This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

REGD. NO . D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003-05 रजिस्ट्री सं. डी. एल. ( एन ) 04/0007/2003-05

भारत का राजपत्र The Gazette of India

प्राधिकार से प्रकाशित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप्ताहिक

WEEKLY

सं. 7]

नई दिल्ली, फरवरी10 फरवरी 16 , 2008 , शनिवार/माघ 21-माघ 27, 1929

No. 7]

NEW DELHI , FEBRUARY 10- FEBRUARY 16, 2008, SATURDAY/MAGHA 21- MAGHA 27, 1929 इस भाग में भिन्न पृष्ठ संख्या दी जाती है जिससे कि यह पृथक संकलन के रूप में रखा जा सके Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation

भाग II-खण्ड 3-उप-खण्ड (ii)

PART II-Section 3-Sub- section (ii)

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

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

वित्त मंत्रालय

(राजस्व विभाग )

( केन्द्रीय प्रत्यक्ष कर बोर्ड )

नई दिल्ली , 4 फरवरी , 2008

का, आ. 271. सर्वसाधारण की जानकारी के लिए एत‌द्वारा यह अधिसूचित किया जाता है कि केन्द्र सरकार द्वारा आयकर नियमावली , 1962 ( उक्त नियमावली ) के नियम 5ग और 5ङ के साथ पठित आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 ( उक्त अधिनियम ) की धारा 35 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खंड ( ii ) के प्रयोजनार्थ 1-4-2007 से संगठन इंडियन इंस्टीट्यूट ऑफ टेक्नालॉजी , कानपुर को निम्नलिखित शर्तों के अधीन आंशिक रूप से संलग्न ' विश्वविद्यालय ' की श्रेणी में अनुमोदित किया गया है , अर्थात्:

(i ) अनुमोदित संगठन को प्रदत्त राशि का उपयोग वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान के लिए किया जाएगा;

(ii ) अनुमोदित संगठन अपने संकाय सदस्यों अथवा अपने नामांकित छात्रों के माध्यम से वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान करेगा;

(iii ) अनुमोदित संगठन बही - खाता रखेगा तथा उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 288 की उप धारा ( 2 ) के स्पष्टीकरण में यथा परिभाषित किसी लेखाकार से अपनी खाता- बही की लेखा परीक्षा कराएगा और उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 139 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अंतर्गत आय विवरणी प्रस्तुत करने की नियत तिथि तक ऐसे लेखाकार द्वारा विधिवत सत्यापित एवं हस्ताक्षरित लेखा परीक्षा रिपोर्ट मामले में क्षेत्राधिकार रखने वाले आयकर आयुक्त अथवा आयकर निदेशक को प्रस्तुत करेगा;

( iv ) अनुमोदित संगठन वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान के लिए प्राप्त दान तथा प्रयुक्त राशि का अलग विवरण रखेगा और उपर्युक्त लेखा परीक्षा रिपोर्ट के साथ लेखा परीक्षक द्वारा विधिवत सत्यापित विवरण की प्रति प्रस्तुत करेगा ।

2. केन्द्र सरकार यह अनुमोदन वापिस ले लेगी यदि अनुमोदित संगठन: -

(क) पैराग्राफ 1 के उप-पैरा- ग्राफ ( iii ) में उल्लिखित लेखा बही नहीं रखेगा; अथवा

(ख) पैराग्राफ । के उप - पैरा - ग्राफ ( iii ) में उल्लिखित अपनी लेखा परीक्षा रिपोर्ट प्रस्तुत नहीं करेगा; अथवा

440 GI/2008

(535) 536

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 16 , 2008/MAGHA 27 , 1929

[PART II--SEC. 3( ii) ] ! (ग) पैराग्राफ 1 के उप- पैरा - ग्राफ ( iv ) में उल्लिखित वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान के लिए प्राप्त एवं प्रयुक्त दान का अपना विवरण प्रस्तुत नहींकरेगा; अथवा

(घ ) अपना अनुसंधान कार्य करना बंद कर देगा अथवा इसके अनुसंधान कार्य को जायज नहीं पाया जाएगा; अथवा

(ङ) उक्त नियमावली के नियम 5ग और 5ङ के साथ पठित उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 35 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खंड ( ii ) के प्रावधानों के अनुरूप नहीं होगा तथा उनका पालन नहीं करेगा ।

[अधिसूचना सं. 18/2008/फा. सं. 203/55/2006- आ.क.नि. - 11 ]

सुरेन्द्र पाल , अवर सचिव

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department ofRevenue)

(CentralBoard of Direct Taxes)

NewDelhi, the 4th February, 2008

S.O. 271. It is hereby notified for general information that the organization Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur has been approved by the Central Government for the purpose of clause ( ii) of sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 35 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (said Act) , read with Rules 5C and SE of the Income - tax Rules , 1962 (said Rules), with effect from 1-4-2007 in the category of ' University' , partly engaged in research activities subject to the following conditions, namely :-

(i) The sums paid to the approved organization shall be utilized for scientific research;

(ii ) The approved organization shall carry out scientific research through its faculty members or its enrolled students;

( iii ) The approved organization shall maintain separate books of accounts in respect of the sums received by it for scientific research, reflect therein the amounts used for carrying out research , get such books audited by an accountant as defined in the explanaiton to sub- section (2) of Section 288 of the said Act and furnish the report of such audit duly signed and verified by such accountant to the Commissioner of Income -tax or the Director of Income-tax having jurisdiction over the case, by the due date of furnishing the return of income under sub- section (1 ) of Section 139 ofthe said Act ;

( iv) The approved organization shall maintain a separate statement of donations received and amounts applied for scientific research and a copy of such statement duly certified by the auditor shall accompany the report of audit referred to above .

2. The Central Government shall withdraw the approval if the approved organization:-

(a) fails to maintain separate books of accounts referred to in sub-paragraph ( iii) of paragraph 1 ; or (b) fails to furnish its audit report referred to in sub- paragraph ( iii ) of paragraph 1 ; or

(d) fails to furnish its statement of the donations received and sums applied for scientific research referred to in sub -paragraph ( iv) of paragraph 1 ; or

(d) ceases to carry on its research activities or its research activities are not found to be genuine ; or (e) ceases to conform to and comply with the provisions of clause ( ii ) of sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 35 of the said Act read with rules SC and SE of the said Rules .

[Notification No. 18/2008/F . No. 203/ 55 /2006- ITA- II ]

SURENDER PAL, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 4 फरवरी , 2008

का. आ. 272.- सर्वसाधारण की जानकारी के लिए एतद्वारा यह अधिसूचित किया जाता है कि केन्द्र सरकार द्वारा आयकर नियमावली , 1962 ( उक्त नियमावली ) के नियम 5ग और 5ङ के साथ पठित आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 ( उक्त अधिनियम ) की धारा 35 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खंड ( ii ) के प्रयोजनार्थ 1-4-2006 से सेमी कंडक्टर लेबोरेटरी , मोहाली को निम्नलिखित शर्तों के अधीन आंशिक रूप से अनुसंधान कार्यकलापों में लगी ' अन्य संस्था' की श्रेणी में अनुमोदित किया गया है , मामतः -

(iii ) अनुमोदित संगठन वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान के लिए इसके द्वारा प्राप्त राशि के संबंध में अलग खाता बही रखोगा जिसमें अनुसंधान करने के लिए प्रयुक्त राशि दर्शाई गई हो, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 288 की उप धारा (2 ) के स्पष्टीकरण में यथा परिभाषित किसी मैखाकार से अपनी खाता- बही की लेखा पौक्षा कराएगा और उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 139 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अंतर्गत आय विवरणी प्रस्तुत करने की नियत तिथि तक ऐसे लेखाकार द्वारा विधिवत सत्यापित एवं हस्ताक्षरित लेखा परीक्षा रिपोर्ट मामले में क्षेत्राधिकार रखने वाले आयकर आयुक्त अथवा आयकर निदेशक को प्रस्तुत करेगा;

H6444 537 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: फरवरी 16, 2008/माघ 27 , 1929

2. केन्द्र सरकार यह अनुमोदन वापिस ले लेगी यदि अनुमोदित संगठन:-

( iii ) में उल्लिखित पृथक लेखा बही नहीं रखेगा; अथवा

(क) पैराग्राफ 1 के उप- पैराग्राफ

(ख ) पैराग्राफ 1 के उप-पैराग्राफ ( iii ) में उल्लिखित अपनी लेखा परीक्षा रिपोर्ट प्रस्तुत नहीं करेगा; अथवा

(ग ) पैराग्राफ 1 के उपपैराग्राफ ( iv ) में उल्लिखित वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान के लिए प्राप्त एवं प्रयुक्त दान का अपना विवरण प्रस्तुत नहींकरेगा; अथवा

(घ) अपना अनुसंधान कार्य करना बंद कर देगा अथवा इसके अनुसंधान कार्य को जायज नहीं पाया आएगा; अथवा (ङ) उक्त नियमावली के नियम 5 ग और 5 ङ के साथ पठित उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 35 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खंड ( ii ) के प्रावधानों के अनुरूप नहीं होगा तथा उनका पालन नहीं करेगा ।

[अधिसूचना सं. 16/2008/फा. सं. 203/68/2007-आ.क.नि.- II]

सुरेन्द्र पाल, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the4th February, 2008

S.O. 272. It is hereby notified for general information that the organization Semi conductor Laboratory, Mohali has been approved by the Central Government for the purpose of clause ( ii ) ofsub- Section ( 1 ) of section 35 of the Income- taxAct, 1961 (said Act) , read with Rules 5C and SE ofthe Income - tax Rules , 1962 (said Rules) , with effect from 1-4-2006 in the category of' other Institution' , partly engaged in research activities subject to the following conditions , namely :-

( i ) The sums paid to the approved organization shall be utilized for scientific research;

(ii ) The approved organization shall carry out scientific research through its faculty members or its enrolled students;

( iii ) The approved organization shall maintain separate books of accounts in respect of the sums received by it for scientific research, reflect therein the amounts used for carrying out research, get auch books auditedby an accountant as defined in the explanaiton to sub-section (2) of Section 288 of the said Act and furnish the report of such audit duly signed and verified by such accountant to the Commissioner of Income-tax or the Director of Income -tax having jurisdiction over the case , by the due date of furnisning the return of income under sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 139 of the said Act;

(iv) The approved organization shall maintain a separate statement of donations received ad amounts applied for scientific research and a copy of such statement duly certified by the auditor shall accompany the report of audit referred to above .

2. The Central Government shall withdraw the approval if the approved organizatioa.-

(a) fails to maintain separate books of accounts referred to in sub-paragraph (iii ) of paragraph 1 ; or (b) fails to furnish its audit report referred to in sub -paragraph (iii) of paragraph 1 ; or

(c) fails to furnish Its statement of the donations received and sums applied for scientific research referred to in sub -paragraph (iv) of paragraph 1 ; or

(d) ceases to carry on its research activities or its research activities are not found to be genuine ; or (e) ceases to conform to and comply with the provisions of clause ( ii ) of sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 35 of the said Act read with rules 5C and SE of the said Rules .

[Notification No. 16/2008/F . No. 203/ 68/2007- ITA- II ]

SURENDER PAL, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 4 फरवरी , 2008

का. आ. 273,-सर्वसाधारण की जानकारी के लिए एतद्वारा यह अधिसूचित किया जाता है कि केन्द्र सरकार द्वारा आयकर नियमावली , 1962 ( उक्त नियमावली ) के नियम 5 ग और 5 ङ के साथ पठित आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 ( उक्त अधिनियम ) की धारा 35 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खंड ( ii ) के प्रयोजनार्थ 1-4-2007 से संगठन सैंट जेवियर्स कालेज कोलकाता एजुकेशनल ट्रस्ट, कोलकाता को निम्नलिखित शत्तों के अधीन आंशिक रूप से संलग्न ' महाविद्यालय ' की श्रेणी में अनुमोदित किया गया है , अर्थात्: -

(i ) अनुमोदित संगठन को प्रदत्त राशि का उपयोग वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान के लिए किया आएगा;

(iii ) अनुमोदित संगठन बही खाता रखेगा तथा उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 288 की उप धारा (2 ) के स्पष्टीकरण में यथा परिभाषित किसी लेखाकार से अपनी खाता- बही की लेखा परीक्षा कराएगा और उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 139 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अंतर्गत आय 538

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 16 , 2008/MAGHA 27, 1929

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] विवरणी प्रस्तुत करने की नियत तिथि तक ऐसे लेखाकार द्वारा विधिवत सत्यापित एवं हस्ताक्षरित लेखा परीक्षा रिपोर्ट मामले में क्षेत्राधिकार रखने वाले आयकर आयुक्त अथवा आयकर निदेशक को प्रस्तुत करेगा;

(iv ) अनुमोदित संगठन वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान के लिए प्राप्त दान तथा प्रयुक्त राशि का अलग विवरण रखेगा और उपर्युक्त लेखा परीक्षा रिपोर्ट के साथ लेखा परीक्षक द्वारा विधिवत सत्यापित विवरण की प्रति प्रस्तुत करेगा ।

: 2. केन्द्र सरकार यह अनुमोदन वापिस ले लेगी यदि अनुमोदित संगठन:-

(क) पैराग्राफ 1 के उप-पैरा - ग्राफ ( iii ) में उल्लिखित लेखा बही नहीं रखेगा; अथवा

(ख ) पैराग्राफ 1 के उप-पैरा- ग्राफ ( iii ) में उल्लिखित अपनी लेखा परीक्षा रिपोर्ट प्रस्तुत नहीं करेगा; अथवा

(ग ) पैराग्राफ 1 के उप- पैरा- ग्राफ ( iv ) में उल्लिखित वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान के लिए प्राप्त एवं प्रयुक्त दान का अपना विवरण प्रस्तुत नहींकरेगा; अथवा

(घ) अपना अनुसंधान कार्य करना बंद कर देगा अथवा इसके अनुसंधान कार्य को जायज नहीं पाया जाएगा; अथवा

(ङ) उक्त नियमावली के नियम 5 ग और 5 ङ के साथ पठित उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 35 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खंड ( ii ) के प्रावधानों के अनुरूप नहीं होगा तथा उनका पालन नहीं करेगा ।

3. उपर्युक्त अनुमोदन इस शर्त के अध्याधीन दिया जा रहा है कि आवेदक संगठन वैज्ञानिक एवं औद्योगिक अनुसंधान विभाग , भारत सरकार से 30-9-2008 तक अनुमोदन प्राप्त करेगा । यदि उस तिथि तक अनुमोदन नहीं प्राप्त किया जाएगा , यह अनुमोदन उस तिथि तक प्रभावी नहीं होगा जब तक ऐसा अनुमोदन प्राप्त नहीं कर लिया जाएगा ।

[अधिसूचना सं. 17/2008/फा. सं. 203/28/2007- आ.क.नि.- II ]

सुरेन्द्र पाल , अवर सचिव

NewDelhi , the 4th February, 2008

S.Q. 273. It is hereby notified for general information that the organization St. Xavier's College Kolkata Educational Trust, Kolkata, has been approved by the Central Government for the purpose of clause ( ii ) of sub- section ( 1 ) ofsection35 ofthe Income- tax Act, 1961 (said Act ), read with Rules 5C and 5E of the Income- tax Rules , 1962 (said Rules ) , with effect from 1-4-2007 in the category of ' College ' , partly engaged in research activities subject to the following conditions, namely:-

(i ) The sums paid to the approved organization shall be utilized for scientific research;

( ii ) The approved organization shall carry out scientific research through its faculty members or its enrolled students;

(iii ) The approved organization shall maintain separate books of accounts in respect of the sums received by it for scientific research , reflect therein the amounts used for carrying out research , get such books audited by anaccountant as defined in the explanaiton to sub - section (2) of section 288 of the said Act and furnish the report of such audit duly signed and verified by such accountant to the Commissioner of Income - tax or the Director of Income- tax having jurisdiction over the case , by the due date of furnishing the return of income under sub-section ( 1 ) of section 139 of the said Act;

2. The Central Government shall withdraw the approval if the approved organization :-

(a) fails to maintain separate books of accounts referred to in sub -paragraph ( iii ) of paragraph 1; or (b) fails to furnish its audit report referred to in sub-paragraph ( iii ) of paragraph 1 ; or

(c) fails to furnish its statement of the donations received and sums applied for scientific research referred to in sub -paragraph ( iv) of paragraph 1 ; or

(d) ceases to carry on its research activities or its research activities are not found to be genuine; or (e) ceases to conform to and comply with the provisions of clause ( ii ) of sub- Section ( 1 ) of section 35 of the saidAct read with rules 5C and 5E of the said Rules .

3. The above approval is being given subject to the condition that the applicant organisation will obtain the approval from the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, Government of India, by 30-9-2008 . If the said approval is not obtained by that date , this approval will no more be in force till the date such approval is obtained .

[Notification No. 17/2008/F . No. 203 /28 /2007 - ITA - II ] SURENDER PAL, Under Secy .

539

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 16, 2008/माघ 27 , 1929

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3(ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 6 फरवरी , 2008

का. आ. 274.--सर्वसाधारण की जानकारी के लिए एतद्वारा यह अधिसूचित किया जाता है कि केन्द्र सरकार द्वारा आयकर नियमावली , 1962 ( उक्त नियमावली ) के नियम 5ग और 5ङ के साथ पठित आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 ( उक्त अधिनियम ) की धारा 35 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खंड ( ii ) के प्रयोजनार्थ दिनांक 1-4-2006 से संगठन इन्टरनेशनल इन्स्टीट्यूट आफ बायोटेक्नोलोजी एंड टॉक्सीकोलोजी , पडप्पई, तमिलनाडु को निम्नलिखित शतौ के अधीन आंशिक रूप से अनुसंधान कार्यकलापों में लगी ' अन्य संस्था' की श्रेणी में अनुमोदित किया गया है , नामतः- (i ) अनुमोदित संगठन को प्रदत्त राशि का उपयोग वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान के लिए किया जाएगा;

(ii) अनुमोदित संगठन अपने संकाय सदस्यों अथवा अपने नामांकित छात्रों के माध्यम से वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान करेगा;

(iii ) अनुमोदित संगठन वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान के लिए इसके द्वारा प्राप्त राशि के संबंध में अलग खाता बही रखेगा जिसमें अनुसंधान करने के लिए प्रयुक्त राशि दर्शाई गई हो , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 288 की उप धारा ( 2 ) के स्पष्टीकरण में यथा परिभाषित किसी लेखाकार से अपनी खाता- बही की लेखा परीक्षा कराएगा और उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 139 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अंतर्गत आय विवरणी प्रस्तुत करने की नियत तिथि तक ऐसे लेखाकार द्वारा विधिवत सत्यापित एवं हस्ताक्षरित लेखा परीक्षा रिपोर्ट मामले में क्षेत्राधिकार रखने वाले आयकर आयुक्त अथवा आयकर निदेशक को प्रस्तुत करेगा;

2. केन्द्र सरकार यह अनुमोदन वापिस ले लेगी यदि अनुमोदित संगठन :-

(क) पैराग्राफ 1 के उप-पैरा - ग्राफ ( iii ) में उल्लिखित पृथक लेखा बही नहीं रखेगा; अथवा

(ख) पैराग्राफ 1 के उप- पैरा- ग्राफ ( iii ) में उल्लिखित अपनी लेखा परीक्षा रिपोर्ट प्रस्तुत नहीं करेगा; अथवा

( ग) पैराग्राफ 1 के उप-पैरा- ग्राफ ( iv ) में उल्लिखित वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान के लिए प्राप्त एवं प्रयुक्त दान का अपना विवरण प्रस्तुत नहींकरेगा; अथवा

(घ) अपना अनुसंधान कार्य करना बंद कर देगा अथवा इसके अनुसंधान कार्य को जायज नहीं पाया जाएगा; अथवा (ङ) उक्त नियमावली के नियम 5ग और 5ङ के साथ पठित उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 35 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खंड ( ii ) के प्रावधानों के अनुरूप नहीं होगा तथा उनका पालन नहीं करेगा ।

[अधिसूचना सं. 22/2008/फा. सं. 203/55/2007--आ.क.नि.- II ]

सुरेन्द्रपाल , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 6th February, 2008

S.O. 274. It is hereby notified for general information that the organization International Institute of Biotechnology and Toxicology, Padappai , Tamil Nadu has been approved by the Central Government for the purpose ofclause ( ii ) of sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 35 , of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (said Act) , read with Rules 5C and 5E of the Income -tax Rules , 1962 (said Rules ), with effect from 1-4-2006 in the category of 'Other Institution ' , partly engaged in research activities subject to the following conditions , namely:-

( i ) The sums paid to the approved organization shall be utilized for scientific research ;

( ii ) The approved organization shall carry out scientific research through its faculty members or its enrolled students;

( iii ) The approved organization shall maintain separate books of accounts in respect ofthe sums received by it for scientific research , reflect therein the amounts used for carrying out research, get such books audited by an accountant as defined in the explanation to sub- section (2) of Section 288 of the said Act and furnish the report of such audit duly signed and verified by such accountant to the Commissioner of Income- tax or the Director of Income -tax having jurisdiction over the case , by the due date of furnishing the return of income under sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 139 of the said Act ;

( iv) The approved organization shall maintain a separate statement ofdonations received and amounts applied for scientific research and a copy of such statement duly certified by the auditor shall accompany the report of audit referred to above .

2. The Central Government shall withdraw the approval if the approved organization :-

(a) fails to maintain separate books of accounts referred to in sub- paragraph ( iii ) of paragraph 1 ; or (b) fails to furnish its audit report referred to in sub-paragraph ( iii ) of paragraph 1 ; or

(c) fails to furnish its statement of the donations received and sums applied for scientific research referred to in sub -paragraph ( iv) of paragraph 1 ; or

(d) ceases to carry on its research activities or its research activities are not found to be genuine ; or 540

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 16, 2008/MAGHA 27 , 1929

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] (e) ceases to conform to and comply with the provisions of clause (ii ) of sub-section ( 1 ) of Section 35 of the said Act read with rules SC and SE of the said Rules .

[Notification No. 22/2008 /F . No. 203/55/2007/ITA- II ]

SURENDER PAL, Under Secy..

नई दिल्ली , 5 फरवरी , 2008

का. आ. 275.-केन्द्रीय सरकार, राजभाषा ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) नियम 1976 के नियम 10 के उपनियम (4) के अनुसरण में राजस्व विभाग के अधीन केन्द्रीय उत्पाद एवं सीमा शुल्क बोर्ड, के मुख्यालय एवं निम्नलिखित प्रमण्डलों को , जिन्होंने 80 प्रतिशत कर्मचारीवृंद ने हिन्दी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है , अधिसूचित करती है:-

1. केन्द्रीय उत्पाद शुल्क एवं सेवा कर ( मुख्यालय ) , रांची

12. केन्द्रीय उत्पाद शुल्क एवं सेवा कर प्रमण्डल , रांची

। 3. कैन्द्रीय उत्पाद शुल्क एवं सेवा कर प्रमण्डल , धनबाद

4. केन्द्रीय उत्पाद शुल्क एवं सेवा कर प्रमण्डल , बोकारो

। 5. केन्द्रीय उत्पाद शुल्क एवं सेवा कर प्रमण्डल, हजारीबाग

[फा. सं. 11012/ 1 /2008-हिन्दी-2 ] डा. जोगेन्द्र सिंह , उप-निदेशक ( रा.भा. )

NewDelhi , the 5th February, 2008

S.O. 275.-In pursuance ofsub rule ( 4) of rule 10 of the Official Language (use for official purpose ofthe union) Rules 1976 the Central Govt. hereby notifies the following offices under the Central Board ofExcise & Customs , Deptt . of Revenue , the 80% staff of where ofhave acquired the working knowledge of Hindi :

1. Central Excise & Service tax, (Hqr . ) Ranchi .

2. Central Excise & Service tax, Division, Ranchi .

3. Central Excise & Service tax, Division, Dhanbad.

4. Central Excise & Service tax, Division, Bokaro.

5. Central Excise & Service tax, Division , Hazaribagh .

[F. No. 11012/ 1 /2008/Hindi -2 ] Dr. JOGENDER SINGH, Dy. Director (OL)

(वित्तीय सेवाएं विभाग )

नई दिल्ली , 1 फरवरी , 2008

का.आ. 276. बैंककारी विनियमन अधिनियम , 1949 ( 1949 का 10 ) की धारा 53 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार , भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक की सिफारिश पर, एत‌द्वारा घोषणा करती है कि उपरोक्त अधिनियम की धारा 31 के उपबंध , प्रादेशिक ग्रामीण बैंक अधिनियम, 1976 ( 1976 का 2 ) की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अंतर्गत स्थापित किए गए क्षेत्रीय ग्रामीण बैंकों पर उस सीमा तक लागू नहीं होंगे , जहां तक उनका संबंध 31 मार्च , 2008 को समाप्त होने वाले वर्ष के लिए उनके तुलन - पत्रों और लाभ हानि विवरण तथा उन पर लेखापरीक्षक की रिपोर्ट के प्रकाशन से संबंधित अपेक्षा से है । तथापि प्रत्येक क्षेत्रीय ग्रामीण बैंक को अपनी सभी शाखाओं में तुलन पत्र और लाभ एवं हानि के लेखे का संक्षिप्त रूप , जैसा भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक द्वारा निर्धारित किया जाए, को प्रदर्शित करना अनिवार्य है ।

[फा. सं. 8 (6)/87- आरआरबी]

एम. साहू, अवर सचिव

(Department of Financial Services) New Delhi , the 1st February, 2008

S.O. 276. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 53 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 ( 10 of 1949) , the Central Government, on the recommendation of Reserve Bank of India, hereby declares that the provisions of Section 31 ofthe said Act shall not apply, to the Regional Rural Banks established under sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the Regional Rural Banks Act , 1976 (2 of 1976) insofar as the said Section requires the publication of their balance sheets and profit and loss accounts together with the auditor's report thereon for the year ending March 31 , 2008. It is , however , mandatory for every RRB to display its Balance Sheet and Profit & Loss Account in all its branches in an abridged form as may be prescribed by the Reserve Bank of India .

[F. No. 8 (6)/87-RRB]

M. SAHU , Under Secy.

541

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 16, 2008/माष 27 , 1929

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली , 1 फरवरी , 2008

का.आ. 277. - जबकि, प्रादेशिक ग्रामीण बैंक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 21 ) ( इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है) की धारा 3 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पंजाब राज्य में, दिनांक 30-03-1983 की 260 (अ ) , दिनांक 28-03-1983 की 242(अ ) और दिनांक 30-03-1983 की 237 ( अ ) अधिसूचनाओं के द्वारा क्रमशः गुरुदासपुर -अमृतसर क्षेत्रीय ग्रामीण विकास बैंक , कपूरथला फिरोजपुर क्षेत्रीय ग्रामीण बैंक और शिवालिक क्षेत्रीय ग्रामीण बैंक के नामों से क्षेत्रीय ग्रामीण बैंकों का गठन किया ।

जबकि, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 23 क की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अंतर्गत प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पंजाब राज्य के गुरुदासपुर- अमृतसर क्षेत्रीय ग्रामीण विकास बैंक, कपूरथला फिरोजपुर क्षेत्रीय ग्रामीण बैंक और शिवालिक क्षेत्रीय ग्रामीण बैंक को, भारत सरकार , वित्त मंत्रालय , आर्थिक कार्य विभाग ( बैंकिंग प्रभाग ) की दिनांक 12 सितम्बर , 2005 की अधिसूचना संख्या के का.आ. 1265(अ ) के अंतर्गत , समामेलित कर एकल क्षेत्रीय ग्रामीण बैंक अर्थात् पंजाब ग्रामीण बैंक बना दिया है ।

और जबकि, केन्द्र सरकार पंजाब ग्रामीण बैंक के परिचालन क्षेत्र का पंजाब राज्य के तरनतारन और एसएएस नगर (मोहाली ) जिले तक विस्तार को विनिर्दिष्ट करना चाहती है ।

अतः अब, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 3 के साथ पठित , धारा 23 क के अंतर्गत प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्द्वारा , भारत सरकार, वित्त मंत्रालय , आर्थिक कार्य विभाग ( बैंकिंग प्रभाग ) की दिनांक 12 सितम्बर , 2005 की अधिसूचना सं. का.आ. 1265 (अ ) में निम्मलिखित संशोधन करती है , नामत:-

उपर्युक्त अधिसूचना में अनुच्छेद 8 में, " गुरुदासपुर, अमृतसर और जालंधर " शब्दों के स्थान पर " गुरुदासपुर , अमृतसर , जालंधर, तरनतारन और एसएएस नगर ( मोहाली ) " शब्द प्रतिस्थापित किए जाएंगे ।

[फा. सं. 7/5/2006- आरआरबी]

एम. साहू, अवर सचिव टिप्पणी: मूल अधिसचूना दिनांक 12 सितम्बर , 2005 को भारत के राजपत्र , असाधारण के भाग II , खंड 3 , उपखंड ( ii ) में सं. का.आ. 1265 ( अ ) के तहत प्रकाशित की गयी थी और तत्पश्चात् 17 अप्रैल , 2007 को प्रकाशित का.आ. 1150 के तहत् संशोधित की गयी।

New Delhi , the 1st February, 2008

S.O. 277. Whereas in exercise ofthe powers conferred by Section 3 ofthe Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 (21 of1976), (hereinafter referred as the said Act) , the Central Government constituted the Regional Rural Banks in the State of Punjab under names of Gurdaspur -Amritsar Kshetriya Gramin Vikas Bank, Kapurthala Ferozpure Kshetriya Gramin Bank and Shivalik Kshetriya Gramin Bank vide notifications 260(E ) dated 30-03-1983 , 242 dated 28-03-1983and 237 (E ) dated 30-03-1983, respectively.

Whereas, in exercise of powers conferred under Sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 23A of the said Act, the Central Government provided for the amalgamation of the Gurdaspur- Amritsar Kshetriya Gramin Vikas Bank, Kapurthala Ferozpure Kshetriya Gramin Bank and Shivalik Kshetriya Gramin Bank in the State of Punjab into a single Regional Rural Bank i.e. Punjab Gramin Bank, vide notification of the Government of India, Ministry of Finance , Department of Economic Affairs (BankingDivision), number , S.O. 1265 (E), dated the 12th September, 2005.

And whereas , the Central Government intends to specify the extension of area of operation ofthe Punjab Gramin Bank to Taran Taran and SAS Nagar (Mohali) Districts in the State ofPunjab .

Now therefore, in exercise ofpowers conferred under Section 23A, read with Section 3 ofthe said Act, the Central Government hereby makes the following amendments in the notification of the Government of India, Ministry of Finance , Department ofEconomic Affairs (Banking Division ), number S.O. 1265 (E) , dated 12th September, 2005 , namely :-

In the said notification , in Paragraph 8, for the words "Gurdaspur , Amritsar and Jalandhar " , the words and brackets "Gurdaspur, Amritsar, Jalandhar , Taran Taran and SAS Nagar ( Mohali) " , shall be substituted.

[F. No. 7/5/2006-RRB]

M. SAHU, Under Secy.

Footnote: The principal notification was published, vide number , S.O. 1265 (E), dated the 12th September , 2005, in the Gazette of India Extraordinary, Part II , Section 3 , Sub - section ( ii ) and subsequently amended, vide S.O. 1150, dated 17thApril, 2007..

नई दिल्ली, 31 जनवरी , 2008

का.आ. 278. - राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक ( प्रबंध एवं प्रकीर्ण उपबंध ) स्कीम 1970/1980 के खंड 3 के उपखंड ( 1 ) के साथ पठित , बैंककारी कंपनी (उपक्रमों का अर्जन एवं अंतरण ) अधिनियम , 70/1980 की धारा 9 की उप - धारा 3 ( ज) एवं ( 3 - क ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों 542

[PART II-SEC. 3 (1) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 16 , 2008/MAGHA 27 , 1929

का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार, एतद्वारा श्रीमति सारिया खान को इस अधिसूचना की तारीख से तीन वर्ष की अवधि के लिए या अगले आदेशों तक , जो भी पहले हो , बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा के निदेशक बोर्ड में अंशकालिक गैर- सरकारी निदेशक के पद पर नामित करती है ।

[फा. सं. 9/4/2006- बी ओ- I ]

जी. बी. सिंह, उप सचिव

New Delhi , the 31st January, 2008

S.O 278.- In exercise of the powers conferred by of Sub- section 3 (h) and (3 - A) of Section 9 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970/1980 read with Sub- clause 3 of the National Banks (Management & Miscellaneous Provisions ) Scheme 1970/1980, the Central Government hereby nominates Mrs. Saria Khan, as part-time non -official Director on the Board of Directors of Indian Bank for a period of three years from the date of notification or until further orders , whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 9/4/2006-BO . - 1 ] G.B. SINGH ,Dy . Secy .

नई दिल्ली, 8 फरवरी , 2008

का.आ. 279.- सरकारी स्थान ( अप्राधिकृत अधिभोगियों की बेदखली ) अधिनियम , 1971 ( 1971 का 40 ) की धारा 3 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, और, भारत सरकार , वित्त मंत्रालय , आर्थिक कार्य विभाग के 26 जुलाई , 1989 के का.आ. सं. 13 का अतिक्रमण करते हुए , ऐसे अतिक्रमण से पहले किए गए कार्यों और करने के लिए छोड़े गए कार्यों को छोड़कर तथा 20 जनवरी , 1997 की अधिसूचना सं. 15/11 /96- बीओए के अनुक्रम में , केन्द्रीय सरकार , एतद्वारा , निम्नलिखित सारणी के कालम ( 1 ) में उल्लिखित अधिकारी को नियुक्त करती है जो सरकार के राजपत्रित अधिकारी के स्तर के समकक्ष अधिकारी हों और उक्त अधिनियम के प्रयोजन के लिए सम्पदा अधिकारी ( एस्टेट ऑफिसर ) होंगे । ये अधिकारी उक्त अधिनियम द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करेंगे तथा उक्त अधिनियम के अधीन उक्त सारणी के कालम (2 ) में उल्लिखित सरकारी स्थानों के संबंध में सम्पदा अधिकारियों को सौंपे गए कार्यों को पूरा करेंगे :

सारणी

अधिकारी का पदनाम

सरकारी स्थानों की श्रेणियां तथा क्षेत्राधिकार की स्थानीयसीमाएं

(1)

(2)

मुख्य महाप्रबंधक/महाप्रबंधक , भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक, लखनऊ

भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक का अथवा उसके द्वारा या उसकी ओर से लखनऊ में पट्टे पर लिया गया अवस्थित स्थान

[फा. सं. 65 ( 1 )/2007- बी ओ-11 ]

एस. गोपाल कृष्ण , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 8th February, 2008

S.O. 279.- In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (40 of 1971 ) and in supersession of the Notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance,Department of Economic Affairs S.O. No. 13 dated 26th July, 1989 except in respect of things done or omitted to be done before such supersession, and in continuation of the Notification No. 15 / 11 /96- BOA dated 20th January, 1997, the CentralGovernment hereby appoints the officer mentioned in column ( 1 ) ofthe Table below, being officer equivalent to the rank ofa Gazetted Officer ofGovernment to be Estate Officers for the purpose of said Act , who shall exercise the powers conferred and perform the duties imposed on the Estate Officer by or under the said Act in respect of the public premises specified in column (2 ) of the said table.

TABLE

Designation ofthe Officer

Categories ofPublic premises and local limits of jurisdiction

(2)

(1)

Premises belonging to , or taken on lease by, or on behalf of, the Reserve Bank of India, in Lucknow .

The ChiefGeneral Manager /General Manager Reserve Bank of India, Lucknow.

[F. No. 65 ( 1 )/2007-BO.-11 ] S. GOPAL KRISHNA , Under Secy .

543

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 16 , 2008/माघ 27 , 1929

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

मानव संसाधन विकास मंत्रालय

(उच्यतर शिक्षा विभांग )

नई दिल्ली, 14 जनवृद्धी , 2008

का.आ. 280.- सार्वजनिक स्थान ( अप्राधिकृत कब्जा हटाने ) अधिनियम , 1971, के खण्ड 3 ( 1971 का 40 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , और भारत के राजपत्र के भाग II, खण्ड 3 , उपखण्ड ( ii ) में दिनांक 15 अक्तबर , 1988 को प्रकाशित दिनांक 19 सितम्बर , 1988 की अधिसूचना संख्या का.आ. 3078 को संशोधित करते हुए केन्द्रीय सरकार , नीचे तालिका के कॉलम ( 1 ) में उल्लिखित अधिकारी को , सरकार के राजपत्रित श्रेणी के अधिकारी के समक्ष अधिकारी होने के नाते , उक्त अधिनियम के प्रयोजनार्थ सम्पदा अधिकारी रूप में नियुक्त करती है । वे उक्त तालिका के कॉलम (2 ) में विनिर्दिष्ट सार्वजनिक स्थान के बारे में अपने क्षेत्राधिकार की स्थानीय सीमाओं के अंतर्गत उक्त अधिनियम द्वारा उसके अंतर्गत सम्पदा अधिकारी को दी गई शक्तियों का प्रयोग करेंगे तथा अपने कर्त्तव्यों का निर्वहन करेंगे ।

सारणी

अधिकारी का नाम

सार्वजनिक स्थान की श्रेणी तथा क्षेत्राधिकार की स्थानीय सीमाएं

(2)

(1)

रजिस्ट्रार,

भारतीय प्रौद्योगिकी संस्थान , खड़गपुर

भारतीय प्रौद्योगिकी संस्थान , खडगपुर से संबंधित अथवा पट्टे पर ली गई अथवा उसके द्वारा या उसकी ओर से मागी गई भूमि , जो पश्चिम बंगाल के पश्चिमी मिदनापुर जिला व कोलकाता तथा उड़ीसा के भुवनेश्वर में उसके प्रशासनिक नियंत्रण में आती है ।

[फा, सं. 4-32/2005-टी. एस-1 ]

यतेन्द्र कुमार, अवर सचिव MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

(Department of Higher Education) '

New Delhi, the 14th January , 2008

S.O.280. In exercise ofthe powers conferred by Section 3 ofPublic Premises (Eviction ofUnauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (40 of 1971 ) and in supersession ofthe Notification number S.O. 3078 dated the 19th September , 1988 , published inGazette of India, Part II , Section 3 sub- section ( ii) dated the 15th October, 1988 , the Central Government hereby appoints the officer mentioned in colum (1 ) of the Table below, being the officer equivalent to the rank of a Gazetted Officer of Government to be Estate Officers for the purposes of the said Act, who shall exercise the powers conferred and perform the duties imposed on Estate Officer by or under the said Act within the local limits ofhis jurisdiction in respect of the public premises specified in column (2) of the saidTable.

TABLE

Designation oftheOfficer

Categories ofPublic premises and local limits of jurisdiction

(1)

(2)

Registrar,

Indian Institute of Technology , Kharagpur.

Premisesbelonging to, or taken on lease or requisitioned by oronbehalfofthe Indian Institute ofTechnology , Kharagpur which are under its administrative control in District Paschim Medinipur and Kolkata in the State of West Bengal and in Bhubaneswar in the State ofOrissa .

[F. No. 4-32/2005-TS . - I]

VATENDRA KUMAR , Under Secy.

440 G1/2008-2 544

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 16, 2008/MAGHA 27, 1929

सूचना. और प्रसारण मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली , 9 जनवरी , 2008

का.आ. 281. - इस मंत्रालय की दिनांक 13 सितम्बर, 2007 कीसमसंख्यक अधिसचूना के अनुक्रम में और चलचित्र ( प्रमाणन ) नियम, 1983 को 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, केन्द्र सरकार तत्काल प्रभाव से दो वर्षों की अवधि के लिए अथवा अगले आदेशों तक, जो भी पहले हो, केन्द्रीय फिल्म प्रमाणन बोर्ड के दिल्ली सलाहकार पैनल के सदस्य के रूप में श्री गुरप्रीत सिंह , 2ए/ 5 रमेश नगर , नई दिल्ली -110015 को नियुक्त करती है ।

[फा. सं. 809/7/2007- एफ ( सी) ] संगीता सिंह, निदेशक (फिल्म) MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING

New Delhi , the 9th January, 2008

S.O. 281. In continuation of this Ministry's Notification of even number dated 13th September, 2007 and in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 5 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 (37 of 1952) readwith rules 7and 8 of the Cinematrograph (Certification) Rules, 1983 the Central Government is pleased to appoint ShriGurpreet Singh, 2A/5 , Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi- 110015 as a member of the Delhi advisory panel of the Central Board ofFilmCertification with immediate effect for a period oftwo years or until further orders , whichever is earlier .

[F. No. 809/7/2007 -F(C) ] SANGEETA SINGH, Director (Films )

नई दिल्ली, 9 जनवरी , 2008

का.आ. 282.- इस मंत्रालय की दिनांक 31 मई , 2007 की समसंख्यक अधिसचूना के अनुक्रम में और चलचित्र (प्रमाणन) नियम, 1983 के नियम 7 और 8 के साथ पठित चलचित्र अधिनियम , 1952( 1952का 37 ) की धारा 5 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियोंका प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्र सरकार तत्काल प्रभाव से दो वर्षों की अवधि के लिए अथवा अगले आदेशों तक , जो भी पहले हो , केन्द्रीय फिल्म प्रमाणन. बोर्ड के हैदराबाद सलाहकार पैनल के सदस्य के रूप में डॉ. ए. सुधाकर यादव , निवासी म.न. 1-2-215/ए, फ्लैट 34 , गमन विहाय अपार्टमेंट , डोमलगुडा, हैदराबाद को नियुक्त करती है ।

[फा. सं. 809/1/2007- एफ ( सी ) ] संगीता सिंह , निदेशक (फिल्म) New Delhi, the 9th January , 2008 S.O. 282. In continuation of this Ministry's Notification of even number dated 31st May , 2007 and in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 5 oftheCinematograph Act, 1952 (37 of 1952) read with rules 7 and 8 of the Cinematrograph (Certification) Rules , 1983 the Central Government is pleased to appoint Dr. A. Sudhaker Yadav, R/ o H. No. 1-2-215 /A , Flat 34 , Gagah jihar Apts , Domalguda, Hyderabad as a member of i

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]

theHyderabad advisory panel of the Central Board of Film Certificationwith immediate effect for a period oftwo years or until further orders , whichever is earlier .

[F. No. 809/1 /2007 -F(C) ] SANGEETA SINGH, Director (Films) नई दिल्ली , 9 जनवरी , 2008

का.आ. 283.- इस मंत्रालय की दिनांक 29-3-2007 की समसंख्यक अधिसचूना के अनुक्रम में और चलचित्र ( प्रमाणन) नियम, 1983 के नियम 7 और 8 के साथ पठित चलचित्र अधिनियम , 1952 ( 1952 का 37 ) की धारा 5 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियोंका प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्र सरकार तत्काल प्रभाव से दो वर्षों की अवधि के लिए अथवा अगले आदेशों तक , जो भी पहले हों, केन्द्रीय फिल्म प्रमाणन बोर्ड के चेन्नई सलाहकार पैनल के सदस्य के रूप में सुश्री सी. जयंती एम.सी.सं. 308 एच , टी. एन. एच.बी.,जोथि नगर पोस्ट, अराकोनम -631003 को नियुक्त करती है ।

[फा. सं. 809/2/2007- एफ ( सी) ] संगीता सिंह , निदेशक ( फिल्म) New Delhi , the 9th January, 2008

S.O. 283. In continuation of this Ministry's Notification ofeven number dated 29-3-2007 and in exercise ofthe powers conferred by sub-section ( 1 ) of Section 5 ofthe Cinematograph Act, 1952 (37 of 1952) read with rules 7 and 8 ofthe Cinematrograph (Certification ) Rules, 1983 the Central Government is pleased to appoint Ms. C. Jayanthi . M. C. , No. 308 H, T.N.H.B, Jothi Nagar Post, Arakkonam- 631003 as a member ofthe Chennai advisory panel ofthe Central Board of Film Certification with immediate effect for a period of two years or until further orders , whichever is earlier .

