIKA 27.1928

PART 11--SEC 3 ( ii ) ]

Schedule

District : East Godavarl

Mandal : Tallarevu

Survey No./Sub-Division No.

Village

2 1

114

1) Mallavaram

118/1

118/2

600/6A

600/6C

601/1

603

604

605

617/1

618/1

618/2

618/3

620

627/4

628

629

630

631/10

631/11 /A

631/11/B

631/2

631/3

631/4

631/5

631/6A

631/6B

631/7

631/8

631/9A State : Andhra Pradesh Area to be acquired for ROU Hectare

Are

C-Are

70 0

40 0

15 0

55 0

70 0

30 0

70 1

30 0

15 0

45 0

70 0

10 0

15 0

80 0

50 0

02 [ भाग 11- खण्ड 3 (1 )

631/9B 1) Mallavaram (Contd ... )

655

656

657

658/1

658/2

658/3

658/4

659/2

659/3

660/2

660/3

661

662/3

663

664/1

664/2

214/2 2) Polekurru

659

660

664

665

684.

685

688

9631 3

5 0

10 0

45 0

34.

80 0

40 0

20 0

70 0

30 0

60 0

95 0

50 0

75 0

05 0

95 0

70 0

40 0

10 0

40 0

05 0

District : East Godavari

Mandal : Kajuluru

557/1 1) Kajuluru

32/3

453

113 2) Tarlamapudi

242/1 3) Jagannadhagiri

3520 GI/2006-23

State: Andhra Pradesh

90 0

80 0

10 0

40 9632

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: NOVEMBER 18 , 200 K. RYIKA 27.1928

2. 1

District : East Godavari Mandal : Karapa

59/3

1) Vemulavada

435

436/1

436/2

439/3

439/4

439/35

439/36

439/37

439/38

439/39

439/44

444/2B

444/3

444/5

444/7

445/1

445/2

445/3

445/5

465/1

465/18

465/19

465/21

465/22

465/23

465/25

465/26

165/27

465/28

468

PAST 11- Sic . 3 ( ii )]

5 State : Andhra Pradesh 0

50 0

25 0

95 0

ว

30 0

80 0

45 0

85 0

75 0

10 0

00 0

35 0

25 0

55 0

80 0

55 0

40 0

[F. No. L-14014/45/2002-G.P. ] S.B MANDAL , Under Secy.

9633 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 18 , 2006/कार्तिक 27, 1928

Date of Passing ofAward : 3rd August, 2006

AWARD II

श्रम और रोजगार मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली, 19 अक्तूबर, 2006

1. TheGovernment of India, Ministry of Labour by its Order No. L- 11012/62/99 - IR (C- I) dated 4th February, 2000 in exercise of the powers conferred by of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub- section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

का.आ. 4422- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार जैट एअरवेज लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , मुम्बई- II के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 14/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 19-10-06 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -11012/62/1999-आई. आर. (सी- I) ]

"Whether the action of the management of M/ s . Jet Airway Ltd. , Mumbai in terminating the services of the Workman, Mr. Amrit Melant w.e.f. 24-2-1999 is justified ? If not, what relief, the workman, Shri Amrit Melant is entitled to ?" एस. एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचि

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi , the 19th October , 2006

S.O. 4422- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 14/ 2000 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal /Labour Court , Mumbai - II now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial. Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Jet Airways Ltd. andtheir workman, which was received by the Central Government on 19-10-06.

[No. L- 11012/62/ 1999- IR (C -I )] S.S. GUPTA , Under Secy.

ANNEXURE BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 2 MUMBAI

PRESENT

2. To support the subject matter referred in the reference, 2nd Party filed Statement of Claim at Exhibit 6 narrating his history of employment with 1st Party and various developments took place during his tenure with 1st Party. He further states that , he was absent from 9th April, 1998. The show cause notice was issued by the 1st Party stating that, 2nd Party Workman remained absent form 9th April, 1998. It was replied by the 2nd Party. Even he reported for his duty on 24th July, 1998 where he was forced to sit idle and no work was providedto him. The charge sheet was served on him dated24th July, 1998 alleging that, 2nd Party committed serious misconduct, unauthorisedly absenteeism was referred in the charge sheet. Enquiry was conducted. He attended it alongwith his representative . It is his case that said Enquiry was not conducted fairly and properly, and finding given by the Enquiry Officer were perverse . So he prayed to set aside the enquiry with directions to 1st Partyto reinstate him with benefits of backwages and continuity of service .

A. A. LAD , Presiding Officer Reference No. CGIT - 2/14 of 2000 .

Employers in Relation to the management of:

JET AIRWAYS LIMITED

The General Manager H. R. , Jet Airways . S. M. Centre , Andheri Kurla Road , Andheri ( East) , Mumbai -400 059.

AND

3. This prayer of the 2nd Party was disputed by 1stPartyby filing reply at exhibit 8 stating that , the 2nd Party was habitual in remaining absent form duty . He was absent unauthorisedly . Charge sheet was served . Enquiry was conducted. Opportunity was given to the 2nd Party. Relying on that, findings were given by the ¡Enquiry Officer holding him guilty of the charges levelled a gainst him . Disciplinary Authority accepted the finding of the Enquiry Officer and given punishment .

There Workman

4. In view of the above pleadings my Ld. Predecessor framed Issues at Exhibit 13. Out of them Issu te No. 1 and 2 were decided as preliminary Issue by pass ing Part I Award on 25th June , 2003 .

Amrit Melant , Beena , Flat No. 5 , Guru Gangeshwar Road , Khar , Mumbai -400 052 .

5. So now remaining Issues i . e . Issue No. 3 to 5 are tai ken for decision which I answers as follows :-

APPEARANCE :

Issues

Findings For the Employer

3. Whether management of M/ s . Jet : Mr. Ms. Pooja Kulkarni , Abhay Kulkarni & Associates , :

Advocates .

For the Workmen : Mr. Haresh Shivdashani &

Ms. Hutoxi Taradia .

Yes Mr. Anchan Advocates .

Airways Prove that the workman remained unauthorisedly absent for a period of 108 days which amounts to gross misconduct ?

9634

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 18, 2006/ KARTIKA27, 1928

4..Whether the action of the management of M/s . Jet Airways Ltd. , Mumbai in terminating the services of the workman , Mr. Amrit Melant w.e.f. 24-2-1999 is Justified ? Yes 5. What relief Mr. Amrit Melant is entitled to ? Does not survive .

REASONS :

Issue No. 3 to 5 :

6. To support the case ie. punishment is proportionate it is pertinent to note that, Ist Party submitted documents viz . copies of enquiry proceedings . When matter was posted for deciding Part II Award i. e. on the quantam of punishment , by filing Exhibit 38 , Advocate for the 2nd Party submit that , he wants to withdraw from the proceedings and he has intimated accordingly to the 2nd Party . It is pertinent to note that till then 2nd Party does not take care to appear , engage an Advocate and lead evidence .

7. This reveals that , 2nd Party does not want to participate on the Part II Award of reference which is on the quantum of punishment . Punishment is given to the 2nd Party of dismissal dated 24th February, 1999. When 2nd Party is not challenging the dismissal by attending reference and when his Advocate has informed accordingly to him as well as informed to this Court that, he is withdrawing from the reference since 2nd Party is not responding him , no option remains with this Tribunal but to dispose off the Part II Award for want of prosecution. So I answer the above Issues accordingly and passing the following order :

ORDER

Reference is disposed off for want of prosecution .

Mumbai ,

3rd August, 2006.

A. A. LAD , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 19 अक्तूबर , 2006 का.आ. 4423.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार न्यूमेंगलोर पोर्ट ट्रस्ट के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय बैंगलोर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 37/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 19-10-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-45011/1/2005- आई आर ( बी- II ) ] सी. गंगाधरण , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 19th October , 2006 S.O. 4423- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central

[ PART II- S . 3 ( ii ) ]

Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref . No. 37/ 2005) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court Bangalore as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the inanagement of New Mangalore Port Trust and their workman , received by the Central Government on 19-10-2006 .

[No. L-45011 / 1 /2005 - IR ( B - II ) ] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

DATED : 28th September , 2006

PRESENT : Shri A. R. Siddiqui , Presiding Officer C. R. No. 37/2005

IIParty

IParty

The Chairman , New Mangalore Port Trust, Panambur , Mangalore - 575010 .

The General Secretary , New Mangalore Port & Dock Workers Union , Market Building, Panambur , Mangalore -575010 . APPEARANCES : IParty : Shri V P Ashirwad General Secretary

II Party

: Shri Ramesh Upadhyaya Advocate AWARD

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by Clause (d) of sub - section ( 1 ) sub- section 2A of the Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vide Order No. L- 45011/ 1/2005- IR (B - II ) dated 29-08-2005 for adjudication on the following schedule :

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of New Mangalore Port Trust in denying promotion to Shri a Ananda, Gestetner Operator, to the post ofRecord Keeper is legal and justified ? If not , to what relief he is entitled ?"

2. When the matter stood for Claim Statement , it was taken up before the Lok - Adalat and both the parties appeared and have settled the matter out of court and filed a Memo to pass award accordingly in terins of the said memo , Hence , the following award.

3. Reference is partly allowed in terms of the

Memo as under :

"Since the workman Sri A. Ananda had been promoted to the post of Record Keeper . Hence, I am not pressing the dispute of the workman . " [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

(Dictated to LDC , transcribed by him , corrected and signed by me on 28th September , 2006)

A R. SIDDIQUI , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 19 अक्तूबर , 2006

का.आ. 4424- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार विजया बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय, लखनऊ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 170/2000) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 19-10-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/120/2000- आई आर ( बी- II ) ] सी. गंगाधरण , अबर सचिव New Delhi , the 19th October , 2006 S.O. 4424 - In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 170/ 2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Vijaya Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 19-10-2006.

[No. L- 12012/120/2000- IR (B - II)] C. GANGADHARAN , Under Secy .

ANNEXURE

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

PRESENT

Shrikant Shukla , Presiding Officer L. D. No. 170/2000

Ref. No. L. 12012/128 /2000/IR (B - II)

Dt. 18-10-2000

Between

U. P. Bank Workers Organization Mathura Nagar , Aligarh - 202001

And

Vijaya Bank,

The Dy . General Manager , Vijaya Bank, 17 Barakhambha Road , New Delhi .

AWARD

1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi referred the following dispute vide No. L-12012/ 128/2000/IR (B -II) dated 18-10-2000 for adjudication

9635

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 18 , 2006/कार्तिक 27 , 1928

to the Presiding Officer , CGIT- curn- Labour Court , Lucknow:

"Whether the action of General Manager, Vijaya Bank , New Delhi in dismissing the services of Sri S. A. H. Kirmani vide order dated 1-9-97 passed by the disciplinary authority is legal and justified ? If not, what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?"

It is admitted fact of the parties that the worker Sri S. A. H. Kirmani (hereinafter be called as worker ) was posted as Armed Guard and was served with the charge- sheet dt. 30-5-96 the contents of which is reproduced below :

1. आप द्वारा लगातार चिकित्सा आधार पर अपने उच्च अधिकारियों के आदेशों की अवहेलना कर दिनांक 25-11-89 से लगातार बन्दूक उठाने से मना करने और सशस्त्र प्रहरी की ड्यूटी न करने से आपने जानबूझकर प्रबन्धन/उच्च अधिकारियों के विधि सम्मत विवेकपूर्ण अनुदेशों की अवज्ञा और अवहेलना की है, जोकि द्विपक्षीय समझौते 1966 के अध्याय 19 की धारा 19.5 की उपधारा (ई ) के अन्तर्गत " घोर कदाचार " है ।

2. उच्च अधिकारियों के विधि सम्मत आदेशों को चिकित्सा आधार पर बहाना बना कर अवहेलना करने और जुलाई, 1994 तक सशस्त्र प्रहरी के लिये विशेष भत्ता प्राप्त करने के बावजूद दि. 25-11-89 से बन्दूक न उठाकर सशस्त्र प्रहरी की ड्यूटी न करने की कार्यवाही से आपने शाखा को खतरे में डाला है और बैंक के हित के प्रतिकूल कार्यवाही की है , जोकि द्विपक्षीय समझौते के अध्याय 19 की धारा 19.5 की उपधाराओं ( जे ) के अंतर्गत " घोर कदाचार " है । 3. आप द्वारा चिकित्सा आधार पर बहाना बना कर अपने उच्चअधिकारियों के आदेशों की अवहेलना दि. 25-11-89 -से बन्दूक उठाकर सशस्त्र प्रहरी के कर्तव्य न करना और शाखा में बेकार बैठे रहना, जिससे शाखा की सुरक्षा खतरे में पड़ी है इसे कार्य के निष्पादन में जानबूझ कर मंदता लाना माना गया है जोकि द्विपक्षीय समझौते 1966 के अध्याय 19 की धारा 19.5 की उपधारा ( जी ) के अंतर्गत " घोर कदाचार " है ।

4. उपर्युक्त 4 अवसरों पर कार्यालय समय से पहले उपस्थित का दावा किये जाने के उद्देश्य से हस्ताक्षर करने के बाद बिना शाखाध्यक्ष की सूचना/अनुमति से शाखा के बाहर निकलने और पूरे दिन शाखा से अनुपस्थित रहने और दिन की अनुपस्थिति के लिये कोई छुट्टी आवेदन पत्र न भेजने की आपकी कार्यवाही बैंक के हित के प्रतिकूल है जो कि द्विपक्षीय समझौते 1966 के अध्याय 19.5 की उपधारा (जे ) के अन्तर्गत " घोर कदाचार " है ।

5. आपने अपने स्वामित्व की संस्था मै . मोडेस्ट फर्नीचर लाक , अलीगढ़ की इकाई का संचालन किया जिसके लिये आपने उतर प्रदेश वित्तीय निगम , अलीगढ़ एवं यूनियन बैंक इण्डिया , अलीगढ़ कोगलत सूचना देकर/ सूचना छिपाकर धोखे से ऋण प्राप्त किया और विजया बैंक में अपनी ड्यूटी सेवाओं के अतिरिक्त निजी लाभकारी 9636

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 18 , 2006/ KARTIKA 27, 1928

व्यवसाय किया जोकि द्विपक्षीय समझौते 1966 के अध्याय 19 की धारा 19.5 की उपधारा ( ए) के अंतर्गत " घोर कदाचार " है । Enquiry was conducted by the enquiry officer and the same was submitted to disciplinary authority and the worker was dismissed from bank's services and the worker has requested that the enquiry proceedings were defective and therefore dismissal order be set aside .

The worker's case is that enquiry was conducted in violation of principles of natural justice and the opposite party denied the allegations of the worker therefore this issue has been preliminarily decided by this court vide its orderdt . 27-7-05 concluding that the enquiry was not just and fair . The Presiding Officer of the court directed the opposite party to produce its evidence on the said charges .

The opposite party has filed photo copies of the documents along with application C-64:

1. Letter dated 14-2-95/17-2-95 complaint of Branch Manager against Sri S.A.H. Kirmani regarding non -performance of his duties and irregular attendance dt . 14-2-05/17-2-05 .

2. Preliminary investigation report dt . 25-4-96 submittedby Capt . R. Chaturvedi , Security Officer, Regional Office, Lucknow to the Asstt . General Manager , Regional Office , Lucknow.

3. Copy of punishment order dt . 24-2-89 for misconduct against Sri S.A.H. Kirmani the workman awarding censure for committing misconduct .

4. Copy of punishment order dt. 31-10-91 for committing inisconduct against Sri SAH Kirmani the workman awarding stoppage of one increment permanently .

5. Copy of charge sheet dt . 30-5-96 (Hindi version) .

6. Copy of letter of Union Bank of India , Patthar Bazar Branch , Aligarh dt . 22-4-96 regarding availing of commercial loan by Sri S.A.H. Kirmani for Rs . one lakh .

7. Copy of loan sanctioned letter dt . 22-4-96 availed by sri S.A.H. Kirmani as prop . of M/s Modest Furniture Lockdt . 22-4-96 along with various enclosures- loan application affidavit .

The opposite party has examined Sri R. Chaturvedi on 17-11-05. Sri P. Chaughan , Asstt . Manager on dated 17-11-05 and Sri D. K. Verına on 19-1-06 . The worker has not produced any evidence in his defence .

After careful perusal of statement of claim and rejoinder of trade union following 3 facts have been narrated . In fact the enquiry was concluded at 12.45 PM on 30-11-96 thereafter the P.O. has submitted his written brief along with 19 additional documents which were not produced during the enquiry proceedings on 13-12-96 . On

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

16-12-96 the defence had submitted his written brief objecting the submission of additional documents . The enquiry officer submitted his report to the disciplinary authority on 7-2-97.

The disciplinary authority directed the enquiry officer to reopen the enquiry proceeding for the specific purpose of production of the said additional documents on 15-03-97 .

The worker has alleged that bank with malafide intention chargesheeted him.

It is noteworthy that the worker has filed following documents in support of his case along with rejoinder:

1. Enquiry proceedings .

2. Reply of the bank before ALC (C ) Karipur .

3. Enquiry proceedingsdt . 24-4-97 .

4. Request letter of Mr. Kirmani dt . 24-4-97 along with medical certificate .

5. Enquiry proceeding dt . 25-4-97 .

6. Request letter of Mr. Kirmanidt . 6-5-97 along with medical certificate .

7. Medical certificatedt. 16-12-89 .

8. The letter of Aligarh branch Manager dt. 10-3-95 .

9. The letter of Aligarh branch manager dt. 30-4-96 .

10. Letter of Mr. Kirmani dt . 2-5-96 .

11. Letter of branch manager Aligarh dt . 2-5-96 .

12. Copy of licence of the gun of Aligarh branch .

13. Letter of Mr. Kirmani dt . 29-3-89 .

14. Letter of Mr. Kirmani dt . 8-8-95 .

15. Report of investigation officer dt . 25-4-96 .

Opposite party has filed following documents along with list paperNo. 7/2 to 7/4 ;

1. Copy of letter of disciplinary authority di . 1-9-97 imposing the punishntent of dismissal from the services of the bank with immediate effect.

2. Copy of letter dt . 27-6-97 of Disciplinary authority communicating the proposed punishment to Sri S.A.H Kirmani .

3. Copy of representation submitted by Sri SAH Kirmani dt . 30-8-97 .

4. Copy of proceedings dt . 30-8-97 .

5. Copy of representation submitted by Sri S.A.H Kirmani dı . 12-5-97

6. Copy of enquiry findings dt. 18-6-97 submitted by enquiry officer in duplicate .

7. Written brief of presenting officer dı . 8-5-97.

9637 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 18 , 2006/कार्तिक 27 , 1928

8. Copy of enquiry proceedings held on 24-4-97 in terms of notice dt. 2-4-97 .

9. Letter dt . 15-3-97 of disciplinary authority reopening ofenquiry .

10. Copy of enquiry proceedings held on25-4-97.

II . Copy of enquiry proceedings held on 6-5-97

12. Copy of enquiry proceedings with regard to the enquiry from 26-11-96 to 30-11-96.

13. Noticesdt. 14-11-96, 28-10-96 and 7-10-96 from enquiry officerto Mr. Kirmani .

name was also not included in the list of witnesses . Sri Verma has stated, in his evidence that he knows Sri' SAH Kirmani well . The witness has also stated that he brought paper No. 84/2 and 84/3 from UP Financial Corpn . AndUnion Bank of India, Aligarh . Sri Verma has not stated thathe has worked with the worker in any branch therefore how he could know the worker well is not to be believed . Sri Verma has stated in the cross examination that he brought documents C- 84/2 and C. 84/3 and both were written before, him on, 10-1-96 whereas paper No. C- 84/ 2 is dt. 6-1-06 and C -84/3 is dt . 3-1-2006. Sri Verma has also stated in his examination that he is known to the signatories ofboth the document .

14. Copies of management exhibits

15. Copies ofdefence exhibits

16. Copies of defence exhibits

17. Letter dt . 7-8-86 appointing presenting officer .

18. Letter dated 7-8-96 appointing enquiry officer .

19. Letter dt . 30-5-96 of suspension .

20. Copy of charge sheet bearing No. DZ : IRD:35 :96 dt. 30-5-96

The representative of the worker has stated that if for the argument sake we believe his statement then in that case the findings shall be that the documents dt. 3-1-06 and 6-1-06 were written before Sri Verma on 10-1-06 as such it is not possible . Sri Verma is speaking a lic and therefore it is to be believed that these daeuments were notwritten before witness and the witness is not known to signatories and both the documents have not been proved bythe management .

21. Written brief of presenting officerdt. 13-12-96 alongwith annexures .

22. Objections of the defence representative lt. 26-12-96 .

23. Copy of relevant portion of Bipartite Settlement .

24. Zerox of certified true copy of order passed by Hon'ble High Court , Allahabad in W. P. No. 15358 of99 .

It is also argued on behalf of the worker at Sl . No.3 of the list of name of Ved Prakash. Asstt . Branch Manager,. Aligarh branch and Sl . No. 5 Sri N.K. Sharma . Clerk , Aligarh is mentioned and he can say with confidence that at that time there was no Asstt . Manager as Ved Prakash nor was any clerk as Sri N.K. Sharına . Opposite party has tried to mislead to the court . The opposite party has also not produced the original copy of which has been produced by the worker . It has therefore been said that the opposite party has failed to prove the charge levelled against the worker.

It is argued on behalf of the trade union that direction ofthe court the first four charges have not proved and no evidence have been produced in this court . It is stated that the worker was appointed as Armed Guard in the Aligarh branch of the bank and all of sudden in 1989 he experienced pain in his back due to this he found it difficult to stand with the Gun and on 22-8-89 worker requested the bank that he should be appoint as Peon in the bank and the Bank vide its letter dt. 24-10-89 directed the worker that he should get the medical certificate from medical officer of Government Hospital and produce . The worker contacted the Chief Medical officer of the district hospital and as per hisdirection the Chief Medical Superintendent examined theworker and on 16-12-1989 he issued a medical certificate for Low Backache and also reported that he is not fit for ArmedGuard duty. The worker once again requested the bank that he should be posted as Peon and the worker was asked on 3-8-90 that whether he is willing to work in any other branch of the bank . , The worker in his reply stated that he may be posted any of the branch situated in Aligarh . The management of the bank did not dispose of the representation of the worker . Instead bank took the decision Heard arguments on behalf of the parties . Learned representative of the trade union has argued that the opposite party produced list of 5 witnesses but they have examined only one witness Capt . R. Chaturvedi in the court who has supported his investigation report and has stated in the cross examination that he has proposed punishment in his investigation report . Capt . Chaturvedi has also stated that he did not appear in the departmental enquiry as management witness . Thus , the officer who conducted the enquiry ( investigation ) has gone out of jurisdiction and has proposed the punishment to be inflicted to the worker . This shows that he was prejudiced with the worker and that investigation report itself is not trustworthy on the basis of which the charge sheet was issued to the worker . The representative of the trade union has also argued that Capt. Chaturvedi appeared before the departmental enquiry as management witness and therefore he is not trustworthy witness and he has given a false statement . Second witness which has been produced by the management Sri P. Chaughan is not in the list of witnesses produced by the management and no permission has been taken by the management for examining him and therefore his evidence can not be read. It is further argued that Sri D.K. Verma has been examined with the permission of the court further his 9638

[PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 18 , 2006/KARTIKA27 , 1928

of the application of the worker for further medical check up in medical college and worker complied with the order but with no result . During this period in short intervalls worker continuously requested the opposite party that he should be asked to work as Peon and also requested to the management vide dt . 13-3-90 that in case the bank does not accept his request then his resignation be accepted because he is not able to perforın his duty of armed guard and accordingly the worker has been performing his duty without Arm. The Branch Manager , Aligarh vide has order dt . 10-3-95 directed the worker to work as Peon and worker his been accordingly performing the duty of peon . The bank management again order on 20-4-96 for the medical check up of the worker in district hospital along with the officer of the Bank . The medical officer of the District Hospital declared the worker fit for Armed Guard duty . But 11 was stated that inedical certificate dt . 16-12-89 was false . The branch manager , Aligarh directed the worker on 30-4-96 to perform his duty as Armed Guard and when worker demanded for the gun then it revealed that the gun licence has not been renewed after 31-12-93.

It is strongly argued that Capt . R. Chaturvedi recommended immediate suspension of the worker & subsequentlydismissed from the bank and the bank management accordingly agreed to the recommendation of Capt . Chaturvedi and the worker was suspended and was later on dismissed after charge sheet .

It is noteworthy that whatever the representative of the trade union has argued in this court the same has not been pleaded in the statement of claim . It is also noteworthy that trade union has not produced any witness in support of his argument .

The representative of the opposite party has argued that Sri Verma has not been questioned in the cross examination as to how he knew the worker . He has drawn the attention of the Presiding Officer on the cross examination wherein Sri D.K. Verma has stated in cross examination which is re - produced below ;

." इन दोनों पत्रों को मैं यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इण्डिया , अलीगढ़ तथा UPFC , अलीगढ़ से लाया मैं इन पत्रों को 10-1-06 को लाया यह पत्र मेरे सामने लिखे गये । "

"C- 84/2 को देखकर यह बताया कि6-1-06 को लिखा । " " 84/3दिनांक 3-1-06 को लिखा है । यह दोनों पत्र शाखा प्रबन्धक, विजया बैंक से सम्बन्धित है । इन दोनों पत्रों के हस्ताक्षरकर्ता से मैं परिचित नहीं हूँ । "

The representative of the opposite party has argued that no where witness has been asked as to whether he wentto UP Financial Corpn - on 6-1-06 and Union Bank of India on 3-1-06 . Witness has stated that he brought these documents from UP Financial Corpn . and Union Bank of India. Aligarh . Had he been asked he could have explain as to whether he went on 6-1-06 and 3-1-06 are not . No where the worker has denied that he has not taken loan from UP Financial Crpn. or Union Bank of India , Aligarh . C-84/2 is the document which is with reference to letter of Vijaya Bank dt . 3-1-06 regarding M/s Modest Furniture Lock, Aligarh owned by Mr. SAH Kirmani . UP Financial Corpnhas informed that an amount of Rs . 47000/- towards principal and Rs . 23,566 towards interest and Rs . 2230 towards expenses are due as on 15-10-05 over the said firm . It is also informed to the bank that they have issued recovery certificate to recover the public moncy and Vijaya Bank has been requested for cooperation.

Union Bank of India, Aligarh has also written a letter to the Vijaya Bank , that Sri SAH Kirmani had availed credit facility from Union'Bank of India to the tune of Rs . one lakh on 26-10-93 under SSI . Loan amount stands fully deposited on 21-6-96 and currently bank has no claim position. As have been stated that there has been no denial from the worker that Bank of India . Aligarh therefore the representative ofthe opposite party has argued that while in. service the worker Sri SAH Kirmani engaged himself in running industry. Sri P. Chaughan the then Asstt . Manager during the period 17-3-92 to 8-7-96 has stated that paper C78/ 1 and 78/2 is photo copy of that affidavit in which the worker has not disclosed his services in the bank and declared himself as unemployed soldier and accordingly obtained the loan . Paper No. C - 78 is the certified true copy of the affidavit which reveals that affidavit was given by Sri SAH Kirmani stating that he is sole proprictor of Modest Furniture Lock , Aligarh the horrower concerned is not the employee of State Govt . nor he is employce of any institute controlled by the State Govt . at present but the borrower is ex - serviceman retired from the Military . UP Financial Corpn . vide their letter of Nov. 1996 has informed the Branch Manager , Vijaya Bank . Aligarh in response to their letter dt. 22-4-96 and meeting with the officers of Vijaya Bank and Capt . R.Chaturvedi , Regional Security officer of the Vijaya Bank . Lucknow regarding recovery from Sri SAH Kirmani proprietary of the unit . Wherein it has been informed to the Vijaya Bank that Sri SAH Kirmani has already taken a loan of Rs . 1.70 and Rs . (0.47 lakhs under SEMFEX Scheme for setting up furniture lock manufacturing unit vide sanctioned advice dt . 26-7-91 . Не has also drawn my attention on C -74 to 75 and 76.

Opposite party's representative drawn my attention to paper No. C -73 that UP Financial corpn . has informed the Vijaya Bank that various loans were sanctioned to proprietor to M/s Modest furniture Lock, Aligarh .

The worker has been charged for illegal and unauthorisedly running the business while in the service ofthe bank and specific charges were levelled against him . There is no denial of any kind from the worker that he did carry out the business in the name of firms which he was proprietor.

Paper No.7/17 a application of Sri SAH Kirmani is on recording which Sri SAH Kirmani has requested the [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

management of Vijaya Bank on 30-8-97 that he will clear all dues . I have perused all documents carefully, and it is proved that worker during the service carried out the business . The charge No.5 is very specifically that the worker concealing the fact of employment in the bank committed fraud in obtaining loan for running the business .

Referring to the argument forwarded by the representative of the worker about submitting of proposal by Capt . R. Chaturvedi in primary investigation . Opposite party's representative has argued that Capt . Chaturvedi is ex-army officer. He is straight forward in his working . As Securityofficer he found that Sri Sah Kirmani is unbecoming Armed Guard in the bank and therefore he should be suspended appears to be quite convincing . He is not disciplinary authority therefore whatever he had toconvey he conveyed . It is for the disciplinary authority to take appropriate action there is no question of any prejudice with the worker . He has further argued that there is no personnel enimity with Sri Sah Kirmani . There is no explanation as to whey he should be prejudiced with the worker who are ex - army man.

Capt . Chaturvedi has stated in examination in chief that he knows Shri . Sah Kirmani who was armed guard in Aligarh branch of the bank. He has also proved that various complaint he has been receiving that Sri Kirmani is not performing duty properly . He proved C- 66 and stated that C-66 is letter dt . 17-2-95 of Aligarh branch . This letter was sent to Regional Office which was regarding non performing ofduty and irregular attendance of Sri Kirmani . It is written in the letter that the worker is in habit of disobedience . A explanation was called from him but the worker failed to give the explanation . In the same letter it is also mentioned that the worker was sanctioned mortgage loan Rs . 26,250/- vide sanction order dt. 25-10-94 which is pending for release . Capt . Chaturvedi has also stated that on getting the letter he was directed to investigate the facts and accordingly he visited to Aligarh on 19-4.96 and on 22-4-96 he took Sri Kirmani to medical examination in district hospital Aligarh alongwith Sri Chaughan for medical check up and he has stated that paper No. 7/106 is medical certificate issued by hospital . This certificate shows that the worker Sri Kirmani was found fit for Armed Guard duty after his examination on 200-4-96.

In case the name of Sri P. Chaughan was not in the list of the witnesses. It matters a little Sri P. Chaughan was also material witness in the case . Sri P. Chaughan was Asstt. Mgr. during the period 17-2-92 to 18-7-96 and the witness has proved that Sri Kirmani was not performing the duty of ArmedGuard. He has also stated that he was not performirig the duties regularly and sometime he use to come late similarly he use to leave the bank during the working hours thereafter he use to return back without taking any permission. He has also stated that inspite of instructions from the Armed Guard he was not performing the duty of ArmedGuard. He has proved that photo copies of7/112, 7 / 3520 GI /2006-24

9639

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 18 , 2006/कार्तिक 27 , 1928

113,119 Paper No. 7/111 is the letter ofSri Kirmani addressed to Branch .Manager about absence which has written explaining the reasons for his leaving from premises on 30-1-95 the explanation he gave is that he went to fetch medicine. In the same application he has restrained Branch Manager for not to write letter to him in future . 7/112 is another letter issued by the Branch Manager to the worker for late arrival and early departure. Vide this letter of 23-1-95 branch manager asked him as to why disciplinary action not taken against him . 7/113 is letter of Branch Manager for early departure . 7/114 is letter of branch manager for early departure . 7/115 is the letter of worker wherein he has denied the allegations . Vide letter dt.24-2-89 paperC- 68 Sri Sah Kirmani was given punishment of censure for gross misconduct for disobedient of lawful orders of the branch manager for not wearing uniform provided by the bank. Sri P. Chaughan has also proved that worker was punished by order dt . 31-10-91 for misconduct for remaining unauthorized absence on various occasions . Inspite of instructions of the branch manager and for doing act prejudicial to the interest of the bank . He has also stated that worker has not informed the bank management for taking loans from the financial institutions and the bank had argued for information from the relevant financial institutious . No where in the cross examination it has been suggested on behalf of the trade union that the worker gave the information to the management of bank for obtaining loan from other financial institutions and for running the industry . The statement of Sri P. Chaughan can not be brushed aside merely because his name was not in the list of witnesses .

On the discussions above 1 come to the conclusion . that the worker wilfully disobeyed the orders of superiors and insisted the management to change his trade from ArmedGuard to the peon even if it is taken to be truc that the gun's licence was not renewed by the worker was expected to work as Guard only . He could have even then performed the duties of the Guard instead of pressing of change in trade . His leaving the work premises could have endangered the security of the bank . It is also proved that he obtained loan from other banks in carrying on the business . Concealing the facts that he was bank's employee . In the circumstances all charges stands proved.

So far as the question of punishment is concerned a employee who is entrusted with the duty of protection of bank if wilfully disobeyed the orders of superiors and if on his own slips away from the bank can be dangerous to security of the bank . It is expected from the retired army man to be duty full , towards his duty and i.e. reasons the bank's appoint these ex - servicemen to protect the hank if they starts disobeyed the orders and slip away from the bank unauthorisedly can not be permitted in larger interest ofthe bank. It is shocking that an employee does not take any interest in the working of the bank and obtains loan for running the industry . The explanation given by the trade (PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] 9640

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: NOVEMBER 18 , 2006 /KARTIKA 27 , 1928

is entitled for reinstatement with back wages and other consequential benefits . If not what relief he is entitled for ?"

union are not convincing for any sympathetic view in the matter . He has availed a lot of loan and he is running the industry and therefore in fitness of the case his removal from the services is justified. The worker is not entitled for any relief.

LUCKNOW

4-10-2006 SHRIKANT SHUKLA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 19 अक्तूबर , 2006

का.आ. 4425.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार इलाहाबाद बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 44/99 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 19-10-06 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

2. It is quite unnecessary to give full facts of the case as from the perusal of the reference order it is obvious that there is no mention of date of termination of the services of the workman . In case the tribunal comes at a conclusion that the action of the management in dismissing the services of the workman is neither legal nor justified a normal question which arises for consideration is as to from what date workman be allowed the relief of reinstatement . Therefore , in view of position explained above , the reference order has become redundant and on the basis of vague refcrence workman cannot be granted any relief of any nature what to say about reinstatement . Reference is , therefore , answered accordingly against the workman and in favour of the bank .

SURESH CHANDRA , Presiding Officer [सं. एल-12012/220/1998- आई. आर. ( बी- II ) ] सी. गंगाधरण , अवर सचिव

नई दिल्ली, 19 अक्तूबर, 2006

New Delhi , the 19th October , 2006

S.O. 4425. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 44/99 ) of the Central Govt. Indus . Tribunal-cum-Labour Court , Kanpur (U.P) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Allahabad Bank and their workman, received by the Central Government on 19-10-06 .

का.आ. 4426.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक ऑफ बड़ोदा के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय , कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 179/98 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 19-10-06 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[No. L- 12012/220/1998 -IR(B - II ) ]

[सं. एल-12012/369/1997- आई. आर. ( बी-11 ) ]

सी. गंगाधरण , अवर सचिव C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy. ANNEXURE

New Delhi , the 19th October, 2006

BEFORE SHRI SURESH CHANDRA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM - LABOUR COURT, KANPUR, U. P.

Industrial Dispute No. 44 of 99

In the matter of dispute between :

Sh R. B. Chaubey .

S.O.4426 . In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ret . No. 179/98 ) ofthe Catt. Govt . Indus. Tribunal-cum - Labour Court , Kanpur (U. P. ) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Bank of Baroda and their workman, received by the Central Government on 19-10-2006.

President Allahabad Bank Staff Association C/o Allahabad Bank Kamachcha Branch , Varanasi .

And

[No. L- 12012/369/ 1997- IR ( B - II ) ] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy. ANNEXURE

The Assistant General Manager ,

Allahabad Bank Taksal Theatre Building

Nadesar , Varanasi .

AWARD

BEFORE SHRI SURESH CHANDRA , PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM - LABOUR COURT , KANPUR Industrial Dispute No. 179 of 1998

In the matter of dispute between :

1. Central Government, Ministry of Labour , New Delhi vide its notification No. L- 12012 /220/98 /IR ( B - II ) dated 22-2-99/9-3-99 has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal :-

Bank of Baroda Staff Association , TheGeneral Secretary BOBSA, Madhav Bhavan , 15/222-A Civil Lines , Kanpur.

AND

"Whether the action of the management of. Allahabad Bank in dismissing Sri Panna Lal from the service of the bank is justified and whether he 9641 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: नवम्बर 18 , 2006/कार्तिक 27 , 1928

Bank of Baroda,

Coalfields Limited and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 23-10-2006.

[No. L- 22012/124/2004- IR (CM - II) ]

AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer The Rogional Manager, BOB Regional Office, Lodhwari Kothi , Civil Lines Road, Rae Bareli U. P.

ANNEXURE

AWARD

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM - LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL

PRESENT:

1. Central Government, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi vide its notification No. L- 12012/369/97 /IR (B - I ) dated 20-10-1998 has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal

13 :

Sri Md. Sarfaraz Khan, Presiding Officer.

Reference No. 37 of 2005

PARTIES: The Agent, Kottadih Project, Pandaveshwar Area ofE. C. L.

Vrs.

"Whether the action of the management of Bank of Baroda in not confirming Sri Ram Lal, Part time sweeper in the Bank service is justified ? If not whether he is entitled for permanency from the back date with all consequential benefits or some other relief ?"

The Joint General Secretary , Ukhra Colliery Mazdoor Union ( INTUC) , Ukhra , Burdwan.

REPRESENTATIVES :

For the management :

Sri P. K. Das , Advocate

Før the union (Workman ) : Sri Sushil Banerjee , Advocate.

INDUSTRY : COAL

STATE: WEST BENGAL

Dated the 18th August , 2006.

AWARD

2. It is unnecessary to give full facts of the case as from the perusal of reference order it is quite clear that there is no mention of date in the Schedule of reference order regarding confirming the services of the workman . In case after the appraisal of evidence and facts of the case the Tribunal is of the opinion that the action of the management in not confirming the workman is neither legal nor justified then normal question for consideration which arises is as to from what date the relief claimed by the workman be granted . Therefore , in the absence of date in the Schedule of reference order workman cannot be granted any relief on the basis of vague reference order . Therefore , it is held that the reference order has bacome redundant and cannot be answered . Reference is answered accordingly .

Inexercise ofpowers conferred by clause ( d ) of Sub- section ( 1 ) and sub-section 2 (A ) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , Govt. of India throughthe Ministry of Labour vide its letter No. L- 22012 / 124/2004- IR (CM- II) dated 10-05-2005 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal .

SURESH CHANDRA, Presiding Officer

SCHEDULE

नई दिल्ली , 23 अक्तूबर, 2006

का. आ. 4427.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार ई.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में मिर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , आसनसोल के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 37/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 23-10-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

"Whether the action of the management of Kottadih Project under Pandaveshwar Area of M/ s . Eastern Coalfields Limited in denying conversion in Time Ratewith pay protection and consequential benefits to Mr. Gandhi Bagdi , Driller , U.M. No. 721532 and 9 others ( list enclosed) w.e.f. 27-4-2000 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workinen arc entitled ?"

[सं. एल -22012/ 124/2004- आई आर ( सी एम- II ) ]

अजय कुमार गौड़ , डैस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 23rd October, 2006

Onhaving received the Order Nes, L -22012/124/2004- IR( CM- II ) ) dated 10-05-2005 from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 37 of 2005 was registered on 31-05-2005 and accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices to the respective parties through the registered post directing themto appear in the court on the scheduled date and file their written statement along with the documents and a list of witnesses in support of their claims . Pursuant to the said order notices were issued to the parties concerned and Sri P. K. Das , Advocate S.O. 4427. In pursuance of Section 17 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 37/ 2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s . Eastern 9642

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 18 , 2006/KARTIKΑ27, 1928

appeared in the court along with a letter of authority duly issued by the competent authority to represent the management . Similarly Sri Sushil Banerjee appeared for the union along with a letter of authority duly issued by C.S.Banerjee General Secretary Ukhra Colliery Mazdoor Union (Burdwan) . Both the representatives prayed for time to file their written statement which was allowed fixing 5-09-05 for the same .

From perusal of the record it transpires that both the parties remained absent on the next fixed date . It is further clear from the order sheets of the record that none of the parties filed their written statement . The union's representatives , left taking any step on its behalf since 5-09-05 to 18-08-06 . The regular absence of the union in spite of several adjournments itself indicates that the union has got no interest and does not want to proceed with the case further . In such circumstance it is not advisable to keep the record pending any more as no useful purpose is to be served . As such it is hereby

ORDERED

That let a "No Dispute Award" be and the same is passed. Send the copies of the award to the Ministry of Labour , Govt . of India, New Delhi for information and needful . The reference is accordingly disposed of.

MD. SARFARAZ KHAN, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 23 अक्तूबर , 2006

का.आ. 4428.-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 सं. 1 , चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 25/1995 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-10-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/323/94- आई आर ( बी- II ) ] सी. गंगाधरण , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 23rd October, 2006

S.O. 4428.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 25/ 1995) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court No. 1 , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s . Punjab National Bank and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 20-10-2006.

[No. L- 12012/323/94- IR (B - II) ] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy .

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT . INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM-LABOUR COURT - 1 , CHANDIGARH

Case No. ID 25/95

-Applicant Shri Hari Singh S/o Sh . Jit Singh C/ o Sh . M.L. Balecha , Shiv Colony, Rly , Road, V.P.O. Palwal , Distt. Faridabad, Haryana.

Versus

The Senior Manager ,

Punjab National Bank, Palwal, Distt. Faridabad, Haryana

-Respondent

APPEARANCES

FortheWorkman

: Sh. Karam Singh

For the Management :Sh . Harjit Singh

AWARD

Passed on 25-8-2006

Central Govt. vide No.L 12012/323 /94/IR/(B - II ) dated 20-3-1994 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

"Whether the action ot the management of Punjab National Bank . Palwal in terminating the services ot Shri Hari Singh. Mini Deposit Collector w.e.f. 28-9-90 is legal and justified? If not, what relief is the said workman is entitled to ?"

2. Workman filed claim statement stating that he was engaged as deposit clerk for collecting deposit from general public by moving shop to shop and house to house on the directionofthe management w.e.f 20-12-1977 . He was also authorised by the management to open its saving scheme etc. and opening mini deposit account or General public with itand the workman was provided with certain facilities by the management . He was doing his work with the utmost satisfaction of his offficers . During the anti reservation movement the record of the branch was burnt including the record concerning workman . The workman also helped themanagement for rebuilding the record . The management terminated his service on 28-9-90 without any reasons , enquiry warning . charge sheet etc. and without affording any opportunity to the worktnan and without holding any enquiry. He was not paid any retrenchment comipensation . That otherjuniors appointed performing the same duties . Thatworkman worked with the management and at the age of 40 years he can not join any Govt . service due to his overage . The workman raised the dispute before the ALC(C), but the management remained adamant and did not settle his case . Even the workman was not considered for his adjustment on some other post . He [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

9643

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 18 , 2006/कार्तिक. 27 , 1928

prayed for his reinstatement to the post of deposit clerk with continuity of service and backwages or he may be adjusted to some other post suitable as per his qualification .

7. The Hon'ble Supreme court has held in the above judgment that deposit collectors of the bank i.e. workmen works as above and commission are received by them, which is nothing else but wage and there is master and servant relation existed between the deposit collector and concerned bank . Several appeals were filed against a judgment of the Hon'ble High court wherein directions of the Industrial Tribunal regarding payment of full back wages etc. to the deposit collectors of the banks was challanged. There was a appeal by the National Federation ofBank employees impugned portion of the same judgment whereunder the relief of absorption of deposit collectors as regular employees had been set aside by the High court. the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed all the appeals holding that on the basis of evidence before it the Tribunal had given the findings of fact that the deposit collectors were workmen with in the meaning of Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act, 1947 and it could not be said that this finding was sustainable . The commission received by the deposit collector was nothing else but wage as defined in Section 2(rr) of the I.D. Act and there was clearly a relationship, of master and servant between the deposit collector and the concerned bank .

3. Management filed written statement denying allegations and submitted that he was a contractual mini deposit collector for the purpose ofopening of mini deposit account, representative of the bank on commission basis in terms of the Mini Deposit Scheme in operation in the bank and he was never appointed as workman in the bank. During Sept. 1990 during the mob violance the record was destroyed and functioning of B.O. Palwal was stopped temporarily and the applicant was advised to stop accepting fresh deposits in the said scheme till the old accounts are settled . It is further submitted that there was no control of the bank over the applicant and he was under the supervisions of the bank and his compensation depended entirely upon the quantam of deposits collected by him and he was paid commission and riot wages . It is further submitted that the applicant was never appointed in the bank as a workman, therefore , it is not a termination and as such neither any permission was required from the Govt. nor any compensation was payable to the applicant . It is also submitted that appointment procedure is different and it isdone through banking service recruitment Board and there is no such procedure to appoint any person in the bank directly and the claim is devoid of any merits and deserves rejection .

4. There was no employer and employee relationship between the bank and the workman . The workman can not be reinstated as not entitled.

8. Further as regard the dispute between the parties onwhich the management allegedly terminated the services that the workman did not cooperate in building the record ofthebranch after it destroyed in mob fire . There is only a oral denial of the officer who was not working at the relevant time in the Palwal Branch and only deposition is of the workman who himself has deposed and disclosing the above fact that he helped in reconstruction of the burnt record on oath himself . In view of the above as the bank neither brought any witness who was working at that time who seen reconstructions of the record or any other witness in the presence of which the workman denied or refused to cooperate with the bank in reconstruction of the record. I hold that the workman has proved that after the destruction of record in Riots fire, the workman helped in reconstruction of the record.

5. In this case both the parties filed their affidavits in evidence and workman examined himself as WWI and management examined MW1 Ved Parkash Chaudhary. In evidence management witness has denied that bank employed mini deposit collector in their regular staff and any junior of Hari Ram was retained and that no mini deposit collector was appointed thereafter in the bank .

6. Both the parties filed their written arguments and thereafter advanced detailed oral arguments . In arguments both the parties are in agreement of the facts of the case that workman was engaged as mini deposit collector and that the record duirng the Sept. 1990 was destroyed in the fire . Both the parties relied mainly one judgement Indian Bank Association and Workmen or Syndicate Bank and others 2001 - LLJ page 219. Earlier both the parties raised objections against each other submitting that petitioner is not a workman U/ S 2 ( s ) of the I.D. Act 1947 and there is no relationship of employer and employee and that petitioner admitted himself that he was taking commission and not salary/wages and the above referred judgement had decided all these points and also passed in the case of deposit collector like the present workman of the bank .

9. Despite the submissions this judgement do not help fully to either party . Learned counsel for the workman submitted that workman is entitled for full backwages as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as he was a workman and there was employer and employee relationship between the parties . He submitted that workman can be appointed to a suitable post and he can be adjusted in some other branches since this branch has dropped the scheme. On the other hand the learned law officer on behalf ofthe management submitted that no junior to the workman was retained or allowed to work and this scheme wasdropped after 1990 and this scheme was never revived. He submitted that as regard violation of Section 25F adasittedly workman was doing his work without the control of the milnagement at his wish and being a contractual employee, there was no question of complying the 9644

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 18 , 2006/ KARTIΚΑ 27 , 1928

provisions of Section 25F . It was also submitted on behalf of the management that compliance was otherwise not possible as workman used to get Commission on collection made by him and management was not paying any wages . Further that the workman can not be considered for adjustment in the bank and his case may be dismissed .

10. Therefore , in view of the above submissions and in view of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred above , and relied by both the parties workman claims reinstatement or appointment to any suitable or other post in the bank without following the proper procedure . Contentions of learned counsel for the workman is that the workman in violation of the provisions of Section 25 - F was not allowed to join and his services were terminated without compliance of provisions of Section 25 - F of I.D. Act . No notice of termination and retrenchment was given . There was no compliance of Section 25-F but management say as it was not possible as workman was paid commission & not renumeration . Scheme was discontinued and not revised . I am of the considered view that the present scheme is not continuing in the Branch and that recruitment to other posts in Bank as per Rules can be only by due procedure.