[F. No. 809/2/2007- F(C) ] SANGEETA SINGH, Director (Films) नई दिल्ली , 9 जनवरी , 2008

का.आ. 284.- इस मंत्रालय की दिनांक 06-8-2007 की समसंख्यक अधिसचूना के अनुक्रम में और चलचित्र ( प्रमाणन ) नियम, 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, केन्द्र सरकार तत्काल प्रभाव से दो वर्षों की अवधि के लिए अथवा अगले आदेशों तक , जो भी पहले हो , केन्द्रीय फिल्म प्रमाणन बोर्ड के मुंबई सलाहकार पैनल के सदस्यों के रूप में निम्नलिखित व्यक्तियों को नियुक्त करती है ।

1. श्री भीखुभा टी. जाला , 4/41 ,पूजा अपार्टमेंट , हिमंतलाल पार्क, आजाद सोसायटी , अहमदाबाद।

2. श्री जयकिशोर चतुर्वेदी , बृज लक्ष्मी , 204 स्टारलिंग सेंटर , अलकापुरी , बड़ौदा।

3. सुश्री फरीदाबेन भीखूभाई मीर , सिल्वर एवेन्यू, कलावड रोड, शेरी नं. 5 , नजदीक परिमल स्कूल , राजकोट ।

[फा. सं. 809/4/2007-एफ ( सी) ]

संगीता सिंह , निदेशक (फिल्म) 545 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 16, 2008/माघ 27, 1929

New Delhi, the 9th January, 2008

नियम, 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 केन्द्र सरकार तत्काल प्रभाव से दो वर्षों की अवधि के लिए अथवा अगले आदेशों तक, जो भी पहले हो , केंद्रीय फिल्म प्रमाणन बोर्ड के कोलकातां सलाहकार पैनल के सदस्य के रूप में श्री महावीर प्रसाद लखोटिया , 23- ( ए ) , नेताजी सुभाष रोड, आर. सं. 6 , तीसरा तल , कोलकाता -1 को नियुक्त करती है ।

[फा. सं. 809/1/2006- एफ ( सी ) ] संगीता सिंह , निदेशक (फिल्म) S.O. 284. In continuation of this Ministry's Notification of even number dated 6th August, 2007 and in exercise of the powers conferred by sub -section ( 1 ) of Section 5 ofthe 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 for a period of two years or until further orders, whichever is earlier :

New Delhi , the 11th January, 2008 (i) Shri Bhikhubha T. Zala, 4/41 , Pooja Apartment, Himantlal Park, Azad Society, Ahmedabad.

( ii) Shri Jaykishor Chaturvedi , ' Brij Laxmi ' , 204, Starling Centre, Alkapuri , Baroda.

(iii) Ms. Faridaben Bhikhubhai Mir, ' Silver Avenue' , Kalawad Road, Sheri No. 5, Nr. Parimal School , Rajkot,

[F. No. 809/4/2007-F(C)] SANGEETA SINGH, Director (Films)

नई दिल्ली , 9 जनवरी , 2008

S. O. 286-In continuation of this Ministry's Notification ofeven number dated 8-1-2007 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 theCentral Government is pleased to appoint Shri Mahavir Prasad Lakhotia, 23A, Netaji Subhash Road , R.No. 6, 3rd Floor, Kolkata- 1 as a Member of the Kolkata 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 .

[F. No. 809/1/2006- F(C) ] SANGEETA SINGH, Director (Films )

नई दिल्ली, 11 जनवरी , 2008

का.आ. 285. - इस मंत्रालय की दिनांक 13 सितम्बर , 2007 की समसंख्यक अधिसूचना के अनुक्रम में और चलचित्र ( प्रमाणन ) नियम, 1983 के नियम 7 और 8 के साथ पठित चलचित्र अधिनियम , 1952 ( 1952 का 37 ) की धारा 5 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियोंका प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्र सरकार तत्काल प्रभाव से दो वर्षों की अवधि के लिए अथवा अगले आदेशों तक, जो भी पहले हो , केंद्रीय फिल्म प्रमाणन बोर्ड के दिल्ली सलाहकार पैनल के सदस्य के रूप में श्री मोहम्मद शाहिद , 313 /75 - बी, आनंद नगर , इन्द्रलोक , नई दिल्ली -110035 को नियुक्त करती है ।

[फा. सं. 809/7/2007- एफ ( सी ) ] संगीता सिंह , निदेशक ( फिल्म)

का.आ. 287. इस मंत्रालय की दिनांक 13 सितम्बर, 2007 की समसंख्यक अधिसूचना के अनुक्रम में और चलचित्र ( प्रमाणन ) नियम , 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 केन्द्र सरकार तत्काल प्रभाव से दो वर्षों की अवधि के लिए अथवा अगले आदेशों तक, जो भी पहले हो, केन्द्रीय फिल्म प्रमाणन बोर्ड के दिल्ली सलाहकार पैनल के सदस्यों के रूप में निम्नलिखित व्यक्तियों को नियुक्त करती है:-

New Delhi , the 9th January , 2008

1. श्री जावैद उरफी, 3/4 शौकत अली रोड , इलाहाबाद-3 ।

2. श्रीमती मीरा गोयल , ए-38 , प्रथम तल, मोहन को-ऑपरेटिव इंडस्ट्रीयल एस्टेट, मुख्य मथुरा रोड , नई दिल्ली -44 ।

3. श्री तारिक राजा खान, 26 राजेन्द्र प्रसाद रोड, नई दिल्ली - 1

[फा. सं. 809/7/2007- एफ ( सी) ] संगीता सिंह , निदेशक ( फिल्म)

New Delhi , the 11th January , 2008 S. O. 285- In continuation of this Ministry's Notification of even number dated 13th September , 2007 and in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 1) of Section 5 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 (37 of 1952) read with rules 7 and 8 of the Cinematograph ( Certification) Rules, 1983 the Central Government is pleased to appoint Shri Mohd . Shahid, 313/ 75B , Anand Nagar, Inderlok, New Delhi - 110035 as a Member 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 .

[F. No. 809/7/2007-F(C) ] SANGEETA SINGH, Director (Films)

नई दिल्ली, 11 जनवरी , 2008

S. O. 287-In continuation of this Ministry's Notification of even number dated 13th September , 2007 and in exercise ofthe powers conferred by sub- section (1) ofSection 5 ofthe 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 का.आ. 286.- इस मंत्रालय की दिनांक 8-1-2007 की समसंख्यक अधिसूचना के अनुक्रम में और चलचित्र ( प्रमाणन ) 546

[PART IISEC. 3(ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 16, 2008/MAGHA 27, 1929

immediate effect for a period of two years or until further orders ,whichever is earlier :-

2. श्री वड्डीपल्ली साम्राज्यम सं. 77-78-16, वड्‌डीपल्लीस्ट्रीट , राधानगर , पायकापुरम , विजयवाड़ा - 15

1. Shri JavaidUrfi , 3/4 Shaukat Ali Road, Allahahad -3 .

[फा. सं. 809/1/2007- एफ ( सी ) ] संगीता सिंह , निदेशक ( फिल्म)

New Delhi , the 11th January, 2008 2. Smt . Meera Goyal, A- 38 , First Floor, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate , Main Mathura Road , New Delhi -44.

3. Shri Tariq Raja Khan , 26 , Rajendra Prasad Road, New Delhi- 1 .

[F. No. 809/7/2007-F(C) ] SANGEETA SINGH, Director (Films)

नई दिल्ली , 11 जनवरी , 2008

S. O. 289- In continuation of this Ministry's Notification of even number dated 31st May, 2007 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 ofthe Cinematograph ( Certification) Rules , 1983 the Central Government is pleased to appoint the following persons as Members of the Hyderabad Advisory Panel of the Central Board of Film Certification with immediate effect for a period of two years or until further orders, whichever is earlier :--

(1) Shri Mandava Damodara Rao, No. 18-12-10, 3rd Lane, Kedareswarapeta, Vijayawada- 13 .

(2) Smt . Vaddipalli Samrajyam, No. 77-78-16, Vaddipalli Street, Radhanagar , Payakapuram , Vijayawada- 15 .

[F. No. 809/1 /2007- F(C) ] SANGEETA SINGH, Director (Films) :का.आ. 288, -इस मंत्रालय की दिनांक 8-1-2007 की समसंख्यक अधिसूचना के अनुक्रम में और चलचित्र ( प्रमाणन ) नियम, 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 केन्द्र सरकार तत्काल प्रभाव से दो वर्षों की अवधि के लिए अथवा अगले आदेशों तक , जो भी पहले हो, केन्द्रीय फिल्म प्रमाणन बोर्ड के कटक सलाहकार पैनल के सदस्य के रूप में श्री राजकुमार यादव , ई. एम. / 102/बसंती नगर , राउरकेला-769012 , सुंदरगढ , उड़ीसा को नियुक्त करती है ।

नई दिल्ली, 16 जनवरी , 2008

[फा. सं. 809/2/2006- एफ ( सी ) ] संगीता सिंह, निदेशक (फिल्म)

NewDelhi, the 11th January, 2008

का.आ. 290.- इस मंत्रालय की दिनांक 13 दिसम्बर , 2007 कीसमसंख्यक 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 केन्द्र सरकार तत्काल प्रभाव से दो वर्षों की अवधि के लिए अगले आदेशों तक , जो भी पहले हो, केंद्रीय फिल्म प्रमाणन बोर्ड के दिल्ली सलाहकार पैनल के सदस्य के रूप में श्री शरद मिश्रा, ई ( 1 ) -200 , डिफेन्स कालोनी , जजमाऊ , कानपुर -10( उ. प्र. ) को नियुक्त करती है ।

[फा. सं. 809/7/2007-एफ ( सी ) ] संगीता सिंह, निदेशक ( फिल्म)

New Delhi , the 16th January, 2008 S. O. 288. In continuation of this Ministry's Notification ofeven number dated 8-1-2007 and in exercise ofthe powers conferred by sub - section ( 1) of Section 5 of theCinematograph Act, 1952 (37 of 1952 ), read with rules 7and 8 of the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 1983 the Central Government is pleased to appoint Shri Rajkumar Yadav , EM / 102 , Basanti Nagar , Rourkela- 769012 , Sundergarh, Orissa as a Member of the Cuttack Advisory Panel of the Central Board of Film Certification with immediate effect for period of two years or until further orders , whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 809/2/2006- F(C) ]

SANGEETA SINGH, Director ( Films)

नई दिल्ली, 11 जनवरी , 2008

S. O. 290. -In continuation of this Ministry's Notification of even number dated 13th September, 2007 and in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) ofSection 5 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 (37 of 1952 ) readwith rules 7 and 8 of the Cinematograph ( Certification) Rules, 1983 the Central Government is pleased to appoint Shri Sharad Mishra, E( 1 )- 200 , Defence Colony, Jajmau , Kanpur- 10 (UP) as a Member of the Delhi Advisory Panel ofthe Central Board of Film Certification with immediate effect for a period of two years or until further orders , whichever is earlier .

[F.No. 809/7/2007-F( C) ]

SANGEETA SINGH, Director (Films )

नई दिल्ली, 16 जनवरी , 2008

का.. 289.- इस मंत्रालय की दिनांक 31 मई , 2007 की समसंख्यक अधिसूचना के अनुक्रम में और चलचित्र ( प्रमाणन ) नियम, 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 केन्द्र सरकार तत्काल प्रभाव से दो वर्षों की अवधि के लिए अथवा अगले आदेशों तक , जो भी पहले हो , केंद्रीय फिल्म प्रमाणन बोर्ड के हैदराबाद सलाहकार पैनल के सदस्य के रूप में निम्नलिखित व्यक्तियों को नियुक्त करती है:-

का.आ. 291.- इस मंत्रालय की दिनांक 6 अगस्त, 2007 की समसंख्यक अधिसूचना के अनुक्रम में और चलचित्र ( प्रमाणन ) 1. श्री मांडवा दामोदारा राव , सं. 18-12-10 , तीसरी लेन , केदारेश्वरापेटा, विजयवाड़ा -13 । [ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii )]

नियम, 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 केन्द्र सरकार तत्काल प्रभाव से दो वर्षों की अवधि के लिए या अगले आदेशों तक , जो भी पहले हो , केन्द्रीय फिल्म प्रमाणन बोर्ड के मुंबई सलाहकार पैनल के सदस्य के रूप में डा. प्रकाश अग्रवाल , डी-55 , ग्लास शॉप के सामने, हरिशंकरपुरम , ग्वालियर (म. प्र. ) को नियुक्त करती है ।

[फा. सं. 809/4/2007- एफ ( सी) ] संगीता सिंह , निदेशक ( फिल्म) New Delhi , the 16th January , 2008 S.O. 291- In continuation of this Ministry's Notification ofeven number dated 6th August , 2007 and in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 1 ) of Section5 ofthe Cinematograph Act , 1952 (37 of 1952) , read withrules 7 and 8 ofthe Cinematograph ( Certification) Rules , 1983 the Central Government is pleased to appoint Dr. Prakash Agarwal , D - 55 , Opp . Glass Shop , Harishankarpuram , Gwalior (MP ) as a member of the Mumbai Advisory Panel of the Central Board of Film Certification with, immediate effect for a period oftwo years oruntil further orders , whichever is earlier .

[F. No. 809/4/2007-F(C) ] SANGEETA SINGH, Director (Films) उपभोक्ता मामले , खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय (उपभोक्ता मामले विभाग )

भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो

नई दिल्ली , 30 जनवरी , 2008

का. आ. 292.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम, 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गए हैं:-

अनुसूची

547

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 16 , 2008/माघ 27 , 1929

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

[संदर्भः एमटीडी 7/टी -39 ] डॉ ( श्रीमति ) स्नेह भाटला , वैज्ञानिक ' एफ ' एवं

प्रमुख (एमटीडी) MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department of Consumer Affairs) (BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS) NewDelhi, the 30th January, 2008

S.O. 292. In pursuance of clause (b) of sub - rule (1) of Rule 7 ofthe 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

No. & Year of

Date of Sl . No.

No. & year

Established theIndian

ofIndian

Standards

Standards,

Established

ifany,

Superseded

bythe New

Indian Standard

(3) .

(4) (I) (2)

I IS4026:2007-

30November, 2007 Aluminium

IS 4026: 1987 (Third Revision).

Ingots, Billets

and Wire Bars

(ECGrade)

(FourthRevision)

स्थापित तिथि

नये भारतीय

क्रम स्थापित भारतीय

मानक द्वारा

संख्या मानक(कों)

कीसंख्या, वर्ष अतिक्रमित

और शीर्षक

भारतीय मानक

अथवामानकों,

यदिकोई हों, की

संख्या और वर्ष

(4) (1) (2)

(3)

1 आईएस 4026:2007 आईएस 4026: 1987 30 नवम्बर एल्यूमिनियम के इंगट , ( तीसरा पुनरीक्षण ) 2007 बिलेट एवं तार की

छड़े (ई सी ग्रेड)

(चौथा पुनरीक्षण)

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

[Ref: MTD 7/T-39 ] Dr. (Mrs.) SNEH BHATLA, Scientist ' F' & Head (Met . Engg .) नई दिल्ली, 30 जनवरी , 2008

का. आ. 293.- 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 अनुसूची में दिए गए मानक (कों) में संशोधन किया गया/किये गये हैं:-

548

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 16, 2008/ MAGHA 27 , 1929

अनुसूची

संशोधित भारतीय संशोधनकी संशोधन लागू

संख्या और

क्रम संख्या मानक(कौं )

होने की तिथि

तिथि

की संख्या, वर्ष और शीषीक

(1) (2)

(3)

(4) 1

16 जनवरी , आईएस 3502: 1994

2008

संशोधन संख्या 3 , जनवरी , 2008

इस्पात की,

चारखानेदार

फ्लेटें-विशिष्टि

( दूसरा पुनरीक्षण )

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

[संदर्भः एमटीडी 4/टी -95 ] डॉ ( श्रीमति ) स्नेह भाटला, वैज्ञानिक ' एफ' एवं प्रमुख ( एमटीडी) NewDelhi , the 30th January, 2008

S.D. 293. In pursuance of clause (b) of sub - rule (1) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of India 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 date indicated against each:

SCHEDULE

No. & Year of

Sl . No.

the Indian

No.& year of the amendment

Standards

amendment (s)

Datefrom which the amendment shall have effect (1)

(2)

(3)

(4) 1 IS3502 : 1994 Amendment 16th January, 2008 Steel

chequered

No. 3, January, 2008

plates Specification

(second revision)

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

[Ref: MTD 4 /T-95 ] Dr. (Mrs.) SNEH BHATLA, Scientist 'F' & Head (Met . Engg.)

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] नई दिल्ली, 30 जनवरी , 2008

का. आ. 294.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम, 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गए हैं :-

अनुसूची

क्रम स्थापित भारतीय

स्थापित तिथि

नये भारतीय

संख्या मानक(कों )

मानक द्वारा

अतिक्रमित

की संख्या, वर्ष

और शीर्षक

भारतीय मानक

अथवा मानकों,

यदिकोई हों , की

संख्याऔर वर्ष

(1) (2)

(3)

(4) 1 आईएस 191: 2007 आईएस 191 ( भाग 1

ताँबा-विशिष्टि

30 जून , 2007 (चौथा पुनरीक्षण )

से 10 तक ) : 1980 ( तीसरा पुनरीक्षण )

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

[ संदर्भः एमटीडी 8/टी -2 ] डॉ ( श्रीमति ) स्नेह भाटला, वैज्ञानिक ' एफ' एवं प्रमुख ( एमटीडी) New Delhi , the 30th January, 2008

S.O. 294. In pursuance of clause (b) of sub - rule (1) ofRule 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. No. & Year of No.& year Date of Established the Indian

ofIndian

Standards

Standards,

Established

ifany,

Superseded

by the New

Indian Standard

(1)

(3)

(2)

(4) 1

IS 191 : (Parts I 30th June 2007 IS 191 : 2007-

toX) : 1980

Copper-

Specification (Third Revision )

(Fourth Revision)

Copy of this Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards , Manak Bhavan , 9 Bahadur [भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

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: MTD 8 /T-2] Dr. (Mrs. ) SNEH BHATLA, Scientist 'F' & Head (Met . Engg . ) नई दिल्ली , 30 जनवरी , 2008

का. आ. 295.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गए हैं :-

अनुसूची

549

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 16 , 2008/माघ 27 , 1929

SCHEDULE

Sl . No. No. & Year of No. & year

ofIndian

Date of Established the Indian Standards Established

Standards, ifany, Superseded bytheNew Indian Standard

(3)

(1) (2)

(4) 1 IS 15748 : 2007

Nil

December, 2007

स्थापित तिथि

स्थापित भारतीय नये भारतीय

मानक द्वारा

क्रम संख्या मानक ( कों)

अतिक्रमित

कीसंख्या, वर्ष

और शीर्षक

भारतीयमानक

अथवा मानकों, यदि कोई हों, की संख्या और वर्ष

(2)

(3)

(1)

(4)

नहीं

1 आईएस 15748 : 2007

दिसम्बर , 2007 वस्त्रादि-औद्योगिक

मजदूरों के लिए

गर्मी से बचाव के लिए सुरक्षा वस्त्र (आग बुझाने वालों और वेल्डरों के वस्त्रों कोछोड़कर)

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

[संदर्भ: टीएक्सडी/जी -25 ] एम. एस. वर्मा , निदेशक एवं प्रमुख ( टीएक्सडी) NewDelhi, the 30th January, 2008 S. O. 295. 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 :

Textiles-Protective Clothing for Industrial Workers ExposedtoHeat (Excluding Fire- Fighters' and Welders' Clothing)

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

[Ref: TXD/G-25] M.S. VERMA, Director & Head (Textiles) नई दिल्ली , 31 जनवरी , 2008

का. आ. 296.-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 जिस भारतीय मानक का विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिया गया है वह स्थापित हो गया है: -

अनुसूची

नये भारतीय

स्थापित भारतीय

स्थापित तिथि मानक (कों )

क्रम संख्या

मानक द्वारा

की संख्या, वर्ष

औरशीर्षक

अतिक्रमित भारतीय मानक अथवा मानकों, यदिकोई हों, की संख्या और वर्ष

(2)

(3)

(4) (1)

1 आई एस 60079-25 :

30नवम्बर ,

2007 विस्फोटी गैस पर्यावरणों

के लिए बिजली के उपकरण

भाग 25 निजतया निरापद

पद्धति 550

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 16, 2008 /MAGHA 27, 1929

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

[संदर्भ: ईटी-22/टी-56 ] पी.के. मुखर्जी, वैज्ञा. ' एफ' एवं प्रमुख ( विद्युत तकनीकी ) New Delhi , the 31st January, 2008

S. O. 296. In pursuance of clause (b ) of sub- rule (1) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standard 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

No. & year ofIndian Standards, ifany, Superseded bytheNew

Indian Standard

(4) (2)

(3)

(1)

1 IS/IEC

30thNov. , 2007 60079-25:

2003 Electrical Apparatus for ExplosiveGas Atmospheres Part2/5 Intrin- sically safe systems

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

[Ref: ET/-22/T- 56 ] P. K. MUKHERJEE , Sc . ' F ' . & Head (Electro -technical ) नई दिल्ली, 4 फरवरी , 2008

का. आ. 297.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक न्यूरो एसद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिस भारतीय मानक का विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिया गया है वह स्थापित हो गया है:-

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

अनुसूची

नयेभारतीय स्थापित तिथि स्थापित भारतीय

मानक द्वारा

मानक (कों)

क्रम संख्या

कीसंख्या वर्ष

अतिक्रमित

भारतीय मानक

औरशीर्षक

अथवा मानकों,

यदिकोई हों, की संख्या और वर्ष

(2)

(3)

(4) (1)

1 आईएस 2824: 2007

30नवम्बर, 2007 ठोस रोधन सामग्री काविधुतरोधन और तुलनात्मक ट्रैकिंग

सूचकांक ज्ञांत करने

कीपद्धति

(दूसरा पुनरीक्षण )

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

[संदर्भ: ईटी-02/टी -13 ] पी. के. मुखर्जी, वैज्ञा. ' एफ ' एवं प्रमुख ( विद्युत तकनीकी ) New Delhi , the 4th February , 2008

S. O. 297. -In pursuance of clause (b ) of sub- rule (1) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standard Rules , 1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies the Indian Standards , particulars of which is given in the Schedule hereto annexed has been issued :

SCHEDULE

Date of Sl . No.

No. & year

Established

ofIndian

No. & Year of the Indian Standards

Standards,

ifany,

Superseded by the New Indian Standard

(4) (2)

(3)

(1)

IS/2824: 2007

30thNov. ,

2007 Method for the

1 determination ofthe proof and the com- parativetrack- ing indicates ofsolid insu-

latingmaterials (second revision) 551 [भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 16, 2008/माघ 27 , 1929

SCHEDULE

Dateof

No.& year

Sl . No. No. & Year of

the Indian

ofIndian Established

Standards

Standards,

Established

ifany,

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

bytheNew

[Ref: ET/02/T- 13]

Indian Standard

(1) (2)

(3)

(4) P. K. MUKHERJEE, Sc . ' F' . & Head (Electro Technical)

31October

IS 14737 : 1999/

IS/ISO 8041 :

नई दिल्ली, 4 फरवरी , 2008

ISO 8041 : 1990

2005 Human

2007

HurmanRes-

Responseto

vibration- ponse to vib-

ration-measuring

measuring

Instrumentation

Instrumen- tation

का. आ. 298.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड (ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गए हैं ।

अनुसूची

स्थापित भारतीय नये भारतीय स्थापित तिथि

मानक (कों)

मानक द्वारा

क्रम संख्या

की संख्या वर्ष

अतिक्रमित

औरशीर्षक

भारतीय मानक

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

अथवामानकों,

[Ref: MED/G-2: 1 ] यदिकोई हो, की

C. K. VEDA , Sc . ' F' . & Head (Mechanical Engineering) संख्या और वर्ष

नई दिल्ली, 4 फरवरी , 2008 (1) (2)

(3)

(4)

आईएस 14377 :

1 आईएस /आईएसओ

31 अक्तूबर

2007

8041: 2005 कंपन 1999/आईएस ओ

का. आ. 299.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए मानक(कों) में संशोधन किया गया/ किये गये हैं । 8041 1990 कंपन

के प्रति मानक प्रति-

क्रिया-मापन उप-

अनुसूची

क्रिया-मापन

करण

उपकरण

क्रम संख्या

संशोधन लागू होने की तिथि

संशोधनकी संख्या और तिथि

संशोधित भारतीय मानक की संख्या और वर्ष

(1) (2)

(3)

(4)

1.आईएस 12933 संशोधन नं. 2 ,

अगस्त2007

(भाग 1 ): 2003 सर

2नवम्बर 2007

सपाट पट्टिका

संग्राहक: विशिष्टि

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

भाग 1 अपेक्षाएं

[संदर्भः एमईडी/जी-2 : 1 ]

(दूसरा पुनरीक्षण)

सी.के. वेदा , वैज्ञा. ' एफ ' एवं प्रमुख ( यांत्रिक इंजीनियरिंग )

New Delhi, the 4th February, 2008

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

S. O. 298. In pursuance of clause (b ) of sub - rule (1) of Rule 7 ofthe Bureau ofIndia 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:

[संदर्भ:-एमईडी/जी-2 : 1 ] सी.के. वेदा , बैज्ञा. ' एप' प्रमुद्ध (यांत्रिक इंजीनियरिंग ) 440Gl/2008-3 552

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 16 , 2008 / MAGHA 27, 1929

NewDelhi , the4th February, 2008

: S. O. 299. 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 the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been issued:

SCHEDULE

Sl . No.

No. & year ofthe amendment

No. & Year of the Indian Standards

Date from which the amendment shall have effect (4) (1)

(3)

(2)

IS12933

Amendment 2 November 1

2007 (Pt-1):2003 No. 2 August

2007

SolarFlat

PlateCollector-

Specification

Part I Require-

ments(Second

Revision)

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

[Ref: MED/G -2: 1 ] C. K. VEDA, Sc . ' F ' . & Head ( Mechanical Engineering) नई दिल्ली, 4 फरवरी , 2008

का. आ. 300.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम, 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो रतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गए हैं : -

अनुसूची

स्थापित तिथि

नये भारतीय

स्थापित भारतीय

मानक (कों)

क्रम संख्या

मानक द्वारा

अतिक्रमित

कीसंख्या, वर्ष

भारतीय मानक

और शीर्षक

अथवामानकों,

यदिकोई हो, की

संख्या और वर्ष

(1)

(4) (2)

(3)

01 मार्च

आई एस 651 :

1 आईएस 651 : 2007

2008 काँचाम स्टोनवेयर 1992

पाइप और फिटिंग-

विशिष्टि

(छठा पुनरीक्षण)

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii)] इस भारतीय मानक की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन, 9 बहादुरशाह जफर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली-110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों : नई दिल्ली , कोलकाता, चण्डीगढ़ , चेन्नई , मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों : अहमदाबाद , बंगलौर , भोपाल , भुवनेश्वर , कोयम्बतूर , गुवाहाटी, हैदराबाद , जयपुर , कानपुर , नागपुर , पटना, पुणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

[संदर्भ: सीईडी/राजपत्र ] ए. के. सैनी , वैज्ञानिक ' एफ ' एवं प्रमुख ( सिविल इंजीनियरी ) New Delhi, the 4th February, 2008

S. O. 300.-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 theIndian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each:

SCHEDULE

Date of Sl . No. No. & Year of No. & year

Established the Indian

ofIndian

Standards

Standards,

Established

ifany,

Superseded

by the New

Indian Standard

(4) (1) (2)

(3)

1 IS651 : 2007

IS 651: 1992 1 March , 2008 Glazed Stone-

warePipes and

Fittings-Speci-

fication(Sixth

Revision)

Copy of this Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards , Manak Bhavan , 9, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi- 110002 and Regional Offices: New Delhi , Kolkatta 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.) पेट्रोलियम एवं प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली, 11 फरवरी , 2008

का. आ. 301.-तेल उद्योग ( विकास ) अधिनियम , 1974 (1974का 47) की धारा ( 3 ) की उपधारा ( 3 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त की गई शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्रीय सस्कार एतद्वारा निम्नलिखित अधिकारियों को तेल उद्योग विकास बोर्ड के सदस्य के रूप में , उनके सामने दर्शायी गई अवधि के लिए , या अगला आदेश जारी होने तक, जो भी पहले हो , नियुक्त करती है :-

553 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 16, 2008/माघ 27 , 1929

से

तक

20-1-2010

21-1-2008

श्री वी. एस. सम्पथ , सचिव, रसायन एवं पेट्रोरसायन विभाग

10-1-2010

11-1-2008

प्रतियां साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती है, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाईन बिछाए जाने के लिये उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के सम्बन्ध में श्रीमति भगवंती जेठवानी , सक्षम प्राधिकारी , बीना- कोटा पाईपलाईन परियोजना , भारत पेट्रोलियम कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड , बी-105 , इन्द्रा विहार, तलवण्डी, कोटा-324005 (राजस्थान ) को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।

अनुसूची

तहसील : बीना

जिला : सागर राज्य : मध्य प्रदेश 2 श्री आनंद कुमार , निदेशक (अनुसंधान एवंविकास) , इंडियन ऑयल कार्पोरेशन लि.

क्र.सं. ग्राम का नाम

सर्व नंबर

क्षेत्रफल (हेक्टर में) [सं. जी-35012/2/91- वित्त- II ] एस. सी. दास , अवर सचिव

1 2

0.1008

आगासौद

532

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS New Delhi, the 11th February, 2008

533

0.1440

535

0.0720

536

0.0576

0.0360

539

707

0.0288

763

0.1800 S.O. 301. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section (3 ) of Section 3 of the 'Oil Industry (Development) Act , 1974 (47 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints the following officers as Members of the Oil Industry Development Board for the period shown against their names or until further orders , whichever is earlier :-

778

0.0720

From

776

0.1512

20-1-2010

0.03456

777

1 Shri V.S. Sampath, 21-1-2008

1212

0.3312

1213

0.0360 Secretary, Deptt. ofChemicals & Petrochemicals

1214

0.0864

10-1-2010

Shri Anand Kumar, 11-1-2008

1215

0.1872

1206

0.2664

1206/1341

2 Director(R&D) IndianOil Cor- poration Ltd.

0.0216

1185

0.0936 [No. G. 35012/2/91 - Fin. II]

1180

0.0144 S. C. DAS, Under Secy.

1181

0.0360 नई दिल्ली, 12 फरवरी , 2008

0.0936

1184

1177

0.0432

1176

0.0576

1175

0.2160 का.आ. 302.-केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि मध्य प्रदेश राज्य में बीना संस्थापन से राजस्थान राज्य में कोटा तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए भारत पेट्रोलियम कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा , एक पाइपलाईन बिछाई जानी चाहिए;

0.0100

1172

1162

0.0144

0.0900

1164

0.0216

1194

और केन्द्रीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाईन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी भूमि में , जो इससे उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित है , जिसमें उक्त पाइपलाईन बिछाए जाने का प्रस्ताव है , उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए;

1168

0.0432

1165

0.0432

1166

0.0020

1140

0.0288

1118

0.0180

1117

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

0.0216

1116

0.0324

1115

0.0200 कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है , उस तारीख से जिसको इस अधिसूचना से युक्त भारत के राजपत्र की 554

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 16, 2008 / MAGHA 27 , 1929

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

1114

1. आगासौद (जारी)

0.0160

348

2. पुरैना-(जारी)

0.0504 1111

0.0020

330/1

0.1100 1120

0.0100

330/2

0.0800

1112

0.0504

331

0.0420 1113

0.0468

332

0.0040

1105

329

0.0288

0.0504

1104

0.0504

328

0.2520 1103

327

0.0216

0.2088 1068

0.2268

337

0.0020

239

1069

0.0720

0.5472

238

1070/2-4-5 0.1656

0.0144

1070/3

0.0576

0.2304 1070/1

0.0648

0.0050 1053

0.1440

0.0050

1081

0.0050

0.0576

1079

0.0360

0.2664 1052

43/2

0.0504

0.1584

43/1

1050

0.1152

0.1440

39/2

1045

0.1224

1046

39/1

0.2088

0.1296

64/2

0.0144

1042

0.0432

64/5

0.2664

1036

0.2232

64/4

1037

0.0936

0.1512

64/6

1035

0.0216

0.3024

0-2736 516/1

0.2376

2 पुरैना

386

बेसराकसोई

0.2684

516/4

0.0576

317/4

385

0.1440

0.1512

384

0.0040

515

0.0200 0.0936

389

0.0286

371/3

392

514

0.0020

0.0200 0.2664

391

0.2952 513

398

512

0.0876

0.3168

399

373

0.1296

0.2736

397

0.0144

0.0720

360

375

499

0.0144

0.0504

412

377/1

0.2376

0.4320

413

0.3600

0.1080

374

110/2

0.0576

377/3

0.1440

378/1

110/1

0.2000

0.1512

109

0.1250

0.4104

379

378/2

108

0.0144

0.0020

356

0.0650

4. बाघारूपा

0.0144

355

0.2520

42/1

0.1080

352

0.2376

0.2592

351/2

0.0216

0.0432 349/2

0.2088

44/1

0.0020 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]

555

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 16, 2008/माष 27, 1929

SCHEDULE

Tehsil : Bina

0.3384 बाघरूपा (जारी )

0.0144

0.0040

0.2160

38/3

0.1296

38/2

District : Sagar State : Madhya Pradesh

SurveyNo. Area in Hectares Sl. Name of No. Village

(1) (2)

0.0648

38/1

0.1152

0.2304

34/1

34/3

0.0936

5. ढाना

0.1440

0.0020

0.3384

0.0144

0.1008

0.0288

10/3

0.1008

10/4

0.0396

10/9

0.0180

10/7

0.1584

10/5

0.1008

10/6

0.0576

0.1728 [फा. सं. आर. - 31015/6/2008- ओ आर- II ]

ए. गोस्वामी , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 12th February, 2008 S.O. 302. Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in public interest that for the transportation ofpetroleum products from Bina terminal in the State of Madhya Pradesh, Pipeline to Kota in the State of Rajasthan should be laid by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited;

And whereas it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying such pipeline it is necessary to acquire the right of user in land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is described in the Schedule annexed hereto ;

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

Any person , interested in the land described in the said Schedule may within twenty one days from the date onwhich copies of the Gazette of India containing this notification are made available to the public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Smt . Bhagwanti Jethwani , Competent Authority , Bina- Kota Pipeline Project, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited , B - 105 Indra Vihar Talwandi , Kota - 324005 ( Rajasthan) .

(4)

(3)

532

0.1008 1. Aagasaud

533-

0.1440

535

0.0720

536

0.0576

539

0.0360

707

0.0288

763

0.1800

778

0.0720

776

0.1512

777

0.3456

1212

03312

0.0360

1213

1214

0.0864

0.1872

1215

1206

0.2664

1206/1341

0.0216

1185

0.0936

1180

0.0144

1181

0.0360

1184

0.0936

1177

0.0432

1176

0.0576

1175

0.2160

1172

0.0100

1162

0.0144

1164

0.0900

1194

0.0216

1168

0.0432

1165

0.0432

1166

0.0020

1140

0.0288

1118

0.0180

1117

0.0216

1116

0.0324

0.0200

1115

0.0160

1114

1111

0.0020

1120

0.0100

0.0504

1112

0.0468

1113

1105

0.0288 556

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 16, 2008/MAGHA 27, 1929

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

(2)

(1)

(4)

(3)

(2)

(4)

(3)

0.0504

1104

Aagasaud(contd.)

337

0.0020

Puraina( contd.)

1103

0.0216

239

0.5772 1068

0.2268

238

0.0144 1069

0.0720

0.2304 1070/2-4-5

0.1656

55.

0.0050 1070/3

0.0576

0.0050

1070/1

0.0648

0.0576

0.1440

1053

0.2664 1081

0.0050

43/2

0.1584 1079

0.0360

43/1

0.1440 1052

0.0504

39/2

0.1224

0.1152

1050

39/1

0.1296 1045

0.1224

64/2

0.0432

0.2088

1046

64/5

0.2232 1042

0.0144

64/4

0.0936 1036

0.2664

64/6

0.3024 1037

0.1512

0.2736 1035

0.0216

0.2684

386

3. Besarakasoi

516/1

0.2376

Puraina

0.1512

385

0.0576

516/4

384

0.0200 317/4

0.1440

389

0.0286 515

0.0040

392

0.0200

0.0936

371/3

391

0.2952

0.0020

514

398

0.3168

0.2664

513

399

0.2736

0.0876

512

397

0.0720

0.1296

373

499

0.0144 360

0.0144

412

0.4320

0.0504

375

413

0.3600

0.2376

377/1

110/2

0.1440 374

0.1080

110/1

0.1512 377/3

0.0576

109

0.4104

0.2000

378/1

0.0144

108

0.1250

379

0.0144

378/2

0.0020

Bagharupa

42/1

0.0650

356

0.1080

355

0.2520

0.2592 352

0.2376

0.0432

44/1

351/2

0.0216

0.0020

349/2

0.2088

0.3384

0.0504

348

0.0144

0.1100

339/1

0.0040 330/2

0.0800

38/3

0.2160

0.0420

331

38/2

0.1296 332

0.0040

0.0648

38/1

0.0504

329

0.1152

0.2520

328

34/1

0.2304 327

0.2088

34/3

0.0936 [भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]

557

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 16, 2008/माथ 27 , 1929

(2)

(3)

1 2

(4)

Dhhana

0.1440

12/8

0.0390

महाराज खेड़ी (जारी)

0.0020

12/7

0.0150 15

0.3384

12/6

0.0100 13

0.0144

12/5

0.0050 12

0.1008

12/3

0.1400 11

0.0288

12/2

0.0576 10/3

0.1008

12/1

0.1170 10/4

0.0396

0.0130 10/9

0.0180

9/201

0.4212 10/7

0.1584

0.0200 10/5

0.1008

2. पिपरिया मल्हारगण

0.3445 10/6

0.0576

0.2860

0.1728

0.1950 [F. No. R-31015/6/2008-OR-II]

0.325 A. GOSWAMI, Under Secy.

44मि.

0.3510 नई दिल्ली , 12 फरवरी , 2008

44/1

}

45/1

0.2880

}

45मि.

43/3

0.0975 का.आ. 303. केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि मध्य प्रदेश राज्य में बीना संस्थापन से राजस्थान राज्य में कोटा तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए भारत पेट्रोलियम कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा , एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए;

0.1560

0.3445

0.0065

27/2

0.0715 और केन्द्रीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी भूमि में , जो इससे उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित है , जिसमें उक्त पाइपलाईन बिछाए जाने का प्रस्ताव है , उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए;

37/1

0.1625

30/4

0.0845

33/1

0.1820

0.2145

0.0100

129/2

0.0150 अतः अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाईन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम, 1962 (1962 का 50 ) की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, उस भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है;

130

0.0150

188मि.

0.1050

188/2

0.0850

195

0.2860

196

02145

197

0.1820

204

0.2000

208

0.1750 कोई व्यक्ति , जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है, उस तारीख से जिसको इस अधिसूचन्द्र से युक्त भारत के राजपत्र की प्रतियां साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती है , इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के लिये उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के सम्बन्ध में श्रीमति भगवंती जेठवानी , सक्षम प्राधिकारी , बीना-कोटा पाइपलाइन परियोजना , भारत पेट्रोलियम कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड , बी-105 , इन्द्रा विहार तलवण्डी, कोटा-324005 (राजस्थान ) को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।

207

0.0250 अनुसूची

210

0.0500 तहसील: मुंगावली जिला अशोक नगर राज्य: मध्य प्रदेश

209

0.1400 क्र.सं. ग्राम का नाम

212

0.0065 सर्वे नंबर

211

क्षेत्रफल (हेक्टेर में)

0.0200

238

0.0325

236

0.0130 1.

0.1944

महाराज खेड़ी

239

0.0130

100 12/4

0.0150 558

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 16, 2008/MAGHA 27, 1929 (1) (2)

(3)

(4)

(2)

(1)

240

0.3400

पिपरिया मल्हारगण-(जारी )

टांडा-(जारी )

241

0.3200

253

0.1820

252

0.0300

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

(4) 29

0.3600 28

0.0325 25

0.0130 359/450

0.1105

6. नरखेड़ा

251

0.0150

248

0.0050

250

0.0650

249

0.0520

247

0.0020

0.0030

3. किरमिचीखेड़ी

0.3900

7/1

0.2600.

7/4

0.0780

7/2

0.1235

0.0715

0.0390

4. मढावस

0.0130

40/1

0.3055

40/2मि.

0.3510

0.0780

0.4030

0.0715

76/3क

0.1950

76/3ख

0.1820

0.2405

76/3 ग

76/4

0.0650

82/2

0.0910

82/3

0.4810

82/5

0.0520

356/449

0.0355 359/2

0.3100 359/1

0.3700 357

0.1170

0.0200 343

0.2275 354

367

0.0200

0.0200 373

0.0200 380

375

0.1820 376

0.0520

0.0200 371

0.4875 390/2

0.1625 377

338

0.0200 405/1

0.5300 406/451

0.0650 434

0.0260

0.2100 417

418/1

0.1200

0.1500 418/2

0.0065 419

0.0910 425

424

0.3510

0.0065 421

0.2145 423

422

0.0130

0.1000 106/1/2

7. मिर्जापुर

0.1105

0.5005

168

0.0100

5. टांडा

166

0.0130

167

0.0020

0.4600

0.5100

0.3705

0.1000

0.0650

0.0325

0.2600

0.0040

0.0680

0.0150

0.1430

0.0750 106/1

109

0.1150

0.1750 110

0.0975

0.1040 111/2

0.0260 100

0.0325 113

38/5

0.3055 38/6

0.0050

0.2050 38/2ख

0.0200 38/3

387

0.1600 38/8

0.1000

0.0975 23

0.0325 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 16 , 2008/माथ 27, 1929 [भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]

(2)

(1)

(3)

(4)

(2)

सोपरा-(जारी )

0.0650

मिर्जापुर (जारी )

0.5395

8 वरी

0.0520

93/4

0.1625

0.2925

93/ 1क

0.9165

93/1/1

0.1235

93/1/ख/

बेरखेड़ी

10.