11. In view of the above , I am of the considered view that there is no dispute between the parties and in view of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied by both the parties that mini deposit collector petitioner workman is a workman and commission earned by him are wages . There is also no dispute that services of the workman were terminated without following the mandatory provisions of Section 25F . Regarding the contentions of retaining other, it was not pressed. It is also not disputed and admitted in affidavit of the management that workman was engaged as mini deposit collector at Branch Office Palwal in December 1987 and worked upto 27-2-90 when his services were terminated only on the ground that he did not cooperate in rebuilding/ reconstruction of the record of the bank which I have held above that management produced no evidence that workman did not cooperate in rebuilding/ reconstruction of the record and workman as I held above helped in reconstruction/ rebuilding of the record . Here management submitted and taken a plea that workman was paid commission and that was not wages and therefore management could not complied the provisions of Section 25 -F of the I.D.Act. Commission as wages are paid at a fixed rate on quantum of collection and therefore compensation can be calculated on past commission paid on average or on month basis . So ground taken by management for termination was not proved by management . As I have held above that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that Commission earned by mini deposit collector is a wages and therefore , non - compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 25-F or the I.D. Act makes the termination of the workman void ab intio and

[PART 11 -SEC . 3 ( ii) ] non -est . Therefore , I hold further that order of termination ofHari Singh Mini Deposit Collector w.e.f. 28-9-90 is not legal and not justified.

12. Now to what.relief the workman is entitled to? In this regard it is not disputed by both the parties that bank has discontinued the scheme and that as desired by the workman to adjust him to some other post as per his. qualification, the bank has shown its inability that all post in the bank are to be filled by adopting Statutory Rules and due procedure and they can not appoint anyone otherwise . I am of the considered view that this court is also not empowered to a order to adjust him to some other post as per his qualification as all the posts in the banks are filled only by adopting due process and Statutory Rules . 1 also found that scheme has been discontinued and not in existence and it will be a futtle exercise to order reinstatement of the workman on post as a mini deposit collector as he was on 28-9-90 at Punjab National Bank branch Palwal the post is not available . I have perused the judgment referred by both the parties of the Hon'ble Supreme Court 2001 ( 1 ) LLJ page 219-226 wherein on admitting that no question arises to direct absorption to department and there could be not such directions and such directions are beyond the reference .

13. As I have held above that the scheme was discontinued and not reviewed and that workman can not be appointed to some other post in the bank , now what relief can be granted to the workman . In this regard I refer and rely on the judgment of Hon'ble H.P. High Court in Punjab National Bank Vs. Shri D.D. Sharma and others decided on 28-8-06 in the case of this Tribunal's case , the Hon'ble H.P. High Court, relying on the division bench of the Delhi High Court in Delhi Transportation case Vs. Presiding Officer 2001 - LLJ 714 and the judgment in Punjab Land Development and Reclamation Corporation Ltd. Chandigarh. The Hon'ble H.P. Court relying this judgement wherein it is held that the position therefore , is that the order terminating the services of the workman amounts to retrenchment within the menaing of Section 2( 00) of the Act. Since the appellant has not complied with the provisions ofSection 25F of the Act, the order of termination is void ab initio and inoperative . The only question that now remains to be determinated is the relief to be granted to the workman . (Para 27) We find from the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the 1970s and 1980s that reinstatement with back wages was the norm in cases where the termination of services of the workman was held operative . The decisions rendered in the 1990s, including the decision of the constitution Bench in the Punjab Land Development and Reclamation Corporation Ltd. , Chandigarh seem to suggest that compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages in now the norm . In any case, since we are bound to follow the decision of the constitution Bench , we therefore conclude that reinstatement is not the inevitable consequence of quashing 9645 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 18 , 2006/कार्तिक 27 , 1928

anorder of termination; compensation can be awarded in lieu of reinstatement and back wages .

Court, No.1 , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Telecom Department and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 25-10-2006.

[No. L -40012/413 /99- IR(DU) ]

SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

14. In view of the above judgment of the Hon'ble H.P. High Court , in this Court's decided case and in Constitution Bench in Land Reclamation Cases and the decision of the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in 2000 - I - LLJ 714. I am of the considered view that reinstatement is not the inevitable consequence of quashing the order of termination , compensation can be awarded in licu of reinstatement and back wages .

BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM -LABOUR COURT-1, CHANDIGARH .

Case No. ID 89/2000

Sh. Inderjit Pal C/o Sh. N.K. Jeet , President, Telecom Labour Union , Mohalla Hari Nagar , Lal Singh Basti Road, Bhatinda (Pb. ) . 151001

.....Applicant

Versus

1. The General Manager , Telecom. , Bhatinda (Punjab) 151001 .

...Respondent

APPEARANCES

For the workman

Sh . Vijay Kumar

Sh . G.C. Babbar

For the management:

AWARD

Passed on 28-9-2006

Central Government vide notification No. L - 40012 / 413/99/IR ( DU) dated 17-02-2000 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

15. In the present case as I have already held above the order of termination passed by the management is not just and legal in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court . I am also of the considered view that there is no post of Mini Deposit Collector and the scheme was discontinued and the workman can not be adjusted on any other post in the bank as these posts are to be filled in accordance with due procedure and following statutory rules . So in the above peculiar circumstances although the workman is successful in his case, he is not entitled for reinstatement . As regard backwages , bank also shows its inability to calculate the back wages as workman was not gettingwagesbut he was getting commission on the basis of collection made in mini deposit scheme. In the circumstances I have found that Hon'ble H.P. High Court in PNB Vs. D.D. Sharma (Supra granted compensation to the workman in lieu of reinstatement and backwages . I am therefore, of the considered view that in the present case also compensation can be granted to the workman to mect the ends of justice and workman can not be reinstated and back wages can not be ascertained, the management shall pay the workman lump sum amount as compensation to the tunc of Rs . 70000 in lieu of reinstatement and back wages . The reference is answered accordingly . Central Government be informed. File be consigned to record.

Chandigarh .

RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

"Whether the action of the management of General Manager , Telecom , Bhatinda in terminating the services of Sh . Inderjit Pal is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled and from which date?"

नईदिल्ली, 25 अक्तूबर , 2006

2.The case taken up in Lok Adalat at the request of the parties . The authorised representative of workman Shri Vijay Kumar withdraw the present reference vide his statement recorded on 21-09-2006. In view of the same , the present reference is returned as withdrawn in Lok Adalat . Central Government be informed. File be consigned to record.

का.आ. 4429.- 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. 1 , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 89/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25-10-06 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

Chandigarh, 28-09-2006.

[सं. एल-40012/413/99- आईआर ( डी.यू) ]

नई दिल्ली , 25 अक्तूबर, 2006

सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डैस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 25th October, 2006

कर. आ. 4430. 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 औद्योयिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय न. - 1 , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या S.O. 4429. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 89/2000) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum-Lab 9646

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 18 , 2006/KARTIKΑ 27 , 1928

161/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25-10-06 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-40012/466/99- आई आर (डी.यू) ]

सुरेन्द्र सिंह, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 25th October , 2006

S.O. 4430. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref . No. 161/ 2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court, No.1 , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure inthe Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Telecom Department and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 25-10-2006.

[No. L-40012/466/99 - IR(DU)] SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT- 1 , CHANDIGARH

Case No. ID 161/2000

Sh . Jaswinder Singh C/ o Sh . N.K. Jeet , President, Telecom Labour Union, Mohalla Hari Nagar , Lal Singh Basti Road, Bhatinda (Pb. ) 151001 .

....Applicant

Versus

1. TheGeneral Manager, Deptt. ofTelecom. , Hoshiarpur (Punjab) 152001.

....Respondent

APPEARANCES

Forthe workman : Sh. Vijay Kumar

Ms.Deepali Puri

For the management :

AWARD

Passed on 28-9-2006 .

Central Government vide notification No. L- 40012/ 466/99/IR (DU ) dated 13-03-2000 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

"Whether the action of the management of General Manager , Telecom , Hoshiarpur in ordering disengagement /terminating of services of Sh . Jaswinder Singh workman engaged through Contractor Sh . Ashok Kumar Sharma, w.e.f. 1-3-1999 is legal andjustified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled and from which date ?"

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii )] present reference is returned as withdrawn in Lok Adalat . Central Government be informed. File be consigned to record.

RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer Chandigarh

28-09-2006.

नई दिल्ली, 25 अक्तूबर, 2006

का.आ. 4431.- 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 , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 201/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25-10-06 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -40012 /106/2000- आई आर ( डी.यू) ]

सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi, the 25th October , 2006

S.O. 4431. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref . No. 201 / 2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court , No.1 , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Telecom Department and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 25-10-2006 .

[No. L -40012/ 106/2000 - IR(DU) ] SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT -1 , CHANDIGARH

Case No. 1D 201/2000

Sh. Ranbir Singh C/o Sh . N.K. Ject, President, Telecom Labour Union, Mohalla Hari Nagar , Lal Singh Basti Road, Bhatinda (Pb . ) 151001

.Applicant

Versus

1. The General Manager, Deptt. of Telecom. , Hoshiarpur (Punjab) 152001

.Respondent APPEARANCES

For the workman : Sh.Vijay Kumar

For the management: Ms. Deepali Puri

AWARD

Passed on 28-9-2006

Central Government vide notification No. L - 40012/ 106/2000 /IR (DU ) dated 30-05-2000 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

"Whether the action of the management of General Manager , Telecom , Hoshiarpur in ordering disengagement/ terminating the services of Sh . Ranbir Singh a workman engaged through Contractor Sh.Ashok Kumar Sharma, w.e.f. 1-3-1999 is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled and from which date ?"

2. The case taken up in Lok Adalat at the request of the parties . The authorised representative of workman Shri Vijay Kumar withdraw the present reference vide his statement recorded on 21-9-2006 . In view of the same , the present reference is returned as withdrawn in Lok Adalat . Central Govt. be informed. File be consigned to record .

RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer Chandigarh 28-9-2006.

नईदिल्ली, 25 अक्तूबर , 2006

का.आ. 4432.- 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 , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 205/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25-10-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-40012/29/3000- आई आर ( डी.यू) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 25th October , 2006

S.O. 4432. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 205/ 2000) of the Central Government Industrial - Tribunal- cum- Labour Court, No.I , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure inthe Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Telecom Department and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 25-10-2006.

[No. L-40012/29/2000- IR (DU)] SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM - LABOUR COURT - 1 , CHANDIGARH

Case No. ID 205/2000

Sh. Satnam Singh C/ o Sh . N.K. Jeet , President , Telecom Labour Union, Mohalla Hari Nagar, Lal Singh Basti Road, Bhatinda (Pb . ) 151001 .

9647

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 18 , 2006/कार्तिक 27 , 1928

1. The General Manager, Deptt. of Telecom. , Hoshiarpur (Punjab)152001.

.Respondent APPEARANCES

Forthe workman : Sh. Vijay Kumar

Forthe management : Ms.DeepaliPuri

AWARD

Passed on 28/9/2006 .

Central Govt . vide notification No. L -40012/29/2000/ IR (DU) dated30-5-2000 has referred the following dispute tothis Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of the management of General Manager , Telecom, Hoshiarpur (Pb . ) in ordering disengagement/ terminating the services of Sh. Satnam Singh a workman engaged through Contractor Sh . Ashok Kumar Sharma, w.e.f. 1-3-1999 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled and from which date?" 2.The case taken up in Lok Adalat at the request of the parties . The authorised representative of workman Shri Vijay Kumar withdraw the present reference vide his statement recorded on 21-9-2006 . In view of the same , the present reference is returned as withdrawn in Lok Adalat . Central Govt.be informed . File be consigned to record.

RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer Chandigarh 28-9-2006.

नई दिल्ली, 25 अक्तूबर , 2006

का.आ. 4433.- 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. - 1, चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 55/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25-10-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-40012/482/2000 - आई आर ( डी.यू) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi, the 25th October , 2006

S.O. 4433. In . pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref . No. 55/2001 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court, No.1 , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Telecom Department and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 25-10-2006 .

...Applicant

Versus

3520GI/2006-25

[No. L-40012/482 /2000- IR (DU ) ] SURENDRA SINGH , Desk Officer 9648

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 18 , 2006/KARTIKA 27 , 1928

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT - 1 , CHANDIGARH

Case No. ID 55/2001

Sh . Satvinder Singh C/ o Sh . N.K. Jeet, President, Telecom Labour Union , 27349, Lal Singh Basti Road, Bhatinda (Pb.)

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] New Delhi, the 25th October , 2006

S.O. 4434. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 59/2001 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court No.I, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Telecom Department and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 25-10-2006 .

.Applicant

Versus

1. TheGeneral Manager, Deptt. of Telecom. , Hoshiarpur (Punjab) 152001

[No. L-40012/487/2000- IR(DU) ]

SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

.Respondent

APPEARANCES

For the workman : Sh.Vijay Kumar

Ms.Deepali Puri

For the management:

AWARD

Passed on 28/9/2006 .

Central Govt. vide notification No. L-40012/482/2000/ IR (DU) dated 29-12-2000 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of the management of General Manager , Telecom , Hoshiarpur in ordering disengagement/terminating the services of Sh . Satvinder Singh a workman engaged through Contractor M/s . Ram Krishan Budhram , w.e.f. 28-9-1999 is just and legal ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled and from which date ?" 2. The case taken up in Lok Adalat at the request of the parties . The authorised representative of workman Shri Vijay Kumar withdraw the present reference vide his statement recorded on 21-9-2006 . In view of the same , the present reference is returned as withdrawn in Lok Adalat . Central Govt.be informed. File be consigned to record.

RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer Chandigarh 28-9-2006.

नई दिल्ली, 25 अक्तूबर , 2006

का.आ. 4434.- 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. - 1 , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 59/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25-10-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-40012/487/2000- आईआर(डीयू) ]

सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डैस्क अधिकारी BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT-L, CHANDIGARH

CaseNo. ID 59/2001

Sh. Tarsem Singh C/o Sh. N.K. Jeet, President , Telecom Labour Union 27349, Lal Singh Basti Road, Bhatinda (Pb.).

.......Applicant

Versus

1. The General Manager, Deptt. of Telecom. , Hoshiarpur (Punjab) 152001 . .....Respondent

APPEARANCES

Forthe workman : Sh.VijayKumar

Ms.DeepaliPuri

Forthe management:

AWARD

Passed on 28/9/2006 .

Central Govt. vide notification No. L-40012/487/2000/ IR (DU) dated 29-12-2000 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

"Whether the action of the management of General Manager , Telecom , Hoshiarpur in ordering disengagement/termination of services ofSh. Tarsem Singh a workman engaged through Contractor Ashok KumarSharma w.e.f. 28-2-1999 is just and legal ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled and from which date ?"

2.The case taken up in Lok Adalat at the request of the parties . The authorised representative of workman Shri Vijay Kumar withdraw the present reference vide his statement recorded on 21-10-2006 . In view of the same , the present reference is returned as withdrawn in Lok Adalat . Central Govt. be informed . File be consigned to record,

Rajesh Kumar, Presiding Officer Chandigarh 28-09-2006 .

[भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 25 अक्तूबर , 2006

कर.आर. 4435.- 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 , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 83/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25-10-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-40012/523/2000- आईआर( डीयू) ]

सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 25th October , 2006

S.O. 4435. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 83/2001 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court No. 1 , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Telecom Department and their workman, which was receivedby the Central Government on 25-10-2006.

[No.L-40012/523/2000- IR (DU)] SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM -LABOUR COURT- I, CHANDIGARH.

Case No. ID 83/2001

Sh. Jaskiran Jadge S/o Sh . Balbir Singh C/o Sh. N.K. Jeet , President Telecom Labour Union, 27349, Lal Singh Basti Road, Bhatinda (Pb. ) 151001 .

........Applicant

Versus

1. The General Manager , Deptt. of Telecom. , Amritsar (Punjab) 152001 .

....Respondent

APPEARANCES

For the workman

Sh.VijayKumar

Sh . G.C. Babbar

For the management:

AWARD

Passed on 28/9/2006 .

Central Govt. vide notification No. L- 40012/523/2000/ IR(DU) dated31-01-2000 has referred the following dispute tothis Tribunal for adjudication:

9649

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 18 , 2006/कार्तिक 27 , 1928

"Whether the action of the management of General Manager, Telecom , Amritsar in termination the services of Sh . Jaskiran Jadge S/ o Sh . Balbir Singh , isjust and legal ? Ifnot, to what relief the workman is entitled and from which date ?"

2. The case taken up in Lok Adalat at the request of the parties . The authorised representative of workman Shri Vijay Kuamr withdraw the present reference vide his statement recorded on 21-09-2006 . In view of the same , the present reference is returned as withdrawn in Lok Adalat . CentralGovt. be informed . File be consigned to record.

Chandigarh 28-09-2006 . RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 25 अक्तूबर , 2006

का.आ. 4436.- 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 , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 331/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25-10-06 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-40012/236/2001- आईआर( डीयू) ]

सुरेन्द्र सिंह, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi, the 25th October, 2006

S.O. 4436. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (ref. No. 331/2001 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court No. 1 , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Telecom Department and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 25-10-2006.

[No. L-40012/236/2001 - IR (DU ) ] SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT - I, CHANDIGARH

Case No. ID 331/2001

Sh. Kulwant Singh C/ o Sh. N.K. Jeet, Lal Singh Basti Road, Bhatinda(Pb .) .

.......Applicant

Versus 9650

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 18 , 2006/ KARTIKA 27 , 1928

1. The General Manager , Deptt. of Telecom. , Bhatinda (Punjab) 151001 .

........ Respondent

APPEARANCES

For the workman : Sh. Vijay Kumar

Sh . G.C. Babbar

For the management :

AWARD

Passed on 28/9/2006 .

Central Govt . vide notification No. L-40012/236/2001/ IR (DU ) dated 6-11-2001 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

"Whether the action of the management of General Manager , Telecom, Bhatinda in termination the services of Sh . Kulwant Singh S/o Sh . Babu Singh , is just and legal ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled and from which date ? "

2. The case taken up in Lok Adalat at the request of the parties . The authorised representative of workman Shri Vijay Kumar withdraw the present reference vide his statement recorded on 21-09-2006 . In view of the same , the present reference is returned as withdrawn in Lok Adalat . Central Govt . be informed . File be consigned to record .

RAJESH KUMAR , Presiding Officer Chandigarh 28-09-2006 .

नई दिल्ली, 25 अक्तूबर , 2006

का.आ. 4437.- 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 , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 13/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25-10-06 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-40012/270/2001- आई. आर. ( डी.यू) ]

सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 25th October , 2006

S.O. 4437. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 13/2002) of the Central Governinent Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, No.1 , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Telecom Department and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 25-10-2006.

[No. L-40012/270/2001 - IR(DU) ] SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, PRESIIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM - LABOUR COURT - 1 , CHANDIGARH,

Case No. ID 13/2002

Sh . Bhola Singh C/ o Sh . N.K. Jeet, Lal Singh Basti Road, Bhatinda (Pb .) 151001

...... Applicant

Versus

1. The General Manager , Deptt . of Telecom. , E- 10 B Building,Behind HPO, Bhatinda (Punjab) 151001 .

......Respondent

APPEARANCES

For the workman

Sh. Vijay Kumar

Sh . G.C. Babbar

For the management:

AWARD

Passed on 28/9/2006 .

Central Govt . vide notification No. L- 40012/270/2001 / IR (DU) dated 31-12-2001 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

"Whether the action of the management of General Manager, Telecom , Bhatinda in terminating the services of Sh . Bhola Singh S/o Sh . Nathu Singh , workman w.c.f. 1/3/99 is just and legal ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date?"

RAJESH KUMAR , Presiding Officer Chandigarh 28-09-2006 .

नई दिल्ली, 25 अक्तूबर , 2006

का.आ. 4438.- 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 मे केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय न. - 1 , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 15/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25-10-06 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-40012/271/2001- आईआर ( डीयू) ]

सुरेन्द्र सिंह, डैस्क अधिकारी [ भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

9651

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 18, 2006/कार्तिक 27 , 1928

New Delhi , the 25th October, 2006

S.O. 4438. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 15/2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court No.1 , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Telecom Department and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 25-10-2006 .

[No. L-40012/271 /2001 - IR(DU) ] SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT- I, CHANDIGARH.

Case No. ID 15/2002

Sh . Ram Dev C/ o Sh . N.K. Jeet , Lal Singh Basti Road , Bhatinda (Pb .) . 151001

नईदिल्ली, 25 अक्तूबर, 2006

का.आ. 4439,- 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 , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 107/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25-10-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

-[सं. एल-40012/ 18/2002- आई आर ( डी यू) ]

सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 25th October , 2006

....Applicant

Versus

1. The General Manager , Telecom Department, 32. GardenRoad Sadar Bazar, Agra (U.P. ) 282001

2. The General Manager , Telecom . , E- 10 B Building, Behind HPO , Bhatinda (Punjab) 151001

S.O. 4439. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 107/ 2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court No.1 , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Telecom Department and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 25-10-2006 .

[No. L-40012/18/2002 - IR(DU ) ] SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

.....Respondent

APPEARANCES

Forthe workman : Sh.VijayKumar

Sh . G.C. Babbar

For the management:

AWARD

Passed on 28-9-2006

Central Govt. vide notification No. L- 40012/271/2001/ IR(DU) dated 31-12-2001 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of the management of General Manager , Telecom, Bhatinda ini terminating the services of Sh . Ram Dev S/o Sh . Ram Asre , workman w.e.f. 1-3-99 is just and legal ? If not, to what relief the, workman is entitled to and from which date?" 2. The case taken up in Lok Adalat at the request of the parties . The authorised representative of workman Shri Vijay Kuamr withdraw the present reference vide his statement recorded on 21-09-2006 . In view of the same, the present reference is returned as withdrawn in Lok Adalat . Central Govt.be informed . File be consigned to record,

RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer Chandigarh 28-09-2006.

BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT- I, CHANDIGARH.

Case No. ID 107/2002

Sh. Gurmail Singh S/o Sh. Balour Singh , VPO Saldoke , Tehsil Nihal Singh Wala, Moga.

...Applicant

Versus

1. The General Manager , Deptt. of Telecom. , Ferozepur

...Respondent APPEARANCES

Forthe workman

Sh. VijayKumar

Forthe management: Ms. Deepali Puri

AWARD

Passed on 28-9-2006

Central Govt. vide notification No. L-40012/ 18/2002- IR(DU) dated 7-06-2002 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the workman Sh . Gurnail Singh has worked withSDE(G) , Nihal Singh Wala, Moga? If so, whether the action of the management of General Manager , 9652

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 18 , 2006/KARTIKA 27 , 1928

Telecom, Ferozepur in termination the services at Sh. Gurnail Singh S/o Sh . Balour Singh worker w.e.f. 23-06-2001 is just and legal ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date?" 2. The case taken up in Lok Adalat at the request of the parties. The authorised representative of workman Shri Vijay Kuamr withdraw the present reference vide his statement recorded on 21-09-2006. In view of the same, the present reference is returned as withdrawn in Lok Adalat. Central Govt.be informed . File be consigned to record.

RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer Chandigarh 28-09-2006.

नई दिल्ली, 25 अक्तूबर, 2006

का.आ. 4440.- 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. - 1 , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 109/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25-10-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-40012/ 16/2002- आई आर ( डी यू) ]

सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 25th October, 2006

S.O. 4440.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 109/ 2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court No. 1 , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Telecom Department and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on25-10-2006.

[No. L-40012/16/2002- IR(DU) ]

SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR.COURT- L, CHANDIGARH.

Case No. ID 109/2002

Sh. Harwinder Singh S/o Sh. Sadhu Singh , VPO Madhe Ke , Tehsil Nihal Singh Wala, Moga.

...Applicant

Versus

1. The General Manager , Deptt. of Telecom. , BSNL , Ferozepur

Respondent

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

For the workman : Sh.VijayKumar

For the management: Ms.DeepaliPuri

AWARD

Passed on 28-9-2006

CentralGovt. vide notification No. L -40012/16/2002/ IR(DU) dated 5-06-2002 has referred the followingdispute tothis Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the workman Sh. Gurnail Singh has worked with SDE(G), Nihal Singh Wala, Moga? If so,whether the action of the management of General Manager , Telecom, Ferozepur in termination the services of Sh. Harwinder Singh S/ o Sh. Sadhu Singh worker w.c.f. 23-06-2001 is just and legal ? If not, to what reliefthe workman is entitled to and from which date ?" 2. The case taken up in Lok Adalat at the request of theparties .The authorised representative of workman Shri Vijay Kuamr withdraw the present reference vide his statement recorded on 21-09-2006. In view of the same, the present reference is returned as withdrawn in Lok Adalat . Central Govt.be informed. File be consigned to record.

RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

Chandigarh 28-09-2006.

नईदिल्ली, 25 अक्तूबर, 2006

का.आ. 4441.- 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 , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 309/2004) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25-10-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-40012/61/2004- आई आर (डी बू) ]

सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डैस्क अधिकारी NewDelhi, the 25th October , 2006

S.O. 4441.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 309/ 2004) of theCentral Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court No.1 , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Telecom Department and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on25-10-2006.

[No. L-40012/61 /2004-IR (DU) ] SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer 9653 [ भाग - खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 18, 2006/कार्तिक 27 , 1928

ANNEXURE

(संदर्भ संख्या 11/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25-10-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-40012/126/2004- आई आर ( डी. यू. ) ]

सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डैस्कअधिकारी BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM- LABOUR COURT- L, CHANDIGARH

New Delhi , the 25th October , 2006 CaseNo. ID309/2004

Sh. Tarsem Singh S/o Sh . Pal Singh Village & P.O. Khowali, Tehsil Ajrnala, Ram Tirath Road, Amritsar (Pb.).

...Applicant

Versus

1. TheGeneral Manager , Telecom. , BSNL , Deptt. of Telecom, Ranjit Avenue , Amritsar(Punjab)

S.O. 4442.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 11 / 2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court No. 1, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure inthe Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Telecom Department and their workman,which was received by the Central Governtment on25-10-2006.

[No. L-40012/126/2004- IR (DU) ]

Respondent

SURENDRA SINGH , Desk Officer APPEARANCES:

ANNEXURE

For the workman : Sh.VijayKumar

Sh. G.C. Babbar

Forthe management :

BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, FENDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM-LABOUR COURT- L, AWARD

CHANDIGAREL

Passed on 28-9-2006

CaseNo. I.D. 11/2005

Sh. Sanjeev Kumar S/o Sh . Baldev Raj Village & Post Office, NHRU Naggal ,

CentralGovt. vide notification No. L-40012/61/2004/ IR(DU) dated8-11-2004has referred the following dispute tothis Tribunal for adjudication:

Distt.Hoshiarpur(Pb .) Hoshiarpur .

Applicant

Versus

1.TheGeneralManager ,Telecom, Telecom, Hoshiarpur (Punjab)

"Whether the action of the management of BSNL, Amritsar in termination the services of Sh. Tarsem Singh S/o Sh. Pal Singh, Ex-Labour w.c.f. 28-02-1999 is legal andjustified ? Ifnot, towhat relief theworkanen is entitled and from which date?"

Respondent

APPEARANCES

For theworkman:

Sh. Vijay Kumar

Ms.Deepali Puri

Forthe management:

AWARD

2.The case taken up in Lok Adalat at the request of the parties. The authorised representative ofworkma Shri Vijay Kuamr withdraw the present refcranon vide his statement recorded on 21-09-2006. In view of the sause, the present reference is returned as withdrawn in Lek Adalat . CentralGovt.be informed. File be consigned to record.

Passed on 28-9-2006

RAJESH KUMAR, PresidingOfficer

Chandigarh 28-09-2006

Central Government vide notification No. L -40012/ 126/2004 IR (DU ) dated 4-1-2005has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

नई दिल्ली, 25 अक्तूबर , 2006

"Whether the action of the management of the GMTD, BSNL, Hoshiarpur in termination the services of Sanjeev Kumar S/o Sh. Baldev Raj without complying with the provisions of the ID Act , 1947 w.e.f. 28-2-1999 is just and legal? Ifnot, to what relief Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, Cable Jointer Telephone का.आ. 4442- 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, चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट 9654

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 18 , 2006/KARTIKA 27 , 1928

Exchange , GMTD , Hoshiarpur is entitled to and from which date ? "

2.The case taken up in Lok Adalat at the request of the parties . The authorised representative of workman Shri Vijay Kumar withdraw the present reference vide his statement recorded on 21-9-2006 . In view of the same , the present reference is returned as withdrawn in Lok Adalat . Central Government be informed . File be consigned to record.

Chandigarh 28-09-2006.

RAJESH KUMAR , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 25 अक्तूबर , 2006

का.आ 4443. - 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 मे केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , नं.- I चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 329/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25-10-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-40012/233/2001- आई आर ( डी. यू. ) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi, the 25th October , 2006

S.O. 4443. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 329/ 2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court, No. 1 , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Telecom Department and their workman,which was received by the Central Governtment on 25-10-2006.

[No. L-40012/233/2001 - IR (DU) ]

SURENDRA SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT- 1 , CHANDIGARH.

Case No. I.D. 329/2001

Sh. Rakesh Kumar C/o Sh . N. K. Jeet, Lal Singh Basti Road , Bhatinda (Pb) 1

Applicant

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

Versus

1. The General Manager,Telecom, Bhatinda (Punjab)151001

Respondent APPEARANCES

Forthe workman:

Sh. Vijay Kumar Sh . G.C. Babbar

Forthe management;

AWARD Passed on 28-9-2006

Central Government vide notification No. L - 40012/ 233/2001 /IR (D.U) dated6-11-2001 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of the management of General Manager, Telecom Bhatinda in terminating the services of Sh . Rakesh Kumar S / o Sh . Chuni Lal is just and legal ? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date ? "

2. The case taken up in Lok Adalat at the request of the parties . The authorised representative of workman Shri Vijay Kumar withdraw the present reference vide his statement recorded on 21-9-2006 . In view of the same , the present reference is returned as withdrawn in Lok Adalat . Central Government be informed . File be consigned to record.

Chandigarh. 28-09-2006.

RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 25 अक्तूबर , 2006

का.आ.4444.- 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 मे केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , बंगलौर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 2 , 3 एण्ड 4/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25-10-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-40012/387/99- आई. आर. ( डी. यू) ] [सं. एल-40012/388/99- आई. आर. (डी. यू. ) ] [सं. एल -40012/389/99-आई. आर. ( डी. यू ) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi, the 25th October , 2006

S.O. 4444. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref . No. 2 , 3 , & 4/2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- [भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

9655

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 18 , 2006/कार्तिक 27, 1928

cum-Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Telecom Department and their workman,which was received by the Central Government on 25-10-2006.

[No. L-40012/387/ 99 - IR (DU)]

[No. L-40012/388/99 - IR(DU)]

[No. L-40012/389/99- IR (DU)]

SURENDRA SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE-

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM - LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE- 560022

Dated: 10th October 2006

PRESENT :

SHRI A.R. SIDDIQUI , PresidingOfficer

C.R. No. 2/2002

IPARTY

IIPARTY

The District

Shri M. Krishnappa , S/o Manivenketappa, Thaylur Post , Mulbagal Taluk, KOLAR-571440

TelecomManager , TelecomDepartment , KolarDistrict, KOLAR-571440.

C. R. No. 3/2002

IIPARTY

IPARTY

The District Telecom Shri Shivanna,;

Manager,

Telecom Departinent, Kolar District, KOLAR-571440

S/o Chinappa, Thaylur Post , Mulbagal Taluk , KOLAR-571440

C. R. No. 4/2002

II PARTY

IPARTY

The District

Shri C.V. Venkataramappa,

Telecom Manager ,.

Thaylur Post, Mulbagal Taluk ,

S/o Venkateshappa, KOLAR- 571440

Telecom Department, KolarDistrict, KOLAR - 571440

COMMON AWARD

シ 1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub - section 2A of the 3520 GI/2006-26

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred. thesedisputes vide Order No. L-40012 /387/99 - IR(DU) , NC) . L40012/388/99- IR(DU) & No. L-40012/389/99 - IR (DU) dated 2nd January 2002 for adjudication on the following schedule:...

SCHEDULE (CR No 2/02)

"Whether the action of the management ofDistrict Telecom Engineer , Kolar in terminating the services oftheir workman Shri M. Krishnappa from July 1987 is legal and justified? If not , to what reliefthe workman isentitled?"

SCHEDULE (CR No 3/02)

"Whether the action of the management of District TelecomEngineer, Kolár in terminating the services oftheir workman Shri C. Shivanna from July 1987 is legal andjustified? Ifnot, towhat reliefthe workman isentitled?"

SCHEDULE (CRNo42/02).

" Whether the action of the management ofDistrict Telecom Engineer , Kolar in terminating the services oftheir workman Shri C. V. Venkataramappa from July 1987 is legal and justified ? If not , to what reliefthe workman is entitled?"

2. The facts and point of law being common and the management being the party in all these 3 cases , they are taken together for disposal by common award for the purpose of convenience and to avoid overlapping of the decisions to be made in these cases!

3. The common grounds urged in the Claim statements, by way of documentary and oral evidence and the defence taken by the first party workmen in the cross examination of the management witnesses are that all of them had been working with the management joining their services of the Telecom Department at Kolar in the year 1985 as a Casual Labourers and worked there on Muster Roll till July 1987 and it is from the month of July 1987 onwards they have been refused work under the muster.. roll . Thereupon they were forced to work under permanent employee and were being paid through bills under ACJ account at the rate of Rs . 280 per month; that the payment through ACJ was also stopped from the year 1994 onwards to avoid documentary evidence showing the payment and it is since 1997 the workman in CR No. 2/02 has been working under the Lineman , Kaveriyappa at Thayalur , Mulabagal Taluk executing the work oftelecom department being paid Rs . 600 monthly by the said Lineman , Kaveriyappa through the bills in turn being reimbursed by the department to the Lineman ; that the workman in CR No. 3/02. has been working since 1996 under the said Lineman , Shri Narasimappa and he is being paid Rs . 600 [PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii)) 9656

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 18 , 2006/ KARTIKA27, 1928

eligible for consideration and confirmation of temporary status and since the first party workmen have not fulfilled the above said conditions , their cases have not been considered; that this policy decision announced and adopted by the management to consider the cases of those who satisfied the above said conditions and those who had satisfied and fulfilled those conditions have been confirmed without any exception ; that the department of TelecomACJ serves the purpose of receipt for the payment made them& there for the auto fare paid to the auto driver and therefore, such payment: cannot be compared with the payment made to the workers working under the muster roll , which shows the particulars with regared to the payment, the period of the work and the nature of the work carried out by the workers . Therefore , there has been no violation ofArticle 21 of the Constitution of India or the violationofdecision of their Lordship of Supreme Court in the circulars issued and the Scheme formulated the management for the purpose of regularizing the services of the casual labourers . The management contended that since the first party workmen were working as casual labourers to do a particular work and after completion of such particular work, they have been relieved from their duties and therefore, there cannot be any violation of the provisions ofSection 25F, H & H of the ID Act as contended by the workmen.

monthly through the bills by the said lineman; that the workman in CR No. 4/02 has been working under the lineman, Shri Kaveriyappa being paid Rs . 600/- per month through bills. The workmen then contended that they have been agitating for giving work under muster roll & for regularizing their services and give them the benefits, of permanent einployee since long, as the grievances of casual enployees in the telecom department were consideredby the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in several cases holding that a casual employee who completed 240 days service continuously is entitled for regularization ; that the workmen also worked continuously for a period of 240 days and more butdenied work under the muster rolls with an ulterior motive to prevent them from getting their services regularized. Their grievances were raised individually and through the union to take them back on duty on muster roll and to confer them with ' temporary status ' on par with the casual mazdoors have not been met by the management despite their efforts and therefore, the action of the management in not doing so is illegal, arbitrary and violative ofrights guaranteed under the constitution ; that they were entitledtobe conferred, with the ' temporary status' in the light ofthe circular of the year 1989 at Ex . W1 followedby the Circular of the year 1990 at Ex . W2 and the Circular at Ex . W3 and the Circular at Ex . M1 of the year 1993 relied upon by the management is not applicable to their case; that the action of the management in terminating the services of the first party workmen refusing work to them is again against the provisions of Section 25F, G &H of the ID Act . They further contended that the work they were carrying out of digging for laying the telephone cable , of telephone repairs and their maintenance and installation still continues being permanent in nature and therefore, the management was not justified in terminating from services and not conferring them with temporary status and then not regularizing their services . Therefore , they requested this tribunal to direct the management to take back them in service by giving them work on muster roll , conferring ' temporary status ' and regularizing their services .

4. The case of the management as made out in the Counter Statements in respect of all the three workmen in brief is that they have worked as a casual labourers from 1-4-1986 to 30-6-1987 with breaks in between i.e. 240days in the year 1986 and 169 days in the year 1987. While denying the contentions of the first party workmen that their services have been refused under muster roll subsequent to July 1987 with an ulterior motive not to regularize them in services , the management contended that it has acted upon the DOT letter No. 269/4/93/STN- II dated 7-12-1993 (marked at Ex . MI) which says that casual mazdoors who were engaged in the Circles during the period from 31-3-1985 to 22-6-1988 and who were continuing as workers in the circles as on 17-12-1993 and who were not absent for more than 365 days as on 17-12-1993 were only

5.The management in support of the defence taken by it examined one witness as MWI common in all the three cases and got marked one document namely, the above said Circular at Ex. M1 . In his examination chief as far as first party workman in CR No. 2/02 , he stated that he worked as a casual worker between 10-8-1985 to 30-9-1986 and from 1-11-1986 to31-12-1986 intermittently. With respect to workman in CR No. 3/02 , he says that he worked as a casual worker between 1-9-1985 to 30-6-1987 for 233 days intermittently and with regard to the workman in CR No. 4/02he stated that he also worked for a period of 233 days intermittenlty between 1-9-1985 to 30-6-1986 . He then stated that casual worker will be paid on MR payment basis based on the workingdays at the end of the month and workinen werebeing paid likewise . They were being engaged as and when work was available by temporary basis and the Linemen have got the authority to employ them as casual workers for petty work and pay the wages and that the work which was being discharged by the workmen is not now in existence . Then he referred to the circular issued in the month ofDecember 1993 at Ex. M1 to say that it was in respect to confer temporary status and to regularize the services of casual workers and that conditions have not been fulfilledby the first party workment . He also stated there was a total ban to engage casual workers from 31-3-1985 onwards . In his last sentence he stated that their department has got powers to regularize the services of the casual workers as per the conditions shown in Ex . MI and theyhave not terminated the services of the first party 9637 [ भाग II- खण्ड ( ⅲ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र पर 18, 2006 कार्तिक 27 , 1928

at Ex. W9 series. The workman in CR No/4/02 produood two witnesses by name Shri Narayanaswamy and Shri P Ashok as WW2 & WW3 stating to the fact that he was attending to the installation work, maintenance otc. ander the lineman Shri Kaverappa and they produced telophone bills at Ex. W8 & 9 respectively. In the common cross examination of all the above said telephone consumers, it was clicited that they have not received notice from the telephonedepartment of sending the first party workmen for installation and they have no basis to show that they were only attending to their telephone instruments whenever there was any trouble .

workmen. In his cross examination it was elicited that tho above said circular at Ex.M1 is an extension to the Scheme Casual labourers grant of temporary status and regularization, 1989 vide Ex. Wl and he admitted that as per the said scheme a casual worker working continuously for240 days in a calendar year from the date ofhis joining onMusterRolls will be entitled to his service regularization and temporary status . It was also elicited that circulardated 19-12-1990 at Ex. W2 isby way of clarification given about the said schemeandCirculas at Ex . W3 is withrangard to the procedure as to how break in service to be condoned. He admitted that the workers were being paid under the head ACJ for having carried out the work of digging, cable laying, crectionofpoles and giving new lines to the connections and their signatures will be taken for payment accounting towards the department and that ACI payment/bills are continued even after 1994. He denied the suggestion that they have stopped work of the first party workmen on accountof the ban and that the first party workmen did not abandon their services on their own.

8. Learned Counsel Smt . Shantha Chellappawho is representing the workmen in all these 3 cases submitted herwritten arguments. Whoreas , learned counsel Shri MICR representing the management was not available when the matter was taken up for arguments finally. Arguments of learned counsel for the first party workmen are that despite the refusal of work to the workmes under muster roll from July, 1987 onwards, the first party workmen have been carrying out the telecom work like digging etc. under the permanent lineman, Shri Kaverappa, Narasimhappaand Shanker Roddy and they are being paid under the head ACIAccount and are being issued bills accordingly and the first party in this way have boon working all along and therefore , they were entitled to be conferrod with "temporary status " and regularisation of their services as por the circulars/ letters at Ex. WitoW3 and the circular at Ex. Ml issued in the year 1993 relied upon by the management is not applicable to the case of the workmon. She took support of the oral testimony of the workmen corroborated by the statements of Telecom consumers examined on their behalf speaking to the fact that the workmen were working under the aforesaid permanent line- men carrying out the work of installations, now connections, digging , cable laying and attending request to the installation etc.

6. The first party workmen in all the 3 cases have filed their affidavit evidence and in their further examination chiefhave got marked documents at Ex. W4 to W6 apart from documents at Ex . W1to W3 got markod during the course of cross examination of MW1 (Those are all the documents common in all the three cases) . In their examination chief they have just repeated the various averments made by them in their Claim Statesment . In their cross examination (common in all), it was elicited that no appointment order was issued to them as a casual mazdoor and that they have not worked continuously with the management between 1985 to 1987 and that their names do not find place on muster roll and that the work they were discharging is now not in existence . They denied the suggestion that documents Ex. W4&5 are createdoneand that they have not worked contimiously for a period of240 days andmore and that their claims were false .

9. Inorder to appreciate the arguments advanced for the first party workmen, in the first instance , Iwould liketo cometo the aforesaid 3 circularsAetters at Ex. W1 to W3 . As per the circular ictter at Ex. WI , which comes intoeffect on 1-10-1989, casual labourers who were found ongaged as on 1-10-1989 and had rondered a continuous service of atleast one year should have been given temporary status to be absorbed in Group 'D' subsequently after regularization . The condition procedent was that those casual labourers should have been ongaged after 30-3-1985 andwere contimed to be engaged up till 22-6- 1988. Thecircular at Ex. W2 came to be issued in the year 1990 to the effect that the camual labourers who wore engaged prior to 30-3-1985 and was not qualified for temporary status in accordance with Para 5.1 ofthe Casual Labourers (grant of temporary status and regularization) Scheme (Ex. W1) chated 1-10-1989will alsobecome oligible 7. InCR No. 2/02 two witnesses, as WW2 & 3 have filedtheir affidavit evidence on behalf of the first party workmen speaking to the fact that the first party workman was working under the Linerman, Shri Kavesappa and assisting him for installation of the telephone instruments and giving connections and his installation has also given by said Kaverappa and that the first party workman was working under said Kaverappa. To prove that they held telephone connections, they produced telephone bells at Ex. W7 & 8. For workman in CR No. 3/02 Shri Venkateshappa and Venkateswamywore examined as WW2 &WW3.speaking to the fact that the workman in this case was working under lineman Shri Narasimhappa , who installed the telephone instruments of himself andhis daughterand it is theywho were attending to the repairs to the installation whenever noeded. He also produced the telephonebills in his name and in the name of his daughter 9658

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 18 , 2006/KARTIKA 27, 1928

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)] for such a status subsequently on completion of period of duty of240 days (206 days in the case of offices observing 5 days a week) during the preceding 12 calendar months and their status shall be given retrospective effect not earlier than 1-10-1989 . A circular/letter dated 24-2-1992 at Ex . W3 came to be issued to the effect that any Mazdoor having a continuous break of more than 12 months (after 30-3-1985) his break in service should have been duly condoned as per rules i.e. six months can be condoned for Mazdoor and 12 months for non availability of work. Now, comes the circular/letter at Ex . M1 dated 1-12-1993 reading to the effect that all those casual Mazdoors who were engaged by the Circles during the period from 31-3-1985 to 22-6-1988 and who were still continuing for such works in the circles were they were initially engaged and who were not absent for the last more than 365 days counting from the date of issue of this order can be brought under the scheme dated 1-10-1989 (Ex . W2) . Now , therefore , in the light of the first 3 circulars /letters at Ex. W1 to W3 , learned counsel wanted to say that the case of the workmen come under the ambit of those circular/ letters as they were undisputedly in the services of the management on muster roll between 31-3-1985 and 22-6-1988 and they were very much in the service of the management as on 1-10-1989 working under the permanent linemen being paid against ACJ account which payment in fact was being reimbursed to the lineman by the management . Her further contention is that even otherwise , Ex. M1 , circular of the year 1993 as admitted by the management witness was in extension of the scheme dated 1-10-1989 and since as on 1993 also the firstparty workmen were rendering their services through permanent linemen they should have been brought under the said scheme being conferred with temporary status and then their services through permanent linemen they should have been brought under the said scheme being conferred with temporary status and then their services could have been regularized as per the said scheme .

10. The fact that the first party workmen were rendering the services of casual Mazdoor between 31-3-1985 and 22-6-1988 is not disputed and cannot be disputed as in the very admissions made by the management in the Counter statement as well as in the evidence ofMWI the first party workmen were in the service ofthemanagement between September/October , 1985 and July, 1987 .

11. Now , the only question to be considered would be whether the first party workmen were in the service of the management as on 1-10-1989 vide Ex . W1 or on 1-12- 1993 vide Ex . Ml so as to claim the benefit of the said scheme . Of course in the oral evidence or the aforesaid telecom consumers couples with the oral testimony of the first party workmen and the telephone bills produced, it has been tried to be established that these workmen were working under the permanent linemen namely, Kaverappa,

Narasimhappa and Shanker Reddy . MW1 in his cross examination was to admit that said Kaverappa was the lineman at the relevant point of time but he was not sure about the said Narasimhappa . It is the case of the first partyworkmen themselves that they were being paid wages by these permanent linemen under the bills being issued against ACJ account . Now, therefore, question arises as to whether services rendered by the first party workmen under the said permanent lineman could be construed to be the services rendered by them under the management itself. I am afraid such a construction would be hazardous . It is not in dispute that the payment against the ACJ account through bills was meant towards auto services to the auto driver and it was rightly contended for the management that services rendered against ACJ account cannot be compared with the services rendered by the workers being on muster roll . That apart , the first party workmen in their Claim Statement as well as in their evidence except to say that after they were refused work by the management subsequent to July, 1987 they had been working under permanent linemen and it is subsequent to 1994 payment through ACJ also stopped and that from 1997 onwards they have been working under said Shri Kaverappa and Narasimhappa. Therefore , for the period in between 1987 and 1999 , there is absolutely no case made out by the first party workmen as to under whom rather under which permanent lineman they were atleast working against ACJ Account being paid từ "ough bills . Even , assuming for a moment that payment against ACJ account was stopped by the management subsequent to 1994 then again there is averymuch vaccum created for the period in between July, 1987 and the year 1994. Therefore , we have absolutely no evidence before this tribunal on behalf of the first party workmen to suggest that as on 1-10-1989 when the above said scheme conferring temporary status and regularization of services came into effect , they were under the services of the management directly. There is again no material on record to suggest that as on 1-12-1993 they were in the services of the management as casual mazdoors so as to drive the benefit arising out of the above said two circulars . The first party workmern will be entitled to the benefits under the aforesaid two circulars only in case they were working as Casual mazdoors having continuous service of 240 days and more in any calendar year and not on the ground that services rendered by them under the permanent lineman subsequent to July, 1987 be taken to be the services rendered by them under the management . It might be that as argued for the first party workmen, the management adopted tactics of taking work from the workmen through permanent linemen not under the muster roll in order to see that they do not get benefits of regularization of their services but taking shelter under that the first party cannot be taken to be the employees of the management so as to get benefit under the above said two circulars . In fact , as has come on record , there were instructions issued to stop the fresh recruitments and 9659 [भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 18 , 2006/कार्तिक 27 , 1928

from the records and in the very admissions of the management , the first party workmen were under the employment ofthe management from 1-8-1985 to 30-9-1986 and from 1-11-1986 to 31-12-1986 in the case ofworkman in CRNo. 2/02 and in the case of workmen in CR No. 3/02 & CR 4/02 they were in the service of the management from 10-9-1985 to 30-6-1987 for 233 days intermittently. The management has not produced any material before this Tribunal to suggest that the first party did not work continuously for240 days immediately preceding the refusal ofwork to the workmen . When undisputedly , the first party workmenwere in the service ofthe management for a period ofmore than 12 months earlier to July 1987 or earlier to 31- 12-1986 as the case may be, It was the bounden duty ofthe management to produce some evidence before this Tribunal to justify their case that first party workmen have not worked continuously for 240 days or more in a particular calendar year particularly, when MWI in his cross examination admitted that the copies of the muster. rolls showing the number of days worked will be with the workmen and the original muster rolls are available in the office of the management . The muster rolls copies produced by the first party workmen make it abundantly clear that they have worked for 240 days and more continuously before their services were refused by the management under the muster roll . Therefore, it is a clear cut case of retrenchment defined under Section 2 (oo ) of the ID Act. Therefore, the first party workmen must be held to be entitled to the benefits arising out of Section 25F (a&b) of the ID Act, their termination being in violation of the abovesaid section . However, they cannot be given the relief of reinstatement first of all on the ground that they have not asked for the said relief and secondly for the reason that they have not claimed such a relief either immediately or during any reasonable period subsequent to the refusal of work to them from July 1987 onwards . Therefore , it must be presumed that the dispute with regard to the termination was not all existing as on the date they have raised the present dispute in the year 2002. It must also be presumed that they have given up their right of reinstatement when they started working under the so called permanent linemen without challenging the action of the management in terminating their services . Accordingly, the references are answered and following award is passed.