0.0845

93/6

0.0020

93/1 ग

93/8

0.0050

11. सुमेर

0.0975

9. सोपरा

0.0100

0.1560

0.0800

0.2115

7/13

0.2930

חר

7/5/1

0.1195

7/2ख

0.0040

7/9/2ख

0.0975

7/9/2

0.1300

7/6/ 1क

0.1945

7/5/3

0.0200

0.0520

12/1

0.2860

12/3

0.1300

12/2

0.1040

0.0040

0.0975

0.0845

16/3

0.1105

25/128

0.1105

0.0715

24/127

0.1950

0.0130

0.1625

59.

0.0040

0.1170

0.0780

0.0065

0.0500

0.0020

12. झागर बमूरिका

71/129

0.0500

0.0585

0.1365

440G1/2008-4

559 (3)

(4)

0.0715 76

0.0100 78

0.0460 63/3

0.1400

0.0260 125/4

0.2405 125/1 क/1

0.0650 126

16/1क/5/8

0.0800 16/106

0.0325 59

0.0800

0.0150 80

0.0910

0.3000 66

0.0975 68

0.0150

0.0200 69

0.0030 70

0.2600 72/2

0.1755 71

0.1300 60

0.0040 73/ 1क

0.0700 74/3

0.1625 74/1

0.0780 74/2

0.0050

0.3120 77

0.3640 78

0.0400 112

0.1755 96

0.1040 95/3

0.4300 94

0.1560 81

0.2300 81/4

81/1

0.1820

0.0100 81/2

0.3200 83

0.2300 84

0.4355

0.0325 141/2ख

0.4875 141/2क

0.0520 142

0.0585 143

0.3240 61/1/2

0.0250 61/1/3

0.2300 61/1/6 560

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: FEBRUARY 16, 2008/MAGHA 27 , 1929 (1)

(4) (1) (2) (2)

(3)

0.2500

61/1/5

मथाना-(जारी) झागर भ्रमूरिया-(जारी )

123/125

0.0200

0.0260

13. खेरखाड़ी

16/2

0.2100

0.5525

17/2

21/2

0.0200

0.2600

24/1ख

0.5200

24/ 1क

0.1625

24/2

0.1040

0.0130

0.1000

76.

0.1200

41/2

14. अमोदो

41/1

0.1700

0.3400

42/1

42/2

0.0400

42/3

0.0650

0.2400

0.1875

52/1

0.0325

52/2

16. पाटन

0.0130

51/2ख

0.3835

51/1/2

0.0390

51/1/3

0.0260

51/2ख2

0.0020

0.2745

58/1

58/2

0.2000

0.2500

0.0260

233

0.0260

54/234

0.0100

0.0020

2.4375

2/1

15. मथानी

2/2

0.1105

0.0600

0.1040

0.2800

0.0150

0.4225

0.0130

0.0065

39/1

0.1430

0.2340

39/2

0.1030

39/3

0.1400

39/4

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

(4) 33

0.0200 31

0.2405 31/5

0.2405 85

0.1150

0.1900 92

0.3600

0.2600 120/2

0.1450 120/1 / 3 क

0.1250 120/ 1 /3 घ

0.1900 120/1/3 ग

120/3

0.2200

0.4400 120/1/1

123

0.4500

0.1040 124

0.0350 131

0.4100 137

0.1820 134

0.0715 135

0.4200 133

0.0845 2

0.0200 3

0.6110 13/1

1.0075 11

4.0950 17

1.3000 14

0.1950

0.0200 16

0.4550 62

0.0130 56

0.0350

0.2450 57

0.0520 58

0.1200

0.2405 53

0.0300 52

0.1560 51

0.0700 68

0.3035 67

0.2300 73

0.1000 70

0.0130

0.2000 72/3

0.0780 174 [भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

561

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 16, 2008/माघ 27, 1929

(3)

(1)

(2)

(4)

(2)

(1)

175

0.0200

17. फुलेदी

बेलई (जारी)

175/1क

0.2665

175/ 1ख

0.1040

0.0730

174

1.1310

173

0.0325

176/2ग

0.1820

0.0040

176/2ख

21. अथाई खेड़ा

0.5450

176मि.

0.2925

176मि.

0.1625

0.2405

176मि.

0.4875

176मि.

176/2/10

0.0975

176/2ञ

0.0325

176/24

0.1820

176/5

0.3120

172/8/27

0.0715

2.2590

143

132

0.1820

18. फुलवाडी

225

0.0600

19. सागर अथाई

0.1040

226/2/4

0.1625

226/2/3

0.1625

226/2/1

0.1625

226/2ख3

0.1625

226/2ख 4

0.1430

226/207

0.1430

20. बेलई

0.0260

0.0910

0.2120

0.1820

0.1365

0.0150

0.1625

0.0500

0.3500

24-

0.0100

0.0150

0.2535

0.1500

0.0200

0.1950

(3)

(4)

0.3575 53

54/1क

0.3200

0.3200 54/1ख मि.

0.5900 54/3क

1.0600 273/2

0.1500 273

0.5000 60

0.2100 61

0.0250 62

0.0150 63

0.0250 57/1

0.0800 64

0.0050 65

0.5500

0.1900 87

0.1300

0.0455 812

771

0.0065 772

0.1625 773

0.1300 774

0.1625

0.0130 834

775

0.1625 793

0.1820 792

0.3120 791

0.0195 789

0.0050

0.3575 790

0.1150 858

859

0.2800 734

0.0195 727/3

0.0600 953

0.1365 954

0.2730 952

0.0020 955

0.2100 951

0.0600 956

0.2700 950/2

0.0040 966

0.0850 967

0.0520 965

0.0065 935

0.0200 968

0.2200 978

0.0150 256

0.0520 562

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 16 , 2008/MAGHA 27, 1929

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii )]

(4)

(2)

(1)

(3)

986

0.0900

अथाई खेड़ा (जारी )

980

0.0100

0.0455

982

0.0065

985

0.1100

984

983

0.0130

0.0800

118/2

22. श्यामपुरा

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;

0.1235

118/1

0.0020

124

0.2600

125

0.1040

116

0.1100

115

114

0.1430

0.0150

133

0.0020

Any person , interested in the land described in the said Schedule may within twenty one days from the date on which copies of the Gazette of India containing this notification are made available to the public , object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Smt . Bhagwanti Lethwani , Competent Authority, Bina- kota Pipeline Project, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, B- 105 Indra Vihar Talwandi , Kota - 324005 ( Rajasthan) .

152

SCHEDULE

0,1735

155

0.0800

153

Tehsil : Mungawali District : Ashok Nagar

State : Madhya Pradesh

122

0.0600

0.0325

120

SurveyNo. Area in Hectares

0.2015

118/3

No.

Sl. Name of Village

0.1235

118/4

(4)

(1) (2)

(3)

0.1885

117/1

0.1944

100

1. Maharajkhedi

119

0.0020

0.0150

12/4

0.0780

12/8

0.0390

0.0150

117/2

0.0150

12/7

0.0780

61/1

0.0100

12/6

63/2

0.1850

0.0050

12/5

63/1

0.1885

12/3

0.1400 56

0.3000

12/2

0.0576

0.0520

12/1

0.1170

0.0520

0.0130

0.1560

0.4212

9/201

0.3380

0.0200

0.0020

0.3445

2. Pipariya Malhargan

0.2405

0.2860

0.0100

0.1950

0.0325 [फा. सं. आर -31015/5/2008- ओ.आर- II ]

0.3510

44मि.

ए. गोस्वामी , अवर सचिव

44/1

0.2880

45/1

} New Delhi , the 12th February , 2008

45मि.

43/3

0.0975

}

0.1560

0.3445

0.0065

S.O. 303. Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in public interest that for the transportationofpetroleum products from Bina terminal in the State of Madhya Pradesh , Pipeline to Kota in the State of Rajasthan shouid be laid by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited;

563

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 16 , 2008/माघ 27, 1929

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

(2)

(3)

(4) (1)

(1) (2)

(4)

76/3-ख

0.0715

0.1820

Madhhawal-(contd)

PipariyaMalhargan-(contd .) 37/2

0.1625

37/1

76/3 ग

0.2405

30/4

0.0845

76/4

0.0650

0.1820

33/1

0.0910

82/2

0.2145

0.4810

82/3

0.0100

0.0520

82/5

129/2

0.0150

0.1105

0.0150

130

0.5005

0.1050

188मि.

168

0.0100

5. Tanda

188/2

0.0850

166

0.0130

0.2860

167

195

0.0020

196

0.2145

0.4600

197

0.1820

0.5100

0.2000

204

0.3705

0.1750

208

0.1000

207

0.0250

0.0650

0.0500

210

0.0325

0.1400

209

0.2600

22-

212

0.0065

0.0040

0.0200

0.0680

211

0.0325

0.0150

238

236

0.0130

0.1430

0.3600

239

0.0130

0.3400

240

0.0325

0.3200

241

0.0130

253

0.1820

359/450

0.1105

6. Narkheda

0.0300

252

0.0355

356/449

251

0.0150

0.3100

359/2

0.0050

359/1

0.3700

248

0.0650

357

250

0.1170

0.0520

343

249

0.0200

0.2275

354

247

0.0020

367

0.0200

0.0030

3. Kirmichikhedhi

0.0200

373

0.3900

380

0.0200

7/1

0.2600

0.1820

375

7/4

0.0780

0.0520

376

0.1235

7/2

371

0.0200

0.4875

390/2

0.0715

0.1625

377

0.0390

338

0.0200

0.0130

4. Madhhawal

405/1

0.5300

0.3055

40/1

406/451

0.0650

0.3510

40/2मि.

434

0.0260

417

0.2100

0.0780

418/1

0.1200

0.4030

0.1500

418/2

0.0715

0.0065

419 76/3क

0.1950

425

0.0910 564

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 16, 2008 /MAGHA 27 , 1929

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

(2)

(3)

(4) (1) (2)

(3)

(4) 424

0.3510

12/3

0.1300 Narkheda( Contd.)

Sopra( Contd.)

421

0.0065

0.1040

12/2

423

0.2145

0.0040 422

0.0130

0.0975

0.0845 106/1/2

0.1000

7. Mirjapur

0.0845 106/1मि.

0.0750

16/3

0.1105 109

0.1150

25/128

0.1105 110

0.0715

0.1750

24/127

0.0975

0.1950 111/2

0.1040

0.0130 100

0.0260

0.1625

0.0040 113

0.0325

38/5

0.3055

0.1170

0.0780 38/6

0.0050

0.0065 38/2ख

0.2050

0.0500 38/3

0.0200

0.0020 38/7

0.1600-

71/129

0.0500 38/8

0.1000

0.0585

0.0975

0.1365

0.0325

0.0715 40

0.0650

0.0100 41

0.5395

0.0460

63/3

8. Vari

0.0520

0.1400 93/4

0.1625

125/4

0.0260

0.2925

93/1/क

125/16/1

0.2405 93/1/1

0.9165

126

0.0650

0.1235

93/1/ख/ 1

10. Berkhedhi

16/1क/5/8

0.0800

0.0845

93/6

16/106

0.0325 93/ 1 ग

0.0020

0.0800

93/8

0.0050

11. Sumer

0.0150

0.0975

9. Sopra

0.0910 4

0.0100

0.3000 5

0.1560

0.0975

0.0800

0.0150

0.2115

7/13

0.0200 7/7

0.2930

0.0030 7/5/1

0.1195

0.2600

72/2

0.0040

7/2ख

0.1755 7/9/2ख

0.0975

0.1300 7/9/2

0.1300

0.0040

73/1क

0.1945

7/6/ 1क

74/3

0.0700

0.200

7/5/3

74/1

0.1625 8

0.0520

0.0780

74/2

12/1

0.2860

0.0050 565 [भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 16 , 2008/माघ 27 , 1929

(1)

(2)

(3)

(1)

(3)

(4)

0.3120

Sumer--(Contd.)

58/2

0.2000

Amoda( Contd.)

0.3640

0.2500

112

0.0400

233

0.0260

0.1755

54/234

0.0260

95/3

0.1040

0.0100

0.4300

0.0020

0.1560

2/1

2.4375

15. Mathana

0.2300

81/4

2/2

0.1105

81/1

0.1820

0.0600

81/2

0.0100

0.1040

0.3200

0.2800

0.2300

0.0150

0.4355

0.4225 141/2ख

0.0325

0.0130 141/2क

0.4875

0.0065

142

39/1

0.0520

0.1430

143

0.2340

0.0585

39/2

61/1/2

0.3240

39/3

0.1030 12. Jhagar Bamuriya

39/4

61/1/3

0.0250

0.1400

61/1/6

0.2300

0.0200

61/1/5

0.2500

0.2405

31/5 123/125

0.0200

0.2405

13. Kherkhadhi

0.0260

0.1150

16/2

0.2100

0.1900

0.5525

17/2

0.3600

21/2

0.0200

120/2

0.2600

24/1ख

120/1 /3क

0.1450

0.5200

24/1क

120/1/3घ

.0.1250

0.1625

24/2

120/1 /3ग

0.1900

0.1040

120/3

0.2200

0.0130

120/1/1

0.4400

0.1000

123

0.4500 14. Amoda

0.1200

41/2

0.1040

124

41/1

0.1700

0.0350

131

42/1

0.3400

137

0.4100

42/2

0.0400

0.1820

134

0.0650

42/3

135

0.0715

0.2400

0.4200

133

52/1

0.1875

16. Patan

0.0845

0.0325

52/2

0.0200

0.0130

51/2ख

0.6110

13/1 51/1/2

0.3835

1.0075

0.0390

51/1/3

4.0950

1.3000 51/2ख2

0.0260

0.1950

0.0020

0.0200

02745

58/1 566

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 16 , 2008/MAGHA 27 , 1929

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4) (1)

(2)

Belai

0.4550 20.

Patan-(Contd .)

0.0130

0.0350

0.2450

0.0520

0.1200

0.2405

0.0300

0.1560

0.0700

0.3035

0.2300

0.1000

0.0130

72/3

0.2000

174

0.0780

175

0.0200

17. Phuledi:

0.2665

175/ 1 क

0.1040

175/ 1ख

174

0.0730

1.1310

173

0.0325

21. Athai Kheda

0.1820

176/2ग

176/2ख

0.0040

176मि.

0.5450

0.2925

176मि.

0.1625

176मि.

0.2405

176मि.

0.4875

176मि.

176/2/10

0.0975

0.0325

176/2झ

176/2ञ

0.1820

0.3120

176/5

0.0715

172/8/27

2,2590

143

0.1820

18.

132

Phulbadi

225

0.0600

19. SagarAthai

0.1040

226/2/4

0.1625

226/2/3

0.1625

226/2/1

0.1625

226/2ख3

226/2ख4

0.1430

226/2ख7

0.142

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

(4) (3)

0.0260 7

0.0910 1

0.2120 3

0.1820

0.1365 16

0.0150 17

0.1625 20

0.0500 19

0.3500

0.0100 24

0.0150 28

0.2535 26

0.1500

0.0200 41

0.1950 52

0.3575 53

54/ 1क

0.3200

0.3200 54/1ख मि.

0.5900 54/3क

1.0600

0.1500 273/2

273

0.5000 60

0.2100

0.0250 61

0.0150 62

0.0250

0.0800 57/1

0.0050 65

0.5500

0.1900 87

0.1300

0.0455 812

0.0065 771

0.1625 772

0.1300 773

0.1625 774

0.0130 834

0.1625 775

793

0.1820

0.3120 792

0.0195 791

789

0.0050

0.3575 790

858

0.1150 859

0.2800 734

0.0195 567 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 16, 2008/माघ 27, 1929

(4) (1) (2)

(3)

(1) (2)

(4)

727/3

0.0600

Athai Kheda (Contd.)

0.1560

Shyampura-(Contd .)

0.1365

953

0.3380

954

0.2730

0.0020

952

0.0020

0.2405

955

0.2100

0.0100

0.0600

951

[F. No. R-31015/5/2008 -OR- II]

956

0.2700

A. GOSWAMI , Under Secy.

.950/2

0.0040

'नई दिल्ली, 12 फरवरी , 2008

966

0.0850

967

0.0520

0.0065

965

935

0.0200

968

0.2200

'का.आ. 304.-केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि मध्यप्रदेश राज्य में बीना संस्थान से राजस्थान राज्य मेंकोटा तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए भारत पेट्रोलियम कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए;

978

0.0150

256

0.0520

0.0900

986

0.0100

980

और केन्द्रीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी भूमि में , जो इससे उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित है , जिसमें उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने का प्रस्ताव है , उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए;

982

0.0455

985

0.0065

0.1100

984

0.0130

983

0.0800

118/2

22. Shyampura

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

118/1

0.1235

0.0020

124

125

0.2600

116

0.1040

0.1100

115

0.1430

114

133

0.0150

0.0020

152

कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है , उस. तारीख से जिसको इस अधिसूचना से युक्त भारत के राजपत्र की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती है, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के लिये उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के सम्बन्ध में श्रीमति भगवंती जेठवानी , सक्षम प्राधिकारी , बीना-कोटा पाइपलाइन परियोजना , भारत पेट्रोलियम कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड , बी-105 इन्द्रा विहार तलवण्डी , कोटा-324005 (राजस्थान) को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।

0.1735

155

153

0.0800

अनुसूची

0.0600

122

जिला: बारां राज्य : राजस्थान

तहसील : बारां

0.0325

120

क्षेत्रफल हेक्टेयर में

सर्वे नंबर

क्र. सं. ग्राम का नाम

0.2015

118/3

0.1235

118/4

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1 )

0.1885

117/1

0.0558

233

1. बामला

119

0.0020

0.2736

257

0.0780

0.2268

256

0.0150

117/2

259

0.2000

61/1

0.0780

261/1643

0.1640

0.1850

63/2

0.0055

261

63/1

0.1885

262

0.2030

0.3000

0.0060

263

0.0520

0.0830

359

0.0520

440 GI/2008-5

1 568

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 16, 2008/ MAGHA 27, 1929

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)] 1 2

1 2

4 358

0.0144

बामला-(जारी)

887

0.0100

बामला-(जारी )

356

0.1640

882

0.0485 355

0.0660

880

0.0740 357

0.1350

878

0.0396 354

0.0020

871

0.0080 376

0.0590

872

0.0880 395

0.1190

870

0.0740 396

0.0920

873

0.0020

874

0.0360 397

0.0920

869

405

0.0324

0.0020

867

0.0740 406

0.2645

936

0.0830 407

0.0640

962

0.0396 552

0.0216

989/1585

0.1190 556

0.0100

992

0.1135 557

0.0468

994/1590

0.0360 558

0.0020

995/1592

0.0360 560

0.0270

1357

0.0360 561

0.0845

0.2290

1360

563

0.0025

0.0576

1361.

562

0.0432

1363

0.1760 564

0.0144

1364

0.3200 575

0.0432

1366

0.3090 576

0.0288

1385.

0.0216 573

0.0020

1396

0.2085 578

0.0936

1395.

0.6660 579

0.0020

1393

0.0504 571

0.0020

0.2740

1479/1622

702

0.0360

1480

0.3550 822

0.0540

1481

0.2900 821

0.0324

1481/1654

0.0360 820

0.0324

1485

0.0100

0.0210

819

1486

0.1960 823

0.0200

0.7090 818

1497

0.0720

824

0.0020

0.0504

1491

843/1588

0.0020

1492

0.0020 843

0.0504

1490

0.0600 844

0.0020

242

0.0900

2 तूमड़ा

814

0.0396

243

0.0468 813

0.0396

241

0.0316 847

0.0126

0.0936

244

846

0.0450

246

0.0360 850

0.0364

247

0.0432 891

0.0590

248

0.0063 892

0.0740

251

0.0522 894

0.0450

250

0.0234 886

0.0590

0.0360

883

257

0.0010 569

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 16, 2008/माघ 27 , 1929

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]

4 1 2

1 2

1275/1178

0.0306

खैराली-(जारी)

3 खैराली

739

0.0594

1174

0.1134 804

0.0010

0.0108

1173

805

0.1260

0.0216

1175

795

0.0234

0.2160

1220

806

0.2538

1221

0.0020 807

: 0.0738

0.1754

1222

0.0918

809

1227

0.2178

0.2124

825

0.2358

1228

827

0.1098

1229

0.1818 826

0.3042

0.1098

1225

822/1281

0.2034

1239

0.0020 822

0.0010

1240

0.0010 838

0.1818

0.0252

367

856

0.1440

4 रटावद

0.0036

368/911

0.0180

857

365

0.1600 858

0.3978

859

0.0025

0.4460

365/908

0.1242

373

0.1440 860

861

378

0.1188

0.0288

904

0.0010

0.1880

377

0.1944

0.0760

862

995/417

1246/862

977/417

0.1944

0.2178

417

0.2376 862/1292

0.2178

878

0.0650

420

419

0.0010

0.0576

900

0.0350

424

964

0.4176

423

0.1728

0.0540 899

0.0036

882

5 लेवा

325

0.0244

0.0020

966

324

0.1116 967

0.0558

0.0324

323

0.1944

969

0.0450

327

0.0010

975

384

0.8010

0.1908

971

0.0594

386

973

0.0198

0.2700

385

0.1314

974

0.0396

392

0.1386

979

0.2340

399

0.6372

981

402

02304 1142

0.0108

403

0.0270 1145

0.1170

0.4680

404

0.0025

1154

0.2520

410

1155

0.0882

0.0360

409

0.0144

1156

0.0108

408

0.0288

1153

0.0360

483

1158

0.0020-

0.0810

484

0.0738

1151

0.0360

485

0.0558

1172

496

0.5112 570

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 16 , 2008 /MAGHA 27, 1929

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

4 12

0.1656

483

0.0018 487

बेंगना-(जारी)

लेवा-(जारी )

480

0.0090

0.0036

488/520

0.0396

495

0.1152

479

494

0.1638

0.0010

475

0.0180

0.0020

931

493

0.0162

930

491

0.0180

927

0.1584 6 बैगना

0.0288

933

0.0126 11

0.2070

934

0.0010 8

0.3384

949

0.4680 7

0.0180

943

0.0054 19

0.2484

0.1548

948

0.3240

0.2970

965

0.0324

966

0.0396 30

0.1908

967

0.0324 46

0.1926

1044

0.0144 45

0.0648

1042

0.0180 59

0.2808

1038

0.0612

0.0540

0.2034

1039

0.0324 84

0.4932

1036

0.0020 1289/1242

1035

0.1152

0.6930 84/1242

1032

0.0108

0.0180

1024/1250

0.1116

0.0270

0.1116

0.0360

1224/1250

1024

0.0900

0.1620

0.0108

0.0900 69

1027

1026

0.0126

0.1980

0.0036

[फा. सं. आर-31015/2/2008-ओ आर-11 ] 74

0.0504

ए. गोस्वामी , अवर सचिव

0.0216

274

New Delhi , the 12th February, 2008

374

0.0900

S.O. 304. Whereas it appears to the Central Gov-

0.0684

374/1244

ernment that it is necessary in the public interest that for

0.0324

376

thetransportation of petroleum products from Bina termi- 406

0.1386 nal in the State of Madhya Pradesh, Pipeline to Kota in the 430

0.0036 State of Rajasthan should be laid by Bharat Petroleum 426

0.0846 Corporation Limited;

425

0.0414

0.0468

427

423

0.0504

0.0576

422

And whereas it appears to the Central Government thatfor the purpose of laying such pipeline it is necessary to acquire the right of user in land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is described in the Schedule annexed hereto ;

417

0.1386

0.1692

414

412

0.0432

445

0.0504

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

482

0.1116

481

0.0324

Any person, interested in the land described in the said Schedule may within twenty one days from the date 571 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का संजयत्र : फरवरी 16 , 2008/माघ 27, 1929

702

0.0360

Bamla-(Conrd.)

822

0.0540

821

0.0324

820

0.0324 on which copies of the Gazette of India containing this notification are made available to the public , object inwrit- ing to the acquisition of the right ofuser therein for laying ofthe pipeline under the land to Smt . Bhagwanti Jethwani , Competent Authority, Bina- kota Pipeline Project, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, B-105 Indra Vihar Talwandi , Kota - 324005 ( Rajasthan) .

819

0.0210 SCHEDULE

823

0.0200

818

0.0720 Tehsil : Barun

District: Baran State: Rajasthan

824

0.0020 Sl. Name ofVillage

843/1588

0.0020 No.

Survey No.

Area in Hectare

843

0.0504 3

844

0.0020 1 Bamla

233

0.0558

814

0.0396 257

0.2736

813

0.0396 256

0.2268

847

0.0126 259

0.2000

846

0.0450 261/1643

0.1640

850

0.0364 261

0.0055

891

0.0590 262

0.2030

0.0740

892

0.0060

263

894

0.0450 359

0.0830

886

0.0590

0.0144

358-

0.0360

883

356

0.1640

0.0100

887

355

0.0660

0.0485

882

357

0.1350

880

0.0740 354

0.0020

878

0,0396

0.0590

376

871

0.0080 395

0.1190

872

0.0880

0.0920

396

870

0.0740 397

0.0920

0.0020

873

405

0.0020

874

0.0360

0.2645

406

869

0.0324 407

0.0640

867

0.0740 552

0.0216

936

0.0830 556

0.0100

962

0.0396 557

0.0468

989/1585

0.1190 558

0.0020

992

0.1135 560

0.0270

994/1590

0.0360

0.0845

561

995/1592

0.0360

0.0025

563

1357

0.0360

0.0432

562

0.2290

1360

564

0.0144

0.0576

1361

575

0.0432

1363

0.1760 576

0.0288

1364

0.3200

0.0020

573

1366

0.3090

0.0936

578

1385

0.0216

0.0020

579

0.2085

1396

0.0020

571 572

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 16, 2008 /MAGHA 27, 1929

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

900

1395

0.0576

0.6660

Banla(Contd.)

Khairali(Contd .)

964

0.0350

0.0504

1393

899

0.1728 1479/1622

0.2740

882

0.0036 1480

0.3550

966

0.0020 1481

0.2900

967

0.0558 1481/1654

0.0360

969

0.1944 1485

0.0100

975

0.0010 1486

0.1960

971

0.1908 1497

0.7090

973

0.0198 1491

0.0504

974

0.1314 1492

0.0020

979

0.1386 1490

0.0600

981

242

0.6372 2. Tumdha

0.0900

1142

0.0108 243

0.0468

1145

241

0.1170

0.0316

0.0025 244

0.0936

1154

0.0882

1155

246

0.0360

247

1156

0.0144

0.0432

1153

0.0288

0.0063

248:

1158

0.0020 251

0.0522

1151

250

0.0738

0.0234

1172

257

0.0558

0.0010

1275/1178

0.0306 3. Khairali

739

0.0594

1174

0.1134 804

0.0010

1173

0.0108 805

0.1260

1175

0.0216 795

0.0234

1220

0.2160 806

0.2538

1221

0.0020 807

0.0738

1222

0.1754 809

0.0918

1227

02178

0.2124

825

0.2358

1228

827

0.1098

1229

0.1818 826

0.3042

1225

0.1098

0.2034

822/1281

1239

0.0020 822

0.0010

1240

0.0010 838

0.1818

4 Ratavad

367

0.0252 856

0.1440

368/911

0.0036 857

0.0180

365

0.1600

0.3978

858

365/908

0.4460 859

0.0025

373

860

0.1242

0.1440

378

0.1188 861

0.0288

377

0.1880

0.0010

904

0.1944

995/417

862

0.0760

977/417

0.1944 1246/862

0.2178

417

0.2376

02178

862/1292

420

0.0650

02178

878 573 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: फरवरी 16, 2008/माघ 27, 1929

1 2

419

0.0010

0.0108 Ratavad(Contd. )

Bengna (Contd.)

0.4176

424

0.0126 423

0.0540

0.0036 325

0.0244

5. Levea

0.0504 324

0.1116

274

0.0216 323

0.0324

374

0.0900 327

0.0450

0.0684

374/1244

0.8010

384

376

0.0324 386

0.0594

406

0.1386 385

0.2700

430

0.0036

0.0396

392

426

0.0846 399

0.2340

00414 402

0.2304

421

0.016

0.0270

403

423

00504 404

0.4680

422

0.0576 410

0.2520

417

0.1336

0.0360

409

414

0.1692

0.0108

408

412

0.0432 483

0.0360

445

0,0504 484

0.0810

0.1116

0.0360

485

0.0324

0.5112

496

0.0018 487

0.1656

0.0090 488/520

0.0036

0.1152

0.0396

495

475

0.0010 494

0.1638

931

0.0180 493

0.0020

930

0.0180 491

0.0162

927

0.1584 10

0.0288

6.Bengna

0.0126

933

0.2070

934

0.0010 8

0.3384

949

0.4680 7

0.0180

0.0054

943

0.2484

948

0.1548 29

0.3240

965

0.2970 28

0.0324

966

0.0396 30.

0.1908

967

0.0324 46

0.1926

1044

0.0144 45

0.0648

1042

0.0180 59

0.2808

1038

0.0612 60

0.0540

0.0324

1039

0.2034

0.0020

1036

0.4932

1035

0.6930. 1289/1242

0.1152

1032

0.0108 84/1242

0.0180,

1024/1250

0.1116 66

0.0270

1224/1250

0.1116

0.0360

1024

0.1620 67

0.0900 574

[PART I -SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 16 , 2008/ MAGHA 27, 1929

4 2

1027

0.0900

132

0.1600

सलोनिया

Bengna-(Contd.)

1026

0.1980

0.0054

128

0.0504

134

[F.No. R-31015/2/2008-OR- II]

0.0216

135

A. GOSWAMI , Under Secy.

125

0.0018 नई दिल्ली, 12 फरवरी , 2008

137

0.2232

139

0.0648

140

0.1080

0.0990

165

का.आ. 305.-केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि मध्यप्रदेश राज्य में बीना संस्थापन से राजस्थान राज्य में कोठा तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए भारत पेट्रोलियम कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए;

0.0018

166

0.0126

164

190

0.0954

0.0020

178

0.0900

189

और केन्द्रीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी भूमि में , जो इससे उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित है, जिसमें उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने काप्रस्ताव है, उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए;

0.0450

188

0.0288

185

0.0162

186

0.0018

187

0.0450

184

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

0.2952

183

0.0360

0.3816

2. खेड़लीगुड़ला

0.1050

137

136

0.0150

0.0050

0.1152

132

0.0100 कोई व्यक्ति , जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है , उस तारीख से जिसको इस अधिसूचना से युक्त भारत के राजपत्र की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती है , इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के लिये उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के सम्बन्ध में श्रीमति भगवंती जेठवानी , सक्षम प्राधिकारी, बीना-कोटा पाइपलाइन परियोजना , भारत पेट्रोलियम कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, बी-105 इन्द्रा विहार तलवण्डी, कोटा-324005 (राजस्थान) को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।

0.1224

131

0.0750

अनुसूची

130

0.0030 जिला : कोटा राज्य : राजस्थान

तहसील : सांगोद

0.2232

क्षेत्रफल हेक्टेयर में

सर्वे नंबर

ग्राम का नाम

क्र. स.

0.1368

128

0.1152

0.0720

0.2592 सलोभिया

0.0950 29

0.0360

0,1100

0.2520 22

0.2664

0.0800

0.1100

0.0800

0.1900

0.1200

0.2664

0.0040

0.1008

0.1000 89

0.1728

0.0600

0.2450

0.2808

0.0300

0.0100

0.0450

105

0.1000

0.1600

131 575 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 16, 2008/माघ 27 , 1929

4 12

0.2450

Saloniya ( Contd. )

0.0600

खेड़लीगुड़ला (जारी)

0.0300 90

0.0350

105

0.0450 84

0.1080

0.1600

131

0.0360

132

0.1600 86

0.2750

128

0.0054 88

0.0864

0.0504

134

0.0360

135

0.0216 [फा. सं. आर- 31015/4/2008-ओ आर- II ]

125

0.0018 ए. गोस्वामी , अवर सचिव

137

0.2232 NewDelhi , the 12th February, 2008

139

0.0648

140

0.1080

0.0990

165

166

0.0018

0.0126

164

S.O. 305. Whereas it appears to the Central Gov- ernment that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum products from Bina termi- nal in the State of Madhya Pradesh , Pipeline to Kota in the State of Rajasthan should be laid by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited;

0.0954

190

0.0020

178

0.0900

189

188

0.0450 And whereas it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying such pipeline it is necessary to acquire the right of user in land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is described in the Schedule annexed hereto;

185

0.0288

0.0162

186

187

0.0018

0.0450

184

183

0.2952 Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 3 ofthe Petroleum and Min- erals 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;

0.0360

Any person, interested in the land described in the

0.3816 said Schedule may within twenty one days from the date 2. Khedligudla

on which copies of the Gazette of India containing this

137

0.1050 notification are made available to the public, object in writ-

0.0150

136

ing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying

0.0050 ofthe pipeline under the land to Smt . Bhagwanti Jethwani ,

0.1152

Competent Authority, Bina-kota Pipeline Project, Bharat

132

0.0100 Petroleum Corporation Limited , B - 105 Indra Vihar

0.1224 Talwandi , Kota -324005 ( Rajasthan) .

131

SCHEDULE

0.0750

District: Kota

Tehsil: Sangod

State: Rajasthan

130

0.0030

0.2232

Sl . Name of Village

No.

Survey No.

Area in Hectare

128

0.1368 12

0.1152

36.

0.2592 33

0.0720

1 Saloniya

0.0360

0.0950

0.1100

0.0360

0.2664

0.2520

0.1100

0.0800

0.1900

0.0800

0.2664

0.1200

0.1008

0.1728

0.1000 440GI/2008-6 576

[PART II -SEC . 3 ( ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 16, 2008/MAGHA 27, 1929

4 12

0,0600

0.2745 Khedligudla(Contd. ) 64

123

खजूरिया खुर्द-( जारी )

0.2808

0.2470

148

0.0100

149

0.1560 91

0.1000

152

0.2100

0.0600

0.0845

150

0.0350

0.1300

161

0.1080

0.1430

162

0.0360

0.1170

165

0.2750

166

0.1300

0.0864

167

0.0050 87

0.0360

0.0975

168

0.1170

169

[F.No. R-31015/4/2008 -OR- II]

0.0845

173/1

A. GOSWAMI , Under Secy .

173/2

0.0260 !

नई दिल्ली, 12 फरवरी , 2008

0.0520

173/3

133/2

0.0800

2. बीरपुर

0.0100

114

0.3200

113/1

0.0020 i का.आ. 306. - केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि मध्यप्रदेश राज्य में बीना संस्थापन से राजस्थान राज्य में काटा तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए भारत पेट्रोलियम कापर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए;

113/2

0.2275

113/3

112

0.0020

103

0.0130

0.1950

102

और केन्द्रीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी भूमि में , जो इससे उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित है , जिसमें उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने का प्रस्ताव हैं , उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए;

0.1625

101/2

0.2275

101/1

0.1560

3. सावन

0.1365

0.0450 अतः अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , पेट्रोलियम और खजिन पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम 1962 ( 1962 का $0 ) , की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , उस भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है ,

0.2860

0.5330

391

0.0200

0.2340

392

389

0.1755

388

0.1000

0.0650

387

0.0020

386

0.1885

398

कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है , उस तारीख से जिसको इस अधिसूचना से युक्त भारत के राजपत्र की प्रतिमां साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती है, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के लिये उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के सम्बन्ध में श्रीमति भगवंती जेठवानी , सक्षम प्राधिकारी , बीना-कोटा पाइपलाइन परियोजना , भारत पेट्रोलियम कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, बी-105 इन्द्रा विहार तलवण्डी , कोटा-324005 (राजस्थान ) को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।

400

0.0585 अनुसूची

401

0.0400 तहसील : अशोक नगर जिला : अशोक नगर राज्य : मध्य

0.3900

402

प्रदेश

0.1560

403

414

0.0200 क्षेत्रफल हैक्टेयर में

सर्वे नंबर

क्र. ग्राम का नाम

415

0.0975 सं.

0.0200

417

419

0.0520 122

0.0260

1. खजूरिया खुर्द

0.0200

420 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

577

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 16 , 2008/माघ-27, 1929

5 सेमरा

422

0.0950

सावन-(जारी)

423

0.0100

424

0.0300

452

0.2665

450

0.0920

431

0.0100

439

0.4745

0.0100

445

442

0.3250

440

0.0520

441

0.01820

7/1

4. सागर

0.0325

0.0910

85/1

0.0585

86/1/क

0.0260

86/7

0.1820

0.0230

88/1

0.0260

88/2

0.0650

103

0.0500

105

0.0520

104

0.0650

106

0.0845

110/1/क

0.0460

0.1040

110/ 1 /ख

110/2

0.1625

109

0.0200

121

0.2405

124

0.0050

126

0.1755

6 तुमेन

128

0.0100

127

0.0730

208/1

0.0715

133

0.1365

207

0.3575

160

0.0130

161

0.2650

162

0.0100

179

0.1365

184

0.0020

183.

0.0250

182

0.0555

181

0.0715

187

0.2600

191

0.1120

300

0.0260

0.0030

279

0.0100

299

0.1950

280

281

0.1950

0.0130

283

285

0.0195

0.0050

286

0.3400

284

0.1560

268

0.1100

267

266

0.0850

0.0650

288

246

0.0450

247

0.0130

245

0.0065

0.0200

0.1625

0.0050

0.0200

0.1750

0.2860

0.3055

0.0800

0.2730

0.0230

0.0910

0.0390

0.3150

0.1170

631

0.1235

632

-0.0030

636

0.0260

0.0050

586

0.0950

588

587

0.0050

0.0520

562

0.1000

528

457

0.0195

0.0150

452

454

0.1500

0.0500

453

455

0.1430

0.0040

456

439

0.0130

438

0.0260 578

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: FEBRUARY 16, 2008/MAGHA 27 , 1929

4 2

435

0.1105 तुमेन-(जारी )

436

0.1300

433

0.1040

432

0.1950

431

0.1300

426

0.2600

0.0225

425

350

0.0195

0.0325

327

352

0.1500

0.0200

353

0.0130

318

0.0130

325

326

0.0260

324

0.0520

0.1235

323

0.0030

322

0.0910

309

308

0.0390

0.0600

307

0.0065

310

306

0.1100

0.0160

303

0.1235

302

0.0260

301

0.0530

295/1692

0.0325

178

0.1040

175

0.0325

180

0.0650

174

0.0650

179

173

0.1300

0.1900

0.1040

0.0520

0.3400

630

627

0.0040

0.0350

629

628

0.2200

620

0.0300

0.1150

613

619

0.1820

612

0.3000

0.0325

597

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

590

0.3380 तुमेन-(जारी)

591

0.1300

0.0350

547

-560

0.1105

0.1300

548

0.1625

549

545

0.0020

551

0.0360

0.1105

544

534

0.0780

0.0800

533

0.0800

532

526

0.1755

0.1000

524

0.0260

530

0.1300

529

527

0.0130

353

0.0260 7 आमखेड़ा तूमेन

354

0.0455

359

0.1560

358

0.3315

350 ) 350/2

348

0.1170

347

0.0050

321

0.0845

320

0.0650

0.1625

315

316

0.0020

317

0.1625

0.1950

261

262

0.3120

265

0.0195

273

0.0195

266/1

0.0715

271

0.2340

0.0325

0.6000

0.3150

0.5720

0.0150

0.1755

3/28/2

0.0150

1/1छ

0.0910

1/2

0.6000

440

0.0390 8 जलालपुर

589

0.0250

442

0.1300 579

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 16, 2008/मान 27, 1929

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ].

0.2300 439

0.0450

डंगाही-(जारी)

जलालपुर-(जारी )

41/2

438

0.1300

0.0975 445

0.0195

0.0845

214

0.0520

0.0100 229

0.1820

.0.1000

0.3600

0.0020

230

0.1200

0.3600 227

226

0.1950

0.03445

0.2600

238

0.3800

0.0020

220

0.0260

733

225

0.0020

10 भैसरवास !

0.0050

731

0.2080

205

730

0.0350

0.2470

204

732/1

0.0150

0.1820

203

0.0975

639

199

0.0250

637

0.0975 200

0.3055

633

0.0050 192

0.0050

0.1625

635

191

0,1300

636

0.0100 189

0.0750

615

0.0130

0.0050

188

614/3

0.0150 195

0.1040

0.0455

614/2

162

0.3000

0.0650

614

0.0050 255

0.2525

614/1

9 डंगाही

613

0.0200 257/ 1 क

0.1500

588

0.0325 254

0.0100

0.0260

591

252/1

0.1000

0.0250

592

252/2

0.1500

557

0.0455

0.3445

251

556

0.2045 259

0.0455

0.1690

555

0.0455

204

0.0400

554

0.0050

205

495

0.0040

0.1625

203

0.1365

496/2

207

0.1690

0.1625

496/1

208

0.1625

498

0.0065

0.0455

201

0.0800

497

0.0820

212

499/3

0.0455 214

0.1820

0.1200

0.0065

499/2

215

216

0.0150

0.0975

501

0.0260

476

0.1040

0.1625

502

0.0300

0.1430

475/1

0.0910 52

0.1495

0.0600

475/2

0.0325

0.0100

475/3

0.1430

474

0.1430

0.0160

473/2

0.0200

0.0650

34 580

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 16 , 2008 /MAGHA 27, 1929

1 1

0.0390

473/1

भैसरवास-(जारी)

0.3835

503

505

0.1400

504

0.0065

0.1625

76/2

11 बासरा

215

0.2405

0.5200

214

192

0.5000

193

0.0050

196

0.0455

197

0.0455

198

0.1365

199

0.0650

0.0050

133/1

133/2

0.3400

0.1000

133/3

0.3000

135

0.0050

132

131/2

0.3000

0.0325

124

125

0.0195

121

0.1040

0.2500

122/1

122/3

0.0150

0.0780

119

107/2

0.2000

0.1625

107/3

107/1

0.1040

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

0.0050

ककरूआराय- ( जारी ) 307/3ख

340

0.0020

302/1

0.0150

304/3

0.2600

304/2

0.1000

304/1

0.0520

281

0.0195

264

0.0325

263

0.0130

249

0.0325

251

0.1500

247

0.1820

252

0.0195

254

0.0260

256

0.0130

257

0.1300

258

0.0225

259

0.0425

244

0.0750

240

0.2405

243

0.0050

238

0.2015

237

0.1300

0.0325 153/582

236

0.0065

147

0.0520

146

0.1430

145

0.0020

14 बहेरी पछार

106

0.0130

105

0.3250

104

0.0150

0.2275

173

12 कुरवाय

0.5950

117

117/2

0.0900

116

0.4290

0.0130

0.2015

0.0910

0.0065

12/1

0.0455

12/2

0.0390

0.1560

14/1

14/2

0.2275

15/1क

0.1755

}

15/ 1ख

15/2

0.1430

0.2860

0.1625

0.0130

0.1495

950

15 मथनेर

0.3510

576

0.1170

13 ककरूआराय

574

0.0090

0.0200

569

308

0.0100

310

0.0050

939

0.1365

0.1690

944

0.0100

943

940

0.2000

896

0.3640

0.0800

899 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]

897

0.0130 मथनेर-(जारी)

905

0.0800

906

0.0325

933

0.0020

898

0.1100

0.0520

907

0.1300

911

0.0050

928

912

0.0100

502

0.1820

500

0.2000

0.0600

501

499

0.1820

508

0.0100

487

0.2275

488

0.2340

483

0.2535

0.0100

0.1820

0.0200

0.2275

0.2200

0.3500

0.1430

0.1000

0.5750

0.2730

0.0050

261

0.1560 16 मोहरी ज्ञान

262

0.1000

266

0.3250

0.0250

265

268

0.0260

284

0.1400

287

0.2150

286

0.0300

288

0.1820

0.1625

242

17. दमोह

0.1625

243

244/1

0.1400

244/2

245/2

0.1560

248

0.0065

279

0.0030

581

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 16, 2008/माध 27 , 1929

0.0390

280

दमोह-(जारी)

281

0.2990

282

0.0130

0.2990

291

0.0195

18. मढ़ी कानूनगो

0.1300

20/1

20/2

0.0455

20/3

0.0845

0.2200

0.0040

24/2

0.0325

0.1430

0.1625

0.1700

42/5

0.0065

42/7

0.1625

0.0780

0.0520

0.0650

0.0020

0.0260

0.3120

0.0130

0.1235

110/2

111

0.1800

381

0.0325

0.3705

382/2

405

0.3185

0.0845

404/2

404/3/3

0.0325

0.1500

404/3/2

02275

404मि.