AWARD

employment of casual labourers for any type of work in telecom circles from 30-3-1985 onwards . It might be that under the grab of the said instruction not only the management stopped engaging fresh casual labourers after 30-3-1985 but also discontinued the services of the first. party workmen as they were engaged as casual labourers. subsequent to 30-3-1985 . Assuming for a moment that there has been contravention of the aforesaid instructions and circulars/ letters issued by the department at Ex . W1 to W3 in not extending the benefits of the scheme at Ex . W1 to the first party workmen , the only proper course for the first party workmen available was to have challenged the action of the management at appropriate time. They did not challenge the action of the management in refusing services to them under muster roll subsequent to July, 1987. They did not challenge the action of the management in not extending them benefits of the scheme at Ex. W1 and they also did not challenge the circular at Ex . M1 agitating their rights to get the benefits available under the aforesaid circulars at Ex . W1 and Ex . Ml. at any point of time . According to them they keep working under the permanent linemen for about a period of more than 10 years without staking their claim under the above state scheme or challenging the action of the management refusing their services on muster roll . Therefore , it is too late in the day for the workmen now to ascert their rights seeking benefits under the above said scheme of the year 1989. Therefore , in the light of the above , this tribunal has no hesitation in its mind to come to the conclusion that services if any, rendered hy the first party workmen as casual workers under the so called permanent linemen cannot be equated with the services rendered by them under the management so as to be bestowed with the benefits arising out of the aforesaid circulars at Ex. W1 & M1 . The circulars/ letters at Ex. W 2 & 3 would not come in the way of the first party workmen in getting the benefits under Circulars at Ex. W1 &M1 had they established before this tribunal that they were in the direct employment of the management as on 1-10-1989 or as on 1-12-1993 , Since in their own words that they have carried out the work of digging, installations of telephone instruments and attending repairs etc. against the ACJ account working under the permanent linemen and were being paid through bills against the said ACJ account which payment cannot be equated to the payment of wages to them working under muster roll as casual mazdoor they cannot stake their claim seeking benefits. arising out of Circulars at Ex . W1 amd Ml . Further more, for such reliefs cannot be , maintained in these proceedings , they being beyond the scope of reference schedules confined to alleged illegal termination..

The management is directed to pay retrenchment compensation to the first party workmen as provided under Section 25F (a&b ) ofthe ID Act. The references ofthe first party for any relief apart 'from the compensation under Section 25F (a& b ) are rejected. Copy of the award be kept in CR No. 3/02 & CR No. 4/02 respectively . No costs .

A.R. SIDDIQUI , Presiding Officer 12. Now coming to the question of their alleged termination of services from muster roll from July, 1987 onwards , undisputedly the management has not complied with the provisions of Section 25 F of the ID Act while refusing them work under muster roll. As could be seen 9660

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 18, 2006/KARTIKA 27 , 1928

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ] नई दिल्ली, 25 अक्तूबर, 2006

का. आ. 4445. 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 , बैंगलौर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 1/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25-10-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-40012/294/1999- आई आर (डीयू) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह, डैस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 25th October , 2006

S.O. 4445. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 1/2000 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court . Bangalore now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Telecom Department and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 25-10-2006 .

[No. L -40012/ 294/ 1999 - IR (DU) ] SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Dated: 10th October 2006

PRESENT

Shri A. R. Siddiqui , Presiding Officer

C. R. No. 1/2000

I PARTY

II PARTY

Shri A. V. Ramesh ,

Telecom Department,

TheDistrict TelecomManager, KolarDistrict, KOLAR- 563 101

Mulabagal Taluk,

S/ oVenkataramappa Avani . KOLAR- 563 101

AWARD

2. The grounds urged in the Claim Statement , by way of documentary and oral evidence and the defence taken by the first party in the cross - examination of the management witness is that he had been working with the management joining the services of the Telecom Department atKolar in the year 1985 as a Casual Labour and worked there on Muster Roll till July 1987 and it is from the month ofJuly 1987 onwards he has been refused work under the muster roll . Thereupon , he was forced to work under permanent employee and was being paid through bills under ACJ account at the rate of Rs . 280 per month ; that the payment through ACJ was also stopped from the year 1994 onwards to avoid documentary evidence showing the payment and it is since 1997 , he has been working under the Lineman , Chellapathy executing the work of telecom departmentbeing paid Rs. 600 monthly by the said Lineman , Shri Chellapathy through the bills in turn being reimbursed by the department to the Lineman . The workman then contended that he has been agitating for giving work under muster roll and for regularizing their services and give them the benefits of permanent employee since long , as the grievances of casual employees in the telecom department were considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in several cases holding that a casual employee who completed 240 days service continuously is entitled for regularization; that the workman also worked continuously for a period of 240 days and more but denied work under the muster roll with an ulterior motive to prevent him from getting his services regularized. His grievance was raised individually and through the union to take him back on dutyonmuster roll and to confer him with ' temporary status' onpar with the casual mazdoors have not been met by the management despite their efforts and therefore , the action. ofthe management in not doing so is illegal , arbitrary and violative of rights guaranteed under the constitution; that he was entitled to be conferred with the temporary status' inthe light ofthe circular of the year 1989 at Ex. W1 followed by the Circular of the year 1990 at Ex . W2 and the Circular atEx . W3 and the Circular at Ex . Ml of the year 1993 relied upon by the management is not applicable to his case . Therefore , he requested this tribunal to direct the management to take back him in service by giving him work on muster roll , conferring ' temporary status ' and regularizing their services .

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferredby clause ( d ) of sub- section 2A of Section 110 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 has referred these disputes vide order No. L-40012/294/ 1999 - IR (DU ) dated 16th December, 1999 for adjudication on the following schedule:

SCHEDULE

"Whether Shri A. V. Ramesh, former Casual Labourer of Telecom Department , Kolar, is eligible for conferment oftemporary status ? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled ?"

3. The case of the management as made out in the Counter Statement, in brief, is that he had worked as a casual labourer from 1-4-1986 to 30-6-1987 with breaks in between i.e. 240 days in the year 1986 and 169 days in the year 1987. While denying the contentions of the first party workman that his services have been refused under muster roll subsequent to July 1987 with an ulterior motive not to regularize him in services , the management contended that ithas acted upon the DOT letter No. 269 /4 /93 / STN - II dated 7-12-1993 ( marked at Ex. MI ) which says that casual mazdoors who were engaged in the Circles during the period 9661 [ भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: नवम्बर 18, 2006 / कार्तिक 27, 1928

procedure as to how break inservice to be condoned He admitted that the workers were being paid under the head ACJ for having carried out the work of digging, cable laying, erection of poles and giving new lines to the connections and their signatures willbe tallen for payment accounting towards the department and the ACJ payment bills are continued even after 1994. He denied the suggestion that they have stopped work of the first party workman on account of the ban and that the first party workman did not abandon his services on his own.

from 31-3-1985 to 22-6-1988 and who were continuing as workers in the circles as on 17-12-1993 andwhowere not absent for more than 365 days as on 17-12-1993 were only eligible for consideration and confirmation of' temporary status' and since the first party workman has not fulfilled the above said conditions , his case has not been considered; that this policy decision announced and adopted by the management to consider the cases ofthose who satisfied the above said conditions and those who had satisfied and fulfilled those conditions have been confirmed without any exception , that the department of Telecom ACJ serves the purpose of receipt for the payment made then and there for the auto fare paid to the auto driver and therefore , such payment cannotbe compared with the payment made to the workers working under the muster roll, which shows the particulars with regard to the payment, the period ofthe work and the nature of the work carried outby the workers . Therefore, there has beenno violation ofArticle 21 of the Constitution of India or the violation ofdecision of their Lordship of Supreme Court in the circulars issued and the Scheme formulated by the management for the purpose of regularizing the services of the casual labourers.

5. The first party workman has filed his affidavit evidance and in his further exam - in -chief has got marked documents at Ex. W4 to W6 apart from documents at Ex. W1 to W3 got marked during the course of cross- examination.of MW1. In his examination chief he hasjust repeated the various averments made by him in his Claim Statement . In his cross -examination, it was elicited thatno appointment order was issued to him as a casual mazdoor, he denied the suggestions that he has not worked continuously with the management between 1985 to 1987 and that his name does not find place on muster roll and that the work he was discharging is now not in existence. He denied the suggestion that documents Ex. W4 & W5 are created one and that he has not worked.continuously for a period of240days and mora and that his claim was false.

6. Onhis behalf two witnesses by name K. Rajanna and Shri Ramappa have been examined as WW2 & WW3 andin their further examination chief got marked documents at Ex. W5 to W8. In their affidavit they have spoken to the fact that the first party was working under the said permanent Lineman . Shri Chellapathy assisting him for installation of telephone instruments giving connections, attending repairs , installation etc. In their cross -examination itwas elicited that they have not received the notice from the telephone department of sending the first party workman for installation and he has no basis to show that he was only attending their telephone instruments whenever there was any trouble.

7. Learned Counsel Shri S A representing the workman submitted his written arguments so also learned counsel for the management: Arguments of learned.counsel for the first party workman are that despite the refusal of work to the workman under muster roil from July 1987 onwards, the first party workman has been carrying out the telecom work like digging etc. under the permanent lineman, Shri Chellapathy and he is being paid under the head ACJ Account and is being issued bills accordingly andthe first party in this way has been working all along and therefore , he was entitled to be conferred with "temporary status " and regularisation of his servicesas per the circulars/lettes at Ex. WI to W3 andthe circular at Ex. Ml issued in the year 1993 relied upon by the management is not applicable to the case of the workman. He took support of the oral testimony of the workman 4. The management in support of the defence taken by it examined one witness as MW1 and got marked one document namely, the above said Circular at Ex. Ml. In his examination chief, he stated that he worked as a casual worker between 1-4-1986 to 30-6-1987. He then stated that casual worker willbe paid on MR payment basis based on theworking days at the end of the month and workman was being paid likewise. He was being engaged as and when work was available by temporary basis and the Lineman have got the authority to employ him as casual worker for petty work and pay thewages and that the work which was being discharged by the workman is not now in existence. Then he referred to the circular issued in the month of December 1993 at Ex. Ml to say that it was in respect to confer temporary status and to regularize the services of casual workers and that conditions have not been fulfilled by the first party workman . He also stated there was a total ban to engage casual workers from 31-3-1985 onwards . In his last sentence he stated that their departmenthas got powers to regularize the services of the casualworkers as per the conditions shown in Ex. MI and they have not terminated the services ofthe first party workman . In his cross -examination it was elicited that the above said circularat Ex. MI is an extension to the Scheme , called Casual Labourers Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization, 1989 vide Ex. Wi and he admitted that as per the said scheme a casual worker working continuously for 240 days in a calendar year from the date of hisjoining on MusterRolls will be entitled tor his service regularization and temporary status . It was also elicited that circular dated 19-12-1990 at Ex . W2 is by way ofclarification given about the said scheme and Circular at Ex. W3 is with regard to the 9662

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: NOVEMBER 18, 2006/KARTIKA 27 , 1928

being conferredwith temporary status and then his services could have been regularized as per the said scheme.

corroborated by the statements of Telecom consumers examined on his behalf speaking to the fact that the workman was working under the aforesaid permanent line man carrying out the work of installations , new connections , digging, cable laying and attending request to the installation etc.

9. The fact that the first party workman was rendering the services of casual mazdoor between 31-3-1985 and 22-6-1988 is not disputed and cannot be disputed as in the very admissions made by the management in the Counter Statement as well as in the evidence of MW I the first party workman was in the service of the management between September/October 1985 and July 1987 .

8. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced for the first party workman, in the first instance , I would like to come to the aforesaid 3 circulars/letters at Ex. WI to W3 . As per the circular letter at Ex. WI , which comes into effect on 1-10-1989 , casual labourers who were found engaged as on 1-10-1989 and had rendered a continuous service of atleast one year should have been given temporary status to be absorbed in Group ' D ' subsequently after regularization . The condition precedent was that those casual labourers should have been engaged after 30-3-1985 and were continued to be engaged up till 22-6-1988 . The circular at Ex. W2 came to be issued in the year 1990 to the effect that the casual labourers who were engaged prior to 30-3-1985 and was not qualified for temporary status in accordance with Para 5.1 of the Casual Labourers (grant of temporary status and regularization ) Scheme (Ex . W1 ) dated 1-10-1989 will also become eligible for such a status subsequently on completion of period of duty of 240 days (206 days in the case of offices observing 5 days a week) during the preceding 12 calendar months and their status shall be given retrospective effect not earlier than 1-10-1989. A circular/letter dated 24-2-1992 at Ex. W3 came to be issued to the effect that any mazdoor having a continuous break of more than 12 months ( after 30-3-1985) his break in service should have been duly condoned as per rules i.e. six months can be condoned for Mazdoor and 12 months for non availability of work . Now, comes the circular /letter at Ex. MI dated 1-12-1993 reading to the effect that all those casual mazdoors who were engaged by the Circles during the period from 31-3-1985 to 22-6-1988 and who were still continuing for such works in the circles where they were initially engaged and who were not absent for the last more than 365 days counting from the date of issue of this order can be brought under the scheme dated 1-10-1989 (Ex . W2) . Now, therefore , in the light of the first 3 circulars / letters at Ex. WI to W3 , learned counsel wanted to say that the case of the workman comes under the ambit of those circular/ letters as he was undisputedly in the services of the management on muster roll between 31-3-1985 and 22-6-1988 and he was very much in the service of the management as on 1-10-1989 working under the permanent lineman being paid against ACJ account which payment in fact was being reimbursed to the lineman by the management . His further contention is that even otherwise. Ex . M1 , circular of the year 1993 as admitted by the management witness was the extension of the scheme dated 1-10-1989 and since as on 1993 also the first party workman was rendering his services through permanent lineman he should have been brought under the said scheme

10. Now, the only question to be considered would be whether the first party workman was in the service of the management as on 1-10-1989 vide Ex . WI or on 1-12-1993 vide Ex. M1 so as to claim the benefit of the said scheme . Of course , in the oral evidence of the aforesaid telecom consumers coupled with the oral testimony ofthe first party workman and the telephone bills produced, it has been tried to be established that the workman was workingunder the permanent lineman namely, Chellapathy. It is the case ofthe first party workman himself that he was being paid wages by the permanent lineman under the bills being issued against ACJ account. Now, therefore, question arises as to whether services rendered by the first party workman under the said permanent lineman could be construed to be the services rendered by him under the management itself. I am afraid such a construction would behazardous . It is not in dispute that the payment against the ACJ account through bills was meant towards auto services to the auto driver and it was rightly contended for the management that services rendered against ACJ account cannot be compared with the services rendered by the workers being on muster roll . 'That apart , the first party workman in his Claim Statement as well as in his evidence except to say that after he was refused work by the management subsequent to July 1987 he had been working under permanent lineman and it is subsequent to 1994 payment through ACJ also stopped and that from 1997 onwards he has been working under said Shri Chellapathy. Therefore , for the period in between 1987 and 1994 , there is absolutely no case made out by the first party workman as to under whom rather under which permanent lineman he was atleast working against ACJ Account being paid through bills . Even, assuming for a moment that payment against ACJ account was stopped by the management subsequent to 1994 then again there is avery much vacuum created for the period in between July 1987 and the year 1994. Therefore , we have absolutely no evidence before this tribunal on behalf of the first party workman to suggest that as on 1-10-1989 when the above said scheme conferring temporary status and regularization of services came into effect, they were under the services ofthe management, directly. There is again no material on recordto suggest that as on 1-12-1993 he was in the services of the management as casual mazdoor so as to derive the benefits arising out of the above said two circulars. The first party workman will be entitled to the benefits under [ भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

9663 भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 18, 2006/कार्तिक 27 , 19:28

casual mazdoors , he cannot stakehis claim seeking benefits arising out of Circulars at Exs . W1 and M1 .

11. Therefore, there cannot be any hesitation to come to the conclusion that the first party is not eligible for confirmation of temporary status and accordingly, the reference is answered and following award is passed.

AWARD

The Reference stands dismissed. No costs .

(Dictated to PA, transcribed by her corrected and signedby me on 10th October, 2006).

A. R. SIDDIQUI , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 25 अक्तूबर, 2006

का. आ. 4446.-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 औधोगिक निवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. - 1 , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 79/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25-10-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[ सं. एल-40012/403/1999- आई आर ( डीयू) ]

सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डैस्कअधिकारी

New Delhi , the 25th October, 2006

S.O. 4446.- in pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 79/2( (K ) ) ofthe CentralGovernment Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court . No. 1 , Chandigarlı as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the entployers' in relation to the management ofTelecom Department and their workman which was received by the Central Government on 25-10-2006 .

[No. L -40012/403 / 1999- IR (DU) ] SURENDRA SINGH . Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT-1, CHANDIGARH

Case No. 1.D. 79/2000

Sh. Raghuvir Singh S/o Sh . Gurmel Singh C/o Sh . N. K. Jeet , President , Telecom Labour Union, Mohalla Hari Nagar, LalSingh Basti Road, Bhatinda ( Pb ) -151.001 .

Applicant

Versus

The General Manager. Telecom , Bhatinda (Punjab) -151001

Respondent the aforesaid two circulars only in case he was working as casual mazdoor having continuous service of 240 days and more in any calendar year and not on the ground that services rendered by him under the permanent lineman subsequent to July 1987 be taken to be the services rendered by him under the management . It might be that as argued for the first party workman, the management adopted tactics oftaking work from the workman through permanent lineman not under the muster roll in order to see that he does not get benefits of regularization of his services but taking shelter under that the first party cannot be taken to be the employee of the management so as to get benefits under the above said two circulars . In fact , as has come on record , there were instructions issued to the stop fresh recruitments and employment of casual labourers for any type of work in telecom circles from 30-3-1985 onwards . It might be that under the grab of the said instructions not only the management stopped engaging fresh casual labourers after 30-3-1985 but also discontinued the services of the first party workman as he was engaged as casual labour subsequent to 30-3-1985 . Assuming for a moment that there has been contravention of the aforesaid instructions and circulars/letters issued by the department at Ex . W1 to W3 in not extending the benefits of the scheme at Ex . WI to the first party workman, the only proper course for the first party workman available was to have challenged the action of the management at appropriate time. He did noi challenge the action of the management in refusing services to him under muster roll subsequent to July 1987 . He did not challenge the action of the management in not extending himbenefits of the scheme at Ex . WI and he also did not challenge the circular at Ex. Mi agitating his rights (o get the benefits available under the aforesaid circulars at Ex . W1 and Ex . M1 at any point of time . According to him he keeps working under,the permanent lineman for about a period of more than 10 years without staking his claim under the above said scheme or challenging the action of the inanagement refusing his services on muster roll . Therefore, it is too late in tite day for the workman now to assert his rights seeking benefits under the above said scheme of the year 1989, Therefore , in the light of the above . ( his tribunal has no hesitation in its mind to come to the conclusion that services if any, rendered by the first party workman as casual worker under the so called permanent lineman cannot be equated with the services rendered by hint under the management so as to be bestowed with the benefits arising out of the aforesaid circulars at Ex. WI & M1 . The circulars/letters at Exs . W2 & 3 would no come in the way of the first party workman in getting the benefits under Circulars at Exs . WI & M1 had he established before this tribunal that he was in the direct employment of the management as on 1-10-1989 or as on 1-12-1993 . Since in his own words that he carried out the work of digging . installations of telephone instruments and attending repairs etc. against the ACJ account working under the permanent lineman and was being paid through ACJ bills against the said ACJ accounts which payment cannot be equatedto the payment of wages to him working under muster roll as

3520 Gl/2006-27 9664

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 18 , 2006/KARTIKA 27 , 1928

APPEARANCES

For the Workman

: Sh .Vijay Kumar

: Sh . G. C. Babbar

For the Management

AWARD

Passed on 28-9-2006

Central Govt . vide notification No. L- 40012/403/99- IR (D.U. ) dated 17-02-2000 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of the management of General Manager, Telecom , Bhatinda in terminating the services ofSh. Raghuvir Singh S / o Sh . Gurmel Singh is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled and from which date ?"

2. The case taken up in Lok Adalat at the request of the parties . The authorised representative of workman Shri Vijay Kumar withdraw the present reference vide his statement recorded on 21-09-2006. In view of the same, the present reference is returned as withdrawn in Lok Adalat. Central Govt. be informed . File be consigned to record.

RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer Chandigarh 28-09-2006

नई दिल्ली , 26 अक्तूबर, 2006

का. आ. 4447.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार डी. बी. सी. सन्स प्रा. लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. - 1 के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सी.जी.आई.टी. 1/1995 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 26-10-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-31011/5/1994- आई आर ( विविध ) ] बी. एम. डेविड, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 26th October, 2006

S.O. 4447. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act . 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CGIT 1/1995 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal / Labour Court No. I. now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s . DBC's Sons Pvt . Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 26-10-2006.

[No. L- 31011 /5 / 1994 - IR (M) ] B. M. DAVID , Under Secy.

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 1, MUMBAI

PRESENT

Justice Ghanshyam Dass , Presiding Officer REFERENCE NO . CGIT -01 OF 1995 Parties:

Employers in relation to the management ofM/ s . Darabshaw B. Cursetjee's Sons (Bombay) Pvt . Ltd.

AND

Their Workmen .

APPEARANCES

:Mr. D. J. Kapadia. Adv. For the Management

Forthe Union

:Mr. Sunil Patil, Adv.

:Maharashtra

State

Mumbai , dated the 11th day of October, 2006

AWARD

I. This is a reference made by the Central Governinent in exercise of its powers under clause (d) of sub - section 1 ofSection 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 ( the Act for short) vide Government of India, Ministry of Labour. New Delhi Order No. L - 31011 / 5 /94 - I.R. (Misc ) dated 12-1-1995 . The terms of reference given in the schedule are asfollows:

"Whether the action of the management of M/s . Darabshaw B. Cursetjee's Sons (Bombay ) Pvt . Ltd. in terminating the services of Shri Madhukar R. Mahakal and 37 other workmen and Shri Shantaram Bhagoji Jadhav and 23 other workmen ( as per list attached) with effect from 6-6-1990 is legal and justified ? If not , to what relief the workmen are entitled to ?"י

2. With a view to comply with the direction of the Honourable High Court of Bombay in W.P. No. 2046 of 1999 the Order dt. 20-6-2006 was passed by this Tribunal after hearing the parties on the subject matter in issue whereby all the controversial points had been resolved and the parties had been directed to submit calculations accordingly for the payment of due money to the workmen. The aforesaid order has become final since parties have not challenged it . The learned counsel for the Management has filed a detailed chart in respect of 49 workmen named thereinto show the actual amount due to the Management and payable to the workmen . This calculation is not being challenged by the learned counsel Mr. Patil for the workmen. This calculation is in respect of 49 workmen only. It does not relate to other workmen who have expired during the pendency of the litigation and their legal heirs have not been brought on record in accordance with law. Hence , the legal heirs cannot be given any payment at this juncture .

[ भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

9665 भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 18, 2006/कार्तिक 27 , 1928

2. दि. डिप्टी जनरल मैनेजर ( एच. आर. ) इण्डियन ऑयल कॉरपोरेशन लिमिटेड, इण्डियन ऑयल भवन, युसुफ सराय, नई दिल्ली अप्रार्थीगण

दि. 21-9-06

अवार्ड

केन्द्र सरकार नई दिल्ली से प्राप्त रेफ्रेंस इस प्रकार है :-

3. Hence , the aforesaid chart is accepted as final dues payable to the workmen . The Management is accordingly directed to pay to each of the workmen the amount due as mentioned in the chart which forms part of this Award through a Account Payee Cheque in the name ofthe workmen concerned in presence of Mr. Patil , Adv. or any other authorized representative of the Union to confirm the identification of the workmen . The compliance ofthis order may be made within thirty days positively failing which the Management would be paddled with the liability ofpenal interest .

4. The Award is made accordingly. Justice GHANSHYAM DASS , Presiding Officer

"Whether the action of the management of Dy. General Manager ( H. R. ) , I. O C. L. , New Delhi in terminating the services of Sh. Omparkash Khanchandani S/o Sh . Karam Chand vide their letter dated 22-7-05 is just and legal ? If not to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to ? " नई दिल्ली, 26 अक्तूबर, 2006

2. प्रार्थी को क्लेम पेश करने के लिए नोटिस जारी किये गये । प्रार्थी की ओर से आज ही एक प्रार्थना पत्र पेश कर कथन किया है कि " यदि प्रार्थी केस को विदड्रा कर लेता है तो यूनियन उक्त प्रकरंण को अप्रार्थी के समक्ष रखकर टेक- ऑफ करने को तैयार है । " अतः प्रार्थी ने इस प्रकरण को अपने अधिकारों को सुरक्षित रखते हुए विदड्रा करने बाबत अनुमति देने की प्रार्थना की है ।

का. आ. 4448.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार आई. ओ . सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, अजमेर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 3/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करतीं है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 26-10-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

किया । मैंने प्रार्थी को सुना और पत्रावली का ध्यानपूर्वक अवलोकन [ सं. एल-30012/8/2006-आई आर ( विविध ) ] बी. एम. डेविड, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 26th October , 2006

प्रार्थी द्वारा प्रस्तुत प्रार्थना पत्र के आधार पर प्रार्थी को प्रकरण विदड्रा करने की अनुमति एत‌द्वारा प्रदान की जाती है ।

अवार्ड की प्रति नियमानुसार केन्द्र सरकार को प्रकाशनार्थ भिजवा दीजावे।

अवार्ड आज दि. 21-9-06 को खुले न्यायालय में लिखवाया जाकर सुनाया गया ।

जी. एस . शेखावत , न्यायाधीश S.O. 4448. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 3/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal /Labour Court. Ajmer, now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of IOCL and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 26-10-2006.

नईदिल्ली, 26 अक्तूबर, 2006

[No. L-30012/8/2006 - IR (M)] B. M. DAVID, Under Secy,

अनुबन्ध

श्रम न्यायालय एवं औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण, अजमेर

सी.आई.टी.आर. नं. 3/06

रेफ्रेन्स संख्या एल-30012/8/2006-आई. आर. (एम )

दि. 24-8-06

का. आ. 4449.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भारत 'गोल्ड माईन्सलि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औधोगिक अधिकरण, बंगलौर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 11/90 एण्ड 25/92 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रींय सरकार को 16-10-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

प्रसंग:

[सं. एल-43012/18/89- आई आर ( विविध ) एण्ड एल-43012/ 19/ 89- आई आर (विविध ) ]

बी, एम. डेविड, अवर सचिव ओम प्रकाशः खानचन्दानी पुत्र स्व. श्री करमचंद खानचन्दानी, निवासी 2- जी-4, अजय नगर , अजमेर, जिला अजमेर

New Delhi , the 26th October , 2006

.... प्रार्थी

बनाम

S.O. 4449. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Governnient hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.11/90 and 25/92 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ 1. प्लांट मैनेजर, आई. ओ. सी. लि. , इण्डियन बॉटलिंग प्लांट, ग्राम तबीजी के पास, हाइवे नम्बर 8 , अजमेर 9666

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 18 , 2006/KARTIKΑ 27 , 1928

Mine, on the charge of his involvement in theft of employer's property on 10-8-1988 is justifiable ? If not , to what relief is he entitled ? "

SCHEDULE (CR No. 25/90)

Labour Court, Bangalore now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 26-10-2006.

[No. L-43012/ 18/89 - IR( M ) and L- 43012/ 19/89 - IR ( M) |

B. M. DAVID , Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

"Whether the action of the management of BGML, KGF in dismissing Shri Ramachandran , PE No. 147434 Timberman CR Mine on charge of theft ofemployer's property on 10-8-1988 is justifiable ? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled ? "

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

Dated: 9th October, 2006

2.Both these cases are taken up together for disposal involving common question of law and facts and the disputes arising out of one and same incident with regard to the alleged theft committed by the first party workmen .

PRESENT :

Shri A. R. Siddiqui . Presiding Officer.

C. R. No. 11/1990

Shri Segar.

Bharatipuram . Pallukudsi . Padinama Compound . Anderson Post , Kolar Gold Fields- 563113

1Party

3. Separate chargesheets were issued to the first party workmen on the allegations of theft taken place on 10-8-1988 of the property belonging to the management. They submitted their replied to the chargesheets and the management not being satisfied with their explanation ordered domestic enquiry into the matter and thereupon , a regular joint Domestic Enquiry said to have conducted against both the workmen and on the basis of the enquiry findings holding them guilty of the charges , they have been dismissed from services .

The Managing Director, BharatGold Mines Ltd ..

Oorgaum P.O.. K. G. F. -563120

Il Party

C. R. No. 25/1992

4. Separate Claim Statements have been filed by each of the first party workmen wherein , they have challenged the enquiry proceedings conducted against them as violative of principles of natural justice , findings of the enquiry officer as perverse and the order ofdismissal passed against them as unjust and illegal .

Shri Ramachandran .

5. The management also filed separate counter statements of both the cases .

Rep . by the President Bharat Gold Miner's Association . No. 545. Near Punjabi Line .

Oorgaum. K.G.F.

IParty

The Managing Director .

Bharat Gold Mines Ltd..

Oorgaum P. O.. K. G. F. -563120

II Party

COMMON AWARD

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause ( d ) of sub - section 2A of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 has referred these disputes vide order No. L - 43012/ 18/89 - IR( Misc ) and No. L-43012/ 19/89 - IR( Misc ) dated 16th February, 1990 and 13th February , 1992 for adjudication on the following schedule :

SCHEDULE ( CR No. 11/90 )

"Whether the action of the management of Bharat Gold Mines Limited. Oorgaum, K. G. F, in dismissing Shri Segar. PE No. 131827. Timberman. Champion Recf

6. Keeping in view the respective contentions of the parties with regard to the legality and validity or otherwise of the proceedings , preliminary issues to the above effect were framed and my Learned Predecessor in CR No. 11/90 passed order dated 29-7-1997 on the above said preliminary issue holding that the enquiry held against the first party by the second party is not fair and proper, it being against the principles of natural justice . He also set aside the findings ofthe enquiry officer given in the aforesaid enquiry held against the workman . Shri Segar involved in CR No. 11/90, From the order sheet dated 2-6-1999 maintained in CR No. 25/92. it is read that my Learned Predecessor who passed the above said order on validity of the enquiry proceedings in CR No. 11/90 , observed that in the face of the aforesaid order passed by him there was no necessity to pass any order on the very same issue in this casc as in both the references joint enquiry conducted against both the workmen involving common incident of theft . However, proceedings in CR No. 25/92 were ordered to be taken up along with the proceedings in Misc . 15/99 where under, the management sought for recalling of the award passed in 9667 [ भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: नवम्बर 18 , 2006/कांर्तिक 27 , 1928

evidence as any evidence let in during the course of enquiry cannot be taken help of to prove the charges of misconduct when enquiry proceedings itself have set aside having been founddefective by this tribunal . I find substance in his arguments. :-

CR 11/90 ( Award passed on 21-1-1999) . My learned predecessor vide award dated 21-1-1999 allowed the reference in CR No. 11/90 with a direction to the management to reinstate the first party workman or in the alternative he shall be entitled for 50 per cent of the back wages from the date of his dismissal till the date of his reinstatement . Likewise my Learned Predecessor also passed an award in CR No. 25/1992 allowing the reference with similar directions to the management .

9. In the instant case as noted above, the earlier awards infact were passed against the management allowing the refcrences in favour of the workmen as the management failed to adduce fresh evidence to prove the charges of misconduct leveled against the first party workınan after DE held against them was set aside . Both the awards have been recalled by allowing above said two Miscellaneous Applications filed by the management with a condition that they shall complete the proceedings adducing their evidencewithin a period of six months from the date of the orderspassed on Misc Petitions . Orders of Miscellaneous Petitions were passed on 31-5-2006 . The management took adjournments for a period of about 4 months and still failed to adduce, fresh evidence in the matter to prove the charges of misconduct leveled against the first party workmen . Therefore, since the enquiry proceedings held against the first party workmen have been set aside , the only conclusion to be drawn would be that no departmental enquiries were conducted against the first party workmen much less to hold them guilty of the charges alleged against them . The request for management to read and take into consideration the evidence already let in the enquiry, cannot be granted , as evidence before the enquiry officer cannot be considered to prove the charges when enquiry proceedings have been set aside and enquiry findings are quashed already. In the result , the dismissal order passed against the workmen under the grab of any enquiry findings holding the workmen guilty of the charges again inust be held to be nullity in the eye of law and accordingly those dismissal orders are liable to be set aside as illegal and void ab initio. Hence the following award:

AWARD

7. It can be seen from the records that aggrieved by the award passed in CR No. 11/1990 the management preferred the two writ petitions . W. P. No. 34712/99 challenging the award dated 21-1-1999 and the orders dated 9-6-1999 dated 29-7-1997 and the writ petition No. 34716/99 challenging the award dated 11-6-1999 . His Lordship of Hon'ble High Court allowed the writ petition No. 34712/99 setting aside the order dated 9-6-1999 where under my Learned Predecessor has dismissed the above said miscellaneous application No. 15/99. However, Writ Petition No. 34716/99 was rejected on the ground that the management has got other remedy by way ofMiscellaneous Application to challenge the impugned order . Therefore, in the light of the order passed by his Lordship of Hon'ble High Court in Writ Petition No. 34712/99 , matter was taken up before this tribunal for disposal of Miscellaneous Application No. 15/99 on merits . In the meanwhile, the management also filed another Misc. Application No. 32/05 to recall the award passed by this tribunal in CRNo. 25/92 . Both the Miscellaneous cases were taken up together:: by this tribunal and after hearing the learned counsels for the respective parties, both the petitions were allowed and. the proceedings in both the references were taken up on record giving opportunity to the management to lead evidence afresh on merits to prove the charges of misconduct leveled against the first party. Despite reasonable and sufficient opportunity given to the first party to lead fresh evidence on merits of the case , the management failed to adduce any evidence to prove the charges of misconduct leveled against the first party workmen. When the matter was taken up for arguments on merits on 13-9-2006 , learned counsel for the management filed separate memo in both the cases stating that the management after hectic search is unable to trace the management witnesses who had given evidence in the enquiry as one witness has taken VRs and some of them have resigned and some of them have left the company long back due to the closure of the company. Therefore, counsel for the management made a request to this tribunal to look into the evidence already brought on record during the course of enquiry and to pass necessary orders.

The management is directed to reinstate both the first party workmen in service with 50 per cent of the back wages from the date of their dismissal till the date of their reinstatement . In case of their retirement from service already, they will be entitled to the aforesaid back wages up till the date of retirement only. The management shall take into consideration any amount already paid to the workmenbyway of interim relief while making the payment ofback wages . Copy ofthe award be kept in CR 25/92 . No costs.

(Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected and signed by me on 9th October, 2006) .

A. R. SIDDIQUI , Presiding Officer 8. Whereas , learned counsel for the first party workmen submitted that when the enquiry has been set aside being found defective , the only way out to the management to prove the charges of misconduct leveled against the first party workmen was by way of fresh 9668

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 18 , 2006/KARTIKA 27 , 1928

नई दिल्ली, 26 अक्तूबर, 2006

का. आ. 4450.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसूर मिनरल लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, बंगलौर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 36/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 26-10-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-29012/17/2003- आई आर ( विविध ) ] बी. एम. डेविड, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 26th October , 2006

S.O. 4450.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 36/ 2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court . Bangalore now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Mysore Minerals Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 26-10-2006.

[No. L - 29012/17/2003 - IR (M) ] B. M. DAVID , Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

Dated: 6th October , 2006

PRESENT :

Shri A. R. Siddiqui , Presiding Officer.

C. R. No. 36/2003

Shri Mahalingappa , S/ o Rangappa , Huclıunnahalli Village, Nonavinakere Hobli , Tiptur Taluk . Tumkur Distt . , Tumkur

I Party

II Party The Managing Director, Mysore Minerals Limited. No. 39. M. G. Road. Bangalore -560001

APPEARANCES :

1st Party : Shri K. T. Govinde Gowda , Advocate. 2nd Party : Shri N. Ganesh . Advocate .

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii)]

AWARD

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub - section 2A of the Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vide order No. L-29012/ 17/2003 - IR(M) dated 4th June , 2003 . for adjudication on the following schedule :

SCHEDULE

"Whether the management of Mysore Minerals Limited is justified in dismissing the services of Shri Mahalingappa, the workman with retrospective effect ? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled?"

2. The first party workman in his claim statement , while, challenging the order of dismissal passed against him as illegal and unjust , challenged the enquiry findings holding him guilty of the charges of misconduct of theft as perverse and also challenged enquiry proceedings as opposed to the principles of natural justice on the ground that there was no regular departmental enquiry conducted serving any charge sheet or show cause notice upon him and that the so called preliminary enquiry was a farce of enquiryetc.

3. The management by its counter statement justified its action in dismissing the first party from its services contending that a fair and proper departmental enquiry was conducted against the first party and on the basis of the enquiry findings holding him guilty of the charges he has been rightly and legally dismissed from service . It was also contended that since the misconduct was grave in nature , punishment of dismissal was proper and commensurate with the gravity of the charges .

4. Based on the respective pleadings of the parties with regard to the validity and legality or otherwise of the enquiry proceedings , this tribunal on 5-10-2004 framed the following Preliminary Issue :-

"Whether the Domestic Enquiry conducted against the first party by the Second Party is fair and proper ?"

5. After due trial of the said issue , this tribunal by order dated 31-8-2006 , recorded a finding against the management holding that the enquiry held against the first party by the Second Party is not fair and proper . Thereupon , the matter came to be posted to hear the learned counsels on merits of the case . On 12-9-2006 , learned counsel for the management filed written arguments and whereas , learned counsel representing the first party being absent matter was taken as heard and posted this day for award.

6. In this case as could be read from the pleadings of the parties , on 20-3-1998 morning when all the mine workers has been taken to the Government Hospital , 9669 [ भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 18, 2006/कार्तिक 27 , 1928

eye of law and therefore , is liable to be set aside as illegal and void abinitio,

8. Since the dismissal order is held to be illegal , the natural corollaryto be followed would be the reinstatement ofthe first party into the service of the management.

Chennarayanapatna for X - ray and medical examination as required under mining statute , the first party workman along with another Mazdoor, Shri Nagaraj having consumed alcohol, abused and quarreled with the Assistant Manager, Shri Maheshwarappa and also tried to manhandle him in the premises of the Government Hospital . It is the case of the management that based on the aforesaid allegation enquiry was conducted against the first party and after the charge was proved , he was dismissed from service on the basis of the enquiry findings . The first party denied the aforesaid charge and the allegations made against him and took up the contention that no regular departmental enquiry was conducted and it was all done behind his back. Therefore , he challenged the enquiry proceedings , enquiry findings as well as the dismissal order passed against him.

9. Coming to the question of back wages , as could be seen from the records , the dismissal order in question came tobe passed on 27-8-1998 and whereas , the dispute by the first party was raised somewhere in the year 2003 . There is absolutely no explanation offered by the first party in his claim statement as to what prevented him in not raising the dispute immediately after the dismissal order passed against him or at least within reasonable time thereafter. Therefore , no back wages can be paid to the first party from the date of the dismissal till the date of reference to this tribunal made on 4-6-2003 . He shall be entitled to full back wages from the date of reference till the date of this award with continuity of service during this period. Accordingly, reference is answered and following award is passed.

SAWARD

The management is directed to reinstate the first party in its service with full back wages from 1-6-2003 till the date ofhis reinstatement with continuity of service for the said period . No costs .

(Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected and signed by me on 6th October , 2006) .

Á. R. SIDDIQUI , Presiding Officer नईदिल्ली, 26 अक्तूबर, 2006

का. आ. 4451.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसूर मिनरल लि. के प्रबंधतंत्रके संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, बंगलौर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 19/99 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 26-10-2006. को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-29012/169/98- आई आर ( विविध ) ] बी. एम. डेविड, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 26th October , 2006

S.O. 4451. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 19/99 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Bangalore now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management ofMysore Minerals Ltd. , and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 26-10-2006.

7. As noted above , this tribunal by order dated 31-8-2006 has recorded a finding on the above said preliminary issue to the effect that the domestic enquiry conducted against the first party by the second party is not fair and proper and the matter had come to be postedto hear the parties on merits . When the matter was taken up for hearing , as noted above , learned counsel for the management has filed his written arguments repeating almost all the contentions taken by the management in its Counter Statement . He has submitted those written arguments as if the charges of misconduct leveled against the first party or the allegations made against him with regard to the above said incident have been proved during the course of enquiry forgetting the fact that DE has been set aside . Since the enquiry itself has been set aside being found defective, the only way out for the management was to lead fresh evidence in order to prove the charges of misconduct leveled against the first party that too , ifthere was any such contention already taken by the management in their counter stateinent seeking permission of this tribunal to lead fresh evidence in case of DE was held to be not fair and proper. Strangely enough, learned counsel for the management instead of making any attempt for leading fresh evidence in order to prove the charges of misconduct. filed his written arguments as if, the enquiry held against the first party was held to fair and proper and that the evidence during course of enquiry is to be read in order to prove the charges of misconduct leveled against the first party. In fact there was no evidence at all led during the course of enquiry as could be seen from the very report submitted by the enquiry officer . Therefore, since the enquiry held against the first party is held to be not fair and proper thereby meaning that there was no enquiry at all and since the management did not produce any evidence before this tribunal in order to prove the charges of misconduct leveled against the first party, the only irresistible conclusion to be drawn would be that the management failed to prove the charges of misconduct leveled against the first party: In the result , the dismissal order passed against the first party becomes nullity in the

[No. L -29012/169/ 98 - IR( M) ] B. M. DAVID , Under Secy.

9670

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 18 , 2006/KARTIKA 27 , 1928

ANNEXURE

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

Dated: 28th September, 2006

PRESENT:

Shri A. R. Siddiqui , Presiding Officer

C. R. No. 19/1999

Shri Chikkanna , S/o Chikkanna Nayaka, Karya Village , Madapura Post , Nanjangud Tq. , Mysore.

.I Party

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ] अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , बंगलौर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 49/92 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 26-10-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-43012/18/91- आई आर ( विविध ) ]

बी. एम. डेविड, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 26th October, 2006

S.O. 4452. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 49/92 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal /Labour Court, Bangalore now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 26-10-2006 .

[No. L-43012/18/91 - IR ( M) ] B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

... II Party

'The Chairman and Managing Director, Mysore Minerals Limited , No. 39 . M. G. Road, Bangalore - 560001 .

AWARD

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by Clause (d ) of Sub -section ( 1 ) and Sub - section 2A of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 has referred this dispute vide Order No. L- 29012/ 169/98/ IR(M) dated 1-3-1999 for adjudication on the following schedule

SCHEDULE

"Whether the termination of Shri Chikkanna , Mazdoor, Terali Mine by the management of M/ s. Mysore Minerals Ltd. is justified ? If not , to whatrelief the disputant is entitled to ? "

2. When the matter stood for Evidence on Domestic Enquiry, it was taken up before the Lok Adalat and both the parties appeared and have settled the matter out of court and filed a Joint Memo to pass award accordingly in terms of the said memo. Hence , the following award .

"The Management is directed to reinstate the first party into service without any back wages , however with continuity of service forthwith. The above said Joint Memo shall forn part of the Award ." (Dictated to . D. C. , transcribed by him , corrected and signed by me on 28th September , 2006 ) .

A. R. SIDDIQUI , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 26 अक्तूबर , 2006

का. आ. 4452.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भारत गोल्ड माईन्स लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE

Dated: 3rd October, 2006

PRESENT:

Shri A. R. Siddiqui , Presiding Officer

C. R. No. 49/1992

Shri Krishnan,

(Since deceased rep . by LRs ) residing at 2/A, Govindapadi Street , Vettuvanam, ViaPallikonda, Vellore District .

I Party The Managing Director . Bharath Gold Mines Ltd .. Oorgaum. K. G. F.

IlParty APPEARANCES :

1st Party : B. D. Kuttappa . Advocate. 2nd Party : A. S. Bopanna . Advocate.

AWARD

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by Clause ( d ) of Sub - section 2A of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act . 1947 has referred this dispute vide Order No. L - 43012 / 18 / 91-1R ( Misc . ) dated 1-6-1992 for adjudication on the following schedule:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action taken by the management of BGML , KGF is justified in dismissing Shri Krishnan, a Machine Maistry. Nandydroog Mine , from service on 12-10-1978 on charges of theft ? If not . what relief he is entitled to ?" भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 18 , 2006/कार्तिक 27 , 1928

[ भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

2. The deceased Shri Krishnan was working as Machine Maistry in the petitioner company. It is alleged that on 26-4-1976 at about 8.00 p.m. while being searched by the special duty watchman in Henry's searching yard, the said Krishnan was found to be in unauthorized possession of gold bearing quarter pieces . The same amounted to a misconduct under Standing Order No. 14 ( 1 ) ( ii ) (d) of the company and accordingly a show cause notice dated 3-5-1978 was issued to the said Krishnan. He gave his reply. Not being satisfied with the said reply, an enquiry was initiated against him . In the enquiry, both the parties have adduced evidence . On appreciation ofthe material on record , the Enquiry Officer found that the said Krishnan was guilty of all the charges leveled against him and submitted his report to the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority, accepting the said finding, by its order dated 19-12-1978 dismissed him from service w.e.f. 20-12-1978 . The workman filed a suit in the civil court challenging the order of dismissal . After contest , the suit came to be dismissed . He preferred an appeal . In the appeal , he filed an application for permission to withdraw the suit, which was refused. Therefore , he approached the High Court in CRP 1546/90 and he was granted the permission sought for . Thus, though the Civil Court has recorded a finding that the misconduct alleged against the deceased Krishnan was established, by withdrawal of the suit , the judgment and decree was set at right . Thereafter the deceased Krishnan raised an industrial dispute . Conciliation had been failed, the appropriate Government has referred the dispute to this tribunal for adjudication .

3. The deceased Shri Krishnan in his Claim Statement contended that the charges leveled against him are very much vague and the alleged theft property is just worth Rs. 11.47 and that the management deliberately implicated him in a theft case to get rid of his services ; that the misconduct alleged against him is not proved from the materials on record and at any rate the punishment of dismissal inmposed upon him was grossly disproportionate to the gravity of the charges leveled against him keeping in view his unblemished service record of 33 years and therefore , the dismissal order passed against him is illegal and unjust and that the findings of the enquiry officer holding him guilty of the charges is perverse and arbitrary and the proceedings of the enquiry conducted against him suffered from violation of principles of natural justice.