403

0.1300

0.0220

527

528

0.0195

529

0.1500

0.2800

564

0.0325

567

0.0020

566

568

0.1430

578

0.2145

0.0520

579

0.0845

581

0.2600

627

626

0.2080

0.0040

634 582

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 16, 2008/ MAGHA 27, 1929

0.0040 मही कानूनगो ( जारी ) 630

633

0.2925

635

0.2860

651

0.0520

637

0.0700

650

0.1300

638

0.1560

639

0.1430

647

0.0100

644

0.1365

0.2925

642

758

0.0260

0.3050 19. विजय पुरा

0.2308

0.2470

0.0130

0.0900

0.0200

54/2

0.0130

0.0715

54/1

0.0350

67/1

0.0910

0.0780

0.0130

0.1700

0.0520

0.1650

0.0910

0.0200

0.4700

0.1300

0.2000

95/1

101

0.0900

0.0040

102/1

0.1300

96/1

0.4095

0.0065

155

0.0845

0.2860

201

0.1135

203/2

0.0100

203/3

0.1200

203/4

198

0.0260

0.1040 20. कैथाई

0.0100

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

4 1

78/2

0.1430 कैथाई-(जारी )

78/3

0.1600

0.0450

0.1200

0.2665

0.0040

85/353

130

0.0975

0.0150

0.0040

84/352

0.0520

0.0200

0.0150

132

0.2665

131

0.0500

133

0.0600

127

0.0600

126

134

0.1500

0.2000

135

0.0805

136

0.0300

137

121

0.3510

120

0.0250

0.3500

141

0.3500

143

0.1560

146

0.0400

155

0.0950

147

0.0300

148

0.0325

149

150

0.1105

154

0.0300

0.2000

151

0.1040

148मि.

0.0390

106

0.0050

180/2

0.3510

181

559

0.0230 21. कुन्दौरा

558

0.0325

557

0.1300

0.0200

560

0.0040

561

562

0.0150

563

0.2438

586

0.2600

587

0.0715 583 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी16, 2008/माघ 27, 1929

SCHEDULE

District: Ashok Nagar

Tehsil: AshokNagar

22. केलारस

0.0650

State: Madhya Pradesh

0.0100

S.No. Name of Village Survey No.

0.0975

Area in Hectare 43

0.1105

0.1430

41/1

122

0.0260

0.1040

1. KhajuriaKhurd

123

0.2745 41/2

0.1170

148

0.2470 40

0.0040

149

0.1560 51/1

0.1885

152

0.2100 31

0.1560

150

0.0845 30

0.0040

161

0.1300 57

0.0850

162

0.1430 28/1

0.3600

165

0.1170 28/2

0.0020

166

0.1300 58

0.0050

167

0.0400

168

0.0975

0.3900

169.

0.1170

0.1000

0.0845

173/1

173/2

0.0260 [फा. सं. आर-31015/8/2008- ओ आर- II ]

0.0520

173/3

ए, गोस्वामी , अवर सविच

0,0800

133/2

2. Birpur

114

0,0100 New Delhi , the 12th February, 2008

0,3200

113/1

0.0020

113/2

0.2275

113/3

112

0.0020

0.0130

103

0.1950

102

S.O. 206. Whereas it appears to the Central Gov- ernment that it is necessary in the public interest that for thetransportation ofpetroleum products from Bina termi- nal in the State ofMadhya Pradesh, Pipeline Kota in the State ofRajasthan should be laid by Bharat Petroleum Cor- porationLimited;

0.1625

101/2

0.2275

101/1

0.1560

3. Savan

0.1365 Andwhereas it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying such pipeline it is necessary to acquire the right of user in land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is described in the Schedule annexed hereto;

0.1560

0.2860

0.5330

0.0200

391

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Miner- als 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;

0.2340

392

0.1755

389

0.1000

388

0.0650

387

0.0020

386

0.1885

398

0.0585

400

0.0400

401

Any person, interested in the land described in the said Schedule may within twenty one days from the date on which copies of the Gazette of India containing this notification are made available to the public , object inwrit- ing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying ofthe pipeline under the land to Smt . Bhagwanti Jethwani , Competent Authority , Bina - kota Pipeline Project, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, B- 105 Indra Vihar Talwandi , Kota - 324005 ( Rajasthan) .

440 GI/2008-7 584

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 16 , 2008/MAGHA 27, 1929

402

0.3900 Savan(Contd.)

403

0.1560

414

0.0200

415

0.0975

417

0.0200

419

0.0520

420

0.0200

422

0.0950

423

0.0100

424

0.0300

452

0.2665

450

0.0920

431

0.0100

439

0.4745

445

0.0100

442

0.3250

440

0.0520

441

0.01820

7/1

0.0325 4. Sagar

0.0910

0.0585

85/1

86/1/A .. 0.0260

86/7

0.1820

0.0230

88/1

0.0260

88/2

0.0650

103

0.0500

105

0.0520

0.0650

104

106

0.0845

110/1 /A

0.0460

110/1/B

0.1040

0.1625

110/2

109

0.0200

0.2405

121

124

0.0050

126

0.1755

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

184

0.0020 Sagar-Contd .

183

0.0250

182

0.0555

181

0.0715

0.2600

187

191

0.1120 5. Semra

300

0.0260

279

0.0030

299

0.0100

280

0.1950

281

0.1950

283

0.0130

285

0.0195

286

0.0050

284

0.3400

268

0.1560

267

0,1100

266

0.0850

288

0.0650

0.0450

246

247

0.0130

245

0.0065

0.0200

0.1625

0.0050

0.0200

0.1750

0.2860

0.3055

0.0800

0.2730

0.0230

0,0910

0.0390

0.3150

0.1170

631

0.1235 6. Tumen

128

0.0100

127

0.0730

0.0715

208/1

133

0.1365

207

0.3575

160

0.0130

0.2650

161

162

0.0100

179.

0.1365

632

0.0030

636

0.0260

586

0.0050

588

0.0950

587

0.0050

562

0.0520

528

0.1000

457

0.0195

452

0.0150 585

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 16 , 2008/माब 27, 1929

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

4 2

454

0.1500 Tumen-(Contd.)

453

0.0500

455

0.1430

456

0.0040

439

0.0130

0.0260

438

435

0.1105

436

0.1300

433

0.1040

432

0.1950

431

0.1300

426

0.02600

0.0225

425

350

0.0195

0.0325

327

352

0.1500

353

0.0200

0.0130

318

325

0.0130

326

0.0260

324

0.0520

0.1235

323

0.0030

322

0.0910

309

308

0.0390

0.0600

307

310

0.0065

306

0.1100

0.0160

303

0.1235

302

0.0260

301

295/1692

0.0530

178

0.0325

175

0.1040

0.0325

180

0.0650

174

0.0650

179

173

0.1300

0.1900

0.1040

0.0520

0.3400

630

627

0.0040

629

0.0350

0.2200

628

0.0300 Tumen(Contd.) 620

613

0.1150

619

0.1820-

0.3000

612

0.0325

597

0.0250

589

0.3380

590

591

0.1300

0.0350

547

560

0.1105

548

0.1300

549

0.1625

545

0.0020

551

0.0360

0.1105

544

534

0.0780

533

0.0800

532

0.0800

0.1755

526

524

0.1000

0.0260

530

529

0.1300

527

0.0130

353

0.0260 7. Amkheda Tumen

0.0455

354

359

0.1560

358

0.1560

350

0.3315

350/2

}

0.1170

348

0.0050

347

321

0.0845

0.0650

320

315

0.1625

0.0020

316

317

0.1625

261

0.1950

0.3120

262

0.0195

265

273

0.0195

0.0715

266/1

271

0.2340

0.0325

0.6000

0.3150

0.5720

0.0150 586

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 16 , 2008/ MAGHA 27, 1929

0.1755

0.1625

3/2D/2

Amkheda Tumen

Dangahi ( Contd .)

0.0150

0.1430 (Contd.)

0.0910

1/ 1E

0.1495

1/2

0.6000

0.0325

0.1430 440

0.0390

8. Jalalpur

0.0160

0.1300

442

0.0650 439

0.0450

0.2300

0.1300

438

0.0975

41/2

445

0.0845

0.0195

214

0.0520

0.0100

229

0.1820

0.1000

0.0020

230

0.3600

0.1200

227

0.3600

0.1950

226

0.03445

0.2600

238

0.3800

0.0020

220

0.0260

733

10. Bhaisarwas

0.0020

225

731

0.0050

0.2080

205.

0.0350

730

204

0.2470

0.0150

732/1

0.1820

203

639

0.0975

0.0250

199

637

0.0975

0.3055

200

633

0.0050

192

0.1625

635

0.1300

191

636

0.0100

0.0750

189

615

0.0130

0.0050

188

0.0150

614/3

0.1040

195

614/2

0.0455

0.3000

162

0.0650

614

0.2525

255

9. Dangahi

614/1

0.0050

0.1500

257 / 1A

613

0.0200

0.0100

254

588

0.0325

0.1000

252/1

0.0260

591

0.1500

252/2

592

0.0250

0.3445

251

0.0455

557

0.0455

259

556

0.2045

0.0455

204

0.1690

555

0.0050

205

554

0.0400

0.1625

203

0.0040

495

0.1690

207

496/2

0.1365

0.1625

208

496/1

0.1625

0.0455

201

0.0065

498

0.0820

212

497

0.0800

0.1820

214

499/3

0.0455 215

0.0065

0.1200

499/2

216

0.0975

501

0.0150

0.0260

48 587

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 16 , 2008/मान 27, 1929

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

576

0.1170

0.01040

13. Kakruaray

Bhaisarwas( Contd. ) 476

0.0090

574

0.0300

502

0.0200

569

0.0910

475/1

0.0100

308

0.0600

475/2

0.0100

0.0050 475/3

310

0.0050

0.1430

474

307/3B

0.0200

473/2

0.0020

340

0.0390

0.0150 473/1

302/1

0.3835

503

0.2600

304/3

0.1400

505

0,1000

304/2

504

0.0065

0.0520

304/1

76/2

0.1625

0.0195

281

0.2405

215

11. Basra

264

0.0325 214

0,5200

263

0.0130 192

0.5000

249

0.0325

0,0050

193

251

0.1500

0.0455

196

247

0.1820 197

0.0455

0.0195

252

0.1365

198

254

0.0260

0.0650

199

256

0.0130

0.0050

133/1

257

0.1300

0.3400

133/2

258

0,0225

0.1000

133/3

0.0425

259

0.3000

135

244

0.0750 132

0.0050

0.2405

240

0.3000

131/2

0.0050

243

0.0325

124

0.2015

238

0.0195

125

237

0.1300

0.1040

121

0.0325

153/582

122/1

0.2500

0.0065

236

0.0150

122/3

147

0.0520

0.0780

119

0.2000

0.1430

146

107/2

0.1625

107/3

0.0020

145

0.1040

0.0455. 107/1

12/1

14. Baheri Pachhar

0.0130

106

12/2

0.0390

0.3250

105

0.1560

14/1

0.0150

104

0.2275

14/2

0.2275

173

15/1A

12. Kurvay

0.5950

117

0.1755

15/1B }

0.0900

117/2

15/2

0.1430

0.4290

116

0.2860-

0.0130

0.1625 12

0.2015

0.0130

0.0910

0.1495

0.0065

950

0.0050

15. Mathner

0.3510

939

0.1365 588

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 16, 2008/MAGHA 27 , 1929

0.1690 Mathner ( Contd .) 944

943

0.0100

940

0.2000

896

0.3640

899

0.0800

897

0.0130

0.0800

905

906

0.0325

898

0.1100

933

0.0020

907

0.0520

911

0.1300

928

0.0050

912

0.0100

502

0.1820

500

0.2000

0.0600

501

499

0.1820

508

0.0100

487

0.2275

488

0.2340

0.2535

483

0.0100

0.1820

0.0200

0.2275

0.2200

0.3500

0.1430

0.1000

0.5750

0.2730

0.0050

0.1560

261

16. Mohri Gyan

262

0.1000

266

0.3250

265

0.0250

0.0260

268

0.1400

284

287

0.2150

286

0.0300

0.1820

288

242

0.1625 17. Damoh

0.1625

243

244/1

0.1400

244/2

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

0.1560

245/2

Damo ( Contd .)

248

0.0065

0.0030

279

0.0390

280

281

0.2990

0.0130

282

0.2990

291

0.0195

18. Madhi Kanungo

20/1

0.1300

0.0455

20/2

0.0845

20/3

0.2200

0.0040

24/2

0.0325

0.1430

0.1625

0.1700

0.0065

42/5

42/7

0.1625

0.0780

0.0520

0.0650

0.0020

0.0260

0.3120

0.0130

0.1235

110/2

0.1800

111

0.0325

381

0.3705

382/2

0.3185

405

0.0845

404/2

0.0325

404/3/3

0.1500

404/3/2

0.2275

404m.

0.1300

403

0.0220

527

528

0.0195

0.1500

529

0.2800

564

567

0.0325

566

0.0020

0.1430

568

0.2145

578

0.0520

579

0.0845

581 [भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

4 2

0.2600

627

Madhi Kanungo

626

0.2080 -(Contd.)

634

0.0040

630

633

0.2925

0.2860

635

651

0.0520

637

0.0700

650

0.1300

638

0.1560

639

0.1430

647

0.0100

644

0.1365

0.2925

642

0.0260

758

0.3050 19. Vijaypura

0.2308

0.2470

0.0130

0.0900

0.0200

54/2

0.0130

54/1

0.0715

0.0350

67/1

0.0910

0.0780

0.0130

0.1700

0.0520

0.1650

0.0910

0.0200

0,4700

0.1300

0.2000

95/1

0.0900

101

0.0040

102/1

96/1

0.1300

0.4095

0.0065

0.0845

155

0.2860

201

0.1135

203/2

0.0100

203/3

203/4

0.1200

0.0260

198

589

- भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 16, 2008/माथ 27 , 1929

0.1040 20. Kaithai

-0.0100

0.0100

78/2

0.1430

78/3

0.1600

0.0450

0.1200

0.2665

85/353

0.0040

130

0.0975

0.0150

0.0040

84/352

0.0520

0.0200

132

0.0150

0.2665

131

133

0.0500

127

0.0600

126

0.0600

134

0.1500

135

0.2000

136

0.0805

137

0.0300

121

0.3510

120

0.0250

141

0.3500

143

146

0.1560

155

0.0400

0.0950

147

148

0.0300

149

0.0325

150

0.1105

154

0.0300

0.2000

151 .

0.1040

148m.

106

0.0390

180/2

0.0050

181

0.3510

559

0.0230 21. Kundaura

558

0.0325

557

0.1300

560

0.0200

561

0.0040

562

0.0150

563

0.2438

586

0.2600

0.0715

587 590

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 16 , 2008 /MAGHA 27, 1929

1 2

0.0650 22. Kelaras

[PART II-SEC. 3( ii) ]

अनुसूची

राज्य : राजस्थान

जिला : बारां

तहसील : अटरू

0.0100

क्षेत्रफल हेक्टेयर में

सर्वे नंबर

क्र. सं. ग्राम का नाम

0.0975

0.1105

0.1430

41/1

0.1040

41/2

0.1170

0.0040

0.1885

51/1

0.1560

0.0040

0.0850

28/1

0.3600

28/2

0.0020

0.0050

0.0400

0.3900

0.1000

[F. No. R-31015 /8/2008 -OR- 11 ]

A. GOSWAMI , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 14 फरवरी , 2008

का.आ. 307.-केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि मध्य प्रदेश राज्य में बीना संस्थापन से राजस्थान राज्य में कोटा तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए भारत पेट्रोलियम कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए।

और, केन्द्रीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी भूमि में , जो इससे उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित है, जिसमें उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने का प्रस्ताव है, उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए;

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

कोई व्यक्ति , जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है , उस तारीख से जिसको इस अधिसूचना से युक्त भारत के राजपत्र की प्रतियां साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं , इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के लिये उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के सम्बन्ध में श्रीमति भगवंती जेठवानी , सक्षम प्राधिकारी, बीना-कोटा पाइपलाइन परियोजना , भारत पेट्रोलियम कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड , बी-105 , इन्द्रा विहार , तलवण्डी, कोटा-324005 (राजस्थान ) को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।

0.0360

1. सहरोद

0.1440

0.0360

0,1512

0.4000

0.0360

0.1368

0.0216

25/1576

0.2200

0.0432

0.0360

21/1532

0.2592

0.0144

0.3800

0.0432

16/1547

761

0.1500

0.2050

761/1548

0.0864

762

0.0360

767

791

0.2800

792

0.1728

794

0.0360

805

0.0144

801

802

0.3500

800

0.2088

808

0.0072

0.1800

799

798

0.1008

0.0360

863

0.4176

903

903/1680

0.0072

903/1803

0.0072

0.0792

902

0.0360

914

916

0.1440

917

0.1800

918

0.0720

919

0.1728

924

0.0720

921

0.0648

0.2520

922 591 [भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 16, 2008/माब 27, 1929

0.0144

जिरोद-(जारी)

0.0144

934

सहरोद-(जारी)

0.2016

0.1800

973

0.0936

0.0216

943/1518

0.4464

0.0216

965/1541

0.2160

0.2592

965

0.4320

0.2016

967.

0.1224 964

0.0504

0.0144

0.1080

963

0.1728

960

0.0360 981

0.0432

294

0.0216

5. खुरी

0.0360

983

295

0.0020

0.3456

984

0.1884

293

985

0.1584

298

0.1250

0.0144

985/1692

299

0.2160

0.1584

1008

0.0360

300

0.0072

1008/1693

317

0.3300

0.0144

1008/1700

317/1633

0.0360 1002

0.1512

318

0.0260

0.2592

1001

316

0.2300

0.1584

1000

315

0.0020 999

320

0.2560

0.0216

0.1800

998

330

0.0820

330/1639

0.0630

0.0144

998/1696

329

0.4060

0.1584

997

358

0.1500 996

0.0504

358/1450

0.0144

0.1440

1034

357

0.3240 995

0.1080

0.0144

357/1641

1035

0.3240

355

0.0288 994

0.0144

356

0.2450 1477

0.0216

2. ढोटी

389

1478

0.0072

0.0720

388

1479

0.0216

392

1480

0.0144

432

0.0360

0.0252

1481

0.1630

433

3. काचरा

114

0.0216

434

0.1100 3

439

0.0300

0.1440

4. जिरोद

0.0650

0.0144

452

454

0.2050

0.0216

3/702

0.1440

455

0.0288 5/704

456

0.0144

0.1562

0.0360

0.0770

457

0.0072

28/708

458

0.0020

0.0072

6/705

449

0.0460 6

0.0720

460

0.1000 73

0.0720

0.0144

461

28/706

0.0144

462

0.7676 440 G1/20088 592

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 16, 2008/ MAGHA 27, 1929

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

0.0144 630

102

0.0144

निमोदा-(जारी)

खुरी-(जारी)

103

0.2200

0.0144

1274

0.0500

107

0.0504

1295

0.0144

0.0720

104

1294

0.1100

0.0144

108

1296

106

0.0132 1289

0.0252

113

0.2880

0.0432

1298/1651

0.0072 1298/1650

113/384

0.0040

0.0100 1298

116

0.0200

0.0470

115

0.1728 1299

115/386

0.0144

0.0530

1300

0.2160

114

0.0576

1301

0.0432 1285

175/387

0.0040

0.0432 1302

0.1000

125/387

0.0700

1350

125/315

0.0648 1351

125/322

0.1800

0.0630

128

0.0288

0.1000

1352

127

0.1440

0.1080

1369

0.0288

286

0.0360 1369/1574

151

0.1440 1368

0.1650

0.0288 1365

0.0530

129

0.0040

1366

0.1080

7. मेरमातालाब

1378

0.0360

0.0216

0.1080

0.3200

1379

0.2232

0.3200 1382

0.2950

1402

0.0864

0.2160 1400

0.0790

0.0470

0.0900 1401

0.3450 1397

0.1350

0.2300.

0.2900

1398

0.0450

0.1950 1396

0.0500

0.0360 1396/1578

0.2100

0.0216

885

1395

880

0.0144 9

0.0216

6. निमोवा

874

-0.3560

0.0864

0.0020

875

0.3600

12/312

872

0.0300 10

0.0220

0.0260

873

0.0020

864

0.1080

0.0100

863

0.0072 93

0.0720

862

0.2660 93/300

0.3150

0.0576

732

0.1944

747

0.0020

0.0360

91/381

750

0.0040

0.0144

91/380

751

0.0240 90

0.0144

752

0.1794

0.0600

101 593

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 16, 2008/माघ 27 , 1929

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]

270

0.0144

गन्दोलिया (जारी)

0.0288

754

मेरमातालाब

0.0020

265/904

0.0810

723

265

0,1440

0.4280

722

276

0.0072

0.0648

585

0.1080

278

0.0100

586

277

0.0720

0.0100

584

287

0.2160

0.0020-

583

0.2088

305

0.0750

581

0.0864

306

0.0400

580

0.0144

307

0.0040

579

0.0360

303

0.0216

554/1261

0.0432

299

556

0.0990

0.0216

298

0.0864

557

0.0432

303/768

0.0720

558

0.2016

736

561

0.1080

735

0.0020

570

0.0144

736/910

0.0500

562

0.2880

737

0.0500

569

746

0.0432

0.1152

568

0.2448

746/784

567

0.0020

745

0.1152

0.2800

615

0.0216

0.0504

513.

0.0144

0.2916

482

0.0432

0.1800

483

0.2880

0.0216

485

0.0216

752

486

0.3096

751

0.0144 488

0.1710

0.0504

0.0072

612

490

9. अटरू

0.0144

491

0.3916

615

0.0036

0.1584

648

649

0.0278

0.1440

8. गन्दोलिया !

647

0.0684

0.0144

644/1937

0.0270 58

0.2016

0.0270

646/1937

0.1296

58/774

653

0.3240

0.0360

0.0396

598

0.0072

62/951

0.0144

661

0.0216

0.1404

665

61/950

0.0072

0.0020

519

0.0576

0.0020

520

0.0144

517

0.0306 81

0.0216

0.0072

518

0.2304

0.1908

521

0.2160

516

0.3420.

0.3240

215

0.0558

511

214/958

0.0288

679

0.2970

0.0360

269 594

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 16, 2008/MAGHA 27 , 1929

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii)]

4 1

0.0216 9.

0.0378

507

II . खेड़लीबांसला(जारी )

अटरू-(जारी)

0.0144

0.0080

681

0.0610

0.0072

681/1952

0.3600

0.0756

682

0.0216 683

0.2214

0.0500

0.2538

501

0.0700 502

0.1494

0.2520

0.0036

498

0.1872

0.0342

496

0.1080 497

0.1404

0.0820 416

0.0558

0.0100

56/628

353

0.3386

0.2520

0.3690

313

0.2520 314

0.0130

0.0750

0.1944

317

0.1530

0.1134

305

0.1550

0.3024

319

0.0100

0.0072

304/1902

0.2000

302

0.0072

0.1800

195

0.0558

301

196

0.1700

0.0738

280

0.0360

197

0.3220

300

0.0720

198

281

0.0100

0.0504

199

0.1224

289

0.0020

200

288

0.0072

0.1872

203

0.0384

287

0.2664

238

0.0036

291

239

0.3240 92

0.1490

0.0360

236

10. लक्ष्मीपुरा

0,0600

240

0.1080

0.1670

235

0.0864

0.0020

0.2720

233

0.0020

0.0648

227

0.2160

0.0360

520

75.

0.1440

515

0.2160 67

0.0396

0.0630

518

525

0.1750 56

0.2970

526

0.1440 48

0.0010

0.0630

528

0.0020

527

0.1530

0.0160

549

0.1224 49

0.3470

550

0.0072

0.1728

604

0.0330

12. बरलां

0.0080

0.0100 13

0.0300

634

0.0100 12

0.0360

633

0.1080

0.4350

608

11 595 [भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 16, 2008/माध 27, 1929

631

0.0936

12. बरलां

213

0.1440

14. बलदेवपुरा

630

0.1584

0.0650

213/441

0.0100

642

0.0576

221

0.2016

629

0.1628

224

626/1078

0.1080

0.0040

225

628

0.0400

0.0720

223

625

0.0216

0.0072

228

626/1076

0.3744

229

0.2044 624

0.0432

229/416

0.1860

0.4100

623

0.0720

333

622

0.0288

0.0140

335/403

621

0.4100

332

0.0432 620

0.0540

324/404

0.0504

0.0180

619

.0.0792

323

618

0.0648

0.0300

321

0.5580

617

0.0432

323/372

0.0144

617/1003

324

0.0504

0.0720

324/477

849

0.0070

13. छत्रपुरा

0.0504

324/406

848

0.1260

0.0432

324/405

847

0.0144

0.0140

331

846

0.3960

844

0.0360

0.0594

596

15 दड़ा

0.0100

843

0.0100

538

0.1052

0.0540 831

540

0.4050

832

0.0792

541

0.1720

0.1440 $29

542

0.3330

828

0.0072

516/728

0.0144

823

513

0.0864 459

0.0504

0.0360

510

0.0030

512

174

0.3800

14. बलदेवपुरा

0.0648

511

0.1584

195

0.0030

508

0.0432

196

521

0.1296

0.0020

241/476

507

0.0200 197

0.0720

522

0.0040 191

0.0020

523

0.1152 198

0.0792

524

0.0400 190/474

0.0020

525

.0.0792 197/475

0.0360

462

0.0220 199

0.0864

455

0.0864 200

0.1152

0.1656

448

201

0.0360

0.4680

445

0.0144

201/417

0.0360

444

0.0288

202

0.0792

241/654

0.0288

217/521

241/624

0.0792

0.0864

218

0.1800

241

0.0720

219 596

[PART II-SEC. 3( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 16 , 2008/MAGHA 27 , 1929

243

0.0040

21/1532

0.0360 दड़ा- (जारी )

SAHROD ( Contd .)

239

0.0144

0.2592 240

0.1440

0.0144 216

0.0216

0.3800

0.0432

16/1547

[फा. सं. आर-31015/3/2008- ओ आर- II ]

761

0.1500 ए. गोस्वामी, अवर सचिव

761/1548

0.2050 New Delhi , the 14th February , 2008

762

0.0864

767

0.0360

791

0.2800

792

0.1728

0.0360

794

805

0.0360 S.O. 307. Whereas it appears to the Central Gov- ernment that it is necessary in the public interest that for thetransportation of petroleum products from Binatermi- nal in the State of Madhya Pradesh , Pipeline to Kota in the State of Rajasthan should be laid by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited;

801

0.01-44

802

0.3500

800

0.2088

808

0.0072 And whereas it appears to the Central Government thatfor the purpose of laying such pipeline it is necessary to acquire the right of user in land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is described in the Schedule annexed hereto;

0.1800

799

0.1008

798

863

0.0360

903

0.4176

0.0072

903/1680

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub -section ( 1) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Min- eralsPipelines (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;

903/1803

0.0072

902

0.0792

914

0.0360

916

0.1440

917

0.1800

918

0.0720

919

0.1728

0.0720

924

Any person , interested in the land described in the said Schedule may within twenty one days from the date on which copies of the Gazette of India containing this notification are made available to the public, object inwrit- ingto the acquisition of the right ofuser therein for laying ofthe pipeline under the land to Smt . Bhagwanti Jethwani , Competent Authority , Bina - kota Pipeline Project , Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, B- 105 Indra Vihar Talwandi, Kota- 324005 Rajasthan).

921

0.0648 SCHEDULE

922

0.2520 District: Baran

Tehsil: Atru

State: Rajasthan

0.0144

934

0.1800 Sl . Name ofVillage

973

No.

Area in Hectare

Survey No.

0.0216

943/1518

965/1541

0.0216

0.2592

965

0.0360

1. SAHROD

967

0.2016 36

0.1440

0.0504

964

0.0360

0.1080

963

0.1512

0.1728

980

0.4000

0.0432

981

0.0360

983

0.0360 25

0.1368

0.3456

984

25/1576

0.0216

0.1584

985

0.2200

0.0144

985/1692

0.0432 597

भारत का राजपत्र: फरवरी 16, 2008/माघ 27, 1929

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3(ii) ]

I 2

0.1584

0.2160 1008

SAHROD ( Contd.)

KHURI-( Contd.) 299

0.0360

300

1008/1693

0.0072

317

0.3300

0.0144

1008/1700

0.0360

317/1633

0.1512

1002

0.0260

318

0.2592

1001

0.2300

316

0.1584

1000

0.0020

315

0.0216

999

0.2560

320

0.1800

998

0.0820

330

*998/1696

0.0144

0.0630

330/1639

0.4060

329

0.1584

997

358

0.1500

0.0504

996

358/1450

0.0144

0.1440

1034

0.3240

357

0.1080

995

0.0144

357/1641

0.3240

1035

0.0288

355

0.0144

994

0.2450

356

0.0216

2. DHHOTI

1477

0.2000

* 389

0.0072

1478

0.0720

388

0.0216

1479

0.0216

392

1480

0.0144

432

0.0360

0.0252

1481

433

0.1630

0.0216

114

3. KACHRA

434

0.1100 3

0.1440

4. JIROD

439

0.0300 4

0.0144

452

0.0650 3/702

0.0216

0.2050

454

0.1440

455

0.0288

0.0144

5/704

456

0.1562 5

0.0360

457

0.0770

0.0072

0.0020 28/708

4580

449

0.0072

0.0460 6/705

0.1000 6

460

0.0720

461

0.0144

0.0720

462

0.7676 28/706

0.0144

630

0.0144 28

0.0144

1274

0.0144 53

0.2016

0.0504

1295

0.0936

0.0720

1294

0.4464

0.0144

1296

0.2160

0.0252

1289

0.4320

0.0432

1298/1651

0.1224

1298/1650

0.0040

0.0144

1298

0.0200

0.0360

0.0470

1299

0.0216

294

5. KHURI

1300

0.0530

0.0020

295.

1301

0.0576

0.1884

293

1285

0.0040 298

0.1250 598

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 16, 2008 /MAGHA 27 , 1929

0.1000

1302

KHURI-( Contd .)

0.0700

1350

1351

0.0630

0.1000

1352

0.1080

1369

0.0288

1369/1574

1368

0.1650

1365

0.0530

1366

0.0040

0.0360

1378

1379

0.1080

0.2232

1382

0.2950

1402

1400

0.0790

0.0470

1401

1397

0.1350

0.2900

1398

0.0450

1396

0.0500

1396/1578

1395

0.0216

0.0216 6. NIMODA

0.0864

0.3600

12/312

0.0220

0.0020

0.0100

0.0720

93/300

0.3150

0.1944

0.0360

91/381

0.0144

91/380

0.0144

0.0600

101

0.0144

102

103

0.2200

107

0.0500

0.0144

104

108

0.1100

106

0.0132

113

0.2880

0.0072

113/384

116

0.0100

115

0.1728

115/386

0.0144

0.2160

114

[PART II-SEC . 3( ii) ]

4 2

0.0432

175/387

NIMODA ( Contd .)

0.0432

125/387

0.0648

125/315

0.1800

125/322

128

0.0288

127

0.1440

286

0.0360

0.1440

151

129

0.0288

0.1080 7. MERMA TALAB

0.0216

0.3200

0.0864

0.2160

0.0900

0.3450

0.2300

0.1950

0.0360

885

0.2100

0.0144

880

0.3560

874

0.0020

875

0.0300

872

873

0.0260

0.1080

864

863

0.0072

0.2660

862

732

0.0576

0.0020

747

0.0040

750

0.0240

751

752

0.1794

0.0288

754

723

0.0810

0.4280

722

0.0648

585

0.0100

586

0.0100

584

0.0020

583

0.0750

581

580

0.0400

0.0040

579

554/1261

0.0216 599

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 16 , 2008/माघ 27 , 1929

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( il) ]

4 556

0.0990

0.0360 MERMA TALAB (Contd .)

GANDOLIYA-(Contd .) 303

299

0.0432

0.0864

557

558

298

0.0720

0.0216

303/768

561

0.1080

0.0432

0.0020

736

0.2016 570

735

0.0500

562

0.0020 569

736/910

0.0500

0.0144

737

0.1152

568

0.2880

746

0.0020

567

0.0432

746/784

615

0.2800

-0,2448

745

513

0.0504

0.1152

745/899

0.2916

482

0.0216

749

0.0144

0.1800

483

738

485

0.0216

0.0432

750

0.3096

486

0,2880

0.1710

752

0.0216 488

0.0072

751

490

0.0144

9. ATRU

612

0.0144

0.0504 491

0.1584

0.3916 51

615

8. GANDOLIYA

0.0036

648

0.1440

0.0144

649

0.0278 57

0.2016

647

0.0684 58

0.1296

644/1937

0.0270 58/774

0.0360

646/1937

0.0270 62

0.0072

653

0.3240 62/951

0.0216

598

0.0396 61

661

0.0144

0.0072

61/950

665

0.1404 64

0.0576

0.0020

519

0.0144

0.0020

520

0.0216

0.0306

517

0.2304

518

0.0072 83

0.2160

0,1908

521

215

0.3240

516

0.3420 214/958

0.0288

0.0558

511

269

0.0360

0.2970

679

270

0.0144

507

0.0378

0.0020

265/904

0.0080

681

265

0.1440

0.0072

681/1952

276

0.0072

0.0756

682

278

0.1080

0.2214

683

277

0.0720

0.2538

501

287

0.2160

0.1494

502

305

0.2088

0.0036

498

306

0.0864

0.0342

496

307

0.0144

440G1/ 2008--9 600

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 16 , 2008/ MAGHA 27 , 1929

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

497

0.1404

ATRU ( Contd .)

KHEDLI BANSLA

0.1080 416

0.0558

0.0820

--(Contd .)

353

0.3386

56/628

0.0100 313

0.3690

0.2520 314

0.0130

0.2520 317

0.1944

0.0750 305

0.1134

0.1530 319

0.3024

0.1550 304/1902

0.0072

0.0100 302

0.0072

0.2000

301

0.0558

0.1800

195

280

0.0738

196

0.1700

0.3220

300

197

0.0360 281

0.0100

198

0.0720 289

0.1224

199

0.0504 288

0.0072

200

0.0020 287

0.0384

203

0.1872 291

0.0036

238

0.2664 92

0.1490

10. LAXMIPURA

239

0.3240 91

0.0600

236

0.0360 79

0.1670

240

0.1080

0.0020

235

0.0864 80

0.0020

233

0.2720 76

0.2160

227

0.0648 75

0.1440

520

0.0360 67

0.0396

0.2160

515

0.2970

518

0.0630 48

0.0010

525

0.1750 52

0.0020

526

0.1440 51

0.0160

528

0.0630

0.3470

527

0.1530 50

0.1728

549

0.1224 14

0.0080

550

0.0072 13

0.0300

604

0.0330

12. BARLAN

0.0360

634

0.0100 11

0.4350

633

0.0100

0.0216

1. KHEDLI BANSLA

608

0.1080 4

0.0144

631

0.0936 5

0.0610

630

0.1584 9

0.3600

642

0.0100 8

0.0216

629

0.2016 12

0.0500

626/1078

0.1080 30

0.0700

628

0.0400 28

0.2520

625

0.0216 27

0.1872

626/1076

0.3744 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 16 , 2008 /माघ 27 , 1929

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

228

624

0.0432

BALDEVPURA

BARLAN ( Contd .)

0.2041

229

0.4100

623

-(Contd.)

229/416

0.1860

0.0288

622

0.0720

333

0.4100

621

0.0140

335/403

620

0.0540

0.0432

332

619

0.0180

0.0504

324/404

0.0648

618

0.0792

323

617

0.5580

0.0300

321

0.0144

617/1003

0.0432

323/372

0.0070

13. CHHATRAPURA

849

324

0.0504

0.1260

848

0.0720

324/477

0.0144

847

0.0504

324/406

846

0.3960

0.0432

324/405

844

0.0360

0.0140

331

0.0100

843

0.0594

596

15 DADHA

0.1052

831

0.0100

538

0.4050

832

0.0540

540

0.1720

829

0.0792

541

828

0.3330

0.1440

542

0.0144

823

0.0072

516/728

459

0.0504

0.0864

513

0,0360

510

0.3800

174

14. BALDEVPURA

0.0030

512

195

0.1584

0.0648

511

0.0432

196

0.0030

508

241/476

0.0020

0.1296

521.

0.0720

197

0.0200

507

0.0020

191

0.0040

522

198

0.0792

0.1152

523

190/474

0.0020

524

0.0400 197/475

0.0360

525

0.0792 199

0.0864

0.0220

462

0.1152

455

0.0864 200

448

0.1656

0.0360

201

0.4680

445

201/417

0.0144

444

0.0360

0.0288

202

241/654

0.0792 217/521

0.0288

241/624

0.0792

0.0864

218

0.1800

241

219

0.0720

0.0040

243

213

0.1440

0.0144

239.

0.0650

213/441

0.1440

240

0.0576

221

216

0.0216 224

0.1628

225

0.0040

[F.No. R- 31015/3/2008 -OR- 11 ]

0.0720

223

A. GOSWAMI , Under Secy .

602

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 16 , 2008/ MAGHA 27, 1929

SCHEDULE

श्रम एवं रोजगार मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली, 17 जनवरी , 2008

"Whether the action of the management of Sendra Bansjora Colliery of BCCL in denying promotion to Shri Permeshwar Singh from Excv . Gr . 'D' to Excv Gr . ' C' isjustified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled for ? "

का.आ 308. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स बी. सी. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण ( सं.- II ) , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 176/93 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को17-1-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-20012/329/92-आई आर( सी -1 ) ]

स्नेह लता जवास , डेस्क अधिकारी

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi , the 17th January, 2008

S.O. 308. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 176/93 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (No.II) Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 17-1-2008 .

[No. L-20012/329/92- IR (C-I) ]

SNEH LATA JAWAS , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.2) AT DHANBAD

PRESENT

Shri Nagendra Kumar, Presiding Officer

Inthe matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10 ( 1 ) (d) ofthe I. D. Act . , 1947.

REFERENCE No. 176 of 1993

PARTIES:

: Employers in relationto

the management of Sendra

2.The case of the workman in brief is that the concerned workman Permeshwer Singh was appointed and posted as Helper Trainee in the scale of Rs.15.00-0 . 26-18-12 . per day with initial basic pay of Rs.15 only per dayvideOfficeOrder No. BCCL/EXCVN/82/323dt . 2-2-82 . Thereafter hewas re -categorised as Fitter Helper in EXCV'N Grade -E w.e.f. 28-2-1983 with basic pay of Rs. 17.20P per day vide letter No. SB/PD/83 /7/511 dt . 31-3-1983 . The performance of the concerned workman was quite satisfactory and he was found fit for promotion by the management . Accordingly he was given promotion to the post ofE ,P. Fitter in Excavation Grade 'D' vide Office order No.GM/ SA/PD/325/1660 dt . 24-2-1987 . Shri Nand Kishore Singh and Sri Devi Dayal Singh although they were junior to the concerned workman, they have been placed in Excavation Grade ' D' to ' C' vide office order No.GM/SA/ PD/3903 dt . 13-5-1991 and vide office order No. GM/ SA/ PD/IA9197 / 90 dated 16-11-1990 respectively. Shri N.K. Singh was appointed as helper Trainee ( Fitter) in Cat . I vide office order dt . 23-2-82 and the date of appointment of Shri Devi Dayal Singh is 9-2-1982 whereas the concerned workman Permeshwar Singh was given appointment on the post of Helper Trainee ( Fitter) in Cat. 1 w.e.f. 2-2-82. In the circumstances the concerned workman has been discriminated in the matter of promotion of Excavation Grade -C with out valid reason when his performence was quite satisfactory and deserve promotion . Further details has been given regarding the fact as to how the concerned workman is compentent and deserves promotion in Grade- C particularly in view of the fact that the junior persons have been promoted to Grade- C and this concerned workman has not been promoted to Grade- C.

Bansjora Colliery of

M/ s. BCCL and their

workman.

APPEARANCES

None

: : Mr. H. Natlı,

Onbehalfofthe workman Onbehalf of the employers

Advocate .

State Jharkhand

Industry: Coal

Dated , Dhanbad, the 4th January, 2008

AWARD

The Government of India , Ministry of Labour &Employment in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10( 1 )(d) of the I. D. Act, 1947 has referred thefollowingdispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their order No. L- 20012(329)/92-1.R. ( Coal -I) dated, the 9th November,1993.

3. The case of the management in short is that the allegation against the management has been denied. The facts and circumstances as stated by the concerned workman is false and baseless . In fact as per procedure/ rules the promotion to Grade -Cfrom Grade-D is given on the basis of recommendation of the D.P.C. which includes marks obtained in the trade test and not on the basis of seniority alone. The concerned workman Permeshwar Singh appeared in trade test in 1990 but he could not qualify as such his name was not recommended for promotion from grade- D to Grade- C by the D.P.C. However , the concerned workman did not appear before the D.P.C. in the year 1991 and 1992 for his promotion to Grade -C and accordingly his case could not be considered. In the year 1993 he appeared before the D.P.C. but he failed in the trade test and hence he could not promoted. In the above circumstances no injustice has been done to the concerned 603 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 16, 2008/माघ 27, 1929

workman Permesher Singh in the mattet of promotion to Grade-C from Grade-D. There is no merit in the claim ofthe concernedworkman and hence the same may be rejected.

4. In the further rejoinder the concerned workman has denied the facts furnished by the management and has further said that the criteria of seniority of a workman can not be affected when the workman has his long sincere service with appreciation and the management has done injustice to the concerned workman in the matter of promotion.

5. POINTS TO BE DECIDED

he was not given promotion in Grade -C he raised an industrial dispute through the union . In the year 1991and 1993 D.P.C. was formed for holding test . He intended to appear in the D.P.C. for his promotion in Grade -B but the management did not allow him to appear before the D.P.C. either in the year 1991 or 1993 on the ground of pendency ofthe Industrial dispute . From his evidence it appears that in the year 1991 N.K. Singh got promotion in Excavation Grade-C. Inthe year 1997 he got his promotion in Excavation Grade-B .However, in the year 2003 N. K. Singh got his promotion in Grade -A . The management had illegally restrained him from appearing in the D.P.C. in the year 1991 and 1993. His claim is justified . In support ofhis contention he has filed several exhibits which have been marked as Ext . W- 1 to W- 13 and further Exts . W-2 to W-5 .