4.As noted above , an issue on the point of Domestic Enquiry was raised by this tribunal and after due trial on the said issue , my learned Predecessor by his order dated 3-2-1999 recorded a finding to the effect that enquiry held against the first party (deceased) is fair and proper and the Preliminary Issue was answered in favour of the management . Thereupon, arguments were heard on merits i.e. on the point of alleged perversity of the findings and quantum ofthe punishment and by award dated 10-6-1999, my learned Predecessor allowed the reference holding that 3520 GI/2006-28

9671 the management was not justified in dismissing the deceased from services w.e.f. 12-10-1978 and that the deceasedwas eligible for reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages and since he had expired on 10-4-1998 the management was directed to calculate the service benefits and to pay them to the LRs of the deceased already brought on record.

5. It is aggrieved by this award, the management preferred a Writ Petition No. 34711/99 and his Lordship of Hon'ble High Court by order dated 10th June 2005 set aside the award passed by this tribunal with the following directions:-

(i) Writ Petition is allowed ;

(ii) Impugned award passed by the Labour Court is hereby set aside;

(iii) The entire matter is remitted back to the Labour Court for fresh consideration i.e. after the stage ofholding the domestic enquiry as valid and proper. In other words , it shall decide the case onmerits;

(iv) Ifany amount has been paid in pursuance ofthe award of the Labour Court to the legal representative of the deceased workman by setting aside the impugned award, the said amount is not refundable to the petitioner.

6. After the remand I have heard the learned counsels for the respective parties and proceed to pass the following award.

7. Learned counsel for the management argued that the evidence oral and documentary produced by the management before the enquiry officer is very much sufficient and legal in establishing the charges . of misconduct leveled against the first party and that the findings of the enquiry officer holding him guilty of the said charge is very much supported by the aforesaid. evidence . Therefore, by no stretch of imagination it can'be said that the findings suffered from perversity. On the point ofpunishment , learned counsel submitted that keeping in view the gravity of the misconduct , punishment of dismissal was justified and to support his arguments he cited a decision reported in 2002 LLJ page 1367.

8. Whereas , learned counsel for the first party submitted that evidence with regard to the theft charge was not cogent and satisfactory and the testimony of the witnesses for the management was not to be relied upon keeping in view the statement of the first party workman and the two witnesses he produced during the course of enquiry suggesting to the fact that the alleged theft property was not found in possession of the first party while taking his personal search at the relevant point of time. Nextly, he submitted that the first party since deceased and his LRs are brought on record , they deserved lenient view 9672

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 18 , 2006 /KARTIKΑ 27 , 1928

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] particularly, in view of the fact that the first party was in the service of the management having good service record for a long period of 33 years .

that he himself removed his Loin cloth and was holding only his Pant and that no GBQ piece fell down from his Loin cloth. He however , did not dispute the fact that Jairam picked up the above said piece from the ground failing nearby his boots and that it was not the piece he was carrying . During the course of cross examination of these witnesses it was elicited that there was no ill will between them on one hand and the first party on the other hand. Therefore , from the above said oral testimony of the four witnesses who were on duty to search the workers and were present at the time when the first party was being searched by said Jairam , it becomes crystal clear that the property in question namely, the GBQ Piece was found on the person of the first party and it is during the course of his search, it fell from his person i.e. Loin cloth he was wearing and was picked up by the above said Jairam from nearby the boots of the first party. As seen above , in the cross examination of the aforesaid four witnesses , nothing worth was elicited from their mouth so as to have shaken their statements made in examination chief so as to doubt the veracity of their statements speaking to the fact that the property in question was found on the person of the firstparty.

9. After having gone through the records, more particularly, the oral and documentary evidence produced by the management so also the oral testimony of the first party and his two witnesses during the enquiry, find substance in the arguments advanced for the management that the charge of theft as alleged against the first party has been proved by sufficient and legal evidence . The statement of one Mr. Jairam, SD Watchman examined as a second witness for the management is very much important so also worth credence to speak to the fact that on 26-4-1978 when he was deputed for the work of Henry's searching yard, from 6.30 p.m. onwards , at about 8.15 p.m. about 10 workers came up from underground to the said searching yard to give search . There were 4 SD Watchmen including himself on searching duty . Three workers stood in front of hint and the accused Shri Krishnan was the last person in his row. After having cleared the first two workers, when he started searching the accused ( hereinafter called the first party ) from top to bottom, his Pant was lowered and the Loin cloth he was holding using both his hands was asked to take out of his hands and then he (witness) pulled his Loin cloth down and at the time the GBQ piece in question fell down from the Loin cloth . He picked up the said piece from the ground and immediately called the Havildar at the foreman security room and on his arrival he explained the case and handed over the property to him . Afterwards , the Havildar returned with the Katcha Chit and that GBQ piece was deposited in the sample box. Little later SD Assistant Supervisor Hidayath Ali came on round and after examining the said GBQ piece having visible gold in it . he informed to the General Duty Supervisor and then Shri C. M. Jairam Naidu , the then General duty Supervisory came to the spot and sealed the GBQ Piece with the watch and ward seal of mine in the presence of Shri Nataraj , duty Foreinan and Shri C. D. Muniswamy, 3rd shift banks man, S. D. Assistant Supervisor. Then he stated that at the time ofhis search of the first party S. D. Havaldar Shri Latchiram, Shri Togliram, Fatehsingh and Ramsaran were present at the search yard . The 3rd witness , Togliram , 4th Witness , Ramsaran and 5th Witness Fatehsingh as could be read from their statements , have corroborated the above said t of Jairam on all the particulars of the case. All of thent in one voice stated that they were present when the search of the first party was being taken place at the hands of the said Jairam and in no uncertain terms they have stated that when Jairam wanted the first party to lower down-bi. I can cloth he did it reluctantly and in the process the above said GBQ piece fell to the ground and was picked up by Mr. Jairam and then he was taken to the said Havildar along with the seized property. During the cross examination of all these four witnesses which was done by the first party personally, the only suggestion made to them was

10. As a defence evidence , the first party examined himself and his version relevant for the purpose was that when his search was done by said Jairam , he himself had lowered down the Loin cloth but no GBQ piece had fallen from his Loin cloth to be picked up by Jairam from the ground . He however, stated that the said GBQ piece was picked up by Jairam found falling near his boots when he approached his boots to put them on . In his answer to the question put by the enquiry officer he was unable to say whether the said piece was already there before his searching was commenced, as he did not observe the spot properly. The other two witnesses examined by the first partywere one Mr. Subramanian and Mr. Nataraj T. N. They have spoken to the fact that personal search of the first party was done by Mr. Jairam but they were not the witnesses to the said personal search . They have stated that when the said SD Watchman Jairam approaching the boots of the deceased he found the above said GBQ piece lying on the ground, one foot away from the boots of the first-party. In his answer to the question put by the enquiry officer he however , admitted that Jairam picked up the GBQ piece from the ground and it is at that time only he saw the GBQ piece . Similar is the statement of said Nataraj . He was also not the eye witness to the personal search of the first party but saw the said SD Watchman Jairam picking up the GBQ piece from the ground. Therefore , as argued for the management , there was sufficient and legal evidence in the oral testimony of the aforesaid four witnesses corroborated by the other two witnesses to suggest that said GBQ piece was found on the person of the first party when his search was being done by the said SD Watchman , Jairam . This evidence of said Jairam has been very much considered [ भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 18 , 2006/कार्तिक 27, 1928

and discussed by the enquiry officer along with the evidence of the other 3 witnesses who were the direct and eye witnesses to the incident and he rightly came to the conclusion that in their evidences charge of theft against the first party has been very much established . He rightly rejected the defence evidence on the ground that they have not seen actually the search of the first party going on. Infact as noted above, they have also spoken to the fact that GBQ piece was lying on the ground and it was picked up by Mr. Jairam after having made search of the firstparty.

11. As noted above , there was absolutely no reason for the enquiry officer not to act upon the oral testimony of the said Jairam and the other three eye witnesses particularly, when it was elicited in their cross examination by the first party himself that there was no ill will between him on one hand and the said four witnesses on the other hand . His contention that he was implicated falsely in the case on hand has to be rejected , as undisputedly no motive was attributed by him to any of the management witnesses to implicate him in a false case. In the result , there cannot be any hesitation to come to the conclusion that findings ofthe enquiry officer are supported by cogent and valid reasonings which in turn are supported by sufficient and legal evidence brought on record during the course of enquiry. Therefore, it must be held that charge of misconduct leveled against the first party has been proved.

12. Now coming to the quantum of the punishment, the first party is said to have expired somewhere in the year 1988 itself. His LRs are brought on record . The contention ofthe first party that he had an unblemished service record for about a period of 33 years has not been refuted by the management nor it is the case of the management that the first party was involved in any case of misconduct while he was in the service of the management during the aforesaid period . Therefore , it is under these facts and circumstances , it appears to me that ends ofjustice will be met. if the punishment of dismissal imposed upon the first party is converted into the punishment of termination of his services so that his LRs , at least, could get service benefits for the services rendered by the first party up till the date he was dismissed from service . Accordingly, the reference is answered and the following award is passed :

AWARD

The punishment of dismissal dated 12-10-1978 imposed upon the first party is hereby modified with the punishment of termination of his services . The LRs of the deceased shall be entitled to the service benefits due to the deceased first party for the period of services he rendered under the management apart from the payment of 25% of the back wages from 12-10-1978 to 31-12-1985 already made to the LRs as per orders of the High Court dated 30-9-1999 in WP No. 34711/99 . No costs.

(Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected and signed by me on 3rd October, 2006).

A. R. SIDDIQUI , PresidingOfficer

9673 नई दिल्ली , 26 अक्तूबर, 2006

का. आ. 4453.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सीमेन्ट कारपोरेशन ऑफ इंडिया लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों केबीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय, सी. जी. आई. टी. -2 के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 56/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 26-10-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-29011 /91/2002- आई आर ( विविध ) ] बी. एम. डेविड, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 26th October, 2006

S.O. 4453. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 56/2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, CGIT - II now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Cement Corporation of India Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on26-10-2006.

[No. L- 29011 /91/2002- IR (M) ] B. M. DAVID , Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT - II , NEW DELHI PRESENT:

Shri R. N. Rai , Presiding Officer I. D. No. 56/2003

In the matter of:

Shri Prakash Veer Tomar and 6 Ors . , C/o The President , Cement Corporation of India Limited, Delhi Grinding Unit Workers ' Union, Okhla Industrial Area Phase - I , NewDelhi - 110020

Versus

TheGeneral Manager, Cement Corporation of India Limited, Delhi Cement Grinding Unit , Okhla Industrial Area,

Phase- I, New Delhi - 110020

AWARD

TheMinistry of Labour by its letter No. L- 29011 /91 / 2002- IR(M) Central Government dt. 1-4-2003 has referred the following point for adjudication.

9674

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 18 , 2006/KARTIKA 27 , 1928

The point runs as hereunder :

"Whether the demand of the CCI/DGU Workers ' Union in relation to regularization of the services of Ex.Temporary Clerks , namely S/Shri Prakash Veer Romar, Rai Singh Chaprana, Raj Kumar Tomar, Raj Kumar, Eknath Singh , S. N. Pathak and Rajinder Kumar who worked in the Delhi Cement Grinding Unitof Cement Corporation of India, Okhla Industrial Area , New Delhi since July 1991 is just , fair and legal ? Ifyes , what relief the workmen are entitled to and from what date ?"

The workmen applicants have filed claim statement.

In the claim statement it has been stated that the Central Government has vide its order of reference No. L -29011/91 / 2002- IR(M) dated 1-4-2003 referred an Industrial Dispute to this Hon'ble Tribunal -cum - Labour Court for adjudication existing between the above noted parties with following terms of reference:

S.No.

Name

F.Name 1. Prakash Veer Tomar

Harbans Singh

Nepal Singh 2. Raj Singh Chaprana

OmPrakash 3. Raj Kumar Tomar

Sukhbir Singh 4. Raj Kumar

Late Ram 5. Eknath Singh

Narayan Singh 6. S. N. Pathak

Shambhunath Pathak 7. Rajinder Kumar

Jagdish Prasad The above said workers have been continuously working from their respective dates ofjoining with artificial break and they are being treated as daily wages , ad hoc/ temporary workers by the management with an intention to deprive them oftheir rights to get the same scale ofpay, wages and other employment 'which are being given to regular and permanent employees discharging same and similar duties . The workmen shown above were and are being paid the minimum wages fixed by the Delhi Government as revised from time to time . The equal pay for

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] "Whether the demand of the CCI/DGU Workers ' Union in relation to regularization of services of Ex. Temporary Clerks , namely S/ Shri Prakash Veer Romar, Rai Singh Chaprana, Raj Kumar Tomar, Raj Kumar, Eknath Singh , S. N. Pathak and Rajinder Kumar who worked in the Delhi Cement Grinding Unit of Cement Corporation of India, Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi since July 1991 is just , fair and legal ? Ifyes , what relief the workmen are entitled to and from what date ?"

That the workman whose names is shown in order of reference have been employed with M / s . Cement Corporation of India Limited, Grinding Unit, Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi - 110020 a company registered as a wholly owned Government of India Company. The details of the workmen services whose name appeared in the order of reference are as under:-

PostHeld

Dt. ofJoining

2-6-1990 Courier-cum-Messenger (Ad hoc) Civil and at present inMarketing

1-9-1992 Clerk (Ad hoc) in M. M. Department

16-6-1990 Courier-cum -Messenger (Ad hoc) in Civil Deptt.

21-5-1990 Courier-cum -Messenger (Ad hoc) in Civil Deptt . and at present in Store M.M. Deptt .

May 1990 Clerk-cum-Messenger in Production and Marketing Department

11-4-1991 Clerk(Ad hoc)

2-2-1996 Helper

equalwork and other facilities and benefits which are being paid to the permanent employee /workmen of management corporationare totally denied to the above named workmen .

That the workers whose names have appeared in the order of reference have been engaged by the management corporation from last 10 to 12 years and it is evident from the fact that the workmen who are continuously working with the management corporation are permanently required by the management corporation but just to deprive them from various facilities and benefits being paid to permanent 9675 [ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 18, 2006/कार्तिक 27 , 1928

employee of the management corporation treated these employees as daily rated or ad hoc /temporary workers.

transferred from one department to another department on the basis of exigencies of work . The workmen are discharging the work of a permanent and perennial nature whichare primary essential for the management corporation to continue its activities. The contribution to provident fund accountetc. and bonus are directly made by the corporation.

That the workmen are engaged at work as clerk and other post with the management corporation and the work which they are performing the work is connected with the principal function of the Management Corporation and perennial in nature . The workmen are in regular employment .

That the workmen are discharging duties of permanent and perennial nature , however the management corporation has not treated the concerned workmen as permanent employees though they have been engaged for the last 7 to 13 years in order to deprive these workmen of their rights to getting salary/ wages/ employment which are being paid to regular or permanent employees discharging same or similar duties . This action on the part of the management corporation amounts to unfair labour practice as has been envisaged in the ID Act, 1947 , Schedule V enacted under section 2 ( r) (a) of the ID Act . The Clause 10 of the schedule V reads as under :-

" 10. To employ workmen as " Badlis " " Casuals " or "Temporary" and to continue them as such for years , with the object of depriving them of the status and privileges ofpermanent workmen. "

That the workmen concerned have also deprived of their legal right to get same scale of the pay and other benefits which have been given to the regular employees employed by the management corporation . Admittedly it cannot be saidby any stretch of imagination that the work which the concerned workmen have been continuously doing is of intermittent and sporadic type . On the contrary the fact that the workmen have been continuously working with the management corporation for a period of more than 7 to 12 years proves beyond any doubt that the work ofthe workmen concerned is of permanent and perennial nature and the same is closely connected with the main activities of the management corporation . In this regard objection were raisedby the auditor of the management corporation isregards to these ad hoc workers and the auditors also raised the question mark about making permanent services ofjunior persons instead of senior persons .

That the so called ad hoc/ temporary employment basis is device of exploiting of the workmen . The work is available throughout the year round the clock as the workmen have been employed throughout the year and not for one or two years but from last 10 to 12 years . The so calledad hoc/ temporary basis appointment is unilateral as the workmen had no other choice except to accept the employment under the compelling circumstance of great unemployment problem in the country, just for survival of self and dependent in word. Such ad hoc/temporary arrangement in compelling circumstances cannot be termed contract with free consent in absence of free consent to an agreement does not make such agreement as valid contract havingbinding force . Even otherwise in the matter of such employment the terms of contract cannot be applied mathematically or medhanically as in commercial matters. In the service matters the socio - economic aspect is involved. The human lives are on peril . An arrangement be it called ad hoc/temporary/contract or daily wages is to be read along with the principle of natural justice , fair play, equity, justice and good conscience not arbitrary or unreasonable . Thus this so called employment of ad hoc/ temporary basis is a fraud , cheating a device of exploitation and flouting the provision of the ID Act, 1947, the equal remuneration Act, Articles 14, 16 , 21 , 23 and 39( d) ofthe Constitution of India . The right of livelihood has been recognized by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as fundamental right of the citizen flowing from the Article 21 ofthe Constitution of India . The management corporation always needed the services of workmen continuously and regularly but to avoid the payment of the legal dues of regular clerk and other regular post to the workmen, the management has adopted the method of flouting laws , as if the management is sincerely following the labour laws and the provision of the Constitution of India. The non- regularization of the services of the workmen as clerk, messenger or peon or of the other post in proper pay scale iswholly, illegal , bad, unjust and mala fide.

That the workmen have been working at site of the management under direct control and supervision of the officials of management . Necessary instructions , advice , action are being given to the workmen .

That the workmen concerned and other workmen filed a writ petition in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide CWP No. 5026 of 1999 when in spite of the laps of substantial period the services of the workmen were not regularized. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court after hearing the parties directed the workmen to approach the appropriate authority provided under ID Act, 1947. The operative parts ofthe order dated 18-12-2001 which is låst para of the order reads as under:

That the workmen joined the services in the year 1990, 1991 , 1992 and 1996 (approximately 10 years) as clerks , courier, messenger etc. in Delhi Grinding Unit of management corporation . They were provided all the services to the management corporation and were

"The Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court inSteel Authority of India's case(Supra) has recently opined that in the judgment they have used the expression " Industrial Adjudicator" by design as determination of the question aforementioned 9676

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 18 , 2006/KARTIKΑ 27, 1928

appointing the workmen herein on ad hoc/temporary basis with artificial breaks in services is unjust , improper, mala fide, illegal , unfair labour practice and contrary to the settled law on the following amongst other grounds .

requires inquiry into disputes question of facts which cannot conveniently be made by the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution . Therefore in such case the appropriate authority to go into these issues will be Industrial Tribunal / Court whose determination will be amenable to judicial review. "

For all these reasons the writ petition is not maintainable and is dismissed. Its rejection by these orders would not in any way preclude , fetter, restrict or affect the jurisdiction of the Industrial Adjudicator if any when its jurisdiction is invoked by the petitioner .

Because the management corporation has adopted anunfair labour practice by employing workmen as badlies , casuals or temporaries and to continue them as such for years with the object of depriving them of the status and privileges of permanent workmen in meeting its requirements by engaging the employees on ad hoc/ temporary basis . The experience over the last about 7 to. 13 years is indicative of the fact that the services of the workmen are definitely required for the day to day functioning of the managment corporation .

That the workmen concerned alongwith other workmen filed an LPA No. 24/2002 which was withdrawn by the appellant on the ground the appellant would like to file a review petition before the Single Judge. The said LPA was dismissed as withdrawn .

Because it isunfair to take away from the right created in the favour of the workmen herein because of pecuniary implications of the corporation concerned.

Because the requirement of workmen concerned for management is perennial in nature .

Because the management corporation has been resorting to making ad hoc /temporary appointment with a view to exploit the concerned workmen.

That thereafter a review petition had been filed by the worknten concerned alongwith other workmen . The review petition has dismissed on the ground that as per the grave - men of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India Limited and Others Vs. National Union Water Front Workers and Other under Industrial Disputes Act is available to them.

Because the workmen herein have becoine overage after having worked with the management for several years approximately over a decade and cannot seek employment elsewhere .

Because the management corporation has been flouting the provisions of ID Act , Articles 14. 16. 21. 23 . 39( d) of the Constitution of India . The equal remuneration Act, the principle of equal pay for equal work and principles ofnatural justice .

That a Civil Writ Petition was also filed by the Union in Hon'ble Delhi High Court with a prayer to direct the CCI Corporation to not sale out or transfer the ownership of the units belonging to the Corporation without fixing the liability of the ad hoc employees and contract labourers . The said writ petition was disposed by the Hon'ble High Court ofDelhi with the direction that the petitioner union may raise these issues before the Industrial Adjudicator.

Because the management corporation has regularized the services of some persons who were juniors to the workmen herein and thus violative of principle of equity .

That thereafter the C.C.I.D.G.U. workers union raised a dispute of regularization of the concerned workmen before the conciliation officer but due to the adamant attitude of the manageinent corporation no settlement arrived and thus a failure report was sent to the appropriate government by the conciliation officer which resulted into the present reference . The union also made representation to the Hon'ble Labour Minister, Central in this regard .

The management has filed written statement . In the written statement it has been stated that the present dispute is not an industrial dispute as defined u/ s 2 (k) of the ID Act and accordingly the present proceedings are outside the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Tribunal . The dispute has neither been espoused by a union having representative character qua the replying management nor has the support of substantial number of workmen employed with the management . Accordingly the present proceedings are liable to be rejected on this ground alone .

That non- regularization of the workmen concerned by the management corporation even though there is a permanent need and sanctioned post for the employment of such person in order to execute the functions and activities of the management corporation is illegal .. unconstitutional and unfair labour practice.

That some of the claimants are seeking regularization asCourier- cum- Messenger. It is stated that there is no such sanctioned post with the replying management and thus there is no case for regularization on this post .

That the management corporation has also regularized the services of some persons who were juniors to the petitioners .

That the claimants do not have the requisite qualification for the posts on which the regularization is sought for. As the claimantdo not have the requisite That the union has espoused the cause of its member and the union has raised the present Industrial Disputeto the effect that the action of the management corporation in [ भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

qualifications , no question of regularization arises. In the event the claimants are seeking regularization they must show by way of positive evidence that they are qualified for the post on which regularization is sought for .

That the CCI Limited is a sick Industrial Undertaking .. Under Sick Industrial Companies ( Special provisions) Act , 1985 ( SICA) . As per the order of the Govt./BIFR there is complete ban on further employment/ recruitment . The process of privatization is in a very advanced stage of finalization . The Central Government has also decided to close down seven non - operating plants out of ten units on theground of un-viability in the event these are not sold. In an attempt to reduce the manpower, the management has also rolled back the retirement age of its employees from 60 years to 58 years . By way of VRS the strength of employees have also been drastically reduced from 4800 to 1620 during the last three years. As there is no production of cement at Delhi Grinding Unit, there is hardly any work for the claimants . As and when they come, they keep on sitting idle . The management is unable to bear any further financial burden due to resource crunch . There is thus , no case for regularization in favour of the claimants even on merits .

Thatthe alleged CCI/DGU Workers Union has moved amemorandum dated 6th September, 2003 before replying management seeking severance of the alleged relationship with the management by getting compensation at par with VRS in vogue with employees of CCI Limited. Thereafter, the alleged union has also moved the Labour Department ofthe Central Government . Once the claimants themselves are seeking severance of the alleged relationship with the replying management , no question of their regularization would arise. On this ground also the present proceedings are liable to be dismissed . A copy of the memorandum dated 06-09-2003 is enclosed as Annexure - 1 . i That as already submitted , Delhi Cement Grinding Unit ( DCGU) is lying closed since February 1999. There is no production for the last 4 years . The claimants have no work at all to do at the unit . The claimants were engaged on ad hoc basis at one time or the other in exigencies of the requirement but after suspension of operation there is hardly any work for their gainful utilization .

That it is submitted that in view of the provisions of Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special provisions ) Act . 1985 ( SICA ) , order of reference and consequently the present proceedings are without jurisdiction . In any event the proceedings are liable to be stayed and claimants directed to move the appropriate authority for permission to proceed in the present case . Until such permission is granted by the appropriate authority, proceedings and the consequent award shall be without jurisdiction and void ab initio.

That the alleged date of joining shown against different names is fictitious and denied . None of the

9677

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 18, 2006/कार्तिक 27 , 1928

claimants was engaged prior to September 1992 and the claimants Nos . 6 & 7 were engaged as late as December 1996 and March 1997 ...