"Whether the action of the management of- SendraBansjora Colliery ofBCCL in denying promotion toShri Permeshwer Singh from Excv. Gr.'D' to Excv .Gr . 'C' is justified? Ifnot, towhat relief the workman is entitled for ?"

6. FINDING WITH REASONS

In support of the claim the concerned workman has produced himself as witness who is WW- 1 . He has filed several documents which have been marked as Ext . W- 1 , W-1/ 1 to W- 1/13 and W-2 to W- 5 . The management in support of his case has produced one witness Rakesh Ranjan as MW- 1 and has also produced documents marked as Ext.M - I series .

8. From the evidence of the concerned workman as stated , during cross - examination it appears that two persons viz . N. K. Singh and Davi Dayal Singh were appointed by the same notification by which the concerned workman was appointed. However, those two persons had joined services after joining the service of the concerned workman. However those two persons have been promoted and this concerned workman has been denied promotion and he has not been allowed to appear before the D.P.C. However, his evidence also shows that he had appeared alongwith Devi Dayal Singh before the D.P.C. in connection with promotion inGrade-C.

9. During cross-examination he has stated that he does not know if he got unsuccessful in the D.P.C. held in the year 1990. However he has stated that it is a fact that the D.P.C. did not recommend his name for promotion at that time. He has denied the suggestion that he did not intentionally appear before the D.P.C. in the year 1991 and 1992. It is not a fact that the management did not restrain him for appearing in the D.P.C. taking the plea of pendency ofindustrial dispute raised by him . He has further stated that he did not submit any petition to the effect that why hewas not allowed to face the D.P.C. in the year 1991 and 1992.

10. On the other hand from the evidence of MW it appears that a trade test was conducted by the D.P.C. in the year 1990 for promotion in Excavation Grade- C. The concerned workman did not come out successfully in the trade test, his name was not recommended by the D.P.C. in the year 1990. He further stated that it is not a fact that the management give any scope to the concerned workman to appear in the trade test conducted by the D.P.C. in the year 1990-1991 , for consideration of his promotion in Excavation Grade -C . Relevant papers of the trade test conductedby the D.P.C. in the year 1990 for consideration ofthe promotion of the concerned workman in Excavation Cat.C have been marked as Ext. M - 1 series . The witness has also said that the demand of the concerned workman is not justified . During cross -examination he has statedthat the concerned workman had secured 40 marks in the D.P.C. 7. It appears that the witness Rakesh Ranjan was examined as MW - I on 27th August, 2003 and partly cross- examined . However , he was further cross- examined on 1-9-2003 . On the deposition there is signature of the witness but due to inadvertance the signature of the then Presiding Officer has been left . However, from the record it appears that the witness has been further cross -examined on 1-9-2003 and he has put his signature . The concerned workman in his deposition has stated that he got appointment on 1-2-1982 as Fitter Helper in Cat.1 . At the time of his appointment he was Matriculate and passed I.T.I. in the year 1983 he was regularised in the post of Excavation Grade-E . In the year 1987 he got his promotion in Excavation Grade -D through D.P.C. From his further evidence it appears that his colleague N.K. Singh and Devi Dayal Singh were appointed as Cat. I Fitter Helper by the same notification . However, they were junior as he had joined earlier . From his further evidence it appears that N. K. Singh got promotion in Excavation Gr. E whereas Devi Dayal Singh got his promotion on the said post after thewitness. In case of his promotion on Excavation Grade- DDevi Dayal Singh got his promotion prior to him while N.K.Singh got his promotion along with him . He and Devi Dayal appeared before the D.P.C. for promotion as Grade-C at the same time . The D.P.C. without holding any test recommended the name of Devi Dayal Singh for his promotion in theGrade (torn) while theydid not recommend his name . Davi Dayal Singh got his promotion in Grade-C in the year 1990. In the year 1994 Devi Dayal Singh got his promotion inExcavation Grade-B and Grade-A in2000 .And 604

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 16, 2008 / MAGHA 27, 1929

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ]

hadto appear at the Trade test and to obtain minimum 40% marks . Fromthe evidence of the witness as well as exhibits M- 1 / land M - 1 /3 it appears that the concerned workman had appeared before the Trade test and had failed in the examination as he did not obtain minimum marks . Ext . M - 1 also shows that the procedure as stated by MW- 1 has to be followed in relation to promotion of the workman and out of 100 marks overall 40 % marks will be the qualifying marks.

trade test in the year1990. Qualifying marks were required to be obtained was 40% of 40 marks allotted to trade test. The concerned workman got 15 marks in the trade test. For qualification the concerned workman got 5 marks . During further cross- examination the witness has said that the concerned workman got 5 marks for educational qualification, for professional qualification Oand C.R. 20 marks and trade test 15 marks total 40. A candidate to get successful in the trade test should obtain 40% of the marks allotted . For trade test40 marks were allotted out ofwhich the concerned workman got 15 marks which is less than 40% marks . He has further giventhe details regarding the members of the committee.

15. Thus from the evidence and materials on record it appears that the concerned workman did not obtain the qualifying marks for promotion and had failed in the trade test and accordingly he was not promoted from Grade - D to Grade-C.

11. In spite of giving sufficient opportunity as well asRegd. Notice to the concerned union no one has appeared on behalf of the concerned workman. This is the case of the year 1993 .

16. Thus I find no merit in the demand ofthe workman . In the result, the following Award is rendered :-

"The action of the management of Sendra Bansjora Colliery ofBCCL in denying promotion to Shri Permeshwar Singh from Exv. Gr.'D ' to Exv. , Gr.'C' is justified . Consequently, the concerned workman is not entitled to get any relief. "

NAGENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 18 जनवरी , 2008

का.आ 309.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एस.ई.सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 164/1998 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18-1-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-22012/153/ 1997- आई आर( सी- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 18th January, 2008

12. Shri H. Nath , Ld. Lawyer for the management has submitted that in view of the procedure laid down Trade test is taken by the D.P.C. After a workman passes the test. and after considering the matter relating to experience , qualification C.R. etc. are considered and the workman is promoted. Inthis context minimum marks has been fixed as 40% which has to be obtained by the concerned workman . Thisfact has been stated by MW - 1 and the exhibits have been filed to show the procedure adopted regarding promotion ofthe workman from one grade to another grade . He has submitted that Ext. M - 1 shows that norms of considering promotion of excavation personnel has been laiddown by the members of the committee. He has further pointed out that Ext . M - 1 /2 and M - 1 /3 shows that the concerned workman had not obtained required 40% marks in the Trade test . He had not obtained the minimum qualiyfing marks and he was declared failed . In fact a number of other employees had appeared in the Trade test. He has further submitted that after considering all the materials and performance ofthe Trade test the concerned workman was declared failed and accordingly he was not givenpromotion in the year 1990. Thereafter he did not appear before the DIP.C. on other occasion and thus the question does not arise to promote him from Grade -D to Grade-C . He has also submitted that it is not a fact that the concemed workmanwas denied to appear before the D.P.C. on further occasion.Hence the concerned workman is not entitled to get any relief and the reference may be answered accordingly.

S.O. 309. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 164/ 1998) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of S.E.C.L. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 18-1-2008

[No. L- 22012/153 /1997- IR (C - II) ] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer ANNEXURE

13. From the evidence of the concerned workman itself it appears that he and Devi Dayal Singh had appeared before the DP.C. for promotion as Grade -C. However, he has stated that without holding any test D.P.C. recommended the name of Devi Dayal for his promotion while his name was not recommended . From his further evidence it appears that he was denied the opportunity to appear before the D.P.C. However , there is no document onrecord to show that the concerned workman did not get opportunity to appear before the D.P.C. on further occasion .

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM - LABOUR-COURT, JABALPUR NO. CGIT/LC/R/ 164 /98 Presiding Officer: Shri C.M. Singh 14.From the evidence ofMW - 1 it appears that certain procedures was laid down for consideration of promotion ofthe workmen from Grade - D to Grade -C . The workman 605 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 16, 2008/माघ 27, 1929

Secretary,

Samyuktha Khadan Mazdoor Sangh ( AITUC),

Branch-Gevra Project,

Qr. No. B-342, NCL,

Workman/Union

Gevra Project, Distt . Bilaspur .

Versus

GeneralManager ,

7. As the case proceeded exparte against the workman/Union. There is no evidence on record for proving the case ofworkman/Union . The case of the management is fully established from the uncontroverted and unchallenged affidavit of their witness Shri Satya Parkash . Therefore the reference deserves to be answered in favour ofthe management and against the workman/Union without any orders as to costs .

SECL, Gevra Project,

Distt. Bilaspur (MP)

Management

AWARD

Passed on this 7th day of January, 2008

8. In view of the above , the reference is decided in favour of the management and against the workman/Union without any orders as to costs holding that the action of the management of SECL, Gevra Project in not promoting/ upgrading Shri Laxman Dixit S/o Shri R.C. Dixit, E.P. Fitter Grade- III to next higher grade is justified and consequently the workman is not entitled to any relief.

1. TheGovernment of India, Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No.L- 22012/ 153/97 - IR(C- II) dated 30-7-98 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal:-

9. Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India , Ministry of Labour & Employment asper rules.

"Whether the action of management ofSECL, Gevra Project in not promoting/ upgrading Sh . Laxman Dixit S/ o Sh . R.C. Dixit, E.P.Fitter Grade- III to next higher grade is justified? Ifnot to what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date? "

C.M.SINGH, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 23 जनवरी , 2008

का.आ 310. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक ऑफ महाराष्ट्र के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , बेंगलोर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 19/2004) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 23-1-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12012/204/2003 - आई आर ( बी- II ) ] राजिन्द्र कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 23rd January, 2008 2. The case of the workman in brief is as follows . That Shri Laxman Dixit was employed as E.P. Fitter Grade- III inGevra Project, SECL. He has been so employed for the last 10 years . Juniors to him have been promoted to Fitter Grade- II . The management has been assuring that the workman would be promoted to fitter Grade- II very soon . For one or the other reason , the management purposely avoided to promote him in Fitter Grade- II . It is prayed by the workman that the management be directed to promote him in Fitter Grade- II from retrospective effect from the date his colleagues were promoted in FitterGrade- II and in Fitter Grade - I with all back benefits along with interest thereon .

S.O. 310. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Governmenthereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 19/2004) ofthe CentralGovernment Industrial - Tribunal -cum-Labour Court , Bangalore as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Bank of Maharashtra, and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 23-1-2008 .

3. The case ofthe management in brief is as follows. A DPC was conducted in the year 1994 when the case of Shri Laxman Dixit was also considered for promotion to E.P. FitterGrade- II . The DPC did not find Shri Laxman Dixit suitable for promotion . It is denied that the promotion of theworkman was not done because ofwillful discrimination . No injustice has been caused to the workman by not promoting him to E.P. Fitter, Cat- II Group- " C " . In view of the above , the reference be answered in favour of the management .

[No. L- 12012/204/2003 - IR(B -II) ] RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer ANNEXURE

4. Vide order dated 16-2-06 passed on the ordersheet ofthis reference proceeding the case proceeded exparte against the workman.

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT, 5. The management in order to prove their case filed affidavit oftheir witness Shri Satya Parkash , then working asPersonnel Manager in SECL, Gevra Project ofGevra Area.

BANGALORE-560022 Dated the 7th January , 2008 PRESENT Shri A.R. SIDDIQUI, Presiding Officer C.R. No. 19/2004

6. I have heard Shri A.K. Shashi , Advocate for the management . I have very carefully gone through the evidence on record .

606

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 16 , 2008/MAGHA 27 , 1929

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

II PARTY

In regard to the foregoing commissions and omissions , the bank charges you as under: -

Shri VijayVasudevaGholba

S/o Vasudeva,

FlatNo. 201, Exadant Apart- ments , 345 Nehru Road, Tilakwadi,

TheRegional Manager, Bank ofMaharashtra, 15, Police Station Road, Basavangudi , Bangalore-560004

Charge No. 1 : You have breached the rule of bussiness of the bank and/or instructions for running the cash depart, which is an act of " MINOR " misconduct under Clause 19.7( d) of the Bipartite Settlement 1966 , as modified tilldate.

Belgaum Distt. 590 006

AWARD

Charged No. 2: You have committed neglect of work, negligence in performing duties, which is an act of " MINOR " misconduct under clause 19.7(c) ofthe Bipartite Settlement 1966, as modified till date.

1. The CentralGovernment by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub - section 2A of the Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred thisdispute vide order No. L- 120 12/204/2003 - IR(B- II) dated 8thMarch, 2004 for adjudication on the following schedule:

SCHEDULE

Charge No. 3: You have committed an act prejudicial to bank's interest, being one of gross negligence involving the bank in serious loss , which is an act of " GROSS " misconduct under clause 19.5 (j ) of the Bipartite Settlement 1966, as modified till date . "

Whether the action of the management of bank of Maharashtra is justified in compulsorily retiring Shri VijayVasudevGholba from the services ofthe Bank?

Ifnot, what relief the workman is entitled to ? "

2. Acharge sheet dated 12-01-2001 vide Ex.M1 came tobe served upon the first party in the following terms: -

Charge Sheet

3. There being no explanation offered by the first party to the charge sheet, a DE was ordered against him . Thefirst party participated in the Domestic Enquiry taking the assistance of DR and it is on the conclusion of the enquiry, enquiry findings were submitted holding the first party guilty of the charges, he was served with enquiry report but failed to submit his comments rather failed to submit his explanation challenging the enquiry findings . Thereupon, it appears punishment of compulsory retirement was proposed giving an opportunity of personal hearing and thereafter punishment was confirmed by impugned punishment order. The first party challenged the impugned punishment order by way of appeal and it came to be rejected vide order dated 31-05-2003 . The first party then raised the dispute by way of Conciliation Proceedings resulting into the failure report and then resulting into the present reference proceedings.

While working as Cashier incharge at Belgaum City Branch, on 15-07-2000 , you were on duty as Cashier Incharge of the branch . On the same day , after taking out the cash from the cash safe around 10.20 hours , you reached your cash cabin . Then , you left the cash cabin for toilet, with the cash bundles /packets being kept open on the table top of the cash cabin and without locking the cash cabin as well nor you kept any other staff informed to keep vigil till you returned . On your return , you declared that Cash worth Rs . 2.50 lakhs was found missing from yourcabin. Thedetails as per records, in this regard , are as under

Amount of cash taken out from cash safe :

Rs.9,10,182.93

Amount of cash missing:

Rs .100x1500-1,50,000

:Rs . 2,50,000

Rs.50×2000-1,00,000

}

As a sufficiently senior employée and more particularly as an experienced Cashier , you ought to have exercised utmost devotion and strict vigil on the huge bank's fund entrusted to your custody while on duty and also precisely after moving the cash from the safe to your cash cabin. You could have also attended the nature's call , prior to lifting the cash from the cash safe , which you failed to care for .

4.The case of the first party workman, as made out in the claim statement , relevant for the purpose is that on 15-07-2000 while he was working as cashier at Belgaum City Branch of the bank, at the commencement of the business hours at about 10.40 AM, he found that sum of Rs.2.50 lakhs was missing and immediately he reported the matter to the branch Manager. Instead of immediately closing all the enteries and exists and carring out search operation , the branch Manager did not take any action until the night of 15-07-2000 and made a complaint to the jurisdictional police at about 8.20 p.m. on the said date. The FIR did not suspect the first party describing the incident as a mishap and a case of theft . The police while conducting the investigation searched the house of the first party and found nothing incriminating . However , on the basis of the statement given by the branch manager to save his skin the police filed the charge sheet on 25-11- 2000 in CC No. 31/2000. The first party then challenged the validity and fairness of the enquiry proceedings alleging various grounds, mainly, stressing upon the point that when the criminal proceedings were initiated and charge sheet wasfiled, departmental enquiry proceedings could not have you have breached the laid down rules for handling/ running of Cash Dept. You have committed neglect of work and negligence in performing duties . Your act has turned out to be prejudicial to the bank's interest , as your negligence has involved the bank in huge loss of Rs . 2.50 lakhs of public funds , for which the bank is rendered accountable.

607 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 16, 2008/माष 27, 1929

theenquiryproceedings , this tribunal on 1-12-2004 framed thefollowingpreliminary Issue:

"Whether the Domestic Enquiry conducted against the first party by the second party is fair and proper?

7. During the course of trial of the said issue, the management examined the enquiry officer as MWI and got marked 3 documents namely, the charge sheet , the proceedings ofthe enquiry and the enquiry report at Ex.M1 toM3 .The firstparty also examined himself without getting marked any document . After having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, this tribunal by order dated13-9-2006answered the above said preliminary issue infavour ofthe management holding that the DE conducted against the first party by the management is fair and proper. Thereupon, the matter came to be posted to hear the learned counsels for the parties on merits of the case and after havingheardthem, the matter is posted this day for award.

been initiated and if initiated shoud have been put in abeyance under the terms of the Bipartite Settlement.He contended that the proceedings of enquiry were also not conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice and in accordance with the terms of the Bipartite Settlement . He contended that when he received the notice from the Disciplinary Authority proposing the punishment ofcompulsory retirement, he appoached the Hon'ble High Court in WP No. 26774/2002 which came to be disposed of on 21-11-2002 with a direction to the first party to appear before the Discipliary Authority and to have informed it with regard to the proposed punishment . Thereupon, he appeared before the Disciplinary Authority on 03-01-2003 and submitted his elaborate statement as to why and how the enquiry proceedings conducted against him were not in accordance with terms of the Bipartite Settlement and that the findings of the enquiry officer holding him guilty of the charges were not supprted by sufficient and legal evidence . However, the disciplinary authority by order dated 08-01-2003 rejected his submission and passed the impugned punishment order. Therefore, the first party while challenging the enquiry proceedings also challenged the enquiry findings as perverse and unreasoned and also challenged the impugned punishment order as illegal and unjust and requested this tribunal to pass an award to set aside the impugned punishment order and to reinstate him in service with full back wages , continuity of service and all other consequential benefits.

8. Learned, counsel for the first party in his written arguments as well as in his oral arguments while reiterating the various contentions taken by the first party in his claim statement contended that the findings ofthe guilt recorded against him suffered from non application of mind and based on no evidence . In as much as the documents produced by him during the course of enquiry at Ex . D 13& 14 have not been looked into and several aspects regarding security arrangements also have been over lookedby the enquiry officer . That the enquiry officer did not consider the fact that the three management witness examined in support ofthe charges were interested official witnesses and were involved in the incident in question being served with the memos and that some of them have already been taken voluntary retirement with a promiseto give evidence against the first party during the course of enquiry. It was further contended that the disciplinary authority also did not apply its mind while acting upon the findings of the enquiry officer in holding the first party workman guilty of the charges . In the last a submission was made to the effect that assuming without admitting that there was any misconduct on the part of the first party, he could be at best be said to have been responsible forthe contributory negligence , primary negligence being that ofthe branch management which failed to providethe necessary security arrangements and violated each and every requirement of the rules regarding the security and also failed to take prompt action when the loss was promptly reportedbythe first party. Therefore , impugned punishment order passed against the first party was illegal and unjustified much less perverse and excessive amounting to victimisation.

5. The management by its Counter statement, while resisting the claim of the first party and refuting the various averments made in the claim statement however, contended that the DE conducted against the first party was in accordance with the provisions ofBipartite Settlement and in consonance with the principles of natural justice and It is after evaluating both the oral and documentary evidence produced during the course of enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted his findings holding him guilty of the charges . The first party was served with the enquiry findings but did not submit his comments and explanations challenging those findings . Thereupon , punishment was proposed giving an opportunity of the personal hearing and after having taken into consideration the statement given by the first party and not finding it satisfactory, punishment proposed was confirmed and his appeal against the punishment order was also rejected . Therefore, in short the management took up the contention that the proceedings of the enquiry held against the first party were inaccordance with the principles of natural justice, findings ofthe enquiry officer suffered from no perversity and that impugned punishment order passed against him was legal and justified and incommensurate with the gravity ofthe charges of misconduct committed by him.

6. Having regard to the respective contentions of the parties about the validity and fairness or otherwise of

9. The management's counsel on the other hand supported the enquiry findings and argued that undisputedly the first party was in the custody of a sum of Rs.2.50 lakhs and it is from his custody the aforesaid amount was found missing . He contended that the explanation offered by the first party that having kept the amount on 440 GI/2008-10 608

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 16, 2008/ MAGHA 27, 1929

[PART II-SEC. 3(ii) ]

nothing has been brought out in their cross examination suggesting that the first party was not responsible for his act of negligence in leaving the amount in question in openwhile, leaving the cabin to attend the call of nature. While, meeting the questions raised by the first party during the course of cross examination of the management witnesses and by way ofhis defence statement, the learned enquiry officer observed as under :-

"Even assuming that there were some defects in cash cabinas per the say of defence side , what was expected to CSE(Mr . V.V.Gholba) were as follows :-

( I ) He should have taken extra precaution for safe guarding Bank funds .

(2) He should have asked the cash officer to look after the cash till he returns from the toilet.

(3) He could have redeposited the cash into safe and taken it out after finishing nature's call.

the table ofhis cabin , he went to attend call of nature and returned back within few minutes to find that the above said amount was missing, first of all is not acceptable and even if, taken to be true ,it is a case of gross negligence on his part in not taking sufficient care and caution of such a heavy amount being kept on the table of the cabin and then leaving the cabin without any proper and necessary precautions in the matter .Therefore the learned counsel submitted that the first party by taking the defence that he went to attend the call of nature keeping the amount unprotected in his cabin, impliedly admitted the negligence onhis part and therefore, he cannot absolve himself from the liability by taking the defence that there were no proper security arrangements taken by the branch management . Learned counsel also urgued on the impugned punishment awarded against the first party stating that it was the case ofgross negligence causing huge financial loss to the bank and therefore , punishment of complsory retirement was proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct committed byhim.

(4) He should have taken the cash after answering nature's call .

(5) Like other cashier he could have used chain and lock for the cash cabin .

(6) He should given in writing to the branch manager regarding the deficiencies and also could have taken up the matter with higher authorities/forums to get the deficiencies removed .

Unfortunately none of the above things were done by CSE. Hence just harping on the fact that no adequate security measures were provided to the cash cabin , does not absolve CSE , Mr. V.V.Gholba off his breach of laid down rules for handling/ running of cash department , neglect ofwork and negligence in performing duties , which actturned out to be prejudicial to the Bank's interest as his negligence has involved the bank in huge loss of Rs.2.50 lakhs ofpublic funds .

Regarding

( 1) Branch Manager obtained his signature on debit voucher Ex.M5 forcibly.

2)Cash Docketof 15-07-2000 was written by him , on the strength of piece of paper given by Branch Manager .

3) Customers /Staff appoarching cash cabin from backside .

In respect of above ( 1 )&(2) , the Defence has not produced any evidence except for the say of CSE . Hence defence contention is untenable .

In respect of above (3 ), when the CSE claims that he is aware of duties and responsibilities and rules and regulations . Why he permitted/succumbed to Deviation ?

Itisnothing butjust passing on mistake to the branch manager saying that it was as per BM's instructions .

10. After having gone through the records, more particularly, the oral and documentary evidence produced during the course of enquiry, the defence taken by the first party and the reasonings assigned by the enquiry officer in his findings holding him guilty of the charges , I do not find much substance in the arguments advanced for the first party as far as proof of the charge of misconduct of gross negligence on the part of the first party. There is no denial of the fact that the first party after having taken out the case from the cash safe around 10.20 hours reachedhis cash cabin and then left the cash cabin for toilet with the cash bundles/packets being kept open on the table top of the cash cabin and without locking the cash cabin or keeping any staff informed to keep vigil till he returned from the toilet. There is again no denial of the fact that on his return after having attended the call of nature to the cabin , he found a sum of Rs.2.50 lakhs missing from his cash cabin and reported this matter to the branch manager. Therefore, the aforesaid allegations made against the first party in the charge sheet by the way of charge Nos . I to 3 infact have not been disputed by the first party but his only,defence to the above effect is that the abovesaid amount from the cabin come to be missing there being no sufficient and proper security arrangements having been made by the branch management despite the reports made in that connection as per Exs . DI3 & 14 earlier of the said incident . As could be read from the findings of the enquiry officer , as well as the oral and documentary evidence produced during the course of enquiry and very document producedby the first party, all the four witnesses examined on behalf of the management have deposed to the fact of negligence committed by the first party in not taking sufficient and proper precautionary measures when he left the cabin to attend the call of nature . All the four management witnesses with reference to the documents at Ex.M 1 to M14 have spoken to the aforesaid fact and

In view of the above I conclude that defence has failed disprove any of the charges . Finally, in view of all above, I therefore, hold that all the charges against [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

Mr. V V Gholba are proved. My findings on the charges are as follows:

Charge No.1 : Breach of rule of the business of the bank and of instructions for running of the cash department proved.

ChargeNo. 2: Committed neglect ofwork, negligence in performing duties proved.

ChargeNo. 3: Committed an act prejudicial to bank's interest, being one of gross negligence involving the bank in serious loss proved .

I submit my above findings to the Disciplinary authority.

11. Therefore, the abovesaid reasonings given by the enquiry officer in holding the workman guilty of the charges cannot be said to be perverse or suffering from any factual or legal defects . He has given his reasonings and rejected the various objections taken by the first party with regard to the security arrangements in a very befitting way. He was jutified in holding that even if, there were some defects in security arrangements , the first party was not supposed to have left the cash cabin having kept open such a huge amount on the table without asking his colleagues to keep vigil or without putting lock to his cash cabin. He cannot absolve himself of the liability and responsibility ofkeeping close watch over the amount which was in his custody by just saying that he had left the cabin to attendthe call of nature and by the time he retuned back, the amount was missing. Therefore , in the light of the very defence taken by the first party that he left the cash cabin to attend the call of nature without taking precautionary measures , by no stretch of imagination , it can be said that the finding of the enquiry officer suffered from any perversity and that the charges of misconduct levelled against him have not been proved by sufficient and legal evidence .

12. Now coming to the question of quantum of the punishment . Undisputedly, it was a case of negligence rather can be said to be a gross negligence on the part of the first party. As per the very findings of the enquiry officer it was not the case of theft . He rejected the defence of the first party that it was case of theft in his absence there being no proper security arrangements to his cash cabin . As seen above , on the basis of the complaint filed by the management with the police , a charge sheet was filed and the first party was put on trial for the charge of misappropriation of the amount under Section 408 IPC. After due trial of the criminal prosecution launched against the first party, the commpetent criminal court by its judgment dated 14-03-2005 acquitted the first party for the offence punishable under Section 408 IPC . Therefore , as could be seen from the above , it was neither the case of theft nor the case of misappropriation of the amount by the first party and in the result as rightly held by the enquiry officer it was a case of negligence and gross negligence as covered under charge Nos . 1 to 3. Now a question arises

609

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 16 , 2008/माघ 27 , 1929

as to whether for such a case of negligence the impugned punishment of compulsory retirement was justified and commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct . The first party in my opinion could have hauled up for the misconduct of negligence bringing the case on hand under the category of' shortage of money' not being accounted by the first party during the course of business hours of the bank. It is not in dispute that this was for the first time the first party committed the misconduct in question having his excellent service record of the past of about 20 years. As noted above , it was not the case of moral turpitude as well as he has been acquitted by the competent criminal court with a finding that prosecution has utterly failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt . Moreover, it was not the case of the management also that the first party committed misconduct of misappropriation of the funds belonging to the bank. The complaint lodged with the police by the bank in fact, did not disclose the name of the first party as an accused but was registered against some unknown persons . Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that it was misconduct of negligence in discharging his duty , punishment of the complsory retirement appears to be shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct committed by him. At this juncture , it appears to me that the ends ofjustice will be met, ifthe first party is dealt with the penalty of withholding of his four annual increments with cumulative effect, denying him 50 % of the back wages from the date of impugned punishment order till the date ofhisreinstatement . Hence the following award:

AWARD

The management is directed to reinstate the first partyworkman into its services withholding his four Annual Increments with cumulative effect from the date of impugned punishment order with 50% of the back wages from the date of impugned punishment order till the date of his reinstatement with continuity of service and all the attended benefits . No costs .

(Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected and signed by me on 7th January, 2008 ) A. R. SIDDIQUI , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 23 जनवरी , 2008

का.आ. 311 . औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक आफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण / श्रम न्यायालय नं. 2 , मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 2/23/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 23-1-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -12011 / 11 /2003 - आई.आर. ( बी- II ) ] राजिन्द्र कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी 610

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 16 , 2008 /MAGHA 27, 1929

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii )] New Delhi , the 23rd January, 2008

justified ? If not, to what relief the workman Shri Babusingh Shrist is entitled to ? "

To support the subject matter in the reference , the Statement of claim is filed by the General Secretary ofthe Union at Exhibit 5 making out the case that, Workman involved in the Reference i.e. Babusingh Shrist worked with the Ist Party for 38 years . The dismissal of the concerned Workman is bad in law .

S.O. 311. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.2/23/ 2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court No. 2 , Mumbai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Bank ofIndia, and their workman received by the Central Government on 23-1-2008 .

[No.L- 12011/ 11 /2003 -IR (B- II)]

RAJINDER KUMAR , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

According to the General Secretary of the Union , the concerned Workman joined his services as sub -staff with 1st Party on Ist April , 1963. He served for 38 years with 1st party. Voluntary Retirement Scheme was declared by the Bank and concerned Workman Shri S.Babusingh Shrist applied for Voluntary Retirement.

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI

PRESENT

A. A. LAD, Presiding Officer

Reference No. CGIT-2/23 of 2003

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF

Bank ofIndia

TheGeneral Manager (P)

Mumbai South Zone, BOI Building, 70/80 M.G. Road, Fort, Mumbai 400023 ... 1st Party

AND

Theinworkman

TheGeneral Secretary,

Bank of India Staff Union,

BOI Bldg. , Ground Floor, 70/80 , M.G. Road, Fort, Mumbai400023.

...2nd Party

(Babusingh Shirst)

APPEARANCE

For the Employer : S/ Shri L.L.D ' Souza & Liaz Mohd.

Representatives of the Manage-

ment.

4.At that time, office of the South Zone of the Bank served charge sheet on concerned workmen levelling charge of remaining absent on duty for 82 days without permission. Said absensee was in the year 2000. In fact Bank was aware of the sickness of the mother of the concerned Workman for which he was on leave . Besides Bank was aware that , daughter of the concerned Workman was turned into madness due to harassment given to her byher husband . All these reasons were known to the Bank, still it purposely proceeded against the concerned Workman. He was asked to admit the charge on assurances that, he will be permitted to take VRS. When he admitted the charge, instead of passing any suitable order , order of dismissal was issued against the concerned Workman which is not just and proper . According to General Secretary, the enquiry on the basis ofwhich the concerned Workman was dismissed from the employment was not at all an enquiry. No opportunity was given to the concerned workman to participate in the enquiry and cross examine the witnesses of the Bank and permit to lead evidence in support of his case to show reason behind his absenteeism. So it is stated that, dismissal order dated 3rd April , 2001 requires to be set aside with directions to the Bank to take him back in the employment with benefits of back wages and continuity of service .

For the Workmen :Mr. M.B. Rao , Advocate

Date ofreserving of Award: 24th October, 2007.

Date ofpassing ofAward: 13th December, 2007

AWARD- I

The matrix of the facts as culled out from the proceedings are as under:

2. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its Order No. L- 12011 / 11 /2003 - IR (B- II) dated 22nd April, 2003 in exercise ofthe powers conferred by clause (d) 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:

"Whether the action of the Management of Bank of India, Mumbai South Zone, Mumbai to remove Shri Babusingh Shrist from service w.e.f. 3-3-2001 is

5. This is disputed by the Bank by filing written statement at Exhibit 8 making out the case that, charge sheet wasserved on the concerned Workman about absenteeism of$7 days.Concerned Workman accepted the charge and admitted the guilt of the charges levelled against him of remaining absent, without intimation . Said is misconduct for which punishment is given under Section 19.5 of the Bipartite Settlement . The charge of absenteeism without intimation for more than 30 days empowers the Management to take action of dismissal . In fact it was misconduct . Besides that, he remained absent for 568 days prior to that and for that he was removed and then taken in the employment still there was no improvement in the attendance ofthe concerned Workman . His service record was not good. The enquiry was conducted by following thedue process of law . The concerned Workman appeared 611 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 16, 2008/माघ 27 , 1929

in the enquiry and when he admit the guilt, question of leading evidence against the concerned Workman or proceeding against him to prove the charge which was admittedby him does not require to do by following lengthy procedure. So it is stated that, the decision taken by the Bank to remove the concerned Workman from its employment is just and proper and does not require to interfere.

6. In view of the above pleadings my Ld. Predecessor framed the Issues at Exhibit 12. Out of those IssueNo.1 was deleted and Issues Nos.2 and 3 were treated as preliminary issues , at the request of the parties remaining issue which are on the point of fairness of the enquiry and finding of it and last one is on the prayer of the concerned Workman. So Issue Nos.2and 3 which pertain to fairness ofenquiry and perversity of the findings are concerned are treated as preliminary Issue which I answer as follows:

Issues

Findings

Yes

representative . Even he admits that, opportunity was given to him to prefer an appeal on punishment. Against that, Bank filed an affidavit in lieu of the examination in chief at Exhibit 21 wherein Bank made out the case that, charge sheet was served on the concerned Workman . He states that, no assurance was given to the concerned Workman that, lenient view will be shown to him if he admits the guilt.He states that, Bank proceeded against the concerned Workman as per the procedure and never run away from the alleged promise given to the concerned Workman. In the cross this witness admits that , after issuing chargesheet enquiry was initiated . Enquiry was conducted about his 876 days absenteeism . It is denied that any assurance was given by the Presenting Officer as well as theEnquiryOfficer to the concerned Workman that lenient viewwill be taken against him if he admits the guilt . It is denied that , enquiry was not conducted as per the principles ofnaturaljustice.

2. Whether the principles of natural Justice were followed?

9. 2nd Party filed closing purshis at Exhibit 19 whereas 1st party filed it at Exhibit 22 .

3. Whether the findings recorded against the Workman are perverse? No

REASONS:

ISSUE NO.2 .

10. In between,by application at Exhibit 20 ,wife of 2nd party informed that, her husband i.e. 2nd Party Babusingh Shirst is died on 31st July, 2006 and permit her to step inhis place for legal dues ofthe concerned Workman . This is not objected by the 1st Party and so that , application was allowed.

11. Thereafter 2nd Party submitted written arguments at Exhibit 27 which was replied by the 1st Party by filing written arguments at Exhibit 25 with some citations .

7.TheGovernment of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi , by its Order dated 22nd April, 2003 sent grievance of the concernedworkman for adjudication referring whether , the action taken by the Management bank dated 3-3-2001is justified and punishment awarded is just and proper. According to Workman decision taken on 3-3-2001 is not just and proper. Whereas case of the management is that , after holding enquiry decision was taken as absenteeism charge was levelled against him was proved . Besides he denied that enquiry was not fair and proper as alleged by the concerned Workman.

12. My learned predecssor while framing Issues kept all the Issues for consideration at a time as a preliminary issues . However , both applied by Exhibit 23 and requested to decide issue of enquiry and finding of it first and then request to consider about quantum of punishment . So by order dated 25th April , 2007 this Court considered the said prayer and taken the issue of fairness of the enquiry and perversity ofthe finding to be decided in Part I Award as a preliminary issue.

8. To prove that, concerned workman relied on depositions which he confirmed in an affidavit, filed by him in lieu of examination in chief at Exhibit 18 , where he states that all that story about his employment with the Bank of 38 years and cause behind his absenteeism and reason of absenteeism alleging that it was known to the Bank. He further made out the case that, Bank assured him that ifhe admits the charge , lenient view will be taken and he will be allowed to take VRS and on those assurances he admitted the charges . However , Bank did not keep its word and decided to take action of termination of his services which is not just and proper. However, in the cross concerned Workman admits that, he was served charge sheet on 8-1-2001 . He admitted that, the enquiry was conducted as per charge sheet and he was represented in the enquiryby his Defence Representative . He admits that, hisrepresentative participated in the enquiry. He admits that, he admitted the charge levelled against him and after completion of the enquiry show cause notice regarding imposing the punishment was served on him. He admits that , he was heard on the punishment through his

13. As stated above conerned Workman claimed that, he had reason to remain absent from duty . He made out the case that, his mother was sick. He states that , his daughter became sick and all these circumstances does not permit him to report on duty and Bank was aware of it, the charge against concerned Workman was that, he remained absent without prior intimation and that was the sole charge levelled against the concerned Workman. As far as giving intimation by the concerned Workman to the Bank about his absenteeism is concerned, no evidence is led by the 2nd party to show that , by particular correspondence or by particular evidence intimated Bank about his absenteeism and reason behind it. Besides it is his case that, Bank gave promises that it will take lenient view ifhe admits the guilt but it did not keep the promise given to him . No evidence is produced by the concerned Workman or pointed out from the record to show that , such 612

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 16 , 2008/MAGHA 27 , 1929

assurance was given by the Bank on which concerned Workman relied and accepted the guilt. If we peruse the proceedings filed at Exhibit 16 , page 9 , it reveals that , concerned Workman participated in the enquiry. He admit that, he received the charge sheet. Then question was put to him whether he understood the charge to which he answered'yes' . Then question was put whether he accepts the charges to which he replied 'yes' . Besides , he explains that, he accepted the charge unconditionally and expressed desire that, he would like to be defended by his Defence Representative . His said prayer to represent his case through his Defence Representative was granted . Even he gave name of Mr. Chanchlani as his Defence Representative who appeared for him . Even said Mr. Chanchlani also admitted that, the concerned Workman admit the charge of absenteeism .

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)] High Court observed that finding given by the Enquiry Officer based on the admission of the delinquent is valid and held no ground to interfere in such a finding . He refer thecitation published in 1998 II CLR p. 1174 (Canara Bank VsH.T. Koli and anr .) where Bombay High Court observed that, charge sheeted person voluntarily admits the guilt in that case if punishment is given on that basis it is not required to be interfered.

The citation shown published in 1986 FJR (Vol . 68 ) page 132 (Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Vs R. Gulab Singh ) where Karnataka High Court has held that, if misconduct is admitted it is not necessary for the employer to hold any domestic enquiry . The citation shown published in 2006 LLR page 735 ( Uranium Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. the PresidingOfficer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1 and Ors . ) where Jharkhand High Court observed that, ifWorkman accepts the guilt and if once he accepts the guilt in that case no enquiry is required to proceed.

16. So, ifwe consider all this coupled with the case made outby both , I conclude that , enquiry which was concluded onthe basis of the admission of the concerned Workman require to accept . Besides it is not proved that the so called assurances given by the Bank are not abided by it . No specific case is there and when it is not proved one has to conclude that it was fair and proper enquiry and finding given by the enquiry officer that concerned Workman remained absent without intimation which is misconduct as perBipatrite Settlement Clause 19.5 which empower the Bank to take action . So I answer above issue to that effect and passing the following order :

ORDER

(a) Enquiry is observed as fair and proper;

(b) I also observed that finding is not perverse; (c) Parties are directed to particiate in the above matter on the point of quantum of punishment.

A. A. LAD, Presiding Officer Mumbai,

13th December, 2007

14. So'it is not the case of the concerned Workman that , he by particular letter or correspondence intimated about his absenteeism and it was not considered and again punishment was given. Even concerned Workman did not submit in his evidence on record to show that , Bank gave promisethat, it will consider the charge and will take lenient view while punishing him if he admits the charge but the Bank took "U " turn from it and punished him without keepingword. Even he has not pointed out that, he intimated the Bank about his absenteeism and it was served on the Bank and Bank did not considered it. So from all this it appears that, it was in his mind only and he has prepared that case in mind but , however, not communicated or intimated to the Bank. All it reveals that , it is his imaginary story which is not at all supported by cogent and satisfactory evidence to conclude that , he has intimated his reason of absenteeism and Bank has not considered it . So in this scenario I conclude that, concerned Workman has not intimated his reason behind absenteeism nor sought permission ofthe Bank and remained absent without prior intimation to the Bank . Even evidence brought on record reveals that , he admitted the guilt without any condition. No evidence is brought on record to show that , such assurances were given to him by the Bank and still Bank punished him and without keeping its word of taking lenient view.

15.Now, question remains whether such an inquiry can be treated fair and proper which admittedly not conducted but Enquiry proceeedings placed on record reveals that the concerned Workman admit it . On that, point Advocate of the 2nd party placed reliance on citation published in 1967 FJR (SC ) page 481 (Central Bank of India Vs. Karunamoy Banerjee ) where Apex Court observed that, if the Workman admits the guilt , there will be nothing more for employer to enquire into and it will be an empty for formality to insist upon the employer to let in evidence about the allegations . He also placed reliance on the citation published in 1996 I LLJ p.292 ( Bombay High Court ) Syed Waris Hussain Vs. H.T. Koli and anr . where our Hon'ble नई दिल्ली, 23 जनवरी , 2008

का.आ. 312. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. 2 , मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 2/43/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 23-1-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12011/129/2003- आई आर ( बी-11 ) ] राजिन्द्र कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 23rd January, 2008 S.O. 312. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.2/43 / 613

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 16, 2008/माघ 27 , 1929

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court No. 2, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Union Bank of India, and their workman received by the Central Government on 23-01-2008 .

[No. L- 12011 / 129/2003 - IR (B - II) ]

RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI

PRESENT

A. A. LAD , Presiding Officer

Reference No. CGIT-2/43 of2003

Employers in relation to the Management of

Union Bank of India

TheGeneral Manager (P) ,

Union Bank of India, 230,Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai -400021 .

... 1stParty

AND

Their workman

The General Secretary,

Union Bank Employees Trade Union Congress , 27, Burjorji Bharucha Marg , Fort, Mumbai-400023 .

...2nd Party

APPPEARANCE

: Mr. P. S. Shetty , Advocate

FortheEmployer

For the Workmen :Mr. K. P. Anil Kumar Advocate .

Date ofreserving of Award : 4th October, 2007.

Dateofpassing ofAward: 13th December , 2007 .