That it is denied that the claimants have been continuously working with the replying management as alleged. The claimants have not been working continuously with the replying management and have been absenting at their will for long periods some time extending to month. The claimants cannot claim parity with the regular employees of the management who were appointed in accordance with the prescribed norms and after open competition. The principle of" equal pay for equal work " has no application in the facts and circumstances of this case.

That the dates of appointment given by the claimants are fictitious and imaginary. Further as already submitted there is no work at all for the claimants and thus the question ofpermanent requirement orjob being of perennial nature doesnot arise. The DCGU Plant at Delhi is lying closed for four years and the claimants are not doing any work at all. It isdenied thatthe management/ corporation is seekingto deny any benefit to the claimants . All benefits as available to the claimants in accordance with the law are being paid to them.

Thatthere is no production in 7 out of 10 units of the respondent management . The CCI Limited is surviving on the basis of non- plan financial support by way of loan from the Government . The management/corporation has no financial capability to take any further financial burden. As already submitted that there is no production at all at DCGU ( Delhi Cement Grinding Unit ) nor there is any perennial requirement for persons such as claimants .

That it is denied that there is any exploitation of climants in any manner as alleged or otherwise . There is no work available with the replying management for the claimants . As submitted the claimants were employed by the then management in most arbitrary manner without following the requisite norms and at the instance of outside agencies . The claimants are not doing any work for the last four years . Even prior to that their work was far from satisfactory. The claimants do not fulfill the requisite qualifications for various posts as already submitted. In the circumstances , no question of regularization arises in anymanner . The action ofthe replying management is legal, valid and justified in all respects . The true and correct position has already been submitted.

Thatthe allegations mentioned in paragraphs under reply are fictitious . There is no work for claimants in any of the establishments of the management as there is no induction.

That there is no requirement for employees such as claimants as there is no production at all at Delhi Unit. It is denied that there is any unfair labour practice on the part ofthe replying management as alleged or otherwise .

9678

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 18, 2006/KARTIKΑ 27 , 1928

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] That there is no work for claimants as there is no production at all at Delhi Unit . Since there is no work there is no question of work being of permanent or perennial . nature as alleged or otherwise .

However it is submitted that replying management shall reply on the order of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court to submit the true and correct import thereof.

It was submitted from the side of the management that in view ofUma Devi 2006 SCC (L & S) 753 no question ofregularization arises . The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the same case has also emphasized that the Courts/Tribunals intheir sympathy for the handful ad hoc/ casual employees before it cannot ignore the claims for equal opportunity for the teening millions of the country who are also seeking employment. In such case, the Courts /Tribunals should adhere to the Constitutional norms and should not water down constitutional requirement in any way.

That the conciliation proceedings failed as the claimants who were not willing to discuss the difficulties facedby the management . As and when there was regular vacancy the same was filled in accordance with norms . It was also open for claimants to make themselves available for consideration in the event they were so advised and subject to fulfilling the requisite qualification . It is submitted that there is no espousal of the case of claimants . The present proceedings are liable to be rejected on this ground .

Ithasbeenheld in 2006 SCC (L & S) 753. " one aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointment (not illegal appointments ) as explaind in S. V. Narayanappa, R. N. Nanjundappa and B. N. Nagarajan and referred to in para 15 above of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts orof tribunals"

The workmen applicants have filed rejoinder. In their rejoinder they have reiterated the averments of their claim statement and have denied most of the paras of the written statement. The management has also denied most of the paras ofthe claim statement.

Evidence ofboth the parties has been taken.

Heard arguments from both the sides and perused the papers on the record.

It has been held in( 1992) 4 SCC 118. "Regularization- Ad hoc/Temporary govt . employee- Principles laid down-Those eligible and qualified and continuing in service satisfactorily for long period have a right to be considered for regularization-Long continuance in service gives rise to a presumption about need for a regular post- But mere continuance for one year or so does not in every case raise such a presumption Govt. should consider feasibility of regularization having regard to the particular circumstances with a positive approach and an empathy for the concerned person. "

It was submitted from the side of the workmen that Shri Prakash Veer Tomar, Raj Kumar Tomar, Raj Kumar, Eknath Singh were engaged on temporary basis from 1990 and Shri S. N. Pathak were engaged on temporary basis w.e.f. 11-04-1991 , Shri Raj Singh Chaprana w.e.f. 01-09-1992 and Shri Rajender Kumar w.e.f. 02-02-1996 .

"Labour Law-Regularization- Work charged/ casual/daily wage workers-In case of long continuance in service presumption for regular need of service would arise obliging authority concerned to consider with a positive mind feasibility of regularization-Statutory/public corporations should also follow suit . "

It was submitted that all the workmen have been working continuously from respective dates of their joining with artificial breaks and they are being treated as daily wages , ad hoc/temporary workers by the management with an intention to deprive them of their rights to get the same scale of pay, wages and other employment which are being. given to regular and permanent employees discharging same and similar duties . The workmen have not been paid equally at par with permanent and regular workmen.

It was submitted from the side of the management that a Court or a Tribunal has no power to direct regularization of services of ad hoc employees . It can at the most direct the management to frame a scheme for regularization of services of the employees and consider such ad hoc employees in accordance with the scheme after considering vacancies , qualifications , seniority among similarly placed employees and past record including attendance etc.

It was submitted from the side of the management that the claimants as per their own case were engaged between 1990 to 1996. The management was about to take action to disengage the services of the claimants as back asduring the year 1999 i.e. immediately after the production of cement stopped at DTU . The claimants anticipating disengagement of their services approached the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and obtained stay order. Thereafter , on The workmen are performing the duties which are of continuous and regular nature . The work is of perennial nature. These workmen have been kept ad hoc and temporary for long 10-12 years to deprive them of the benefits of regular employees . They remained engaged under the compelling circumstances of great unemployment problem in the Country just for the survival of their family. Such a contract of employment is not a valid contract in view of the compelling circumstances of unemployment problem in the Country. The workmen continued working for their survival and that of their family members. The workmen are entitled to equal pay for equal work.

[ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

9679 भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 18, 2006/कार्तिक 27 , 1928

account ofcontinuous litigation at various forums including the instant reference the replying management could not disengage the claimants as contemplated . Since the . claimants retained their engagement on account of interim orders of the court and on account of various industrial disputes raised including the present dispute, the claimants cannot seek regularization even otherwise.

bare minimum necessary expenses for up keep of the plant and meeting out other administrative expenses . The management . has also been getting grant from the government by way of loan. In these circumstances it would not be in the public interest to regularize the services ofthe claimants and place further financial burden on the Public Exchequer . The management is already being forced to pay salary out of public money without any corresponding benefit to publie by way of production . Moreover, the management of CCI Limited in pursuance of the order of the Hon'ble BIFR has already moved an application dated 24-05-2006 before the appropriate Government for permission to close down the undertakaing of DGU . On this ground also no case for regularization is made.

Itwas submitted from the side of the management thatclaim for regularization is not bona fide. Admittedly on 06-09-2003 the CCI DGU Workers Union moved a representation before the ALC (C) in which it is stated that they are not willing to work with the CCI Limited but only want voluntry retirement benefits equivalent to the regular employees. Admittedly the representation has been moved before RLC ( C) with the consent of all the claimants in the instant case . Ex WW1 , RM- 1 is the copy of the resolution/ memorandum . Since the claimants do not want to work with the management and are merely fighting the case to obtain VR benefits , the case is malafide and is liable to be thrown out without any relief.

It issubmitted from the side of the management that the claimants Shri P. V. Tomar, Raj Kumar Tomar, Raj Kumar Singh and Eknath Singh are seeking regularization as Clerk- cum-Messenger/Courier- m-Messenger. There are no such posts , much less sanctioned post with the management and thus no question of regularization would arise.

It was further submitted by the management that CCI Limited has been declared a sick company by the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction under Sick Industrial Companies ( Special Provision) Act , 1985 ( SICA). The Hon'ble BIFR has imposed ban on fresh recruitment for all the units , headquarters and marketing offices ofCCI Limited vide order dated 12-06-1998 . There has been no recruitment after 12-06-1998 at CCI . Once the competent statutory authority has imposed ban on recruitment, an award contraryto the statutory order of competent authority cannot be made .

Itis submitted from the side of the management that undisputedly there is no parity between the regular employees and the claimants. Regular employees were appointed after following prescribed procedure which inter alia require proper circulation of the post, calling of applications and interview by the duly constituted selection committee. But no such procedure was followed, in respect ofclaimant . Further admittedly claimants have been working at DGU all along whereas regular employees of the corporation have been transferred to other units of the corporation . Even otherwise there is inherent distinction between the nature of work and the responsibility of employees working on regular basis and ad hoc employees . Thus principles of equal pay for equal work has no applicability to facts and circumstances of the present case . Therefore , the claimants cannot seek wages or salary equal to their regularly appointed counterparts .

It was further submitted from the side of the management that admittedly there has been no production at all since February 1999 at DGU . Thus there is no work at all for the claimants at DGU. Even these days the claimants keep on sitting idle without any work , as and when they come to DGU . Since there is no work all the claimants are being utilized in security department though there is no requirement of such large strength of security personnel . Since thee is no work at all , no question of regularization would arise.

Itissubmitted from the side of the management that there has been no proper espousal of the dispute . CCI DGU workers union has no representative character qua the replying management nor this claim has the support of substantial number of workmen employed with the management . This case involves inherent conflict of interest among various employees , as it may effect the inter se seniority of employees . Thus the requireinent of espousal is a must and cannot be brushed aside as mere technicality.

The argument regarding espousal is misconceived inview of amended Section 2A, ID Act , 1947. Any individual employee or group of employees can raise . Industrial Dispute . This contention of the management is meritless .

The question regarding requisite qualification for the post is also not substantial. Qualifications etc. should be It has been further submitted by the management that the management has no capability to pay any salary to the claimants . Detailed facts regarding precarious financial position of the CCI Limited have been stated in the written statement and in the evidence led before this Hon'ble Tribunl which have not been disputed nor can be disputed by the claimants . There is no production at DGU and thus there is no income on account of any manufacturing activities at DGU . Since there is no manufacturing activity at DGU the management has been forced to rent out substantial portion of DGU premises to another Government ofIndia Corporation , namely Container Corporation of India Limited. The amount thus received is being utilized for

3520 Gl /2006-29 9680

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: NOVEMBER 18 , 2006/KARTIKA 27 , 1928

considered at the initial state of engagement . The workmen have been working at various posts since 1990, 1991 , 1992 and 1996 so at this stage requisite qualifications are immaterial . The workmen have obtained experience by long work. This argument is also not tenable .

The workmen have not been taken through regular recruitment procedure . They are purely ad hoc and temporary and they have been continued after artificial breaks . Their work is continuous as artificial breaks are due to no fault of the workmen .

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ] Inview ofthe facts and circumstances of the case all the workmen are entitled for compensation equal to four years wages in case of retrenchment.

The management is directed to make payment of four years wages by way of compensation at the time of retrenchment of these employees.

The reference stands replied thus.

Award is given accordingly.

Dated: 18-10-2006

The work is no longer of continuous and regular nature . There is ban for further recruitment but these workmen are not precluded from engagement on the basis of further ban . The DGU is in precarious financial position . The management has applied for permission to close down the Industry before the competent authority. The management is facing financial burden due to resource crunch . It is admitted that there is no production of Cement after 1999. It is also admitted that these workmen have been continued in view of the orders of the Courtsfrom 1999 till date.

In Uma Devi's case the Constitution Bench has categorically laid down that in case workmen have been working continuously for 10 years and not on the basis of orders of Courts , their cases may be considered for regularization . In the instant case the unit was declared sick in 1999. These workmen have becontinued in view of stay orders. The workmen themselves have moved application for getting compensation at par with VRS invoked with employees of CCI Limited . So the claimants are seeking severance of relationship for getting VRS . There is indeed no work for the claimants .

Thepresent proceedings are not without jurisdiction. The claimants have been taken on ad hoc basis but they have been continued for a long period . They have become over age. Their services cannot be regularized in view of the Uma Devi's case . They have rendered services for a substantial period and they have become over age . They cannot be given pay at par with regular employees as there is no accountability and responsibility on ad hoc and temporary employees . So they cannot be given status of regular employees. They are not entitled to get equal pay for equal work.

The management has continued them for long 6 ycars period oftime . They are entitled to get compensation of four years wages in view of their long tenure of service in case the management finds their retrenchment necessary. The wages are to be calculated prorata wages of 2005 .

The workmen themselves have admitted that there is no work in Delhi Unit . They have been engaged for only Delhi Unit on ad hoc basis . So they cannot be transferred to the other units as regular employecs .

R. N. RAI , Presiding Officer नईदिल्ली, 26 अक्तूबर, 2006

का. आ. 4454. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार राजा ग्रेनाइट क्वारिज के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण / श्रम न्यायालय एर्नाकुलम, कोची के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 14/2006) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 26-10-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-29011/59/2005 - आई आर ( विविध ) ] बी.एम. डेविड, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 26th October , 2006

S.O. 4454. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 14/2006) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court , Ernakulam, Kochi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Raja Granite Quarry and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 26-10-2006 .

[No. L- 29011/ 59/20005 - IR ( M ) ] B. M. DAVID , Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

Shri P.L. Norbert, B. A. , LL.B. , Presiding Officer (Monday the 16th day of October , 2006)

I.D. No. 14/2006

V.V. Shanmugham, S/ o . Vclayudhan , Valiyaveettil House , Vengola P.O. Perumbavoor, Emakulam .

Workman

Adv . Shri Alexander Joseph 9681 [ भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 18 , 2006/कार्तिक 27, 1928

E.V. Rajan,

Proprietor, M/ sRaja Granite Quarry, Vengola, P.O. , Perumbavoor ,

Ernakulam

Management

Adv. Shri Mathew Abraham

AWARD

This is a reference made by Central Government under Section 10 ( 1 ) (d) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for adjudication. The reference is:

"Whether the action of the management ofM/ s Raja Granites in denying employment to Shri V.V. Shanmugam w.e.f 6-12-2004justified ? If not , to what relief the concerned workman is entitled ? "

2. The facts in brief are as follows :

and that he was terminated from service on 6-12-2004. without giving him either a notice or compensation in lieu of notice are substantiated by the oral testimony of the workman as WW1 . He has also produced Ext . W1 certificate ofexperience issued by Raja Granite on 13-7-2004 . The certificate is to the effect that Shri V. V. Shanmugham (the workman) had worked in ' Raja Granite ' for the past four years and his remuneration per day is Rs . 225. The certificate issigned by Proprietor Shri E. V. Rajan. The testimony of WW1 and the documentary evidence of Ext . WI are unchallenged. Therefore I find that the claimant was a worker under the management . He has worked at any rate not less then 4 years before the dispute arose . He is a workman coming u/s . 2 (S) of I.D. Act . He was not given a notice oftermination before denying employment. He was also not given compensation in lieu of notice. He was also not given retrenchment compensation according to the number of years he had worked under the management as contemplated u/s . 25F of I.D. Act . The termination , therefore , is illegal . It follows therefore that he is entitled to be reinstated with backwages.

6. In the result an award is passed allowing the claim of the workman and finding that the action of the management in denying employment to workman Shri V.V. Shanmugham w.e.f. 6-12-2004, is illegal and unjustified and he is entitled to be reinstated with back wages from 6-12-2004 and all other consequential benefits . No cost . The award will take effect one month after its publication by the Government .

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and passed by me on this the 16th day ofOctober, 2006 .

P. L. NORBERT, Presiding Officer APPENDIX

Witness for the Workman : WWI : Shri V.V. Shanmugham. Witness for the Management :

The workman was a worker in a granite quarry run by Shri E.V. Rajan, the proprietor ofM/s . Raja Granite, Vengola since 1990. He was working continuously till 20-7-2004. At that time there was an accident in the neighbouring quarry. Hence the management closed down ' Raja Granite ' for some time . The work was re - started on 6-12-2004 . The workman reported for work on the same day. According to the workman he was denied work by the management . The workman was not given a notice of termination or service benefits . He was also not given bonus . The termination is illegal and he is entitled to be reinstated with all . consequential benefits . The management in the written statement contended that the quarry was started only in the year 2002. It is true that there was an accident in the neighbouring quarry. But the 'Raja Granite ' was not closed down. It was functioning in 2004 also . There is no employer- employee relationship between the workman and the management . In fact the claimant is working in some other quarry. He is trying to make illegal gain by raising a false claim. The management is employing less than 10 workers per day in Raja Granite . All statutory registers and records are maintained by the management. The workman is not entitled to be reinstated or to get any benefit from the management .

NIL.

Exhibits for the Workman :

3. In the light of the above pleadings the following points arise for consideration :

( 1) Whether the claimant was a workman under RajaGranite ?

W1 : Photostat copy of certificate issued by the management.

(2) If so , is the termination illegal ?

Exhibits for the Management :

NIL.

नई दिल्ली, 31 अक्तूबर, 2006

का. आ. 4455.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 When the matter came up for evidence the management remained absent continuously. Hence the workman was examined as WWI and an experience certificate issued by the management was marked as Ext . W1 .

5. Point Nos . ( 1) & (2) :

का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार दूर संचार विभाग के प्रबंधतंत्रके संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम The contentions of the workman that he was working in Raja Granite belonging to the management since 1990 9682

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 18, 2006/KARTIKA 27 , 1928

न्यायालय, जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटी/एलसी/ आर/195/93 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 31-10-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-40012/83/92- आई आर ( डी यू) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह, डैस्कअधिकारी New Delhi , the 31st October, 2006

S.O. 4455. In pursuance of Section 17 of the IndustrialDisputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CGIT/ LC/R/ 195/93 ) 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 Telecom Department and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 31-10-2006 .

[No. L-40012/ 83 /92 - IR (DU) ] SURENDRA SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

No. CGIT /LC/R/ 195/93

Shri C.M. Singh , PresidingOfficer

Workman Shri Ram Sai . S/ o Shri Bed Ram Meyana , Gram: Soniyapara, PO Saragaon , via Baraduar, Distt . Bilaspur -495 001

Versus

The Sub Divisional Officer (Telegraphs) . Department of Telecommunications. PO & Distt . Bilaspur-495 001 .

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] order No. ESJ -74/9 dated 10/90 . In the said order, the workman was shown in the service since 1974 to 31-12-89 . Heworked with the management for more than 240 days in the preceding calendar year and therefore his termination isbad in law. The management has not complied with the mandatory provision of Sec -25 of the I.D. Act and therefore the order of termination is void - ab - initio . It is prayed that the order of termination be declared as void and he be reinstated in services with all back wages .

2. The order dated 14-9-06 on the orders heet of this proceeding reveals that inspite of sufficient service of notices on both parties , none of them put in appearance . Under the circumstances this tribunal was left with no optionbut to close the reference for no dispute award and therefore the reference was closed for award .

3. Inspite of sufficient service of notices , the parties failed to appear before this tribunal . It clearly indicates that the workman as well as the management has no interest in this reference proceeding . Under the circumstances, it shall be just and proper to pass no dispute award without any order as to costs.

4. In view of the above no dispute award is passed in this reference without any order as to costs .

5. Copy of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour as per rules .

C.M. SINGH, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 2 नवम्बर , 2006

.Management

AWARD

Passed on this 4th day of October, 2006 1. The Government of India , Ministry of Labour vide i( s Notification No. L-40012/83/ 92 - IR( DU) dated 11-9-93 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal:

"Whether the action of the management of SDO (Telegraphs) . Bilaspur in retrenching Shri Ram Sai S/ o Shri Bed Ramw.e.f. 10-10-90 isjustified ? If not . to what relief the workman concerned is entitled'?" 2. The case of the workman in brief is as follows . Workman Shri Ram Sai had been in the employment of the management w.e.f. 13-3-74 to 15-10-90 as casual labour . His services were terminated by the management vide office का. आ. 4456.- कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम, 1948 (1948का 34 ) की धारा-1 की उप धारा ( 3 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा 16 नवम्बर , 2006 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 उपबन्ध पश्चिम बंगाल राज्यके निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रों में प्रवृत्त होंगे , अर्थात्:

" मैदिनीपुर पश्चिम जिला के खड़गपुर नगर पुलिस स्टेशन और खड़गपुर स्थानीय पुलिस स्टेशन के अन्तर्गत नगर पालिका और गैर - नगर पालिका ( खड़गपुर रेलवे बन्दोबस्त) "

[सं. एस-38013/58/ 2006 - एस एस -1 ] एस. डी. जेवियर, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 2nd November, 2006 S.O. 4456. 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 16th November, 2006 as the date on which the provisions of Chapter IV ( except Section 44 [भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

9683

भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 18, 2006/कार्तिक 27 , 1928

and 45 which have already been brought into force) and Chapter -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 West Bengal namely:

"Municipal and Non-Municipal ( Kharagpur Railway Settlement) area under Kharagpur Town P.S. and Kharagpur LocalP.S. ofDistrict - Medinipur (West) " .

[No. S-38013/58/2006- SS- 1 ] S. D. XAVIER, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 8 नवम्बर, 2006

का. आ. 4457. कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम, 1948 (1948का 34 ) की धारा-1 की उप धारा ( 3 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा 16 नवम्बर, 2006 को उस तारीख के रूप में नियत करती है , जिसको उक्त अधिनियम के अध्याय-4 (44व 45 धारा के सिवाय जो पहले ही 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 उपबन्ध तमिलनाडू राज्य के निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रों में प्रवृत्त होंगे, अर्थात्:

" तमिलनाडू के जिला कन्याकुमारी में करूंगल क्षेत्र के विलवनकोड़ तालुक के राजस्व ग्राम पालूर, कीष् मिडालम , किल्लियूर, कीष्कुलम , मिडालम, पेयन्कुलम तथा कलकुलम तालुक में कोलोचल, कप्पियारै आदि क्षेत्रों के अन्तर्गत आने वाले राजस्व गाँव"

[संख्या एस-38013/59/ 2006 - एस एस-1 ] एस. डी. जेवियर, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 8th November, 2006 S.O. 4457. 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 16th November, 2006 as the date on which the provisions of Chapter IV ( except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force) and Chapter - V and VI [ except Sub - Section ( 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 Tamilnadu namely :

"Revenue Villages of Paloor , Keezh Midalam , Killiyoor, Keezhkulam , Midalam , Painkulam in Vilavancode Taluk and Colochel , Kappiarai in Kalkulam Taluk of Karungal area in the District of Kanniya Kumari ".

[No. S - 38013/ 59/ 2006-SS - 1 ] S. D. XAVIER, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 8 नवम्बर , 2006

का. आ. 4458.- 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 16 नवम्बर, 2006 को उस तारीख के रूप में नियत करती है, जिसको उक्त अधिनियम के अध्याय -4 (44 व 45 धारा के सिवाय जो पहले ही 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 उपबन्ध उत्तरांचल राज्य के निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रों में प्रवृत्त होंगे, अर्थात्:

राजस्व ग्राम का नाम

राजस्व परगना

राजस्व जिला

राजस्व तहसील

उद्यमसिंह नगर

किच्छा

रूद्रपुर

1. कल्याणपुर, शिमला बहादुर, फूलबाग

किच्छा उद्यमसिंह नगर

रूद्रपुर

2. नगरपालिका क्षेत्र रूद्रपुरके राजस्व ग्राम- रम्पुरा, जगतपुर, रूद्रपुर व लमरा एवं सिडकुल में आने वाले सभी क्षेत्र

[संख्या एस-38013/60/2006 - एस एस-1 ] एस. डी. जेवियर, अवर सचिव New Delhi, the 8th November, 2006

S.O. 4458. 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 16th November, 2006 as the date on which the provisions of Chapter IV ( except Sections 44 and 45 which have aleady been brought into force) and Chapter-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 a as in the State of Uttaranchal namely:

District Sl . Name of the No. Revenue Village

Revenue Pragana

Revenue Tehsil

Rudrapur Kichha U.S. Nagar 1. Kalyanpur, Shimla Bahadur Phool Bagh .

Lamra ofRudrapur

Municipal Area

2. Rampura, Jagatpur , Rudrapur Kichha U.S. Nagar Rudrapur , and including all area under SIDCUL.

[No. S- 38013/60/2006 - SS - 1 ] S. D. XAVIER, Under Secy.

Printed by the Manager , Govt. of India Press , Ring Road, Maya Puri , New Delhi - 110064 and Published by the Controller of Publications , Delhi - 110054 , 2006