AWARD PART - I

The matrix of the facts as culled out from the proceedings are as under :

2.TheGovernment of India , Ministry ofLabour, New Delhi by its Order No. L- 12011 / 129/2003 - IR ( B - II) dated 14th August, 2003 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub -suction 2 (A) of Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

" Whether the action of the Management of Union Bank of India, Mumbai in imposing the penalty of stoppage of3 increments with cumulative effect upon Sh. Ashok Shivnani, Clerk is Justified ? If not, what reliefthe workman is entitled to? "

he fraudulently made encashment of cheque for Rs.1.5 lac on 7-5-1997 when he was working at Khand Bazar Branch alleging that, fraud could have been detected earlier had the concerned Workman , Shivnani taken proper care since that time Shivnani was working in Scroll Department and worked as Incharge of issuing tokens against instruments been alert . According to General Secretary , concerned Workman, though he never worked in the scroll seat before that and was not having experience of that work . Even it was his case that, he did not notice the missing of Token No.17 when he left for toilet and when he returned on the seat. It is the case of the Union that, concerned Workman Shivnani denied the handwriting on the " instrument" . According to the General Secretary since said instrument ought to have been watched for encashing against Token No.17 and the fraud would have come to the light on 7-5-1997 itself. No question arises to involve Shivnani alleging that he was responsible for the encashment of scroll of Token No. 17. According to General Secretary, concerned workman Shivnani was subjected to domestic enquiry and as a consequences of which he was awarded 3 punishments i.e. censure , stopage of 3 increments with cumulative effect and non - payment of salary and ailowances or increments during the suspension period. According toGeneral Secretary case of the Shivnani does not deserve this type of punishment. He was illegally suspended and was deprived ofhalf salary for that period . He was wrongly punishment for single act and punished which is not as per law. There is no enquiry whose hand writing was behind the ' instrument ' and how this instrument traveled and who are responsible for such a traveling. As per charge sheet, it was alleged that, Shivnani failed to inform about the missing of Token No.17 to the official ofthe bank . It is not admitted to concerned workman Shivnani . According to General Secretary , concerned Workman Shivnani did not know that, said Token No.17 was missing and without entertaining such suspicion he denied to have issued the token after returning from toilet . It is case of the union that, that time, he did not notice the missing of the token . Besides this charge levelled against Shivnani the charge of adding Token No. 17 in between entries of 16 and 18 to tally the scroll book was levelled against him . However, in the domestic enquiry deposition ofone Mr. M. Y. Jitekar , Head Incharge of Cash Department has stated that Shivnani intimated the missing of Token No.17 and short of Rs . 1.5 lacs on 7th May, 1997. In fact office ought to have enquired into the said charge but it was not done and Shivnani was made scapegoat of it just to victimize him . Even said witness has stated in the domestic enquiry that, he requested Mr. Panjwani to see into the matter and locate the difference and on that Mr. Panjwani went to Mr. Zepale who was writing cash and supplementary book who had all cash paid instruments in his possession. He has further stated in the domestic enquiry that, from the said lot Mr. Panjwani took out two cash paid instruments of Rs . 1.5 lacs each . Mr. Panjwani 2. Claim Statement is filed by the 2nd Party, General Secretary of the Union Bank Employees Trade Union Congress , at Exhibit 5 making out the case that, the concerned workman by name A.N. Shivnani, joined 1st Party, Bank, as a Clerk- cum Cashier , in Zonal Office (MM Zone) . He was charge sheeted on 30-9-1997 alleging that 614

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 16, 2008/MAGHA 27, 1929

[ PART 11-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

allthose facts have emerged from the enquiry proceedings and it is revealed that, Cheque No. 8440083 for 1.5 lacs is one from the Cheque Book which is not issued to any constituents . It is allegedby the General Secretary that, culprit has managed to steal the cheque leaf from the Book taking advantage ofimproper control over the custody ofthe cheque book and the tokens . It is also alleged by the General Secretary that, procedure of safe keeping of the paid instruments by duly sealed and signed by both, the Head Shroff/ Incharge of the Cash Department and Accountant of Branch , who signs the cash book balance, envelope in cash safe is also not followed properly in the said Branch . The General Secretary states that , under such chaotic state of affairs and unsafe situation Prevailing at Khand Bazar Branch Shivnani alone cannot be held responsible. According to the General Secretary, finding of the Enquiry officer that there was casual approach of Shivnani to attend to his duties is not correct . Enquiry officer also observed that, Shivnani is responsible for missing of tokens is also not correct . The finding of the Enquiry Officer is not based on evidence . It is stated by the General Secretary that, Shivnani was not aware of the Token No.17 of its missing and misused by the culprit . According to General Secretary there was no opportunity to Shivnani to inform his colleagues or superiors or raise an alaram that point of time regarding missing of Token No .17 since he himself was not aware of it . Even there is no enquiry whose handwriting was on the reverse of the impugned cheque , no enquiry how the said cheque traveled and was passed was held . It is not the act of only Shivnani to encash the said cheque and clear Token No. 17 against said instrument . So it is submitted that, since Shivnani has been made scapegoat for the commission and omission of others , cannot alone be held responsible for those charges and required to be punished . So it is submitted that, the punishment awarded of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect be quashed and set aside .

brought and showed those 2 instruments of Rs.1.5 lacs to him and after showing he took the said instrument to him (Mr. Jitekar , Head Shroff) that , the scroll has tallied with the Cash Payment Register. In the enquiry it came out that, Shivnani brought the scroll book and informed Panjwani that total cash scroll is tallied . Accordingly it was checked and found the total correct and it reveled that, Shivnani informed officer and Head shroff- in- charge of Cash Department regarding short of Rs.1.5 lacs . Said was informed by Head Cashier to Zepale who had all cash instruments and for that , Shivnani alone cannot be held responsible . According to General Secretary, had there been proper enquiry and follow up the fraud could have been detected on 7th May, 1997 itself, General Secretary states that, when Shivnani informed the Management witness i.e. concemed Head Cashier ofthe Cash Department about shortage on 7th May, 1997 and the paid cheque under Token No.17and when it was followed by him by visiting Panjwani how it can be held that Shivnani is responsible and has not taken proper care or has not disclosed the missing of the Token No. 17 ? General Secretary further states that, management witness in the enquiry disclosed that sealed pack containing the entire cash paid instrument of 7th May , 1997 which was allegedly kept in the Dai Box by Zepele was found missing . So all this is not disclosed by leading any evidence to throw light on the fraud but the Bank suppressed it at the Branch level itself and accountability for loss of cash paid instrument has not been fixed on any one . For all this Shivnani alone cannot be held responsible. In the domestic enquiry witness of the Management, Chief Manager of the Khand Bazar Branch , has stated that cheque book , bearing Nos.844001to 844050 was not issued to any ofthe constituents of the Bank and the cheque book was missing from the stock of the cheque books . It is also recorded in the domestic enquiry that , cheque used is one of the leave of the missing book. It is also brought on record in the domestic enquiry that, there is lengthy procedure for custody and issue of cheque books in the Bank.General Secretary raised question as to how stolen cheque book by passed all such procedure and one of its leaf got passed through the computer and verification process at various levels before payment of the said instrument was made which create a strong suspicion against all . Besides witness No.3 whose evidence was recorded was second signatory for verification and cancellation of the payments of the cheques stated that , he had never seen the cash instrument, Mr. Jitekar in the enquiry stated that, cheque was perfectly in order in all respects and duly cancelled by the first and the second signatory for making payment. All this reveals that, there was nothing safe in Khand Bazar Branch of the Bank and as such Shivnani cannot alone be held responsible for missing of the said token. It is further stated by the General Secretary that the Enquiry Officer pointed out that officers of the Branch have utterly failed to follow proper procedure and accepted procdure and system. In that case it is also stated by the General Secretary that , that

3. This is disputed by the Bank by filing Written Statement at Exhibit 7 making out the case that, this Tribunal has no jurisdiction. That, the contents of the order of the Reference did not constitute the ' industrial dispute ' under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is also stated that, union was not entitled to raise this dispute and represent the concerned Workman. It is stated that , the said Union is not registered one and as such has no locus standi to raise grievance of Sivnani . In fact Union has not challenged fairness and propriety of the enquiry . Union has only challenged the findings of the Enquiry Officer alleging its perversity. It is further stated by the Bank that, cheque of Rs.1.5 lacs was presented for payment on the counter of the said Branch . Said cheque was stolen from the stock of the misssing cheque books of the said Branch and was not issued to the C.D. Account No.13105. Even said cheque was not entered in the scroll but was stamped as Token No. 17 andwas fraudulently paid that being routed through the current Department of the Branch . It is alleged by the Bank that . Mr. Shivnani was assigned duties as the Scroll 615

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 16 , 2008/माघ 27 , 1929

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

FINDINGS

ISSUES

Yes

1. Whether reference in the present form istenable?

Yes

2. Whether this Tribunal has Juris- diction to adjudicate the subject ?

Yes

3. Whether enquiry was fair and proper?

4. Was finding perverse?

ISSUE NO. 1 :

5. 1st Party challenged the Statement of Claim filed bythe General Secretary ofthe Union making out the case that the Union is not the registered one . Union has no locus standi to espouse the cause and file Statement of Claim for the concerned Workman . As far as these objections are concerned we find those are not seriously challenged in the evidence. There is an affidavit of the concerned Workman in lieu of the examination in chiefat Exhibit 17 andmade out the case how dispute was raised. It is a matter of record that , the General Secretary is not examined in this case. No specific case is made out by the Bank as to how the General Secretary cannot file the Statement of Claim or participate in the dispute raised by the Union pertaining to the concerned Workman . Even argument is not advanced in that respect and only allegations are made in the written statement by the Bank. Onthe basis ofthe pleadings , Issue to that effect is framed. Since it is framed my answer to it is in the "affirmative" and observe reference is tenable and Union has locus standi to raise the said cause .

ISSUE NO.2 :

6. This Issue is framed on the basis ofthe pleadings ofthe Bank where Bank has stated that, this tribunal has no jurisdiction since dispute raised is not industrial dispute. Again on that though dispute is raised it is not pointed out that, as to how, this Tribunal has no jurisdiction. Even in the arguments no specific case is made out though both have filed the written arguments at length , more precisely bythe 1st Parywho has filed its written arguments at Exhibit 22and also argued orally. Bank has referred to a number of citations which are on the point of domestic enquiry. They havenot touchedthis point ofjurisdiction. Besides dispute is referred by appropriate Government and it is not challenged in that absence so I observe that, this Tribunal has jurisdiction and answer issue to that effect.

ISSUE NO.3 &4 :

clerk on the saiddate , after issuing Token No. 16 Shivnani left his seat for toilet . On returning back he observed that Token No.17 was missing but he did not raise any alarm not brought this to the notice of his superiors but continued to issue tokens from 18 onwards and at the end of it, there was a difference of Rs.1.5 lacs between cash payment registers and scroll book. When it was noticed at the end ofthe business hours the entry oftoken No. 17 was entered in the scroll book and scroll book was tallied for that day. According to the Bank, fraud was detected on the next working day i.e. on 9th May, 1997 when the Day Book Department found the difference of Rs . 1.5 lacs since the said cheque was not posted in the Current Deposit Ledger . According to Bank, cash paid instruments when sought were found missing from the Bank . It is also stated by the Bank that, the fraud belonged to unused cheque book which was missing from the cheque series ones . According to Bank, had the concerned Workman Shivnani brought the fact of missing ofToken No. 17, which has not been scrolled, immediately on his coming to know about the same fraudulent encashment of the cheque could have been averted since Token No.17 was obtained against cheque in the morning, as is observed from the time of issuing TokenNo.16 and 18 and the payment of the same was made only at 2.20 p.m. to the person who presented the same at the cash payment counter by which time the fraud could have been detected and the Bank would not have incurred monetary loss in that behalf. It is case of the Management that, before enquiry was conducted against Shivnani and against Panjwani , Head Cashier of the said Branch , after recording evidence the Enquiry Officer observed Shivnani guilty ofthe charge of missing of Token No. 17 it is stated that, his finding is not perverse and 1st Partybe permitted to lead evidence to prove the charges leveled against the concerned workman if it is observed it is not sufficient. It is stated that, three punishments have not been given to the concerned Workman as claimed by the General Secretary. Punishment is of stoppage of 3 increments which is one only . The punishment given is not ofthe serious nature, if compared with the nature ofcharge proved against the concerned Workman . Said punishment is available against the charge ofgross misconduct because ofthe concerned Workman Bank suffered loss of Rs. 1.5 lacs . The charge of negligence was proved against the concernedworkman. Even charge ofnot taking proper care was also proved against the concerned workman and according to the Bank, the charge of loss to the Bank of Rs. 1.5 lac is also proved against the concerned Workman, since he has not taken proper care and at that moment punishment awarded is just and proper and does not require anyinterference.

4. Inview of the above pleadings following Issues were framed at Exhibit 14, out of which Issue Nos.1 to 4 which are treated as preliminary Issues are answered as follows:

7. For these Issues burden is on the 1st party to show that, how enquiry is fair and proper and how finding not perverse. At the same time burden is on the 2nd Party to show that, how enquiry is not fair and proper and how finding not perverse . Again for that if we peruse the pleadings of the concerned Workman and evidence lead by affidavit which is filed atExhibit 17 we find, he narrated all the things and when the question was put by the 440 GI/2008-11 616

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 16, 2008 /MAGHA 27 , 1929

Advocate of the 1st Party on the point of enquiry. He Admits that, he was charge sheeted. He states that , his Staternent of Claim is silent regarding fairness of the enquiry and violation of the principles of natural justice while conducting enquiry . He admits that, enquiry proceedings were recorded in his presence . He admits that , whatever was written by the Enquiry Officer was written as per its happenings . He admits that, documents were provided by the Management . He admits that, witnesses examined by the Management were made available for his cross . He admits that, his Defence Representative did not depose properly on his behalf before the enquiry. According to him, his representative did not defend his case properly so he claimed that, enquiry is not fair and proper. Even he admits that, he has not made out that type of case in the Claim Statement . Even he admits that, he did not complained any where regarding the role played by his Defence Representative in the enquiry . So his allegation is that, his representative did not represent him properly in the enquiry. Ifthat is so, then how for that Management can be held responsible or the Enquiry Officer can be blamed? Nowhere hestates that , opportunity was not given to him , nowhere he states that, he was not heard . Nowhere he states that, he demanded particular documents but were not made available . Nowhere he states that , witnesses were not made available for cross . The only grievance of the concerned Workman is that , his representative did not represent him properly in the enquiry . So in my considered view , for that allegation, the Management or Enquiry Officer cannot be held responsible. Besides for that , enquiry cannot be observed not just and proper . It was his duty to select particular representative who can defend him properly. If atall he was not having such a Defence Representative , he ought to have approached the Management and ought to have sought help of the Mariagement in that regard . It did not happen.Enquiry proceedings are placed on recordby theManagement with Exhibit 13. It reveals that, 2nd Party participated in the enquiry. He signed the proceedings Even 2nd party admits that Enquiry Officer recorded the proceedings as it happened . So when that is there , how it canbe observedthat, enquiry is not fair and proper . There isthe finding ofthe Enquiry Officer . It runs in 13pages. If we go through it we find Enquiry Officer tried to project the case ofboth and tried to draw evidence on the allegations leveled against the concerned Workman. He considered all the evidence placed before him through witnesses . Even he considered the number of documents and the role played by the concerned workman . He considered the facts brought on record by the Management during that relevant period. So, all this reveals that , Enquiry Officer was having evidence to give finding .

before the termination of an employee, then in that case the Tribunal has the power to ignore the findings of the domestic enquiry. It is to be noted that , it is not shown as to how the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in deciding the said case of Sur Enamel and Stamping Works (P ) Ltd. V/sTheir Workmen help the concerned employer in case of enquiry. Another citation referred by the 1st Party's Advocate Published in AIR 1979 (SC) page 1652 ( Shankar Chakravati v Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd.) which is on the point of hollow plea of employer on alleged denial of an opportunity to substantiate the alleged misconduct of the Workman by evidence alinude has been responsible for dragging a tiny dispute rendering the workman jobless for an unusually long period of more than 7 years has no meaning . Again here facts of that case are different than the facts of this case and as such said facts does not permit us to apply to that issue hand of in this case. Citation relied upon by the 1st Party published in AIR 1963 (SC) page 1756 (P.H. Kalyani Vs M/s . Air France) is also on the different footing as in that case Shri Kalyan challenged the order of the Labour Court . In our case , dismissal order is under challenge. Citation referred by 1st Party, produced pages 23 to 32 from printed copy of Supreme Court judgement, given in Central Bank of India Vs. Ptakash Chand Jain which is also on different footing and on different facts than the facts of this case . Citation referred, published in AIR 1966 (SC) page 1669 (State Bank ofPatiala and ors . Vs. S.K. Sharma) there also facts are different than the facts of this case.Citation published in AIR 1965 SC page 155 (Tata OilMills Co. Ltd. Vs Its workmen) is also on the point of punishment which is not applicable at this stage. 2nd Party also placed reliance on a number of citations , published in 2001 I LLJ (SC) page 157 (Union of India Vs. K.A. Kittu and Ors.) where evidence of witnesses was not considered by the Enquiry Officer. In that case it was observed that , Enquiry Officer violated the principles of natural justice. Whereas in our case it is not the case of the concerned Workman that, evidence of the Workman was ignored . He also placed reliance on citation published in 2001 II LLJ page 733 (Bank of Baroda Vs. Virsan Santuram Pradhan and anr. ) where opportunity was not given to the Workman in that, case it was observed that, enquiry vitiated, but in our case it did not happened . So also citation referred by 2nd Party published in 2001 ( 1 ) LLN page 693 (Ms. Shireen Dubash and Air India Ltd. And anr. ) on the allegation that management has not examined the witnesses and in that case it was observed that, enquiry was not conducted by following principles of natural justice and it is pertinent to note that Workman examine the Customs Official and Inspector of Police to record their evidence on record . But in this case no such allegation is made by the 2nd Party.

9. So, ifwe consider all this coupled with the case made out by both, I conclude that , enquiry is fair and proper and finding not perverse . So I answer the above issues to that effect and passing the following order :

8. As stated above number of citations are placed on record by the 1st and the 2nd Party's Advocate with their written arguments . Citation published is 1963 II LLJ page 367 where it is observed by the Apex Court that , where proper domestic enquiry does not get carried out 617 [भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 16, 2008/माघ 27 , 1929

ORDER

APPEARANCES :

(a) Enquiry is fair and proper , finding not perverse,

Forthe Employer : Mr. Tulsidas Narvekar , Advocate

For the Workmen : In Person

(b) Parties are directed to appear in Reference on the point of quantum of punishment.

Mumbai ,

A. A. LAD, PresidingOffice

Date ofpassing of Award : 4th December, 2007. AWARD

13thDecember, 2007

नई दिल्ली, 23 जनवरी , 2008

1. The Government of India, Ministry ofLabour by its Order No. 36011 /5/2006- IR (B - II) dated02-08-2007 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub- section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

का.आ. 313.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स मेनेजेस एण्ड सन्स के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध मेंनिर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , नं. 2, मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 2/40/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 23-1-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

"Whether the action of the management of M/s . Menezes & Sons, Goa in retiring Shri S.V. Kavthankar from employment w.e.f. 28-02-2006 is legal andjustified? If not, to what relief are the workmen entitled?"

2. In pursuance of the reference, notice was sent to both. First party filed report at Exhibit-4 intimating that, dispute is settled out of Court .

[सं. एल-36011/5/2006- आई आर ( बी- IH ) ] राजिन्द्र कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी NewDelhi , the 23rd January, 2008

3. Today both parties admitted the development reported at Exhibit-4 by which dispute between the parties have been settled. Since said is admitted by both , I accept it and pass the following order:

ORDER

Inview ofEx-4,, reference is disposed of. A. A. LAD , Presiding Officer S.O. 313. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 2/40/ 2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, Mumbai -II now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of M/ sMenezes & Sons and their workmen which was received by the Central Government on 23-01-2008 .

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM- LABOUR COURT [No. L-36011/5/2006- IR (B- II)] RAJINDER KUMAR , Desk Officer

NO. 2 MUMBAL.

ANNEXURE

REFERENCE No. L- 36011 /5 /2006- IR(B- II)

The President,

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No. 2, AT MUMBAI (Camp:Goa)

PRESENT

Mormugao Stevedores Staff Association , 8C, Pt. Kossambi Building, (GroundFloor) Vasco-dagama-Goa

PartyNo.1 A. A. LAD , Presiding Officer

V/s.

Reference No. CGIT -2/ 40 of 2007

TheProprietor, M/s. Menezes & Sons ,

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF M/S . MENEZES AND SONS, GOA

11-16 Vishwambar Building , Ground Floor Vascodagama-Goa

The Proprietor,

PartyNo.2

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF PARTY NO . 2 M/s. Menezes & Sons , 11-16, Vishwambar Building,

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR LORDSHIP :

Ground Floor, Vasco-da-Gama, Goa-403802

AND

TheirWorkmen

The President,

Mormugao Stevedores Staff Association ,

1. PartyNo. 2, Proprietor ofM/s . Menezes & Sons , submits that after submission of failure report by the Asst. Labour Commissioner (Central) Vascodagama-Goa, both parties to the Industrial Dispute arrived at a Memorandum of understanding on the 31st July, 2006 whereby the dispute was amicably settled on the following terms :-

8C, Pt . Kosambi Building, Vasco-da-Gama, Goa-403 802 .

618

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 16 , 2008/MAGH 27 , 1929

: "The following understanding arrived at between the Management of Menezes & Sons and Mormugao Stevedores Staff Association , representing the employee Shri S.V. Kauthanker , Foremen , on 31-7-2006 in considering his date of birth as 10-2-1950 thereby he could retire from the services of the Management on attaining the age of superannuation from 28-2-2008 , which matter has been referred to the Ministry of Labour , New Delhi vide failure of concilation report dated 28th April, 2006 by AL(C) , Vascoda gama.

Bothparties discussed the subject matter and finally amicably settled the issue in considering Shri S.V. Kauthankar'sdate ofbirth as 10-2-1950. The employee Shri S. V. Kauthankar has been allowed to join duty forthwith with existing service conditions . It has been agreed to treat theperiodfrom 1-3-2006 to 30-6-2006 as leave without payand make payment for the month of July, 2006 .

It has also been decided to request the Hon'ble Secretary GOI , Ministry of Labour, New Delhi , to drop the conciliation proceedings in the above case having settled the matter amicably between both the parties . In view of failure of conciliation report by ALC( C) dated 28-4-2006.

Dated this 3 1st July, 2006

Mormugao Stevedores Staff Association,

Management of MENEZES & SONS

SD/- (A. F. Menezes)

Representing Workman Sd/- (Anthony Fernandes ) President (AndrewAlvares) General Secretary Copy of the said Memorandum of Understanding is enclosed herewith for ready reference marked as Exhibit ' A' .

2. Party No. 2 states that consequent on arriving aboveamicable settlement both parties wrote to the Asst. Labour Commissioner(C), vide letter dated 25th August 2006 that the matter was settled and request him to take needful action sothat conciliation proceedings are dropped enclosing therewith the copy of the settlement. A copy of the said letter is enclosed herewith marked as Exhibit 'B' .

3. PartyNo. 2 craves leave to amend above pleadings Iffound necessary in the interest ofJustice.

4. In view of the above party No. 2 prays that the reference be dropped as the Industrial dispute no longer survives.

Vascoda gama-Goa

10thday of September, 2007

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

I, A.F. Menezes, Proprietor ofM/s , Menezes & Sons,Vasco dagama, do hereby solemnly affirm and verify that what is statedbyme in para 1&2 above is true to my own knowledge.

Solemnly affirmed this 10th day of September , 2007at Vasco da gama-Goa.

ForM/ s MENEZES & SONS Doponent

EXHIBIT'A'

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ARRIVED AT ON 31ST JULY, 2006 BETWEEN THE MANAGEMENT OF MENEZES & SONS AND MORMUGAOSTEVEDORES STAFF ASSOCIATION

The following understanding arrived at between the Management of Menezes & Sons and Mormugao Stevedores Staff Association representing the employee Shri S.V.Kauthanker , Foreman , on 31st July 2006 in considering his date ofbrith as 10th February 1950 thereby he could retire from the services of the Management on attaining the age of superannuation from 28th February 2008 , which matter has been referred to the Ministry of Labour, NewDelhi , vide failure ofConciliation Report dated 28thApril 2006 by the ALC (C) , Vasco daGama.

Both the parties discussed the subject matter and finally amicably settled the issue in considering Shri S.V.Kauathankar's date of birth as 10-2-1950 . The employee Shri S. V. Khauathankar has been allowed tojoin duty forthwithwith existing service conditions . It has been agreed to treat the period from 1-3-2006 to 30-6-2006 as leave without pay and make payment for the month ofJuly2006.

It has also been decided to request the Hon'ble Secretary, GOL, Ministry ofLabour, New Delhi, to drop the conciliation proceeding in the above case having settled the matter amicably between both the parties , in view of failure of conciliation report by ALC dated 28th April 2006.

Dated this 3 1st July 2006 Vasco daGama

Management of

MENEZES & SONS (A.F.Menezes) Proprietor Date: 31st July2006 Vasco da Gama

Mormugao Stevedores Staff Association representing theworkman. (Anthony Pernandes ) President (Andrew Alvares ) General Secretary

EXHIBIT'B'

From: Management of Menezes & Sons

Management of

M/ s . MENEZES & SONS

(A.F.MENEZES)Proprietor & Mormugao Stevedores Staff Association, Vasco da Gama .

619

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 16, 2008/माघ 27 , 1929

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

25thAugust 2006

The Assistant Labour Commissioner(C) ,

Vasco daGama

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 2/74 / 2002 of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court No. 2 Mumbai as shown in the Annexure in Industrial Dispute between the management of Canara Bank, and their workman , received by the Central Government on 23-01-2008 .

[No.L- 12012/ 124/2002- IR(B- II) ] RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer ANNEXURE

Sub: I.D. between the Management of M/ s . Menezes & Sons and Mormugao Stevedores Staff Association regarding superannuating the services of Shri S. V. Kauthankar w.e. f. 28th Feb. 2006,

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT NDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL No. 2 MUMBAI Ref: Your Conciliation report No. VA-6(20)/05-06 dated 28thApril, 2006.

PRESENT:

Sir,

A. A. LAD, PresidingOfficer

REFEERENCE NO. CGIT- 2/74 OF 2002 EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF CANARA BANK The subject matter has been referred by your goodselfto Hon'ble Secretary, Government of India, Ministry ofLabour, office vide failure of conciliation report under reference dated 28th April 2006.

... 1stParty

TheDeputyGeneral Manager, CanaraBank, North Circle Office, 112, Sion Koliwada Road, MUMBAI -400 022 AND.

Their Workman,

In the meantime , joint discussion was again held between both the parties on 31-7-2006 and finally amicably settled the issue considering Shri S.V. Kauthankar's date of birth as 10th February 1950 thereby the said employee will retire from the services of the Management on attaining the age ofsuperannuation from 28th February2008.

Sh. Kishore Pandurang Pagare ,

4,Nishant Apartment, NearMahindra House, AshwinNagar, CIDCO , NASHIK (MAH .) 422 009 ...2nd Party Inview of the above, now therefore both the parties request your goodself to kindly do the needful in this regard so that the conciliation proceeding are dropped in the above case,having mutually settled this issue vide MOU dated 31-7-2006 copy enclosed.

APPEARANCE :

Thanking you ,

Yoursfaithfully

FOR THE EMPLOYER : Mr.S.V. Alva Advocate FOR THE WORKMEN : Mr.M.B.Anchan , Advocate .

Management of Menezes

& Sons

(A.F.Menezes ) Proprietor

Date ofreserving Award: 7th September, 2007 DateofPassing ofAward: 16th Novermber, 2007 AWARD

Mormuagao Stevedores Staff Association Representing theEmployee (Anthoni Fernandes ) President (Andrew Alvares) General Secretary

The matrix of the facts as culled out from the proceedings are as under :

नई दिल्ली, 23 जनवरी , 2008

2.TheGovernment of India, Ministry ofLabour, New Delhi,by its Order No. L- 12012/ 124/2002-IR(B- II) dated23rd October, 2002 in exercise ofpower conferred by Clause (d) ofsub- 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. 314. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार केनरा बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं.2 , मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 2/74//2002) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 23-1-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/ 124/2002 - आई.आर. ( बी- II ) ]

"Whether the action of the Management of Canara Bank to treat the services of Shri Kishore Pandurang Pagare as voluntarily retired w.e. f. 8-2-1997 is justified and legal? Ifnot, what reliefthe concerned Workman isentitled to?

राजिन्द्र कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 23rd January , 2008

S.O. 314. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central

3. To support the subject matter in the reference 2ndparty filed the Statement of Claim at Exhibit 6 making out the case that, he joined Ist Party on 5th May, 1980 and on 8th February, 1997 he was voluntarily retired by the Ist Party without any justification.

620

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 16,2008 /MAGH 27, 1929

[PART II--SEC. 3 ( ii) ] 4. 2nd Party fell sick on 30-4-1996 and did not report on duty. When he informed to the Bank , no reply was givern by the Bank to it . When he reported for his duties on 5th May, 2000 he was informed that , he was treated voluntarily retired. According to 2nd Party, decision taken by the 1st party in retiring him without following due process of law is not just and proper . No notice was given. No enquiry was conducted . No any charges were leveled against him, still he was retired. 17 years service was at his credit, when he was voluntarily retired from his services . So it is submitted that , decision taken by the Ist Party voluntarily retiring 2nd Party with effect from 8th February, 1997 be quashed and set aside with the directions to reinstate him with benefit of back wages and continuity of service.

5. This is disputed by the 1st Party by filling written statement at Exhibit 8 stating and contending that, the dispute is raisedby the concerned workmen after five years . No reason is given as to why he is late in bringing the dispute and challenging the decision taken by the 1st party ofvoluntarily retiring him from the employment . 2nd Party did not report on duty even on a number of occasions he was intimated. Even he did not report after October , 1996 . Asper Bi -partite settlement , after intimating him to report onduty, actionwas taken up deciding he retired voluntarily from the employment is just and proper and does not require any interference . So it is submitted that, the decision taken bythe 1st Party in treating him voluntarily retired from the employment need not be disturbed.

6. In view of above pleadings , my Ld . Predecessor framed Issues at Exhibit 16 which I answer as follows:

two witnesses at Exhibit 26 and 30. In the cross 2nd party admits that, he was admitted in the hospital for 3 weeks from 30th April , 1996. He admits that, he has given medical report to show his admission in the Hospital from 30thApril , 1996. He admits that , he has not intimated about that report to the Bank. He also admits that, he cannot produce saidmedical papers to show that, he was sick and admitted in the Hospital . Even he is unable to state, how many days he was advised to take rest . Even he is unable to state, which was the last month , in which he got his salary. He admits that, he did not write to Bank about his not coming from May 1996. He is unable to state whether, he has intimated his change of address . He admits that, he never approached the Bank between 30th April , 1996 to 4thMay 2000. He also admits that, he never met with his colleagues during that period . He states that , he obtained house loan and has cleared it in 1998 to the tune of Rs. 98,700 . that too by paying it in a stroke . So from this it isclear that , he did not intimate Bank nor visited Bank after 30th April , 1996. 1st party's witness produced number of correspondence addressed to the 2nd party sending it at the work place i.e. at Satpura Branch, Nashik . It is pertinent to note that, these letters are addressed to Satpura Branch who was instructed to serve on Workman . It is the case of the Ist party that, all these letters were tried to be served on 2nd party , at his last known address but they were unable to trace 2nd party at his last known address , Even 2nd party admits that, he had not intimated change of his address . The number of documents produced by the Bank atExhibit 20 which are denied by the 2nd party shows that , he did not received it. Even it is not the case of the 1st party that, they were served on 2nd party .

FINDINGS

ISSUES

1. Whether the reference suffers from delay and latches? Yes

2. Whether the workman proves that he was retrenched without complying the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act? No

Yes

3. Whether the action of the Management of Canara Bank to treat the services of Shri Kishore Pandurang Pagare as voluntarily retired w.e.f. 8-2-1979 is Justified and legal ?

4. What relief the workman is entitledto? Does

not survive

REASONS :

ISSUE NO. 1 :

7. By this reference , Government of India , Ministry of Labour, New Delhi , sent dispute of 2nd party Workman which is raised by him about his 'voluntary retirement' from the employment of the 1st party with effect from 8th February, 1997 .

8. To prove that, 2nd Party relied on his affidavits filed at Exhibit 21 whereas 1st party at filed affidavits of

9. Case of the Ist party is that , they were sent to the Satpura Branch to serve on 2nd party but the said Branch unable to serve on him because address of the 2nd party was not traceable . In that, admission given by the 2nd party that, he did not intimate change of address and has not contacted Bank after 1996 ,definitely leads to conclude that, it is 2nd party who suo moto did not take proper care to maintain his relations with the Ist party as an employee . Ifat all he was interested in remaining in the service of the bank, one expects that, he ought to have informed the Bank, visited the bank and ought to have approached the bank to permit him to report on duty. On the contrary he admits that , he did not report to the Bank and for the first time on 5th May, 2000 he had approached the Bank and raised the dispute . For aforesaid reasons , definitely the Bank has an option to treat 2nd party having voluntarily retired. Even there is Bipartite settlement and copy of it is produced by the Bank with its arguments filed at Exhibit 33,As per Clause 17 ofBipartite Settlement, ifany employee remains absent from work for a period of more than 90 days without submitting application or without seeking extension ofleave, then employer has a right to treat such an employee has voluntarily retired and in that case enquiry is not 621

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 16 , 2008 /माघ 27 , 1929

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

Bank should do that ? There is no enmity between the Bank and this person. When there was no enmity, no other reason in creating such documents is projected then what meaning can be drawn from this correspondence produced atExhibit 20 ? According to me , answer is that, Bank acted in routine course, Bank tried to intimate 2nd party as per Bipartite Settlement . All this reveals that , when it was unable to trace the 2nd party, it treated 2nd party voluntarily retired and even that notice was tried to be served on him. Butit is the2nd party who when did not inform his changed address 1st party, is unable to serve it on 2nd party . So all this reveals that , it is the 2nd party who is responsible for all that. Besides what more steps are required to be taken by the 1st party in that cinearo ? No specific case is made out on that. The case made out by the 2nd party that, no notice is given, no charge sheet was given, no enquiry was conducted and action taken was without following due process of law has no meaning in the light ofthe documents produced by the bank with Exhibit 20. So I conclude that , 2nd party fails to prove that Bank has not taken appropriate steps before taking decision of voluntary retirement .

ISSUES NO . 3 :

11. On the basis of that Bank decided to treat 2nd Party as voluntarily retired with effect from 8th February , 1997. This decision was taken after making efforts ofserving notices and correspondence filed at Exhibit 20 and even as per Clause 17 ofthe Bipartite settlement there is an option with the Bank which is not challenged by the 2nd Party Workman. When there is provision in which way in such circumstances and situation the Bank has to act upon and when actedupon, in my considered view, the decision taken by the Bank in treating 2nd party voluntary retired w.e.f. 8-2-1997 does not require any interference and require to treat it as just and proper. So I answer this Issue to that effect.

12. In view ofthe discussions made above I conclude that, the dispute raised by the 2nd party has no force and hence the order.

ORDER

Reference is rejected with No order to its costs.

Mumbai ,

A. A. LAD, Presiding Officer

16thNovember, 2007

necessary. Even citation produced ofApex Court published in2000 I LLJ page 1630 (Syndicate Bank vs SyndicateBank StaffAssociation) reveals that, when employer has followed the procedure as per the Bipartite Settlement , before deciding the concerned Workman has voluntarily retired from services , in that case , enquiry is not necessary. In the case at hand, also we find that, the correspondence referred above Bank tired to contact 2nd party Workman . Admittedly those were not served on 2nd party but those were sent to SatpuraBranch Manager , Nashik . Those are produced here unserved. Even 2nd party admits that he has not contacted Bank and did not even intimated his change of address which reveals that, Ist party acted as per the Bipartite Settlement and concluded that 2nd party not interested in the employment and treated him as voluntarily retired cannot be treated a decision against policy, that decision was taken in the year 1997 itself. When 2nd party-did not report and enquire with the Bank upto 5-2-2000 and raised this dispute after 4 years of his absentee from the employment. Said delay is not explained as to why he was not able to raise dispute immediately after 1997. Even he has not given details of his sickness which prevented him to report and does not permit him to attend duty. Even he has not disclosed what type of medicines were taken by him and how many days he took rest and by which disease? Onthis entire query, 2nd party is silent . So there are latches and delay which definitely comes in the way of the 2nd party. From this one did not find that, he was sincere and had sufficient opportunity but unable to utilized it . On the contrary it reveals that , he shown his lethargy and negligence towards the job . Definitely it at all , he was interested in the job he might not have remained out of contact from the Bank for four years . But in the instant case this person remains out of eontact and job of the Bank for four years and then all of a sudden raise a dispute about his so called, decision taken by the 1st party treating him as "Voluntarily Retired " from the employment . When 2nd party did not report and work, option remains with the 1st party to treat him as not interested in the job , in the employment and has taken voluntary retirement . So I conclude that, delay and latches did not permit 2nd party Workman to create a dispute about the decision taken by the 1st party about his voluntry refirement .

ISSUE NO . 2 :

नई दिल्ली, 23 जनवरी , 2008

का.आ. 315. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , बंगलौर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 30/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 23-1-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

10. 2nd party alleges that, the said decision was taken without following due process of law . As discussed above, as per Bipartite settlement 1st party tried to send notices . Those were not served on him because, he had not intimated the change of his address. Head Office Branch sent letters to Satpura Branch , Nashik to serve those on 2nd party. Those correspondence are produced by the Bank with Exhibit 20. Authenticity of the documents cannot be denied. Its existence is also not challenged by the 2nd party. In that case , certainly question arises as to why the

[सं. एल-12012/27//2005- आई आर ( बी-11 ) ] राजिन्द्र कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी 622

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 16, 2008/ MAGHA 27, 1929

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] New Delhi , the 23rd January , 2008

S.Q. 315. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 30/2005) of Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute , between the management of Bank of India, and their workman , received by the Central Government on 23-01-2008 .

[No. L- 12012/27/2005 - IR (B- II) ]

RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE

Dated: 2ndJanuary, 2008

PRESENT

after due notification of the enquiry date, enquiry was taken up participated by the first party taking the assistance of DR and it is on the conclusion of the enquiry proceedings , enquiry report at Ex . M7 was submitted on 09-02-2004 holding the first party gulity of the aforesaid charges of misconduct . Based on the said enquiry report , the Disciplinary Authority sent the report to the first party seeking his explanation on the findings given by the enquiry officer and thereupon he was served with show cause punishment notice dated 17-03-2004 proposing the punishment of compulsory retirement from the services of the bank with superannuation benefits . The first party submtted his written submission on 24-03-2004 and his explanation not being found satisfactory, punishment proposed was confirmed retiring the first party from the services of the bank compulsorily with superannuation benefits . The first party appears to have challenged the punishment order before the conciliation authority concerned resulting into the present proceedings .

Shri A. R. SIDDIQUI, Presiding Officer

C.R. No. 30/2005

IPARTY

II PARTY

Shri N.C. Narayana Swamy, The Zonal Manager,

162, Srinidhi , 10th Cross Bank ofIndia,

Soudhamini Layout, New ZonalOffice,

Bank Colony,

Karnataka Zone ,

Konanakunte ,

No.11 , K.G. Road,

BANGALORE-560002

Bank of IndiaBuildings ,

BANGALORE- 560009

AWARD

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferredby clause (d) of sub -section 2A of the Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referrred this dispute vide order No.L- 12012/27/2005 - IR(B - II ) dated 16th June , 2005 for adjudication on the following Schedule :

SCHEDULE

"Whether the management of Bank of India is justified in Compulsorily Retiring Shri N.C. Narayanaswamy, Clerk, from service w.e.f. 31-03-2004? Ifnot, to what relief the said workman is entitled? "

3. In his claim statement before this tribunal , the first party at paras 2 & 3 averred that he had been working withsecond party management bank sincerely discharging meritorious work with all diligence and taking into consideration his meritorious work he was taken to Regional Office in the year 1984 from Koppal branch and was retained there up till 1996, during which period solely due to his commitment to duty, integrity, hard work knowledge and application of mind, he proved himself indispensable to the bank at Regional Office and he maintained an unblemished service record in his entire service . After 12 years of his service he was posted to Bangalore SSI branch of the bank and worked there upto August 2000. The first party then gave various instances as to how he mobilized the funds for the bank for crores of rupees due to his hard work and commitment to duty . His next contention relevant for the purpose is that after he was transferred to Davengere branch in the month ofMay 2003 he worked there for a month and then proceeded to Bangalore . He fell sick on account of hectic journey and then applied for leave for 3 weeks sending his application dated 18-09-2003 . However , he was surprised to receive a communication on 22-10-2003 from the branch indicating his unauthorised absence which communication he received on 38th day from the date of proceeding on joining time, where under there was no mention of his leave application . Though he was unwell , suspecting some foul play and after consulting the Doctor he reported for duty on07-01-2004 and on the same day submitted the medical certificate-cum - fitness certificate issued by the Doctor . Therefore, there arose no question of remaining absent from duty, nauthorisedly . The first party then referred to the enquiry proceedings conducted against him challenging the same on the ground that he was not given sufficient and reasonable opportunity to defend himself 2. A charge sheet dated 11-12-2003 said to have beenacknowledged by the first party on 07-01-2004 issued, alleging that he was on unauthorised absence without intimation since 15-09-2003 till 11-12-2003 amounting to gross misconduct in terms of Para 5 (p ) of Memorandum of Settlement dated 10-04-2002 , in other words, he remaind unauthorisedly absent from duty continuously for a period exceeding 30 days which constitutes gross misconduct under the aforsaid terms of memorandum of settlement . Simultaneously, enquiry proceeding were initiated against the 1st party appointing the Enquiry Officer and

and that the evidence produced during the course of [ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]

enquiry itself disclosed that he had submitted the leave application as well as the medical certificate and therefore, the proceedings of the enquiry conducted against him suffered from violation of the principles of naturaljustice , the findings suffered from perversity and in the results, punishment order passed against him by the Disciplinary Authority was bad in law. He requested this tribunal to pass an award reinstating him in service with benefit of continuity of service , full back wages and other consequential benefits.

4. The management by its counter statement , while, denying the contention of first party that he was not given sufficient opportunity todefend himself during course of enquiry , further contended that in the statement of MW1 examined during the course of enquiry, it was very much brought out that the first party remained absent from duty unauthorisedly without any intimation to the authority concerned and therefore , on the basis of the evidence produced during the course of enquiry , the enquiry officer righty held him guilty of the charges and in the result the impugned punishment order passed by the Disciplinary Authority was legal and justified under the facts and circumstances of the case .

5. Keeping in view the respective contentions ofthe partieswith regard to the validity and fairness or otherwise of the enquiry proceedings this tribunal on 10-03-2006 framed the following preliminary issue:

"Whether the Domestic enquiry conducted against thefirstpartyby the second party is fair and proper." 6. During the course of trial of the said isssue , the management examined the enquiry officer as MW1 and got marked 7 documents at Ex. M1 to M7 including the enquiry proceedings and the enquiry findings . The first party by way of rebuttal examined himself and it is after hearing the learned counsels for the respective parties , thistribunal by order dated 17-04-2007 recorded a finding on the above said issue to the effect that the DE conducted against the first partyby the second party is fair and proper . Thereafter, the first party again examined himself on the point ofalleged victimisation and produced one document at Ex . W1 namely , the show cause notice of punishment dated 27-11-2006 issued to one Mr. V. Ravishankar, the sub staff of SSI branch to show that on three occasions the said sub staff though remained absent from duty for a period of 63 days , 40 days and 156 days , but was punished only with minor penalties but in his case the management adopted different yardstick and passed the impugned punishment of compulsory retirement from service by way of victimisation . Thereupon, I have heard the learned counsels for the respective parties on merits of the case and posted the matter this day for award.

7. Keeping in view the finding recorded by this tribunal to the effect that the DE conducted against the first party is fair and proper , the only two important points now to be considered would be-

440 G1/2008-12

623

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 16, 2008/माघ 27, 1929

(i) Whether the findings of the enquiry officer suffered from any perversity and

(ii) If not, the impugned punishment order was disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct committedby the first party.

8. Learned counsel for the first party, vehemently, argued that the charge of unauthorised absence from duty has not been substantiated during the course of enquiry as in the statement of management witness, itself, it has been brought out that the first party had submitted his medical certificate when hejoined the duty on 07-01-2004. Hisnextcontention was that as per Ex. D1 the Xerox copy of the leave application produced during the course of enquiry it is made clear that the first party had applied for sick leave for a period of 3 weeks as on 18-09-2003 . There- fore, he contended that when the leave application was sentwell within time and the first party reported his duty along with medical certificate, the enquiry officer was wrong in coming to the conclusion that it was the case of unauthorised absence . His next contention as far as the quantum of the punishment was concerned was that for similar misconduct of unauthorised absence in the case ofa sub staff vide Ex. W1 the management on three occasions took lenient view by imposing minor punish- ments andwhereas, in the case of the first party even ifhe remained unauthorisedly absent from duty only on one occasion, he was punished with severe punishment of compulsory retirement from service and therefore , itwas a case of discrimination and victimisation .

9. Whereas , learned counsel for the management argued that undisputedly, the first party remained absent from duty without prior permession and without sanction ofany kind ofleave and it is only on 07-01-2004 he reported for duty along with the medical certificate and therefore, it cannot be said that his absence from duty was not unauthorised one and that he was justified in remaining absent from duty as he produced the medical certificate while reporting for duty.With regard to the quantum of the punishment, the learned counsel submitted that remaining absent from duty unauthorisedly for a period exceeding 30 days amounts to gross misconduct and therefore , the management was justified in getting rid of his services by passing the impugned punishment order .

10. On going through the enquiry findings as well as the impugned punishment order passed by the Disciplinary Authority , I do not find substance in the arguments advanced for the first party that his conduct in remaining absent from duty for the period in question did not amount to any misconduct for the reason that he submitted medical certificate while reporting for duty. Undisputedly, he reported for duty on 07-01-2004 i.e. subsequent to the period of his alleged unauthorised absence as mentioned in the charge sheet. Whether the first party submitted any leave application as per Ex. D1 , the Xerox copy ofwhich was produced during the course of 624

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 16, 2008/MAGHA 27 , 1929

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

account his unblemished service throughout the period till the date of issuance of the persent charge sheet , it appears to me that punishment of compulsory retirement from service imposed upon the first party bordered on extremity, not proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct committedby him . It is under these facts and circumstances of the case , it will be in the interest ofjustice if the impugned punishment is replaced with the punishment of denial of back wages from the date of impugned punishment order till the date of his reinstatement in service along with all other consequential benefits including the continuity of service .Hence the following award :

AWARD

The management is directed to reinstate the first party into its services without any back wages from the date of the original punishment order till the date ofhis reinstatement, however, with all consequential benefits including the benefit of continuity of service. No costs .

(Dictated to PA transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me on 2nd January, 2008) A. R. SIDDIQUI, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली , 24 जनवरी , 2008

का.आ. 316. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स कन्टेनर कोरपोरेशन आफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. 2 , मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 109/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24-1-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

enquiry and this leave application in fact was received by the management is not proved by the first party by any convincing evidence . Merely because he filed some Xerox copy ofsuch an application, it cannot be said that he infact had sent such leave application to the management , particularlywhen the management witness examined during the course of enquiry in no uncertain terms has stated that the bank did not-receive any communication from the first party duringthe period he was absent from duty. Even assuming for a moment that said application was sent by the first partyto the management bank, it is to be noted that as per the said application he was suffering from some back pain which certainly cannot be said to be a serious ailment preventing the first party from attending duty of atleast visiting the bank and then making a fresh leave application seeking leave on medical ground , particularly, whenhe came to know that his earlier said application at Ex.Dl was not received by the management bank. Secondly, there is no denial of the fact that the first party remained absent from duty atleast without getting the leave sanctioned. He cannot be take rest content by just sending an application without ascertaining the fact as to whether his leave applied was sanctioned or not particularly, as noted above, when he was not suffering from a serious illness preventing him from visiting the bank. In the result there appears to be no legal or factual defect committed by the enquiry officer in coming to the conclusion that the first party committed the misconduct of remaining unauthorisedly absence from duty for the period in question . The evidence produced during the course of enquiry appears to be very much sufficient and legal leading to the conclusion arrived at by the enquiry officer . Therefore, it is tobe held that findings of the enquiry officer sufferedfrom no perversity.

[सं. एल-41012/204//2000- आईआर ( बी- I ) ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 24th January, 2008

S.O. 316. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.109/ 2000) of Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2, Mumbai . as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the management of Container Corporation of India, and their workman , received by the Central Government on 24-01-2008 .

[No. L-41012/204/2000- IR(B - I) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. II AT MUMBAI PRESENT A. A. LAD, Presiding Officer REFERENCE NO . CGIT-2/109 of2000 11. Now, coming to the question of quantum of the punishment . Certainly as argued for the first party he deserved no such severe punishment having regard to the undisputed fact that the misconduct of unauthorised absence committed by him was for the first time and that in pasthe did not commit any such misconduct . The fact that the first party discharged his duties sincerely with full devotionto his work and was responsible for mobilization of heavy deposits during the services rendered by him again has not been disputed by the management. This fact has not been taken into consideration by the Disciplinary Authority while imposing the punishment. It is also now brought on record that a sub - staff of the management bank was involved in the misconduct of unauthorised absent on three occasions as could be read from the documents at Ex .WI , was awarded minor penalties and it is only on the 4th occasion he was proposed with punishment of compulsory retirement from services . Therefore , having regard to the above factors , the fact that in the instant case unauthorised absence of the first party was hardly for 3 months , not ignoring the fact that he reported for duty along with the medical certificate and also taking into 625 [भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 16 , 2008/माघ 27 , 1929

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF M/ S . CONTAINER CORPORATION OF INDIA

The ChiefGeneral Manager ,

M/s. Container Corporation of India,

5th floor, NewAdministrative Bldg; Central Railways, D.N. Road,

Mumbai -400001

...FirstParty

AND

Their Workman,

C/o Raghunath A. Botale,

Shri Santhyavan Dhasart Parker, Chauhan Chawl, Darava Nagar ,

VakolaBridgre , Santacruz (E) ,

Murnbai -400001

...Second Party

APPEARANCE

: Mr. B.J. Sawant, Advocate .

For the Employer

For the Workman

:Mr. B.D. Birajdar , Advocate

Date of reserving Award : 6th September , 2007

Date of Passing ofAwarrd : 27th November, 2007

AWARD

3. According to 2nd party, there were other Security Guards like 2nd Party Workman who were also posted at "Indira Rashtriya Kamgar Sahakari Society Ltd. " Who are also directly working under the supervision of the officials and executives of the Ist Party employer . The signatures ofthe concerned Workmen were taken while paying their wages . It is not known to the Workman , which type of record is maintained by them . Workman was regularly submitting daily report of the work done by him to the Manager of the Ist Party. The Workman was wholly controlled and supervised by the Manager of the 1st Party and under the control and supervision of the 1st party and even one Shri Prakash Pednekar, the Manager of Indira. Rashtriya Kamgrar Sahakari Society Ltd. was also supervising the work of the concerned.Workman who was also supervising the work and looking after the day today business affairs of the 1st Party. According to the 2nd Party relations between thelst Party employer and other three companies is not made known the conerned workmen including the concerned Workman . That the employment ofthe 2nd Party, with the Ist Party is shown through " Sea PortContainers Terminal Pvt . Ltd. " and " Watch Well Ship; Shore Containers Services. " The said Companies are bogus and are on record just to deprive the workmen to claim permanency and other benefits as applicable to regular employees . Even Identity Cards were provided by the IstPartyto work on the site ofposting .They were doing 12 hours duty, but over time was not paid to them.

The reference is sent to this Tribunal by the Under Secretary of Central Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its Order No.L -41012/204/2000- IR(B - I ) dated 25th October , 2000 in exercise of the powers conferredby Clause (d) of sub-section ( 1 ) and sub - section (2A ) of

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 to decide: " Whether the action of the Management of M/ s . Container Corporation of India, Mumbai by terminating Shri Santhyavan Dhasrat Parker from the services of the Company is justified ? If not, what relief the applicant is entitled?"

4.According to 2nd Party , all of a sudden he was asked not to report with effect from 16th August, 1999 . Said instructions were given. No procedure was followed though he worked for 8-9 years with the Ist Party. The decision taken by the 1st party in asking 2nd Party not to report on duty with effect from 16th August, 1999 is not just and proper and according to law . Since said action is taken without following due process of law and without paying dues and other legal benefits , it is prayed that, said bedeclared null and void with directions to the 1st Partyto treat him as its employee and direct to pay back wages from 16th August, 1999 till he is taken in the employment.

2. To support the subject matter referred in the reference, Second Party filed the Statement of Claim at Exhibit 5 making out the case that, he joined the 1st Party asa. SecurityGuard in January, 1991. He worked sincerely with 1st Party . There was the direct relationship of 1st Partywith Sea Port Container Terminal Private Limited, Indira Rashtriya Kamgar Sahakari Society Ltd. and Watch Wel Ship Sore Container Services . According to 2nd Party hewas posted at Indira Rashtriya Kamgar Sahakari Society Ltd. where 1st Party employer and Sea Port Containers Terminal Pvt . Ltd. are carrying on their business activities . According to 2nd Party, " Watch Well Ship Shore Containers Services " which is only on record is a false and bogus agent . It is shown on paper as Agent but actually it does not function at ground level. To deprive the employees like 2nd Party bogus agency is created. Ist Party has created said agency to say that employee like 2nd Party Workman , is employed through it with 1st Party which is not correct and proper.

5. This is disputed by the Ist Party by filing Written Statement at Exhibit 9 making out the case that, the reference is not maintainable in law as well as in the facts and is liable to be dismissed in limine . It is further contended that, there is no relationship of employee and employer between the 2nd party and the 1st party and it is contended that he was never employed by the 1st party nor shown on the record ofthe 1st party. He was not called for interview by the Ist party. Even concerned Workman did not apply for employment with 1st party. 1st party did not give appointment order to the concerned Workman . According to Ist party, it cannot employ any person unless vacancy 626

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 16 , 2008/MAGHA 27 , 1929

[ PART II-SEC . 3( ii) ]

Guard" from January, 1999. He was posted as " Indira Rashtriya Kamgar Sahakari Society Limited " , where the 1st party and Sea Port Terminal Container Pvt . Ltd.are carrying out their business activities . According to 2nd party, employer of the 2nd party was " Watch Well Ship Shore Container Services " as shown if false and bogus , since there was no such " Watch Well Ship Shore Container Services" in existence . In fact it is created on paper which is not legal one and it does not provide services of 2nd party to the 1st party . 2nd party worked on the site of the " Indira Rashtriya Kamgar Sahakari Society Limited" . It is his case that, 1st party is wrongly contending that he was supplied by " Watch Well Ship Shore Container Services " . According to 2nd party , he is directly employed by the 1st party, and the 1st party is running business with the help of" Indira Rashtriya Kamgar Sahakari Society Limited " and bothwere controlling and supervising the work of the 2nd party. They were taking signature about his attendance and payment is made to him on that basis . Whereas it is the case of the 1st party that, he was not employee of it and was employee of the " Watch Well Ship Shore Container Services " , who had undertaken contract from " Indira Rashtriya Kamgar Sahakari Society Limited" to provide services of such a Guard upto 15th August, 1999. Since contract between them came to an end on 15th August, 1999, question of providing work to 2nd party does not arise . The existence of Sea Port Canteen is noted in then Settlement dated 24th October , 2000 which is at Sr.No.17 . Identity Card were not issued by the 1st party but Entry Passes were given at the request of " Indira Rashtriya Kamgar Sahakari Society Limited " .

is notified and advertised in the newspapers.It is stated that, concerned Workman had never applied for any post and 1st party never issued him any appointment order by taking interview or be selecting him in the interview. It is stated that, working of 2nd party with " Indira Rashtriya Kamgar Sahakari Society Limited" does not arise as he was not posted by the 1st Party with them i.e. " Indira Rashtriya Kamgar Sahakari Society Limited" .According to 1st party. hewas employed by " Watch Well Ship Shore Container Services" who had undertaken contract from Indira Rashtriya Kamgar Sahakari Society Limited " . Said contract came to an end on 16th August, 1999. Since that contract comes to an end on 16th August, 1999 , the question of Ist party to take 2nd party in the employment does not arise and on that basis " Indira Rashtriya Kamgar Sahakari Society Limited" informed "Watch Well Ship Shore Container Services" that, its contract has come to an end. Itisstatedthat, Corporation informed concerned Workman tocollecthisdues when he appeared before the Conciliation Officer and Assistant Labour Commissioner. It is denied that, 2nd Partywas working with the Ist Party . It is denied that Identity Card was given to the 2nd party, however , only entry passes were given by the " Indira Rashtriya Kamgar Sahakari Society Limited " and not by the Corporation . It is stated that, corporation was not a party tothe termination and it did not pass any order or gave any verbal instructions for which it can be held responsible . Since contractbetween, " Indira Rashtriya Kamgar Sahakari Society Limited " and " Watch Well Ship Shore Container Services" ceased to be effective w.e.f. 16th August, 1999 and in the absence of the contract question of employing 2nd party on this post does not arise . Since 2nd party was not employee ofthe Corporation and not concerned with it, itis stated that , claim made out by the 2nd party against itberejected.

6. Inview of the above pleadings my Ld. Predecessor framed the Issues at Exhibit 11 which I answer as follows:

ISSUES

FINDINGS

Yes

1.Whether relationship of employer and employee existsbetween the parties

2. Whether the action of the management of M/s . Container Corporation of India, Mumbai by terminating Shri Santhyavan Dhasrat Parkar from the Services ofthe company is legal and. proper?

3.What reliefof Shri S.D.

Parkar is entitled to?

2ndparty is entitledto reinstatement with benefit of 50%backwages .

REASONS

ISSUE NO.1 :

8. To prove that, 2nd party placed reliance on his affidavit filed in lieu of examination in chief at Exhibit 17 and narrated all the story about his employment with the Ist party and his relations with it. In the cross he admits that, he does not possess the appointment order . He states , that, he does not know S.M. Pendarkar. He denies that, said "Watch Well Ship Shore Containers Services " and Maharashtra Rajya Mathadi Transport & General Kamgar Union had entered into settlement in the year 1997. He states that, he received wages on a blank voucher. He says that, he was getting over time . He states that , 41 days leave isathis credit as per page 37/12 . Then he closed evidence by filing closing pursis at Exhibit 21. Against that, 1st party relied on the affidavit, filed at Exhibit 22, of its Senior Executive (Comml. & Opss . ) Shri Shriram B. Deshmukh in lieu of examination in chief, who states that 2nd party is not employee of the 1st party . He states that , he is sitting in the premises of " Indira Rashtriya Kamgar Sahakari Society Limited " . He states that 1st party cannot employ him directly unless vacancy is notified and advertised and employee is recruited through Employment Exchange .He states that, activities of 1st Party were operated from the premises of " Indira Rashtriya Kamgar Sahakari Sociaty Limited" as work was allotted to it. He states that, there 7.2ndparty Workman viz. Satnthyavan D. Parkar viz made out the case that , he joined 1st party at a "Security 627 [भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 16, 2008/माघ 27 , 1929

was an agreement between " Indira Rashtriya Kamgar letter dated 14-7-1999 Society terminated the contract with Watchwell Company. However, said letter does not spell out the termination of services ofthe concerned Workman. He states that, the Society has not given any letter regarding dues of the concerned Workman and asked to payto it from the amount due of Watchwell with Society. He states that, the termination letter was given by WatchwellCompany, however, it is not on record. He admits that Watchwell was sending daily report regarding attendence of Security Guards. However, it is not produced though undertook to produce it . On that cross and on the muster question was put that, Society does not have such a inuster and that position lead to conclude like that.

9. On that, 2nd Party submitted synopsis of arguments , with some citations , at Exhibit 36 and by the 1 * partyat Exhibit 37.

10. From this evidence one-thing is clear that, no agreement is brought on record regarding alleged contract which took place between "Indira Rashtriya Kamgar Sahakari Society Limited" and " Watch- Well Ship Shore Container Services " for supplying services of Security Guards to the " Indira Rashtriya Kamgar Sahakari Society Limited" . Besides , nothing is brought on record to show that, " Watch Well Ship Shore Container Services " has acceptedthe services of the Workman as Security Guards. Evenexistence of " Watch Well Ship Shore Container Services " is not proved by leading any satisfactory evidence .On the contrary witness of the 1st Party, Shri Shriram B. Deshmukh, at Exhibit 22 admits that, concerned Workman was reporting to him. He admits that, he was workingunder him with " Indira Rashtriya Kamgar Sahakari Society Limited" . He ammits that, office of the Ist party is in the premises of " Indira Rashtriya Kamgar Sahakari Society Limited" . He admits that, work of 1st Party is got done thrugh " Indira Rashtriya Kamgar Sahakari Society Limited" . So from this it appears that, Istparty and " Indira Rashtriya Kamgar Sahakari Society Limited" are not different . No existence of " Watch Well Ship Shore Container Services " is shown who allegedly provide the services ofthe Security Guards to " Indira RashtriyaKamgar Sahakari Society Limited " . Besides , work done by the 2nd Party was work for safe- guarding the property of the IstParty and such services were needed by the 1st Party. When work of Security is there which is perennial work with 1st Party, and when there is no existence shown ofthe Watch Well Ship Shore Container Services " who are alleged to have supplied services of the 2nd Party, question arises what is the relationship of the 1st Party with 2nd Party? According to me, when there is no existence of "Watch Well Ship Shore Container Services " burden is on 1stParty to show that, Watch Well Ship Shore Container Services" is there , in my considered view we have to conclude that, " Watch Well Ship Shore Container Service" is abogus agency created by 1 Party and " Indira Rashtriya Sahakari Sociaty Limited " and " Watch Well Ship Shore Container Services " . He states that, as per that, contract employees like 2nd Party were supplied as Security Gaurds till 16th August, 1999. It is stated that, since, said contract came to an end automatically, services ofthe 2nd Party comes to an end. In the cross he states that, his office is situated inthe premise of " Indira Rashtriya Kamgar Sahakari Society Limited" . He states that, employees ofhis office are working there . He states that, " Indira Rashtriya Kamgar Sahakari Sociaty Limited " is under his control . He states that, he has not filed any agreement with " Indira Rashtriya Kamgar Sahakari Society Limited" as stated in the affidavit. He volunteered that, he will produce the same . However the same is not produced till the matter is completed . He admits that, " Indira Rashtriya Kamgar Sahakari Society Limited" has more than 100 persons on roll for 1ª Party which is registered under "Labour Contract Act " as " Indira Rashtriya Kamgar Sahakari Society Limited " has licence under the Labour Contract Act . However , said is not on record . He is unable to state , whether "M/s . Watch Well Ship Shore Container Services " possess licence to provide such services. He admits that, " Watch Well Ship Shore Container Services " has not signed any settlement . He admits that, name of2nd Party is not in chart at page 5 to 7 produced at Exhibit 12. He admits that, 2nd Party workman Shri Parker was not paid any dues either by Management nor by " Indira Rashtriya Kamgar Sahakari Society Limited" or "Watch Well Ship Shore Container Service " when he was asked not to work . He admits that, " Security Guards " are supposed to work properly at the Corporation and services of security guards are necessary for Corporation . About the dues paid by the Society to Workman question was put to which he replied that , he do not know whether thedues paidby Indira Rashtriya Kamgar Sahakari Society Limited" were recieved from "Watch Well Shipshore, though it is admitted that, the services of the concerned Workman were supplied by " Watch Well Ship Shore Container Service " . He admits that , the concerned Workmanwas reporting to him when he report on duty. He admits that, he has continuous work . He admits that, on 16-88-1999 " Indira Rashtriya Kamgar Sahakari Society Limited" changed the labourers . He admits that, on 16-08- 1999 no letter was given by " Indira Rashtriya Kamgar Sahakari Society Limited " , to the said Workman . Management examined one more witness by filing affidavit ofHanmant Sampatrao Kanse at Exhibit 30 who admits that, there was no agreement between Management and M/s . Watch-Well Ship Shore Services to supply services . ofSecurityGuards . He admits that, 2nd Partywas appointed byM/s . Watch- Well Ship Shore Services . He had no idea whether any written appointment order was given to him byWatch Well Ship Shore Services . He admits that, 2nd Party Workman worked as Security Guard and all 28 Security Guards wereworking with the Society. He admits that, their Society had given contract . He states that, relying on the 628

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 16 , 2008 / MAGHA 27, 1929

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

different footings as in that case it was a public sector undertaking which has a plant in Rishi Kesh , where it was manufaturing Pharmaceuticals . In that case dispute was raised in respect of employees who were appointed on compassionate/casual basis and were taken on daily rate basis. Said appointments were made due to persistent and prolonged agitation by the Trade Union since the appellant wanted to maintain an industrial harmony although there was no rule/ policy to make such appointments . However , inour case there was no such compelling circumstances in which I st party has taken the employment of the 2nd Party as happened in the case of Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Company. So according to me services of the 2nd Party can not be compared with the case of Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Company decided by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.4996 of2006.

(11 ) So ifwe consider all this coupled with the case made out by both , I conclude that, the relations between the 1st Party and the 2nd Party subsists as employer and employee and observed that , 2nd Party was employee of the Ist Party and answer issue in the affirmative .

ISSUE NO . 2 :

Kamgar Sahakari Society Limited" to deprive the rights and benefits ofemployee like this . Besides citations referred by 2nd Party's Advocate published in 1978 FLR page 136 (SC) (Hussainbhai vs The Alath Factory Thezhilal ) support the case of the 2nd Party as in that case , Group of Workers weredoing work or business of another employer . However, that Company was having control over the work of such employees . The case of the employer was that said workers were hired by it from the contractor and there was an agreement to that effect and in that case, it was observed that, since work was ofthe Company which was of perennial nature and such workers were hired through bogus contractors, it was observed that , such workmen are to be treated as employees of the Company. Besides witness examined by 2nd Party of " Indira Rashtriya Kamgar Sahakari Society Limited" who admits the working of 2nd Partywith itand who states that, he has no idea whether " Watch Well Ship Shore Container Service " has no licence under Maharashtra Securities Act reveals otherwise . Besides , he placed reliance on the citation publshed in 1999 ICLR page 959 where Apex Court observed that, if Workmen work for more240 days in a calendar year, attract the permanency. Besides he placed reliance on the citation published in 2004 (SCC) (L& S) page 506 where Apex Court while deciding case of Bharat Heavy Electicals Ltd. vs State of U.P. observed that , lifting the veil or looking at the conspectus of factors governing the employment held that , involvement ofthe direct contrator was merely figurative andsham and in that case, Workmam were engaged through alleged "agency ' they were held to be employees of the direct employers, for whom they were engaged. So if we apply that , and try to lift the veil of alleged contrator of "Watch Well Ship ' Shore Container Services " of which existence is not proved by any side , which leads to consider that , it is a bogus contractor as alleged by the 2nd Party. Against that, 1st Party's Advocate placed reliance on citationpublished in 2004 3 SCC page 514 (Nilgiri Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. vs. State of Tamil Nadu ) where it is observed that case test of organization or control and supervision is not only the testto decide existence of contract. However, when such basic things are questioned the existence of such a Company must be proved by the IstPartywho alleges that , though its Workman is accepted or is taken by the Company. The citation published in 2006 11 LLJ page 272 in the case ofSecretary , State of Karnataka and Ors . Vs. Umadevi & Ors . where Apex Court observed that, vacancy in public office cannot be filled in by back door entry. In fact, facts of that case and the facts at hand are quite different. Here workman is working for 9 years . The alleged "Watch Well Ship Shore Container Services " through whom the 2nd Party's services were taken by the 1stParty, is not proved . Even existence ofthe said Company

(12) When 2nd Party succceeds in showing that, he was an employee of the 2nd Party and he served for 9 years and by virtue of 2nd Party completing 240 days which is not disputed by the 1st Party claiming employee of the 1st Party as a permanent employee . When he is a permanent employee naturally while terminating his services 1st Party has to follow the procedure as expected while terminating the services of a permanent employee . Here it is a matter of record that, no legal notice is given . It is a matter of record that, no legal dues are paid . It is a matter of record that legal notice of termination was not given nor it is compensated by one month's salary. Even his legal dues are not paid at all and that fact is not denied by the witness of the 1st Party. Even the admission of the 1stParty'switness and that of witness examined on behalf of " Indira Rashtriya Kamgar Sahakari Society Limited " focus onthat fact that, " Watch Well Ship Shore Container Services" was bogus contractor and its existence is not proved in this reference . It is not proved that though "Watch Well Ship Shore Container Services " , services of 2nd Party Workman were taken for serving with the 1stParty. On the contrary record and proceedings reveal that, Ist Party and " Indira Rashtriya Kamgar Sahakari Society Limited" are doing similar business in the premises of " Indira Rashtriya Kamgar Sahakari Society Limited " where security work is of a perennial nature . Ist Party was supervising the property ofthe 1stParty and of Indira Rashtriya Kamgar Sahakari Society Limited " . Since there was no existence of contract between " Watch Well Ship Shore Container Services " and " Indira Rashtriya Kamgar Sahakari Society Limited" and did not prove that , " Watch Well Ship ShoreContainer Services " provided services of2nd Partyto 1st Party or " Indira Rashtriya Kamgar Sahakari Society isnot proved. The citation published in 2007 I CLR page 43 (IndianDrugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Workmen Indian Drugs& Pharmaceuticals Ltd. ) where it is observed that, daily wagers cannot claim permanency, which is also on 629 [भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 16, 2008/माघ 27, 1929

नई दिल्ली, 24 जनवरी , 2008 Limited" , and when work of the 2nd Party was supervised by the Ist party and doing work for the 1st Party and " Indira Rashtriya Kamgar Sahakari Society Limited " it is clear from it that, they have to take legal procedure while terminating the services of such an employee . But evidence reveals that , no such legal action was taken .

का.आ. 317. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार सरस्वत को. ओपरेटिव बैंक लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण मुम्बई 2, के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 209/1999 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24-1-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/238/1999- आई. आर ( बी-1 ) ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 24th January, 2008 (13) In this matter no such legal steps have been takenby the 1st Party nor by the " Indira Rashtriya Kamgar Sahakari Society Limited " and even no notice is given of any kind and only verbally he was intimated not to report onduty.Even there is no evidence on record to show that , on 14thAugust, 1989 contract came to an end and the services of the 2nd Party also come to an end. So 1 conclude that, the Decision taken by the 1st party of not supplying work to the 2nd Party w. e . f. 15-9-99 is not legal and proper and it require to treat as a termination. So I answer this Issue in the negative .

ISSUE NO . 3 .

S.O. 317. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.209/ 1999) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court No. 2, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Saraswat Co - operative Bank Ltd. , and their workmen, receivedby the Central Government on 24/01/2008 .

[No. L- 12012/238/1999 - IR (B-I) ] AJAY KUMAR , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

(14) 2nd partypa prays that , he is entitled for reinstatement with back wages . 2nd Party succeeds in showing that , he was illegally terminated . He proves his relationships with 1st party as employee and employer . He also succeeds in showing that no legal action was taken, and no legal dues were paid. He also proves that, he was illegally prevented from reporting on duty w.e.f. 14th August, 1999 .

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALNO . 2, MUMBAI

PRESENT

A. A. LAD, Presiding Officer Reference No. CGIT- 2/209 of 1999

Employers in relation to the management of Saraswat Co-operativeBank Ltd.

TheManaging Director,

(15) Still one has to consider that , 2nd Party did not work for 1 * Party from 14-8-1999 . However, one cannot ignore that said termination or such a prohibition is against the provisions of law . By introducing bogus contrators like "Watch Well Ship Shore Container Services " 2nd Party was deprived to work at his work place which can not be permitted by refusing prayers prayed by the 2nd Party. At the same time one cannot ignore that , no work was given by the 1st party to the 2nd party. But when termination is illegal , that can be substituted by awarding cost of 50% back wages . So I conclude that, and to meet the ends of justice giving benefit of 50 % back wages to the 2nd Party by Ist Party is just and legal .

Saraswat Co-op . Bank Ltd. , Mandhusanch, Ist floor , Sadashiv Cross Lane,Girgaon, Mumbai 400 004. ...IstParty

AND

TheirWorkmen

(16) In view of the discussions made above I conclude that, reference is partly allowed. Hence , the order:

The President,

ORDER

(a) Reference is partly allowed,.

Saraswat Co-operative Bank Employees Union , Laxman Zulla, 2nd floor , 50 Ranade Road,

Mumbai -400004.

...2nd Party

APPEARANCE

(b) I direct Įst Party to reinstate the 2nd Party on his postand give back wages @ 50 % from the date of his termination i.e. 16-8-1999 till he is taken on duty; and continue him till he attains age of superannuation;

For the Employer : S/ Shri K.M Naik, J.L. Samant , S.P. Dhulapkar & N.H. Samant , Advocates.

A. A. LAD, Presiding Officer

Forthe Workmen :S/Shri Nitin S.Paranjape & Vasant J. Amberkar , Advcocates .

27thNovember , 2007

Date ofpassing of Award: 11-12-2007 630

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 16 , 2008/MAGHA 27, 1929

2. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by itsOrder No. L- 12012/238/99 - IR (B -I) dated 9th Nov. 1999 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( d) of sub- section ( I ) and sub-section 2 (A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

Whether the action of the Management of the Saraswat Co-op. Bank Ltd. , Mumbai , in terminating the services of Shri A.N. Kategiri Sub -Accountant, w.e.f. 6-3-99 for his alleged misconduct is legal and justified ? Ifnot to what reliefthe workman is entitled to?"

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No. 2, MUMBAI PRESENT

A. A. LAD , Presiding Officer

Reference No. CGIT -2/21 of 2004

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA The Senior Divisional Manager,

Life InsuranceCorporation of India ,

Mumbai Divisional Office-- IV Yogakshema,

J.B. Marg, Mumbai-400 021 .

1stParty AND

TheirWorkman

To support the subject matter referred in the reference, Second Party filed the Statement of claim at Exhibit 7 which is disputedby the 1st Party by filing Written Statement at Exhibit 8, Issues were framed at Exhibit 11 and the Reference is fixed for recording evidence of workman . After 6-9-2007/ 12-10-07 2nd Party is not appearing for reasons best known to him . By Exhibit 54 and55union was informed to attend the Reference but no note of it was taken by the Union . So, I proceed to pass the following order :

ORDER

Inthe absence of the 2nd Party Reference is disposed offfor want ofprosecution.

Mumbai

11thDecember, 2007.

A. A. LAD, PresidingOfficer नईदिल्ली, 24 जनवरी , 2008

का.आ. 318.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एल.आई.सी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, मुम्बई-2 के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 21/2004) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24-1-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-17012/44/2003_आई.आर. ( बी-1 ) ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 24th January, 2008

S.O. 318. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 21 / 2004 of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court No. 2, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the management ofLife Insurance Corporation of India, and their workman , receivedbythe Central Government on 24-01-2008 .

[No. L- 17012/44/2003 - IR(B- I) ] AJAY KUMAR , Desk Officer TheGeneral Secretary,

Insurance Employees Association,

GulestanBuilding , 2nd floor ,

Maharashi Dadhici Marg, Fort,

MUMBAI -400001 .

2nd Party APPEARANCE

Forthe Employer : Mr. D.S. Mukadan & Ms. Subhada

Pandit,

Representatives Management. of the For the Workmen : Mr. C.S. Dalvi, Representative ofthe Union.

Date of reserving Award : 6th November, 2007. Date of passing of Award : 14th December , 2007.

AWARD

The matrix of the facts as culled out from the proceedings are as under:

2. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its Order No. L - 17012/ 44/2003 - IR(B- I) dated 8th April, 2004 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) ofsub- 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:

"Whether the action of the Management of Life Insurance Corporation of India MDO- IV, Mumbai by reducing the wages by 3 stages in respect of Shri Bajirao B. Sawant, Assistant isjustified ? Ifnot, what relief Shri Bajirao B. Sawant , Assistant is entitled to ?"

To support the subject matter in the reference , the Statement ofClaim is filed by ther Vice President of the Union at Exhibit 12 making out the case that, the concerned Workman, Bajirao S. Sawant , involved in the Reference , retired from the services of the Ist Party , on reaching superannuation age of 60 years , with effect from 31st March, 1998. Said Sawant claimed LTC on 13th May , 1994 631 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 16, 2008/माघ 27, 1929

2. Whether said action was taken on admiasion of charges by the workman?

Yes

3. What relief concerned workman

No relief.

mayget ?

4. What order ?

As per order below.

REASONS:

ISSUE NO . 1 :

of Rs . 14,845 being an amount spent towards rail and bus fare forthe tourundertaken by his family members, including himself for LTC block for the year 1992-94 from Bombay to Renigunta, Triupati , Coimbatore , Ooty, Mysore, Bellur, Hansa, Bangalore and back to Mumbai in between 18-4- 1994 to 2-5-1994 through M/s . Chitari Traveis Bombay. It is further case that the concerned Workman before his retirement i.e. on 24th March, 1998 was served charge sheet leveling charge against him that, he misused the LTC facility and imposed penalty of stoppage of 3 increments. According to Union , said action was not warranted at the fag end of the retirement of the concerned Workman. Besides Management cannot inflict such a punishment since stoppage of 3 increments is nothing but giving. punishment year- wise for three years to the concerned Workman. So according to the Union said action taken by the 1st Party require tobe set aside with directions to release those increments and deciare concerned Workman not liable for the same.

3. This is disputed by the 1st Partyby filing Written Statement at Exhibit 13 making out the case that , reducing wages by 3 stages cannot be an industrial dispute' and thisCourt cannot consider it. Besides, It is stated that, the concerned Workman retired with effect from 31st March , 1998. However, this dispute was reised in January, 2002 which is stale one and cannot be considered after 4 years and on this ground also reference does not survive. Besides Section 11 -A of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 does not empower this Tribunai to consider the grievance of the concerned Workman agitated by the Unlon . There are rules and regulations made by the Corporation which cannot be interfered and various judgments protect the rights of the Corporation to make such rules . In fact, concerned.Workman submitted bill for LTC though ha did not travel claimed. He misused the amount or the funds of the Corporation, Actual claim was made ofRs , 14,845 which was settled at Rs. 6240, for which the charge sheet was served on the concerned workman on 24th March , 1998 . Senior Divisional Manager was the Disciplinary Authority. Notice was served on the concerned workman and the charge sheet was served on him which he replied to It and prayed for leniency admitting the guilt and charges leveied against him . Even in reply he admits the gullt and charges leveled against him. It reveals that , since concerned workman did admit the guilt, he changed his mind and challenged the action taken by the Management . So It Is submitted that, the decision taken by Management of reduction ofwages by 3 stages Isjust, proper and does not require any interference.

4. In view of the above pleadings following Issues were framed at Exhibit 17 which I answer as under:

5. Concernedworkman chalienged the action taken bythe Management which reduced wages by 3 stages of the concerned workman on the allegation that he misused the funds of the Corporetion without traveling. He claimed the amount for LTC, however, he did not travei. Charge sheet was served on him in reply to which he admits the guilt and relying on that action was taken by the Corporation of reducing wages by 3 stages . To prove that, concerned workman piaced reliance on the affidavit filed at Exhibit 18m in lieu of the examination in chief. However, in the cross he admits that, he joined LIC in 1962. He claimed LTC for the block year 1992-94. He traveledbybus . Further he admits that , he claimed Rs . 14,850 and he has produced receipt of " Chitale Travels" . He again says that he traveled from Bombay to Renigunta by trainthough he ciaimed fare ofbus . He admits that out of said claim Rs.6240 was sanctioned by the LIC. He admits that, he did not enquire as to why iess amount was sanctioned . He learned about the said charges when he received less payment . He admits that, he admitted the charges leveled against him regarding LTC. He admits that, show cause notice was served on him . He admits that, he replied the same . He admits that, only 3 yearly increments were stopped. He admits that, he challenged the said order before the Appellate Authority by filing an appeal but it was not allowed. He admits that, proposal of stoppage of retirement benefits were offered by the offecers and asked him to admit the charge . He admits that, he did not challenge evidence of the LIC . He admits that , he did not travel as claimed by him . He admits that, he did not approach the Chairman. Then he filed his closing pursis at Exhibit 19 and then Ist Party filed effidavit of its officer Mr. V. S. Naicker at Exhibit 20 in lleu of the examination in chief who gave detalls inwhat way LTC claim is considered and sanctioned. Inthe cross this witness states that on admission ofcharges by the concerned workman, enquiry was not conducted. He states that, since workman admitted the guilt no further evidance was led. He admits that , when decision was Intimated to the concerned workman about the LTC, he immediately refunded the entire reimbursement amount . Thereafter 1st Party closed evidence by filing closing purshis at Exhibit 21 .

FINDINGS

ISSUES

Written arguments are submitted by the 2nd Party at Exhibit 22.Whereas Management filed it at Exhibit 23. The perusal ofthis reveals that, concerned workman admitted

Yes

1. Whether action of First Party in reducing three increments is just?

440 G1/2008-13 632

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 16, 2008 /MAGHA 27, 1929

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]

takenagainst the concerned workmen . I think the employees working in the Corporate field should use funds of the Corporation inproper manner and there should be nobody who should take care to utilize the funds of such a corporation in improper way. So according to me decision takenby the 1st Party ofreducing wages of3 stages cannot be treated as harsh and unjust. Besides no specific case is made outby the concerned workman as to how such action can be treated as harsh and unjust. No other recovery is made or no other pensionery benefits were withheld . So in my considered view decision taken by the Management of reducing wages by 3 stages is just and proper and does not require to interfere since charge levelled against the concerned workman is proved as he deserve for it . So I answer these Issue to that effect .

7. Inview of the discussion made above , I conclude that, Reference does not require to be considered .Hence , I passthe following order:

ORDER

Reference is rejected with no Order as to its costs. Mumbai ,

14th December , 2007.

A. A. LAD , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 24 जनवरी , 2008

का.आ. 319. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार चित्रादुर्गा ग्रामीण बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण बेंगलौर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 01/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24-1-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -12012/235 /2004- आई.आर. (बी-1 ) ] अजय कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 24th January, 2008 the guilt and charges levelled against him of misusing LTC facility .Even he admits that , he did not travel as claimed by him LTC facility and that, he misused the funds of the LIC . Evenhe returned it and did not challenge the decision ofthe LIC. When 2nd Party admits that, he did not travel as perLTC and utilized the amount for the purpose for which it was taken, in my considered view, 1st Party is not supposed to proceed in detail in domestic enquiry as observed in a number of cases . On that point citation published in 1967 FJR ( SC) page 481 ( Central Bank of India Vs. KarunamoyBanerjee) where Apex Court observed that, ifthe workmanadmits the guilt, there will be nothing more for employer to enquire into and it will be an empty formality to insist upon the employer to led in evidence about the allegations, In the citation published in 1996 ILL . J page 292(Bombay High Court ) Syed Waris Hussain Vs. H.T. Koli and anr .) our Hon'ble High Court observd that, finding given by the Enquiry Officer based on the admission of the delinquent is valid and held no ground to interfere in such finding . In citation published in 1998 II CLR page 1174 (Canara Bank Vs. H.T. Koli & anr.) again Bombay High Court observed that , charge sheeted person when voluntarily admits the guilt in that case , if punishment is given on that basis, it is not required to be interfered. In citation published in 1986 FJR (Vol.68 ) page 132 (Hindustan Aeronauntics Ltd. Vs. R. Gulab Singh ) Karnataka High Court has held that, ifmisconduct is admitted, it is not necessary for the employer to hold any domestic enquiry. In citation published in 2006 LLR page 735 (Uranium Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. the Presiding Officer , Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1 and ors . ) Jharkhand High Court observed that , if workman accepts the guilt and if once he accepts the guilt in that case , no enquiry is required to proceed. Even above referred number of case laws does not require Management to go further in enquiry when charges are admitted by the delinquent. So according to methe Management has acted as per the admissions given by the concerned workman and has given decision of stoppage of 3 increments. It is a maiter of record that, that was the only punishment given to the concerned workmanwhich is not shown by the concerned workman as how it is not just and proper . No other pensionery benefits were withheld . That is the only punislıment and that too given on admission . So according to me on mere admission of the concerned workman management can took decision . I answer this issue in the affirmative .

ISSUE NO.2 & 3 :

S.O. 319. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 01/ 2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court , Bangalore , as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Chitradurage Grameena Bank , and their workman , received by the Central Government on 24-1-2008 .

[No. L- 12012/235/2004- IR (B- 1) ] AJAY KUMAR , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Dated: 3rd January 2008

6. Though the Management took action of reducing 3 stages of increments , as stated above, said action is not shown by the concerned workman as to how it is not just and proper and how it violate principles of natural justce or is harsh , or taking decision of simply reducing 3 stages of 3 increments and no other recovery is made. By this decision , signal is given by the Management that , they will not tolerate this type of misconduct and serious action is 633 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3(ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 16, 2008/माष 27 , 1929

PRESENT

Shri A. R. SIDDIQUI, Presiding Officer

C.R.NO. 01/2005

IPARTY

IIPARTY

impugned punishment order dated 19-1-2004. The first party appears to have raised the dispute and on account offailure report submitted by the authority concerned, the present reference proceedings have come up before this tribunal.

The Chairman,

Shri N. H. Shashidhara,

S/o N.S. Hanumantharao, ChitradurgaGrameenaBank,

Sukruthi , Old Market Road, Doddapete,

KanakaNilaya,

Chitradurga- 577501

Karnataka State

Head Office, PB No.70 V.P. Extension , Main Road, Chitradurga-577501 Karnataka State

AWARD

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferredby clause (d) of sub - section 2A of the Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vide order No.L- 12012/235/2004 - IR(B- I) dated 25th November2004 for adjudication on the following schedule:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the management of Chitradurga Grameena Bank is justfied in dismissing Shri N.H. Shashidhara, Clerk from service , ifnot , to what reliefthe workman is entitled to ?"

3. The first party in his claim statement, while , challenging the enquiry proceedings as unreasonable and suffering from violation of principles of natural justice (pleadings on this point dropped there being a separate finding on the DE issue), challenged the enquiry findings as suffering from perversity alleging that charge of misconduct levelled against him was not established and that the observations made by the enquiry officer to the effect that he admitted the charge of misconduct levelled against him are false and incorrect . His contention was that on 5-9-2000 the said NWD Agent was preparing a challanwith respect to the loan account of bank customer Shri M.B. Rajappa by putting his own signature: that on the said date a sum ofRs . 2000 said to have been remitted by Shri M.B. Rajappa has been received by him on 7-11-2000 itself. Therefore , his contention was that when the amount of Rs . 2000 was withdrawn just within two months from the date of remittance, there arose no question of any misappropriation by the first party . He also contended that the second enquiry conducted against him was not in accordance with the terms of the Bipartite Settlement and in this respect he cited certain decisions of their Lordship reported in AIR 1971 (2) SCC 102 and the decision of our Hon'ble High Court reported in 1983 ( 1 ) Karnataka Law Journal 433. He also challenged the impugned punishment order contending that it lacked application of mind by the Disciplinary Authority and suffered from factual and legal defects basing on the finding ofthe enquiry officer which were suffered from perversity for lack of sufficient and legal evidence . Therefore, he requested this tribunal to pass an award in his favour with relief of reinstatement, continuity of service with all other consequential benefits .

4. The management by its counter statement , however, contended that the disciplinary authority after having found the first enquiry proceedings not conducted in the manner known to law and for that matter not giving proper opportunity to the first party to defend himself, second enquirywas ordered by the very same enquiry officer and it is duringthe course of second round of enquiry, the management examined as many as six witnesses getting marked 16 documents and it is on the basis of the oral anddocumentary evidence as well as the plea of guilt made by the first partyat theconclusion ofthe enquiry, findings were submitted holding him guilty of the charges . The management contended that enquiryproceedings therefore, were conducted in accordance withprinciples ofnatural justice , enquiry findings were rendered holding the first party guilty of the charges based on sufficient and legal evidence and that impugned punishment order was passed against the first party having complied with the 2.Acharge sheet dated 10-01-2001 , came tobe served upon the first party on the allegations that he misappropriated a sum of Rs.2000 remitted on 5-9-2000 towards credit loan account No. SBE - DPN6/2000 of one Shri M.B. Rajanna through Shri S.R. Hanumanthappa, NWD Agent while working as Clerk-cum-Cashier in H.D.Pura Branch between 30-5-1997 & 11-11-2000 . There being no reply to the charge sheet, a Domestic Enquiry was ordered appointing one Shri Rajashekaraiah as enquiry officer and one Mr. H.V. M. Rao as Presenting Officer . Enquiry proceedings were taken up on 1-8-2001 and the misconduct being admitted by the first party, enquiry findings were submitted holding him guilty of the charges . It appears that the disciplnary authority not being satified with the proceedings of the enquiry conducted by the enquiry officer, a fresh DE was ordered during which enquiry the management examined six witnesses as MW1 to MW6 and got marked 16documents at Ex.MI to M16 and on the conclusion of the enquiry once again findings were submitted by the very same enquiry officer holding the workman guilty of the charges . Thereupon, first partywas served with second show cause notice along with the copy of the findings of the enquiry officer seeking his representation in the matter . He submitted the representationdated 5-12-2003 which being consideredby theDisciplinary Authority and not being found satisfactory once again a second show cause notice dated 19-12-2003 proposing the punishment of dismissal was given to the firstpartyand after personal hearing of the first party held on 6-1-2004 punishment proposed was confirmed by 634

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 16 , 2008 /MAGHA 27, 1929

necessary procedure laid down in law i.e. having supplied him the copy of the findings , issuing him the show cause notice proposing the punishment and then confirming the same after giving opportunity of hearing to the first party. The management therefore , contended that charge of misconduct leveled against the first party have been proved during the course of enquiry and in the result impugned punishment order cannot be faultedwith.

5.Keeping in view the respective contentions of the parties, this tribunal took up the question of validity and fairness or otherwise of the enquiry proceedings , in the first instance during the course of which the management examined the enquiry officer as MWI and got the documents marked at Ex.M1 to M17 . The first party also examinedhimself without getting marked any document.

6.After having heard the learned counsels for the respective parties , this tribunal by order dated 04-01-2007 recorded a finding to the effect that the DE held against the first party by the second party is fair and proper. Thereupon , the matter was posted to hear the learned counsels on merits of the case i.e. on the point of alleged perversity of the findings and on the quantum of the punishment.

1. Learned counsel for the first party filed his written arguments more or less repeating the very averments made inthe claim statement filed by the first party, His contention was that the amount said to have been remitted by the costomer Shri Rajappa on 5-9-2000 through the above said NND agent in fact has been received back by him on 7-11-2000 itself, and therefore , it cannot be said that the first party misappropriated the said amount. With regard to the quantum of the punishment learned counsel contended that the first party was in the service ofthe management for about a period of 20 years having unbiemished service record and therefore , keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case he deserved no such severe punishment of dismissal from service and referred to a decision of their Lordship of Supreme Court in Assistant Generai Manager SBI Vs. Thomas Jose and another reported in 2000 I1 LLI page 1600.

8. Whereas , learned counsel for the management was not available whenthe matter wasw heard on merits , later on, submitted 3 decisions in support of the management's case on 4-12-2000 itseif by just making a submission that in the light of the findings of this tribunal onDE issue he supports the findings of the enquiry officer on merits ofthe case . Those three decisions are as under:

1.1 LLJ 1995 1096

2.1 LL 1995 233

3.AIR2000 SC3129

9.Now, therefore, in the light ofthe finding recorded by this tribunai on DE issue, the two important questions now to be considered would be

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] ( i) Whether the findings of the enquiry officer suffered from perversity and

(ii) If not, the punishment of dismissal awarded against the first party is disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct committed by the first party.

10. On going through the enquiry findings I am led to believe that they suffered from no legal or factual defects. Its perusal will reveal that as many as six witnesses including the said NND agent and the said customer Rajappa were examined by the management and documents at Ex.MEX. 1 to 16 were marked which included loan counterfoil dated 5-9-2000 for Rs . 2000- ( Ex.MEX.3 ) letter dated 7-11-2000 of MB Rajappa (MEX. 5 ), his another letter dated 8-1-2000 vide Ex . M11 . After having given his answers to the various questions and points raised by the DRassigning very cogent and valid reasonings, the learned enquiry officer on the last page of enquiry findings observed as under:-

"From the above analysis following are clear:

(1) CSE was on duty and handled the cash on 5-9-2000.

(2) S.R. Hanumanthappa NND agent has remitted Rs.2000- to DPN SBE 6/2000 of MB Rajappa. MB Rajappa has given the complaint to get back the money.

(3) CSE who was the cashier on 05-09-2000 accepted the cash and issued counterfoils with his signature and entered in the loan card.

(4) The same counterfoil (MEX 3 ) and loancard (MEX4) were produced before the enquiry.

(5) As per MEX- 6 , 7& 8 the amount ofRs . 2000- was not accounted in the books of accounts of the bank.

(6) In the sitting held by me on 01-08-2000 CSE has admitted the charge on his own and without any coercion/force for which findings already submitted.

On preponderance of probabilities 1 hold the charge- sheeted employee Shri N.H.Shashidhara is guilty of charge."

11. Therefore , when the two important and competent witnesses namely the said NND agent hanumathappawho in fact remitted the amount of Rs . 2000 with the first party and obtained counterfoli and the customer Rajappa who had given the complaint to the above effect were examined during the course of enquiry and the documentary evidence also was produced by the management speaking to the transactions taken place evidencing the fact that the amount which was received by the first party on 5-9-2000 infact was accounted with the bank on 7-11-2000 and that evidence as could be read from the records was not challenged by the first party, by no stretch of imagination itcanbe said that there was no sufficient and legal evidence 635

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 16, 2008/माष 27 , 1929

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]

the increment for a period of 10 years . Therefore , learned counsel wanted this tribunal also to take a similar lenient view having regard to similarity of the facts involved in the present case. Therefore, going by the principle laid down by their Lordship of Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision involving more or less similar facts and circumstances of the case as obtained in the present case, not ignoring the fact that it was for the first time the first party came into trouble by committing the misconduct on hand, the fact that the amount remitted on 5-9-2000 came to be accountedwith the bank on 7-11-2000.itself , before he was served with the charge sheet, it appears to me that ends of justce will be met it the first party is given the punishment similar to the one approved by their Lordship ofSC inthe afore sald decision. Hence the foilowing Award:

AWARD

The management is directed to reinstate the first party workman into its services with holding his increment for a periodof 10 years with cumulative effect from the date of the impugned punishment order and onwards without back wages , continuity of service and all other consequential benefits . No costs .

(Dictated to PA transcribed by the corrected and signed byme on 3 rd January2008)

to stablish the charges of misconduct leveled against the first party. In fact, as could be read from his averments in the claim statement as well as the defence taken by the first party during the course of enquiry what he wanted to say was that the amount of Rs.2000 being withdrawn by the above said customer on 7-11-2000 itself, i.e. after a gap of about 2 months of its remittance , he cannotbe held responsible for the charge of misconduct of misappropriation which defence was certainly not entertainable either by the enquiry officer , the disciplinary authority or by this tribunal . It might be a case of temporary misappropriation but it cannot be said that it was not a case of misappropriation at all. In his written arguments learned counsel for the first party also was not in'a position to convince this tribunal as to how findings of the enquiry offecer suffered from perversity. He failed to point out any legal or factual defects rather failed to point out that the findings ofthe enquiry officer were not based on sufficient and legal evidence or that it was the case of "No evidence ". Therefore, there is no hesitation in the mind of this tribunal to record a finding that the findings of the enquiry officer suffered form no perversity and in the result it is to be further held that charge of misconduct leveled against the first party has been proved by sufficient and legal evidence.

A. R. SIDDIQUI , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 24 जनवरी , 2008 का.आ. 320. -औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार ऑयल एंड नेचुरल गैस कमीशन , कोलकाता के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , कोलकाता के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 9/1991 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24-1-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -30011 /5 /1990- आई आर ( एम ) ] एन. एस. बोरा , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 24th January, 2008

S.O. 320. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 9/ 1991) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Kolkata now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation tothe management of Oil & Natural Gas Commission, Koikata and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 24-1-2008 .

[No. L- 30011 /5/1990- IR (M)] N. S. BORA, Desk Officer ANNEXURE CENTRALGOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL ATKOLKATA Reference No. 09 of 1991

12. Now, coming to the question of quantum ofthe punishment. As noted above , learned counsel for the management cited the above said three decisions in order tojustify the punishment of dismissai passed against the first party. In the first decision the principie laid is to the effect that once the enquiry has been properly conducted and the punishment was imposed by the management considering the seriousness of the misconduct ofworkman, it is not for the Labour Court to interfere with such orders ofpunishment . The second decision laid down the principle that temporary retention amounts to misappropriation and that repayment would not absolve the liability. The High Court justified the dismissal order turning down the contention that the workman belonged to a scheduled tribe. In the 3rd dicision the principle laid down is to the effect that the misappropriation may be for small or large amount and irrespactive of the quantity of the amount and the past unblemished record of service of theworkman, the relief of reinstatement cannot be justified invoking the provisions of Section 11A of the ID Act. Whereas , learned counsei for the first party as noted above , relied upor a subsequent ruling of their Lordship of SC in the above said Thomas Jose case , begging lenient view from the court . His contention was that in the above sa id case also there was misappropriation of Rs . 3000 and the lower court had given the relief of reinstatement which award of the tribunal was not only upheld by the single judge bench but also was up held by the Division Bench ofthe high Court and it is ultimately their lordship of SC confirming the relief of reinstatement however, denied him

440 G1/2008-14 636

[PART II-SEC.3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 16 , 2008 /MAGHA 27 , 1929

नई दिल्ली, 24 जनवरी , 2008

PARTIES : Employers in relation to the management ofOil &NaturalGas Commission, Kolkata

AND

Their workmen .

PRESENT : Mr. Justice C. P. Mishra : Presiding Officer

APPEARANCE :-

: Mr. D.K. Ghosh , Advocate

का.आ. 321. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एल.आई.सी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , बेंगलौर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 45/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24-01-2008 को प्राप्त हुआ था । Onbehalfofthe Management

with Mr. R. Dey. Advocate .

Onbehalfofthe Workmen : Mr. S. Mukherjee, Advocate

[सं. एल -17012/09/2005- आई आर ( बी-1 ) ] अजय कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी State: WestBengal

Industry: Oil & Natural Gas .

New Delhi , the 24th January, 2008 Dated: 9th January , 2008

AWARD

S.O. 321. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 45/ 2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court Bangalore, as shown in the Annexure , in the industria! dispute between the management of LIC, and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 24-01-2008.

By Order No. L - 30011 /5/ 90 - IR ( Misc . ) dated 04-04-1991 the Central Government in exercise of its powers under Section 10( 1 )( d) and ( 2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

[No.L- 17012/09 /2005 - IR(B - 1 ) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

"Whether the contingent casual employees employed by the Oil & Natural Gas Commission, West Bengal at their various worksites who could not complete 240 days continuous work in a year are entitled to receive medical facility as is available to other casual employees of the Commission ? If not, to what relief are they entitled?"

Dated: 8th January, 2008

PRESENT Shri A.R. Siddiqui , PresidingOfficer

C.R. No. 45/2005

IParty

IIParty

2. When the case is called out today none appears for the workmen, nor any step is taken on their behalf to proceed with the present reference .Management , however , is represented by its learned Advocate who has stated that the workmen are not appearing for the last four years and thereforeit can be reasonably presumed that they have lost all interest inthe present dispute under reference. He accordingly prays that the reference be disposed of by passing a "No Dispute " Award .

Shri Sathya Vijaya Kumar, S/ o Benjamin Yesuraj , R/oBehindMallappa, Complex, Somaiah Layout, B.H. Road, The Senior Divisional Manager , Life Insurance Employees Association, Divisional Office , Jeevan Krishna, P.B. No. 8 , Udupi - 576101 ,

Shimoga-577201 Karnataka State

Karnataka State

AWARD

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferredby clause (d) ofsub -sect of the Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 hes referred this dispute vlde order No. L - 17012/9 /2005 - IR (B- 1) dated 21st October , 2005, for adjudication on the following schedule:

SCHEDULE

3. Itappears from the recordthat none is appearing onbehalf of the workmen since 25-10-2002 inspite of repeated notice, nor any step is taken on their behalf to proceed with the matter and the case is being adjourned from time to time. It is, therefore , clear that the workmen have lost all its interest in the matter . Management has aiso prayed for passing a " No Dispute Award" in this regard. In the circumstances , this Tribunal has no other alternative but todispose ofthe present reference by passing a "No Dispute" Award.

4. A "No Dispute" Award is accordingly passed and the present reference is disposed of.

"Whether the management of Life Insurance Corporation of India is justified in dismissing the services ofShri Sathya Vijaya Kumar? Ifnot , to what rellef the workman is entitled to?"

C. P. MISHRA, Presiding Officer

2. A Charge sheet dated 09-06-2003 came to be served upon the first party in the following terms:

Dated, Kolkata The 9th January , 2008 .

637 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 16 , 2008/माघ 27 , 1929

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

Chargessheet

You Shri Sathya Vijaya Kumar, Salary Roll No. 542052, working as Sepoy, LIC of India, Branch Office- II Shimoga are hereby charged as under :-

serve the corporation honestly and faithfully, acted in a manner detrimental to the interest of the Corporation and prejudicial to good conduct and thereby committed breach ofRegulation Nos . 21 , 24 and 30 read with Regulation 39(1 ) ofLIC of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 for which act of misconduct anyone or more of the penalties specified under Regulation 39 ( 1 )( a) to (g) ofthe aforesaid (Staff) Regulation 1960 can be imposed on you" .

That your leave record has been very unsatisfactory and you have been frequently availing leave without applying for leave or without prior sanction. The fact of your habitual unauthorised and irregular attendance has been brought to your notice on several occasions previously, both orally and in writing.

That, apart from the aforesaid warnings you have been earlier charesheeted five times for your unauthorised absence and punished for the same as detailed below:

> Penalty imposed

Date of Final Order

Dateof Charge

02-04-1996 03-12-1996

Reduction in Basic pay by one stage.

23-07-1997 23-06-1998

Reduction in Basic pay by two stages.

17-11-1997 23-11-1998

Reduction inBasic payby three stages.

18-03-2002

11-09-2001

Reduction in Basic pay by two stages .

30-01-2003

13-07-2002

Reduction in Basic pay by two stages.

3. The first party since failed to submit his explanation within the time prescribed in the chargesheet, the management ordered a DE by order dated 11-07-2003 , communicated to the first party on 24-07-2003 . The first party appeared before the enquiry officer on 21-08-2003 and on being read over with the charges, said to have admitted the aforesaid charges 1 & 2 and denied the charges No. 3,4&5. Both the parties given opportunities to produce the documents and witnesses on the next date of hearing fixed on 26-08-2003 , on which date of hearing the leave applications , letters , medical certificates etc. at Ex. Pl vide pages 1 to 65, attendance register at Ex. P2 and the register ofleave applications at Ex . P 3. The first party produced the medical certificate marked as document D1 namely the Xerox copies ofmediclaim papers claimed through Oriental Insurance Co. dated 17-04-2003 . Thereupon , the management examined one witness and since the first party declined to cross examine the management witness , enquiry proceedings were taken closed. On 02-09-2003 , written statement was filed by the presenting officer , copy of which was sent to the first party on 24-09-2003 and thereafter enquiry findings were submitted holding the first party guilty of the charges followed by the punishment order .

That, in spite of aforesaid warnings and disciplinary action taken against your for similar acts of misconduct you have again absented yourself for duties unauthorisedly during the following periods:

10-10-2002

From 01-01-2002 to

10days

17-10-2002

15-10-2002 to

3 days

04-11-2002 AN

1/2day

08-11-2002

07-11-2002

2days

25-11-2002

10-12-2002

16days

08-01-2003

02-01-2003 AN

6-1/2days

4. The first party challenged the enquiry proceedings as not conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice giving him proper opportunity todefendhimself by taking the assistance of any co-worker or by cross examining the management witness (pleadings with respect to the validity and fairness or otherwise of the enquiry proceedings are omitted there being a separate finding on the said issue) .

13-01-2003

10-01-2003

4days

01-02-2003

20-01-2003

13days

15-02-2003

05-02-2003

11 days

17-02-2003 AN 18-02-2003

1-1/2 days

20-02-2003

1day

03-03-2002

31-03-2003

29days

21-04-2003

07-04-2003

15 days

19-05-2003

11day

31-05-2003

21-05-2003

Total:

124-1/2days

That, by your repeated absence as above , you have put the office into lot of inconvenience and hardship.

5. As far as the merits of the case is concerned, the first party in his claim statement averred that he was served with the charge sheet dated 09-06-2003 alleging that he has been unauthorisedly absent from duty for a period of 124-1 /2 days between 1-10-2002 and 31-05-2003 . He did not submit his reply within time but on 16-07-2003 , in the meanwhile DE was ordered against him . He appeared before the enquiry officer who conducted a show of an enquiry which is nothing but an empty formality . He received the copy of the enquiry report and submitted his explanation and thereafter he received a show cause notice dated 14-11-2003 and submitted his reply to that on 21-11-2003 and thereafter by an order dated 3-12-2003 which was served upon him on 5-12-2003 he was inflicted the extreme punishment of removal from service with immediate effect treating the period of 124-1 /2 days as ' Dies - non ' . He That, by your aforesaid acts , you have failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty, failed to 638

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 16 , 2008 /MAGHA 27, 1929

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii ) ] preferred an appeal against the punishment order and that came to be rejected by order dated 4-03-2004 . Then he approached the Labour Court, Mangalore directly on 24-03-2004 under Section 10( 4-A) ofthe ID Act and later on filed memo withdrawing the said application and then raised the dispute before the Additional Labour Commissioner , Hubli which resulted into the present proceedings. While challenging the enquiry findings , he contended that the observation of the enquiry officer to the effect that he admitted Charges No. 1 & 2 during the course ofenquiry is not correct; that the enquiry findings to the effect that from out of the documents produced by the management charges No. 3 to 5 have been proved is totally incorrect as there was no evidence sufficient producedto prove the said charges and therefore, enquiry findings suffered from perversity. He contended that the impugned punishment order holding him guilty of the charges is illegal as he had applied for leave subsequently withmedical certificates and it was incumbent on the part ofthe management to consider the same and to grant the available leave and that this aspect of the case has completely been ignored by the enquiry officer as well as the Disciplinary Authority and therefore, findings of the enquiry officer are liable to be set aside so also the impugned punishment order. He requested this court to pass an award setting aside the impugned punishment order byreinstating him in service with backwages , continuity ofservice and other consequential benefits .

Para 6 : The second party denies the allegations in Para 4 of the Claim Statement . The averment in Para 4 is nothing but imaginary. It is widely known that the duties of a Sepoy is not that serious and as such very high responsibility need not be shared to the extent of creating tension or ill health . It is not true that the first party's request and representations to the higher authorities about his ill health were targeted for disciplinary proceedings . It issubmitted that ill health of an employee is not a subject natter of charge sheet or disciplinary proceedings wherein ne method in which he was absenting himself was the cause of attracting penalty . Habitual absentism without without prior permission will entail an employee for charge sheet and other penal action . Regulation 30( 1 ) of Staff Regulations , 1960 states that " An employee shall not absent himself from his duties without having obtained permission of the Competent Authority nor shall be absent himself in case of sickness or accident without submitting a medical certificate satisfactory to the competent authority, provided that in case of unforeseen emergency an employee may be allowed to avail one day's casual leave without prior sanction, subject to the condition that the competent authority is promptly advised of the circumstances in which prior sanction could not be obtained. Provided further that in case of temporary indisposition the production of a medical certificate may at the absolute discretion of the competent authority be dispensed with" . This being so habitually absenting without any permission or sanction of such absence by the first party is nothing but a grave misconduct as envisaged in the Staff Regulations 1960. It issubmitted that as per Regulation 30(2) which reads that " an employee who absents himself from duty without sanction of leave or overstays his leave shall not be entitled to draw any pay and allowances during such absence or over stayal and shall further be liable to such disciplinary measures as the competent authority may deem fit" . It is pertinent to note that the first party was not submitting leave application prior to his absence or informing the office about his ill health or sending the Medical certificate during or after such absence. It is a serious misconduct. The first party was unauthorisedly absent during the dates against which his application was received in the office very much late as per the charge sheet dated 09-06-2003 . "

7. The management also gave details of unauthorised absence of the first party after charge sheet in question was issued at Para 9 of the Counter Statement asunder :-

1. 03-07-2003 to 15-07-2003

13 days

2. 04-08-2003 to 12-08-2003

9days

3. 02-09-2003 to 10-09-2003

9days

4. 17-09-2003 AN to 23-09-2003 6-1/2days

5. 03-10-2003 to08-10-2003

6days

6. 13-10-2003 to 25-10-2003

13 days

8. Therefore , the management contended that the 6. The management while resisting the claim of the first party in the first instance quoted various provisions of Section 48 of Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 amended by Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1981 raising the contention that the reference on hand itself is not maintainable in the light of the provisions of LIC of India Staff Regulations read with Section 48 of the above said Act. Coming to the merits of the case , the management contendedthat the first party was a habitual unauthorised absentee causing lot of administrative inconvenience to the management; that prior to the charge sheet dated 9-06-2003, he has been punished for his unauthorised absence reducing his basic pay by 10 stages. He was submitting the leave applications only after returning to duty. He even remained absent unauthorisedly from duty for a period of 56-1 /2 days even after the charge sheet in question . The management then contended that proceedings of enquiry were conducted against the first partygiving reasonable opportunity and that findings of the enquiry officer holding him guilty of the charges are not only based upon his own admissions against Charge No. 1 & 2 but also based upon sufficient oral and documentary evidence in the statements of management witnesses and the documents at Ex. PI to P3 marked during the course ofenquiry. The management also gave the details ofunauthorised period of absence from duty and the dates onwhich the first party submitted his leave application at para 6 ofthe Counter Statement as under:-- [ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]

findings of the enquiry officer are very much based upon sufficient oral and ducumentary evidence and the punishment imposed upon the first party dismissing him from service is quite legal and justified much less proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct committed bythe first party.

9. Keeping in view the respective contentions of the parties this tribunal on 21-04-2006 framed the following preliminary issue :-

"Whether the DE conducted against the first party bythe second party is fair and proper ?"

10. During the course of trial of the said issue the management examined the enquiry officer as MW1 and got marked as many as 24 documents at Ex. M1 to M24 including the charge sheet, enquiry proceedings and the enquiry report. The first party examined himself as WW1 . Afterhearing the learned counsels for the respective parties , thistribunal by order dated 20-04-2007 answered the above said DE issue in favour of the management holding that the enquiry conducted against the first party is fair and proper.

11. Thereafter matter was taken up for hearing on merits i.e. with respect to the contention of the alleged perversity of the findings and the quantum of the punishment . Both the parties have filed their written arguments reiterating the averments made in the claim statement as well as the contentions taken in the counter statement , respectively. In his oral arguments learned counsel for the management submitted that the first party during the course ofpreliminary enquiry admitted the first two charges andthese two charges along with other three charges were also proved by the management in the aforesaid oral and documentary evidence. He submitted that the findings of the enquiry officer are based on oral and documentary evidence supported by valid reasonings and suffered from no perversity and therefore , based on those findings the punishment order passed against him wasfully legal andjustified.

12. After having gone through the records more particularly, the proceedings of the domestic enquiry and the findings of the enquiry officer . I am of the opinion that charges No. 1 to 3 against the first party have been proved and that Charges No. 4 &5 need no answer as they do not survive in the light of the findings on charges No. 1 to 3 .

13. As noted above, this tribunal has already given a finding on the DE issue to the effect that the DE held against the first party by the management is fair and proper, now, therefore, the only two questions which arose for consideration would be-

(1) Whether the findings suffered from perversity and (ii) If not, the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct committedby the first party.

639

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 16, 2008/माघ 27 , 1929

14. As couldbe read from the proceedings of enquiry and the enquiry findings, on the first date of enquiry held on 21-8-2003 when the first party was read over with the charges, he admitted the charges No. 1 & 2 and denied the charges No. 3 to 5. That apart, in order to justify all the aforesaid five charges , the management examined a witness asPW1 and got marked 3 documents referred to supra at Ex. P1 to P3 .

15. Now, coming to Charge No. 2. In the first instance it is the charge pertaining to the past conduct of the first party for having remained absent from duty unauthorisedly on five occasions where under he was penalized by reducing his basic pay by 10 stages as against the each period of unauthorised absence on each occasion . The management in its counter statement as noted above, has taken the specific contention about his unauthorised absence from duty on 5 - occasions being punished with reduction of his pay by 10 stages which contention of the management has not been countered or challengedby the first party either by way of rejoinder to the counter statement orby way of any oral evidence before thistribunal . That apart, as noted above, during the course of enquiry proceedings on the first sitting itself the first party admitted the first two charges but denied the remaining three charges.

16. Now, coming to the 3rd charge alleging his unauthorised absence from duty for a period of 124-1 /2 days. There is no denial of this fact by the first party himself but with a rider that on each and every occasion he submitted his leave applications and medical certificates while returning for duty. As could be read from the findings ofthe enquiry officer , the first party no doubt has submitted leave applications and some times , the medical certificates but subsequent to the availment of the leave and at the time of returning to duty. It was rightly observed by the enquiry officer that except 1-12-2002 and 17-1-2003 on all the other occasions the leave applications were submitted bythe first party after returning to duty. He undisputedly did not submit the leave application well within time much less getting it sanctioned before he proceeded on leave . Therefore, it was a clear case of violation of the service Rules and the first party cannot justify his absence from duty on the ground that he was always submitting his leave applications some times along with the medical certificates while reporting for duty as per the rules the first party was suppposed to remain absent from dutywith prior intimation much less submitting his leave application being sanctioned by competent authority. In his own words he has not done so . Therefore , he cannot be allowed to contend that his absence from duty was against the leave he applied and that it was not an unauthorised absence. The enquiry officer on page 2 of his findings holding the workman guilty of the aforesaid charge No. 3 , observed as under and recorded his findings against charge No. 1 & 2 being admitted by the first party.

640

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 16 , 2008 /MAGHA 27, 1929

[ PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

to get his service benefits for the services rendered by him with the management . Hence the following Award:

AWARD

The impugned dismissal order passed against the first party is hereby replaced with the order compulsorily retiring him from service with all superannuation benefits . No costs.

"On examining the documents produced I find that except on 1-10-2002 and 17-1-2003 , the leave applications have been submitted after availing of leave even though inmany occasions the reasons are rather than health grounds such as personal work, domestic work, son not well etc. Leave applications on sick ground also are submitted subsequent to availing of leave (period 20-01- 2003 to28-01-2003 , 29-01-2003 to 01-02-2003 , 5-02-2003 to 15-02-2003 ,7-04-2003 to 21-04-2003,22-05-2003 to4-06-2003) taking into above fact and deposition of PW1 1 hold the charge No. 3 as proved."

Dictates to PA transcribed by her corrected and signed by me on 8th January, 2008 A. R. SIDDIQUI , PresidingOfficer शुद्धि-पत्र नई दिल्ली, 7 फरवरी , 2008

17. Therefore , having regard to the oral and documentary evidence produced during the course of enquiry and the reasonings given by the enquiry officer in holding the workman guilty of the aforesaid charges No. 1 to 3 , it cannot be said that the findings suffered from perversity or that they are not based upon sufficient and legal evidence .

का. आ. 322.-मैसर्स स्टरलाइट ऑपर्चुनिटीज एण्ड वेन्चर्स लि. द्वारा मैसर्स हिन्दुस्तान जिंक लि. , उदयपुर तथा चित्तौड़गढ़ (राजस्थान ) के अधिग्रहण के परिणामस्वरूप , मैसर्स हिन्दुस्तान (राजस्थान ) को कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम , 1948 के उपबंधों से 1-10-2006 से 30-9-2008 तक प्रदान छूट 1-1-2008 से वापस ली जाती है । श्रम और रोजगार मंत्रालय की दिनांक 20 जनवरी , 2007 को भारत के राजपत्र के भाग II , खण्ड-3 के उप - खण्ड ( ii ) में प्रकाशित अधिसूचना सां. आ. संख्या 205 द्वारा अधिसूचित प्रविष्टि संख्या 2 के सामने उल्लिखित शब्दों , मैसर्स हिन्दुस्तान जिंक लि. , विशाखापट्टनम, उदयपुर , चित्तौड़गढ़ ( राजस्थान) को मैसर्स हिन्दुस्तान जिंक लि. , विशाखापट्टनम पढ़ा जाए ।

18. Now, coming to Charge No. 4 & 5. One cannot agree to the findings of the enquiry officer much less the veryallegations on those charges leveled against the first party by the Disciplinary Authority. These are the two charges depending upon the proof of charge No. 3 and therefore need no independent findings and accordingly they have to be answered as do not survive . In the result, it is to be held that the findings of the enquiry officer as far as Charge No. 1 to 3 is concerned do not suffered from perversity.

[फा. संख्या एस-38014/46/2007 -सा. सु. -1 ] एस. डी. जेवियर , अवर सचिव CORRIGENDUM New Delhi, the 7th February, 2008

S. O. 322. Consequent upon the taking over of M/s. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. , Udaipur & Chittorgarh (Rajasthan) by M/ s . Sterlite Opportunities & Ventures Ltd. , the exemption granted to M/ s . Hindustan Zinc Limited, Udaipur and Chittorgarh (Rajasthan) from the provisions ofthe ESI Act, 1948 with effect from 01-10-2006 to 30-09- 2008 stands withdrawn with effect from 1-1-2008 . The entry against Sl . No. 2 , the words M/ s . Hindustan Zinc Ltd. , Visakhapatnam , Udaipur, Chittorgarh (Rajasthan ) may be read as M/s . Hindustan Zinc Ltd. , Visakhapatnam in the Notification of the Ministry of Labour & Employment published in the Gazette of India, Part - II , Section 3 , Sub- Section(ii) dated 20th January, 2007 vide S. O. No. 205.

[F. No. S- 38014/46/2007 -SS.I ] S. D. XAVIER, Under Secy. शुद्धि-पत्र

नई दिल्ली, 7 फरवरी , 2008

का. आ. 323.-श्रम और रोजगार मंत्रालय की दिनांक 20 जनवरी , 2007 को भारत के राजपत्र के भाग II , खण्ड-3 , उप- खण्ड( ii ) में सां. आ. संख्या 205 द्वारा प्रकाशित अधिसूचना के पैरा 2(5) ( iv ) ( ड़) में निम्नलिखित प्रविष्टियां की जाएंगी, नामत:-

19. Now, coming to the question of quantum of the punishment. The case on hand certainly appears to be a case of habitual unauthorised absence. As noted above, inthe past the first party suffered penalties of reduction of hisbasic payby 10 stages and the last punishment awarded against him was on 30-1-2003 . It is in the meanwhil and subsequent thereto once again the first party has remained absent from duty for a period of 124½ days without prior intimation to the authority concerned and without getting the leave sanctioned. As noted above subsequent to the charge sheet also the first party remained unauthorisedly absent from duty for a period of about 56½ days and therefore, this conduct of the first party would make it abundantly clear that he is in corrigible , failed to mend himself despite being punished on serveral occasions in past as well . However , the only mitigating circumstances to be read in favour of the first party is that on each and every occasion when he reported for duty submitted leave applications and some times with medical certificates for the period of his unauthorised absence as mentioned in the charge sheet. Therefore, having regard to this mitigating circumstances in his favour and the fact that the misconduct alleged against him does not involve moral turpitude, the proper punishment to be awarded against the first party appears to be one of compulsory retirement rather than dismissing him from service so as to enable him 641 [ भाग II--खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 16, 2008/माघ 27 , 1929

और जबकि प्रबंधन/एफ सी आई ने.दिनांक 19-4-2004 के उक्त संदर्भ को दिल्ली उच्च न्यायालय में रिट याचिका संख्या 14171/2004 द्वारा चुनौती दी थी ।

"विनिवेश/निगमीकरण/निजीकरण की स्थित में, किसी प्रतिष्ठान को दी गई छूट स्वतः समाप्त हो जाएगी तथा नए प्रतिष्ठान को समुचित सरकार के पास छूट हेतु आवेदन करना होगा । "

[फा. संख्या एस- 38014/46/2007 - सा. सु. -1 ] एस. डी. जेवियर , अवर सचिव

CORRIGENDUM

New Delhi, the 7th February, 2008

और जबकि माननीय दिल्ली उच्च न्यायालय ने आदेश को परे रखते हुए इस आधार पर निरस्त किया कि याचिकाकर्ता की समस्त आपत्तियों पर संदर्भ के समय विचार नहीं किया गया और सरकार को इस मामले को फिर से देखने और समुचित आदेश जारी करने का निदेशदिया ।

S. O. 323. In the Notification of the Ministry of Labour & Employment published in the Gazette of India, Part - II , Section 3, Sub- Section( ii) dated 20th January, 2007 vide S.O.No. 205 , the following entries shall be inserted, in para 2(5) ( iv) (e) namely:-

"In case of disinvestment/corporatisation/ privatization, exemption granted to an establishment shall become authomatically cancelled and that the new entity will have to approach the appropriate Govenment for exemption."

[F.No. S-38014/46/2007-SS.I ] S.D. XAVIER, Under Secy.

आदेश

नई दिल्ली , 6 फरवरी , 2008

इसलिए अब , केन्द्र सरकार औद्योगिक विमाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 7-ख द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, राष्ट्रीय औद्योगिक अधिकरण की स्थापना करती है जिसका मुख्यालय मुंबई में होगा और केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण संख्या-1 , मुंबई के वर्तमान पीठासीन अधिकारी न्यायमूर्ति श्री एम. जी. गायकवाड़ को इसके पीठासीन अधिकारी के रूप में नियुक्त करती है , तथा औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम की धारा 10 की उप - धारा ( 1 -क ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए उपर्युक्त रिट याचिका में उक्त विवाद को इसके साथ संलग्न अनुसूची के अनुसार न्यायनिर्णयन हेतु उक्त राष्ट्रीय औद्योगिक अधिकरण को संदर्भित करती है । उक्त राष्ट्रीय अधिकरण छः माह की अवधि के भीतर अपना पंचाट देगा । 4

अनुसूची

का.आ. 324. जबकि दिल्ली उच्च न्यायालय ने रिट याचिका संख्या 2594/2002 , 6170/2001 , 6205/2001 , 4530/2002 , 3186/2002 , 4267/2001 , 4603/2002, 4602/2002 , 1699/2001 , तथा 1707/2001 , में याचिकाओं का निपटान करते हुए , सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा रिट याचिका संख्या 422/2000 , में निर्धारित कानून के अनुसारन्यायनिर्णयन हेतु याचिकाकर्ताओं/ कर्मकारों को राष्ट्रीय औद्योगिक अधिकरण में जाने की छूट दी थी;

" क्या (i ) बहेड़ी , (ii ) खटीमा, (iii ) भौटू, (iv ) इटावा, (v) मैनपुरी , ( vi ) भरूच , (vii ) अलोपीबाग , ( viii) कोलासिष , ( ix) अलवर, (x) फगवाड़ा, (xi ) कुमार घाट, (xii) विलियम्स नगर , (xiii ) जींद , (xiv) डिसार, (xv ) उझहानी , (xvi ) सरहिंद, (xvii ) कटंगी , (xviii) वारासिवनी , (xix ) बालाघाट, (xx ) पलवल , (xxi) मालुकपोंग , (xxli) असंध, ( xxiii) कुल्लू, (xxiv) कोठेरा हमीरपुर, (xxv ) बलसाड के एफ सी आई द्विपो में कार्यरत ठेका श्रमिक एफ सी आई के डिपो के विभागीकृत श्रमिकों के बराबर वेतन तथा उन्हें उपलब्ध अन्य लाभों के पात्र हैं ? यदि हां, तो वे किन - किन लाभों के पात्र हैं ? "

[ सं. एल-22012/325/2003- आईआर (सी-11 ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी ORDER

New Delhi , the 6th February, 2008 और जबकि केन्द्र सरकार ने औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की भारा 7- खा द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , श्रम मंत्रालय के दिनांक 19-4-2004 के आदेश संख्या एल -22012/325/2003- आईआर ( सी- II ) द्वारा राष्ट्रीय औद्योगिक अधिकरण की स्थापना की जिसका मुख्यालय , मुंबई रखा गया तथा न्यायमूर्ति श्री एस. सी. पांडे को इसका पीठासीन अधिकारी नियुक्त किया और उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 10 की उप - धारा ( 1 - क ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए उक्त औद्योगिक विवाद को उक्त राष्ट्रीय औद्योगिक अधिकरण के पास न्यायनिर्णयन हेतु मेजा था ।

और जबकि न्यायमूर्ति श्री एस. सी. पांडे ने उक्त राष्ट्रीय औद्योगिक अधिकरण का प्रभार 8-9-2004 को त्याग दिया था ।

S.O. 324. Whereas the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W. P. Nos . 2594/2002, 6170/2001 , 6205/2001 , 4530/ 2002, 3186/2002, 4267/2001 , 4603/2002, 4602/2002 , 1699/ 2001 , and 1707/2001 disposed off the petitions granting liberty to the petitioners to approach National Industriai Tribunal for adjudication in terms of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the W. P. No. 422/2000 ;

और जबकि मुंबई मुख्यालय वाले राष्ट्रीय औद्योगिक अधिकरण म्यायमूर्ति अमश्याम दास को मुंबई मुख्यालय वाले राष्ट्रीय औद्योगिका अधिकरण , पीठासीन अधिकारी बनाया गया है और ऊपर उल्लिखित विवाद को उपर्युक्त राष्ट्रीय औद्योगिक अधिकरण को न्यायनिर्णयन हेतु इस निदेश के साथ भेजा गया था कि न्यायमूर्ति घनश्याम दास इस मामले में उस चरण के आगे काम करेंगे जहां न्यायमूर्ति श्री एस. सी. पांडे ने इसे छोड़ा था और तदनुसार उसका निपटान करेंगे ।

And Whereas the Central Government in exercise of thepowers conferred by Section 7B of the I. D. Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) constituted a National Industrial Tribunal vide Ministry of Labour Order No. L- 22012/325 /2003 - IR (C- I1 ) dated 19-4-2004 with headquarters at Mumbai and appointed Justice Shri S. C. Pandey as its Presiding Officer 642

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 16, 2008/ MAGHA 27 , 1929

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] and in exercise of the powers conferred by sub -section (1A) ofSection 10 ofthe said Act, referred the said Industrial Dispute to the said National Industrial Tribunal for adjudication.

Katangi , (xviii ) Varasivani, (xix) Balaghat, (xx) Palwal , (xxi) Malukpong, (xxii ) Asandh , (xxiii) Koolu, (xxiv) Kothera Hamirpur, (xxv) Balsad are entitled for the same pay and other benefits as are available to the departmentalized labour in the depots of FCI ? If so, to what benefits they are entitled ?"

AND WHEREAS Justice Shri S. C. Pandey relinquished charge of the above National Industrial Tribunal on 8-9-2004.

[No. L- 22012/325 /2003 -IR (C - II) ]

AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

नई दिल्ली, 13 फरवरी , 2008

AND WHEREAS a National Industrial Tribunal constituted with Headquarters at Mumbai with Justice Shri Ghanshyam Dass as its Presiding Officer and the above- said dispute referred to the above-said National Industrial Tribunal for adjudication with a direction that Justice Shri GhanshyamDass shall proceed in the matter from the stage atwhich it was left by Justice Shri S. C. Pandey and dispose ofthe same accordingly.

का. आ. 325. केन्द्रीय सरकार संतुष्ट है कि लोकहित में ऐसा अपेक्षित है कि भारतीय खाद्य निगम में सेवाओं को जिसे औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की प्रथम अनुसूची की प्रविष्टि 6 के अन्तर्गत निर्दिष्ट किया गया है , उक्त अधि नियम के प्रयोजनों के लिए लोक उपयोगी सेवाएं घोषित किया जाना चाहिए ।

AND WHEREAS the Management/FCI challenged theaforesaid reference order dated 19-4-2004 in the W. P. No. 14171/2004 in the High Court ofDelhi .

अतः अब , औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 2 के खण्ड ( क ) के उप- खण्ड ( 6 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त उद्योग को उक्त अधिनियम के प्रयोजनों के लिए तत्काल प्रभाव से छः मास की कालावधि के लिए लोक उपयोगी सेवा घोषित करती है । AND WHEREAS the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi set aside and quashed the order on the ground that all the objections of the petitioner were not considered while making reference and directed the Government to take a re- look at the matter and to issue an appropriate order .

[फा. सं. एस -11017/5/91- आई. आर. ( पी. एल. ) ] एस. कृष्णन , अपर सचिव

New Delhi , the 13th Febraury, 2008

S. O.325 .-Whereas the Central Government is satisfied that the public interest requires that the services inthe Food Corporation of India ( FCI) which is covered by item 6 of the First Schedule to the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , should be declared to be a Public Utility Service for the purposes of the said Act .

Now , therefore , the Central Government, in exercise ofthe powers conferred by Section 7 B of the 1. D. Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , hereby constitutes a National Industrial Tribunal with the Head Quarters at Mumbai and appoint Justice Shri M. G. Gaikwad, presently Presiding Officer, CGIT No. 1 , Mumbai as its Presiding Officer , and in exercise ofthepowers conferred by sub -section ( 1A ) of Section 10 ofthe I. D. Act, hereby refers the dispute in the aforesaid W. P. as per schedule hereto annexed, to the said National Insdustrial Tribunal for adjudication . The said National Tribunal shal give its award within a period of six months .

SCHEDULE

Now, threfore , in exeercise of the powers conferred by sub-clause (vl ) ofclause(n) ofSection 2 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 , the Central Government hereby declares with immediate effect the said industry to be a Public Utility Service for the purpose of the sald Act for a period of six months .

Whether the contract workers in the depots of FCI at (i ) Beherl , ( ii ) Khatima , ( ill) Bhatu , ( iv) Itawah , ( v) Mainpuri , (vi) Bharuch , ( vii ) Aloplbag, (vlii ) Kolasib , ( ix) Alwar (x) Phagwara, ( xi ) Kumar Ghat, ( xii ) Williams Nagar, (xiii ) Jind, ( xiv) Hissar, (xv) Ujhhani , (xvi ) Sarhind , (xvii )

[No. S- 11017/5/91 - IR(PL) ] S. KRISHNAN, Additional Secy .

Printed by the Manager , Govt . of India Press , Ring Road, Mayapuri , New Delhi - 110064

and Published by the Controller of Publications , Delhi -110054.